Paolo Fazzini

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 30, 2019

14733119 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2019)

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.
14/733,119 06/08/2015 Paolo Fazzini 070852.000178 8864
125968 7590 10/30/2019
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
(ImgTec)
1909 K St., N.W.
Ninth Floor
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
SUN, HAI TAO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/30/2019 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):
patlaw@vorys.com
vmdeluca@vorys.com
vorys_docketing@cardinal_ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PAOLO FAZZINI
____________

Appeal 2018-008146
Application 14/733,119
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before IRVIN E. BRANCH, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 4–21, all the pending claims in
the present application.2 We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Imagination Technologies Limited. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claims 2 and 3 are cancelled. Id.
Appeal 2018-008146
Application 14/733,119

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
Appellant’s invention “relates to colour processors for digital image
processing and methods for mapping between different colour gamuts.”
Spec. 1.3 Id. According to Appellant, the invention improves “over the
prior art solutions when converting a colour image from a source colour
gamut to an operating (i.e. destination) colour gamut, where colours of the
image having values towards the extremes of the possible destination range
can end up outside the range of available colours in the operating colour
gamut.” Appeal Br. 2.

Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 14, 15, and 21 are independent claims. Claims 1, 15, and 21
are exemplary and are reproduced below with limitations at issue
emphasized.
1. A colour processor for mapping an image from a
source colour gamut to a destination colour gamut in an
operating colour space, the colour processor comprising:
an input for receiving a source image comprising a
plurality of source colour points expressed according to the
source colour gamut;
a colour characterizer configured to, for each source
colour point in the source image,
determine a first scaling parameter indicative of a
relationship between the position of the source colour

3 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”) filed June
8, 2015; (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed December 7,
2017; (3) the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed May 7, 2018; and (4) the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed June 8, 2018.
Appeal 2018-008146
Application 14/733,119

3
point and a position of intersection of the boundary of the
destination colour gamut with a curve defined according
to a predetermined set of constraints so as to pass through
the source colour point,
determine a second scaling parameter indicative of
a relationship between the position of the source colour
points and a position of intersection of the boundary of
the source colour gamut with the respective curve; and
a gamut mapper configured to calculate a first
translation factor in dependence on the first and second scaling
parameters and calculate a second translation factor
independence on the first scaling parameter, and for each source
colour point in the source image and in dependence on the first
scaling parameter:
if the source colour point lies inside the destination
colour gamut, apply the first translation factor so as to
translate the source colour point to a destination colour
point within a first range of values on the respective
curve, and
if the source colour point lies outside the
destination colour gamut, apply the second translation
factor so as to translate the source colour point to a
destination colour point within a second range of values
on the respective curve;
wherein the first and second ranges of values lie within
the destination colour gamut.
15. A colour processor for mapping an image from a source
colour gamut to a destination colour gamut in an operating
colour space, the colour processor comprising:
an input for receiving a source image comprising a
plurality of source colour points expressed according to the
source colour gamut; and
a gamut mapper configured to, for each source colour
point lying outside the destination colour gamut:
Appeal 2018-008146
Application 14/733,119

4
identify a mapping operator for translating a
source colour point to a destination colour point within
the destination colour gamut along a curve of constant
hue and varying luminance varying with distance from a
centre of the destination colour gamut, the identified
mapping operator being operative to shift the source
colour point along the curve towards the luminance
value at the centre of the destination colour gamut, such
that the shift in luminance is greater for source colour
points further from the centre of the destination colour
gamut than for source colour points closer to the centre
of the destination colour gamut,
wherein the mapping operator is operative to modify the
luminance of the source colour point in dependence on the
magnitude of the colour components of the source colour point
in the operating colour space; and
apply the identified mapping operator to the source
colour point so as to translate the source colour point to the
destination colour point.
21. A computer-implemented method for mapping a source
image comprising a plurality of source colour points expressed
in accordance with a source colour gamut to a destination image
comprising a plurality of destination colour points expressed in
accordance with a destination colour gamut in an operating
colour space, said method comprising:
for each source colour point, identifying, in a processor,
a curve passing through said source colour point in said
operating colour space, said curve having a constant luminance
and hue and a varying saturation, said curve extending from
said source colour gamut to said destination colour gamut;
translating in a processor, according to a first translation
factor, a source colour point located outside of said destination
colour gamut to a destination colour point in said destination
colour gamut within a first predetermined range on the
identified curve for that source colour point;
Appeal 2018-008146
Application 14/733,119

5
translating in a processor, according to second translation
factor different from the first translation factor, a source colour
point located within said destination colour gamut to a
destination colour point in said destination colour gamut within
a second predetermined range on the identified curve for that
source colour point; and
outputting the mapped destination image comprising said
destination colour points.
Appeal Br. 22, 25–27 (claims appendix).

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art4 in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Ulichney US 5,233,684 Aug. 3, 1993
Dillinger US 5,883,632 Mar. 16, 1999
Aldrich US 6,154,217 Nov. 28, 2000
Lee et al. US 2003/0122845 A1 July 3, 2003
Henley et al. US 2005/0248785 A1 Nov. 10, 2005
Higgins et al. US 2009/0122073 A1 May 14, 2009
Ramanath et al. US 7,893,945 B2 Feb. 22, 2011
Ben-Chorin et al. US 2012/0139913 A1 June 7, 2012
Longhurst et al. US 2013/0050245 A1 Feb. 28, 2013

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Ramanath, Higgins, and Lee.
Final Act. 20–38.

4 All citations to the references use the first-named inventor only.
Appeal 2018-008146
Application 14/733,119

6
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Ramanath, Higgins, Lee, and Henley. Final
Act. 38–39.
Claims 7, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ramanath, Higgins, Ulichney, and
Dillinger. Final Act. 39–43.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Ramanath, Higgins, Lee, and Aldrich. Final
Act. 43–44.
Claims 15–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ramanath, Ben-Chorin, and
Longhurst. Final Act. 44–52.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Ramanath, Higgins, Lee, and Ben-Chorin. Final
Act. 53–58.
Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejections and the
issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made in the Appeal Brief are
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2016).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 14
Issue: Does the Examiner err in finding the cited combination of
Ramanath, Higgins, and Lee teaches or suggests “a gamut mapper
configured to calculate a first translation factor in dependence on the first
and second scaling parameters,” as recited in independent claim 1?
Appeal 2018-008146
Application 14/733,119

7
The Examiner finds Ramanath teaches the limitation at issue. Final
Act. 23–24 (citing Ramanath 10:21–25, 5:65–67, 7:1–20, Fig. 9); Ans. 46–
47. Specifically, the Examiner relies on the input gamut to output gamut
equation from Ramanath: Co = a0 + a1Ci+a2Li +a3CiLi , where Co is the
output Chroma, Ci and Li are input Chroma and Lightness, and a0, a1, a2, and
a3 are control points. Ramanath 7:2–10. The Examiner finds “Ramanath
teaches a0 is first translation factor; a1 is first scaling parameter; a2 and a3 are
second scaling parameter” and “a1, a2, a3 . . . are ratio[s] as illustrated in
equation 5; Ramanath further more teaches first translation factor a0 is
calculated by moving a0 to the left of equation 5 and moving Co to right of
the equation 5.” Ans. 46.
Appellant argues,
[t]he final rejection asserts that ‘a0’ disclosed in Ramanath is a
first translation factor. The examiner alleges that ‘a0’ “is
calculated by moving a0 to the left of equation 5 and moving Co
to the right of the equation.” This is incorrect. . . . “Equation 5”
is not simply rearranged in order to calculate its coefficients, as
alleged by the rejection.”
Appeal Br. 9.
We find Appellant’s argument persuasive. The Examiner appears to
find that Ramanath’s a0 teaches the claimed first translation factor because a0
may be calculated from the equation by manipulating the equation so it is
solved for a0 rather than for Co. Ans. 46. The equation relied upon by the
Examiner to teach the claimed “first translation factor,” however, is used in
Ramanath to “allow any point within the input gamut, with a Chroma C, and
a Lightness L, to be mapped to a corresponding point within the output
gamut, with a Chroma Co.” Ramanath 7:2–10. The equation, therefore, is
not used to determine any of the input control points such as a0.
Appeal 2018-008146
Application 14/733,119

8
We agree with Appellant’s argument because the Examiner fails to
explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified
Ramanath’s equation for mapping points to corresponding points within an
output gamut having a Chroma Co to instead determine input control point
a0. Our controlling precedent requires that the Examiner explain why a
person of ordinary skill would have modified a reference when the reference
does not teach or suggest the claimed feature. See Ball Aerosol & Specialty
Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(explaining that the skilled artisan’s motivation “should be made explicit”).
The Examiner states that Ramanath suggests the limitation, presumably
because one of skill in the art would have known or could have “rearranged”
Ramanath’s Equation 5 to meet the disputed limitation. Ans. 47. This is
insufficient because our precedent requires the Examiner to explain why one
of skill in the art would have modified Equation 5. The Examiner did not do
so. We, therefore, agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
sufficiently demonstrated that Ramanath teaches or suggests “a gamut
mapper configured to calculate a first translation factor,” as recited in
independent claim 1.
Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments
advanced by Appellant for claim 1, we need not reach the merits of
Appellant’s other arguments. Accordingly, based on the record before us,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent
claim 1, and, for similar reasons, of independent claim 14 and dependent
claims 4–13.
Appeal 2018-008146
Application 14/733,119

9
Claim 15
We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 is in error;
we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own, and we add
the following primarily for emphasis.
Issue 1: Does the Examiner err in finding the cited combination of
Ramanath, Ben-Chorin, and Longhurst teaches or suggests “identify a
mapping operator for . . . varying luminance varying with distance from a
centre of the destination colour gamut,” as recited in independent claim 15?
The Examiner finds Ramanath teaches the limitation at issue because
Ramanath discloses “the midpoint of the input gamut lightness value along
the achromatic line 630 is mapped to the gray point of the output gamut” and
“the midpoint and the gray point are a center.” Final Act. 45 (citing
Ramanath 6:39–42, Fig. 6).
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s factual findings. Appellant argues
Ramanath fails to teach “identify a mapping operator for . . . varying
luminance,” as claimed because Ramanath discusses lightness rather than
luminance and “‘lightness’ and ‘luminance’ mean different things” although
they “are conceptually similar in that they generally refer to an amount of
light.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant argues luminance and lightness are
different because “luminance generally refers to the actual amount of light
(e.g. which could be quantitatively measured), and . . . [o]n the other hand,
‘lightness’ refers to the way in which light is perceived.” Id.
The Examiner responds that “lightness and luminance are similar and
they refer [to] same color parameter in color space. ‘[L]ightness’ referred to
in Ramanath is correspond to ‘varying luminance’ as recited in claim 15.”
Ans. 53.
Appeal 2018-008146
Application 14/733,119

10
We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive because, as the Examiner
correctly notes, lightness and luminance are used interchangeably in
Ramanath. See id. For example, Ramanath, in discussing Figure 6 cited by
the Examiner, discloses “the point of minimum luminance (lightness) 612 of
the input gamut 610 is mapped to the point of minimum luminance 622 of
the output gamut 620.” Ramanath 5:30–33 (emphasis added). Accordingly,
even assuming that lightness and luminance “mean different things” in other
contexts, Appellant still fails to demonstrate that Ramanath’s use of
lightness—including as a synonym for luminance in the context of Figure
6’s input and output color gamuts—is insufficient to teach “varying
luminance,” as claimed.
Issue 2: Does the Examiner err in finding the cited combination of
Ramanath, Ben-Chorin, and Longhurst teaches or suggests “apply the
identified mapping operator to the source colour point so as to translate the
source colour point to the destination colour point,” as recited in
independent claim 15?
The Examiner finds the combined teachings of Ramanath and
Longhurst teach “identify a mapping operator for translating a source colour
point to a destination colour point,” as claimed. The Examiner finds Ben-
Chorin teaches applying the mapping operator “so as to translate the source
colour point to the destination colour point” because in Ben-Chorin “the
input data in YCbCr format is translated, using a conversion matrix, to
corresponding RGB data).” Final Act. 47 (citing Ben-Chorin ¶ 43). The
Examiner concludes that motivation existed to combine Ben-Chorin’s
teachings with Ramanath teaching of a colour processor for mapping an
image with a mapping operator. Id.
Appeal 2018-008146
Application 14/733,119

11
Appellant argues Ben-Chorin does not teach “a mapping operator for
translating a source colour point to a destination colour point,” because
“Ben-Chorin does not teach, for each source colour point lying outside the
destination colour gamut, identifying a mapping operator being operative to
shift the source colour point along a curve towards the luminance value at
the centre of the destination colour gamut.” Appeal Br. 14 (citing Ben-
Chorin ¶ 43).
Appellant’s first argument that Ben Chorin does not teach “a mapping
operator for translating a source colour point to a destination colour point” is
unpersuasive because it does not address the Examiner’s reliance on the
combined teachings of Ramanath, Ben-Chorin, and Longhurst to teach the
disputed limitation. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant’s second argument that
because Ben Chorin does not teach a mapping operator, “modifying
Ramanath to translate input YCbCr data into RGB data, [in view of Ben
Chorin] would not result in the claimed feature,” is similarly unpersuasive
because it also does not address the Examiner’s reliance on the combined
teachings of Ramanath, Ben-Chorin, and Longhurst. Id.
Issue 3: Does the Examiner err in finding the cited combination of
Ramanath, Ben-Chorin, and Longhurst teaches or suggests “the identified
mapping operator being operative to shift the source colour point along the
curve towards the luminance value at the centre of the destination colour
gamut, such that the shift in luminance is greater for source colour points
further from the centre of the destination colour gamut than for source
colour points closer to the centre of the destination colour gamut,” as recited
in independent claim 15?
Appeal 2018-008146
Application 14/733,119

12
The Examiner finds the combined teachings of Ramanath and
Longhurst teach the disputed limitation. Final Act. 47–48.
Appellant argues Longhurst does not teach the disputed limitation
because “it is not true that for each point mapped in accordance with
Longhurst that the shift in luminance is greater for source colour points
further from the centre of the destination colour gamut than for source
colour points closer to the centre of the destination colour gamut,” as in
claim 15. Appeal Br. 15.
The Examiner responds,
in Fig. 2A and paragraph [0049], Longhurst teaches a global
center point P5. In Fig. 2A and paragraph [0060], Longhurst
teaches far out-of-gamut points are mapped to boundary 15,
closer out-of-gamut points are mapped to a region inside
boundary 15; Longhurst further teaches the shift of far out-of
gamut points is greater than closer out-of-gamut points as
illustrated in Fig. 2A; P1, P3. In paragraph [0061], Longhurst
teaches region 29 tapers to zero. In Fig. 6A, Fig. 6B, and
paragraph [0086], Longhurst teaches the farthest out-of-gamut
point is mapped to boundary 15 and all other out-of-gamut
points are mapped to a region within gamut 15.
Ans. 55.
Longhurst’s Figure 2A, depicting a slice “through an out-of-gamut
pixel and color gamut 14 in the plane of a longitudinal line passing through
the pixel, is reproduced below:
Appeal 2018-008146
Application 14/733,119

13

The Examiner finds, in Longhurst’s FIG. 2A, point P5 is a global
center point and that “T2 takes P1 toward a global center point P5 on axis 11
and the luminance value of P5 as illustrated in Fig. 2A.” Ans. 54. As
Appellant observes, “[t]he y-axis of figure 2A, axis 11, represents lightness,”
i.e., luminance. Reply Br. 4.
We find Appellant’s argument that “it is not true that . . . the shift in
luminance is greater for source colour points further from the centre of the
destination colour gamut than for source colour points closer to the centre of
the destination colour gamut,” unpersuasive because it does not address the
Examiner’s finding that in Figure 2A, “T2 takes P1 toward a global center
point P5 on axis 11 and the luminance value of P5,” thereby “shift[ing] the
source colour point [P1] along the curve [T2] towards the luminance value at
the centre of the destination colour gamut [P5],” such that the shift in
luminance is greater for P5 than for P1 as T2 moves along axis 11 towards
P5, as recited in claim 15.
Appeal 2018-008146
Application 14/733,119

14
Appellant further argues,
a hypothetical point (H) may exist that is further from the
global center point (P5) in the X-direction (chroma) than point
(P1), but with a lightness value (y-axis value) equal to the
lightness value of global center point (P5). If both this
hypothetical point (H) and point (P1) follow a mapping
direction toward a specific point (P5) (as described above), then
the shift in chroma (along the x-axis) of the hypothetical point
would be greater than the shift in chroma for point (P1 ).
However, the hypothetical point would not shift in lightness (in
they-direction) whatsoever, whereas point (P1) would.
Reply Br. 5.
We find the argument unpersuasive because even assuming
Appellant’s hypothetical example does not teach the disputed limitation, the
argument fails to address the Examiner’s separate finding that the cited
example involving points P1, P5 and curve 2, teaches the limitation, as
discussed above. Ans. 54–55.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 15. Dependent claims 16–20 are not argued separately
and so we also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of these
claims. Appeal Br. 12–16.

Claim 21
We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 is in error;
we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own, and we add
the following primarily for emphasis.
Issue 1: Does the Examiner err in finding the cited combination of
Ramanath, Ben-Chorin, and Lee teaches or suggests “for each source colour
point, identifying, in a processor, a curve passing through said source colour
Appeal 2018-008146
Application 14/733,119

15
point in said operating colour space, said curve having a constant luminance
and hue and a varying saturation,” as recited in independent claim 21?
The Examiner finds Ramanath teaches “for each source colour point,
identifying, in a processor, a curve passing through said source colour point
in said operating colour space.” Final Act. 53 (citing Ramanath 6:10–25,
7:5–16, 7:30–35, Fig. 6). The Examiner relies on Ben-Chorin to teach or
suggest “said curve having a constant luminance and hue and a varying
saturation.” Final Act. 56 (citing Ramanath ¶¶ 14, 77, 79).
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s factual findings, arguing
“Ramanath does not disclose a curve having a constant luminance and hue
and a varying saturation, as required by claim 21.” Appeal Br. 17.
We find this argument unpersuasive. As the Examiner points out,
Ben-Chorin, rather than Ramanath, is used to teach said curve having a
constant luminance and, therefore, Appellant’s argument is not responsive to
the Examiner’s findings. Ans. 61.
Issue 2: Does the Examiner err in finding the cited combination of
Ramanath and Lee teaches or suggests “translating in a processor, according
to second translation factor different from the first translation factor, a
source colour point located within said destination colour gamut to a
destination colour point in said destination colour gamut within a second
predetermined range on the identified curve for that source colour point,” as
recited in independent claim 21?
The Examiner finds Ramanath teaches “translating based on ), [sic] a
source colour point located within said destination colour gamut to a
destination colour point in said destination colour gamut within a second
predetermined range on the identified curve for that source colour point.”
Appeal 2018-008146
Application 14/733,119

16
Final Act. 55 (citing Ramanath 8:4–15, 7:24–29, 7:30–35, Figs. 6, 7, 7A).
The Examiner relies on Lee to teach or suggest “translating according to
second translation factor different from the first translation factor.” Final
Act. 57 (citing Lee ¶¶ 88, 93, 97, 99, Figs. 8, 9, 10, 12).
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s factual findings, first arguing
“Ben-Chorin does not teach” the disputed limitation. Appeal Br. 18. This
argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on the combined
teachings of Ramanath and Lee rather than Ben-Chorin to teach the disputed
limitation. Final Act. 55–57. Next, Appellant argues
in order to establish a prima facie case with respect to the
limitation at issue it is necessary to show that Lee teaches
translating according to a second translation factor, different
than the first translation factor, a source colour point located
within said destination colour gamut to a destination colour
point in said destination colour gamut within a second
predetermined range on the identified curve for that source
colour point, as required by claim 21.
Appeal Br. 18. Appellant then presents several additional arguments based
on Lee alone such as “Lee discloses an image brightness control method”
and Lee merely aims to maintain the sense of colour of an image while
increasing the brightness degree and brightness range of an image. Id. at 19.
We find Appellant’s arguments based on Lee alone unpersuasive
because the Examiner relies on the combined disclosures of Ramanath and
Lee to teach the disputed limitation. Although Appellant does argue
Ramanath elsewhere in the Appeal, these arguments relate to different
limitations of claim 21 rather than the limitation at issue here. See Appeal
Br. 17 (“Thus, Ramanath does not disclose a curve having a constant
Appeal 2018-008146
Application 14/733,119

17
luminance and hue and a varying saturation”). Appellant’s argument,
therefore, is not responsive to the Examiner’s findings.
Issue 3: Does the Examiner provide erroneous reasoning in
combining the teachings of Ramanath, Ben-Chorin, and Lee?
Appellant argues “the attempted combination of Ramanath and Ben-
Chorin is improper because the two disclosures are incompatible with each
other.” Appeal Br. 19. According to Appellant, “[t]his is because the
mapping of the claimed second translation factor onto ‘bo’, a coefficient in
an equation that modifies the lightness (i.e. luminance, see above) of input
points, cannot reasonably be combined with the teaching of a curve having a
constant luminance and hue and varying saturation.” Id. at 19–20.
Appellant’s argument is premised on a “physical” or “bodily”
incorporation of limitations of one reference into the other. However, this is
not the standard. “It is well-established that a determination of obviousness
based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual,
physical substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (citing In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc));
see also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not
necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to
render obvious the invention under review.”). Rather than express
obviousness as the physical incorporation of a structure from one reference
into the structure of another reference, in an obviousness analysis, the prior
art should be viewed as a combination of teachings from different sources,
and the use of those teachings by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appeal 2018-008146
Application 14/733,119

18
We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive because the rejection
does not require incorporating Ramanath’s mapping of a translation factor
into Ben-Chorin’s curve having a constant luminance and hue and varying
saturation. Instead, the Examiner rejects the claim as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of the references.
Next, Appellant argues “Lee simply does not relate to mapping an
image from a source colour gamut to a destination colour gamut in an
operating colour space” and thus “Lee cannot be said to be in the same field
of endeavour as Ramanath or Ben-Chorin.” Appeal Br. 20.
As best understood, Appellant argues that the references are non-
analogous art. However, whether each reference is in the same field of
endeavor as the other references is not the test for analogous art. Rather,
under the analogous art test, a reference qualifies as prior art for an
obviousness determination under § 103(a) when it is analogous to the
claimed invention. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Two
separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is
from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and,
(2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether
the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the inventor is involved.” Klein, 647 F.3d at 1348. We do not find
Appellant’s non-analogous art argument persuasive because Appellant fails
to employ either of the recognized tests for analogous art with respect to the
claimed invention. Instead, Appellant’s argument is directed to whether Lee
is in the same field of endeavor as Ramanath and Ben-Chorin and, therefore,
is not persuasive of error.
Appeal 2018-008146
Application 14/733,119

19
Next, Appellant argues “Lee does not relate to gamut mapping, and so
cannot provide any motivation for the skilled person to apply different
translation factors to source colour points of the same input gamut in
dependence on whether the source colour point originally fell within, or
outside of, the output gamut.” Appeal Br. 20.
The Examiner points out in response to Appellant’s argument, and we
agree, that the rejection provides reasoning with rational underpinnings for
combining the teachings of Ramanath, Ben-Chorin, and Lee. Ans. 69–70;
see also Final Act. 56–58. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because
Appellant fails to specifically address the Examiner’s stated reasoning. We,
therefore determine the Examiner has provided sufficient motivation for
combining the teachings of Ramanath, Ben-Chorin, and Lee, without
resorting to impermissible hindsight reasoning.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 21.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 6, 10,
11, 13, and
14
103 Ramanath, Higgins, and
Lee
1, 5, 6, 10,
11, 13, and
14
4 103 Ramanath, Higgins,
Lee, and Henley
4
7, 8, and 9 103 Ramanath, Higgins,
Ulichney, and Dillinger
7, 8, and 9
12 103 Ramanath, Higgins,
Lee, and Aldrich
12
Appeal 2018-008146
Application 14/733,119

20
15–20 103 Ramanath, Ben-Chorin,
and Longhurst
15–20
21 103 Ramanath, Higgins,
Lee, and Ben-Chorin
21
Overall
Outcome
15–21 1, 4–14

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED IN PART