Ex parte Strandberg

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 22, 1999

08237393 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 22, 1999)

Application for patent filed May 03, 1994. According to1
the appellant, this application is a continuation of
08/042,898, filed April 05, 1993, now abandoned which is a
continuation of 07/571,585 filed August 30, 1990, 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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 58
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte ORJAN STRANDBERG
________________
Appeal No. 1996-1411
Application 08/237,3931
________________
HEARD: September 13, 1999
________________
Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
2
Before JERRY SMITH, DIXON and LALL Administrative Patent
Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the examiner’s rejection of claims 11-18 and 21. Claims
1-10 and 20 have been cancelled. Claim 19 has been indicated
as containing allowable subject matter and is merely objected
to for depending from a rejected claim. An amendment after
final rejection was filed on June 2, 1995 and was entered by
the examiner.
The disclosed invention pertains to a method and
apparatus for generating animation by computer by combining
prestored images of an object in various three-dimensional
orientations with movements of an existing self-movable
object. The movements of the object are measured and are used
to calculate successive orientation angles of movement for
each of several image sections. The successive orientation
angles are used to address the prestored images which were
Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
3
prestored based on orientation angles. Animation occurs by
successively assembling the prestored images based on the
successive orientation calculations.
Representative claim 11 is reproduced as follows:
11. A method for producing computer processed animation,
in which a work station comprising a computer and peripheral
equipment produces each image in a graphic movement sequence
for a graphic figure, by assembling information stored in a
memory (7) concerning the figure to be animated based upon a
recording of measured data from strategic parts of an existing
self-movable object, e.g., a living actor, the graphic figure
being divided into a plurality of image sections which are
movable in relation to one another, said information stored in
a memory (7) being a plurality of three-dimensionally
represented perspective drawings of said image sections, each
representing an image section of said graphic figure in a
predetermined orientation, to be combined to produce a true
three-dimensional animated figure in accordance with said
recording measurement data, comprising the steps of:
a) as a preparation before assembling an image of
the graphic figure to be animated, storing data recordings of
said plurality of three-dimensionally represented perspective
drawings in digitized form at mutually different addresses in
a respective memory area in said memory (7), each perspective
drawing being associated with an individual space angle
position among a multiple of mutually different space angle
positions, the address of each perspective drawing being based
on its associated space angle position, and incorporating into
each perspective drawing information regarding at least one
joint location in the drawing
Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
4
for linking said perspective drawing to a three-dimensionally
represented perspective drawing of another section;
b) deriving a space angle for a direction in space
of each section from said measured data from said existing
self-movable object;
c) matching an address in said memory (7) of each of
said stored perspective drawings of each section with said
derived space angle of each section for the image to be drawn;
d) assembling the graphic figure by assembling each
image section in accordance with a predetermined sequential
assembling schedule, section by section, each image section
being
retrieved from said memory area by reading the memory at an
address based on the derived space angle for the image section
in question wherein each subsequent graphic figure image
section is linked with a nearest preceding graphic figure
image section at a joint location common to both said
sections,
whereby said plurality of three-dimensionally
represented perspective drawings of each image section making
up said assembled graphic figure depict image sections that
may have different proportions than the image sections of said
self-movable object used to generate said space angles.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Haney 3,510,210 May 05, 1970
Appel et al. (Appel) 3,792,243 Feb. 12, 1974
Frazer et al. (Frazer) 2 175 729 Dec. 03, 1986
(UK patent application)
Claims 11-18 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
5
103. As evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Haney in
view of Appel or Frazer.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in
the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 11-18 and 21. Accordingly, we affirm.
Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
6
As a general proposition in an appeal involving a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an examiner is under a burden
to make out a prima facie case of obviousness. If that burden
is met, the burden of going forward then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of
the arguments. See
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only
those arguments actually made by appellant have been
considered in this decision.
Arguments which appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR §
1.192(a)].
With respect to each of the claims on appeal, the
examiner has pointed out the teachings of Haney, Appel and
Frazer, has pointed out the perceived differences between this
prior art and the claimed invention, and has reasonably
Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
7
indicated how and why Haney and Appel or Haney and Frazer
would have been modified and/or combined to arrive at the
claimed invention [answer, pages 3-5]. In our view, the
examiner’s analysis is sufficiently reasonable that we find
that the examiner has satisfied the burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. That is, the examiner’s
analysis, if left unrebutted, would be sufficient to support a
rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103. The burden is, therefore, upon appellant to
come forward with evidence or arguments which persuasively
rebut the examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellant has presented several substantive arguments in
response to the examiner’s rejection. Therefore, we consider
obviousness based upon the totality of the evidence and the
relative persuasiveness of the arguments.
We note that Haney teaches a computer for generating
character animation by combining prestored images of an object
with the actual movements of an actor. The prestored images
Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
8
in Haney are based upon a plurality of stances and positions
of an animated character as determined in two dimensions. The
actor’s movements are monitored in two dimensions, and each of
the actor’s movements is used to address a corresponding
prestored image section based on the direction of movement.
The examiner recognizes that Haney is a two-dimensional
system, and the examiner cites Appel or Frazer as teaching the
desirability of monitoring the movements of an object in three
dimensions.
Appellant first notes the deficiencies in each of the
individual references [brief, pages 8-12]. Since we are
considering a rejection on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103
rather than anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, we will not
address the assertions that none of the applied prior art
individually discloses the claimed invention.
With respect to independent claims 11 and 16,
appellant argues that the examiner’s rejection is based on an
improper use of hindsight to reconstruct appellant’s invention
based on appellant’s own disclosure [brief, page 13]. With
respect to the three references applied by the examiner,
appellant asserts that
Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
9
“such a combination, might, in a general manner, have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the
invention of HANEY, in some manner, using three-dimensional
stored graphic images and three-dimensional input data from a
living actor” [id.]. The following discussion will be based
on our determination that the combined teachings of Haney,
Appel and Frazer clearly would have suggested to the artisan
that the animation system of Haney should be implemented in
three dimensions in order to get a three-dimensional
perspective of a character’s movement.
Appellant argues that although Haney teaches the
storage of previously generated images, there is no teaching
or suggestion of using previously generated three-
dimensionally represented drawings to represent the various
spatial orientations of the image sections of a character
[brief, page 14]. The difference between this argument and
our determination that the collective prior art teaches
implementing Haney in a three-dimensional manner is subtle at
best. The three-dimensional aspect of the argument cannot be
critical, the previously generated aspect of the argument
cannot be critical, and the orientation aspect of the argument
cannot be critical because a three-dimensional version of
Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
10
Haney would clearly
possess each of these characteristics. Haney already teaches
the storage of previously generated two-dimensional picture
orientations of characters. To extend the teachings of Haney
to three dimensions as suggested by Appel or Frazer would
require Haney to store previously generated three-dimensional
spatial orientations of characters.
Appellant argues that “none of the applied references
teach [sic] the concept of using the space angle information
calculated from the recorded coordinate reference points on
the moving actor, or the concept of retrieving the appropriate
three-dimensionally represented perspective drawing
corresponding to the calculated spatial orientation” [brief,
page 14]. We do not agree. The determination of individual
point movements in Haney in two dimensions allows the
prestored image with the corresponding vector orientation to
be selected. When Haney is modified to operate in three
dimensions, the determination of point movements in three
dimensions will necessitate that the vector orientations of
Haney be replaced by the claimed spatial orientations to
Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
11
indicate three-dimensional movement. Likewise, the data
stored in Haney based on two-dimensional stances and positions
would have to be replaced by storage locations based on three-
dimensional spatial orientations as claimed.
Appel also teaches that the movement of a point in
three dimensions in space (XYZ) requires that a calculation be
made to determine the spatial orientation of the movement.
Note that Appel uses direction cosines of the angles made by
the three-dimensional movement to determine the new
orientation of the mannequin or actor [see column 6]. Thus,
spatial orientation is clearly calculated from movement in
three orthogonal directions in Appel, and this spatial
orientation would be used to address the prestored three-
dimensional orientations prestored in the Haney system as
modified by Appel or Frazer.
Appellant argues the advantages obtained by using
space angles, but we are unable to see how Haney could operate
in three
dimensions without the use of space angles which define the
three-dimensional movement of an object in three-dimensional
Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
12
space. Appellant argues that his invention eliminates the
requirement that the animated character bear a resemblance to
the actor from which the data was obtained, however, we find
nothing recited in the claims which defines this relationship,
and the examiner has appropriately questioned just how much
resemblance would be within the scope of the claims anyway.
Appellant argues that the whereby clause which ends
claims 11 and 16 sufficiently distinguishes these claims from
the
teachings of Haney, Appel and Frazer [brief, pages 15-16].
We fail to see how a whereby recitation which notes that the
prestored images may have different proportions than the image
sections of the self-movable object used to generate the space
angles patentably distinguishes from the applied prior art.
As the examiner properly notes, there is no requirement in the
applied prior art that proportions be exactly the same between
prestored images and the movable object.
Appellant argues that the storing of three-dimensional
images at unique addresses as claimed patentably distinguishes
the claimed invention from the applied prior art. Again, we
Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
13
do not agree with appellant. The prestored images in Haney
are based on different stances and positions [column 2, lines
39-42]. Thus, each prestored image differs from other
prestored images in an orientation based on stance and
position. Since each prestored image must have its own
address, Haney teaches that there is a unique address which
contains the prestored image for a measured and calculated
amount of movement in two dimensions. When this teaching is
extended to three dimensions as suggested by Appel or Frazer,
there would be a unique address for each prestored image as it
moves in three dimensions. Since the movement in three-
dimensional space is uniquely identified by a
space angle, it would have been obvious to the artisan that
the
unique vector addressing of Haney would be replaced by a
comparable three-dimensional unique space angle addressing.
The arguments just considered essentially cover all
the arguments made by appellant with respect to the rejection
of independent claims 11 and 16. As noted above, we are not
persuaded by any of these arguments that the rejection of
Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
14
claims 11 and 16 as formulated by the examiner is in error.
Although none of the applied prior art references individually
discloses the claimed invention, we agree with the examiner
that the invention as broadly recited in claims 11 and 16
would have been obvious to the artisan when the Haney system
is extended to operate in three dimensions as suggested by
Appel or Frazar. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 11 and 16 as expressed by the examiner.
With respect to dependent claims 12, 15 and 21,
appellant argues that these claims recite how the calculated
space angle of an image section of the actor’s body can be
logically paired with a unique and easily ascertainable
address location in the computer’s memory, and that there is
no suggestion of this feature in the applied references
[brief, pages 17-18]. Despite the length of claims 15 and 21,
we construe these claims as
essentially reciting nothing more than a relationship that a
movement in three-dimensional space can be uniquely determined
by calculating angular movement through three orthogonal
planes. Since this relationship is a well-known mathematical
Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
15
principle and since Appel teaches this relationship as well,
we do not see the patentable distinction of storing
orientation data based on three-dimensional space angle
information. In our view, the Haney system modified to
operate in three dimensions would obviously have prestored the
data based on unique space angles within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103. These unique space angles must include all the
permutations of angular movement within each of the three
orthogonal planes within the resolution desired by the user.
Since it appears to us that claims 12, 15 and 21 simply recite
an obvious relationship between three-dimensional angle data,
we sustain the rejection of claims 12, 15 and 21.
With respect to dependent claims 13 and 17, appellant
argues that the applied prior art does not teach or suggest
the claimed linking of three-dimensional drawings section by
section. We are not persuaded by appellant’s argument, and we
again agree with the examiner’s position. Haney clearly
teaches that an animated character is generated by linking
prestored two-dimensional images of adjacent image sections.
Haney always
Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
16
connects a foot to a leg. Thus, the linking principle is
clearly present in Haney when assembling the animated image.
When Haney is modified to operate in three dimensions, we
agree with the examiner that the final animated three-
dimensional character would be assembled by linking the
prestored three-dimensional drawings section by section.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 17.
With respect to dependent claims 14 and 18, appellant
argues that the collective prior art does not suggest the
graphic movement potential [brief, pages 21-22]. We agree
with the examiner that the prestored images in Haney based on
different
stances and positions suggests the storage of a graphic
movement potential. The various stances and positions in
three dimensions would relate to the universe of movements
that an object could make in three-dimensional space. We
agree with the
examiner that this would constitute a graphic movement
potential as claimed. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 14 and 18.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection
of claims 11-18 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, the
Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
17
decision of the examiner rejecting these claims is affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Jerry Smith )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Parshotam S. Lall )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Joseph L. Dixon )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No.1996-1411
Application No. 08/237,393
18
JS/dm
Alan W. Young, Esq.
Young Law Firm, P.C.
4370 Alpine Road, Suite 106
Portola Valley, CA 94028