Ex parte John W. Poduska, Jr.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 10, 1997

07837240 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 10, 1997)

Application for patent filed February 14, 1992.1
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for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 31
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JOHN W. PODUSKA, JR.
_____________
Appeal No. 96-2379
Application 07/837,2401
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, BARRETT and LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. No claim has been
allowed. We affirm the rejection of claims 1-9 and 12-19 and
reverse the rejection of claims 10, 11 and 20.
References relied on by the Examiner
Mori et al. (Mori) 5,294,984 Mar. 15, 1994
(filed Jan. 13, 1992)
Appeal No. 96-2379
Application 07/837,240
2
Comins et al. (Comins) 5,179,641 Jan. 12, 1993
(filed Jun. 23, 1989)
Jarvis 3,961,134 Jun. 1, 1976
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-18 and 20 stand finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Comins.
Claim 7 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Comins and Mori.
Claims 9 and 19 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Comins and Jarvis.
The Invention
The invention is directed to a dithering technique for
displaying an image that appears to have better resolution on a
device that does not have enough color or intensity resolution to
display an image of that quality. According to the appellant,
the invention represents an improvement over prior art dithering
techniques by not requiring a first comparing step which compares
certain lower bits in the intensity information with pre-stored
values before deciding whether the remaining upper bits of the
intensity information are to be incremented.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are apparatus claims, and claims 2 and 13-
Appeal No. 96-2379
Application 07/837,240
3
20 are process claims. Claims 1, 2 and 12 are independent
claims, of which claims 1 and 2 are representative and are
reproduced below:
1. An image processing device comprising:
an input register coupled to receive input data
which includes location and intensity information of images to be
displayed;
an interpolator register coupled to receive a
dithering value which is dependent on the location information of
the input data in the input register;
an adder coupled to said input register and said
interpolator register and configured to provide a resultant value
of the addition of the intensity information of the input data
and the dithering value; and
an output register coupled to said adder for
receiving a selected number of bits of the resultant value.
2. A method of generating an image including the steps
of:
receiving input data including location
information and intensity information;
adding a dithering value associated with the input
data to the intensity information to generate a resultant value;
generating an output value including a selected
number of bits of the resultant value; and
generating an image based upon said output value.
Claims 3-11 depend ultimately from claim 1, and claims 13-20
Appeal No. 96-2379
Application 07/837,240
4
depend ultimately from claim 2.
Opinion
The rejection of claims 1-9 and 12-19
We sustain the rejection of claims 1-9 and 12-19.
This decision is based solely on the arguments raised by the
appellants. We offer no opinion on arguments which could have
been raised but which were not set forth in the appellant’s
brief.
The appellant's discussion of prior art dithering
techniques, both in the specification and in the background
section of the appeal brief, ignores the disclosure of Comins.
According to the appellant, prior art dithering techniques
require lots of processing steps and processing time by
separating intensity data into integer and fractional bits, by
comparing the fractional bits with a certain value in a dithering
matrix, and then by incrementing the integer bits if the results
of the comparison of fractional bits is within a certain range
(Br. at 12-13). The appellant's invention eliminates the need to
compare the fractional bits with the values in a dithering
matrix, by adding the intensity information as a whole to a
Appeal No. 96-2379
Application 07/837,240
5
dithering value to take advantage of the carry bit to accomplish
any needed incrementation. This procedure saves processing time
and circuitry as compared to prior art which requires a
comparison operation for the fractional bits.
Like the appellant's claimed invention, Comins' technique
eliminates the need to compare the fractional bits to values in a
dithering matrix. In the argument portion of the appellant's
brief at 16-17, the appellant acknowledges that in Comins, the
least significant bits in the calculated pixel value are added to
a dithering value in a first adder 264, and any carry bit is
added to the more significant bits of the calculated pixel value
in a second adder 265 (Figure 2). No comparison of the
fractional or least significant bits of the input word or
calculated pixel value with any stored value is required.
With respect to claims 1 and 12, it is true that Figure 2 of
Comins does not disclose an interpolator register which
"receives" a dithering value to be added to any portion of the
calculated pixel value. Rather, a pseudo number PN generator 261
including a shift register is used to generate and output such a
dithering value (Figure 2). We agree with the examiner, however,
that registers are well known and are basic devices for storing
and holding data (answer at 4-5), and thus it would have been
Appeal No. 96-2379
Application 07/837,240
6
obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to receive or
buffer between digital circuit stages a generated dithering value
in a holding or interpolator register prior to further
processing. Alternatively, the shift register in the PN
generator can be reasonably regarded as the claimed interpolator
register, because it holds the dithering value before outputting
the same to adder 264. We note that during patent examination,
claim terms are properly interpreted according to their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In
re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989); In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPQ 934, 936
(Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1404, 181 USPQ
641, 645 (CCPA 1974); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ
541, 550 (CCPA 1969). Generating and holding is reasonably
deemed one form of receiving. At a minimum, it reasonably
suggests receiving.
Further with respect to claims 1 and 12, it is true that
Figure 2 does not illustrate an output register coupled to the
adder for receiving a selected number of bits of the resultant
value. Instead, the second adder 265 directly provides the
output. However, as the examiner correctly found, registers are
well known and are basic devices for storing and holding data.
Appeal No. 96-2379
Application 07/837,240
7
We agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to one
with ordinary skill in the art to first hold or buffer the
resultant value in a register and then output the same. There is
no reason why one with ordinary skill in the art would perceive
that the resultant value must be provided directly from the adder
and cannot first be placed in an output register. The basic
skills of one with ordinary skill in the art would include such
common sense and logical reasoning. Indeed, even the appellant's
own specification describes and illustrates the use of output
registers by prior art dithering techniques (Figure 3).
The appellant argues that while the claimed invention
recites only a single adder, Comins makes use of two adders in
sequence. The argument is misplaced. The rejection on appeal is
one for obviousness, not anticipation. As is shown in Comins'
Figure 2, the carry bit from the output of the first adder 264 is
inputted to the second adder 265 which also take the more
significant bits of the calculated pixel value as input. From
the perspective of one with ordinary skill in the art, the two-
adder structure of Comins is equivalent to a single larger adder.
Logic dictates that adding the lower bits of a number to a value
in a first adder and then feeding the carry data to a second
adder which also takes as input the higher bits of the same
Appeal No. 96-2379
Application 07/837,240
8
number is the same as adding the number in its entirety at once
in a larger adder sufficient to add all of the bit positions. In
our view, that is within the realm of the basic skills and common
sense intrinsically possessed by one with ordinary skill in the
art. It should be noted that a conclusion of obviousness may be
made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of
ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion
in a particular reference. In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163
USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969). That one number can be added to
another in a single adder without splitting the first into two
parts is not a novel idea by any means. Certain basic skills are
to be presumed. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ
771, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ("[The appellant's] argument presumes
stupidity rather than skill"). We are not persuaded by the
appellant that there is patentable distinction based on whether
the carry bit is naturally carried in a single adder or
externally carried through use of two adders.
In any event, neither the word “single” nor the words
“natural carry” appear in any claim and we do not read the claims
as requiring only a single adder or a “natural carry” operation.
With respect to all independent claims 1, 2 and 12, the
appellant argues that the claimed invention requires input data
Appeal No. 96-2379
Application 07/837,240
9
which includes both location and intensity information of the
images to be displayed. In his answer, the examiner specifically
points out and identifies, for the first time, where in Comins is
disclosed such input data including both location and intensity
information (answer at 7-8).
In the reply brief at 3 and 12-13, the appellant argues that
prior to the examiner's answer, the examiner's position was that
Comins did not disclose input data which includes both location
and intensity information, and therefore it was unfair for the
examiner to maintain an opposite position for the first time in
the examiner's answer. The appellant asserts that at this late
date it was too late to amend the claims and thus the examiner's
taking a flip-flop is prejudicial to the appellant.
It does appear to us that the examiner has flip-flopped on
his position with regard to the limitation at issue. However,
that fact does not help the appellant in this appeal. If the
appellant felt prejudiced by the examiner's action, the
appropriate recourse would have been to petition the Commissioner
for a re-opening of prosecution so that the new position of the
examiner can be addressed or the claims amended. The appellant
did not do that. Alternatively, the appellant can submit
substantive arguments in the reply brief to rebut the new points
Appeal No. 96-2379
Application 07/837,240
10
raised by the examiner. On this record, the examiner's position
remains entirely unrebutted by the appellant as to how and why
Comins discloses input words which include both location and
intensity information. The appellant has not given us any reason
to hold that the examiner's finding in that regard is erroneous.
For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1, 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Comins.
With regard to the further features added by dependent
claims 5-9, 15, and 17-19, the appellant does not dispute the
findings of the examiner and does not explain why the claimed
subject matter would not have been obvious over the cited prior
art except to note their dependence on an independent claim which
is believed by the appellant to be allowable. Accordingly, these
claims will fall with their corresponding independent claims.
With regard to claim 3 which recites that the adder
comprises an adder circuit having a carry function, and claim 13
which recites that the adding step includes operating an adder
circuit having an adder function, the issue is the same as that
concerning an alleged distinction based on whether one or two
adders are used for the adding function. In the appeal brief at
8, the appellant argues that the two adders of Comins are very
Appeal No. 96-2379
Application 07/837,240
11
different and do not operate in the same manner as the single
adder of the present invention. For reasons already discussed
above in connection with independent claims 1, 2 and 12, we are
not persuaded that the difference amounts to a patentable
distinction. Alternatively, the claim language that the adder
comprises an adder circuit having a carry function is so broad
that it reads on an adder which sends the most significant carry
bit to another adder. The fact that a carry bit exists satisfies
the requirement that there is a carry function. Note that the
broadest reasonable interpretation applies during patent
examination.
With regard to claims 4 and 14, the appellant argues that in
Comins the circuitry in workstation 10, which performs the
addition functions, is not an arithmetic logic unit in a
microcomputer. The argument is misplaced. In light of the
digital logic disclosed by Comins for performing the adding
function, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill
in the art to implement the function through a digital
microcomputer's arithmetic logic unit. The appellant nowhere
explained why it would not have been obvious to one with ordinary
skill in the art to use a microcomputer's arithmetic logic unit
to implement an addition function. Note that 37 CFR
Appeal No. 96-2379
Application 07/837,240
12
§ 1.192(c)(8)(iv) requires the appellant to explain why the issue
at hand would render the claimed subject matter nonobvious to one
with ordinary skill in the art. The appellant has not done that.
With regard to claim 16, which depends from claim 15, the
appellant argues merely the distinctions based on features
recited in claims 2 and 15. Accordingly, this claim will fall
together with claims 2 and 15.
The rejection of claims 10-11 and 20
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 10-11 and 20.
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and further recites that the
dithering value is dependent on the location information of the
next input data. Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and further
recites that the dithering value is dependent on the location
information of the input data and on the location information of
the next input data. Claim 20 depends from claim 2 and recites
that the step of adding a dithering value includes providing a
dithering value which is dependent on the location information of
the next input data. Thus, all of claims 10, 11 and 20 require
that the dithering value is dependent on the location information
of the next input data.
The examiner specifically acknowledges (answer at 5) that
Comins does not disclose that the dithering value is dependent on
Appeal No. 96-2379
Application 07/837,240
13
the location information of the next input data. However, based
on the disclosure in Comins that the dithering value can be
pseudo-random or randomly selected, the examiner concludes that
it does not matter how the dithering value is chosen and
therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill
in the art to have a dithering value which is dependent on the
location information of the next input data. We disagree.
The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the
manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification
obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780,
1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Obviousness may not be established
using hindsight or in view of the teachings of suggestions of the
inventor. Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int'l, 73 F.3d
1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995). A teaching of
random selection does not equate to or reasonably suggests a
dithering value which is specifically dependent on something in
particular, in this case, the location information of the "next"
input data. The examiner has not demonstrated that Comins
discloses or would reasonably have suggested to one with ordinary
skill in the art that it would be desirable to have the dithering
value be dependent on the location information of the "next"
Appeal No. 96-2379
Application 07/837,240
14
input word. Accordingly, the rejection is based on improper
hindsight.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, and 12-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Comins is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Comins and Mori is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Comins and Jarvis is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 10, 11 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Comins is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
Appeal No. 96-2379
Application 07/837,240
15
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-2379
Application 07/837,240
16
Edward D. Manzo
COOK, EGAN, McFARRON & MANZO
135 S. LaSalle Street, Ste. 4100
Chicago, IL 60603