Ex parte Miyata

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 21, 2002

08918267 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 21, 2002)

Application for patent filed January 9, 1996, entitled1
"Method and Apparatus for Generating Textures for Display,"
which is a continuation of Application 08/097,800, filed
July 27, 1993, now abandoned, which claims the foreign filing
priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119 of Japanese Application
4-199623, filed July 27, 1992.
- 1 -
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
_______________
Paper No. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte KAZUNORI MIYATA

Appeal No. 1999-2640
Application 08/918,2671

ON BRIEF

Before THOMAS, KRASS, and BARRETT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 1999-2640
Application 08/918,267
- 2 -
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, and 11-13.
Claims 3, 7, 10, and 14 have been canceled.
We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a method and apparatus for
generating a texture for line segments. As shown in Fig. 1,
a plurality of three-dimensional line segments are input at 1
(defined by a mathematical function or by use of a graphics
input device, specification, p. 7, lines 3-6), line
coordinates within the coordinate range are generated at 5
(i.e., the line segment is converted into a two-dimensional
coordinate value of the initial or terminal point of each line
segment, specification, p. 5, lines 17-24), the line
coordinates are used to generate a position value for each
position within the coordinate range at 2 and 6 (i.e., the
straight line is rasterized into a sequence of point data),
and a texture value is generated for each position within the
coordinate range at 7 and 3 (i.e., an evaluation value is
applied for each point of the point sequence, Figs. 2-5).
Appeal No. 1999-2640
Application 08/918,267
- 3 -
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method of generating a texture for a plurality of
positions within a coordinate range, consisting of the
steps of:
generating, in response to a plurality of line
segments, a plurality of line coordinates within the
coordinate range, the plurality of line segments
including line segments in differing planes to provide a
three-dimensional appearance;
generating, in response to said line coordinates, a
position value for each position within the coordinate
range; and
generating, in response to each position value, a
texture value for each position within the coordinate
range.
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Kato et al. (Kato) 5,369,736 November 29, 1994
(filed November 22, 1993)
Thier et al. (Thier) 5,410,644 April 25, 1995
(effective filing date March 29, 1990)
Foley et al. (Foley), Computer Graphics: Principles and
Practice (2d ed. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. 1990),
pp. 617-647, 666-669, and 740-743.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, and 11-13 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kato, Foley,
and Thier.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 15) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper
Appeal No. 1999-2640
Application 08/918,267
- 4 -
No. 21) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
rejection, and to the revised brief (Paper No. 27) (pages
referred to as "Br__") for a statement of Appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The claims are grouped to stand or fall together (Br3).
Claim 1 is analyzed as representative.
As an initial matter of claim interpretation, we note the
use of the transition phrase "consisting of" in claims 1 and
8. This phrase excludes other steps in claim 1 and other
structure or means in apparatus claim 8.
The Examiner finds that Kato discloses the claimed
subject matter except for generating a texture value for each
position by surface rendering color information based on
position values generated for each position (FR3). The
Examiner seems to find that Kato teaches generating textures
as recited in claim 1, but does not do so "by surface
rendering surface color information based on position values
generated for each position" as recited in claim 8. The
Examiner finds that Foley shows generating texture for each
position in Fig. 14.32, page 643, which is said to shown
Appeal No. 1999-2640
Application 08/918,267
- 5 -
filtering applied to texture generation (FR3). The Examiner
finds that Thier shows line segments in different planes for
texture mapping in the abstract (FR3). The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious "to apply line segment based
texturing . . . to Kato because of the line segments forming
texture variables shown in Fig. 6B" (FR3). The Examiner also
concludes that it would have been obvious "to apply Foley's
texture filtering generating texture for each position by
surface rendering surface color information based on position
values generated for each position and Thier's multiple planes
to Kato because of Foley's taught application of filtering
techniques to texture generation such as Kato's and Thier's"
(FR4).
Kato is directed to a texture mapping technique. Texture
mapping maps a two-dimensional image, known as a texture map
or texture picture, onto the surface of a three-dimensional
object by transforming (distorting) the image into the object
coordinate system and onto the surface of the object (Foley,
pp. 741-743; Kato, Figs. 6A-6C). Texture mapping assumes that
a strict three-dimensional shape (configuration) on a surface
of an object to be applied with a texture is previously known
Appeal No. 1999-2640
Application 08/918,267
- 6 -
(Kato, col. 1, lines 24-30). Where a surface shape
(configuration) of an object to be mapped is not known, the
shape has been assumed and texture processing has been carried
out on a trial and error basis (Kato, col. 1, lines 36-43).
Kato discloses three ways of estimating a three-dimensional
shape of an object to be mapped which minimize trial and error
factors.
It is clear that Kato is not directed to the same method
of generating textures as the claimed invention. The claimed
invention does not employ texture mapping, but uses an
evaluation function, such as those in Appellant's Figs. 3-5.
Nor does the claimed invention involve estimating a
three-dimensional shape on a surface of an object as in Kato,
because the shape is defined by the input line segments. To
the extent the Examiner considers that the claims are so broad
that they read on Kato, despite the differences in actual
invention, it is the Examiner's duty to explain how the claims
are interpreted broadly to read on Kato.
Appellant argues that Kato does not disclose any of the
three steps of claim 1 (Br4-5). We agree. The Examiner finds
that generating line points located on line segments is shown
Appeal No. 1999-2640
Application 08/918,267
- 7 -
in Fig. 6B (FR3). However, Fig. 6B merely shows a
two-dimensional image (texture image or texture map) to be
mapped onto the surface of an object. The rectangular grid
pattern is used, instead of pictures like Figs. 16.25(a)-(f)
of Foley, so that the mapping transformation is clear; note
how the right angles and equal sides of the grid squares
become distorted when mapped to an object as in Fig. 6C. Even
if the lines in Fig. 6B were line segments, they are not "in
differing planes to provide a three-dimensional appearance,"
as claimed because Fig. 6B is a two-dimensional coordinate
system as evidenced by Fig. 7A. Moreover, we do not
understand the Examiner's assertion that Fig. 6B shows
generating line points located on line segments. Claim 1
calls for generating "line coordinates," i.e., coordinates of
the line. As disclosed, these coordinates may correspond to
the initial or terminal point of each line segment
(specification, p. 5, lines 17-24). A "coordinate" is a
defined as "any of a set of numbers used in specifying the
location of a point on a line, on a surface, or in space,"
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (G. & C. Merriam Co.
1977). The Examiner has not explained, and it is not apparent
Appeal No. 1999-2640
Application 08/918,267
- 8 -
to us, how Fig. 6B (or anywhere else in Kato) shows generating
sets of numbers specifying the coordinates of the line
segments.
The Examiner finds that generating positions is shown by
the mapping operation of Fig. 1, step 204. We do not
understand this finding. Part of the problem is that we do
not find the previous step of generating a plurality of line
coordinates specifying the line segments and, thus, do not see
how Kato generates a position value for each position "in
response to said line coordinates," as claimed. The term
"position value" in claim 1 refers to a value for each
position of the line segment, presumably every pixel location
of the line segment, not every for every position in the
coordinate range. The mapping step 204 in Fig. 1 maps
(transforms) a point on the texture picture of Fig. 6B to a
point on the surface of the object as shown in Fig. 6C. It is
not known how this relates to, or could be considered to
disclose, generating a position value in response to line
coordinates.
The Examiner appears to find that Kato discloses
generating texture in Fig. 6C. Figure 6C shows the result of
Appeal No. 1999-2640
Application 08/918,267
- 9 -
texture mapping and broadly shows generating a texture value
for each position on the seat back. Claim 1 does not preclude
generating a texture value for each position on the seat back
by texture mapping and claim 1 does not require use of an
evaluation function. However, since Kato lacks the earlier
steps of claim 1, it cannot satisfy this last step.
As previously noted, the Examiner seems to find that Kato
teaches generating textures as recited in claim 1, but does
not do so "by surface rendering surface color information
based on position values generated for each position" as
recited in the narrower claim 4, which is not at issue.
Nevertheless, we consider the teachings of Foley and Thier.
Appellant argues that Foley describes the use of
prefiltering before sampling, or postfiltering after sampling,
to perform anti-aliasing of a displayed image and all that
would result from Foley would be perhaps a better rendering of
the lines in the mapped picture of Fig. 6C (Br5-6). It is
argued that the Examiner is in error in asserting that Foley
teaches application of filtering to "texture generation" and
there is no illustration or discussion of texture generation
Appeal No. 1999-2640
Application 08/918,267
- 10 -
in Fig. 14.32 of Foley or the associated text relating to this
figure (Br7).
Figure 14.32 of Foley is directed to filtering over an
array of supersampled (supersampling is taking more than one
sample for each pixel and combining them, Foley, p. 620)
values for the purpose of antialiasing (i.e., reducing the
jagged or stairstep appearance of lines due to the finite size
of the pixel). Filtering combines the samples to create a new
sample; note that the 11x11 block is reduced to a 5x5 block.
Filtering has no apparent direct connection to generating a
texture value. In any case, Foley lacks the specific steps of
claim 1.
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that
Thier shows line segments in different planes for texture
mapping in the abstract, that the Examiner provides no basis
for combining the references, and that Thier does not cure the
deficiencies of Kato (Br6).
The Examiner responds that Thier shows line segments in
different planes for texture mapping in its abstract "by
virtue of folding lines in different directions, hence planes
creating patches, i.e. texture" (EA6).
Appeal No. 1999-2640
Application 08/918,267
- 11 -
We find nothing in Thier that would cure the significant
deficiencies of Kato and Foley.
In summary, we conclude that the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, and 11-13 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-2640
Application 08/918,267
- 12 -
Andrew J. Dillon
FELSMAN, BRADLEY, GUNTER & DILLON, LLP
Suite 350, Lakewood on the Park
7600B North Capital of Texas Highway
Austin, TX 78731