Ex Parte IshiiDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 30, 201411802535 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/802,535 05/23/2007 Eisaku Ishii FPA-2006-0463-NEC-US-YYd 3162 21254 7590 05/01/2014 MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC 8321 OLD COURTHOUSE ROAD SUITE 200 VIENNA, VA 22182-3817 EXAMINER RICHER, JONI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2611 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/01/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte EISAKU ISHII ____________ Appeal 2011-013712 Application 11/802,535 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-013712 Application 11/802,535 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Representative Claim 1. An image displaying device having an image cache memory, said image displaying device comprising: an image displaying unit that performs a process for displaying supplied image data; an image cache identifier generating unit that obtains a hash value of a fixed length from sampling data of original image data and that generates an image cache identifier unique to said original image data based on the hash value of the fixed length, said sampling data being obtained by sampling an entirety of the original image data at regular intervals which are determined based on a data size of the original image data; an image cache searching unit that, when the image cache identifier is generated by said image cache identifier generating unit, checks whether image cache data to which the image cache identifier is added is stored in said image cache memory, and that reads the image cache data from said image cache memory when the image cache data is stored and supplies the read image cache data for said image displaying unit; and an image cache generating unit that, when said image cache searching unit determines that the image cache data has not been stored in said image cache memory, supplies the original image data for said image displaying unit, and that generates image cache data by adding the image cache identifier generated by said image cache identifier generating unit to the original image data and stores the image cache data in said image cache memory. Appeal 2011-013712 Application 11/802,535 3 Prior Art Tone US 5,715,070 Feb. 3, 1998 Van Hook US 6,549,210 B1 Apr. 15, 2003 Emerson US 6,664,969 B1 Dec. 16, 2003 Takahashi US 6,898,329 B1 May 24, 2005 Rose US 2005/0050028 A1 Mar. 3, 2005 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 6, 11-15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Hook and Takahashi. Claims 2 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Hook, Takahashi, and Rose. Claims 3 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Hook, Takahashi, Rose, and Tone. Claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Hook, Takahashi, and Emerson. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Van Hook, Takahashi, and Appellant’s admitted prior art. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds the combination of Van Hook and Takahashi teaches “an image cache identifier generating unit that obtains a hash value of a fixed length from sampling data of original image data,” with “said sampling data being obtained by sampling an entirety of the original image data at regular intervals which are determined based on a data size of the original image data” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 5-7. Appellant contends Takahashi is not analogous art. App. Br. 10-11. Appeal 2011-013712 Application 11/802,535 4 The Klein decision from the Federal Circuit is instructive in determining whether a reference is analogous art. A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. If a reference disclosure has the same purpose as the claimed invention, the reference relates to the same problem, and that fact supports use of that reference in an obviousness rejection. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted). For the first part of the test, Appellant contends Takahashi is in a different art. App. Br. 10. Here, the field of endeavor of Appellant’s invention is an image displaying device having an image cache memory. Takahashi is in the field of image binarization. The Examiner has not persuasively explained how image binarization is in the same field as an image display device having an image cache memory. For the second part of the test, Appellant contends Takahashi relates to a different problem, namely, image binarization. App. Br. 10-11. The Examiner finds Takahashi and the claimed invention both solve the problem of sampling image data. Ans. 15. However, the Examiner defines the problem addressed by Appellant’s invention too narrowly. Here, the purpose of the claimed invention is to prevent storing the same image in Appeal 2011-013712 Application 11/802,535 5 cache memory multiple times under different file names. See Spec. 2-4. The purpose of Takahashi is to perform high quality binarization of an image rapidly and at a low rate of power consumption. Col. 2, ll. 55-57. We agree with Appellant that an inventor considering the problem of how to prevent storing the same image multiple times in cache memory would not have been motivated to consider Takahashi when making his invention, particularly since Takahashi does not teach cache memory. “If a reference is directed to a different purpose, the inventor would accordingly have had less motivation or occasion to consider it.” Klein, 647 F.3d. at 1351. Appellant also contends even if the teachings of Van Hook and Takahashi were combined, the result would not yield the claimed invention. App. Br. 11. In particular, Appellant contends there is no need to sample pixels in the image data of Van Hook. Id. We agree with Appellant. Van Hook teaches a method for hashing a cache index for texel data (see Figures 12A-12C and column 9, lines 36-60), and Takahashi teaches sampling pixel data to binarize an image (column 8, lines 13-36). The Examiner has not persuasively explained: where Van Hook teaches sampling texel data for hashing the index; how Van Hook would benefit from using sampled texel data when hashing the index; and how combining the method for hashing a cache index for texel data with sampling pixel data as taught by Takahashi teaches “an image cache identifier generating unit that obtains a hash value of a fixed length from sampling data of original image data,” with “said sampling data being obtained by sampling an entirety of the original image data at regular intervals which are determined based on a data size of the original image data,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal 2011-013712 Application 11/802,535 6 Independent claims 6 and 11-13 recite a limitation similar to that recited in claim 1 for which the rejection fails. Thus, for the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 6, 11-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Hook and Takahashi is reversed. The rejection of claims 2 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Hook, Takahashi, and Rose is reversed. The rejection of claims 3 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Hook, Takahashi, Rose, and Tone is reversed. The rejection of claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Hook, Takahashi, and Emerson is reversed. The rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Van Hook, Takahashi, and Appellant’s admitted prior art is reversed. REVERSED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation