Ex Parte Hill

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 21, 2008

10007731 (B.P.A.I. May. 21, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHARLES E. HILL
____________

Appeal 2008-0574
Application 10/007,731
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: May 21, 2008
____________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, JEAN R. HOMERE, and STEPHEN C. SIU,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 21-31 and 36-59. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
Appeal 2008-0574
Application 10/007,731

2
A. INVENTION
The invention at issue relates to generating a presentation of data.
(Spec. 5). In particular, images that are used in the presentation are stored in
a database in different formats. An image is selected for inclusion in the
presentation and an optimum format of the selected image is selected from
the different stored formats for use in the presentation. (Id.).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 21, which further illustrates the invention, follows.
21. A method for generating an electronic presentation, the method
comprising the steps of:
storing a plurality of images in a database, each image being stored in
a plurality of different formats, each format having the same image content,
selecting an image from the plurality of images in the database for use
in a presentation,
selecting an optimum format of the selected image for use in the
presentation based on a presentation type,
linking the selected image used in the presentation with the
corresponding image stored in the database, and
storing the presentation.

C. REJECTION
Claims 21-31 and 36-59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,960,448 (“Reichek”) and U.S.
Appeal 2008-0574
Application 10/007,731

3
Patent No. 6,430,624 (“Jamtgaard”). Claims 1-20 and 32-35 have been
cancelled.

II. ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Reichek discloses “storing a plurality of
images in a database . . . each image being stored in a plurality of different
formats . . . [and] . . . selecting an optimum format of the selected image for
use in the presentation” (Ans. 4).
Appellant asserts that “Reichek, alone or in combination with
Jamtgaard, does not disclose . . . ‘storing a plurality of images in a database,
each image being stored in a plurality of different formats, each format
having the same image content’” (App. Br. 7). We agree with Appellant that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Reichek and
Jamtgaard discloses storing a plurality of images in different formats in a
database, each format having the same image content for reasons set forth
below.
Reichek discloses “visual enhancements” or “treatments” that “tell the
system how the document image should be displayed” (col. 8, ll. 6-8). The
Examiner finds that Reichek discloses that “the user then has the system
automatically treat the set of found images and regions with high resolution
visual graphics to enhance the display of those images . . . [t]he treatments
are stored in the storage area . . .” (Ans. 12) (emphasis omitted) and equates
the “visual enhancements” or “treatments” of Reichek with the “different
Appeal 2008-0574
Application 10/007,731

4
formats” recited in claim 21. However, Reichek discloses that the visual
enhancements or treatments “includes a reference to a document image and a
description of the visual enhancements to that document image” (col. 8, ll. 9-
10) but “does not have to include the actual enhanced image” (col. 8, ll. 11-
12). Rather, Reichek discloses that the “computer system 100 accesses the
image file 205 and the treatment and applies the visual enhancements during
the presentation” (col. 8, ll. 43-45). Although the “treatments are applied to
the display of the original image,” the treatments “are not stored as a
permanent change to the image file 205” (col. 8, ll. 40-43).
Although we agree with the Examiner that Reichek discloses storing
document images and also storing references to the document images and
descriptions of visual enhancements (i.e., storing the “treatments” or “visual
enhancements”), we disagree with the Examiner that Reichek also discloses
that each image is stored in a plurality of different formats and selecting an
optimum format of the selected image. Even assuming that the treatments or
visual enhancements of Reichek are associated with the “different formats”
recited in claim 21 as the Examiner states, Reichek discloses that “[t]he
treatments are stored in a storage area, such as a bin” (col. 3, ll. 36-37), but
that no changes in the image files are stored (col. 8, ll. 41-42, “treatments are
applied to the display of the original image and are not stored”). Hence, we
find that in Reichek, the original image is stored as well as “a description of
the visual enhancements to that document image [i.e., treatments]” (col. 8, ll.
9-10) but we do not find a disclosure in Reichek that the original image is
Appeal 2008-0574
Application 10/007,731

5
also stored in different formats. Indeed, Reichek appears to explicitly
disclose that, as “an important aspect,” “the treatments are applied to the
display of the original image and are not stored as a permanent change” (col.
8, l. 40-42).
The Examiner relies on Jamtgaard for disclosing “each format having
the same image content” (Ans. 4) and states that “Jamtgaard does teach «To
organize the content for display on the devices, the received content
information may be mapped into a hierarchy of groups so that the content
information can be optimally formatted for display on the device according
to the input/output format, such as the display screen size [parameters] of the
devices» - col. 2, lines 54-59” (Ans. 14) and that “Jamtgaard teaches «the
system permits content to be output in a variety of different output formats
. . . » - col. 4, lines 12-13” (id.). However, the Examiner does not
demonstrate that Jamtgaard also discloses storing a plurality of images in a
database, each image being stored in a plurality of different formats, and
each format having the same image content as recited in claim 21. It follows
that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the
combination of Reichek and Jamtgaard renders independent claim 21
unpatentable. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 21 and of claims
22-31 and 36, which depend therefrom.
Claim 48 also recites storing an image file in a plurality of different
formats, selecting one of the image files and selecting an optimum format of
the selected file. Claim 37 recites storing audio files in a plurality of
Appeal 2008-0574
Application 10/007,731

6
different formats, selecting an audio file and selecting an optimum format of
the audio file. For reasons set forth above for claim 21, we also find that
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the
combination of Reichek and Jamtgaard discloses or renders obvious each
feature of claim 37 and claim 48.
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 37 and 48 and of claims
38-47 and 49-59, which depend therefrom.

III. ORDER
In summary, the rejection of claims 21-31 and 36-59 under § 103(a) is
reversed.

REVERSED

tdl

BAKER & DANIELS LLP
300 NORTH MERIDIAN STREET
SUITE 2700
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204