Ex parte FROESSL

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 11, 1998

08162367 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 11, 1998)

Application for patent filed December 7, 1993. According1
to appellant, this application is a continuation of Application
07/783,212 filed October 28, 1991, now abandoned.
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 23
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte HORST FROESSL
____________
Appeal No. 95-5009
Application 08/162,3671
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, TORCZON and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of Claims
11-86, which constitute all the claims remaining in the
application.
Appeal No. 95-5009
Application 08/162,367
2
Claim 11 reads as follows:
11. A computer-implemented method of retrievably
storing contents of a plurality of documents having images
imprinted thereon comprising
optically scanning the documents to generate electrical
signals forming a digital representation of the images on the
documents,
storing the signals forming the digital image
representation of each document,
establishing a font table in memory including signals
forming images of characters in a plurality of different fonts,
the signals for images of each character of each font having a
unique, identifiable location in a memory area,
selectively recognizing and converting groups of
characters from signals forming the digital representations of
the images into signals representing computer readable code,
storing signals forming images of characters which are
not recognizable and convertible as ambiguous characters in
unique, identifiable locations in the font table,
searching for a document by the steps of
selecting a search word,
constructing signals forming an image of the selected
search word by copying signals representing individual characters
from the font table in at least one font,
comparing the signals forming the constructed search
word image with signals forming the image representations of
scanned and stored documents until a match is found,
selecting images of the ambiguous characters for use in
search word images, and
repeating the step of comparing including comparing
signals representing images of ambiguous characters with stored
Appeal No. 95-5009
Application 08/162,367
3
signals representing images of the document contents until a
match is found.
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art:
Kato 4,574,395 Mar. 4, 1986
Fujisawa et al. (Fujisawa) 4,985,863 Jan. 15, 1991
OPINION
Claims 11-17, 19-57 and 59-86 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Fujisawa. Claims 18 and 58 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fujisawa in
view of Kato.
We reverse for the reasons given by Appellants
amplified as follows. The claims all require establishing a
“font table”, using the font table to construct an image signal
of a selected search word, and comparing that image signal to
“signals forming an image” of scanned and stored documents.
Claims undergoing examination are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and
limitations appearing in the specification are not to be read
into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5
(Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc). In the present case, the meaning of
“font table” and “signals forming an image” must be considered in
light of the specification.
Appeal No. 95-5009
Application 08/162,367
4
The claim term “font table” is defined in the
specification as “a matrix of patterns organized in such a way
that the alphanumeric characters and other symbols in a specific
style of font or type face are correlated with specific locations
or ‘slots’ for those symbols.” Specification at 12-13.
The claim term “signals forming an image” refers to “a
sequence of light and dark portions which can be thought of as
equivalent to pixels.” Specification at 8. In other words,
“signals forming an image” are stored “without any attempt to
recognize or convert the content into ASCII or other code.”
Specification at 2.
Fujisawa, as the examiner points out, is concerned with
poor recognition of different fonts. Column 2, lines 3-10.
Fujisawa’s solution is to maintain both an image file and a
converted data file for each original document. Column 2, lines
53-66. Fujisawa can retrieve images showing the original font,
but only after using converted character codes as search terms
for comparison to the converted data files. Column 3, lines 2-5.
Appellant’s solution, on the other hand, includes the
step of establishing a font table as shown in Figure 2 and the
step of constructing signals forming an image of a selected
search word by copying image signals from the font table.
Appeal No. 95-5009
Application 08/162,367
5
Appellant’s method further includes comparing the signals forming
the constructed search word image with signals forming the image
representations of scanned and stored documents.
Fujisawa does not use a constructed image signal as a
search term to compare to stored image signals as claimed by
Appellants. Therefore, the rejections will not be sustained.
As to dependent claims 18 and 58, the examiner applies
Fujisawa as above, further in view of Kato. Kato does not
overcome the shortcomings of the basic rejection over Fujisawa.
Like Fujisawa, Kato uses a converted character code search term
to compare to converted character codes stored in memory, whereas
the claimed method uses an (unconverted) image signal search term
to compare to (unconverted) image signals stored in memory.
Thus, the rejection of claims 18 and 58 will not be sustained.
Appeal No. 95-5009
Application 08/162,367
6
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 11-86 is not sustained.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
RICHARD L. TORCZON ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-5009
Application 08/162,367
7
Walter C. Farley
2730 University Blvd., West
Suite 618
Wheaton, MD 20902-1949