11442226 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 23, 2010)

Ex Parte Day

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 23, 2010

11442226 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 23, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte MICHAEL R. DAY _____________ Appeal 2009-004766 Application 11/442,226 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Decided: April 23, 2010 _______________ Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, and MAHSHID D. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-004766 Application 11/442,226 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-2, 10-11, 19-21, and 27.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to a system and method used to calculate specularly reflected light intensity from a plurality of light sources using algebraic equations. See Spec: 1-6. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A method for computing the intensity of specularly reflected light, comprising: representing the intensity of light reflected specularly from an object illuminated by a plurality of light sources by an algebraic expression, wherein the plurality of light sources comprises an extended light source composed of a plurality of point light sources; incorporating the algebraic expression into an illumination model for the illumination of the object, the model having specular illumination terms; and expressing the specular illumination terms of the illumination model in the same functional form as other terms of the illumination model. 1 Claims 3 and 12 were cancelled in an Amendment After Non-Final, mailed December 27, 2006. Claims 4-9, 13-18, and 22-26 were indicated by the Examiner as containing allowable subject matter if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 2 Appeal 2009-004766 Application 11/442,226 REFERENCES Gholizadeh US 5,369,737 Nov. 29, 1994 Kobayashi US 6,034,693 Mar. 7, 2000 REJECTION AT ISSUE Claims 1-2, 10-11, 19-21, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Gholizadeh. Ans. 3-6. ISSUE Rejection of claims 1-2, 10-11, 19-21, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Gholizadeh Appellant argues on pages 14-20 of the Appeal Brief and pages 4-5 that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-2, 10-11, 19-21, and 27 is in error. We select independent claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims 1-2, 10-11, 19-21, and 27 since Appellant does not separately argue these claims with particularity. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellant argues that there is no motivation to combine the references. App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 4. Thus, Appellant is arguing that the Examiner erred in combining Kobayashi with Gholizadeh. Thus, Appellant’s contentions with respect to claims 1-2, 10-11, 19- 21, and 27 present us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in combining Kobayashi with Gholizadeh? 3 Appeal 2009-004766 Application 11/442,226 FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) Kobayashi 1. Kobayashi discloses an image synthesizing apparatus and method that allows the front and back sides of primitive surfaces to be displayed with realistic representation without excessively increasing processing load. Col. 1, ll. 49-55 and col. 7, ll. 57-63. 2. Parameter information such as diffuse, ambient, and specular components, light vector, and normal vector of the surface in the lighting model is varied. Col. 7, ll. 57-63. Gholizadeh 3. Gholizadeh discloses a computer graphics method and apparatus that normalizes vectors that are used to implement shading. Col. 1, ll. 13- 15. 4. An illumination equation is used to produce realistic shading for each pixel. The equation includes ambient light, diffuse reflection of light, and specular reflection. Col. 4, ll. 30-50. 5. The equation is generalized for a plurality of point light sources. Col. 4, ll. 56-59. 6. In order to simplify and rapidly perform the illumination calculation, vector-based terms for each pixel are normalized. In the past, calculation of the intensity for pixels was accomplished using floating points. This process was not only time consuming but it prevented real-time calculation. Col. 1, ll. 60-62 and col. 2, ll. 15-18. 4 Appeal 2009-004766 Application 11/442,226 PRINCIPLES OF LAW Office personnel must rely on Appellants’ disclosure to properly determine the meaning of the terms used in the claims. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc). “[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted; emphasis in original). ANALYSIS Rejection of claims 1-2, 10-11, 19-21, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Gholizadeh Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided sufficient motivation to combine the references. App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 4. Appellant argues that Kobayashi calculates the intensity of light during the selection of the color palettes and, therefore, there is no suggestion to combine Kobayashi with Gholizadeh because Gholizadeh calculates the intensity of light in real-time. App. Br. 18-19. Thus, the calculation would be redundant. App. Br. 20. Further, Appellant argues that it was not obvious to combine the references since there is no motivation to combine the references. App. Br. 19. On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). 5 Appeal 2009-004766 Application 11/442,226 In order for Kobayashi to accomplish its goal of providing a realistic graphical image, the light vector and normal vector of the surface and parameter information that includes diffuse, ambient, and specular components of light are varied in a lighting model. FF 1, 2. Gholizadeh discloses producing realistic shading for pixels by utilizing an equation that includes ambient light, diffuse reflection of light, and specular reflection. FF 3, 4. The equation is generalized for a plurality of point light sources. FF 5. Both references include a method and system of realistically displaying a graphical image by calculating light intensities. Therefore, we consider using Gholizadeh’s process of generalizing a plurality of light sources with Kobayashi’s lighting model computation as nothing more than using a known method to perform a known function of calculating light intensity. As such, we find that the combination of Kobayashi with Gholizadeh yields the predictable result of displaying an image with realistic shading. Further, Appellant argues that the Examiner did not provide a motivation in either the April or October Office Actions and, therefore, a rationale does not exist. App. Br. 19. However, the Examiner stated, on page 4 of the Answer, that the combination of Kobayashi with Gholizadeh would “simplify the calculation of illumination.” Ans. 4. This same motivation is found on page 3 of the April and October Office Actions. Additionally, the motivation to combine the references is found in the Gholizadeh reference. Gholizadeh states that, in the past, in order to determine the intensity for a pixel, floating point devices were used. FF 6. Computations using floating points are time consuming and prevent real- time calculation. FF 6. Normalizing vector-based terms for each pixel 6 Appeal 2009-004766 Application 11/442,226 requires a few simple operations that allow the calculations to be rapidly performed. FF 6. Thus, the illumination calculation is simplified. FF 6. As a result, Appellant’s argument is not found to be persuasive. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2, 10-11, 19-21, and 27 which are grouped with claim 1. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in combining Kobayashi with Gholizadeh. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-2, 10-11, 19-21, and 27 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)(iv). 7 Appeal 2009-004766 Application 11/442,226 AFFIRMED ELD CARR & FERRELL LLP 2200 GENG ROAD PALO ALTO, CA 94303 8