Ex parte Beernink

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 2, 1998

08265497 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 2, 1998)

Application for patent filed June 23, 1994. According1
to the appellant, this application is a continuation of
Application 08/068,443, filed May 27, 1993; which is a
continuation-in-part of Application 07/889,216, filed May 27,
1992 and a continuation-in-part of Application 08/001,123,
filed January 5, 1993.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 31
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte ERNEST H. BEERNINK
_____________
Appeal No. 96-1435
Application 08/265,4971
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KRASS, MARTIN and JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 96-1435
Application 08/265,497
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. §
134 from the examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-10, 13-25
and 29-34, which constitute all the claims pending in the
application. An amendment adding claims 35-40 after final
rejection was filed on February 24, 1995 but was denied entry
by the examiner.
The disclosed invention pertains to a method and
apparatus for recognizing handwritten entries on a display
screen of a computer system. More specifically, the invention
normalizes strokes entered onto the display screen by rotating
each stroke about its own center or by adjusting the aspect
ratio of a bounding box surrounding the stroke before any
comparisons of the entered stroke are made against a stored
database. This form of normalization is said to permit the
recognition of handwritten information entered in any angular
direction.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A method for recognizing handwritten entries on a
display screen of a computer system, the computer system also
having a processor and memory, the method comprising the steps
of:
Appeal No. 96-1435
Application 08/265,497
3
receiving a handwritten stroke written on the screen
of said computer system, said stroke being received in a form
that can be manipulated by said processor;
determining a start point and a stop point of said
stroke;
normalizing said stroke with said processor by
rotating said stroke about a stroke center until at least one
of said start point or said stop point aligns with a
predefined axis, thereby obtaining a normalized stroke;
matching said normalized stroke against a template of
character parts stored in memory to create one or more
associated character part interpretations;
using said processor to group said normalized stroke,
if possible, with one or more normalized strokes that were
matched in a like fashion to create a character part group;
and
using said processor to recognize a higher level
object from said character part group utilizing the angles
between the strokes of the character part group and using said
character part interpretations.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Crane et al. (Crane) 4,718,102 Jan. 05, 1988
Sklarew 5,157,737 Oct. 20, 1992
(filed May 14,
1990)
Claims 1-10, 13-25 and 29-34 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness the examiner offers
Sklarew in view of Crane.
Appeal No. 96-1435
Application 08/265,497
4
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as
set forth in claims 1-10, 13-25 and 29-34. Accordingly, we
reverse.
Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this
appeal the claims will stand or fall together in the following
four groups: Group I has claims 1-6 and 19-25; Group II has
Appeal No. 96-1435
Application 08/265,497
5
claims 7-10 and 13-18; Group III has claims 29-34; and Group
IV has claims 10, 21 and 29 [brief, page 4]. Consistent with
this indication appellant has made no separate arguments with
respect to any of the claims within each group. Accordingly,
all the claims within each group will stand or fall together.
Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3
(Fed. Cir. 1983). Therefore, we will only consider the
rejection against claims 1, 7 and 29 as representative of all
the claims on appeal (claim 29 is representative of both
Groups III and IV).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In
so doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why
one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been
led to modify the prior art or to combine prior art references
to arrive at the claimed invention. Such reason must stem
Appeal No. 96-1435
Application 08/265,497
6
from some teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art
as a whole or knowledge generally available to one having
ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley
Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta
Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657,
664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS
Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572,
1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by
the examiner are an essential part of complying with the
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Note
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
With respect to each of the independent claims in this
application, the examiner has made an effort to read these
claims on the disclosure of Sklarew. The examiner observes
that Sklarew teaches all the elements of these claims except
for the specifics of normalizing the stroke data by rotating
the stoke as claimed [answer, pages 4-6]. The examiner
asserts that Crane teaches a pattern recognition device in
which normalization is achieved by rotation of the stroke.
Appeal No. 96-1435
Application 08/265,497
7
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to the
artisan to provide Crane’s step of rotating the handwritten
strokes in the normalization step to Sklarew’s pattern
recognition device [Id. at pages 6-7].
With respect to representative claim 1, appellant
argues that the collective teachings of Sklarew and Crane do
not suggest the normalizing step as specifically recited in
claim 1 [brief, pages 8-14]. We agree with appellant for
essentially the reasons argued. We have reviewed the applied
prior art including the specific sections cited by the
examiner and agree with appellant that there is no suggestion
in the applied prior art that an entered stroke should be
rotated before matching against a template of character parts.
Normalization of entered strokes for size and speed does not
suggest normalization by rotating the stroke in the manner
recited in claim 1. Likewise, the mere recognition of the
slope of a drawn stroke does not amount to a rotation of the
stroke before matching occurs. The examiner’s reliance on the
positioning of a character using the centroid in Sklarew
cannot reasonably be said to suggest that a stroke should be
Appeal No. 96-1435
Application 08/265,497
8
rotated as recited in claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 1-6 and 19-25.
With respect to representative claim 7, appellant
argues that there is no suggestion in the teachings of Sklarew
and Crane
to rotate a stroke about a stroke center until at least one of
the start point or stop point aligns with a vertical axis
[brief, pages 14-15]. The examiner asserts that Sklarew meets
the vertical axis limitation. In our view, the rejection of
claim 7 fails for the same reasons we considered in the
rejection of claim 1. The examiner’s reading of the applied
prior art simply is not supported by those documents.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7-10 and
13-18.
With respect to representative claim 29, appellant
argues that there is no suggestion in the teachings of Sklarew
and Crane to rotate a stroke until the line between two of the
stroke’s most widely spaced points, one of which represents
one of the stroke’s endpoints, aligns with a predefined axis
as recited in claim 29 [brief, page 16]. The examiner asserts
Appeal No. 96-1435
Application 08/265,497
9
that Sklarew and Crane accomplish this result [answer, pages
15-17]. Again, it is our view that the examiner has
misconstrued the applied prior art, and we agree with the
arguments presented by appellant. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 29-34.
In summary, we have not sustained the examiner’s
rejection of any of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-10,
13-25 and 29-34 is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 96-1435
Application 08/265,497
10
)
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN C. MARTIN )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
sd
Jeffrey K. Weaver
HICKMAN & BEYER
P. O. Box 61059
Palo Alto, CA 94306