11283324 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

Ex Parte Cook et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 21, 2016

11283324 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111283,324 11/18/2005 107456 7590 06/23/2016 Artegis Law Group, LLP John Carey 7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104 Houston, TX 77095 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR JoAnnaCook 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. AUT0/1006 5980 EXAMINER CARLOS, ALVIN LEABRES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/23/2016 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): 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 JOANNA COOK and JOSE MADEIRA DE FREITAS GARCIA Appeal2014-006666 Application 11/283,324 1 Technology Center 3700 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15-19, 21, 23-25, 27, 29, and 31-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. BACKGROUND According to Appellants, "[t]he present invention generally relates to computer software. More specifically, the present invention relates "to a 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Autodesk, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2014-006666 Application 11/283,324 computer aided design application that allows users to modify a shadow cast by a light source in a 3-dimensional model (3D model)." Spec. i-f 1. CLAIMS Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15-19, 21, 23-25, 27, 29, and 31-33 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A computer-implemented method for manipulating a shadow of an object in a three-dimension (30) model cast by a light source, the method comprising: receiving, via an input device, an indication of an initial position of a shadow grip-point, wherein the initial position is defined within a shadow-bounded region of the 30 model; determining a pivot point that is a point on a line between a current position of the light source and the initial position of the shadow grip-point; receiving, via the input device, an indication of a destination position of the shadow grip-point, wherein the destination position is derived from movements of a mouse cursor that are translated into movements within a two- dimensionai workpiane based on the iocation of the two- dimensional workplane; calculating a vector that represents a new position of the light source based on a position of the pivot point and the destination position of the shadow grip-point; determining whether the new position of the light source is physically possible; if the new position of the light source is not physically possible, then: providing visual feedback indicating that the new position of the light source is not physically possible, or if the new position of the light source is physically possible, then: adjusting a plurality of properties associated with the light source based on the new position represented by 2 Appeal2014-006666 Application 11/283,324 the vector, wherein a first property of the plurality of properties comprises a position property that indicates a current position of the light source and a second property of the plurality of properties comprises a time of day property that indicates a time of day associated with the current position of the light source; and modifying the shadow-bounded region based on the adjusted position of the light source. Appeal Br. 18-19 (emphasis added). REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15-19, 21, 23-25, 27, 29, and 31-33 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Pellacini2 in view of Gardiner. 3 DISCUSSION Each of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recites "determining whether the new position of the light source is physically possible." See Appeal Br. 18; 20; 22. As discussed below; we are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner failed to establish that the prior art of record teaches or suggests this claim limitation. In the rejection, the Examiner finds, without explanation, that Pellacini' s description of "implementing constraints validation" teaches the claim limitation "determining whether the new position of the light source is physically possible." Final Action 3 (citing Pellacini Â§ 3.3). Further, in response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner quotes Pellacini's 2 Pellacini et al., "A User Interface for Interactive Cinematic Shadow Design," ACM Transactions on Graphics, pub. July 1, 2002. 3 Gardiner, US 6,195,099 Bl, iss. Feb. 27, 2001. 3 Appeal2014-006666 Application 11/283,324 descnpt10n of "Hotspot operations" and "Constraints" without further explanation. See Id. at 12-13 (quoting Pellacini Â§Â§ 3.2.4, 3.3). Finally, in the Answer, the Examiner similarly quotes the same portion of Pellacini, adding only that "Pellacini provide[ s] the algorithm that limit[ s] the manipulation of the shadow and the light source through user preferred constrain[t]s." Ans. 3. The Examiner also states: Furthermore, Examiner cited Gardiner to teach a computer aided system that provide specific algorithm that allow modifying the current position of the light source (and the corresponding produce shadows) based on the adjustment of the time of day property that indicates a time of day (see figures 2 and 4, column 5 lines 18-57, column 8 lines 50-67 and column 9 lines 1-9). Therefore, Examiner modify Pellacini' s general algorithm of constrains that limits the manipulation of both the light source and shadows by incorporating Gardiner's specific algorithm that limits the movements of both the light source and shadows based on the adjustment of the time of the day in order to provide a real- time rendering time-based shadow based from the simulated movement of the sun/moon (light source). Id. at 3--4. The claim requires a determination that the new position of the light source is physically possible. We agree with Appellants that determining whether a light source's position is physically possible is different than manipulating and restricting the position of a light source based on user constraints. Reply Br. 5. We find that the Examiner failed to explain how Pellacini's description of hotspots and constraints teaches or suggests such a determination or even relates to such a determination. Id. To the extent the Examiner also relies on Gardiner for this limitation, we find that the Examiner also failed to explain how the cited portions of Gardiner relate to 4 Appeal2014-006666 Application 11/283,324 such a determination. Thus, we find on the record before us that the Examiner failed to establish that the art of record teaches or suggests determining whether the position of a light source is physically possible. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 1 7 or any of the remaining claims on appeal, which depend from those independent claims. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15-19, 21, 23-25, 27, 29, and 31-33. REVERSED 5