Ex Parte Charles et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2015

11312851 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BERNARD CHARLES, ARNAUD NONCLERCQ, and
FRANCOIS PERROUX
____________

Appeal 2012-009725
Application 11/312,851
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.

ZADO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants
1
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–24, 26, and 27.
2
We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1
Appellants identify as the real party in interest Dassault Systems. (App.
Br. 3.)
2
Claim 25 is canceled.
Appeal 2012-009725
Application 11/312,851

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
3

Appellants’ invention generally relates to a product edition and
simulation system. (Spec. 5, l. 7.) Representative claim 1, reproduced
below, recites (disputed limitation in italics):
1. A product edition and simulation system, comprising:
a storage system on a computer having data related to modeled
objects;
a graphical user interface on said computer, having an edition
workbench comprising a plurality of software tools suitable for
editing a subset of intrinsic features of the modeled objects, wherein
the edition workbench is adapted for displaying a user-
interactive graphical tool in the graphical user interface, the user-
interactive graphical tool being adapted for triggering upon user
action a simulation of a modeled object, the simulation being carried
out according to an extrinsic feature, which is a simulation parameter
not comprised in the subset rather than an intrinsic feature of the
modeled object and is required for carrying out the simulation,
regardless of the currently active modeled object being simulated.

REFERENCES
Lynch US 5,835,693 Nov. 10, 1998
Sebastian RE 36,6002 Mar. 7, 2000
Hirata US 6,317,739 B1 Nov. 13, 2001
Robello US 6,403,455 B1 Aug. 6, 2002
Yamaguchi US 6,710,771 B1 Mar. 23, 2004
Nagasawa US 6,768,928 B1 July 27, 2004
Eichstaedt WO 01/97095 A2 Dec. 20, 2001

3
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs for the
positions of Appellants and the Final Office Action and Answer for the
positions of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that
Appellants did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. (See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).)
Appeal 2012-009725
Application 11/312,851

3

Hong Su et. al., CAE Virtual Door Slam Test for Plastic Door
Trim Components, SAE Technical Paper Series, Mar. 2003

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1–7, 9, 11, 23, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Nagasawa and Su. (Ans. 5.)
Claims 8, 10, 12, and 15–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Nagasawa, Su, and Eichstaedt. (Ans. 8.)
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nagasawa, Su, and Robello. (Ans. 10.)
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nagasawa, Su, and Sebastian. (Ans. 11.)
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nagasawa, Su, Sebastian, and Robello. (Ans. 12.)
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nagasawa, Su, and Hirata. (Ans. 12.)
Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nagasawa, Su, and Lynch. (Ans. 13.)
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nagasawa, Su, and Yamaguchi. (Ans. 14.)

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Nagasawa and Su
collectively would have taught or suggested “the simulation being carried
out according to an extrinsic feature, which is a simulation parameter not
comprised in the subset rather than an intrinsic feature of the modeled object
Appeal 2012-009725
Application 11/312,851

4
and is required for carrying out the simulation, regardless of the currently
active modeled object being simulated,” as recited in claim 1? (Emphasis
added.)

ANALYSIS
The Examiner acknowledges Nagasawa does not explicitly disclose
the disputed limitation of claim 1, but determines Su teaches this limitation.
(Ans. 5, 15–20.) Specifically, the Examiner explains Su teaches carrying out
a simulation (door slam simulation) according to an extrinsic feature (initial
velocity condition vector {Vo}). (Id. at 16.) In particular, {Vo} is a
simulation parameter not comprised in the subset of intrinsic features
determined by the Examiner (i.e., physical features and design of a door
including door trim products and overall geometric structure of the door
assembly) and not an intrinsic feature. (Ans. 16.) The Examiner further
determines the extrinsic feature {Vo} is required for carrying out the
simulation regardless of the currently active modeled object (door assembly)
because in a door slam simulation the velocity distribution at the instant of
the door slam contact event ({Vo}) is necessary. (Id.; see also Su 4.)
4

Appellants argue {Vo} does not satisfy the “extrinsic feature”
limitation based on their construction of “extrinsic feature” as being a
feature that is “independent” of intrinsic features. (App. Br. 7.) In support
of their argument, Appellants rely on a non-limiting embodiment in the
Specification, which states “[m]aking such extrinsic features independent of

4
The reference Su does not include page numbers. In this Decision, to be
consistent with the Examiner, we refer to the page of Su containing the
abstract as page 3, the next page of Su as page 4, and so on.
Appeal 2012-009725
Application 11/312,851

5
the edition workbench provides an improved handiness of the edition and
simulation system.” (Reply Br. 3.)
5
We must be careful not to read a
particular embodiment appearing in the patent specification into the claim if
the claim language is broader than the embodiment. (See SuperGuide Corp.
v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).) Here,
claim 1 is broader because its language does not preclude extrinsic features
from being dependent on intrinsic features. Finally, we note the
embodiment relied on by Appellants does not support Appellants’
construction. In particular, the Specification describes extrinsic features as
being independent of the edition workbench, not as being independent of the
intrinsic features. (Spec. 12, ll. 14–23.) As a result, we are unpersuaded
claim 1 requires extrinsic features to be independent of intrinsic features.
Appellants next argue the Examiner “only seeks to explain why the
initial velocity [{Vo}] ‘is required . . .,’ but does not demonstrate how the
initial velocity [is required] ‘regardless of the currently active modeled
object being simulated.’” (Reply Br. 2.) However, contrary to Appellants’
assertion, the Examiner finds Su teaches the “regardless” limitation: “The
simulation of Su is a door slam simulation which requires the initial velocity
condition vector for execution of the simulation, regardless of a specific
door assembly [i.e., currently active modeled object being simulated].”
(Emphasis added.) (Ans. 16.) Accordingly, the Examiner has demonstrated
Su teaches that an initial velocity vector {Vo} is required regardless of the
currently active modeled object being simulated.

5
Appellants do not number the pages of the Reply Br. In this Decision, we
refer to the first page of the Reply Br. as page 1, the second page of the
Reply Br. as page 2, and so on.
Appeal 2012-009725
Application 11/312,851

6
As a result, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive as to Examiner
error.
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2–24, 26, and 27 depend from claim 1 and Appellants do
not argue separate patentability for claims 2–24, 26, and 27. (App. Br. 11.)
Therefore, based on Appellants’ arguments, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2–24, 26, and 27. (37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).)

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–24, 26, and 27 is
AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED
mp