Ex Parte Ritter et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 27, 2009

10630452 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 27, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BRADFORD A. RITTER and ROSS CUNNIFF
____________

Appeal 2009-001306
Application 10/630,452
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: August 31, 2009
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN A. JEFFERY,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-001306
Application 10/630,452

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-16. See App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants invented a texture mapping system that recognizes how
different texels of texture respond differently to a light from a light source.1
Claim 1 which further illustrates the invention follows:
1. A texture mapping system, comprising:
memory for storing a parametric texture map, the parametric texture
map having a plurality of texels defining a first texture, at least one of the
texels defining a variable expression that defines a luminosity parameter as a
function of light direction; and
a texture map manager configured to perform a rotation of the first
texture thereby providing a parametric texture map defining a second texture
that is rotated relative to the first texture, the texture map manager further
configured to define a variable expression for a texel of the parametric
texture map defining the second texture by adjusting the variable expression
of the one texel to compensate for a change in relative light direction
resulting from the rotation.

The Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art reference as
evidence of unpatentability:
Watanabe US 6,384,834 B1 May 7, 2002

1 See generally App. Br. 3-5; Spec. 6-8.
Appeal 2009-001306
Application 10/630,452

3
Tom Malzbender et al., Polynomial Texture Maps (Hewlett-Packard
Laboratories 2001), available at
http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/ptm/papers/ptm.pdf [hereinafter
“Malzbender”].
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Watanabe and Malzbender (Ans. 3-7).
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Brief and the Answer for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make
in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2008).

Obviousness rejection
Appellants argue that Malzbender does not disclose defining a
variable expression for a texel by adjusting the texel’s variable expression to
compensate for a change in relative light direction resulting from the
rotation as indicated in claim 1 (App. Br. 7). The Examiner disagrees with
Appellants’ assessment and argues that Malzbender teaches the limitations
in the form of equations (Ans. 10).

ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Watanabe and Malzbender discloses a texture mapping
system that performs rotational evaluation of textures and adjusts texel
variable expressions based upon the results of the evaluation?

Appeal 2009-001306
Application 10/630,452

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
Malzbender
1. Malzbender (§ 3.2) discloses an equation that computes an unscaled color
per texel (Rn(u,v),Gn(u,v),Bn(u,v)) that is modulated by a luminance model
L(u,v):

2. Malzbender discloses a method that is an image-based technique that
requires no modeling of complex geometry or bump maps (§ 1).
3. Figure 2 of Malzbender is reproduced below:

The first device for collecting a photographic acquisition of polynomial
texture maps (PTM) is a subdivided icosaheral template that assists in
positioning a light source in 40 positions relative to a sample. The
second device provides fully automated acquisition of 50 source images
Appeal 2009-001306
Application 10/630,452

5
wherein each is illuminated with individual strobe light sources (Section
3.1).
4. The camera is mounted in both PTM collecting devices in the apex of the
domes with the samples placed upon the floor. This configuration achieves
multiple registered images with varying light source directions (§ 3.1).

Specification
5. The image capture unit 58 comprises a dome structure 72 with a hole
wherein the camera’s lens is positioned through it so that it can receive the
light from the interior of the dome structure 72. A sample object 86 is
positioned underneath the dome structure in direct view of the camera’s lens
(¶¶ [0036-37]).
6. A plurality of printed circuit boards 92, each having their own light
source and light activation logic, are mounted on the dome structure 72 such
that the light from each of the light sources 95 illuminates a sample 86 (¶
[0038]).
7. The location of each light source 95 may be fixed and, for each texture
image, the text map manager 32 is aware of the angle of incidence of the
light that is illuminating the sample object 86. The angle of incidence of
light from each source 95 on the sample object 86 can be measured and
programmed into the texture map manager 32 (¶ [0041]).
8. The camera 76 and the sample object 86 remain in a fixed position as the
texture images are being captured (¶ [0043]).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
Appeal 2009-001306
Application 10/630,452

6
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966) (stating that 35 U.S.C. §
103 leads to three basic factual inquiries: the scope and content of the prior
art, the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and the
level of ordinary skill in the art). If the Examiner's burden is met, the burden
then shifts to Appellants to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

ANALYSIS
As we stated previously, the Examiner relies upon the equations of
Malzbender to disclose adjusting the texel’s variable expression to
compensate for a change in relative light direction resulting from the
rotation (Ans. 10-11). The Examiner uses Malzbender’s equations to define
a first texture (lu1, lv1) wherein (lu, lv) are used to define the components of
the light vector (Ans. 10-11). See also FF 1. The first texture (Ans. 10) is
defined as:

The Examiner then substitutes (lu2, lv2) into the equation to define a
second texture when the texture is rotated in regard to the first texture (Ans.
11). See also FF 1. The second texture (Ans. 11) is defined as:
Appeal 2009-001306
Application 10/630,452

7

Appellants agree with the Examiner that Malzbender describes texture
maps having a texel defined by a variable expression that defines a
luminosity parameter as a function of light direction. See App. Br. 7.
Appellants argue that Malzbender is silent in regards to rotational
analysis of textures. See App. Br. 7. Malzbender discloses that polynomial
texture maps can be formed by light direction parameterization instead of
relying upon modeling of complex geometry or bump maps (FF 1, 2).
Further, Malzbender discloses that multiple images are acquired by varying
light source directions using a static object with a static camera under
varying lighting conditions (FF 3, 4). This is the very same technique
employed by Appellants to acquire or capture images from a sample (FF 3,
4; see also FF 5-8). However, Malzbender does not have a texture map
manager (see § 3.4). Malzbender relies upon a generic VLSI system and a
software viewer for interacting with the PTMs directly (see § 3.4).
Appellants’ invention is similar to Malzbender with the exception of
the texture map manager. While it is clear that Malzbender analyzes the
effects of luminance from multiple directions upon textures, Malzbender, as
indicated earlier, is silent in regards to rotational luminance analysis of
various textures as claimed by Appellants. Further, the Examiner fails to
explain how the second texture is a result of a rotational analysis of the first
texture. The Examiner simply states “[w]hen the texture is rotated relative
to the first texture to become a second texture, light direction for the second
Appeal 2009-001306
Application 10/630,452

8
texture is changed to (lu2, lv2)” (Ans. 11 (emphasis added)). “‘[R]ejections
on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner fails to provide any support from Malzbender for his
assertion. As we indicated previously, Malzbender and the claimed
invention collect measurements in a similar manner and both express the
results by variable expressions; however, it is Appellants’ texture map
manager that provides a rotational analysis of the measurements that
Malzbender does not. We agree with Appellants’ arguments that
Malzbender also fails to disclose adjusting the texel’s variable expression to
compensate for a change in the relative light direction as a result of the
rotation performed by the texture map manager.
Appellants argue that Watanabe fails to remedy the deficiencies of
Malzbender because Watanabe is silent in regard to the texels having
variable expressions and therefore fails to suggest any adjustment to them
(App. Br. 9). It is the Examiner’s position that Watanabe was not relied
upon to address the deficiencies of Malzbender (Ans. 12). The Examiner
states that Watanabe discloses a second texture that is rotated relative to the
first texture (Ans. 4). However, Watanabe fails to disclose adjusting the
texel’s variable expression to compensate for a change in the relative light
direction as a result of the rotation performed by the text map manager.
Therefore, the combination of Watanabe and Malzbender fails to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness for the reasons stated previously.
Appeal 2009-001306
Application 10/630,452

9
Independent claims 5, 6, 7, and 11 have similar limitations pertaining
to adjusting the variable expression to compensate for a change in the
relative light direction resulting from a rotation as stated in claim 1 and
therefore we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims
1-16 for reasons stated previously.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Watanabe and Malzbender discloses a texture mapping
system that performs rotational evaluation of textures and adjusts texel
variable expressions based upon the results of the evaluation.

ORDER
We will not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-16.

REVERSED

babc

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528