Mehmet Ersin. Yumer

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2020

15059067 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2020)

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.
15/059,067 03/02/2016 Mehmet Ersin Yumer P5964-US 5089
108982 7590 04/02/2020
SBMC
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
YANG, YI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2020 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):
docket@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MEHMETERSIN YUMER
____________________

Appeal 2018-008361
Application No. 15/059,0671
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention is a technique and system for three-dimensional
facial expression generation. A semantic type (such as smiling, yawning,
grinning, angry, and so forth) is detected and used to generate the
expression. The semantic type is then used to assign transfer intensities (e.g.,

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant states that the real party in interest is
Adobe Systems Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-008361
Application No. 15/059,067

2
weights) to corresponding points of a blend shape and a facial expression
source to generate the three-dimensional facial expression. For points
exhibiting a greater degree of movement, greater weight is given to the blend
shape than the facial expression source. For points exhibiting a lesser degree
of movement, greater weight is given to the facial expression source. Spec.
¶¶ 4, 5.
Claim 15 is reproduced below:
15. In a digital medium environment to generate a three
dimensional facial expression from a blend shape and a facial
expression source, a system comprising:
a semantic type detection module implemented at least
partially in hardware to detect a semantic type defining a facial
expression of the blend shape;
a transfer intensity assignment module implemented at
least partially in hardware to assign transfer intensities to the
blend shape and the facial expression source, respectively, for
individual points of the three dimensional facial expression, the
assignment based on the detected semantic type; and
a three dimensional facial expression generation module
implemented at least partially in hardware to generate the three
dimensional facial expression from the blend shape and the
facial expression source based on the assigned transfer
intensities.

Appeal 2018-008361
Application No. 15/059,067

3
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Sasaki US 2006/0188144 A1 Aug. 24, 2006
Lee US 2010/0141679 A1 June 10, 2010
Park US 2010/0259538 A1 Oct. 14, 2010
Bourdev US 2013/0121409A1 May 16, 2013
Yang US 2014/0160123 A1 June 12, 2014

Claims 1, 6, 8–10, 13–15, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Lee.
Claims 2, 5, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Park, Lee, and Bourdev.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Park, Lee, Bourdev, and Sasaki.
Claims 7, 11, 12, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Park, Lee, and Yang.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed May 04, 2018), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
Aug. 14, 2018), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 26, 2018)
for their respective details.
ISSUE
Does the Examiner articulate reasoning for combining Park and Lee
having a rational underpinning, in order to support the Examiner’s
conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine the references under
§ 103?
Appeal 2018-008361
Application No. 15/059,067

4
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
ANALYSIS
Claims 15, 17, and 20
Representative claim 15 recites, in pertinent part, “a transfer intensity
assignment module . . . to assign transfer intensities to the blend shape and
the facial expression source, . . . the assignment based on the detected
semantic type.” Claim 15 then requires generation of the three-dimensional
facial expression “from the blend shape and the facial expression source
based on the assigned transfer intensities.”
The Examiner finds that Park teaches several claim limitations, but
admits that Park does not “disclose assigning transfer intensities to the facial
expression source explicitly.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Lee
discloses “assigning transfer intensities to the facial expression source,”
citing Lee’s teaching that proximate expression images 4a, 4b, and 4c (facial
expression source) are mixed with other standard expression images 4. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Park’s
teachings “to assign weight to facial expression source as taught by Lee, to
generate realistic user’s own face image more accurately.” Final Act. 3.
Appellant argues that Park teaches weighting key models and
combining them to provide a 3D facial expression, but does not assign
transfer intensities to image frames. Appeal Br. 20–21.
The Examiner, in the Answer, maintains the rejection, asserting that
the rejection is based on the combination of Park and Lee. The Examiner
Appeal 2018-008361
Application No. 15/059,067

5
finds that Park teaches determining “a blending weight for each facial region
of each key model by using the image frame having the facial region most
similar to a facial region of a key model.” Ans. 8. The Examiner finds that
“[k]ey models are blended with image frame for each region in fig. 11 step
1130 and then synthesized together in step 1140.” Ans. 9.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that Park teaches
“blending” key models and image frames. Figure 11 of Park is reproduced
below:

Figure 11 of Park is a flowchart illustrating an example of a method
for generating facial animation. Park ¶ 39.
Appeal 2018-008361
Application No. 15/059,067

6
Representative claim 15 recites a transfer intensity assignment module
that “assign[s] transfer intensities to the blend shape and the facial
expression source” (emphasis added). Step 1120 of Park determines a
blending weight for each facial region of each key model, by using an image
frame having a facial region most similar to a facial region of a key model.
Park ¶ 93. We agree with Appellant that Park does not determine a blending
weight for any image frame. Contrary to the Examiner’s finding, Park does
not weight an image frame at step 1110; rather, step 1110 involves selecting
one image frame that will be used to generate the blending weights of every
facial region of every key model. Reply Br. 3. Step 1130 of Park blends
(only) key models on a facial region-by-facial region basis by using the
determined blending weights. Park ¶ 95.
Lee teaches mixing proximate expression images 4a, 4b, 4c with other
standard expression images 4 to transform the reproduced expression
pictorial/video images 6a, 6b, 6c. Lee ¶ 61. Assuming arguendo that the
Examiner correctly characterizes the proximate expression images of Lee as
analogous to the claimed “facial expression source,” Lee then teaches
assigning weights to (only) facial expression sources. Neither Park nor Lee
teaches or suggests assigning transfer intensities (i.e., weights) to the blend
shape and the facial expression source, as claimed. The Examiner has not
cited a teaching or suggestion in either reference as motivation for the
skilled artisan to use the two types of weights in combination, as the claimed
invention requires. The Examiner concludes that modifying Park in view of
Lee’s “teaching of assigning weight to facial expression source” would
“generate realistic user’s own face image more accurately in real time.” Ans.
11. The Examiner does not support this conclusion by citing to any factual
Appeal 2018-008361
Application No. 15/059,067

7
evidence. Park generates a facial animation “which makes facial expressions
similar to facial expressions of a person included in the image frames.” Park
¶ 95; Reply Br. 5. We agree with Appellant’s argument that, therefore,
assigning weights to portions of that image frame would not improve the
accuracy of Park’s facial animation relative to the person’s facial
expressions in the image frame, “because some features would be given
more preference than other features.” Reply Br. 5.
Representative claim 15 further recites generating “the three
dimensional facial expression from the blend shape and the facial expression
source based on the assigned transfer intensities” (emphasis added). As
discussed supra, we do not agree with the Examiner’s proffered motivation
to combine Lee and Park. Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner has not
established motivation to combine the references to generate such a three-
dimensional facial expression based on transfer intensities assigned to both
blend shapes and facial expression sources, as is required by this element of
claim 15.
We conclude that the Examiner’s proposed combination of Park and
Lee lacks a rational underpinning to support a conclusion that the invention
recited in claim 15, or claims 17 and 20 dependent therefrom, would have
been obvious. We do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims
15, 17, and 20 over Park and Lee.
Claims 1, 6, 8–10, and 13–15
Independent claim 1, like claim 15, recites assigning “transfer
intensities based on the detected semantic type to the blend shape and the
facial expression source,” as well as “generating, by the computing device,
the three dimensional facial expression from the blend shape and the facial
Appeal 2018-008361
Application No. 15/059,067

8
expression source based on the assigned transfer intensities” (emphasis
added).
Independent claim 10 also recites “assigning . . . transfer intensities to
the points of the blend shape and the facial expression source,” and
“generating, by the computing device, the three dimensional facial
expression from the blend shape and the facial expression source . . . using
the assigned non-linear transfer intensities” (emphasis added).
The Examiner relies on the same teachings of Park and Lee, and the
same rationale for their combination, in the rejection of claims 1 and 10. As
discussed supra, we find error in the Examiner’s conclusion that it would
have been obvious to combine Park and Lee to obtain the invention under
appeal. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
independent claim 1 and dependent claims 6, 8, and 9, or the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 10 and dependent claims 13–15, over the
combination of Park and Lee.
Claims 2–5, 7, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 19
Dependent claims 2, 5, and 16 stand rejected over Park, Lee, and
Bourdev. We have reviewed Bourdev, and we determine that it does not
remedy the deficiencies noted supra in the Examiner’s combination of Park
and Lee. We do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 2, 5, and 16.
Dependent claims 3 and 4 stand rejected over Park, Lee, Bourdev, and
Sasaki. We determine that Bourdev and Sasaki do not remedy the
deficiencies noted supra in the Examiner’s combination of Park and Lee.
We do not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 3 and 4.
Dependent claims 7, 11, 12, 18, and 19 stand rejected over Park, Lee,
and Yang. We determine that Yang does not remedy the deficiencies noted
Appeal 2018-008361
Application No. 15/059,067

9
supra in the Examiner’s combination of Park and Lee. We do not sustain the
§ 103 rejection of claims 7, 11, 12, 18, and 19.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner does not articulate reasoning for combining Park and
Lee having a rational underpinning, in order to support the Examiner’s
conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine the references under
§ 103.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 8–10,
13–15, 17, 20
103 Park, Lee 1, 6, 8–10,
13–15, 17, 20
2, 5, 16 103 Park, Lee,
Bourdev
2, 5, 16
3, 4 103 Park, Lee,
Bourdev, Sasaki
3, 4
7, 11, 12, 18,
19
103 Park, Lee,
Yang
7, 11, 12, 18,
19
Overall
Outcome

1–20

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 is reversed.
REVERSED