Ex Parte Giroux et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 2, 2017

11622741 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2017)

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.
11/622,741 01/12/2007 Pierre-Paul GIROUX AUTO/1334US 3556
107456 7590 03/06/2017
Artegis Law Group, LLP
John Carey
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
EXAMINER
HAJNIK, DANIEL F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/06/2017 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):
algdocketing @ artegislaw. com
kcruz @ artegislaw.com
mmccauley @ artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PIERRE-PAUL GIROUX and ROBERT LANCIAULT
Appeal 2016-007149
Application 11/622,741
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 15—26, which are all the claims pending and rejected in
the application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to a
system for mapping animation from a source character to a destination
character while conserving angular configuration. See generally Spec. 1.
Claim 15 is exemplary:
1 Claims 27—29 are allowable. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2016-007149
Application 11/622,741
15. A method for retargeting an animation associated with a
character model, the method comprising:
determining a goal length for a body part included in the
character model, the body part including a plurality of bones;
determining a starting length of the body part;
determining a scale value based on the starting length of
the body part, the goal length for the body part, and an angular
configuration of a corresponding body part in a second character
model; and
resizing the body part, via a processor, by applying the
scale value to each bone included in the body part.
References and Rejections2
Claims 15, 18, 20, 21, 24, and 26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maryann Simmons et al., Model-
based Reconstruction for Creature Animation, Assoc. Comp. Mach., 139—
46, 198 (2002) (“Simmons”).
Claims 16, 17, 22, and 23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Simmons, Hunter (US 2005/0030310
Al; publ. Feb. 10, 2005), Thingvold (US 5,990,908; iss. Nov. 23, 1999), and
Geigel (US 2002/0122067 Al; publ. Sept. 5, 2002).
Claims 19 and 25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Simmons, Hunter, and Thingvold.
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
2 The Examiner withdrew the rejections of claims 21—26 under 35 U.S.C.
§101 and the objections to claims 21—26. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal 2016-007149
Application 11/622,741
appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our
analysis below.3
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 15.
I
Appellants contend Simmons does not teach “determining a scale
value based on the starting length of the body part, the goal length for the
body part, and an angular configuration of a corresponding body part in a
second character model,” as recited in claim 15 (emphasis added). See App.
Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 3—6. In particular, Appellants assert:
Simmons discloses only that bones are differentially scaled
based on scale values previously applied when transforming joint
segments of the canonical model. That is, the bones are scaled
based on other scale values — the reference is entirely silent
regarding scaling bones based on an angular configuration
associated with a body part. . . .
... Simmons is entirely silent regarding the joint hierarchy
of the target model as including any type of angular configuration
information.
App. Br. 10 (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 3^4.
[T]he portions of Simmons cited in the Examiner’s Answer fail
to disclose that bones are scaled based on an angular
configuration associated with a body part, as required by claim
15. Instead, as explicitly disclosed in the caption of Figure 4 of
Simmons (shown above), scaling is performed based on the
lengths of lines drawn between various markers, including a top
neck marker, a throat marker, a crest marker, a bottom barrel
marker, etc. The fact that scaling is performed based on line
3 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
3
Appeal 2016-007149
Application 11/622,741
measurements — and not an angular configuration of a body part
— is further evidenced by § 3.3, second paragraph of Simmons,
which states that “[t]he bone models are differentially scaled
according to the conformational scale values calculated from the
markers” .... Again, this portion of Simmons makes clear that,
in Simmons, scaling is performed based on line measurements,
not based on an angular configuration of a body part.
Reply Br. 5 (emphases omitted).
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. The Examiner finds
Simmons teaches the claimed “angular configuration,” which encompasses
“the set of angles between the bones in the skeleton of the source model” in
Simmons. Ans. 8; see also In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(whether a reference teaches a claim limitation “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’
test”) (internal citation omitted). Appellants do not offer any persuasive
substantive arguments to dispute that finding.
Further, Simmons teaches the following:
We have two methods for morphing the segment hierarchy,
depending on the form that the input measurements take. One
method accepts measured lengths of the subject’s limbs and body
dimensions. To calculate joint angles, measurements from the
corresponding surface marker location to the ground and other
reference planes, in combination with the limb lengths, can be
used to estimate the joint angles.
Simmons § 3.2 (emphases added).
Therefore, the Examiner finds Simmons teaches “determining
[segment hierarchy morphing] based on ... an angular configuration of a
corresponding body part” (emphasis added). See Ans. 7—8. Appellants do
not provide any persuasive substantive arguments to dispute that finding.
In addition, Simmons teaches “[t]he bone models are differentially
scaled according to the conformational scale values calculated from the
4
Appeal 2016-007149
Application 11/622,741
markers. These values take into consideration the scale already implicitly
applied due to the transformation resulting from the change in the joint
hierarchy.” Simmons § 3.3 (emphasis added). Based on that teaching, and
Simmons’ disclosure of determining segment hierarchy morphing based on
an angular configuration, the Examiner finds “determining a scale value
based on ... an angular configuration of a corresponding body part,” as
recited in claim 15 (emphasis added), is taught by or would have been
obvious in light of Simmons’ teachings. See Ans. 9.
Appellants do not persuasively analyze the above Simmons excerpts
in light of the Examiner’s findings, and do not persuasively show why the
Examiner’s findings are incorrect. Therefore, Appellants fail to show error
in the Examiner’s findings. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388,
391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court [or this Board] to
examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for
[patentable] distinctions over the prior art”).
In addition, Appellants’ assertion that “as explicitly disclosed in the
caption of Figure 4 of Simmons . . . scaling is performed based on the
lengths of lines drawn between various markers” (Reply Br. 5 (emphasis
omitted)) does not show Examiner error, as the caption does not state scaling
is based solely on the lengths of lines. Similarly, Appellants’ assertion that
“scaling is performed based on line measurements — and not an angular
configuration of a body part — is further evidenced by § 3.3, second
paragraph” (Reply Br. 5 (emphasis omitted)) is unpersuasive, because the
cited paragraph does not state scaling is based solely on line measurements,
and does not state scaling is not based on angular configuration.
5
Appeal 2016-007149
Application 11/622,741
II
Appellants assert the cited references do not teach “determining a
starting length of the body part,” as recited in claim 15. See App. Br. 3.
Appellants’ general assertion is unpersuasive of error. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites
will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim”);
see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that “the
Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art”).
Ill
Appellants contend Simmons does not teach “resizing the body part,
via a processor, by applying the scale value to each bone included in the
body part,” as recited in claim 15 (emphasis added). See App. Br. 12. In
particular, Appellants argue:
Simmons performs bone morphing by differentially scaling
bones based on scale values previously applied when
transforming joint segments of the canonical model. Simmons
at Section 3.3, 1 2. That is, in stark contrast to the above
limitations of claim 15, which explicitly require the same scale
value to be applied to each bone included in a body part,
Simmons discloses that different scaling values are applied to
each bone included in a body part. Thus, by stating that the bone
morphing is performed by differentially scaling bones, Simmons
is expressly teaching away from the approach recited in claim 15,
which requires the same scale value to be applied to each bone
included in a body part.
App. Br. 12.
6
Appeal 2016-007149
Application 11/622,741
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner finds:
[T]he claimed “body part including a plurality of bones” is
equated to the horse’s mid-section/trunk (also referred to as the
horse’s barrel in the reference) of the canonical/source horse
model. . . .
.... Simmons in section 3.3, 2nd paragraph states that
bone models for different portions of the horse are scale [d]
differentially. However the same scaling value is being used for
all rib bones inside the horse’s barrel or midsection. . . .
.... [Simmons’s section 3.3, 2nd paragraph states] that one
bone scale value is used to adjust multiple rib bones (such that
“bones” is stated in the plural sense). This passage indicates
Simmons is using one scale value (bs) to scale a plurality of rib
bones located in the animal’s barrel/mid-section (which
corresponds to the claimed “body part).
In section 3.3,2ndparagraph when Simmons refers to “The
bone models are differentially scaled according to the
conformational scale values calculated from the markers” . . . ,
they are referring to using different scale values for each portion
of the body has a given marker point measurement.
As shown in figure 4, there is only one marker width
measurement for the entire horse’s mid-section/barrel body part.
Thus, all rib bones in horse’s mid-section/barrel body part
receive the same scale value (bs) (using this one marker width
for that entire body part).
Ans. 10—14 (emphasis omitted).
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s above explanation.
Therefore, Appellants fail to show error in the Examiner’s findings. See
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391.
Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 15, and independent
claim 21 for similar reasons.
7
Appeal 2016-007149
Application 11/622,741
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 16—20 and 22—26, as Appellants do not advance separate substantive
arguments for those claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15—26.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8