Ex Parte Ronk et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 28, 2008

09896503 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LAWRENCE J. RONK and BRUCE E. FINCHBAUGH
____________

Appeal 2007-3056
Application 09/896,503
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: February 28, 2008
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and CARLA M.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection
of claims 1-4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appeal 2007-3056
Application 09/896,503

Appellants’ claimed invention is a method of video object feature data
generation (Spec. 1:6 & 7).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.

1. A method of video object feature data generation, comprising:

(a) extracting a first set of features from a moving object detected in a
sequence of images;

(b) extracting a sequence of grid blocks corresponding to motion of
said object in said sequence of images; and

(c) storing said first set of features and said sequence of grid blocks.

REFERENCES
Tsuchikawa US 5,748,775 May 5, 1998

The Examiner rejected claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based
upon the teachings of Tsuchikawa.
Appellants contend that Tsuchikawa does not store a feature set plus a
motion path for a detected object as does claim 1 (Br. 41).2

ISSUE
Whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) in light of Tsuchikawa.

1 We refer to the most recent Brief filed September 29, 2006, throughout this
opinion.
2 Appellants only argument is with respect to independent claim 1. Thus,
dependent claims 2-4 will stand or fall with claim 1.
2
Appeal 2007-3056
Application 09/896,503

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference
that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim
invalidates that claim by anticipation. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson
& Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue
“reads on” a prior art reference. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d
1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999)

ANALYSIS
The Examiner cited Tsuchikawa as teaching all the features of
Appellants’ invention. Particularly, the Examiner contends that Tsuchikawa
discloses a method of video object feature data generation (at least Figures
3-4, 6-7) and teaches “extracting a …set of features from a moving object
detected in a sequence of images” (cl. 1, step (a)) in column 5, lines 5-10,
which enters an image sequence of the input images. Tsuchikawa also
teaches “extracting a sequence of grid blocks corresponding to motion of
said object in the sequence of images” (cl. 1, step (b)) in column 5, lines 13-
17, which provides a moving extraction means (500) for obtaining a moving
object output (520) representing the moving object. Finally, Tsuchikawa
teaches “storing said first set of features and said sequence of grid blocks”
(cl. 1, step (c)) in column 5, lines 18-26, which provides storage means 100
for storing the image parameter values for each input image and a moving
3
Appeal 2007-3056
Application 09/896,503

object region 120 that includes a plurality of sub-regions located at
coordinate positions within each frame (Ex. Ans. 33).
Appellants counter that Tsuchikawa extracts (detects) a moving object
in a sequence of images by updating the background and then subtracting it
from the images to find the object; whereas claim 1 presumes an already-
detected moving object in a sequence of images (Br. 3). This feature,
however, is not found in claim 1. Appellants further argue that Tsuchikawa
does not suggest storing a feature set and a motion path for an object as does
claim 1, but rather stores a sequence of images (Br. 3&4). Again, storing a
motion path is not found in claim 1. We do not agree with Appellants in
light of the above comparison of claim 1 with Tsuchikawa.
As shown above, Tsuchikawa teaches all the elements of claim 1.
Thus, since each and every element set forth in independent claim 1 is found
in Tsuchikawa either expressly or under the principles of inherency (see
Minn. Mining, supra), we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-4
under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).

CONCLUSION
We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C § 102(b).

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-4 is affirmed.

3 We refer to the most recent Examiner’s Answer filed on February 26,
2007, throughout this opinion.
4
Appeal 2007-3056
Application 09/896,503

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tdl/gw

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCOERPORATED
P.O. BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
5