Ex Parte Russo

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 15, 2009

10882954 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 15, 2009)

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