Ex parte Suzuki

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2000

08509795 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2000)

THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written
for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TOSHIO SUZUKI
____________
Appeal No. 1998-0892
Application No. 08/509,795
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH and HECKER, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the examiner’s rejection of claims 8-14. Claims 1-7 have
been cancelled, and claims 15-16 have been allowed. An
amendment after final rejection was filed on November 2, 1996
and was entered by the examiner.
Appeal No. 1998-0892
Application No. 08/509,795
2
The disclosed invention pertains to a method and
apparatus for removing noise from input signals to a hand-
written character recognition device.
Appeal No. 1998-0892
Application No. 08/509,795
3
Representative claim 8 is reproduced as follows:
8. A noise removing circuit for a hand-written character
recognition device comprising:
an input unit having an input portion on which a
character is written;
detecting means for detecting coordinate points of a
character written on said input portion in a written order
thereon;
noise candidate specifying means for specifying two noise
candidate coordinate points one of which is to be removed as a
noise coordinate point, said noise candidate coordinate points
being consecutive in the written order;
vector calculation means for calculating vectors between
one of the noise candidate coordinate points and coordinate
points detected prior to and subsequent to the noise
coordinate points in the written order, for each of the noise
candidate coordinate points, respectively;
angle calculation means for calculating angles between
the vectors calculated for each of the noise candidate
coordinate points, respectively;
noise identifying means for analyzing positional
variations of the noise candidate coordinate points from the
coordinate points written prior to and subsequent to the noise
coordinate points on the basis of a direct comparison of the
angle calculated for one of the noise candidate coordinate
points with the angle calculated for the other noise candidate
coordinate point, and for determining one of the noise
candidate coordinate points whose positional variation is
greater than that of the other noise candidate coordinate
point as a noise coordinate point; and
noise removing means for removing the noise coordinate
point determined as the noise coordinate point from the
coordinate points detected by said input means.
Appeal No. 1998-0892
Application No. 08/509,795
4
Appeal No. 1998-0892
Application No. 08/509,795
5
The examiner relies on the following references:
Ward 4,608,658 Aug. 26, 1986
Lipscomb 5,023,918 June 11, 1991
Claims 8-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Lipscomb in view
of Ward.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in
the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary
Appeal No. 1998-0892
Application No. 08/509,795
6
skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth
in claim 14. We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to
claims 8-13. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this appeal
the claims will stand or fall together in the following two
groups: Group I has claims 8-13, and Group II has claim 14.
Consistent with this indication appellant has made no separate
arguments with respect to any of the claims within each group.
Accordingly, all the claims within each group will stand or
fall together. Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ
136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991,
217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Therefore, we will consider
the rejection against claims 8 and 14 as representative of all
the claims on appeal.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In
so doing, the examiner is expected to make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467
Appeal No. 1998-0892
Application No. 08/509,795
7
(1966), and to provide a reason why one having ordinary skill
in the pertinent art would have been led to modify the prior
art or to combine prior art references to arrive at the
claimed invention. Such reason must stem from some teaching,
suggestion or implication in the prior art as a whole or
knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in
the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,
1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S.
825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories,
Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985),
cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the examiner are an essential
part of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met,
the burden then shifts to the applicant to overcome the prima
facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then
determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the
relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See Id.; In re
Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal No. 1998-0892
Application No. 08/509,795
8
1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788
(Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made
by appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to representative, independent claim 8, the
examiner essentially finds that Lipscomb discloses the claimed
subject matter except for the direct comparison of the angle
calculated for one of the noise candidate coordinate points
with the angle calculated for a second noise candidate
coordinate point [answer, pages 3-4]. Appellant does not
dispute these findings of the examiner [brief, page 4]. The
examiner cites Ward as teaching a direct comparison of angles
calculated for two points, and the examiner asserts the
obviousness of using Ward’s angle comparison technique with
Lipscomb’s noise detector [answer, page 4].
Appellant’s only argument in response to this rejection
is that Ward does not teach or suggest the direct comparison
of an angle calculated for one noise coordinate point with the
angle calculated for a second noise coordinate point [brief,
Appeal No. 1998-0892
Application No. 08/509,795
9
pages 4-5]. More particularly, appellant argues that the
angles output from table look-up 39 in Ward are not calculated
angles as recited in claim 8, and the comparison of “angles”
in Ward relates to a single point and not to two different
sample points as claimed [reply brief, pages 2-3].
We agree with the position argued by appellant. The
reference angles which are stored in table look-up 39 in Ward
are not based on any noise candidate coordinate points, but
rather, are theoretical values which determine whether
distance ratios associated with each noise candidate
coordinate point exceed some predetermined value. The values
stored in table look-up 39 are unrelated to the calculated
angles of successive noise candidate points in Ward.
Therefore, since the angle comparison in Ward is not between
angles for consecutive noise candidate points as recited in
claim 8, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 8 or of
claims 9-13 which are grouped therewith.
With respect to independent claim 14, the examiner
indicates how the two conditions set forth in steps (f) and
(g) are disclosed by Lipscomb [answer, pages 5 and 6].
Appellant’s only argument with respect to this claim is that
Appeal No. 1998-0892
Application No. 08/509,795
10
the second condition of claim 14 (whether or not the absolute
value of V equals the absolute value of V ) is not taught ori i-1
suggested in Lipscomb [brief, pages 5-6].
We agree with the examiner’s rejection as it applies to
claim 14. The claimed condition of 2 = 180 would correspond 1 o
to a straight line being drawn in Lipscomb. Since Lipscomb
performs a cross product of consecutive vectors, the cross
product of a straight line of vectors in Lipscomb would equal
zero because the sine 180 is zero. Since zero would be belowo
any threshold set in Lipscomb, all points P , P and so forthi i+1
on a straight line would be removed as noise coordinate points
[note Figures 2A-2D].
Since all candidate points in Lipscomb would be removed under
the condition of a straight line being drawn, the conditions
set forth in claim 14 would be satisfied in Lipscomb. Since
the examiner’s analysis appears correct, and since appellant
has not offered any explanation as to why this analysis is not
correct, we will sustain the rejection of claim 14 based on
this record.
In summary, the rejection of claims 8-14 under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal No. 1998-0892
Application No. 08/509,795
11
§ 103 is sustained with respect to claim 14 but is not
sustained with respect to claims 8-13. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 8-14 is affirmed-in-
part.
Appeal No. 1998-0892
Application No. 08/509,795
12
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART N. HECKER )
Administrative Patent Judge )
jg
Appeal No. 1998-0892
Application No. 08/509,795
13
GERALD LEVY
KANE DALSIMER SULLIVAN KURUCZ
LEVY EISELE AND RICHARD
711 THIRD AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10017-4059