Ex Parte Itkowitz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 1, 2014

11169271 (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 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.
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