11837402 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2014)

Ex Parte Huang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 24, 2014

11837402 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2014)

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. 11/837,402 08/10/2007 Jianbing Huang 2007P57008 US 4932 45113 7590 05/27/2014 Siemens Corporation Intellectual Property Department 170 Wood Avenue South Iselin, NJ 08830 EXAMINER HAJNIK, DANIEL F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2614 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/27/2014 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 JIANBING HUANG, MICHAEL B. CARTER, ANDREAS JOHANNSEN, and BRETT HARPER ____________________ Appeal 2012-000406 Application 11/837,402 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-000406 Application 11/837,402 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 11, 12 and 14-17. Claims 3, 7-10, and 13 are canceled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to a trimmed surface tessellation. Abst. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for tessellation, comprising: tessellating a curve to produce a plurality of polygons; connecting said plurality of polygons in a preferred direction; decomposing the polygons into a plurality of triangles; and whereby a mesh representation is created from said plurality of triangles, and wherein the method is performed by a computer. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Abi-Ezzi Zundel US 5,377,320 US 6,618,851 B1 Dec. 27, 1994 Sept. 9, 2003 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Abi-Ezzi. Ans. 4-9. Appeal 2012-000406 Application 11/837,402 3 Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abi-Ezzi and Zundel. Ans. 9-11. APPELLANTS’ CONTENTION1 Abi-Ezzi’s v-regions which are subdivisions of the Bezier patches fail to disclose polygons connected in a preferred direction. App. Br. 21-22, Reply Br. 21-24. ISSUE ON APPEAL Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 15-22) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 11-24), the issue presented on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in finding Abi-Ezzi discloses connecting a plurality of polygons in a preferred direction. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred in rejecting the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Abi-Ezzi. We agree with Appellants’ conclusions as to these rejections of the claims. The Examiner finds Abi-Ezzi’s Figure 9 depicts connecting v-region polygons and Figure 8 depicts the resulting v-regions. The Examiner further finds Abi-Ezzi’s description of constructing a monotone v-region with top and bottom bases having a horizontal orientation and left and rights sides wherein “the left/right border intercept vertices (which are sorted top to 1 We note Appellants raise additional contentions of error, but we do not reach them as our resolution of this contention is dispositive of the appealed rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2012-000406 Application 11/837,402 4 bottom) are taken in corresponding to the side borders of the v-regions” discloses connecting the polygons in a preferred direction. Ans. 5 (citing Abi-Ezzi col. 10, ll. 40-42, 61-63). Appellants argue “Abi-Ezzi clearly describes that Figs. 8a-8i illustrate possible u-v monotone v-regions which may occur, and Fig. 9 is a flowchart illustrating the process of determining v-regions . . . [but] does not show any v-regions being connected.” App. Br. 21. The Examiner responds by finding “[t]he v-regions labeled T1, T2, T3, etc. are shown in figure 10 are connected together” and “the connections between v-regions (T1-T7) have a general horizontal orientation or direction to them because each v-region has horizontal top and bottom lines.” Ans. 21. The Examiner concludes, finding “when all the evidence of Abi-Ezzi is considered together (figs 3, 9 and 10), it is clear that Abi-Ezzi teaches the claimed step of ‘connecting said plurality of polygons in a preferred direction.’” Id. However, because the Examiner fails to explain how Abi- Ezzi’s construction of v-regions, i.e., polygons, discloses a step of connecting the polygons in a preferred direction, we are constrained to agree with Appellants that the disputed connecting step is not disclosed. Appellants argue, while Abi-Ezzi’s v-regions “are shown as adjacent to each other, . . . Abi-Ezzi does not describe connecting them, and in fact does not use the terms ‘connecting’ or ‘connected’ at all. Abi-Ezzi merely describes that v-regions TI and T2 are ‘constructed,’ ‘identified,’ or ‘formed by points.’” Reply Br. 22 citing Abi-Ezzi col. 12, ll. 45-61. Appellants argue that the disputed limitation of connecting the polygons requires some defined action of connecting the polygons in a preferred direction, not merely disclosing that polygons produced by tessellation are adjacent. We agree with Appellants. Appeal 2012-000406 Application 11/837,402 5 Appellants’ Specification discloses after tessellating curves to produces a set of polygons, the polygons that belong to a single surface need to be connected. Spec. [0025]. Therefore, some action in addition to tessellation is needed to disclose the disputed connecting step. Abi-Ezzi depicts adjacent v-regions, but does not describe connecting those regions. Therefore, in the absence of a persuasive explanation of how the disputed connecting step is disclosed by Abi-Ezzi, we agree with Appellants that rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is improper. For the reasons supra, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and, for the same reason, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 11 and 17 that include substantially the same limitation, or the rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, and 15. Furthermore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Abi-Ezzi and Zundel, as the Examiner’s applications of the Zundel reference fail to cure the deficiency in the base rejection addressed supra. CONCLUSIONS We find 1. The Examiner erred in finding Abi-Ezzi discloses connecting a plurality of polygons in a preferred direction. 2. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Abi-Ezzi 3. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Abi-Ezzi and Zundel Appeal 2012-000406 Application 11/837,402 6 DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4-6, 11, 12, and 14-17 is reversed. REVERSED ke