Ex parte THIERET

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 5, 1997

07796971 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 5, 1997)

Application for patent filed November 25, 1991.1
1
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was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.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. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte TRACEY E. THIERET

_____________
Appeal No. 95-2848
Application 07/796,9711
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, JERRY SMITH and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
Appeal No. 95-2848
Application 07/796,971
2
from the examiner's rejection of claims 1-14, which constitute
all the claims in the application.
The claimed invention pertains to a method and apparatus
for converting an input image made up of a plurality of pixels
into an output image made up of a plurality of pixels. More
specifically, input pixels which correspond to an edge region are
converted to smooth output pixels by considering the intensity
values of pixels which surround the edge pixel.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A method of processing an input image having a
plurality of input pixels to generate an output image having a
plurality of output pixels, comprising the steps performed for
each input pixel, of:
a first forming step of forming a first value from
intensities of a first set of pixels around the input pixel;
determining whether the first value is a member of a
first set of values;
a first setting step of setting an output pixel
intensity, corresponding to the input pixel, in accordance with
an intensity of the input pixel, if the first value is not a
member of the first set of values;
otherwise, a second forming step of forming a second
value from intensities of a second set of pixels around the input
pixel, the second set of pixels including a pixel that is not
included in the first set of pixels;
a second setting step of setting an output pixel
intensity, corresponding to the input pixel, in accordance with
the second value.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Appeal No. 95-2848
Application 07/796,971
3
Kitamura 4,703,363 Oct. 27, 1987
Kojima 5,036,405 July 30, 1991

D. F. Bantz et al. (Bantz), “Anti-Aliasing Video Lookup Table,”
IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Vol. 27, No 10B, March 1985,
pages 6339-6342.
Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Kitamura in view of
Kojima with respect to claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 12, and adds
Bantz with respect to claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13 and 14.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answers for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. 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 rejections and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner's answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the collective evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of
Appeal No. 95-2848
Application 07/796,971
4
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set
forth in claims 1-14. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the teachings
of Kitamura and Kojima. Appellant has nominally indicated that
dependent claims 4, 5, 11 and 12 are separately patentable from
independent claims 1 and 8 and has presented separate arguments
in support thereof [brief, pages 5 and 8-9]. Thus, we will
consider the rejection of independent claims 1 and 8 separately
from the rejection of dependent claims 4, 5, 11 and 12.
Claim 1 is directed to a method for carrying out the
invention, and claim 8 is essentially directed to an equivalent
apparatus drafted in means plus function format. The examiner
has pointed out the teachings of Kitamura and Kojima, has
identified the perceived differences between Kitamura and claims
1 and 8, and has provided an analysis as to why Kitamura would
have been modified with the teachings of Kojima to arrive at the
invention of claims 1 and 8 [answer, pages 3-4]. Appellant
argues that the applied prior art contains no guidance of how the
features of Kitamura and Kojima could be combined to achieve the
claimed invention, and that the motivation to make the examiner’s
attempted combination does not come from within the prior art.
Appeal No. 95-2848
Application 07/796,971
5
For reasons which we will discuss in more detail below, we agree
with appellant’s position.
As a general rule 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 (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 Hospital Systems, Inc. v.
Montefiore Hospital, 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
Appeal No. 95-2848
Application 07/796,971
6
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
When these rules are considered under the facts of this
case, we agree with appellant that there is no basis for the
artisan to combine the teachings of Kojima with the teachings of
Kitamura in the manner proposed by the examiner. The examiner
has recognized that Kitamura fails to suggest the second forming
step in which a second intensity value is calculated using at
least one different pixel than was used in the first forming
step. Kitamura teaches a single calculation step using four
pixels adjacent to the pixel of interest. Although Kojima
teaches a technique for adjusting a pixel of interest by
successively looking at different surrounding pixels, Kojima
merely replaces the pixel of interest with one of the surrounding
pixel values, and no forming of a second value takes place as
recited in the claims. Thus, neither reference teaches the
claimed technique of calculating one value as a threshold
condition and calculating a second value using at least one
different pixel when the threshold is not reached.
We can see no reason why the artisan would seek to modify
the Kitamura technique with the technique disclosed by Kojima.
Kojima repairs defective pixels by replacing them with good or
Appeal No. 95-2848
Application 07/796,971
7
previously amended pixels and does not consider the relative
intensities of surrounding pixels at all. Additionally, the
Kojima technique would not enhance the performance of the
Kitamura device, and as pointed out by appellant, would likely
result in the edge pixels of Kitamura being less smooth rather
than more smooth. There would thus be no motivation to even
attempt to apply the pixel correction technique of Kojima to the
smoothing technique described by Kitamura.
For all the reasons just discussed, the record in this
case does not support the obviousness of the invention as set
forth in claims 1 and 8. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1 and 8. Since claims 4, 5, 11 and 12 depend
from either claim 1 or claim 8, we also do not sustain the
rejection of these claims.
We now consider the rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9,
10, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
teachings of Kitamura, Kojima and Bantz. Appellant indicates
that these claims stand or fall together [brief, pages 5 and 9-
10]. These claims are all dependent claims which depend from
either claim 1 or claim 8. For reasons discussed above, the
invention of claims 1 and 8 is not suggested by the collective
teachings of Kitamura and Kojima. Therefore, the first question
Appeal No. 95-2848
Application 07/796,971
8
to be considered is whether the teachings of Bantz overcome the
deficiencies present in the rejection of claims 1 and 8.
Bantz was cited only for its teaching of using a video
lookup table for acquiring anti-aliasing values to be used in
smoothing edge pixels. The lookup table is recited only in the
dependent claims. Bantz provides no teachings relevant to the
formation of first and second values related to the intensities
of different sets of pixels surrounding the pixel of interest.
Thus, we find nothing in Bantz which corrects the deficiencies in
the teachings of Kitamura and Kojima. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13
and 14 as proposed by the examiner based upon the record before
us.
In summary, we have not sustained either of the
rejections set forth by the examiner. Accordingly, the decision
of the examiner rejecting claims 1-14 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Appeal No. 95-2848
Application 07/796,971
9
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT and DUNNER
1300 I Street, N.W.
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005