Ex Parte Bickel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2018

14023808 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2018)

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.
14/023,808 09/11/2013 Bernd Bickel 0260369 1087
63649 7590 03/01/2018
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP
26522 LA ALAMEDA AVENUE, SUITE 360
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691
EXAMINER
MOLL, NITHYA JANAKIRAMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2018 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):
docketing @ farj ami. com
farj amidocketing @ yahoo, com
ITarj ami @ farj ami. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERND BICKEL, MELINA SKOURAS,
BERNHARD THOMASZEWSKI, STELIAN COROS, and
MARKUS GROSS1
Appeal 2017-008766
Application 14/023,808
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, NABEEL U. KHAN and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to a “a posture guided design system and a
method for use in producing a posture guided design of a deformable object”
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Disney Enterprises,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company.
Appeal 2017-008766
Application 14/023,808
wherein “the expression ‘deformable object’ can refer to any physical object
configured to assume one or more predetermined postures or poses.”
Abstract; Specification, page 6.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method comprising:
receiving a user input identifying a target posture for a deformable
object;
determining, in response to the user input identifying the target
posture and based on the target posture; a location of each of a plurality of
actuators for producing the target posture;
modeling, in response to the user input identifying the target posture
and based on the target posture, the deformable object using at least one
material so as to enable the deformable object to reproduce the target
posture; and
producing the deformable object in accordance with the modeling and
the determining of the location of each of the plurality of actuators.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shapiro (Ari Shapiro et al., Dynamic Animation and
Control Environment, Proc. of Graphics Interface 61 (2005)) and Bickel (US
Patent Application Publication 2003/0172376 Al; published March 1,
2012). F inal Action 3—9.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed October 21,
2016), the Final Action (mailed May 19, 2016) and the Answer (mailed
January 26, 2017) for the respective details.
Appellants argue that Shapiro in view of Bickel fails to disclose,
teach or suggest the claimed invention as recited by independent claim 1,
2
Appeal 2017-008766
Application 14/023,808
and similarly recited by independent claim 13. Appeal Brief 7. Appellants
argue that, “Shapiro describes a system where the user interactively and
manually controls the placement of the actuators. In contrast, according to
independent claim 1 of the present application, the user input identifies a
target posture, and then ‘in response to the user input identifying the target
posture and based on the target posture, a location of each of a plurality of
actuators for producing the target posture,’ is determined.” Appeal Brief 7—
8. Appellants contend:
Shapiro discloses and teaches that the user manually determines
the location of the actuator using a mouse pointer. In other words,
as taught in Shapiro, the user uses the mouse to identify or point
to a location for placing the actuator, and not to identify a target
posture as an input to the system, let alone the system using the
identified target posture to determine a location of each of a
plurality of actuators for producing the target posture.
Appeal Brief 8.
The Examiner finds and we agree:
[U]sing the actuator to control and manipulate the objects is
equivalent to a user input who decides on a target posture. A user
would have to choose the position of the object, and then move
the actuator to manipulate the object like a puppet. In addition,
based on the desired position of the puppet, the user would then
place the actuator in a particular location. For example, if the
user wants to move the puppet’s leg, the actuator would not be
placed on the puppet’s arm, it would be placed on the leg.
Therefore, the location of the actuator is determined based upon
the user input which identifies the target posture.
Answer 2—3 (citing Shapiro, paragraphs 65—67).
Appellants further argue that Shapiro fails to disclose the modeling
limitations recited in independent claims 1, 7 and 13. Appeal Brief 8—9. We
agree with Appellants’ arguments that Shapiro does not disclose modeling as
claimed by Appellants, however the Examiner did not rely upon Shapiro to
3
Appeal 2017-008766
Application 14/023,808
disclose or suggest the modeling limitations. The Examiner relied upon
BickeTs disclosure to teach “producing the deformable object in accordance
with the modeling and determining the location of the plurality of actuators.”
Final Action 6, 8 (citing Bickel, paragraphs 11, 59 and paragraphs 87, 119,
respectively). Appellants do not address the merits of Bickel. See Appeal
Brief 8-10 and 12. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (Fed. Cir. 1981)). Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-20.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1—20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
4