Ex parte HUA

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 13, 2001

08554425 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 13, 2001)

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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 PING HUA
_____________
Appeal No. 1999-0487
Application 08/554,425
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before JERRY SMITH, BARRETT and FLEMING, 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 1-8, which constitute
all the claims in the application.
The disclosed invention pertains to the field of image
processing. Specifically, the invention relates to a method
and apparatus for automatically determining an appropriate
Appeal No. 1999-0487
Application No. 08/554,425
2
quantization factor for use in JPEG compression of the image
data so as to achieve a desired average compression ratio for
the data. The inventors claim to have discovered that certain
types of image data sequences bear a relationship which allows
the quantization factor to be determined using linear
interpolation based on a low quantization value and a high
quantization value.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A method for automatically determining, for a
desired average compression ratio C, and within a
predetermined range of quantization values, an
appropriate value for a quantization factor Q for
use in JPEG compression of image data from a
sequence of angiographic images made up of frames of
video data, comprising the following steps:
sampling N frames of video data from the
sequence;
determining, using a low value quantization
factor Q that is within said predetermined range and
that is assumed to be less than said appropriate
value, a lower average compression ratio for the
sampled N frames of video data;
determining, using a high value quantization
factor Q that is within said predetermined range and
that is assumed to be greater than said appropriate
value, a higher average compression ratio for the
sampled N frames of video data; and
Appeal No. 1999-0487
Application No. 08/554,425
3
determining said appropriate value by linear
interpolation.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Greenberg 3,908,081 Sep. 23, 1975
Yonekawa et al. (Yonekawa) 4,922,273 May 01, 1990
Chen et al. (Chen) 5,241,383 Aug. 31, 1993
Daher 5,327,254 July 05, 1994
Mita et al. (Mita) 5,543,844 Aug. 06, 1996
(filed Nov. 09, 1993)
Wallace, “The JPEG Still Picture Compression Standard,” IEEE
Transactions on Consumer Electronics, Vol. 38, No. 1, February
1992, pages xviii-xxxiv.
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1, 5, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Mita in view
of Yonekawa.
2. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Mita in view of
Yonekawa and further in view of Chen.
3. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the teachings of Mita in view of
Yonekawa and further in view of Daher and Wallace.
Appeal No. 1999-0487
Application No. 08/554,425
4
4. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Mita in view of
Yonekawa and further in view of Greenberg.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief 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 obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection sand arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, 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 1-8. Accordingly, we reverse.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
Appeal No. 1999-0487
Application No. 08/554,425
5
incumbent upon the examiner to 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.
Appeal No. 1999-0487
Application No. 08/554,425
6
Cir. 1984). These showings by the examiner are an essential
part of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie
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 brief have not been considered [see
37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
We consider first the rejection of independent claims 1,
5, 7 and 8 based on the teachings of Mita and Yonekawa.
Appellant has indicated that claims 1 and 7 stand or fall
Appeal No. 1999-0487
Application No. 08/554,425
7
together as a first group while claims 5 and 8 stand or fall
together as a second group [brief, page 3]. The examiner
makes a single rejection which is applied against each of
claims 1, 5, 7 and 8.
The examiner essentially finds that Mita teaches the
claimed invention except that Mita uses a code amount or
relative code amount as a compression factor rather than the
claimed compression ratio. The examiner asserts that it would
have been obvious to the artisan to use a compression ratio
instead of a code amount or relative code amount. The
examiner also cites Yonekawa as teaching use of a compression
ratio to determine quantization values [answer, pages 4-5].
With respect to claims 1 and 7, appellant notes that
these claims recite a sequence of angiographic images made up
of frames
of video data, and appellant argues that neither Mita nor
Yonekawa relates to angiography image sequences. Appellant
also argues that neither reference teaches the concept of
using linear interpolation to automatically determine
quantization factors to achieve a desired compression ratio
Appeal No. 1999-0487
Application No. 08/554,425
8
[brief, pages 5-6].
The examiner’s response indicates that the examiner
considers the invention to be nothing more than a recognition
that the quantization factor in a JPEG compression is related
to the compression ratio. According to the examiner, the
method claimed by appellant would work on any image data
despite appellant’s assertions to the contrary. The examiner
also argues that appellant’s invention is not limited to
angiographic image sequences despite the specific recitation
of such sequences in claims 1 and 7 [answer, pages 8-13].
The examiner’s finding that claims 1 and 7 are not
limited to angiographic image sequences is clearly in error.
Claims 1 and 7 specifically recite that the method is applied
to “image data from a sequence of angiographic images made up
of frames of video data.” Although this recitation appears in
what the examiner calls the preamble of the claim, and is not
binding
according to the examiner, the steps of claims 1 and 7 refer
to “sampling N frames of video data from the sequence” and
Appeal No. 1999-0487
Application No. 08/554,425
9
determining a value “for the sampled N frames of video data.”
The sequence and the sampled frames of these claims clearly
refers back to the sequence of angiographic images set forth
in the preamble of the claim. Therefore, claims 1 and 7 give
life to the preamble and require that the image data be a
sequence of angiographic images. The fact that appellant’s
specification indicates that the invention is not limited to
angiographic images cannot alter the clear language of claims
1 and 7 which restricts the data to a sequence of angiographic
images.
More importantly, appellant’s invention is based on the
discovery that sequential angiographic images and certain
other types of images have the unusual property that within a
predetermined range of quantization values, the average
compression ratio varies linearly with respect to the
quantization factor. Contrary to the examiner’s assertion,
this relationship does not exist for all sequential image
data. It is the discovery of this relationship with respect
to certain types of image data which allows a quantization
value to be determined
Appeal No. 1999-0487
Application No. 08/554,425
10
using linear interpolation to achieve a desired compression
ratio. The claimed invention would be useless if applied to
image data which did not have this relationship. Therefore,
the type of image data is critical in evaluating the claimed
invention.
Thus, the angiographic image sequences of claims 1 and 7
are critical to the method recited in those claims. The
examiner has failed to demonstrate that the prior art teaches
or suggests the performance of the specific method recited in
claims 1 and 7 with respect to angiographic image sequences as
recited in these claims. The linear interpolation discussed
in the applied prior art has nothing to do with interpolating
between two quantization values having the relationship that
angiographic image sequences have as recited in claims 1 and
7. Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 and 7.
With respect to claims 5 and 8, appellant argues that the
relationship between quantization factor and average
compression ratio as claimed is critical to the performance of
the claimed method and the applied prior art does not teach or
suggest this relationship as discussed above. The examiner
Appeal No. 1999-0487
Application No. 08/554,425
11
disagrees.
Claims 5 and 8 differ from claims 1 and 7 in that instead
of reciting that the image data is from a sequence of
angiographic images, the image data is recited as being “of a
type wherein, within a predetermined domain that includes said
range, average compression ratio varies linearly with respect
to quantization factor.” As noted above, it is this property
of the image data which is critical to the claimed method.
Angiographic image sequences have this property. Neither Mita
nor Yonekawa teaches or suggests that image data exists which
has the claimed relationship. Without recognition of this
relationship, the applied prior art does not teach or suggest
that a quantization factor can be determined using linear
interpolation between just two values to achieve a desired
compression ratio. Therefore, we also do not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 8.
Although dependent claims 2-4 and 6 are rejected using
the additional teachings of Chen, Daher and Wallace, or
Greenberg, none of these additionally applied references
Appeal No. 1999-0487
Application No. 08/554,425
12
overcomes the basic deficiencies of the Mita-Yonekawa
combination discussed above. Therefore, we also do not
sustain the rejection of these dependent claims.
In summary, we have not sustained any of the examiner’s
rejections of the appealed claims. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 1-8 is reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
js/vsh
Appeal No. 1999-0487
Application No. 08/554,425
13
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
186 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH
ISELIN, NJ 08830