Ex parte ITO

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 26, 1999

08136254 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 26, 1999)

Application for patent filed October 15, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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 WATARU ITO
_____________
Appeal No. 96-3646
Application 08/136,2541
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KRASS, CARMICHAEL and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judges.
CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of Claims 1-26, which constitute all the claims
remaining in the application.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
Appeal No. 96-3646
Application 08/136,254
2
1. A method for compressing an image signal representing a radiation image, which comprises
the steps of:
detecting the image signal by reading out the radiation image which has been recorded on a
recording medium;
generating a conditioned image signal according to one condition of a set of conditions; and
compressing the conditioned image signal into a compressed image signal using a compression
process which is chosen depending upon said one condition.
The examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art:
Arakawa et al. (Arakawa) 5,028,784 July 2, 1991
Shimura 5,086,489 Feb. 4, 1992
OPINION
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Arakawa. Claims 13,
15-20, and 22-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Shimura. Claims 14
and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Arakawa and Shimura.
All the claims require a step or means for “generating a conditioned image signal according to
one condition of a set of conditions.” The claims also require using a process “which is chosen
depending upon said one condition.”
The examiner concedes that the references do not teach a set of conditions or choosing a
process depending on the condition. However, the examiner takes “official notice” that other
Appeal No. 96-3646
Application 08/136,254
3
conditions, besides the one employed in the references, were known in the art. The examiner contends
that any compression or interpolation process would be “chosen depending upon said one condition.”
Appellant argues that the claims require a set of conditions, not just one condition.
We agree with appellant. Because the claims call for a process “chosen depending upon said
one condition” of a set of conditions, a reference which suggests a system using only one condition does
not suggest the claimed subject matter.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of Claims 1-26 is not sustained.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS AND
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL ) INTERFERENCES
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JTC/dal
Appeal No. 96-3646
Application 08/136,254
4
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN,
MACPEAK & SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20037