Ex Parte Hadley et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 201713752060 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation