Ex Parte Walker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 8, 2014

11143878 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 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.
11/143,878 06/01/2005 Jeffrey A. Walker 2005P57003 US 8092
45113 7590 01/08/2014
Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
170 Wood Avenue South
Iselin, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
ZAHR, ASHRAF A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/08/2014 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 JEFFREY A. WALKER, KRISTOPHER C. KASPRZAK,
ARTHUR S. PATRICK, DANIEL STAPLES, PRASAD PINGALI,
ANTHONY E. TASSONE, MICHAEL R. MATHIS, and
ADITYA GURUSHANKAR
__________

Appeal 2011-004565
Application 11/143,878
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method
of creating a plurality of documents from a three-dimensional assembly
represented by a single document. The Examiner rejected the claims as
anticipated. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-
part.

1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Siemens Product Lifecycle
Management Software Inc. (See App. Br. 4.)
Appeal 2011-004565
Application 11/143,878

2 

Statement of the Case
Background
“Solid modeling is a term that refers to a set of techniques that can be
used to create and store computer based representations of the physical
objects” (Spec. 1). The Specification teaches that “known solutions focus on
product structure where the structure is derived from 3D components as
listed in the assembly . . . systems most often require multiple 3D files to
correctly generate the product structure and appropriate nesting of
subassemblies within an assembly” (Spec. 2).
“The present invention . . . provides for the seamless and
unencumbered usage of assembly based on a product structure referring to
no external files and the integration of product structure where 2D geometry
can be associated with the items” (Spec. 3).
The Claims
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9-13, 16, 17, 19, and 21-26 are on appeal. Claim 1
is representative and reads as follows:
1. A method of creating a plurality of documents from a
three-dimensional assembly represented by a single
document, comprising the steps of:
creating a plurality of components associated with a
plurality of instance data from said single document,
wherein said instance data comprises at least data pertaining
to an origin and an orientation for each of said components;
and
publishing an assembly into said plurality of
documents corresponding to each of said plurality of
components;
whereby a three-dimensional assembly representation
of the assembly is created from said plurality of documents.

Appeal 2011-004565
Application 11/143,878

3 

The Issue
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9-13, 16, 17, 19, and 21-26
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hamilton2 (Ans. 3-8).
The Examiner finds that Hamilton teaches
“[A] method of creating a plurality of documents from a
three-dimensional assembly represented by a single
document, comprising the steps of: creating a plurality of
components associated with a plurality of instance data from
said single document”. Specifically, a graphical object
(Hamilton, col 5, In 18-20). Graphical objects are placed on
a graphical page where the page is part of a document, in
some cases the page is the document (Hamilton, col 4, ln 20-
30)[.]
Hamilton also discloses, “wherein said instance data
comprises at least data pertaining to an origin and an
orientation for each of said components”. Specifically,
angle and anchor point (Hamilton, col 5, ln 30-32).
Hamilton also discloses, “publishing an assembly into
said plurality of documents corresponding to each of said
plurality of components” (Hamilton, Fig 13: 146).
Graphical objects are placed on a graphical page where the
page is part of a document, in some cases the page is the
document (Hamilton, col 4, ln 20-30)[.]
Hamilton also discloses, “whereby a three-
dimensional assembly representation of the assembly is
created from said plurality of documents”. Specifically, the
arm shown in the figure is a 3D representation of the
assembly created from the graphical object (Hamilton, Fig
13: 146).

(Ans. 4.)
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner’s conclusion that Hamilton anticipates the claims?

2 Hamilton et al., US 6,559,860 B1, issued May 6, 2003.
Appeal 2011-004565
Application 11/143,878

4 

Findings of Fact
1. The Specification teaches that “the following definitions apply:
assembly, n., a single file listing structure composed of at least two
components; component, n., a part or an assembly that is either a real
component or a virtual component . . . real component, n., a part or assembly
that references an external file” (Spec. 5).
2. Hamilton teaches that a “graphical object is typically a
collection of object primitives. Whatever happens to a graphical object or
parent graphical object, as a group, occurs to all its children” (Hamilton, col.
4, ll. 50-53).
3. Hamilton teaches that a “graphical object may be composed of
several other objects anchored together. When one of the several other
objects is rotated or moved, it is necessary to execute a process in which the
other connected objects are informed of the move and are also moved in
accordance with the manner of connection” (Hamilton, col. 7, ll. 38-43).
4. Hamilton teaches that:
[O]ne embodiment of the foregoing method of manipulating
and displaying graphical objects on the computer display
device of the system includes the step of first creating a
graphical object in an object-oriented environment and
storing the graphical object in the memory of the computer
system. The graphical object may be comprised of a
plurality of child graphical objects where the graphical
object and each of the child graphical objects has at least one
property corresponding to the orientation of a representation
of the respective graphical object, such as the Anchor
property. Next, the graphical object is scanned by traversing
through each of the child graphical objects to form a
connection tree having initial values of each property of the
respective graphical objects. The connection tree being
preferably stored in the memory of the system. In operation,
Appeal 2011-004565
Application 11/143,878

5 

a value of the property of the graphical object will become
altered from the initial value which corresponds to a change
in the position of the representation of the graphical object.
The representation of the graphical object will be
graphically displayed on the display device by traversing
through the connection tree to broadcast the altered value of
the graphical object to each of the child graphical objects,
recalculating the value of each property of the child
graphical objects based on its initial value and the altered
value of the graphical object, and displaying the
representation of the graphical object including its child
graphical objects on the display device with the recalculated
values.

(Hamilton, col. 10, ll. 27-54.)
5. Hamilton teaches that “[g]raphical objects 52 are placed on a
graphical page 54, where the page 54 is part of a document 56. In some
cases the page is the document, or there is no distinction between a
document and the pages in the document” (Hamilton, col. 4, ll. 25-29).
6. Hamilton teaches that “[e]ach graphical object 52 includes
properties 64 and may also include methods 66 . . . . The functionality of the
Anchor, AnchorLock, AnchorLockAutoReturn, AnchorX, AnchorY,
Rotation, RotationX and RotationY properties serve an important role”
(Hamilton, col. 5, ll. 18-22).
7. Hamilton teaches that the “Anchor property specifies the angle,
in degrees, that an object can move relative to its anchor point” (Hamilton,
col. 5, ll. 30-31).
8. Hamilton teaches that the “AnchorLock property specifies
whether the anchored object maintains its original angle while rotating with
its parent object” (Hamilton, col. 5, ll. 38-40).

Appeal 2011-004565
Application 11/143,878

6 

9. Figure 13 is reproduced below:

FIG. 13 depicts “graphical interface screens of a preferred embodiment”
(Hamilton, col. 2, ll. 56-57). 
10. Hamilton teaches that:
Referring to FIG. 13, an exemplary embodiment of a
robotic device 168 has been constructed by adding objects
Graphic3 170 and Graphic4 172 in manner similar to objects
154, 160 discussed above. In particular, Graphic3 170 has
been anchored to Graphic2 160 and has an anchor point 174
corresponding thereto. Graphic4 172 has been anchored to
Graphic3 170 and has an anchor point 176 corresponding
thereto. It should be understood that the anchoring of
objects for movement relative to one another could be
applied in numerous applications including machines, such
as the robotic device of this exemplary embodiment,
automated processes or systems, or any other application
where two more objects are displayed such that one of the
objects moves relative to another one of the objects.

(Hamilton, col. 14, ll. 15-28.)
Appeal 2011-004565
Application 11/143,878

7 

Principles of Law
“A single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or
inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.”
Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
2005).
Analysis
Claim Interpretation
We begin with claim interpretation, since before a claim is properly
interpreted, its scope cannot be compared to the prior art. Appellants
contend that “the Examiner interprets ‘from said single document’ as
modifying ‘a plurality of instance data’, not ‘a plurality of components’.
The new ‘interpretation’ of this claim in the Examiner’s Answer is
inconsistent with the specification” (Reply Br. 14).
During prosecution, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation as they would be understood by persons of ordinary skill in the
art in light of the Specification. Therefore, we first turn to the Specification
to interpret this phrase.
While the Specification specifically defines a number of terms,
including the term “component” (Spec. 5; FF 1), Appellants do not identify a
definition for the phrase “a plurality of instance data.” In particular,
Appellants do not identify, and we do not find, a teaching in the
Specification which requires a particular interpretation of the phrase
“creating a plurality of components associated with a plurality of instance
data from said single document” in claim 1.
The Examiner reasonably interprets the phrase “from said single
document” as modifying the immediately preceding phrase “a plurality of
Appeal 2011-004565
Application 11/143,878

8 

instance data,” rather than referring back to the earlier “plurality of
components” phrase. We not only find the Examiner’s interpretation
consistent with the principles of “broadest reasonable interpretation in light
of the Specification,” but agree with the Examiner that the preferred
interpretation of a modifying phrase is that it modifies the immediately
preceding phrase, rather than an earlier recited phrase. See Anhydrides &
Chemicals, Inc. v. U.S., 130 F.3d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The rules of
grammar apply in statutory construction: Referential and qualifying words
and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last
antecedent, which consists of ‘the last word, phrase, or clause that can be
made an antecedent without impairing the meaning of the sentence.’”)
Anticipation – Claims 1, 13, and 25
Hamilton teaches graphical objects which are “a collection of object
primitives” (Hamilton, col. 4, ll. 50-53; FF 2), that is a created plurality of
components which are associated with instance data on a graphical page
(FF 3) including origin and orientation data such as Anchor type properties
(FF 6-8). Hamilton, in Figure 13, shows multiple objects which are
components which are published as an assembly which may be composed of
multiple pages (FF 5, 10) and which is shown in three-dimensional form
(FF 9-10).
Appellants contend that “Hamilton teaches that objects are placed on
a page, not that a plurality of components are created from a single
document, as claimed” (App. Br. 18-19).
We are not persuaded. As discussed in our claim interpretation above,
we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 “does not require ‘that a plurality of
components are created from a single document’. This is not what is
Appeal 2011-004565
Application 11/143,878

9 

claimed. What is claimed is: ‘creating a plurality of components associated
with a plurality of instance data from said single document’, which is
disclosed by Hamilton” (Ans. 8; FF 5).
Appellants contend that “[n]othing in Hamilton ever teaches that its
system publishes an assembly into a plurality of documents corresponding to
a plurality of components, as claimed. In fact, Hamilton teaches the
opposite, that all the primitives or portions of the displayed objects are part
of a CDRAWOBJ data structure stored on the single page 54” (App. Br. 21).
We are not persuaded. As discussed above, each page of Hamilton
may be composed of a plurality of components to form a particular object
which composes a portion of a machine (FF 3-5, 10). Further, Hamilton
expressly teaches publishing, on the computer, an assembly “where two
more objects are displayed such that one of the objects moves relative to
another one of the objects” (Hamilton, col. 14, ll. 26-28; FF 10). These
multiple objects, composed of multiple components, are reasonably
interpreted as satisfying the requirement for a three-dimensional assembly
composed of a plurality of documents each having a plurality of components
(FF 9-10).
Appellants contend that “Hamilton not only fails to anticipate the
limitations of these claims, Hamilton teaches directly away from these
limitations” (App. Br. 22).
We are not persuaded. Appellants do not identify any teaching in
Hamilton which specifically teaches away from the invention. More
importantly, we note that the Federal Circuit has determined that “[t]eaching
away is irrelevant to anticipation.” Seachange Int’l, Inc., v. C-COR, Inc.,
Appeal 2011-004565
Application 11/143,878

10 

413 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Celeritas Tech., Ltd. v.
Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Claims 5, 17, and 26
Appellants contend that “Hamilton nowhere mentions or contemplates
‘creating a new document for each of said plurality of components’, as
claimed” (App. Br. 23). Appellants contend that “Hamilton does not teach
transforming an origin and an orientation for each of the components into
the corresponding new document, as claimed” (id.). Appellants contend that
“Hamilton does not teach replacing the plurality of components in the single
document with a link to the corresponding new document, as claimed” (id. at
25).
The Examiner finds that “Hamilton states, ‘Graphical objects 52 are
placed on a graphical page 54, where the page 54 is part of a document 56.
In some cases the page is the document, or there is no distinction between a
document and the pages in the document (Hamilton, col 4, ln 20-30)’” (Ans.
11). The Examiner finds that Hamilton teaches the “functionality of the
Anchor, AnchorLock, AnchorLockAutoReturn, AnchorX, AnchorY,
Rotation, RotationX and RotationY” (id.).
The Examiner finds that Hamilton teaches “pages that contain
primitive objects which are grouped or linked to together to form a graphical
object made up of these primitive graphical objects. This meets the
limitation replacing said plurality of components in said single document
with a link to said corresponding new document” (id. at 13).
We find that Appellants have the better position. While we agree with
the Examiner that Hamilton reasonably teaches a publishing step where the
graphical objects placed on pages represent new documents for each type of
Appeal 2011-004565
Application 11/143,878

11 

graphical object, and that Hamilton’s teaching of the Anchor elements
results in the transformation of an origin and orientation for each component
in the documents, we do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Hamilton teaches “replacing said plurality of components in said single
document with a link to said corresponding new document” as required by
the final step of claim 5.
The Examiner does not identify any specific teaching in Hamilton to
use a link in the place of a plurality of components. While Hamilton teaches
pages which contain graphical objects (FF 5), Hamilton does not teach
replacing the objects with a link to the page as argued by the Examiner.
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that
Hamilton anticipates claims 1, 13, and 25.
The evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s conclusion
that Hamilton anticipates claims 5, 17, and 26.
SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 13, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hamilton. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c), we also affirm the rejection of claims 4, 7, 9-12, 16, 19, and 21-
24, as these claims were not argued separately.
We reverse the rejection of claims 5, 17, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Hamilton.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Appeal 2011-004565
Application 11/143,878

12 

cdc