Ex Parte Hamedi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

12865551 (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.
12/865,551 11/17/2010 Koshjar Hamedi 13003-000010/US/NPA 3763
112467 7590
Remarck Law Group PLC
Michael A Schaldenbrand
PO Box 210958
Auburn Hills, MI 48321
EXAMINER
ZHAI, KYLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2017 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):
mailbox @remarck.com
gail@remarck.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KOSHJAR HAMEDI and GUSTAF JOHANSSON
Appeal 2016-005260
Application 12/865,5511
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1, 4, 7—10, and 13—16. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, and 12
have been cancelled. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention “relates generally to 3d modeling and
visualization using polygonal meshes for computer graphics, and more
1 The real party in interest is Donya Labs AB.
Appeal 2016-005260
Application 12/865,551
particularly to techniques for semi-automatic optimization of polygonal 3d
mesh models.” Spec, p.l, 11. 4—6.
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A method of locally optimizing an initial mesh
model comprising data in three dimensions or more, which data
comprises a plurality of faces each defined by a plurality of
vertices connected by edges, the method comprising the steps of:
a) rendering at least a part of the initial mesh model on a
display;
b) receiving a first input from a user delineating a subpart
of the displayed initial mesh model;
c) receiving a second input from the user for adding or
removing data from the subpart of the displayed initial mesh
model;
d) creating a new mesh model by either:
i) adding data to the subpart of the displayed initial
mesh model by replacing a vertex in said subpart with a
pair of vertices defining a corresponding edge, or
ii) removing data from the subpart of the displayed
initial mesh model by removing an edge in said subpart
wherein the pair of vertices connected by said edge is
replaced by a single vertex; and
e) rendering the new mesh model on the display,
wherein the steps b) - e) are repeated at a frequency greater
than 10 Hz.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2003/0091227 Al; May 15, 2003), Zhou
et al. (US 2006/0284880 Al; Dec. 21, 2006), and Ogrinc et al. (US
8,334,857 Bl; Dec. 18,2012). Final Act. ^U11.
Claims 8—10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Chang, Zhou, Ogrinc, and Dayanand et al. (US 2007/0080960 Al;
Apr. 12, 2007). Final Act. 8—10.
2
Appeal 2016-005260
Application 12/865,551
Claims 13—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Chang, Zhou, Ogrinc, Andre Gueziec et al., A Framework for
Streaming Geometry in VRML, IEEE Computer Graphics and Application
(March/April 1999), and Jihad El-Sana and Amitabh Varshney, Generalized
View-Dependent Simplification, Eurographics, Vol. 18, No. 3. (1999).
Final Act. 10—13.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Chang, Zhou, Ogrinc, and Hoppe (US 5,929,860; July 27, 1999).
Final Act. 13—14.
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection Based on Chang, Zhou, and Ogrinc
Claims 1, 4, and 7
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 4, and 7.
Appellants argue that the combination of Chang, Zhou and Ogrinc
fails to teach or suggest “rendering the new mesh model on the display,
wherein the steps b) - e) are repeated at a frequency greater than 10 Hz.”
App. Br. 9-11. In particular, Appellants allege that
the combination of Chang, Zhou, and Ogrinc would teach
performing steps b), c), and d), which are allegedly taught by
Chang and Zhou, and repeating step e) at a frequency greater than
10 Hz (if refreshing a display constitutes “rendering the new
mesh model” as claimed, which it does not). The claims,
however, provide for repeating steps b) - e) at a frequency greater
3
Appeal 2016-005260
Application 12/865,551
than 10 Hz, and not just “refreshing a display” as alleged by the
Examiner to be disclosed by the combination.
App. Br. 10; see also App. Br. 12—13; Reply Br. 2-4.
As an initial matter, we consider the scope of the disputed limitation.
Appellants identify page 2, lines 14—16 of the Specification as support,
which states that “steps of 2 to 3 can [] be repeated in order to create an
interactive method of optimizing the model. This repeating step can be
performed at interactive display rates such as > 10 Hz.” According to
Appellants, claim 1 requires each of steps b-e be repeated at a frequency
greater than 10 Hz.
The Examiner, however, explains that “it is well known in the art,
rendering is a process of generating an image from a model, [and that] a
rendering pipeline has a frequency to process graphics data that is
corresponding to a display frequency (e.g., refresh rate).” Ans. 4. In other
words, a skilled artisan would understand the recited frequency of greater
than 10 Hz to apply to display frequency or refresh rate for rendering the
model.
We also note that the Specification refers to interactive display rates
as greater than 10 Hz. Spec., p. 2,11. 14—16. Further, because each of steps
b and c of claim 1 receives a first and second input from a user, Appellants
interpretation would require a user, such as a graphic artist (Spec. p. 5,11.
14—16), to provide the recited first and second input at the recited rate, i.e. a
rate of 10 times (or more) per second. Notably absent from either the claims
or the Specification is any description or explanation as to how inputs could
be received, from a user such as a graphic artist, at this recited frequency.
4
Appeal 2016-005260
Application 12/865,551
As such, we find Appellants’ interpretation, that each of steps b-e be
repeated at a frequency greater than 10 Hz, is unreasonable.
We are not persuaded, then, that the Examiner erred in interpreting the
frequency limitation to apply to the rendering of a new model step. As the
Examiner finds, Chang describes an interactive process where a user can
“change the location of vertices and add or remove polygons to improve the
accuracy or appearance of the polygon mesh” and that a user can
incrementally refine the model. See, e.g., Chang | 63. These teachings at
least suggest that the user input step, as well as the creating a new model and
rendering the new model steps, are repeated. Further, Ogrinc teaches a
refresh rate, i.e. a repeated display rate, greater than 10Hz. Ogrinc, col. 6,11.
44-48. We agree with the Examiner that these teachings combined satisfy
the disputed limitation of rendering the new mesh model on the display,
wherein the steps b) - e) are repeated at a frequency greater than 10 Hz.
Next, Appellants argue that because the Examiner admits that Chang
does not teach or suggest step b, Chang cannot teach or suggest steps c and
d. App. Br. 11—12. This argument, however, fails to consider the
combination of Change with Zhou, which the Examiner relies on as teaching
step b. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants additionally assert that a skilled artisan would not combine
Chang with Zhou. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 4—5. According to Appellants,
the selection of a region in Zhou is for texture mapping and,
5
Appeal 2016-005260
Application 12/865,551
[t]hus, it is not clear why one skilled in the art would look to
combine Zhou’s teaching of selecting a region of a 3D mesh (for
the purposes of texture mapping) with Chang’s teaching of
modifying a polygon mesh as there is no reason to select regions
in Chang because the polygon mesh is being modified as a whole.
App. Br. 12.
We disagree. As the Examiner explains,
[t]he motivation for [modifying Chang’s process to use Zhou’s
specified region based on user input] would have been providing
a mesh simplification procedure for constructing a progressive
mesh representation from an arbitrary mesh. In addition,
improving processing efficiency by reducing calculation
complexity.
Ans. 8. Chang also expressly notes that selecting a subset (or a subpart) may
reduce processing power. See, e.g., Chang 158. The Examiner, thus,
articulates some reasoning with some rational underpinning to sufficiently
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.2 Therefore, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding it would have been obvious
to combine Change and Zhou.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 4
and 7 not argued with particularity, as unpatentable over Chang, Zhou, and
Ogrinc.
2 We also note that the Examiner is not taking “Official Notice” of facts,
without citation of references as alleged by Appellants, but rather is merely
further explaining the reasoning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See, e.g., KSRInt’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007).
6
Appeal 2016-005260
Application 12/865,551
The Remaining Obviousness Rejections
Claims 8—10 and 13—16
Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of claims 8—10
and 13—16, and instead rely on the arguments presented for claim 1. See,
e.g., App. Br. 13—14. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Accordingly, we also sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8—10 and 13—16 as unpatentable over the
cited combinations of prior art.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 7—10, and 13—16 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7