Ex Parte Rhoads

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 24, 2004

09476460 (B.P.A.I. May. 24, 2004)

1 Although claims 1 through 10 are pending in this
application, appellant has chosen to limit the appeal to claims 2
through 9 (brief, page 4).
1
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was not written for publication and is not binding precedent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. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte GEOFFREY B. RHOADS
__________
Appeal No. 2003-0274
Application 09/476,460
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT, and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal1 involves claims 2 through 9.
The disclosed invention relates to a method of decoding
information steganographically encoded within an image.
Appeal No. 2003-0274
Application No. 09/476,460
2
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 9 read as follows:
1. A method of decoding information steganographically
encoded within an image, the method including:
receiving a set of input data that represents the image in
the pixel domain; and
performing a domain transformation on the input data to
produce transformed data that represents the image in a different
domain.
2. The method of claim 1 that further includes computing a
power spectrum of the transformed data.
5. The method of claim 1 that includes performing a matched
filtering operation on data that is related to said transformed
data.
9. The method of claim 1 in which the information is
graticule information by which the scale and rotation of the
image from an initial state can be discerned.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Bloomberg et al. (Bloomberg) 5,091,966 Feb. 25, 1992
Sheng et al. (Sheng), “Experiments on pattern recognition using
invariant Fourier-Mellin descriptors,” Journal of Optical Society
of America, Vol. 3, No. 6, June 1986, pages 771 through 776.
Short, “Steps Toward Unmasking Secure Communications,”
International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos,” Vol. 4, No. 4,
August 1994, pages 959 through 977.
Claims 2 through 9 stand rejected under the second paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which appellant regards as the invention.
Appeal No. 2003-0274
Application No. 09/476,460
3
Appeal No. 2003-0274
Application No. 09/476,460
4
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Sheng.
Claims 2 through 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sheng in view of Short.
Claims 5 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sheng in view of Bloomberg.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 16, 19 and
23) and the answer (paper number 22) for the respective positions
of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse all of the rejections of record.
Turning first as we must to the indefiniteness rejection,
the examiner is of the opinion (answer, pages 3 through 5) that
claims 2 through 9 are indefinite because claim 1 recites
decoding in the preamble but not in the two method steps of this
claim. Appellant argues (supplemental brief, pages 3 and 4)
that:
The law is well settled that a claim needn’t be a
recipe of an entire method. It can be drawn to a novel
sub-combination of operations used in a method. That
is the case with claim 1. The Examiner’s rejection on
this point is ill-founded, and should be overturned.
Moreover, it will be recognized that the dependent
Appeal No. 2003-0274
Application No. 09/476,460
2 Appellant’s disclosure states that “the Fourier-Mellin
transform is well suited for use in . . . pattern matching
problems” (specification, page 82).
5
claims further define the subcombination - some of them
introducing operations that clearly demonstrate use in
a decoding method.
We agree with the appellant’s arguments. The indefiniteness
rejection of claims 2 through 9 is reversed because the examiner
has not proven that the claims are indefinite merely because the
term “decoding” is not expressly recited in the two method steps
of claim 1.
Turning next to the anticipation rejection of claim 9, we
agree with the appellant’s arguments (supplemental brief, page 4)
that “Sheng teaches use of the Fourier-Mellin2 technique in
pattern matching applications,” but does not mention “information
steganographically encoded within an image.” The examiner’s
contentions (answer, pages 5 and 6) to the contrary
notwithstanding, Sheng does not disclose steganographically
encoded information or graticule information within an image.
Thus, the anticipation rejection of claim 9 is reversed because
Sheng does not disclose every limitation of claim 9.
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claims 2
through 4, we agree with the appellant’s arguments (supplemental
Appeal No. 2003-0274
Application No. 09/476,460
6
brief, page 5) that “Short concerns detection of communications
made using chaotic-carrier based spread spectrum systems,” and,
like Sheng, is not concerned with steganographically encoded
information within an image. Accordingly, the obviousness
rejection of claims 2 through 4 is reversed.
Turning lastly to the obviousness rejection of claims 5
through 8, we agree with the appellant’s argument (supplemental
brief, page 5) that neither Sheng nor Bloomberg is concerned with
steganographically encoding information within an image. For
this reason, the obviousness rejection of claims 5 through 8 is
reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 2 through 9
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal No. 2003-0274
Application No. 09/476,460
7
§ 102(b) is reversed, and the decision of the examiner rejecting
claims 2 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:svt
Appeal No. 2003-0274
Application No. 09/476,460
8
DIGIMARC CORPORATION
19801 SW 72nd Avenue
Suite 100
Tualatin, OR 97062