Ex Parte Nikiforov

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 29, 2009

10880897 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ANDREY NIKIFOROV
________________

Appeal 2009-001982
Application 10/880,897
Technology Center 2600
________________

Decided: 1 June 29, 2009
________________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, CARLA M. KRIVAK,
and ELENI MANTIS-MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2009-001982
Application 10/880,897

2

Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 to 24. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART. We also enter new grounds of rejection
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
The Invention
The disclosed invention relates to a method and computer-
implemented method of processing images such as fingerprints, which
includes using a directional representation of an image segment of an image
to directionally identify an image element other than the image segment
(Figs. 4, 7; Abstract; Spec. 1-4). Examples of non-image segments may be
common artifacts such as scratches, cuts, and wet or dry spots (Spec. 3), and
may include wrinkles, scars, blemishes, moles, and warts (see claims 12-16).
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention, and reads as
follows:
1. A computer-implemented method for directionally characterizing an
image element within an image, the method comprising:
obtaining an image segment;
determining a directional representation value that corresponds to the
image segment; and
utilizing the directional representation value to directionally identify
an image element other than the image segment.

Appeal 2009-001982
Application 10/880,897

3
The Rejections
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hara US 5,703,958 Dec. 30, 1997
Takhar US 6,002,787 Dec. 14, 1999
Funada US 2002/0164056 A1 Nov. 7, 2002
Cross et al., “Thermographic Imaging of the Subcutaneous Vascular
Network of the Back of the Hand for Biometric Identification,” IEEE
1995, pages 20-35 (hereinafter, “Cross”)

The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 11, 13, 14, 17 to 20, and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Takhar.
The Examiner rejected claims 21 to 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
based upon the teachings of Hara.
The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Takhar and Funada.
The Examiner rejected claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Takhar and Cross.

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Findings of fact (FF) throughout this decision are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record. The relevant facts include the
following:
Appellant’s Disclosure
1. As indicated supra, Appellant describes and claims a method and
computer-implemented method for directionally characterizing an
image segment 408 within an image (e.g., a fingerprint having ridge
lines 402, 404, and 406 as shown in Fig. 4; Abstract; Spec. 1, 4).
Appeal 2009-001982
Application 10/880,897

4
Figure 10 indicates a blown up segment 1002 (Spec. 22). Each
segment 1002 of the image is assigned an angle value (see Fig. 10)
associated with a directional field representation which is utilized to
directionally identify an element other than the image segment (408 or
1002), such as a wrinkle or scar (see claims 12, 13, and 24).
2. Appellant discloses that common artifacts can cause lower accuracy in
image and directional field analysis of image segments (Spec. 3).
Common artifacts (i.e., image elements “other than” the image
segment as recited in claims 1, 21, and 24) may include scratches,
cuts, wet or dry spots (Spec. 3). Other artifacts could be
distinguishing marks, wrinkles, scars, blemishes, moles, or warts (see
originally filed claims 11 to 16).
Takhar
3. Takhar describes a fingerprint and image analysis system and method
for dividing an image pattern area into line segments using vectors
(Figs. 2, 4, 22; col. 21, ll. 5-9). Takhar describes using the vectors or
directional representation values to directionally identify image
segments.
4. Takhar uses core and delta points to analyze ridges in a fingerprint
pattern by projecting vectors at predetermined angles from the x-axis
and y-axis (col. 17, l. 60 to col. 18, l. 29).
5. Takhar discloses associating an angle value to the line segments (see
Figs. 32, 37B; col. 18, ll. 10-16).

Appeal 2009-001982
Application 10/880,897

5
Hara
6. Hara describes a fingerprint and image analysis method for correcting
distorted images (Abstract; Fig. 3). Hara uses vectors to analyze
images (Fig. 3, elements 15 and 16).
7. Hara discloses calculating vectors or directional representation values
using “starting points” Q1-Q7 (see Fig. 5(a); col. 4, ll. 15-33; col. 5, ll.
15-20).
Funada
8. Funada discloses correcting images by smoothing, and rectifying
image anomalies in fingerprint images such as wrinkles (¶¶ [0004],
[0015], [0065], [0078], [0080]).
9. Funada describes a fingerprint and image analysis system and method
that analyzes ridge lines by dividing an image into plural “local
regions” having ridge line candidates (Figs. 9, 11, 12; ¶¶ [0016]-
[0018], [0034]). The ridge line candidates and local regions are
analyzed by calculating directional vectors to determine the
directional value of the line segment (¶¶ [0043], [0044], [0055],
[0060]).
10. By monitoring the directional value for each line segment or
candidate, continuity of direction is detected, and a wrinkle can be
detected based upon a discontinuity of direction (¶¶ [0055], [0065],
[0066]).
11. Funada provides the following description of the detection of
wrinkles/discontinuities (i.e., image elements other than the image
segment or ridge line):
Appeal 2009-001982
Application 10/880,897

6
[W]hether or not it is a discontinuity is evaluated from
the difference in direction. Since in the ridge line
candidate selection it becomes an effective characteristic
amount indicative of whether or not the ridge line
direction is a ridge line, it is possible, by using the
direction information, to precisely detect the
discontinuity which has [sic] possibility of failing in the
ridge line candidate image selection.

(¶ [0066]).
Cross
12. Cross discloses a computerized biometric identification system and
method for filtering noise from images caused by moles, warts, sores,
pigmentation, and hair (pp. 21, 33).

ISSUES

With regard to the anticipation and obviousness rejections of claims 1
to 11, 13 to 20, and 24, the Examiner relies on Takhar’s columns 17 (lines
60 to 67), 18 (lines 1 to 28), and 20 (lines 15 to 34) as teaching the recited
limitation of utilizing a directional representation to directionally identify an
element “other than” an image segment(s) (claims 1 and 24) (Ans. 3-4).
With regard to the anticipation rejection of claims 21 to 23, the
Examiner relies on Hara’s Figure 3 (elements 15 and 16), column 4, lines 22
to 30 and column 6, lines 21 to 32 as teaching the recited limitation of
“utilizing the directional representation value to directionally identify an
image element other than the image segment” (claim 21) (Ans. 8).
Appellant argues, inter alia, (Br. 8-12) that the applied reference to
Takhar fails to teach or suggest utilizing a directional representation to
Appeal 2009-001982
Application 10/880,897

7
directionally identify an element other than an image segment(s) as recited
in claims 1 and 24. Specifically, Appellant argues that there is no teaching
in Takhar that the vector directionally identifies an element other than the
image segment to which it corresponds (Br. 10-12). Appellant also argues
(Br. 13-15) that the applied reference to Hara fails to teach or suggest the
third step of claim 21 of “utilizing the directional representation value to
directionally identify an image element other than the image segment”
(claim 21) (emphasis added).
Based on Appellant’s arguments, the following issues are presented:
(i) Has Appellant shown that Takhar and Hara each teach or
suggest directionally identifying an element other than an
image segment?
(ii) Has Appellant shown that the combination of Takhar and
Funada fails to teach or suggest the subject matter set forth
in claim 12?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir.
1994).
Obviousness
Appellant has the burden, when on appeal to the Board, to
demonstrate error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
Appeal 2009-001982
Application 10/880,897

8
985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness, and Appellant has the burden
of presenting a rebuttal to the prima facie case. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 21 each recite “utilizing the directional representation
value to directionally identify an image element other than the image
segment” (claims 1 and 21) (emphasis added). Claim 24 recites “utilizing
the directional field representation to directionally identify an element other
than the plurality of segments” (claim 24) (emphasis added).
With regard to the anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 24, the
Examiner relies on Takhar’s columns 17 (lines 60 to 67), 18 (lines 1 to 28),
and 20 (lines 15 to 34) as teaching the recited limitation of utilizing a
directional representation to directionally identify an element “other than” an
image segment(s) (claims 1 and 24) (Ans. 3-4).
Appellant argues, inter alia, (Br. 8-12) that the applied reference to
Takhar fails to teach or suggest utilizing a directional representation to
directionally identify an element other than an image segment(s) as recited
in claims 1 and 24. More specifically, Appellant argues that there is no
teaching in Takhar that the vector directionally identifies an element other
than the image segment to which it corresponds (Br. 10-12).
With respect to the step recited in claims 1 and 24 of utilizing a
directional representation to directionally identify an element “other than” an
image segment(s) (claims 1 and 24), Takhar fails to teach analyzing,
directionally identifying, or otherwise acting on a non-image segment or
Appeal 2009-001982
Application 10/880,897

9
element (FF 3). Thus, Appellant is correct that Takhar fails to teach the
“utilizing . . .” steps of claims 1 and 24. Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner has not shown that columns 17 (lines 60 to 67), 18 (lines 1 to 28),
and 20 (lines 15 to 34) relate to directionally identifying an element that is
not an image segment, is persuasive (FF 3). Accordingly, Takhar fails to
teach or suggest the step of utilizing a directional representation to
directionally identify an element other than an image segment(s) as recited
in claims 1 and 24. It follows that anticipation has not been established by
the Examiner because Takhar does not disclose each and every limitation of
the claimed invention set forth in claims 1 to 11, 13, 14, 17 to 20, and 24.
Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In
re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
With regard to the anticipation rejection of claim 21, the Examiner
relies on Hara’s Figure 3 (elements 15 and 16), column 4, lines 22 to 30, and
column 6, lines 21 to 32 as teaching the recited limitation of “utilizing the
directional representation value to directionally identify an image element
other than the image segment” (claim 21) (Ans. 8).
Appellant argues, inter alia, (Br. 13-15), that the applied reference to
Hara fails to teach or suggest the third step of claim 21 of “utilizing the
directional representation value to directionally identify an image element
other than the image segment” (claim 21). Specifically, Appellant argues
that Hara fails to teach or suggest that a motion vector is used to
directionally identify an image element other than the image segment (Br.
14). Appellant also contends that Hara’s use of “starting points” is not
equivalent to Appellant’s use of “image segments” for determining a
directional representation (Br. 14).
Appeal 2009-001982
Application 10/880,897

10
With respect to the “utilizing . . .” step recited in claim 21, Hara fails
to teach analyzing, directionally identifying, or otherwise acting on a non-
image segment or element (FF 7). Instead, Hara analyzes a distorted image
using a plurality of user-selected starting points to correct the image (FF 6,
7). Appellant’s argument, that the Examiner has not shown that Hara meets
the “utilizing . . .” limitation, as set forth in claim 21, is therefore persuasive.
Accordingly, Hara fails to teach or suggest the step of “utilizing the
directional representation value to directionally identify an image element
other than the image segment”, as recited in claim 21. It follows that
anticipation has not been established by the Examiner because Hara does not
disclose each and every limitation of the claimed invention set forth in
claims 21 to 23. Atlas Powder Co., 190 F.3d at 1347; Paulsen, 30 F.3d at
1478-79.
With regard to the obviousness rejection of claim 12 over Takhar and
Funada, the rejection is sustained because the combined teachings and
suggestions of the applied references meet all of the limitations set forth in
claim 12 (see FF 3-5 as to Takhar; FF 8-11 as to Funada). Specifically,
Takhar teaches the limitations of claim 1 (from which claim 12 ultimately
depends) including obtaining an image segment and determining a
corresponding directional representation value (FF 3), and Funada teaches
the “utilizing . . .” limitation at the end of claim 1 as well as the limitations
of intervening claim 11 and claim 12 of directionally identifying an image
element other than the image segment, such as a distinguishing mark or skin
wrinkle (FF 9-11). Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s
prima facie case with respect to claim 12. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445.
Appeal 2009-001982
Application 10/880,897

11
With regard to the obviousness rejection over Takhar and Cross, a
prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed subject matter set forth in
dependent claims 15 and 16 has not been established by the Examiner
because the teachings of Cross fail to cure the noted shortcomings in the
teachings of Takhar (see FF 12). Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445. Cross does not
teach or suggest utilizing vectors or directional representation values to
directionally identify the image elements other than image segments (i.e., the
warts, moles, etc.).
In summary, the anticipation rejection of claims 1 to 11, 13, 14, 17 to
20, and 24 is not sustained because Takhar does not teach utilizing a
directional representation to directionally identify an element “other than” an
image segment(s) (claims 1 and 24). The anticipation rejection of claims 21
to 23 is not sustained because Hara does not teach “utilizing the directional
representation value to directionally identify an image element other than the
image segment” (claim 21). The obviousness rejection of claim 12 is
sustained because the combined teachings and suggestions of Takhar and
Funada meet all of the recited limitations. The obviousness rejection of
claims 15 and 16 is not sustained because the Examiner’s articulated
reasoning concerning the teachings of Takhar does not support a legal
conclusion of obviousness (KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007)), and the teachings of Cross do not cure the noted shortcomings in
the teachings of Takhar.

Appeal 2009-001982
Application 10/880,897

12
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
(i) Appellant has shown that neither Takhar nor Hara teaches or
suggests directionally identifying an element other than an image segment.
(ii) Appellant has not shown that the combination of Takhar and
Funada fails to teach or suggest the subject matter set forth in claim 12.
We conclude that Appellant has adequately shown the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1 to 11, 13, 14, and 17 to 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
and in rejecting claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellant has
not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a).

NEW GROUND OF REJECTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a new ground of rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 21. We also enter a new
ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for claim 24.
Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Funada
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being unpatentable over Funada.
With regard to claims 1 and 21, Funada teaches all of the recited
limitations of a method and computer-implemented method for directionally
characterizing an image element within an image including: (i) obtaining an
image segment (i.e., local region); (ii) determining a directional
representation value (i.e., directional vector or directional continuity value)
that corresponds to the image segment (i.e., the local region or ridge line
candidate image); and (iii) utilizing the directional representation value to
directionally identify an image element other than the image segment (i.e.,
Appeal 2009-001982
Application 10/880,897

13
directional values are determined and evaluated to detect wrinkles or
discontinuities in the direction value) (FF 9-11).
With regard to claim 2, Funada teaches that the image segment is a
ridge segment (i.e., ridge line candidate image) (FF 9).
With regard to claims 11 and 12, Funada teaches directionally
identifying a distinguishing mark with an image, such as a wrinkle (FF 10,
11).
With regard to claim 21, Funada teaches a method of enhancing an
image, including identifying an inconsistency within the image and
correcting the inconsistency based on the directional representation value
(FF 8, 10, 11).
Rejection of Claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Funada and Takhar
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Funada and Takhar.
As to the teachings and suggestions of Funada and Takhar and the
motivation to combine these references, we refer to the Examiner’s
discussion of Funada and Takhar in the Answer (Ans. 9-10), as well as our
findings above as to Takhar (see FF 3-5) and Funada (see FF 8-11). We
agree with the Examiner (Ans. 9) that Funada, and not Takhar, teaches the
concept of detecting a wrinkle based on directional representation values
(see FF 10). We also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7, 9) that Takhar
teaches dividing an image feature of image data into plural segments as well
as creating a directional field representation by assigning an angle value to
each of the segments (FF 3-5).
Takhar does not teach utilizing directional representation values to
directionally identify image elements “other than” the plural segments (e.g.,
Appeal 2009-001982
Application 10/880,897

14
a wart or wrinkle) (FF 3). However, Funada teaches using directional
representation values to directionally identify image elements “other than”
the plural segments, such as wrinkles (FF 8, 10, 11). Funada teaches
dividing or segmenting an image into plural segments or local regions (FF
9), and directionally identifying elements in the image “other than” the
plural segments or ridge lines to detect a wrinkle (FF 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art looking
at the teachings and suggestions of Takhar that to provide an improved
method of analyzing and matching a fingerprint with ridge lines would have
been obvious in view of Funada’s disclosure of identifying wrinkles using
directional values. We conclude that one skilled in the art would have
recognized that correcting an image when discontinuities are detected, in
order to improve fingerprint recognition and improve matching and
identification accuracy as taught by Funada, would have been more useful
based upon the fingerprint matching and identification method of Takhar.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 to 11 and 13 to 24 is
reversed. The decision of the Examiner rejecting claim 12 is affirmed.
Accordingly, the decision of the Examiner is affirmed-in-part. We have also
entered new grounds of rejection under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) for claims 1, 2,
11,12, 21, and 24.
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of rejection
[…] shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
Appeal 2009-001982
Application 10/880,897

15
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. . . .

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

bim

WESTMAN, CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A.
SUITE 1400
900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-3244