Ex Parte Irwin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 18, 2018

14289063 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/289,063 05/28/2014
45113 7590 05/22/2018
Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Lea Irwin
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.
2014P06817US 2653
EXAMINER
DYER, ANDREW R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2018 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEA IRWIN
Appeal2017-007644
Application 14/289,063 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, NORMAN H. BEAMER,
and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-18. Claims 6, 7, 13, and 14 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc.
as the Real Party in Interest. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2017-007644
Application 14/289,063
THE INVENTION
Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention is directed to product
data management including creating and displaying 3D product
documentation objects using attributes of drawing annotations. (Abstract.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal:
1. A method for product data management, the method
performed by a data processing system and comprising:
receiving one or more attributes of a candidate drawing
annotation of one or more drawing annotations of a drawing
view;
creating a 3D model view from the drawing view;
creating a 3D product documentation object using the
one or more received attributes;
identifying the 3D model view as being applicable to the
3D product documentation object;
displaying the 3D product documentation object in the
identified 3 D model view;
determining which of a plurality of candidate drawing
annotations were converted to a 3D product documentation
object and displayed in the 3D model view;
determining which of a plurality of drawing views were
successfully and unsuccessfully converted to 3D model views;
determining the number and type of total candidate
drawing annotations which were converted to 3D product
documentation objects and displayed in the converted 3D
model views; and
generating and displaying a report that provides data that
specifies:
which of the total candidate drawing annotations
were successfully converted to 3D product
documentation objects; and
2
Appeal2017-007644
Application 14/289,063
which drawing views were successfully and
unsuccessfully converted to 3D model views.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Staples et al. (US 2011/0098983 Al, pub.
Apr. 28, 2011), Bronfeld et al. (US 6,308,144 Bl, issued Oct. 23, 2001), and
Thomas et al. (US 2003/0009315 Al, pub. Jan. 9, 2003). (Final Act. 3-8.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant's arguments present the following issue: 2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Staples,
Bronfeld, and Thomas teaches or suggests the independent claim 1
limitations (hereinafter referred to as the "determining/reporting
limitations"):
determining which of a plurality of candidate drawing
annotations were converted to a 3D product documentation
object and displayed in the 3D model view;
determining which of a plurality of drawing views were
successfully and unsuccessfully converted to 3D model views;
determining the number and type of total candidate
drawing annotations which were converted to 3D product
documentation objects and displayed in the converted 3D
model views; and
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Jan. 4, 2017) (herein, "App.
Br."); the Reply Brief ( filed Apr. 21, 2017) (herein, "Reply Br."); the Final
Office Action (mailed June 29, 2016) (herein, "Final Act."); and the
Examiner's Answer (mailed Feb. 21, 2017) (herein, "Ans.") for the
respective details.
3
Appeal2017-007644
Application 14/289,063
generating and displaying a report that provides data that
specifies:
which of the total candidate drawing annotations
were successfully converted to 3D product
documentation objects; and
which drawing views were successfully and
unsuccessfully converted to 3D model views.
and the commensurate limitations of independent claims 8 and 15. (App.
Br. 8-12.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellant's
arguments, and we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 3-8) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal
Brief. (Ans. 3-13.) We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by
the Examiner, and emphasize the following.
In finding that Staples, Bronfeld, and Thomas teach or suggest the
determining/reporting limitations, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in
Staples of a computer aided design (CAD) system that converts 2D CAD
data, including annotations such as dimensions, to a corresponding 3D
model, including attaching the annotation information to the proper portion
of the 3D model. (Final Act. 3; Staples Figs. 2, 4, ,r,r 32-35.) The Examiner
also relies on the disclosure in Thomas of creating CAD drawings from
measurement data, including the name, type, and features of drawing
4
Appeal2017-007644
Application 14/289,063
objects, with associated error detection, correction, and reporting tools.
(Final Act. 4; Thomas Fig. 35, ,r,r 79, 126-127, 149.)
Appellant argues Thomas only refers to handwritten annotations, and
further argues that Thomas "fail[ s] to disclose or suggest a conversion
process associated with annotations, and thus there is no technical hint in
Thomas to make the specifically recited determinations and reporting
regarding the conversations of annotations that are also missing from
Staples." (App. Br. 9--10.) Appellant also argues the error correction tools
of Thomas are employed before, rather than after, CAD drawings are
created. (App. Br. 10.) In addition, Appellant argues the Examiner has
failed to provide articulated reasoning for the combination of references
relied on, and argues Thomas teaches away from the combination because it
discloses that annotations are created after CAD drawings are generated.
(App. Br. 11-12.)
We are not persuaded by these arguments. As the Examiner finds,
Thomas discloses that the user enters annotations, in the form of drawing
object names, types, and features, in the data used to generate CAD
drawings. (Ans. 6; Thomas ,r 79.) In addition, the error detection,
correction, and reporting tools can "be incorporated into any level draw or
display step." (Ans. 9; Thomas ,r 127.) Moreover, Appellant does not
accord sufficient recognition that the Examiner relies on the combination of
Staples, Bronfeld, and Thomas as teaching or suggesting the claim
limitations at issue. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). As the Examiner finds:
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing
date of the claimed invention would have recognized that when
Thomas was combined with Staples, that the CAD object and
5
Appeal2017-007644
Application 14/289,063
model views of Thomas would be the 3D document objects and
3D model views of Staples ....
Staples and Thomas are analogous art because they are
from the "same field of endeavor," namely that of CAD data
convers10n.
(Final Act. 5.) The test for obviousness is whether the combination of
references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee's invention
to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981).
Furthermore, we find sufficient the Examiner's articulation regarding
motivation to combine:
[O]ne would have been motivated to combine Thomas and
Staples is that of applying a known technique to a known
device. Staples teaches the "base device" for converting three
dimensional CAD drawings. Further, Thomas teaches the
"known technique" of generating conversion error reports that
is applicable to the base device of Staples. One of ordinary
skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known
technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in
an improved system because error reporting systems are
commonly built in to software systems in order to provide user
feedback to verify accurately entered information and
commands, making error reporting systems widely known and
understood and thus, easily implemented.
(Ans. 12 (citations omitted).) Appellant does not point to any evidence of
record that the resulting combination would be "uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious
step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citingKSRint'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418-19 (2007)). The Examiner's findings are reasonable because
the skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
6
Appeal2017-007644
Application 14/289,063
together like pieces of a puzzle" because the skilled artisan is "a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. We are
persuaded the claimed subject matter exemplifies the principle that "[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S.
at 416.
With respect to Appellant's teaching away argument, we agree with
the Examiner:
It is widely understood "that the 'mere disclosure of
alternative designs does not teach away"' (In re Mouttet, 686
F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted)) and that
teaching away requires a reference to actually "criticize,
discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed." (See
In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Appellant
has failed to allege or provide any evidence of any such
criticism, discrediting, or discouragement in either reference
and, as such, fundamentally failed to prove that either reference
"teaches away."
(Ans. 13.)
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent
claims 1, 8, and 15.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejections of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 over Staples, Bronfeld, and
Thomas. We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2-5, 9-12,
and 16-18 over Staples, Bronfeld, and Thomas, which rejections are not
argued separately with particularity. (App. Br. 11.)
7
Appeal2017-007644
Application 14/289,063
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 8-12, and
15-18.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
8