Ex Parte Girard

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2016

11972006 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111972,006 01/10/2008
107456 7590 02/25/2016
Artegis Law Group, LLP
John Carey
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
MICHAEL GIRARD
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.
AUT0/1129 5942
EXAMINER
BADER, ROBERT N.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2016 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 MICHAEL GIRARD
Appeal2013-009919
Application 11/972,006
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-28, which are all the claims pending
in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Autodesk, Inc. App.
Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant's Appeal Brief filed April 29, 2013
("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed August 5, 2013 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's
Answer mailed June 4, 2013 ("Ans."); the Final Office Action mailed
Appeal2013-009919
Application 11/972,006
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's Invention
Appellant's invention relates to a method for rendering frames of an
animation sequence using a plurality of motion clips included in a plurality
of motion spaces that define a behavioral motion space. Abstract.
According to Appellant, each motion space includes motion clips,
registration curves, and a reference clip. Spec. i-f 25. Within a given motion
space, each of the motion clips are of the same motion type, such as running
or walking. Id. The reference clip may provide a representative clip of the
motion space. Id. i-f 32. For example, for a motion space representing a
character walking motion, the reference clip may depict the character
walking in a generally straight line for a number of steps. Id. Motion clips
from different motion spaces may be blended to transition the character from
one form of periodic locomotion to another, or to blend different forms of
motion for an extended period to form new, hybrid motion types, such as a
running-walk. Id. i-f 39.
Claims 1, 11, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and is
reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method for generating a behavioral motion space, the
method comprising:
receiving a plurality of motion spaces, wherein each
motion space includes a plurality of motion clips depicting a
character performing a periodic motion;
processing each of the motion spaces so that each motion
clip In a given motion space has a same number of cycles of the
October 31, 2012 ("Final Act."); and the original Specification filed January
10, 2008 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2013-009919
Application 11/972,006
periodic motion as every other motion clip in the given motion
space and so that each motion clip forms a loop where the pose
of a last frame in each clip matches the pose of a first frame;
determining a reference motion clip for each of the
plurality of motion spaces, wherein the reference motion clip
for each motion space is representative of the periodic motion
depicted in the motion space;
computing, based on the reference motion clip for each
of the plurality of motion spaces, a set of temporal registration
curves between the plurality of motion spaces;
identifying a first motion clip in a first motion space and
a second motion clip in a second motion space that are both
associated with a common curvature characteristic; and
computing, via a computing device, a cross registration
curve that defines a blended motion between the first motion
clip and the second motion clip.
App. Br. 14 (Claims Appx.).
Evidence Considered
(1) "Verbs and Adverbs: Multidimensional Motion Interpolation
Using Radial Basis," Charles Rose, Bobby Bodenheimer, Michael F. Cohen,
Microsoft Research (hereinafter referred as "Rose").
(2) "Efficient Generation of Motion Transitions using Spacetime
Constraints" by Charles Rose, Brian Guenter, Bobby Bodenheimer, and
Michael F. Cohen, Microsoft Research (hereinafter referred as "Guenter");
(3) "Parametric Motion Graphs," Rachel Heck and Michael
Gleicher, University of Wisconsin-Madison, ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium
on Interactive 3D Graphics Conference Proceedings (hereinafter referred as
"Heck");
( 4) "Flexible Automatic Motion Blending with Registration
Curves," Lucas Kovar and Michael Gliecher, University of Wisconsin-
Madison, ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Computer Animation (2003)
(hereinafter referred as "Kovar"); and
(5) "Precomputed Search Trees: Planning for Interactive Goal-
Driven Animation," Manfred Lau and James J. Kuffner, Carnegie Mellon
University, ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Computer Animation (2006)
(hereinafter referred as "Lau").
3
Appeal2013-009919
Application 11/972,006
Examiner's Rejections
(1) Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-17, 19-21, 23-26, and 28 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rose, Guenter,
and Heck. Final Act. 2-12.
(2) Claims 2, 12, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rose, Guenter, Heck, and Kovar. Final Act. 12-15.
(3) Claims 8, 18, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rose, Guenter, Heck, and Lau. Final Act. 15-16.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant's arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the Examiner's combination of Rose, Guenter, and Heck teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation: "computing ... a cross registration curve
that defines a blended motion between the first motion clip and the second
motion clip" as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 11 and 21.
App. Br. 8-11.
ANALYSIS
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-17, 23-26, and 28 over
Rose, Guenter, and Heck.
In support of the obviousness rejection of claim 1 and similarly,
claims 11 and 21, the Examiner finds the combination of Rose and Heck
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation: "computing ... a cross
registration curve that defines a blended motion between the first motion clip
and the second motion clip" as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in
4
Appeal2013-009919
Application 11/972,006
claims 11and12. Final Act. 6-8 (citing Rose§ 5.1; Heck§§ 2.1, 3.2). In
particular, the Examiner finds Rose teaches a method for generating a
behavioral motion space in which "each motion space includes a plurality of
motion clips." Final Act. 3 (citing Rose§ 3.3). The Examiner further finds
Heck teaches: (1) motion clips in different motion spaces, (2) transitions
between clips in different motion spaces, and (3) computing motion graphs,
the edges of which provide transition registration curves. Id. at 6-7 (citing
Heck§§ 3.1-3.2). In other words, the Examiner finds Heck teaches
computing Appellant's claimed "cross registration curve" (transition edges)
between any two clips. Id.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims
because: (1) Rose "does not teach a cross registration curve that defines a
blended motion between a first motion clip and a second motion clip, where
the two motion clips are from two different motion spaces, each motion
space including a plurality of motion clips, as explicitly required by claim 1"
and (2) secondary references, such as Guenter and Heck, fail to cure the
deficiencies of Rose. App. Br. 9-10 (emphasis in original). Appellant
further argues "the Examiner has not explained how the single
parameterized motions in Rose relate to the motion spaces of the claims,
where each motion space includes a plurality of motion clips." Id. at 11.
We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive. Rather, we find the
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellant's arguments
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 2-5. As such, we adopt the
Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For example,
Rose is relied upon for teaching motion clips in motion spaces. Ans. 2
(citing Rose § 4.1 ). In particular, Rose's parameterized motion represents
5
Appeal2013-009919
Application 11/972,006
many motion clips in a motion space and a graph of verbs (with arcs)
represents transitions between verbs, motion spaces. Id. at 3. Heck, not
Rose, is relied upon for teaching computing Appellant's claimed "cross
registration curves" between any two clips from different motion spaces as
discussed in Section 3.2. Final Act. 7; Ans. 3--4 (citing Heck§§ 3.1-3.2).
In particular, "Heck teaches that parameterized motion spaces (i.e., the
animation of a punch to similar locations) may have transitions computed
from a single representative motion clip to another representative clip in
another motion space (section 3.2) by a sampling procedure." Ans. 4 (citing
Heck§ 3.2).
In reply, Appellant further argues:
"determining a transition point between parameterized motion
spaces, as described in Heck, is technically distinct from
'computing ... a cross registration curve that defines a blended
motion between [a] first motion clip and [a] second motion
clip' from different motion spaces, as explicitly required by
claim 1. One of ordinaf'Y skill in the art \'l/ould not equate a
transition point with a cross registration curve that defines a
blended motion."
Reply Br. 7-8 (emphasis added).
We are not persuaded. As described by Heck, linear blend transitions
between motion clips are based on the motion graph, and Heck' s motion
graph based on motion clips in different motion spaces can be considered as
Appellant's claimed "cross registration curve."
Separately, Appellant raises two new arguments. First, Appellant
further argues neither Rose nor Heck discloses "identifying a first motion
clip in a first motion space and a second motion clip in a second motion
space" and "each motion spaces includes a plurality of motion clips
6
Appeal2013-009919
Application 11/972,006
depicting a character performing a periodic motion." Reply Br. 5. Second,
Appellant argues "the Examiner did not give separate meaning to the term
'temporal registration curve' and "cross registration curve' as recited in the
claims." Id. at 8. According to Appellant, "[t]he Examiner is incorrect in
mapping both the claimed set of temporal registration curves and the cross
registration curve to the same element disclosed in Hee~' because "both the
claimed set of temporal registration curves and the cross registration curve
[are mapped] to the same element in Heck, i.e. the transition edge." Id.
However, Appellant has not explained why, nor is it apparent that,
these new arguments were necessitated by a new point in the Examiner
Answer or any other circumstance constituting "good cause" for its belated
presentation. See Ex parte Borden, 93 U.S.P.Q.2d 1473, 1473-74 (BPAI
2010) ("informative") (absent a showing of good cause, the Board is not
required to address argument in Reply Brief that could have been presented
in the principal Appeal Brief'). As such, these arguments are deemed
waived. Nevertheless, we note that motion clips in different motion spaces
as described by Heck include identification of "a first motion clip in a first
motion space and a second motion clip in a second motion space" in the
manner recited in claims 1, 11, and 21. Moreover, the terms "temporal
registration curves" and "cross registration curve" refer to the same element
forming (1) between motion clips within a motion space or (2) between
motion clips in different motion spaces.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellant has not persuaded us of any
error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 11, and 21. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1, 11, and 21 and its
7
Appeal2013-009919
Application 11/972,006
dependent claims 3-7, 9-10, 13-17, 19-20, 23-26, and 28, which Appellant
does not argue separately. App. Br. 12.
With respect to the obviousness rejection of (1) claims 2, 12, and 22
over Rose, Guenter, Heck, and Kovar, and (2) claims 8, 18, and 27 over
Rose, Guenter, Heck, and Lau, Appellant does not present separate
patentability arguments. App. Br. 12. For the same reasons discussed, we
also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of these claims.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
OTHER ISSUES
In the event of further prosecution of this application, this panel
suggests that the Examiner consider rejecting claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, i.e., an abstract idea
in light of the two-steps framework set out in the Supreme Court decision in
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank lnt'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014).
In Alice, the Supreme Court sets forth an analytical "framework for
distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts." Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289, at 1296-97 (2012)). The first step in the
analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts." Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-
ineligible concept, the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements
8
Appeal2013-009919
Application 11/972,006
of the claims "individually and 'as an ordered combination'" to determine
whether there are additional elements that "'transform the nature of the
claim' into a patent-eligible application." Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at
1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to "search for an 'inventive
concept'-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to
ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent
on the [ineligible concept] itself." Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo,
132 S.Ct. at 1294).
In the first step of the framework set out in Alice, the Examiner may
wish to consider whether Appellant's claims 1, 11, and 21 are directed to a
patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract concept involving a behavioral
motion space, motion clips in these motion spaces and registration curves
that specify the relationship between motion clips. In step two, the
Examiner may wish to consider whether Appellant's claims 1, 11, and 21 do
not recite any "inventive concept" or "an element or combination of
elements" that amounts to significantly more than the recited abstract
concept. If the Examiner finds Appellant's claims 1, 11, and 21 are directed
to no more than a patent-ineligible abstract idea, the Examiner should
consider rejecting these claims under § 101.
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-28.
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).
9
Appeal2013-009919
Application 11/972,006
AFFIRMED
10