Deneb Meketa et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 29, 2019

14638840 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2019)

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.
14/638,840 03/04/2015 Deneb MEKETA PIXA/0072US (070346) 3778
83667 7590 08/29/2019
Patterson & Sheridan, LLP / PIXAR
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
LI, GRACE Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2019 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):
PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DENEB MEKETA, JEREMIE TALBOT,
BRET PARKER, GUILHERME S. JACINTO,
and BERNHARD ULRICH HAUX
____________

Appeal 2019-0000821
Application 14/638,840
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Appellants identify Pixar as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000082
Application 14/638,840

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–8, 11–18, and 21–23. The final
rejection of claims 9, 10, 19, and 20, was withdrawn by the Examiner in the
Answer. Final Act. 1; Ans. 14–15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellants’ invention is directed to “an approach by which an
animation system manipulates an animatable object.” Abstract.
Independent claim 1 is representative and reproduced below, with emphasis
added to the disputed elements:
1. A method for permitting manipulation of an
animatable object, the method comprising:
detecting that a pointer device has positioned a
pointer at a first location coinciding with a first portion of
geometry of the animatable object, wherein the first
location does not coincide with any predefined location of
one or more first manipulators associated with the first
portion of geometry;
responsive to the detecting that the pointer device
has positioned the pointer at the first location:
tentatively selecting the one or more first
manipulators associated with the first portion of
geometry, and
prior to receiving a selection event from the
pointer device, displaying a respective representation of
each of the one or more tentatively selected first
manipulators, wherein the respective representation of
each of the one or more tentatively selected first
Appeal 2019-000082
Application 14/638,840

3
manipulators is displayed without displaying
representations of corresponding handles used to control
parameters associated with the first portion of geometry;
and
responsive to a selection of one of the one or
more first manipulators that are tentatively selected,
displaying representations of one or more handles
corresponding to the one of the one or more first
manipulators and used to control parameters associated
with the first portion of geometry.

App. Br. 22 (Claims App’x).

B. The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4–7, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Perrey (US 2016/0081659
A1; Mar. 24, 2016) and Herman (US 2006/0274070 A1; Dec. 7, 2006).
Final Act. 2; Ans. 14–15.
The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Perrey, Herman, Garding (US 2005/0166148 A1; July 28,
2005), and Blanford (US 2008/0101682 A1; May 1, 2008). Final Act. 9.
The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Perrey, Herman, and Chang (US 6,091,415; July 18,
2000). Final Act. 11.
The Examiner rejects claims 11 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Perrey, Herman, and Swanson (US 2016/0092080
A1; Mar. 31, 2016). Final Act. 13.
The Examiner rejects claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Perrey, Herman, and Rogers (US 2010/0122194 A1; May
13, 2010). Final Act. 14.
Appeal 2019-000082
Application 14/638,840

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make
are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Except where noted, we adopt
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own, and add the following
primarily for emphasis.

A. Obviousness Rejection of Claim 1
Appellants argue “the Examiner’s mapping of the ‘rotation mode’ in
Herman to the claimed ‘one of the one or more first manipulators,’ and the
‘arcball controller’ in Herman to the claimed ‘one or more handles
corresponding to the one of the one or more first manipulators’” is improper
because “Herman defines the ‘arcball rotation controller’ and not the
‘rotation mode’ as being an ‘example manipulator.’” Reply Br. 3 (emphasis
omitted). Appellants contend that “[u]nder the broadest reasonable
interpretation standard,” “the ordinary and customary meaning of the
claimed ‘one or more manipulators’ contradicts the Examiner’s mapping of
the ‘one or more manipulators’ to the ‘rotation mode’ in Herman.” Reply
Br. 4 (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(en banc)).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that
if the user selects a joint and then chooses “rotation mode”, an
arcball controller will be created by the application and
connected as a child of the joint node. When the user later
deselects the joint or changes to a different manipulation mode,
the application will delete the arcball controller. Therefore, the
Appeal 2019-000082
Application 14/638,840

5
“rotation mode” corresponds to the [claimed] manipulator, and
“the arcball controller” corresponds to the [claimed] handle.
Ans. 16. The Examiner further finds that “[a] proper mapping is based on
the element’s nature and/or functionality, not the name used by individuals.”
Ans. 16–17. We agree. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (explaining that the test for whether a prior art reference discloses a
claim element is not a “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test”).
Appellants also argue that “the Examiner has not interpreted the
claimed ‘one or more manipulators’ . . . consistently” because
Perrey and Herman’s teachings relate to different kinds of
“bodies,” the “menus” in Perrey showing workflows for
performing medical examinations on the human body are
fundamentally different from the “rotation mode” used to create
manipulators for an “animated body” in Herman’s CG
animation system.
Reply Br. 7 (emphasis omitted) (citing Perrey ¶ 15; Herman ¶ 274).
Appellants contend
the Examiner’s mapping of both Herman’s manipulators for
manipulating “animatable elements of the 3-D scene” in a CG
animation system, as well as Perrey’s menus displaying medical
examination workflows, to the claimed “one or more
manipulators” is an inconsistent mapping.
Reply Br. 7 (citing Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342
(Fed. Cir. 2001); CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Tura LP, 112 F.3d 1146, 1159
(Fed. Cir. 1997)).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Both Perrey and
Herman display graphical models that include modeling anatomical regions.
See Perrey, Fig. 2, steps 202, 204; Herman Abstract, ¶ 187. While the
ultimate aim of each invention might differ, both inventions provide
Appeal 2019-000082
Application 14/638,840

6
solutions to a common problem of performing manipulations of a visual
nature on an object illustrated using a graphical interface. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, that:
the menu of Perrey corresponds to steps to be performed on the
selected anatomical region. In other words, the menu indicates
manipulation(s) on the selected anatomical region. On the other
hand, as set forth above, Herman discloses a rotation mode
which is used as an indicator of a rotation manipulation on the
geometry of [a] “joint.” Both the menu of Perrey and the
rotation mode of Herman correspond to a type of manipulation
onto a body part, therefore, it is proper to combine them by
replacing the menu of Perrey with the rotation mode of
Herman.

Ans. 18 (citing Perrey ¶ 34); see also Ans. 17 (citing Herman ¶ 187).
Contrary to Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has “not articulated
adequate reasoning for the proposed modification of Perrey with Herman”
(Reply Br. 8 (emphasis omitted)), the Examiner finds, and we agree, that “a
3D object is closer to real life experience, and a manipulator with
corresponding handles enable[s] a user to easily operate on the 3D object
by following a smooth control flow” and would thus “enhance the user’s
experience.” Ans. 19 (emphasis added) (citing Herman Abstract, ¶ 166).
Separately, we note that such a combination would further provide “a very
intuitive way” for a user to perform operations that require “interfacing with
the graphical model” (Perrey ¶ 27), such as those graphical models provided
in either Herman or Perrey.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 13, and 22, and all dependent claims not argued separately. See
App. Br. 17–20.
Appeal 2019-000082
Application 14/638,840

7
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–8, 11–18, and 21–23 as
obvious is affirmed.
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