Ex Parte Wang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 10, 2004

09195593 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 10, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte SHEN-GE WANG
____________
Appeal No. 2003-1816
Application No. 09/195,593
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before RUGGIERO, BARRY, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A patent examiner rejected claims 1-7. The appellant appeals therefrom under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The invention at issue on appeal is a digitized rendering system that may be
used in electrophotographic, color copiers. (Spec. at 1.) More specifically, the system
is aimed at reducing the memory needed to store stochastic-cluster or stochastic-line
screens. Consider a stochastic-cluster or a stochastic-line screen composed of M×N of
cells, which are identical in shape to a base halftone cell comprising H×K pixels.
Appeal No. 2003-1816 Page 2
Application No. 09/195,593
Instead of storing (M×N) × (H×K) threshold values for the screen, the appellant stores
three sets of data. The first set of data, T(IP, JP), represents H×K thresholds of the base
halftone cell where (IP, JP) are the coordinates of each pixel of the base cell. The
second set of data, C(IP, JP), represents H×K increments of thresholds corresponding to
the first set of data. For example, if a threshold value in the first set represents the level
corresponding to k-pixel pattern, Tk, the increment in the second set is Ck = Tk -Tk-1. The
third set of data, F(IC, Jc), represents M×N fill-in indices, which address the cells, where
(IC, Jc) are the coordinates of "referring" pixel of the specific cell in the composite
screen. (Id. at 33-34.)
The thresholds of the first set and the increments of the second set are
represented in an eight-bit format. The indices of the third set are represented in a
format of no more than eight bits. Accordingly, no more than 2*(H×K) + (M×N) bytes of
memory are needed to store the screen. To store a 192×192 stochastic-cluster screen,
for example, the appellant explains that "four bits can be enough to specify the fill-in
order. . . ." (Id. at 34.) They assert that storing the screen in a conventional halftone
format would require 36,864 bytes of memory. In contrast, storing the screen in the
appellant's format would require only 2*18 + 1024 = 1060 bytes of memory. (Id.)
Appeal No. 2003-1816 Page 3
Application No. 09/195,593
1The specification omits a definition of the term "stoclustic."
2"We advise the examiner to copy his rejections into his examiner’s answers. . . ."
Ex parte Metcalf, 67 USPQ2d 1633, 1635 n.1 (Bd.Pat.App.& Int. 2003).
A further understanding of the invention can be achieved by reading the following
claim.
1. A method for storing a stoclustic1 or stochastic halftone screen
having (M*N) cells and (H*K) elements in a memory device, comprising
the steps of:
(a) storing (H*K) threshold values;
(b) storing (H*K) incremental threshold values; and
(c) storing (M*N) fill-in indices for addressing the (M*N) cells.
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over U.S. Patent
No. 5,267,054 ("Chang").
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellant in toto, we
focus on a point of contention therebetween. The examiner asserts, "Chang et al.
discloses (Figure 6b) . . . an array of indices (dx', dy') for indexing the cells of a
threshold array." (Final Rejection at 2.)2 The appellant argues, "[t]he Examiner has
erroneously asserted that the disclosure of values for the distances of x and y from the
Appeal No. 2003-1816 Page 4
Application No. 09/195,593
origin (dx', dy') is equivalent to the claimed (M*N) fill-in indices for addressing the
claimed (M*N) cells." (Appeal Br. at 9.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the independent claim at issue to determine its scope. Second, we
determine whether the construed claim would have been obvious.
1. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
"Analysis begins with a key legal question — what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). "'[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every application is
subjected, is to try to make sure that what each claim defines is patentable. [T]he name
of the game is the claim. . . .'" In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d
1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich, The Extent of the Protection and
Interpretation of Claims --American Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright
L. 497, 499, 501 (1990))
Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "[a] method for
storing a stoclustic or stochastic halftone screen having (M*N) cells and (H*K) elements
in a memory device, comprising . . . storing (M*N) fill-in indices for addressing the (M*N)
Appeal No. 2003-1816 Page 5
Application No. 09/195,593
cells." Accordingly, the independent claim requires storing fill-in indices for addressing
the cells of a stoclustic or stochastic halftone screen.
2. OBVIOUSNESS DETERMINATION
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. "In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the
prior art itself would . . . have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of
ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
1976)).
Here, Chang's "invention . . . provide[s] a method and apparatus for storing
halftone cells in the minimum amount of memory space." Col. 4, ll. 14-15. "To minimize
the amount of memory needed to store a half-tone cell and still provide a quick and
simple method to access the threshold values during the rendering process, the tiles are
Appeal No. 2003-1816 Page 6
Application No. 09/195,593
unwrapped and organized in an array referred to as a threshold array, which provides a
more simple mapping to the display space." Col. 9, ll. 25-31.
"As illustrated by the flow chart of FIG. 6b, the threshold array stored in memory
may . . . be easily accessed to render a digital halftone image." Col. 11, ll. 29-31. More
specifically, "dy and dx coordinates for a particular pixel are mapped to the threshold
array memory coordinate by a translation, whereby dx', the x distance from the origin of
the threshold array, is equal to: (dx-n*offset) mod (threshold width) where mod
represents a modular function." Col. 12, ll. 3-8. "Similarly dy', the y distance from the
origin, is equal to: dy-n*h." Id. at ll. 11-12.
Although we agree with the examiner that dx' and dy' are used as indices, we are
unpersuaded that the indices are used to address the cells of a stoclustic or stochastic
halftone screen. To the contrary, block 260 of Figure 6b discloses that dx' and dy' are
used to index the reference's threshold array. Furthermore, the examiner recognizes
that dx' and dy' are used "for indexing the cells of a threshold array." (Final Rejection at
2.) Absent a teaching or suggestion of storing fill-in indices for addressing the cells of a
stoclustic or stochastic halftone screen, we are unpersuaded of a prima facie case of
obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 1 and of claims
2-7, which depend therefrom.
Appeal No. 2003-1816 Page 7
Application No. 09/195,593
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-7 under § 103(a) is reversed.
Appeal No. 2003-1816 Page 8
Application No. 09/195,593
REVERSED
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LANCE LEONARD BARRY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2003-1816 Page 9
Application No. 09/195,593
JOHN E BECK
XEROX CORPORATION
XEROX SQUARE 20 A
ROCHESTER , NY 14644