Ex Parte Thompson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 2005

09946874 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2005)

-1-
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
was not written for publication in and
is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte DANIEL LEE THOMPSON
_____________
Appeal No. 2005-0319
Application No. 09/946,874
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before: DIXON, LEVY, and NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of
claims 1 through 42, which constitute all the claims in the application. For the
reasons stated infra we reverse the examiner’s rejections of these claims.
Invention
The invention relates to a method for constructing a color cube and defining
the cube’s entries. See page 6 of appellant’s specification. The color cubes are
used by computers to correlate colors in a Red, Green, Blue (RGB) or Cyan,
Magenta, Yellow, Black (CMYK, K=black) color model, where multiple bits are used
Appeal No. 2005-0319
Application No. 09/946,874
-2-
to describe the intensity of each color component the color, to the palette of colors
displayable or printable by the computer. See pages 2 and 3 of appellant’s
specification.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method for defining one or more entries in a color cube comprising:
obtaining a first color cube having a first color cube entry that defines a color
region;
obtaining a second color cube having a second color cube entry that defines
a color region, wherein the second color cube is smaller in size than the first color
cube;
mapping a list of two or more color indices to the second color cube entry,
wherein each color index represents a color that falls within the color region defined
by the second color cube entry that the color index is mapped to; and
determining one or more corresponding second color cube entries for the first
color cube entry; and
determining a color index to be placed in the first color cube entry based on
similarity by comparing the color region defined by the first color cube entry to each
of the colors represented by the color indices in the one or more corresponding
second color cube entries.
References
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Stokes 5,627,950 May 6, 1997
Berlin et al. (Berlin) 6,011,540 Jan. 4, 2000

Rejections at Issue
Claims 1 through 9, 14 through 23, 28 through 37 and 42 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Berlin. Claims 10 through 13, 24
through 27 and 38 through 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
Appeal No. 2005-0319
Application No. 09/946,874

-3-
obvious over Berlin in view of Stokes. Throughout the opinion we make reference to
the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied
upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed
and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s arguments set
forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellant and examiner, for the reasons
stated infra we will not sustain the examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 9, 14
through 23, 28 through 37 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or the examiner’s rejection
of claims 10 through 13, 24 through 27 and 38 through 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We first consider the rejection of claims 1 through 7, 15 through 21 and 29
through 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Appellant argues on page 8 of the brief:
With respect to the specific rejections of the Office Action, the cited
portions fail to describe the invention as claimed. Berlin does describe a color
cube. However, the Office Action relies on col. 10, lines 46-50 and col. 7,
lines 20-34 to teach the claimed element of mapping a list of two or more
color indices to a second color cube entry. Nowhere in theses cited portions
is there any reference or description of multiple indices being mapped to a
single color cube entry (as claimed). In fact, col. 10 describes the exact
opposite in filling in only one of a series of slots (see col. lines 10, 53-55
where every eighth slot is filled in) instead of two or more entries in each slot.
Col. 7, lines 20-34 further describes a cube where every eighth slot is filled in
for each color component. Such a teaching clearly teaches away from
mapping two or more color indices to a single entry as claimed.
Appeal No. 2005-0319
Application No. 09/946,874

-4-
The examiner response, on pages 13 and 14 of the answer, states:
Berlin teaches mapping a list of two or more indices into a second
color cube entry. For example, it is clear from Berlin’s teaching that a palette
memory address or a collection of palette memory address corresponds to
the 32x32x32 color cube (“a second color cube entry”). Berlin teaches in
column 10 the RGB index color value indexing the RGB slot for the color cube
such as having the dimensions 16x16x16 (column 10) and each RGB slot is
used to store a palette memory address of a palette color value (column 8).
Up to this point from the cited portions, Berlin at least have taught mapping an
index to the palette memory address storing the index for the color cube
16x16x16. The Examiner further asserts that Berlin teaches mapping two or
more indices to the color cube entry corresponding to 32x32x32. For
example, eight indices, each of which originally being mapped to the smaller
color cube 16x16x16, are now mapped to the 32x32x32 color cube that
contains the eight smaller color cubes 16x16x16. To understand how the
color cubes having different dimensions are being generated, it is clear from
column 7 of Berlin that the 32x32x32 uniformly spaced color cube can be
generated by dividing each component of a uniformly spaced 256x256x256
by eight and 16x16x16 color cube is generated by dividing each component
of the uniformly space 32x32x32 by two. (See also column 8-10).
We disagree with the examiner’s rationale. We find that independent claim 1
includes a limitations of “mapping a list of two or more color indices to the second
color cube entry, wherein each color index represents a color that falls within the
color region defined by the second color cube entry that the color index is mapped
to” and “determining a color index to be placed in the first color cube entry based on
similarity by comparing the color region defined by the first color cube entry to each
of the colors represented by the color indices in the one or more corresponding
second color cube entries.” Independent claims 15 and 29 contain similar
limitations. We find that Berlin teaches, in column 8 lines 33-42 and column 10,
lines 46-65, that a 256x256x256 color cube can have every 8th slot filled with a color
index to create a 32x32x32 color look up table. While the 256x256x256 color cube
and the 32x32x32 color look up table could be considered to meet the claimed first
Appeal No. 2005-0319
Application No. 09/946,874

-5-
and second color cube, we find no disclosure in Berlin that two or more color indices
(which represent a color) are mapped to one of the entry in the 32x32x32 color look
up table and that from these entries a determination is made to place a color index in
the first color table as is claimed. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of independent claims 1, 15 and 29 or dependent
claims 2 through 7, 16 through 21 and 30 through 35.
We next consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9, 14, 22, 23, 28, 36,
37 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Appellant argues, on page 13 of the brief, that
Berlin does not teach or suggest mapping an color index to additional color cube
entries based upon a distance between the location and the color region defined by
the additional color cube entries. Further, appellant argues, on page 15 of the brief:
The Advisory Action states that the Euclidean distance calculation
between any two color points involves a LOCATION within a color cube of a
first color. Appellant respectfully disagrees. The Euclidean distance
calculation is specified in col. 2, line 30 as [equation omitted].

Accordingly, the distance calculation merely subtracts the RGB values
of one color from another color, squares them, and then compares a resulting
square root. In this regard, there is no determination of where in a first color
cube, a particular color exists. Instead, the distance between two color[s] is
determined. Thus, contrary to that asserted in the Advisory Action, Berlin
does not teach determining a location within a color cube of a first color that is
represented by a color index.
The examiner responds, on page 18 of the answer, stating:
Berlin teaches determining the first color value or the first color point such as
(R1, G1, B1) within a color cube (See column 2, line 30) with a first color cube
of a first color. For example, comparing the first color value in a first color
cube with the second color value in a second color cube. Therefore, Berlin
clearly meets the limitation “determining a location with a color cube of a first
color.”
Appeal No. 2005-0319
Application No. 09/946,874

-6-
We disagree with the examiner. Independent claim 8 includes the limitations
“determining a location, within the first color cube, of the first color” and “mapping the
first color index to one or more additional first color cube entries based on a distance
of the color region defined by the one or more additional first color cube entries to
the location.” Independent claims 22 and 36 include similar limitations. Thus, the
scope of independent claims 8, 22 and 36 includes mapping a color index based
upon a distance to the location from a first color within the color cube. We find that
Berlin teaches, in column 2, lines 23 –37, that an error value is calculated using the
distance between two RGB color values. The error value is used to dither the
colors. While we agree with the examiner that this error value is a distance
measurement, we do not find that Berlin teaches using the distance from a location
to map a color index to a color cube entry. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of independent claims 8, 22 and 36 or
dependent claims 9, 14, 23, 28, 37 or 42.
We next consider the rejection of claims 10 through 13, 24 through 27 and 38
through 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Berlin and Stokes. Claims 10
through 13, 24 through 27 and 38 through 41 all ultimately depend upon either claim
8, 22 or 36. The examiner states, on page 11 of the answer,“[I]t is unclear whether
Berlin teaches drawing a sphere for color representation. However, Stokes
discloses the claimed limitation of drawing a sphere for color representation (Stokes
column 4, lines 30-36 and figure1).” As stated supra with respect to independent
claims 8, 22 and 36, we do not find that Berlin teaches using the distance from a
location to map a color index to a color cube entry as claimed. The examiner has
Appeal No. 2005-0319
Application No. 09/946,874

-7-
not asserted and we do not find that Stokes teaches this feature. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 10 through 13, 24 through 27 and
38 through 41.
In summary, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through
9, 14 through 23, 28 through 37 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or the examiner’s
rejection of claims 10 through 13, 24 through 27 and 38 through 41 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
REVERSED

JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ROBERT NAPPI )
Administrative Patent Judge )

RN/RWK
Appeal No. 2005-0319
Application No. 09/946,874

-8-
GATES & COOPER LLP
HOWARD HUGHES CENTER
6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST, SUITE 1050
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045