Ex Parte Georgiev

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 22, 2007

09996200 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 22, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TODOR G. GEORGIEV
____________

Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: February 22, 2007
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and JAY
P. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims 1-6, 10-21, and 25-39. Claims 7-9 and
22-24 have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter (Br. 2;

Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200

2
Answer 3, 19). We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
INTRODUCTION
The claims are directed to distorting an image for visual effect.
Specifically, the invention calculates a distortion of a certain area of the
image, extracts at least one component of the distortion, and applies the
extracted component(s) to another area of the image. The user can therefore
easily select some or all of the individual distortion components via a menu
and apply the selected component(s) to other areas of the image. Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
in response to user action on a canvas, selecting at least one area of a
first image which relates to an area on a distortion grid;
using a plurality of points local to the at least one area to calculate a
distortion;
extracting at least one component of the distortion; and
applying the at least one component to a second area of the first
image.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Choi US 6,157,750 Dec. 5, 2000
Reyzin US 6,215,915 B1 Apr. 10, 2001
Bruce H. Thomas & Paul Calder, Animating Direct Manipulation Interfaces,
UIST ’95, ACM, Nov. 14-17, 1995 (“Thomas”).

James D. Foley, et al., Computer Graphics: Principles and Practice, 2d ed.,
Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Jul. 1997, pp. 206, 1104, 1108-09 (“Foley”).

Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200

3
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1-3, 10, 11, 13-18, 25, 26, 28-32, 34, 35, and 37-39 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Thomas.
2. Claims 4, 19, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Thomas in view of Reyzin.
3. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Thomas in view of Foley.
4. Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Thomas in view of Reyzin and further in view of
Foley.
5. Claims 12, 27, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Thomas in view of Choi.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellant. Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).

OPINION
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
disclosure of Thomas fully meets the invention set forth in claims 1-3, 10,
11, 13, 16-18, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35, and 37. We reach the opposite
conclusion, however, with respect to claims 14, 15, 29, 30, 38, and 39. We
also conclude that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200

4
invention set forth in claims 4, 5, 12, 19, 20, 27, 33, and 36. We reach the
opposite conclusion, however, with respect to claims 6 and 21. Accordingly,
we affirm-in-part.

Language of Claim 31
Before turning to the merits of the appeal, we first address a
discrepancy in the language of claim 31 as presented in the Brief and the
Examiner’s Answer. The Examiner alleges that claim 31 in the Brief’s
Evidence Appendix is erroneous in reciting “‘the first image being related to
an area on a distortion grid’” since the Amendment filed Dec. 29, 2003 does
not contain this limitation. The Examiner then rewrote the claim omitting
the limitation (Answer 3).
Based on the record before us, we will not adopt the Examiner’s
version of claim 31 as rewritten in the Answer and will presume the version
as presented in the Brief is correct. Although the Examiner is correct
regarding the Dec. 2003 Amendment, the language of claim 31 filed with a
subsequent Amendment contains the disputed limitation. See Amendment
filed Apr. 15, 2004. Although the inserted limitation did not strictly comply
with Amendment format requirements (i.e., the added text was not
underlined), it was nevertheless entered into the record as of the Apr. 2004
Amendment. Significantly, Appellant argued in the accompanying remarks
that the prior art did not disclose a distortion grid – a feature recited in the
newly-added limitation of claim 31. See Remarks Accompanying Apr. 2004
Amendment, at 9. Furthermore, Appellant referred to the amended version
of claim 31 in an earlier-filed Brief that the Examiner acknowledged as
correct. See Brief filed Oct. 12, 2004, at 20 (including disputed limitation in
Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200

5
claim 31); Examiner’s Answer filed Mar. 21, 2005, at 4 (acknowledging
Appellant’s claim listing in the Brief as correct).
Although Appellant did not respond to the Examiner’s redrafting of
claim 31 in the Reply Brief, we nonetheless presume that Appellant’s listing
of claim 31 in the Brief is correct based on the record before us.

Anticipation Rejection
We now consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 10, 11, 13-
18, 25, 26, 28-32, 34, 35, and 37-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Thomas. Anticipation is established only when a single prior
art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each
and every element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure
which is capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA
Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The Examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to
be fully met by the disclosure of Thomas (Answer 4-10). Regarding
representative claim 1,1 Appellant argues that Thomas does not disclose (1)
using plural points local to an area of an image to calculate distortion; (2)
extracting a component of the distortion; and (3) applying the extracted
component to a different area of the image as claimed (Br. 8). According to
Appellant, Thomas merely animates an undistorted object during its
enlargement, movement, or rotation. Appellant emphasizes that, unlike

1 Appellant indicates that claim 1 is representative of the group comprising
claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 16, 17, 25, 26, 31, 32, and 34 (Br. 8).
Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200

6
Thomas, the claimed invention stores distortion information to permit
extracting a selected distortion component (Br. 10; Reply Br. 1-3).
The Examiner responds that Thomas in Fig. 3 teaches distorting the
corner portion of the image when the user grabs a corner portion with the
mouse. As a result, all four corners are similarly distorted. Such a feature,
according to the Examiner, fully meets the disputed limitations of claim 1
(Answer 17-18).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We agree with
the Examiner that Thomas’ object animation fully meets the claim,
particularly Thomas’ animated scaling operation. As best seen in Fig. 3,
when the user grabs a corner of the image, the mouse controls the part of the
object that is grabbed, but the bulk of the image lags behind. This animation
effectively distorts the image to exaggerate the effect of scaling the image.
Significantly, the image distortion at one corner caused by moving the
mouse is essentially duplicated at the other three corners of the image
(Thomas 5; Fig. 3).
To achieve this distortion, Thomas applies a warping transformation
to the coordinate system and draws the image on the warped coordinate
system (Thomas 6). For each frame of interaction, warp vectors are
calculated and placed at vertexes of the object. A zero magnitude vector is
placed at the vertex that is grabbed by the mouse (Thomas 7; Figs. 7-8).
Thomas’ warp vector calculation, in our view, calculates a distortion
by using plural points local to at least one area of the image as claimed. In
the image shown in Fig. 3, for example, the extent of mouse movement
essentially dictates the amount of distortion. By moving the mouse in an
area adjacent to the corner region of the image, Thomas’ distortion
Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200

7
calculation inherently uses multiple points local to an area of the image as
claimed. Furthermore, the warp vectors inherently have corresponding
“components” (e.g., x and y components) that are extracted and applied to
other areas of the image to animate the image in a manner commensurate
with the desired image operation. See Thomas, Fig. 8 (showing warp
vectors at three corners of image with similar x and y components for a
move operation). This application of the “extracted” distortion component is
evident from the commensurate distortion of all four corners in Thomas’
scaling operation shown in Fig. 3.
Appellant’s argument that Thomas does not extract a component of
the distortion is simply not commensurate with the scope of the claim
language. A “component” of the distortion is fully met by a component of a
warp vector that is calculated responsive to a desired image operation.
Because Thomas discloses all limitations of representative claim 1, we
will sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of that claim. Since claim
1 is representative of the group including claims 2, 10, 11, 16, 17, 25, 26, 31,
32, and 34, those claims fall with claim 1.
Regarding claims 3, 18, and 35,2 Appellant argues that although
Thomas discloses affine transformations that can be applied to an object, the
reference does not disclose calculating an affine transform from a plurality
of points as claimed (Br. 10-11). The Examiner responds that an affine
transformation inherently involves plural points since (1) a matrix is used,
and (2) each matrix element represents a transformation of a point (Answer
18).

2 Appellant indicates that claim 3 is representative of this claim grouping
(Br. 10).
Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200

8
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 18, and 35.
Thomas’ original Transformer object supported only affine transformations
such as rotation, scaling, and translation (Thomas 7). Thomas notes that
affine mappings can be computed as matrix products in a homogeneous
coordinate system. As a result, a sequence of affine mappings can be
represented as a single matrix operation (Thomas 8). Although warp
mapping is not affine, it is nevertheless combined with affine
transformations in a process that applies each transformation in turn (Id.). In
our view, Thomas’ scaling operation with affine transformation that utilizes
a matrix (i.e., a plurality of points) and which also warps the image fully
meets calculating an affine transform from the plurality of points as claimed
given the scope and breadth of the limitation. The Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 3, 18, and 35 is therefore sustained.
Regarding claims 13, 28, and 37,3 Appellant argues that Thomas does
not disclose extracting a component of distortion, much less applying the
extracted component to the entire image. The Examiner responds by noting
that the entire object in Fig. 1 is distorted. The Examiner also refers to Figs.
3 and 4 (Answer 18).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 28, and 37.
For the reasons previously discussed, we find that Thomas reasonably
teaches extracting and applying a component of distortion.4 For example,
Thomas’ scaling operation in Fig. 3 and movement operation in Fig. 8
applies the distortion component to the entire image. Because all limitations

3 Appellant indicates that claim 13 is representative of this claim grouping
(Br. 11).
4 See P. 6-7, supra, of this decision.
Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200

9
are fully met by Thomas, we will sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 13, 28, and 37.
Regarding claims 14, 15, 29, 30, 38, and 39,5 Appellant argues that
Thomas does not disclose extracting a component of distortion, much less
applying the extracted component to a second image (Br. 12). The
Examiner contends that because Thomas’ editor can create figures such as
lines and polygons, the reference “implies a plurality of objects can exist on
a display” (Answer 18).
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 15, 29, 30,
38, and 39. Significantly, claim 14 effectively requires applying the at least
one component to two images: a first image and a second image.
Independent claim 1 recites that the extracted component is applied to a
second area of the first image. Claim 14 depends from claim 1 and recites
applying the extracted component to a second image. Thus, dependent claim
14 effectively requires applying the component to a second image in
addition to the first image.
Turning to Thomas, nothing in the reference expressly or inherently
teaches this limitation. At best, Thomas applies an extracted distortion
component to a single image – not multiple images. Even if Thomas’ editor
can edit and display multiple objects as the Examiner alleges, such a
multiple-image display hardly requires applying a distortion component
extracted from one image and applying that extracted component to the same
image and another image as claimed.

5 Appellant indicates that claim 14 is representative of this claim grouping
(Br. 12).
Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200

10
Because Thomas fails to disclose all limitations of representative
claim 14, we will not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims
14, 15, 29, 30, 38, and 39.

Obviousness Rejections
We now consider the rejection of claims 4, 19, and 366 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Thomas in view of Reyzin. In
rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the Examiner
to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir.
1988). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the applicant to
overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness
is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative
persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding representative claim 4, the Examiner's rejection essentially
finds that Thomas teaches every claimed feature except extracting further
comprising decomposing the affine transform into a translation and a linear
transform matrix. The Examiner cites Reyzin as teaching such a feature and
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to incorporate such a teaching into Thomas’

6 Appellant indicates that claim 4 is representative of this claim grouping
(Br. 13).
Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200

11
image distortion method to enhance analysis of the transformation (Answer
10-11, 19). Appellant argues that the prior art does not disclose or suggest
extracting a component of a distortion by calculating an affine transform
from a plurality of points, much less decomposing the affine transform into a
translation and a linear transform matrix (Br. 13-14).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 19, and 36. We
first note that Thomas reasonably discloses extracting a component of a
distortion by calculating an affine transform from a plurality of points for the
reasons previously discussed.7 Reyzin discloses an affine transformation of
an image to be concurrently rotated, scaled, or otherwise transformed. To
this end, Reyzin provides a sequence of one-dimensional affine
transformations along different axes that more efficiently executes general
affine transforms (Reyzin, abstract; col. 2, ll. 5-26). As the Examiner
indicates, Reyzin’s affine transformation utilizes a transformation matrix, M,
and an offset (x0, y0). Such a teaching, in our view, would have amply
suggested resolving an affine transformation into a linear transform matrix
and a translation as claimed. Moreover, Appellant has simply not rebutted
the Examiner’s rationale for combining Reyzin with Thomas – a position
that we find reasonable. The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 4,
19, and 36 is therefore sustained.
We next consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Thomas in view of Foley. Regarding
claim 5, the Examiner finds that Thomas discloses all claimed subject matter
except for the extraction of magnification comprising calculating the
determinant of a linear transform matrix. The Examiner cites Foley as

7 See P. 8, supra, of this opinion.
Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200

12
teaching that the determinant of a matrix indicates the extent of expansion or
contraction of a cube. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
incorporate Foley’s teaching in Thomas’ method to determine transform
magnification (Answer 13, 19).
Appellant argues that neither Thomas nor Foley extract a
magnification component of a distortion by calculating an affine transform
from a plurality of points and calculating the determinant of a linear
transformation matrix as claimed (Br. 14-15).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5. Appellant has
simply not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness apart from merely arguing that the prior art does not disclose or
suggest the claimed limitations. We see no reason why the skilled artisan
would not have relied on the teachings of Foley in calculating a determinant
of the matrix and apply such a teaching in Thomas’ method essentially for
the reasons stated by the Examiner. The Examiner’s prima facie case based
on the combined teachings of the cited references has not been rebutted.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5. Since
claim 5 is representative of the group comprising claims 5 and 20,8 we
likewise sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20.
Regarding claim 6, the Examiner finds that Thomas discloses all of
the claimed subject matter except the extraction of rotation comprising
calculating an angle from the elements of a linear transform matrix. The
Examiner cites Foley as teaching deriving an angle of rotation from an affine

8 Appellant indicates that claim 5 is representative of the group consisting of
claims 5 and 20 (Br. 14).
Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200

13
transformation. The Examiner then concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
incorporate such a teaching into Thomas’ method to determine the amount
of rotation due to the transformation (Answer 12-13).
Appellant argues that although Foley derives a rotation equation, the
prior art does not disclose extracting a rotation component of a distortion by
calculating an angle from the elements of a linear transform (Br. 15). The
Examiner responds that the rotation angle θ in Foley “can be derived by
simple mathematical manipulation” (Answer 19).
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. Although
Foley discloses a method for deriving an equation for rotating points of an
image through an angle θ, the reference does not disclose calculating the
angle from the elements of a linear transform matrix as claimed. Rather,
Foley states that positive angles of rotation are measured counterclockwise
from x towards y (Foley, Equations (5.6) through (5.9); Figs. 5.3-5.4).
Although the skilled artisan could rearrange Foley’s equations to
solve for the rotation angle θ in terms of the other variables, the Examiner
has simply not articulated on this record – nor can we ascertain – how such
an angle calculation would be combinable with Thomas’ distortion
component extraction method utilizing a matrix-based affine transformation
and which also warps the image. Merely because all claimed elements or
steps appear in the prior art is not per se sufficient to establish that it would
have been obvious to combine those elements. United States v. Adams, 383
U.S. 39 (1966). See also Smith Industries Medical Systems, Inc. v. Vital
Signs, Inc., 183 F.3d 1347, 1356, 51 USPQ2d 1415, 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200

14
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 6 is therefore reversed.
Since claim 6 is representative of the group comprising claims 6 and 21,9 we
likewise reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21.
We next consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 27, and 3310
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Thomas in view of Choi.
Regarding representative claim 12, the Examiner finds that Thomas
discloses all claimed subject matter except for the user selecting the area for
applying by the location of a virtual brush. The Examiner cites Choi as
disclosing such a feature and concludes that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate
such a teaching in Thomas to select a desired amount of transformation area
(Answer 15). Appellant argues that Choi does not disclose a virtual brush
that enables the user to select the area to which the extracted component is
applied (Br. 17). The Examiner responds that since both a conventional
computer mouse and a virtual brush are used for pointing purposes, it would
have been obvious to the skilled artisan to replace the mouse with a virtual
brush for pointing purposes (Answer 20).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 27, and 33. At
the outset, we note that the term “virtual brush” is extremely broad. In
interpreting the term “virtual brush,” we note that Appellant’s Specification
states that virtual brush shapes can be a circle, square, or a single pixel
(Specification 3:16-19; emphasis added). In our view, a computer mouse,

9 Appellant indicates that claim 6 is representative of the group consisting of
claims 6 and 21 (Br. 15).
10 Appellant indicates that claim 12 is representative of this claim grouping
(Br. 16).
Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200

15
such as that used in Thomas,11 reasonably meets this description. In short,
we find that Thomas alone amply would have suggested using a “virtual
brush” to select the area for applying the distortion component. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection based on the teachings of
Thomas alone because the Board may rely on fewer references than the
Examiner in affirming a multiple-reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67 (CCPA 1961); In re
Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2, 150 USPQ 441, 444 n.2 (CCPA 1966).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections with respect to claims 1-5, 10-13,
16-20, 25-28, and 31-37. However, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 6, 14, 15, 21, 29, 30, 38, and 39. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.

11 See Thomas 5, col. 2, ll. 5-6 (noting that the part of the object that is
“grabbed” is controlled by a mouse).
Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200

16
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) (2004).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

kis

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022