Ex parte Matsushita

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 16, 1997

08048181 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 16, 1997)

Application for patent filed April 20, 1993.1
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte MASAHIRO MATSUSHITA
_____________
Appeal No. 96-1463
Application 08/048,1811
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, FLEMING, and CARMICHAEL, Administrative
Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 96-1463
Application 08/048,181
2
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1 through 12. In an Amendment After Final (paper number 9),
claim 9 was amended.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and apparatus
for adjusting the positions of a plurality of images so that
the plurality of images may overlap one upon another.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. An image position adjusting apparatus for adjusting
the positions of a plurality of images such that the plurality
of the images may overlap one upon another, comprising:
i) an image display means for reproducing the respective
images from image signals, which represent the respective
images, and displaying the reproduced images,
ii) a transformation means for transforming each of the
images, which are displayed on said image display means, into
a simple image, said simple image being represented by only
the image signal components of the corresponding image signal
which have signal values larger than a predetermined threshold
value,
iii) a polygon display means for displaying an arbitrary
polygon on each of said simple images,
iv) a shift means for shifting the polygon displayed on
each of said simple images,
v) a deformation means for deforming the polygon, which
is displayed on one of said simple images, and deforming the
polygons, which are displayed on the other simple images, so
Appeal No. 96-1463
Application 08/048,181
3
as to interlock with the deformation of said polygon, which is
displayed on said simple images, and
vi) a rotation means for rotating the polygons, which are
displayed on said other simple images.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Hernandez et al. (Hernandez) 4,686,522 Aug. 11,
1987
Iwasaki et al. (Iwasaki) 4,992,781 Feb. 12,
1991
Chiu et al. (Chiu) 5,019,976 May 28,
1991
Claims 1 through 5 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki in view of
Hernandez.
Claims 6 through 8 and 10 through 12 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki in view
of Hernandez and Chiu.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection.
It is the examiner's position that Iwasaki discloses
everything set forth in claims 1 through 5 and 9, except for
Appeal No. 96-1463
Application 08/048,181
4
"a polygon display means, shift means and rotation means"
(Answer, page 3).
Iwasaki discloses an image synthesizer for an image
editing apparatus in which a synthesized image can be
displayed by superposing two or more source images one on top
of another so that all of the images are visible and
transparent to each other. Under the control of data
processor 17 (Figure 1), the two source images 21 and 22
(Figure 2A) are read from image memories 11 and 12,
respectively, according to address signals from the address
generator 15. The two source images are then superposed to
form a synthesized image 23 (Figure 2A) that is displayed on
display 13 (Figure 1). As seen in Figure 2B
the superposingly synthesized mutually transparent
image 23 consists of vertically elongated thin
picture elements 24 and 25 respectively of the
original source images 21 and 22 each of one pixel
in width alternately arranged in horizontal
direction at the areal ratio of 1:1 such that the
two original source images 21 and 22 appear as if
they were placed one on top of the other (column 3,
lines 40 through 47).
In other words, in Iwasaki
image data from the two image memories I1 [sic, 11]
and 12 are not averaged with respect to each pixel
in the superposed area. Instead, image data are
Appeal No. 96-1463
Application 08/048,181
5
alternately read from the image memories 11 and 12
according to address signal from the address
generator 15 and they are directly displayed on the
display device 13. As a consequence, time required
for data processing can be significantly reduced
(column 4, lines 2 through 9).
While we agree with the examiner that Iwasaki discloses
"an image display means for reproducing the respective images
from image signals which represent the respective images and
displaying the reproduced images" (Answer, page 3), we do not,
however, agree with the examiner that Iwasaki discloses a
transformation means that transforms "each" of the two images
21 and 22 into "a" simple image, and that the simple image is
represented by only the image signal components of a
corresponding image which have signal values "larger than a
predetermined threshold value" (claims 1 and 9). Iwasaki is
silent concerning a "predetermined threshold value," and
Figure 2A of this reference clearly shows that the two images
21 and 22 are superposed to form one synthesized simple image
23, and not "a" simple image for "each" of the two images 21
and 22. Part iii in claims 1 and 9 makes clear that two
simple images are formed after the transformation of the two
images. Thus, Iwasaki lacks a transformation means that
Appeal No. 96-1463
Application 08/048,181
6
operates in accordance with the requirements of claims 1 and
9. This deficiency in the teachings of Iwasaki is in addition
to the deficiencies noted supra by the examiner. We also note
that Iwasaki lacks a polygon deformation means as required by
both claim 1 and claim 9.
For teachings lacking in Iwasaki, the examiner turned to
Hernandez for teachings of polygon shifting, polygon
deformation, and polygon rotation (Answer, pages 3 and 4).
Hernandez discloses a method of editing graphic objects in an
interactive draw graphic system. As illustrated in Figure 2
of this reference, polygonally shaped graphic objects 21
through 23 are displayed on screen 20 of display 10. In an
edit operation, the rectangular polygon 23 is moved from the
bottom of the screen to the top of the screen (Figures 3
through 6). When the object editing mode is entered, the
printing cursor 25 (Figure 3) appears on the screen, and an
edit menu 27 (Figure 4) is brought up adjacent the cursor.
The edit action MOVE is selected, and the cursor is thereafter
positioned adjacent the rectangular polygon 23 (Figure 5).
The rectangular polygon is then carried from the lower portion
Appeal No. 96-1463
Application 08/048,181
7
of the screen to the upper portion of the screen by movement
of the cursor with a mouse.
Hernandez does indeed disclose polygon shifting, polygon
deformation, and polygon rotation, but the polygonal shapes 21
through 23 are not displayed on any other images as set forth
in parts iii through vi of claim 1 and parts iii through v of
claim 9 (Brief, page 7). In view of this deficiency in the
teachings of Hernandez, we are not convinced by the examiner's
reasoning that it would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan to combine Iwasaki with Hernandez "to manipulate the
displayed plurality of images by rotating, moving or deforming
the polygon to a desired locations [sic, location]" (Answer,
page 4). Stated differently, we do not agree with the
examiner that the skilled artisan would have modified the
specific image synthesizer teachings of Iwasaki with the
polygonal image editing teachings of Hernandez. If the
teachings of the two references are combined in the manner
suggested by the examiner, we are not even certain what type
of device would result from such disparate teachings. In
summary, we agree with appellant that:
Appeal No. 96-1463
Application 08/048,181
8
The Examiner has attempted to pick and choose
individual features of the devices disclosed in the
cited references in order to assemble the claimed
device without providing any motivation . . . to do
so. Such a hindsight reconstruction of the
invention is improper within the § 103 context
(Brief, page 7).
The obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 5 and 9 is
reversed.
The additional reference to Chiu discloses method and
apparatus for comparing a working image (i.e., injured brain
slice image 12a in Figure 3) with a previously acquired
reference image (i.e., healthy brain slice image 12b in Figure
3). Although we agree with the examiner (Answer, page 5) that
images produced via radiation are disclosed by Chiu, we
nevertheless agree with the appellant that Chiu "fails to cure
the deficiencies of the other references discussed above"
(Brief, page 8). The obviousness rejection of claims 6
through 8 and 10 through 12 is reversed.
Appeal No. 96-1463
Application 08/048,181
9
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED

)
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-1463
Application 08/048,181
10
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037