Ex Parte Gourdol

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 12, 2003

09074545 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 12, 2003)

1 Application for patent filed May 8, 1998.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ARNAUD GOURDOL
____________
Appeal No. 2001-2575
Application No. 09/074,5451
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before KRASS, FLEMING and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 13-15, 17-22, 24-28, 30, 32, 33,
35-39, 47, 48, 50, 52-54, 56, 57 and 59-63. Claims 4, 7-12, 16,
23, 29, 31, 40-46, 49, 51 and 58 have been cancelled while the
Examiner has objected to claims 34, 55 and 62 and has indicated
their allowability if rewritten in independent form including all
of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
We reverse.
Appeal No. 2001-2575
Application No. 09/074,545
2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method and apparatus
for compressing small amounts of image data to improve the
compression ratio and to reduce the effects of lost data
associated with the data compression. A data compression
algorithm transforms image data from RGB color space to luminance
and chrominance data values, reduces the number of chrominance
data values and performs a run length encoding of the reduced
data.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method for compressing image data of a graphical
icon, comprising the steps of:
receiving image data of a graphical icon having a size which
is less than a 256 x 256 pixel array in a first format;
transforming said image data of said graphical icon from
said first format to a luminance format comprising luminance and
chrominance data values;
reducing the number of chrominance data values by a factor
of N:1, where N>1;
run length encoding said luminance data values and said
reduced chrominance data values to generate a compressed data
stream; and
storing said compressed data stream in a memory device.

Appeal No. 2001-2575
Application No. 09/074,545
3
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting
the claims:
Normile et al. (Normile) 5,212,742 May. 18, 1993
Meriwether et al. (Meriwether) 5,671,435 Oct. 18, 1994
Kuroshima et al. (Kuroshima) 5,500,923 Mar. 19, 1996
Hirano et al. (Hirano) 5,553,277 Sep. 3, 1996
Pearlman et al. (Pearlman) 5,764,807 Jun. 9, 1998
(filed Sep. 14, 1995)
James, D. Murray et al. (Murray), “Encyclopedia of Graphics
File Formats,” second edition, O’Reilly & Associates, Inc., 1996,
p. 164.
Claims 1-3, 6, 13-15, 18-22, 25, 26, 30, 33 and 35 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hirano in view of Normile and Kuroshima.
Claims 5, 17 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hirano, Normile and Kuroshima in view
of Meriwether.
Claims 32, 36-39, 50, 52-54, 56, 57, 59-61 and 63 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hirano, Normile and Kuroshima in view of Murray.
Claims 27 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hirano, Normile and Kuroshima in view of
Pearlman.
Appeal No. 2001-2575
Application No. 09/074,545
4
Claims 47 and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hirano in view of Normile, Kuroshima,
Murray and Pearlman.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 13, mailed May 4,
2001) for the Examiner’s reasoning, and to the appeal brief
(Paper No. 12, filed March 8, 2001) and the reply brief (Paper
No. 14, filed July 2, 2001) for Appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 13-15, 18-
22, 25, 26, 30, 33 and 35, the Examiner relies on Hirano for
disclosing the claimed method and apparatus for compressing image
data except for transforming the format of the image and reducing
the chrominance data values (answer, pages 4 & 5). The Examiner
further relies on Normile for teaching a method for transforming
image data from a first format (RGB) to a luminance/chrominance
format (UVY) (answer, page 5) and on Kuroshima for making images
of various resolutions (answer, page 6) and reasons that the
combination makes more effective utilization of an image memory
(answer, page 6).
Appellant argues that there is no reason to apply the
compression of video images of Normile to the search techniques
Appeal No. 2001-2575
Application No. 09/074,545
5
of Hirano which relates to searching for individual, still-frame
images since the transformations required for compression of
images would have prolonged the search process in Hirano (brief,
pages 5 & 6). Additionally, Appellant asserts that Kuroshima is
merely concerned with the resolution, not the size, of an image
data and therefore, does not remedy the deficiency of other
references related to the claimed compression of small amounts of
image data (brief, page 7; reply brief, page 3).
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner asserts
that both Hirano and Normile are directed to the problem of data
compression in order to reduce the amount of stored data and to
save storage space (answer, page 13). The Examiner further
argues that as Normile provides for compression of video images
using “inter” and “intra” frame designations, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have applied the same method of treating
an intra frame in the video sequence of Normile to compress the
still images of Hirano (id.).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The conclusion that the claimed
subject matter is obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown
Appeal No. 2001-2575
Application No. 09/074,545
6
by some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that
would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings
of the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Furthermore, the Examiner must produce a factual basis supported
by teaching in a prior art reference or shown to be common
knowledge of unquestionable demonstration, consistent with the
holding in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). Such
evidence is required in order to establish a prima facie case.
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88
(Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268,
271-72 (CCPA 1966).
Independent claims 1, 13 and 20 require reducing the number
of chrominance data values of a small image before performing the
run length encoding of the reduced data. While Hirano does
disclose run length encoding of still image data (abstract), the
reference offers no teaching or suggestion of transforming the
image data to a luminance format including chrominance data
values and reducing such values. Normile performs the
compression process of video data by transforming the RGB
representation of digitized images to chrominance and luminance
Appeal No. 2001-2575
Application No. 09/074,545
7
components (col. 3, lines 44-67). Kuroshima, on the other hand,
addresses the problem of storing large amounts of image data by
converting the data to a lower resolution before storage (col. 3,
lines 1-6 and col. 7, lines 1-9). However, as stated by
Appellant (brief, page 7), a reduction in resolution is not the
same as a reduction in size or chrominance data values.
In fact, none of the references recognize the importance of
compression of small amounts of image data, as recited in the
claims. Therefore, contrary to the Examiner’s position,
transforming small image data to chrominance and luminance data
values, reducing the number of chrominance data values and
compression of the reduced values cannot be derived from the
combination of the references.
We also disagree with the Examiner’s stated reasons for
combining Hirano with Normile and Kuroshima. There is no
indication in Normile or Kuroshima that the compression of images
using their chrominance data values or storage of a lower
resolution image data, in addition to the run length encoding
compression, may benefit the image search and retrieval of
Hirano. Notwithstanding the Examiner’s arguments that the
combination is based on the selection and compression of any
reduced size image (answer, page 15), we agree with Appellant
Appeal No. 2001-2575
Application No. 09/074,545
8
that such combination is made only in terms of combining the
reduced chrominance data values and the run length encoding
compression as disclosed by Appellant. Normile merely discusses
compression of video images after transforming RGB representation
of images to UVY chrominance and luminance components (col. 3,
lines 44-67) while Kuroshima is concerned with storing compressed
image data at different resolutions (col. 6, line 62 through col.
7, line 22). Thus, the only possible suggestion to combine these
separate teachings must have come not from the references
themselves, but from the Appellant’s disclosure based on
impermissible hindsight. Whereas, we are required to make the
particular findings as to the reason the skilled artisan, with no
knowledge of the claimed invention, would have selected and
modified the prior art teachings for combination in the manner
claimed. In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1369-70, 55 USPQ2d 1313,
1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
In view of our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness because the
necessary teachings and suggestions related to the claimed step
of reducing the number of chrominance data values and applying
the run length encoding to the reduced values are not shown.
Appeal No. 2001-2575
Application No. 09/074,545
9
Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 1-3, 6, 13-15, 18-22, 25, 26, 30, 33 and 35.
With respect to the rejection of claims 5, 17 and 24, the
Examiner further relies on Meriwether (answer, page 7) and on
Murray in rejecting claims 32, 36-39, 50, 52-54, 56, 57, 59-61
and 63 (answer, page 8), in addition to the references discussed
above, for teaching the details of run length encoding. With
respect to claims 27, 28, 47 and 48, the Examiner additionally
relies on Pearlman for teaching a computer readable medium
(answer, pages 10 & 11). However, none of these references
overcomes the deficiencies of the combination of the Hirano,
Normile and Kuroshima discussed above as they also fail to teach
the claimed reducing the number of chrominance data values and
applying the run length encoding to the reduced values.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 5, 17 and
24,, 27, 28, 32, 36-39, 47, 48, 50, 52-54, 56, 57, 59-61 and 63
over the various combinations of these references cannot be
sustained.
Appeal No. 2001-2575
Application No. 09/074,545
10
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 6, 13-15, 17-22, 24-28, 30, 32, 33, 35-
39, 47, 48, 50, 52-54, 56, 57 and 59-63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MDS/ki
Appeal No. 2001-2575
Application No. 09/074,545
11
Burns, Doane, Swecker & Mathis, LLP
Post Office Box 1404
Alexandria, VA 22313-1404