Ex Parte Danks

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

13654578 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017)

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.
13/654,578 10/18/2012 Mark Edward Danks D86955.0004.2 (USA.505) 3085
22514 7590
3D Systems, Inc.
3D Systems, Inc.
333 Three D Systems Circle
Rock Hill, SC 29730
EXAMINER
AZAD, MD ABUL K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK EDWARD DANKS
Appeal 2016-001313
Application 13/654,57 81
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION.
Invention
Appellant discloses the use of control circuitry constructing an
instruction set for the customized image of a three-dimensional structure,
and control circuitry rendering the instruction set into a printable file usable
1 Appellant identifies 3D Systems Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br.
1.
Appeal 2016-001313
Application 13/654,578
by a three-dimensional printer (Abstract), the instruction set including a list
of core geometry for the customized image (Spec. 122).
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
receiving user input data via a user interface device for
customizing an image of a three-dimensional structure
displayed on the user interface device, the customized image of
the three-dimensional structure being composed of core
geometry;
control circuitry constructing an instruction set for the
customized image of the three-dimensional structure, the
instruction set for the customized image includes a list of the
core geometry of which the customized image of the three-
dimensional structure is composed; and
control circuitry rendering the instruction set into a
printable file useable by a three-dimensional printer, rendering
of the instruction set including creation of new geometry that
conforms to one or more three-dimensional printing
requirements.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Wu (2012/0224755 Al; Sept. 6, 2012). Final Act. 4—16.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Wu’s example of a program
script file with instructions and parameters as a printing template, and Wu’s
execution of a printing template that includes the step of generating a
geometric representation from an image, discloses control circuitry
constructing an instruction set for the customized image of the three-
2
Appeal 2016-001313
Application 13/654,578
dimensional structure, the instruction set for the customized image includes
a list of the core geometry of which the customized image of the three-
dimensional structure is composed, as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5 (citing
Wu 11 11, 34, 40, and 48).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Wu’s “printing
template is a software program for converting image data for 3D printing a
3D physical model. But. . . this printing template does not include a list of
core geometry of which a customized image of a 3D structure is composed.”
App. Br. 4. “Rather, the list of printing instructions is simply described as
instructions for moving a print head to various locations and depositing
building material for printing a 3D physical model.” Id. at 6 (citing Wu
143).
The Examiner finds Wu generates a geometric representation, and that
“data may also be organized as a list of printing instructions . . . that can be
used to complete [a] physical model printing process.” Ans. 17 (quoting Wu
143). However, consistent with Appellant’s arguments, Wu discloses that
the printing instructions that can be used to complete the physical model
printing process include instructions “such as ‘move to a location’, ‘deposit
a specified amount of building material’, ‘move to a new location’, etc.”
Wu 143. That is, “the list of printing instructions is simply described as
instructions for moving a print head to various locations and depositing
building material for printing a 3D physical model.” Reply Br. 4.
Although, as Appellant acknowledges, Wu also discloses geometric
representations of data (see Reply Br. 2; Wu 143), the Examiner’s findings
do not show that the printing instructions themselves in Wu include a list of
the core geometry of which the customized image of the three-dimensional
structure is composed. In identifying printing instructions as a way to
3
Appeal 2016-001313
Application 13/654,578
organize a data set for 3D printing, Wu explicitly discloses that “data
generated for 3D printing is not limited to geometric representations such as
points, contours or surfaces as described. The data may also be organized as
a list of printing instructions, such as ‘move to a location’, ‘deposit a
specified amount of building material’, ‘move to a new location’, etc.,” Wu
143 (emphasis added). Thus, printing instructions in Wu represent a
potential alternative to geometric representations (e.g., to a list of core
geometry), but Wu does not disclose that such printing instructions include
geometric representations. Therefore, the Examiner’s findings do not
persuasively show that Wu discloses “control circuitry constructing an
instruction set for the customized image of the three-dimensional structure,
the instruction set for the customized image includes a list of the core
geometry of which the customized image of the three-dimensional structure
is composed,” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2—24, which contain similar recitations.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Although we agree with Appellant that Wu does not explicitly disclose
an instruction set that includes a list of the core geometry in the manner
recited, such an instruction set would have been an obvious combination of
Wu’s list of printing instructions with Wu’s set of 3D contours or surface
models. Wu 143. The examples of Wu’s printing instructions specify how
a 3D image model is to be built while Wu’s 3D contours or surface models
describe what components are needed to build a 3D image model. Id. An
artisan of ordinary skill, possessing creativity and common sense, would
4
Appeal 2016-001313
Application 13/654,578
have recognized that these two concepts can be combined into an instruction
set that specifies both what to build and how to build an image model.
Combining instructions with data would have been a familiar concept
to an artisan of ordinary skill. For example, a number of programming
languages are renowned for being homoiconic such that they represent
programs and data using the same representation. See, e.g., Raphael A.
Finkel, Advanced Programming Language Design 106, available at
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Raphael_Finkel/publication/
220692467_Advanced_programmingJanguage_design/links/0c96052af3e3
24bf31000000.pdf (1996). In the world of two-dimensional printing, the
PostScript language used to describe printable materials famously works
within a rich executable environment, enabling PostScript language files to
specify both what to print and how to print it. See, e.g., Adobe Systems Inc.,
PostScript® Language Reference 185—86, available at https://www.adobe.
com/products/postscript/pdfs/PLRM.pdf (3d ed. 1999) (illustrating a
procedure for drawing a box that is called twice, thus including both
instructions and an identification of what is to be drawn).
Given that an artisan of ordinary skill would have recognized that
instructions and data can be intermingled, and given that the two forms of
3D printing data (instructions and geometry) are described in the same
paragraph of Wu (143), it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary
skill that an instruction set for a customized image of a three-dimensional
structure could be modified to further include a list of the core geometry of
which the customized image of the three-dimensional structure is composed
(see also Wu H 34 and 40).
Appellant does not persuasively show error in the other findings the
Examiner makes with respect to claim 1, as well as claims 4—13 and 16—24.
5
Appeal 2016-001313
Application 13/654,578
Thus, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, as modified above,
with respect to these claims. Accordingly, we newly reject claims 1, 4—13,
and 16—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Wu.
With respect to claims 2 and 14, Appellant argues that Wu’s
identification of voxels in an image data set “is based on a predefined
template and does not account for user input.” App. Br. 8. Thus, Appellant
argues Wu fails to disclose receiving the user input data for customizing the
image of the three-dimensional structure includes receiving locations for
placing objects on the image of the three-dimensional structure. Id.
However, Appellant does not persuasively show error in the Examiner’s
finding that Wu’s receiving input data discloses the recitation of receiving
user input data via a user interface device for customizing an image of a
three-dimensional structure, as recited in claim 1 (from which claim 2
depends). Final Act. 4 (citing Wu 144). Moreover, Wu teaches that data
representing an image data set for 3D printing can identify a location. See
Wu 133 (“data may also be organized as a list of printing instructions, such
as ‘move to a location’”). As such, Wu’s identification of locations in an
image data set teaches or suggests “receiving locations for placing objects on
the image of the three-dimensional structure,” as recited in claim 2 (and
similarly recited in claim 14).
Accordingly, we newly reject claims 2 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Wu.
Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 3 and 15, which are
directed to receiving locations for placing decals on the image of the three-
dimensional structure, are similar to those made with respect to claims 2 and
14. App. Br. 8—9. Appellant merely adds the conclusory assertion that “Wu
fails to mention that the identification of voxels comprises or is based on
6
Appeal 2016-001313
Application 13/654,578
receiving user-defined locations for placing decals on an image.” Id. at 9.
However, Appellant fails to provide persuasive arguments or evidence to
support this contention. Therefore, for the reasons given above, we also
newly reject claims 3 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Wu.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—24.
We newly reject claims 1—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
This Decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.” Section 41.50(b) also provides:
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the appellant,
within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground
of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected
claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an
appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or
new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or
both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner, in which event the prosecution will be
remanded to the examiner. The new ground of
rejection is binding upon the examiner unless an
amendment or new Evidence not previously of
Record is made which, in the opinion of the
examiner, overcomes the new ground of rejection
designated in the decision. Should the examiner
reject the claims, appellant may again appeal to the
Board pursuant to this subpart.
7
Appeal 2016-001313
Application 13/654,578
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the
proceeding be reheard under §41.52 by the Board
upon the same Record. The request for rehearing
must address any new ground of rejection and state
with particularity the points believed to have been
misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new
ground of rejection and also state all other grounds
upon which rehearing is sought.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01 (9th Ed.,
Rev. 07.2015, Nov. 2015).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
REVERSED
37 C.F.R, § 41.50(b)
8