Ex Parte Kanemitsu

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 14, 2003

07842082 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 14, 2003)

1
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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 49

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte NORIO KANEMITSU
_____________
Appeal No. 2000-1398
Application No. 07/842,082
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, KRASS and JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 6-8 and 23. Claims
1-3, 11, 12, 21, 22 and 24 have been indicated by the examiner as being directed to
allowable subject matter and claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 13-20 and 25-27 have been cancelled.
An oral hearing, scheduled for March 6, 2003, was waived.
Appeal No. 2000-1398
Application No. 07/842,082
2
The invention pertains to a facsimile apparatus. In particular, an examining unit
determines the resolution of image data being received and forwards that information to
a recording device determining unit which selects one of a plurality of data outport ports
connected to corresponding ones of a plurality of recording devices based on the
resolution.
Representative independent claim 23 is reproduced as follows:
23. A method for operating facsimile equipment, comprising the steps of:
a) receiving image data through a single line;
b) determining a resolution of the image data by examining the
image data;
c) automatically selecting one of a plurality of different types of
recording devices based on the determined resolution; and
d) automatically providing the image data to the selected one of
the recording devices.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Kawamura et al. [Kawamura] 4,926,268 May 15, 1990
Claims 6-8 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Kawamura.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellant and the examiner.
Appeal No. 2000-1398
Application No. 07/842,082
3
OPINION
Based on the grouping of claims, at page 4 of the principal brief, all claims will
stand or fall together.
The examiner takes the position that Kawamura teaches, in Figure 16, a
receiving means 301 for receiving image data, discriminating a certain type of that data
in discriminator 307, a selector for selecting between image processes and a recording
means 309. With regard to the claimed plurality of ports, the examiner contends that it
was well known that a port is an intermediate connection between the recorder and the
means for supplying the image data so that the limitation is “inferred” in the reference.
With regard to the plurality of printing means for accommodating images of various
resolutions, the examiner contends that Kawamura teaches plural output devices 200
and 201 for printing images of different density values, i.e., image quality, referring to
Figure 8 of the reference. The examiner further points out that Kawamura already
provides a selector for selecting between circuits 302 and 303 so it would have been
obvious to the artisan to modify the embodiment of Figure 8 by placing a selector
between image data output device 100 and the image output devices 200, 201 for the
purpose of selecting either one of the recording means 200, 201 shown in Figure 16.
The issue, as appellant views it, is whether Kawamura examines the resolution
of an image which has been received. It is appellant’s view that Kawamura’s mention
of “density” has been misinterpreted by the examiner as relating to resolution when, in
Appeal No. 2000-1398
Application No. 07/842,082
4
fact, the mention of “density” in the reference refers to a light reflection property of an
area of a developed image. Thus, appellant’s position is that Kawamura does not
disclose or suggest the claimed “determining a resolution of the image data by
examining the image data.”
We agree with appellant.
While Kawamura does mention “density,” there is no indication that such density
translates into a “resolution” of image data, as claimed. As shown in Figure 8 of the
reference, image data is received through a single line from image data output device
100. Density converter 203 is used for “density-converting the multi-level density data
202a” [column 7, lines 55-56]. It is true that Kawamura provides image data to a
selected one of a plurality of different types of recording devices [note column 7, lines
58-60, wherein the “image output devices 200 can be different output devices...”].
However, contrary to the examiner’s position, we find no suggestion of “determining a
resolution of the image data by examining the image data” nor of “selecting one of a
plurality of different types of recording devices based on the determined resolution.”
The digital image at 101 in Figure 8 of Kawamura is bi-level data which is then
converted by multi-level converter 202 before being density converted by element 203.
However, there is no indication anywhere in Kawamura that there is any kind of
resolution determination regarding the image data appearing on line 101. Moreover,
while Kawamura discloses a plurality of different types of recording devices to which
Appeal No. 2000-1398
Application No. 07/842,082
5
image data may be output, there is no indication that a choice of which output device to
be employed is based, in any way, on resolution of the image data.
While Figure 11 of the reference is directed to a fourth embodiment, and Figure
8 is directed to a third embodiment, it is instructive to refer to the description of Figure
11, at column 10, line 61 through column 11, line 6, which describes a purpose of
Kawamura’s invention. That is, because a perceived problem is that different ones of a
plurality of output recording devices output different images due to different output
densities of the devices, Kawamura seeks to cause the plurality of output recording
devices to output identical images by adjusting for the different densities. Thus,
Kawamura is not determining a resolution of an image by examining image data and
then selecting one of a plurality of recording devices based on that resolution
determination. Rather, Kawamura density-converts the image data at each image
output device in order to adjust the density of the output device so that each output
device outputs an identical image.
While appellant and the examiner spend much of the briefs arguing as to the
definition of “density” vs. “resolution,” the examiner has failed to show, in our view, how
Kawamura in any way suggests the determination of the resolution of the incoming
image data and then, based on this resolution determination, selecting an appropriate
recording device.
Appeal No. 2000-1398
Application No. 07/842,082
6
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 6-8 and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kawamura.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
eak/vsh
Appeal No. 2000-1398
Application No. 07/842,082
7
STAAS & HALSEY LLP
700 11TH STREET, NW
SUITE 500
WASHINGTON, DC 20001