11205830 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013)

Ex Parte Fan

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 2013

11205830 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/205,830 08/17/2005 Zhigang Fan 20042017USNP-XER01033US01 5196 27885 7590 12/19/2013 FAY SHARPE LLP 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115 EXAMINER BROOKS, JULIAN D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2667 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/19/2013 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ZHIGANG FAN ____________ Appeal 2011-007403 Application 11/205,830 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 11, 13-18, and 21-23, which are all of the pending claims. Claims 1- 10, 12, 19, and 20 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2011-007403 Application 11/205,830 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Oct. 21, 2010), the Answer (mailed Dec. 23, 2010), and the Reply Brief (filed Feb. 23, 2011) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Appellant’s Invention Appellant’s invention relates to the detection of printed document security marks using run profiles. If a security mark is located and verified to be an authentic security mark, effective reproduction of the printed document will not be permitted. A run profile analysis is used to improve processing speed by limiting image features that are subject to computationally intensive template matching operations. See generally Abstract. Claim 11 is representative of the invention and reads as follows: 11. A digital image processing method for preventing unauthorized reproduction of a printed document including a security mark defined in terms of a plurality of actual mark constituents having a known quantity, a known color, known dimensions, a known run profile, and arranged in a known pattern relative to each other, said method comprising: scanning said printed document to derive color digital data representing said printed document, said color digital data defined in terms of a plurality of pixels each having a color value; Appeal 2011-007403 Application 11/205,830 3 identifying all pixels of said color digital data having a color value representing a color that falls within a limited range of colors including said known color of said plurality of actual mark constituents; constructing a binary map of said color digital data defined in terms of “on” and “off” pixels with said pixels arranged in a plurality of scanlines, said “on” pixels of said binary map corresponding to only said identified pixels of said color digital data having color values that fall within a limited range of colors including said known color of said plurality of actual mark constituents, wherein pixels of said binary map that are not “on” pixels are “off” pixels; processing said binary map to identify all image features in said binary map that have a feature run profile that matches said known run profile, wherein said feature run profile defines the shape of each image feature by counting uninterrupted runs of consecutive “on” pixels in each consecutive scanline of said image feature, wherein the feature run profile is determined by counting said uninterrupted runs of consecutive “on” pixels in a window having a width of N pixels, for each of said multiple consecutive scanlines in which said feature is represented, wherein said window is equally positioned in each of said multiple scanlines, said method further comprising saving a count result for each said counting; identifying as a suspect component each image feature having a run profile that matches said known run profile; examining each suspect component to determine if the suspect component is a potential mark constituent by comparing dimensions of each suspect component to the known dimensions of an actual mark constituent; identifying a suspect component as a potential mark constituent only if the dimensions of said suspect component correspond to the known dimensions of an actual mark constituent; using said binary map, identifying at least one neighborhood of plural potential mark constituents together defining a potential security mark; Appeal 2011-007403 Application 11/205,830 4 identifying said potential security mark as an actual security mark if said potential mark constituents thereof are uniform relative to each other; and preventing effective duplication of said printed document if an actual security mark is identified. The Examiner’s Rejections The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references: Fan US 6,580,820 B1 June 17, 2003 Erol US 2004/0202349 A1 Oct. 14, 2004 Kravec US 7,227,994 B2 June 5, 2007 (filed Mar. 20, 2003) B. Gatos and N. Papamarkos (hereinafter “Gatos”), Applying Fast Segmentation Techniques at a Binary Image Represented by a Set of Non- Overlapping Blocks, IEEE, 1147-51 (2001). Claims 11, 13-18, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Erol and Gatos. Claims 21 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Erol, Gatos, and Kravec. ANALYSIS Claims 11, 13-18, and 22 Appellant argues, with respect to independent claims 11 and 22, Gatos does not overcome the deficiency of the Fan/Erol combination in teaching or suggesting a “feature run profile” as claimed. App. Br. 11. According to Appellant, Gatos decomposes image features into blocks, but the blocks have no relationship to a run profile which defines the shape of an image Appeal 2011-007403 Application 11/205,830 5 feature by counting uninterrupted runs of consecutive “on” pixels as required by the claims. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2-4. We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive as we find sufficient evidence within the disclosure of Gatos to support the Examiner’s stated position. As explained by the Examiner, the segmented block representation in Gatos results in runs of uninterrupted “on” pixels as illustrated in the horizontal projection graph at the right of Gatos’s Figure 5(b). Ans. 16 (citing Gatos, Figs. 5(a) and (b)). We also agree with the Examiner that Gatos teaches “counts” of the uninterrupted runs of “on” pixels are provided by “adding the black runs.” Id. (citing Gatos, page 1149, col. 2, ll. 2-4). Further, while we agree with Appellant (App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 3-4) that the segmented block count in Figure 5(b) of Gatos does not correspond to the “run profile” of the original image, we find that Gatos’s block counts nonetheless represent a “run profile” as defined by Appellant because each block encompasses a run of uninterrupted “on” pixels. In view of the above discussion, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 11 and 22, as well as the rejection of dependent claims 13-18 not separately argued by Appellant (App. Br. 11). Claims 21 and 23 We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 21 and 23 in which the Examiner has applied Kravec to the Fan/Erol/Gatos combination to address the finite automaton feature of the rejected claims. We find Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 12) unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s determination (Ans. 17) that an ordinarily skilled Appeal 2011-007403 Application 11/205,830 6 artisan would have recognized and appreciated the obviousness of applying the state defined adjustable pointers of Kravec to the Fan/Erol/Gatos combination to improve the comparison matching of input and reference profiles. CONCLUSION OF LAW Based on the analysis above, we conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 11, 13-18, and 21-23 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11, 13-18, and 21- 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 rwk