Ex Parte Nishioka et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2018

14682228 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/682,228 04/09/2015
125968 7590 09/04/2018
V orys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
(ImgTec)
1909 K St., N.W.
Ninth Floor
Washington, DC 20006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Suguru Nishioka
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.
070852.000151 1036
EXAMINER
SUN,HAITAO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2018 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):
patlaw@vorys.com
vmdeluca@vorys.com
rntisdale@vorys.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SU GURU NISHIOKA, JAMES MCCOMBE, and
STEVEN BLACKMON
Appeal2017-009657
Application 14/682,228 1
Technology Center 2600
Before NATHAN A. ENGELS, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Imagination Technologies Limited as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-009657
Application 14/682,228
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
"producing images from 3-D scene models designed in 3-D modeling
applications." Spec. ,r 1. According to the Specification, sophisticated
rendering of 3-D designs is too computationally intensive to support an
interactive experience for a user. Spec. ,r 2. A render engine is described to
implement a more sophisticated rendering of a 3-D scene by rendering a 2-D
image of the 3-D scene. Spec. ,r 3. However, even rendering a 2-D image
may be time consuming. Spec. ,r 3. Thus, in a disclosed embodiment, the
render engine is able to produce the image and progressively produce refined
versions of the rendered image. Spec. ,r 3. The initially rendered images
may be produced more quickly than a final version of the image and may
allow the user to see an early version of the image and determine if it is
suitable for the desired purpose. Spec. ,r 3. Once the quality level is
acceptable, the user may provide an indication to capture the then-current
state of the rendered image and store the captured version. Spec. ,r 3.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. A 3-D rendering process, comprising:
maintaining, by a processor, a 3-D scene description file
according to updates provided from a 3-D modeling application,
the updates indicating changes made to elements of a 3-D scene,
the changes comprising one or more of a change to geometry of
an object in the 3-D scene, and a change to a material assigned
to geometry in the 3-D scene;
executing, by a processor, a rendering process for
producing an image of the 3-D scene, the image being produced
2
Appeal2017-009657
Application 14/682,228
from a viewpoint, the rendering process progressively refining
the image over a user-perceptible period of time;
receiving, through a user interface to the rendering
process, an indication to capture a then-current state of the
image being produced by the rendering process; and
storing data representing the captured image based on the
then-current state of the rendering.
The Examiner's Rejections
1. Claims 1--4, 6-8, and 12-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharya et al. (US 2012/0249539 Al;
Oct. 4, 2012) ("Bhattacharya") and Li (US 7,843,452 B2; Nov. 30, 2010).
Final Act. 8-19.
2. Claims 9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bhattacharya and Turner et al. (US 2007/0115282 Al;
May 24, 2007) ("Turner"). Final Act. 19-21.
3. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bhattacharya, Turner, and Yamagishi (US 6,710,808 B 1;
Mar. 23, 2004 ). Final Act. 21-23.
4. Claims 5 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bhattacharya, Li, and Turner. Final Act. 23-25.
5. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bhattacharya, Li, Turner, and Y amagishi. Final Act. 25-
26.
6. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bhattacharya, Li, and Son et al. (US 2013/0063440 Al;
Mar. 14, 2013) ("Son"). Final Act. 26-27.
3
Appeal2017-009657
Application 14/682,228
7. Claims 20-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bhattacharya, Li, and Ito (US 2008/0246757 Al; Oct. 9,
2008). Final Act. 27-31.
ANALYSIS 2
Claims 1---8 and 12-25
Claim 1 requires receiving an indication to capture "a then-current
state" of an image being rendered and storing the captured image. The claim
recites the rendering process is "progressively refining the image over a
user-perceptible period of time." Independent claims 9, 12, and 13 recite
commensurate limitations to these limitations of claim 1. See App. Br. 9-
1 O; Reply Br. 3--4 ( explaining the limitations are analogous to claim 1 ).
Appellants assert Bhattacharya does not teach or suggest progressively
refining an image over a user-perceptible period of time and, therefore,
cannot teach receiving an indication to capture and store the current state of
the progressively refined image. App. Br. 5-7. Rather, Appellants contend
Bhattacharya is directed to enabling a user to perform a virtual walkthrough
of a three-dimensional building model. App. Br. 6-7 ( citing Bhattacharya
,r 8). Contrary to the Examiner's findings, Appellants argue Bhattacharya
does not teach capturing and storing rendered images, but instead captures
and stores information regarding the three-dimensional model itself. App.
Br. 8-9 (citing Bhattacharya ,r,r 9, 24, 35-36, and 61). Further, Appellants
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
March 1, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed July 3, 2017 ("Reply
Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed May 2, 2017 ("Ans."); and the Final
Office Action, mailed September 1, 2016 ("Final Act."), from which this
Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal2017-009657
Application 14/682,228
assert an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated to
combine Li's progressive rendering of an image (i.e., a medical image) with
Bhattacharya's model of a three-dimensional scene. App. Br. 7-9; Reply
Br. 2-3.
In response, the Examiner finds Bhattacharya teaches, inter alia,
receiving a user request to change or modify an appearance of a building
component in the three-dimensional scene and, subsequently, "performs
three-dimensional rendering" of the scene to incorporate the user's change.
Ans. 28-29 (citing Bhattacharya ,r,r 8-9, 35-36, and 67). The Examiner also
finds Bhattacharya, by presenting the product-visualization component (i.e.,
the three-dimensional rendering), teaches capturing a then-current state of
the image. Ans. 29. Additionally, the Examiner finds Bhattacharya teaches
an asset repository for storing "all models and artifacts" and, therefore,
teaches storing data representing the captured image based on the then-
current state of the rendering. Ans. 29-30 (citing Bhattacharya ,r,r 36, 40,
71, 73-74, Figs. 2, 8A, and 8B). The Examiner relies on Li to teach a
rendering process that progressively refines the image over a user-
perceptible period of time. Ans. 27-28 (citing Li, col. 1, 11. 30-35, col. 2,
11. 11-25, col. 3, 11. 10-60, and Fig. 4). The Examiner explains that an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify
Bhattacharya's system to include the progressive rendering of an image, as
taught by Li, "to display partially rendered final image[s] so that [the] user
can observe the progress of refinement." Final Act. 10; Ans. 30.
Li is generally directed to rendering two-dimensional images from
three-dimensional datasets. Li, col. 1, 11. 13-15. Li's particular field of use
renders two-dimensional images from three-dimensional volumetric data
5
Appeal2017-009657
Application 14/682,228
obtained from MRI or CT methods. Li, col. 1, 11. 19-25. Li discloses that
rendering a high resolution image from a large dataset (such as those
associated with MRI or CT methods) may take "quite long." Li, col. 1,
11. 30-32. Therefore, Li discloses a "progressive refinement approach" to
rendering the image such that a user can observe the progress of refinement
and "decide whether the current viewing parameters are good enough for
[the intended] purpose." Li, col. 1, 11. 32-37, col. 2, 11-21. Thus, we agree
with the Examiner's findings that Li teaches progressively refining an image
over a user-perceptible period of time.
Bhattacharya is generally directed to "modeling, visualizing,
analyzing, and interacting with digital models of buildings and building
projects." Bhattacharya ,r 3. Bhattacharya teaches presenting the model to
the user (i.e., displaying the model) and allowing for a "virtual walkthrough
of the three-dimensional scene." Bhattacharya ,r 8. Additionally,
Bhattacharya teaches that a user provides changes to the model, which are
incorporated into the model by a product-visualization component.
Bhattacharya ,r,r 8-9. Bhattacharya describes the product-visualization
component as "operable to produce a three-dimensional, photorealistic view
of a building that considers building-site attributes such as, for example,
lighting, weather, and building surroundings." Bhattacharya ,r 24. Further,
Bhattacharya teaches an asset repository may be used to store "all models
and artifacts developed during the process." Bhattacharya ,r 36.
Bhattacharya further provides examples of items stored in the asset
repository including: three-dimensional models of buildings, photographs,
product specifications for components, documents, processes presentations,
and images. Bhattacharya ,r 23.
6
Appeal2017-009657
Application 14/682,228
However, although Bhattacharya teaches updating a three-
dimensional scene to incorporate changes input by a user, presenting the
updated model to the user, and storing it in an asset repository, the Examiner
has not identified sufficient evidence or provided technical reasoning to
show that Bhattacharya's rendering of an updated three-dimensional model
produces an image of the three-dimensional model. Rather, it is an
incarnation of the model. Additionally, although Li clearly teaches
producing and progressively refining an image from a three-dimensional
dataset, the Examiner has not provided sufficient reasoning for why an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify
Bhattacharya's product-visualization component to render an image, rather
than an updated three-dimensional model, to reflect changes input by a user.
As Appellants observe: "the considerations of Li of allowing a user to stop
the rendering from the large dataset of diagnostic information and restart
user interaction [when] a high resolution image is being rendered when the
current viewing parameters are good enough for the user's purposes, simply
does not exist in Bhattacharya." App. Br. 8. Appellants therefore assert
"that a person having skill in the art would have [had] no reason to consider
the Li process to solve any identified shortcoming or improve any identified
inefficiency in Bhattacharya." App. Br. 8. Appellants' argument is
persuasive. Regarding the Examiner's stated reasoning of displaying a
partially rendered final image "so that a user can observe the progress of
refinement," we find the Examiner has not provided the requisite
"articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness." Final Act. 10; Ans. 30; see also In re Kahn,
7
Appeal2017-009657
Application 14/682,228
441 F .3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ( cited with approval in KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)).
For the reasons discussed supra, and constrained by the record before
us, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. For
similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 12 and 13, which recite commensurate limitations. Additionally, we
do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2-8 and 14--25, which
depend directly or indirectly therefrom.
Claims 9-11
In rejecting independent claim 9, the Examiner relies on the combined
teachings and suggestions of Bhattacharya and Thomas. Final Act. 19-21.
Claim 9, in relevant part, recites commensurate limitations to those recited in
independent claim 1. The Examiner relies on similar findings from
Bhattacharya and relies on Thomas to teach "performing rendering processes
in the rendering engine to produce and repeatedly refine a 2-D image from
the local representation of the 3-D scene." See Final Act. 20 (citing Thomas
,r,r 45, 60, 73, and Fig. 4). The Examiner finds an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have been motivated to combine Thomas' teaching of repeating the
rendering process in order to refine a 2-D image with Bhattacharya's system
(i.e., product-visualization component) "to correctly generate images for
display to the user in accordance with the user's input." Final Act. 21;
Ans. 39.
Similar to the discussion regarding the proposed combination of
Bhattacharya and Li, we find the Examiner has not provided the requisite
8
Appeal2017-009657
Application 14/682,228
"articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness." Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.
For the reasons discussed supra, and constrained by the record before
us, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 9.
Additionally, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 10 and
11, which depend therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-25.
REVERSED
9