Ex Parte Hadley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

13752060 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 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.
13/752,060 01/28/2013 Brent L. Hadley 5013899.055US1 2087
128836 7590 02/17/2017
Wnmhle Parlvle SanHriHae Rr Rioe T T P
EXAMINER
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
PERROMAT, CARLOS
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
OPQA
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2017 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):
ipdocketing @ wcsr. com
patentadmin @ B oeing. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRENT L. HADLEY, JOSPEH F. FLOYD, PATRICK J. EAMES,
and KYLE M. HADLEY
Appeal 2016-005060
Application 13/752,0601
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—21, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify The Boeing Company as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-005060
Application 13/752,060
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a panoptic
visualization of a three-dimensional representation of a complex system.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An apparatus for implementation of a system for panoptic
visualization of a three-dimensional (3D) representation of a
complex system, the apparatus comprising a processor and a
memory storing executable instructions that, in response to
execution by the processor, cause the apparatus to implement at
least:
a visualization engine configured to receive a digital 3D
model of a complex system and from the digital 3D model,
produce a plurality of electronic document components including
two-dimensional (2D) images depicting elements of the complex
system; and
a data extractor coupled to the visualization engine and
configured to generate 2D derivatives of the 3D model, including
for each of one or more document components, the data extractor
being configured to:
receive the document component including a 2D
image depicting an element of the complex system, and
extract from the 3D model, information identifying a
spatial, design or functional relationship between the
respective element and one or more other, different
elements of the complex system depicted by the respective
2D image or another 2D image of the 2D images depicting
elements of the complex system; and
provide the extracted information as structured
information in metadata according to some metadata
schema and associated with the document component,
wherein the data extractor is configured to communicate
the 2D derivatives for inclusion in a panoptic visualization
document collection, the 2D derivatives including the document
components and associated metadata.
2
Appeal 2016-005060
Application 13/752,060
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as
claims on appeal is:
Shema et al.
Davis et al.
Tsai et al.
Mangon et al.
US 6,766,331 B2
US 2008/0247635 Al
US 2009/0138139 Al
US 7,761,266 B2
evidence in rejecting the
July 20, 2004
Oct. 9, 2008
May 28, 2009
July 20, 2010
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—4, 8—11, and 15—18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shema in view of Tsai and Mangon.
Final Act. 4—14.
Claims 5—7, 12—14, and 19-21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shema in view of Tsai, Mangon,
and Davis. Final Act. 14—21.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
On this record, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding claims
1—21 that the Examiner erred.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Shema teaches or
suggests extracting “from the 3D model, information identifying a spatial,
design or functional relationship between the respective element and one or
more other, different elements” and providing that extracted information as
metadata as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6—8; Reply Br. 2—\. Specifically,
3
Appeal 2016-005060
Application 13/752,060
Appellants argue the cited sections of Shema all involve depicting the same
part, not information of the relationship between different elements of the
complex system. App. Br. 7—8. According to Appellants, “Shema may
extract information for a depicted element from the legacy graphics file, but
this information simply identifies the same element in the same or different
drawings in the file.” Reply Br. 3; see also Reply Br. 3^4 (discussing
sections cited by Examiner).
The Examiner finds Shema teaches or suggests extracting
“information identifying a spatial, design or functional relationship between
the respective element and one or more other different elements of the
complex system depicted by the respective 2D image or another 2D image
of the 2D images depicting elements of the complex system.” Final Act. 5
(citing Shema 11:58—12:4, 13:31—47, 14:24—31). The Examiner further
finds Shema teaches generating relationship information between the parts in
the 2D model. Ans. 3—7 (citing Shema [57], 6:46—67,7:6—39, 7:40-61, 8:9-
29, 10:25-64, 11:58-12:4, 13:31^47).
We have reviewed the cited sections of Shema. We determine that the
Examiner’s finding is not supported by Shema for the reasons argued by
Appellants. That is, we agree that the cited sections of Shema all involve
different views of the same element and not “information identifying a
spatial, design or functional relationship between the respective element and
one or more other, different elements'1'’ as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 12
(Claims App’x) (emphasis added).
Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments
advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other
arguments.
4
Appeal 2016-005060
Application 13/752,060
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along with the rejections of claims 8 and
15, which recite limitations commensurate in scope to the disputed
limitations discussed above, and dependent claims 2—7, 9-14, and 16—21.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting
claims 1—21.
REVERSED
5