Ex Parte Furihata et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2018

14063968 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 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.
14/063,968 10/25/2013 Hirobumi Furihata KUDO/0093US 7272
128085 7590 01/26/2018
Patterson & Sheridan, LLP - KUDOH
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
LIU, GORDON G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/26/2018 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):
ktaboada@pattersonsheridan.com
PAIR_officeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIROBUMI, FURIHATA, TAKASHI NOSE, and
AKIO SUGIYAMA
Appeal 2017-008549
Application 14/063,968
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—19, which are all the claims pending
and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
image processing. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
Appeal 2017-008549
Application 14/063,968
1. A display panel driver, comprising:
a compression circuit generating compressed image data by
compressing image data associated with N pixels, N being an natural
number equal to or more than three and the image data indicating a
grayscale level of each subpixel of each of the N pixels;
an image memory storing said compressed image data;
a decompression circuit generating decompressed image data
by decompressing said compressed image data read from said image
memory; and
a drive circuit driving a display panel in response to said
decompressed image data,
wherein said compression circuit includes:
a representative-values calculation circuit configured to
generate M datasets each including a plurality of representative
values by performing a pre-process on said image data
associated with said N pixels, M being a natural number more
than one and less than N; and
an all-combinations comparing compression circuit
configured to calculate correlations between two datasets
selected from said M datasets for all possible combinations of
the two datasets, to select a compression process from a
plurality of compression processes in response to the calculated
correlations, and to generate said compressed imaged data by
compressing said M datasets by using said selected
compression process.
References and Rejection
Claims 1—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Furihata (US 2009/0322713 Al, published
December 31, 2009), Wang, J. et al., “Cost Effective Block
Truncation Coding for Color Image Compressing” Advance in
Information Sciences and Service Sciences, Volumn 2, Number 3,
September 2010 (“Wang”), and Driscoll (US 5,067,162, issued
November. 19, 1991).
2
Appeal 2017-008549
Application 14/063,968
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and agree with and
adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from
which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are
consistent with our analysis below.1
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
I
Appellants contend:
The Examiner assert that Furihata teaches an all­
combinations comparing compression circuit configured to
calculate correlations between two datasets selected from said
M datasets for all possible combinations of the two datasets.
Appellants disagree.
The Examiner refers to Figs. 4A to 4D and column 11,
lines 47-60 of Furihata. What are actually discussed in this
section are the correlations between image data of two pixels
selected from four pixels for all possible combinations of the
two pixels. As recited in the independent claims, the M
“datasets” of the claimed invention are generated by performing
a pre-process on the image data which indicate a grayscale level
of each subpixel of each pixel. The M “datasets” are different
data than the image data of the pixels of interest.
Appeal Br. 9; See also Reply Br. 1—2.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error, as their arguments
are not directed to the Examiner’s specific findings. The Examiner
cites Driscoll (collectively with Furihata) for teaching the above
1 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
3
Appeal 2017-008549
Application 14/063,968
limitation. See Final Act. 6—7 (“Driscoll teaches that the circuit is
configure to calculate the correlations between two datasets selected
from said M datasets for all possible combinations of the two datasets
. . . Appellants do not assert—let alone show—how the
Examiner’s findings are incorrect.
Similarly, Appellants’ argument that Furihata does not teach a
“pre-process” (Reply Br. 3) is not directed to the Examiner’s specific
findings in the Final Action. The Examiner cites Wang (collectively
with Furihata) for teaching a “pre-process” (Final Act. 5—6), and
Appellants do not assert—let alone show—that the Examiner’s
findings are incorrect.2
II
Appellants argue:
[T]he cited references does not provide any motivation to
perform a “pre-process” to generate four datasets from the
image data and replace the image data of four pixels with the
four datasets in the Furihata’s system. The Examiners asserts
that the motivation to modify Furihata in view of Wang is to
reduce the bit rate of BTC. However, the Furihata’s system
does not perform BTC to compress the image data. . . .
Appeal Br. 9.
We disagree. The U.S. Supreme Court has held “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
2 The Examiner cumulatively cites Furihata for teaching a “pre-
process” in the Answer. That cumulative mapping is unnecessary,
because Appellants do not show the Examiner’s mapping based on
Wang (discussed above) is incorrect.
4
Appeal 2017-008549
Application 14/063,968
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Contrary to Appellants’ argument, “[i]f the claim extends to what is
obvious, it is invalid under § 103” and “the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”
Id. at 418-19.
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner provides
further reasoning for combining the teachings of Furihata and Wang,
and explains why one skilled in the art would have modified
Furihata’s teachings to include Wang’s feature. See Ans. 4—5.
Appellants do not respond to the Examiner’s further reasoning, and do
not persuasively show why such reasoning is incorrect.
As a result, Appellants fail to show Examiner error. We further
note the skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at
420-21. Appellants do not present adequate evidence that the
resulting arrangements would have been “uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an
unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 418-19).
Ill
5
Appeal 2017-008549
Application 14/063,968
Appellants generally assert the cited references fail to teach
certain claimed elements. See Appeal Br. 8—9, Reply Br. 2. To the
extent Appellants are separately arguing those limitations, their
general assertion is unpersuasive of error. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim
recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim.”).
In the Reply Brief and for the first time, Appellants argue “the
nuance in the claimed limitation.” See Reply Br. 3. To the extent
Appellants’ argument is based on the Examiner’s mapping of “pre-
process” to Furihata’s disclosure,3 that argument is unpersuasive. As
discussed above at footnote 2, the Examiner cumulatively cites
Furihata for teaching a “pre-process” in the Answer. That cumulative
mapping is unnecessary, because Appellants do not show the
Examiner’s mapping based on Wang is incorrect.
Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and
independent claims 7, 11, and 15 for similar reasons.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding
dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 13, 16, 17, and 19, as Appellants do not
advance separate substantive arguments about those claims.
3 If Appellants’ argument is not based on the Examiner’s mapping of
“pre-process” to Furihata’s disclosure, it is untimely, as Appellants
have not demonstrated any “good cause” for the belated presentation.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
6
Appeal 2017-008549
Application 14/063,968
Separately Argued Dependent Claims
Regarding dependent claims 2, 8, 12, and 18, Appellants argue
the cited “section . . . discloses grouping of representative values, and
not grouping of image data as required by claims 2, 8, 12 and 18.”
Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br 5. Appellants’ argument is not
commensurate with the scope of the claims, as claim 2 recites “said
representative-values calculation circuit performs grouping of said N
pixels into M groups which are associated with said M datasets,
respectively, and calculates the representative values included in each
of said M datasets, based on image data of pixels belonging to
associated one of said M groups” (emphases added). Claims 8, 12,
and 18 recite similar limitations.
In the Reply Brief and for the first time, Appellants belatedly
argue additional limitations of the claims. See Reply Br. 5. Such
arguments are untimely, as Appellants have not demonstrated any
“good cause” for the belated presentation. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2). In any event, the belated arguments are unpersuasive
because Appellants do not provide sufficient analysis to support the
arguments.
Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above with respect
to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2,
8, 12, and 18.
Regarding dependent claims 5, 10, and 14, Appellants argue
“the Examiner . . . concede[s] that Furihata and Wang fail to expressly
7
Appeal 2017-008549
Application 14/063,968
disclose that wherein said N pixels include eight pixels.” Appeal Br.
10; Reply Br. 4 ; see also Appeal Br. 10-11.
As discussed above, the U.S. Supreme Court has held “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Further, “[i]f the claim extends to
what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103” and “the analysis need not
seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”
Id. at 418-19.
The Examiner finds—and Appellants do not dispute—Furihata
teaches “said N pixels” and “the data asset with 4 pixels.” See Final
Act. 5; Ans. 6. Contrary to Appellants’ assertion, the Examiner
correctly finds Wang teaches the block sizes can be any of three
choices, include 8. See Ans. 6; Wang 3.3 (“The AQC [adaptive
quantization coding] block size might be 4x1, 4x2, or 4x3.”).
Further, Furihata states:
in the above-mentioned embodiments, the target block is
defined as pixels in 2 rows by 2 colunms, however, the
target block can be generally defined as pixels in N rows
by M colunms (N and M are natural numbers,
andNxM~4).
Furihata 1292 (emphasis added).
Therefore, the Examiner determines one skilled in the art would
have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Furihata and Wang,
especially since Furihata expressly teaches the block size can vary and
8
Appeal 2017-008549
Application 14/063,968
8 is one of the limited choices in Wang. See Final Act. 12; Ans. 6.
Appellants do not persuasively show why such reasoning is incorrect.
We note the skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of
multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled
artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR,
550 U.S. at 420—21. Appellants do not present adequate evidence that
the resulting arrangements would have been “uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an
unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., 485 F.3d at
1162.
Because Appellants fail to show Examiner error, and for similar
reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 5, 10, and 14.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9