Ex Parte Tipton

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 2017

13106387 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2017)

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.
13/106,387 05/12/2011 Bob Tipton 2010508-0073 GEO-028 5149
22514 7590
3D Systems, Inc.
3D Systems, Inc.
333 Three D Systems Circle
Rock Hill, SC 29730
EXAMINER
HOANG, PETER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/21/2017 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BOB TIPTON
Appeal 2017-002321
Application 13/106,3 s?1
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1 and 4—132. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies 3D Systems, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br.
2.
2 Claims 2, 3, and 14—27 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2017-002321
Application 13/106,387
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellant’s invention generally relates to “systems and methods for
detailing a graphical 3D solid model displayed to a user.” Abstract.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A system for detailing a graphical 3D solid model of an
article displayed to a user, the system comprising:
a graphical user interface device configured to receive
input from a user and transmit the input to a computer, the
computer comprising a Central Processing Unit (CPU) and/or a
Graphics Processing Unit (GPU);
a memory for use with the computer, the memory
comprising computer software configured to:
(a) identity a region of the 3D solid model of the
article where detail is to be added, according to user input;
(b) create a secondary geometric representation
based on the identified region in (a), wherein the
secondary geometric representation is a voxel-based
representation;
(c) add detail to the secondary geometric
representation according to user input, wherein the
addition of detail comprises at least one member selected
from the group consisting of embossing, debossing,
carving, acquiring, and/or adding 3D data, and texture
mapping;
(d) create a new surface by sampling the detailed
secondary geometric representation at a sub-voxel
resolution, wherein creation of the new surface is
controlled with one or more of the following: (i) a level of
smoothing of the secondary geometry; (ii) a number of
split tiles for a trimmed region; and/or (iii) an amount of
voxel oversampling within each of the split tiles; and
2
Appeal 2017-002321
Application 13/106,387
(e) integrate the new surface in (d) into the 3D solid
model using the region identified in (a), thereby producing
a detailed 3D solid model; and
a video display configured to graphically display the
detailed 3D solid model to the user.
References and Rejections
1. Claims 1, 4—9, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Jennings (US 2006/0109269 Al, pub. May 25, 2006)
and Berger (US 2005/0128210 Al, pub. June 16, 2005). Final Act. 3—11.
2. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jennings, Berger, and Stowe (US 2004/0100465 Al, pub.
May 27, 2004). Final Act. 11-12.
3. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jennings, Berger and Rubbert (US 2001/0038705 Al,
pub. Nov. 8, 2001). Final Act. 12—14.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “identify a region of the 3D solid model. . . [and]
create a secondary geometric representation based on the identified region
. . . wherein the secondary geometric representation is a voxel-based
representation.” The Examiner finds Jennings teaches or suggests a
“secondary geometric representation” that is “voxel-based.” Final Act. 3—4.
In particular, the Examiner finds Jennings discloses a 3D solid model of an
article and that a user can select a region of the 3D solid model by selecting
a surface region of the model the user wishes to warp. Final Act. 4. The
selected surface region is then converted to an intermediate representation
(i.e. the claimed “secondary geometric representation”) to which details are
3
Appeal 2017-002321
Application 13/106,387
added, and the intermediate representation is then reincorporated into the 3D
solid model. Final Act. 4—5 (citing Jennings H 91, 93). The Examiner finds
Jennings’ intermediate representation is “voxel-based” secondary geometric
representation because it is derived from a 3D volumetric representation of
the solid model, which comprises voxels. Final Act. 4—5 (citing Jennings
91,93); Ans. 15.
Appellant argues “[a] person of ordinary skill would understand from
the present Specification and claims that a voxel-based representation
comprises voxels. Other graphical representations, such as polygon mesh, a
point cloud, or a NURBS surface, are not voxel-based representations
because they do not comprise voxels.” Reply Br. 6. Appellant argues “the
selected region of Jennings is a surface representation, which is two-
dimensional [and] cannot be seen to correspond to the secondary geometric
representation of claim 1, which is voxel-based.” App. Br. 10. In other
words, according to Appellant, Jennings’ intermediate representation is not
voxel-based because it is a two-dimensional surface representation rather
than a three-dimensional representation comprising voxels.
We are persuaded of Examiner error. We agree with Appellant that,
in light of the Specification, an ordinary artisan would understand the phrase
“secondary geometric representation is a voxel-based representation” as
requiring that the secondary representation comprises or consists of voxels,
not just that the secondary representation be derived from a voxel-based
representation. The Specification supports Appellant’s interpretation. For
example Figure 7, which depicts a “voxel-based secondary geometric
representation” (Spec. 1 36) is described as “a screenshot. . . showing
created voxels in the selected region,” (Spec. 122 (emphasis added)). The
4
Appeal 2017-002321
Application 13/106,387
Specification distinguishes voxel-based representations from two-
dimensional representations such as those comprised of polygon meshes,
further lending support that a voxel-based representation is three
dimensional and consists of voxels. See Spec. 136 (“In one embodiment of
the invention, the secondary geometric representation is a based on voxels.
As noted earlier, however, the secondary representation may also be based
on mesh or point cloud geometry. A voxel-based secondary geometric
representation 24 is depicted in [Fig.] 7.”); see also Spec. ^fl[ 9, 12, 33.
Turning now to the relied upon portions of Jennings, we note that the
intermediate representation is described as a “surface representation”
comprising “a polygonal mesh.” Jennings 191. Jennings explains that a
“surface representation of an object can be understood as a two-dimensional
representation . . . such as a representation using a polygonal mesh.”
Jennings 1 58. Thus, at least according to the cited portions of Jennings, the
intermediate representation is two-dimensional. Under a reasonable
interpretation of the claim limitation, we find a two-dimensional
intermediate representation does not teach or suggest a “secondary
geometric representation [that] is a voxel-based representation.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the remaining pending
claims, each of which depend from claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 4—13 is reversed.
REVERSED
5