Ex Parte Robert

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 25, 2019

14263624 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/263,624 04/28/2014 55895 7590 03/27/2019 GA TES & COOPER LLP - Autodesk HOW ARD HUGHES CENTER 6060 CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 830 LOS ANGELES, CA 90045 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Luc Franck Robert 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. 30566.503-US-Ol 1119 EXAMINER HASAN, MAINUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2489 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2019 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-us@gates-cooper.com gates-cooper@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LUC FRANCK ROBERT Appeal2018-007178 Application 14/263,624 Technology Center 2400 Before JONNY A. KUMAR, JOHN A. EV ANS, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 1-7 and 9-15, which are all of the pending claims. Claims Appendix (unpaginated); Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 2 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Autodesk, Inc., as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 2, 2018, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief (filed July 3, 2018, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed May Appeal2018-007178 Application 14/263,624 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to systems and methods to obtain 3D pixel image data based on 2D image data and depth data. See Abstract. INVENTION Claims 1 and 9 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of illustrative Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. A computer-implemented method for detecting a feature in three-dimensional (3D) space, comprising: obtaining three-dimensional (3D) pixel image data based on two-dimensional (2D) image data and depth data for the 2D image data; within a given window over the 3D pixel image data, for each of one or more pixels within the given window, determining an equation for a plane passing through the pixel; computing, for all of the determined planes within the given window, an intersection of all of the planes; analyzing a spectrum of the intersection; based on the spectrum, determining eigenvalues that determine a number of surfaces that intersect at the pixel wherein: one and only one zero eigenvalue corresponds to a junction of three (3) or more surfaces; two (2) zero eigenvalues correspond to a crease at the intersection of two (2) surfaces; and 9, 2018, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed June 21, 2017, "Final Act."), and the Specification (filed April 28, 2014, "Spec.") for their respective details. 2 Appeal2018-007178 Application 14/263,624 three (3) zero eigenvalues correspond to one (1) planar surface; and creating and displaying a computer-aided design (CAD) drawing that depicts the number of surf aces that intersect at the pixel. References and Rejections Kacyra et al. US 2002/0059042 Al May 16, 2002 Astrom et al. US 2003/0030638 Al Feb. 13,2003 Farsaie US 2004/0027347 Al Feb. 12,2004 Wheeler et al. us 2007 /0130239 June 7, 2007 Bellavia at al., Improving Harris corner selection strategy, 87-96, 5(2) IET Comput. Vis. (2011 ). 1. Claims 1-3, 6, 9-11, and 14 stand rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Wheeler and Bellavia. Final Act. 2-11. 2. Claims 4 and 12 stand rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Wheeler, Bellavia, and Astrom. Final Act. 11-13. 3. Claims 5 and 13 stand rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Wheeler, Bellavia, and Kacyra. Final Act. 13-14. 4. Claims 7 and 15 stand rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Wheeler, Bellavia, and Farsaie. Final Act. 14--15. 3 Appeal2018-007178 Application 14/263,624 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-7 and 9-15 in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellant's arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 7-12. CLAIMS 1-3, 6, 9-11, AND 14: OBVIOUSNESS OVER WHEELER AND BELLAVIA Appellant argues all claims as a group over the limitations of independent Claims 1 and 9. App. Br. 7 and 12. Therefore, we decide the appeal of the Â§ 101 rejection on the basis of representative Claim 1, and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as "the claims." See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Independent Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "for each of one or more pixels within the given window, determining an equation for a plane passing through the pixel." Independent Claim 9 contains commensurate recitations. Appellant contends Wheeler fails to teach determining an equation for a plane passing through a pixel (much less for each pixel) within a window. App. Br. 7. The Examiner finds Wheeler's Figures 2, 3, and 5-7 teach the claimed determination of the equation of the plane. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that without determining the equation of a line 304 or 306 or the equation of a plane intersecting at 702, it is not possible to draw the 3D diagrams of the figures. Id. The Examiner finds Wheeler teaches a "scanning device measures a large number of points that lie on surfaces within an unobstructed line of sight of the scanning device. Each scan point has a 4 Appeal2018-007178 Application 14/263,624 measured location in 3D space." Ans. 4--5 (quoting Wheeler, ,r 4). The Examiner finds Wheeler teaches the collection of measured points are processed to generate a virtual model of the structure. Id. at 5. Appellant summarizes the Examiner's Answer as finding Wheeler teaches a scanning device that measures points that lie on surfaces, that each point has a measured location in 3D space relative to a point in the local coordinate system of the scanner, the resulting collection of points is referred to as a point cloud, each point cloud includes points that lie on many different surfaces in a scanned view, the points are registered to create a single data set, and the single data set is then processed to generate a computer (virtual) model of the structure. Appellants contend the Answer then submits that such facts provide for determining an equation of a plane passing through a pixel. Reply Br. 2 (summarizing Ans. 4--5). Appellant maintains the ability to register points from a point cloud to generate a model of a structure does not even remotely provide for generating an equation for a plane that passes through every pixel in a window. Id. For each pixel in a window, the claims require the generation of an equation for a plane passing through that pixel. Appellant and Examiner agree that Wheeler does not explicitly disclose such an equation. Appellant contends Wheeler fails to teach determining an equation for a plane passing through a pixel (much less for each pixel) within a window. App. Br. 7. The Examiner finds Wheeler's Figures 2, 3, and 5-7 teach the clamed determination of the equation of the plane. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that without determining the equation of a line 304 or 306 or the equation of a plane intersecting at 702, it is not possible to draw the 3D diagrams of the 5 Appeal2018-007178 Application 14/263,624 figures. Id. at 5. The Examiner finds Wheeler teaches a "scanning device measures a large number of points that lie on surfaces within an unobstructed line of sight of the scanning device. Each scan point has a measured location in 3D space." Ans. 4--5 (quoting Wheeler, ,r 4). The Examiner finds Wheeler teaches the collection of measured points are processed to generate a virtual model of the structure. Id., 5. Thus, the Examiner finds such an equation to be inherently taught by Wheeler's disclosure. Appellant maintains the ability to register points from a point cloud to generate a model of a structure does not necessarily require generating an equation for a plane that passes through every pixel in a window. Reply Br. 2. "Inherency ... may not be established by probabilities or possibilities." Personal Web Technologies, LLC. v. Apple, Inc., 2018-1599, slip op. 10 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 8, 2019) (quoting PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient." Id. (emphasis added). Rather, a party must 'show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function."' Id. (emphasis in original)). Wheeler discloses the "single set then can be processed to generate a computer ( virtual) model of the structure using techniques known in the art." Wheeler, ,r 4 ( quoted by the Examiner) (see Ans. 4--5). What these "techniques known in the art" may be, is not clear, nor is it certain that these techniques necessarily include the generation of an equation for a plane passing through each pixel in the 6 Appeal2018-007178 Application 14/263,624 window, as claimed. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1-3, 6, 9-11, and 14. CLAIMS 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, AND 15: OBVIOUSNESS OVER WHEELER, BELLA VIA, ASTROM, KACYRA, AND F ARSAIE Appellant does not separately argue Claims 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, or 15. App. Br. 12. The Examiner does not apply the secondary art to teach the limitations disputed above. See Ans. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejections of Claims 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, or 15. DECISION The rejections of Claims 1-7 and 9-15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 are REVERSED. REVERSED 7