Ex Parte Schmidt et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 31, 2011

10334517 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/334,517 12/31/2002 Hauke Schmidt 11403/30 4981
26646 7590 06/01/2011
KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK, NY 10004
EXAMINER
BRIER, JEFFERY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HAUKE SCHMIDT, TOULIN CHEN,
and AARON LEE
____________

Appeal 2009-010824
Application 10/334,517
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER,
and BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-010824
Application 10/334,517

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims1-21, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a method for enhancing depiction of
three-dimensional objects. Images of different resolutions are blended to
reduce abrupt changes as a user moves relative to the depicted objects.
(Abstract). Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. A method for creating a multiresolution image from a
plurality of images, the plurality of images including a first
image having a first resolution and a second image having a
second resolution, the method comprising:
assigning first and second blending factors for the first
and second resolutions of the first and second images;
computing a weighted sum of the first image and the
second image multiplied by their respective first and second
blending factors; and
generating a multiresolution image based on the weighted
sum of the first and second images.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Delorme US 5,030,117 Jul. 9, 1991
Rosman US 6,184,894 B1 Feb. 6, 2001
Migdel US 6,373,482 B1 Apr. 16, 2002

Appeal 2009-010824
Application 10/334,517

3
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Rosman. 1
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Rosman in view of Migdel.
Claims 8-16, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Rosman in view of Delorme.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we make reference to the
Briefs (App. Br. filed Dec. 3, 2008; Reply Br. filed Apr. 21, 2009) and the
Answer (mailed Feb. 18, 2008) for the respective positions of Appellants
and the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have
been considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellants 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).

ISSUES
The pivotal issues presented by Appellants’ arguments are as follows:
Does Rosman disclose:
assigning first and second blending factors for the first
and second resolutions of the first and second images;
computing a weighted sum of the first image and the
second image multiplied by their respective first and second
blending factors; and
generating a multiresolution image based on the weighted
sum of the first and second images[,]
as recited in claim 1(App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 2-4)?

1 The Examiner has withdrawn rejections of claims 5-7 and 17-21 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement (Ans. 3).
Appeal 2009-010824
Application 10/334,517

4
Does Rosman disclose “calculating the blending factor for the first
and second resolutions based upon the distance between [an] observer and
[a] geographic area” represented by the images, as recited in claim 3 (App.
Br. 12; Reply Br. 4)?
Does Rosman disclose “repeatedly calculating the distance between
the mobile unit and the geographic area; and continuously updating the
blending factors of the first and second resolutions based for each repetition
of distance calculation,” as recited in claim 6 (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 4-5)?
Does Rosman disclose “a user selected zoom value,” as recited in
claim 7 (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 5-6)?
Does Rosman in combination with Delorme teach or suggest
“collecting viewing parameters; [and] determining a viewing frustum from
the viewing parameters,” as recited in claim 10 (App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br.
6-8)?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[T]he [obviousness] 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 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
To justify combining reference teachings in support of a
rejection it is not necessary that a device shown in one
reference can be physically inserted into the device shown in
the other. The test for obviousness is not whether the features
of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
Appeal 2009-010824
Application 10/334,517

5
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
[The USPTO] applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims
the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant’s specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Though understanding
the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the
written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that
are not a part of the claim.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358
F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants contend that Rosman does not compute the weighted sum
of two images having different resolutions because Rosman discloses an
interpolation of another interpolation of two different level of detail (LOD)
maps (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3-4). Appellants further contend that Rosman
calculates an interpolation for a given pixel, and not a weighted sum of two
different images having different resolutions (Reply Br. 3-4). Appellants
also contend that Rosman implements a conventional artificial polygon
approximation as distinguished from Appellants’ invention, which does not
rely on artificial polygon approximation (App. Br. 12).
Appeal 2009-010824
Application 10/334,517

6
We do not find Appellants’ contentions persuasive. The Examiner
has articulated detailed findings and explanations (App. Br. 4-5, 15-17)
which we find to be reasonable and adopt as our own.
For emphasis only, we note that nothing in claim 1 precludes a step
that interprets the first and second images, such as by bi-linear interpolation,
prior to computing the weighted sum of the first image and the second image
multiplied by their respective first and second blending factors, such as by
tri-linear interpolation. Rosman’s Figure 10 illustrates that tri-linear
interpolation computes the weighted sum of the first image and the second
image multiplied by their respective first and second blending factors.
Images LOD, LOD-1 of two different LODs (i.e., resolutions) are
interpreted by bi-linear interpolators 90 and 92 and the interpreted images
are each multiplied by multipliers 96 and 98 by a respective interpolation
(i.e., blending or weighting) factor 1-F or F to create a weighted image. The
weighted images are added together by adder 100, creating a weighted sum
of the two images having two different LODs. A person of ordinary skill in
the art would understand that the process would be performed on a pixel-by-
pixel or texel-by-texel basis (see, e.g., Spec. 25:16-22). Finally, as correctly
explained by the Examiner, Appellants’ contentions regarding Rosman’s use
of polygon approximations concern limitations not found in the claim (App.
Br. 17), see SuperGuide, 358 F.3d at 875.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of dependent claims
2, 8, and 9, the patentability of which was argued solely on their dependence
from claim 1 (App. Br. 12, 14-15).
Appeal 2009-010824
Application 10/334,517

7
Claim 3
Appellants contend that Rosman provides no disclosure of how the
interpolation factors F and 1-F are calculated, and therefore no disclosure
that they are calculated based upon the distance between the observer and
the geographic area depicted (App. Br.12; Reply Br. 4). The Examiner finds
that Rosman, at column 1, lines 26-45 and Figures 2-5, discloses that
interpolation (i.e., blending) factors are determined based on distance from
the observer to the depicted geographic area (Ans. 17).
We agree with the Examiner. Rosman discloses that high LOD
texture maps (i.e., images) are used for surfaces (i.e., “geographic areas”)
close to the user (i.e., “observer”) while lower LOD texture maps are used
for far away surfaces (col. 1, ll. 26-45). Rosman’s Figures 2-5 illustrate a
progression of LOD texture maps from higher (e.g., LOD= 5) to lower (e.g.,
LOD=4) LODs that progress from closer to farther away from the user (col.
1, ll. 26-45). Rosman further discloses that texture maps of different LODs
are connected, as shown by function 14 in Figure 4, by a transitional texture
mapping governed by interpolation (i.e., blending) factor F (Fig. 5; see also
Fig, 10) that also progresses in the same direction as the progression of
texture maps, i.e., from closer to farther away from the user. Additionally,
Rosman’s “largest derivative” in Figures 2-4 would be understood by one
skilled in the art as being a function of both the distance from the user to the
surface receiving the texture and the angle of the surface to the viewer’s
vision (see Rosman col. 1, l. 54 – col. 2, l. 17; col. 5, l. 2 – col. 6, l. 13).
Nothing in claim 3 precludes basing the blending factors on parameters in
addition to distance or from using a complex relationship between distance
and the blending factors.
Appeal 2009-010824
Application 10/334,517

8
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 3, and of dependent
claims 4 and 5, the patentability of which was argued based solely on their
dependence from claims 1 and 3 (App. Br. 12-14).

Claim 6
Appellants contend “moving across the database doesn’t result in
‘repeatedly calculating the distance’ between the mobile unit and a given
geographic area” (App. Br. 13 (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 4-5).
The Examiner explains that neither “mobile unit” nor “geographic area” has
been given a defined meaning that would preclude the claim from reading on
Rosman’s movement of the viewer across the database (Rosman, col. 2, ll.
14-16) (Ans. 18), see Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054. The Examiner further
explains that Rosman discloses that as a viewer moves with respect to a
surface, represented by a triangle, the corresponding distance is calculated
and the blending factors are continuously updated (Rosman, col. 1, ll. 26-
45, col. 2, ll. 14-17) (Ans. 18).
We agree with the Examiner. For further emphasis we note that
Rosman discloses that as the viewer moves across the database, the
transition between one LOD texture map and another moves (Rosman, col.
2, 11-17), indicating that the distance, which, at least in part, determines the
transition location and blending factors, is being repeatedly calculated
(Rosman, col 1, ll. 18-25; col 2, ll. 7-14, 46-53). Accordingly, we sustain
the rejection of claim 6.

Appeal 2009-010824
Application 10/334,517

9
Claim 7
Appellants contend that Rosman does not disclose a user-selected
zoom value because moving across a database is not an affirmative change
in viewing mode to zoom in and out as required by the Specification (Spec.
9:18-19) (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 5-6). The Examiner responds that, by
referring to changing the viewing mode, Appellants are arguing limitations
not found in the claim (Ans. 19). We agree and sustain the rejection of
claim 7. See SuperGuide, 358 F.3d at 875.

Claim 10
The Examiner finds that Rosman’s disclosure of determining a
distance between a viewer and a surface to be viewed and moving the viewer
across the surface (Rosman, col. 1, ll. 28-30; col 2, ll. 14-16) teaches
“collecting viewing parameters” as recited in claim 10 (Ans. 10). Appellants
contend that Rosman does not teach “collecting viewing parameters”
because the Specification discloses that viewing parameters are determined
by the system and include the observer’s location, gaze direction, and other
computational restraints that affect the resulting display (Spec. 24:3-6) (App.
Br. 15). Appellants further contend that simply moving the viewer across
the surface does not provide the claimed viewing parameters (id.). The
Examiner explains that Appellants are relying on limitations not found in the
claim, and that Rosman discloses the recited broad claim limitation (Ans.
20-21).
The Examiner finds that Delorme’s disclosure of a pyramidal data
structure (Delorme, col. 6, ll. 35-41; Fig, 8, 13) teaches a viewing frustum
(Ans. 10-11; 21). Appellants contend that Delorme does not teach or
Appeal 2009-010824
Application 10/334,517

10
suggest determining a viewing frustum but merely teaches a structure of
mapping data which involves different levels of resolution (App. Br. 15-16;
Reply Br. 7-8).
We find Appellants’ contentions unpersuasive. Rosman discloses
determining a distance between a viewer and a surface to be viewed
(Rosman, col. 1, ll. 18-38). We find the distance between the viewer and the
surface to be a viewing parameter and determining that distance meets the
limitation of “collecting viewing parameters.” We also find that one skilled
in the art would understand that the pyramidal hierarchical data structure
disclosed by Delorme (Delorme, col. 6, ll. 35-41; Fig, 8, 13) is related to the
fact that a viewer sees by way of a viewing frustum (see, e.g., Delorme, Fig.
3A-3F, 4). Accordingly, Delorme’s pyramidal data structure represents a
viewing frustum and thus teaches or suggests such a frustum to one skilled
in the art, see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
We further note, for emphasis, that Rosman’s disclosure of displaying
three dimensional objects in perspective (Rosman, col. 1, ll. 12-17, 44-46)
would suggest to one skilled in the art a viewing frustum as well as
“collecting viewing parameters,” including, for example, the observer’s
location and gaze direction (see, e.g. Webster’s International Dictionary
Unabridged 1829 (2d Ed. 1948) (“perspective,” def. 2)).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 10, of claim 20, which
was argued together with claim 10, and of dependent claims 11-13, 16-19,
and 21, the patentability of which were argued based solely on their
dependence from claim 10 or 20 (App. Br. 16).
Appeal 2009-010824
Application 10/334,517

11
Claims 14 and 15
The patentability of claims 14 and 15 was argued on a similar basis to,
and using parallel arguments to those presented for, claims 3 and 7,
respectively (App. Br. 16-17). For the reasons given supra regarding claims
3 and 7, we sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 15.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-21 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

msc