Ex Parte Cuijpers

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 21, 2004

09179290 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 21, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MAURICE J.M. CUIJPERS
____________
Appeal No. 2003-1842
Application No. 09/179,290
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before FLEMING, DIXON, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A patent examiner rejected claims 2-12. The appellant appeals therefrom under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We reverse and enter a new ground of rejection.
BACKGROUND
The invention at issue on appeal concerns image compression. (Spec. at 1.)
More specifically, a look-up table defines a color value for each pixel in an image.
Regions of the image are separated into groups featuring similar color values. For each
group, the color of one pixel is selected. The image is compressed by retaining only
references to the look-up table that define the color values of the pixels and a pixel map
Appeal No. 2003-1842 Page 2
Application No. 09/179,290
that indicates, for each pixel, the group to which the pixel belongs. Upon
decompression, each pixel is shown with the color of the pixel selected for the group to
which the pixel belongs. (Id., abs.)
A further understanding of the invention can be achieved by reading the following
claim.
2. A method of generating image values of an output image, the
method comprising the steps of
- defining a subdivision of the output image into regions of image
locations,
- providing a color look-up table,
- providing a respective set of references to the color look-up table
for each region,
- providing a pixel map comprising a selection code for each image
location,
- selecting a particular reference to the color look-up table for a
particular image location from the particular set provided for the region to
which the particular image location belongs, by using the selection code
as a pointer in that particular set,
- wherein the pixel map is constructed by grouping the image
locations in each region into groups according to a similarity of color
values in source image, the selection code identifying the group to which
the image location belongs among the groups for the region,
wherein the color look-up table is provided for the source image, all
color values of the source image being in the color look-up table, the
reference used for the image locations in a particular group of the pixel
map being constructed from at least one reference to the color look-up
Appeal No. 2003-1842 Page 3
Application No. 09/179,290
table which defines the color value in the source image for at least one
image location in the particular group,
wherein the reference used for the image locations in the particular
group is constructed by selecting a representative image location from the
particular group and taking the reference defining the color value for the
representative image location in the source image.
Claims 2-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by U.S.
Patent No. 5,825,917 ("Suzuki").
OPINION
Our opinion addresses the claims in the following order:
• claims 2-5
• claims 6 and 7
• claims 8-12.
A. CLAIMS 2-5
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellant in toto, we
focus on the main point of contention therebetween. "[R]efer[ing] to figure 6, in
correlation to column 8, lines 16-25," (Examiner's Answer at 3), the examiner "considers
the transmitter and the receiver to respectively correspond to The Appellant's source
and output." (Id. at 4.) The appellant argues, "Suzuki does not use the same color
table for the source and output image." (Appeal Br. at 5.)
Appeal No. 2003-1842 Page 4
Application No. 09/179,290
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the independent claim at issue to determine its scope. Second, we
determine whether the construed claim is anticipated.
1. Claim Construction
"Analysis begins with a key legal question — what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). Here, claim 2 recites in pertinent part the following limitations:
- defining a subdivision of the output image into regions of image
locations,
- providing a color look-up table,
- providing a respective set of references to the color look-up table for
each region,
. . .
wherein the color look-up table is provided for the source image, all
color values of the source image being in the color look-up table, the
reference used for the image locations in a particular group of the pixel
map being constructed from at least one reference to the color look-up
table which defines the color value in the source image for at least one
image location in the particular group,
wherein the reference used for the image locations in the particular
group is constructed by selecting a representative image location from the
particular group and taking the reference defining the color value for the
representative image location in the source image.
Appeal No. 2003-1842 Page 5
Application No. 09/179,290
Accordingly, the limitations require using the same color look-up table for a source
image and an output image.
2. ANTICIPATION DETERMINATION
"Having construed the claim limitations at issue, we now compare the claims to
the prior art to determine if the prior art anticipates those claims." In re Cruciferous
Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349, 64 USPQ2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "A claim
is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc.
v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citing
Structural Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 715, 223 USPQ 1264,
1270 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548, 220
USPQ 193, 198 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d760, 771,
218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). "[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed
element negates anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565,
1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, Suzuki discloses "an image processing method for compressing image
data in accordance with a color of each portion of an image and to an image
communication apparatus for transmitting and receiving image data compressed by
Appeal No. 2003-1842 Page 6
Application No. 09/179,290
the method." Col. 1, ll. 11-14. More specifically, a source "image to be processed is fed
through [an] image input section 10. . . ." Col. 5, ll. 43-44. A "space transform
section 14 serves to transform this image from the RGB color space to the HVC uniform
color space. Besides . . . this transform, the space transform section 14 will divide the
post-transform HVC uniform color space into a plurality of regions to prepare a color
table. . . ." Id. at ll. 47-52. "For instance, the HVC uniform color space is divided for use
into forty segments in the directions H, V, and C, respectively. Thus the color space will
be divided into 40×40×40 = 64000 regions. An average color for each region is defined
as a color [re]presentative of that region." Id. at ll. 52-57. "Using the representative
colors as elements, the space transform section 14 creates the color table." Id. at ll. 60-
61.

An "image replacement section 16 acts to replace the color of each pixel
of the image to be processed with any one of color numbers 1 to 64000." Col. 5, ll. 65-
67. "The thus obtained image in an intermediate processing state is integrated and
compressed by [an] image integration section 18." Col. 6, ll. 16-18. An "image
transmitter 30 further includes a color table creation section 36 which creates a new
color table by extracting color table elements necessary for the representation of the
final image after the completion of the region integration by the pixel integration
Appeal No. 2003-1842 Page 7
Application No. 09/179,290
section 18." Col. 7, ll. 29-33 (emphasis added). We view the reference's "final image"
as its output image
"The significance and the color table are temporarily stored in a storage
section 38 and then transmitted through a transmission section 40 to the image
receiver 32. Through a reception section 42, the image receiver 32 receives the data
and temporarily stores them in a storage section 44. Afterwards, the data are fed to a
reproduction section 46 for reproducing the image." Id. at ll. 33-39.
The passage of Suzuki relied on by the examiner teaches "that both the
transmitter and receiver can share a color table necessary and sufficient for the
reproduction of the image to be transmitted. . . ." Col. 8, ll. 20-22. Although the
transmitter and receiver can share a color table, we are unpersuaded that the same
color table is used for the source image and the output image. To the contrary, the
reference uses the color table created by the space transform section 14 for its source
image while using the color table created by the color table creation section 36 for its
final output image.
Appeal No. 2003-1842 Page 8
Application No. 09/179,290
The absence of using the same color look-up table for a source image and an
output image negates anticipation. Therefore, we reverse the anticipation rejection of
claim 2 and of claims 3-5, which depend therefrom.
B. CLAIMS 6 AND 7
Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (2004), we enter a new ground of rejection against
claims 6 and 7. The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires that a specification
conclude "with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the
subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention." "The test for definiteness
is whether one skilled in the art would understand the bounds of the claim when read in
light of the specification." Orthokinetics Inc., v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d
1565, 1576, 1 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, "[c]laims in
dependent form shall be construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated
by reference into the dependent claim." 37 C.F.R. § 1.75.
Here, reciting in pertinent part "[a] method according to Claim 1," claim 6
depends from claim 1. Claim 1, however, has been canceled. (Paper No. 18 at 1.)
Because it depends on a canceled claim, we are unpersuaded that one skilled in the art
would understand the bounds of claim 6 when read in light of the specification.
Appeal No. 2003-1842 Page 9
Application No. 09/179,290
Therefore, we reject claim 6 and claim 7, which depends therefrom, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, ¶ 2.
A rejection should not be based on "speculations and assumptions." In re
Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962). "All words in a claim
must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art. If no
reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in the claim, the subject
matter does not become obvious — the claim becomes indefinite." In re Wilson, 424
F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970).
Here, for the aforementioned reasons, speculations and assumptions would be
required to decide the scope of claims 6 and 7. Therefore, we reverse pro forma the
anticipation rejection of the claims 6 and 7. We emphasize that our reversal is based on
procedure rather than on the merits of the obviousness rejection. The reversal does not
mean that we consider the claims to be patentable vel non as presently drafted.
C. CLAIMS 8-12
Under § 41.50(b), we enter a new ground of rejection against claims 8-12. A
claim is indefinite "where the language ‘said lever’ appears in a dependent claim where
Appeal No. 2003-1842 Page 10
Application No. 09/179,290
no such ‘lever’ has been previously recited in a parent claim to that dependent claim . . .
." Ex parte Moelands, 3 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1987).
Here, although claims 8-10 each includes the language "the pixel map," no such
"pixel map" has been previously recited therein. Because the claims lack antecedent
basis for "the pixel map," we are unpersuaded that one skilled in the art would
understand the bounds of claims 8-10 when read in light of the specification. Therefore,
we reject claim 8-10 and claims 11 and 12, which depend from claim 10, under 35
U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
For the same reasons, speculations and assumptions would be required to
decide the scope of claims 8-12. Therefore, we reverse pro forma the anticipation
rejection of the claims 8-12. We again emphasize that our reversal is based on
procedure rather than on the merits of the obviousness rejection. The reversal does not
mean that we consider the claims to be patentable vel non as presently drafted.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 2-12 under § 102(e) is reversed. A new
rejection of claims 6-12 under § 112, ¶ 2, is added. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (2004)
provides that "[a] new grounds of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be
Appeal No. 2003-1842 Page 11
Application No. 09/179,290
considered final for judicial review." Section 41.50(b) also provides that, within two
months from the date of the decision, the appellant must exercise one of the following
options to avoid termination of proceedings of the rejected claims:
(1) Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new
evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be
remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request that the proceeding be reheard under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 by
the Board upon the same record. . . .
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37
C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Appeal No. 2003-1842 Page 12
Application No. 09/179,290
REVERSED
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2003-1842 Page 13
Application No. 09/179,290
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510