Sumner, Robert et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 9, 2019

15157161 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 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.
15/157,161 05/17/2016 Robert Sumner 062854-0969963-
P15192US
6953
94474 7590 12/09/2019
LUCASFILM ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY LTD.
c/o KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
WU, YANNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/09/2019 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT SUMNER, XU XIANGHAO, STELIAN COROS,
and MUBBASIR TURAB KAPADIA
____________

Appeal 2019-0001871
Application 15/157,161
Technology Center 2600
_______________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 1–20, which are all the claims pending
in the application. Appeal Br. 18–22 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed July 1, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief filed October 8, 2018 (“Reply Br.”); the
Examiner’s Answer mailed August 6, 2018 (“Ans.”); the Final Office Action
mailed September 14, 2017 (“Final Act.”); and the original Specification
filed May 17, 2016 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2019–000187
Application 15/157,161

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method and system for
generating “precomputed environment semantics for contact-rich character
animation” to “identify[] locations in a virtual environment where a motion
sequence [(e.g., a stunt)] can be performed by an animated character.” Spec.
¶ 3, Title (capitalization altered). Appellant’s invention identifies locations
in a virtual environment where the motion sequence can be performed by the
animated character by identifying surfaces in the virtual environment that
match surface contact locations in the motion sequence. Spec. ¶ 3.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of identifying locations in a virtual
environment where a motion sequence can be performed by an
animated character, the method comprising:
accessing the motion sequence for the animated character
performed in a first environment;
identifying a plurality of contact locations in the motion
sequence where the animated character contacts surfaces in the
first environment;
accessing the virtual environment comprising a plurality
of surfaces;
identifying the locations in the virtual environment where
the motion sequence can be performed by the animated
character by identifying surfaces in the plurality of surfaces that
match the plurality of contact locations in the first environment;
and
annotating the locations in the virtual environment where
the motion sequence can be performed by the animated
character.

Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2019–000187
Application 15/157,161

3
Evidence Considered

Name Reference Date
Gueziec et al.
(“Gueziec”)
US 6,452,596 B1 Sept. 17, 2002
Sterchi et al.
(“Sterchi”)
US 2014/0035932 A1 Feb. 6, 2014
Hodgins et al.
(“Hodgins”)
US 8,988,422 B1 Mar. 24, 2015
Kruglick US 2016/0121214 A1 May 5, 2016
Kim et al.
(“Kim”)
US 2016/0366396 A1 Dec. 15, 2016
Liu et al. (“Liu”) US 2017/0084077 A1 Mar. 23, 2017
Nancy M. Amato,
et al. (“Amato”)
Choosing Good Distance Metrics and
Local Planners for Probabilistic
Roadmap Methods, Proceedings of
the IEEE Int’l Conference on
Robotics & Automation (ICRA),
630–637
May 1998
Joel Chestnutt, et
al. (“Chestnutt”)
Planning Biped Navigation Strategies
in Complex Environments,
Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE, Int’l
Conference on Humanoid Robotics
(Humanoids 2003) 1–16
Sept. 2003
Jianyuan Min, et
al. (“Min”)
Interactive Generation of Human
Animation with Deformable Motion
Models, ACM Transactions on
Graphics, Vol. 29, No. 1, Article 9,
1–12
Dec. 2009

Examiner’s Rejections
(1) Claims 1, 9, 13, 15, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kruglick, Chestnutt, and Sterchi.
Final Act. 3–10.
Appeal 2019–000187
Application 15/157,161

4
(2) Claims 5–8, 14, 17, and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kruglick, Chestnutt, Sterchi, and
Min. Final Act. 10–14.
(3) Claims 2–4 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kruglick, Chestnutt, Sterchi, and Amato. Final Act.
15–18.
(4) Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kruglick, Chestnutt, Sterchi, Kim, and Hodgins. Final
Act. 18–21.
(5) Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kruglick, Chestnutt, Sterchi, and Liu. Final Act. 21–22.
(6) Claims 12 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kruglick, Chestnutt, Sterchi, Liu, and Gueziec. Final Act.
22–24.

ANALYSIS
In support of the obviousness rejection, the Examiner finds the
combination of Kruglick and Chestnutt teaches: (1) “identifying a plurality
of contact locations in the motion sequence where the animated character
contacts surfaces in the first environment;” and (2) “identifying the locations
in the virtual environment where the motion sequence can be performed by
the animated character by identifying surfaces in the plurality of surfaces
that match the plurality of contact locations in the first environment,” as
recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4–7. Particularly, the Examiner finds Kruglick
teaches capturing a motion sequence performed by a character in an
environment and “identifying a plurality of positions in the motion sequence
Appeal 2019–000187
Application 15/157,161

5
where the animated character contacts in[sic] the first environment,” such as
the positions of tracking points 104 tracking hand movements, these
“positions . . . represent[ing] the contact positions of [the] character with the
environment.” Ans. 8–9 (citing Kruglick Fig. 1).
The Examiner acknowledges “Kruglick . . . fails to explicitly teach:
locations and contact locations as claimed” but asserts “Chestnutt teaches:
movement data are represented by contact locations that a character
contacts surfaces in an environment,” such as “how the [robot’s] foot
rest[s] on the surface in an environment.” Final Act. 5–6 (citing Chestnutt
3:1–6, 4:1–6); see also Ans. 4, 6 (citing Chestnutt 3.1, Figs. 2 and 5).3 In
particular, the Examiner finds Chestnutt’s “motion sequence for a biped
robot[] through obstacle-filled environments” is “represented by surface
contact locations in an environment[] (e.g. the footstep location in stairs, as
shown in FIG. 5).” Ans. 4. The Examiner then finds Chestnutt identifies
locations in multiple environments as recited in claim 1 because “Chestnutt
teaches identifying motion sequences (represented by contact locations) a
robot performed in real world [and] also teaches identifying and simulating
the motion sequences in a simulated environment.” Ans. 11 (citing
Chestnutt 4.4); see also Ans. 8 (“[T]he motion sequence performed by a
robot [in Chestnutt] is simulated in a computer (virtual) environment”); and
Final Act. 6–7. We do not agree.
We agree with Appellant that Kruglick and Chestnutt, alone or in
combination, fail to teach or suggest “identifying locations in a virtual

3 The version of the Chestnutt publication of record does not have numbered
pages. We count the pages starting from the first page and the subsections
of each (as the Examiner has done).
Appeal 2019–000187
Application 15/157,161

6
environment where a motion sequence can be performed by an animated
character” by identifying surfaces in the virtual environment that match the
plurality of contact locations in the motion sequence where the animated
character contacts surfaces in the first environment as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 14–15; see also Reply Br. 3–9 (emphasis added). As Appellant
explains, Kruglick only tracks positions of a same point of a character (such
as a point at a knee joint, see Kruglick Fig. 1) “which ha[s] nothing to do
with contact locations made in the real-world environment,” as “Kruglick
does not perform any analysis to identify contact locations between an
animated character and any real/virtual environment.” Reply Br. 3–4. For
example, “tracking the location of a character’s hand in 3-D space [in
Kruglick] is not the same as determining when that character’s hand would
make contact with an object in an environment.” Id. at 6. Thus, Kruglick
does not teach identifying positions in a motion sequence where a character
makes contact with an environment, or identifying surfaces in a second
environment (i.e., claimed virtual environment) that match contact locations
from a first environment as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 15; see also
Reply Br. 6.
Chestnutt does not make up for the above-noted deficiencies of
Kruglick, as Chestnutt does not teach or suggest identifying locations in a
virtual environment where a motion sequence can be performed by an
animated character by identifying surfaces in the virtual environment that
match the motion sequence’s contact locations in the first environment, as
claimed. Appeal Br. 14–15 (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 5, 7, and
9. As Appellant explains, Chestnutt merely describes simulating a
prospective path (e.g., a footpath) that a robot could follow in a real-world
Appeal 2019–000187
Application 15/157,161

7
environment. Appeal. Br. 14. Moreover, Chestnutt’s footpath planning
technique is the opposite of what is claimed because Appellant’s “claims
recite beginning with a motion sequence that is already defined, then
identifying contact locations in that motion sequence” for matching to
surfaces in a virtual environment, while “Chestnutt identifies possible
contact locations [where the robot could step], then generates a motion
sequence from those possible contact locations” and executes the motion
sequence by the robot in a real-world environment. Reply Br. 5, 9; see also
Appeal. Br. 14.
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious for a skilled
artisan to have “applied the animation infrastructure of Kruglick to the
footsteps motion sequence of Chestnutt, so the footsteps motion sequence
can be performed and simulated in a virtual environment.” Final Act. 6–7.
However, the Examiner has not provided an adequate reason based on
rational underpinnings to explain why a skilled artisan would have been led
to match (1) contact locations in a motion sequence in a first environment to
(2) surfaces in another (virtual) environment, to identify locations where the
motion sequence can be performed in second (virtual) environment. KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds
cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness”")); In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“‘[C]onclusory statements’ alone are insufficient and,
instead, the finding must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation.’”
(internal citation omitted)); see also In re Chaganti, 554 Fed.Appx. 917, 922
Appeal 2019–000187
Application 15/157,161

8
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“It is not enough to say that . . . to do so would ‘have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill.’ Such circular reasoning is not sufficient—
more is needed to sustain an obviousness rejection.”)
As noted by Appellant, “Chestnutt only includes a single environment
where surfaces are identified as potential contact points, but no contact
locations from another environment are used in this process” and Chestnutt
does not suggest “one could import a pre-existing motion sequence with
already-identified contact locations and identify locations in the virtual
environment where that motion sequence can be performed by matching
surfaces with the already-identified contact locations.” Appeal Br. 15; see
also Reply Br. 9. Kruglick is similarly deficient, as it only matches starting
and ending poses of a character, without regard to an environment. Appeal
Br. 15.
The Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of
Sterchi, Min, Amato, Kim, Hodgins, Liu, and Gueziec make up for the
above-noted deficiencies of Kruglick and Chestnutt. Thus, for the reasons
set forth above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, independent claims 9 and 15 argued for substantially
the same reasons as claim 1, and claims 2–8, 10–14, and 16–20 dependent
therefrom. Appeal Br. 10, 13. Because the above-discussed issues are
dispositive as to the obviousness rejections of all claims on appeal, we do
not reach additional issues raised by Appellant’s arguments as to the
rejection of claim 1.

Appeal 2019–000187
Application 15/157,161

9
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellant has demonstrated the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As such,
we reverse the Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 9, 13, 15, 20 103 Kruglick, Chestnutt,
Sterchi
1, 9, 13, 15,
20
5–8, 14, 17, 18 103 Kruglick, Chestnutt,
Sterchi, Min
5–8, 14, 17,
18
2–4, 16 103 Kruglick, Chestnutt,
Sterchi, Amato
2–4, 16
10 103 Kruglick, Chestnutt,
Sterchi, Kim,
Hodgins
10
11 103 Kruglick, Chestnutt,
Sterchi, Liu
11
12, 19 103 Kruglick, Chestnutt,
Sterchi, Liu,
Gueziec
12, 19
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED