Ex Parte Fukushima

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 21, 2014

11656310 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NAOTO FUKUSHIMA
____________

Appeal 2012-002151
Application 11/656,310
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before LORA M. GREEN, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

JENKS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims directed to
an image processing system. The Examiner has rejected the claims as
anticipated. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification provides that “the e-Document Law, etc., specify
reading condition standard values for adding a digital signature or time
stamp to a document digitized by scanning.” (Spec. 20: ¶ 40.)

1 Appellant identifies Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha as the Real Party in Interest.
(App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2012-002151
Application 11/656,310

2
Claims 1-27 are on appeal, and can be found in the Claims Appendix
of the Appeal Brief. Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and
reads as follows (emphasis added):
Claim 1: An image processing apparatus comprising:
a reading portion that optically reads an original document and
inputs image data; and
a digital signature adding portion that adds a digital signature to
the read image data, wherein
the image processing apparatus comprises:
a reading condition value setting portion that sets, at the time of
reading of the original document by the reading portion,
reading condition values by a kind or an address for submission
of the original document; and
a reading condition matching determining portion that
determines whether the set reading condition values are greater
than or equal to predetermined reading condition standard
values, the predetermined reading condition standard values
corresponding to minimum values of at least one of resolution
measured in dots per inch or equivalent units, color, and
gradation of the reading portion that are stored in a reading
condition table, wherein
the digital signature adding portion does not add a digital
signature to the image data read at the reading portion when, as
a result of determination by the reading condition matching
determining portion, the reading condition values do not match
the predetermined reading condition standard values.
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Randle.2

2 Randle et al., US 2005/0071283 Al, published Mar. 31, 2005.
Appeal 2012-002151
Application 11/656,310

3
The Issue
Does the evidence of record support the Examiner’s finding that the
claims are anticipated?
Findings of Fact
FF1. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and analysis concerning the
scope and content of Randle. The following facts are repeated for reference
convenience.
FF2. Randle disclosed that image quality is measured “in terms of
capture resolution (optical and pixel or color depth), capture device quality
(specifications such as the Modulation Transfer Function of the device),
image format, compression techniques, associated meta data, and the like are
significant.” (Randle 3: ¶ 31; see also Ans. 5.)
FF3. Randle disclosed
To perform the collection of data by a capture device
310, the paper check is exposed to the device to image the
check. A machine scan of the paper check is performed to
collect and determine data such as MICR data (RTN, account
number, check number, amount, etc.), OCR/ICR derived data,
image processing derived variables or metrics, including IQI
and ISI and the file size and the check size. The captured image
may be segmented by a grid and QA [Quality Assurance]
performed on one or more than one element and or subset of
elements identified in one or more segment of the grid.
Through this process, critical data may be identified and non-
critical segments of the image eliminated from additional QA
processing[.] The operator, which can be a human or can be a
computer applied method, optionally inputs meta data such as
the Image Quality Value (IQV), the amount, the payee, the
payer, the check number, and the like. IQV may be automated
and in itself may be part of the QA process and may be machine
derived or human based depending on the capture needs.
Derived data (data calculated based on known and information
Appeal 2012-002151
Application 11/656,310

4
collected) and configuration data (known data about the device,
process, check type, etc.) are also determined. Optionally,
calibration data, such as established data, resulting from the
calibration process is used in the QA process.
(Randle 9: ¶ 107; see also Ans. 19.)
FF4. Randle disclosed that “[a]fter imaging, the image file is
compared to information, such as expected image data 320, including but not
limited to expected file size. Any image that is outside of an expected range
is reimaged and or flagged for exception processing.” (Randle 9: ¶ 108; see
also Ans. 20.)
FF5. The Examiner finds that
Randle discloses a method of determining if image file
resolution falls within a set range. A range has two boundaries.
The lower boundary is the minimum value of resolution and it
is determined if the image file information is greater than or
equal to. And the same is done for the upper boundary in other
[sic] to determine if the value is within the set range.
(Ans. 20.)
FF6. Randle disclosed
Where the image file falls within a predetermined range
of acceptable expected file sizes, the image file is further tested
based on established standards 340. Images undergo the QA
decision process to produce a result representing the correlation
of the image to a previously defined Correlation Index. Indexes
explained below are used alone or in combination to determine
a Quality Assurance Correlation Value (QACV). QACV in
combination with the Correlation Index definition establishes
the standard by which all captured images are valued for QA.
Images that do not meet the QACV are flagged for exception
processing 360, or alternatively, undergo additional imaging
and or manual or machine based QA steps or QA completion

Appeal 2012-002151
Application 11/656,310

5
350 prior to finally flagging for paper processing or approval of
the image.
(Randle 9: ¶ 110.)
FF7. Randle disclosed
Capture Device Quality Index (CDQI) is a value or range
of values that represent the capture devices ability to accurately
capture an image. The index may include one or more
specifications such as pixel resolution, pixel depth, color depth,
pixel noise, device system signal to noise ratio, pixel correlation
noise, the device’s Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) and
the like.
(Randle 9: ¶ 127.)
FF8. Randle disclosed that the “Image Quality Index (IQI): is a value
or range of values that are generated from processing the image in terms of
the expected resolution and quality.” (Randle 11: ¶ 122; see also Ans. 5.)
FF9. Randle disclosed
IQI is a derived value used as a QA qualifier for decision
making. IQI establishes a value for the captured image that
correlates back to the check type and the capture device’s
ability to capture data consistently and accurately. Correlation
to expected results or a range of results is the basis for decision
making using only the IQI.
(Randle 11: ¶ 123.)
Principle of Law
“A single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or
inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.”
Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
2005).

Appeal 2012-002151
Application 11/656,310

6
Analysis
Appellant contends that “‘IQI’ is not equivalent to actual resolution
values, and thus the expected range of IQI values is not equivalent to a range
of ‘resolution’ values.” (Reply Br. 2; see also Ans. 11.) “[T]he Randle
reference does not teach or suggest that resolution values are being
compared, but only that the derived value of IQI, which is used for decision
making purposes, must fall within a particular range.” (App. Br. 11.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that Randle does not
compare actual resolution values. We agree with the Examiner’s position
that the claims are not limited to measuring resolution in a particular
manner, such as dots per inch. The use of the “‘or equivalent’ [language in
the claim] makes it an open statement” that allows other measures for
determining the resolution (Ans. 20). Appellant provides no evidence
rebutting the Examiner’s reasonable interpretation of “or equivalent” in
claim 1. Here, Randle provides that capture resolution is based on pixel or
color depth (FF 2 & 7).
According to Randle the image quality is a measurement in terms of
the capture resolution based on the device quality (FF 2-9). The image
quality index (IQI) is a table that is generated from scanning images with a
particular device and provides a measure in terms of expected resolution and
quality for a particular device (FF 2-8). It is the correlation of captured
values of a particular image to those provided in the IQI index that forms the
basis of the decision making in Randle (FF 9).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the disclosure of a range
indicates that there is an upper and lower limit for acceptable image quality
for each listed device (FF5). Even if the IQI index is comprised of derived
Appeal 2012-002151
Application 11/656,310

7
values, these values are based on actual measurements of resolution data for
each particular device and identifies an acceptable resolution range that is
listed in the index (FF 2-9).
As explained by the Examiner:
The IQI is one of the parameter that the QA process looks at
and correlate it to what is expected, here the range. Of course,
when a document is read, parameters that the QA refers to are
extracted from the reading of the document (see Randle
[0107]) and compared to the values that are set (see Randle
[0108]). So there is an IQI that is obtained from the document
read and an IQI range that is set in table 1 of Randle [0113] for
correlation.
(Ans. 19.)
We find no error with Examiner’s finding that Randle discloses an
image processing apparatus disclosing “a reading condition matching
determining portion that determines whether the set reading condition values
are greater than or equal to predetermined reading condition standard
values” (Ans. 4-5; FF 2-9). Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
contention that Randle fails to “teach or suggest that resolution values are
being compared” (App. Br. 11).

SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by
Randle.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED
Appeal 2012-002151
Application 11/656,310

8

cdc