Ex Parte Donner

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2016

13546172 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016)

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.
13/546,172 07/11/2012 Craig Steven Donner 12551 1170
27752 7590 01/03/2017
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
SHENG, XIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2017 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):
centraldocket. im @ pg. com
pair_pg @ firsttofile. com
mayer.jk @ pg. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRAIG STEVEN DONNER
Appeal 2016-003799
Application 13/546,172
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-003799
Application 13/546,172
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the claimed invention “relates to the field of
computerized methods for rendering of skin and faces” (Spec. 1,11. 4—5).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A computer-implemented method for rendering an image,
comprising:
a) providing a set of surface points representing a geometrical
arrangement of an object;
b) providing a thickness value for at least one surface layer of the
object;
c) using the thickness value to calculate reflectance values and a
transmittances value for the set of surface points; and
d) rendering an image of the object on a display using the reflectance
values and the transmittance values calculated for the set of points;
wherein step c) comprises calculating the reflectance and transmittance
values according to the integral of the Fresnel reflectance at the layer
boundaries.
2
Appeal 2016-003799
Application 13/546,172
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal: Hanrahan
Xie US 2005/0219249 A1 Oct. 6,2005
Debevec US 2009/0226049 A1 Sept. 10, 2009
Pat Hanrahan and Wolfgang Krueger, Reflection from Layered
Surfaces due to Subsurface Scattering, Assn for Computing Machinery, 165-
174 (1993)
Jos Stam, An Illumination Model for a skin Layer Bounded by Rough
Surfaces, Rendering Techniques, 39-52 (2001)
Claims 1 and 4—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Debevec and Hanrahan.
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Debevec, Hanrahan, and Xie.
Claims 15, 16, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Debevec, Hanrahan, and Stam.
Claims 17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Debevec, Hanrahan, Stam, and Xie.
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Debevec and Hanrahan teaches or suggests
“calculating the reflectance and transmittance values according to the
integral of the Fresnel reflectance at the layer boundaries” (claim 1).
3
Appeal 2016-003799
Application 13/546,172
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Debevec
1. Debevec discloses techniques for modeling layered facial reflectance
to model the light transport through multiple layers of skin (Abst.), wherein
the Torrance-Sparrow bi-directional reflectance distribution function
(BRDF) including the Fresnel reflectance term is used (]Hf 60-62). Given
that the Torrance-Sparrow BRDF models a rough specular surface, the
Fresnel equations for transmission in a smooth surface can be replaced with
diffuse transmission due to the rough specular surface (172).
Hanrahan
2. Hanrahan discloses a model for subsurface scattering in layered
surfaces, such as biological tissues (e.g., skin). As an application of the
model, the appearance of a face is simulated from experimental data
describing its layer properties (Abst.). For layered media, the integral
equation including the Fresnel transmission term is applied (p. 167—8,
Section 4 “Light Transport Equations”). Human skin can be modeled as
two layers with almost homogeneous properties (p. 171, section 7.1 “Skin”).
IV. ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. We do not consider arguments that
Appellant could have made but chooses not to make in the Appeal Brief, and
we deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
With respect to claims 1 and 4—14, Appellant contends “Debevec
teaches the replacement of Fresnel terms in the case of a rough surface,” and
4
Appeal 2016-003799
Application 13/546,172
that Hanrahan “provides that the Fresnel transmission term may be used in
the limited case of smooth planar surface impinged by parallel radiation”
(App. Br. 3 (emphasis omitted)). Thus, Appellant contends the references
“fail to disclose the use of integrals of the Fresnel values or the use of such
integrals — or even the disclosed Fresnel values [sic] — for the purpose of
calculating reflectance and transmittance values for any case other than a
smooth surface and parallel radiation,” as mentioned in Hanrahan but in
conflict with Debevec (id.). That is, Appellant contends “Debevec teaches
replacement of the Fresnel term” and “Hanrahan limits the use of Fresnel to
a localized special case,” wherein “the references teach away from the
claimed method” (id. at 3^4 (emphasis omitted)).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellant’s contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejections of the claims. Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s
findings, and find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims
would have been obvious over the combined teachings.
We first note that Appellant does not specifically argue that both
Debevec and Hanrahan lack the claimed features, but rather “fail to disclose
the use of integrals of the Fresnel values . . .for the purpose of calculating
reflectance and transmittance values for any case other than a smooth
surface and parallel radiation” (App. Br. 3, emphasis added). That is,
Appellant appears to concede that the references disclose the use of integrals
of the Fresnel values, but fails to disclose such use for any other case than
“smooth surface and parallel radiation” (id.). However, such argument is
not commensurate in scope with the recited language of the claims since the
claims do not preclude such use in “smooth surface” or “parallel radiation”
5
Appeal 2016-003799
Application 13/546,172
cases (id.). That is, the claims merely require “calculating the reflectance
and transmittance values according to the integral of the Fresnel reflectance
at the layer boundaries” (claim 1).
Furthermore, we note Appellant does not point to any specific
teaching in the references to support the contention that Hanrahan may be
used in “limited case of smooth planar surface” or that the Office Action
“may not simply reinsert the [Fresnel] term” in Debevec (id.). Our
reviewing court guides that mere attorney arguments that are unsupported by
factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705
(Fed. Cir. 1984); Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843,
slip op. at *7—8 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative).
Here, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Hanrahan teaches
and suggests “human skin surface modelling using integral of Fresnel” (Ans.
4; FF 2). Debevec also discloses face, skin surface modeling using Fresnel
terms (FF 1). Although Appellant contends “Debrevec teaches the
replacement of Fresnel terms in the case of a rough surface” (App. Br. 4
(emphasis omitted)), nothing in the claims requires the case of rough
surface. Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that “there is nowhere in
Debevec stating that integral of Fresnel cannot be used in rough surface”
(Ans. 4; FF 1). That is, Debevec merely states that, for the BRDF models,
the Fresnel equations for transmission in a smooth surface “can” be replaced
(FF 1).
Although Appellant contends the references “teach away” (App. Br.
3—4), our reviewing court guides: “A reference may be said to teach away
when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
6
Appeal 2016-003799
Application 13/546,172
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led
in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Ricoh
Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(citations omitted). Here, we agree with the Examiner that a reference does
not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative
invention from amongst options available to the ordinarily skilled artisan,
and the reference does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the
solution claimed.” (Ans. 4, citing In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed.
Cir. 2004)).
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that, similar to Appellant’s
invention, “Debevec and Hanrahan both disclose light reflectance and
transmittance for layered surfaces” (Ans. 5; FF 1—2). That is, “Hanrahan
specifically pointed out the presented layered surfaces model is particularly
appropriate for common layered materials appearing in nature, such as
biological tissues (e.g., skin, leaves, etc.)” and “Debevec’s modeling is also
for facial skin” {id. (emphasis omitted)). Debevec’s preference for replacing
the Fresnel equations for transmission in a smooth surface for the Torrance-
Sparrow BRDF models does not constitute a teaching away from the
alternative. See Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201.
The Supreme Court has clearly stated the “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). As the Examiner finds, “Hanrahan discloses that there
is a need for a model of surface and subsurface reflection that its coefficients
can be adjusted based on subtle variations in reflection from different
materials” (Ans. 5 (emphasis omitted)). We are unpersuaded of error of the
7
Appeal 2016-003799
Application 13/546,172
Examiner’s finding that it would have been obvious “to modify the layered
image rendering method (as taught by Debevec) to use the integral
calculation of Fresnel reflectance (as taught by Hanrahan),” so as “to come
up with a surface reflectance calculation that is important in biological
tissues” (id.). In particular, we find that Appellant’s invention is simply a
modification of familiar prior art teachings that would have realized a
predictable result to the skilled artisan. The skilled artisan is “a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 4—14 over the combination of Debevec and
Hanrahan.
Appellant does not provide substantive arguments for the other
pending claims other than contending “[t]he addition of’ Xie and Stam
“fail[] to cure this underlying deficiency” with regard to the base claims
(App. Br. 4, 6, and 7). However, as discussed above, we find no error with
respect to the Examiner’s rejection of these base claims. Thus, we also
affirm the rejections of claims 2 and 3 over Debevec and Hanrahan, in
further view of Xie; claims 15, 16, 18, and 20 over Debevec and Hanrahan,
in further view of Stam; and claims 17 and 19 over Debevec and Hanrahan,
in further view of Stam and Xie.
CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness rejections of
claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
8
Appeal 2016-003799
Application 13/546,172
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9