Ex parte NAGAISHI

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 29, 1998

08074518 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 1998)

Application for patent filed June 11, 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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte MICHIHIRO NAGAISHI
__________
Appeal No. 95-4968
Application 08/074,5181
__________
HEARD: June 9, 1998
__________
Before KRASS, FLEMING and LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 4, all of the claims present in the application.
The invention relates to a character recognizing apparatus
based upon calculating the field of induction of a character.
Appeal No. 95-4968
Application 08/074,518
2
Independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A character recognizing apparatus, comprising:
input means for inputting a character image;
field of induction calculating means for
calculating a field of induction on the retina
of the character image input from said input
means; and
character recognizing means for recognizing a
character based on difference between fields of
induction on the retina of different character
images calculated by said field of induction
calculating means, by quantitatively evaluating a
magnitude of a strain generated when the field of
induction of one character image deforms to be
matched with the field of induction of another
character image.
The reference relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Foote et al. (Foote) 3,874,586 Apr. 01, 1975
Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Foote. Claims 2 and 3 are objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim. On page 2 of the
Examiner’s answer, paper no. 19, the Examiner withdraws the
rejection of claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answers for
the details thereof.
OPINION
Appeal No. 95-4968
Application 08/074,518
3
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 1 and 4 are anticipated by
the applied reference.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant's claim 1 recites:
field of induction calculating means for calculating a
field of induction on the retina of the character image
input from said input means; and
character recognizing means for recognizing a character
base on difference between fields of induction on the
retina of different character images calculated by said
field of induction calculating means, by quantitatively
evaluating a magnitude of a strain generated when the
field of induction of one character image deforms to be
matched with the field of induction of another
character image.
Appellants argue on pages 6 and 7 of the brief, filed
December 21, 1994, that Foote fails to teach the Appellant's
claimed limitations as required under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In
particular, Appellants argue that Foote does not disclose a field
Appeal No. 95-4968
Application 08/074,518
We note that the Examiner mailed a letter on August 10, 1995 stating2
that this reply brief has been entered into the record.
4
of induction calculating means or a character recognizing means
for recognizing a character based on difference between fields of
induction on the retina of different character images calculated
by said field of induction calculating means.
On pages 4 and 5 of the answer, the Examiner argues that
Foote teaches a field induction calculating means in column 4,
lines 31-44 and lines 56-62. The Examiner further argues that
Foote teaches a character recognition means in column 5, lines
11-22.
Appellant further argues in the reply brief, filed May 9,2
1995, that Appellant's claimed "field of induction calculating
means" is not anticipated by the Foote disclosure at column 4,
lines 31-44 and lines 56-62. Appellant argues that Foote teaches
four recording heads receiving part of the magnetic induction
field from each character being read but at no time does Foote
teach calculating a field of induction of the character image
input for said input means as claimed by Appellant. Appellant
argued in the brief and further emphasized in the oral hearing
that the field of induction calculating means must be construed
Appeal No. 95-4968
Application 08/074,518
5
to correspond to the structure that performs the induction field
calculation described in the Appellant's specification.
Our reviewing court has stated in In re Donaldson Co. Inc.,
16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994) that
the "plain and unambiguous meaning of paragraph six is that one
construing means-plus-function language in a claim must look to
the specification and interpret that language in light of the
corresponding structure, material, or acts described therein, and
equivalents thereof, to the extent that the specification
provides such disclosure." We find that Appellant's Figure 1
discloses the field of induction calculating means as block 2 and
Appellant discloses that field of induction calculating means
calculates the field of induction by the process described on
pages 8 and 9 of the Appellant's specification. In particular,
the field of induction at a point 30, shown in Figure 3, is
calculated based on an analogy to an electric field experienced
at a point (30) resulting from unit charges at a series of other
points (31-37). The points 21-37 of Figure 3, which are the
pixels which form the character to be recognized, are treated as
if they had a unit charge which contributes to a field inducted
at point 30 by all such unit charges. The summation of the
Appeal No. 95-4968
Application 08/074,518
6
contributions of all other points represents the field of
induction at point 30. The field of induction is calculated at
all pixel locations within an area surrounding the character,
using equation 1 shown on page 9 of the specification which
results in a field associated with the area. Appellant discloses
a representation of a calculated field of induction of the
character "E" in Figure 4.
Upon a careful review of Foote, we fail to find that Foote
teaches the above field of induction calculating means that
calculated the field of induction of a character to be recognized
as recited in Appellant's claims. Foote teaches using a reading
head 26 to measure a magnetic field of an area of alternating
zones of magnetization that have been distorted by the embossing
of a character. Foote does not calculate a field of induction
nor does Foote teach the Appellant's claimed field of induction
calculating means as construed to the corresponding structure
disclosed in the Appellant's specification. Therefore, we find
that Foote fails to teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and
4, and thereby the claims are not anticipated by Foote.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1 and 4 is reversed.
Appeal No. 95-4968
Application 08/074,518
7
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
McDermott, Will & Emery
99 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314