Ex Parte Young

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 16, 2018

13860180 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/860,180 04/10/2013 Barry Young 2935US01 8761
108982 7590
Wolfe-SBMC
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
RUSH, ERIC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docket@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BARRY YOUNG
Appeal 2017-008644
Application 13/860,180
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, and 28^40. Claims 2, 7, and 10-27
were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention processes images to improve suitability for
optical character recognition (OCR).1 See generally Abstract; Spec. ^ 15.
According to the Specification, upon a user uploading a captured image to a
1 Microsoft Computer Dictionary 379 (5th ed. 2002) “Acronym: OCR.”
Appeal 2017-008644
Application 13/860,180
service provider, the service provider employs one or more deblur
algorithms and curvature correction techniques before employing OCR to
recognize text in the image. Spec. ^ 15. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative:
1. In a digital medium environment including one or more
computing devices implemented at a cloud-based service
provider performing optical character recognition, a
method comprising:
receiving image data that includes text via a network at
the cloud-based service provider, the image data being received
in a communication from a mobile communication device, the
image data not including information regarding camera
movement during image capture;
applying one or more image deblurring techniques to the
image data that includes text;
applying one or more curvature correction techniques to
at least partially remove a curvature detected in the text
included in the image data;
recognizing text from the deblurred and curvature
corrected image data that includes text using one or more
optical character recognition techniques; and
exposing the recognized text from the cloud-based
service provider for access via the network.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 35-37, 39, and 40 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Manmatha et al. (US 8,009,928 Bl;
iss. Aug. 30, 2011, “Manmatha”), Araki et al. (US 2006/0193533 Al; pub.
2
Appeal 2017-008644
Application 13/860,180
Aug. 31, 2006, “Araki”), and Yoshida (US 2010/0149569 Al; pub. June 17,
2010). Final Act. 5-26.2
The Examiner rejected claims 28-34 and 383 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Manmatha, Araki, Yoshida, and Aller et al. (US
2012/0275642 Al; pub. Nov. 1, 2012, “Aller”). Final Act. 26^13.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER MANMATHA, ARAKI, AND
YOSHIDA
The Examiner finds that Manmatha, Araki, and Yoshida collectively
teach or suggest all recited elements of claim 1. Final Act. 5-12; Ans. 3-10,
42 49. Among other things, the Examiner cites Manmatha for teaching
deblurring image data including text, and then recognizing the text from the
deblurred image data. See Final Act. 5-6; Ans. 3^4, 43. The Examiner also
cites Araki for teaching applying one or more curvature correction
techniques to at least partially remove a curvature detected in text included
in image data. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 4, 43. Yoshida is also cited for
teaching (1) recognizing text from deblurred and skewed corrected image
data, and (2) exposing the recognized text from a cloud-based service
provided for access via a network. See Final Act. 7-9; Ans. 5-7, 43. In
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection, mailed June 7,
2016 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief, filed November 7, 2016 (“Br.”);
and (3) the Examiner’s Answer, mailed March 10, 2017 (“Ans.”).
3 Although the Examiner rejects claim 38 separately from claims 28-34, the
Examiner nevertheless rejects these claims over the same statutory basis and
the same prior art references. Compare Final Act. 26-27 with Final Act. 41.
Accordingly, we consolidate these rejections here for clarity and brevity.
3
Appeal 2017-008644
Application 13/860,180
view of these collective teachings, the Examiner concludes that claim 1
would have been obvious. See Final Act. 9-12; Ans. 7-10, 44 49.
Appellant contends, among other things, that the Examiner provides
no rationale why or how skilled artisans would have combined the
references to arrive at the claimed invention apart from conclusory
statements and impermissible hindsight. Br. 6-11. Appellant adds that the
combination of Yoshida and Manmatha does not collectively teach or
suggest recognizing text from deblurred and curvature corrected image data
that includes text using one or more OCR techniques. Id. at 11-12.
ISSUES
(1) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Manmatha, Araki, and Yoshida collectively would have taught
or suggested independently recognizing text from a deblurred and curvature
corrected image data that includes text using one or more OCR techniques?
(2) Is the Examiner’s proposed combination supported by articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s
obviousness conclusion?
ANALYSIS
We find Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner’s reason to
combine the references is based on impermissible hindsight and allegedly
does not flow from teachings in the art or knowledge of ordinarily skilled
artisans unavailing. Br. 6-11. To be sure, any judgment on obviousness is
in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning. In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). But so long as it takes into
4
Appeal 2017-008644
Application 13/860,180
account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include
knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is
proper. Id.
Appellant’s arguments rely on guidance material of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). See Br. 9-10 (citing Formulating
and Communicating Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 for Applications
Directed to Computer-Implemented Business Method Inventions (2000),
available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-
basics/types-patent-applications/utility-patent/business-methods-19 (last
visited Jan. 13, 2018)). Specifically, Appellant relies on an example of the
guidance material suggesting that a motivation for combining references
directed to improving efficiency is too general and does not address why the
specific proposed modification would have been obvious. Id.
At the outset, we note the Examiner finds that the combination of
references improves OCR accuracy (see Final Act. 9-12; Ans. 7-10, 44-
45)—not efficiency. Nevertheless, to the extent that improving OCR
accuracy, as articulated by the Examiner, also improves OCR efficiency, it is
well settled that
an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a
suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but
when the “improvement” is technology-independent and the
combination of references results in a product or process that is
more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper,
cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient.
DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co.,
464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added). Thus, to the extent
5
Appeal 2017-008644
Application 13/860,180
that the Examiner’s rationale to combine the references also improves
efficiency, such an enhancement is also an adequate motivation to combine
the references under DyStar.
Moreover, Appellant argues that the similarity between (1) paragraph
15 of the Specification, and (2) the Examiner’s reason to combine the
references is allegedly another exercise of impermissible hindsight. See
Br. 7-8. But the Examiner provides more than a general statement that the
combination of the references improves OCR accuracy. Notably, the
Examiner explains why OCR accuracy is improved based on teachings and
suggestions from the cited prior art. See Ans. 44^45, 47^49, 51-52 (citing
Araki 2 and Figure 48; Manmatha col. 1,11. 28-34, col. 10,11. 9-16;
Yoshida 83, 149). Therefore, to the extent Appellant contends that the
Examiner’s rationale to combine the references is based solely on teachings
gleaned from Appellant’s disclosure (See Br. 7-8), we disagree. See
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d at 1395. On this record then, the Examiner’s
articulated reason to combine the references is not based on impermissible
hindsight, but rather uses prior art elements predictably according to their
established functions to improve OCR accuracy—an obvious improvement.
SeeKSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). On this record,
then, the Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited references is
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion.
Appellant’s arguments regarding the individual shortcomings of “[t]he
combination of Yoshida and Manmatha” pertaining to curvature correction
of the claimed text recognition step (Br. 11 (emphasis omitted)) are
unavailing, for they are not germane to the Examiner’s reliance on Araki for
6
Appeal 2017-008644
Application 13/860,180
teaching that element. See Ans. 43. In any event, Appellant’s arguments do
not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on Yoshida,
Manmatha, and Arakfs collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 3-6, 8, 9, 35-37, 39, and 40 not argued separately with
particularity.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER MANMATHA, ARAKI,
YOSHIDA, AND ALLER
The Examiner finds that Manmatha, Araki, Yoshida, and Aller
collectively teach or suggest all recited elements of claim 28. Final Act. 27-
37; Ans. 25-35, 50-53. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s proposed
combination is an “exercise in impermissible hindsight construction”
because, among other things, the Examiner failed to present a valid rationale
to combine the references, and merely reiterates the claimed subject matter.
Id. at 12-1.
ISSUE
Under § 103, is the Examiner’s proposed combination supported by
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the
Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?
ANALYSIS
We likewise sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 28
over Manmatha, Araki, Yoshida, and Aller. For the reasons noted above, the
Examiner’s proposed combination of Manmatha, Araki, and Yoshida is
7
Appeal 2017-008644
Application 13/860,180
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion.
Moreover, the Examiner provides additional reasoning found in the
references themselves in supporting the rationale to combine Aller with the
other cited prior art in arriving at the claimed invention. Ans. 52-53 (citing
Manmatha col. 2,11. 1-19, col. 3,11. 32-33; Aller 237). Therefore, to the
extent Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rationale to combine the
references is based solely on teachings gleaned from Appellant’s disclosure
(See Br. 12-14), we disagree. See McLaughlin, 443 F.2d at 1395.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 28, and claims 29-34 and 38 not argued separately with particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, and 28^40
under § 103.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision in rejecting claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, and 28^10 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8