Ex Parte Fitzmaurice et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 26, 201712200475 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/200,475 08/28/2008 George Fitzmaurice AUTO/1337US 7763 107456 7590 05/31/2017 Artegis Law Group, LLP John Carey 7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104 Houston, TX 77095 EXAMINER PILLAI, NAMITHA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2143 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2017 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): algdocketing @ artegislaw. com kcruz @ artegislaw.com rsmith @ artegislaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GEORGE FITZMAURICE, JUSTIN MATEJKA, IGOR MORDATCH, GORD KURTENBACH, and AZAM KHAN Appeal 2016-007857 Application 12/200,4751 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 24—26, 32—34, and 40-42.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Autodesk, Inc. App. Br. 3. 2 Claims 27—31, 35—39, and 43^46 are also pending and have been objected to as dependent upon a rejected base claim. Final Act. 6. The Examiner indicated the claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Id. Appeal 2016-007857 Application 12/200,475 INVENTION Appellants’ application relates to a navigation system for a 3D virtual scene. Abstract. Claim 24 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 24. A method for navigating within a three-dimensional scene, the method comprising: displaying a perspective slider having a position marker, the position marker indicating a position of a camera view relative to a surface of an object within the three dimensional scene; moving, via a processing unit, the position marker towards a first end of the perspective slider when the position of the camera view is moved towards the surface of the object; and moving, via the processing unit, the position marker towards a second end of the perspective slider when the position of the camera view is moved away from the surface of the object. REFERENCES AND REJECTION Claims 24—26, 32—34, and 40-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Burlnyk et al. (US 2004/0085335 Al; published May 6, 2004) (“Burlnyk”) and Valderas et al. (US 2005/0246642 Al; published Nov. 3, 2005) (“Valderas”). Final Act. 2. ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 24, the Examiner found that Burlnyk teaches or suggests all of the recited limitations, except a perspective slider, for which the Examiner relied on Valderas. Final Act. 2—3. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 24 because neither Burlnyk nor Valderas teaches or suggests the limitations of “moving the position marker towards a first end of the perspective slider when the 2 Appeal 2016-007857 Application 12/200,475 position of the camera view is moved towards the surface of the object,” and “moving the position marker towards a second end of the perspective slider when the position of the camera view is moved away from the surface of the object.” App. Br. 10. Appellants argue that neither Burlnyk nor Valderas teaches a perspective slider having a position marker that is moved along the perspective slider based on the position of a camera. Id. at 10-11. Appellants further argue that the slider and marker taught by Valderas correspond to a volume control, not a camera. Id. at 11—12. Similarly, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 25 because neither Burlnyk nor Valderas teaches or suggests the limitations of “decreasing the size of the position marker when the position of the camera view is moved towards the surface of the object” and “increasing the size of the position marker when the position of the camera view is moved away from the surface of the object.” App. Br. 12. Appellants further argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 26 because neither reference teaches the limitation “the size of the position marker is proportional to a distance from the position of the camera view to the surface of the object.” Id. at 13. Appellants’ arguments persuade us that the Examiner erred. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown that Valderas teaches or suggests the recited “perspective slider” of claim 24. The Examiner found that Valderas in Figure 8 teaches a slider that allows the user to drag along the bar for making changes to a value. Ans. 2—3. Claim 24, however, requires a “perspective slider having a position marker, the position marker indicating a position of a camera view relative to a surface of an object within the three dimensional scene.” App. Br. 16. The Examiner’s 3 Appeal 2016-007857 Application 12/200,475 conclusion that “[i]t would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to learn from Valderas a perspective slider having a position marker” (Final Act. 3) is not sufficient to show how the slider illustrated in Valderas Figure 8, when combined with the cited teachings of Burlnyk, teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 24. See Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 2—3. We also agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not sufficiently shown how the combined teachings of Burlnyk and Valderas teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claims 25 and 26, which depend from claim 24. In particular, the Examiner has not identified where the cited references teach or suggest that the size of the position marker is decreased or increased (claim 25) or is proportional to a distance from a position of a camera view to a surface of an object (claim 26). See Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner found that “the slider displayed on Valderas is known to increase and decrease size based on marker placement on the slider.” Id. at 3. Claim 25, however, requires modifying the size of the position marker. With regard to claim 26, the Examiner found that “[t]he combination of Burlnyk and Valderas disclose that the size of the marker changes from different sides of the slider and represents different perspectives including the position of the camera view from the surface of the object.” Id. at 4. The Examiner’s findings, however, are insufficiently supported by citations to teachings in the prior art. For these reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Burlnyk and Valderas teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 24, 25, and 26. 4 Appeal 2016-007857 Application 12/200,475 Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 24, or the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 32 and 40, which recited similar limitations. Dependent claims 25, 26, 33, 34, 41, and 42 depend from claims 24, 32, or 40 and fall therewith. DECISION We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 24—26, 32— 34, and 40-A2. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation