Robert Bosch GmbH

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 27, 2021

2020005149 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2021)

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. 15/938,526 03/28/2018 Zeng Dai 1576-2262 9955 10800 7590 12/27/2021 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2200 Indianapolis, IN 46204 EXAMINER MAZUMDER, SAPTARSHI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2612 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2021 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 ZENG DAI, LIU REN, and LINCAN ZOU Appeal 2020-005149 Application 15/938,526 Technology Center 2600 Before ERIC B. CHEN, DAVID J. CUTITTA II, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–18, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Robert Bosch GmbH as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-005149 Application 15/938,526 2 TECHNOLOGY The application relates to “generating graphics of a three-dimensional (3D) virtual environment.” Spec. Abstract. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at issue emphasized: 1. A method for generating graphics of a three-dimensional (3D) virtual environment comprising: receiving, with a processor, a first value for a camera position of a virtual camera in the 3D virtual environment and a first value for a viewing direction of the virtual camera; receiving, with the processor, weather data including first precipitation information corresponding to a first geographic region corresponding to the first value for the camera position of the virtual camera; defining, with the processor, a closed 3D bounding geometry having a position that is defined relative to the camera position of the virtual camera and the viewing direction of the virtual camera such that the closed 3D bounding geometry moves with the virtual camera, the position of the closed 3D bounding geometry being defined at a first distance from the camera position of the virtual camera in the viewing direction of the virtual camera, the closed 3D bounding geometry being dimensioned so as to cover a field of view of the virtual camera in the viewing direction of the virtual camera; and rendering, with the processor, a 3D particle system in the 3D virtual environment depicting precipitation only within the closed 3D bounding geometry, the 3D particle system having features depending on the first precipitation information. Appeal 2020-005149 Application 15/938,526 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references as prior art: Name Number Date Barcay US 2015/0040073 A1 Feb. 5, 2015 Cera US 2006/0253246 A1 Nov. 9, 2006 Lawson US 2013/0083060 A1 Apr. 4, 2013 Tognazzini US 5,831,614 Nov. 3, 1998 Varadhan US 8,624,926 B2 Jan. 7, 2014 REJECTIONS The Examiner makes the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Claims References Final Act. 1, 2, 4–7, 9–11, 13–16, 18 Cera, Varadhan, Barcay 3–13 3, 12 Cera, Varadhan, Barcay, Tognazzini 13–17 8, 17 Cera, Varadhan, Barcay, Lawson 17–18 ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Cera, Varadhan, and Barcay teaches or suggests “a closed 3D bounding geometry having a position that is defined relative to the camera position of the virtual camera and the viewing direction of the virtual camera such that the closed 3D bounding geometry moves with the virtual camera” and “a 3D particle system in the 3D virtual environment depicting precipitation only within the closed 3D bounding geometry,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Cera discloses displaying a 3D scene with precipitation, such as shown in Figure 22. Cera ¶ 75. In Figure 36, Cera also discloses zooming in on a box 3601 and culling objects that would only be partially displayed, such as signs 3602 and 3603. Id. ¶ 140. Specifically, Cera discloses, “The Appeal 2020-005149 Application 15/938,526 4 viewport-clip controller detects which objects would be clipped in the viewport of the camera, and culls those objects from the scene.” Id. The Examiner determines, “This viewport is the claimed bounding geometry dimensioned so as to cover a field of view from the first camera position in the first viewing direction.” Ans. 4. The Examiner then states, “As Cera doesn’t explicitly [say] that Cera’s viewport is a 3D viewport, an additional reference Varadhan is included that explicitly teaches a 3d viewport.” Id. (emphasis omitted) (citing Varadhan 8:24–28). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner appears to be confusing a viewport, which is implicitly two-dimensional, with a “3D bounding geometry.” Reply Br. 2–3. To the extent that Varadhan’s “panning sphere” (e.g., 604 in Figure 6) can be considered a “3D bounding geometry,” it represents an approximation of the Earth’s surface “used to control panning.” Varadhan 3:30–31. The panning sphere does not “move[] with the virtual camera” as required by claim 1, nor is precipitation rendered only inside it, as also required by claim 1. The Examiner’s reliance on Barcay errs for similar reasons. As shown in Figure 13B of Barcay, even if the length of the line from the camera to the Earth’s surface is the same before and after panning, the act of panning moves the camera from looking directly at point 1358 to instead look directly at point 1360, thereby demonstrating that the Earth’s surface is not moving with the camera. See Barcay ¶¶ 93, 95, 96; Appeal Br. 15–17. The Examiner does not rely on Tognazzini or Lawson to cure the deficiencies above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 1–18. Appeal 2020-005149 Application 15/938,526 5 OUTCOME The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–7, 9– 11, 13–16, 18 103 Cera, Varadhan, Barcay 1, 2, 4–7, 9– 11, 13–16, 18 3, 12 103 Cera, Varadhan, Barcay, Tognazzini 3, 12 8, 17 103 Cera, Varadhan, Barcay, Lawson 8, 17 Overall Outcome 1–18 REVERSED