Ex Parte Baggs

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 25, 2011

11261143 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 25, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SCOTT C. BAGGS
____________

Appeal 2009-014541
Application 11/261,143
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ST JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014541
Application 11/261,143

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is an image capture device which allows an
output setting for at least one of a plurality of objects which are concurrently
imaged to be automatically applied to the scanned image of that object.
See Spec. 12, Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. An image capture device, comprising:

a platen with plural image capture zones; and

an output settings module that receives user input to separately
change output characteristics for images of objects scanned at each of the
plural image capture zones.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Ikeda US 6,157,440 Dec. 5, 2000
Kajita US 2003/0123112 A1 July 3, 2003
Venable US 6,738,154 B1 May 18, 2004
Nomura US 2004/0190025 A1 Sept. 30, 2004

Appeal 2009-014541
Application 11/261,143

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Appellant seeks our review of the following rejections by the
Examiner.1
1. Claims 1-5, 10-14, 17, 18, 20-23, 25-34, and 36 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nomura.
2. Claims 6, 15, 24, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nomura and Kajita.
3. Claims 7, 8, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nomura and Ikeda.
4. Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nomura, Ikeda, and Venable.
CONTENTIONS
Regarding representative claim 1, and all of the independent claims,
the Examiner finds that Nomura discloses an image capture device having a
platen with plural image capture zones and an output settings module which
permits each image to be independently controlled. Ans. 3-9.
Appellant argues that Nomura teaches an image capture system
wherein a display provides a preview image with different areas, urging that
a display is not a platen. Appellant also argues that Nomura fails to teach
that the output characteristics for each image capture zone can be configured
differently. App. Br. 12-16; Reply Br. 2. The issues before us, then, are as
follows:

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed February 2,
2009, the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 30, 2009, and the Reply Brief
filed June 30, 2009.
Appeal 2009-014541
Application 11/261,143

4
ISSUES
1. Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 10-
14, 17, 18, 20-23, 25-34, and 36 by finding that Nomura anticipates (1) an
image capture device having a platen with plural image capture zones, and
(2) an output setting module which permits each image to be independently
controlled?
2. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6, 15, 24,
and 35 by finding that Nomura and Kajita collectively would have taught or
suggested the saving of each image scanned within one of the plural image
capture zones in different file formats?
3. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7, 8, and
16 by finding that Nomura and Ikeda collectively would have taught or
suggested that each of the plural image capture zones comprises a quadrant
sized to receive photographs or that the plural image capture zones could be
displayed without displaying objects therein?
4. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9 and 19
by finding that Nomura, Ikeda and Venable collectively would have taught
or suggested the detection of the presence of an object within an image
capture zone?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are
supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v.
Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general
evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office).
App
App

eal 2009-0
lication 11
1. Nom
of im
displ
imag
2. The N
which
sheet
time.
3. Figur
Figur
multi
See N
4. Nom
imag
the im
3.

14541
/261,143
ura teache
ages obtai
ayed and w
e. See Nom
omura ap
includes
s of photo
See Nom
e 3 of Nom
e 3 of Nom
ple image
omura, ¶[
ura teache
e display s
ages outs
s an image
ned from m
herein the
ura Abst
paratus in
a documen
graphic pr
ura, ¶[008
ura is rep
ura depic
areas with
0105].
s that the i
creen SC2
ide of that
5
processin
ultiple so
image qu
ract.
cludes a re
t table wh
ints which
8].
roduced b
ts a previe
in preview
mage in ea
0 may be
image are
g apparatu
urces are
ality may
flection d
ich can ac
may be pr
elow:
w image s
image di
ch image
adjusted w
a. See No
s where a
arranged a
be adjuste
ocument s
commoda
e-scanned
creen illus
splay scree
area withi
ithout infl
mura, ¶[0
plurality
nd
d for each
canner 21
te several
at one
trating
n SC20.
n preview
uencing
111]; Fig.
Appeal 2009-014541
Application 11/261,143

6
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1-5, 10-14, 17, 18, 20-23, 25-34, and 36 under
§102(b) as anticipated by Nomura
With regard to independent claims 1 and 12, the Appellant contends
that Nomura fails to teach or suggest an image capture device that includes a
platen with plural image capture zones. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 2. Claims 1
and 12 do not define what a “platen” is to be, include or represent. Further,
we note that Appellant’s figures, contrary to the requirement of 37 C.F.R. §
1.83(a), fail to include an illustration of “platen 18.” Consequently we will
interpret “platen” to comprise any flat surface upon which objects may be
placed for scanning and thus, will consider image capture zones 28, 30, 32,
and 34 as set forth in Appellant’s figures collectively to be a “platen.”
As noted in our Findings of Fact, Nomura teaches a reflection
document scanner 21 which includes a document table (a flat surface)
capable of scanning multiple sheets of photographic prints at one time.
(FF2). Further, we are persuaded by the Examiner’s argument that nothing
within Appellant’s claims specifies how or when the image capture zones are
defined. Ans. 16. Under a broad but reasonable interpretation, the claimed
image capture zones may be defined subsequent to a pre-scan, as taught by
Nomura. That is, we find Nomura to disclose pre-scanning, and the defining
of zones (areas) subsequent to the pre-scan. See Nomura ¶[0101-0102]. This
construction is consistent with Appellant’s own specification which notes
that “image capture device 10 may be configured without distinct image
capture zones.” See Spec. 2, ¶[0008].
Appellant also contends that the image zones in Nomura occur on the
preview screen of a computer, and not on the scanner. App. Br. 12; Reply
Appeal 2009-014541
Application 11/261,143

7
Br. 2. We are not persuaded by this argument as we note that Appellant’s
plural image zones are displayed within display screen 54 and that nothing
in Appellant’s claims requires the image capture zones to be solely within
the scanner device.
Therefore, with respect to independent claims 1 and 12, we find that
Nomura teaches a platen where plural image capture zones may be defined
and wherein the image in each zone may be independently adjusted. See
(FF4).
With respect to independent claim 17, Appellant contends that
Nomura fails to anticipate “dividing a platen into plural image capture
zones” as expressly recited in that claim. We note that nothing within the
language of the claim requires that the platen be physically divided or
prohibits the division from occurring graphically, after multiple images have
been captured on the platen, as taught by Nomura. Similarly, nothing within
this claim requires that the output characteristics for each image be
configured prior to generating images of objects placed upon the platen.
Consequently, we find that Nomura teaches the disputed limitations of claim
17.
Finally, addressing independent claims 25 and 32, Appellant contends
that Nomura fails to teach that different output settings may be applied to
different objects which are being concurrently imaged, or to different object
based upon the location of those objects on the platen. As described above,
we find that Nomura teaches that multiple images may be concurrently
scanned and that each image area may be adjusted independently.
See (FF2); (FF4). We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s position
with respect to the rejection of claims 25 and 32.
Appeal 2009-014541
Application 11/261,143

8
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1, 12, 17, 25 and 32 and those claims within this group
not separately argued with particularity.
The rejection of claims 6, 15, 24, and 35 under §103(a) as unpatentable over
Nomura and Kajita
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6, 15,
24, and 35 for the reasons set forth above with respect to independent claims
1, 12, 17, and 32. For the reasons set forth by the Examiner, and those set
forth above with respect to the independent claims we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 15, 24, and 35.
The rejection of claims 7, 8, and 16 under §103(a) as unpatentable over
Nomura and Ikeda
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7, 8,
and 16 for the reasons set forth above with respect to independent claims 1
and 12. For the reasons set forth by the Examiner, and those set forth above
with respect to the independent claims we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims
7, 8, and 16.
The rejection of claims 9 and 19 under §103(a) as unpatentable over
Nomura, Ikeda, and Venable
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9 and
19 for the reasons set forth above with respect to independent claims 1 and
17. For the reasons set forth by the Examiner, and those set forth above with
respect to the independent claims we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 9 and 19.
Appeal 2009-014541
Application 11/261,143

9
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-36.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-36 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

llw