Scholly Fiberoptic GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 21, 2020

14953919 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/953,919 11/30/2015 Nicole Giessler SMB-PT585 2114
3624 7590 09/21/2020
Volpe Koenig
30 SOUTH 17TH STREET, 18TH FLOOR
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
EXAMINER
WERNER, DAVID N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
eoffice@volpe-koenig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte NICOLE GIESSLER and SEBASTIEN WEITBRUCH
____________________

Appeal 2019-003815
Application 14/953,919
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, THU A. DANG, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–15 and 17–19 (Appeal Br. 5–12), which
constitute all claims pending in this application.1 Claim 16 was previously
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Scholly
Fiberoptic GmbH. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003815
Application 14/953,919

2
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the claimed invention relates to “an image
processing” method, wherein “an image sequence of images is processed” in
which “the image content is separated from the periphery by a separation
line that describes in at least one section a circle section.” Spec. ¶ 5.

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced
below:
1. An image processing method (18), comprising:
processing an image sequence (8) of images (9) which in
each case have an image content (10) and a periphery (11) that
is complementary to the image content (10),
separating the image content (10) from the periphery (11)
by a separation line (12) that describes in at least a section (61)
a circle section (62),
for each of the images (9) in the image sequence (8),
ascertaining a position indication (23) of a center (24) of the
image content (10) that is defined by the circle section (62) in at
least one of a computer-implemented or hardware-implemented
statistical evaluation method (20), and
carrying out at least one image editing step (60) for each
said image (9) that processes at least the position indication
(23) as a parameter, and centering the respective image content
(10) in the image editing step (60).

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:

Appeal 2019-003815
Application 14/953,919

3
Name Reference Date
Smith SUSAN—A New
Approach to Low Level
Image Processing, 23
Int’l J. Comp Vis., 45–
78
May 6, 1997
Lazebnik A Sparse Texture
Representation Using
Affine-Invariant
Regions, 2003 IEEE
Comp. Soc. Conf.
July 2003

Claims 1–3, 10–15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
as being anticipated by Smith.
Claims 4–9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smith and Lazebnik.
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smith.
II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that Smith teaches or suggests an image processing method
comprising the steps of “processing an image sequence (8) of images (9),”
“separating the image content (10) from the periphery (11) by a separation
line (12) that describes in at least a section (61) a circle section (62),” and
for each of the images, “ascertaining a position indication (23) of a center
(24) of the image content (10) that is defined by the circle section (62)” and
“centering the respective image content (10) in the image editing step (60).”
Claim 1.
Appeal 2019-003815
Application 14/953,919

4
III. ANALYSIS
A. Claims 1–3, 10–15, and 17
With respect to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 10–15, and 17
as being anticipated by Smith under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), Appellant
contends that Smith does not show all of the features of independent claim 1.
Appeal Br. 11. According to Appellant, the Examiner has “refused to
consider what is recited in the claims.” Reply Br. 3 (emphasis omitted). In
particular, Appellant contends that claim 1 “clearly sets forth that the
sequence of images are processed,” where, “for each of the images in the
sequence a center of the image is ascertained,” and that “in the image editing
step, using the ascertained center the respective image content is centered.”
Id. at 4 (emphasis omitted). According to Appellant, in the claimed
invention, “image content” is described as “an image content 10 and a
periphery 11, which are separated from one another by a separation line 12”
which “cannot be equated with two-dimensional features (such as corners)
as taught by Smith.” Appeal Br. 11.
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and evidence
presented. We agree with Appellant that the preponderance of the evidence
on this record does not support the Examiner’s legal conclusion that claim 1,
claim 17 reciting similar limitations, and claims 2, 3, and 10–15 depending
from claim 1, are anticipated by Smith.
The claimed invention is directed to “improving the representation of
an image sequence recorded with an endoscope arrangement.” Spec. ¶ 11.
In particular, the invention provides an image processing method in which,
for each image of the image sequence, the center position of the image
Appeal 2019-003815
Application 14/953,919

5
content that is defined by a circle section is ascertained. Id. ¶ 12. Figures
3–5 are reproduced below:

Figure 3 shows a sequence of images, Figure 4 shows segmenting of an
image in the image sequence shown in Figure 3, and Figure 5 shows further
segmenting of the image in the image sequence to ascertain the center
position. Spec. ¶¶ 46–48.
On the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that Smith teaches: “processing an image sequence (8) of images
(9),” “separating the image content (10) from the periphery (11) by a
separation line (12) that describes in at least a section (61) a circle section
(62),” and for each of the images, “ascertaining a position indication (23) of
Appeal 2019-003815
Application 14/953,919

6
a center (24) of the image content (10) that is defined by the circle section
(62)” and “centering the respective image content (10) in the image editing
step (60),” as recited in claim 1.
Instead, we agree with Appellant that “Smith is concerned with
enabling an improved edge detection (‘corner detection’) as well as a
reduction of noise,” wherein “[t]he starting point of the method of Smith et
al. is a circular mask” and “[t]he image to be analyzed and its image content
are described simply as ‘dark rectangle on a white background’.” Appeal
Br. 7 (citing Smith § 2, first paragraph).
Smith discloses an approach to edge and corner detection in image
processing. Smith Abstract. Figure 1 of Smith is reproduced below:

Figure 1 of Smith shows a dark rectangular image on a white background,
wherein a circular mask is shown at five image positions with respect to the
rectangular image. Smith § 2, first paragraph.
Figure 2 of Smith is reproduced below:
Appeal 2019-003815
Application 14/953,919

7

Figure 2 of Smith shows the five circular masks respectively at the five
image positions in Figure 1, wherein each mask has a defined area having
the same brightness as the nucleus (“USAN”) shown in white. Smith § 2,
second paragraph. As shown in Figure 2, the USAN is at maximum when
the nucleus lies in a flat region of the image surface, falling to half of this
maximum when near a straight edge and falling further when inside a corner,
and thus, this property of the USAN’s area is used as the main determinant
of the presence of edges and two-dimensional features. Id. § 2, fourth
paragraph.
As Appellant points out, Smith, “as a starting point, uses a circular
mask with a known center to sequentially analyze, in several detection steps
per image, different areas of a single image, so as to detect edges of
surfaces.” Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis omitted). We agree with Appellant that,
as shown in Smith’s Figure 2, “[t]he image to be analyzed and its image
content are described simply as ‘dark rectangle on a white background’.”
Appeal Br. 7 (citing Smith § 2, first paragraph).
In rejecting the claims over Smith, the Examiner relies on Smith’s
“circular mask boundaries” as the claimed “separation line (12) that
Appeal 2019-003815
Application 14/953,919

8
describes . . . a circle section (62).” Ans. 3. However, the Examiner also
finds that “a detected edge or corner in Smith is within the scope of ‘image
content’ as claimed.” Final Act. 3. As shown in Figure 2, Smith’s “circular
mask boundaries” do not separate “image content,” i.e., “detected edge or
corner” (Final Act. 3) from the periphery, as required by the claims.
Compare claim 1 with Smith, Fig. 2.
The Examiner also relies on Smith’s use of the circular mask’s
“nucleus” as the claimed “center of the image content.” Ans. 4. However,
because the Examiner also defines “image content” as “a detected edge or
corner in Smith” (Final Act. 3), Smith’s circular mask’s “nucleus” is not the
center of “image content” (i.e., “detected edge or corner”), as claimed. See
Smith Fig. 2. In fact, as Appellant points out, in Smith, the circular mask
already has “a known center” to sequentially analyze to detect edges and
corners (Appeal Br. 7), and thus, there is no “ascertaining a position
indication of a center of the image content” as claimed, because the center is
already known. Compare claim 1 with Smith Fig. 2.
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by the Examiner’s finding that
claim 1’s “separating the image content (10) from the periphery (11) by a
separation line (12) that describes in at least a section (61) a circle section
(62)” encompasses Smith’s “circular mask boundaries,” or that “ascertaining
a position indication of a center of the image content that is defined by the
circle section” encompasses Smith’s “‘nucleus’ of mask at center indicated
by crosshair marking.” Ans. 3–4. Consequently, we are constrained by the
record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding Smith anticipates
Appellant’s claim 1, and independent claim 17 including limitations of
commensurate scope. Dependent claims 2, 3, and 10–15 depend on claim 1,
Appeal 2019-003815
Application 14/953,919

9
and thus, stand therewith. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claims 1–3, 10–15, and 17 over Smith.
B. Claims 4–9
The Examiner does not suggest, and has not established on this
record, that the additionally cited Lazebnik reference overcomes the
aforementioned deficiencies of Smith. See Final Act. 8–9. Consequently,
we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in
concluding that the combination of Smith and Lazebnik renders obvious
Appellant’s dependent claims 4–9 depending from independent claim 1.
C. Claims 18 and 19
The Examiner relies on the same reasoning as claim 17 reciting
similar limitations as claim 1 (supra) for rejecting claims 18 and 19
depending from claim 17. See Final Act. 9–10. As discussed supra, the
Examiner erred in concluding Smith teaches and suggests the recited
limitations of claim 17. Consequently, we are constrained by the record
before us to also find that the Examiner erred in concluding that Smith
renders obvious Appellant’s dependent claims 18 and 19 depending from
independent claim 17.

IV. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 10–15, and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and rejections of claims 4–9, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are reversed.

Appeal 2019-003815
Application 14/953,919

10
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 10–
15, 17
102(a)(1) Smith 1–3, 10–15,
17
4–9 103(a) Smith, Lazebnik 4–9
18 103(a) Smith 18
19 103(a) Smith 19
Overall
Outcome
1–15, 17–
19

REVERSED