Ex Parte Itkowitz et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 1, 201411169271 (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2014) 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. 11/169,271 06/28/2005 Brandon D. Itkowitz 2010508-0056 (GEO-018) 9762 22514 7590 05/02/2014 3D Systems, Inc. Attn: Keith A. Roberson 333 Three D Systems Circle Rock Hill, SC 29730 EXAMINER CERULLO, LILIANA P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2621 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/02/2014 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 BRANDON D. ITKOWITZ, LOREN C. SHIH, MARC DOUGLASS MIDURA, JOSHUA E. HANDLEY, AND WILLIAM ALEXANDER GOODWIN ____________ Appeal 2012-000666 Application 11/169,271 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-000666 Application 11/169,271 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 29-35 and 37-43. Claims 1-28 and 36 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to “haptic rendering of virtual environments.” (Spec. ¶ [0002]). Independent claim 29, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 29. A system for haptically rendering a three-dimensional virtual object in a virtual environment, the system comprising: a graphics thread that generates a visual display of a virtual environment, the graphics thread comprising graphics hardware with a graphics pipeline for creating a 2D screen view of a three-dimensional virtual object in the virtual environment, wherein graphical rendering data is generated to create the 2D screen view of the three dimensional virtual object, the graphical rendering data comprising at least one member selected from the group consisting of rasterization primitives, geometric primitives, lighting primitives, and camera primitives; a collision thread that determines if a user-directed virtual proxy collides with at least one geometric feature within the virtual environment using at least a subset of the graphical rendering data previously generated as a result of creating the 2D screen view, the graphical rendering data being received from the graphics pipeline of the graphics thread; and a servo thread that generates force to be applied to a user in real space through a haptic interface device according to input from the collision thread, wherein the servo thread is in communication with the haptic interface device. Appeal 2012-000666 Application 11/169,271 3 (Contested limitations emphasized). REJECTIONS A. Claims 29-31, 34, 35 and 39-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings and suggestions of non-patent publication Chih-Hao Ho et.al, Efficient Point-Based Rendering Techniques for Haptic Display of Virtual Objects, Proceedings of the Genetic Evolutionary Computation Conference, vol. 8, No. 5, 477-491 (October 1999) (hereinafter “Ho”) and US Patent Publication No. US 2005/0243086 A1 (Schechter). B. Claims 32 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings and suggestions of Ho and Schechter and US Patent No. 7,050,955 B1 (Carmel). C. Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings and suggestions of Ho and Schechter and non-patent publication Open Inventor 4.0 Release Notes (April 2003), http://www.vsg3d.com/support/oiv_doc/ReleaseNotes/OIV/frame.htm (last visited Nov. 23, 2009) (hereinafter “Release-Notes”). D. Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings and suggestions of Ho and Schechter and non-patent publication Performance Tips, (1996), http://www.vsg3d.com/support/oiv_doc/Info/PerformanceTips/frame. htm (last visited Nov. 23, 2009) (hereinafter “Performance-Tips”). Appeal 2012-000666 Application 11/169,271 4 GROUPING OF CLAIMS Based on Appellants’ arguments, we decide the appeal of § 103 rejection A on the basis of representative claim 29 (App. Br. 5-12). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).1 We address §103 rejections B, C, and D separately, infra. ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellant’s contentions regarding the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of the claims. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to arguments made in Appellant’s Appeal Brief. (Ans. 13-15). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below. Rejection A - Independent Claim 29 Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Ho and Schechter would have taught or suggested the contested limitation of “a collision thread that determines if a user-directed virtual proxy collides with at least one geometric feature within the virtual environment using at least a subset of the graphical rendering data previously generated as a result of creating the 2D screen view, the graphical rendering data being received from the graphics pipeline of the graphics thread” (emphasis added), within the meaning of representative claim 29? 1 Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on Nov. 17, 2010. The date of filing the Notice of Appeal determines which set of rules applies to an ex parte appeal. If a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to January 23, 2012, then the 2004 version of the Board Rules last published in the 2011 edition of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (37 C.F.R. § 41.1) applies to the appeal. See also MPEP 1220, Rev. 8, July 2010. Appeal 2012-000666 Application 11/169,271 5 Appellants contend the data in “the shared database in Ho” is not the same as “graphical rendering data ‘previously generated as a result of creating the 2D screen view’ as required by claim 29” (App. Br. 6) because it is not “2D screen view rendering data” (App. Br. 7). Appellants further contend Schechter does not teach “use of 2D screen view graphical rendering primitives in haptic rendering” (App. Br. 8). We do not find Appellant’s contentions persuasive. Claim 29 broadly recites a Markush group: “the graphical rendering data comprising at least one member selected from the group consisting of rasterization primitives, geometric primitives, lighting primitives, and camera primitives” (emphasis added). The Examiner cites the following section of Ho as teaching or suggesting graphical rendering data that comprises “geometric primitives”: Using this information, we construct another type of 2-D geometrical primitive – namely, the lines that are simply the edges of the triangular polygons. As a result, the polyhedral objects in our own database are made of three types of 2-D geometrical primitives: polygons, lines, and vertices. In order to implement a fast search technique for detecting collisions between the probe and 3-D objects, we extend our database such that each primitive has a list of its neighboring primitives. (Ho page 481, left column lines 4-13, cited in Final 4). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Ho would have taught or suggested graphical rendering data comprising at least geometrical primitives, as recited in the Markush group of claim 29. Regarding the claimed “graphical rendering data previously generated as a result of creating the 2D screen view,” the Examiner finds: Schechter discloses processing 3D virtual objects where graphical rendering data is generated to create a 2D screen view of a 3D object in a virtual environment (Schechter, para[s]. 51-53 and Fig. 9). Upon combination [of Ho and Appeal 2012-000666 Application 11/169,271 6 Schechter], the graphical rendering data to create the 2D screen view is 3D primitives, such as the ones taught by Ho’s database (Ho’s Fig. 2), and [these 3D graphical primitives are] used for both: the 2D screen view in the graphics thread (Schechter, para[s]. 51-53 and Fig. 9); and the collision detection in the haptic pipeline (Ho’s Fig. 1). And therefore, the data in the shared database will be previously generated (as shown in Ho’s Fig. 1, shared database feeding both Haptic and Visual Thread)[.] [I]t will be graphical rendering data in the form of primitives which was previously generated as a result of creating a 2D screen view (as taught by Schechter’s Fig. 9 and para. 69 use of 3D primitives for 2D camera view and Ho’s Fig. 2), received from the graphics pipeline of the graphics thread (Ho’s pg. 481 1st column lines 7-9 where the 2D polygon primitives are generated in Open Inventor, which is the graphics pipeline). (Ex. Ans. 14) (emphasis added). Thus, the Examiner relies upon the combination of Ho and Schechter to teach graphical rendering data generated as a result of creating a 2D screen view. Appellants’ arguments address the Ho and Schechter references separately, but do not address the combined teachings and suggestions of the: (1) 3D graphical primitives used for a visual thread of Ho (see Examiner’s discussion id.), and (2) creating a 2D view from 3D graphical primitives, as taught by Schechter. (Schechter, ¶¶ 51-53 and Fig. 9). One cannot show nonobviousness “by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on combinations of references.” See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). We also observe Appellants have not further rebutted the Examiner’s responsive arguments by filing a Reply Brief. Appeal 2012-000666 Application 11/169,271 7 Appellants additionally urge that, because Ho does not teach “2D screen view rendering data,” Ho’s three dimensional representation of a virtual object is not “graphical rendering data” (App. Br. 7). However, we note the argued limitation of “2D screen view rendering data” is not recited in the claim, and appears to be taken from Appellants’ Specification. Appellants further point to the description of “2D screen view rendering data, such as depth buffer data, [a]s used for haptic rendering” in paragraphs 0047-0052 of their Specification and Figure 1 to distinguish their invention from the cited references. App. Br. 8-9. These paragraphs describe features of a primary virtual camera, a haptic virtual camera, and a method for using these cameras for collision detection that are not claimed. We decline Appellants’ invitation to read limitations from the Specification into the claims. Our reviewing court guides: “although the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments. . . . [C]laims may embrace ‘different subject matter than is illustrated in the specific embodiments in the specification.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). Moreover, because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Accordingly, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection A of representative claim 29, and Appeal 2012-000666 Application 11/169,271 8 grouped claims 30, 31, 34, 35 and 39-43 (not argued separately), which fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). Rejection B - dependent Claims 32 and 33 Appellants contend: “Carmel does not teach the elements of independent claim 29 that are missing from Ho and Schechter” (App. Br. 12). We find no deficiencies regarding the base combination of Ho and Schechter for the reasons discussed above regarding rejection A of claim 29. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection B of claims 32 and 33 for the same reasons discussed supra, regarding claim 29. Rejection C - dependent Claim 37 Appellants contend: “the Release Notes do not teach the elements of independent claim 29 that are missing from Ho and Schechter” (App. Br. 12). We find no deficiencies regarding the base combination of Ho and Schechter for the reasons discussed above regarding rejection A of claim 29. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection C of claim 37 for the same reasons discussed supra, regarding claim 29. Rejection D - dependent Claim 38 Appellants contend: “the Performance Tips do not teach the elements of independent claim 29 that are missing from Ho and Schechter” (App. Br. 13). We find no deficiencies regarding the base combination of Ho and Schechter for the reasons discussed above regarding rejection A of claim 29. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection D of claim 38 for the same reasons discussed supra, regarding claim 29. Appeal 2012-000666 Application 11/169,271 9 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 29-35 and 37-43 under § 103. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation