Ex Parte de Queiroz

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 13, 2009

10200872 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 13, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte RICARDO L. DE QUEIROZ
__________

Appeal 2008-3381
Application 10/200,872
Technology Center 2400
__________

Decided1: March 13, 2009
__________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 CFR § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-3381
Application 10/200,872

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claims 2-9 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

The Invention
The disclosed invention relates generally to authentication of image
data (Spec. 1). Specifically, a hashing function derived from a first section
of image data is encrypted into a signature string and embedded into a next
section of the image data (Spec. 7).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A system for authentication of a self-authenticating
image file of JPEG image data, comprising:

a processor to receive an image file of JPEG image data;

said processor dividing the image file of JPEG image data into
at least a first section and a second section, said first and second
sections each containing a predetermined number of blocks of
transformed coefficients;

said processor producing a hashing function from said first
section of the received image file of JPEG image data;

said processor producing a first integrity checking value from
the hashing function produced from said first section of the received
image file of JPEG image data;

Appeal 2008-3381
Application 10/200,872

3
said processor identifying said second section of the received
image file of JPEG image data, said second section having an
encrypted signature string embedded in a least significant transmitted
bit-plane of said second section of JPEG image data;

said processor extracting, from the least significant transmitted
bit-plane of said second section of JPEG image data, the embedded
encrypted signature string;

said processor decrypting the extracted encrypted signature
string to recover a second integrity checking value;

said processor comparing the recovered second integrity
checking value with the first integrity checking value; and

said processor authenticating said first section of JPEG image
data when the recovered second integrity checking value matches the
first integrity checking value.

The References
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejection:
Mintzer US 5,875,249 Feb. 23, 1999
Shimizu US 6,005,936 Dec. 21, 1999

The Rejection
The Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shimizu and Mintzer.

Appeal 2008-3381
Application 10/200,872

4
ISSUE
Appellant asserts that the combination of Shimizu and Mintzer is
improper because “one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to
embed the authentication information of Shimizu et al. in the least
significant bits of the image” (App. Br. 7).
Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine
Shimizu and Mintzer?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Facts (FF) are shown by a preponderance
of the evidence.
1. Shimizu discloses calculating “a hash value based on data in the
image region D1” (col. 6, ll. 5-6) and “an image region D2 . . . in
which [the] hash value . . . is embedded” (col. 5, l. 66 – col. 6, l. 1).
2. Mintzer discloses embedding digital signatures “onto an image by
the bit plane manipulation of least significant bit (LSB)” (col. 1, ll.
20-22) in which “the information is ‘stamped’ into the LSB of the
pixel values of the image” (col. 1, ll. 34-35).
3. Mintzer discloses an advantage to embedding digital signatures into
the least significant bit plane of an image is that it “is unlikely to
cause visual artifacts in the image” (col. 1, ll. 36-37).
Appeal 2008-3381
Application 10/200,872

5
4. Mintzer discloses stamping an “invisible watermark” (col. 3, l. 25)
into “various bit values beyond the least significant bit (LSB)” (col.
4, ll. 15-16).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A person having ordinary skill in the art uses known elements for their
intended purpose. Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.,
396 U.S. 57 (1969) (radiant-heat burner used for its intended purpose in
combination with a spreader and a tamper and screed).
“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing
the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than
one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (quoting
Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon [examining] the reference, would be discouraged from following
the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent
from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v.
SGS Importers Int’l, Inc. 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In re
Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).

Appeal 2008-3381
Application 10/200,872

6
ANALYSIS
As set forth above, Shimizu discloses calculating a hash value based
on data in one portion of an image and embedding the calculated hash value
in a second portion of the image (FF 1). Mintzer discloses known methods
of embedding security information (i.e., “digital signatures” (col. 1, l. 20)) in
an image as including stamping digital signatures into a least significant bit
plane of an image (FF 2). Thus, while Shimizu discloses a known method of
authenticating an image by creating a hash value of one portion of the image
and embedding the hash value in a second portion of the image, Mintzer also
discloses that one known method of authentication includes embedding data
into the least significant bit plane of the an image.
We agree that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art, given the combination of teachings of Shimizu and Mintzer, to
embed a hash value of one portion of an image in a second portion of the
image (Shimizu) in which the hash value is embedded in the least significant
bit plane of the second portion of the image. Mintzer discloses that such a
practice of embedding authentication information in the least significant bit
plane of an image was known and practiced by those of ordinary skill in the
art and also discloses advantages to such a practice (FF 3).
Appellants argue that “Mintzer et al. teaches an embodiment that
stamps a watermark in an image file of JPEG image data” (Reply Br. 4) in
which “DC-coefficients of the JPEG image source are extracted . . . then re-
encoded into the JPEG image source” (id.) but does not disclose “an
Appeal 2008-3381
Application 10/200,872

7
encrypted signature string embedded in a least significant transmitted bit-
plane of the second section of JPEG image data” (id.). However, while
Mintzer discloses one embodiment involving stamping a watermark onto an
image in which “the stamping information is . . . hidden in various bit values
beyond the least significant bit (LSB)” (col. 4, ll. 12-16), Mintzer also
discloses that of the “[s]everal areas of research . . . in this field” (col. 1, l.
14), one technique known to those of ordinary skill in the art involves
embedding information (i.e., digital signatures) “onto an image by the bit
plane manipulation of least significant bit (LSB)” (col. 1, ll. 20-22). In
addition, Mintzer discloses advantages to such a practice (FF 3). Given
Mintzer’s explicit disclosure of the known method of embedding
authentication information in the least significant bit plane of an image, we
cannot agree with Appellant’s contention that Mintzer fails to disclose such
a technique.
Appellant argues that “Mintzer et al. explicitly teaches that such
stamping causes the image data to be susceptible to manipulation without
detection when the authentication vehicle (watermark) is only stamped in the
least significant bits of an image” (Reply Br. 4), that “Mintzer et al.
explicitly states that LSB manipulation is not secure, and thus should be
avoided” (id. 5) and concludes that Shimizu and Mintzer “cannot be
properly combined” (id. 4). However, while Mintzer suggests disadvantages
of stamping information only in the least significant bits of an image when
using a watermark as an authentication vehicle, Mintzer does not disclose or
Appeal 2008-3381
Application 10/200,872

8
suggest that embedding information in the least significant bit plane would
be disadvantageous when embedding a hash value derived from one portion
of an image into a second portion of the image. Rather, as set forth above,
Mintzer discloses that such a practice of embedding authentication
information in the least significant bit plane of an image was practiced by
those of ordinary skill in the art because such a technique “is unlikely to
cause visual artifacts” (col. 1, ll. 35-36) (FF 3).
As set forth above, “a reference may be said to teach away when a
person of ordinary skill, upon [examining] the reference, would be
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led
in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.”
Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc. 73 F.3d at 1090 (Fed.
Cir. 1995) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). In the
present case, one of ordinary skill in the art, given the disclosure of Shimizu,
would have calculated a hash value from one portion of an image, would
have embedded the hash value in a second portion of an image, and would
further have embedded the hash value in the least significant bit plane of the
second portion of the image because doing so would have reduced the risk of
“visual artifacts,” as per Mintzer. One of ordinary skill in the art would also
have noted, based on the Mintzer disclosure, that had the skilled artisan have
desired to stamp a watermark in the image, the skilled artisan would have
embedded the watermark in the DC coefficients.
Appeal 2008-3381
Application 10/200,872

9
However, Appellant has not demonstrated that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have applied features specific to stamping a watermark into an
image to the hash value technique of Shimizu or that embedding a hash
value generated from a first portion of an image into a second portion of an
image (Shimizu) would also be subject to manipulation of a watermark
image in one image. Indeed, in the absence of a logical rationale by
Appellant, stamping a watermark into a single image does not appear to be
equivalent to embedding a hash value from one portion of an image into a
second portion of an image. Hence, based on the record before us,
Appellant has not shown that Mintzer’s disclosure would have discouraged
one of ordinary skill in the art from embedding the calculated hash value
from the first portion of the image into the least significant bit plane of the
second portion of the image, particularly given Mintzer’s explicit disclosure
that visual artifacts are diminished or otherwise improved by embedding
authentication information in the least significant bit plane.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that Appellants
have not sustained the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or
evidence persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding that it
Appeal 2008-3381
Application 10/200,872

10
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine
Shimizu and Mintzer.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
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

pgc

BASCH & NICKERSON LLP
1777 PENFIELD ROAD
PENFIELD, NY 14526