Ex Parte Venable

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 21, 2003

08785109 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 21, 2003)

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not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the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. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte DENNIS L. VENABLE
__________
Appeal No. 2002-1458
Application 08/785,109
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before FLEMING, BARRY, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 17, all the claims pending in the instant
application.
Invention
The invention relates to an automatic characterization and
editing of a plurality of image objects placed on the platen of
an image input device. See page 1 of Appellant’s specification.
Referring to figures 1 and 2, system 20 includes a computer 22
Appeal No. 2002-1458
Application 08/785,109
2
capable of receiving digital data representing an image of an
original document 24 placed upon a platen of scanner 26.
Computer 22 initially stores the digital input data from scanner
26 in memory 52. See page 8 of Appellant’s specification.
Referring to figure 10, the user may place a number of
photographs on the scanner platen. Once placed thereon, the user
may then select an operation from region 410 of figure 10 to
cause the computer system 22 to initiate scanning by scanner 26.
See page 19 of Appellant’s specification. After the Gang and
Edit (412) is made, system 20 scans the objects placed on platen
24 and temporarily stores the data in the file using the
information reflected in region 420 of the user interface screen.
Once the image is scanned, it is analyzed to identify the image
objects. The image objects may be manipulated by smart scanning
system to automatically orient and position the images. The
various image objects (A, B, C and D) may be found within the
image as illustrated in figure 11. See page 20 of Appellant’s
specification.

Appeal No. 2002-1458
Application 08/785,109
3
Independent claim 1 present in the application is
representative of the claimed invention and is reproduced as
follows:
1. An imaging apparatus, including:
an image input device having a platen, said image input
device scanning a plurality of undersized originals on the platen
and producing a single digitized image including representations
of each of the plurality of undersized originals imaged by said
device;
a programmable computer capable of processing the digitized
image, said computer including a first memory for storing at
least a portion of the digitized image and program memory for the
storage of executable code suitable for causing said computer to
execute image processing operations on the digitized image,
said computer, in accordance with preprogrammed
instructions, determining a background of the digitized image,
identifying the plurality of digitized undersized originals as
objects within the digitized input image based on the determined
background, determining boundaries of the plurality of objects,
modeling shapes representing the boundaries of each of the
identified plurality of objects, and characterizing each of the
identified plurality of objects by parameters including shape,
position and orientation; and
said computer automatically composing an output document
including a representation of at least one of the plurality of
objects.
References
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Aono et al. (Aono) 5,267,333 Nov. 30, 1993
Suzuki 5,289,570 Feb. 22, 1994
Venable et al. (Venable) 5,485,568 Jan. 16, 1996
Appeal No. 2002-1458
Application 08/785,109
1 Appellant filed an appeal brief on March 19, 2001.
Appellant filed a reply brief on November 9, 2001. The Examiner
mailed out an office communication on November 28, 2001, stating
that the reply brief has been entered.
4
Venable et al., Technical Association of the Graphic Arts.
vol. 1, pp. 372 - 385 (1995) herein referred as TAGA.
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1 through 3, 5 through 7,and 10 through 12 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Aono.
Claims 13 through 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Aono in view of Suzuki.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Aono in view of TAGA.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Aono in view of Venable.
Throughout our opinion, we make reference to the briefs1 and
answer for the respective details thereof.
Opinion
With full consideration being given the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of Appellant
and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5 through 7, and 10
through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and we will reverse the
Appeal No. 2002-1458
Application 08/785,109
5
Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 8, 9, and 13 through 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We will first address the rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5
through 7, and 10 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. It is
axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the
claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138
(Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American
Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
Appellant argues that Aono fails to teach “an image input
device having a platen, said image input device scanning a
plurality of undersized originals on the platen and producing a
single digitized image including representations of each of the
plurality of undersized originals imaged by said device” as
recited in Appellant’s claims 1 and 13. See pages 5 through 7
of Appellant’s brief. Appellant also argues that Aono fails to
teach “said computer, in accordance with preprogrammed
instructions, determining a background of the digitized image,
identifying the plurality of digitized undersized originals as
objects within the digitized input image based on the determined
Appeal No. 2002-1458
Application 08/785,109
6
background, determining boundaries of the plurality of objects
. . .”, as recited in Appellant’s claims 1 and 13. See pages 7
through 10 of the Appellant’s brief. Also see Appellant’s reply
brief, pages 1 through 5.
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments by stating
Aono certainly discloses that a user performs editing
functions to the image (column 10, lines 39-60), this is done
AFTER the extracted processing section (4) performs a process of
separating the background image and the object image so as to
form region information (column 9, lines 50-62), this process is
done based on a display program (column 7, lines 2-19). The
extracted processing part separates the object image from the
background (column 10, lines 13-25), which clearly reads on using
preprogrammed instructions to determine the background of the
digitized image. The user edits the image AFTER the background
has been determined by the extracted processing part, and uses
the region information generated from the extraction process to
edit the image, since “human eyes generally have high spatial
resolution, and hence are highly sensitive to any offset to lines
and planes, i.e. to edges” (column 10, lines 39-51).
See pages 12 and 13 of the Examiner’s answer.
Upon our review of Aono, we find that Aono teaches in
section 3 a Method of Compressing Full-Color Pictorial Parts.
This is found in column 9, line 44, through column 15, line 34.
Aono discloses that this method is a method for compressing and
coding only a selected partial region of a full-color image. See
column 9, lines 45 through 46. Referring to figure 12, Aono
teaches that image data 1, 2, such as an original, picture or a
photograph to be processed, are stored in the image data base 32
Appeal No. 2002-1458
Application 08/785,109
7
shown in figure 8. Numeral 4 denotes an extracted processing
section which is in receipt of the pictorial part. See column 9,
lines 50 through 62. Aono teaches that when the input image is
appointed to be pictorial parts, the extracted processing section
4 conducts the separation of the object image from the component
background image. See column 10, lines 13 through 16. As shown
in figure 15, “0" and “1” are allocated to the component
background image and the object image, thus forming a region
information. This process is conducted by the user who
determines whether “1” or “0" is to be allocated through the
interactive method. See column 10, lines 20 through 27. Thus,
we fail to find that Aono teaches a computer, “in accordance with
preprogrammed instructions, determining a background of the
digitized image, identifying the plurality of digitized
undersized originals as objects within the digitized input image
based on the determined background, determining boundaries of the
plurality of objects” as recited in Appellant’s claims 1 and 13.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1 through 3, 5 through 7, and 10 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. §
102.
In regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, we note that
the Examiner has relied on Aono for the above limitation.
Appeal No. 2002-1458
Application 08/785,109
8
Furthermore, we fail to find that the cited references teach the
above limitation. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5 through 7, and 10
through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and we have not sustained the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 8, 9, and 13 through 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEONARD LANCE BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
MAHSHID SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF:pgc
Appeal No. 2002-1458
Application 08/785,109
9
Ronald Zibelli
Xerox Corporation
Xerox Square 20A
Rochester, NY 14644