Ex parte LEVIEN

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 10, 1997

07983211 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 10, 1997)

Application for patent filed November 30, 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not binding precedent of the Board.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. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte RAPHAEL L. LEVIEN
__________
Appeal No. 95-2827
Application 07/983,2111
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before THOMAS, TORCZON, and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 95-2827
Application 07/983,211
Appellant filed an amendment on November 25, 1994 at2
the same time as the Brief. This amendment apparently has not
been entered by the examiner since no Advisory Action as to it
has been issued and no mention of it has been made in the
Answer itself.
We note in passing that independent apparatus claims3
21, 26, and 36 recite at the end of the preamble of each of
these claims “said apparatus comprising the steps of.” We
2
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 to 40, which constitute all the
claims in the application.2
The pertinent portion of independent claims 1, 6, and 11
on appeal is the following:
Determining the distance to the nearest
previously generated output pixel to
provide a nearest dot bias value.
Corresponding means language is recited in independent claims
21, 26, and 31 for these apparatus claims. Independent method
claim 16 and corresponding apparatus claim 36 do not
positively recite this feature in the same manner but utilize
“the distance to the nearest previously generated output
pixel” as a basis for the determination recited in the
outputting a screened image clause. 3
Appeal No. 95-2827
Application 07/983,211
regard the apparent inadvertent recitation of “the steps of”
as a part of the preamble of these apparatus claims as not
being a prohibition to us to determining the merits of the art
rejections before us.
3
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Itoh 5,208,684 May 4, 1993
(filing date Apr. 24, 1991)
Eschbach 5,243,443 Sep. 7, 1993
(filing date Dec. 6, 1991)
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse the outstanding rejection of all claims on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As to all claims, the examiner relies upon the statement
of the rejection in the final rejection. At page 3 of that
paper, the examiner recognizes that Eschbach does not
determine the distance to the nearest previously generated
output pixel as recited in the above-quoted portion of each
independent claim on appeal. The examiner then relies upon
Itoh which was said to disclose a halftone image processing
Appeal No. 95-2827
Application 07/983,211
4
system which calculates the density of each pixel and corrects
the density with the error diffusion approach therein. The
examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious for
the artisan to have modified “the Eschbach system by injecting
the density by the distance with previous dots for a uniform
area or density.” By this we assume that the examiner
intended to reason that it would have been obvious to the
artisan to have modified Eschbach by replacing
density determinations with distance to previous dots
determinations for a uniform area or density determination.
Such reasoning is further asserted for each of the respective
independent claims on appeal.
As noted by appellant at page 6 of the principal brief on
appeal, it is not exactly clear what the examiner is intending
to mean by the language “injecting the density by the distance
with previous dots.” We agree with appellant’s belief, also
expressed at the bottom of page 6 of the principal brief on
appeal, that the examiner was attempting to state that
measuring the density in the vicinity of the present pixel in
Itoh is somehow equivalent to determining the distance to the
Appeal No. 95-2827
Application 07/983,211
5
nearest previously generated output pixel in the manner
generally referred to in each independent claim on appeal.
After due consideration of the issues as developed by the
examiner and appellant, and the disclosed invention as well as
the teachings and suggestions of the prior art relied on, it
is clear to us that the examiner has misapplied the meaning
of the word “density” as taught by Itoh. We begin with the
consideration of some basic teachings in Eschbach.
At column 1, lines 10 to 18, it is indicated in the
background portion of this reference that image information
commonly generated in a bitmap format comprises “a plurality
of gray level pixels, i.e. pixels that are defined by digital
values, each value representing a gray level among a number of
gray levels. Thus, in an 8 bit system, 256 levels of gray are
present, where each level represents an increment of gray
between black and white.” Eschbach goes on to discuss gray
level pixel
values being converted to binary level pixel values,
indicating at column 3, lines 39 to 42 “each pixel
representing an optical density of the image at a location
Appeal No. 95-2827
Application 07/983,211
6
within the image.” The two embodiments of this reference
respectively compare the average gray value of the original
image to the average gray value of the output image or the
average gray value of the modified image being compared to the
average gray value of the output image. The discussion of
Figure 1 in this reference indicates that each pixel is
defined at a single level or optical density in a set of
optical density levels. Column 4, lines 48 to 52. Finally,
at column 5, lines 9 to 13, Eschbach states that “[g]ray
values are typically expressed as integers, with one example
falling in the range from 0 to 255, although greater or lesser
number of levels, as well as non-integer representations, are
possible.”
For his part, Itoh seems to speak the same language as to
density. At column 1, lines 14 to 16, Itoh states “an image
constituted by a plurality of pixels each of which is formed
by density data consisting of a plurality of bits.” With
respect to Figure 1 of this reference, it is stated at column
3, lines 13 to 16 that “each square denotes one pixel, and a
numeral in each square denotes the density of the pixel.”
Appeal No. 95-2827
Application 07/983,211
7
Figure 2B of Itoh shows a linear representation of pixel
density from 0 to 255 with various intermediate numerical
values associated with it. As to this Figure, column 4, lines
1 to 3 states that “since the density data is expressed by
eight bits, 0 to 255 denote the density gradation of the
pixel.” Finally, this reference states at column 5, line 65
through column 6, line 2 that “the density data of each pixel
is constituted by eight bits so that it is possible to express
the density data of the pixel by 256 (integer) density
gradations (from 0 to 255). That is, the minimum density is
the integer 0, and the maximum density is the integer 255.”
It appears that the examiner is intending to correlate
some type of distance value associated with the rather linear,
straight line-like determination of pixel density values from
0 to 255. However, as asserted by appellant, pixel density
does
not equal distance between pixels. The examiner’s view that
Itoh teaches the determination of any distance from any pixel
to another pixel because it teaches Laplacian calculations
(initially expressed in the abstract) is also misplaced.
Appeal No. 95-2827
Application 07/983,211
8
These calculations are performed on an object pixel and on
peripheral pixels around the object pixel to obtain corrected
data. This calculation is performed in such a manner that a
difference in density between the object pixel and each of the
peripheral pixels is calculated and all the differences are
summed. Figure 4 of Itoh shows (and each succeeding
embodiment having a corresponding figure shows) that object
pixel Dm,n in memory 11 is surrounded by other pixels in its
periphery, which are respectively operated upon to determine
the Laplacian calculations just mentioned. These calculations
in no way
relate to determinations of distances between the pixels
depicted but rather operate upon the actual density data value
associated with each pixel per se. Thus, the examiner’s
reliance upon Itoh to teach or otherwise suggest to the
artisan some kind of a distance determination between pixels
in any manner is misplaced.
Similarly, at pages 3 and 4 of the answer, the examiner’s
responsive arguments switch to relying upon Eschbach’s
teaching at column 7, lines 65 to column 8, line 10 as a basis
Appeal No. 95-2827
Application 07/983,211
9
for distance determinations. A pertinent portion of this
reference is:
It should be noted that the use of
the term 'threshholding' throughout this
description is meant to encompass other ways
of making a distance decision between the
input optical density value and the output
optical density value.
The examiner’s correlation of this “distance” is inappropriate
when taken in context in the reference. Such a distance is
more aptly described as originally relied upon by the examiner
in accordance with the operation of the error determination
block 117 in respective embodiment Figures 1 and 2 of
Eschbach. This block is shown as a differential amplifier
which “calculates a difference between the average gray input
value generated at integrator 113 and average gray output
value output generated at integrator 111.” Column 6, lines 8
to 11. Again, there is no true distance determination between
pixels in the manner required by each independent claim on
appeal.
Assuming for the sake of argument that it would have been
proper to combine the collective teachings of Eschbach and
Itoh within 35 U.S.C. § 103, we find that the examiner’s
Appeal No. 95-2827
Application 07/983,211
10
reliance upon either or both references to teach the claimed
determination of
the distance to the nearest previously generated output pixel
to provide a nearest dot bias value as recited in some manner
in
each independent claim on appeal would not have been obvious
to
Appeal No. 95-2827
Application 07/983,211
As a result of this finding, we see no need to address4
whether either reference teaches the hysteresis determination
in some of the independent claims on appeal.
11
the artisan. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner4
rejecting each of claims 1 to 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
REVERSED
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Richard Torczon ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
James T. Carmichael )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-2827
Application 07/983,211
12
Allan J. Jacobson
13310 Summit Square Center
Route 413 & Doublewoods Road
Langhorne, PA 19047
Appeal No. 95-2827
Application 07/983,211
13
JDT/cam