Ex Parte HainsDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201311727506 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHARLES M. HAINS ____________ Appeal 2011-005865 Application 11/727,5061 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ULRIKE W. JENKS, and SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judges. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims directed to a half tone screen having a square shift super cell. The Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellant states that the Real Party in Interest is Xerox Corp. (App. Br. 1.) Appeal 2011-005865 Application 11/727,506 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1, 3-20, and 23-29 are on appeal, and can be found in the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Claims 1, 9, and 20 are illustrative of the claims on appeal, and read as follows: 1. A method for designing a halftone screen having a square zero-shift halftone supercell, comprising: selecting a desired length for a first side of a pair of sides of a non-square supercell; selecting a length for a second side of the pair of sides of the non-square supercell; determining an integer number of centers within the square zero-shift halftone supercell based on the side lengths of the first and second sides of the non-square supercell; determining an angle between the first frame of reference in which the non-square supercell lies and a second frame of reference in which the square zero-shift halftone supercell lies based on the selected lengths of the first and second sides of the non-square supercell; selecting a diagonal for the non-square supercell in the first frame of reference that is equal in length to the diagonal of a square supercell in the second frame of reference; resolving the size of the square zero-shift supercell based on the selected desired length for the first side, the selected length for the second side, the determined integer number of centers, the determined angle and the selected diagonal; and generating a halftone screen image on an image forming device with square zero-shift halftone supercells of the resolved size. 9. A square zero-shift supercell designing system usable in designing a halftone screen having a square zero-shift halftone supercell, comprising: at least one input device usable to input data defining a desired angle between a first frame of reference in which a non- square supercell lies and a second frame of reference in which the square zero-shift halftone supercell lies and a desired length for a first side of a pair of sides of the non-square supercell in Appeal 2011-005865 Application 11/727,506 3 the first frame of reference; a first nominal side length determining device that determines, based on the desired angle and the desired length of the first side, a first nominal side length of a second side of the pair of sides of the non-square supercell; an actual side length selecting device that selects, based on the first nominal side length, an actual side length of the second side of the pair of sides of the non-square supercell; and a center number determining device that determines an integer number of centers within the square zero-shift halftone supercell based at least one of the first nominal side length and the actual side length of the of the non-square supercell. 20. A square zero-shift supercell designing system, comprising: an angle determining device; a center number determining device; and at least one input device usable to input data defining a desired length for a first side and a second side of a pair of sides of a non-square supercell, wherein the angle determining device determines an angle between a first frame of reference and a second frame of reference based on the input lengths for the first and second sides of the pair of sides of the non-square supercell. The Examiner has rejected the claims as follows: 2 I. claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Crounse3 in view of well-known prior art Thales’ theorem;4 II. claims 20 and 23-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crounse in view of Oide;5 2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Ans. 3). 3 Kenneth R. Crounse, US 2003/0107768 Al, published June 12, 2003. 4 Wikipedia: Thales’ theorem a copy was attached to the Answer (Ans. 36). Appeal 2011-005865 Application 11/727,506 4 III. claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crounse in view of well-known prior art Thales’ theorem and further in view of Holladay.6 I. The Issue: Obviousness over Crounse and Thales’ Theorem The Examiner takes the position that Crounse disclosed “a method for designing a halftone screen having a square zero-shift halftone supercell” (Ans. 5). The Examiner looks to Thales’ theorem to explain the relationship between the diagonal of a square and the diagonal of a rectangle. Specifically, the diameter of the circle becomes the diagonal of the square, or the non-square. Base[d] on the inscribed angle theorem, a circle can be defined and one square and many non-squares can be constructed within the defined circle, and these non-squares and the square share the same diameter, or diagonal. Therefore, the length of the diameter, or the hypotenuse of the right angle triangles is the same for both of the isosceles and non-isosceles triangles. Thus, the size of the square zero-shift (share the same common point with a non-square) can be easily defined. (Id. at 7.) The Examiner acknowledges that: Crounse dose [sic] not disclose selecting a diagonal for the non- square supercell in the first frame of reference that is equal in length to the diagonal of a square supercell in the second frame of reference; resolving the size of the square zero-shift supercell based on the selected desired length for the first side, the selected length for the second side. (Id. at 6.) The Examiner, never the less, concludes that it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify Crounse by applying the inscribed angle theorem 5 Sakuji Oide et al., US 5,052,116, issued Oct. 1, 1991. 6 Thomas M. Holladay, US 4,149,194, issued Apr. 10, 1979. App App (Id. a supp Thal Find conc facts emb (Cro eal 2011-0 lication 11 discusse a diagon in the fir to the di in the se the circl therefore been to i the area size also halftone predictab t 8.) The issu ort the Ex es’ theorem ings of Fa FF1. W erning the are repeat FF2. Fi odiment of unse 4: ¶ 0 05865 /727,506 d in constr al (the dia st frame o agonal (th cond fram e diamete resolved mprove th size of a determin dot frequ le result. e is: Does aminer’s c renders ct e adopt th scope and ed for refe g. 2 of Cro a rational 025.) ucting hal meter of a f referenc e same cir e of refere r), and th . The mo e halftone square and es the num ency for i the prepon onclusion the claims e Examine content o rence con unse, repr tangent su 5 ftone scre circle) for e (in X-ax cle diame nce (X’- a e size of tivation fo screen co or a non ber of ha mage repr derance o that the co obvious? r’s finding f the prior venience. oduced be per cell, h en superce the non-s is) that is ter) of a s xis, rotate the squa r doing s nstruction -square, be lftone dot oduction f the evide mbination s, analysi art (Ans. 5 low, discl aving ten lls that ha quare supe equal in le quare supe d at one en re superce o would for contro cause the centers, o quality, w nce of rec of Croun s, and con -43). The osed “an half tone d ving rcell ngth rcell d of ll is have lling area r the ith a ord se and clusions following ots.” App App (Cro (Id. a eal 2011-0 lication 11 R Delabast by a tile in a num defining screen is halftone “number microdo “number unse 4: ¶ 0 FF3. W the supe the supe microdo value in generate A and B A2+B2= t ¶ 0042.) FF4. Cr 05865 /727,506 eferring to ita ‘599), size TS, in ber of m the geom given by dots 22 _of_dots,” ts contain _of_rels” 040.) ith referen rcell has a rcell conta t within th the thresh d for the s , the numb 10. ounse Fig FIG. 2 (a such a su dicating t icrodots, etry of the the arctan in the su and is ed in th and is equ ce to Fig 2 size of tw ins “numb e superce old matrix upercell 2 er of half 8 shows: 6 nd as exp percell 21 he linear and two i halftone gent of A percell 2 (A2+B2). e superce al to TS*T above, C elve mic er_of_rel ll is-assoc . As such, 1. As fro tone dots lained in f , or tile, i size of the nteger va screen. T /B. The t 1 is desi The tot ll 21 is S. rounse pro rodots (TS s”=144 m iated with 144 thres m the valu in the sup urther det s characte tile expre lues A an he angle o otal numb gnated by al numbe designated vides that =12) and icrodots. one thres hold value es selecte ercell equa ail in rized ssed d B, f the er of the r of by thus Each hold s are d for ls to Appeal 2011-005865 Application 11/727,506 7 [I]n a device according to FIG. 8 for converting a continuous tone image into a halftone image, by combining the threshold values with the contone pixel values of the continuous tone image, and marking a microdot on a film or printing plate as a result of the combination or comparison. (Id. at 7: ¶ 0081; Ans. 11) (emphasis added). Analysis Claim 1 Appellant contends that taking Official Notice of a mathematical theorem is without merit (App. Br. 12). As noted by Appellant, § MPEP 2144.03, citing In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970), states that “notice of facts beyond the record which may be taken by the examiner must be ‘capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute’ (citing In re Knapp Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230 . . . (CCPA 1961)).” (See Reply Br. 3-4; see also Appeal Br. 12). Appellant contends that “insufficient documentary evidence is relied upon to properly apply Official Notice” (Reply Br. 4). We are not persuaded; we agree with the Examiner’s position is that Thales’ theorem is elementary geometry (Ans. 4) and would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, it is noted that the Examiner provided a copy of the Wikipedia entry defining the theorem (id. at 36). Moreover, as stated in MPEP § 2144.03(C), “[t]o adequately traverse such a finding [of Official Notice], an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art.” We find that Appellant has not adequately traversed that Thales’ Appeal 2011-005865 Application 11/727,506 8 theorem is not well-known and Appellant has not adequately explained any errors in the Examiner’s application of Thales’ theorem as applied to the teachings of Crounse. Appellant contends that “a simple understanding of a mathematical relationship cannot be used to solve a specific problem in the prior art when the results of the application of the mathematical relationship were clearly unforeseeable.” (Reply Br. 4, see also Appeal Br. 12). We are not persuaded. We adopt the fact finding, analysis, and conclusions of the Examiner (FF1). As identified by the Examiner, Crounse’s non-square supercell comprises sides A=1 and B=3 (Ans. 5; FF2). As recognized by Crounse, incorporating Delabastia,7 the angle of the screen is given by the arctanget A/B. (FF2). According to the Examiner “the diameter of the circle becomes the diagonal of the square, or the non-square” (Ans. 7). Thales’ theorem states that “‘any angle inscribed in a semicircle is a right angle’, i.e. the triangle is a right triangle if the hypotenuse of a triangle is the diameter of a circle, and many right triangles which use the diameter as their hypotenuse side can be constructed along the semicircle arc” (Ans. 12-13). The application of this theorem is illustrated in Figure 15 of Delabastita, reproduced below: 7 Paul A. Delabastita, US 5,155,599, issued Oct. 13, 1992. App App Figu and 7 53-5 same non- shift non- Add supe discl of re seco mean comb one o as th Co., eal 2011-0 lication 11 re 15 show 5 degree 5). Fig. 15 hypotenu square sup halftone s square and itionally, C r cell base Even tho ose selecti ference th nd frame o that the c ination th f ordinary e rejection Inc., 800 F 05865 /727,506 s a ration screens ha shows th se. We, th ercell cell uper cell h the squar rounse tea d on value ugh the E ng a diago at is equal f referenc ombinatio at forms th skill. Ap is based o .2d 1091, al tangent ving the sa at the 15, 4 erefore, a can be co aving a co e super ce ches deter s A and B xaminer ac nal for the in length t e” (Ans. 6 n of Croun e basis of pellant err n a combi 1097 (Fed 9 supercell w me ‘tile si 5, and 75 gree with t nstructed i mmon po ll.” (Ans. mining th (FFs 2 & knowledg non-squa o the diag ; see also F se with T the reject s in attack nation of r . Cir. 198 ith an “ov ze’” (Dela degree tri he Examin n relations int for both 5-6) (emp e number 3; see also ed that “C re superce onal of a s inal Rej. hales’ theo ion, would ing the ref eferences 6). The re erlay of th bastita co angles sha er’s posit hip to a sq the const hasis omit of half ton Ans. 5-8) rounse do ll in the fir quare supe 9), this do rem, the not be ob erences in . See In re ferences c e 15, 45 l. 12, ll. re the ion that “a uare zero- ructed ted). e dots in a . se [sic] no st frame rcell in th es not vious to dividually Merck & annot be t e , Appeal 2011-005865 Application 11/727,506 10 read in isolation, but for what they teach in combination with the prior art as a whole. See id. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 as being obvious over Crounse in view of Thales’ theorem. As Appellant does not argue the claims separately, we focus our analysis on claim 1, and claims 3-8 fall with that claim. However, because our reasoning involved more of the record than was relied upon by the Examiner, we designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection. Claim 9 Appellant contends that claim 9 cannot be found obvious for essentially the same reasons as discussed for claim 1 (App. Br. 14). Furthermore, Appellant contends that “[t]here is simply no ‘input device’ of any nature, manner, or structure, shown in Fig. 8, or otherwise described in the discussion of Fig. 8 within the disclosure of Crounse.” (Id.) The Examiner takes the position that Crounse teaches an input device for designing a halftone supercell, specifically, the reference teaches a circuit for generating a halftone image as well as a process of generating a halftone image (Ans. 11; see also Crounse 7: ¶ 0081). [T]he angle, i.e. the screen angle, between the first frame of reference, i.e. the horizontal axis, and a second frame, i.e. along the dot center 6-3-7, is arctangent of A/B . . . a non-square supercell can be constructed in relationship to a square zero- shift halftone supercell having a common point for both the constructed non-square and the square supercell. (Ans. 11; see also Crounse Fig 3.) We find that the Examiner has the better position. Claim 9 is directed to a system which is interpreted to be an apparatus. “[A]pparatus claims Appeal 2011-005865 Application 11/727,506 11 cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Functional recitations in an apparatus claim are given weight in that the corresponding prior art structures must possess the capability of performing the recited function. See Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 946 F.2d 821, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1991). As discussed above for claim 1, we agree with the Examiner’s finding with regard to the teaching of Crounse. Appellant contends that Crounse does not teach an input device (Appeal Br. 14). We are not persuaded; we agree with the Examiner that: It is a common sense that in order to convert[] a continuous tome [sic] image to a halftone image, it must have an ‘input device’ to input the continuous tone image into the circuit so that it can be converted to a halftone image. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art can realize that the ‘input device’ is an inherent property used for circuit of Figure 8. (Ans. 38.) Appellant’s argument does not address, and thus fails to adequately rebut, the specific finding of the Examiner with respect to the teaching that Crounse inherently uses an input device (id. at 11-14). We note that Crounse in reference to Fig 8 describes a device for converting images (FF4). We agree with the Examiner that the image information has to be entered into the device in order for the device to convert the image. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that Crounse does not disclose an input device. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 9 as being obvious over Crounse in view of Thales’ theorem. As Appellant does not argue the claims separately, we focus our analysis on claim 9, and claims 10 and 12-19 fall with that claim. Appeal 2011-005865 Application 11/727,506 12 II. The Issue: Obviousness over Crounse and Oide Appellant contends that Crounse does not disclose any “devices” and that Oide is not applied in any manner which would overcome the shortcomings of Crounse. (Appeal Br. 15.) We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that Crounse does not disclose a device. We agree with the Examiner that Crounse in “Fig. 8, [shows] the device circuit is used to generate halftone image with supercell of Fig. 2 and threshold matrix of Fig. 5, thus, angle determination must also been determined by the device circuit of Fig. 8.” (Ans. 40 (emphasis omitted).) The Examiner acknowledges that “Crounse does not disclose defining a desired length for a first side and a second side of a pair of sides of a non-square supercell.” (Id. at 41.) However, the Examiner finds that determining the length of a side of a right triangle is well within the grasp of the ordinary artisan, citing Oide in support (id.). The Examiner concludes that: The motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the square zero-shift supercell design system, i.e. it would be easier to determine number of halftone dot center and its frequencies of at various angle and therefore to improve halftone image reproduction quality (Par. [0005], Crounse); and further it is easily implemented by one or other in the art with a predictable result. (Id. at 42) On the record before us, we conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Crounse in view of Oide. Crounse determines the angle of a halftone screen using the arctangent A/B (FF2), and specifically refers to Appeal 2011-005865 Application 11/727,506 13 Fig 8 as being a device (FF4). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that Crounse does not disclose a device. We conclude that the preponderance of the evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Crounse in view of Oide renders obvious the apparatus of claim 20. We thus affirm the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious. As claims 23-29 fall with that claim, we affirm the rejection as to those claims as well. III. The Issue: Obviousness over Crounse, Thales’ theorem, and Holladay The Examiner acknowledges that “Crounse does not disclose a display device that displays the determined nominal side length for the second side of the pair of sides of the non-square supercell.” (Ans. 29.) The Examiner looks to Holladay for a teaching of a computer monitor that can “display [the] values of side length and size of an angle” (id. at 31) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner concludes that “[t]he motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the system of designing halftone screen with a display device for monitoring image half toning process; thus to ensure halftone image reproduction quality; and further it is easily implemented by one or other in the art with a predictable result.” (Id.) Appellant contends that “for the reasons asserted above with regard to claim 9, Crounse does not disclose any ‘devices’ whatsoever, much less the recited angle determining device, center number determining device, and, as argued above specifically, at least one input device” (App. Br. 15). As discussed above we have found no deficiency in the Examiner’s prima facie case of claim 9 based on the combination of Crounse in view of Thales’ theorem. We conclude that the preponderance of evidence of record Appeal 2011-005865 Application 11/727,506 14 supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Crounse in view of Thales’ theorem (see Ans. 11-14, 28-29) meets all the limitations set out in the independent claim 9. As Appellant has not put forth additional arguments with regard to claim 11, we affirm the rejection of claim 11 as being unpatentable over Crounse in view of Thales’ theorem further in view of Holladay. SUMMARY We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3-10, and 12-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Crounse in view of Thales’ theorem. However, because our reasoning differs from the Examiner’s, we designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection. We affirm the rejection of claims 20 and 23-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Crounse in view of Oide. We affirm the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Crounse in view of Thales’ theorem and further in view of Holladay. However, because our reasoning differs from the Examiner’s, we designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE Regarding the affirmed rejection(s), 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) provides “Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months from the date of the original decision of the Board.” In addition to affirming the Examiner's rejection(s) of one or more claims, this opinion contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, Appeal 2011-005865 Application 11/727,506 15 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)). 37 CFR § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . . Should the Appellant elect to prosecute further before the examiner pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)(1), in order to preserve the right to seek review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141 or 145 with respect to the affirmed rejection, the effective date of the affirmance is deferred until conclusion of the prosecution before the Examiner unless, as a mere incident to the limited prosecution, the affirmed rejection is overcome. If the Appellant elects prosecution before the Examiner and this does not result in allowance of the application, abandonment or a second appeal, this case should be returned to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for final action on the affirmed rejection, including any timely request for rehearing thereof. AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(B) bar Notice of References Cited Application/Control No. 11/727,506 Applicant(s)/Patent Under Reexamination Examiner Art Unit Page 1 of 1 U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY Name Classification A US-5,155,599 10-1992 Delabastita -- -- B US- C US- D US- E US- F US- G US- H US- I US- J US- K US- L US- M US- FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY Country Name Classification N O P Q R S T NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS * Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages) U V W X *A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).) Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No. Delete Last PageAdd A Page 12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2 12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2 12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2 12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2 12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2 12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2 12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2 12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2 12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2 12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2 12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2 12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2 12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2 12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2 12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2 12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2 12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2 12/30/2013, EAST Version: 3.1.2.2 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation