Ex Parte Kaytis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 23, 2016

12420014 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/420,014 0410712009 63649 7590 03/25/2016 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP 26522 LA ALAMEDA A VENUE, SUITE 360 MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Clay Kaytis 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 0260318 1674 EXAMINER TRYDER, GREGORY J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2617 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2016 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): docketing@farj ami. com farjamidocketing@yahoo.com ffarj ami @farj ami. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CLAY KA YTIS, JOHN EDGAR PARK, GENE LEE, PHILIPPE BROCHU, and HIDETAKA YOSUMI Appeal 2014-005361 1 Application 12/420,014 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-9, 11-15, and 17-19, which consist of all the claims pending in this appeal. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Disney Enterprises, Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-005361 Application 12/420,014 Appellants' Invention Appellants invented a method and system for modeling an object having a plurality of surface configurations wherein two or more surfaces are combined to define a geometry with a number of point sets increased in areas of higher deformations (i.e., joint areas of the body with large movements, e.g., elbow, neck). Spec. 3:3-13, 12:7-23, Fig. 4. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: modeling an object using an electronic device, the object being configurable into one of a plurality of different surface configurations, and wherein a model comprises at least two of the plurality of different surface configurations of the object, wherein each of the surface configurations in the model is associated with one of two or more first surface geometrics in the model; wherein each of the surface configurations contains distance values corresponding to a distance between distance measurement nodes on each of the surface configurations, wherein the distance measurement nodes increase in areas of higher deformation; and determining a second surface geometry for a surface configuration of the object, the determining based upon a blending of the two or more first surface geometries in the model, the two or more first surface geometries chosen based on the distance values. Prior Art Relied Upon Strassenburg-Kleciak Sheffler US 2006/0188143 Al US 8,054,311 B 1 2 Aug.24,2006 Nov. 8, 2011 Appeal2014-005361 Application 12/420,014 Rejections on Appeal Appellants request review of the following Examiner's rejections: Claims 1-5, 14, 15, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Strassenburg-Kleciak.2 Claims 7-9 and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over the combination of Strassburg-Kleciak and Sheffler. ANALYSIS Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103, did the Examiner err in finding Strassenburg-Kleciak teaches or suggests "the distance measurement nodes increase in areas of higher deformation" as recited in independent claim 1? We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 9-16, and the Reply Brief, pages 2-5. 3 We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions. Except as indicated otherwise, 2 The status of claim 6 in this appeal is unclear. In the final office action, the Examiner indicated the claim has been withdrawn, and is thereby omitted from any of the grounds of rejection. However, Appellants indicate that the claim still pending. App. Brief 15. 3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 25, 2013), the Reply Brief (filed March 24, 2014), and the Answer (mailed January 27, 2014) for their respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). 3 Appeal2014-005361 Application 12/420,014 we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. See Ans. 3-31; Final Act. 2-30. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Appellants argue Strassenburg-Kleciak does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation emphasized above. App. Br. 9-13; Reply Br. 2-5. In particular, Appellants argue "Strassenburg-Kleciak merely discloses a distance between the identified surface and another geometric point may be used to determine if the geometric point is part of the identified surface." App. Br. 11 (citing Strassenburg-Kleciak i-f 79). According to Appellants, although the geometric point may be at the comer/edge of a surface when the geometric point is within a distance of (may be assigned to) multiple surfaces, Strassenburg-Kleciak does not teach increasing geometric points at the comer/edge (i.e., higher deformation areas). Id.; Reply Br. 3--4. This argument is not persuasive. At the outset, we note Appellants' Specification does not define the phrase "the distance measurement nodes increase in areas of higher deformation." Spec. 12:7-23. As noted above, Appellants do not dispute that the cited phrase encompasses determining whether certain geometric points between multiple surfaces (at the comer/edge of an object) are increased. Nonetheless, Appellants dispute the Examiner's finding that Strassenburg-Kleciak's disclosure of such geometric points being assigned to a plurality of joint surfaces teaches that the points are increased in such higher deformation areas. We beg to differ. Instead, we agree with the 4 Appeal2014-005361 Application 12/420,014 Examiner that Strassenburg-Kleciak' s disclosure of the geometric points within a particular distance of a plurality of surfaces may be assigned to each of said surfaces teaches that the geometric points are added and cumulated onto each of the surfaces. Ans. 30-31 (citing Strassenburg-Kleciak i-fi-179, 90). In other words, because the geometric points are common to the joint surfaces (high deformation areas), the ordinarily skilled artisan would have readily appreciated that the geometric points are at least grouped together on each of the surfaces, thereby added or increased thereon. Consequently, we echo the Examiner's finding that the cited disclosure of Strassenburg-Kleciak teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. Regarding the rejection of claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-19, because Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-19 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-9, 11-15, and 17-19 as set forth above. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5