DreamWorks Animation LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2020

2020000996 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2020)

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.
14/737,183 06/11/2015 Fredrik NILSSON 15266000-133101 2539
150005 7590 10/01/2020
DENTONS US LLP - San Francisco
P.O. Box 061080
Wacker Drive Station, Willis Tower
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
YANG, YI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2020 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):
dentons_PAIR@firsttofile.com
patent.docket@dentons.com
patents.us@dentons.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FREDRIK NILSSON, LUKE HALLIWELL, JOSIAH LARSON,
and MATTHEW CHRISTOPHER GONG

Appeal 2020-000996
Application 14/737,183
Technology Center 2600

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ELENI MANTIS MERCARDER, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–57, which are all the claims pending.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Dream
Works Animation LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000996
Application 14/737,183

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
INTRODUCTION
The claimed subject matter generally relates to systems and methods
for reviewing and editing computer generated animations. Spec., Abstract.
In particular, the claim relates to a particular layout of content in a graphical
user interface (GUI) such that the interface displays (1) multiple partitions
within a first portion of the GUI, each partition including an image
representing a segment of an animation comprising frames that were
rendered using a set of geometry data and, (2) in response to receiving a user
selection of a particular segment, concurrently displaying a geometric
representation of that segment of the animation. See Appeal Br. 26–27
(claim 1); Spec. ¶¶ 31–32, 38, 55–56, Figs. 3, 10. Claims 1 (method), 13
(computer readable storage medium), and 25 (system) are independent
claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method for reviewing and
editing a computer-generated animation, the method comprising:
causing, by one or more processors, a display of an
interface comprising a plurality of partitions representing a
plurality of segments of the computer-generated animation,
wherein the plurality of partitions are displayed in a
first portion of the interface,
wherein a first partition of the plurality of partitions
is displayed in the first portion of the interface,
wherein the first partition includes an image
representing a first segment of the computer-generated
animation, wherein the first segment comprises a plurality of
previously rendered frames of animation that were rendered
using a first set of geometry data,
wherein the image representing the first segment of
the computer-generated animation is displayed in the first
partition,
Appeal 2020-000996
Application 14/737,183

3
wherein a second partition of the plurality of
partitions is displayed in the first portion,
wherein the second partition includes an image
representing a second segment of the computer-generated
animation, wherein the second segment comprises a plurality of
previously rendered frames of animation that were rendered
using a second set of geometry data,
wherein the image representing the second segment
of the computer-generated animation is displayed in the second
partition and the second segment of the computer-generated
animation is different than the first segment of the computer-
generated animation, and
wherein the second partition is displayed adjacent
the first partition;
receiving a user selection of the first partition of the
plurality of partitions;
in response to receiving the user selection of the first
partition, accessing the first set of geometry data associated with
the first segment of the computer-generated animation
corresponding to the selected first partition; and
after accessing the first set of geometry data, causing a
display of a first geometric representation of the first segment in
a second portion of the interface, wherein the second portion of
the interface is di splayed concurrently with the first portion of
the interface and wherein the first geometric representation
corresponds to the first set of geometry data.
THE PENDING REJECTIONS
Claims 1–10, 12–22, 24–34, 36–40, 44–47, and 51–54 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Ubillos (US 2008/0152297 A1;
June 26, 2008), Girard (US 5,731,821; Mar. 24, 1998), and Andalman (US
5,936,639; Aug. 10, 1999). Non-Final Act. 2–21.
Claims 11, 23, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
in view of Ubillos, Girard, Andalman, and Moehrle (US 2011/0137753 A1;
June 9, 2011). Non-Final Act. 21–22.
Appeal 2020-000996
Application 14/737,183

4
Claims 41–43, 48–50, and 55–57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious in view of Ubillos, Girard, Andalman, and Wall (US
2013/0262564 A1; Oct. 3, 2013). Non-Final Act. 22–25.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1–10, 12–22, 24–34, 36–40, 44–47,
AND 51–54 IN VIEW OF UBILLOS, GIRARD, AND ANDALMAN
Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1–10, 12–22, 24–34, 36–40,
44–47, and 51–54 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Ubillos,
Girard, and Andalman as a group. See Appeal Br. 15–22. Accordingly, we
select independent claim 1 as representative of these claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant argues that the combination of Ubillos, Girard, and
Andalman fails to teach or suggest (1) “the first partition includes an image
representing a first segment of the computer-generated animation, wherein
the first segment comprises a plurality of previously rendered frames of
animation that were rendered using a first set of geometry data” (the “first
partition content limitation”) and (2) “in response to receiving the user
selection of the first partition, . . . causing a display of a first geometric
representation of the first segment in a second portion of the interface,
wherein the second portion of the interface is displayed concurrently with
the first portion of the interface” (the “causing a display step”), as recited in
representative claim 1 (together, the “disputed limitations”). Appeal Br. 17–
19. Appellant also argues the Examiner has provided insufficient rationale
for combining Ubillos and Girard. Appeal Br. 20–21.
The following Examiner findings and conclusions are particularly
relevant to the issues Appellant raises. The Examiner finds Ubillos discloses
Appeal 2020-000996
Application 14/737,183

5
the majority of the subject matter recited in representative claim 1. See Non-
Final Act. 3–4.2 Examiner finds that, although Ubillos discloses providing
the particular GUI layout as recited in claim 1, Ubillos does not disclose that
the content of the video segments is a computer-generated animation. Non-
Final Act. 4. Instead, the Examiner finds Ubillos discloses multiple frames
of rendered video content (e.g., video from a recording device) in the video
segments. See Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Ubillos ¶ 36); Ans. 7–8. Therefore,
the Examiner finds Girard discloses systems and methods, including a GUI,
for editing computer-generated animations that may be rendered using
geometry data. Non-Final Act. 5 (citing Girard 1:41–44, 17:9–19); Ans. 8.
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to use Ubillos’s GUI to
display and edit computer-generated animations, such as those described in
Girard, to allow “for rapid feedback during the initial design process” of
computer-generated animations. The Examiner concludes this combination
would have been obvious because substituting or adding Girard’s teaching
of editing computer-generated animations to Ubillos’s system and GUI,
which provides a good video creation system, would have improved
Ubillos’s system by adding more functionality—a predictable result. Non-
Final Act. 5; Ans. 10.
Ubillos relates to video editing systems and methods, including an
exemplary GUI that comprises a pane for displaying thumbnails representing

2 When referring to the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1, we
refer to the Examiner’s explanation regarding independent claim 25 because,
as the Examiner notes, “Claim 1 recites the functions of the apparatus recited
in claim 25 as method steps,” so “the mapping of the prior art to the
corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 25 applies to the method
steps of claim 1.” Non-Final Act. 13.
Appeal 2020-000996
Application 14/737,183

6
multiple video segments, a preview pane, and a pane for editing a selected
video or videos. Ubillos ¶ 5; see id. ¶¶ 6, 31–36, 48, Figs. 1–2B, 5–6,
Abstract. More specifically, Ubillos discloses uploading video clips into the
GUI, and displaying the uploaded video clips in the media pane “regardless
of the type of the video clip.” Ubillos ¶ 31. “The project pane 110 includes
one or more segments from one or more of the video clips displayed in the
media pane 105 that can be selected by the user for editing” and a project is
automatically created and the “saved project can be re-opened for further
editing.” Ubillos ¶ 32. Ubillos stores the video in each clip “as a sequence
of frames,” and by using the preview pane, a “user can preview the effect of
editing the video content in the preview pane.” Ubillos ¶ 33. Each video
clip in the media pane is represented by a thumbnail, creating rows of
rectangular thumbnails representing the plurality of video clips and “a
system defined distance separating each thumbnail to distinguish between
the video clips.” Ubillos ¶ 36. Girard relates to a GUI and a particular
method for editing a geometric representation (i.e., wireframe) of a computer
generated animation to animate a character based on placing footprints on a
surface. Girard, Abstract; accord Appeal Br. 17 (“At best, Girard teaches
using geometric data to illustrate a single wireframe model.”), 21 (“Girard
appears to teach geometric data and different frames.”); Reply Br. 8
(“Girard, at best, discloses transitioning from geometry data to partial
animation.”).
Given Ubillos’s and Girard’s teachings and for the reasons explained
below, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings with respect to
Ubillos. Specifically, as discussed above, Ubillos teaches or suggests
displaying a GUI having multiple partitions representing a plurality of
Appeal 2020-000996
Application 14/737,183

7
segments of video (i.e., the regions in which the distinct thumbnails are
displayed) that are displayed in a first portion (i.e., the media pane) of the
GUI. Ubillos also teaches or suggests that each partition includes an image
(i.e., the thumbnail) representing the respective segment of video that
comprises multiple frames of rendered video (i.e., the saved projects of
edited and rendered video). See, e.g., Ubillos ¶ 31. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that the disputed subject matter recited in representative claim 1
differs from the subject matter taught by Ubillos only in that the content of
the rendered video is a computer-generated animation rather than the video
clips disclosed in Ubillos (i.e., recorded video and previously saved edited
and rendered video clips using Ubillos’s editing tool, see Ubillos ¶ 32).
Notably, the fact that “the first segment comprises a plurality of previously
rendered frames of animation” narrows representative claim 1’s scope only
with respect to the type of already generated content displayed within
particular regions of the interface.
We also agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings with respect to
Girard. In particular, Girard teaches or suggests a GUI for editing a
computer-generated animation and displaying a geographic representation of
a particular segment of such a computer-generated animation. See Girard
17:9–19; accord Appeal Br. 17, 21; Reply Br. 8.
With respect to Ubillos, Appellant asserts Ubillos does not teach or
suggest the first partition content limitation and, more specifically, the
portion of the limitation reciting that the first segment comprises previously
rendered animation frames, because Ubillos is not related to frames of
animation rendered using a set of geometry data. Appeal Br. 17. As the
Examiner notes, the rejection is not based on a finding that Ubillos teaches
Appeal 2020-000996
Application 14/737,183

8
this portion of the first partition content limitation. Ans. 7; Non-Final Act.
3–5.
Appellant also argues Girard fails to teach or suggest the disputed
limitations. Appeal Br. 17–19; Reply Br. 4–8. More specifically, Appellant
contends “Girard teaches using geometric data to illustrate a single
wireframe model” but fails to teach displaying segments that comprise a
plurality of previously rendered animation frames using a first set of
geometry data. Appeal Br. 17–19. This argument also fails to address the
Examiner’s rejection, which finds that Ubillos teaches segments that
comprise a plurality of rendered frames using a first set of data. See Non-
Final Act. 3 (citing Ubillos ¶ 36). Again, as discussed above, the Examiner
finds Ubillos fails to teach the particular content—i.e., that the rendered
frames of video are frames of a computer generated animation rendered
using a set of geometry data. See Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on
the combination of Ubillos’s video segments and Girard’s editing of
computer generated animations that are ultimately rendered using geometry
data to teach or suggest the entirety of the first partition content limitation.
See Non-Final Act. 3–5.
Appellant’s arguments regarding Ubillos’s and Girard’s individual
teachings are not persuasive because they are not responsive to the rejection
as articulated by the Examiner. Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where, as here, the ground of
unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test for
obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole,
would have suggested the patentee’s invention to a person having ordinary
Appeal 2020-000996
Application 14/737,183

9
skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellant’s argument that Ubillos, Girard, and Andalman fail to teach or
suggest the disputed limitations is unpersuasive of error because the
arguments fail to consider or address the proposed combined teachings.
Appellant also argues there is no reason a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have combined Ubillos and Girard and has not supported the
conclusion of obviousness with an articulated reason with a rational
underpinning. Appeal Br. 20–21; Reply Br. 9. Appellant further contends
the Examiner has failed to explain how the proposed combination would
work and that the proposed combination would make Ubillos’s system
unnecessarily complex. Appeal Br. 20; Reply Br. 6, 9–10.
A determination of obviousness does not require the claimed
invention to be expressly suggested by any one or all of the
references. See e.g., Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Any motivation, “whether
articulated in the references themselves or supported by evidence of the
knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient.” Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox
S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1370–71 (Fed Cir. 2017).
Given the differences between the claimed subject matter and the
scope and content of the prior art, see Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1
(1966), we agree with the Examiner that the proposed combination would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art—i.e., a person
designing an interface for editing computer-generated animation. In
particular, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion, see Ans. 10; Non-Final
Act. 5, that modifying Ubillos’s GUI to include Girard’s ability to edit a
computer-generated animation simply involves substituting (or adding)
Girard’s video content and editing tools into Ubillos’s GUI to yield the
Appeal 2020-000996
Application 14/737,183

10
predictable result of expanding Ubillos’s ability to edit other types of video
content—i.e., computer-generated animations. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.”); id. at 418 (“a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ”).
Although the Examiner’s statement that “[i]t’s never an issue to
improve a good system for video creation” is not artfully articulated, the
Examiner’s findings regarding the individual teachings and the finding that
“Girard introduces animation editing” to “Ubillos[’s] disclose[d] system for
video editing” sufficiently conveys the Examiner’s basis for concluding that
the claimed subject matter would have been obvious. See Ans. 10. As noted
above, the Examiner’s reliance on Girard merely to include a different type
of content in a video animation interface does not require a significant
departure from Ubillos’s system standing alone. Accordingly, given the
limited differences between Ubillos’s interface and the recited subject
matter, this simple substitution amounts to a predictable variation to a person
of ordinary skill in the art designing such interfaces. See KSR, 550 U.S. at
417 (“If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §
103 likely bars its patentability.”).
Therefore, on this record, we agree with the Examiner that the
proposed combination teaches or suggests the disputed limitations recited in
representative claim 1 and, therefore, we sustain the rejection of
representative claim 1 as obvious in view of Ubillos, Girard, and Andalman.
We also sustain the rejection of claims 2–10, 12–22, 24–34, 36–40, 44–47,
Appeal 2020-000996
Application 14/737,183

11
51–54, which Appellant did not argue separately with particularity, for the
same reasons.
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
With respect to the rejections of dependent claims 11, 23, 35, 41–43,
48–50, and 55–57, Appellant argues only that Moehrle and Wall fail to
remedy the deficiencies identified with respect to representative claim 1 and,
therefore, these claims are allowable for the same reasons as the independent
claims from which they depend. See Appeal Br. 22–24. As discussed
above, we disagree with Appellant’s assertions that Ubillos, Girard, and
Andalman fail to teach or suggest the subject matter recited in representative
claim 1. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, we also sustain
the rejection of claims 11, 23, 35, 41–43, 48–50, and 55–57 as obvious in
view of Ubillos, Girard, Andalman, and either Moehrle or Wall.
Appeal 2020-000996
Application 14/737,183

12
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–10, 12–22,
24–34, 36–40,
44–47, 51–54
103 Ubillos, Girard, Andalman
1–10, 12–22,
24–34, 36–40,
44–47, 51–54

11, 23, 35 103
Ubillos, Girard,
Andalman,
Moehrle
11, 23, 35
41–43, 48–50,
55–57 103
Ubillos, Girard,
Andalman, Wall
41–43, 48–50,
55–57
Overall
Outcome 1–57
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED