Ex Parte Mawby et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2018

13564000 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/564,000 08/01/2012
45113 7590 06/04/2018
Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
EricMawby
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.
2012Pl0397US01 1068
EXAMINER
OCHOA, JUAN CARLOS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2123
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2018 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 ERIC MA WBY, HUI QIN, and FENG YU
Appeal2017-011340
Application 13/564,000 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20. App. Br. 2. Claims 2, 9, and
16 are cancelled. Id. at 94, 96, 98 (Claims App'x). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc.
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 5.
Appeal 2017-011340
Application 13/564,000
Invention
Appellants invented a method directed to performing "a Boolean
operation to 'subtract' a shape from an object model." Spec. ,r 17. As part
of the disclosed "operation to remove a 'tool body' from a 'target body,"'
the disclosed invention "ensure[s] that proper regions of the target body are
removed, and that other portions of the target body are modified to properly
reflect the operation." Id. Relative convexity at the intersection of the tool
body and target body are used in the claimed invention so that, rather than
simply subtracting the tool from the target to produce a pocket, "the target
remains an overall convex form and the tool produces a locally concave
feature in the target." Id. ,r 31; see also id. ,r,r 33, 46-47, Fig. 5.
Illustrative Claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A method for product data management, performed by a product
data management (PDM) data processing system, comprising:
receiving, in the PDM data processing system, a target body and a tool
body;
evaluating a body type of the target body and a body type of the tool
body;
evaluating interactions between the target body and the tool body;
determining a spatial relation and relative convexity of an intersection
between the target body and the tool body;
identifying tool face regions of the tool body based on the evaluations
and the determined spatial relation and relative convexity of the
intersection;
splitting the tool face regions from the tool body and maintaining the
tool face regions as a separate body from the tool body; and
adding the tool face regions to the target body to produce a modified
target body.
2
Appeal 2017-011340
Application 13/564,000
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 2-
4.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Masatake Higashi et al., Face-
Based Data Structure and its Application to Robust Geometric Modeling,
Procs. of the Third ACM Symp. on Solid Modeling and Apps., 235--46
(1995) ("Higashi"), Steven Fortune, Polyhedral Modelling with
Multiprecision Integer Arithmetic, Computer-Aided Design, Vol. 29, No. 2,
123-33 (1997) ("Fortune"), and Kevin Weiler, Edge-Based Data Structures
for Solid Modeling in Curved-Surface Environments, IEEE Computer
Graphics and Apps., Vol. 5, No. 1, 21--40 (1985) ("Weiler"). Final Act. 5-
1 1.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Findings and Contentions
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner concludes
that the steps, being directed to "the concept of modifying [ computer-aided
design (CAD)] models ... correspond[] to concepts identified as abstract
ideas by the courts, such as organizing information through mathematical
correlations ... and/or organizing human activity and mathematical
relationships/formulas." Final Act. 3 ( citing Research Corp. Techs. v.
Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Digitech Image Techs., LLC
v. Elecs.for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Alice Corp. Pty.
v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)); see also, e.g., Ans. 4--5. The
Examiner further concludes that additional recitations directed to "the 'data
3
Appeal 2017-011340
Application 13/564,000
processing system', 'memory', 'processor', and 'machine-readable medium'
... are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing
generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications." Final
Act. 3. Therefore, the Examiner concludes "the additional elements do not
amount to significantly more than the" underlying, purportedly abstract,
idea. Id.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the claimed invention
is not directed to an abstract idea, but is instead directed to an improved
CAD model Boolean operation that ensures "that proper regions of the target
body are removed, and that other portions of the target body are modified to
properly reflect the operation, such as by adding appropriate faces to the
target body that bound the region removed by the tool body." Appeal Br.
23. Appellants further contend the claimed steps are not directed merely to
organizing human activity, organizing information through mathematical
correlations, or otherwise describing mathematical relationships or formulas.
See Reply Br. 12.
Analysis
In ascertaining whether a claim nominally directed to a new and
useful process, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof (35 U.S.C. § 101) nonetheless is directed to
non-statutory subject matter, the first step is to determine whether the claim
is directed to a patent-ineligible law of nature, natural phenomena, or
abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
The Examiner concludes claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea
because the claimed "concept of modifying CAD models" is similar to
patent-ineligible abstract ideas discussed in Research Corp., Digitech, and
4
Appeal 2017-011340
Application 13/564,000
Alice. Final Act. 3. However, we agree with Appellants the Examiner's
comparisons fail to show that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. See,
e.g., Appeal Br. 24.
The Examiner's reliance on Research Corp. is unhelpful because the
claimed inventions in Research Corp. were directed to patent-eligible
subject matter. 627 F.3d at 862, 869.
We are unpersuaded that the invention of claim 1 is similar to the
claimed method in Digitech, which merely recited "a process of taking two
data sets and combining them into a single set, [a] device profile," without
reciting anything directed to, "use of that profile in the capturing,
transforming, or rendering ofa digital image." 758 F.3d at 1351. The
claimed invention does not merely combine two data sets, but effects a
transformation by adding tool face regions to a target body to produce a
modified target body.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner fails to show that "the
concept of modifying CAD models" represents the mere organization of
human activity. See Reply Br. 12-13; see also Ans. 4. The Examiner fails
to identify what human activity ( e.g., hedging, content filtering, organizing,
thinking) is organized through CAD model modification.
Furthermore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner fails to
show that the claimed invention is otherwise directed to mathematical
relationships or formulas. See Reply Br. 14--15 see also Ans. 9-10. The
Examiner does not identify what mathematical relationship or formula is
purportedly claimed. Moreover, although the Specification describes the
claimed modification as performing "a Boolean operation to 'subtract' a
shape from an object model" (Spec. ,r 17), the claimed invention is not
5
Appeal 2017-011340
Application 13/564,000
directed to a basic Boolean operation (e.g., AND, OR, NOT, XOR) in the
mathematical sense. Rather, the claimed steps use evaluations of
interactions between the target body and the tool body, along with a
determined spatial relation and relative convexity of an intersection between
the target body and the tool body, to identify tool face regions to add to the
target body. See also Spec. ,r 33, Figs. 4A-D (describing and illustrating the
formation of a "pocket" formed, not by "simply subtracting a tool from a
target," but by producing "a void on the 'near' side of the target while
adding wall thickness on the 'far' side").
Because the Examiner does not show that claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea, we do not agree with the Examiner's conclusion that claim 1 is
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claim 1, or claims 3-8, 10-15,
and 17-20, which contain similar recitations.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Findings and Contentions
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner finds
Higashi's determination of a local structure from a global structure-which
involves both using whether an edge is convex and, after removing a face
from a face array, determining the new convexity of a new edge-and
Higashi' s use of whether an edge is convex in determining the next
intersection from an intersection point teaches or suggests determining a
relative convexity of an intersection between the target body and the tool
body. Final Act. 6-7 (citing Higashi 239,245); see also Ans. 16. The
Examiner relies on Fortune and Weiler for other claim recitations. Final
Act. 7-8.
6
Appeal 2017-011340
Application 13/564,000
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the first disclosed use
and determination of convexity is discussed as part of a process that "has
nothing to do with determining a relative convexity of an intersection
between the target body and the tool body." Appeal Br. 44; see also Reply
Br. 45. Appellants further contend the second disclosed use of convexity
"simply assumes that an edge is concave on the interior of the corresponding
faces" rather than determining relative convexity of an intersection as
claimed. Appeal Br. 44; see also Reply Br. 45.
Analysis
As Appellants persuasively argue, the Examiner's findings do not
show that Higashi's disclosed algorithm for determining a local structure
from a global structure pertains to determining a relative convexity of an
intersection between a target body and a tool body. Appeal Br. 44. The
disclosed algorithm for obtaining a local structure from a global structure, "a
sequence of facesJ;,(i = 1, n) around a region," "assume the properties of
edge convexity are ... given" and, after removing faceJ;+ 1 in step 2,
determines the "convexity of the new edge of the remaining two adjacent
facesJ;, andJ;+2." Higashi 239. Although this algorithm is applicable in "an
area where two solids intersect with almost coincident vertices" (id.), the
Examiner's findings do not show that the convexities assumed and
determined teach or suggest relative convexity of an intersection between
two objects (e.g., a target body and a tool body).
Furthermore Appellants persuasively argue (Appeal Br. 44) that
Higashi' s determination of a next intersection from an intersection point
merely assumes that an "edge becomes concave when the intersection is in
the interior of the corresponding faces, not on their edges" (Higashi 245).
7
Appeal 2017-011340
Application 13/564,000
Higashi characterizes this assumption as "reasonable," but does not describe
this assumption as a determination of relative convexity of an intersection
between two objects (e.g., a target body and a tool body).
For these reasons, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's
findings do not show that Higashi, even in combination with Fortune and
Weiler, renders obvious "determining a spatial relation and relative
convexity of an intersection between the target body and the tool body," as
recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, or claims 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20,
which contain similar recitations.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-8, 10-15,
and 17-20.
REVERSED
8