Ex Parte Kim

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 4, 2003

09132751 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 4, 2003)

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not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the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. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte HAN-SIN KIM
__________
Appeal No. 2002-1705
Application 09/132,751
___________
HEARD: March 18, 2003
___________
Before KRASS, FLEMING, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 9, all the claims pending in the instant
application.
The invention relates to a method for correcting a vertical
Appeal No. 2002-1705
Application 09/132,751
tolerances must be minimized in order to maintain high quality
image scanning, since each block is scanned individually to make
up the entire image. See pages 2 and 3 of Appellant’s
specification. To illustrate this problem, a vertical line drawn
down through the horizontally arranged blocks of a document
original, as shown in figure 2A, is scanned. Due to the above
described assembly tolerances, a distorted reproduction such as
shown in figure 2B results. Although high-precision
manufacturing may be employed to minimize this problem, such
tolerances will always exist to some degree. See page 3 of
Appellant’s specification.
Appellant solves this problem by calculating a set of
correction values for a given scanner at the time of manufacture
and storing the correction values in a programmable read only
memory. The pre-stored correction values are used to correct the
image distortion produced by assembly tolerances. See page 4 of
Appellant’s specification.
Figure 3 is a flow chart of a process for calculating
Appeal No. 2002-1705
Application 09/132,751
according to the Appellant’s invention. See page 6 of
Appellant’s specification.
Referencing to figure 3, a vertical line is scanned such as
shown in figure 2A. See page 7 of Appellant’s specification.
The scanned vertical line is compared to the ideal vertical line.
A set of shift-correction values are calculated corresponding to
the right and left correction shifting needed to correct the
scannedline to become the ideal vertical line. See page 8 of the
Appellant’s specification. A complete set of shift-correction
values is stored in the PROM memory device of the manufactured
scanner. This is shown as step S33 in figure 3. See page 8 of
Appellant’s specification.
Referring to figure 5, to correct the vertical alignment
error of a document original to be scanned, the block count N is
initialized in a step S51, in order to begin the scanning at the
first block. Then, in a step S52, scanning and rasterization of
the Nth block is performed in the conventional manner. The
vertical alignment of each dot of the rasterized block is
Appeal No. 2002-1705
Application 09/132,751
reached as determined by S54. See pages 8 and 9 of Appellant’s
specification.
The independent claims 1 and 5 present in the application
are reproduced as follows:
1. A method for correcting vertical alignment error in a
shuttle scanner, comprising the steps of:
(a) initializing a block count of a document to be scanned
to a value of N;
(b) scanning the Nth block and rasterizing the scanned block
into a dot image;
(c) shifting each dot of the dot image formed by the
rasterized block according to a set of pre-stored
correction values; and
(d) incrementing the block count and performing said steps
(b) through (d) until an end of the document being
scanned is reached.
5. A method for correcting vertical alignment error in a
shuttle scanner, comprising the steps of:
(a) producing a set of correction values for correcting the
vertical alignment error;
(b) storing the correction values;
(c) scanning each block of a document to be scanned; and
(d) modifying said each block scanned in accordance with the
Appeal No. 2002-1705
Application 09/132,751
Reference
The reference relied on by the Examiner is as follows:
Cullen et al (Cullen) 5,335,290 Aug. 2, 1994
Rejection at Issue
Claims 1 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Cullen.
Rather than repeat the arguments of the Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the1
respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration been given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejection and the arguments of Appellant
and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
Appeal No. 2002-1705
Application 09/132,751
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant argues that Cullen fails to teach “shifting each
dot of the dot image formed by the rasterized block according to
a set of pre-stored correction values” as recited in Appellant’s
claim 1. See page 12 of the appeal brief. Appellant argues that
Cullen does not teach “producing a set of correction values for
correcting the vertical alignment error” and “modifying said each
block scanned in accordance with the stored correction values” as
recited in Appellant’s claim 5. See pages 17 through 19 of the
appeal brief.
The Examiner argues that Cullen does teach shifting each dot
of the dot image formed by the rasterized block according to a
set of pre-stored correction values as recited in Appellant’s
claim 1. In particular, the Examiner argues that Cullen teaches
that shifting is performed by sorting bit-mapped scan lines
within rectangles to merge with other rectangles so that skewing
to be corrected. The Examiner points to column 6, lines 35
Appeal No. 2002-1705
Application 09/132,751
recited in Appellant’s claim 5. In particular, the Examiner
argues that Cullen teaches producing a set of correction values
for correcting the vertical alignment error. The Examiner points
to Cullen’s figure 2C, items 201 through 209, and column 6 lines
43 through 58. The Examiner also argues that Cullen teaches
modifying said each block scanned in accordance with the stored
correction values. The Examiner points to Cullen’s figure 2C,
items 209 through 211, and column 6, lines 43 through 58. See
page 5 of the Examiner’s answer.
Appellant responds to the Examiner’s argument that Cullen
teaches shifting each dot of the dot image formed by the
rasterized block according to a set of pre-stored correction
values as recited in Appellant’s claim 1 on page 6 of the reply
brief. In particular, Appellant points out that the portions
relied on in Cullen by the Examiner are directed to skew
detection, estimation and correction and a description of the
advantages of the document segmentation method in terms of
improved system memory requirement and higher processing speed.
Appeal No. 2002-1705
Application 09/132,751
independent claim 5 on page 14 of the reply brief. In
particular, Appellant points out that the citations relied on by
the Examiner in Cullen teach reclassification of rectangles after
skew correction and do not disclose or suggest the steps recited
in Appellant’s claim 5.
Upon our careful review of Cullen, we fail to find that
Cullen teaches the claimed limitations as recited in Appellant’s
claims 1 through 9. In particular, we find that Cullen teaches a
method and apparatus for segmenting a document image into areas
containing text, images and straight lines. See column 2, lines
48 through 49. Furthermore, Cullen teaches that document
segmentation is done by providing a bit-mapped representation of
the document image, compressing the bit-mapped representation
into compressed scanlines, extracting run lengths for each
compressed scanline from the bit-mapped representation of the
document image, constructing rectangles from the run lengths,
initially classifying each of the rectangles as either text,
image or as a vertical or horizontal line; detecting and;
Appeal No. 2002-1705
Application 09/132,751
segmentation system of the implement embodiment in column 5, line
45, through column 7, line 28. Cullen teaches compression of the
bit-mapped representation in column 7, line 29, through column 8,
line 50. Cullen teaches run length extraction and classification
in column 8, line 51, through column 10, line 41. Cullen teaches
rectangular construction and initial classification in column 10,
line 42, through column 14, line 51. Cullen teaches skew
detection in column 14, line 52, through column 16, line 26.
Cullen teaches skew angle correction of the constructed
rectangles in column 16, line 28 through column 17, line 46.
Finally, Cullen teaches verification of rectangle classification
in column 17, line 48 through column 21, line 4.
From a careful reading of Cullen, we find that Cullen is
determining skew, correction of skew, classifying and merging.
We fail to find that Cullen teaches shifting each dot of a dot
image formed by a rasterized block according to a set of pre-
stored correction values as recited in Appellant’s claims 1
through 4. Furthermore, we fail to find that Cullen teaches
Appeal No. 2002-1705
Application 09/132,751
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as being anticipated by Cullen.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2002-1705
Application 09/132,751
Washington, DC 20005-1202