Ex Parte Joshi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 16, 2018

13472338 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2018)

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.
13/472,338 05/15/2012 Pushkar P. Joshi B1404 2153
108982 7590
Wolfe-SBMC
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
SALVUCCI, MATTHEW D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/18/2018 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):
docket@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PUSHKAR P. JOSHI and CINDY MARIE GRIMM
Appeal 2017-008417
Application 13/472,338
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—16, 18—20, and 22. Claims 17 and 21 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
Appeal 2017-008417
Application 13/472,338
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to 3D sketching, which includes
providing an interface for creating 3D drawings from 2D and 3D inputs, and
creating 3D curve networks. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method, comprising:
generating a three-dimensional (3D) sketch comprising a
plurality of three-dimensional (3D) curves according to two-
dimensional (2D) input, wherein said generating comprises
iteratively performing:
obtaining input indicating a 2D stroke;
projecting one or more 3D curves onto a plane to create
2D curves',
analyzing the 2D stroke according to the 2D curves to
determine if the 2D stroke input can be applied to the one or
more 3D curves;
if the 2D stroke can be applied to the one or more 3D
curves, applying the 2D stroke to the one or more 3D curves;
and
if the 2D stroke cannot be applied to the one or more 3D
curves, generating a new 3D curve from the 2D stroke input.
Claims 1—7, 9, 11, 12, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Raskar et al. (US 2003/0222868 Al, published Dec. 4,
2003).
Claims 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Raskar and Carr et al. (US 2009/0231338 Al, published
Sept. 17, 2009).
2
Appeal 2017-008417
Application 13/472,338
Claims 13—16 and 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Raskar and Shimada et al. (US 2009/0284550 Al;
Nov. 19, 2009).
ANALYSIS
§102 Rejection—Raskar
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Reply Br. 6) that Raskar
does not describe the limitation “projecting one or more 3D curves onto a
plane to create 2D curves,” as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner found that the “dragging” of a shadow in the xy-plane
to translate a selected “blob” of Raskar, as illustrated in Figure 1,
corresponds to the limitation “projecting one or more 3D curves onto a plane
to create 2D curves. (Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 2.) In particular, the
Examiner found that “Raskar indeed discloses projecting the curves (blobs
in Raskar) into a plane to create curves” (Final Act. 2) and “[cjlearly the
blob being modeled in the xy-plane (2D plane) corresponds to the projection
as claimed” {id. at 3). We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Raskar relates to computer graphics, in particular “to free-form
modeling of renderable objects.” (11.) Figure 1 of Raskar illustrates panels
101—106 for free-form modeling of objects (116), such that a “user draws
closed strokes with an input device” to form contours, which are “inflated”
into 3D “blobs” (132). Figure 1 of Raskar further illustrates a “ground
plane [that] corresponds to the x- and z-directions in our coordinate system,”
such that “[t]he user can sketch an outline 110 depicting parts of a body of
an animal.” (| 33.) Raskar explains that “[t]he user can then translate the
selected blob, together with any children, in the xy-plane, translate the blob
3
Appeal 2017-008417
Application 13/472,338
and its children in the xz-plane by dragging the shadow 110 of the object, or
rotate the model around either its center of mass or the center of mass of its
intersection with the parent.” (| 36.)
Although the Examiner cited to shadow 110 in the xz-plane of the
“blob” and its children, as illustrated in Figure 1 of Raskar, in which the
“blob” can be translated by dragging shadow 110, the Examiner has
provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that Raskar discloses the
limitation “projecting one or more 3D curves onto a plane to create 2D
curves.” In particular, while Raskar explains that a closed stroke is
“inflated” to form a 3D “blob,” such that the entire 3D “blob” produces
shadow 110 in the xz-plane, Raskar is silent with respect to the creation of
“2D curves” within shadow 110 in the xz-plane. (See ]Hf 32, 36.) In other
words, even if the Examiner considers the projection of the 3D “blob” of
Raskar to produce shadow 110 in the xz-plane as describing the limitation
“projecting one or more 3D curves onto a plane,” the Examiner has not
demonstrated that 2D curves are created in such shadow 110. Thus, on this
record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Raskar discloses the
limitation “projecting one or more 3D curves onto a plane to create 2D
curves,” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that “[tjhere
is simply no indication in Raskar at | [0036] of an item being projected onto
a plane from Raskar’s blob different than Raskar’s shadow” and “there is no
indication in Raskar at | [0036] of the blob (and its children) is projected
into 2D (the xz-plane).” (Reply Br. 6.)
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 2—7, 9, 11, 12, and 22 depend from
4
Appeal 2017-008417
Application 13/472,338
independent claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 2—7, 9, 11,
12, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for the same reasons discussed with
respect to independent claim 1.
§103 Rejection—Raskar and Carr
Claims 8 and 10 depend from independent claim 1. Carr was cited by
the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 8 and 10. (Final
Act. 8—9.) However, the Examiner’s application of Carr does not cure the
above noted deficiencies of Raskar.
§103 Rejection—Raskar and Shimada
Independent claim 13 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 1. Claims 14—16 and 18—20 depend from
independent claim 13. Shimada was cited by the Examiner for teaching the
additional features of claims 13—16 and 18—20. (Final Act. 9-12.)
However, the Examiner’s application of Shimada does not cure the above
noted deficiencies of Raskar.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—16, 18—20, and 22 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5