Ex Parte Winder

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 6, 2017

13566796 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 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.
13/566,796 08/03/2012 Simon A. J. Winder 336481.01 1375
69316 7590 03/08/2017
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
YANG, YI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2017 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):
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
chriochs @microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SIMON A. J. WINDER
Appeal 2016-006946
Application 13/566,796
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1,5,9, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious overFu (US 2011/0304619 Al; Dec. 15, 2011) andBaumberg ’216
(US 2002/0186216 Al; Dec. 12, 2002). Final Act. 2-4.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Fu,
Baumberg ’216, and Baumberg ’452 (US 2005/0052452 Al; Mar. 10, 2005).
Final Act. 5.
Appeal 2016-006946
Application 13/566,796
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Fu, Baumberg ’216, and Shen (US 2010/0303303 Al; Dec. 2, 2010).
Final Act. 5—6.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Fu, Baumberg ’216, and Besl (US 2004/0217956 Al; Nov. 4,
2004). Final Act. 6-7.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Fu, Baumberg ’216, and Ozdac (US 8,441,482 B2; May 14, 2013).
Final Act. 7—8.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Fu, Baumberg ’216, and Schmidt (US 2013/0257853 Al; Oct. 3, 2013).
Final Act. 8—9.
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to “refining a 3D point cloud or other 3D
input model to generate a smoothed and denoised 3D output model.”
Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below, with the key disputed
limitation emphasized:
1. A computer-implemented process for smoothing 3D models,
comprising using a computer to perform process actions for:
receiving a set of 3D input points representing a 3D input model;
using the set of 3D input points to determine a set of the nearest j
neighbors of each input point;
for each input point, fitting a corresponding plane in 3D space to the
point and its set of nearest j neighbors;
2
Appeal 2016-006946
Application 13/566,796
creating a set of 3D output points by projecting each input point onto
its corresponding plane;
using the set of 3D output points to determine a set of the nearest k
neighbors of each output point;
for each output point, fitting a corresponding plane in 3D space to the
point and its set of nearest k neighbors;
for each output point, computing a corresponding surface normal from
the corresponding plane; and
wherein the set of 3D output points and corresponding surface
normals represent a smoothed 3D output model.
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 5,9,12, and 16 over Fu and
Baumberg ’216
The Examiner finds Fu and Baumberg ’216 teach all limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 2-4; see also Ans. 9—14. Specifically, the Examiner
finds Fu teaches all limitations of claim 1, except for the key disputed
limitation, which the Examiner finds is taught by Baumberg ’216. Final Act.
3. The Examiner reasons: “it would [have been] obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify Fu’s
[method] to combine 3D smoothing system with projecting each input point
as taught by Baumberg [’216] to output 3D image precisely and accurately,
reducing processing times.” Final Act. 4.
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
3
Appeal 2016-006946
Application 13/566,796
i.
Baumberg does not project input points to a plane fit to each
input point and its set of neighbors to create an output point, as
claimed. In fact, it should be clear that projecting points to into
a 3D space based on point depth values and camera
parameters is simply not equivalent or suggestive (either
mathematically, conceptually, or grammatically), of fitting a
separate plane to each different set of points and then
projecting each point to its corresponding plane, as claimed.
App. Br. 12.
ii.
[T]he mere fact that Fu fits planes to points, while Baumberg
projects points based on depth maps and camera parameters
fails completely to provide any causal or logical link that would
suggest to one skilled in the art that it would be obvious to project
input points to planes that were created from those input points
in order to generate a new set of output points.
App. Br. 14.
Appellant’s arguments persuade us the Examiner erred in finding
Baumberg ’216 teaches the key disputed limitation. We do not agree with
the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Fu (148) discloses: “The normal of each point in the cloud is
estimated by fitting a tangent plane to the neighbors of the point.”
Thus, we find Fu describes the recited (claim 1):
using the set of 3D [] points to determine a set of the
nearest k neighbors of each [] point;
for each [] point, fitting a corresponding plane in 3D space
to the point and its set of nearest k neighbors;
for each [] point, computing a corresponding surface
normal from the corresponding plane; and
wherein the set of 3D [] points and corresponding surface
normals represent a smoothed 3D output model.
4
Appeal 2016-006946
Application 13/566,796
However, we recognize that the set of 3D points used to compute the
surface normals, when claim 1 is considered as a whole, are a set of 3D
output points resulting from a nearest-neighbor filtering operation performed
on a set of 3D input points. This relationship is recited in claim 1 (emphasis
added):
receiving a set of 3D input points representing a 3D input
model;
using the set of 3D input points to determine a set of the
nearest j neighbors of each input point;
for each input point, fitting a corresponding plane in 3D
space to the point and its set of nearest j neighbors;
creating a set of 3D output points by projecting each input
point onto its correspondingplane[.\
Fu’s computation of surface normals does not use a set of 3D output
points resulting from a nearest-neighbor filtering operation performed on a
set of 3D input points to compute the surface normals. Rather, Fu’s
computation of surface normal uses the set of 3D input points themselves.
See Fu H 46-A8.
Further, with regard to Baumberg ’216, we agree with Appellant that
Baumberg ’216 does not disclose the key disputed limitation. In the Final
Action, the Examiner refers to Baumberg ’216’s projecting of points. See
Final Act. 3 (citing Baumberg ’216 196). Baumberg ’216 (196) discloses:
“polyhedron generator 3070 projects each vertex of the triangulation into 3D
space in dependence upon the depth value of the pixel containing the vertex,
the position and orientation of the depth map and the camera parameters
defined in the input data.” We do not see, on this record, any explanation of
how or why Baumberg ’216’s projecting of points into 3D space projects
each vertex onto a corresponding plane as claimed.
5
Appeal 2016-006946
Application 13/566,796
Further, although we recognize that a skilled artisan may desire
precise and accurate 3D models (see Final Act. 4), we do not see on this
record how or why this general desire (or Baumberg ’216’s projecting of
points) would motivate a skilled artisan to modify Fu as proposed by the
Examiner, absent the use of impermissible hindsight.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or
of claim 5, which depends from claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9, which
recites “create a set of 3D output points by projecting each input point onto
its corresponding plane,” or of claim 12, which depends from claim 9. See
Final Act. 3 (citing Baumberg ’216 196).
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16, which
recites “creating a set of output 3D points by projecting each input point
onto its corresponding plane along a surface normal of that plane.” See
Final Act. 3 (citing Baumberg ’216 196).
The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 10 overFu, Baumberg ’216, and
Baumberg ’452
Claim 10 depends from claim 9.
The Examiner does not find Baumberg ’452 overcomes the
deficiencies of Fu and Baumberg ’216 discussed above. See Final Act. 5.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 4,11, and 18 over Fu, Baumberg
’216, and Shen
Claims 4, 11, and 18 variously depend from claims 1, 9, and 16.
6
Appeal 2016-006946
Application 13/566,796
The Examiner does not find Shen overcomes the deficiencies of Fu
and Baumberg ’216 discussed above. See Final Act. 5—6.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 11,
and 18.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2,3, 6,13,17, and 19 over Fu,
Baumberg ’216, and Besl
Claims 2, 3, 6, 13, 17, and 19 variously depend from claims 1, 9, and
16.
The Examiner does not find Besl overcomes the deficiencies of Fu
and Baumberg ’216 discussed above. See Final Act. 6—7.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3,
6, 13, 17, and 19.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 7,14, and 20 over Fu, Baumberg
’216, AND OZDAC
Claims 7, 14, and 20 variously depend from claims 1, 9, and 16.
The Examiner does not find Ozdac overcomes the deficiencies of Fu
and Baumberg ’216 discussed above. See Final Act. 7—8.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 14,
and 20.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 8 and 15 over Fu, Baumberg
’216, and Schmidt
Claims 8 and 15 variously depend from claims 1 and 9, respectively.
7
Appeal 2016-006946
Application 13/566,796
The Examiner does not find Schmidt overcomes the deficiencies of Fu
and Baumberg ’216 discussed above. See Final Act. 8—9.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and
15.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
8