Ex Parte Damera-Venkata

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 20, 2012

10698899 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte NIRANJAN DAMERA-VENKATA
____________

Appeal 2009-013880
Application 10/698,899
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KRISTEN L. DROESCH and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-013880
Application 10/698,899

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection
of claims 1-38, all of the claims pending in the Application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to methods of embedding
information in an image, and extracting information embedded in an image.
Spec. 1; Abs.
Claims 1 and 12 are illustrative and are reproduced below (disputed
limitations in italics):
1. A method of processing a contone image, the method
comprising:
determining a bi-level bitmap of bits from a graylevel
value, wherein each of the bits has a respective one of either a
first value or a second value;
partitioning the contone image into an array of contone
image blocks;
generating a sequence of graphical code word symbols
encoding information; and
producing blocks of an output halftone image from ones
of the contone image blocks and ones of the graphical code
word symbols in accordance with the values of respective ones
of the bits of the bi-level bitmap, wherein ones of the output
halftone image blocks associated with respective ones of the
bits having the first value are derived from respective ones of
the contone image blocks and ones of the output halftone image
blocks associated with respective ones of the bits having the
second value are derived from respective ones of the graphical
code word symbols.

12. A method of extracting information embedded in a halftone
image, the method comprising:
accessing a bi-level bit map;
Appeal 2009-013880
Application 10/698,899

3
partitioning the halftone image into a plurality of image
blocks;
using the bitmap to select at least some of the blocks;
identifying a code word sequence in the selected blocks;
and
extracting the information from the code word sequence.
Rejections
Claims 1-11 and 21-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st
paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1-11 and 18, 28 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
2nd paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-7, 10, 11 and 29-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Curry (5,710,636), Tai (7,218,420) and Wang
(5,337,361) (“Wang ’361”).
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Curry, Tai, Wang ’361 and Lapstun (6,512,596).
Claims 12-20 and 35-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wang (6,252,971) (“Wang ’971”), Curry and Wang ’361.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the limitation “wherein ones of
the output halftone image blocks associated with respective ones of the bits
having the first value are derived from respective ones of the contone image
blocks and ones of the output halftone image blocks associated with
respective ones of the bits having the second value are derived from
respective ones of the graphical code word symbols,” recited in independent
claims 1 and 21 fails to comply with the written description requirement of
section 112, 1st paragraph?
Appeal 2009-013880
Application 10/698,899

4
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the limitation “wherein the
determining comprises producing the bitmap by halftoning a contone patch
of the graylevel value,” recited in dependent claim 3, fails to comply with
the written description requirement of section 112, 1st paragraph?
3. Did the Examiner err in determining that the limitations “the bits
having the first value are derived from respective ones of the contone image
blocks,” and “the bits having the second value are derived from the
respective ones of the graphical code word symbols,” recited in claim 1
render claims 1-11 indefinite under section 112, 2nd paragraph?
4. Did the Examiner err in determining that the limitation “using the set
of probability parameters to select a likely sequence of graphical code word
symbols,” recited in dependent claims 18, 28 and 38 render the claims
indefinite under section 112, 2nd paragraph?
5. Did the Examiner err in determining that the combination of Curry
Tai and Wang ’361 teaches or suggests “producing blocks of an output
halftone image from ones of the contone image blocks and ones of the
graphical code word symbols in accordance with the values of respective
ones of the bits of the bi-level bitmap, wherein ones of the output halftone
image blocks associated with respective ones of the bits having the first
value are derived from respective ones of the contone image blocks and ones
of the output halftone image blocks associated with respective ones of the
bits having the second value are derived from respective ones of the
graphical code word symbols,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in
independent claim 29?
6. Did the Examiner err in determining that the combination of Wang
’971, Curry and Wang ’361 teach or suggest “[a] method of extracting
Appeal 2009-013880
Application 10/698,899

5
information embedded in a halftone image . . . comprising . . . partitioning
the halftone image into a plurality of image blocks,” as recited in
independent claim 12, and similarly recited in independent claim 35?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action and the Reply Brief presented in response to the Examiner’s Answer.
We agree with Appellant’s conclusions. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Rejection of claims 1-11 and 21-28 under § 112, 1st paragraph
The Examiner finds that the limitation “wherein ones of the output
halftone image blocks associated with respective ones of the bits having the
first value are derived from respective ones of the contone image blocks and
ones of the output halftone image blocks associated with respective ones of
the bits having the second value are derived from respective ones of the
graphical code word symbols,” recited in independent claims 1 and 21 is not
disclosed in Appellant’s Specification as originally filed. Ans. 3-4, 24-25.
The Examiner directs attention to Appellant’s Specification paragraphs 31,
33, 42, 43 and Figures 2A, 3, and 4 and asserts:
There is no functional structure elements, steps, or processes
supporting the features of “respective ones of the bits having
the first value are derived from respective ones of the contone
image blocks” and “and ones of the bits having the second
value are derived from respective ones of the graphical code
word symbols” (emphasis are added by the examiner) as
claimed in the invention of claims 1 and 21 in the original
disclosure.

Ans. 3-5, 25-27.
Appeal 2009-013880
Application 10/698,899

6
We agree with Appellant’s arguments that the subject matter of claim
1 is described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to
one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed
invention at the time the application was filed. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 6. More
specifically, we agree with Appellant’s argument that one skilled in the art at
the time the application was filed would have understood from the explicit
teachings of the Specification that blocks of the output halftone image 390
are produced from ones of the contone image blocks x(m) and ones of the
graphical code word symbols 360 in accordance with the values of
respective ones of the bits of the bi-level bitmap 310, wherein ones of the
output halftone image blocks associated with respective ones of the bits 310
having a value 0 are derived from respective ones of the contone image
blocks, and ones of the output halftone image blocks associated with
respective ones of the bits 310 having a value of 1 are derived from
respective ones of the graphical code word symbols 360. App. Br. 7-8;
Reply Br. 4-6 (citing Appellant’s Specification ¶¶ 30, 31, 33, 42; Fig. 3).
Although the Specification does not provide in haec verba support for the
claimed subject matter, the disclosure reasonably conveys to one with
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application that the inventors had
possession of the claimed subject matter. See Purdue Pharma L.P. v.
Faulding, Inc., 230 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Ariad Pharms., Inc. v.
Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
The Examiner also finds that the recitation of dependent claim 3
“wherein the determining comprises producing the bitmap by halftoning a
contone patch of the graylevel value,” is not disclosed in Appellant’s
original Specification. Ans. 6, 27-29. The Examiner finds that paragraph 13
Appeal 2009-013880
Application 10/698,899

7
of Appellant’s Specification “merely [re]cites ‘The bitmap may be produced
by halftoning the constant patch of the graylevel’ without functional
structure elements, steps or processes disclosed [] to support the feature of
“wherein the determining comprises producing the bitmap by halftoning a
contone patch of the graylevel value.” Ans. 6, 27-29.
We agree with Appellant that the subject matter of claim 3 is
described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one
skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 8. In particular, we agree with Appellant’s assertions
that: (1) a “contone patch” is disclosed in paragraph 13 of the Specification
and in each of claims 2, 22, and 30, as originally filed; and (2) paragraph 13
of the Specification also discloses that the bit map is produced by halftoning
a constant patch of a graylevel. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 7.
For these reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-11 and 21-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st paragraph for failure to
comply with the written description requirement.
Rejection of claims 1-11 and 18, 28 and 38 under § 112, 2nd paragraph
The Examiner finds that the same limitation of independent claim 1
renders the claims indefinite because Appellant “failed to particularly point
out how and in what extent the derivation of values from ‘contone image
block’ and ‘graphical code word’ discussed in the claim rejection under 35
U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.” Ans. 7. The Examiner further explains that
without the written description support in the disclosure, one ordinary skill
in the art does not know how and to what extent that the features of
“respective ones of the bits having the first value are derived from
respective ones of the contone image blocks” and “and ones of the bits
Appeal 2009-013880
Application 10/698,899

8
having the second value are derived from respective ones of the graphical
code word symbols” are carried out. Ans. 33-34 (emphasis in original).
We agree with Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has not
sufficiently explained why one of ordinary skill in the art, when reading the
claims in light of the Specification and prior art, would not have been able to
ascertain with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity the
particular area set out and circumscribed by claims 1-11. App. Br. 12; Reply
Br. 10.
The Examiner also determines that claims 18, 28 and 38, which recite
“using the set of probability parameters to select a likely sequence of
graphical code word symbols,” are rendered indefinite “because the word
‘likely’ used in the claim language is an uncertain word.” Ans. 8. The
Examiner further explains that using words like “likely” in a claim is
considered indefinite. Ans. 34.
We agree with Appellant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the
art, when reading claims 18, 28 and 38 in light of the Specification, would
have been able to ascertain with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity the particular areas set out and circumscribed by claim 3. App.
Br. 13; Reply Br. 11. In particular, we agree that one with ordinary skill in
the art when reading claims 18, 28 and 38 in light of the Specification would
have been able to ascertain that a likely sequence of graphical code word
symbols is a graphical code word sequence that has a high probability of
being the actual code word sequence that was encoded into the halftone
image based on the ordinary meaning of the term “likely”. Id.
For all these reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-11, 18, 28 and 38 under section 112, 2nd paragraph as indefinite.
Appeal 2009-013880
Application 10/698,899

9
Obviousness rejections of claims 1-11 and 29-34
Appellant disputes whether Curry teaches or suggests “producing
blocks of an output halftone image from ones of the contone image blocks
and ones of the graphical code word symbols in accordance with the values
of respective ones of the bits of the bi-level bitmap, wherein ones of the
output halftone image blocks associated with respective ones of the bits
having the first value are derived from respective ones of the contone image
blocks and ones of the output halftone image blocks associated with
respective ones of the bits having the second value are derived from
respective ones of the graphical code word symbols,” as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Curry teaches:
producing blocks of an output halftone image (e.g. halftone
cells 20, 22 & 24 of Fig. 3) from ones of the contone image
blocks (e.g. blocks or cells or sample values of grayscale input
images discussed above) and ones of the graphical code word
symbols (e.g. the letter “R” of Fig. 3) in accordance with the
values of respective ones of the bits of the bi-level bitmap (e.g.
the “1”s and “0”s of bitmap codes discussed above, col 1, lines
46-50 and col 4, lines 57-63), wherein ones of the output
halftone image blocks (e.g. halftone cells 20, 22 & 24 of Fig. 3)
associated with respective ones of the bits having the first value
are derived from respective ones of the contone image blocks
(e.g. the bit values, “1”s and “0”s are derived based on the
presence or absence of marks of the contone image blocks, or
cells, or sample values discussed above, col 1, lines 46-50) and
ones of the output halftone image blocks associated with
respective ones of the bits having the second value are derived
(e.g. generated) from respective ones of the graphical code
word symbols (e.g. bitmap codes are generated based on a
desired pattern or “the graphical code word symbols” to be
embedded within the halftone image, and the desired pattern is
input into bitmap generator 10 of Fig. 1, col 3, lines 36-45, and
to encode the data either by the presence or “1”, or absence or
Appeal 2009-013880
Application 10/698,899

10
“0” of marks at a sequence of spatial locations, col 1, lines 46-
50 discussed above). Ans. 9-10, 37-38 (emphasis omitted).
We agree with Appellant’s argument that instead of teaching the
disputed limitations of claim 1, the cited portions of Curry teach that the
output halftone image is formed from output halftone cells that encode
information in their respective orientations. App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 13.
Appellant directs attention to Curry’s Figure 3 as depicting regions of the
output halftone image that contain the human-readable pattern and regions
of the output halftone image that do not contain the human-readable pattern
are formed by halftone cells encoded with both ones and zeros. Id. We also
agree that Curry describes background art in which a pattern encodes data
with the presence or absence of marks (citing Curry col. 1, ll. 46-50), but
that this disclosure does not even remotely suggest that Curry’s system
operates by placing halftone cells in some areas of the output halftone image
and not others. We further agree that the 1’s and 0’s shown in Curry’s Figure
3 do not indicate the presence or absence of marks and instead represent a
data value that may be encoded in each of the halftone cells and which
encode information in their respective rotational orientations. Reply Br. 14
(citing Curry col. 4, ll. 59-62); see also Curry col. 2, ll. 51-53; col. 3, ll. 2-5,
47-58; col. 4, ll. 15-18; 27-32; 41-44; 62-65; Figs. 2A-2C.
For these reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-7, 10, 11 and 29-34 as obvious over Curry, Tai and Wang ’361. As
applied by the Examiner addressing the limitations of dependent claims 8
and 9, Lapstun does not remedy the deficiencies of Curry. Therefore, for the
same reasons as claim 1, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 8 and 9 as obvious over Curry, Tai, Wang ’361 and Lapstun.
Appeal 2009-013880
Application 10/698,899

11
Obviousness rejection of claims 12-20 and 35-38
The Examiner finds that Wang ’971 teaches a method of extracting
information embedded in a halftone image including partitioning the
halftone image into a plurality of image blocks. Ans. 17-18. In support of the
findings, the Examiner directs attention to Figure 6 of Wang ’971 and asserts
that the halftone image is partitioned into a series of tiles, or blocks, and
directs attention to column 4, lines 1-28 which discloses “these tiles
establish the basic building blocks from which zero phase-shifted clustered
halftones can be converted to TT phase-shifted cluster halftones” as
indicating that halftone image is partitioned into tiles or blocks. Ans. 18, 48.
We agree with Appellant’s argument that Wang ’971 does not
disclose that an input image containing embedded information is partitioned
into a plurality of image blocks, but instead teaches detecting and visualizing
the embedded information (i.e., watermark) by analyzing the input image to
determine the average amplitude and angle of halftone frequency and
overlapping the input image with a checkerboard reference pattern that is
generated to have the same halftone frequency and size of the input image.
App. Br. 26; Reply Br. 22 (citing Wang ’971 col. 7, ll. 25-39, 56-65; Figs.
12-13). We further agree with Appellant’s argument that, contrary to the
Examiner’s position, column 4, lines 1-28 of Wang ’971 instead teaches how
a watermark is embedded in an input image, not how information is
extracted from an input image. Reply Br. 22
For these reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 12-20 and 35-38 as obvious over Wang ’971, Curry and Wang ’361.
Appeal 2009-013880
Application 10/698,899

12
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-11 and 21-28 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st paragraph as failing to comply with the written
description requirement.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-11 and 18, 28 and 38 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph as indefinite.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-7, 10, 11 and 29-34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Curry, Tai and Wang ’361.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 8 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Curry, Tai, Wang ’361 and Lapstun.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 12-20 and 35-38 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wang ’971, Curry and Wang ’361.
REVERSED

tj