Ex Parte Ohnishi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2016

12252640 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/252,640 10/16/2008
27562 7590 09/29/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P,C
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Naonori Ohnishi
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
LB-723-2441 7812
EXAMINER
AMINI, JAVID A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NAONORI OHNISHI
Appeal2014-002749
Application 12/252,640
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3-29 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 10-17. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.
Introduction
"The present invention relates to a storage medium having stored
thereon an image processing program, and an image processing apparatus,
and more particularly relates to a storage medium having stored thereon an
image processing program and an image processing apparatus which are
capable of deleting a displayed image." Specification i-f 1.
Appeal2014-002749
Application 12/252,640
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
having stored thereon an image processing program executed on
a computer of an apparatus for performing predetermined
processing on an image generated in accordance with an output
from a pointing device, the image processing program causing
the computer to perform:
image generation for generating an input image in
accordance with the output from the pointing device;
image display control for displaying the input image
generated by the image generation on a display unit; and
image change control for disassembling the input image
generated by the image generation into a plurality of partial
images after receiving user input initiating a delete operation of
the input image, and for changing at least one of a display
position and a display form of each of the partial images,
wherein
the image change control changes a partial image which
is a target of the delete operation, displays the changed partial
image on the display unit, and deletes the displayed changed
partial image, which is the target of the deletion operation, from
the display screen.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3, and 28-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Minako (Japan Application Number 2004-265168;
published September 24, 2004) and Casey (Richard G. Casey & Eric
Lecolinet, A Survey of Methods and Strategies in Character Segmentation,
18(7) IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANALYSIS AND MACHINE
INTELLIGENCE, 690-706 (July 1996)). Final Action 4--8.
Claims 4--9, 11-14, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Minako, Casey, and Le Tuan (U.S.
Patent Application Publication Number 2008/0049025 Al; published
February 28, 2008). Final Rejection 8-16.
2
Appeal2014-002749
Application 12/252,640
Claims 15-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Minako, Casey, and Le (U.S. Patent Application
Publication Number 2002/0191867 Al; published December 19, 2002).
Final Rejection 16-23.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 23, 2013), the Reply Brief (filed
December 19, 2013), the Answer (mailed October 30, 2013), and the Final
Rejection (mailed April 4, 2013) for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in
the Briefs.
Appellant argues the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent
claims 1, 28, and 29 is erroneous because
None of Minako or Casey, alone or in combination,
teaches or suggests disassembling an input image on a display
screen into a plurality of partial images after receiving a user
input initiating a delete operation of the input image, changing
the partial images and then deleting them from the display
screen.
Appeal Brief 10. The Examiner finds, "Minako teaches image change
control for disassembling the input image generated by the image generation
into a plurality of partial images after receiving user input initiating a
delete operation of the input image." Final Rejection 4--5. The "Examiner
believes Minako teaches for the purpose of disassembling the input image,
deleting/modifying/ correcting is required in order to locate correct positions
of partial images" and acknowledges "[h]owever, Minako does not specify
the 'delete operation."' Final Rejection 5. The Examiner relies upon
3
Appeal2014-002749
Application 12/252,640
Casey's disclosure of dividing an input image into partial images to address
Minako's noted deficiency. Final Rejection 7.
Appellant argues:
The Examiner cited Figs. 9 and 11 in [Casey] and the
discussion related to these Figures (described above) as allegedly
teaching the missing limitation. According to the Examiner
(referring to Fig. 11) "Examiner believes 'matching' process is
considered comparing elements or sub-images until it obtains the
correct sub-image," seep. 6 of the Final Office Action.
The Examiner is not correct. Casey merely teaches
segmenting an image into partial images and then based on
various criteria (for example, comparing with library prototypes-
see Fig. 11) determining whether a partial image corresponds to
a character. However, this has nothing to do with changing a
partial image, and deleting the changed partial image, after
receiving user input initiating a delete operation of the input
image. No partial image/pattern in Casey is deleted, it is simply
created and then compared to a prototype image.
Appeal Brief 12.
We find Appellant's arguments persuasive. The Examiner
acknowledges Minako fails to disclose "the delete operation" (Final Action
5) and Casey is silent in regard to a delete operation and, therefore, does not
address Minako's noted deficiency contrary to the Examiner's findings
(Final Rejection 6). 1 Consequently, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness
1 The Examiner finds the following:
Casey teaches the image change control means changes a partial
image (see page 697 second paragraph under section 2.2, see fig.
9 and section 3 .2 HMM models) which is a target of the delete
operation, displays the changed partial image on the display
means, and deletes the displayed changed partial image, which is
the target of the deletion operation, from the display screen.
Final Action 6.
4
Appeal2014-002749
Application 12/252,640
rejection of independent claims 1, 28, and 29, all commensurate in scope.
We also reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections of dependent claims
3-27 for the same reasons supra.
DECISION
The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1 and 3-29 are
reversed.
REVERSED
5