Ex parte Weldy et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 17, 2000

07918517 (B.P.A.I. May. 17, 2000)

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not binding precedent of the Board.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. 33
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JOHN A. WELDY
and JAMES LAWTON
_____________
Appeal No.1997-3269
Application 07/918,517
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before JERRY SMITH, FLEMING, and LALL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final
rejection of claims 9, 10 and 13. Claims 1 through 8, 11 and
12 have been allowed.
Appeal No. 1997-3269
Application 07/918,519
2
The invention relates to an apparatus for quantizing a
digital image. On page 7 of the specification, Appellants
identify that the invention is to reduce the quantization
error in decoding images without increasing the storage
requirements. Appellants identify on pages 13 and 14 of the
specification that the system can create images of different
spatial resolution (i.e., different numbers of pixels). These
images are titled 16BASE, 4BASE, BASE, BASE/4 and BASE/16.
The 16BASE and 4BASE images are stored as residual dependent
representation images, and the BASE, BASE/4, and two BASE/16
images are stored as non-dependent representative images. On
page 2 of the specification, Appellants define a “non-
dependent” representation as “a component of a hierarchy that
does NOT require additional information (from other
representations stored in the hierarchy) for display.”
Appellants further identify on page 15 of the specification
that the quantization of non-dependent images can be encoded.
On pages 10 and 11 of the specification, Appellants describe
that the method of encoding the quantization values is such
that a quantization value which can have M levels (represented
by an integer 0 to M-1) is encoded into two values which can
Appeal No. 1997-3269
Application 07/918,519
3
have M/2 levels (represented as even integers from 0 to M-2).
The M/2 level values are created by rounding to the M level
value to the nearest multiple of 2, one of the M/2 level
values being created by rounding up and the other by rounding
down. Appellants depict the correlation between M level
values and M/2 level values in Table 1 on page 10 of the
specification. Thus, the average of the two M/2 level values
is the same as the original M level value. Appellants
identify on page 16 of the specification that this encoding
technique can be used to reduce a 9 bit value to a 8 bit
value, as shown in table 2. On pages 17 and 18 of the
specification, Appellants also identify that the encoding
technique can be used for 10 bit to 8 bit encoding by
converting a M level value into four values of M/4 levels as
shown in table 3. On page 18 of the specification, Appellants
identify that the four M/4 level quantizations can be used on
the four stored non-dependent representative images, BASE,
BASE/4, and two BASE/16, such that each image has a different
M/4 quantization. Appellants identify on page 19 of the
specification that if an image of spatial size BASE, BASE/4,
or BASE/16 is to be produced at higher resolution (more than 8
Appeal No. 1997-3269
Application 07/918,519
4
bit quantization level) than the stored image, a higher
resolution image is reconstructed from two of the stored
images. See also Appellants’ figure 6. This is performed by
adjusting one of the images to be of the same spatial
resolution as the second image and then combining the images.
Appellants identify on page 20 of the specification that if
the images are of equal spatial resolution, the step of
combining the images can be performed by averaging.
Independent claim 9 is illustrative of the invention.
9. Apparatus for reconstructing an image with additional
quantization levels of signal resolution from two quantized
non-dependent representations of the image at the spatial
resolution of one of the representations, comprising:
means for converting one of the quantized non-dependent
representations to the same spatial resolution as the other
representation; and
means for combining the converted and non-converted
representations to form a combined representation with
additional quantization levels of signal resolution.
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Jones et al. (Jones) 5,048,111 Sept. 10, 1991
Chung et al. (Chung) 5,239,597 Aug. 24, 1993
(filed Feb. 25, 1991)
Rosen et al. (Rosen) 5,309,528 May 3, 1994
(filed Dec. 13, 1991)
Appeal No. 1997-3269
Application 07/918,519
This rejection is a “new ground of rejection” made in1
the October 9, 1996 Examiner’s answer. The rejection of
claims 9, 10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as unpatentable over
Jones as set forth in the final rejection has been withdrawn
as identified in the March 3, 1998 supplemental Examiner’s
answer.
Appellants filed an appeal brief on June 26, 1996. 2
Appellants filed a reply brief on December 9, 1996 in response
to the Examiner’s new grounds of rejection. Appellants filed
a supplemental reply brief on May 6, 1997. On May 12, 1997
the Examiner mailed a communication stating that the
supplemental reply brief has been entered and considered.
The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s answer on October 9,3
1996. On March 3, 1997 the Examiner mailed a supplemental
Examiner’s answer.
5
Claims 9, 10 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Jones, Rosen and Chung.1
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answers for the2 3
respective details thereof.
Opinion
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 9, 10 and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case. It is
the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
Appeal No. 1997-3269
Application 07/918,519
6
invention by the express teachings or suggestions found in the
prior art or by the implication contained in such teachings or
suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6
(Fed. Cir. 1983). “Additionally, when determining obviousness,
the claimed invention should be considered as a whole; there
is no legally recognizable ‘heart’ of the invention.“ Para-
Ordnance Mfg. v SGS Importers Int’l Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087,
37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S.
822 (1996) (citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983),
cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984)).
First, we must determine the scope of the claims. As our
reviewing court stated in Markman v. Westview Instruments, 52
F.3d 967, 979, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1329-30 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en
banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384,(1996):
Claims must be read in view of the specification, of
which they are a part. The specification contains a
written description of the invention that must enable one
of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the
invention. For claim construction purposes, the
description may act as a sort of dictionary, which
explains the invention and may define terms used in the
claims. (Citation omitted).
Appeal No. 1997-3269
Application 07/918,519
7
We find that the scope of independent claims 9 and 13
includes reconstructing an image from two quantized non-
dependent representations of the image, where the
reconstructed image has more quantization levels of resolution
than the two non-dependent representations of the image.
These limitations are found in claim 9, “two quantized non-
dependent representations of the image” and “combining the
converted and non-converted representations to form a combined
representation with additional quantization levels of signal
resolution.” These limitations are also found in claim 13, “a
multiplicity of non-dependent representations of the image”
and “combining the converted and non-converted representations
to form a combined representation with additional quantization
levels of signal resolution.” The term “non-dependent
representation” is defined in Appellants’ specification on
page 2:
a “non-dependent” representation is defined as a
component of a hierarchy that does NOT require
additional information (from other representations
stored in the hierarchy) for display.
Accordingly, we find the scope of claims 9 and 13 to include
reconstruction of an image from two quantized independently
Appeal No. 1997-3269
Application 07/918,519
It is noted that in figure 14, there is an “Encoded 5124
Image,” “Decoded 512 Image” and “Encoded 512 Subbands.” We
assume that the Examiner’s rejection is referring to the
“Encoded 512 Subbands” as the “512 Image.” We base this
assumption on the Examiner’s statement that the “512 Image is
converted to 1K Image” and our finding that the “Encoded 512
Subbands” are shown on the right side of figure 14, and
described in column 6, lines 60 and 61, as being combined to
form 1K Subbands, which are then combined with the 1K decoded
Image to form the 2K Image.
8
displayable representations of the image to construct an image
with additional quantization levels.
Next, we consider the rejection of claims 9, 10 and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Examiner sets forth the rejection
starting on page 4 of the Examiner’s answer (answer). The
Examiner asserts on pages 4 and 5 of the answer that Jones
teaches a method for reconstructing an image with additional
signal levels of resolution from two non-dependent
representations of the image. On page 5 of the answer, the
Examiner supports this assertion by reference to Jones’ figure
14, and by stating that “512 image is converted to 1K image in
order to combine the signal with the 1K image to produce 2K
image.” On page 5 of the answer, the Examiner identifies4
that Rosen is relied upon to teach increasing and decreasing
the quantization of signal resolution. Additionally, the
Appeal No. 1997-3269
Application 07/918,519
9
Examiner identifies that “Chung teaches details operation of
representing image signal with additional quantization levels
of signal resolution.”
Appellants argue on page 2 of the reply brief that Jones
does not teach reconstructing an image using more than one
non-dependent image representation. Appellants assert that
Jones’ system uses only a single non-dependent image
representation. On page 3 of the reply brief, Appellants
point out that in Jones’ embodiment of figure 14, the image
representation LL is a non-dependent image representation, but
that “[a]ll of the image representations that include an ‘H’
are dependent image representations.” Appellants state that
the image representations with an “H” are high frequency
components of the image and therefore are dependent images.
Appellants further support this assertion on page 3 of the
reply brief, by making reference to an article Jones co-
authored which identifies that the subband images are not
displayable, and that to make them viewable they need to be
scaled and biased.
We find that Jones does not teach reconstructing an image
by combining two “non-dependent image representations,” as
Appeal No. 1997-3269
Application 07/918,519
10
defined by Appellants' specification on page 2. We find that
Jones states in column 7, line 3 through 5 that “[t]he 256,
512 and 1K images are all directly available for display,” and
as shown in figure 14, the 1K Image is image LL. Further, in
column 6, lines 28 through 30, Jones teaches that “the lowest
frequency subband image at any resolution level is the one
used for the purpose of display.” Thus, we find that Jones’
image LL is, by the Appellants’ definition, a non-dependent
representation. However, we find that the “Encoded 512
subbands” (to which the Examiner appears to be referring to as
the “512 Image,” see footnote 4, supra) are dependent images.
We find that Jones teaches in column 6, line 68, through
column 7 line 6, that the subbands are used for reconstructing
the 2K Image. We do not find that Jones teaches that any of
the subband images, other than the lowest frequency subband
image, are displayable. Jones depicts in each of the
embodiments that the subband images are combined to create
displayable images. See figures 12, 14, and 18. Accordingly,
we find that Jones’ subband images, other than the lower order
subband image, are “dependent” as they each require additional
information for display. Thus, we find that Jones does not
Appeal No. 1997-3269
Application 07/918,519
11
teach the claim limitation of reconstructing an image from two
quantized independently displayable representations of the
image to construct an image with additional quantization
levels.
We note that the Examiner has not asserted that either
Chung or Rosen teaches combining two quantized independently
displayable representations of an image. Nonetheless, we do
not find that either of these references teaches combining two
quantized independently displayable representations of an
image. We find that Chung teaches in column 1, lines 39
through 43, that two image representations, the dither image
and the difference signal, are used to construct an image.
However, we do not find that Chung teaches that either the
dither image or the difference signal are independently
displayable. We find that Rosen teaches a system to
facilitate transfer before and after data compression. See
column 2, lines 37 through 40. However, we do not find that
Rosen teaches combining two images.
Thus, we find that the combination of Jones, Chung and
Rosen does not teach or suggest reconstructing an image from
two quantized independently displayable representations of the
Appeal No. 1997-3269
Application 07/918,519
12
image to construct an image with additional quantization
levels.
For the foregoing reasons, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 9, 10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED

JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge)
Appeal No. 1997-3269
Application 07/918,519
13
THOMAS H. CLOSE
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
PATENT DEPT.
ROCHESTER, NY 14650-2201
Appeal No. 1997-3269
Application 07/918,519
14
MRF/dal