Ex parte ROLLER

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 26, 1998

08076285 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 26, 1998)

Application for patent filed June 11, 1993, entitled1
"Method For Generating Graphical Models And Computer Aided Design
System," which is a continuation of Application 07/525,101, filed
May 17, 1990, now abandoned, which is a continuation-in-part of
Application 07/360,494, filed June 2, 1989, now abandoned, which
claims the priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119 of EPO Patent
Application 89108990.6, filed May 19, 1989.
- 1 -
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
_______________
Paper No. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte DIETER ROLLER

Appeal No. 95-4605
Application 08/076,2851

ON BRIEF

Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 95-4605
Application 08/076,285
- 2 -
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
final rejection of claims 1-16, all of the claims pending in the
application. We affirm-in-part.
The disclosed invention is directed to a computer aided
design (CAD) system which includes a replication command which is
stored in unexecuted form and the number of replications to be
made of a selected structural object is stored as a variable. As
described in the Brief (page 2):
When the generic program containing these variable
replication commands is executed to render an output image,
the variables need to be substituted with specific values.
In general, for execution, a CAD user merely inputs specific
values for modifying the shape of a selected object as well
as the replication number. In response to these user
inputs, the CAD system executes the program and completes
the replication of the selected object "on the fly."
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for generating a generic program of a
graphical model of a 2- or 3-dimensional object with at
least partially variable dimensions, in a computer aided
design system, said design system having design commands,
said method comprising the steps of:
selecting a sub-group of geometric elements
corresponding to a structural element of said object,
wherein said geometric elements are defined by a set of said
design commands;
generating a replication command having replication
parameters defined as variables, said replication parameters
being generated in relation to said sub-group of geometric
elements;
incorporating said replication command and said
replication parameters into a design program thereby
Appeal No. 95-4605
Application 08/076,285
- 3 -
generating a generic design program and storing said generic
design program, wherein said replication command is stored
in an unexecuted form so that when it is desired to
replicate said set of design commands to generate a model
having a number of said structural element, said number is
variable.
Appeal No. 95-4605
Application 08/076,285
- 4 -
The examiner relies on the following references:
HP-DESIGN (HP 98355A), Technical Description Nov. 1984.
AutoCAD Release 10 Reference Manual (September 1988),
pages 121-124.
HP-DESIGN discloses a 2-dimensional (2-D) design system
using variation design, which enables the designer to enter a
geometrical sketch without inputting coordinate values. The
dimensions are assigned numerical values later using the ACTUAL
design module (see the two examples under the heading
"Actualisation"). "The variation design feature of HP-DESIGN
makes it possible to produce any variant of an existing design
simply by modifying the numerical dimension values." (Heading
"Variation Design.") The geometry of standard parts, such as
nuts, can be stored as a picture element (macro) in a picture
library created by the user using the PICLIB design module.
"These macros can then be recalled and inserted into an object,
so saving the time needed to recreate commonly used parts."
(Heading "Picture Libraries.")
AutoCAD discloses a replication command called ARRAY. "The
ARRAY command allows you to make multiple copies of selected
objects in a rectangular or polar (circular) pattern."
(Page 121, sec. 5.2.7). After entering the ARRAY command, the
user is prompted to select objects to be duplicated (such as the
Appeal No. 95-4605
Application 08/076,285
- 5 -
line and circle at the bottom of page 121) and then to choose
either a rectangular or polar array. For a polar array, the user
defines the center point of the array, the number of items in the
array, and the angle between items in the array (or the angle to
fill with objects) (pages 123-24, sec. 5.2.7.2).
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over HP-DESIGN and AutoCAD.
The examiner's rejection is contained in the Final Rejection
(Paper No. 20) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 25).
Appellant's position is set forth in the Brief (Paper No. 24).
OPINION
Grouping of claims
Appellant defines two groups of claims (Brief, page 10):
(1) claims 1-15 are stated to stand or fall together; and
(2) claim 16 is stated to stand alone. Claim 1 is taken as
representative of claims 1-15.
Claims 1-15
The level of ordinary skill is not argued, so we find the
references to be representative of the level of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91, 198 USPQ 210, 214
(CCPA 1978) ("the PTO usually must evaluate both the scope and
content of the prior art and the level of ordinary skill solely
Appeal No. 95-4605
Application 08/076,285
- 6 -
on the cold words of the literature"); In re GPAC Inc.,
57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (the
Board did not err in adopting the approach that the level of
skill in the art was best determined by the references of
record). In addition, those of ordinary skill in the art must be
presumed to know something about the art apart from what the
references expressly disclose. In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516,
135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962).
HP-DESIGN discloses a CAD system having a two-step operation
of first, the entry of variable dimensions (a symbolic value or
label representing certain dimensions, such as L3, L4, L5, and D6
under the heading "Actualisation" in HP-DESIGN), and second, the
replacement of such variable by an actual numerical value to
create the actual part. HP-DESIGN is apparently representative
of the admitted prior art (specification, pages 2-3) and
appellant admits that "the HP-DESIGN reference has a capability
known in the art as 'variable dimensioning' by which certain
dimensions can be designated as variables" (Brief, page 12).
Therefore, HP-DESIGN discloses generating a generic program of a
graphical model of a 2-D object with at least partially variable
dimensions in a CAD system having design commands.
HP-DESIGN discloses user selection of a macro representing
an object to be duplicated by name or by picking the element from
Appeal No. 95-4605
Application 08/076,285
- 7 -
a picture library (under "Picture Libraries"). Appellant argues
that "it is clear that the macros in question refer only to
single elements, rather that [sic] a 'sub-group of geometric
elements' as called for by Claim 1" (Brief, page 12). However,
the macro for a standard part in the picture library, such as a
nut, is composed of a plurality of geometrical elements (such as
points, lines, circles and arcs, etc. listed under the heading
"Defining the Geometry") and, therefore, the macro constitutes a
"sub-group of geometric elements corresponding to a structural
element of said object" as recited in claim 1. Nevertheless,
while the macros can be "repetitively used in a final design"
(Examiner's Answer, page 3), the macros must apparently be
selected one at a time by a user: there is no description of a
replication command having a variable number as recited in the
last subparagraph of claim 1. Thus, the macros in HP-DESIGN are
provided for replication, but not replication a number of times
by a replication command.
The examiner applies AutoCAD as teaching a replication
command. The ARRAY command in AutoCAD operates to replicate a
selected sub-group of geometric elements. The "Select objects"
prompt at page 121, sec. 5.2.7, corresponds to appellant's
SELECT ELEM step in the flowchart of appellant's figure 8 and to
the claimed step of "selecting a sub-group of geometric elements
Appeal No. 95-4605
Application 08/076,285
- 8 -
corresponding to a structural element." For example, the user
may select the line and circle objects for the rectangular array
example, pages 121-22, sec. 5.2.7.1, or the circle with center
lines for the polar array example, page 124, sec. 5.2.7.2. Thus,
both HP-DESIGN and AutoCAD disclose replication of a group of
geometric elements corresponding to a structural element. In
HP-DESIGN the replication is done one at a time by a user whereas
AutoCAD provides for automatic replication a variable number of
times using a replication command.
The polar (circular) ARRAY command in AutoCAD (corresponding
to appellant's ROTATE replication command 43d in figure 8) has
parameters of the center point of the array (corresponding to the
CENTER POINT parameter 44b in figure 8), the number of items in
the array (corresponding to the REPEAT_FACTOR parameter 44a in
figure 8), and the angle between items in the array
(corresponding to the ANGLE parameter 44c in figure 8) (AutoCAD
alternatively allows a user to specify the angle to be filled
instead of the angle between items). Thus, the polar ARRAY
command in AutoCAD is a replication command having element
selection and replication parameters identical to appellant's
disclosed ROTATE replication command. The difference between the
subject matter of claim 1 and AutoCAD is that AutoCAD immediately
executes the replication command generated by the user, requiring
Appeal No. 95-4605
Application 08/076,285
- 9 -
the user to specify numerical values for the parameter variables,
whereas the claimed replication command is stored in an
unexecuted form with the parameters as variables which can be
assigned later. We do not agree with appellant's finding that
the ARRAY command in AutoCAD "does not perform the step of
generating a replication command having replication parameters
defined as variables" (Brief, page 14). The user apparently
"generates" the replication command in appellant's method by
typing in the command just as in AutoCAD and the parameters of
the ARRAY command (select objects, center point, number of items,
angle) exist as variables in AutoCAD until they are assigned
numerical values by the user. The difference is that AutoCAD
requires the variables to be assigned values immediately after
the ARRAY command is generated by the user, whereas the
replication command is stored in unexecuted form in claim 1 and
the variables are input at the time the command is executed. In
our opinion, the obviousness question is whether it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to store the
ARRAY command of AutoCAD in unexecuted form as part of a generic
program so that the values are assigned to the parameters at a
later time.
The examiner's position is "that HP-DESIGN, by showing the
ability to produce an underconstrained design program in which
Appeal No. 95-4605
Application 08/076,285
- 10 -
dimensions may be left unspecified, contains a direct suggestion
that a parameter such as AutoCAD's repetition number may be
another of these unspecified parameters in a 'generic design
program'" (Examiner's Answer, page 9). We agree. HP-DESIGN
recognized the benefit of variant design, that is, of producing a
variant of a generic design, represented by design commands, by
storing a generic design with design commands having parameters
defined as variables and assigning numerical dimension values to
the parameter variables when creating an actual variant (i.e, at
the time the generic design program is executed). In our
opinion, HP-DESIGN would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art that any design command having parameters that vary in
creating an actual design variant could have been stored in
unexecuted form with its parameters defined as variables which
are assigned values during the creation of the actual variant.
The artisan in the art of designed CAD systems would have had
sufficient skill and experience to recognize that the ARRAY
replication command in AutoCAD could be incorporated as a design
command in other CAD systems such as HP-DESIGN to provide
additional design flexibility. Accordingly, we agree with the
examiner's conclusion that (Examiner's Answer, page 4):
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
skill in the art at the time of appellant's invention to
create a "generic design program" without a full set of
Appeal No. 95-4605
Application 08/076,285
- 11 -
specified parameters, as in the variational dimensioning
possible in HP-DESIGN, with the set of geometric
specification functions requring [sic] a variable also
including the ARRAY command of AutoCAD (without repetition
number specified), because this enhances the instruction set
of HP-DESIGN to include not only variable dimensions but
variable numbers of repetitions as well.
Stated differently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art of designing CAD systems to store the ARRAY
command of AutoCAD in unexecuted form with the parameters left as
variables, or partly assigned, given the teaching of HP-DESIGN of
storing other types of design commands in unexecuted form with
the parameters left as variables. The ARRAY command could be
stored as an instruction of the generic design program: when the
program is executed, the CAD system would respond as if the
command had been typed in by the user and would ask for the same
parameter information shown in AutoCAD. It is again noted that
the difference between the subject matter of claim 1 and AutoCAD
is that AutoCAD discloses the ARRAY command being executed
immediately, whereas claim 1 requires the command to be stored
and executed later.
Appellant argues that the AutoCAD reference cannot be
modified to provide variable replications, referring to the
declaration under 35 U.S.C. § 132 by appellant, Prof. Dr. Roller.
Prof. Dr. Roller's declaration states (pages 1-2):
Appeal No. 95-4605
Application 08/076,285
- 12 -
The AutoCAD Release 10 reference cannot be modified to
provide variable replications because it provides no entry
for a variable number of replications during the design
step, and consequently no processing means for replacing
said variable number by actual values during the creation of
an actual variant. Thus, the topology will already be
frozen during the design step; leaving the number of
replications blank during the design step would produce an
error message, and even if the system would be modified to
accept a blank number of replications, it could not process
the same during the creation of an actual variant, as it
does not include instructions to alter the topology - it
would even not request the number of actual replications
from the user during the creation of an actual variant.
Declarant ignores the obviousness reasoning. It is true that the
values for the parameter variables in AutoCAD must be immediately
assigned by the user at design time, as disclosed, and that one
could not enter a variable symbol instead of a number in response
to one of the prompts. AutoCAD, as disclosed, is an interactive
CAD system wherein commands are immediately processed and
numerical values are assigned for parameter values. AutoCAD, as
disclosed, does not describe storing design commands to be
executed at a later time. However, the obviousness rejection
reasons that it would have been obvious for the ARRAY command to
be stored as part of a generic design program with the parameters
(which are variables until values are assigned to them) left
unspecified in view of the teaching in HP-DESIGN that design
commands can have dimension parameters defined as variables. The
examiner is correct in stating that no modification needs to be
Appeal No. 95-4605
Application 08/076,285
- 13 -
made to AutoCAD's ARRAY command "because it is specifically
provided to give a designer the ability to enter a variable
number of repetitions as an operand--this number is not initially
'predetermined'" (Examiner's Answer, page 10). The question is
whether it would have been obvious to store the ARRAY command as
part of a generic design program without specifying the values
for all the parameters, and executing the command when creating
an actual variant. We conclude that the answer is yes in view of
the generic design program teachings of HP-DESIGN.
Prof. Dr. Roller's declaration further states (page 2):
Modification according to the teaching of HP DESIGN would
result in a system which is able to process variable
dimensions, as well as fixed replications (AutoCAD
teaching), but would still not comprise
a) a procedure for entering variable replications during
the design step,
b) means for replacing the variable number of replications
by actual values during the step of creating an actual
variant,
c) means for altering the topology during creation of an
actual variant.
Again, declarant does not address the obviousness reasoning and
the statements are unpersuasive for reasons stated supra.
Appellant argues that the examiner engaged in impermissible
hindsight and that there is no suggestion for making the proposed
modifications (Brief, pages 17-18). We disagree. HP-DESIGN
Appeal No. 95-4605
Application 08/076,285
- 14 -
provides a suggestion to one skilled in the art to store design
commands having parameters defined as variables that can be
assigned values when the program is executed.
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the examiner
has established a prima facie case of obviousness which has not
been rebutted. The rejection of claims 1-15 is sustained.
Claim 16
Claim 16 is similar to claim 1 except that it adds the
following phrase at the end of the "generating" step: "wherein
said step of generating said replication command comprises matrix
mapping said set of design commands." The examiner states
(Examiner's Answer, pages 8-9):
[T]he multi-segmented interactive display screen of
HP-DESIGN can be viewed as a "matrix", with "mapping" to
various commands defined therein. . . . Every
user-interactive region on the HP-DESIGN screen can be
interpreted as one designating "design commands" and thus
"matrix mapping" can be given the reasonably broad
interpretation to include interactive screen interfacing as
in HP-DESIGN.
Appellant argues that the examiner is engaging in hindsight
(Brief, pages 18-19). We understand the examiner's position that
claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation and
that limitations from the specification must not be read into the
claims. We further appreciate that "matrix mapping said set of
design commands" does not define what is meant by matrix mapping.
Appeal No. 95-4605
Application 08/076,285
- 15 -
However, it appears that the examiner has made up an
interpretation of HP-DESIGN to fit the claim language, which we
consider to be unreasonable. We do not see how HP-DESIGN can be
fairly said to show a matrix mapping relationship between design
commands and replication commands. The specification defines
matrix mapping as using a matrix to transform the points used in
a design command to a point in a replication command through
translation or rotation matrices (e.g., specification,
pages 12-14) and we construe the claim limitation to have this
meaning. Neither HP-DESIGN nor AutoCAD discloses matrix mapping
as described in the specification. Thus, we reverse the
rejection of claim 16.
It was well known to use a transformation matrix to perform
translation, scaling, and rotation of 2- and 3-D points. See
Foley et al., Computer Graphics Principles and Practice (2d ed.
1990), pages 204-210 (copy attached) (this book is not prior art
and we do not have the 1982 edition of this book; however, the
same transformations should be found in any book on computer
graphics before 1989). Note that the difference between, for
example, the transformation on lines 2-4 of appellant's
specification and equation 5.1 in Foley is the use of row vectors
and premultiplication by appellant, which is merely a different
convention. As Foley notes (page 205): "We caution the reader
Appeal No. 95-4605
Application 08/076,285
- 16 -
that some graphics textbooks, including [FOLE82], use a
convention of premultiplying matrices by row vectors, rather than
postmultiplying by column vectors." We leave it to the examiner
to decide whether it would have been obvious to implement
replication commands using matrix transformations.
Appeal No. 95-4605
Application 08/076,285
- 17 -
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-15 is sustained.
The rejection of claim 16 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-4605
Application 08/076,285
- 18 -
John P. Donohue, Jr.
WOODCOCK, WASHBURN, KURTZ, MACKIEWICZ,
and NORRIS
One Liberty Place - 46th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103