Ex Parte Tryndin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2016

13191580 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/191,580 07/27/2011
15093 7590 05/27/2016
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Igor Tryndin
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.
142015 (899437) 4379
EXAMINER
WILSON, NICHOLAS R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2016 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qcomins t@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IGOR A. TRYNDIN and SERGEY BEZRY ADIN
Appeal2014-007247
Application 13/191,580
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-15 and 17-20. Claim 16 has been
canceled. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-007247
Application 13/191,580
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to enabling an image
reproduction device (e.g., a computing device capable of reproduction,
production, and output of images (Spec. i-f 12)) to determine, via a wireless
communication channel, a calibration capability of a calibrator and to
control initiation and calibration of a display. Spec. i-fi-1 11-12, Fig. 2. Claim
1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method, comprising:
detecting, by an image reproduction device, a calibrator
via a wireless communication link;
determining, by the image reproduction device, a
calibration capability of the calibrator via the wireless
communication link; and
calibrating, by the image reproduction device, an output
device of the image reproduction device based on the determined
calibration capability of the calibrator.
Rejections
Claims 1-7, 14, 15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as being anticipated by Holub (US 2006/0280360 Al; Dec. 14,
2006). Final Act. 5-16.
Claims 8-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Holub and Khoovirajsingh
Seewoonauth et al., Touch & Connect and Touch & Select: Interacting with
a Computer by Touching it with a Mobile Phone, MobileHCI'09, Art. No.
36 (2009) (hereinafter "Seewoonauth"). Final Act. 16-22.
2
Appeal2014-007247
Application 13/191,580
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err by finding that Holub discloses "determining, by
the image reproduction device, a calibration capability of the calibrator via
the wireless communication link," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the
reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2-22; Ans. 2-24. We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
§ 102 Rejection
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
Holub does not disclose "determining, by the image reproduction device, a
calibration capability of the calibrator via the wireless communication link,"
as recited in claim 1. Br. 11-12. Appellants acknowledge Holub discloses
knowledge of the spectral sensitivity of a calibrator's color channels and the
properties of sets of colorants to be measured allows a more exact calibrated
transformation to be provided and that this calibration data may be stored for
inclusion in headers of image data files. Br. 11 (citing Holub i-f 413).
Appellants contend, however, "[ n ]owhere does Holub describe how or even
if the control unit (image reproduction device) receives the calibration
capabilities from the camera (calibrator)" (Br. 11) and, therefore, fails to
3
Appeal2014-007247
Application 13/191,580
disclose wirelessly transmitting calibration capability data to the control
unit, as required by claim 1 (Br. 12).
We do not find Appellants' contentions persuasive. Holub discloses a
Calibrator Camera Server storing a database of the sensor spectral
sensitivities (e.g., calibration capability data). Holub i-f 414. Holub discloses
that when a handset having a camera is used to calibrate a display, the
handset establishes a wireless communication link with the control unit (e.g.,
image reproduction device). Holub i-f 416. Holub discloses that the spectral
response functions of the camera to be used for calibration can be retrieved
from the database of the Calibrator Camera Server, a manufacturer's web
site, or from the specific handset itself, where the curves had been stored
following factory calibration. Holub i-f 435. As such, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in finding Holub discloses the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 and claims 2-7, 14, 15, and 17-20, which are not argued separately
with particularity. See Br. 12.
§ 103 Rejection
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Holub and Seewoonauth teaches or suggests "a detector to determine a
calibration capability of a calibrator via a near field communication (NFC)
link," as recited in claim 8. Br. 13. Appellants essentially rely on the
arguments presented for the patentability of claim 1 discussed supra and
contend Seewoonauth does not remedy the alleged deficiencies in the
disclosure of Holub. See Br. 13.
4
Appeal2014-007247
Application 13/191,580
For the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 and claims 9-13, which
depend from claim 8 and are not argued separately with particularity. See
Br. 13.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-15 and 17-20.
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
5