Ex Parte Collomb

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 11, 2013

10580310 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte CEDRICK STANISLAS COLLOMB
_____________

Appeal 2010-009583
Application 10/580,310
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before, JEAN R. HOMERE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009583
Application 10/580,310
2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection
of claims 1-9 and 13-15.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to an apparatus and method for forming a two
dimensional map of a three dimensional environment. Abstract. Claims 1 and 3
are representative of the invention and are reproduced below:
1. A method performed by a computer of forming a two
dimensional map of a three dimensional environment, there being a
map origin located in the three dimensional environment, a viewing
direction vector defined passing through the map origin, and a one-to-
one correspondence between map positions in the map and the
directions of vectors passing through the map origin;
the method comprising the steps of:
associating by the computer an environment position in the
three dimensional environment with a folded vector that passes
through the map origin, the folded vector lying in a plane containing
both the viewing direction vector and the environment position and
forming an angle with the viewing direction vector that is a
predetermined function of the angle between the viewing direction
vector and a vector between the map origin and the environment
position;
associating by the computer an environment position with the
map position corresponding to the direction of the folded vector
associated with that environment position; and
deriving by the computer properties for a map position from the
properties of the corresponding environment position.

3. A method according to claim 2, in which the predetermined
function is a multiplication by 0.5.

1 Claims 10-12 were previously cancelled.
Appeal 2010-009583
Application 10/580,310
3

REFERENCES

Voorhies US 5,704,024 Dec. 30, 1997

Cerny US 2003/0112238 A1 Jun. 19, 2003

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1-9 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Voorhies and Cerny. Ans. 3-10.

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Voorhies and Cerny
teaches or suggests forming a two dimensional map of a three dimensional
environment and deriving, by a computer, properties for a map position from
properties of a corresponding environment position, as required by independent
claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Voorhies and Cerny
teaches or suggests the predetermined function being a multiplication by 0.5, as
required by dependent claim 3?

Appeal 2010-009583
Application 10/580,310
4

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 13-15
Appellant contends that Voorhies fails to describe forming a two-
dimensional map of a three-dimensional environment, as required by independent
claim 1.2 App. Br. 17-19. Specifically, Appellant argues that Voorhies does not
teach the disputed limitation because the two-dimensional map referred to by the
Examiner is created using an existing three dimensional environment map rather
than a three dimensional environment itself. App. Br. 17-19 (citing Voorhies 9:24-
27, Figures 3 and 6).
We find that the claim does not preclude using a three dimensional
environment map to form a two dimensional map of a three dimensional
environment. As such, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 11) that Voorhies
teaches that any plane (or face) in the three-dimensional environment shown in
Figure 6 can be stored as a two-dimensional map of the three-dimensional
environment, thus meeting the requirements of the claim.
Appellant additionally contends that Voorhies fails to describe deriving, by
the computer, properties for a map position from the properties of a corresponding
environment because Voorhies fails to describe deriving initial data for the map
from properties of the corresponding environmental position. App. Br. 19-20. We
disagree. The Examiner finds that Voorhies describes deriving shading values for
a particular two-dimensional map from the corresponding reflection vector
represented by the coordinates of 2.5, 1.0, and -2.0shown in Figure 6. Ans. 12-13
(citing 12:13-31). Thus, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that these shading

2 We select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims comprising 1, 2, 4-9,
and 13-15 as Appellant has not argued any of the other claims with particularity.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2010-009583
Application 10/580,310
5

values are properties associated with the two dimensional map position that was
created using the three dimensional environment position. Ans. 12-13.
For the reasons stated supra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1, 2, 4-9, and 13-15.

Claim 3
The Examiner finds that Voorhies describes a shift operation where, if
shifted to the left, the predetermined function could be the reciprocal of a
multiplier of 2, or 0.5, as required by dependent claim 3. Ans. 15 (citing Fig. 11,
1320). Appellant contends that Voorhies does not describe the predetermined
function being a multiplication of 0.5 because the portion of Voorhies referred to
multiplies E by (N*N) instead of the claimed 0.5. App. Br. 24 (citing Voorhies
Fig. 11, 1320). We agree with Appellant.
The Examiner has not shown, or explained in a sufficient manner, where the
references teaches that a shift to the left can or would occur and that the multiplier
could or would be 0.5. Instead, Figure 11 of Voorhies only shows that the output
of 1320 (E * (N * N)) is subtracted from the output of 1325 (2 * N * (N * E)) to
produce 2 * N * (N * E) – E * (N * N). See also Voorhies, col. 15, ll. 25-39.
Additionally, we do not find anywhere in the reference where the predetermined
function is multiplied by 0.5, as required by claim 3. Thus, for the reasons stated
supra, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Voorhies and
Cerny teaches or suggests forming a two dimensional map of a three dimensional
environment and deriving, by a computer, properties for a map position from
Appeal 2010-009583
Application 10/580,310
6

properties of a corresponding environment position, as required by independent
claim 1.
The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Voorhies and Cerny
teaches or suggests the predetermined function being a multiplication by 0.5, as
required by dependent claim 3.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 13-15 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claim 3 is reversed.
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-IN-PART

tj