Ex Parte Neto et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 12, 2014

11083306 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2014)

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.
11/083,306 03/17/2005 Murilo Gondim Neto 80398P621 6621
8791 7590 12/12/2014
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
PRENDERGAST, ROBERTA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2014 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 MURILO GONDIM COUTINHONETO and
SEBASTIAN MARK MARINO
_____________

Appeal 2012-006393
Application 11/083,306
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 33 through 80. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2012-006393
Application 11/083,306

2

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a technique to represent a three
dimensional (3-D) object using signed distance functions. See Abstract of
Appellants’ Specification.

Claim 33 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
33. A system comprising:
a processor;
a memory coupled to the processor to contain instructions,
when executed by the processor, that perform operations comprising:
constructing a bounding box having a volumetric shape and
containing a three dimensional (3-D) object in a 3-D coordinate
system, the bounding box having at least a bounding plane having a
grid point;
projecting a ray from the grid point on the bounding plane to
the object with a predefined direction, the ray intersecting a surface of
the object at an intersection point; and
computing a parameterization value of the intersection point
associated with the grid point, the parameterization value
corresponding to a distance from the grid point to the intersection
point.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 33 through 38, 40, 49 through 54,
56, 65 through 70, and 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Pires (“Dynamic Algorithm Binding for Virtual Walkthroughs”, Instituto
Appeal 2012-006393
Application 11/083,306

3

Superior Technico –Technical University of Lisbon; November 2001, 107
pgs.), and Zwicker (US 6,580,425 B1; Jun. 17, 2003). Answer 5–19.
1

The Examiner has rejected claims 39, 41 through 48, 55, 57 through
64, 71, and 73 through 80 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Pires, Zwicker and Deering (US 6,115,047; Sep. 5, 2000). Answer 19–34.

ISSUE
Appellants present several arguments, on pages 10 through 11 of the
Appeal Brief, directed to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 33 through 38,
40, 49 through 54, 56, 65 through 70 and 72. The dispositive issue
presented by these arguments is: Did the Examiner error in finding that the
combination of Pires and Zwicker teaches computing a value corresponding
to a distance from the grid point on the bounding plane to the intersection
point on the ray intersecting a surface of the three dimensional object?
With respect to the rejection of claims 39, 41 through 48, 55, 57
through 64, 71, and 73 through 80, Appellants argue present several
additional arguments. Appeal Brief 10-14. The dispositive issue with
respect to these claims is the same as discussed above.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments.

1
Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated August 15,
2011, Reply Brief dated February 1, 2012, and the Examiner’s Answer
mailed on December 1, 2011.
Appeal 2012-006393
Application 11/083,306

4

Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 33 through 80.
Appellants’ arguments are directed to Zwicker not teaching the
limitation of computing a parameterization value corresponding to a distance
from the grid point on the bounding plane to the intersection point on the ray
intersecting a surface of the three dimensional object. Appeal Brief 11,
Reply Brief 3. The Examiner finds that Zwicker teaches a ray casting
method in which a zero dimensional surfel with floating point depth is
generated. Answer 37–38. Based upon this teaching the Examiner finds
“[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
recognize that the depth data of the different intersection points for a
single ray are indicative of the distance since the depth value is different for
each intersection point along the ray.” Answer 37–38. We agree with the
Examiner that Zwicker teaches a zero dimensional surfel with floating point
depth. However, we do not find the Examiner has identified sufficient
evidence or provided adequate reasoning to support the finding that this
teaching meets the claimed parameterization value corresponding to the
distance between a grid point, on the bounding plane and the intersection of
a ray on the three dimensional object as recited in each of independent
claims 33, 42, 49, 58, 65, and 74. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 33 through 80.

Appeal 2012-006393
Application 11/083,306

5

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 33 through 80 is
reversed.

REVERSED
dw