Ex Parte Wagoner

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 11, 2015

11740518 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOSHUA D. WAGONER
____________________

Appeal 2012-009519
Application 11/740,518
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-009519
Application 11/740,518
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 4–18, and 20–23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The invention relates to generating three-dimensional (3D) models of
objects, and generating 3D transforms of the 3D models for positioning the
3D models in a scene (See Spec. ¶ 3). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for generating 3D models for a scene in a
display device of a computer system from a collection of
objects, the method comprising:

collecting a plurality of objects;

dynamically generating a 3D model for each of the
collected plurality of objects using a model generator module
that maps objects to the dynamically generated 3D models;

creating a plurality of 3D transform objects using a
layout calculator module that maps 3D transform objects to the
dynamically generated 3D models based on a layout of the
generated 3D models, each of the created plurality of transform
objects corresponding to one of the dynamically generated 3D
models and being used to indicate a respective position of the
transform object’s corresponding dynamically generated 3D
model in virtual space;

assigning one of the plurality of 3D transform objects to
one of the generated 3D models; and

setting a position of each of the generated 3D models in
virtual space for display in the scene in the display device to the
position indicated by the assigned 3D transform objects.

Appeal 2012-009519
Application 11/740,518
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sun Microsystems, “The Java 3D API Specification, Version 1.2” (April,
2000) (hereinafter “Sun”)

David et al., “The North Face In-Store Explorer Proof-of-Concept: A White
Paper,” Microsoft Corp. (March 2006) (hereinafter “David”)

Lehenbauer, “Daniel Lehenbauer’s Blog: Xaml Export Script for Blender”
(January 2006) (hereinafter “Lehenbauer”)

REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1, 4–18, and 20–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sun, David, and Lehenbauer.

ANALYSIS
Regarding independent claim 1, Appellant cites portions of the Sun,
David, and Lehenbauer references (Br. 15–16) and contends that “[t]he cited
text does not show or recite ‘each of the created plurality of transform
objects corresponding to one of the dynamically generated 3D models and
being used to indicate a respective position of the transform object’s
corresponding dynamically generated 3D model in virtual space,’ as recited
in claim 1” (Br. 17). Appellant further contends “that since Sun and David
teach using a WPF format, there would be no reason to use Lehenbauer that
converts objects from a different format into WPF. Further Lehenbauer does
not input transform objects.” (Br. 17). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments.
Appeal 2012-009519
Application 11/740,518
4

First, we note that the majority of Appellant’s argument quotes
portions of the Examiner’s rejection and the references without specifically
explaining why the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 5–8) are in error and why the
references fail to disclose the argued limitations (See Br. 13–16). Merely
reciting the claim limitations without further explanation (see Br. 17) does
not suffice as persuasive argument. See Ex parte Belinne, 2009 WL
2477843, at *4 (BPAI 2009) (“Informative”) (“Weighing as a whole the
Appellants’ arguments, which are not supported by further explanation, that
the elements are missing and the Examiner’s specific and detailed findings,
we reach a conclusion that Appellants have not shown error in the
Examiner’s findings.”).
Second, Appellant’s arguments against combining Lehenbauer with
Sun and David are not persuasive. The Examiner states that one would have
used Lehenbauer’s feature of importing models dynamically in the
combination of Sun and David for “avoiding the need to load all objects into
memory ahead of their use, improving memory usage of the application”
(Ans. 6–7, 18). Appellant does not specifically explain why this reason is
insufficient for combining Lehenbauer with Sun and David. Additionally, as
the Examiner notes (Ans. 19), claim 1 does not recite importing transform
objects, and thus Appellant’s argument that “Lehenbauer does not input
transform objects” (Br. 17) is not persuasive. Moreover, the Examiner relies
on Sun, not Lehenbauer, for the limitation of “creating a plurality of 3D
transform objects” (see Ans. 5–6).
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 1, and dependent claims 4, 5, 17, 18, 21, and 22 not
specifically argued separately. Although Appellant nominally argues
Appeal 2012-009519
Application 11/740,518
5

independent claims 6 and 13 separately, the arguments presented are similar
to those presented for claim 1 (See Br. 18–24). We thus also sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 13, and claims 7–12, 14–16, 20, and 23
depending therefrom, for the reasons discussed above.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4–18, and 20–23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4–
18, and 20–23 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).

AFFIRMED

dw