Obviousness

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent claim is obvious if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). This analysis requires identifying a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led a PHOSITA to combine the references to arrive at the claimed invention, and a reasonable expectation of success.

The patent US9185268 addresses the problem of inconsistent color reproduction when content mastered for a reference color gamut (RCG) display is shown on a non-reference color gamut (CG2) display, and vice versa. The patent's background section explicitly describes the state of the art and its shortcomings, which serves as a crucial foundation for understanding the motivation for combining prior art elements.

Prior Art from US9185268's Description:

The patent itself highlights several aspects of the prior art:

• FIG. 1: Illustrates the significant variation in color gamuts among currently available displays.
• FIG. 2: Shows an example of color gamut mapping (CGM), a known technique for transforming colors between different gamuts.
• FIG. 3: Depicts a "hue change on a bluish white graduation due to color gamut restriction," demonstrating the visual artifacts (e.g., clipping, incorrect hue) that occur when colors exceed a display's gamut.
• FIG. 4: Describes a "workflow for color correction using a display having a reference color gamut" (workflow 400). The patent explicitly states that the "undesirable result of the color correction workflow 400... is that when color correcting on a display with a reference color display (RCG), the colors on a display with a second color gamut or color gamut 2 (CG 2 ) will be reproduced incorrectly." It further notes that "at least some of the colors on the RCG 2 display will be clipped and at least some with be displayed with the wrong hue."

This background clearly establishes that a PHOSITA would be aware of:

• The prevalence of displays with diverse color gamuts (RCG and CG2).
• The problems of color inaccuracy (clipping, hue shifts) when content is not matched to the target display's gamut, particularly when RCG-mastered content is viewed on CG2 displays.
• The existence and principles of color gamut mapping (CGM) for transforming colors between gamuts.

Obviousness Analysis of Claim 1:

Claim 1 describes a method for color correcting, comprising:

1. Performing color correction on source picture content, using at least one of a non-reference type display (CG2) and a reference type display (RCG).
2. Mastering the source picture content to provide mastered color corrected picture content for display on the non-reference type displays (CG2).
3. Generating metadata for a color gamut mapping that color transforms the mastered CG2 content for display on RCG displays.
4. The source picture content is mastered only for the non-reference type displays (CG2).

Combination of Prior Art References:
A combination of Prior Art Workflow 400 (FIG. 4 of US9185268), WO2006050305A1 (Technicolor Inc.), and US20090102968A1 (Ingo Tobias Doser) would render Claim 1 obvious.

Motivation for Combination:
A PHOSITA, starting from the Prior Art Workflow 400 (FIG. 4) and recognizing the explicitly stated problem that content color corrected for an RCG display leads to incorrect reproduction, including clipping and hue errors, on a CG2 display, would be highly motivated to improve the fidelity of color on the increasingly common CG2 displays.

WO2006050305A1 teaches methods and systems for "mastering and distributing enhanced color space content." A PHOSITA would readily consider the "non-reference type display having a non-reference color gamut" (CG2), especially if it's an "enhanced" (wider) gamut or simply a different target, as a prime candidate for such enhanced color space mastering. Therefore, the step of primarily mastering the content "for display on the non-reference type displays having a non-reference color gamut" directly addresses the known problems of RCG-centric mastering and aligns with the concept of mastering for diverse color spaces taught by WO2006050305A1.

Once the content is mastered for CG2, the PHOSITA would still need a solution for displaying this content correctly on existing RCG displays. US20090102968A1 teaches the generation and use of "Color Metadata for a Downlink Data Channel," demonstrating the known art of using metadata to convey color transformation information. It would be obvious to generate "metadata for a color gamut mapping that color transforms the mastered color corrected picture content for display on reference type displays having a reference color gamut." This metadata would direct a color gamut mapping (CGM, as generally understood from Prior Art FIG. 2) to adapt the CG2 master for RCG display. The limitation that the source picture content is "mastered only for the non-reference type displays" would be an obvious workflow optimization, where the primary artistic intent is captured for the target CG2, and RCG compatibility is achieved derivatively through metadata.

Obviousness Analysis of Claim 6:

Claim 6 describes a method for color correcting, comprising:

1. Performing color correction on source picture content, using at least one of a non-reference type display (CG2) and a reference type display (RCG).
2. Mastering the source picture content to provide mastered color corrected picture content for display on the non-reference type displays (CG2).
3. Mastering the source picture content to provide mastered color corrected picture content for display on the reference type displays (RCG), using a color gamut mapping applied to the mastered CG2 content.

Combination of Prior Art References:
A combination of Prior Art Workflow 400 (FIG. 4 of US9185268), WO2006050305A1 (Technicolor Inc.), and Prior Art Color Gamut Mapping (FIG. 2 of US9185268) would render Claim 6 obvious.

Motivation for Combination:
As with Claim 1, a PHOSITA, observing the problems with Prior Art Workflow 400 (FIG. 4) where content mastered for RCG displays appears incorrectly on CG2 displays (with clipping and hue errors as shown in Prior Art FIG. 3), would be motivated to improve the visual quality on CG2 displays.

WO2006050305A1 teaches mastering and distributing "enhanced color space content." This would motivate the PHOSITA to primarily master the source picture content "for display on the non-reference type displays having a non-reference color gamut" to preserve optimal color information for these displays, directly addressing the identified shortcomings of RCG-only mastering.

To ensure compatibility with RCG displays, the PHOSITA would then need to create an RCG-compatible version. Instead of relying on metadata at the consumer end (as in Claim 1), creating a separate, pre-processed RCG master is an obvious alternative, especially for distribution efficiency or simpler playback devices. Prior Art FIG. 2 clearly illustrates the concept of "color gamut mapping" (CGM) to transform content between different color gamuts. It would be obvious to a PHOSITA to apply this known "color gamut mapping" to the mastered CG2 content to derive a separate "mastered color corrected picture content for display on the reference type displays having a reference color gamut." This approach provides two distinct masters, with the RCG master being a derivative of the CG2 master through a standard CGM process, thereby accommodating both display types effectively. The patent itself notes this as a "real benefit", further underscoring the motivation for a PHOSITA to combine these known elements to achieve such a desirable outcome.