Ex Parte Damera-Venkata

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2013

10698895 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NIRANJAN DAMERA-VENKATA
____________

Appeal 2010-008649
Application 10/698,895
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.

POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-25. App. Br. 1.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm-in-part.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed
November 11, 2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed February 4,
2010; and (3) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed April 1, 2010.
Appeal 2010-008649
Application 10/698,895

2
Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to an error diffusion halftoning
technique. See Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below with a certain
disputed limitation emphasized:
1. An error diffusion halftoning method comprising operating a
processor to perform operations comprising:
modifying a current input to produce a modified input, wherein the
modifying comprises incorporating past quantization errors into the
current input;
quantizing the modified input to produce an output; and
processing the output through a data processing path having a
bandpass transfer characteristic, wherein the processing comprises
deriving an error value from the modified input and the output and
diffusing the error value into future inputs.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Shimizu US 6,999,201 B1 Feb. 14, 2006
(filed May 17, 2000)
Akhil Kumar & Anamitra Makur, On the Phase Response of the Error
Diffusion Filter for Image Halftoning, 8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE
PROCESSING 1282-92 (1999) (“Kumar”).

The Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kumar. Ans. 4-7.
Claims 5, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kumar and Shimizu. Ans. 8-12.2

2 Claims 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 17, and 18 are currently objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected claim but would otherwise be allowable if
rewritten in appropriate independent. See Ans. 2-3. We therefore presume
the rejection of these claims has been withdrawn.
Appeal 2010-008649
Application 10/698,895

3
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER KUMAR
Regarding illustrative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Kumar
discloses processing the output through a data processing path having a
bandpass transfer characteristic by using an error filter. Ans. 4. In
particular, the Examiner explains that the error filter h(k,l) has a bandpass
transfer characteristic, such that the output has a pass band not less than the
passband of the human visual system or a prominent bandpass shape at
horizontal and vertical frequencies. Ans. 4-5, 13 (citing pp. 1285, 1287).
Appellant argues that Kumar does not disclose processing the output
through a data processing path having a bandpass transfer characteristic as
recited. App. Br. 5-6. Appellant specifically contends that Kumar’s error
filter h(k,l) fails to indicate that it has a bandpass transfer characteristic and
the discussed magnitude response having a prominent bandpass shape is not
the output through a data processing path as recited. App. Br. 6; Reply
Br. 2. Concerning independent claim 21, Appellant refers to the same
arguments presented for claim 1. App. Br. 7-8.

ISSUES
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Kumar discloses:
(1) processing the quantized output through a data processing path
having a bandpass transfer characteristic as recited in claim 1?
(2) using an error signal filtered with an effective bandpass
characteristic as recited in claim 21?

Appeal 2010-008649
Application 10/698,895

4
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, and 23
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1, which calls for processing the quantized
output through a data processing path having a bandpass transfer
characteristic. Appellant’s main contention is that neither Kumar’s error
filter h4 nor the filter discussed on page 1285 discloses or “even hint[s]” at
having a bandpass transfer characteristic. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2. As
best understood, Appellant finds a magnitude response of 1-H(wx,wy) having
a prominent bandpass shape at horizontal and vertical frequencies (discussed
at p. 1287) or a filter having a magnitude response that should be low-pass
(discussed at p. 1285) does not necessarily demonstrate and even contradicts
the findings that Kumar discloses the quantized output is processed through
a data path having a bandpass transfer characteristic. Id. We disagree.
While Appellant provides examples of transfer functions that
contribute to “an ‘effective’ bandpass transfer function” (see Spec. ¶¶ 0021-
22), Appellant has not used or provided an example of “a bandpass transfer
characteristic,” in the disclosure (see generally Specification). However,
Appellant describes filters 212 and 216 are low-pass filters that apply a
given transfer function. Spec. ¶ 0032; Fig. 2. These low-pass filters have
some type of bandpass transfer characteristic, presumably as a result from
the applied transfer function. Furthermore, Appellant shows an example of a
bandpass transfer function which includes a magnitude response in the
vertical and horizontal frequencies. Spec. ¶¶ 0014, 027; Fig. 6. Thus, as
broadly as recited, “a data processing path having a bandpass transfer
Appeal 2010-008649
Application 10/698,895

5
characteristic” includes a data path that contains a filter to which a transfer
function is applied.
Appellant admits that Kumar’s error filter h(k,l) is a low-pass filter.
App. Br. 6; see also Kumar 1285. Moreover, Kumar discloses various
low-pass filters that apply a function (e.g., equations (12)-(14) showing the
functions of h1-3) to the input (e.g., the quantized output), and produce the
desired low-pass response to simulate the human visual system. See
Kumar 1285. Kumar thus has a processing path that contains a filter to
which a “bandpass” function is applied. We further find that this applied
function has a “transfer” characteristic. This finding is supported by
Kumar’s reference to Figure 3 and the discussion of the error filters having
magnitude responses. Id. For example, Figures 3(a)-(b) shows the
magnitude response of the error filters – not an inverse response (see Reply
Br. 2) – in a range of horizontal and vertical frequencies. Kumar 1284.
Similarly, Figure 6 in the instant disclosure shows a magnitude response
(e.g., a transfer characteristic) of a filter’s processing. We thus disagree with
Appellant that Kumar does not disclose a data processing path having a
bandpass transfer characteristic as broadly as recited.
Given the above discussion, we find that the reliance of Kumar’s filter
h4 is cumulative (Ans. 4-5, 13 (citing Kumar 1287)) and will not address
whether Kumar discloses this is a response of an error filter or its inverse.
See Reply Br. 2.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, and 23 not
separately argued with particularity (App. Br. 7-8).

Appeal 2010-008649
Application 10/698,895

6
Claims 21 and 25
While independent claim 21 differs slightly in scope from
independent claim 1, we reach the same conclusion that the Examiner has
not erred in finding Kumar anticipates claim 21. Claim 21 recites “using an
error signal filtered with an effective bandpass characteristic.” Notably,
there is no limitation to a “transfer” function or characteristic. As explained
above, Kumar discloses a filter having a bandpass characteristic.
Also, Appellant has not explained how or defined the term,
“effective,” in the phrase, “effective bandpass characteristic,” such that
claim 21 differentiates from Kumar. The Specification describes an example
of “an ‘effective’ bandpass transfer function.” Spec. ¶ 0021. But, we will
not import such an example into claim 21 where – as is here – the claim
language is broader than such an embodiment. Moreover, as discussed
above, we find that Kumar discloses filtering a desired (e.g., effective)
bandpass characteristic and refer to our previous discussion for details.
Accordingly Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection
of independent claim 21 and dependent claim 25 not separately argued with
particularity.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER KUMAR AND SHIMIZU
Claims 5, 12, 19, and 22
Regarding claims 5, 12, 19, and 22, the Examiner maps Shimizu’s
filtered output (e.g., g(n1, n2)) to filtering past errors in accordance with a
first low-pass filter transfer function and the weight coefficient λ block 280
and algorithm block 270 to filtering the second error value in accordance
with a second low-pass filter transfer function. Ans. 8-12, 18-19.
Appeal 2010-008649
Application 10/698,895

7
Appellant argues that Kumar and Shimizu do not teach filtering with
first and second low-pass filter transfer functions as recited. App. Br. 13-14;
Reply Br. 3-4. Appellant additionally notes that the weight adjustment
means 280 in Shimizu is not a low-pass filter. App. Br. 14. Notably,
Appellant does not group claims 12 and 19 with claims 5 and 22’s
arguments. Compare App. Br. 14 with App. Br. 12-14. However, we find
that claims 12 and 19 are similar in scope with claims 5 and 22 and group
these claims together.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 22 by finding
that Kumar and Shimizu collectively would have taught or suggested
filtering past errors in accordance with a first low-pass filter transfer
function and filtering the second error value in accordance with a second
low-pass filter transfer function and similarly recited in claims 5, 12,
and 19?

ANALYSIS

Based on the record, we agree that Kumar and Shimizu do not teach
filtering with a first and second low-pass filter transfer function or low-pass
filtering using linear weighting filters as recited. Kumar discloses using a
low-pass filter. Kumar 1284-85. However, as the Examiner notes, Kumar
does not explicitly teach filtering the second value with a second low-pass
Appeal 2010-008649
Application 10/698,895

8
filter transfer function3 and turns to Shimizu to cure this deficiency. Ans. 8.
While Shimizu teaches one low-pass filter (e.g., g(n1, n2) (col. 5, ll. 12-15)),
we find that the adaptive algorithm 270 and weighting coefficient λ 280
cannot reasonably be mapped to filtering with a second low-pass filter
transfer function or low-pass filtering as recited.
A “filter” is defined as “[a] device or program that separates data,
signals, or material in accordance with specific criteria” or “[a] circuit that
eliminates certain portions of a signal, by frequency, voltage, or some other
parameter.”4 Thus, a “filter” or “filtering” as recited involves separating
data or signals or eliminating a parameter from a signal. Shimizu does not
discuss that the weight coefficient block 280 and adoptive algorithm block
270 perform such a function. Rather, the weight coefficient block 280 adjust
the weight coefficient (col. 5, ll. 1-2) and the adaptive algorithm performs
error diffusion by using the H2 norm criterion of a difference between the
input/output signals and adjusting the weight coefficient for each pixel (col.
5, ll. 19-27). We fail to find that the Examiner (Ans. 8, 18-19) has
adequately explained how Shimizu teaches separating signals or eliminating
a parameter from a signal (i.e., filtering or a filter) by using blocks 270 and
280 and, even more so, how Shimizu’s blocks 270 and 280 attenuate
frequencies above a certain frequencies (i.e., low-pass filtering or filtering
with a low-pass filter transfer function as recited).
We acknowledge that Appellant describes the output of the filters in
the invention are multiplied by weights (Spec. ¶¶ 0032-33) and that

3 While not relied upon, Kumar teaches two-pass error diffusion techniques.
Kumar 1282, 1285.
4 Definitions (2)(A) and (7)(A) of THE AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY OF
IEEE STANDARDS TERMS 435 (7th ed. 2000).
Appeal 2010-008649
Application 10/698,895

9
Shimizu’s weight coefficient block 280 is similar to Appellant’s invention in
this regard. Yet, as explained above, by reciting “filtering” errors with
low-pass filter transfer functions as recited in claim 22 or low-pass filtering
using linear weighting filters in claims 5, 12, and 19, these claims recite
more than performing a weighting function. Accordingly, we find that
Shimizu does not sufficiently teach the filtering features in claims 5, 12, 19,
and 22.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the
rejection of claims 5, 12, 19, and 22.

Claims 15, 16, 20, and 24
Appellant presents no new arguments for claims 15, 16, 20, and 24,
mainly referring to the arguments presented for claim 1. See App. Br. 14.
We are not persuaded for the above noted reasons and will sustain the § 103
rejection of these claims. To extent that the scope of claim 15 is similar to
claim 21, we additionally refer to our discussion of claim 21. For the
foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection of
claims 15, 16, 20, and 24.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 21,
23, and 25 under § 102.
Under § 103, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 15, 16, 20,
and 24, but erred in rejecting claims 5, 12, 19, and 22.

Appeal 2010-008649
Application 10/698,895

10
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 12-16, and
19-25 is affirmed-in-part.
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-IN-PART

babc

Notice of References Cited

Application/Control No.

10/698,895
Applicant(s)/Patent Under
Reexamination
Niranjan Damera-Venkata
Examiner

Quang Vo
Art Unit

2600

Page 1 of 1

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

* Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY

Name

Classification

A US-

B US-

C US-

D US-

E US-

F US-

G US-

H US-

I US-

J US-

K US-

L US-

M US-
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

* Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY

Country

Name

Classification

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T
NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)

U

THE AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY OF IEEE STANDARDS TERMS 435 (7th ed. 2000).

V

W

X

*A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No.
Delete Last PagelAdd A Page
IEEE 100

The Authoritative Dictionary of

IEEE Standards Terms

Seventh Edition
+IEEE
Published by
Standards Information Network
IEEE Press
Trademarks and disclaimers
IEEE believes the information in this publication is accurate as of its publication date; such information is subject
to change without notice. IEEE is not responsible for any inadvertent errors.
Other tradenames and trademarks in this document are those of their respective owners.

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Inc.

3 Park Avenue, New York, NY, 10016-5997, USA

Copyright © 2000 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. All rights reserved. Published

December 2000. Printed in the United States of America.

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without

the prior written permission of the publisher.

To order IEEE Press publications, call1-800-678-IEEE.
Print: ISBN 0-7381-2601-2 SP1l22
See other standards and standards-related product listings at: http://standards.ieee.org/
The publisher believes that the information and guidance given in this work serve as an enhancement to users,
all parties must rely upon their own skill and judgement when making use of it. The publisher does not assume
any liability to anyone for any loss or damage caused by any error or omission in the work, whether such error
or omission is the result of negligence or any other cause. Any and all such liability is disclaimed.
This work is published with the understanding that the IEEE is supplying information through this publication,
not attempting to render engineering or other professional services. If such services are required, the assistance
of an appropriate professional should be sought. The IEEE is not responsible for the statements and opinions
advanced in this publication.
filling fraction 435 filters
filling fraction See: filling factor. ler radars and in the moving target detector (MTD) for de­
fill light (illuminating engineering) Supplementary illumina- tecting moving targets in clutter. (AES) 686-1997
tion used to reduce shadow or contrast. (EEC/IE) [126] filter, Butterworth See: Butterworth filter.
film (1) (rotating machinery) Sheeting having a nominal thick­ filter capacitor A capacitor used as an element of an electric
ness not greater than 0.030 centimeters and being substan­ wave filter. See also: electronic controller. (IA/IAC) [60J
tially homogeneous in nature. See also: electrochemical filter capacitors Capacitors utilized with inductors and/or re­
valve; direct-current commutating machine; asynchronous sistors for controlling harmonic problems in the power sys­
machine. (PE) [9] tem, such as reducing voltage distortion due to large rectifier
(2) (electrochemical valve) The layer adjacent to the valve loads or arc fumaces.power systems relaying.

metal and in which is located the high-potential drop when (T&D/PE) 1036-1992, C37.99-2000

current flows in the direction of high impedance. See also: filter, Chebyshev See: Chebyshev filter.

electrochemical valve. (PE/EEC) [119]
filter, comb See: comb filter.

film frame In midrographics, a line on microfilm, perpendicular
filter, damped See: damped filter.
to the document reference edge, on which binary characters filter effectiveness (shunt) Defined by the following two terms:
may be written or read. (C) 610.2-1987
Pf the impedance ratio that determines the per unit film integrated circuit An integrated circuit whose elements
current that will flow into the shunt filter are films formed in situ upon an insulating substrate. Note:
Ps = the impedance ratio that determines the per unit To further define the nature of a film integrated circuit, ad­
current that will flow into the power source ditional modifiers may be prefixed. Examples are: thin-film
integrated circuit, and thick-film integrated circuit. See also: Pr should approach unity and Ps should be very small at the
magnetic thin film; integrated circuit; electrochemical valve; tuned frequency. (lA/SPC) 519-1992
thin film. (ED) 274-1 966w, [46] filter factor (illuminating engineering) The transmittance of
film storage See: magnetic thin film storage. "black light" by a filter. Note: The relationship among these
FILO See: first-in, last-out. terms is illustrated by the following formula for determining
the luminance of fluorescent materials exposed to "blackfilter (1) (wave filter) A transducer for separating waves on the
light":basis of their frequency. Note: A filter introduced relatively

small insertion loss to waves in one or more frequency bands candelas per square meter

and relatively large insertion loss to waves of other frequen­

I fluorenscies. (SP) 151-1965w = - X glow factor X filter factor
(2) (A) A device or program that separates data, signals, -drl 1T* square meter

material in accordance with specified criteria. (B) A mask~
[ *1T is omitted when luminance is in footlamberts and the area
(C) [20]' [85] is in square feet. When integral-filter "black light" lamps are
(3) (illuminating engineering) A device for changing. by used, the filter factor is dropped from the formula because it
transmission or reflection. the magnitude or the spectral com­ already has been applied in assigning flu oren ratings to these
position, or both, of the flux incident upon it. Filters are called lamps. (EECIIE) [126]
selective (or colored) or neutral, according to whether or not filter, high-pass See: high-pass filter.
they alter the spectral distribution of the incident flux.
filter impedance compensator An impedance compensator that (EECIIE) [126]
is connected across the common terminals of electric wave (4) (broadband local area networks) A circuit that selects
filters when the latter are used in parallel in order to compen­or rejects one or more components of a signal related to fre­
sate for the effects of the filters on each other. See also: net­quency. (LM/C) 802.7-1989r
work analysis; filter. (Std I 00) 270-1966w (5) A generic term used to describe those types of equipment
filter inductor An inductor used as an element of an electricwhose purpose is to reduce the harmonic current or voltage
wave filter. See also: electronic controller. (IA/IAC) [60] flowing in or being impressed upon specific parts of an elec­

trical power system, or both. (IAjSPC) 519-1992 filter, low-pass See: low-pass filter.

(6) A command whose operation consists of reading data filter matching loss The loss in output signal-to-noise ratio rel­

from standard input or a list of input files and writing data to ative to a matched filter, caused by using a filter whose re­

standard output. Typically, the function of a filter is to per­ sponse is not matched to the transmitted signal.

form some transformation on the data stream. (AESIRS) 686-1990

(C/PA) 9945-2-1993 filter mismatch loss The loss in output signal-to-noise ratio of
7) (A) A circuit that eliminates certain portions of a Sign0 a filter relative to the signal-to-noise ratio from a matched
by frequency, voltage, or some other parameter. (B) A math­ filter. Note: Filter mismatch loss is caused by using a filter
ematical model which performs the same function on a sam­ whose response is not matched to the transmitted signal.
[ pled version of the signal. Synonym: masl<. (AES) 686-1997
(C) 610.10-199 filter pass band A frequency band of low attenuation (low rel­
(8) An assertion about the presence or value of certain attrib­ ative to other regions termed stop bands). See also: filter
utes of an entry in order to limit the scope of a search. transmission band. (CAS) [13]
(C/PA) 1328.2-1993w, 1224.2-l993w, 1326.2-1993w,
filter, passive See: passive filter. 1327.2-1993w
filter reactor (power and distribution transformers) A reac­(9) See also: low-pass filter; band-pass filter; high-pass filter.
tor used to reduce harmonic voltage in alternating-current or (PE) 599-1985w
direct-current circuits. See also: reactor.
filter, active See: active filter. (PE/TR) C57.12.80-1978r, [57]
filter, all-pass See: all-pass filter. filter, rejection See: rejection filter; filter.

filter attenuation band (filter stop band) A continuous range
filters (power supplies) Resistance-capacitance or inductance­
of frequencies over which the filter introduces an insertion capacitance networks arranged as low-pass devices to atten­
loss whose minimum value is greater than a specific value. uate the varying component that remains when alternating­
(CAS) [13] current voltage is rectified. Note: In power supplies without
filter, band-elimination See: band-elimination filter. subsequent active series regulators, the filters determine the
filter bank A contiguous set of filters covering the Doppler amount of ripple that will remain in the direct-current output.
frequency range of interest, used to separate moving targets. In supplies with active feedback series regulators, the regu­
Commonly used in continuous wave (CW) and pulsed-Dopp- lator mainly controls the ripple, with output filtering serving