Ex Parte Yu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2013

10039187 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2013)

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.
10/039,187 12/31/2001 Feng Yu 075635.0108 7183
7590 07/31/2013
Baker Botts L.L.P.
Suite 600
2001 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75201-2980
EXAMINER
PRENDERGAST, ROBERTA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2679
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2013 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 FENG YU, BO KYOUNG MOON,
and JEFFREY A. WEIDMAN
____________________

Appeal 2010-009505
Application 10/039,187
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009505
Application 10/039,187

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 24-46.2 Appellants cancelled claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Invention
The claims are directed to apparatus, method, and system for drafting
multi-dimensional drawings. Spec.1:4-6. Claim 24, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
24. A method for interfacing with multiple surfaces within a
computer-aided drawing environment, comprising:
using a computer system, determining that a first surface
of a drawing comprises a first plurality of curves constituting a
P x 1 surface condition, a P x 1 surface condition being defined
by a number of first curves equal to P and only one second
curve, wherein P is an integer greater than zero;
using the computer system, determining that a second
surface of a drawing comprises a second plurality of curves
constituting a first N x M surface condition, a first N x M
surface condition being defined by a number of third curves
equal to N and a number of fourth curves equal to M, wherein
N and M are integers greater than one;
using the computer system, converting the P x 1 surface
condition of the first surface into a second N x M surface
condition to match the N x M surface condition of the second
surface, the second N x M surface condition being defined by a
number of fifth curves equal to N and a number of sixth curves
equal to M, wherein N and M are integers greater than one;

1 Throughout the decision we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Dec. 15, 2009), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr. 13, 2010),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 17, 2010).
2 The Real Party in Interest is Siemens Product Lifecyle Management
Software Inc.
Appeal 2010-009505
Application 10/039,187

3
using the computer system, constructing an N x M
surface under the second N x M surface condition; and
modifying the second N x M surface to edit a drawing.

Rejections
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 24-46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Maya (Maya Unlimited 2.0, User’s Guide © 1998-1999,
http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/info/maya/manual/Masterlndex.html) and Konno
(U.S. Patent 5,619,625, Apr. 8, 1997). Ans. 4-18.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Maya and Konno fail to teach or suggest the claim
24 limitation “wherein converting the Pxl surface condition of the first
surface into a second NxM surface condition, wherein the second NxM
surface condition is converted to match the NxM surface condition of the
second surface.” App. Br. 31-32. Appellants contend the Examiner’s
reference to teachings in Konno only discusses “surface-matching
techniques” but does not teach converting one surface condition to another.
App. Br. 32.
The Examiner answers that Konno teaches adding auxiliary curves to
a surface such that the curves are continuous with an adjacent surface, which
essentially converts the surface condition of a first surface to the surface
condition of the second surface as claimed. Ans. 35 (citing Konno, col. 5, ll.
20-29 and 35-48; Spec, 14:8-31 and Fig. 2D). The Examiner asserts one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would recognize Konno’s
teaching of adding auxiliary curves to a surface such that the curves are
Appeal 2010-009505
Application 10/039,187

4
continuous with an adjacent surface, is indicative of conversion of the
surface from a first surface condition to second surface condition as
described in Appellants’ Specification. Ans. 35, 36 (citing Spec. 14:8-31
and 20:26-21:6 and Fig. 2D).
We are not persuaded by the Examiner’s position. The Examiner’s
citations to Konno refer to “the process of calculating cross boundary
derivatives along a single boundary curve for smoothly joining two surfaces
sharing this boundary curve” (Konno, col. 5, ll. 15-18). Ans. 34-35. The
Examiner’s comparison of the cited Konno method to Appellants’
Specification discussing Fig. 2D and methods of joining surfaces does not
show that Konno teaches the claimed conversion of “the P x 1 surface
condition of the first surface into a second N x M surface condition.” The
Examiner’s reference to Appellants’ Specification discussion on boundary
curves to join surfaces (Ans. 35 (citing 14:8-31, Fig. 2D)) does not fully
encompass the surface conversion of claim 24. Although Konno teaches
joining two surfaces (Konno, col. 5, ll. 15-18), the Examiner has not
sufficiently shown the conversion results in “the second N x M surface
condition being defined by a number of fifth curves equal to N and a number
of sixth curves equal to M, wherein N and M are integers greater than one”
as recited in claim 24.
We also agree with Appellants the combination of Maya and Konno
do not sufficiently teach or suggest “constructing an N x M surface under the
second N x M surface condition.” See App. Br. 33; Reply Br. 22. Although
Maya teaches that curves can be used to obtain a surface, the Examiner has
not shown that the auxiliary curves in Konno joining two surfaces are used
Appeal 2010-009505
Application 10/039,187

5
in combination with the methods of Maya to construct an N x M surface
from the converted P x 1 surface as recited in the claim. Ans. 36-37.
Based on the foregoing, the Examiner erred in finding Maya and
Konno teach or suggest the claim 24 limitations “converting the Pxl surface
condition of the first surface into a second NxM surface condition, [wherein
the second NxM surface condition is converted] to match the NxM surface
condition of the second surface” and “constructing an N x M surface under
the second N x M surface condition.” Because the “converting” and
“constructing” limitations in independent claims 24, 30, 35, and 41 (App.
Br. 39-45) are dispositive, we do not reach the Appellants’ other remaining
arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 24, 30, 35, and 41 and their respective dependent claims
25-29, 31-34, 36-40, and 42-46 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24-46 is
reversed.

REVERSED

msc