Ex Parte Desgranges et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 2014

11419017 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014)

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. 11/419,017 05/18/2006 Philippe Desgranges 2005P09544US01 8625 28524 7590 08/29/2014 SIEMENS CORPORATION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 170 WOOD AVENUE SOUTH ISELIN, NJ 08830 EXAMINER PRENDERGAST, ROBERTA D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2614 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/29/2014 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 PHILIPPE DESGRANGES and KLAUS D. ENGEL ____________ Appeal 2012-004543 Application 11/419,017 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH, and STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-004543 Application 11/419,017 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Representative Claim 1. A method for computing shading of a volume comprising: rendering a slice of said volume along a half-angle direction that is between a light direction and a view direction; rendering a slice of said volume along said light direction to assimilate shadow information of said slice in a shadow map; and bleeding said shadow map orthogonal to said light direction, without using gradients, to shade said slice by extending a shadow region of an object toward an outside of said object where said shadow region intersects said slice. Prior Art Snyder US 5,870,097 Feb. 9, 1999 Donovan US 6,593,923 B1 July 15, 2003 Joe Kniss et al., A Model for Volume Lighting and Modeling, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, Vol. 9, No. 2, 150–162 (April–June 2003) (“Kniss”). Definition of “assimilate” from Merriam-Webster online Dictionary, http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/assimilate (last visited Nov. 22, 2011). Definition of “gradient” from Merriam-Webster online Dictionary, http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/gradient (last visited Nov. 22, 2011). Appeal 2012-004543 Application 11/419,017 3 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 2, 8–12, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kniss and Donovan. Claims 3–7 and 13–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kniss, Donovan, and Snyder. ANALYSIS Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 8-12, 18, and 19 Claim 1 recites “bleeding said shadow map orthogonal to said light direction, without using gradients.” The Examiner finds shading homogenous regions which have low gradient magnitude using light attenuation as taught by Kniss teaches bleeding without using gradients. Ans. 6 (citing Kniss 156). According to the Examiner, Appellants’ Specification discloses the scope of bleeding without using gradients encompasses bleeding using gradients. Ans. 20. In particular, the Examiner finds bleeding with a central offset as disclosed in paragraph 54 of Appellants’ Specification uses a falloff region, which is a slope, or gradient. Ans. 20–21. Appellants contend the falloff region is not a slope or gradient because it is a theoretical distance compared against the distance between a pixel and the center of the shadow buffer. Reply Br. 3–4. We agree with Appellants. The Examiner has not persuasively explained how shading low gradient magnitude regions as taught by Kniss teaches bleeding without using gradients as required by claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or dependent claims 2 and 8–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Independent claim 11 contains a limitation similar to that recited in claim 1 for which the rejection fails. We do not Appeal 2012-004543 Application 11/419,017 4 sustain the rejection of claim 11 or dependent claims 12, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claims 3-7 and 13-17 The Examiner has not established that Snyder teaches bleeding without using gradients as required by claims 1 and 11. We do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3–7 and 13–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The rejections of claims 1–19 are reversed. REVERSED msc