Ex Parte Vainshtain et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

13629823 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 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.
13/629,823 09/28/2012 Victor Michael Vainshtain 2012P15463US 4869
45113 7590
Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, EL 32817
EXAMINER
HANN, JAY B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2123
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VICTOR MICHAEL VAINSHTAIN,
ERICA CLAIRE SIMMONS, and NOAM RIBON
Appeal 2016-002826
Application 13/629,8231
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute all of the claims pending in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc.
as the real party in interest. Reply Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-002826
Application 13/629,823
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Invention
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to simulating hazardous
environments to identify amount of exposure based on a person’s position
(and in particular, the positions of a person’s various body parts) in the
environment. Abstract; Spec. Tflf 4—5. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and subject matter of the appeal, and
reads as follows (with the disputed limitations in italics):
1. A method performed by a product lifecycle management
(PLM) data processing system, the method comprising:
generating a simulation of an environment within a
predefined space;
identifying one or more locations and a process for a
human to perform a task in the predefined space based on the
simulation in response to receiving a request to plan the process;
identifying a time spent at the one or more locations for the
task to be performed and positions of body parts of the human
during performance of the task,
identifying, by the PLM data processing system, values for
exposure to one or more hazardous sources at each of the one or
more locations from a file;
calculating an estimate of an amount of exposure to the
one or more hazardous sources for the human to perform the task
in the simulation based on the one or more locations, the process,
the time spent, the positions of the body parts, and the identified
values for exposure from the file;
determining whether the amount of exposure exceeds a
threshold value; and
storing the amount of exposure.
App. Br. 56.
2
Appeal 2016-002826
Application 13/629,823
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—4, 7—12, and 15—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Zhengdao Tang et al., Real-Time Does Assessment and
Visualization of Radiation Field for EAST Tokamak (Fusion Engineering &
Design, Vol. 85, 1591—94 (2010)) (“Tang”) and Hiromitsu Sato, et al.,
Using Motion Capture for Real-Time Augmented Reality Scenes,
(Proceedings 13th Int’l Conf. on Humans & Computers, HC’10, 58—62
(2010)) (“Sato”). Final Act. 3-20.
Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Tang, Sato, and Fernand Vermeersch, ALARA
Pre-job Studies Using the VISIPLAN 3D ALARA Planning Tool, (Radiation
Protection Dosimetry, Vol. 115, No. 1—4, 294—97 (2005)) (“Vermeer”).
Final Act. 21—28.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). With respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 1—4,
7—12, and 15—18, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
and adopt them as our own. With respect to the obviousness rejection of
claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 19, and 20, however, we are persuaded by Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. We provide the following to highlight
and address specific arguments.
3
Appeal 2016-002826
Application 13/629,823
Rejection of Claims 1—4, 7—12, and 15—18 over Tang and Sato
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches
“identifying . . . positions of body parts of the human during performance of
the task,” and “calculating an estimate of an amount of exposure . . . based
on . . . the positions of the body parts,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 14—
20. We disagree.
As the Examiner finds, Ans. 3—4, Tang teaches identifying positions
of body parts (organs) and calculating exposure of such body parts to
hazardous sources in a hazardous environment. Tang 1592 (§ 2.2)
(displaying “accumulated dose of whole-body and sensitive organs,” with
“[coordinates of the sensitive organs . . . obtained mainly on the basis of the
vertical offset of their position from the pelvis”). As the Examiner further
finds, Ans. 3—5, Sato teaches real time tracking of positions of body parts
during performance of a task. See Sato 58 (“tracking parts of the body by
infra-red cameras to obtain streamed position data”); see also Sato 60
(export files to “describe the movement of a whole body by measuring 30
(up to 49 with an option) measurement points” including “head,” “chest,”
“left leg,” etc.). Thus, according to the Examiner, the combination of Tang
with Sato teaches the disputed limitations, including the elements of (i)
calculating an estimate of amount of exposure (Tang), (ii) based on the
positions of body parts (Tang and Sato), that is done (iii) during performance
of the task (Sato). Ans. 3. We discern no error in this finding.
Appellants argue Sato is referring to “real human body parts” while
claim 1 recites a “simulation.” App. Br. 15. Tang, however, teaches a
simulated environment. Ans. 4; Tang 1591—92. Because “one cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually where ... the
4
Appeal 2016-002826
Application 13/629,823
rejections are based on combinations of references,” In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981), Appellants’ argument does not demonstrate error.
Similarly, Appellants argue Tang fails to teach “where the body parts of the
human may be during performance of the task,” App. Br. 18 (emphasis
omitted), but the Examiner relies on combining Tang with Sato’s teaching of
real-time tracking of human movement during performance of a task. Ans.
4; Sato 58, 60. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error.
Appellants further argue the Examiner erred in finding a rationale to
combine the references. App. Br. 22. Specifically, Appellants argue the
capture of “realistic human movement” as taught in Sato does not have any
effect on, or relation to, “calculating exposure to vital organs” as in Tang.
App. Br. 22. As the Examiner finds, however, among the objectives of both
Sato and Tang is accurate “motion capture of human movement” in
software. Ans. 5 (citing Sato 58, Tang 1591); see Innovention Toys, LLC v.
MGA Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1322—23 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (one of
ordinary skill reasonably would combine references directed to the same
“problem,” “objective,” or “goal”). Moreover, as the Examiner finds, Sato
specifically states the motion capture taught therein may be used to “enable
dynamic manipulation of a virtual space,” Sato 58 (emphasis added), and
Tang is directed to manipulation of a “virtual environment,” Tang 1591
(emphasis added). See Final Act. 4.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1.
Appellants argue the same rejection of claim 3 separately, contending
the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches “calculating exposure to
vital organs of the human based on the positions of the body parts” during
5
Appeal 2016-002826
Application 13/629,823
the task. App. Br. 20—22 (emphasis added). Specifically, Appellants argue
(similar to the argument regarding claim 1) “Tang does not contemplate
using positions of the body parts during performance of the task.” App. Br.
21. This argument, however, is not persuasive of error, as the Examiner
relied not on Tang alone but on the combination of Tang with Sato. See
Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. As discussed above, Tang teaches calculating
exposure to vital (sensitive) organs and tracking coordinates of the organs,
and Sato teaches tracking body position data during performance of a task.
Final Act. 7 (citing Tang 1592, Sato 58). We discern no error in the
Examiner’s finding that the combination teaches the disputed limitation.
Appellants’ arguments regarding the remaining claims subject to this
rejection are redundant to the foregoing. Appellants contend the Examiner
erred in finding the prior art teaches the “identify” and “calculate”
limitations of independent claims 9 and 15, which are commensurate in
scope with the disputed limitations of claim 1 discussed above, for the same
reasons as claim 1. App. Br. 24—31, 35^42. We are not persuaded of error,
for the reasons set forth above.
Similarly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
dependent claims 11 and 17, App. Br. 31—34, 42-45, which are
commensurate in scope with claim 3, for the same reasons as set forth above
regarding claim 3.
Appellants do not argue separately the remaining dependent claims
subject to the rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1—4,
7—12, and 15—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tang and
Sato.
6
Appeal 2016-002826
Application 13/629,823
Rejection of Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 19, and 20 over Tang, Sato, and Vermeer
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Tang teaches
“generating values for exposure to the hazardous sources at a plurality of
points in three-dimensional space in the predefined space based on the
properties for the hazardous sources and shielding factors for objects within
the predefined space f as recited in dependent claim 5. App. Br. 46
(emphasis added). On the record before us, we are persuaded by Appellants’
argument.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds the disputed limitation taught
in the following passage of Tang:
Multidimensional discrete ordinate (SN method) particle
transport calculation code have been used in analysis of radiation
protection. The SN automatic modeling system (SNAM) has
been developed by FDS team [18-22], 3D neutronics modeling
of EAST device and shielded hall have been converted to SN
input file by SNAM with grid size of 5cmx5cmx5cm, and the
calculation of flux distribution is conducted by using 30 transport
code.
Final Act. 22 (citing Tang 1592 (§ 2.1)) (original emphasis omitted,
emphasis added). The Examiner appears to rely on the phrase “shielded
hall” and equate this phrase with “shielding factors for objects within the
predefined space.” Id. As Appellants argue, however, the context of this
passage in Tang indicates that “shielded hall” refers to a defined space, and
not shielding factors for objects within the space. App. Br. 47. For
example, Tang states “[i]n order to view the whole virtual environment from
different viewing angles, eight different camera viewpoints were assigned in
the Virtools to cover every corner of the shielded hall.'” Tang 1592 (§ 2)
(emphasis added). The Examiner does not explain how modeling an entire
7
Appeal 2016-002826
Application 13/629,823
shielded environment would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill to
account for shielding factors for objects within a predefined space. The
Answer does not even address Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 5.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in
finding the cited passage of Tang teaches the disputed limitation of claim 5
and, therefore, erred in rejecting claim 5. We are also persuaded of error
regarding the rejection of claim 6, which depends from claim 5 and thus
includes the disputed limitation.
Appellant repeats the foregoing argument for claims 13, 14, 19, and
20, which are commensurate in scope, respectively, with claims 5 and 6 and
includes the disputed “shielding factors” limitation. App. Br. 48—53. For
the reasons set forth above, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
those claims.
Accordingly, on the record before us, we cannot sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Tang, Sato, and Vermeer.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 7—12, and
15—18, but reverse the decision rejecting claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 19, and 20.
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)(l)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8