Ex Parte Rivadeneira et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2016

12878566 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/878,566 09/09/2010
50441 7590 05/12/2016
DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP
1526 SPRUCE STREET
SUITE 302
BOULDER, CO 80302
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Randell Rivadeneira
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
BLD9-2010-0016-US 1 5222
EXAMINER
BECKLEY, JONATHAN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2672
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/12/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
docketing@dbflaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RANDELL RIVADENEIRA and NATALIE DAWN ROSS
Appeal2014-009472
Application 12/878,566
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-18, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Ricoh Company Ltd. and Ricoh Production Print
Solutions, which is wholly owned by Ricoh Company Ltd., as the real
parties in interest. Ricoh Production Print Solutions was formerly known as
Infoprint Solutions Company, LLC. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-009472
Application 12/878,566
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a print data transformation using
conversion arrays. See Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A printer comprising:
a print controller operable to receive a print datastream,
wherein the print datastream includes bitmap data having a first
number of bits per pel, the print controller being further operable
to retrieve an array of conversion values used to convert the
bitmap data to a second number of bits per pel, and to convert the
bitmap data to the second number of bits per pel using the array,
wherein one or more bytes of the bitmap data is used as an index
to the array; and
a print engine operable to generate a printed output based
on the converted bitmap data.
THE REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Owen US 8,339,663 B2 Dec. 25, 2012
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Owen. Final Act. 2-12
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider
2
Appeal2014-009472
Application 12/878,566
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We disagree
with Appellants' arguments regarding the pending claims.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, and 18
Appellants argue that Owen does not disclose converting bitmap data
from a first number of bits per pel (sometimes referred to as "bits per pixel"
or "bpp") into a different second number of bits per pel. App. Br. 6-1;
Reply Br. 2--4. According to Appellants, the number of bits per pel does not
change when the bitmap is converted in Owen.2 App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 4.
Appellants further argue that number of bits per pel has to change because
claim 1 requires ( 1) both a first number of bits per pel and a second number
of bits per pel and (2) the use of the term "convert." Reply Br. 2-3.
The Examiner finds Owen discloses a print controller that converts a
data stream from a CMYK bitmap of 4bpp to a RGB bitmap of 4bpp. Final
Act. 2-3; Ans. 14--15. Because the Examiner concludes that claim 1 does
not require the first and second number of bits to be different from each
other (Ans. 14--15), the Examiner finds Owen discloses all of the limitations
of claim 1 (Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 14--15). The Examiner further finds Owen
discloses a conversion from 4bpp to 8bpp. Final Act. 13 (citing Owen 9:10---
33); Ans. 15.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner
erred. During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation while reading claim language in light of the specification as it
2 Although Appellants argue that there is no change in the number of bits per
pixel in Figure 4, Appellants agree that it "illustrate[s] the color space
conversion process of Owen." App. Br. 9 (emphasis added).
3
Appeal2014-009472
Application 12/878,566
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Jn re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although claim 1
recites that there is a "first number of bits per pel" and a "second number of
bits per pel," we agree with the Examiner that there is nothing recited in the
claims that requires the first and second numbers of be different.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that a conversion from a CMYK
bitmap of 4bpp to a RGB bitmap of 4bpp, such as the one shown in Owen
Figure 4, discloses the disputed limitations of claim 1.
In addition, we agree the Examiner that Owen discloses a conversion
in which the number of bits per pixel is changed. Final Act. 13.
Specifically, Owen disclose a conversion from a CMYK bitmap with 4bpp
to a RGB bitmap with either 4bpp or 8bpp:
A mapping from the CMYK scheme to the 4-bit RGB
representation may be accomplished via the color equivalencies
of illustrated in color name colums of Figure 5 .... In place of
an indexed 4-bpp RGB conversion, an 8-bpp RGB conversion is
applied that may be based on a palette expanded over that of FIG.
5 comprising 256 color entries where the entries are selected to
provide two levels each of cyan, magenta, yellow, and black.
Owen 9: 10-33 (emphasis). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' argument that Owen does not disclose a change in the number of
bits per pel. Instead, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as
our own.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along with
the rejections of claims 7 and 13, which are argued on the same grounds, and
claims 4, 6, 10, 11, 16, and 18, which are not argued separately.
4
Appeal2014-009472
Application 12/878,566
Claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 17
The various dependent claims recite different equations that are used
by the print controller. See App. Br. 13-14 (Claims App'x). Appellants
argue the Examiner did not present any evidence that Owen discloses the
specific equations. App. Br. 10-12. For each of the sets of dependent
claims, the Examiner finds Owen discloses the values called for by the
claimed equations. Ans. 16. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's
findings. 3
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 8,
9, 12, 14, 15, and 17.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
3 We note that although Appellants submitted a reply brief, Appellants did
not address the reasoning relied on by the Examiner in the Answer. "If an
appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue - or, more
broadly, on a particular rejection-the Board will not, as a general matter,
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection." Ex parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
5