Ex Parte Stejskal

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 15, 2010

10163756 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 15, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JIRKA STEJSKAL
____________________

Appeal 2009-004696
Application 10/163,756
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: March 15, 2010
____________________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-004696
Application 10/163,756

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 6-12, 17-19, and 24-29. Claims 2-5, 13-16, and 20-23
were canceled (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2008).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellant, the invention relates to the computer-assisted
processing of models and drawings (Spec. 1, ll. 7-8). In particular, the
invention involves creating a model made up by a plurality of objects (Spec.
7, ll. 7-8 and ll. 15-16). A user may attach attributes to the model (Spec. 7,
ll. 26-27). A drawing comprising a 2D representation of the model and
drawing symbol automatically generated to represent the attribute is created
from the model (Spec. 10, l. 22 and Spec. 11, ll. 7-10). For each attribute
found, a corresponding drawing symbol object is created and shown in the
drawing (Spec. 11, ll. 18-20). When changes are made to the drawing
symbol and drawing symbol object, the changes that are made are
automatically transferred to an attribute object (Spec. 12, ll. 29-31).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
1. A method for automatically generating, by a CAD
program, a drawing symbol in a drawing, said drawing
representing a view of a model, said model being represented
by a model data structure process by said CAD program, said
model data structure comprising a plurality of objects, said
method comprising the steps of:

Appeal 2009-004696
Application 10/163,756

3
- creating an attribute object, said attribute object
representing an attributed that signifies at least on property of at
least one entity of said model, said attribute having a scope
selected from a plurality of different scopes, said scope
corresponding to the type of entities of the model for which said
attribute is intended, said attribute object being a data structure
that stores at least one value necessary for defining the at least
one property expressed by the attribute,

- associating said attribute object with said model
data structure to form an extended model data structure that is
further processable by said CAD program, wherein the attribute
object is added to the plurality of objects of the model data
structure, and wherein, in said extended model data structure,
said attribute object is linked with at least one element of said
model data structure that represents said at least one entity of
said model to which said attribute refers, such that a link is
provided between said attribute and said entity of said model,
and wherein said attribute remains linked with said entity of
said model when said model is stored, and

- generating said drawing from said extended
model data structure, said drawing showing said entity of said
model at least partially and further comprising a drawing
symbol that represents said attribute, said drawing symbol
being shown in graphical association with said at least partially
shown entity of said model, wherein

said drawing symbol corresponds to a drawing symbol
object that is associated with said attribute object,

the method further comprising the steps of:
- receiving a command to modify said drawing
symbol,
- modifying said drawing symbol object
correspondingly, and
- modifying said attribute object
correspondingly.

Appeal 2009-004696
Application 10/163,756

4

Prior Art
Itoh EP 0 618 542 A2 October 5, 1994

Rejections
Claims 1, 6-12, 17-19, and 24-29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Itoh.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
(1) Appellant argues claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 17, 19, 24, and 27 as a
group on the basis of representative claim 1 (App. Br. 7-10). We accept this
grouping. We therefore treat claims 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 17, 19, 24, and 27 as
standing or falling with representative claim 1.
(2) Appellant argues claim 7 separately (id. at 7). We therefore treat
claim 7 as standing or falling separately.
(3) Appellant argues claims 10, 18, and 25 as a group (id. at 10). We
select claim 10 as representative. We therefore treat claims 18 and 25 as
standing or falling together with representative claim 10.
(4) Appellant argues claims 26, 28, and 29 as a group (id.). We select
claim 26 as representative. We therefore treat claims 28 and 29 as standing
or falling together with claim 26.
We accept Appellant’s grouping of the claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2008).

Appeal 2009-004696
Application 10/163,756

5
ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 17, 19, 24, and 27
Issue 1A
Appellant argues their invention is not anticipated by Itoh (App. Br. 7-
9). Specifically, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred by equating the
attribute objects of the claimed invention with the classification data and
drawing rules of Itoh (id. at 7).
In response, the Examiner maintains that Itoh discloses the claimed
attribute objects (Ans. 6). The Examiner finds that attribute objects are any
element that represents characteristics of a model (id.). Further, the
Examiner finds that Itoh discloses objects that have classification data,
which clearly describes elements of a model and distinct variables associated
with an element (id.).

Issue 1A: Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding Itoh
teaches an attribute object?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Appellant’s Invention
We find as follows:
(1) An “attribute object 34 is a data holder for all values necessary
for defining the properties expressed by the attribute 12” (Spec. 9, ll. 24-26).
Itoh Reference
(2) Itoh is directed towards “generating a two-dimensional image
of [an] object from model data that represents a three-dimensional image of
[an] object” (col. 1, ll. 2-5).
Appeal 2009-004696
Application 10/163,756

6
(3) A three dimensional image of an object (col. 4, ll. 52-53) is
described with reference to “feature classification data” (col. 6. ll. 52 and
FIG. 2). Feature classification data is classified by the shape of a feature, for
example, the hole arrangement, the screw hole, the through hole,
chamfering, or block (col. 6. ll. 52-55). Thus, Figure 2 illustrates three
dimensional model data that represents a block which has a chamfered
corner, with two screw holes and a through hole extending into the block
(col. 6. ll. 55-58).
(4) A “three dimensional model data storage means 110 stores
individual three-dimensional data in a format corresponding to the
classification data,” and a “feature classification data storage means 160
stores the classification name of each feature of the object and [the]
parameters for representing the feature” (col. 7, ll. 5-15 and Fig. 3).
(5) Figures 12 and 13 illustrate the execution of a command for
drawing a circle. In particular, Figure 12(b) illustrates the result from setting
the parameter for the drawing of the circle (i.e., the diameter) to d+0.2.
Figure 13(b) illustrates the effect of this on the two dimensional data (col.
10, ll. 43-49).
Definitions
(6) An attribute in a database record is defined as the name or
structure of a field, the size of a field, or the type of information a field
contains (MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 41 (5th ed. 2002)).

Appeal 2009-004696
Application 10/163,756

7

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Minn. Mining & Mfg.
Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed.
Cir. 1992)).
During examination, “claims ... are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and ... claim
language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (quoting In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
accord In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citation omitted)
(“[T]he PTO must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim
language, taking into account any definitions presented in the
specification.”); see also In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir.
1999). Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term,
the words take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them
by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive
Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Teleflex, Inc. v.
Ficosa North America Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

Appeal 2009-004696
Application 10/163,756

8
ANALYSIS
We find Appellant’s Specification defines an “attribute object” as a
“data holder for all values necessary for defining the properties expressed by
the attribute 12” (FF 1). Appellant does not expressly define “attribute.”
Thus, taking the broadest reasonable, ordinary, and customary meaning of
the term “attribute” in light of the Specification, we find an attribute is a
name or structure of a field, the size of a field, or the type of information a
field contains (FF 6).
Further, we find the term “feature classification data,” of Itoh is the
name of a field, and the type of information stored in that field is shape
information, such as for example (1) hole arrangement; (2) the screw hole;
(3) the through hole; (4) chamfering; or (5) block (FF 3). Additionally,
based on Appellant’s definition of an attribute object (FF 1), we find the
feature classification data storage means 160 of Itoh corresponds to an
attribute object, since the feature classification data storage means 160 holds
feature classification data (i.e., the classification name of each feature of the
object and the parameters for representing that feature) (FF 4).
Thus, we find Itoh discloses attribute objects as recited in claim 1 (see
also commensurate language in independent claims 12 and 19).

Issue 1B:
Appellant also argues that Appellant’s invention teaches a flow of
data from the drawing symbol to the attribute object of the extended model
data structure in contrast to Itoh which teaches the opposite – “a flow of data
‘from the model to the drawing symbol’” (App. Br. 8).
Appeal 2009-004696
Application 10/163,756

9
The Examiner finds that the claims do not recite “the flow of data
from the drawing symbol to the attribute object of the extended model data
structure,” and thus, Appellant’s argument on this issue is irrelevant (Ans. 6-
7).

Issue 1B: Has Appellant shown that the claims recite a “flow of data
from the drawing symbol to the attribute object of the extended model data
structure”?

ANALYSIS
Based on our review of representative claim 1, we find claim 1 fails to
recite “the flow of data from the drawing symbol to the attribute object of
the extended model data structure.” Thus, we find Appellant is arguing
limitations that are not recited in the claims and therefore we find this
argument is unavailing.

Issue 1C:
Further, Appellant argues that the functions of “receiving a command
to modify a drawing symbol, modifying a drawing symbol object
correspondingly, and then modifying an attribute object correspondingly”
are not disclosed by Itoh (App. Br. 8).
The Examiner finds that Itoh discloses (1) “commands that are
received in the drawing rules . . . when generating the extended model using
the drawing rules”; (2) that the commands modify a drawing symbol; and (3)
that “[t]hese rules modify the drawing symbol object and the attribute
correspondingly” (Ans. 7). The Examiner also finds that Itoh describes
Appeal 2009-004696
Application 10/163,756

10
receiving commands to modify a drawing symbol in the drawing rules, and
based on these commands, modifying the drawing symbol and the attribute
object (id.).
Further, the Examiner finds that Figures 12 and 13 of Itoh illustrate
that a drawing symbol object is correspondingly modified in response to the
execution of a command (id.; FIGs. 12 and 13). Additionally with regard to
Figures 12 and 13, the Examiner finds that a command is received
concerning a circle, and the drawing symbol and the diameter perimeter
associated with the drawing symbol are modified in response to the
command (id.).

Issue 1C: Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding Itoh
teaches (1) receiving a command to modify a drawing symbol;
(2) modifying a drawing symbol object correspondingly; and (3) modifying
an attribute object correspondingly?

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
We further find as follows:
Itoh Reference
(7) A drawing rule editing means 330 permits editing of drawing
rules stored in the drawing rule storage means 400 (col. 8, ll. 20-22). The
resulting data is passed to the drawing rule selection means 310 (col. 8, ll.
45-46). Three-dimensional data stored in the three-dimensional model data
storage means is passed to the drawing rule execution means and
classification data is sent to the drawing rule selection means from the
feature classification data storage means 160 (col. 8, ll. 50-56).
Appeal 2009-004696
Application 10/163,756

11
(8) In one example, for drawing rule file Aa, when a command for
a drawing circle is executed for the diameter of the parameter for drawing
circle (i.e., d+0.2), the result is shown in Fig. 12(b) ( i.e., a circle larger than
the circle shown in Fig. 12(a) is generated) (col. 10, ll. 43-49). The effect of
the command being executed on the two dimensional data is shown in Fig.
13(b), as a larger circle is added to the original image of Fig. 13(a) that
illustrated a single circle (col. 10, ll. 39-42). The result, shown in Fig. 13(b),
is an image of circle positioned within a larger circle (col. 10, ll. 39-49; see
also Figs. 12(a)-(b) and 13(a)-(b)). In another embodiment, two drawing
rules are used to draw a body having a chamfered through hole (col. 11, ll.
31-34 and Fig. 17(a)-(e)). If the feature is so small that it cannot be seen
clearly, a detailed view of the chamfered part may be shown (col. 11, ll. 37-
41 and Fig. 17(c)).
(9) Classification data storage means 160 stores the classification
name of each of the features of the object and parameters that represent that
feature (col. 7, ll. 5-8). Corresponding individual three-dimensional data is
stored in the three-dimensional data model data storage means 110 (col. 7, ll.
12-15, and Fig. 3).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“‘Unless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps are
not ordinarily construed to require one.’” Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v.
CompuServe, Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).
See also Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369-71 (Fed. Cir.
2003) (district court erred in claim construction by reading a step order from
the written description into the claims).
Appeal 2009-004696
Application 10/163,756

12

ANALYSIS
Representative claim 1 recites “the method further comprising the
steps of: receiving a command to modify said drawing symbol, modifying
said drawing symbol object correspondingly, and modifying said attribute
object correspondingly” (App. Br. 12, Claims App’x). Based on our review
of these limitations, we find the steps of the method do not recite an order.
For example, claim 1 recites “modifying said drawing symbol
correspondingly,” and “modifying said attribute object correspondingly.”
Thus, it is possible for the attribute object to be modified before the drawing
symbol object, as there is no claim language reciting that one step must
come before the other. Accordingly, the steps are not construed to require
one step to come before the other.
Further, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that Itoh teaches (1)
receiving a command to modify a drawing symbol; (2) modifying a drawing
symbol object; and (3) modifying an attribute object (Ans. 7). Specifically,
we find Itoh discloses a drawing rule editing means accepts commands to
modify a drawing symbol (FFs 7-8). We further Itoh teaches modifying a
drawing symbol for drawing rule file Aa (FF 8). For example, Itoh allows
editing of properties of the screw hole (see Figs. 12(a)-12(d), 13(a)-13(d),
and 17(a)-17(e)). Further, we find that Itoh, by allowing the drawing symbol
to be modified, inherently allows the use of, and thus, modification of the
aspects of the corresponding objects in the databases (see, e.g., Fig. 17(e)).
Thus, when the diameter of the drawing symbol (i.e., the circle of Fig. 12(b))
is changed, the corresponding figure (i.e., Fig. 13(b)) is also changed, as Fig.
13(b) shows an additional circle is added to the drawing shown in Fig. 13(a).
Appeal 2009-004696
Application 10/163,756

13
Accordingly, the drawing symbol object (i.e., classification data
storage means 160) is changed and the corresponding attribute object (i.e.,
three-dimensional model data storage means 110) for the entire image
incorporating the two circles is also changed (see FF 8). Thus, we find Itoh
discloses (1) receiving a command to modify a drawing symbol; (2)
modifying a drawing symbol object correspondingly; and (3) modifying an
attribute object correspondingly as recited in claim 1.
Appellant argues claims 6-11, 17-18, and 24-29 for the same reasons
argued with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 8). After considering the totality of
the record before us, Appellant has failed to persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s conclusion of anticipation with regard to the above-argued
limitations for claims 6-11, 17-18, and 24-29.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claim 7
Appellant argues claim 7 separately. Appellant argues column 3, lines
4-10 of Itoh does not disclose that “said plurality of different scopes includes
scopes for attributes that are intended for at least one of face type entities of
said model and edge type entities of said model,” as recited in claim 7 (App.
Br. 9). Appellant also argues (1) “at the indicated location, the Itoh
reference merely describes the use of different drawing rules for each of the
different angles at which an object may be viewed” and (2) “the use of
different rules for different rules does not relate to the scope of attributes, or
face or edge type entities of a model” (id.).
The Examiner finds that “[t]he drawing rules for the models include
attributes and the different scopes for the attributes” (Ans. 8). Further, the
Appeal 2009-004696
Application 10/163,756

14
Examiner finds that “[t]he drawing rules are associated with a face and edge
of the model when that model is viewed from a distinct view or angle” (id.).
The Examiner also finds that, “[b]ased on the attribute and the scope of the
attribute, the distinct drawing rule is chosen” (id.).

Issue 2: Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding Itoh
discloses “scopes for attributes that are intended for at least one of face type
entities of said model and edge type entities of said model?

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
We further find as follows:
Itoh Reference
(10) Drawing rules “represent the visual appearance of a feature
from the appropriate viewing direction” (col. 3, ll. 13-15). For each feature
of an object there will be a plurality of drawing rules (col. 3, ll. 4-6). For
example, “there will be a drawing rule for each angle at which the object can
be viewed (such as a drawing rule corresponding to a top view, bottom view,
right-side view, etc.)” (col. 3, ll. 6-9).
Definitions
(11) We find “face” is defined, in computer graphics, as “one side of
a solid object” (MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 205 (5th ed. 2002)).
(12) We find “edge” is defined as “a line or line segment that is the
intersection of two plane faces” (MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE
DICTIONARY 366 (10th ed. 2000)).

ANALYSIS
Appeal 2009-004696
Application 10/163,756

15
Based on our view of the Specification, we find that Appellant does
not provide an explicit definition for the terms “face” or “edge.” Thus,
taking the broadest reasonable, ordinary, and customary meaning of the
terms in light of the Specification, we find (1) a face is defined as one side of
a solid object and (2) an edge is defined as “a line or line segment that is the
intersection of two plane faces” (FFs 11-12).
Further, we find, for example, that a top view of a two-dimensional
object will inherently display a face and an edge. Itoh discloses that the
drawing rules describe the visual appearance of a view of a feature of a
model, for example a top view of a model (FF 10). Thus, the drawing rules
of Itoh, which describe the features related to a top view of a model,
inherently describe the features or properties (i.e., attributes) (FF 1) of a face
or edge of a model.
Accordingly, we find Itoh discloses scopes for attributes (i.e., drawing
rules) that are intended for at least one of face type entities of said model and
edge type entities of said model (i.e., views of a model) as claimed. After
considering the totality of the record before us, Appellant has failed to
persuade us of error in the Examiner’s conclusion that Itoh teaches scopes
for attributes that are intended for at least one of face type entities of said
model and edge type entities of said model.

ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claims 10, 18, 25
Appellant contends representative claim 10 recites “said drawing
symbol comprises a graphical form and an alphanumerical or numerical or
textual indication, and wherein said attribute object comprises an attribute
Appeal 2009-004696
Application 10/163,756

16
value that is represented by said indication” (App. Br. 10). Appellant argues
that the cited portions of Itoh, column 3, lines 20-35, “merely describes how
a drawing rule representing an axial view of a hole may show crossed lines
for the hole” (id.). However, Appellant argues “the use of such a rule, as
well as the displaying of such a view, does not relate to displaying an
indication of an attribute value for an attribute object in a drawing symbol”
(id.).
In response, the Examiner finds that the drawing rules describe that
“an object of a model includes both a drawing symbol with a graphical form
as shown in Figures 12 and 13” (Ans. 8). Further, the Examiner finds that
“[t]he drawing symbol also includes alphanumeric data that is associated
with the element. See column 10, lines 43-49.” (Id.).

Issue 3: Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding Itoh
discloses displaying an indication of an attribute value for an attribute object
in a drawing symbol?

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
We further find as follows:
Itoh Reference
(13) “The drawing rules normally represent the visual appearance of
the feature, . . . but may contain other information, such as numerical data or
graphical symbols” (col. 3, ll. 12-15).
(14) Figure 14(b) illustrates an accompanying value alongside of the
graphical representation of a smaller circle positioned within a larger circle
(i.e., graphical arrowed line associated with M10).
Appeal 2009-004696
Application 10/163,756

17
(15) The system displays a detailed view of part A shown in Fig.
17(d).

ANALYSIS
As discussed above, with respect to Issue 1C, when the diameter of
the circle of Fig. 12(b) is generated for changing the drawing symbol, the
corresponding object of Fig. 13(b) is also changed (see discussion supra. at
9-13). In Fig. 14(b), not only are the circles of Figs. 12(b) and 13(b) shown,
but also a value that is an indication of an attribute value (i.e., the number 10
from M10) (FF 13). Thus, the drawing symbol (i.e., the circle of 12(b) that
was added to the original circle of 13(a)) is shown with an accompanying
value (i.e., the number 10) (id.).
After considering the totality of the record before us, we find Itoh
teaches displaying an indication of an attribute value for an attribute object
in a drawing symbol.

ISSUE 4
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claims 26, 28 and 29
Appellant also separately argues representative claim 26 is not
anticipated by Itoh (App. Br. 10). Appellant contends claim 26 recites “said
attribute remains linked with said entity of said model when said entity is re-
used in another model” (id.). Appellant further argues “at the indicated
location, the Itoh reference merely describes how the editing of rules may
occur automatically if the model data is itself edited” (id.). Appellant also
argues “the editing of rules does not relate to an attribute remaining linked
Appeal 2009-004696
Application 10/163,756

18
with an entity of the model when the entity is re-used in another model”
(id.).
The Examiner finds “Figure 8 discloses different drawing rules that
are used to generate different models” (Ans. 8). Further, the Examiner finds
“[t]he table discloses that the attribute objects within the models are linked
to the drawing rules where the attribute remains linked with an entity of the
model when the same entity is used in the drawing rules to generate different
models” (id.). Additionally, the Examiner finds that the “Drawing Rule
Editing” command allows a user to modify the model, and as a result, a new
model is generated that reflects the new modifications (id.). The Examiner
finds that “[t]his new model includes entities that are re-used to represent the
model” (id.).

Issue 4: Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding Itoh
discloses that an attribute remains linked with an entity of the model when
the entity is re-used in another model?

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
We further find as follows:
(16) Editing the drawing rules may be achieved by directly
modifying or deleting rules, and/or inputting new rules (col. 3, ll. 56-58).
Further, “when a two dimensional image is generated, the drawing rules will
be used . . . to provide an appropriate visual appearance of the feature” (col.
4, ll. 5-8).
(17) In some instances a feature, or part of a feature, is so small that
it cannot be seen when the image of the whole object is generated (col. 4, ll.
Appeal 2009-004696
Application 10/163,756

19
9-12). In those cases, a part of the image can be selected, and then the
drawing rules are utilized to produce an appropriate visual representation of
the feature (col. 4, ll. 13-16. Also, “an initial two-dimensional image may
be generated, which does not make use of the drawing rules, and then a
further two dimensional image is generated that does make use of the
drawing rules” (col. 4, ll. 17-21).

ANALYSIS
We find Itoh discloses that an image can be edited using drawing rules
(FF 16-17). Further, Itoh discloses that a portion of a whole image can be
selected, such that the drawing rules are applied to produce an edited version
of that feature (FF 17). Thus, we find that when only a part of an image is
selected for editing, it is inherent that the remaining portion of the image
stays the same.
Accordingly, we find that that all of the attributes of the portion of the
image that were not edited remain linked with the model (i.e., image) when
the entity is re-used in another model (i.e., the edited image). After
considering the totality of the record before us, Appellant has failed to
persuade us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Itoh teaches that an
attribute remains linked with an entity of the model when the entity is re-
used in another model.
Appellant argues claims 26, 28, and 29 as a group. After considering
the totality of the circumstances before us, Appellant has failed to persuade
us of error in the Examiner’s conclusion of anticipation with respect to
claims 28 and 29 for the same reasons as set forth with respect to claim 26.

Appeal 2009-004696
Application 10/163,756

20
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude
Appellant has not met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in finding
that Itoh teaches an attribute object. Additionally, Appellant has not shown
that the Examiner erred in finding that the claims recite a “flow of data from
the drawing symbol to the attribute object of the extended model data
structure.” Appellant has also not shown the Examiner erred in finding that
Itoh teaches (1) receiving a command to modify a drawing symbol; (2)
modifying a drawing symbol object correspondingly; and (3) modifying an
attribute object correspondingly. Accordingly, we conclude Appellant has
not met the burden of showing the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 6, 8,
9, 11, 12, 17, 19, 24, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by
Itoh.
Appellant has also failed to show that the Examiner erred in finding
Itoh discloses “scopes for attributes that are intended for at least one of face
type entities of said model and edge type entities of said model” as recited in
claim 7. Accordingly, Appellant has not met the burden of showing the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for
anticipation by Itoh.
Further, Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in finding Itoh
discloses displaying an indication of an attribute value for an attribute object
in a drawing symbol. Accordingly, Appellant has not met the burden of
showing the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10, 18, and 25 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Itoh.
Lastly, Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in finding Itoh
discloses that an attribute remains linked with an entity of the model when
Appeal 2009-004696
Application 10/163,756

21
the entity is re-used in another model. Accordingly, Appellant has not met
the burden of showing the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 26, 28, and 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Itoh.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6-12 17-19, and 24-29 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Itoh 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)(iv) (2009).

AFFIRMED

nhl

GATES & COOPER LLP
HOWARD HUGHES CENTER
6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST, SUITE 1050
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045