Ex Parte Bennett et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2016

12630318 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/630,318 12/03/2009
45113 7590 06/01/2016
Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeremy Bennett
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2009P04541 USOl 9528
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, CEDRIC D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2123
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEREMY BENNETT and MICHAEL B. CARTER
Appeal2014-000695
Application 12/630,318 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-21, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants indicate the real party in interest is Siemens Product Lifecycle
Management Software Inc. App. Br. 4.
Appeal2014-000695
Application 12/630,318
Invention
The claims are directed to a system and method for spatial partitioning
of computer-aided design (CAD) models. Spec. 1.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with the disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. Method, comprising:
loading an object model in a CAD system, wherein the
object model includes a plurality of shapes;
adding the shapes to a cell in a spatial tree in the CAD
system, the spatial tree configured to manage a plurality of
cells;
determining whether each cell is too complex to process
within a memory space of the CAD system, and based on the
determination, for each cell that is too complex to process
within the memory space, subdividing the cell into a plurality of
subcells using a first subdivision process, the determination
based at least on whether or not each cell and potential
subcells of that cell can exist within the memory space based
upon shapes currently held within that cell;
subdividing each cell into a plurality of subcells using a
multi-threaded subdivision process by the CAD system; and
combining the subcells into the spatial tree stored in the
CAD system.
Applied Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Perry et al.
Yamada et al.
US 6,485,518 Bl
US 2005/0075847 Al
2
Nov. 19, 2002
Apr. 7, 2005
Appeal2014-000695
Application 12/630,318
Rejections
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Perry and Yamada.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred.
We highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis as follows.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 8 and 15, because the combination of Perry and Yamada does not
teach or suggest "determining whether each cell is too complex to process
within a memory space of the CAD system, and based on the determination,
for each cell that is too complex to process within the memory space,
subdividing the cell into a plurality of subcells using a first subdivision
process, the determination based at least on whether or not each cell and
potential subcells of that cell can exist within the memory space based upon
shapes currently held within that cell," as recited in claims 1, 8 and 15. App.
Br. 16, 20---22.
Appellants argue that although Yamada's shape data dividing step
involves dividing the boundary cells by octree division until there are
enough breaking points obtained to reconstruct boundary shape elements,
Yamada fails to teach or suggest dividing a cell into subcells based on
determining that the cell is too complex to process within a memory space,
the determination based at least on whether each cell and potential subcells
of that cell can exist within the memory space based upon shapes held in that
3
Appeal2014-000695
Application 12/630,318
cell, as recited in claims 1, 8, and 15. App. Br. 21-22.
In response, the Examiner explains that it is the Examiner's
interpretation and understanding of octree division with regard to shape data
that:
When dividing a cell by an octree division, the cell
storing the shape is divided into smaller cells, and each
of those cells contains a part of the total shape that was
originally stored in the original cell. If the shape
contained in the cell is still considered to go above a
storage limit or amount ... the cells are divided again
until the shape data does not go above the storage limit.
Ans. 20 (citing Yamada, Fig. 3; i-f 70).
In reply, Appellants argue the Examiner improperly "bases the
rejection of the claims on his own 'interpretation and understanding of
octree division with regards to shape data."' Appellants contend that "[i]f
the Examiner is relying on personal knowledge to support the finding of
what is known in the art, the Examiner must provide an affidavit or
declaration setting forth specific factual statements and an explanation to
support the finding." Reply Br. 13. Appellants also contend that "[i]f the
Office has intended to take Official Notice, such an attempt is traversed"
because "the Office has failed to satisfy its obligations under MPEP §
2144.03." Reply Br. 13-14. Appellants further argue that Yamada does not
discuss in any way that the octree division takes into account a storage limit
or memory required for each cell. Reply Br. 15, 17.
We agree with Appellants. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
it is incumbent upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed.
Cir. 1988). To establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all
4
Appeal2014-000695
Application 12/630,318
the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. See In re
Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974). Moreover, ifthe Examiner is
relying on personal knowledge to support the finding of what is known in
the art, the Examiner needs to provide an affidavit setting forth specific
factual statements and an explanation to support the finding when requested
by the Appellant. See 37 CPR§ 1.104( d)(2). If the Examiner is taking
Official Notice, then the Examiner must respond to Appellants' traversal by
supporting the finding with adequate documentary evidence as required by
MPEP § 2144.03.
In the Answer, the Examiner explains that his personal interpretation
and understanding of octree division is that "[i]f the shape contained in the
cell is still considered to go above a storage limit or amount ... the cells are
divided again until the shape data does not go above the storage limit." Ans.
20. The Examiner uses this personal interpretation and understanding of
octree division to find that Yamada teaches dividing cells containing shape
data by octree division to enable the amount of data to be reduced more
greatly (i.e., thus saving memory) than in a voxel representation. Id. (citing
Yamada, i-f 70). Although Yamada discusses the benefit of utilizing an
octree division in a general sense when compared to a voxel representation
(see Yamada, i-fi-135; 70), Yamada does not teach or suggest dividing a cell
that is determined to be "too complex to be processed within a memory
space ... the determination based at least on whether or not each cell and
potential subcells of that cell can exist within the memory space based upon
shapes currently held within that cell," as required by claims 1, 8, and 15.
The Examiner appears to either rely on personal knowledge or take
Official Notice to support the finding that an octree division limited by
5
Appeal2014-000695
Application 12/630,318
storage is taught by Yamada. If the Examiner is relying on personal
knowledge, the Examiner has not provided an affidavit setting forth specific
factual statements and an explanation to support such a finding as required
by 37 CPR§ 1.104(d)(2), even though Appellants have called for such an
affidavit. See Ans. 20; Reply Br. 13. If the Examiner is taking Official
Notice, the Examiner has not responded to Appellants' traversal by
supporting the finding with documentary evidence as required by MPEP §
2144.03. The failure to provide either an affidavit or documentary evidence
1s error.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred finding the
combination of Perry and Yamada teaches or suggests "determining whether
each cell is too complex to process within a memory space of the CAD
system, and based on the determination, for each cell that is too complex to
process within the memory space, subdividing the cell into a plurality of
subcells using a first subdivision process, the determination based at least on
whether or not each cell and potential subcells of that cell can exist within
the memory space based upon shapes currently held within that cell," within
the meaning of independent claims 1, 8 and 15. Therefore, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, as well as
dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-21.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21.
REVERSED
6