Ex parte Motokado et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 7, 1998

08147815 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 7, 1998)

Application for patent filed November 4, 1993.1
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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte SHINICHIRO MOTOKADO,
TOMOKO MOTOKADO
and MUTSUMI OHTOMO
_____________
Appeal No. 97-1010
Application 08/147,8151
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH and LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner's final rejection of claims
1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27-29, 32 and 33. Claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, 17, 19,
Appeal No. 97-1010
Application 08/147,815
2
22, 23, 26, 30 and 31 have been canceled. No claim has been allowed.
Appeal No. 97-1010
Application 08/147,815
3
The References Relied on by the Examiner
Uehara et al. (Uehara) 4,748,443 May 31, 1988
Ohno 5,305,433 Apr. 19, 1994
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27-29, 32 and 33 stand finally rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno in view of Uehara.
On page 11 of the appeal brief, the appellants have grouped together all claims on appeal for
single treatment.
The Invention
The invention is directed to a character generating apparatus which arranges a plurality of
partial patterns according to respective starting points to form a character for display.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A character generating method for generating character patterns by arranging a plurality of
basic patterns constituting each of a plurality of partial patterns which in turn constitute a character
pattern, at respective start position defined from absolute start positions in a character coordinate
system, in accordance with a designated character size to form said plurality of partial patterns, and
generating said character pattern, said method comprising the steps of:
storing in a memory means origin position data representing origin positions of said partial
patterns in a partial-pattern coordinate system set in said character coordinate system, start position
data representing start positions of said basic patterns in said partial-pattern coordinate system and
shape data representing shapes of said basic patterns;
reading said origin position data of those individual partial patterns constituting a desired
character pattern and said start position data of those basic patterns constituting said individual partial
Appeal No. 97-1010
Application 08/147,815
4
patterns from said memory means;
computing, in a computing means, said absolute start positions of said basic patterns from said
read origin position data and start position data; and
generating said desired character pattern by computing a plurality of coordinates of said basic
patterns from respective absolute start positions and said shape data,
wherein origin position data of said partial patterns set in a coordinate system whose size is 1/n
of said character coordinate system is stored in said memory means in said storing step, n being an
integer; and
said computing step multiplies, in said computing means, said origin position data by n and adds
resultant origin position data to said start position data of said basic patterns to obtain said absolute
start positions.
Opinion
Our opinion is based solely on the arguments raised by the appellants in their brief. We do not
address and offer no opinion on reasonings which have not been articulated. In that connection, non-
raised arguments are regarded as waived.
At the outset, however, we note that the examiner’s discussion with respect to Uehara is
limited. The entire discussion is reproduced below (answer at page 8):
The applicant’s “skeleton patterns of said partial patterns” reads on Uehara
“skeleton lines” mentioned in the abstract.
The applicant’s “offset data of each of said frame patterns of the associated basic
patterns” reads on the disclosure of Uehara’s disclosure of “[c]oordinates for the
position and formulas for the scaling and borders of characters are maintained in the
outline font method. Only one set is necessary for each character, since high quality
characters can be scaled up or down and placed in any desired position” (column 2,
lines 49-53). The borders mentioned read on the applicant’s frame patterns, and the
Appeal No. 97-1010
Application 08/147,815
5
scaling mentioned requires the applicant’s offset data.
It turns out that the second paragraph of the above-quoted text actually refers to Ohno, not
Uehara. The quoted text appears in Ohno, not Uehara. Column 2, lines 49-53 of Ohno, not Uehara,
concerns the subject matter in discussion.
Thus, the examiner’s view with regard to how Uehara applies to the rejected claims on appeal
is limited to the single sentence "[t]he applicant’s skeleton patterns reads on Uehara ‘skeleton lines’
mentioned in the abstract." Ohno, on the other hand, is not without disclosure of skeleton patterns in
the form of stroke baselines. Thus, as applied by the examiner, Uehara does not add anything
meaningful to Ohno. Accordingly, we will focus on and further examine only the disclosure of Ohno.
The appellants correctly point out (Br. at 18) that in Ohno the start point of each partial pattern
is represented by an absolute position in a character coordinate system and the start point of each basic
pattern is represented by a relative position from the origin point of the partial pattern. The appellants
argue that Ohno’s system is contrary to the claimed invention wherein the origin of each partial pattern
is set in a coordinate system whose size is 1/n that of the character coordinate system and wherein the
absolute start position of each basic pattern is computed by multiplying the origin position by "n" and
adding to that product the start point of the basic pattern.
Appeal No. 97-1010
Application 08/147,815
6
The examiner finds the multiply by "n" feature in claim 2 of Ohno (answer at page 8). But a
close reading of Ohno’s claim 2 reveals only a scaling operation in which both the origin coordinate
data and the local border data of each basic element are multiplied by a common magnification factor.
There is no description or suggestion that only the origin data, not the local border data, is multiplied,
after which the product thereof is added to the local border data, as the examiner evidently determined
in a conclusory manner without supporting evidence.
It appears, however, that both the examiner and the appellants erroneously assumed that "n" is
an integer greater than one. Note that on page 25 of the specification, it is stated that while the origin
coordinates of the partial patterns are set in a 256 X 256 coordinate system in the preferred
embodiment (where n apparently equals 4, see page 15 of the specification), it may also be set in a
1024 X 1024 coordinate system (where n evidently equals 1).
In the case of n = 1, which is within the scope of these claims, the multiply by n feature
effectively reduces to an identity function and the claims would merely require that the origin of the
partial patterns to be set in the character coordinate system and the start points of each basic element in
the partial pattern to be defined in the element coordinate system as an offset from the element origin.
In this manner, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art that the absolute start
points of the basic elements are derived by adding the offsets from the origins of the partial patterns to
the origins of the partial patterns times 1. On page 18 of the brief, the appellants already
Appeal No. 97-1010
Application 08/147,815
7
acknowledged the following:
It should be noted that in Ohno, the start point of each partial pattern is
represented by an absolute position in a character coordinate system, and the start
point of each basic pattern is represented by a relative position from the origin point of
the partial pattern. (Emphasis in original.)
As determined by the examiner (answer at pages 4-5), partial patterns read on Ohno’s
character strokes, and basic patterns of the partial patterns read on Ohno’s partial borders defined in
relation to the baseline of each stroke. Thus, the baseline of each of Ohno’s strokes constitutes a
partial pattern origin. In Ohno, the borders and partial borders are local to the starting, ending, and
middle points of each stroke’s baseline (column 6, lines 5-31). The appellants raised no argument on
these points.
Because the variable "n" can take on the value of "1," the appellants’ argument attempting to
distinguish Ohno from the claimed invention on the basis of the 1/n coordinate system as recited in the
claims is without merit and thus rejected.
On page 19 of the appeal brief in lines 3-5, the appellants further state that in an adjusting
operation disclosed in Ohno, the size of the partial pattern coordinate system is changed in accordance
with the compound character. That, however, does not undermine any of the examiner’s findings
concerning Ohno. The examiner is correct that additional features disclosed in a prior art reference do
not affect the rejection of claims which do not require those features. The variable scaling feature of
Ohno is something additional to that relied on to reject the appellants’ claims. Moreover, not every
Appeal No. 97-1010
Application 08/147,815
8
character of Ohno is a compound character in need of scaling.
On page 19 of the brief, the appellants argue that the claimed invention achieves unexpected
results. However, the plain assertion is unsupported by any objective evidence. Mere argument by
counsel cannot substitute for evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782,
193 USPQ 17, 22 (CCPA 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 854, 195 USPQ 465 (1977); In re Langer,
503 F.2d 1380, 1395, 183 USPQ 288, 299 (CCPA 1974). Regardless of whether n = 1 or n > 1, it
has not been shown that there is anything unexpected about the results of the claimed invention relative
to that obtainable from the prior art. Unexpectedness, of course, cannot be assumed but must be
established by objective and meaningful evidence. In any event, it would seem that the saving of space
achieved by reducing the size of the coordinate space is logical rather than unexpected.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, 18,
20, 21, 24, 25, 27-29, 32 and 33.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27-29, 32 and 33
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno in view of Uehara is affirmed.
Appeal No. 97-1010
Application 08/147,815
9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS AND
JERRY SMITH ) INTERFERENCES
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-1010
Application 08/147,815
10
HELFGOTT & KARAS
60th Flr.
EMPIRE STATE BUILDING
NEW YORK, NY 10118-0110