Ex Parte Poulos et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 201613463536 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/463,536 05/03/2012 26582 7590 05/25/2016 HOLLAND & HART, LLP 222 South Main Street, Suite 2200 P.O. Box 11583 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84147 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR John Poulos 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. P005CA.US.Ol (79967 .0008) CONFIRMATION NO. 1717 EXAMINER ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINAE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3621 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/25/2016 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): patentdocket@hollandhart.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN POULOS, JAMES HOOVER, NICK IKONOMAKIS, and GORAN OBRADOVIC Appeal2014-003595 Application 13/463,536 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. PETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 27--48, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). Oral arguments were presented on May 5, 2016. SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We REVERSE. Appeal2014-003595 Application 13/463,536 THE INVENTION The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to tabulating votes in an election (Spec. 1:6-7). Claim 27, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 27. A method for determining votes recorded on a voter marked paper ballot, comprising: receiving, at a ballot processing computer, optical image data comprising an optical image of a voter-marked paper ballot, the voter- marked paper ballot including voter selection areas; determining that one or more voter selection areas have been selected when markings in the one or more voter selection areas exceed a predefined first threshold value for determining a specific voter selection area has been selected; determining that one or more voter selection areas have not been selected when markings in the one or more voter selection areas fall below a predefined second threshold value for determining a specific voter selection area has not been selected; determining that the voter-marked paper ballot includes at least one ambiguous mark when markings in one or more voter selection areas fall between the predefined first threshold value and second threshold value; and outputting an indication that one or more voter selection areas are ambiguous when it is determined that the voter-marked paper ballot includes at least one ambiguous mark. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 27, 28, and 32--48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chung (US 2007 /0170253 Al, pub. July 26, 2007) and Kakarala (US 2003/0052981 Al, pub. Mar. 20, 2003). 2 Appeal2014-003595 Application 13/463,536 2. Claims 29--31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chung, Kakarala, and Munyer (US 2002/0143610 Al, pub. Oct. 3, 2002). FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence. 1 ANALYSIS The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 27 is improper because the following highlighted claim terms are not shown or suggested in the cited references: determining that one or more voter selection areas have been selected when markings in the one or more voter selection areas exceed a predefined first threshold value for determining a specific voter selection area has been selected; determining that one or more voter seiection areas have not been selected when markings in the one or more voter selection areas fall below a predefined second threshold value for determining a specific voter selection area has not been selected; [and] determining that the voter-marked paper ballot includes at least one ambiguous mark when markings in one or more voter selection areas fall between the predefined first threshold value and second threshold value. (App. Br. 4--7; Reply Br. 2--4). The Appellants also have argued that the cited references are non-analogous art (App. Br. 7-9). 1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). 3 Appeal2014-003595 Application 13/463,536 In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the argued claim limitations are found in Kakarala at paras. 69, 71, and 74--81 and that the rejection of record is proper (Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3). We agree with the Appellants. Here, Kakarala is directed to an adaptive demosaicing method (Abstract). In Kakarala each color plane "votes" on a comparison of the vertical and horizontal components of the degree of change in that plane (Abstract). The citations to Kakarala at paras. 69, 71, and 7 4--81 are directed to the demosaicing method and the "voting" in these portions is color plane voting not traditional ballot voting. Further, Kakarala is directed to color plane voting (Abstract) and not to single color edge marking. Kakarala at para. 7 5 does disclose determining three ranges using three thresholds but this is in relation to color plane "voting" and not to ballot voting with ambiguous marks or single color edge determination. For these reasons, the rejection of claim 27 is not sustained. The remaining claims contain a similar limitation and the rejection of these claims is not sustained for the same reasons given above. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 27--48 is not sustained. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation