Ex Parte Smith et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 16, 2014

12381301 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BENJAMIN SMITH, JONATHON WOLFE, and CHRIS EICH
____________

Appeal 2012-005952
Application 12/381,301
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOHN A. EVANS, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–20, which are all the pending
claims. Claims 21–28 are canceled. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2012-005952
Application 12/381,301

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present invention is directed to providing a visualization of
power measurements using a visualization scale based on a color
saturation and intensity range for a hue and a range of power to be
visualized. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method for providing a visualization of power for
display, comprising:
establishing a power visualization scale based on a color
saturation and intensity range for a hue and a range of power to
be visualized; and
generating a display image for at least one measured
value of power as a level of color saturation and intensity for
the hue based on the power visualization scale.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Claims 1–4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15–17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Klump et al. (“Real-Time Data
Retrieval and New Visualization Techniques for the Energy Industry,”
hereinafter referred to as “Klump”) and Ito (U.S. Patent No. 5,648,910).
(Ans. 5–8.)
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Klump, Ito and Borleske et al. (US 2005/0240540 A1).
(Ans. 8–9.)
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Klump, Ito and Guerlain et al. (U.S. Patent No.
6,587,108 B1). (Ans. 9–10.)
Appeal 2012-005952
Application 12/381,301

3
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Klump, Ito, Borleske and McConaghy et al. (US
2008/0300847 A1). (Ans. 10–11.)
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Klump, Ito and Nakane (US 2007/0141544 A1).
(Ans. 11–12.)
In view of Appellants’ contentions, the dispositive issue is whether
the Klump article, in combination with Ito, teaches or suggests the claimed
“generating a display image for at least one measured value of power as a
level of color saturation and intensity for the hue based on the power
visualization scale” See Br. 7–8.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants’
conclusions.
The issue on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in finding that
Klump teaches or suggests the use of color hue, saturation, and intensity in
the manner claimed. The Examiner relied on the contouring shown in
Section 2.3, and Figures 3 and 4, of Klump, which utilized a “visualization
scale . . . based on an intensity . . . of a plurality of hues . . . .” (Ans. 6.) The
Examiner further found that “saturation is considered as the intensity of a
hue.” Id.
Appellants argue that it was error to equate saturation with intensity,
and that in addition the use of varying hues to represent different values, as
Appeal 2012-005952
Application 12/381,301

4
disclosed in Klump, does not satisfy the claim 1 requirement to use a
particular hue, and then vary the saturation and intensity of that hue. (App.
Br. 6–7.) In response, the Examiner cites a dictionary definition of
“saturation” as synonymous with “intensity,” and states that the claims do
not limit the visualization scale to only a single hue. (Ans. 12–14.)
We agree with Appellants. The plain language of claim 1 requires “a
level of color saturation and intensity for the hue.” As informed by the
specification, the hue is held constant for a particular visualization of a type
of power measurement, with a level of saturation and intensity for that hue
varied corresponding to the magnitude of the measurement. (See Spec. ¶¶
28–30.) In contrast, the Examiner alleges that Klump discloses saturation
for different hues (pink, red, yellow) and an intensity range for a hue
(green). (Ans. 13.) However, the Examiner has not shown, nor can we find,
where Klump teaches or suggests varying both a level of saturation and
intensity for a particular hue.
In addition, it was error for the Examiner to equate saturation with
intensity. It is well established in the pertinent art that hue, saturation and
intensity are three different orthogonal dimensions in a color space. (See
Spec. Fig. 4, ¶¶ 37–39; App. Br. 6–7.) Varying only intensity for green —
even if done in Klump, which is not clearly disclosed — does not teach or
suggest varying both saturation and intensity for a hue.
In view of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner has failed to make a
prima facie case of obviousness, and we decline to sustain the rejection of
claim 1. Independent claims 11 and 20 also require “generating a display
image for at least one measured value of the power as a level of color
saturation and intensity for a hue based on a power visualization scale,” and
Appeal 2012-005952
Application 12/381,301

5
therefore, for the same reasons, we decline to sustain the rejection of those
claims, as well as the remaining pending claims, which depend from claims
1 or 11.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1–
20.

REVERSED

tj