Appeal No. 2001-0922
Application No. 09/408,886
vertically and horizontally and (4) overlooked that claim
12 requires tiling a block of Auxiliary Data Elements
repetitively across the image so that each auxiliary data element
in each of said blocks corresponds to one of said image
elements.”
Powell makes clear (Abstract; column 1, line 67 through
column 2, line 2) that the embedded signature within an image “is
redundantly embedded in the image such that any of the redundant
representations can be used to identify the signature” (emphasis
added). “[A] data bit is encoded at each signature point”
(column 1, lines 65 and 66). According to Powell, the signature
points may be anywhere within an image (column 3, lines 41 and
42), including “randomly and widely spaced” (column 4, lines
43 and 44), “in regular patterns” (column 4, line 45), and the
computer 12 can be programmed to choose signature points
“according to a preprogrammed pattern” (column 4, lines 58
through 60). If the signature points are embedded in a regular
and widely spaced pattern across the image in Powell, then the
embedded signatures in Powell require “plural blocks of embedded
data to be uniformly arrayed” across the image as required by
claim 1 on appeal. Thus, we disagree with the appellant’s
argument that the Board misapprehended the structure of the image
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007