US 5960162

I'll search for the specific patent number 5960162 as requested.

Now let me check for any CAFC litigation or docket activity involving this patent.

US Patent 5,960,162 — Verification and Summary

I ran searches against Google Patents, Justia, USPTO-report, and general web sources for the literal string 5960162 / 5,960,162, plus targeted searches for CAFC 2026 docket activity. Results below are grounded in the authoritative patent text you supplied and the search hits.

---

Bibliographic Data (from the authoritative record)

---

Abstract (as issued)

A color image processing apparatus generates color-preview-image data corresponding to a color image output by an output device. It converts color image data into binarized density color image data usable by the output device, then converts that binarized density data into color-preview-image data comprised of plural primary color components, and transmits the preview data to an image output device.

---

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

Claim 1 — Apparatus (the core claim): An apparatus that builds a preview of what a printer will actually print. It (a) converts color image data into binarized density color data of the kind the image-forming device consumes to print; (b) converts that binarized data back into preview image data made of multiple primary color components (e.g., RGB), based on a color-reproduction characteristic of the display device; and (c) transmits the preview data to the display device. The key idea: the preview is derived from the same halftoned/binary data that is sent to the printer, so the preview reflects the printer's actual output behavior.

Claim 6 — Method: The method counterpart of claim 1 — the same three steps (first converting into binarized density data, second converting that into multi-primary-component preview data based on the display's color characteristic, and transmitting the preview data to the display).

Claim 11 — Apparatus (broader generalization): Same architecture as claim 1, but generalized from binary to multi-level: it converts N-level density color image data into M-level density color data, where M < N (i.e., reduces the number of gradation levels), the M-level data being usable by the image-forming device; then converts that M-level density data into multi-primary-component preview data based on the display's color-reproduction characteristic; then transmits the preview data to the display. This is the claim that corresponds to the patent's title ("multi-value density data").

Dependent claims add: CMY binary / RGB preview color spaces (cl. 2, 7); the specific analyze→standard-color-space→device-characteristic conversion chain (cl. 3, 8); output of the binarized data to the image-forming device itself (cl. 4, 9); and resolution conversion of the preview data from one resolution to a lower display resolution before transmission (cl. 5, 10).

---

CAFC 2026 / Litigation Search Result

• I found no CAFC 2026 docket, appeal, or active litigation referencing U.S. Patent 5,960,162. Searches for 5960162 CAFC, "5,960,162" lawsuit, and 5960162 Federal Circuit returned no case involving this patent.
• The Google Patents record lists no litigations and no PTAB proceedings for this patent; it shows only the standard maintenance-fee events (years 4, 8, 12) and a 2001 certificate of correction, consistent with an expired, never-asserted patent.

⚠️ Important disambiguation warning: A search result surfaced a 2026 CAFC decision between Wyeth/Pfizer and AstraZeneca mentioning US 10,596,162 — this is a different patent (a Wyeth EGFR/oncology patent involved in the Tagrisso dispute). Per the strict rule to interpret identifiers literally, I am flagging that 10,596,162 ≠ 5,960,162; they are unrelated. Do not conflate them.

---

Confidence / Uncertainty Notes

• High confidence on title, assignee, inventor, filing/issue dates, abstract, and claim text — these come directly from the authoritative patent document.
• High confidence that there is no CAFC 2026 activity for this patent, based on the searches run; however, I cannot claim exhaustive coverage of PACER/CAFC dockets, as my search tools returned no docket-specific system results for this number. If the request concerns a specific case number or party, please provide it and I can search more narrowly.
• The uspto.report and Justia hits confirm the same patent (same title, dates, and assignee) but add no litigation data.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 5,960,162. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me search litigation databases and the case-list portals specifically.

Litigation Search Report — U.S. Patent No. 5,960,162

Result: No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 5,960,162 was found.

I ran targeted searches across patent‑litigation sources (Unified Patents litigation portal content, RPX Insight litigation documents, PACER‑derived dockets surfaced via CourtListener, and general web/reporter sources). No case was identified in which 5,960,162 was asserted, challenged, or otherwise at issue. I therefore cannot supply plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or status for any case, because no such case was located.

What the searches did return (and why it is not 5,960,162)

Because the instruction is to interpret identifiers literally and not auto‑correct them, I flag these near‑misses explicitly so they are not mistaken for the patent in question:

Notably, the litigation activity that surfaced concerns the assignee (Canon Inc.) and other Canon patents — printer/toner‑cartridge and inkjet families — not the preview/color‑processing subject matter of 5,960,162.

Context on why litigation is unlikely

From the patent record itself (consistent with the authoritative full text provided):

• Patent: U.S. 5,960,162, "Image processing apparatus which converts multi‑value density data and outputs the converted data."
• Inventor: Tsuyoshi Yamamoto; Assignee: Canon Inc.
• Application: 08/858,507, filed 1997‑05‑20, granted 1999‑09‑28, as a division of Ser. No. 08/378,371 (now U.S. 5,675,717).
• Priority: 1994‑01‑31 (JP 6‑9563 and JP 6‑316563).
• Status: Expired – Lifetime; Google Patents lists an anticipated expiration of 2015‑01‑25 (i.e., 20 years from the parent's 1995‑01‑25 filing date).
• Post‑grant activity on record: only a certificate of correction (2001‑10‑16) and maintenance‑fee payments (4th, 8th, 12th years); no reissue, no reexamination, no PTAB proceeding, no disclaimer appears.
• Citations: 6 U.S. references cited by the examiner; 12 documents cited by third parties; none of these are litigation documents.

Given that the enforceable term is recorded as having ended in January 2015, any infringement action would have had to be filed before that date. Nothing in the sources searched indicates one was.

Remedies / next steps if you need a definitive negative

If you require a higher‑confidence clearance opinion rather than a search result, the following would be appropriate, and I did not complete them here:

1. Unified Patents litigation portal — query the patent number directly at the district‑court case‑list search (the portal indexes district‑court patent cases and would show any case where '162 appears as an asserted patent).
2. PACER / CourtListener RECAP docket search for "5,960,162" across all districts.
3. Westlaw/Lexis/Docket Navigator full‑text complaint and docket search (these are the only sources that reliably catch complaints where the patent number appears only in an exhibit).
4. USPTO Patent Center / TSDR for any assignment records, disclaimers, or reexamination certificates that might correspond to litigation.
5. Cross‑check the parent, U.S. 5,675,717, which shares the same family and priority; litigation is sometimes pleaded against the parent rather than the divisional.

Caveat on completeness

This conclusion is based on the sources reached in this search session. Absence of litigation in those sources is not affirmative proof that no litigation exists. Older or sealed matters, complaints where the patent number appears only in an attached exhibit, and foreign proceedings may not be captured. I did not locate any such matter, and I will not state that one exists that I have not verified.

Bottom line: Based on the available search results, there is no known litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 5,960,162.

I'll verify the "no proceedings" baseline with targeted searches before reporting.

Let me run a few additional confirmation searches on the PTAB E2E / ODP systems and the parent patent.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file against US 5,960,162: 0 — no IPRs, no PGRs, no CBMs, no derivations, no institution decisions, no Final Written Decisions, no terminations, and no Federal Circuit appeals from any PTAB decision. The breakdown is therefore 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials, and the defensive posture this gives a defendant is not "hardened by surviving IPRs" and not "claims already canceled" — it is the third and least common posture: the patent has never been challenged at the Board at all, and it has been expired since 2015-01-25, which is the single most important fact for anyone analyzing it today.

Source note and confidence. The canonical list in the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block returns no AIA trials for this patent, and I ran multiple targeted web searches ("5,960,162" PTAB inter partes review, US5960162 IPR petition Canon, "5960162" patent trial and appeal board proceeding, US 5,960,162 patent litigation Unified Patents, and IPR-number-year sweeps). None returned a proceeding, an IPR/CBM/PGR number, a PTAB E2E docket, or a news item involving this patent. Consistent with the prior section of this analysis, searches also surface no CAFC 2026 appeal and no district court litigation for this number. Explicit uncertainty: my searches cannot substitute for a direct query of PTAB E2E / Docket Navigator / Lex Machina, and I was unable to fetch those systems directly in this session. If the request concerns a specific proceeding number or party, supply it and I can search narrowly. Per the operating rule, I am not inventing proceeding numbers to fill the template — inventing a case number here would be the single worst failure mode for a document a defendant will rely on.

Identifier disambiguation (repeat flag). A search result surfaced a 2026 CAFC decision (Wyeth/Pfizer v. AstraZeneca, Tagrisso dispute) referencing US 10,596,162. That is a different patent. 10,596,162 ≠ 5,960,162. Do not conflate them.

---

No proceeding sections can be written

The requested per-proceeding template (Type / Filed / Status / Judge panel / Grounds / Institution / FWD / Settlement / Appeal / Defensive value) is intentionally left unfilled. For every field, the honest entry is "not applicable — no proceeding exists." Writing anything else would fabricate an APJ panel, a petitioner, and a claim-level disposition.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED, but the entire patent is expired. Claims 1–11 of US 5,960,162 were never subjected to an AIA trial, so there is no IPR certificate canceling claims 1–5, no partial survival of claim 1, and no substitute claims on file. What matters far more for a defendant is the calendar: the patent issued 1999-09-28 from an application filed 1997-05-20, claiming priority to 1994-01-31, and the Google Patents legal-status record shows "Expired – Lifetime," with an anticipated expiration of 2015-01-25 (the 20-year term running from the 1995-01-25 filing of the parent, US 08/378,371) plus maintenance-fee payments at years 4, 8, and 12 (2003-03-07, 2007-03-02, 2011-02-24). The consequences are practical, not theoretical: damages for any infringement ended by 2015-01-25 at the latest; a defendant facing a demand letter today is being asserted on a patent whose enforceable life is over a decade in the past. Claims 1 (binarized density data → multi-primary-component preview → transmit), 6 (method counterpart), and 11 (the N-level → M-level generalization, matching the "multi-value density data" title) are all untested — but they are untested claims on an expired patent, which is a very different risk profile from untested claims on a live one.

Estoppel landscape: essentially empty, which cuts both ways. Because no IPR was ever instituted against this patent, § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to no one. There is no petitioner, real party in interest, or privy who is barred from raising § 102/§ 103 grounds in a district court or ITC proceeding, and there is no prior PTAB record to work from. For a defendant, that means the full universe of anticipating and obviousness art remains available — including the six references the examiner did consider (US 3,972,066; US 4,639,770; US 5,081,529; US 5,146,323; US 5,210,600; US 5,276,511) and any art that was never before the examiner. It also means the defendant gets no free ride: there is no FWD finding of unpatentability to point to, no cancellation certificate, and no Board reasoning to adopt. Any invalidity position on this patent must be built from scratch in litigation, not borrowed from the Board.

Pattern signals: none, because there is no pattern. No petitioner has filed a single IPR, let alone a staggered multi-petition campaign; the patent owner (Canon Inc.) has never had a PTAB decision to appeal and therefore has no appellate track record on this family; and there is no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, or similar) in the chain — I specifically searched for a Unified Patents connection and found none. The absence of any AIA activity is itself diagnostic. Well-asserted patents of this vintage in the color-management space (H04N 1/60; G06K 15/00) routinely attract IPRs once a monetization campaign begins, and this one never did. Combined with the 2015 expiration and the complete absence of litigation hits, the record is consistent with a patent that was never asserted — not one that fended off challengers. (Compare the cited-by landscape, which shows this family being cited by later Canon and third-party work, including Flexiworld, but never becoming a litigation target.)

Statutory availability, for completeness. Even if someone wanted to challenge this patent at the Board today, the available vehicles are closed or useless: PGR is unavailable because the patent's effective filing date (1994-01-31) long predates the 2013-03-16 PGR cutoff; CBM is unavailable and sunset (the transitional program ended 2020-09-16, and the claims are image-processing/color-preview claims, not financial-services subject matter); IPR remains technically available for § 102/§ 103 grounds, but a post-expiration IPR against an expired patent produces only prospective estoppel-style effect with no exclusionary-rights value, and patent owners cannot meaningfully amend claims of an expired patent. In short, there is no live administrative path that would benefit a defendant.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant and received a demand letter citing US 5,960,162: the threshold response should lead with expiration, not invalidity. Per the authoritative record, the patent expired 2015-01-25 and is in "Expired – Lifetime" status. Any demand seeking ongoing royalties, a prospective license, or an injunction is directed at a patent with no remaining exclusionary term. Quote the legal-status line and the expiration date back to the sender.
• On invalidating the claims: there is no Final Written Decision to link. I cannot quote a disposition because none exists. Do not represent to a court or opponent that any claim of this patent was canceled — claims 1–11 stand as issued in the USPTO's records, simply unenforceable going forward due to expiration. If validity must be litigated, the grounds are yours to develop de novo, and § 315(e)(2) estops no one.
• On pending proceedings: none. There are no trial-stage milestones to track — no institution-decision deadline, no oral hearing date, no statutory one-year FWD due date. Nothing is pending at PTAB E2E for this patent.
• Verify before you rely. This report rests on the structured ODP block plus web searches that returned no proceedings, and I was unable to directly query PTAB E2E in this session. Before filing anything, confirm with a direct PTAB E2E patent-number search and a Docket Navigator/Lex Machina PTAB query for 5,960,162, so an absence-of-record finding is grounded in the authoritative docket systems rather than search inference. Useful entry points: USPTO PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb) and the USPTO PTAB statistics hub (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab); for any future CAFC appeal, CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com).

I'll research the assignment record for US 5,960,162 from USPTO Assignment Center and cross-reference sources.

Let me search more specifically for assignment records and legal events for this patent.

I was unable to complete additional targeted queries (search-step limit reached), so the analysis below relies on the authoritative patent text supplied, the Google Patents legal-events record, and the search hits obtained. Where I could not verify a reel/frame, I say so plainly rather than inventing one.

---

Inventors

Pattern note: No unusual inventor-side pattern is detectable. There is a single inventor (not a team), and there is no evidence of inventor departure, co-inventor churn, or pre-filing abandonment. Because the assignee is a large Japanese operating company and the invention is a printer-controller feature, there is nothing here resembling the "all inventors left within 12 months" fire-sale precursor.

---

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: Canon Inc. (Canon Kabushiki Kaisha), Tokyo, JP. Confirmed as both original and current assignee on the Google Patents record.
• Primary line of business: Office imaging / printers / cameras — a large, publicly traded global operating company.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? The specification is directed to a color printer controller (electrophotographic, ink-jet, or film-boiling/bubble-jet head) that generates color-preview data and ships it back to a host for on-screen preview. Canon is a leader in exactly this product category, and the parent application (US 5,675,717) and this divisional both describe the technology as an implementation inside a Canon color printer (color printer 20/20a/20b/20c). It is a reasonable, near-certain inference that Canon commercialized printer/driver products practicing this preview architecture — but no specific product SKU evidencing the claims was confirmed in my search results, so I flag "shipped product" as inferred, not documentarily proven here.
• Current status: Operating (no bankruptcy, acquisition, or dissolution). The patent itself is Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2015-01-25).

---

Assignment timeline

Plain statement of the finding: My searches did not surface a post-issuance assignment, and I was not able to retrieve a specific reel/frame for the inventor-to-Canon assignment from the USPTO Assignment Center (I could not directly render the Assignment Center result page within the available tool steps). Consequently I cannot present fabricated reel/frame numbers.

What the record does show:

• Google Patents Legal Events for US 5,960,162 list only:
  • 1999-09-20 — STCF (patent grant)
  • 2001-10-16 — CC (certificate of correction)
  • 2002-12-08 — FEPP; 2003-03-07 — FPAY (4); 2007-03-02 — FPAY (8); 2011-02-24 — FPAY (12)
  • No ASSIGNMENT / SECURITY / MERGER / CHANGE OF NAME events.
• The predecessor/related record (Unified Patents portal for US 5,675,717) shows Parent Company: Canon Inc., i.e., no change of control in the family.

Chronological list (as best determinable):

• ~1994–1995 (executed) / recorded date not confirmed — Reel not confirmed/Frame not confirmed
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (inventor → company; the standard pre-issuance instrument)
  • Assignor: Tsuyoshi Yamamoto
  • Assignee: Canon Inc. (Canon Kabushiki Kaisha)
  • Correspondent: not determinable from available sources — would need the Assignment Center record, which I could not render.
  • Context: Original employment assignment (routine inbound assignment of a corporate employee invention).
• No further recorded conveyances. The chain terminates at Canon Inc. There is no NPE transfer, no security interest, no merger, and no change-of-name event on the face of the record.

Note on the "correspondent" tell: because the chain has exactly one link and no recurrence, the repeat-correspondent signal is definitionally absent. There is nothing to flag.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5960162
    1994 : Invented by Tsuyoshi Yamamoto
         : Assigned to Canon Inc
    1995 : Parent case 08378371 filed
    1997 : Divisional 08858507 filed
    1999 : Patent US 5960162 issued
    2001 : Certificate of correction
    2011 : Final maintenance fee paid
    2015 : Patent expired

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — specifically, only the original assignment is shown.

Justification: The accessible record shows a single inbound assignment from inventor Tsuyoshi Yamamoto to Canon Inc., with no post-issuance conveyances (Google Patents Legal Events lists only grant, a 2001 certificate of correction, and the year-4/8/12 maintenance fees; the related family record lists Canon as parent company). With one link and no transfer to a licensing vehicle, there is no factual basis for any NPE signal — "only the original assignment" is the definition of the Insufficient data bucket. I could not confirm the reel/frame or correspondent for that single assignment because I was unable to render the USPTO Assignment Center result page; if exact reel/frame and correspondent are required, verify directly at the USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) or the legacy Assignments on the Web (https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) by entering 5,960,162 in the patent-number field.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 5960162).

---

Disambiguation flag carried forward from the prior section

Any search hit tying "10,596,162" (e.g., a Wyeth/Pfizer–AstraZeneca CAFC matter) to this number is a different patent and must not be conflated with US 5,960,162. Likewise, the Flexiworld Technologies "cited by" entries on the Google Patents page are citations, not assignments.

I'll verify the patent record and research each cited prior-art reference. Let me run the searches.

Let me research the remaining three cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 5,960,162

1. Target patent (verified against the authoritative record)

The only prior art listed on the face of US 5,960,162 (Patent Citations) is the six references below. The "Cited By" and "Families Citing this family" entries are later publications and therefore are not prior art to this patent.

2. Claim architecture used for the § 102 mapping

• Claim 1 (apparatus): (a) convert color image data → binarized density color image data usable by the image forming device; (b) convert that binarized density data → color-preview-image data of plural primary color components based on a color-reproduction characteristic of the display; (c) transmit the preview data to the display.
• Claim 6: method counterpart of claim 1.
• Claim 11 (the "multi-value" claim matching the title): convert N-level → M-level (M<N) density color image data usable by the image former; convert that M-level data → multi-primary-component preview data based on the display's color characteristic; transmit the preview data.
• Dependent claims 2–5 / 7–10: CMY-binary ↔ RGB preview; analyze → standard-color-space → device-characteristic chain; output of binarized data to the image former; resolution conversion before transmission.

The point of novelty over all six references is the source of the preview: the preview is generated from the same low-gradation (binary / reduced-level) density data that is actually sent to the printer, then re-expanded into additive display primaries and shipped to a separate display device.

3. The six examiner-cited references

Note on confidence: I retrieved and read the full text/abstract for 3,972,066; 4,639,770; 5,081,529; and 5,146,323. My searches for 5,210,600 and 5,276,511 were cut off (search-step limit), so those two descriptions below rest on the citation data supplied in the authoritative record plus my background knowledge and are flagged as lower confidence.

---

(1) US 3,972,066 A — Toppan Printing Co., Ltd.

• Title: Method for image regulation of color monitors in proof-viewing and an apparatus therefor
• Inventors/Assignee: Seki et al. / Toppan Printing Co., Ltd.
• Filed / Issued: 1974-05-31 / 1976-07-27 (US 3,972,066)
• Description: Proof-viewing tool. It scans primary-color separation films, derives secondary/tertiary color signals via a Non-Additively Mixing (NAM) circuit (maximum of two/three primaries), multiplies those by regulation factors, applies gradation correction so that the color-monitor image "closely resembles the printed picture," and displays the corrected primary-color signals on a monitor. (Source: patent PDF, US 3,972,066 abstract; also cited as referenced art in US 4,454,536.)
• § 102 relevance: This is the closest thing to the general concept of the second converting means (converting printing-density color signals into monitor-display primaries based on a color characteristic). It is not anticipating: it neither binarizes/reduces gradation of the data fed to a printer, nor generates and transmits preview data from a printer controller to a display. Best characterized as § 103 background for the "simulate print on a monitor" idea relevant to the color-conversion step of claims 1/6 and 11. No single claim is fully met.

(2) US 4,639,770 A — Dr.-Ing. Rudolf Hell GmbH

• Title: Method and circuit arrangement for simulating a multi-colored reproduction on a color monitor
• Inventors: Jung, Eggert; Klopsch, Siegfried (Hell GmbH). Foreign counterpart EP 0147813 A2 (published 1985-07-10)
• Filed / Issued: 1983-12-24 / 1987-01-27 (US 4,639,770)
• Description: A "color viewing apparatus." It converts color-separation values Y, M, C, K into monitor drive values r, g, b, modifies them by a reproduction gradation curve, and uses a pre-identified allocation (measured corner colors + interpolated intermediate colors) to make the monitor image chromatically match the anticipated print. (Sources: US 4,639,770 text; EP 0147813.)
• § 102 relevance: The strongest of the six on the color-conversion element. It explicitly converts print density/separation data → RGB monitor values based on a print/monitor color relationship, and even references gradation modification. It is not anticipating claims 1/6/11 because (i) its input is continuous-tone separation values, not "binarized density color image data" or N→M reduced-level data fed to the printer; and (ii) it does not transmit preview data to a remote display device. Useful as § 103 background for the "based on a color reproduction characteristic of an image display device" limitation.

(3) US 5,081,529 A — Eastman Kodak Company

• Title: Color and tone scale calibration system for a printer using electronically-generated input images
• Inventor: Robert P. Collette; Assignee: Eastman Kodak Co. Foreign counterpart EP 0 515 665 B1.
• Filed / Issued: 1990-12-18 / 1992-01-14 (US 5,081,529)
• Description: A calibration utility that makes a print "faithfully match a monitor image." It uses printer tone-scale LUT and color matrix and complementary monitor tone-scale LUT/color matrix, with the monitor adjustment being the substantial inverse of the printer adjustment; interactive operator feedback drives the monitor to "look as bad as" the print. (Sources: US 5,081,529 / EP 0515665 B1.)
• § 102 relevance: Relevant only to color/tone matching between printer and display — i.e., a color-reproduction characteristic. It is a calibration scheme, not a preview-generation-from-halftoned-data scheme, and it transmits no preview image to a display. Does not meet any independent claim; § 103 background at most.

(4) US 5,146,323 A — Hitachi, Ltd.

• Title: Signal processing circuit including a white balance adjusting circuit in a color video printer apparatus
• Inventors: Kentaro Hamma, Yasunori Kobori, Yoshiaki Mochimaru; Assignee: Hitachi, Ltd.
• Filed / Issued: 1988-10-03 (per record) / 1992-09-08 (US 5,146,323)
• Description: A color video printer that stores a still video image, converts it to RGB video signals, applies a white-balance adjusting circuit that changes amplification factors among R, G, B (automatic or manual), re-A/D-converts the RGB signals, and prints. (Sources: US 5,146,323 text/claims.)
• § 102 relevance: Touches only adjacent concepts — RGB component handling and color adjustment of image data ahead of printing. It has no preview generation, no binarized-density→display conversion, no transmission to a display device. Does not meet any claim; § 103 background for "plural primary color components" and color adjustment generally.

(5) US 5,210,600 A — Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd. (lower confidence — see note)

• Title: Extraction of film image parameters in image processing apparatus
• Assignee: Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd.
• Filed / Issued: 1990-01-08 / 1993-05-11 (US 5,210,600)
• Description (as reflected in the record; not fully re-verified): Concerns extracting/deriving film-image parameters within an image-processing apparatus — i.e., characterizing image/recording-media characteristics for subsequent processing.
• § 102 relevance: Peripheral. It concerns image-parameter extraction, not a printer-controller that converts binarized/reduced-level density data into multi-primary preview data and transmits it to a display. No independent claim is anticipated; § 103 background only, and even that is weak.

(6) US 5,276,511 A — Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. (lower confidence — see note)

• Title: Method of and apparatus for processing image by setting up image processing conditions on the basis of finishing information
• Assignee: Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd.
• Filed / Issued: 1991-02-21 / 1994-01-04 (US 5,276,511)
• Description (as reflected in the record; not fully re-verified): Sets up image-processing conditions based on "finishing information" (i.e., the desired final-output characteristics).
• § 102 relevance: Peripheral and generic. It addresses condition-setting from finishing information, not the claimed binarize→multi-primary-preview→transmit-to-display pipeline. No claim is anticipated; § 103 background only.

4. Bottom line

• No single cited reference anticipates (35 U.S.C. § 102) any claim of US 5,960,162. This is consistent with the patent having issued with claims 1–11 intact over exactly this art.
• The references cluster into three themes, each hitting one limitation but never the full combination:
  1. Print-on-monitor simulation / color conversion → US 3,972,066 and US 4,639,770 (strongest; map to the "plural primary color components based on a color-reproduction characteristic of the display" element).
  2. Printer/monitor color & tone matching/calibration → US 5,081,529.
  3. Color-component signal handling / image-condition setup → US 5,146,323, US 5,210,600, US 5,276,511.
• The dispositive gap in all six: none discloses (i) converting color image data into binarized (or N→M reduced-level) density data usable by the image former, then (ii) converting that same low-gradation data into multi-primary preview data based on the display's color characteristic, and (iii) transmitting the preview data to the display device. Those three elements, in combination, are what distinguish claims 1, 6, and 11 (claim 11 substituting "N-level → M-level, M<N" for "binarize").
• Most relevant single reference for a § 103 obviousness discussion of the color-conversion limitation: US 4,639,770 (Hell). It is the only one of the six that expressly converts print-color/density values into RGB monitor values driven by a print-vs-monitor correspondence, and it even references a gradation curve.

Disambiguation reminder (carried forward): the 2026 CAFC Wyeth/AstraZeneca matter referencing US 10,596,162 is a different patent; per the literal-interpretation rule it must not be conflated with US 5,960,162.

If you want, I can re-run the (interrupted) verification for US 5,210,600 and US 5,276,511 to upgrade those two entries from "lower confidence" to fully verified.

I'll research the cited prior art references to ground the obviousness analysis. Let me search for the key references.

Let me research the remaining cited references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 5,960,162 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Technical analyst's assessment. This is a prior-art-based technical analysis, not a legal opinion or a validity determination; obviousness is ultimately a legal conclusion reserved to the fact-finder. I build on the earlier sections (bibliographic data, claim summary, litigation findings) and do not repeat them.

---

1. Analytical framework

Under Graham v. John Deere and KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, obviousness is assessed by (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill, and (4) any objective indicia. A claim is obvious where the differences are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention — including where a known technique is combined with another known technique to yield predictable results, or where a design need or market pressure provides a motivation to combine.

Level of ordinary skill (assumed): A bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent, with 2–4 years' experience in color image processing, color printing controllers, and/or color management — sufficient to understand device color transforms, halftoning, and monitor calibration.

Anchor for the "prior art" set: Per the task, I use the references in the "Patent Citations (6)" / Prior Art section of the Google Patents record for US 5,960,162, all cited by the examiner:

---

2. Scope and content of the primary references (what each actually teaches)

D1 — US 4,639,770 (Hell). A "color viewing apparatus" that simulates a multi-color print on a color monitor before printing. Its signal source generates digital color-separation values Y, M, C, K — values that are, per the specification, "a measure for the required metered amounts of printing inks or for the size of the raster points, in percent." A transformation circuit "converts the color separation values into drive signals for the color monitor upon consideration of the print parameters such that the color picture of the monitor conveys the same chromatic impression as the anticipated multi-color printing." It builds an allocation table (LUT) between Y*,M*,C* triads and r,g,b triads (corner colors and interpolated intermediate colors), modifies the separation values "according to a reproduction gradation curve employed in the later-to-occur multi-color reproduction," and outputs corrected r',g',b' as monitor video drive values. → D1 is the closest art to the "second converting means" of claim 1 (converting printer color values into multi-component RGB preview based on the display characteristic).

D2 — US 5,081,529 (Kodak). A calibration utility with a printer tone-scale LUT and color matrix and a monitor tone-scale/corrective matrix that is "substantially the inverse" of the printer corrections, plus a display gamma LUT. Goal: a print that "faithfully match[es]" the monitor image. → D2 teaches LUT/matrix-based mapping between printer color space and monitor color space, driven by the display's reproduction characteristics.

D3 — US 3,972,066 (Toppan). Corrects "the image on a color monitor … to closely resemble the printed picture" for "proof-viewing." It scans separation films, derives secondary/tertiary color signals, applies regulation factors, and "produc[es] an image on a color monitor screen." → D3 is squarely in the print-preview-on-a-monitor field and supplies the motivation to simulate press output on a display.

D5 — US 5,146,323 (Hitachi). A color video printer apparatus containing an image memory, RGB conversion means, A/D and D/A converters, a white-balance adjusting circuit, and an output to a monitor television — i.e., a printing apparatus that stores image data and also drives a display. → D5 is relevant to the architectural aspects (printing device with display output, resolution/memory handling, RGB↔printer-signal conversion).

---

3. The claims and their differences over the art

Recalling the independent claims (from the earlier summary):

• Claim 1 (apparatus): (a) first converting means → binarized density color data usable by the image-forming device; (b) second converting means → color-preview data of plural primary components based on the display's color-reproduction characteristic; (c) transmitting means → preview data to the display.
• Claim 6: method counterpart.
• Claim 11: generalization from binary to M-level data where M < N (gradation-level reduction).
• Dependents: CMY-binary/RGB-preview (2,7); analyze → standard-color-space raster → device-characteristic conversion (3,8); outputting the binarized data to the image former (4,9); resolution conversion of preview data before transmission (5,10).

Where the art overlaps: Elements (b) and (c) map almost directly onto D1 (and D2/D3): D1 converts printer color values → RGB monitor drive values using monitor/print characteristics and outputs them to a display. D3/D2 supply the "make the monitor look like the print" motivation.

Where the art is silent (the purported point of novelty): None of the six references, on their face, expressly recites:

1. computing the preview from the binarized (halftoned) data that is the same data fed to a binary image-forming device — i.e., rendering the preview from the halftone/binarized domain so dither/error-diffusion artifacts are visible; and
2. situating the preview-generation inside the printer/controller and transmitting the preview data back to the host/display over a bidirectional interface (D1's color viewer drives its own monitor directly; D5 is a video printer but does not generate a calibrated preview of its own halftoned output).

That distinction is the crux the examiner evidently found persuasive (the file shows only a certificate of correction and fee payments; no reexamination).

---

4. Obviousness combinations

Combination A — D1 (Hell) + halftoning knowledge + D3/D2 (motivation) → Claims 1, 2, 6, 7

• D1 provides every structural piece of the "second converting means + transmitting means": a printer-value→RGB transform, a lookup/allocation table, and output to a monitor, expressly designed so the monitor "conveys the same chromatic impression as the anticipated multi-color printing."
• The only meaningful gap for claim 1 is that D1's separation values are 8-bit continuous values representing raster-point percentage, not strictly binarized data. However:
  • D1 itself frames those values as measures of raster-point size and modulates them with the printing gradation curve — i.e., D1 is already modeling the halftone/raster domain.
  • Converting continuous-tone/device color data into binary data for a binary printer (dither, error diffusion) was notoriously well known in 1994 — the '162 specification itself recites error diffusion and dither as conventional ("by either the error diffusion method, the dither method or any equivalent thereof").
• D3 ("image regulation of color monitors in proof-viewing") and D2 (monitor↔printer calibration) independently establish the motivation: practitioners wanted the on-screen proof to match the printed sheet, and it was known that halftoning alters printed appearance. Rendering the preview from the halftoned data is a predictable, no-more-than-expected-result improvement (better fidelity to the binary printer's actual output) — the classic KSR "known technique to improve a similar device in the same way."

Why a PHOSITA would combine: The entire purpose of D1/D2/D3 is faithful print simulation on a monitor. Simulating a binary printer from continuous data is known to be imperfect (it ignores halftone texture/gradation); therefore one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to feed the preview transform the actual binary output data to make the simulation faithful to the device. That is precisely the claimed sequencing and yields only predictable results.

Combination B — D1 (Hell) + D2 (Kodak) → Claim 1's "based on a color reproduction characteristic of an image display device"

D1's allocations are built from measured monitor corner colors (i.e., a display characteristic); D2 expressly stores a monitor gamma/LUT and correction matrix and ties printer corrections to display behavior. The "based on a color reproduction characteristic of an image display device" limitation is therefore met by either reference alone (D1) or by their combination (D2), with the predictable benefit of device-accurate color.

Combination C — D1 (Hell) + D5 (Hitachi) → the apparatus architecture of claims 1/4 and the "transmit to the display" step

D5 shows a color printer that houses image memory, performs A/D↔D/A and RGB conversion, and outputs to a monitor television. A PHOSITA combining D5's printer-with-display architecture with D1's print-simulation transform would arrive at a printing apparatus that generates the preview internally and outputs it for display — the architecture of claim 1 and the "output the binarized data to the image forming device" feature of claim 4 (D5 inherently prints from its stored/processed data). This is a combination of references addressing the same problem (getting a good print from stored image data and viewing it on a monitor).

Claim 3 / Claim 8 — analyze → standard-color-space raster → device-characteristic conversion

This is the ordinary PDL rendering pipeline: parse the input command, rasterize into a standard RGB space (the '162 spec uses "a standard RGB color space, such as NTSC"), then convert to device color. D4 (Fuji) and D6 (Fuji Xerox) show the "analyze image data → set processing conditions → convert for output" workflow, and D1 shows the device-color conversion. The combination is routine and predictable.

Claims 5 / 10 — resolution conversion of preview data before transmission

Reducing the preview's resolution to match the (lower) monitor resolution before transmission is a straightforward bandwidth/computation optimization. The '162 specification itself states the result is merely to "reduce the amount of preview image data transmitted … and thereby shorten the transfer time," with no degradation — i.e., a predictable, result-oriented expedient, which KSR treats as strong evidence of obviousness. D5 (image memory / monitor-TV handling) further evidences routine resolution handling in video-printing devices.

Claim 11 — N-level → M-level (M < N) density data

Claim 11 is the generalized version of the halftone premise. Reducing gradation (N levels to M levels) before image formation and using the reduced-level data as the basis for a preview is the same concept as Combination A with binarization replaced by quantization; it would have been obvious as an alternative gradation-reducing scheme (the '162 spec contemplates YMCK and "the number of gradation steps of an image forming means" generally).

---

5. Motivation-to-combine summary

A single, coherent motivation runs through the references:

1. Same field, same problem. D1, D2, D3 all concern making a monitor image match a printed image (proof-viewing / color viewing / calibration). D5 concerns a printer that also drives a display. They are analogous art.
2. Reasonable expectation of success. D1 already demonstrates a workable LUT-based printer→monitor transform; feeding it the binary print data yields a more faithful proof with predictable effort.
3. Design incentive / known need. Faithful previews require accounting for the printing process (D1 explicitly modifies values by the print gradation curve) — which for binary printers necessarily means the halftone/binarized domain. Practitioners had both the desire (D1–D3) and the tool (halftoning; D1's allocation tables) to do this.
4. KSR design-choice principles. The preview-from-binary-data sequencing and the resolution-reduction step are "a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions."

---

6. Counterarguments and why this may not be a clean § 103 case

In fairness, several features cut against obviousness and likely explain the grant:

• No cited reference expressly renders the preview from the binarized data sent to the printer. D1's values are continuous (raster-percentage), not binary; the examiner may have treated "preview derived from the same binarized data consumed by the image former" as a non-trivial architectural choice, not a mere substitution.
• The location + direction of the transfer. Generating the preview inside the printer controller and transmitting it back to the host over a bidirectional interface is not squarely taught by D1 (standalone viewer) or D5 (video printer driving a TV). This "offload processing from the host" framing was the stated advantage.
• Claim 11's M < N framing is broader than pure binarization and may raise its own art; conversely, its breadth makes it more vulnerable to a N-level→M-level quantization combination.
• Objective indicia: none are of record (no litigation, no commercial-success evidence surfaced in the earlier sections); the patent expired 2015 and was never asserted. Absent secondary considerations, the KSR analysis is less forgiving to the patentee.

Net assessment (technical confidence, not legal): On the record here, claims 1, 2, 6, 7 (and claim 11 in its generalized form) are arguably obvious over D1 + D3/D2 + the well-known halftoning step, with D5 reinforcing the printer-with-display architecture of claims 1/4. Claims 3/8 (standard color-space raster pipeline) and 5/10 (resolution reduction) are also readily obvious over D1 + D4/D5. The most defensible claim feature is the specific "preview computed from the same binarized data the binary image-forming device consumes, generated at the printer and transmitted back to the display" combination — and even that is close to a predictable design choice under KSR. I would assign moderate-to-high confidence that at least the broader independent claims would have been rejected under § 103 on this art, and lower confidence as to claim 11 because it is drafted broadly.

---

7. Caveats

• The six references are those cited by the examiner; a full § 103 challenge would also canvass non-cited halftoning/print-preview art (e.g., early-1990s halftone-simulation and "what-you-see-is-what-you-print" art). I did not retrieve the full text of D6 (US 5,210,600, Fuji Xerox) in this session; its teaching is described only at a bibliographic level, which is a gap in the Combination-A motivation analysis.
• I could not verify content of the two JP family members (JP 3,491,998 B2; JP H07-254060 A) as prior art; they are co-family, not third-party prior art.
• Obviousness is a legal conclusion; this analysis is offered as technical support, not as a determination. Nothing here should be relied upon as a validity or infringement opinion.