Ex Parte Krishnamachari - Page 1




          The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was              
          not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the             
          Board.                                                                      
                                                          Paper No. 16                
                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     __________                                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                  AND INTERFERENCES                                   
                                     __________                                       
                          Ex parte SANTHANA KRISHNAMACHARI                            
                                     __________                                       
                                Appeal No. 2004-0930                                  
                             Application No. 09/934,962                               
                                     ___________                                      
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                     ___________                                      
          Before HAIRSTON, OWENS, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent              
          Judges.                                                                     
          OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         

                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 1-20,                
          which are all of the claims in the application.                             
                                    THE INVENTION                                     
               The appellant claims methods for characterizing and                    
          comparing images.  Claims 1 and 6 are illustrative:                         
               1.  A method for characterizing an image comprising:                   
               partitioning the image into a plurality of partitions, each            
          partition including a plurality of pixels, each pixel having a              
          color,                                                                      
               determining a frequency of occurrence of each color of the             
          plurality of pixels within each partition, and                              
               creating a characterization that includes a plurality of               
          measures that are proportional to the frequency of occurrence of            
          a plurality of colors.                                                      





Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007