XYZPRINTING, INC. et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 5, 202014566937 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/566,937 12/11/2014 CHUAN-FENG WU OP-103000668 3585 84956 7590 11/05/2020 HDLS IPR Services P.O. Box 230970 CENTREVILLE, VA 20120 EXAMINER PATEL, SHIVANG I ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2618 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/05/2020 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): hdlsipr@gmail.com services.ipr@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHUAN-FENG WU, MENG-GUNG LI, YI-HSUN LEE, HUA LIU, and CHUN-FAN TAI Appeal 2019-002552 Application 14/566,937 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 10. Claims 4–9 are canceled. 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)(2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as XYZPRINTING, INC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-002552 Application 14/566,937 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an image processing method including the steps of: a two-dimensional (2D) image is obtained; a gray-scale processing is performed; a smoothing processing is performed; and a height calculation for constructing a three-dimensional (3D) model is performed. The 2D image is automatically converted into a 3D model. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for constructing three-dimensional model from two-dimensional image, comprising: a) retrieving a two-dimension image; b) performing a gray-scale processing to the two- dimension image to obtain a gray-scale two-dimension image if the two-dimension image is a color image; c) performing a resolution lowering processing to the gray-scale two-dimension image to decrease resolution of the gray-scale two-dimension image, the resolution lowering processing combining or deleting multiple pixels in the gray-scale two-dimension image so that the resolution of the gray-scale two-dimension image is lowered to a specific size to achieve resolution lowering effect for the gray-scale two- dimension image; d) respectively calculating a height value corresponding to each pixel according to pixel values of a plurality of pixels of the gray-scale two-dimension image, wherein the pixel value of each pixel is inversely proportional to the corresponding height value; e) constructing a three-dimension model according to the gray-scale two-dimension image and the height values; Appeal 2019-002552 Application 14/566,937 3 f) dividing a pixel value range of the pixels of the two- dimension image by a slicing threshold to obtain a thickness value; g) slicing the three-dimension model into a plurality of slice models according to the thickness value, wherein a number of slice models is same as the slicing threshold; and h) printing the slice models for generating a physical three-dimension model at a three-dimension printer, wherein a numbers of layers of the physical three-dimension model is same as the slicing threshold. (Claims App. 17–18). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Stokes US 2005/0053275 A1 Mar. 10, 2005 Lipton et al. US 2012/0241993 A1 Sept. 27, 2012 Wang et al. US 8,520,935 B2 Aug. 27, 2013 Z. Borsos et al. “A Realistic Estimation of Nanosurfaces Area from SEM Grayscale Images,” U.P.B. Sci. Bull., Series A, Vol. 76, Iss.4, 2014, pp. 199–208. REJECTION Claims 1–3 and 10 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang, Stokes, Borsos, and Lipton. OPINION 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Claim 1 In the Final Action, the Examiner provides a rejection with the mapping of the corresponding claimed elements to the four prior art Appeal 2019-002552 Application 14/566,937 4 references in the Final Action. Final Act. 3–9 (Wang teaches steps a, b, and h of the claimed method; Stokes teaches steps a, c, d, e, and f of the claimed method; Borsos teaches steps d, e, and f of the claimed method; Lipton teaches steps g and h of the claimed method). Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985–86 (Fed. Cir. 2006). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons expressed in the Appeal and Reply Briefs. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellant argues that the Stokes reference teaches a two-dimensional to three-dimensional conversion and the Stokes reference does not teach or suggest step d) where “the pixel value of each pixel is inversely proportional to the corresponding height value.” Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis added). The Examiner merely identifies paragraph 11 of the Stokes reference which generally teaches identifying the color black as a minimum value (0 to 256 scale) and the color white is a maximum value and further processing all the grayscales between the two limits. Final Act. 5; Ans. 4. Appellant further identifies the corresponding portions of the Specification at “paragraph 81 [sic 74]” of the printed Wu application (page Appeal 2019-002552 Application 14/566,937 5 13 of original Specification discloses the inverse proportional limitation) which discloses the use with back lighting and transmitted light. Appeal Br. 10. With regards to the claimed “inversely proportional” limitation, the Examiner makes a conclusory finding in the Responsive to Arguments section that: similar to claimed invention, Stokes discloses converting pixel values to height values of a 30 surface this is shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 of Stokes. Stokes differs in specifically generating a low relief surface (paragraph [0008]), however one of ordinary skill would understand if the opposite is desired - a sunken relief surface - it would be a simple matter of interchanging the height transformation such that dark pixels correspond to largest height and light pixels with lowest height. Ans. 4. We find the Examiner’s statement to be unsupported by the express teachings and suggestions in the Stokes reference. Although the Stokes reference discloses “low relief” models or representations, the Examiner has identified no teaching or suggestion regarding a “sunken relief surface” in the Stokes reference or in any other prior art reference of record to support the Examiner’s statement. Stokes ¶¶ 8, 26, 85, 96. The Examiner provides no express teaching, suggestion, or persuasive line of reasoning to support the “sunken relief surface” in the administrative record on review. Consequently, the Examiner has not provided a teaching or suggestion or articulated line of reasoning to use supported by any factual evidence in the administrative record. In response to Appellant’s arguments regarding the claimed “calculating a height value corresponding to each pixel according to pixel values of a plurality of pixels of the gray-scale two dimension image, wherein the pixel value of each pixel is inversely proportional to the Appeal 2019-002552 Application 14/566,937 6 corresponding height value,” the Examiner finds that paragraph [0076] of Stokes discloses transforming an image into a relief surface, specifically dark pixel values (i.e. low pixel values) have the smallest height and light pixels values (i.e. height pixels values) have the largest height. “Therefore similar to claimed invention, Stokes discloses converting pixel values to height values of a 3D surface this is shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 of Stokes.” Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds that “Stokes differs in specifically generating a low relief surface (paragraph [0008]), however one of ordinary skill would understand if the opposite is desired - a sunken relief surface - it would be a simple matter of interchanging the height transformation such that dark pixels correspond to largest height and light pixels with lowest height.” Ans. 4. Appellant additionally argues that the Examiner’s applied rejection splits the sequence of steps f) and g) between the Borsos and Lipton references, but the claimed invention has those limitations “highly related.” Appeal Br. 11–12. Appellant argues that the claim recites in step f) dividing a pixel value range of the pixels of the two-dimensional image by a slicing threshold to obtain a thickness value and then in step g) the same thickness value is used in the slicing of the three-dimensional model where the number of slice models is the same as the slicing threshold. Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner, in the Response to Argument section of the Examiner’s Answer, only addresses the Borsos reference as having 256 elevation Heights and then identifies that there is a slicing threshold. Ans. 5. It is unclear if the Examiner is dropping the reliance upon the Lipton reference and relying on the identified Borsos reference to teach or suggest Appeal 2019-002552 Application 14/566,937 7 the limitations in d, e, f, and g limitations except that the slicing threshold is with respect to the two-dimensional model and the step of slicing has to do with the three-dimensional model. We find that the Examiner’s reliance upon the two interrelated steps from two separate references, does not teach or suggest using one value for the related computations. Additionally, the Examiner doesn’t expressly identify any specific portion of the Borsos reference to support the finding and the Examiner just states there are 256 elevation Heights/levels which doesn’t necessarily correlate to the claimed threshold. “On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985–86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). [T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability. If that burden is met, the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shifts to the applicant. After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant in response, patentability is determined on the totality of the record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration to persuasiveness of argument. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis. . . .” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not Appeal 2019-002552 Application 14/566,937 8 . . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id. “Obviousness may not be established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or suggestions of the inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). “It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered obvious.” Fritch, 972 F.2 at 1266 (citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). We find the Examiner’s finding and conclusion regarding the “sunken relief” to be unsupported by the express teachings of the Stokes reference in the identified portions of the Stokes reference, and the Examiner has not identified any teaching or suggestion of a “sunken relief surface” in any of the applied prior art references. With respect to Appellant’s argument that claimed steps f) and g) are “highly related” and the three-dimensional model is sliced in a number of slice models based on the slicing threshold, the Examiner identifies paragraphs 76–78 of Appellant’s Specification regarding the claimed slicing threshold and finds that for a slicing threshold of 120, a total of 120 slice models are generated. Ans. 5. The Examiner finds Borsos is related to creating a 3D model from 2D image and calculating surface area, and Borsos also discloses determining the number of elevation heights for the 3D model. Appeal 2019-002552 Application 14/566,937 9 Ans. 5. Specifically, the Examiner finds Borsos discloses for an image with 256 gray levels a total of 256 elevation heights are used for 3D model (Section 2.1- Surface area of a 3D image created from 2D image). Ans. 5. We note that Section 2.1 of the Borsos reference does not expressly discuss a “threshold” or “slicing,” and the Examiner does not cite to any specific teaching or suggestion in the Borsos reference to support the Examiner’s factual finding. Additionally, the Examiner rejected the separate limitations of steps f) and g) applying the Stokes and Borsos references to the individual steps. We find the two steps are interrelated in the functions pertaining to the claimed “a slicing threshold to obtain a thickness value,” and “slicing the three-dimension model into a plurality of slice models according to the thickness value, wherein a number of slice models is same as the slicing threshold, as claimed. As a result, the Examiner has not specifically responded to Appellant’s arguments with any additional factual findings or articulated reasoning because the Examiner has rejected the individual steps with two different references that lack the interrelationship of the values used therein. We do not address Appellant’s third argument regarding “resolution lowering” because Appellant’s has already shown error in the Examiner’s factual findings and ultimate conclusion of obviousness with respect to illustrative independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 13–14; see also Ans. 6. Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of illustrative independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, and 10. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s obviousness rejection is reversed. Appeal 2019-002552 Application 14/566,937 10 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 10 103(a) Wang, Stokes, Borsos, Lipton 1–3, 10 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation