Ex Parte RussoDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 15, 200910882954 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 15, 2009) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte MICHAEL JOHN RUSSO ________________ Appeal 2008-004057 Application 10/882,954 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Decided: September 15, 2009 ________________ Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant invokes our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2008-004057 Application 10/882,954 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s claimed invention is a system and method for displaying a transformed schematic view of a scene in which there is a three-dimensional (3D) object. The scene is displayed as a two-dimensional (2D) image that is viewed from a specified position. A first element from the 3D object is specified. This specified first element is represented by a first node that then is topologically transformed to correspond with a position of the first element in the image view. A modified schematic view is displayed that includes the transformed first node.1 Claim 9, with key disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative: 9. A method for displaying a modified schematic view of a scene including a three dimensional object, comprising: displaying an image view of the scene to produce a two-dimensional view from a specified viewing position; receiving a first selection data input specifying a first element of the three-dimensional object, the first element represented by a first node; topologically transforming the first node to produce a transformed first node, the transformed first node corresponding with a position of the first element in the image view; and displaying the modified schematic view including the transformed first node. 1 See generally Spec. ¶¶ [0005], [0042]-[0047], [0050], and [0065]-[0076]; Figs. 4, 6, 7, and 10-15. Appeal 2008-004057 Application 10/882,954 3 The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show unpatentability: Mochizuki US 6,414,684 B1 July 2, 2002 Grinstein US 6,714,201 B1 Mar. 30, 2004 (filed Apr. 14, 2000) The Examiner rejected claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Grinstein and Mochizuki (Ans. 3-9). Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or of the Examiner, we refer to the Briefs and the Answer2 for their respective details. In this decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by Appellant. Arguments that Appellant could have made but did not make in their Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellant’s Arguments Appellant separately argues independent claim 9 (App. Br. 10-13), and contends that the other rejected independent claims 1 and 16 also are patentable for the same reasons (App. Br. 14). Appellant relying on the independent claims being patentable, asserts that the dependent claims consequently also are patentable (App. Br. 14). Appellant argues that neither Grinstein nor Mochizuki, “alone or in combination, teaches the step of displaying a modified schematic view, including the transformed first node, as recited by claim 9” (App. Br. 12). Specifically, Appellant asserts, inter alia, that the Mochizuki “[f]igures 8 2 We, therefore, refer throughout this opinion to (1) the Appeal Brief filed May 30, 2007, (2) the Answer mailed Sep. 21, 2007, and (3) Reply Brief filed Nov. 21, 2007. Appeal 2008-004057 Application 10/882,954 4 and 7(c) do not (and were not indented [sic] to) represent a topological transformation of a transformed first node, where the transformed first node corresponds to a position of the first element in an image view, as recited by claim 9” (App. Br. 11) (underlining deleted). Though the Appellant, in the Reply Brief, references claim 1 recited limitations for submitted arguments (Reply Br. 2), the Appellant also states that “[c]laims 9 and 16 recite similar limitations” (id.). Indeed, the claim 1 recitations referenced in the Reply Brief are identical to those of claim 9. Accordingly, we select independent claim 9 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). ISSUE Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in combining Grinstein and Mochizuki teachings under § 103 to reject representative claim 9? This issue turns on whether Mochizuki teaches or suggests transforming a first node that represents an element selected from a 3D object so the transformed first node corresponds with a position of the first element in an image view of the 3D object as recited in claim 9. FINDINGS OF FACT The record supports the following Findings of Fact (FF) by a preponderance of the evidence: Present Application 1. The Specification of the present application discloses that (1) an image view of a scene including at least one 3D object as the scene appears from a specified viewing position is shown in Figure 9; (2) a Appeal 2008-004057 Application 10/882,954 5 first schematic view indicating nodes and links selected from the 3D object image is shown in Figure 10; and (3) a topologically transformed schematic view of the selected nodes is shown in Figure 11 with the transformed nodes in substantially similar positions to the relative positions of their respective elements in the image view shown in Figure 9 (Spec. ¶¶ [0016]-[0018], [0063]-[0065]; Figs. 9-11). Grinstein 2. Grinstein discloses an apparatus and method for computerized modeling of 3D imagery motions (Title; Abstract). 3. A Grinstein disclosed motion editor, called Mojo, utilizes (1) a scene view window 503 (see Figs. 33, 34, and 37-44) to display an image view of a scene that includes a 2D hierarchical graphic model of a 3D running man; and (2) a tree view window 530 to display a hierarchical node structure of the running man (Grinstein, col. 7, ll. 44-46; col. 53, ll. 13-17; col. 54, ll. 49-51; col. 55, ll. 1-7). 4. Using a cursor 542, a Grinstein Mojo user selects a model node such as the running man’s upper leg, or thigh 536EE. The selected node 536EE is displayed on the tree view window 530 as “S_Leg_UL” (Grinstein, col. 56, l. 64-col. 57, l. 7; Fig. 40). Mochizuki 5. Mochizuki discloses a method for communicating graphics animation data between computers, such as between a server and a client computer. The communicated data includes information for generating a computer graphics animation image, and also includes motion information for a multi-joint object or elastic object, such as a Appeal 2008-004057 Application 10/882,954 6 human being or an animal (Mochizuki, col. 1, ll. 7-13; col. 31, ll. 8- 16). 6. The Mochizuki method includes the steps of creating, editing, storing and transmitting animation data from a server to a client computer. At the client computer the received animation data is stored, and the position and shape of a skeletal structure is calculated along with directing display of images on a display unit (Mochizuki, col. 31, ll. 23-49; Fig. 2). 7. This Mochizuki method begins with creating animation data that is entered into the server computer. The created data is an animation data structure for an object and other image features such as light, environmental configuration and setting, and time series motion data (e.g., see Figs. 6(a) and (b)). For a skeletal animation data structure, a plurality of sites (end portions of skeletons) connected by links (three- dimensional vectors) called segments are created so that connection of at least two sites by a link is called a skeleton (e.g., see Fig. 7(c) showing a human skeletal structure, and Fig. 8 showing a tree structure for the Fig. 7(c) object) (Mochizuki, col. 31, l. 50 – col. 32, l. 65). 8. Mochizuki discloses that to avoid animating a skeletal joint to some binding configuration that results in a broken joint, the created animation data for joints includes “a primitive configuration, such as a sphere.” Mochizuki discloses that Figs. 11(a) and (b) show diagrams for joints with such spheres that can be added for joints at either the server or client computer (Mochizuki, col. 30, ll. 60, 61; col. 35, ll. 45-51). Appeal 2008-004057 Application 10/882,954 7 PRINCIPLES OF LAW An Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness premised from factual bases, and Appellant has the burden of presenting a rebuttal to the prima facie case. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The required factual bases are set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966) (explaining that 35 U.S.C. § 103 leads to three factual inquiries: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has explained that an obviousness rejection must be based on “‘some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness’ . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds, and we concur, that Grinstein teaches representative claim 9 recited steps for displaying an image view of a scene, and receiving a first selected data input specifying a first element represented by a first node (Ans. 3; FF 2-4). What Appellant contends, though, is that Mochizuki, whether taken singly or in combination with Grinstein, is deficient as to teaching or suggesting the representative claim 9 disputed limitations for topologically Appeal 2008-004057 Application 10/882,954 8 transforming the first node to correspond with a position of the first element in the image view, and displaying a modified schematic view including the transformed first node (App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 2-4). The Examiner indicates that “Grinstein et al. does not disclose topologically transforming the node . . . ,” but with respect to Mochizuki, the Examiner indicates that: Figure 7 (c) of Mochizuki et al. illustrates a topological transformation of a transformed first node, where the transformed first node corresponds to a position of the first element in an image view shown in Figure 11(b). Specifically, Figure 8 shows a set of nodes arranged in a “tree structure,” and Figure 7(c) shows the same set of nodes topologically transformed to correspond to the positions of the geometric elements represented by the nodes and drawn in an image of the object (Figure 11(b)). (Ans. 4). The Examiner nowhere cites corroborating Mochizuki written disclosures, and exclusively relies on the interpretations, as set out above, of the Mochizuki figures for findings as to the reference’s teachings and suggestions concerning topological transformations of nodes selected from image views. Appellant, in contrast, cites Mochizuki at column 31, lines 50-55, and asserts: “Figures 7, 8, and 11 ‘are diagrams for explaining a skeletal structure.’ Each of these figures conveys information about a 3D model independently of one another. Figures 7(a), 7(b), and 7(c) illustrate segments, joints, and links.” (App. Br. 10). From the record, including our reading of the reference, we specifically and similarly with the Appellant find that the Mochizuki (1) figure 7(c) shows a human skeletal structure, (2) Appeal 2008-004057 Application 10/882,954 9 figure 8 shows a skeletal tree structure, and (3) figures 11(a) and (b) show diagrams for skeletal joints (FF 7, 8). Therefore, based on the record, we conclude that the Examiner erred in finding that Mochizuki teaches or suggests topological transformation of a node selected from an image view. The Examiner has not pointed to – nor can we find – anything in Mochizuki or Grinstein that would reasonably teach or suggest the disputed limitations. Explicitly, there is simply nothing in the references to suggest topologically transforming a node to correspond with a position of an image view element, and displaying the transformed node as a modified schematic view. We conclude that finding at least Mochizuki figure 11(b) as teaching or suggesting an image view displaying elements selectable as nodes for topological transformation, or Mochizuki figure 7(c) as teaching or suggesting topologically transformed nodes, could only be based on unwarranted speculation. In order for us to sustain the Examiner’s rejection, we would need to resort to impermissible speculation or unfounded assumptions or rationales to supply deficiencies in the factual bases of the rejection before us. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has persuaded us of error with respect to rejection under § 103(a) of representative claim 9. We, accordingly, will also not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-19 for similar reasons. CONCLUSION We conclude that Mochizuki does not teach or suggest transforming a first node that represents an element selected from a 3D object so the first Appeal 2008-004057 Application 10/882,954 10 node corresponds with a position of the first element in an image view of the 3D object as recited in claim 9. Accordingly, Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in combining Grinstein and Mochizuki teachings under § 103(a) to reject representative claim 9. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED KIS PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. 3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD SUITE 1500 HOUSTON, TX 77056 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation