Ex Parte Grenfell

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2013

11124552 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2013)

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.
11/124,552 05/06/2005 Desmond Grenfell AD01.P828 9601
111003 7590 07/26/2013
Adobe / Finch & Maloney PLLC
50 Phillippe Cote Street
Manchester, NH 03101
EXAMINER
MCDOWELL, JR, MAURICE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2677
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2013 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 DESMOND GRENFELL
____________

Appeal 2011-000171
Application 11/124,552
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection
of claims 12, 13, 16 – 23, 26 – 29, and 31 – 33, the only claims pending in
the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
AFFIRM.

Appeal 2011-000171
Application 11/124,552

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a methodology for creating a high-
quality texture map for photographic retexturing of an object. Spec. p. 2, ll.
2 – 4. Independent claim 12 is illustrative and is reproduced below:

12. A computer-implemented method for creating a texture
map for a three-dimensional surface, comprising:
defining a triangular mesh model of a surface;
identifying at least one user-specified texture underfold
constraint by presenting a two-dimensional image of the
surface, and
receiving input from a user-input device to superimpose a first
free-form line on the image, wherein the first free-form line
substantially corresponds to the location of an underfold on the
surface;
computing a weighted energy functional for the triangular
mesh, the weighted energy functional comprising a plurality of
nodal texture values from which the triangular mesh is
specified, the nodal texture values computed in accordance with
the at least one user-specified texture underfold constraint based
on the received input to superimpose the first free-form line on
the image;
recomputing the nodal texture values to converge the weighted
energy functional toward a minimum value, and wherein
computing is performed by one or more processors; and
generating a texture map using the recomputed nodal texture
values of the triangular mesh, wherein as a result of the
computing, the texture map is folded resulting in a connected
discontinuity on the texture map along the first free-form line,
wherein position of the connected discontinuity is defined by
the first free-form line of the user-specified underfold
constraint.

Appeal 2011-000171
Application 11/124,552

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 12, 13, 16, 18 – 23, 26, 28, 29, and 31 – 33 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoppe (US
2003/0206177 A1) and Vecchione (US 5,504,845). Answer 3 – 18.
Claims 17 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hoppe, Vecchione and Ahn (US 2005/0197731 A1).
Answer 19 – 22.

ISSUES
Claims 12, 13, and 17 – 21
Appellant argues that the proposed combination of Hoppe and
Vecchione fails to teach the subject matter of independent claim 12. Appeal
Br. 8 – 10. These arguments present us with the following issues: did the
Examiner err in finding that Vecchione teaches: (1) “receiving input from a
user-input device to superimpose a first free-form line on the image, wherein
the first free-form line substantially corresponds to the location of an
underfold on the surface” and (2) “generating a texture map . . . the texture
map is folded resulting in a connected discontinuity on the texture map
along the first free-form line, wherein position of the connected
discontinuity is defined by the first free-form line . . . ,” as recited in
independent claim 12, and as commensurately recited in independent claims
18 and 20?
With respect to claims 13 and 17 – 21, Appellant relies on the
arguments presented with respect to claim 12 (Appeal Br. 10). Thus, these
arguments present us with the same issues as discussed with respect to claim
12.
Appeal 2011-000171
Application 11/124,552

4
Claims 22, 23, 27 – 29 and 31-33
Appellant argues that the proposed combination of Hoppe and
Vecchione fails to teach the subject matter of independent claim 22. Appeal
Br. 10 – 13. These arguments present us with the following issues: did the
Examiner err in finding that Vecchione teaches: (1) “receiving input from a
user-input device to superimpose a first free-form line on the image, wherein
the first free-form line corresponds to the location of a unconnected-
discontinuity in the surface” and (2) “generating a texture map . . . the
texture map is completely disconnected along the first free-form line
resulting in a discontinuity on the texture map along the first free-form line,
wherein position of the discontinuity is defined by the first free-form line of
the user-specified unconnected-discontinuity constraint,” as recited in
independent claim 22, and as commensurately recited in independent claims
28 and 31?
With respect to claims 23, 27 – 29, and 31 – 33, Appellant relies on
the arguments presented with respect to claim 22 (Appeal Br. 13). Thus,
these arguments present us with the same issues as discussed with respect to
claim 22.
Claims 16 and 26
Appellant argues that the proposed combination of Hoppe and
Vecchione fails to teach the subject matter of claims 16 and 26. Appeal Br.
13 – 15. These arguments present us with the following issue: did the
Examiner err in finding that Vecchione teaches “the texture flows in the
texture map in a direction along the second free-form line, wherein the
direction is defined by the second free-form line of the user-specified
Appeal 2011-000171
Application 11/124,552

5
texture-flow constraint,” as recited in claim 16, and as commensurately
recited in claim 26?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action and the Reply Brief presented in response to the Examiner’s Answer.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions and highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Claims 12, 13, and 17 – 21
Appellant argues that Vecchione fails to teach the disputed limitations
because Vecchione does not teach or suggest adjusting seam lines to a
position of a fold as Vecchione’s folds are not generated until after the seam
lines are adjusted and the grid is created. Appeal Br. 10. First, claim 12
does not recite “adjusting” or “adjusting seam lines to a position of a fold.”
Instead, claim 12 recites, “receiving input from a user-input device to
superimpose a first free-form line on the image . . .” and then “generating a
texture map . . . [that] is folded resulting in a connected discontinuity on the
texture map along the first free-form line.” We agree with the Examiner’s
findings that Vecchione teaches or suggests these limitations. Answer 3 – 5,
22 – 24. Second, nonetheless, Vecchione teaches relocating folds, wrinkles,
gathers, pleats, and other fabric sculpting features. Answer 22 (citing
Vecchione col. 4, ll. 4 – 6).
Appellant also argues that Vecchione fails to teach the claimed
generating a connected discontinuity along the first free-form line because
adjusting a grid boundary in Vecchione so that a portion of the boundary is
along a fold would destroy the fold resulting in a disconnection (Appeal Br.
Appeal 2011-000171
Application 11/124,552

6
10). However, as the Examiner correctly finds, in addition to an operator of
Vecchione defining boundary lines, Vecchione teaches a set of tools for an
operator to manipulate the grid and fabric sculpting features (Answer 22
(citing Vecchione Fig. 1, col. 3, l. 58 – col. 4, l. 6)). Furthermore,
Appellant’s arguments are unsupported by objective evidence. As the
Examiner correctly finds, Vecchione teaches that fabric may be pleated
along the first free-form line and the operator could adjust the fabric such
that grid boundary adjustment does not destroy the fold (Answer 23 (citing
Vecchione col. 4, ll. 4 – 6)). Claim 12 recites that the connected
discontinuity is only “along” or matching the direction of the first free-form
line.
Appellant further argues that Vecchione fails to teach or suggest that
the claimed connected discontinuity is defined by the first free-form line
because Vecchione’s first free-form line defines a boundary of the grid, but
does not “define a connected discontinuity” (Appeal Br. 12). However, we
are not persuaded by Appellant’s further argument because claim 12 does
not recite “define a connected discontinuity,” but instead recite “a position
of the connected discontinuity is defined by the first free-form line.”
Thus, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 12, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable, and claims 13, and 17 – 21, not separately argued (Appeal Br.
10). Accordingly, we sustain that rejection.
Claims 22, 23, 27 – 29 and 31-33
Regarding Appellant’s argument that Vecchione fails to teach the
disputed limitations because Vecchione’s folds are not generated until after
the seam lines are adjusted and the grid is created (Appeal Br. 12), for the
Appeal 2011-000171
Application 11/124,552

7
same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 12, we are not persuaded
by Appellant’s argument.
Regarding Appellant’s remaining arguments that Vecchione fails to
teach or suggest the disputed limitations because Vecchione’s grid is not
completely disconnected along the first free-form line (Appeal Br. 12), we
also are not persuaded. As the Examiner correctly finds, in addition to an
operator of Vecchione defining boundary lines, Vecchione teaches a set of
tools for an operator to manipulate the grid, which allows the fabric to be
“otherwise sculpted” (Answer 25 (citing Vecchione col. 4, ll. 4 – 6)).
Furthermore, Appellant’s arguments are unsupported by objective evidence
Thus, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and claims 23,
27 – 29, and 31 – 33, not separately argued (Appeal Br. 13). Accordingly,
we sustain that rejection.

Claims 16 and 26
Regarding the claimed definition of texture flow by a second free-
form line, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the
orientation is in a predetermined direction (Appeal Br. 14). As the Examiner
correctly finds, the operator of Vecchione specifies texture flow (Answer 6
(citing Vecchione Fig. 1 step 130); see also Answer 5 (citing Vecchione col.
4, ll. 29-41 (“The texture pattern as applied to each panel may be further
adjusted at step 130 by a process referred to as ‘setting’ the U,V or texture
map.”))).
Regarding the claimed texture flow direction, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments that Vecchione is silent on the claimed texture flow
Appeal 2011-000171
Application 11/124,552

8
direction (Appeal Br. 14). As discussed supra with respect to claim 12,
Vecchione discloses a set of tools that allow an operator to manipulate and
sculpt fabric, which will result in a texture that can be further manipulated as
described with respect to step 130 of Figure 1 of Vecchione (Answer 4 – 6).
Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s findings are based on
inherency. Reply Br. 5. However, the Examiner simply states that it is
inherent that texture will flow in “a direction.” Answer 25. As the
Examiner correctly finds, Vecchione teaches or suggests the claimed texture
flow in a direction along the second free-form line (Answer 6 (citing
Vecchione Fig. 1 step 130); see also Answer 5 (citing Vecchione col. 4, ll.
29-41)).
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the
Examiner erred in finding that Vecchione teaches “the texture flows in the
texture map in a direction along the second free-form line, wherein the
direction is defined by the second free-form line of the user-specified
texture-flow constraint,” as recited in claim 16, and as commensurately
recited in claim 26. Thus, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 16 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Accordingly, we sustain that rejection.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 13, 16 – 23, 26 – 29,
and 31 – 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2011-000171
Application 11/124,552

9

AFFIRMED

ELD