Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 6, 2016

12654155 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/654, 155 12/11/2009
8439 7590 07/08/2016
ROBERT E BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM
2029 K STREET NW
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-1004
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ji-Yoon Lee
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P59042 1363
EXAMINER
LEE,DAVIDJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/08/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
rebushnell@aol.com
mail@rebushnell.com
info@rebushnell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JI-YOON LEE
Appeal2014-003375
Application 12/654, 155
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant has requested rehearing of the decision entered April 15,
2016, which affirmed the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-18. The
request for rehearing is granted-in-part.
DISCUSSION
A request for rehearing "must state with particularity the points [of
law or fact] believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the
Board," and must comply with 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(l). Appellant's request
for rehearing is limited to whether our Decision overlooked certain
limitations of claim 9 and misapprehended the teachings of Lee and
Appeal2014-003375
Application 12/654, 155
ivfaruyama. Req. Reh' g 2--4. Specifically, Appellant argues the Board has
misapprehended the teachings of Maruyama and Lee because the cited
sections of these references do not disclose or teach comparing subtraction
value tables or arranging subtraction value tables as claimed. 1 Id. at 3--4.
The Examiner finds Hitoshi2 teaches comparing images and arranging
images in an arrangement order according to a predetermined basis (Hitoshi
i-f 25), Lee teaches comparing a plurality of images by forming subtraction
value tables (set of numbers formed from subtraction of pixel values in one
image from the corresponding pixel values in a second image) (Lee i-f 20),
and Maruyama teaches subtraction value tables for image data (Maruyama
Fig. 6; i-f 86). Ans. 15-16. Upon reconsideration, we agree with Appellant
that the Examiner has not sufficiently established or explained how the
combination of references teaches or suggests comparing and arranging
subtraction value tables. The cited sections of Lee describe a single set
(table) of numbers formed from calculating the difference value of pixels in
a first frame image and a second frame image, and does not describe
comparing or arranging multiple subtraction value tables. See Lee i-f 20.
Similarly, the cited section of Maruyama also only describes a single
1 In the request for rehearing, Appellant states it is not clear which arranging
step the Board is referring to in our Decision because there are two arranging
steps in the claim, but assumes we were referring to the arranging the
subtraction value tables. Req. Reh'g 2 n.2. Appellant's "assumption" is
correct - we direct Appellant's attention to the Issue Statement in which we
clearly identify the "arranging" limitation as the "arranging the subtraction
value tables in an arrangement order according to a predetermined basis
according to the comparing" limitation. Dec. 4
2 As noted in our Decision, the Examiner refers to Hitoshi as "Yamakado."
See Dec. 7 n.6.
2
Appeal2014-003375
Application 12/654, 155
subtraction table and does not describe arranging or comparing subtraction
value tables.
For the reasons stated above, Appellant persuades us of error in the
rejection of claim 9. Therefore, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-15.
Appellant does not present any arguments that we misapprehended or
overlooked any issue of fact or law in our Decision to affirm the rejections
of claims 1-8 and 16-18. Accordingly, we do not reconsider our Decision
for these claims.
CONCLUSION
Appellant's request for reconsideration has been granted for claims 9-
15 and the Examiner's decision to reject those claims is reversed.
We do not make any other changes to our Decision. Accordingly, the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8 and 16-18 remains affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
REHEARING GRANTED-IN-PART
3