Ex parte JAMZADEH

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 5, 1997

08143512 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 5, 1997)

Application for patent filed October 26, 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for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte FERAYDOON S. JAMZADEH
_____________
Appeal No. 96-1021
Application 08/143,5121
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, FLEMING and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of Claims 45-80,
which constitute all the claims remaining in the application.
We reverse.
Claim 45 reads as follows:
45. An apparatus for making prints from a strip
carrying a plurality of distinct printable image frames, said
Appeal No. 96-1021
Application 08/143,512
2
apparatus comprising:
a keyboard for inputting the number of prints to
be made of particular ones of the image frames and a criterion
representing a characteristic of the image within an image frame
that is to be used to identify the particular image frame;
a film scanner for scanning the images within each
image frame and generating signals representing the images
scanned;
a computer programmed to analyze the scanned
images and the particular image frames based on the criterion;
and
a printer for printing the particular images
according to the number inputted having those characteristics of
the particular image frames wherein the computer is programmed to
analyze the pre-scan data to identify indoor versus outdoor
scenes by comparing the peripheral and central densities of an
image.
The examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art:
Terashita 5,023,656 Jun. 11, 1991
Cosgrove 5,157,482 Oct. 20, 1992
Shimizu 5,159,444 Oct. 27, 1992
Hutcheson et al. 5,161,204 Nov. 3, 1992
(Hutcheson ‘204)
Hutcheson et al. 5,274,714 Dec. 28, 1993
(Hutcheson ‘714)
OPINION
Hutcheson in view of Terashita
Claims 45, 49, 53, 57, 61, 69, 73, and 77 stand rejected
Appeal No. 96-1021
Application 08/143,512
3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over either Hutcheson in
view of Terashita.
Hutcheson discloses a system for identifying people and the
like by comparing an image of them to a large database of
prestored known images. The unidentified input image is obtained
from a video frame grabber. There is no identification
criterion, entered in a keyboard, upon which the computer could
analyze and identify scanned images for selective printing as
required by the claims on appeal. Rather, the search is made on
the basis of the scanned video image. Moreover, Hutcheson makes
prints from a database, not from a film strip.
Terashita discloses a frame by frame printing process which
calculates a print exposure amount for a given frame based on
analysis of the image contained in that frame. There is no
identification criterion upon which the computer could analyze
and identify scanned images for selective printing as required by
the claims on appeal. Rather, each frame is analyzed one at a
time merely to optimize the print of that frame.
The examiner’s statement of the rejection is contained in
the final Office action. After describing the content of
Hutcheson and Terashita, the examiner states that it would have
Appeal No. 96-1021
Application 08/143,512
4
been obvious “to incorporate Terashita’s apparatus and method
into Hutcheson’s apparatus, as Terashita suggests, for the
motivation of providing a method and apparatus for discriminating
a principal image correctly.” Paper No. 6 at page 3. Appellant
argues that “[t]he combination clearly does not produce
applicant’s invention.” Appeal Brief at 7.
We agree with Appellant. The examiner has not explained how
one could “incorporate Terashita’s apparatus and method into
Hutcheson’s apparatus” to create Appellant’s invention. Both
references lack the recited computer programmed to analyze and
identify scanned image frames based on criteria entered in a
keyboard and a printer for printing the scanned images selected
by that analysis. Thus, no conceivable combination of the
references could create the claimed subject matter and the
rejection will not be sustained.
Hutcheson in view of Terashita further in view of Shimizu or
Cosgrove
The remaining claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hutcheson in view of Terashita as discussed
above, and further in view of Shimizu or Cosgrove.
Neither Shimizu nor Cosgrove remedy the defects of the basic
rejection. Neither discloses the recited method steps or
Appeal No. 96-1021
Application 08/143,512
5
apparatus features for analyzing and identifying scanned image
frames based on criteria entered in a keyboard and printing the
scanned images selected by that analysis.
Therefore, none of the rejections will be sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of Claims 45-80 are reversed.
)
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-1021
Application 08/143,512
6
Leonard W. Treash, Jr.
Eastman Kodak Co.
Patent Legal Staff
Rochester, NY 14650-2201