Ex Parte Jovanovic

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2018

14251503 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
SPV13301CIP 8977
EXAMINER
YOON, SAE WON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
14/251,503 04/11/2014 Milos Jovanovic
50488 7590 02/01/2018
AT ,T EM AN HALL MCCOY RUSSELL & TUTTLE LLP
806 SW BROADWAY
SUITE 600
PORTLAND, OR 97205-3335
02/01/2018 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 MILOS JOVANOVIC
Appeal 2016-007529
Application 14/251,503
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—20, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 An oral hearing was held for this appeal on September 12, 2017.
2 Appellant identifies SpaceView, Inc., as the real party in interest (App. Br.
3.
Appeal 2016-007529
Application 14/251,503
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to “methods and systems for virtual
visualization of three-dimensional (3D) models of objects in two-
dimensional (2D) environments” (see Spec. 12). Claim 1 is illustrative of
the invention and reads as follows:
1. A method for virtual visualization of a three-
dimensional model of an object in a two-dimensional
environment, the method comprising:
receiving, from a user, an import request to import the
two-dimensional environment to be used as a background for
the three-dimensional model;
importing, based on the import request, the two-
dimensional environment;
receiving, from the user using a mouse or a finger to
generate lines or points, wireframe data to define a three-
dimensional model space in the form of a wireframe that
corresponds to a perspective of the two-dimensional
environment, the three-dimensional model space being used for
insertion of the three-dimensional model of the object to be
viewed in a perspective associated with the two-dimensional
environment;
receiving, from the user, scale data of a single length of a
part of the two-dimensional environment to define a scale of the
wireframe;
visualizing, based on the wireframe data, the wireframe
on the two-dimensional environment;
receiving, from the user, a superimposing request to
superimpose the three-dimensional model of the object onto the
two-dimensional environment based on the wireframe data and
the scale data;
superimposing the three-dimensional model of the object
in accurate relation onto the two-dimensional environment
based on the superimposing request;
2
Appeal 2016-007529
Application 14/251,503
receiving, from the user, an uploading request to upload a
resulting image to a social networking service, the resulting
image being the three-dimensional model superimposed onto
the two-dimensional environment;
uploading, based on the uploading request, the resulting
image;
receiving, from the social networking service, a social
network revision of the resulting image comprising a second
three-dimensional model of a second object superimposed in
precise relation to the two-dimensional environment of the
resulting image, wherein a perspective and a scale of the second
three-dimensional model is assigned using the wireframe data
and the scale data of the resulting image; and
saving, based on a saving request, the social network
revision of the resulting image.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 3—5, 8, 9, 11—13, 15, and 17—20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wells (US 2007/0098290 Al; May
3, 2007), Lee (US 2012/0169847 Al; July 5, 2012), Highsmith (US
6,771,276 Bl; Aug. 3, 2004), and Smith (US 2009/0260060 Al; Oct. 15,
2009) (see Final Act. 3—21).
Claims 2 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wells, Lee, Highsmith, Smith, and Mays (US 8,099,237
B2; Jan. 17, 2012) (see Final Act. 21—23).
Claims 6, 7, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wells, Lee, Highsmith, Smith, and Schultz (US
2010/0001992 Al; Jan. 7, 2010) (see Final Act. 23-31).
3
Appeal 2016-007529
Application 14/251,503
Issue on Appeal
Appellant’s contentions present us with the following issue:
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as being obvious over
the combination of Wells with Lee, Highsmith, and Smith because the
combination of the references does not teach or suggest all the limitations
recited in Appellant’s claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions as highlighted below.
Claim 1
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Wells as disclosing the
recited virtual visualization method including a “two-dimensional
environment to be used as a background” where a three-dimensional model
of the object is superimposed based on a user’s request (Final Act. 3—5).
The Examiner finds Lee discloses the claim limitation related to importing
the environment based on an import request received from the user as lines
or points and scale data used for superimposing the three-dimensional model
onto the two-dimensional environment (Final Act. 5—8). The Examiner also
relies on Highsmith as teaching a perspective environment based on
perspective grids where the user places the selected object of interest (Final
Act. 8—12) and on Smith as disclosing the features related to uploading a
resulting image to a social network and receiving a social network revision
of the image (Final Act. 12—16). The Examiner finds it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the
4
Appeal 2016-007529
Application 14/251,503
cited prior art in order to (1) improve generation of three-dimensional model
composited image and enhance user input capabilities (Final Act. 7—8); (2)
allow the user to better recognize how an object will look in relation to
perspective of background (Final Act. 10-11); and (3) use a collaborative
environment for creating and sharing the composited image (Final Act. 15—
16).
Appellant argues the proposed combination does not teach or suggest
“visualizing, based on the wireframe data, the wireframe on the two-
dimensional environment” because Wells and Lee do not disclose this
limitation and “Smith does not include any disclosure of wireframes or two-
dimensional environments” (App. Br. 17, see also Reply Br. 3—4). With
respect to Highsmith, Appellant asserts the disclosed perspective grids of
HighSmith “are shown in empty space without any background image or
two-dimensional environment” (id.). Appellant further argues the proposed
modification of Wells and Lee “to visualize the perspective grids of
Highsmith on a two-dimensional environment” is not based on any
reasoning (App. Br. 17—18). Lastly, Appellant contends the Examiner’s
reliance on Smith as teaching or suggesting the recited interaction with a
social networking service and “a social network revision of the resulting
image” is in error because Smith uses “the same annotation functions of the
collaboration system regardless of the particular service integrated with the
collaboration system” (App. Br. 20-21) and nothing in the proposed
combination suggests that (App. Br. 22).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner
erred because Appellant’s contentions focus on the references separately and
ignore the fact that the proposed rejection is based on the combination of
5
Appeal 2016-007529
Application 14/251,503
Wells with Lee, Highsmith, and Smith (see Ans. 10). See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). That is, Wells discloses a system for image rendering including
a presentation of three dimensional (3D) objects added to a two dimensional
(2D) frame or series of 2D frames (see Ans. 5, 11 (citing wells 1, 52,
105—107)), whereas Lee discloses capturing a 3D model of a scene image
and superimposing it onto a two-dimensional environment according to the
wireframe and scale data (see Ans. 5—6, 11—12 (citing Lee Tflf 22—27)).
Additionally, Highsmith discloses displaying an image by applying or
dragging the image to a perspective grid or in a two-point perspective
environment (see Ans. 7, 14—15 (citing Highsmith col. 5:36—54, 6:45—52,
9:55—60)) and Smith discloses user collaboration on documents by
uploading the data to a social network service (see Ans. 8—9, 23—25 (citing
Smith 11 1, 8, 75-77, 109, 140, 156, 165-170)).
The Examiner further explains the combination is based on sufficient
reasoning and specific benefits obtained from each of the applied prior art,
such as adding a three-dimensional image in a two-dimensional environment
by applying the image to a perspective grid and providing the appropriate
scaling to the image (Ans. 19-20; Final Act. 7—11). In other words, an
obviousness analysis is not confined to the explicit disclosure of the
references and can consider the inferences a skilled person would make, see
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418—19 (2007); the test is what
the combined teaching of the references would suggest to one of ordinary
skill in the art, see Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
We are further guided by the Supreme Court that:
[T]he problem motivating the patentee may be only one of
many addressed by the patent's subject matter. The question is
6
Appeal 2016-007529
Application 14/251,503
not whether the combination was obvious to the patentee but
whether the combination was obvious to a person with ordinary
skill in the art. Under the correct analysis, any need or problem
known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and
addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the
elements in the manner claimed.
KSR, 550 U.S. at 420.
On the issue of obviousness, “the analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. Further, the Court stated
that “[t]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic
conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” Id. at 419.
Regarding the claim limitation related to “integration or interaction
with a social networking service,” the Examiner responds by citing passages
from Smith and concludes:
It is clear from Smith’s disclosures that Smith teaches
feature of allowing particular user to upload/share his digital
object for other users to collaborate on by other users having
ability to make modification to the uploaded digital object by
changing or adding annotation(s), feature of allowing another
user who has added annotation to original shared digital object
to upload the annotated digital object for other users to see, and
feature of saving content user is interacting with. Stated
differently, Smith at least teaches feature of collaboration
system which allows multiple users to share their works, allow
other users to make modification to shared works, and receive
and see modification made by the other users.
(Ans. 25, see also Ans. 23—25 (citing Smith ^ 1,8, 75—77, 109, 140, 156,
165—170)). We agree with the Examiner’s findings and explanation that
“through modification by Smith, feature of generate three-dimensional
model composited image by placing the-three-dimensional model into two-
7
Appeal 2016-007529
Application 14/251,503
dimensional background utilizing perspective grid and scale data through
user interface can be implemented in collaboration system context” (Ans.
26).
With regard to the claim limitation of “resulting image comprising a
second three-dimensional model of a second object superimposed in precise
relation to the two-dimensional environment of the resulting image, wherein
a perspective and a scale of the second three-dimensional model is assigned
using the wireframe data and the scale data of the resulting image,”
Appellant contends “there is no teaching or suggestion in any of the cited
references of making such modifications” (App. Br. 22). Additionally,
Appellant argues the Examiner has not explained what those modifications
are or how such modifications would be obvious (App. Br. 22—23).
The Examiner presents detailed findings with respect to the applied
prior art references and finds “combination of Wells, Lee, Highsmith, and
Smith would obviously allow user to upload/share three-dimensional model
inserted two-dimensional image with visualized perspective grid(s) (scaled
according to user setting) that was used for model insertion” (Ans. 27). We
agree with the Examiner’s findings and explanation regarding the
combination of Wells, Lee, Highsmith and Smith (see Ans. 27—34) and
adopt them as our own.
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments (Reply Br. 4), nonobviousness
cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the
rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at 1097. Additionally, we are unpersuaded by
Appellant’s assertion that the proposed combination “would prompt one of
ordinary skill in the art to provide a collaboration system wherein a user
8
Appeal 2016-007529
Application 14/251,503
could annotate a composite image as taught by Wells, Lee, and Highsmith
with a three-dimensional object” that “would be displayed as an icon on the
composite image,” which is based on “insufficient evidence of record from
which one could conclude that the three-dimensional object would be
superimposed in precise relation to the two-dimensional environment, and
that the perspective and scale of the three-dimensional object annotation
would have a relation to the underlying composite image” (see Reply Br. 4).
The Examiner’s proposed combination does not require that the features of
one cited reference be directly insertable into the other reference. Keller,
642 F.2d at 425. “[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.” Id. Furthermore, the fact that the combination might require
some small adjustments to the implementation of displaying the three-
dimensional object in a two-dimensional environment does not preclude a
conclusion of obviousness. In fact, Appellant has presented no persuasive
evidence that the proposed modification was “uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious
step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19).
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Wells with Fee, Highsmith,
and Smith teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1, as well as claims 3—
5, 8, 9, 11—13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 which are not argued separately or with
sufficient specificity (see App. Br. 23—27).
9
Appeal 2016-007529
Application 14/251,503
Claim 19
Appellant contends the cited portions of Smith in paragraphs 103 and
165—170 does not clearly teach or suggest the claim limitation (App. Br. 26).
The Examiner explains that the cited paragraphs of Smith teach modifying
the original document by the user based on the collaboration rules (Ans. 40).
For the same reasons stated for claim 1 and based on the Examiner’s
findings and conclusion identified above, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error in rejecting claim 19 over the combination of Wells with Lee,
Highsmith, and Smith.
Claim 2
Appellant contends Mays relates to navigation systems, instead of
three-dimensional modeling, and therefore belongs to non-analogous art
(App. Br. 27—28). Appellant further argues that the obtained map in Mays
does not display a grid to the user and is not the same as the claimed “library
of pre-configured background images with wireframes” (App. Br. 29). The
Examiner responds by pointing to the disclosure of Mays in columns 2-4
and explaining that Mays is directed to an interactive user interface based on
a generated two-dimensional environment which is selected by the user
(Ans. 44-45 (citing Mays 2:65—3:12, 3:66-4:25, 4:43^45)). The Examiner
further provides a detail explanation of the teachings of Wells, Lee,
Highsmith, and Smith (Ans. 45—48) and concludes their combination, rather
than creating the perspective grid from scratch, would benefit from Mays’
disclosure of the option to retrieve by the user a two-dimensional image with
previously overlaid perspective grids (Ans. 48-49).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 1, we are
10
Appeal 2016-007529
Application 14/251,503
unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions of Examiner error in rejecting claim
2, as well as claim 10 which is argued based on the same reasoning.
Claim 16
Appellant argues the patentability of claim 16 based on contentions
similar to those raised for claims 1 and 9 (see App. Br. 31—33) and
specifically argues “none of the cited references teach or suggest visualizing,
based on wireframe data, the wireframe on the two-dimensional” (App. Br.
32). Appellant asserts “Smith, the reference relied upon in the rejection to
show the wireframe of claim 16, only discloses one or more perspective
grids that enable a user to draw a two-dimensional object in perspective, and
does not teach or suggest visualizing the perspective grids on another two-
dimensional image based on any received wireframe data or scale data”
(App. Br. 32—33). Additionally, Appellant argues that “none of the cited
references teach or suggest a social networking revision of the resulting
image” wherein the resulting image is assigned a perspective and a scale
“using the wireframe data and the scale data of the resulting image” (App.
Br. 33).
The Examiner refers to the explanation of the teachings of Wells, Lee,
Highsmith, and Smith presented for claims 1 and 9 (Ans. 53—55) and
concludes their combination with Schultz teaches or suggests the limitations
of claim 6. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our
own. For the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 1, we are also
unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions of Examiner error in rejecting claim
16, as well as claims 6, 7, and 14 which are argued based on the same
reasoning (see App. Br. 30—33).
11
Appeal 2016-007529
Application 14/251,503
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—20 is affirmed.
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
12