Ex Parte OSA

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 22, 2003

08902330 (B.P.A.I. May. 22, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 38
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KINYA OSA
____________
Appeal No. 2002-2064
Application No. 08/902,330
____________
HEARD: May 6, 2003
____________
Before BARRETT, FLEMING, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1, 3-6, 8-13 and 16, all the claims pending in the instant
application. Claims 2, 7, 14, 15 and 17-24 have been canceled.
Invention
The invention relates to a block deformation removing
filter. See page 1 of Appellant's specification. Figures 1A and
1B are illustrations showing how to remove the block deformation
by way of the prior art's low-pass filter. Figure 1A shows
intensity values of decoded image before filtering, while figure
Appeal No. 2002-2064
Application No. 08/902,330
2
1B after filtering. See page 1 of Appellant's specification. As
shown in figure 1B, possible differentials in the intensity level
at the block boundary are smoothed by way of the prior art's low-
pass filter, thereby taking the straight edge off the intensity
value, resulting in a minimized block deformation. However, the
process of block deformation removal by way of the prior art's
low-pass filter also removes a necessary high frequency signal
component of an original image other than the block deformation.
Thus, the prior art's low pass filter causes a blurred image.
See page 2 of Appellant's specification. Appellant's invention
is to solve this problem so as to provide a block deformation
removing filter that can not only remove the block deformation
without affecting the high frequency signal component in the
original image, but also successfully remove even block
deformation with very small differential value of the signal in
the block boundary. See pages 2 and 3 of Appellant's
specification.
Figure 2 is a block diagram showing an embodiment of the
block deformation removing filter according to the present
invention. See page 5 of Appellant's specification. A block
boundary differential detector 1 detects a differential of signal
values (e.g., intensity signal levels) at a block boundary in an
Appeal No. 2002-2064
Application No. 08/902,330
3
image. A threshold value comparator 2 compares the absolute
value of the detected differential with a predetermined threshold
value, to determine whether the block deformation removing
process be performed at the corresponding block boundary. A
pattern selector 3 randomly selects a value pattern among several
patterns of value to be added to signal values or levels of the
two or more pixels in the vicinity of a block boundary on a
scanning line crossing the block boundary at right angle. A
random number generator 4 generates a pseudo random number which
is applied to the pattern selector 3. The pattern selector 3
uses the random number to randomly select a value pattern among
several patterns. An adder 5 adds additional values selected by
the pattern selector 3 to respective signal values of pixels in
the vicinity of the block boundary when the threshold value
comparator 2 decides that the block deformation removing process
should be performed. See page 6 of Appellant's specification.
Independent claim 1 present in the application is reproduced
as follows:
1. A block deformation removing filter comprising:
a detector responsive to pixel signals included in a
plurality of pixel blocks forming an image to detect a difference
between absolute values of at least two pixel signal intensity
levels in the vicinity of a block boundary of the pixel blocks;

Appeal No. 2002-2064
Application No. 08/902,330
1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 and has now rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. See page 3 of the Examiner's answer.
2 Appellant filed an appeal brief on November 30, 2001.
Appellant filed a reply brief on April 8, 2002. The Examiner
mailed an office communication on June 17, 2002, stating that the
reply brief has been entered and considered.
4
a comparator to compare the difference with a threshold
value;
an adder to add value to the pixel signal levels in the
vicinity of block boundary in accordance with the result of the
comparison;
a generator to generate at least a random number; and
a selector to select a value pattern including said values
which are fixed differential values from a plurality of value
patterns based on the random numbers.
References
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Moronaga et al. 5,229,864 Jul. 20, 1993
(Moronaga)
Honjo 5,337,088 Aug. 9, 1994
Rejection at Issue
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-13 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Honjo in view of Moronaga.1
In our opinion, we will make reference to the briefs2 and
answer.
Appeal No. 2002-2064
Application No. 08/902,330
5
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner's rejection and arguments of the Appellant
and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-13 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellant.
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. See also Piasecki,
745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. "In
Appeal No. 2002-2064
Application No. 08/902,330
6
reviewing the [E]xaminer's decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and arguments." Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. "[T]he Board must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the agency's conclusion." In re Lee, 277
F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002). With
these principles in mind, we commence review of the pertinent
evidence and arguments of Appellant and Examiner.
Appellant argues that neither Honjo nor Moronaga teaches or
suggests selecting a value pattern including values from a
plurality of value patterns based on a random number as recited
in independent claims 1, 6 and 16. See pages 15 and 16 of the
brief and pages 5-9 of the reply brief.
We note that independent claim 1 recites "a selector to
select a value pattern including said values which are fixed
differential values from a plurality of value patterns based on
the random numbers." We also note that independent claim 6
recites "selecting a value pattern including said values from a
plurality of value patterns based on the random number" and
finally, we note that the remaining independent claim 16 recites
Appeal No. 2002-2064
Application No. 08/902,330
7
"selecting a value pattern including the values from a plurality
of value patterns based on the random numbers."
Appellant argues that this claim language must be read in
light of the Appellant's specification. Appellant points to
page 8, lines 22-26, of the specification which show four
patterns. For each pattern, there is a pixel intensity value for
pixel position N. Appellant's specification further discloses
that a random number is used to select each of these pixel
position patterns. Appellant argues that this scheme is
analogous to a so-called "table look up" approach, wherein the
random number is only used to define one of four positions in the
"table" of the value pattern to be used for a particular
correction operation. See page 8 of Appellant's reply brief.
We note that the Examiner is relying on Moronaga for the
teaching of selecting a value pattern including said values for a
plurality of value patterns based upon a random number. See page
4 of the Examiner's answer.
We find that Moronaga teaches the use of a random number to
generate random noise. Moronaga teaches that "[t]he coefficient
setting section 310 and a random number generating section 312
are connected to the multiplier 304. . . . [T]he random number
generating section 312 generates a random number. . . . The
Appeal No. 2002-2064
Application No. 08/902,330
8
random number is used as random noise." See column 12, lines 36-
41 of Moronaga. However, we fail to find that Moronaga teaches
using this random number to select a pixel pattern of pixel
intensity values at pixel positions end. Therefore, we find that
the combination proposed by the Examiner does not teach all the
limitations recited in Appellant's claims.
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-13 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF/lbg
Appeal No. 2002-2064
Application No. 08/902,330
9
CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ
P.O. BOX 19088
WASHINGTON, DC 20036