Ex Parte Mortimer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2016

12658085 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/658,085 02/02/2010 John Mortimer
96039 7590 02/18/2016
Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC
999 Peachtree Street NE
Suite 1300
Atlanta, GA 30309
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.
10l72-039US1 9395
EXAMINER
MA, TIZE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2016 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):
docketing@mcciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN MORTIMER, TONY SCHELLENBERG,
and PIERRE LEMIRE
Appeal2014-002876
Application 12/658,085
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-13. No other claims are pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2014-002876
Application 12/658,085
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
using a processor projecting for a pixel of a 2D image
placed in a view plane a ray of sight from the view plane
through a volume determined by a plurality ofvoxels of a
volumetric dataset indicative of an object, the view plane
having a predetermined distance and orientation to the volume;
using the processor determining a plurality of sampling
points along the ray of sight such that a distance between
consecutive sampling points is larger at a larger distance to the
view plane;
using the processor determining for at least a portion of
the plurality of sampling points a color value and a
transparency value in dependence upon voxels in proximity of
the respective sampling point and in dependence upon a
lighting calculation; and,
using the processor determining for the ray of sight a
final color value by compo siting along the ray the color values
and the transparency values, the final color value of the ray
contributing to a pixel value of the 2D image, the 2D image
being indicative of the object.
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) claims 1-6 and 11-12 as anticipated by Kaufman et al. (US
6,674,430 Bl; Jan. 6, 2004).
Appellants also contend the Examiner erred in rejecting under
35 U.S.C § 103(a) claim 7 as obvious in view of Kaufman and Abdo (US
2002/0101429 Al; Aug. 1, 2002) and claims 8-10 and 13 as obvious in view
of Kaufman and Kiefer et al. (US 2008/0246770 Al; Oct. 9, 2008).
2
Appeal2014-002876
Application 12/658,085
ANALYSIS
Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding
that Kaufman discloses "determining a plurality of sampling points along the
ray of sight such that a distance between consecutive sampling points is
larger at a larger distance to the view plane" because Kaufman discloses
only sample points spaced equidistant along a target scanline (Br. 10-11
(citing Kaufman, Figs. 7-9, 11, 20-A, 22, 24, 26; col. 14, 1. 61-col. 15, 1.
28)). The Examiner interprets the claimed sampling points to read on the
intersection of rays of sight and the boundary lines that define volume slabs
in Kaufman, noting that the distance between consecutive boundary lines
increases as the distance from the view plane increases. Final Act. 2, 5
(citing Kaufman, Fig. 19; col. 35, 1. 43-col. 36, 1. 17); Ans. 3 (citing
Kaufman, col. 36, 11. 6-10).
We find Appellants' argument persuasive. In each Figures 7, 8, 9, 11,
20-A, 22, 24, and 26 and in the relevant descriptions, Kaufman discloses
sample points spaced at equal distances along a ray of sight. While
Kaufman discloses that each intersection of a ray of sight and a volume-slab
boundary is a sample point, Kaufman does not disclose that such
intersections would be consecutive sample points along a ray of sight as
claimed. To the contrary, Figure 22, reproduced below, depicts boundary
lines 184, rays of sight 186, and multiple sample locations depicted with
X's, including ray sample locations 194 that are evenly spaced along a ray of
sight between boundary lines 184. See Kaufman, col. 31, 11. 40-64, see also
Kaufman, col. 14, 1. 61-col. 15, 1. 28 (describing equidistant sample points
along a scanline ).
3
Appeal2014-002876
Application 12/658,085
FIG-22
Vt~J)M€:
• VCXEl COORDlN>\ffS
_..... RESAMPUNG fll:T!.0.f.l \!\'ElGHTS
X AA Y SAMf'l.B. L