Ex Parte Rohaly et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2016

12664988 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/664,988 07/06/2010
32692 7590 05/05/2016
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
PO BOX 33427
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3427
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Janos Rohaly
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.
63334US005 7167
EXAMINER
POHLMAN, JAMES GREGORY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2143
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/05/2016 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):
LegalUSDocketing@mmm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JANOS ROHAL Y, ROBERT N. NAZZAL,
EDWARD K. TEKEIAN, IL YA A. KRIVESHKO, and ERIC B. PALEY
Appeal2014-006022
Application 12/664,988
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-11and28-36.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a graphical user interface and method
for capturing and marking highly accurate digital dental impressions through
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is 3M INNOVATIVE
PROPERTIES COMP ANY (App. Br. 2).
2 Claims 12-27 were previously canceled.
Appeal2014-006022
Application 12/664,988
correlation of a plurality of video still images to a three-dimensional model
of a subject acquired during a three-dimensional scan (Spec. 1-2; App. Br.
10).
Exemplary claim 28 under appeal reads as :
28. A method comprising:
displaying a still image from a video of a subject in a first
window, the video obtained from a plurality of poses of a three-
dimensional scanner during a three dimensional scan of the
subject;
displaying a two dimensional perspective rendering of a
three-dimensional model of the subject in a second window,
wherein the three-dimensional model is based upon the three-
dimensional scan; and
providing a user control for manipulating a point on a
surface of the subject in either one of the first window or the
second window, wherein a corresponding point is responsively
rendered in the other one of the first window and the second
window.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 28, 29, 32, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Sachdeva (US 7,717,708 B2; May 18, 2010) (Final Act. 2--4).
Claims 1, 35, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sachdeva and Kopelman (US 7, 112,065 B2; Sept. 26,
2006) (Final Act. 4--8).
Claims 2, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sachdeva, Kopelman, and Mirtich (US 7, 720,315 B2;
May 18, 2010) (Final Act. 8-10).
2
Appeal2014-006022
Application 12/664,988
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sachdeva, Kopelman, Mirtich and Wen (US 2010/0009308 Al; Jan. 24,
2010) (Final Act. 10-11).
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sachdeva, Kopelman, and Boreczky (US 7,401,351 B2;
July 15, 2008) (Final Act. 11-13).
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sachdeva, Kopelman, and Nakajima (US 6,701,011 Bl; Mar. 2, 2004) (Final
Act. 13-14).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sachdeva, Kopelman, and Wen (Final Act. 14--15).
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sachdeva, Kopelman, Wen, and NG (US 2008/0094398
Al; Apr. 24, 2008) (Final Act. 15-16).
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sachdeva and Boreczky (Final Act. 17).
Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sachdeva and Nakajima (Final Act. 17-18).
Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sachdeva and Viswanathan (US 2006/0025679 Al; Feb. 2, 2006)
(Final Act. 19-20).
3
Appeal2014-006022
Application 12/664,988
ANALYSIS
Claims 28-36: 35 USC§ 102(b) anticipation rejection
Issue 1 - Did the Examiner err in finding Sachdeva discloses,
"displaying a still image from a video of a subject in a first
window, the video obtained from a plurality of poses of a three-
dimensional scanner during a three dimensional scan of the
subject," as recited in independent claim 28?
We select claim 28 as representative of the group of claims
comprising claims 28-36 as Appellants have not argued any of the other
claims in this group with particularity. 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv).
The Examiner finds Sachdeva, column 14, lines 55-67, describes a
handheld scanner which includes a video camera that obtains a continuous
stream of video frames, interpreted as a stream of still images, and that the
scanner is a three-dimensional scanner (Ans. 22). The Examiner also finds
Sachdeva, column 5, lines 19-25, (Ans. 21) along with corresponding
colum_n 6; lines 15--40; (Final Act 3; Ans. 20) to teach a first window for a
2D image with respect to a second window for a 3D model, respectively.
Appellants argue still images are not captured from poses during a
three-dimensional scan (App. Br. 13).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. As stated by the
Examiner, Sachdeva at column 14, lines 55----67, discloses a still image is
obtained from a video of a subject during a three-dimensional scan of the
subject (Ans. 21 ). In particular, Sachdeva at column 14 discloses that the
three-dimensional scanner includes a video camera that obtains a continuous
stream of color video frames separate and apart from the 3D image data.
Thus, we conclude that Sachdeva's video frames correspond to the claimed
4
Appeal2014-006022
Application 12/664,988
still image and the claimed plurality of poses that are taken during the three-
dimensional scan.
In addition, column 5, lines 19--25, of Sachadeva discloses 2D images
available to the patient that correspond to the claimed first window. Hence,
we agree with the Examiner's findings that Sachdeva teaches the first
limitation of claim 28.
Issue 2 - Did the Examiner err in finding Sachdeva discloses,
"displaying a two dimensional perspective rendering of a
three-dimensional model of the subject in a second window,
wherein the three-dimensional model is based upon the three-
dimensional scan," as recited in independent claim 28?
The Examiner finds Sachdeva in Figure 6, elements 108 and 110, and
column 16, lines 1-13, (Final Act. 3; Ans. 22), as well as column 5, lines
19--25, (Ans. 21) along with corresponding column 6, lines 15--40, (Final
Act. 3; Ans. 20), and column 11, lines 55-59, (Ans. 22) discloses displaying
a three-dimensional model in a second window based upon the three-
dimensional scan.
Appellants argue "Sachdeva does not show a first window and a
second window as claimed. While the right-hand window appears to show a
three-dimensional model ... , the left-hand window does not contain a still
image from a video of a subject" (App. Br. 12: referring to Sachdeva Fig. 6).
We find the cited columns 5 and 6 of Sachdeva to disclose displaying
a two dimensional perspective rendering of a three-dimensional model of the
subject in a second window, where a first window corresponds to a still
image taken from a 2D photo. As pointed out by the Examiner from column
5, "the midline marking done first on the 2D photos of the patient will be
shown in the same position on appropriate 3D model of the patient's teeth
5
Appeal2014-006022
Application 12/664,988
used in teeth alignment and space management" (Ans. 21 ). Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner's findings that a separate second window is shown
for a three-dimensional model of the subject. We also note from cited
column 11, lines 55-59, "The image data regarding the patient's exterior
appearance can be obtained ... via the hand-held 3D-scanner" and from
column 14 that the 3D scan data is used "to create a 3D color model." We
conclude that the three-dimensional model is based upon data from the
three-dimensional scan and, therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the
second limitation of claim 28 is taught by Sachdeva.
Issue 3 - Did the Examiner err in finding Sachdeva discloses,
"providing a user control for manipulating a point on a swface
of the subject in either one of the first window or the second
window, wherein a corresponding point is responsively
rendered in the other one of the first window and the second
window" as recited in independent claim 28?
The Examiner finds Sachdeva column 6 teaches, "Constraints (e.g.,
midline, occlusal plane, etc.) can be defined both in 2D and 3D images.
They are interchangeable and changes made in 3D are applied automatically
in 2D and vice versa." (Ans. 20). The Examiner also finds Sachdeva,
column 5, lines 19-25, teaches, "For example, the midline marking done
first on the 2D photos of the patient will be shown in the same position on
appropriate 3D model of the patient's teeth used in teeth alignment and space
management. The converse is also true, i.e., markings on a 3D virtual
patient model will be available in 2D images of the same patient." (Ans. 21).
Appellants argue Sachdeva does not teach or suggest coupling a still
image and a model view in two different windows, by providing a user
control for manipulating a point in either window and having a
6
Appeal2014-006022
Application 12/664,988
corresponding point responsively rendered in the other window, such as for
the marking of margin lines (Reply Br. 5, 7, 8; App. Br. 11, 14, 15).
We agree with the Examiner in finding the cited columns 5 and 6 of
Sachdeva disclose responsively rendering a point in either one of a first
window or a second window, where one window corresponds to a three-
dimensional model and the other corresponds to a still image, because the
midline markings which are shown to be applied to 2D images may be
considered to be made up of points which are applied to the same
corresponding position on the three-dimensional model surface and vice
versa. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's findings regarding the last
limitation of claim 28 and conclude that all of claim 28 is taught by
Sachdeva.
Claims 1-11: 35 US.C. § 103(a) obviousness rejection
Issue 4 - Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination
of Sachdeva and Kopelman teaches, "a video control that
receives a user selection of one of a plurality of video images as
a working image wherein the plurality of images are obtained
from a corresponding plurality of poses during a three-
dimensional scan, " as recited in independent claim 1?
We select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims comprising
claims 1-11 as Appellants have not argued any of the other claims in this
group with particularity. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds Sachdeva, column 3, lines 29--49, teaches a
working area corresponding to a workstation that may include a plurality of
video images, 2D photographs, and three-dimensional scan images (Ans.
22). The Examiner also finds from Sachdeva, column 3, that all records and
7
Appeal2014-006022
Application 12/664,988
images are digitized and made available through suitable user interface icons
and graphical displays (Final Act. 5).
Appellants argue "Sachdeva does not teach a graphical user interface
including a working area that displays a working image that is one of a
plurality of video images obtained during a three-dimensional scan and a
three-dimensional model view that displays a three-dimensional perspective
rendering of a digital model of dentition based on the three-dimensional
scan," and in particular does not teach "receiv[ing] a user selection of one of
the plurality of video images as the working image" (App. Br. 16).
We agree with the Examiner, because the cited column 3 teaches a
plurality of images of various types which we have seen in the analysis of
the first issue supra to be obtained simultaneously with a three-dimensional
scanner, and that all images are made available through suitable user
interface icons and graphical displays, which would allow a user to select
from among the plurality of images which were obtained during the three-
dimensional scan. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's findings
regarding the first limitation of claim 1.
Issue 5 - Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination
of Sachdeva and Kopelman teaches, "a working area that
displays the working image and receives a user manipulation of
one or more points that mark a margin on the dentition," as
recited in independent claim 1?
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that no new arguments are
presented with respect to this limitation of claim 1 which is related to the
third issue and last limitation of claim 28, and concludes that the user
manipulation of points to mark a margin is taught by the the combination of
Sachdeva and Kopelman (Ans. 22).
8
Appeal2014-006022
Application 12/664,988
Appellants argue Sachdeva does not disclose that the working area
can receive a user manipulation of one or more points that mark a margin on
dentition, with the one or more points responsively displayed in the three-
dimensional model view, and Kopelman does not remedy this deficiency
(App. Br. 17).
We agree with the Examiner's findings that Kopelman teaches a
working area in a similar orthodontic modeling computer environment,
where a graphical user interface is presented for a user to manipulate one or
more points that mark a margin on a dentition, and that it is obvious to
combine Kopelman with Sachdeva in view of the cited facilitation of dental
prosthesis preparation (see Final Act. 6). Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner's findings regarding the second limitation of claim 1, and as
Appellants have not argued the remaining third limitation of claim 1
separately from claim 28, conclude that the combination of Sachdeva and
Kopelman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
CONCLUSION
For the above-stated reasons, we are unpersuaded by Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Sachdeva and Kopelman teaches or suggests all of the recited limitations of
claims 1 and 28. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
of claim 28 and the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, as well as the
remaining dependent claims, which are not argued separately (see App. Br.
9).
9
Appeal2014-006022
Application 12/664,988
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-11 and 28-36 is
sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10