Ex Parte Zheng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2016

13235802 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/235,802 09/19/2011
28524 7590 08/10/2016
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Y efeng Zheng
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2010Pl9305 USOl 8180
EXAMINER
RUSSELL, RICHARD M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2016 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)
UNITEn STATES PATENT ANn TRA.nEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YEFENG ZHENG, YUP ANG, RUI LIAO,
MATTHIAS JOHN, JAN BOESE, SHAOHUA KEVIN
ZHOU, and DORIN COMANICIU
Appeal2014-008898
Application 13/235,802
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN F. HORVATH, KEVIN C. TROCK, and ADAM J. PYONIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1--4, 6-8, and 10-28. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Claim 5 has been canceled, and claim 9 is objected to for being dependent
on a rejected base claim, but is otherwise found allowable. See Final Act. 2,
35.
Appeal2014-008898
Application 13/235,802
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The claims are directed to a "method and system for extracting a
silhouette of a 3D mesh representing an anatomical structure." Abstract.
Claims 1, 13, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for
reference:
1. A method for extracting a silhouette of a 3D mesh
representing an anatomical structure, comprising:
projecting the 3D mesh onto a 2D image;
generating silhouette candidate edges in the projected
mesh by pruning mesh points and edges of the projected mesh
that lie completely inside a region enclosed by the projected
mesh;
splitting each silhouette candidate edge that intersects with
another edge in the projected mesh into two silhouette candidate
edges; and
extracting the silhouette using an edge following process
on the silhouette candidate edges.
References and Rejections
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal:
Greene us 5,579,455 Nov. 26, 1996
van Beek us 6,047,088 Apr. 4, 2000
Starks US 8,352,019 B2 Jan. 8,2013
Ruijters US 8,427,475 B2 Apr. 23, 2013
Hertzmann, Aaron, Introduction to 3D Non-Photorealistic Rendering:
Silhouettes and Outlines, Non-Photorealistic Rendering (1999) (hereinafter
"Hertzmann").
2
Appeal2014-008898
Application 13/235,802
Eberly, David, Clipping a Mesh Against a Plane (2002) (hereinafter
"Eberly").
Claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, 23, 26, and 27 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hertzmann and
Ruijters. Final Act. 5.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hertzmann, Ruijters, and van Beek). Final Act. 22.
Claims 2, 3, 14, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hertzmann, Ruijters, and Eberly. Final Act. 23.
Claims 6, 7, 16, 17, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hertzmann, Ruijters, and Greene. Final
Act.27.
Claims 12, 20, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hertzmann, Ruijters, and Starks. Final Act. 33.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner erred, because the cited references do
not teach or suggest the "generating silhouette candidate edges" limitation
recited by claim 1. See App. Br. 8. Particularly, Appellants contend
Hertzmann clearly does not teach "pruning mesh points and
edges of the projected mesh that lie completely inside a region
enclosed by the projected mesh," because the cited portion of
Hertzmann is directed to generating a 3D silhouette from a 3D
polygonal mesh. Since in the method of Hertzmann, the mesh is
a 3D polygonal mesh, all of the mesh points and edges are on the
surface, and there are not points and edges of the mesh that lie
completely inside a region enclosed by the mesh.
Reply Br. 5; see also App. Br. 9-10.
3
Appeal2014-008898
Application 13/235,802
We agree with Appellants. See id. Hertzmann, as cited by the
Examiner, teaches detecting silhouette edges in a mesh, in order to display a
3D object. See Hertzmann page 7-6, Figs 5, 7. Although the Examiner
correctly finds Hertzmann teaches disregarding some of the edges (see Ans.
7; Hertzmann page 7-7 ("[t]esting every mesh edge can be quite expensive.
We can speed this up by testing only a few of the edges")), these disregarded
edges are for a 3D object and therefore do not "lie completely inside a
region enclosed by the projected mesh" as required by the claim. See App.
Br. 9; see also Hertzmann page 7-6, Figs 4, 5. Thus, we agree with
Appellants that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine
Hertzmann's rendering techniques with Ruijters' teaching of displaying
anatomical silhouettes. See Reply Br. 5 ("it makes no sense for one of
ordinary skill in the art to apply the method described in the cited portions of
Hertzmann to a mesh projected onto a 2D image, as [the] method of
Hertzmann is for generating a 3D silhouette from a 3D mesh.").
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Ruijters and Hertzmann teaches or suggests all limitations
recited by claim 1. Independent claims 13 and 21 recite similar limitations
which we similarly find are not taught or suggested by the cited references.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims, and
the claims dependent thereon.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6-8, and 10-28 is reversed.
REVERSED
4