Ex Parte Kaus et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 17, 2015

12064368 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL KAUS and MATTHIAS WOLFGANG
MEYER
____________________

Appeal 2012-009360
Application 12/064,368
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-009360
Application 12/064,368
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1–3 and 5–16. Claim 4 is canceled. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a triangulation method of a surface of a
physical object. Abst. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for producing a triangulation of a surface of a
physical object, the method comprising the steps of:
generating, by a processing device, an intermediate mesh
representation of the surface out of surface voxels,
detecting, by the processing device, at least one
T-junction in the intermediate mesh representation,
decomposing, by the processing device, the at least one
T-junction into at least one triangle and at least one two-point-
polygon, and
generating, by the processing device, the triangulation of
the surface out of the modelled intermediate mesh
representation.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Migdal
Sederberg
US 6,611,267 B2
US 7,274,364 B2
Aug. 26, 2003
Sep. 25, 2007
Aaron Hertzmann, “Introduction to 3D Non-Photorealistic Rendering:
Silhouettes and Outlines,” Non-Photorealistic Rendering (Siggraph 99
Course Notes), S. Green, ed., ACM Press, 1999.
Nils Krahnstoever et al., “Computing Curvature-Adaptive Surface
Appeal 2012-009360
Application 12/064,368
3
Triangulations of Three-Dimensional Image Data,” Visual Computer,
Vol. 20, No. 1, pages 17–36, Apr. 30, 2004.
Bernhard Reitinger et al., “Constructing Smooth Non-Manifold Meshes
of Multi-Labeled Volumetric Datasets,” In Proc. International
Conference in Central Europe on Computer Graphics, Visualization
and Computer Vision, WSCG 2005, pages 227–234, Jan. 31, 2005.

REJECTIONS1
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 11–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Reitinger, Sederberg, and Hertzmann. Ans. 5–8.
Claims 6–9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reitinger, Sederberg, Hertzmann, and Krahnstoever. Ans.
8–10.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reitinger, Sederberg, Hertzmann, and Migdal. Ans. 11.

APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
1. Although Reitinger discloses a T-junction, because it fails to suggest a
solution to the problem caused by the T-junction, “Reitinger teaches
away from the recitation of claim 1 and from the purpose of the
claimed invention altogether.” App. Br. 5.
2. Hertzmann’s disclosure of splitting each quadrilateral into two
triangles is mesh refinement but is not equivalent to decomposing as
required by claim 1. App. Br. 6.

1 Appellants argue the rejection of claim 1. Separate patentability is not
argued for claims 2, 3, and 5–16. Therefore, based on Appellants’
arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1–3 and 5–16 based on claim 1
alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2012-009360
Application 12/064,368
4

ISSUES ON APPEAL
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4–10)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–9), the issues presented on appeal are:
Whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) because Reitinger teaches away from the claimed invention.
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Reitinger,
Sederberg , and Hertzmann teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of
decomposing, by the processing device, the at least one T-junction into at
least one triangle and at least one two-point-polygon as required by claim 1.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 5–11) and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 17–24) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
Appellants’ contention 1 is unpersuasive of error because there is
insufficient evidence to support a finding that Reitinger teaches away from
the claimed invention. “A reference may be said to teach away when a
person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged
from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a
direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Ricoh
Appeal 2012-009360
Application 12/064,368
5
Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(citations omitted). Appellants fail to explain why Reitinger’s alleged failure
to disclose problems caused by the T-junction and propose a solution
therefore would discourage one skilled in the art from implementing a
solution according to claim 1. Therefore, we disagree Reitinger teaches
away as argued by Appellants.
In connection with contention 2 Appellants argue the Examiner erred
in finding “that splitting a quadrilateral with a line segment into two
triangles is equivalent to decomposing as recited in claim 1.” App. Br. 6.
Appellants argue:
[S]eparation achieved by “splitting” is achieved by inserting
something (i.e. a line segment) whereas decomposing requires a
breaking up of something into its constituent parts. Hertzmann
does not disclose this decomposition of a quadrilateral mesh
element. Hertzmann merely inserts a line segment. In contrast,
the decomposition of a T-junction breaks the T-junction apart
into its constituent parts (i.e. at least one triangle and at least
one two-point-polygon).
App. Br. 6.
The Examiner responds by finding, under a broadest reasonable
interpretation, the disputed limitation of “decomposing . . . the at least one
T-junction into at least one triangle and at least one two-point-polygon”
includes and is taught or suggested by the combination of Sederberg and
Hertzmann. Ans. 6, 19. The Examiner finds Sederberg’s description of a
T-junction combined with Hertzmann’s teaching of converting a
quadrilateral mesh into a triangular mesh by splitting each quadrilateral into
two triangles teaches or suggests the disputed decomposing limitation. The
Examiner explains “[w]hether it is the line segment used to split the
Appeal 2012-009360
Application 12/064,368
6
rectangle or a different line segment, there is no question that the result of
the split is two triangles consisting of five line segments.” Ans. 20. The
Examiner finds Appellants’ argument, that decomposing is different than
splitting, unpersuasive based, at least in part, on Appellants’ Specification
supporting a broader interpretation of decomposing by disclosing “that the
‘T-junction may be decomposed by detaching the polygons from each other,
replacing the common edge by a 2-point polygon/line segment and attaching
the polygons to the newly created 2-point polygon.’” Ans. 21 citing Spec. p.
2 ll. 27–30.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Therefore, in the absence of
sufficient rebuttal evidence or argument, we agree that, under a broadest
reasonable interpretation, the disputed limitation of “decomposing . . . the at
least one T-junction into at least one triangle and at least one two-point-
polygon” includes and is taught or suggested by the combination of
Sederberg and Hertzmann for the reasons given by the Examiner.
Appellants, for the first time in the Reply Brief, further contend error
because “[t]he Examiner has not articulated any reason why one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made would stretch the prior art
references in the Examiner’s manner.” Reply Br. 7. Because this issue was
first raised in a Reply Brief, was not a response to a new argument presented
by the Examiner, and Appellants have not shown any cause as to why this
issue was first raised in the Reply Brief, it is untimely. See Ex
parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (Informative) (“[T]he
reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been
made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but
were not.”). Therefore, this basis for asserting error is waived. See 37
Appeal 2012-009360
Application 12/064,368
7
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Furthermore, even had such arguments been
timely, contrary to Appellants’ contention, we find the Examiner has
articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to justify the
legal conclusion of obviousness (Ans. 6–7). Therefore, Appellants’
contention that the references were improperly combined is not persuasive
of error, and accordingly, the Examiner has properly relied upon the
combination of Reitinger, Sederberg, and Hertzmann in formulating the
disputed rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
For the reasons supra we are unpersuaded of Examiner error and
sustain the rejections of independent claim 1 and, for the same reasons,
independent claims 12–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Reitinger, Sederberg, and Hertzmann together with the rejections of
dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 15, and 16, which were not separately argued.
We further sustain the rejection of dependent claims 6–9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Reitinger, Sederberg , Hertzmann, and Krahnstoever and
dependent claim 10 over Reitinger, Sederberg, Hertzmann, and Migdal,
these dependent claims also not separately argued.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Appellants’ contention that Reitinger teaches away from
the claimed invention.
The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Reitinger,
Sederberg, and Hertzmann teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of
decomposing, by the processing device, the at least one T-junction into at
least one triangle and at least one two-point-polygon as required by claim 1.

Appeal 2012-009360
Application 12/064,368
8
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 5–16 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj