Jeffrey Voris et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 12, 2019

14460332 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2019)

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.
14/460,332 08/14/2014 Jeffrey Voris DISNEY-0890-US 3732
94468 7590 08/12/2019
DISNEY ENTERPRISES INC.
c/o Patent Ingenuity, P.C.
9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
EXAMINER
LAM, ANDREW H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2675
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2019 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):
patents@patentingenuity.com
ssimpson@patentingenuity.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JEFFREY VORIS, DAVID CRAWFORD,
BENJAMIN CHRISTEN, and JORGE ALTED
____________________

Appeal 2018-008941
Application 14/460,3321
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–25. App. Br. 6. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 According to Appellants, Disney Enterprises, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company, is the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-008941
Application 14/460,332

2
Disclosed Invention and Exemplary Claim
The disclosed invention relates to 3D printer configurations for
printing an object based on a 3D digital model. Spec. ¶ 5. Typically, a user
scans the object with a scanner, and a 3D model is generated by the scanner
itself or a connected computer. Id. However, current scanner accessories
typically generate a low resolution model, which causes the printer to print a
low quality copy of the object. Id. ¶ 6. Appellants seek to improve the
quality of the printed copy by performing object recognition on either the
object or the 3D model, and retrieving a high resolution model based upon
the recognized object. Id. ¶ 7.
Independent claim 1 is exemplary of the disclosed invention, and
reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
scanning an object to generate a first 3D digital model of
the object;
sending data corresponding to the first 3D digital model
to a server that is in communication with a database of 3D
digital models of a plurality of objects;
receiving a second 3D digital model of the object from
the server based upon a matching of the first 3D digital model
and the second 3D digital model, the second 3D digital model
having a higher resolution of the object than the first 3D digital
model; and
printing a 3D replica of the object based upon the second
3D digital model.
Independent claims 10, 19, and 20 recite limitations commensurate
with the limitations recited in claim 1. Dependent claims
2–5 and 11–14 each incorporate the limitations of their respective
independent claims.
Appeal 2018-008941
Application 14/460,332

3
Independent claim 6 recites limitations that do not include the
requirement claim 1 of a second 3D digital model having a higher resolution
of the object than the first 3D digital model. Claim 6 reads as follows:
6. A method comprising:
scanning an object to generate scanned data;
sending the scanned data to a server that is in
communication with a database of 3D digital models of a
plurality of objects;
receiving a 3D digital model of the object from the server
based upon an object recognition of the object that is
determined from the scanned data; and
printing a 30 replica of the object based upon the 3D
digital model.
Independent claims 6, 15, and 21 recite limitations
commensurate with the limitations recited in claim 6. Dependent
claims 7–9, 16–18, and 22–25 each incorporate the limitations of their
respective independent claims.
Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Mueller (US 2011/0161056 A1; published June 30, 2011) in
view of Carlin (US 2014/0125649 A1; published May 8, 2014).

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection (Final Act. 3–10) in light
of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred (App. Br. 6–10).
Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
contentions (Ans. 10–12), and the Appellants’ Reply Brief.
Appeal 2018-008941
Application 14/460,332

4
Claims 1–5, 10–14 and 19–20
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Mueller to teach or
suggest scanning an object to generate a 3D digital model of the object, and
printing a 3D replica of the object. Final Act. 3 (citing Mueller ¶¶ 20, 39).
The Examiner determines that Carlin teaches or suggests sending a 3D scene
file to a server in communication with a database of 3D models of a plurality
of objects. Id. at 4 (citing Carlin ¶ 90). The Examiner further determines
that Carlin teaches or suggests receiving a photorealistic image based in part
on a second, high resolution 3D digital model of the object from the server.
Final Act. 4 (citing Carlin ¶¶ 50–53). The Examiner interprets this teaching
or suggestion of Carlin as teaching the limitation of returning a high
resolution image from a server to the client device in order to print in high
resolution, which the Examiner determines to be lacking in Mueller. Ans.
11.
Appellants contend, inter alia, that Carlin teaches, at most, creation of
a photorealistic image in which portions of a stand-in 3D model are replaced
with portions of a high resolution 3D model, and sending the photorealistic
image to the user. App. Br. 7–8. Appellants argue that this does not provide
the high resolution 3D model to the user so as to permit the user to print a
3D replica of the model. Id.; Reply Br. 2. Appellants further contend that
provision of the 3D model, by itself, to the user would not have been
obvious from the combination of Carlin and Mueller, because Carlin
“emphasizes strictly prohibiting direct access to higher resolution 3D models
by a client device – only the secure server is permitted to store and access
such higher resolution 3D models.” App. Br. 6–7.
Appeal 2018-008941
Application 14/460,332

5
With respect to claim 1, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
Carlin states that a user submits a scene (such as a bathroom interior) having
a low-resolution object (such as a sink faucet) to a server; the server replaces
the low-resolution generic sink faucet image with a high resolution, branded
sink faucet image to create a photorealistic image of the bathroom interior
with the branded sink faucet, and sends the photorealistic image to the user.
Carlin ¶¶ 42–43. However, as argued by Appellants, Carlin does not teach
that a 3D model of a branded sink faucet is to be sent to the user. App. Br.
8. Instead, Carlin states that the 3D models used for replacement of the
lower-resolution models are to remain secure on the server so as to prevent
the creation of unauthorized copies of the real objects they represent. Carlin
¶ 54. Carlin also states that permitting the 3D models to be downloaded
would threaten the security of the 3D model, which may be expensive and
proprietary, facilitate unauthorized reversed engineering of the object by a
competitor, result in time- and bandwidth-consuming downloads of 3D
models if not stored on the server for rendering, and increase the difficulty in
ensuring that each 3D model is the current version. Carlin ¶¶ 42–45.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that Carlin, while providing a
photorealistic image including high-resolution portions of objects, does not
teach or suggest receiving a higher resolution 3D digital model of a
submitted lower-resolution image of the object so as to enable printing a 3D
replica of the object based on the higher-resolution 3D digital model.
Claims 2–5, 10–14 and 19–20 also require a 3D printer to receive or
to have been sent a second, higher resolution 3D digital model, and
Appellants’ arguments are persuasive with respect to those claims for the
same reasons as for claim 1.
Appeal 2018-008941
Application 14/460,332

6
Claims 6–9, 15–18, and 21–25
With respect to claims 6–9, 15–18, and 21–25, however, the claims do
not recite replacement of a lower-resolution model with a higher-resolution
model. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments with respect to Carlin’s lack of
teaching sending or receiving a higher-resolution model are not persuasive
to show error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellants additionally argue, with respect to all of the claims, that
Carlin teaches, at best, sending or receiving a 2D, not a 3D model. App. Br.
8. The Examiner has stated that Carlin teaches or suggests that “the user
may transfer to his own, client, computer the low-resolution stand-in model
and texture.” Final Act. 2 (citing Carlin ¶¶ 50–53). Carlin states that the
low-resolution model is a 3D model. Carlin ¶¶ 49–50. Accordingly, we are
not persuaded that Carlin fails to teach sending or receiving a (low-
resolution) 3D model. Furthermore, Appellants admit that users are
permitted to freely access these low-resolution models. App. Br. 7.
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments on appeal, i.e., that Carlin does
not teach downloading 3D models, and that Carlin teaches away from
downloading high-resolution 3D models, are not persuasive. We, therefore,
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6–9, 15–18, and 21–25.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 10–14, and 19–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6–9, 15–18, and 21–25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2018-008941
Application 14/460,332

7
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-IN-PART