Ex Parte Lou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 10, 2017

13637452 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2017)

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. 13/637,452 09/26/2012 Zhe Lou LUTZ 201537US01 6675 48116 7590 03/14/2017 FAY STTARPF/T TTf’F.NT EXAMINER 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor WASHINGTON, JAMARES The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2675 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/14/2017 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 @ faysharpe.com ipsnarocp @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ZHE LOU, SIGURD VAN BROECK, and MARC VAN DEN BROECK Appeal 2016-003348 Application 13/637,452 Technology Center 2600 Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOHN F. HORVATH, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2016-003348 Application 13/637,452 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to “a method to transform a virtual object into a real physical object in order to bring the virtual object into the real world.” Spec. 1:19—21. Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below for reference: 1. A method to create a real physical object (RO), wherein said method comprises the steps of - selecting (RTVO) a virtual object (VO) in a virtual environment, - creating (CRBB) a bounding box wherein said virtual object fits, - creating (CRTC) a texture cloud by taking a 360 degree snapshot of said virtual object as delimited by said bounding box, - applying (APIS) image stitching technology on said texture cloud for obtaining a texture for said bounding box, and - printing (PRBB) said bounding box with said texture. References and Rejections The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is the following: Sims Jr. Crum et al. Dunne et al. Fogel et al. US 2006/0212150 Al US 2007/0069001 Al US 2008/0015727 Al US 2011/0087350 Al Sept. 21,2006 Mar. 29, 2007 Jan. 17, 2008 Apr. 14, 2011 Gregor Broil et al., Authoring Support for Mobile Interaction with the Real World, Late Breaking Results & Posters in conjunction with the 5th International Conference on Pervasive Computing, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (2007), available at http://eprints.lancs.ac.Uk/41904/l/ pervasivelbr2007.pdf (“Broil”). Claims 1—3, 6, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fogel and Dunne. Final Act. 3. 2 Appeal 2016-003348 Application 13/637,452 Claims 4, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fogel, Dunne, and Sims. Final Act. 6. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fogel, Dunne, and Crum. Final Act. 8. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fogel, Dunne, and Broil. Final Act. 8. ANALYSIS Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, because “[t]he cited references as applied by the Examiner fail to teach or suggest a bounding box created to fit a virtual object, obtaining a texture for said bounding box, and/or printing said bounding box with said texture as set forth independent claim 1.” Reply Br. 3 (emphases omitted). Particularly, Appellants contend Fogel processes an “object model” which resides in a bounding box, rather than the “bounding box” as required by the claim. App. Br. 5—6. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds the claim limitations regarding processing the bounding box encompass Fogel’s teaching of processing a virtual object that fits within a bounding box. See Ans. 3—6 (“the source and/or target parts of the image that fit the bounding box, along with the bounding box, make up the 3D models . . . [which] are indeed printed”); Fogel Fig. 3; H 93, 112—114. As noted by the Examiner, however, the bounding box of Fogel is separate from the virtual object (the “source and/or target parts of the image”). Id.\ Fogel 193 (“the printable model must fit within a bounding box, for example, specified by the 3D printer 220 predefined requirements.”). That is, Fogel’s “bounding box” is 3 Appeal 2016-003348 Application 13/637,452 merely the available print size based on the 3D printer’s predefined requirements; Fogel’s processes—such as selecting a virtual object; obtaining a texture; and printing—are performed on the object within the bounding box, rather than on the bounding box itself. See Fogel Tflf 26, 93, 127. Thus, we agree with Appellants that “Fogel does not show any printed item other than the printed object (i.e., there is no printed bounding box).” Reply Br. 5. We also agree with Appellants that “[njothing in [Fogel] teaches performing a stitching technique on a texture cloud for obtaining a texture for the bounding box in which the virtual object resides” as required by the claim, because there is no texture obtained for the separate and predefined bounding box of Fogel. Reply Br. 4; see also App. Br. 5 (emphasis omitted). We are persuaded by Appellants that Fogel does not teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1, which require processing “said bounding box.” See App Br. 5—6. Further, the Examiner does not rely on Dunne for the “bounding box” limitations. See Ans. 4—5. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, and the rejections of the claims that depend therefrom. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—11 are reversed. REVERSED 4