HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2020

15305271 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/305,271 10/19/2016 Peter Morovic 84534079 8347
22879 7590 07/01/2020
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
Fort Collins, CO 80528-9544
EXAMINER
VO, QUANG N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2672
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2020 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
jessica.pazdan@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETER MOROVIC, JAN MOROVIC,
JUAN MANUEL GARCIA REYERO VINAS, and
DAVID GASTON LIADO
____________

Appeal 2019-001331
Application 15/305,271
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN A. EVANS, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–7 and 9–19. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies the
real party in interest as Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001331
Application 15/305,271
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
Appellant’s invention relates generally to “color mapping in an
imaging system” (Spec. ¶ 12), based on “obtaining a measurement of one or
more characteristics” of the imaging system (id., Abstract).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method for generating a color mapping comprising:
selecting a resource within an imaging system, the
resource being degraded;
modeling a limitation for the degraded resource;
determining a color mapping that incorporates the
limitation, the color mapping being different than a color
mapping in which the resource is not degraded,
wherein the color mapping enables a mapping of color
values from a first color space to Neugebauer Primary area
coverage values, and compensates for the degraded resource
within the imaging system.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.).
The Applied References
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability of the claims on appeal:
Encrenaz US 2007/0273917 A1 Nov. 29, 2007
Lee US 7,724,397 B2 May 25, 2010
Yamamoto US 2012/0075372 A1 Mar. 29, 2012
Morovic WO 2014/173474 A1 Oct. 30, 2014
Appeal 2019-001331
Application 15/305,271
3
The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner made the following rejections of the claims on appeal:
Claims 1–3, 5–7, 10, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Lee and Morovic. Final Act. 2–
4.
Claim 4, 9, and 11–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Lee, Morovic, and Yamamoto. Final
Act. 4–7.
Claims 16–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Lee, Morovic, and Encrenaz. Final
Act. 7–9.
ANALYSIS2
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings that the applied
combinations of Lee, Morovic, Yamamoto, and Encrenaz render obvious
claims 1–7 and 9–19. Appeal Br. 3–7; Reply Br. 1–3. Appellant argues the
appealed claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 4 (“Claim 1 is discussed herein
in detail, but claims 6 and 15 are patentable for at least similar reasons.”); id.
at 7 (arguing dependent claims 4, 9, 11–14, and 16–19 together with
independent claims). Thus, for purposes of our analysis, we select
independent claim 1 as the representative claim, and any claim not argued
separately will stand or fall with our analysis of the rejection of claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered Appellant’s Appeal Brief
filed May 10, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed
November 5, 2018 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed
September 4, 2018 (“Ans.”); the Final Office Action mailed December 13,
2017 (“Final Act.”); and Appellant’s Specification filed October 19, 2016
(“Spec.”).
Appeal 2019-001331
Application 15/305,271
4
Appellant submits two main arguments for patentability of
independent claim 1, both of which we find unpersuasive of Examiner error,
as discussed below.
First, Appellant argues “the applied art does not select a resource
within an imaging system, where this resource is degraded.” Appeal Br. 4;
see id. at 5 (“[I]n the applied art, there is no resource that is degraded.”);
Reply Br. 1 (“[T]here is no degraded resource within the applied art that is
selected.” (emphases omitted)). According to Appellant’s Specification,
“[a]n imaging system . . . has one or more resources,” such as “a printing
device” and “a display device,” and the printing device resource, for
example, “may comprise printer pens, inks and/or nozzles.” Spec. ¶ 16
(emphases added); see id., Fig. 1 (printing device 130; display 150). So the
issue posed by Appellant’s argument here is whether Lee (or the
combination of Lee and Morovic) teaches selecting a printing device, for
example, that is degraded in some manner.
Lee discloses “[a] method for compensating for induced artifacts on
an image to be printed,” and explains that “induced artifacts can result from
a variety of sources, including ink dot placement errors, line feed errors, and
nozzle malfunctions, . . . as well as other mechanical issues [within the
printer].” Lee, col. 1:7–67 (emphases added); see Reply Br. 1 (“[N]ozzles
can degrade when they are ‘malfunctioning.’”). Lee also discloses “image
data regarding a specific image to be printed is provided to an inkjet printer .
. . via a print command from a computer or central processing unit (“CPU”)
electrically coupled to the printer.” Lee, col. 2:57–61 (emphasis added); see
id., col. 10:12–24 (claiming, e.g., a “method of a printer compensating for
induced artifacts on an image to be printed;” “processing the image to be
printed;” and “printing the image”). Contrary to Appellant, we find Lee,
Appeal 2019-001331
Application 15/305,271
5
including the foregoing disclosures, teaches selecting a printing device that
is degraded in some manner. For example, Lee teaches selecting an inkjet
printer to print images, where the inkjet printer has nozzle malfunctions or
other mechanical issues (i.e., the selected resource is degraded). Indeed,
Appellant admits that induced artifacts appearing in a printed image as
disclosed in Lee are defects caused by a printer error, where “[t]he error may
have occurred because a resource [i.e., the selected printer] has degraded.”
Reply Br. 2. Based on the foregoing, we find Appellant does not show
persuasively that the Examiner erred in finding Lee teaches selecting a
resource within an imaging system, where the resource is degraded, as
recited, for example, in independent claim 1.
Second, Appellant argues “the applied art does not determine a color
mapping that incorporates a modeled limitation for the degraded resource,
where this color mapping is different than a color mapping in which the
resource is not degraded, and where this color mapping compensates for the
degraded resource within the imaging system.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant
further argues “[t]he applied art multiplies ink values at each pixel location
by a correction factor, so that a mechanically induced artifact is less visible
when an identified ‘trouble’ region of an image is printed,” and “[t]he
‘correction factor’ just changes the amount of ink that is output, and does not
map one color to another.” Id. The Examiner responds:
Lee discloses determining a color mapping (e.g., at block 206
(identify the color to be provided at each pixel location), and at
block 208 (determine the correction factor), figure 5. Note: when
[Lee] identif[ies] the color to be provided at each location, it must
compare or map between a color not degraded and color
degraded to determine the correction factor. Therefore at blocks
206 and 208, it must have a comparing or mapping colors, and
thus it reads on determining a color mapping limitation of
Appeal 2019-001331
Application 15/305,271
6
claim 1) that incorporates the limitation, the color mapping being
different than a color mapping in which the resource is not
degraded (e.g., block 210 (identify an additional amount of ink
to be provided at each pixel location) and block 212 (generate an
image profile), fig. 5. Note: Thus at steps 210 and 212, [Lee]
identif[ies] an additional amount of ink to be provided at each
pixel location and generate[s] an image profile, which is [sic]
incorporates the limitation, the color mapping being different
than a color mapping in which the resource is not degraded,
which is generating an image profile (block 212) being different
than a color mapping (image profile) in which the resource is not
degraded).
Ans. 3–4 (emphases omitted); see also Lee, col. 9:14–67 (discussing
compensating for a degraded inkjet printer by modifying image data, e.g.,
red, green, blue image data regarding a specific image to be printed, to
reduce the effect of a color artifact). We agree with, and adopt as our own,
these findings of the Examiner in the Answer, to which Appellant does not
meaningfully respond (see Reply Br. 1–3; Appeal Br. 6–7). Based on the
foregoing, we find Appellant does not show persuasively that the Examiner
erred in finding Lee (or the combination of Lee and Morovic) teaches the
color mapping limitations at issue (see supra).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claims 6 and 15,
and claims 2–5, 7, 9–14, and 16–19 which depend therefrom, none of which
were argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-001331
Application 15/305,271
7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–7, 10,
15
103 Lee, Morovic 1–3, 5–7,
10, 15

4, 9, 11–14 103 Lee, Morovic,
Yamamoto
4, 9, 11–14
16–19 103 Lee, Morovic,
Encrenaz
16–19
Overall
Outcome
1–7, 9–19
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).
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED