Ex Parte Kuster et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2016

12759361 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121759,361 04/13/2010 Claudia Kuster
63656 7590 04/27/2016
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC
C/O KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP
TWO EMBARCADERO CENTER, 8TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3834
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.
92352-09-248US 1-779186 6829
EXAMINER
TSENG, CHARLES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2016 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
j lhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CLAUDIA KUSTER, JOHANNES SCHMID,
ROBERT SUMNER, and MARKUS GROSS
Appeal2014-007501
Application 12/759,361
Technology Center 2600
Before, BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1--4, 6-11, 14--21, and 23-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-007501
Application 12/759,361
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application concerns "computer-based rendering of
images and in particular to artistic rendering of strokes emulating strokes
made using a drawing tool such as pencil, crayon, chalk or the like." Spec.
i-f 1. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A digital drawing system that emulates interaction of a
drawing tool with a drawing surface, the system comprising:
a memory configured to store a drawing tool model that
includes a constellation of tip points corresponding to point
samples arranged in a drawing tool tip volume having a tip shape,
and a drawing surface model that includes a plurality of cells of
different heights, each cell having associated color parameters;
intersection logic configured to receive line parameters
associated with a stroke to be rendered, the line parameters
including a sequence of points and further configured to select a
subset of the constellation of tip points as a footprint that
intersects one or more underlying cells of the plurality of cells
when the drawing tool model is placed at a point on the line;
update logic configured to modify cell heights and color
parameters in the drawing surface model to emulate transfer of
pigment from the drawing tool tip to the one or more underlying
cells, the modifications for each cell being based in part on a
depth value associated with the tip points in the footprint that
intersect the cell, and to modify the constellation of tip points to
emulate erosion of the drawing tool tip; and
color logic configured to compute a pixel color based on
the color parameters of one or more of the plurality of cells of
the drawing surface model.
Br. 18.
2
Appeal2014-007501
Application 12/759,361
REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4, 6-11, 14--21, and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over various combinations of Baxter, 1 Sousa,2
Adams, 3 Rudolf, 4 Matsui, 5 Boxman, 6 and Baxter[2]7. See Final Act. 2-31.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments and the evidence of record, and we disagree with Appellants that
the Examiner erred. We adopt the Examiner's reasoning, findings, and
conclusions set forth in the Final Action and Answer to the extent consistent
with the analysis below. We address Appellants' arguments in tum.
1 William Baxter et al., IMPaSTo: A Realistic, Interactive Model for Paint,
Proc. of the 3rd Int'l Symp. on Non-Photorealistic Animation & Rendering
45 (2004).
2 Mario Costa Sousa & John W. Buchanan, Observational Models of
Graphite Pencil Materials, 19(1) COMPUTER GRAPHICS FORUM 27--49
(2000).
3 Bart Adams et al., Interactive 3D Painting on Point-Sampled Objects,
Eurographics Symp. on Point-Based Graphics 1-10 (2004).
4 Dave Rudolf et al., A Bidirectional Deposition Model of Wax Crayons,
24(1) COMPUTER GRAPHICS FORUM 27 (2005).
5 Hajime Matsui et al., Creating Colored Pencil Style Images by Drawing
Strokes Based on Boundaries of Regions, Proc. of Computer Graphics Int'l
2005, 148-155 (2005).
6 Boxman et al., (US 2008/0259079 Al; published Oct. 23, 2008).
7 William V. Baxter et al., A Versatile Interactive 3D Brush Model, Proc. of
the 12th Pacific Conf. on Computer Graphics & Applications 319 (2004).
3
Appeal2014-007501
Application 12/759,361
Claim 1
Appellants argue Adams does not teach or suggest a drawing tool
model that includes "a constellation of tip points corresponding to point
samples arranged in a drawing tool tip volume" as recited in independent
claim 1. Br. 8-9. Appellants assert their specification makes clear the
recited "constellation" has "a defined position relative to the point 716
where pencil axis 710 meets plane 718 at the base of tip 712." Id. at 8
(citing Spec. i-f 69). According to Appellants, "[a] constellation is thus a
fixed arrangement of points that can be generated by sampling a volume of a
tool tip." Id. (citing Spec. i-f 75). Appellants contend neither Sousa nor
Adams teach the claimed "constellation" under this interpretation. Id. at 9.
Appellants argue "Sousa teaches a polygonal model ... in which the only
'points' defined are the vertices of the polygon." Br. 9. Appellants contend
Adams does not teach the claimed "constellation" because "Adams samples
only surface points, not a tip volume." Id. Moreover, in Appellants' view,
Adams' s "points are not defined in relation to the base of the brush and are
therefore not a constellation as claimed." Id.
We disagree. The cited portions of Appellants' specification do not
define the claimed "constellation of tip points," much less define the term in
relation to another object. Nor do the cited portions require generating the
claimed "point samples" by volumetric sampling instead of surface
sampling. The cited portions simply teach that ( 1) an exemplary
"constellation of points" includes points that have a defined position relative
to another point and (2) the disclosed method may use either volumetric or
surface sampling to sample a volume. See Spec. i-fi-169, 75; see also id. i-f 74.
4
Appeal2014-007501
Application 12/759,361
The rest of Appellants' specification repeatedly refers to a
constellation of points representing locations either on, or in, the surface of a
tip. See, e.g., Spec. i-f 10 ("[A] constellation of points representing locations
on the surface of the tip (or in other embodiments locations within the
volume of the tip)."), i-f 36 (same), i-f 71 ("[A] constellation of a large number
of tip points arranged in a generally conical volume approximating a pencil
tip."). And as noted above, the portion of the specification cited by
Appellants discloses that either volumetric or surface sampling may be used
to sample a volume. These disclosures indicate that one of skill in the art
would understand "a constellation of tip points" to encompass a plurality of
sample points representing locations on (or in) the surface of a tip.
The plain language of claim 1 also does not support Appellants'
argument. For example, claim 1 does not require the claimed "point
samples" have a particular relationship with another object, nor does claim 1
require using a particular sampling method to generate the samples. Claim 1
simply recites "a constellation of tip points corresponding to point samples
arranged in a drawing tool tip volume." Br. 18. Claim 1 recites that the
point samples are arranged in a tip volume but does not recite how the point
samples are obtained. We note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
"a drawing tip volume" encompasses the surface of the volume as well as
points enclosed by the surface of the volume. In light of the plain language
of the claim and the teachings of the specification, one of skill in the art
would not interpret this limitation to exclude surface sampling or require
defining the recited "point samples" relative to another object as argued by
Appellants.
5
Appeal2014-007501
Application 12/759,361
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred under this
interpretation of the disputed limitation. The portions of Sousa cited by the
Examiner depict sample points on a shape representing a pencil tip. See
Sousa 31, Fig. 3; Final Act. 5 (citing Sousa 31, Fig. 3). Similarly, the
portions of Adams cited by the Examiner show a series of points sampled on
the surface of a three-dimensional models of writing implement. See Adams
4, Fig. 3; Final Act. 6 (citing Adams 4, Fig. 3). The Examiner concluded a
combination of Sousa's and Adams' s teachings suggests the claimed
"constellation of tip points corresponding to point samples arranged in a
drawing tool tip volume" under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
limitation. Final Act. 3-8 (citing Sousa 29-32, 34--36, Fig. 3; Adams 1---6,
Figs. 3, 6). Appellants' arguments against these references individually have
not persuaded us this conclusion is erroneous. "[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Claims 7 and 18
Independent claims 7 and 18 each recite "selecting a footprint
consisting of a subset of the constellation of tip points, the selection being
based at least in part on a distance from each of the tip points to a reference
plane parallel to a nominal plane of the paper model." Br. 19, 22.
Appellants argue "Matsui fails to teach or suggest that the depth of its pencil
is connected in any way with a point-sampled pencil tip .... Thus, it is
unclear how Matsui can be read as teaching or suggesting selecting sampled
6
Appeal2014-007501
Application 12/759,361
points based on a distance from a reference plane." See id. at 10 (emphasis
omitted).
We find Appellants' argument unpersuasive. The Examiner found a
combination of Baxter, Sousa, Adams, and Rudolf teaches or suggests most
of the limitations recited in claims 7 and 18, including "selecting a footprint
consisting of a subset of the constellation of tip points." See Final Act. 10-
14, 17-18. However, the Examiner found this combination of references did
not teach or suggest footprint selection "being based at least in part on a
distance from each of the tip points to reference plane parallel to a nominal
plane of the paper model." See id. at 13. The Examiner found Matsui
teaches selecting a footprint based on this criterion. See id. In particular, the
Examiner found Matsui teaches determining the relevant portion of a pencil
that interacts with a piece of a paper (the "footprint") based on the distance
from the pencil's tip to a reference surface parallel to a piece of paper. See,
e.g., Final Act. 13 (citing Matsui Figure 1; 148-149). The cited portions of
Matsui, in particular Figure 1 and its associated pigment thickness equation,
provide adequate evidence to support this finding. See Matsui Figure 1;
148-149. The Examiner concluded a combination of the Matsui's teachings
with the teachings of the other cited references suggests the disputed
limitation. See Final Act. 10-14. Appellants' arguments against Matsui
alone have not persuaded us the Examiner erred. See Keller, 642 F .2d at
426.
Movtivation to Combine
Appellants argue the Examiner "fails to articulate any reasoning in
support of the proposed combination of Baxter, Sousa, Adams, and Rudolf
7
Appeal2014-007501
Application 12/759,361
with regard to claim 1, or for the further combination with Matsui in regard
to claims 7 and 18." Br. 10. Specifically, Appellants contend the Examiner
failed to "identify any specific problem in Baxter that could be solved by
making any of the proposed modifications." See id. at 11. Appellants also
argue that for a number of technical reasons there would have been no
reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disparate tools
disclosed in the cited art absent hindsight, much less believe the resulting
combination would result in increased realism as found by the Examiner.
See id. at 11-13.
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner was not
required to identify a specific problem to be solved in Baxter. An
"obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the
importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents."
KSR, 550 U.S. at 419. The Examiner was free to consider not only the
teachings of the cited art but also "the effects of demands known to the
design community or present in the marketplace; and the background
knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art." Id. at
418. Here, the Examiner concluded known demands such as "improved
simulation of drawing tools ... with increased realism" and "improved
visual quality without distortions and artifacts" would have made the
Examiner's proposed modifications obvious. Final Act. 5-8, 13. Moreover,
the Examiner found the cited art "explains it [was] well-known to combine
different types of drawing tools such as pencils, brushes, paint and so on ....
[and] suggests existing 3D modelers ... may be readily extended and
combined with other drawing tool models to increase the capabilities of 3D
8
Appeal2014-007501
Application 12/759,361
drawing tools for more realistic virtual drawing." Ans. 8 (citing Sousa 46).
We find this reasoning more than adequate to support the Examiner's
proposed combination.
Appellants argue the Examiner's proposed modifications would not
result in increased realism. Br. 10-13. This argument rests on Appellants'
assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would be forced to combine the
prior art tools into a single tool that includes each element of the prior art
tools. See id. But one of ordinary skill in the art is "a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton," KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, and accordingly would
recognize that it would be unnecessary to combine every aspect of each
disclosed tool into a single tool. Rather, one of ordinary skill in the art
would "be able to fit the teachings of the [cited art] ... together like pieces
of puzzle." Id. at 420.
In any event, "[ t ]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of
a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference .... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Here, the cited art discloses that drawing tools such
as graphite pencils "combine[] perfectly with many media, frequently
playing an important part in conjunction with pen-and-ink, brush and ink,
was watercolor etc." Sousa 46. The cited art further discloses "investigating
the extension and the combination of our pencil model with other simulated
media." Id. It was against this backdrop the Examiner found one of skill in
the art would have been motivated to combine aspects of the prior art
drawing tools disclosed in cited references. See, e.g., Ans. 8. Appellants'
arguments have not persuaded us this finding is erroneous.
9
Appeal2014-007501
Application 12/759,361
Conclusion
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1, 7, and 18; as well as dependent claims 2--4, 6, 8-11, 16-17, 19-21,
23, and 24, which were not argued separately with particularity beyond the
arguments advanced for claims 1, 7, and 18. See App. Br. 16.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites "defining an order for the tip points of the
constellation based on the distance of each of the tip points from the
reference plane; and iteratively adding a next tip point in the defined order to
the footprint and updating the surface area parameter until the maximum
value of the surface area parameter is reached." App. Br. 21. Appellants
argue the Examiner erred because (1) Baxter[2]' s strips are not a
constellation of points and are not in fixed relation to each other; (2)
Baxter[2] 's strip selection is based not on a distance from a reference plane
parallel to a nominal plane of the paper model, but on the principal bend
direction; and (3) Baxter[2] does not teach limiting the number of strips. See
App. Br. 13.
We find Appellants arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner found the
combination of Baxter, Sousa, Adams, Rudolf, Matsui, and Baxter[2]
suggests these limitations, yet Appellants attack Baxter[2] individually
without substantively addressing the Examiner's combination. See Final
Act. 27-28; App. Br. 13; Ans. 11-12. "[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness
by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based
on combinations of references." Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
10
Appeal2014-007501
Application 12/759,361
Additionally, Appellants argue the leap from Baxter[2] 's sorting of a
paint brush's bristle strips to iteratively generating a footprint using sampled
points from a drawing tool tip, can be motivated only by hindsight. See Br.
14. We find Appellants argument unpersuasive because the argument is
conclusory and lacks adequate supporting evidence or reasoning. Cf 3 7
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(explaining an appellant must advance substantive arguments beyond mere
recitation of the claim elements and naked assertions that the corresponding
elements are not found in the prior art).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 14.
Claim 15
Without a substantive explanation, Appellants argue that Baxter and
Rudolf do not teach or suggest "wherein a maximum value of the surface
area parameter is based at least in part on an applied pressure associated with
the point on the line" as recited in claim 15. App. Br. 14. Appellants also
contend it is not "apparent how combining the cited teachings with the
sorting of bristle strips as taught by Baxter2 would result in constructing a
footprint" in the claimed manner. Id. at 14. We find Appellants' arguments
unpersuasive because the arguments are conclusory and lack adequate
supporting evidence and reasoning. Cf 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); Lovin,
652 F.3d at 1357.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 15.
11
Appeal2014-007501
Application 12/759,361
Claim 25
Claim 25 recites "wherein the constellation of tip points is initially
generated by uniform point sampling of a drawing tool tip volume." App.
Br. 24. The Examiner found the combination of Sousa, Adams, Rudolf, and
Matsui teach or suggest all of claim 25 except the known concept of using
uniform point sampling to obtain point samples for 3D data, for which the
Examiner relied on Boxman. See Final Act. 30-31. Appellants argue it is
not clear how Boxman could be relevant to simulating drawing tool strokes
because there is no apparent connection between the problem of simulating
drawing tools and Boxman's visualization of a 2D projection of volumetric
data. See Br. 15. According to Appellants, even assuming Boxman teaches
the recited uniform point sampling, "it remains far from obvious that such
sampling could be usefully applied to model a drawing tool tip, let alone
how such a model would be used in combination with other teachings" of
the cited art. Id.
We find Appellants' argument unpersuasive. As found by the
Examiner, Boxman discloses using uniform point sampling to obtain point
samples for 3D data. See Final Act. 30-31; Boxman i-f 57. The Examiner
also found Baxter discloses the use of 3D drawing tools and Adams
discloses it was known for drawing tools to be modeled with point-sampled
3D volumes. See Ans. 13 (citing Baxter 46; Adams 2--4, Figs. 3, 5); Final
Act. 30-31. Given these findings, the Examiner concluded it would have
been obvious to combine the teachings of the cited art. See Ans. 13; Final
Act. 30-31. Appellants' conclusory arguments have not persuaded us this
conclusion is erroneous.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 25.
12
Appeal2014-007501
Application 12/759,361
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1--4, 6-11, 14--21, and
23-25 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
13