Ex Parte Nagarajan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 201311467584 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte RAMESH NAGARAJAN, XING LI, PETER D. MCCANDLISH, and FRANCIS KAPO TSE __________ Appeal 2011-006358 Application 11/467,584 Technology Center 2600 __________ Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and FRANCISCO C. PRATS, Administrative Patent Judges. MILLS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134. The Examiner has rejected the claims for obviousness. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Xerox Corporation. (App. Br. 2.) Appeal 2011-006358 Application 11/467,584 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Representative Claim 12. A system for image processing in a reprographic system comprising: a source of contone digital image data; a first segmentation module, operatively connected to said source of digital image data, to generate first segmentation tags, the first segmentation tags encoding the identity of the image data type of each pixel of the contone digital image data; a binary encoding module, operatively connected to said first segmentation module, said binary encoding module transforming the contone digital image data into a high resolution binary image data; an intermediate buffer to store the high resolution binary image data and the first segmentation tags; a decoding module, operatively connected to said intermediate buffer, to convert the high resolution binary image data into reconstructed contone image data; a second segmentation module, operatively connected to said binary encoding module, to generate second segmentation tags based upon the stored first segmentation tags, the second segmentation tags identifying areas of the reconstructed contone image data with common image data types; an electronic precollation memory, operatively connected to said second segmentation module, to store the reconstructed contone image data and the second segmentation tags; and an image processing module, operatively connected to said electronic precoliation memory, to image process the reconstructed contone image data based upon the second segmentation tags. Cited References Fan et al US 5,850,474 Dec. 15, 1998 Cuciurean-Zapan et al. US 6,343,159 B1 Jan. 29, 2002 Williams et al. US 6,427,030 B1 Jul. 30, 2002 Nagarajan et al. US 2003/0133610 A1 Jul. 17, 2003 Appeal 2011-006358 Application 11/467,584 3 Grounds of Rejection Claims 12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Williams, Cuciurean-Zapan, and Nagarajan. FINDINGS OF FACT The Examiner’s findings of fact are set forth in the Answer at pages 5- 15. The following fact is highlighted. Figure 1 of the Specification is reproduced below. “Figure 1 shows a block diagram of an image path that uses two pass segmentation.” (Spec. 4.) Discussion ISSUE The Examiner concludes that Fan discloses, “an intermediate buffer (47 of figure 4) to store the first segmentation tags (col 5 lines 1-10, at the end of the first pass, image type contone is recorded and can be used for the Appeal 2011-006358 Application 11/467,584 4 second pass; i.e. first segmentation tags are stored in some sort of buffer/memory). (Ans. 6.) The Examiner argues that Fan et al does indicate (col 5 lines 41-43) that image data is discarded, however, the context by which this statement is surrounded must be considered and read in its entirety. Specifically, in col 5 lines 38-40, Fan et al indicates that second pass segmentation tags can be stored as well, but just that image data is “typically" discarded. That is, storing of the second pass segmentation tags can be an option, where discarding of image data is not a requirement. Further, also note that that [sic] in col 5 lines 38-40, Fan et al is referring to second pass segmentation tags, and not first pass segmentation tags. This is because after the second pass segmentation is performed, usually, the processing is complete and, thus systems may seek to delete the image data. Again, note that the term "typically" is used, i.e. indicating that this is not a requirement, but can be one implementation. Looking back, in col 4 lines 47-49, Fan clearly indicates that at the end of the first pass, the first pass segmentation tags are recorded, i.e. a memory must be present to perform this recording of the first pass segmentation tags. That is, after the first pass segmentation is performed on the image data, the first pass segmentation tags are stored. In fact, if one does not store the image data and the first pass segmentation tags, then one would not be able to perform a second pass segmentation, which the system of Fan et al is designed to be able to perform. … In summary, Fan et al teaches that image data and first and second pass segmentation tags can be stored in memory, which is contrary to Appellant's argument that Fan et al teaches away from storing such data. Thus, based on a review of the [sic] Fan et al, there is found no explicit teaching away from having a buffer memory to store high resolution binary image data and first pass segmentation tags. (Ans. 3-4.) Appeal 2011-006358 Application 11/467,584 5 Appellants argue that, As taught by Fan et al., at column 5, lines 34 - 43, a memory 47 stores image type data generated by the first pass. However, Fan et al. explicitly teaches, at column 5, lines 41 - 43, that the image data is discarded. In other words, Fan et al. explicitly teaches away from utilizing an intermediate buffer to store both the high resolution binary image data and the first segmentation tags because Fan et al. explicitly teaches that the image data is discarded. (App. Br. 6.) Appellants further contend that Fan et al. fails to teach or suggest that storing the first segmentation tags wherein the first segmentation tags encode the identity of the image data type of each pixel of the contone digital image data because Fan et al. explicitly and unequivocally teaches that only the image type classification of each window is recorded at the end of the first pass. Thus, Fan et al. fails to disclose or suggest an intermediate buffer to store the high resolution binary image data and the first segmentation tags. (Reply Br. 2.) Appellants conclude that, “[t]herefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to include an intermediate buffer, which stores both the converted high resolution binary image data and the first segmentation tags, in the system taught by Fan et al. because Fan et al. explicitly teaches away from such a configuration.” (App. Br. 6.) The issue is: Does Fan support the Examiner’s conclusion that the limitation, “an intermediate buffer to store the high resolution binary image Appeal 2011-006358 Application 11/467,584 6 data and the first segmentation tags” is known in the prior art and disclosed therein? PRINCIPLES OF LAW In making our determination, we apply the preponderance of the evidence standard. See, e.g., Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office). “In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Only if that burden is met, does the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the applicant.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). In order to determine whether a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, we consider the factors set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966): (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the relevant art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if present. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). ANALYSIS We agree with the Examiner’s fact finding, statement of the rejection and responses to Appellants’ arguments as set forth in the Answer. We find that the Examiner has provided evidence to support a prima facie case of Appeal 2011-006358 Application 11/467,584 7 obviousness. We provide the following additional comment to the arguments set forth in the Answer. The Examiner responds to Appellants’ argument that Fan does not teach, and teaches away from, “an intermediate buffer to store the high resolution binary image data and the first segmentation tags,” arguing that Fan clearly indicates that at the end of the first pass, the first pass segmentation tags are recorded, i.e. a memory must be present to perform this recording of the first pass segmentation tags. That is, after the first pass segmentation is performed on the image data, the first pass segmentation tags are stored. In fact, if one does not store the image data and the first pass segmentation tags, then one would not be able to perform a second pass segmentation, which the system of Fan et al is designed to be able to perform. (Ans. 4.) Appellants do not clearly or specifically address this argument of the Examiner and thus have not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. The preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of the pending claims is obvious, and the obviousness rejection is affirmed for the reasons of record. CONCLUSION OF LAW The cited references support the Examiner’s obviousness rejection which is affirmed for the reasons of record. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED Appeal 2011-006358 Application 11/467,584 8 cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation