Ex Parte Morovic

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 26, 2012

11256947 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAN MOROVIC
____________

Appeal 2010-001633
Application 11/256,947
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-001633
Application 11/256,947

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-11, 14, 15, and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention maps out-of-gamut colors to a device’s
reproducible colors by clipping them onto the device’s gamut boundary. In
one embodiment, this involves deriving a reduced gamut from the device’s
gamut, determining vectors by clipping out-of-gamut colors onto the
reduced-gamut boundary, and mapping the out-of-gamut colors to colors on
the device’s gamut boundary where the reduced-gamut-boundary vectors
intersect the device’s gamut boundary. See generally Spec. 1:4-6, 8:3-24.
Claim 1 is illustrative with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method of mapping colors which are not reproducible by a
reproduction device having a color gamut with a gamut boundary, and are
therefore outside the reproduction device’s color gamut, to reproducible
colors, comprising:
deriving by computer, in a three-dimensional color space, a reduced
gamut with a reduced-gamut boundary from the reproduction device’s
gamut by reducing its size in all three dimensions;
determining by computer reduced-gamut clipping-vectors by clipping
the out-of-gamut colors onto the reduced-gamut boundary;
mapping the out-of-gamut colors to those colors at which the reduced-
gamut clipping-vectors intersect the reproduction device’s gamut boundary,
so that out-of-gamut colors associated with clipping-vectors of
different directions that are clipped onto the same point, or adjacent points,
of the reduced-gamut boundary are mapped to points spaced apart, or spaced
farther apart, on the reproduction device’s gamut boundary.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Balasubramanian US 6,414,690 B1 July 2, 2002
Appeal 2010-001633
Application 11/256,947

3
Ito US 6,437,792 B1 Aug. 20, 2002

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-11, 14, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Balasubramanian and Ito. Ans. 3-13.1

CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Balasubramanian discloses every recited
feature of claim 1 except for deriving by computer, in a three-dimensional
color space, a reduced gamut with a reduced-gamut boundary from a
reproduction device’s gamut by reducing its size in all three dimensions.
The Examiner cites Ito as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim
would have been obvious. Ans. 3-7.
Appellant argues that Ito clips colors to a device’s gamut directly by a
minimum color difference formula. Thus, Appellant argues Ito is unrelated
to the claimed invention which derives a reduced-gamut from a device’s
gamut, clips out-of-gamut colors onto the reduced-gamut, and then maps the
out-of-gamut colors to colors at which reduced-gamut clipping-vectors
intersect the device’s gamut boundary. App. Br. 11-14; Reply Br. 1-3.
Accordingly, although Ito performs minimum color difference clipping in
three dimensions, combining Ito with Balasubramanian’s two-dimensional
reduced-gamut technique would not result in the claimed three-dimensional
reduced-gamut technique. Id.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed June 12,
2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 25, 2009; and (3) the Reply
Brief filed October 14, 2009.
Appeal 2010-001633
Application 11/256,947

4
The issues before us, then, are as follows:

ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Balasubramanian and Ito collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1) deriving by computer, in a three-dimensional color space, a
reduced gamut with a reduced-gamut boundary from the reproduction
device’s gamut by reducing its size in all three dimensions?
(2) determining by computer reduced-gamut clipping-vectors by
clipping the out-of-gamut colors onto the reduced-gamut boundary?
(3) mapping the out-of-gamut colors to those colors at which the
reduced-gamut clipping-vectors intersect the reproduction device’s gamut
boundary?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Appellant admits that Balasubramanian (1) reduces a reproduction
device’s gamut by reducing the chroma of each surface point of the gamut
by a predetermined scale factor; (2) clips out-of-gamut colors onto the
reduced-gamut boundary; and (3) maps the out-of-gamut colors onto the
reproduction device’s gamut boundary by using the intersections of the
clipping vectors and the reproduction device’s gamut boundary. Spec. 3:23-
30. Balasubramanian illustrates this technique involving an original gamut
and a reduced gamut in a two-dimensional plane. Balasubramanian, col. 6,
ll. 3-8; Fig. 8.
2. Ito discloses a three-dimensional color gamut reduction where
lightness, chroma, and hue are reduced. Specifically, each of these three
Appeal 2010-001633
Application 11/256,947

5
terms is weighted with a reduction factor and the color gamut is reduced in
the direction of a minimum color difference according to a color difference
formula. Ito, col. 3, l. 61–col. 4, l. 3.

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, which recites, in pertinent
part,
deriving by computer, in a three-dimensional color space,
a reduced gamut with a reduced-gamut boundary from the
reproduction device’s gamut by reducing its size in all three
dimensions;
determining by computer reduced-gamut clipping-vectors
by clipping the out-of-gamut colors onto the reduced-gamut
boundary;
mapping the out-of-gamut colors to those colors at which
the reduced-gamut clipping-vectors intersect the reproduction
device’s gamut boundary.
Balasubramanian performs similar steps to claim 1, except in two-
dimensional space. See FF 1. We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding
(see Ans. 5-6) that Balasubramanian implicitly teaches performing these
steps in three dimensions. Although three-dimensional representations of
color spaces are known (see Ans. 5-6, 14-15), this does not necessarily teach
performing any of the recited steps with respect to a third dimension.
The Examiner’s reliance on Ito to suggest performing the claimed
steps in three-dimensional space (Ans. 6-7, 16-18) is also problematic.
Although Ito reduces a color gamut in three dimensions (FF 2), Ito does not
map out-of-gamut colors to colors at which reduced-gamut clipping-vectors
intersect the reproduction device’s gamut boundary. In other words, Ito only
Appeal 2010-001633
Application 11/256,947

6
discloses the single step of reducing colors, but not the additional step of
mapping colors to a device’s original gamut after clipping colors to a
reduced gamut. Ito thus fails to suggest performing Balasubramanian’s
mapping step (see FF 1) with respect to a third dimension. Therefore, the
Examiner’s proposed combination would not result in a method that maps
out-of-gamut colors to colors at which reduced-gamut clipping-vectors
intersect a reproduction device’s gamut boundary, where the reduced-gamut
clipping-vectors were determined by clipping out-of-gamut colors to a
three-dimensionally-reduced gamut boundary, as required by claim 1.
In reaching this conclusion, we recognize that if a technique has been
used to improve one device, and ordinarily skilled artisans would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. KSR Int’l v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). But we cannot say—nor has the
Examiner persuasively shown—that this is the case here. Despite
Balasubramanian’s two-dimensional color mapping solution, the Examiner’s
premise for adapting that solution to a three-dimensional space is
problematic for the above-noted reasons. In this regard, we also find the
Examiner’s presuming an “inherent L* axis” projecting out of the page in
Balasubramanian (Ans. 15) problematic and unsubstantiated on this record.
Even assuming that it is known to represent three-dimensional color space
problems in two dimensions to visually render those problems as the
Examiner asserts (Ans. 15-16), that hardly means the reverse procedure
would have been obvious, namely rendering a two-dimensional color space
problem in three dimensions, let alone the recited mapping procedure.
Appeal 2010-001633
Application 11/256,947

7
We are therefore constrained by this record to find that the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2-9 for similar
reasons.
However, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims
10, 11, 15, and dependent claims 14 and 18, which do not recite limitations
commensurate with claim 1. Specifically, claim 10 recites “deriving by
computer, in a two-dimensional color space . . . a reduced gamut with a
reduced-gamut boundary . . . by reducing its size in both the lightness and
chromatic dimensions,” and claims 11 and 15 both recite derive or deriving
“in a three-dimensional color space, or in a two-dimensional color space . . .
a reduced gamut with a reduced-gamut boundary . . . by reducing its size in
all its dimensions” (emphases added). Claims 10, 11, and 15 do not require
deriving a reduced gamut by reducing its size in three dimensions either by
the very terms of the claim (claim 10) or by using alternative language
(claims 11 and 15). Since Appellant’s arguments are directed solely to a
three-dimensional reduced-gamut technique (App. Br. 11-16; Reply Br. 1-3),
we cannot say that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 10,
11, and 15, and dependent claims 14 and 18, based on these arguments.

CONCLUSION
Under § 103, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-9, but did not
err in rejecting claims 10, 11, 14, 15, and 18.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-11, 14, 15, and 18 is
affirmed-in-part.
Appeal 2010-001633
Application 11/256,947

8
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

babc