Ex Parte Huang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 18, 2014

10416459 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 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.
10/416,459 10/06/2003 Ding Huang 01596/001614-US0 4313
76808 7590 07/18/2014
Leason Ellis LLP
One Barker Avenue
Fifth Floor
White Plains, NY 10601-1526
EXAMINER
BROOME, SAID A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/18/2014 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 DING HUANG
____________

Appeal 2012-002220
Application 10/416,459
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS,
and MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 21-33, 42, and 44-46, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. Claims 1-20, 34-41, and 43 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

Appeal 2012-002220
Application 10/416,459

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to simulation of object deformation.
(See Spec. 2:1-5.) Exemplary independent claim 21 reads as follows:
21. A computerized method for using curves to
construct and control a geometric model of at least one
physical object for simulation, animation or visual
communication by a computer, said method comprising
the steps of:
(a) providing to the computer a geometric model
representing a physical object, at least a portion of the
topography of the surface of said physical object being
controlled by an underlying muscle mechanism of
deformation of said physical object;
(b) providing and locating at least one control
curve in the model based on the topography of said
model such that modification of at least a section of said
control curve has an effect on the topography of the
model that is geometrically analogous to the effect of
movement of the underlying muscle mechanism of
deformation has on the topography of the surface of said
physical object;
(c) associating elements of said model with
elements of said at least one control curve by the
computer so that said curves control movement of said
elements of said model;
(d) dynamically modifying said at least one curve
so that said model is dynamically changed so as to
simulate the effect of the movement of the underlying
muscle mechanism of deformation on the topography of
the surface of the object to move a particular point on
said surface to a different location, wherein said
modifying of said curves is integral to simulating
movement in the model equivalent to movement due to
the underlying muscle mechanism of deformation of the
physical object; and
(e) displaying the dynamically changed model.
Appeal 2012-002220
Application 10/416,459

3
Applied Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Sagar et al.
(hereinafter “Sagar”)
US 6,064,390 May 16, 2000
Wolverton et al.
(hereinafter “Wolverton”)
US 6,486,882 B1 Nov. 26, 2002
Karan Singh & Eugene Fiume, Wires: A Geometric Deformation
Technique, 1998 SIGGRAPH ’98: PROC. OF THE 25TH ANN. CONF. ON
COMPUTER GRAPHICS & INTERACTIVE TECHS. 405 (hereinafter “Singh”).
M. Pourazady & X. Xu, Direct manipulations of B-spline and NURBS
curves, ADVANCES IN ENGINEERING SOFTWARE, Feb. 2000, at 107
(hereinafter “Pourazady”).
Rejections
Claims 21-29 and 31-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Singh and Wolverton. (Ans. 4-17.)
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Singh, Wolverton, and Pourazady. (Ans. 17-19.)
Claims 42 and 44-46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sagar, Wolverton, and Pourazady. (Ans. 19-26.)

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 21-29 and 31-33
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 is improper
because the Examiner has read out of the claim two features: “an analog
between the effects of rational curves on a model, and the effects of the
movement of underlying muscles on a physical object” and “simulates
complex movement of real-world objects such as muscles, which is much
Appeal 2012-002220
Application 10/416,459

4
more complex than the mechanical movement of scale, rotation and
translation.” (See App. Br. 8, 13.) Appellant also argues that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 is improper because Wolverton fails to
disclose the feature “‘underlying muscle fiber movement causing movement
to the outer surface.’” (See App. Br. 8, 16.) According to Appellant, “[t]he
Examiner has failed to appreciate the invention as claimed, which recites,
inter alia, dynamically modifying at least one curve so that said model is
dynamically changed so as to simulate the effect of the movement of the
surface relative to the underlying muscle mechanism of deformation.” (See
id. at 16.)
Although the Examiner properly finds that claim 21 does not recite
the first two argued features verbatim, (see Ans. 26-27; see also App. Br. 2,
14-15, tbl.1), claim 21 recites, in relevant part, “dynamically modifying said
at least one curve so that said model is dynamically changed so as to
simulate the effect of the movement of the underlying muscle mechanism of
deformation on the topography of the surface of the object.” (See App. Br.
2.) Given the language recited in claim 21, we are persuaded by Appellant’s
argument that the Examiner has not shown that the applied prior art
discloses the step of dynamically modifying the curve.
Wolverton discloses a muscle generation process, where a muscle
structure is populated with muscle fibers during animation. (See Wolverton,
col. 11, ll. 19-24, 33-37; see also App. Br. 16.) According to the Examiner,
movement of the muscle fibers causes movement of an outer surface of the
Appeal 2012-002220
Application 10/416,459

5
muscle structure. (See Ans. 8-9, 27.1) As Appellant points out, however,
movement of the muscle fibers does not alter the surface of the muscle
structure but instead serves to reveal progressively the muscle structure.
(See App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 6-7; see also Wolverton, col. 11, ll. 19-52.)
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 21-29 and 31-33.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claim 30
Maintaining Appellant’s arguments with respect to the Singh and
Wolverton references, Appellant further argues that Pourazady fails to cure
the deficiencies of those references. (See App. Br. 18.) For the reasons
discussed above, we agree with Appellant. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 30.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of claims 42 and 44-46
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed combination is
improper because Sager and Wolverton fail to disclose “dynamically
shaping a surface topo[graphy] based on an underlying rational curve that is
analogous to an underlying muscle.” (See App. Br. 20-21.) This feature,
though not recited verbatim in the claims, refers to features recited in
paragraphs (b) and (d) of claim 42. (See id. 4-5, 19-20.) We agree with the
Examiner’s discussion of Sager and Wolverton and find unpersuasive
Appellant’s arguments.

1 In the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner states,
“[t]he Examiner is incorrect.” (See Ans. 27.) This statement appears to be a
part of the Examiner’s restatement of Appellant’s arguments, but without
proper citation to those arguments. (See App. Br. 16.) Accordingly, we
attribute the statement to Appellant and do not treat it as an admission by the
Examiner.
Appeal 2012-002220
Application 10/416,459

6
As found by the Examiner, Sager discloses a method for representing
expression in a human face with a finite-element model. (See Sager, at [57];
see also Ans. 19.) Sager teaches generating in the model a wrinkle, which is
represented by a curve. (See Sager, col. 5, ll. 32-37; see also Ans. 19.) The
model is modified such that the wrinkle follows a stress contour. (See Sager,
col. 5, ll. 40-41; see also Ans. 20.) The wrinkle is manifested in the model
as a local change in the position of the surface of the model. (See Sager, col.
5, ll. 50-52; see also Ans. 21.) Sager further teaches that only a handful of
elements are needed to achieve realistic changes in expression. (See Sager,
col. 5, ll. 59-60; see also Ans. 21.) Thus, Sager discloses dynamically
shaping a surface topography of a model of a human face based on an
underlying curve that is analogous to an underlying facial muscle (which
causes a change in expression). (See also Sager, col. 6, ll. 2-6 (discussing a
partial wink as an example of expression resulting in a wrinkle); col. 6, ll.
13-16 (“modeling can be implemented as a temporal phenomenon, so that
the expression realized (including the incorporation of wrinkles) may be
represented as a time-varying phenomenon.”).)
As the Examiner notes, Sager’s curve is not a NURBS curve (rational
curve). (See Ans. 21.) The Examiner cites Wolverton, however, for its
teaching of a NURBS curve. (See id. at 22, 29.) The Examiner also points
out that Wolverton teaches that a NURBS curve “provides a modeler with a
high degree of flexibility that is required for representing highly detailed
curved bodies,” thus providing additional motivation for combining Sager
and Wolverton such that Sager’s curve is replaced with Wolverton’s
NURBS curve. (See Ans. 22; see also Wolverton, col. 7, ll. 11-15.)
Appeal 2012-002220
Application 10/416,459

7
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claims 42 and 44-46.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 42 and 44-46 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21-33 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2011).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

kme