Ex parte Froessl

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 17, 1998

07950177 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 17, 1998)

Application for patent filed September 24, 1992,1
entitled "Computer Method For Processing Records With Images
And Multiple Fonts," which is a continuation-in-part of
Application 07/783,212, filed October 28, 1991, now abandoned.
- 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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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 HORST FROESSL

Appeal No. 96-1190
Application 07/950,1771

ON BRIEF

Before KRASS, BARRETT, and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 96-1190
Application 07/950,177
- 2 -
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the final rejection of claims 17-26. Claims 1-16 have been
canceled.
We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention is directed to a character
recognition method.
Claim 17 is reproduced below.
17. A computer-implemented method of preparing for
storage and retrieval data from source documents
comprising the steps of
establishing in computer memory stored patterns of
electrical signals forming lexicons of images of
characters in at least one font,
comparing signals representative of images of characters
from the source documents with stored signals
representative of images of characters in the lexicons,
identifying signals representative of images of
characters for which no match is found as ambiguous
characters; and
storing the signals representative of images of ambiguous
characters for use in retrieval of documents in which the
ambiguous characters appeared.
The examiner relies on the following prior art patent:
Katsuyama et al. (Katsuyama) 5,197,107 March 23, 1993
Appeal No. 96-1190
Application 07/950,177
- 3 -
(filed July 20, 1989)
Claims 17-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Katsuyama.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 9) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 14) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No. 13) (pages
referred to as "Br__") and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 15)
(pages referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of appellant's
position.
OPINION
"Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention."
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Claims 17-21
Appellant argues that Katsuyama does not perform the
claimed steps of "identifying signals representative of images
of characters for which no match is found as ambiguous
Appeal No. 96-1190
Application 07/950,177
- 4 -
characters; and storing the signals representative of images
of ambiguous characters for use in retrieval of documents in
which the ambiguous characters appeared."
The examiner states (FR7; EA5):
Where the patterns of electrical signals forming lexicons
of images of both character fonts and non-character
shapes stored in the computer memory contains ambiguous
characters for use in retrieval of documents in which the
ambiguous character appeared (refer to column 15, line 64
through column 16, line 12). The thinning or thickening
of characters in memory generates distorted characters
which corresponds to applicant's ambiguous characters.
Although the initial capital letter and the final period
make the first sentence above a typographical sentence, it is
not a grammatical sentence because the word "where" turns the
words into a dependent clause--a fragment. The idea intended
to be conveyed is incomplete. We have read Katsuyama,
column 15, line 64 through column 16, line 12, but fail to
understand how it anticipates the claimed steps. The
referenced portion of Katsuyama discusses carrying out a
thickening/thinning operation governed by a parameter F and a
magnification/reduction operation governed by a scale
parameter S. The combination of parameters which provides the
smallest "city block distance" are the optimum parameters for
character recognition. Katsuyama says nothing about what
Appeal No. 96-1190
Application 07/950,177
- 5 -
happens when a character is "ambiguous," that is, when a
character cannot be matched to a known character. In
particular, Katsuyama does not disclose that an ambiguous
(unidentified) character is identified as such and stored.
Katsuyama, in fact, continues the recognition until
recognition of all characters is complete and then enters a
correction mode to allow a user to point out and correct
erroneously recognized characters (figure 30; col. 23,
lines 24-33);
The examiner discusses that Katsuyama generates distorted
characters by thickening/thinning and magnification/reduction
operations when characters are not recognized and states that
"[i]t is this generation of distorted characters, that the
examiner was trying to parallel to appellant's ambiguous
characters" (EA8). We fail to understand the examiner's
reading of the claimed limitations onto Katsuyama. The
characters produced by thickening/thinning and
magnification/reduction operations are used for matching and
character recognition, they are not "signals representative of
images of characters for which no match is found." The
examiner does not explain where Katsuyama addresses
Appeal No. 96-1190
Application 07/950,177
- 6 -
identifying unmatched characters as ambiguous characters and
storing these ambiguous characters.
Appellant argues that "[a]t no place in Katsuyama et al
is there any indication that an unrecognized character or
ambiguous character is stored and subsequently used as part of
a search word for retrieval of a document in which the
ambiguous character appeared" (emphasis added) (Br7). The
examiner states that there is no support in claim 17 for the
emphasized language. We agree with the examiner that claim 17
requires storing signals "for use in retrieval of documents,"
which does not positively recite the step of using the
ambiguous character in a subsequent search. Nevertheless, we
agree with the first part of appellant's argument, that "[a]t
no place in Katsuyama et al is there any indication that an
unrecognized character or ambiguous character is stored" (Br7)
and, absent such a teaching, there is no anticipation.
Accordingly the rejection of claims 17-21 is reversed.
Claims 22-26
Claim 22 calls for identifying numerals by comparing
signals representative of images of characters from a source
Appeal No. 96-1190
Application 07/950,177
- 7 -
document with stored patterns of electrical signals forming
lexicons of images of characters, "assigning a value to
signals representing each numeral found," and "using the
signals representing the images of the numerals to perform
calculations." Claim 25 calls for identifying numerals by
comparing signals representative of images of characters from
a source document with stored patterns of signals forming
lexicons of images of characters and "displaying only the
characters representing numerals for human review and storing
signals representative of other characters without human
review." Neither claim 22 nor claim 25 recite identifying
ambiguous characters.
Appellant argues that "there is no cogent or
comprehensible rejection of claims 22-26 and there is no
disclosure in Katsuyama et al which can be said to provide any
reasonable basis for a rejection of those claims under
§ 102(e) or any other section of the statute" (Br9). The
examiner disagrees, stating that claims 22 and 25 are similar
in content to claim 17 and that claims 22 and 25 were directly
addressed in the Final Rejection (EA9). The examiner equates
"using signals to perform calculations" with "reiteration of
Appeal No. 96-1190
Application 07/950,177
- 8 -
the correction algorithm" (EA12). Appellant responds that
"[i]f this is not a new ground of rejection, it is certainly a
total rephrasing of prior rejections" (RBr2). We agree with
appellant that the Final Rejection did not address the
specific limitations of claims 22 and 25, much less in this
specific way. Nevertheless, we consider the examiner's new
reasons to be unpersuasive.
The examiner compares the limitations of claim 17 with
claims 22 and 25 (EA9-12). The first two limitations of
claims 17, 22, and 25, establishing stored patterns and
comparing signals, are similar and are not disputed as being
in Katsuyama.
The third limitation in claim 17 of "identifying signals
. . . for which no match is found as ambiguous characters" is
not found in Katsuyama as discussed supra. The third
limitation of claims 22 and 25 of "identifying signals . . .
which represent numerals" is found in Katsuyama because
Katsuyama identifies both letters and numerals.
The fourth limitation of claim 17 of "storing the signals
representative of images of ambiguous characters for use in
retrieval of documents in which the ambiguous characters
Appeal No. 96-1190
Application 07/950,177
- 9 -
appeared" is not found in Katsuyama as discussed supra. As to
the fourth and fifth limitations of claim 22 of "assigning a
value to signals representing each numeral found" and "using
the signals representing the images of the numerals to perform
calculations," the examiner states that "the limitation of
using the signals to perform calculations is fairly broad, so
the reiteration in the correction algorithm can be considered
other calculations" (EA12). We disagree. Presumably the
examiner is referring to the correction of image data by
thickening/thinning and magnification/reduction of the image
shown as step 405 in figure 7 and the procedure for
determining optimum parameters in figure 21. This external
procedure is not the same thing as recognizing a numeral and
then using a value assigned to the recognized numeral in
performing calculations. If the examiner is referring to
extraction of the characteristic quantity in step 423 of
figure 21 followed by calculation of distance in step 424,
these are steps in the recognition, not a step subsequent to
recognition as claimed. We agree with appellant's argument
(RBr2) that the claimed steps of assigning values and
performing calculations is not the same as the reiteration
Appeal No. 96-1190
Application 07/950,177
- 10 -
sequence referred to by the examiner. Accordingly, we find
that Katsuyama does not anticipate claims 22-24. The
rejection of claims 22-24 is reversed.
As to the fourth limitation of claim 25, "displaying only
the characters representing numerals for human review and
storing signals representative of other characters without
human review," the examiner refers only to "figure 28 : 43"
(EA12). Element 43 in figure 28 is a display. Katsuyama
apparently displays all the characters for possible correction
in a correction mode (col. 23, lines 24-33). We find no
description of the selective displaying of only numerals as
recited in claim 25, nor does the examiner explain how such
limitation is disclosed by Katsuyama. Accordingly, we find
that Katsuyama does not anticipate claims 25 and 26. The
rejection of claims 25 and 26 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 17-26 is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 96-1190
Application 07/950,177
- 11 -
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-1190
Application 07/950,177
- 12 -
Walter C. Farley
P.O. Box 329
Harpswell, ME 04079