Ex parte Hayashi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 29, 2001

08601751 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 29, 2001)

-1-
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today was not written for publication and is not
binding precedent of the Board.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. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte MASAAKI HAYASHI
________________
Appeal No. 1999-1587
Application 08/601,751
________________
HEARD: MARCH 21, 2001
________________
Before JERRY SMITH, RUGGIERO and LEVY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the examiner’s rejection of claims 6-9. Claims 1 and 3-5
have been canceled. Claim 2 has been indicated to contain
allowable subject matter. An amendment after final rejection
was filed on January 21, 1998 but was denied entry by the
examiner.
Appeal No. 1999-1587
Application 08/601,751
-2-
The disclosed invention pertains to a neurofilter and
a method of training the neurofilter to operate on image data
so as to discriminate between text and picture regions of an
image which is expressed by image data.
Representative claims 6 and 9 are reproduced as
follows:
6. A neurofilter comprising:
a neural network having weighting coefficients which
may be adjusted during a training procedure, said neural
network having been subjected to a training procedure for
setting said weighting coefficients such as to provide a
specific type of filtering of image data or serial data which
are sequentially supplied to said neural network,
wherein said neurofilter functions as a separation
filter for operating on image data expressing an original
image, said neurofilter responding to data of respectively
different predetermined types of image region within said
original image by producing an output signal at
correspondingly different levels,
said neurofilter further comprising
smoothing filter means for executing smoothing
processing of said output signal.
9. A filter apparatus comprising a parallel combination
of a conventional filter and a neurofilter, having respective
inputs thereof coupled in common, and means for combining
output data produced from said neurofilter with output data
produced from said conventional filter to thereby compensate
for errors in said output data from the conventional filter,
said neurofilter comprising a neural network having weighting
coefficients which may be adjusted during a training
Appeal No. 1999-1587
Application 08/601,751
-3-
procedure, said neural network having been subjected to a
training procedure for setting said weighting coefficients
such that respective output data produced from said neural
network in response to sequentially supplied input data
substantially correspond to amounts of difference
between actual output data which are produced from said
conventional filter in response to said input data and ideal
data which are required to be obtained in response to said
input data.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Kawai et al. (Kawai) 5,339,365 Aug. 16, 1994
Ikeuchi 5,608,819 Mar. 04, 1997
(filed May 18, 1994)
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by the disclosure of Ikeuchi. Claims 6-8
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the teachings of Ikeuchi in view of Kawai.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
Appeal No. 1999-1587
Application 08/601,751
-4-
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the disclosure of Ikeuchi does not fully meet
the invention as recited in claim 9. We are also of the view
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth
in claims 6-8. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claim 9 as being
anticipated by the disclosure of Ikeuchi. Anticipation is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure
which is capable of performing the recited functional
limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc.,
Appeal No. 1999-1587
Application 08/601,751
-5-
730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); cert.
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and Associates,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The examiner indicates how he reads claim 9 on the
disclosure of Ikeuchi [answer, pages 3-4]. Appellant argues
that 1) neither pseudo-halftone processing section 4 nor bi-
level
conversion section 6 of Ikeuchi can be considered to be a
“conventional filter” as recited in claim 9; 2) neural network
17 of Ikeuchi is not connected in parallel with either
processing section 4 or conversion section 6; and 3) the
output of neural network 17 in Ikeuchi is not “combined” with
the outputs of sections 4 or 6 in data selector 5 as recited
in claim 9 [brief, pages 6-11]. The examiner responds that in
his view the disclosure of Ikeuchi meets the broadest
reasonable interpretation of claim 9 [answer, pages 6-8].
We agree with the position argued by appellant for
essentially the reasons set forth in the briefs. Most
importantly, we agree with appellant that neural network 17 of
Appeal No. 1999-1587
Application 08/601,751
-6-
Ikeuchi is not connected in parallel with either pseudo-
halftone processing section 4 or bi-level conversion section
6. As pointed out by appellant, for two electronic devices to
be connected in parallel, the devices must be connected to a
common point or device at both the inputs and at the outputs
of the devices. Neural network 17 of Ikeuchi is not connected
in parallel with devices 4 or 6 for reasons explained by
appellant in the briefs. We also agree with appellant that
the claimed combining of output data from two devices is not
met by using one of the outputs to select the other output as
is done in Ikeuchi.
Since we have determined that Ikeuchi does not
disclose every element of the invention as recited in claim 9,
we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 9 based on
Ikeuchi.
We now consider the rejection of claims 6-8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 based on the teachings of Ikeuchi and Kawai.
These claims stand or fall together as a single group [brief,
page 6] so that we will consider independent claim 6 as the
representative claim for this group. In rejecting claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to
Appeal No. 1999-1587
Application 08/601,751
-7-
establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the examiner is
expected to make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467
(1966), and to provide a reason why one having ordinary skill
in the pertinent art would have been led to modify the prior
art or to combine prior art references to arrive at the
claimed invention. Such reason must stem from some teaching,
suggestion or implication in the prior art as a whole or
knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in
the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,
1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S.
825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories,
Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985),
cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the examiner are an essential
part of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie
Appeal No. 1999-1587
Application 08/601,751
-8-
case of obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met,
the burden then shifts to the applicant to overcome the prima
facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then
determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the
relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See Id.; In re
Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788
(Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made
by appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
briefs have not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to representative, independent claim 6,
the examiner finds that Ikeuchi teaches the invention of claim
6 except for the smoothing filter. The examiner cites Kawai
as teaching the desirability of smoothing image data, and the
examiner finds that it would have been obvious to use a
Appeal No. 1999-1587
Application 08/601,751
-9-
smoothing filter as taught by Kawai on Ikeuchi’s image data
[answer, pages 5-6]. Appellant argues that the data which is
smoothed in claim 6 is the multi-level control signal which is
output from the
neurofilter and not an image signal as in Kawai [brief,
pages 12-15].
We agree with appellant that the examiner has not
provided a cogent rationale as to why the multi-level control
output of a neurofilter as recited in claim 6 should be
smoothed as claimed. The examiner’s rationale concerns the
desirability of smoothing image data, but the data which is
output from the neural network 17 in Ikeuchi is not image
data, but instead, is bi-level control data. The record
before us does not present any motivation for smoothing the
bi-level output from neural network 17 of Ikeuchi. Therefore,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 6-8 based on the
teachings of Ikeuchi and Kawai.
In conclusion, we have not sustained either of the
examiner’s rejections of the appealed claims. Therefore, the
Appeal No. 1999-1587
Application 08/601,751
-10-
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 6-9 is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-1587
Application 08/601,751
-11-
Israel Gopstein
Clark & Brody
1750 K Street, N.W., Suite 600
Washington, DC 20006