Ex Parte Ohno

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 8, 2008

10306158 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 8, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte KOJI OHNO
_____________

Appeal 2008-2573
Application 10/306,158
Technology Center 2600
______________

Decided: September 8, 2008
_______________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI,
and MARC S. HOFF Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the rejection of
claims 1 through 4, 6 through 11, 13 through 17, and 19 through 22.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

Appeal 2008-2573
Application 10/306,158

2

INVENTION

The invention is directed to a method for use in video game image
processing. The method involves obtaining a simple model of a three
dimensional object in virtual space. Calculations are made of a first depth
from the viewpoint and display coordinates with respect to the vertex of the
sample model. Second calculations are made of a present depth from the
view point with respect to a two dimensional area bounding all vertexes of
the simple model as viewed from the view point. The method then
compares these two depths to determine if processing of the image of the
object should be stopped. See pages 3 and 4 of Appellant’s Specification.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A video game processing method for displaying a virtual
space viewed from a virtual viewpoint on a screen, comprising:
obtaining a three dimensional simple model that bounds a
polygon group of a three dimensional object in the virtual space;
calculating first depth information from the viewpoint and
display coordinates with respect to a vertex of the simple model;
obtaining present depth information from the viewpoint with
respect to an area corresponding to the display coordinates, the area
comprising a rectangle bounding all vertexes of the simple model as
viewed from the viewpoint, the area varying when the viewpoint
changes and/or when an orientation of the object changes;
comparing the first depth information and the present depth
information; and
stopping further processing of the object when the first depth
information indicates a depth that is deeper than a depth indicated by
the present depth information.

Appeal 2008-2573
Application 10/306,158

3

REFERENCES

Duluk US 5,574,835 Nov. 12, 1996
Takeda US 6,037,946 Mar. 14, 2000
Olsen US 6,094,200 Jul. 25, 2000

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1 through 4, 6 through 11, 13 through 17, and 19 through 22
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takeda
in view of Olsen and Duluk. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 3 through
11 of the Answer.1
Throughout the opinion, we make reference to the Brief (received
May 23, 2006), Reply Brief (received September 27, 2007) and the Answer
(mailed July 27, 2007) for the respective details thereof.

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends, on pages 12 through 17 of the Brief, that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error. Appellant argues on page 12 of
the Brief that Takada does not disclosed combining a first depth information
with a second depth information where the present depth information is from
a viewpoint with respect to an area comprising a rectangle bounding all
vertexes of the simple model. Br. 13. Further, Appellant argues that
modifying Takeda’s analysis to make use of Olsen’s polygons and Duluk’s

1 We note that the Examiner’s statement of the rejection on page 3 of the
Answer contains a typographical error as it identifies canceled claims 5, 13,
and 18 as rejected. We also note that the Examiner has withdrawn the
rejections based upon 35 U.S.C. § 112 (Ans. 2, 3).
Appeal 2008-2573
Application 10/306,158

4

two dimensional projected bounding box would defeat the teachings of
Takeda’s analysis. Br. 14 and 15.
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. Claim 1 recites obtaining a three dimensional model that bounds a
polygon group of a three dimensional object. Claim 1 also includes two
steps of calculating depth information, the steps of calculating the first depth
information and the present depth information. The first depth information
is calculated with respect to a vertex of the simple model, i.e., based upon
the three dimensional model. The second, the present depth information is
calculated based upon an area comprising a rectangle bounding all vertexes
of the simple model, i.e., based upon a two dimensional representation of the
simple model. Thus, the scope of claim 1 includes that two different depth
calculations are made based upon the same simple model of the three
dimensional object. Claim 1 recites that these two depth values are
compared to each other and used to determine when to stop further
processing of the object.
The Examiner states:
Takeda teaches obtaining first depth information and present
depth information and comparing the first and present depth
information, specifically depth information for a region
corresponding to the display area is first initialized and placed
in the main z-buffer, then depth information corresponding to
the polygon encompassing the object is calculated and
compared to the present/current depth information found in the
region of the display area corresponding to the polygon, see
Figs. 1-2C, 5, 12A-12B, column 5, lines 39-64 and column 8,
lines 3-15, and further teaches a computer readable medium
encoded with a game program for performing the method of
claim 1, see column 11, lines 48-61. Olsen teaches obtaining a
three dimensional simple model that bounds a polygon group of
Appeal 2008-2573
Application 10/306,158

5

an object in the virtual space and calculating the first depth
information with respect to the vertices of the simple model and
comparing the present depth information to the first depth
information, see column 3, lines 51-58, columns 4-5, lines 64-
12 and column 5, lines 22- 31. Duluk teaches wherein the area
corresponding to the display coordinates is an area comprising a
rectangle bounding all vertices of the simple model as viewed
from the viewpoint, see Figs. 9, column 13, lines 34-51, column
14, lines 7-24. Thus, the combination of primary reference
Takeda with secondary references Olsen and Duluk teach all of
the limitations as claimed.

(Ans. 12-13).

While we concur with the Examiner’s finding that Takeda teaches
comparing two depth measurements, these depth measurements are for
different objects and not the same object as claimed. Takeda teaches that the
ZR- buffer stores the minimum and maximum depth information for all of
the pixels within a region. Col. 3, ll. 9-15. The system then analyzes
polygons which represent individual objects against maximum and
minimum values in the ZR register. This analysis is used to determine if
drawing (processing) of the object represented by the polygon should be
omitted. Col. 6, ll. 1-26. Thus, Takeda does not teach that the two different
depth calculations are made of the same simple model of the three
dimensional object. While we recognize that Olsen teaches obtaining a three
dimensional simple model that bounds a polygon group of an object, we do
not find that using this teaching of Olsen would suggest to one of skill in the
art that two measurements of a model of the same object should used to
determine when to stop further processing of the object. Similarly, we
recognize that Duluk teaches determining area comprising a rectangle
Appeal 2008-2573
Application 10/306,158

6

bounding all vertices of the simple model (which also implies that Duluk
teaches obtaining a three dimensional simple model that bounds a polygon
group of an object). However, we do not find that this teaching would
suggest to one of skill in the art that two measurements of a model of the
same object should used to determine when to stop further processing of the
object. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
or claims 2 through 4, 6, and 20 which depend upon claim 1.
Appellant argues on pages 20 and 21 of the Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 7 is in error for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 1. Similarly, on pages 24 and 25 of the Brief, Appellant argues that
the rejection of independent claim 14 is in error. These arguments have
persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Independent claim 7 is
directed to an apparatus and independent claim 14 is directed to a computer
program. Both claims are similar to claim 1 in that they recite obtaining a
three dimensional model that bounds a polygon group of a three dimensional
object. These claims also include two steps of calculating a depth
information, the first depth information is calculated with respect to a vertex
of the simple model and the second depth information, referred to as the
present depth information, is calculated based upon an area comprising a
rectangle bounding all vertexes of the simple model. Thus, the scope of
claims 7 and 14 includes that two different depth calculations are made of
the same simple model of the three dimensional object and these depth
values are compared to each other to determine when to stop further
processing of the object. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, we do
not find that the references cited in the Examiner’s rejection teach or suggest
these limitations. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
Appeal 2008-2573
Application 10/306,158

7

of independent claims 7 and 14 or claims 8 through 11, 13, 15 through 19,
21 and 22 which depend upon claims 7 and 14.

ORDER
For the aforementioned reasons we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1 through 4, 6 through 11, 13 through 17, and 19
through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takeda in
view of Olsen and Duluk.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

kis

GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191