Ex Parte Lin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 12, 2002

08626433 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 12, 2002)

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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 29
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte YING-WEI LIN
____________
Appeal No. 2000-0404
Application No. 08/626,433
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, RUGGIERO, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7 through 13, 15 through 19, 21
through 26, and 28, which are all of the claims pending in this
application.
Appellant's invention relates to a system and method for
automatically segmenting a document image by classifying each
type of imagery within the document with some probability. The
input image signals are classified into a combination of at least
three predetermined classes of imagery, and a plurality of non-
zero probabilities are produced as a function of the properties
Appeal No. 2000-0404
Application No. 08/626,433
2
of each of the input image signals. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
1. A digital image processing system for automatically
classifying a set of input image signals into a combination of at
least three predetermined classes of imagery and producing output
image signals in accordance with the classes, the set of input
image signals forming part of a video image generated by an image
input terminal, comprising:
a mixing circuit;
a data buffer for receiving the set of input image signals;
a classification circuit for characterizing properties of
each of the input signals, said classification circuit producing,
as a function of the properties of each of the input image
signals, a plurality of non-zero probability values, each non-
zero probability value representing a likelihood that one of the
input image signals of the set of input image signals is a member
of a respective one of the at least three predetermined classes
of imagery, and transmitting probability signals indicative
thereof to said mixing circuit; and
a plurality of image processing circuits receiving the set
of input image signals from the data buffer, each of said
plurality of image processing circuits being adapted to process
the input image signals in accordance with a process identified
for one of the at least three predetermined classes of imagery,
said mixing circuit combining the signals from at least two of
said plurality of image processing circuits in accordance with
the probability signals received from said classification circuit
to form a single set of output image signals, wherein a subset of
the output image signals, representing input image signals from a
transition zone where there is no high degree of certainty
associated with any of the predetermined classes of imagery,
comprise signals processed by the at least two of said plurality
of image processing circuits so as to account for gradual shifts
between regions of the input image representing the different
classes of imagery.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Appeal No. 2000-0404
Application No. 08/626,433
3
Tanioka 5,018,024 May 21, 1991
Mita et al. (Mita) 5,231,677 Jul. 27, 1993
Fujisawa 5,245,445 Sep. 14, 1993
Claims 1 through 5, 7 through 13, 15 through 19, 21 through
26, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mita in view of Fujisawa and Tanioka.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 28,
mailed October 25, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper No.
27, filed September 28, 1999) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7
through 13, 15 through 19, 21 through 26, and 28.
The examiner relies on Mita in view of Fujisawa and Tanioka
to reject all of the pending claims. Mita, the examiner states
(Answer, page 5), does not use a probability-based classification
system to produce non-binary classification decisions. However,
the examiner asserts (Answer, page 5) that probability-based
classification systems are well-known in the art, as evidenced by
Fujisawa, and thus would have been obvious for Mita's system for
Appeal No. 2000-0404
Application No. 08/626,433
4
"a more flexible classification scheme than could be obtained
simply by Mita's measure of a single spatial frequency
characteristic." Appellant has not argued this point.
The examiner continues (Answer, page 6) that "[a]lthough
Mita and Fujisawa are believed to operate on three or more
'classifications' of image types for the reasons explained above,
the references do not explicitly state this feature."
Nonetheless, the examiner asserts that separating an image into
at least three classifications and processing them differently is
both well-known and also taught by Tanioka. Accordingly, the
examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to use at
least three classifications in Mita's system. Appellant objects,
and we agree with appellant.
Mita does not disclose three or more image classifications.
The only determination made by Mita is whether the image is an
edge or a non-edge area. See, for example, column 4, lines 38-
45, or column 6, lines 33-41. Thus, as argued by appellant
(Brief, page 5), Mita is limited to two image classifications.
Fujisawa explains in the background of the invention how
prior art devices have based image processing on such detected
image characteristics as a character image, a continuous tone
image, and a screened dot image, or rather, three classes
classifications. Further, Fujisawa discloses (column 2, lines
Appeal No. 2000-0404
Application No. 08/626,433
5
52-59) that "several levels of edge intensifying (or edge
emphasizing) processes suitable for character images and several
levels of smoothing processes suitable for photograph images and
screened dot images can be set by the fuzzy controller" in his
image processing apparatus. Thus, Fujisawa appears to describe
three image classifications. Also, Tanioka, appellant admits
(Brief, page 7), teaches the classification for three separate
classes.
However, since Mita is solely directed to edge versus non-
edge determinations, it is unclear to us how or why the skilled
artisan would modify Mita to include additional image
classifications, regardless of how well-known the use of three
classifications is and regardless of the teachings of Fujisawa or
Tanioka. Such a modification of Mita's system would destroy the
purpose or function thereof. The Federal Circuit has held that
"a proposed modification [is] inappropriate for an obviousness
inquiry when the modification render[s] the prior art reference
inoperable for its intended purpose. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,
902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)." In re Fritch, 972
F.2d 1260, 1265-1266 n.12, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 n.12 (Fed. Cir.
1992). Therefore, we cannot accept the examiner's proposed
modification of Mita. Accordingly, the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness, and we cannot
Appeal No. 2000-0404
Application No. 08/626,433
6
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7
through 13, 15 through 19, 21 through 26, and 28.
Appeal No. 2000-0404
Application No. 08/626,433
7
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 5, 7
through 13, 15 through 19, 21 through 26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
AG/RWK
Appeal No. 2000-0404
Application No. 08/626,433
8
RONALD ZIBELLI
XEROX CORPORATION
XEROX SQUARE 20A
ROCHESTER, NY 14644