Ex Parte Berstis

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 27, 2006

10015880 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 27, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte VIKTORS BERSTIS
____________

Appeal No. 2006-2363
Application No. 10/015,880
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before JERRY SMITH, SAADAT, and HOMERE, Administrative Patent
Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. ' 134(a) from
the Examiner=s final rejection of claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-17 and 19-
21. Claims 5, 11 and 18 have been canceled.
We reverse.
BACKGROUND
Appellant=s invention is directed to image processing
including sensor design and moiré reduction. Among the
interference artifacts resulting from uniform grid-like features
of the image is the moiré pattern which often resembles
Appeal No. 2006-2363
Application No. 10/015,880

2
crosshatch halftones across at least a part of the digital image
which does not represent any actual feature (specification, page
4).
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method of producing a sampled image comprising the
steps of:

providing a plurality of sensor positions in a row
arrangement non-uniformly distributed with varying distances
between each adjacent pair of sensor positions determined
according to a first predictable deterministic schema; and

selectively sampling an image by sequentially exposing image
portions to said row arrangement according to a second
predictable deterministic schema such that each sensor position
is sampled in a non-uniformly varying spatial manner to obtain a
first set of data samples representing non-uniformly spaced
points in said image.

The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting
the claims:
Resnikoff et al. (Resnikoff) 4,574,311 Mar. 4, 1986

Tom Balph (Balph), ALFSR Counters implement binary polynomial
generators,@ May 21, 1998, EDN-Design Feature,
http://edn.com/archives/1998/052198/11df_0.6htm.

Claims 2-4, 6-8, 12, 13, 19 and 20 stand rejected under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. ' 112 as being indefinite for
having limitations without antecedent basis in the base claim.1

1 The rejection of claims 9 and 14 under the first and second
paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. ' 112 is withdrawn by the Examiner (answer, page 4).
Appeal No. 2006-2363
Application No. 10/015,880

3
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-17 and 19-21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. ' 103(a) as being unpatentable over Resnikoff and
Balph.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is
made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
Appellant and the Examiner.

OPINION
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. ' 112 rejection of the claims,
Appellant initially refers to various portions of the
specification to establish antecedent basis for the term Asaid
first predetermined schema@ (brief, page 4). However, in
response to the Examiner=s clarification (answer, page 11),
acknowledging that the word Apredetermined@ is not explicitly
recited in the base claim, Appellant argues that the claim is not
indefinite since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
able to ascertain the scope of the claims (reply brief, page 5).
Although it is not clear why Appellant did not amend the
claims to reflect the claimed subject matter as recited in the
amended independent claim, we do not find that the above
mentioned inconsistency rises to the level of a rejection for

Appeal No. 2006-2363
Application No. 10/015,880

4
indefiniteness due to lack of antecedent basis. In fact, as
argued by Appellant (id.), the scope of the claims can be
ascertained by the ordinarily skilled artisan as the claimed
Asaid first predetermined schema@ clearly refers to the one and
only Afirst@ schema in claim 1. Therefore the rejection of
claims 2-4, 6-8, 12, 13, 19 and 20 under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. ' 112 is not sustained.
Turning now to the 35 U.S.C. ' 103 rejection of the claims,
the Examiner relies on Resnikoff for disclosing the claimed
features except for a predictable deterministic schema as the
non-uniform distribution (answer, pages 5-6). The Examiner
further relies on Balph for using linear feedback shift registers
for generating pseudorandom numbers (answer, page 6). As the
reason for combining the references, the Examiner identifies
reduction of the amount of logic by using a non-uniform
predictable deterministic distribution schema for sensor
placement (id.).
Appellant argues that one skilled in the art would not be
motivated to combine the deterministic non-linear counter of
Balph with the probabilistic Poisson disc process of Resnikoff
since the references relate to different processes based on

Appeal No. 2006-2363
Application No. 10/015,880

5
probability and determinism (brief, pages 6-7). Appellant
further points out that Balph=s counters generate number in a
sequential manner resulting in an even layout of numbers in a
Auniform@ deterministic distribution (brief, page 8) whereas
Resnikoff discloses only a probabilistic APoisson@ distribution.
We agree with Appellant that Balph=s disclosure lacks any
relationship with the Poisson probability function of Resnikoff.
Contrary to the Examiner=s assertion that the differences between
these two types of function are not of importance (answer, page
13), one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it
obvious to apply the deterministic process of Balph to a
probabilistic process of Resnikoff. An obviousness analysis
commences with a review and consideration of all the pertinent
evidence and arguments. AIn reviewing the examiner=s decision on
appeal, the Board must necessarily weigh all of the evidence and
argument.@ In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, as discussed by Appellant
(brief, pages 7-9), the claims require a predictable process
which is also deterministic.
In view of our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness because the

Appeal No. 2006-2363
Application No. 10/015,880

6
necessary teachings and suggestions to show that such
substitution is motivated or the polynomial function has anything
to do with the design of the claimed image array are absent.
Accordingly, based on the weight of the evidence and the
arguments presented by the Examiner and Appellant, we do not
sustain the 35 U.S.C. ' 103 rejection of claims 1, 10 and 15 as
well as claims 2-4, 6-9, 12-14, 16, 17 and 19-21, dependent
thereon, over Resnikoff and Balph.
Appeal No. 2006-2363
Application No. 10/015,880

7
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting 2-4, 6-8, 12, 13, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. ' 112 and
rejecting claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-17 and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103
is reversed.
REVERSED

JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MAHSHID D. SAADAT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEAN R. HOMERS )
Administrative Patent Judge )

MDS/kis

Appeal No. 2006-2363
Application No. 10/015,880

8
IBM CORPORATION (RHF)
C/O ROBERT H. FRANTZ
P. O. BOX 23324
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73123