13792619 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2017)

Ex Parte Bachrach et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 15, 2017

13792619 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2017)

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. 13/792,619 03/11/2013 Johnathan BACHRACH AUTO/1248US (053228) 2492 107456 7590 02/17/2017 Artegis Law Group, LLP John Carey 7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104 Houston, TX 77095 EXAMINER SALVUCCI, MATTHEW D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2613 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/17/2017 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): algdocketing @ artegislaw. com kcruz @ artegislaw.com mmccauley @ artegislaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHNATHAN BACHRACH and SAUL GRIFFITH Appeal 2016-006224 Application 13/792,6191 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JUSTIN BUSCH, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16-20, which are all the claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Autodesk, Inc. App. Br. 3. 2 Claims 6, 7, 14, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but the Examiner has indicated these claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 16. Appeal 2016-006224 Application 13/792,619 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ application relates to generating slices of a virtual 3D model. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A computer-implemented method for generating a real- world three-dimensional (3D) model, the method comprising: slicing a 3D graphics model generated by a software application along at least one axis to generate a plurality of slices; determining that a first slice included in the plurality of slices is to be connected to a second slice also included in the plurality of slices; identifying a connection location on each of the first slice and the second slice where the first slice and the second slice are to be connected; and causing an indication of the connection location to be generated on each of the first slice and the second slice when the first slice and the second slice are manufactured. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1 and 9 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of non- statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 9, and 14 of co-pending Bachrach et al. (US 2014/0253550 Al; Sept. 11, 2014) and Anne L. Marsan et al., An Assessment of Data Requirements and Data Transfer Formats for Layered Manufacturing, National Institute of Standards and Technology (Sept. 1998). Final Act. 6- 9. Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Marsan and Sano et al. (US 2004/0222549 Al; Nov. 11,2004). Final Act. 10-16. 2 Appeal 2016-006224 Application 13/792,619 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional points. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Marsan and Sano teaches or suggests “causing an indication of the connection location to be generated on each of the first slice and the second slice when the first slice and the second slice are manufactured,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10-13, Reply Br. 3-5. In particular, Appellants argue Marsan does not teach or suggest indications of a connection location, instead merely teaching a vague and ambiguous phrase, “configuration of final parts,” that does not suggest indications of connection locations. Reply Br. 4. Appellants also argue Sano does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation because Sano does not teach generating a three-dimensional model by generating distinct slices, and, therefore, does not teach or suggest causing an indication of a connection location to be generated on distinct slices. App. Br. 13. Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner erred. Appellants’ arguments regarding Marsan are unpersuasive because the 3 Appeal 2016-006224 Application 13/792,619 Examiner relies on Sano, not Marsan, as teaching indications of connection locations on the plurality of slices. See Final Act. 11-12. Appellants’ arguments regarding Sano are also unpersuasive. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Sano teaches a method for modeling slices associated with a three-dimensional model. Final Act. 11 (citing Sano Tflf 2, 39). Sano teaches grid points identify the connection points between each layer (slice) in the three-dimensional model. Final Act. 12 (citing Sano 145). Appellants have failed to provide persuasive argument or identify persuasive evidence in the record that the Examiner erred in finding Sano teaches causing an indication of the adjacent grid points (the claimed “connection location”) to be generated on each model layer (the claimed “slice”) when the layers are created. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. On this record, we, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Marsan and Sano. We also sustain the rejections of independent claims 9 and 17, which were argued for the same reasons (App. Br. 13), and claims 2-5, 8, 10-13, 16, and 18-20, which were not argued separately (id.). Appellants have not presented argument regarding the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1 and 9. Arguments not made are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We, therefore, summarily affirm the provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1 and 9. DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16-20. 4 Appeal 2016-006224 Application 13/792,619 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5