Ex parte CUSHMAN et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 16, 1998

07809984 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 16, 1998)

Application for patent filed December 18, 1991.1
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte WILLIAM H. CUSHMAN, MOHSEN GHADERI,
FEREIDOON SAMII AND JOSEPH P. DI VINCENZO
_____________
Appeal No. 94-2081
Application 07/809,9841
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH, and FLEMING, Administrative
Patent Judges.
Appeal No. 94-2081
Application No. 07/809,984
2
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1 through 53. After reconsideration of the non-statutory
subject matter rejection, the examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 rejection, and indicated that claims 6, 7, 24, 25, 32,
33, 35 and 36 are now objected to as being dependent upon a
rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form including all of the limitations of the base
claim and any intervening claims (paper number 17, page 2).
Accordingly, claims 1 through 5, 8 through 23, 26 through 31,
34 and 37 through 53 remain before us on appeal.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and apparatus
for processing a digital image that includes subsampling the
digital image to produce a reduced spatial resolution digital
image, and quantizing the reduced spatial resolution digital
image in accordance with plural quantizing thresholds to
thereby reduce the digital data resolution of the digital
image.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
Appeal No. 94-2081
Application No. 07/809,984
3
reads as follows:
Appeal No. 94-2081
Application No. 07/809,984
4
Claim 1. A method of processing an image, comprising the
steps of:
a) digitizing the image to produce a map of the image,
said map containing pixels having a digital data resolution of
2 grey levels, wherein n is the number of bits per pixel;n
b) downsampling the map of the image digitized in step a)
to produce a dounsampled [sic, downsampled] map of the
digitized image; and
c) reducing the digital data resolution of the digitized
image by thresholding the downsampled map of the digitized
image to reduce the number of bits per pixel from n bits per
pixel to m bits per pixel, to thereby produce a reduced
digital data resolution, thresholded downsampled map of the
digitized image, where m is greater than one and is less than
n.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Kawamura et al. (Kawamura) 4,783,837 Nov. 8, 1988
Wang et al. (Wang) 4,847,786 July 11, 1989
El-Sherbini 4,879,753 Nov. 7, 1989
Le Gall et al. (Le Gall) 4,897,799 Jan. 30,
1990
Hirabayashi et al.(Hirabayashi)5,138,672 Aug. 11, 1992
(effective filing date Dec. 6,
1989)
Morris et al. (Morris) 5,153,936 Oct. 6, 1992
(effective filing date June 27,
1988)
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9 through 13, 16, 20, 23, 27 through 31,
38, 39, 45 through 47, 52 and 53 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Le Gall in view of
Hirabayashi.
Appeal No. 94-2081
Application No. 07/809,984
5
Claims 3, 8, 19, 21, 26, 40, 41, 48 and 49 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Le Gall in
view of Hirabayashi and El-Sherbini.
Appeal No. 94-2081
Application No. 07/809,984
6
Claims 4, 8, 17, 22, 26, 34, 43 and 51 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Le Gall in
view of Hirabayashi and Kawamura.
Claims 14, 15, 22 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Le Gall in view of
Hirabayashi and Morris.
Claims 18, 37, 42 and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Le Gall in view of
Hirabayashi and Wang.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answers for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection.
Le Gall discloses a method of enabling format independent
communication of visual information between otherwise
incompatible display devices. In Figure 1, the conversion
device 10 allows transmission of a raster display in a first
native format from originating device 12 to a receiving device
15 which produces a raster display in a second native format.
The conversion unit 10 receives headers 20 and 22 (Figure 2)
Appeal No. 94-2081
Application No. 07/809,984
The examiner is mistaken when he states that “Le Gall2
fails to specifically teach the step of downsampling the map
of the digitized image to produce a downsampled map of the
digitized image” (paper number 10, page 8). With respect to
“downsampling,” the teachings of Hirabayashi are merely
cumulative to teachings present in Le Gall.
7
from formatting units 14 and 18, respectively, and, based upon
the information contained in the headers, processes the
originating raster so that “the data comprising the raster is
in the target format, i.e. it has the characteristics
indicated in the header 22 of FIG. 2, i.e. the data is in the
universal format but it has the characteristics needed for
display on the receiving device 15" (column 4, lines 6 through
14). Each of the headers 20 and 22 includes information
pertaining to raster size and the number of bits per pixel.
Le Gall indicates that algorithms may be used to effect
changes in spatial resolution (i.e., convert from one raster
size to another) (column 2, lines 55 through 60, and column2
4, lines 31 through 41), and that conversions involving a
change in data resolution (i.e., the number of bits per pixel)
may be carried out using conventional algorithms (column 4,
lines 41 through 46). Although Le Gall is silent concerning
the specifics of the algorithm for accomplishing changes in
Appeal No. 94-2081
Application No. 07/809,984
8
spatial resolution, Figure 4 of Le Gall does, however, show a
reduction in spatial resolution when the originating raster
characteristics 100 are compared to the receiving raster
characteristics 200. Other than the brief mention that the
number of bits per pixel can be changed, Le Gall does not
state how the change in bits per pixel is accomplished in
conversion unit 10. More importantly, Le Gall does not
describe the order in which the changes in spatial resolution
and data resolution are performed in the conversion unit. The
claims on appeal specifically state that changes in the data
resolution are performed on the downsampled or spatially
reduced image by (1) thresholding the downsampled image to
produce a specific number of bits with respect to the
originally digitized image or (2) quantizing in accordance
with plural quantizing thresholds.
Hirabayashi discloses binarization of an image after
subsampling (Figures 4, 10 and 14). The reduced pixel values
from the subsampling unit are input to the binarization unit
and are compared with the threshold value T=0.5 (column 7,
lines 18 through 23 and column 8, lines 58 through 60). The
comparison of the pixel values with the single threshold value
Appeal No. 94-2081
Application No. 07/809,984
9
T=0.5 will not yield “m bits per pixel . . . where m is
greater than one” as set forth in claims 1 and 20, or the
“plural quantizing thresholds” of claims 38 and 45.
The obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 9 through
13, 16, 20, 23, 27 through 31, 38, 39, 45 through 47, 52 and
53 is reversed because Le Gall and Hirabayashi neither teach
nor would they have suggested the claimed invention.
The obviousness rejection of claims 3, 8, 19, 21, 26, 40,
41, 48 and 49 is reversed because El-Sherbini does not cure
the noted shortcomings in the teachings of Le Gall and
Hirabayashi. The obviousness rejection of claims 4, 8, 17,
22, 26, 34, 43 and 51 is reversed because Kawamura does not
cure the noted shortcomings in the teachings of Le Gall and
Hirabayashi. The obviousness rejection of claims 14, 15, 22
and 44 is reversed because Morris does not cure the noted
shortcomings in the teachings of Le Gall and Hirabayashi. The
obviousness rejection of claims 18, 37, 42 and 50 is reversed
because Wang does not cure the noted shortcomings in the
teachings of Le Gall and Hirabayashi.
Appeal No. 94-2081
Application No. 07/809,984
10
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
5, 8 through 23, 26 through 31, 34 and 37 through 53 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED

KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 94-2081
Application No. 07/809,984
11
Thomas H. Close
Eastman Kodak Co.
Patent Department
Rochester, NY 14650-2201