Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2021

2020004144 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2021)

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.
15/500,820 01/31/2017 Jinman Kang 84593392 7257
22879 7590 09/30/2021
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
Fort Collins, CO 80528-9544
EXAMINER
CHANG, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2021 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
jessica.pazdan@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JINMAN KANG
Appeal 2020-004144
Application 15/500,820
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–11, and 13–20, all of the
pending claims. Claims App. Claims 4 and 12 are canceled. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, L.P. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-004144
Application 15/500,820

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Specification states:
Examples described herein may include a computing system that
may include a movable surface .and a model acquisition engine
to acquire three-dimensional model data representing a first
object disposed on the movable surface, The computing system
may also include a communication engine to send the model data
to another computing system and to receive from tile other
computing system manipulation data associated with the model
data. The computing system may further include a movement and
projection engine to move the movable surface in accordance
with the received manipulation data.
Spec. ¶ 16. The Specification further states that “[e]xamples described
herein may allow users of computing systems communicatively connected
through a network to collaborate on projects such as projects involving
designing an image to be applied to a three-dimensional object.” Spec. ¶ 15.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computing system comprising:
a movable surface;
a processor; and
a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions
executable on the processor to:
acquire three-dimensional model data representing
a first object disposed on the movable surface;
send the model data to another computing system
and receive, from the other computing system,
manipulation data comprising image data applied by the
other computing system to the model data;
control movement of the movable surface in
accordance with the image data applied by the other
computing system to the model data; and
Appeal 2020-004144
Application 15/500,820

3
cause projection of the image data applied at the
other computing system onto the first object disposed on
the movable surface.
Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix i).
REFERENCES2
Name Reference Date
Dodge US 2004/0037459 A1 Feb. 26, 2004
Matsui US 2006/0221098 A1 Oct. 5, 2006
Ito US 2008/0246757 A1 Oct. 9, 2008
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 5–7, 10, 11, 13–16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Ito and Dodge. Final Act. 5–19.
Claims 8, 9, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dodge and Ito. Final Act. 20–23.
Claims 17 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ito, Dodge, and Matsui. Final Act. 23–26.
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Dodge teaches or
suggests “send the model data to another computing system and receive,
from the other computing system, manipulation data comprising image data
applied by the other computing system to the model data,” as recited in
claim 1?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Dodge and Ito teach
or suggest “control movement of the movable surface to orient the first

2 Reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-004144
Application 15/500,820

4
object so that the projector is able to project the image data applied at the
other computing system on a target portion of the first object,” as recited in
claim 5?
ANALYSIS
First Issue
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings
of Ito and Dodge. The Examiner finds Ito teaches or suggests a computing
system comprising a movable surface, a processor, [and] instructions
executable on a computer to (Ito ¶¶ 30, 37–40): acquire three-dimensional
model data representing a first object disposed on the moveable surface (Ito
¶¶ 42–45), control movement of the movable surface (Ito ¶ 42), and to cause
projection of the first object disposed on the movable surface (Ito ¶¶ 85–87).
Final Act. 5–6.
The Examiner finds that Ito does not explicitly disclose that the
computer system is configured to “send the model data to another computing
system and receive, from the other computing system, manipulation data
comprising image data applied by the other computing system to the model
data,” and cites Dodge’s description of transmitting generated 3D image data
to a third-party computer for user manipulation, to address this deficiency.
Final Act. 7 (citing Dodge ¶¶ 120–121).
The Examiner further finds Ito does not disclose that its controlling of
movement of the movable surface is performed “in accordance with the
image data applied by the other computing system to the model data.” Final
Act. 6 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner relies again on Dodge, finding
this limitation taught by Dodge’s description of the use of a photographic
mat on which an object is moved, translated, and rotated according to user
Appeal 2020-004144
Application 15/500,820

5
defined changes to the position and orientation of the object. Final Act. 7
(citing Dodge ¶¶ 74–76, 117–122, and 216).
Finally, the Examiner also finds Ito deficient because, although it
generally teaches projecting images, it does not teach the limitation “cause
projection of the image data applied at the other computing system onto the
first object disposed on the movable surface.” Final Act. 6 (emphasis
omitted). The Examiner turns again to Dodge, finding that its description of
the third party computer receiving and displaying image data resultant from
user-defined changes teaches or suggests this limitation. Final Act. 7 (citing
Dodge ¶¶ 74–76, 117–122, and 216).
The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art “to modify the computing system disclosed by Ito to
incorporate and implement the user interface for a user to define positions
and orientations of a displayed object in Dodge, [thereby] allowing for users
to inspect objects in greater detail than with a mere number of fixed images
of an article.” Final Act. 7–8 (citing Dodge ¶ 2). The Examiner further
reasons that “the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements,
and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same
function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.” Final
Act. 8.
Appellant challenges the conclusion of obviousness. Specifically,
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding that Dodge teaches the
limitation “send the model data to another computing system and receive,
from the other computing system, manipulation data comprising image data
applied by the other computing system to the model data,” and also erred in
Appeal 2020-004144
Application 15/500,820

6
finding Dodge teaches or suggests, “control movement of the movable
surface in accordance with the image data applied by the other computing
system to the model data.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant notes that “in Dodge,
the rotation of the ‘photographic mat 24 with subject object 210 thereon’
occurs during recording of the subject object by the ‘camera 16’ of Dodge.”
Appeal Br. 6 (quoting Dodge ¶ 75). Thus, Appellant argues, Dodge’s
control of the movement of the object occurs in connection with recording of
the object, and not as a result of manipulation data received from an external
system subsequent to the recording of the object. Appeal Br. 6–7.
Appellant further argues that any user manipulation described in
Dodge results only in a change to the rendering of an object, and not to the
physical positioning of the object on the mat. Appeal Br. 7–8. According to
Appellant, “it is apparent that the user instructions in Dodge cause the
processing apparatus . . . to change a rendering (i.e., a display) of the 3-D
computer model, and does not cause a change in recording the subject
object in which movement of the movable surface is controlled.” Appeal
Br. 8.
Appellant further asserts that even when considered in combination,
Ito and Dodge do not teach the disputed limitations, because the
combination would have merely provided “a table rotation controller that
‘rotates the turntable 31 through servo control’ for ‘scanning the object’ (Ito
¶ 42), and changing the rendering (i.e., display) of a model based on a user
instruction (Dodge ¶ 42).” Appeal Br. 8.
We are not persuaded of error. Ito discloses a “3D image generation
and display system that generates a three-dimensional (3D) object for
displaying various photographic images and computer graphics models in
Appeal 2020-004144
Application 15/500,820

7
3D, and for editing and processing the 3D objects for drawing and
displaying 3D scenes in a Web browser.” Ito ¶ 2. Ito generally describes
the use of a 3D scanner that acquires 3D model data representing an object
positioned on a movable surface. Ito ¶¶ 42–45. Ito discloses a “turntable
that supports an object . . . and rotates 360° for scanning the object.” Ito
¶ 42 (reference numerals omitted). Thus, Ito teaches a 3-D imaging system
that provides the ability to manipulate the position of a scanned object.
Dodge also teaches a 3-D scanning system that “record[s] images of
an object and the process[es] the image data to determine the position and
orientation at which the images were recorded, to generate data defining a
three-dimensional (3D) computer model of the object, and to display images
of the 3D computer model.” Dodge ¶ 1. Dodge teaches that “data defining
the 3D computer model . . . is sent to a third-party apparatus . . . so that the
user of the third-party apparatus can view images of the 3D computer
model.” Dodge ¶ 110. Dodge further teaches that user may “input
instructions defining changes in the position and orientation of the subject
object . . . and generate[] and display[] image data in accordance with these
instructions.” Dodge ¶ 115. Once the third-party processing apparatus in
Dodge has received user input instructions, Dodge teaches that the third-
party apparatus “transmits the user instructions to the processing apparatus
[i.e., the scanning computer] storing the data defining the 3D computer
model.” Dodge ¶ 121. Thus, Dodge demonstrates that it was known in the
art to send model data to an external computer system, where that model
data is manipulated and then returned to the originating system.
Taken together, we agree with the Examiner that the teachings of Ito
and Dodge teach or suggest the argued limitations. Ito demonstrates that it
Appeal 2020-004144
Application 15/500,820

8
was known in the art for a 3D scanning system to include a support platform
that allows controlled movement and rotation of the turntable in connection
with acquiring three-dimensional model data. Dodge demonstrates that it
was known in the art to send acquired model data to another computing
system where that model data may be manipulated via image data. A person
of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that manipulations to the
digital 3D model data, such as changes to the position and orientation of the
object represented in the model data, as taught by Dodge, may be
transmitted back to the scanning computer, and that the scanning computer
via its control of the turntable platform, would change the position of the
object on the turntable to reflect the changes made.
Appellant argues that Dodge teaches only that changes made to the
object model are reflected in the rendering of the 3-D model image on a
display. However, the Examiner does not rely on Dodge exclusively for
teaching the effect of the manipulations to the 3-D model. Rather, the
Examiner relies on Ito’s turntable movement control capability in
combination with Dodge’s data manipulations. Appellant further contends
that Dodge’s only disclosure of rotating an object occurs during the
recording of the object, and not subsequent to any user made to an already
recorded object. Reply Br. 4. However, as we note above, Ito demonstrates
that it was known in the art to have controllable turntable that allows for
repositioning of objects placed upon it. Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that the disputed limitation is merely a combination of Dodge’s known data
manipulation and Ito’s known ability to maneuver and reposition an object
on its turntable, a combination of old elements in which each element merely
would have performed the same function as it did separately. Appellant
Appeal 2020-004144
Application 15/500,820

9
provides no argument or evidence that the results of implementing Dodge’s
data manipulation with Ito’s turntable would be unpredictable, and we agree
with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
that the results of the combination were predictable.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred in rejecting
claim 1, and we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Second Issue
Claim 5 depends from claim 1, and recites “control movement of the
movable surface to orient the first object so that the projector is able to
project the image data applied at the other computing system on a target
portion of the first object.” Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix ii). The Examiner
relies on the combined teachings of Dodge and Ito for this limitation. Final
Act. 10–11.
Appellant argues Ito is deficient because “[a]s depicted in Fig. 12 of
Ito, the projector screen 101 is a fixed projector screen, and the projectors
106 and 107 project images onto this fixed projector screen. There is no
indication that the projector screen would be rotated.” Reply Br. 9.
We are not persuaded of error. To the extent there is any difference
between Ito’s projection system and that recited in claim 5, it is merely a
difference in the receiving medium for the projected image. We agree with
the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to
have modified Ito’s projector to project an output image using the object as
the projection medium. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 5, and we sustain its rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2020-004144
Application 15/500,820

10
Remaining Claims
Appellant presents no separate arguments for patentability of any
other claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these
claims for the reasons stated with respect to the independent claims from
which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–7,
10, 11, 13–
16, 18
103 Ito, Dodge 1–3, 5–7,
10, 11, 13–
16, 18

8, 9, 19 103 Dodge, Ito 8, 9, 19
17, 20 103 Ito, Dodge, Matsui 17, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–11,
13–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED