Ex Parte Gamliel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2016

12919081 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/919,081 08/24/2010
7590 05/16/2016
C-Trne Ltd,
c/o POLIGEM LTD.,
Atten: Mr. Moshe Amir
Maccabi Building 1J abotinsky St.
Ramat-Gan, 5252001
ISRAEL
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Avihu Meir Gamliel
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.
LIVNE-001-US 3348
EXAMINER
HAJNIK, DANIEL F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/16/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte A VIHU MEIR GAMLIEL,
SHMUEL GOLDENBERG, and FELIX TSIPIS
Appeal2014-006722
Application 12/919,081
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-32, which constitute all of the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is C-True Ltd. App. Br.
2.
Appeal2014-006722
Application 12/919,081
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to three dimensional mesh modeling.
Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:
1. Apparatus for three dimensional mesh modeling, the apparatus
compnsmg:
a point cloud inputter, configured to input a point cloud
generated 'using at least one sensor of a sensing device, said point
cloud comprising a plurality of points; and
a mesh model generator, associated with said point cloud
inputter, configured to generate a mesh model from the input
point cloud, by connecting the points in a manner determined
according to a positional relationship among a plurality of
projections of said points onto a geometrical surface said sensors
are arranged on, each of said projections pertaining to a
respective one of said points.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-9, 15, 17-25, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Migdal et al.
(US 2002/0167518 Al; published Nov. 14, 2002) and Petrov et al.
(US 2006/0227133 Al; published Oct. 12, 2006).
Claims 10, 11, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Migdal, Petrov, and Marschner et al.
(US 2006/0192785 Al; published Aug. 31, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in combining the teachings of
Migdal and Petrov because the combination "would have to change the
principal of operation" of at least one of Migdal and Petrov. App. Br. 13.
2
Appeal2014-006722
Application 12/919,081
Appellants argue that Migdal teaches up/down resolution functionality, in
which "tracking and recording of a point by point (i.e. one point at a time)
addition of points to the mesh model, in a reversible order that is based on
significance of each added point in terms of the descriptive detail added by
the point," are crucial. Id. Appellants further argue that, in Petrov, the mesh
model is built by successive addition of polygons built in 2D and projected
into 3D to a mesh model, rather than by the incremental point-by-point
addition taught by Migdal. Id. at 12. Appellants also argue that the order of
polygon addition to the 3D mesh model of Petrov "represents a shift in
angle of perspective rather than the change in a level of detail that is
essential" for Migdal's "up/down resolution" functionality. Id. Thus,
Appellants conclude that Migdal cannot operate on the triangular 3D mesh
model built in step 112 of Petrov's Figure 12. Id. at 13.
We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusion (see Ans. 3-5)
and adopt them as our own. As the Examiner explained, although Migdal
teaches that an initial mesh may be enhanced later through up/ down
resolution, construction of initial mesh 130, which does not require
up/down-resolution, is sufficient to teach the claimed features. Ans. 3. The
Examiner also found that, in Migdal, the initial mesh is constructed by
incrementally adding points or vertices, which are ordered counterclockwise.
Id. at 4 (citing Migdal i-fi-f 18, 81). The Examiner relied on Petrov as
disclosing contributing 3D data to the initial mesh 130 of Migdal, noting
similarities between the operation of the 3D object building module in
Petrov and the construction of the initial mesh in Migdal. Id. at 3-5 (citing
Petrov i1 424, Figs. 10, 57; Migdal i-fi-f 18, 81 ).
3
Appeal2014-006722
Application 12/919,081
Appellants' contentions do not persuade us that the 3D mesh in Petrov
is not built by incrementally computing 3D coordinates. See, e.g., Petrov i-fi-1
246, 423-24. Rather, Appellants' arguments are premised on differences in
the manner in which Migdal and Petrov determine the locations of points.
As the Examiner found, Petrov teaches constructing a 3D mesh model by
finding 3D points on 2D silhouette contours. Ans. 4--5 (citing Petrov i1424,
Figs. 10, 57). We observe that paragraph 423 of Petrov further explains that
the initial 3D object building module "examine[s] each point of the selected
polygon silhouette (e.g. silhouette 1950, FIG. 58) and for each such point
determines a corresponding point for the near and far faces." Petrov i1 423,
Fig. 58. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that, in Petrov, "the 3D object
building module works in an incremental manner, i.e. operating by adding
individual points or vertexes to construct the 3D data." Ans. 6. The
successive addition of 2D polygons in Petrov may change the resulting level
of detail in the mesh model, but, on the record before us, we are not
persuaded that such shifts in perspective are incompatible with the point-by-
point construction of the initial mesh in Migdal. See Ans. 6.
Moreover, the Examiner provided persuasive articulated reasoning
with rational underpinning for an artisan of ordinary skill to have modified
Migdal to use Petrov' s system as the sensor to acquire point cloud data.
Final Act. 5---6 (citing Migdal i1 4, Fig.2a; Petrov Figs. 25, 27). Appellants
provide no persuasive explanation or evidence to rebut the Examiner's
reasoning. See App. Br. 9-13; Reply Br. 3-8.
Furthermore, Appellants have not presented evidence sufficient to
show that modifying Migdal by adding 3D data of Petrov to the initial mesh
130 of Migdal would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
4
Appeal2014-006722
Application 12/919,081
ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior
art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citingKSR, 550 U.S. 398, 418-19 (2007)).
For these reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner
erred in combining Migdal and Petrov or in finding that the combined
references teach or suggest the elements of claim 1. Therefore, we sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, as well as the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2-32, which are not argued
separately or with sufficient specificity. See App. Br. 13-14.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-32 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5