Ex Parte Ho et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2012

10811115 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL
BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHENG-HUNG HO and WEN-HAO HSU
____________________

Appeal 2010-005918
Application 10/811,115
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

Per curiam.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-005918
Application 10/811,115

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to an image protection
system and method (Abstract).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
1. An image protection system, comprising:
a first image device, comprising:
a compression unit to divide an original image into two
image parts according to a compression technique, wherein a
first image part of the image parts is base image data and a
second image part of the image parts is auxiliary image data,
and the base image data and the auxiliary image data
respectively comprise a part of image contents comprising
pixel values of the original image, and compress the base image
data to compressed base image data according to the
compression technique;
an encryption unit coupled to the compression unit to
receive and encrypt the auxiliary image data to an auxiliary
image data cipher; and
an image composing unit coupled to the compression unit
and the encryption unit to receive and compose the compressed
base image data and the auxiliary image data cipher into a
Appeal 2010-005918
Application 10/811,115

3
protected image corresponding to the original image, such that
plaintext for the first image part and cipher for the second
image part are in the protected image.

References
Inomata US 2004/0120517 A1 Jun. 24, 2004
Fukushima US 6,917,384 B1 Jul. 12, 2005
Zhu “Image Coding by Folding” IEEE, 1997 (“Zhu”)

Rejections
(1) Claims 1-3, 8-13, and 18-20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhu and Inomata.
(2) Claims 4-7 and 14-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Zhu, Inomata, and Fukushima.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we select representative claim 1
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 1-3, 8-13, and 18-20.
(See Br. 5-13).
Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we select representative claim 4
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 4-6 and 14-16. (See
Br. 13-15).
Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we address claims 7 and 17
separately. (See Br. 13-15).
Appeal 2010-005918
Application 10/811,115

4

We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2009).

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1-3, 8-13, and 18-20
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Zhu and Inomata
(Br. 5-7). Specifically, Appellants contend Zhu teaches an image is split
into two parts of equal size in contrast to the present invention’s division of
an original image into two image parts, base image data and auxiliary image
data, according to a compression technique (Br. 6-7). Nor does Zhu
disclose a compression technique for dividing the image and for using the
same compression technique to compress one of the image parts, according
to Appellants (Br. 7).
Appellants further argue the quantization table of Inomata includes
quantization thresholds predefined for compressing image blocks, but not
part of the image itself (Br. 8). As stated by Appellants, the coding table is
not part of the image itself (id.). Appellants argue Inomata teaches the
related tables and information necessary to reconstruct the tables are
encrypted while in the invention recited, the auxiliary image data is
encrypted (id.). Appellants additionally contend the auxiliary image data
recited in claim 1 is not the tables and information necessary to reconstruct
Appeal 2010-005918
Application 10/811,115

5
the tables in the Inomata reference since those tables and information do not
have a part of pixel values of the original image (Br. 9).
Appellants next argue the tables and information necessary to
reconstruct the tables in the Inomata reference do not have a part of pixel
values of the original image in contrast to the claimed invention (Br. 9).
Specifically, Appellants argue claim 1 requires the base image data and the
auxiliary image data respectively to have a part of pixel values of the
original image (id.). Appellants assert Inomata teaches joining compressed
data output from the entropy encoder and encrypted quantization table
output from the encryptor (Br. 9-10).
Lastly, Appellants contend Zhu and Inomata are improperly
combined. Specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner has no clear
articulation of the reason why or explicit analysis of why the claimed
invention would have been obvious (Br. 12). Further, according to
Appellants, the Examiner used hindsight rationale (Br. 13).

Issue 1a: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Zhu
and Inomata teaches or suggests:
a) divid[ing] an original image into two image parts according to a
compression technique;
b) the base image data and the auxiliary image data respectively
comprise a part of image contents comprising pixel values of
the original image, and compress the base image data to
compressed base image data according to the compression
technique;
Appeal 2010-005918
Application 10/811,115

6
c) encrypt[ing] the auxiliary image data to an auxiliary image data
cipher; and
d) plaintext for the first image part and cipher for the second
image part are in the protected image
as recited in claim 1?
Issue 1b: Has the Examiner improperly combined Zhu and Inomata?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s comprehensive and specific findings
and reasoning as set forth in the Answer and adopt them as our own (Ans.
13-17). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis.
As to Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has not articulated a
motivation, Appellants have not presented sufficient evidence or argument
to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings (see Br. 12-13). Instead,
we find the Examiner has clearly articulated the reasoning as to why an
ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the teachings of
Zhu’s compression image device with the techniques taught by Inomata and
provided an explicit analysis (Ans. 5-6). Further, we are not persuaded the
Examiner used hindsight as argued by Appellants (Br. 13). We maintain the
Examiner did set forth the particular relevance of adding the teachings and
suggestions of Inomata with those of Zhu (Ans. 5-6).
Thus, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Zhu and Inomata teaches or suggests:
Appeal 2010-005918
Application 10/811,115

7
a) divid[ing] an original image into two image parts
according to a compression technique;
b) the base image data and the auxiliary image data
respectively comprise a part of image contents
comprising pixel values of the original image, and
compress the base image data to compressed base image
data according to the compression technique;
c) encrypt[ing] the auxiliary image data to an auxiliary
image data cipher; and
d) plaintext for the first image part and cipher for the second
image part are in the protected image
as recited in claim 1. Additionally, Appellants have not shown the Examiner
improperly combined the teachings and suggestions of Zhu and Inomata.
Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of
Zhu and Inomata teaches or suggests the invention as recited in independent
claim 1; commensurately recited independent claim 11; and dependent
claims 2, 3, 8-10, 12, 13, and 18-20, not separately argued. Therefore, the
Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 8-13, and 18-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Zhu and Inomata.

Appeal 2010-005918
Application 10/811,115

8
ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 4-7 and 14-17
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Zhu, Inomata,
and Fukushima because Fukushima does not mention “wavelet” or an anti-
discrete wavelet transformation in the cited portion (Br. 14-15).
Further, Appellants contend the Examiner has improperly combined
Fukushima with the teachings of Zhu and Inomata (Br. 15). Specifically,
Appellants argue “absolutely no discussion was provided as to how this
alleged motivation related to the claimed feature of performance of an anti-
discrete wavelet transformation on the original image” (id.).

Issue 2a: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of
Zhu, Inomata, and Fukushima teaches or suggests “the second image device
further comprises an anti-transformation unit to perform anti-discrete
wavelet transformation on the original image after the original image is
combined” as recited in claim 4?
Issue 2b: Has the Examiner improperly combined the teachings and
suggestions of Zhu, Inomata, and Fukushima?

ANALYSIS
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s findings.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and adopt them as
our own (Ans. 16). We further emphasize the following. Appellants have
not presented sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s finding that the “inverse discrete wavelet transformation” is
Appeal 2010-005918
Application 10/811,115

9
interpreted as an “anti-discrete wavelet transformation.” Accordingly, we
are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Zhu,
Inomata, and Fukushima teaches or suggests the invention as recited in
claim 4; commensurately recited claim 14; and claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 which
depend from claims 4 and 14, respectively.
We further emphasize the Examiner has articulated reasoning with a
rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to combine the teachings and suggestions of Zhu, Inomata,
and Fukushima (Ans. 10). Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s determination (see Br. 15). Therefore, Appellants have not
persuaded us the Examiner improperly combined the references.
Appellants did not present any arguments for claims 7 and 17 and
therefore, they fall with their respective independent claims 1 and 11.
Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 4-7 and 14-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Zhu, Inomata, and Fukushima.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 8-13, and 18-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Zhu and Inomata is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-7 and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being obvious over Zhu, Inomata, and Fukushima is affirmed.

Appeal 2010-005918
Application 10/811,115

10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

tj