Ex Parte Kaus et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 17, 201512064368 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MICHAEL KAUS and MATTHIAS WOLFGANG MEYER ____________________ Appeal 2012-009360 Application 12/064,368 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-009360 Application 12/064,368 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1–3 and 5–16. Claim 4 is canceled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to a triangulation method of a surface of a physical object. Abst. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for producing a triangulation of a surface of a physical object, the method comprising the steps of: generating, by a processing device, an intermediate mesh representation of the surface out of surface voxels, detecting, by the processing device, at least one T-junction in the intermediate mesh representation, decomposing, by the processing device, the at least one T-junction into at least one triangle and at least one two-point- polygon, and generating, by the processing device, the triangulation of the surface out of the modelled intermediate mesh representation. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Migdal Sederberg US 6,611,267 B2 US 7,274,364 B2 Aug. 26, 2003 Sep. 25, 2007 Aaron Hertzmann, “Introduction to 3D Non-Photorealistic Rendering: Silhouettes and Outlines,” Non-Photorealistic Rendering (Siggraph 99 Course Notes), S. Green, ed., ACM Press, 1999. Nils Krahnstoever et al., “Computing Curvature-Adaptive Surface Appeal 2012-009360 Application 12/064,368 3 Triangulations of Three-Dimensional Image Data,” Visual Computer, Vol. 20, No. 1, pages 17–36, Apr. 30, 2004. Bernhard Reitinger et al., “Constructing Smooth Non-Manifold Meshes of Multi-Labeled Volumetric Datasets,” In Proc. International Conference in Central Europe on Computer Graphics, Visualization and Computer Vision, WSCG 2005, pages 227–234, Jan. 31, 2005. REJECTIONS1 The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 11–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reitinger, Sederberg, and Hertzmann. Ans. 5–8. Claims 6–9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reitinger, Sederberg, Hertzmann, and Krahnstoever. Ans. 8–10. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reitinger, Sederberg, Hertzmann, and Migdal. Ans. 11. APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS 1. Although Reitinger discloses a T-junction, because it fails to suggest a solution to the problem caused by the T-junction, “Reitinger teaches away from the recitation of claim 1 and from the purpose of the claimed invention altogether.” App. Br. 5. 2. Hertzmann’s disclosure of splitting each quadrilateral into two triangles is mesh refinement but is not equivalent to decomposing as required by claim 1. App. Br. 6. 1 Appellants argue the rejection of claim 1. Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2, 3, and 5–16. Therefore, based on Appellants’ arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1–3 and 5–16 based on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2012-009360 Application 12/064,368 4 ISSUES ON APPEAL Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4–10) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–9), the issues presented on appeal are: Whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Reitinger teaches away from the claimed invention. Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Reitinger, Sederberg , and Hertzmann teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of decomposing, by the processing device, the at least one T-junction into at least one triangle and at least one two-point-polygon as required by claim 1. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 5–11) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 17–24) and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. Appellants’ contention 1 is unpersuasive of error because there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that Reitinger teaches away from the claimed invention. “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Ricoh Appeal 2012-009360 Application 12/064,368 5 Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). Appellants fail to explain why Reitinger’s alleged failure to disclose problems caused by the T-junction and propose a solution therefore would discourage one skilled in the art from implementing a solution according to claim 1. Therefore, we disagree Reitinger teaches away as argued by Appellants. In connection with contention 2 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding “that splitting a quadrilateral with a line segment into two triangles is equivalent to decomposing as recited in claim 1.” App. Br. 6. Appellants argue: [S]eparation achieved by “splitting” is achieved by inserting something (i.e. a line segment) whereas decomposing requires a breaking up of something into its constituent parts. Hertzmann does not disclose this decomposition of a quadrilateral mesh element. Hertzmann merely inserts a line segment. In contrast, the decomposition of a T-junction breaks the T-junction apart into its constituent parts (i.e. at least one triangle and at least one two-point-polygon). App. Br. 6. The Examiner responds by finding, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the disputed limitation of “decomposing . . . the at least one T-junction into at least one triangle and at least one two-point-polygon” includes and is taught or suggested by the combination of Sederberg and Hertzmann. Ans. 6, 19. The Examiner finds Sederberg’s description of a T-junction combined with Hertzmann’s teaching of converting a quadrilateral mesh into a triangular mesh by splitting each quadrilateral into two triangles teaches or suggests the disputed decomposing limitation. The Examiner explains “[w]hether it is the line segment used to split the Appeal 2012-009360 Application 12/064,368 6 rectangle or a different line segment, there is no question that the result of the split is two triangles consisting of five line segments.” Ans. 20. The Examiner finds Appellants’ argument, that decomposing is different than splitting, unpersuasive based, at least in part, on Appellants’ Specification supporting a broader interpretation of decomposing by disclosing “that the ‘T-junction may be decomposed by detaching the polygons from each other, replacing the common edge by a 2-point polygon/line segment and attaching the polygons to the newly created 2-point polygon.’” Ans. 21 citing Spec. p. 2 ll. 27–30. We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient rebuttal evidence or argument, we agree that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the disputed limitation of “decomposing . . . the at least one T-junction into at least one triangle and at least one two-point- polygon” includes and is taught or suggested by the combination of Sederberg and Hertzmann for the reasons given by the Examiner. Appellants, for the first time in the Reply Brief, further contend error because “[t]he Examiner has not articulated any reason why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would stretch the prior art references in the Examiner’s manner.” Reply Br. 7. Because this issue was first raised in a Reply Brief, was not a response to a new argument presented by the Examiner, and Appellants have not shown any cause as to why this issue was first raised in the Reply Brief, it is untimely. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (Informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”). Therefore, this basis for asserting error is waived. See 37 Appeal 2012-009360 Application 12/064,368 7 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Furthermore, even had such arguments been timely, contrary to Appellants’ contention, we find the Examiner has articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to justify the legal conclusion of obviousness (Ans. 6–7). Therefore, Appellants’ contention that the references were improperly combined is not persuasive of error, and accordingly, the Examiner has properly relied upon the combination of Reitinger, Sederberg, and Hertzmann in formulating the disputed rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the reasons supra we are unpersuaded of Examiner error and sustain the rejections of independent claim 1 and, for the same reasons, independent claims 12–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reitinger, Sederberg, and Hertzmann together with the rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 15, and 16, which were not separately argued. We further sustain the rejection of dependent claims 6–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Reitinger, Sederberg , Hertzmann, and Krahnstoever and dependent claim 10 over Reitinger, Sederberg, Hertzmann, and Migdal, these dependent claims also not separately argued. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Appellants’ contention that Reitinger teaches away from the claimed invention. The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Reitinger, Sederberg, and Hertzmann teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of decomposing, by the processing device, the at least one T-junction into at least one triangle and at least one two-point-polygon as required by claim 1. Appeal 2012-009360 Application 12/064,368 8 DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 5–16 is affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation