Commissioner's decision
Section 2: Pattern Recognition System
A system utilizing a threshold value for accepting or rejecting further samples
for pattern recognition is acceptable subject matter under Section 2.
Final Rejection - reversed.
This decision deals with Applicant's request for review by the Commissioner
of Patents on Application 336,917 (class 354-227) filed on October 3, 1979,
assigned to Hajime Industries Ltd. and is entitled "Standard Memory Take In
Method". The inventor is Yoshida Hajime. The Examiner in charge issued a
Final Action on May 19, 1982 refusing to allow the application.
This application relates to a pattern recognition system wherein there is
formed a standard memory system containing numerous different examples of
objects or patterns thereof to be recognized. Forming the standard memory
take-in system comprises the steps of storing data representing a first
sample in a memory, calculating a difference between data representing a
second sample and data representing a first sample, storing the data
representing a second sample in the memory if the differences exceeds the
predeterminated threshold values, calculating differences between data
representing a subsequent sample and data representing each sample stored
in the memory, and storing the data representing a subsequent sample in the
memory if all of the differences of the objects exceed the threshold
values.
In refusing the application and claims in his Final Action as not
patentable under Section 2 of the Patent Act, the Examiner stated (in
part):
... Applicant has attached a United States submission to the
letter of January 7, 1982. Page 6 of the submission (line 9)
states: "as in the present instance, a standard general purpose
computer of the prior art was satisfactory for performing the
method claimed". Also on line 20 of page 6 of the United
States submission it is stated: "the apparatus for the present
method is conventional". Thus applicant is not claiming a
method"carried out with a specific novel computing apparatus"
as set out in guideline 5 on page xxvi of the Canadian Patent
Office Record of August 1, 1978 wherein a Commissioner's
Decision re computer programs is cepnrred- The process claimed
is merely an algorithm for processing information since it is
carried out solely in a general purpose computer (as affirmed
in the letter of April 22, 1982).
In the letter of April 22, 1982 applicant states that the
application is directed to a method of pattern recognition.
This assertion is contrary to claim 1 which directs the method
to a standard memory take-in method. The resulting memory is
used in a pattern recognition system but the method claimed is
not the method of operation of a pattern recognition system
(see page 1 line 6). Rather, the method claimed is an
algorithm for deciding if data presented to a memory is to be
stored or discarded. The criteria for deciding if presented
data is to be stored is the degree of similarity between the
presented data and data already stored. Thus the process
claimed is carried out solely in a general purpose computer and
is not a method of pattern recognition.
Applicant states in the letter of April 22, 1982 that the
method includes "multiplication of a threshold". This step is
not found in the claims nor disclosure. Clarification of the
relevancy of applicant's remark is requested. Also
clarification of the term "patent" on line 8 paragraph 4 of the
letter of April 22, 1982 is required. Is "pattern" intended?
The application remains rejected as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter in view of the definition of
invention in Section 2 of the Patent Act.
In response to the Final Action the applicant submitted an amended single
claim to replace the two claims on file and requested a review. Amended
claim 1 reads as follows:
A method of entering data into a memory store to form a
standard for recognizing that any one of a set of patterns
belongs to a particular pattern group, each pattern being
formed by a plurality of elements having respective locations
within the pattern, the method comprising the steps of
a) consecutively sampling a set of patterns to provide
respective data signals representing the respective
locations of elements in each sample pattern;
b) storing the data signals from a first sa~aple, whereby the
stored data signals are unconditionally adopted as part of
said standard;
c) comparing the data signals from a second sample with the
stored signals from the first sample to determine the
difference;
d) comparing the difference with a predetermined initial
threshold value Which represents an acceptable dev;ation of
the location of elements inthe first samg`e from the
location of elements in a reference pattern;
e) storing the data signals from the second sample, if the
difference is greater than the threshold value, as part of
said standard, the data signal from the second sample not
being stored if the difference is less that the threshold
value;
f) providing a new threshold value, as a result of the
comparison step (d);
g) checking whether or not the memory store is filled to
capacity with data signals and continuing the sampling until
the memory store is filled and said standard has been
completed, said samplings being continued by;
h) repeating steps (c) to (f) with data signals from a third
sample, wherein the latter data signals are compared with
the stored data signals and the third sample data signals
are stored if the differences between the third data signals
and the stored data signals is greater than the current
threshold value, and so on, with data signals from a fourth,
fifth ... sample, whereby the threshold value is thereby
continuously updated.
The issue before the Board is whether or not the application and amended
claim are directed to patentable subject matter in view of Section 2 of the
Patent Act.
We look to the decision in Schlumberger Canada Ltd. v. The Commissioner of
Patents (1981) 56 CPR (2d) at 204 in determining whether the application is
directed to statutory subject matter, and in particular to the following
passages of Pratte, J.:
In order to determine whether the application discloses a
patentable invention, it is first necessary to determine what,
according to the application, has been discovered.
and
I am of opinion that the fact a computer is or should be used
to implement discovery does not change the nature of that
discovery. What the appellant claims as an invention here is
merely the discovery that by making certain calculations
according to certain formulae, useful information could be
extracted from certain measurements. This is not, in my view,
an invention within the meaning of Section 2.
Applicant has described a method of pattern recognition which he states
"lies in the novel manner and the whole concept of utilizing threshold
values of a signal which is a function of the characteristics of the
pattern to be read and comparing it with a staunch standard signal followed
by the multiplication of a threshold inseriatum so that the threshold value
is varied according to external conditions". By calculating the difference
between data representing a new sample and previously stored data
representing previous samples the applicant is able to reduce the memory
requirements for a standard memory in a pattern recognition system by
establishing acceptable threshold values for new data to be stored in the
system. When a new sample falls within the acceptable threshold values it
is not stored as representing a useful new example but if it falls outside
the threshold values it is stored as part of a standard for the pattern.
In our view the system provides a useful end result by utilizing a
threshold value for accepting or rejecting further samples for pattern
recognition. We are satisfied that the application is directed to
patentable subject matter.
We note that the amended claim defines a method of pattern recognition of
similar pattern groups wherein data signals of the groups are compared
along with differences from the predetermined initial threshold values
assigned to them and subsequent, calculated threshold values to determine
storage of data signals. We are satisfied the application discloses and
does claim features of recognizing patterns of objects that present more
than calculations to convert a set of values into another set of values.
We are persuaded that the claim is directed to allowable subject matter,
and in the absence of any cited art, may be allowable.
We recommend that the rejection of the application for being directed to
non-statutory subject matter, be withdrawn.
M.G. Brown S.D. Kot
Acting Chairman member
Patent Appeal Board
I concur with the findings and recommendations of the Patent Appeal Board.
Accordingly, I withdraw the Final Action, and I am remanding the
application to the Examiner for prosecution consistent with the
recommendation.
J.H.A. Gari‚py
Commissioner of Patents
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 10th day of June 1987
Cowling & Henderson
Box 466, Terminal a
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 8S3