Ex Parte GotohDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 22, 201612754398 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121754,398 04/05/2010 127226 7590 07/26/2016 Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP P.O. Box 747 Falls Church, VA 22040-0747 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR MakioGOTOH 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 1248-l 163PUS 1 6644 EXAMINER MAZUMDER, SAPTARSHI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2614 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/26/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): mailroom@bskb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MAKIO GOTOH 1 Appeal2015-000531 Application 12/754,398 Technology Center 2600 Before HUNG. H. BUI, AMBER L. HAGY, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Introduction Appellant's disclosure relates to "[i]mage forming apparatuses such as copying machines and multifunction printers" and addresses issues with the small size of "a display device for displaying a preview." Spec. 1. Appellant states "it is necessary to perform a process of downsampling 1 Appellant identifies SHARP KABUSHIKI KAISHA as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2015-000531 Application 12/754,398 pixels (by interpolation) in accordance with the size and resolution of a display screen." Spec 3. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. An image processing apparatus comprising: an image processing section which executes, when an image data to be used for a preview display to be executed before an output process for outputting an image is inputted, a plurality of types of image processing for a display process on the image data; and a segmentation process section which performs a segmentation process on the image data that is to be inputted to the image processing section; one of the plurality of types of image processing being a downsampling process; and at least one of the plurality of types of image processing other than the downsampling process being a predetermined . . image processmg, when a degree of downsampling in the downsampling process is not higher than predetermined reference level, the image processing section executing the predetermined image processing in such a way that the predetermined image processing is varied in content according to a result of the segmentation process, and when the degree of downsampling m the downsampling process is higher than the predetermined reference level, the image processing section executing the predetermined image processing regardless of the segmentation process. App. Br. 16 (Claims App'x). Rejections (1) Claims 1and11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over (a) Okawa (Jap. Publ. 2005-269308 "Device, Method and Program for Processing Image," Jap. Appl. 2004-080636; publ. Sept. 29, 2005 (machine-translated)), (b) Yamamoto (Jap. Publ. 09-135316 "Device 2 Appeal2015-000531 Application 12/754,398 and Method for Processing Image," Jap. Appl. 07-291126; publ. May 20, 1997 (machine-translated)), and (c) Yu (US 2007/0206102 Al; Sept. 6, 2007). Final Act. 2-10. (2) Claims 2, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the above references (a}-(c) and (d) Kashiwagi (US 6,037,939; Mar. 14, 2000). Final Act. 11-15. (3) Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over (a}-(d) and Kurakata (US 2008/0285079 Al; Nov. 20, 2008). Final Act. 15-16. (4) Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over (a}-(d) and Huang (US 2007/0280533 Al; Dec. 6, 2007). Final Act. 16-20. (5) Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over (a}-(d) and Saidi (US 5,566,001; Oct. 15, 1996). Final Act. 20-23. (6) Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over (a}-(d) and Ikeda (Jap. Publ. 2008-028760 "Photographing Processing Apparatus and Photographic Processing Program"; Jap. Appl. 2006-199907; publ. July 20, 2008). Final Act. 23-26. (7) Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over (a}-(c), Andree (US 6,839,151 Bl; Jan. 4, 2005), and Bearss (US 5,987,221; Nov. 16, 1999). Final Act. 26-28. ANALYSIS With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant alleges the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Okawa, Yamamoto, and Yu teaches or suggests the requirements: 3 Appeal2015-000531 Application 12/754,398 "when a degree of downsampling in the downsampling process is not higher than predetermined reference level, the image processing section executing the predetermined image processing in such a way that the predetermined image processing is varied in content according to a result of the segmentation process, and when the degree of downsampling in the downsampling process is higher than the predetermined reference level, the image processing section executing the predetermined image processing regardless of the segmentation process." See App. Br. 9 (quoting claim 1), 8-12. Appellant specifically contends the Examiner errs in incorporating Yu into Okawa and Yamamoto because "Yu does not use similar processing that is used for print/copy operation by Yamamoto. [sic]" App. Br. 11. We disagree. As the Examiner finds, and we adopt, there is a sound technical basis to combine the image processing teachings of Yu with the image processing teachings of Okawa and Yamamoto, especially in light of the commonality of their disclosures regarding "edge enhancement" processing. See Ans. 6-7; Final Act. 2-8. We also note the test for obviousness is not whether two references are "similar." "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference .... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to show combining features from Yu with an image processing apparatus disclosed by Okawa and Yamamoto was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." See 4 Appeal2015-000531 Application 12/754,398 Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)). Appellant further contends the Examiner errs because "one of ordinary skill would understand that Yu relates to preview display in the case of a degree of downsampling that is substantially higher than a predetermined reference level" and "the Examiner's statement that Yu discloses a case of preview display when degree of downsampling is low is not supported by the plain teachings in Yu or general knowledge of digital cameras, an error in fact." App. Br. 12. We again disagree. We first note Appellant's argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which does not require a degree of downsampling that is substantially higher than a predetermined reference level. Second, Appellant's argument does not address that the Examiner's rejection relies on Yamamoto for claim 1 's "when a degree of downsampling ... is higher" and" ... not higher" requirements. See Final Act. 5-8. Third, we find Appellant's interpretation of Yu and Yamamoto (see App. Br. 9-11; Reply 5-18) does not persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings in combining the teachings of the cited art. For example, we agree with the Examiner's findings as to how the edge enhancement disclosures of Okawa, Yamamoto, and Yu teach one of ordinary skill a basis for combining their teachings. See Final Act. 5-8; Ans. 2-11. We also agree with the Examiner's findings and reasons to include Yu's preview display with the print process of Okawa as modified by Yamamoto when the degree of downsampling is low. Ans. 9- 11. None of Appellant's arguments in the Reply Brief (see pp. 5-18) persuade us of Examiner error; rather, we adopt the findings and reasons of 5 Appeal2015-000531 Application 12/754,398 the Examiner in the rejection of claim 1 (Final Act. 3-8; Ans. 2-11) and accordingly sustain the rejection. Appellant further contends the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 2, which depends from claim 1, arguing Kashiwagi, upon which the Examiner relies for claim 2' s added requirements, neither teaches nor suggests: when the display zoom ratio is not less than a threshold value, the image processing section executes the predetermined image processing in such a way that the predetermined image processing is varied in content according to a result of the segmentation process, considering that the degree of downsampling in the downsampling process is not higher than the predetermined reference level App. Br. 14 (reciting language from claim 2). The Examiner responds that: in Kashiwagi, when the display zoom ratio is high, downsampling is low and when display zoom ratio is low, downsampling is high. Kashiwagi teaches changing a zoom ratio in response to reduce overall image [sic]. Reduction of an image is equated to downsampling. If the original image in Kashiwagi is of size 1 MP (Mega pixels), after reduction or downsampling the image size is 0.80 MP (0.80 Mega pixels), the zoom ratio is 0.8 or 80% and degree of downsampling (how much data is reduced) is 0.2 or 20% (original size-size after downsampling)/original size. So in Kashiwagi, there is a relation between downsampling and display zoom ratio. If display zoom ratio is high, downsampling is low and if display zoom ratio is low downsampling is high. Ans. 13 (emphasis removed). Appellant replies, "[T]he Examiner's interpretation of Kashiwagi is incorrect. According to the Examiner's argument, if the display zoom ratio is 100%, the degree of downsampling would be O." Reply Br. 18. 6 Appeal2015-000531 Application 12/754,398 We agree with Appellant that the Examiner improperly interprets Kashiwagi, which relates to multi-window display devices and interactive data manipulation (see col. 1:9-13) and essentially teaches a "zoomable GUI environment" (see, e.g., col. 4: 11-17). Kashiwagi's disclosure cited by the Examiner (col. 13:15-22, Figs. 4, 11; see Final Act. 11-12, Ans. 11-15) teaches changing GUI options (see Fig. 11) based on an amount of zoom and is silent as to downsampling. We find Appellant's argument persuasive that the combination of Okawa, Yamamoto, Yu, and Kashiwagi does not teach downsampling in combination with a zoom ratio as recited in claim 2. See Reply Br. 18-24. We accordingly do not sustain the rejection of claim 2. We, therefore, also do not sustain the rejection of claims 3-9, which depend from claim 2. Finally, we sustain the rejection of claims 10-14, which Appellant does not argue separately from claim 1. See App. Br. 7-13. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 10-14. We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 2-9. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation