Appeal No. 2000-0428
Application No. 08/667,291
OPINION
Appellants assert (Brief at 6-7) that the rejection of claim 5 is in error because
the references fail to teach or suggest the requirement of “a plurality of luminance levels
within a color gamut, each luminance level consisting of colors of uniform luminance.”
The statement of the rejection applied against claim 5 (Answer at 4-5) does not
point out where Scott or Wells is deemed to teach the limitations in controversy.
However, the examiner sets forth the position (Answer at 7-8) that Scott “does teach
and/or suggest uniform luminance levels as claimed,” pointing to text bridging columns
7 and 8 in the reference.
Appellants further argue (Brief at 6) that “[a] level of uniform luminance yields
planes2 34 shown in Fig. 1 of the application which are not perpendicular to diagonal 49
through the cube 100.”3 The examiner responds (Answer at 8) that “the differences in
angles may be the result of using different color spaces (Scott uses CMY while the
present application shows RGB) and/or that Scott uses a scale based upon the
percentage of color values rather that [sic; than] actual color values (column 5, lines 42-
52).”
We find that Scott describes color charts resulting from diagonal planes
progressing in tone “from light to dark.” The progression corresponds “generally to the
2 We note that the written description of appellants’ specification (e.g., at 15-16) refers to
luminance “levels” 34.
3 Scott describes diagonal planes passed through color cube 100 (Fig. 1), which are perpendicular
to diagonal line 110. Col. 5, ll. 60-62.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007