Ex Parte Giroux et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 2, 201711622741 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 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. 11/622,741 01/12/2007 Pierre-Paul GIROUX AUTO/1334US 3556 107456 7590 03/06/2017 Artegis Law Group, LLP John Carey 7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104 Houston, TX 77095 EXAMINER HAJNIK, DANIEL F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2614 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/06/2017 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 mmccauley @ artegislaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PIERRE-PAUL GIROUX and ROBERT LANCIAULT Appeal 2016-007149 Application 11/622,741 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15—26, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction According to the Specification, the present invention relates to a system for mapping animation from a source character to a destination character while conserving angular configuration. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 15 is exemplary: 1 Claims 27—29 are allowable. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2016-007149 Application 11/622,741 15. A method for retargeting an animation associated with a character model, the method comprising: determining a goal length for a body part included in the character model, the body part including a plurality of bones; determining a starting length of the body part; determining a scale value based on the starting length of the body part, the goal length for the body part, and an angular configuration of a corresponding body part in a second character model; and resizing the body part, via a processor, by applying the scale value to each bone included in the body part. References and Rejections2 Claims 15, 18, 20, 21, 24, and 26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maryann Simmons et al., Model- based Reconstruction for Creature Animation, Assoc. Comp. Mach., 139— 46, 198 (2002) (“Simmons”). Claims 16, 17, 22, and 23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Simmons, Hunter (US 2005/0030310 Al; publ. Feb. 10, 2005), Thingvold (US 5,990,908; iss. Nov. 23, 1999), and Geigel (US 2002/0122067 Al; publ. Sept. 5, 2002). Claims 19 and 25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Simmons, Hunter, and Thingvold. ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this 2 The Examiner withdrew the rejections of claims 21—26 under 35 U.S.C. §101 and the objections to claims 21—26. Ans. 2. 2 Appeal 2016-007149 Application 11/622,741 appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our analysis below.3 On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 15. I Appellants contend Simmons does not teach “determining a scale value based on the starting length of the body part, the goal length for the body part, and an angular configuration of a corresponding body part in a second character model,” as recited in claim 15 (emphasis added). See App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 3—6. In particular, Appellants assert: Simmons discloses only that bones are differentially scaled based on scale values previously applied when transforming joint segments of the canonical model. That is, the bones are scaled based on other scale values — the reference is entirely silent regarding scaling bones based on an angular configuration associated with a body part. . . . ... Simmons is entirely silent regarding the joint hierarchy of the target model as including any type of angular configuration information. App. Br. 10 (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 3^4. [T]he portions of Simmons cited in the Examiner’s Answer fail to disclose that bones are scaled based on an angular configuration associated with a body part, as required by claim 15. Instead, as explicitly disclosed in the caption of Figure 4 of Simmons (shown above), scaling is performed based on the lengths of lines drawn between various markers, including a top neck marker, a throat marker, a crest marker, a bottom barrel marker, etc. The fact that scaling is performed based on line 3 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). 3 Appeal 2016-007149 Application 11/622,741 measurements — and not an angular configuration of a body part — is further evidenced by § 3.3, second paragraph of Simmons, which states that “[t]he bone models are differentially scaled according to the conformational scale values calculated from the markers” .... Again, this portion of Simmons makes clear that, in Simmons, scaling is performed based on line measurements, not based on an angular configuration of a body part. Reply Br. 5 (emphases omitted). Appellants have not persuaded us of error. The Examiner finds Simmons teaches the claimed “angular configuration,” which encompasses “the set of angles between the bones in the skeleton of the source model” in Simmons. Ans. 8; see also In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (whether a reference teaches a claim limitation “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test”) (internal citation omitted). Appellants do not offer any persuasive substantive arguments to dispute that finding. Further, Simmons teaches the following: We have two methods for morphing the segment hierarchy, depending on the form that the input measurements take. One method accepts measured lengths of the subject’s limbs and body dimensions. To calculate joint angles, measurements from the corresponding surface marker location to the ground and other reference planes, in combination with the limb lengths, can be used to estimate the joint angles. Simmons § 3.2 (emphases added). Therefore, the Examiner finds Simmons teaches “determining [segment hierarchy morphing] based on ... an angular configuration of a corresponding body part” (emphasis added). See Ans. 7—8. Appellants do not provide any persuasive substantive arguments to dispute that finding. In addition, Simmons teaches “[t]he bone models are differentially scaled according to the conformational scale values calculated from the 4 Appeal 2016-007149 Application 11/622,741 markers. These values take into consideration the scale already implicitly applied due to the transformation resulting from the change in the joint hierarchy.” Simmons § 3.3 (emphasis added). Based on that teaching, and Simmons’ disclosure of determining segment hierarchy morphing based on an angular configuration, the Examiner finds “determining a scale value based on ... an angular configuration of a corresponding body part,” as recited in claim 15 (emphasis added), is taught by or would have been obvious in light of Simmons’ teachings. See Ans. 9. Appellants do not persuasively analyze the above Simmons excerpts in light of the Examiner’s findings, and do not persuasively show why the Examiner’s findings are incorrect. Therefore, Appellants fail to show error in the Examiner’s findings. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art”). In addition, Appellants’ assertion that “as explicitly disclosed in the caption of Figure 4 of Simmons . . . scaling is performed based on the lengths of lines drawn between various markers” (Reply Br. 5 (emphasis omitted)) does not show Examiner error, as the caption does not state scaling is based solely on the lengths of lines. Similarly, Appellants’ assertion that “scaling is performed based on line measurements — and not an angular configuration of a body part — is further evidenced by § 3.3, second paragraph” (Reply Br. 5 (emphasis omitted)) is unpersuasive, because the cited paragraph does not state scaling is based solely on line measurements, and does not state scaling is not based on angular configuration. 5 Appeal 2016-007149 Application 11/622,741 II Appellants assert the cited references do not teach “determining a starting length of the body part,” as recited in claim 15. See App. Br. 3. Appellants’ general assertion is unpersuasive of error. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim”); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that “the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”). Ill Appellants contend Simmons does not teach “resizing the body part, via a processor, by applying the scale value to each bone included in the body part,” as recited in claim 15 (emphasis added). See App. Br. 12. In particular, Appellants argue: Simmons performs bone morphing by differentially scaling bones based on scale values previously applied when transforming joint segments of the canonical model. Simmons at Section 3.3, 1 2. That is, in stark contrast to the above limitations of claim 15, which explicitly require the same scale value to be applied to each bone included in a body part, Simmons discloses that different scaling values are applied to each bone included in a body part. Thus, by stating that the bone morphing is performed by differentially scaling bones, Simmons is expressly teaching away from the approach recited in claim 15, which requires the same scale value to be applied to each bone included in a body part. App. Br. 12. 6 Appeal 2016-007149 Application 11/622,741 In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner finds: [T]he claimed “body part including a plurality of bones” is equated to the horse’s mid-section/trunk (also referred to as the horse’s barrel in the reference) of the canonical/source horse model. . . . .... Simmons in section 3.3, 2nd paragraph states that bone models for different portions of the horse are scale [d] differentially. However the same scaling value is being used for all rib bones inside the horse’s barrel or midsection. . . . .... [Simmons’s section 3.3, 2nd paragraph states] that one bone scale value is used to adjust multiple rib bones (such that “bones” is stated in the plural sense). This passage indicates Simmons is using one scale value (bs) to scale a plurality of rib bones located in the animal’s barrel/mid-section (which corresponds to the claimed “body part). In section 3.3,2ndparagraph when Simmons refers to “The bone models are differentially scaled according to the conformational scale values calculated from the markers” . . . , they are referring to using different scale values for each portion of the body has a given marker point measurement. As shown in figure 4, there is only one marker width measurement for the entire horse’s mid-section/barrel body part. Thus, all rib bones in horse’s mid-section/barrel body part receive the same scale value (bs) (using this one marker width for that entire body part). Ans. 10—14 (emphasis omitted). Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s above explanation. Therefore, Appellants fail to show error in the Examiner’s findings. See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391. Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 15, and independent claim 21 for similar reasons. 7 Appeal 2016-007149 Application 11/622,741 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent claims 16—20 and 22—26, as Appellants do not advance separate substantive arguments for those claims. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15—26. 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 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation