10122141 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 23, 2010)

Ex Parte Anglin

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 23, 2010

10122141 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 23, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte HUGH W. ANGLIN ____________ Appeal 2010-000363 Application 10/122,141 Technology Center 1600 ____________ Decided: March 23, 2010 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges. BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s Request for Rehearing (filed Dec. 30, 2009) contends that we erred in our Decision on Appeal entered November 30, 2009 (“Decision”), in which we affirmed-in-part the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 19-21, 25, 30, and 31. Appeal 2010-000363 Application 10/122,141 2 OPINION Appellant reargues in the Request that Schipper (US 5,764,770) does not “teach” the claim 1 step of “receiving data representing a steganographically encoded content object.” In particular, Appellant submits that we erred in the proper interpretation of the recited language. Appellant again submits that, under a proper “construction” of the language, Schipper fails to anticipate claim 1. Appellant’s Appeal Brief informed us that a “steganographically encoded content object” could comprise digital image data having information encoded therein that is hidden from human perception. See App. Br. 4-5, especially n.5. As we indicated in the Decision, however, Appellant’s arguments seemed to read out the apparent broadening language of “data representing,” and were thus not commensurate with the claim scope. See, e.g., App. Br. 9, the purported graphical depiction of claim 1, “Receive steganographically encoded content.” Digital image data having information (data) encoded therein is data. Instant claim 1 thus parses to receiving data “representing” data. Appellant has yet to explain how the phrase “data representing” can be considered as anything but a broadening recitation. Further, Appellant has not offered any counter-argument as to what the phrase is to mean, if not intended to broaden the scope of the claim. Appellant’s remarks in the Request seem to be consistent with the view that receiving data “representing” particular data is broader in scope than receiving the particular data itself. Appellant’s Request alleges, without citation to authority or to any support in the record, that claim 1 Appeal 2010-000363 Application 10/122,141 3 somehow places a temporal limitation on the “steganographically encoded content object” recited in the first step of the claim. We hold to our view that claim 1 does not require “receiving a steganographically encoded content object” or receiving steganographically encoded content. Appellant did not show, and has not shown, that receiving “data representing” a steganographically encoded content object requires that a steganographically encoded content object be present at the time the data is received. Appellant admits, in fact, that the “received data” of claim 1 need not be steganographically encoded. Req. Reh’g 2. Schipper describes receiving data -- position data and image data -- and combining the two sets of data to yield a steganographically encoded content object. See Decision 3-4; Schipper col. 10, ll. 1-29, col. 11, ll. 1-10, col. 13, ll. 23-35. Schipper thus discloses, at the least, receiving “data representing” a steganographically encoded content object, because all of the data necessary to produce the steganographically encoded content object is contained in the received data. We remain unconvinced of error in the Examiner’s finding that Schipper describes receiving “data representing” a steganographically encoded content object. We note, however, that claim 1 does not specify what structure might be “receiving” the data. Nor does the claim specify the type of device that might be “processing” the data “at a first location.” Even under Appellant’s overly restrictive reading of claim 1, Schipper would still anticipate the claim. Schipper describes combining position information with a captured digital image. Schipper col. 14, ll. 1-65. The PDS/camera interface 35 (Fig. 7) combines the position information with the captured image. Combining Appeal 2010-000363 Application 10/122,141 4 the digital image and position data may consist of steganographic encoding. See id. at col. 13, ll. 23-35; col. 14, ll. 48-53 (“one or more altered pixel value bits that contain position information.”). See also App. Br. 8 (“Steganographic encoding of the position information into this received image data is performed by Schipper’s camera device.”). The combined digital image/position information may be passed through an encryption module (38) prior to storage in module 39. The processing and storage occurs prior to the transmission or downloading of the stored file to another device that extracts the position information from the digital image (col. 15, ll. 19-45). See also App. Br. 9 (“graphic illustration” of Schipper (sending steganographically encoded image using antenna 50)). However, Appellant’s “graphic illustration” of Schipper at page 9 of the Appeal Brief fails to account for processing of the steganographically encoded image inside the PDS/camera apparatus prior to being transmitted to the second device. Claim 1 would not distinguish over receiving, by encryption module 38, a steganographically encoded content object and processing (encrypting) the steganographically content object to yield a processed (encrypted) content object. Even if the argued claim 1 recitation were to be interpreted as “receiving steganographically encoded content,” as proposed by Appellant’s depiction of claim 1 at page 9 of the Appeal Brief, Schipper describes doing so, in view of the fact that encryption module 38 meets all requirements of the “first processing device.” In any event, we reiterate our agreement with the Examiner that claim 1 does not require that a “steganographically encoded content object” must Appeal 2010-000363 Application 10/122,141 5 be formed prior to “receiving data representing” such an object. Appellant has not demonstrated error in the Examiner’s rejection. DECISION In summary, we have granted Appellant’s request for rehearing to the extent that we have reconsidered our decision affirming the rejection of claims 1, 2, 19-21, and 25, but we decline to modify the decision in any way. DENIED msc DIGIMARC CORPORATION 9405 SW GEMINI DRIVE BEAVERTON, OR 97008