Ex Parte Bachrach et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 21, 2016

13204534 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/204,534 08/05/2011 107456 7590 07/25/2016 Artegis Law Group, LLP John Carey 7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104 Houston, TX 77095 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR JONATHAN BACHRACH 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. AUT0/1233 1086 EXAMINER COTHRAN, BERNARD E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2128 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/25/2016 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): algdocketing@artegislaw.com kcruz@artegislaw.com mmccauley@artegislaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JONATHAN BACHRACH and SAUL GRIFFITH Appeal2015-002247 Application 13/204,534 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, KAMRAN JIVANI, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1, 4--9, 12-17, and 20-24, which are all the claims pending in the present patent application. Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 18, and 19 are cancelled. App. Br. 13-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants identify Autodesk, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2015-002247 Application 13/204,534 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present application relates to a surfacing algorithm for designing and manufacturing 3D objects. Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1 is illustrative (disputed limitations emphasized): 1. A computer-implemented method for processing three-dimensional (3D) model data that models an object, the method comprising: receiving, by a software application stored in a memory and executed on a processor, a set of 3D geometry elements that model the object, wherein the 3D geometry elements comprise a mesh of triangles within a 3D coordinate space; and decomposing the 3D geometry elements into a collection of one or more two-dimensional (2D) panels, wherein each 2D panel encodes a distinct portion of the 3D model data of the object, wherein decomposing the 3D geometry elements into the collection of one or more 2D panels comprises: initializing the 2D panels such that each 2D panel is one of the triangles in the mesh of triangles; and iteratively: identifYing one or more potential mergings of pairs of 2D panels that share common edges in the 3D geometry, for each potential merging in the one or more potential mergings: evaluating a function that assigns a number to the potential merging based on geometric properties of a 2D panel that 2 Appeal2015-002247 Application 13/204,534 would result from the potential merging, and selecting one potential merging from the one or more potential mergings based on the assigned numbers, until termination criteria are satisfied. The Rejections Claims 1, 4---6, 9, 12-14, 17, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) over Massarwi et al., "Papercraft Models using Generalized Cylinders." Claims 7, 8, 15, 16, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Massarwi and Wu, "3D Part Segmentation Using Simulated Electrical Charge Distributions," IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 19 (Nov. 1997). ANALYSIS Anticipation The disputed limitations of claim 1 recite in relevant part, "identifying ... potential mergings of pairs of 2D panels," where "each 2D panel is one of the triangles in the mesh of triangles." The Examiner rejects claim 1 as anticipated by Massarwi and states, "The Examiner is interpreting the triangles of the 2D strips to be the 2D panels." Final Act. 7. Appellants contend, inter alia, the Examiner errs because the cited portions of Massarwi describe identifying potential mergings of Massarwi' s 2D strips, but not the individual triangles within 3 Appeal2015-002247 Application 13/204,534 those strips, which the Examiner maps to the 2D panels. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5. We agree with Appellants. A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claims is found, either expressly or inherently described in a single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil. Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We have reviewed the portions of Massarwi cited by the Examiner, namely Sections 3 and 3.2.2-3.4. Although we find therein description of identifying potential mergings of Massarwi' s 2D strips, we do not find therein description of identifying potential mergings of individual triangles within those strips, as required by claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, nor its dependent claims 4---6. The Examiner makes similar findings for similar limitations in independent claims 9 and 17. Final Act. 11-13 and 15-17. Accordingly, for the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 9 and 17, nor their respective dependent claims 12-14 and 20-22. Obviousness Having not sustained the Examiner's rejection of each independent claim, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 7, 8, 15, 16, 23, and 24 for the same reasons discussed above. 4 Appeal2015-002247 Application 13/204,534 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1, 4--9, 12-17, and 20-24. REVERSED 5