Ex parte Stickney et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 25, 1999

08422689 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 25, 1999)

Application for patent filed April 14, 1995. According1
to appellants, this application is a continuation of
Application 07/926,014, filed August 6, 1992, now abandoned.
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte MICHAEL E. STICKNEY
and WILLIAM J. KEMP, JR.
__________
Appeal No. 1997-4352
Application 08/422,6891
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before THOMAS, KRASS, and BARRETT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 1997-4352
Application No. 08/422,689
2
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 15 through 34 and 36, all the claims pending in the
application.
The invention is directed to a computer-based
interrogation recording tool for rapidly converting verbal
descriptions of objects and events into graphical displays by
recording, arranging and manipulating graphical objects stored
in a three-dimensional geometric database in response to an
operator’s input based on a witness’ statements to the
operator.
Representative independent claim 15 is reproduced as
follows:
15. A method for creating a visual display of a set of
objects in response to a person’s verbal statements describing
actual objects and events occurring at different times, said
method comprising:
receiving by an operator a plurality of said verbal
statements containing descriptions of said objects at
different times;
said operator entering information derived from said
verbal statements into an interrogation recording tool, said
statements being recorded and represented by the interrogation
recording tool as graphical representations of the objects and
events;
Appeal No. 1997-4352
Application No. 08/422,689
3
determining a plurality of locations, orientations, and
forms of said objects in a temporal sequence corresponding to
said description of said objects for at least two different
times;
generating a plurality of the graphical representations
of said objects in said temporal sequence; and
displaying said plurality of the graphical
representations of said objects to illustrate changes between
different time periods, wherein the displayed graphical
representations allow the person to review the graphical
representations in real time immediately after being recorded
so as to allow the operator to
make changes and modifications to the graphical
representations based on subsequent verbal statements made by
the person.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Simone, “Autodesk Inc.: Autodesk Animator Pro and Autodesk
Multimedia Explorer,” PC Magazine, vol. 11, no. 14, p. 452,
August 1992.
Kantor, “Computing in the Courtroom,” PC Magazine, vol. 12,
no. 4, p. 32, February 23, 1993.
Claims 15 through 34 and 36 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Kantor in view of Simone.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that while the effective filing
date of the instant application is August 6, 1992, based on
Appeal No. 1997-4352
Application No. 08/422,689
Appellants’ brief does not indicate any objection to the2
examiner’s application of Kantor and Simone with regard to the
publication dates of the references.
4
the filing date of parent application Serial No. 07/926,014,
the references relied on by the examiner bear publication
dates of February 23, 1993 (Kantor) and August, 1992 (Simone).
Thus, these references, by themselves, would not be viable
references under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, through 35 U.S.C. 102(a). However, we note that both
references are directed to the “Autodesk Animator” produced by
Autodesk, Inc. and there is evidence, within the disclosure of
Kantor, that this system was available to the public no later
than January 28, 1992. The “Autodesk Animator” system is
considered prior art based upon the Kantor disclosure which is
not itself a prior art publication but indicates that the
“Autodesk Animator” was available, in this country, at least
seven months prior to the effective filing date of the instant
application. See In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1567-1568, 31
USPQ2d 1817, 1822-1823 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we will
consider the disclosures of Kantor and Simone as they relate
to the capabilities of the “Autodesk Animator” system and that
system’s relevance to the instant claimed subject matter. 2
Appeal No. 1997-4352
Application No. 08/422,689
5
We have considered the merits of the examiner’s rejection
and we will reverse the rejection of claims 15 through 34 and
36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because, based on the evidence
provided by Kantor and Simone, it is our view that the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness.
The examiner relies on Simone to provide the details of
the “Autodesk Animator” system which Kantor indicates had been
used in a court proceeding environment prior to the effective
filing date of the instant application. In particular, the
examiner uses Simone’s teaching of a “pathing” animation as a
teaching of “determining a plurality of locations,
orientations, and forms of said objects in a temporal sequence
corresponding to said description of said objects for at least
two different times,” as recited specifically in independent
claim 15 but also required, in various forms, by independent
claims 17 and 27. The examiner also contends that Simone’s
disclosure of a “clocked path” suggests the orientation of
objects in a temporal sequence corresponding to a description
of the objects for at least two different times. The examiner
still further points out that Simone’s disclosure of a
Appeal No. 1997-4352
Application No. 08/422,689
6
“pathing” technique, which includes information pertaining to
direction instructions, spins, size changes, closed polygons,
and variable speeds, is suggestive of claim 17's “encoding the
dynamics of geometric object relationships as textual
algorithms, and using these textual algorithms to modify
objects and their geometric relationships in a geometry
database” [quoted from the examiner’s description at page 5 of
the answer].
It does appear that the “Autodesk Animator” described by
Simone may, possibly, have many, if not all, of the
capabilities recited in the instant claims and we are troubled
by the failure of the examiner to employ a disclosure of the
“Autodesk Animator,” itself, as by way, for example, of an
operating manual describing the actual system, rather than a
publication merely referring to the “Autodesk Animator”
system. Nevertheless, the examiner offers only Kantor and
Simone as evidence of obviousness of the instant claimed
subject matter. We find Simone’s overly general description
of some of the features of “Autodesk Animator” to fall short
of providing for the specifically claimed features, as pointed
out by appellants at pages 11-16 of the brief. While Simone
Appeal No. 1997-4352
Application No. 08/422,689
7
does indicate generalities as to capabilities, such as “true
shape interpolation” (tweening), “Optics, Tween, Inks, Tools,
Frames, Anim cel, Palette, and Titling,” “pathing” which “can
include spins, size changes, closed polygons, and variable
speeds,” a “clocked path” which “not only notes the direction
of your mouse movement but the speed as well,” using “both the
shape and the timing to render the effect--in the process
creating naturalistic movement” and creating by “using all of
the functions simultaneously,” we find that the examiner has
failed to persuasively relate these various features disclosed
by Simone as being part of the “Autodesk Animator” to the
instant claimed steps and elements. While many of the
features relied on by the examiner may, indeed, relate,
somewhat, to claimed elements and steps, we find the
examiner’s reasoning to be too speculative to sustain a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 based thereon.
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 may not be based on
mere speculation. If the examiner intends to reject the
instant claims based on the “Autodesk Animator,” the examiner
should obtain the best evidence, in this case the best
evidence being some document, such as the operator’s manual,
Appeal No. 1997-4352
Application No. 08/422,689
8
specifically describing the features of “Autodesk Animator.”
The very general disclosures of Kantor and Simone with regard
to the “Autodesk Animator” is clearly not sufficient to
sustain a rejection of the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15 through 34
and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Errol A. Krass ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Lee E. Barrett )
Administrative Patent Judge )
tdc
Raytheon Systems Company
2000 East El Segundo Boulevard
P.O. Box 902
El Segundo, CA 90245