Ex Parte Mehigan

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 20, 2009

09938492 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 20, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL MEHIGAN
____________

Appeal 2008-5850
Application 09/938,492
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided1: March 20, 2009
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI,
and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-final
Rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-14. Claim 5 has been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic paper).
Appeal 2008-5850
Application 09/938,492

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a method of processing a halftone
color image when the halftone color image is to be printed in monochrome.
The method is performed by processing a line-like part of the image using a
clustered dot dithering or a dispersed dot dithering according to a
predetermined property of the line-like part (Spec. 4). Claim 1, which is
representative of the claims on appeal, reads as follows:
1. A method of processing a halftone color image when the
halftone color image is to be printed in monochrome, the method
comprising the steps of:

detecting a predetermined property of a line-like part of the
halftone color image, and

processing the line-like part of the halftone color image by a
clustered dot dithering technique or a dispersed dot dithering
technique according to the predetermined property of the line-like
part,

wherein the predetermined property includes both the thickness
and the density of the line-like parts so that, when the line-like part is
of a thickness smaller than a first threshold value and at the same time
is of a density higher than a second threshold value, the part is
processed by the dispersed dot dithering technique and otherwise the
part is processed by the clustered dot dithering technique.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kanno US 4,998,122 Mar. 5, 1991
Harrington US 5,153,576 Oct. 6, 1992
Ostromoukhov US 5,438,431 Aug. 1, 1995
Hines US 6,034,782 Mar. 7, 2000

Appeal 2008-5850
Application 09/938,492

3
Claims 1, 8, 10, and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Kanno and Ostromoukhov.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Kanno, Ostromoukhov, and Harrington.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the
teachings of Kanno, Ostromoukhov, and Harrington, and further in view of
engineering design choice.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the
teachings of Kanno, Ostromoukhov, and Harrington, and further in view of
Hines.2
We make reference to the Brief (filed Jan. 12, 2007) and the
supplemental Answer (mailed Sep. 11, 2007) for the respective positions of
Appellant and the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments which
Appellant did not make in the Brief have not been considered and are
deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The issue specifically turns on
whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disclosures
of Kanno and Ostromoukhov and, if so, whether the combination of the
applied references teaches the claimed process by a clustered dot dithering
technique or a dispersed dot dithering technique.

2 The rejection of claims 10, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
withdrawn as indicated on page 10 of the Examiner’s Answer.
Appeal 2008-5850
Application 09/938,492

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
Kanno
1. Kanno relates to image binarization that first divides an image
into regions according to the image features and then performs the binary-
encoding processing, which is most appropriate to these divided regions.
(Col. 3, ll. 21-24).
2. Kanno analyzes the image data to determine whether a picture
element of interest represents a character, a photograph, or a bold character,
and then binary-encodes the image of the picture elements in different ways
on the basis of the determination. (Col. 4, ll. 13-21).
3. As depicted in Figure 3, a dithering matrix of the threshold
values corresponding to the image densities is consulted to determine the
bold-character portion. (Col. 5, ll. 3-27).
Ostromoukhov
4. Ostromoukhov relates to the synthesis and display/print of
digital halftone images on various raster output devices, in particular on
display devices (cathode ray tubes, plasma displays, liquid crystal displays)
or on printing devices (printers, telefaxes). (Col. 1, ll. 8-15).
5. As the background, Ostromoukhov discusses two main families
of dithering methods: (a) dispersed-dot ordered dithering, and (b) clustered-
dot ordered dithering. (Col. 1, ll. 27-39).
6. Ostromoukhov discloses that in dispersed-dot dithering, the
black dots are distributed within each dither element so as to ensure maximal
dispersion. This method produces relatively good results when dealing with
fine details (for instance, small objects, letters). (Col. 1, ll. 40-47).
Appeal 2008-5850
Application 09/938,492

5
7. In the case of clustered-dot dithering, which is the method most
commonly used for high and medium resolution devices, Ostromoukhov
discloses that the black dots are clustered in the middle of each screen
element, thus forming round figures. The images produced using this
method are quite faithful to the original and are visually pleasing. (Col. 1, l.
63 – col. 2, l. 4).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior
art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007).

The Supreme Court has held that in evaluating the obviousness of
combining elements, a court need not find specific teachings, but rather may
consider “the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary
skill in the art” and “the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41.
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely
to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (quoting KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739). “One of the ways in which a
patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed
at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an obvious
solution encompassed by the patent's claims.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742.

Appeal 2008-5850
Application 09/938,492

6
ANALYSIS
Appellant does not dispute the teachings of Kanno with respect to
using various thresholds to determine whether a portion of an image is a
character, a photo, or a bold character and instead, focus on whether a
“second dithering technique” is actually disclosed (Br. 11). Appellant
acknowledges that dispersed-dot ordered dithering and clustered-dot ordered
dithering are discussed in Ostromoukhov, but only in the context of the
background of the disclosure. Id. Appellant contends that the actual
disclosed and claimed invention of Ostromoukhov are directed to
improvements made to dispersed-dot dithering and not to a method in which
either dispersed-dot dithering or clustered-dot dithering may be used (Br. 11-
12). In particular, Appellant argues that Ostromoukhov focuses on certain
types of ink-jet printers without specific teachings or suggestion directed to
processing a halftone color image in order to print a monochromatic image
(Br. 12).
The Examiner responds that Kanno uses two different dithering
techniques based on the results from processing the characteristics of the
image to be printed or a determination as to whether the image corresponds
to bold or normal character data (Ans. 11). The Examiner further asserts
(Ans. 13) that while Ostromoukhov particularly focuses on dispersed-dot
dithering technique in the disclosure, the discussion in the background
section related to using dispersed-dot dithering or clustered-dot dithering
based on the level of detail sought, is available as prior art to one of ordinary
skill in the art.
We agree with the Examiner’s analysis of Ostromoukhov and find that
printing the halftone image in Kanno would have benefited from the
Appeal 2008-5850
Application 09/938,492

7
dispersed-dot dithering or clustered-dot dithering techniques where each
technique provides better results for a specific image based on the threshold
value corresponding to image density (FF 1-3). Thus, reading the reference
as a whole, we find that the teaching value of Ostromoukhov also lies in the
background discussion of how each of the two dithering techniques is
preferred for different types of images and their size and/or density (FF 4-5).
The fact that the disclosed invention in Ostromoukhov relates to one type of
dithering does not preclude relying on what the reference discloses as a
whole, including the background discussion, and apply the appropriate
dithering technique for each of the two types of image data in Kanno. As
described in Ostromoukhov, each of the disclosed dithering techniques
provide better results for a different image density (FF 6-7), similar to the
images distinguished by the threshold values in Kanno.
Additionally, contrary to Appellant’s argument (Br. 12) that
Ostromoukhov limits the printing resolution range without suggesting
processing a halftone color image and printing a monochromatic image,
Kanno is relied on for disclosing processing of halftone images. In that
regard, as argued by the Examiner (Ans. 13), and consistent with the
holdings in KSR and Leapfrog, the advantages of each of the dithering
techniques, as discussed in Ostromoukhov, make those techniques obvious
alternatives for processing each of the image types of Kanno (FF 1-3)
according to the property of the image data.
CONCLUSION
For all of the above discussed reasons, we find no error in the
Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the
dithering techniques of Ostromoukhov in the image processing of Kanno to
Appeal 2008-5850
Application 09/938,492

8
improve the image processing for each type of image. Because Appellant
has failed to point to any error in the Examiner’s position, we sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection with respect to claim 1 and also with respect to
claims 8, 10, and 12-14, which Appellant has not argued separately (Br. 13).
We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection with respect to the remaining
claims over various combinations of Harrington, design choice, and Hines
with Kanno and Ostromoukhov since Appellant argues patentability of those
claims merely based on their dependency upon claims 1 and 8 (Br. 13-15).

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-4 and 6-14 is
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

BIM

STUDEBAKER & BRACKETT, P.C.
1890 PRESTON WHITE DRIVE
SUITE 105
RESTON, VA 20191