Ex parte Vieth

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 28, 2000

08188365 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 28, 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for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 36
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JOHN O. G. VIETH
____________
Appeal No. 1997-0017
Application No. 08/188,365
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and DIXON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1,
2, 4, 9, 10, 12 through 14, 16 and 17. In an Amendment After
Final (paper number 27), all of the claims were amended.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and system
for compressing non-transposed data.
Appeal No. 1997-0017
Application No. 08/188,365
2
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A method of compressing non-transposed data
comprising
the steps:
(a) receiving successive non-transposed columns of
binary pixels representing data on a document using a document
scanner, with said successive non-transposed columns of binary
pixels including a first non-transposed column of binary
pixels and a last non-transposed column of binary pixels to be
processed, said successive non-transposed columns of binary
pixels being derived from the same document;
(b) using an examining window to extend over a
predetermined number of said successive non-transposed columns
along a direction which is perpendicular to the direction of
said columns so as to present a row of said binary pixels,
with said using step using only one binary pixel from each of
said non-transposed columns of binary pixels for said row of
binary pixels;
(c) generating a change of color bit for each of the
binary pixels in the examining window, starting with said
first non-transposed column of binary pixels while said
examining window is moved towards said last non-transposed
column of binary pixels;
(d) examining a pixel in a target row under
consideration in said window with regard to a reference row
and designating coding according to a predetermined code which
uses said reference row for compressing pixels in said target
row, with said reference row and said target row being
perpendicular to said successive non-transposed columns of
binary pixels;
(e) compressing said target row starting with said first
non-transposed column of binary pixels while said examining
window is moved towards said last non-transposed column of
Appeal No. 1997-0017
Application No. 08/188,365
3
binary pixels, with said compressing step (e) being initiated
after receiving said first non-transposed column of binary
pixels but before said last non-transposed column of binary
pixels is received;
(f) repeating steps (b), (c), (d), and (e) for the
remaining non-transposed columns of binary pixels on the
document.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Rohrer 4,590,606 May 20,
1986
Kaku et al. (Kaku) 4,807,043 Feb. 21,
1989
D’Aoust et al. (D’Aoust) 5,007,100 Apr.
9, 1991
Chatterjee 5,317,652 May 31,
1994
(filed June 5, 1991)
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 12 through 14, 16 and 17 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
D’Aoust in view of Kaku, Chatterjee and Rohrer.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answers for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
The obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 12
through 14, 16 and 17 is reversed because the applied
references neither teach nor would have suggested to the
skilled artisan a compressing step or a compressing means that
Appeal No. 1997-0017
Application No. 08/188,365
4
uses an examining window that extends over and is
perpendicular to a predetermined number of successive columns
of binary pixel data received from a document scanner to form
a target row of pixels, and that initiates the compressing of
the target row of pixels after receiving the predetermined
number of successive columns of binary pixels but before the
last column of binary pixels has been generated by the
document scanner.
The examiner is of the opinion (Supplemental Answer,
paper number 29, page 4) that:
D’Aoust ‘100 strongly suggests that the compression
steps may take place while further image data is
being input (i.e., “before said last column of
binary pixels is received”). See column 16, lines
29-31 and column 18, lines 50-53 of D’Aoust ‘100.
Note also that column 4, lines 23-31 state that
“entities 48, 52, 56, 60 and 64 represent a single
document image pipelined processing assembly . . .”
This indicates that at least the image digitization
(48) and compression (60) are being performed at the
same time for different parts of the image (i.e.,
the first columns of data would be processed by the
compressor before the last column is digitized.)
Appellant argues (Reply Brief, page 3) that “it is clear
from reading the detailed specification of D’Aoust ‘100 that
image digitizing of a document occurs before compression of
Appeal No. 1997-0017
Application No. 08/188,365
5
data associated with the same document begins.” According to
the appellant (Reply Brief, page 4):
None of the prior art including D’Aoust ‘104
discloses or suggests a combination of elements in
which a standard compression algorithm like the
CCITT compression algorithm is applied to
compressing non-transposed pixel data scanned from a
document using a document scanner wherein
compression begins after the first non-transposed
scan line of pixels is generated but before the last
non-transposed scan line of pixels is derived from
scanning the same document using the document
scanner and such that reference and target rows of
pixels defined by the compression algorithm extend
in a direction which is perpendicular to the non-
transposed scan lines of pixels.
We agree with appellant’s arguments. The mere fact that
D’Aoust’s “entities 48, 52, 56, 60, and 64 represent a single
document image pipelined processing assembly” (column 4, lines
23 through 26; Figure 2) does not mean that “the compression
steps may take place while further image data is being input
(i.e., ‘before said last column of binary pixels is
received’).” Although “[t]ransposer buffers 300 and 302 [in
the transposer compressor assembly 60] are substantially
always ready to accept image data associated with document 16"
(column 16, lines 29 through 31), this buffer readiness does
not translate into compression of pixel data while the image
Appeal No. 1997-0017
Application No. 08/188,365
6
data is being input by the scanner. D’Aoust’s teaching
(column 18, lines 50 through 53) that “buffers 418, 420, 422
and 424 allow for up to three images to be packed while one is
being read by the communications processor 74" is irrelevant
to the claimed invention because the buffers 418, 420, 422 and
424 that form the compressed data buffer 64 (Figures 2 and 7)
receive image data after the compression operation in
transposer compressor assembly 60.
When the teachings of D’Aoust are considered in toto, it
is very clear that the document 16 is completely scanned
before the initiation of the compression operation (column 5,
line 3 through column 6, line 46).
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify D’Aoust with the disparate teachings of Kaku,
Chatterjee and Rohrer, the initiation of compression while the
document is still being scanned would not have been taught nor
would it have been suggested by the combined teachings of the
references. In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims
1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 12 through 14, 16 and 17 is reversed.
Appeal No. 1997-0017
Application No. 08/188,365
7
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 9,
10, 12 through 14, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
jg
Appeal No. 1997-0017
Application No. 08/188,365
8
Michael Chan
NCR Corporation
Law Department
Intellectual Property Section, ECD-2
101 West Schantz Avenue
Dayton, OH 45479-0001