Ex Parte Brooksby et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 2012

11020893 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2012)

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.
11/020,893 12/23/2004 Glen William Brooksby 155281-1/YOD
(GERD:0287)
4863
41838 7590 08/31/2012
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI)
C/O FLETCHER YODER
P. O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
CUNNINGHAM, GREGORY F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte GLEN WILLIAM BROOKSBY, PAULO RICARDO DOS
SANTOS MENDONCA, and DENISA NARMOUR BORGES
____________________

Appeal 2009-015264
Application 11/020,893
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG,
and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-015264
Application 11/020,893

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-231. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a system and method for
registering a plurality of two dimensional images of an object corresponding
with a first three-dimensional (3D) model of the object; wherein, a second
3D model of the object is generated based on the plurality of two
dimensional images and the first 3D model (Abstract; Spec. ¶ [0023]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of measuring an object, the method comprising:

registering each of a plurality of images of an object with a first model
of the object or registering the first model with each of the plurality of
images, wherein the plurality of images comprise different views of the
object; and

reconstructing a second model of the object based on the plurality of
images and the first model registered with one another.

1 Although in the Examiner’s Answer, claim 3 is not listed in the “Claim
Rejections” section (Ans. 3), the Examiner presents support of his findings
for the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in
the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Zhang in the body
of the rejection (Ans. 8). Therefore, we consider the omission a harmless
typographical error.
Appeal 2009-015264
Application 11/020,893

3
C. REJECTIONS2
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bronskill US 6,201,549 B1 Mar. 13, 2001
Baba US 6,377,371 B1 Apr. 23, 2002
Berestov US 6,865,289 B1 Mar. 8, 2005
Zhang US 2003/0011596 A1 Jan 16, 2003
Mueller US 2003/0066949 A1 Apr. 10, 2003
Baumberg US 2003/0085890 A1 May 8, 2003
Claims 1, 2, 3,3 4, 7, 8, 13, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Zhang or (in the alternative)
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang.
Claims 5 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhang in view of Mueller.
Claims 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, and 21stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Baumberg.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhang in view of Berestov.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhang in view of Bronskill.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhang in view of Baba.

2 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement
has been withdrawn (Ans. 2).
3 As noted supra, we consider claim 3 rejected based upon Examiner’s
disclosure of findings for the rejection (Ans. 8).
Appeal 2009-015264
Application 11/020,893

4
II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
concluding:
1. that Zhang teaches or would have suggested “reconstructing a
second model of the object based on the plurality of images and the first
model registered with one another” (claim 1, emphasis added); “comprising
co-calibrating the plurality of imaging devices to map a coordinate of each
of the plurality of images to a reference coordinate system” (claim 4,
emphasis added); “wherein registering comprises establishing point
correspondences between each of the plurality of images through the first
model of the object” (claim 7, emphasis added); “wherein registering
comprises sampling the object based on a geometry of the object” (claim 8,
emphasis added); and “wherein registering does not include registering the
images based on a mark, a texture, a pattern, or a combination thereof
associated with the object” (claim 23, emphasis added);
2. the combination of Zhang and Mueller teaches or would have
suggested “wherein each of the plurality of images is a two-dimensional
image of the object and wherein the first and the second model is a three
dimensional model of the object” (claim 5, emphasis added);
3. the combination of Zhang and Baumberg teaches or would have
suggested “iterating the step of registering for minimizing a registration
error” (claim 11, emphasis added); “wherein reconstructing the second
model comprises reconstructing a model of the object based on one or more
edge points matched between the plurality of images, wherein the one or
more edge points are derived from the plurality of images and the first model
registered with one another” (claim 12, emphasis added); “wherein
Appeal 2009-015264
Application 11/020,893

5
measuring the one or more features comprise measuring tangent points, or
intersection points, or combinations thereof” (claim 14, emphasis added);
and “wherein each of the plurality of images is a two-dimensional image of
the object and wherein the first and the second model is a three dimensional
model of the object” (claim 15, emphasis added);
4. the combination of Zhang and Berestov teaches or would have
suggested “wherein registering comprises computing a plurality of occluding
contour points for each of the plurality of images of the object” (claim 6,
emphasis added);
5. the combination of Zhang and Bronskill teaches or would have
suggested “wherein sampling comprises a sampling rate proportional to the
inverse of a local radius of curvature of at least a part of the object” (claim 9,
emphasis added); and
6. the combination of Zhang and Baba teaches or would have
suggested “wherein sampling comprises at least two sample points on a
straight segment of at least a points of the object” (claim 10, emphasis
added);

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Zhang
1. Zhang discloses a system and method of generating an efficient
representation of both the diffuse and specular reflection components of an
object of interest from a sparse set of input images (two dimensional) of the
object and a three dimensional (3D) model of the object (Fig. 2; ¶ [0051]).
Appeal 2009-015264
Application 11/020,893

6
2. In particular the process includes a step of capturing the sparse
set of images of the object of interest (step 200) and the 3D model of the
object (step 202) (id.).
3. Each pixel in each of the input images is aligned with the
location on the 3D model (step 204) (id.).
4. The system creates a global (3D) texture map which specifies
an intensity value for the diffuse reflection from each portion of the surface
of the 3D model using the input images (step 206) (id.).
5. Images of the object are captured by a pre-calibrated camera to
obtain the intrinsic parameters associated with each image (¶ [0055]).
6. The system provides for synthesizing of photo-realistic virtual
images from images of real objects using image-based rendering techniques
including real 2D images of an object as input; wherein each pixel in the
input image is a sample of the plenoptic function (5-dimensional function
representing intensity or chromacity of light observed from every position
and direction in a 3-dimensional space) of the object, where the most
appropriate sample of rays are selected (¶ [0004]).
Mueller
7. Mueller discloses a processor 120 that includes lighting control
for controlling the shading of an object (¶¶ [0055], [0061], and [0062]) and
identifies a silhouette of an object in two dimensional color images of the
object (¶¶ [0064] and [0076]-[0078]).
Baumberg
8. Baumberg discloses that the user is able to change the relative
positions and orientations of the two 3D computer models 150 and 402 so
Appeal 2009-015264
Application 11/020,893

7
that errors between the alignment of the projected silhouettes in images 410,
420, and 430 are minimized (¶ [0094]).
9. Each silhouette of the object lies in a two-dimensional plane
(Fig. 6; ¶ [0069]), having a corresponding 3D computer model (¶ [0008]).
10. Input data further defines a plurality of images of the subject
object on the photographic mat 34 recorded by a camera at different
positions and orientations; wherein, the camera includes intrinsic parameters
including a principal point which represents the point at which the optical
axis intersects the imaging plane (¶ [0042]).
Berestov
11. Berestov discloses elimination of the errors due to occluding
contours using a simple filter or interpolation techniques (col. 1, ll. 25-48;
col. 7, ll. 17-25). In the alternative, erroneous points may be eliminated by
replacing the erroneous value with the first accurate value to the right of the
error point (id.).
Bronskill
12. Bronskill discloses decreasing the sampling interval in
proportion to the decrease in the radius of the curvature (col. 8, ll. 9-31)
Baba
13. Baba discloses use of mapping lines (straight lines)
interconnecting light exposure points (associated with the image) with
sampling point (col. 16, ll. 40-55).
Appeal 2009-015264
Application 11/020,893

8

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 13, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 23
As to claim 1, Appellants contend that Zhang “fails to teach, disclose
or suggest any reconstruction of the second model of the object based on the
plurality of images and the first model register with one another” because “a
global texture map … is not same as the second model of the object” (App.
Br. 12). Appellants assert that “[t]he 3D model in the Zhang reference just
facilitates the registration of the input images” (App. Br. 13) and the
“synthesizing photo-realistic, view-dependent images of the object … are
created from each input image [and] do not correspond to ‘based on the
plurality of images” (id.).
However, the Examiner finds that although “Appellants claim … [the
term] ‘reconstruction[,]’” “the Appellants’ specification states … ‘these
multiple images from different viewpoints and a first model of the object are
registered with one another, and are then used to create a second model of
the object’” (Ans. 27, emphasis added). The Examiner notes that since the
second model is “created or constructed first before it can be reconstructed,”
“‘constructing a second model …’ yields the same result as ‘reconstructing a
second model’” (Ans. 30).
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “reconstructing” and
“model” mean, include, or represent. According to the Specification and the
claim, the second model is created with the use of the images and the first
theoretical (three-dimensional) model; wherein, the second model is “a
Appeal 2009-015264
Application 11/020,893

9
modified version of the first model based on the acquired images” (Spec.
[0016]). Thus, we give “reconstructing a second model of the object” its
broadest reasonable interpretation as generating another (second) model, as
consistent with the Specification and as specifically defined in claim 1.
Zhang discloses a system and method of generating an efficient
representation of both the diffuse and specular reflection components of an
object of interest from a sparse set of input images (two dimensional) of the
object and a three dimensional (3D) model of the object (FF 1). The system
creates a global (3D) texture map from the captured set of images and the
3D model of the object (FF2-4). We find that generation of the global
texture map comprises generating a model. In view of our broad but
reasonable claim interpretation, we find Zhang’s method of creating the
global texture map to comprise “reconstructing a second model of the object
based on the plurality of images and the first model registered with one
another” as required by claim 1.
As to claim 7, Appellants contend that “establishing point
correspondence between an input image and the model is not the same as
establishing point correspondences between each of the plurality of images
through the first model of the object” (App. Br. 13-14, emphasis added).
However, the Examiner finds that Zhang teaches “that ‘each pixel {point} in
each of the input images {plurality of images} is aligned {registered} with
the location on the object in the model {first model} corresponding to the
portion of the object depicted by that pixel’” (Ans. 35).
As noted supra, Zhang discloses a system and method of generating a
global texture map from a sparse set of input images of the object and a 3D
model of the object (FF 1-4). In particular, the process includes a step of
Appeal 2009-015264
Application 11/020,893

10
capturing the sparse set of images of the object of interest and the 3D model
of the object; wherein, each pixel in each of the input images is aligned with
the location on the 3D model (FF 2). We see no error in the Examiner’s
position that each pixel point is registered with the corresponding location
on the object in the first model (Ans. 35). That is, we find Zhang’s sampling
of pixels within each image to comprise “establishing point correspondences
between each of the plurality of images through the first model of the
object” as required by claim 7.
As to claim 8, Appellants contend that “the Zhang reference does not
teach, disclose or suggest any sampling at all” (App. Br. 14). However, the
Examiner finds that Zhang discloses “[i]mage-based rendering techniques
use real 2D images of an object of interest as an input,” “[c]onsidering each
pixel in the input images as samples of a plenoptic function” (Ans. 37).
Zhang discloses image-based rendering techniques where each pixel
of an image is considered as a sample of the plenoptic function (5
dimensions of the object in three-dimensional space) (FF 6). We find that
the sampling of the pixels comprises sampling. That is, we find Zhang’s
sampling of pixels within each image to comprise “sampling the object
based on a geometry of the object” as required by claim 8.
As to claim 4, Appellants contend that “the Zhang reference does not
teach, disclose or suggest such co-calibration” because “pre-calibrating or
calibrating the camera is not same as co-calibrating the plurality of imaging
devices” (App. Br. 13). However, the Examiner finds that “[w]hile Zhang
teaches pre-calibrating the camera [where] just one camera is depicted, … it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to pre-calibrate … multiple cameras … that could be
Appeal 2009-015264
Application 11/020,893

11
included as input devices and thus co-calibrate the multiple cameras” (Ans.
35).
Zhang discloses a pre-calibrated camera used in the process of
obtaining the intrinsic parameter for each image (FF 5). We find that
Zhang’s calibration comprises calibrating each individual imaging device.
Further, since Appellants have not identified an express definition as to what
“co-calibrate” is to mean, include or represent, we give “co-calibrate” its
broadest but reasonable interpretation as to calibrate each device with each
other. Thus, we find that since Zhang discloses that all of the individual
image devices are pre-calibrated, they are all calibrated with respect to each
other. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Zhang at
least suggests providing “comprising co-calibrating the plurality of imaging
devices to map a coordinate of each of the plurality of images to a reference
coordinate system,” as required by claim 4.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4, 7, 8, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Zhang. Appellants do not provide arguments separate from
those of claim 1 for independent claims 16 and 20 and dependent claims 2,
13, 18, and 22 depending respectively from claims 1, 16, and 20.
Accordingly, Appellants also have not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 2, 3, 13, 16, 18, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Zhang. Because our affirmance of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 13,
16, 18, 20, and 22 as unpatentable over Zhang is dispositive as to each
claim on appeal, we do not reach the Examiner’s cumulative rejections
based on anticipation by Zhang under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appeal 2009-015264
Application 11/020,893

12
As to claim 23, Appellants contend that the registration disclosed in
Zhang “is not same as registering without aid of a mark, a texture, a pattern
associated with the object” (App. Br. 14). However, the Examiner finds that
since Appellants “have drawn support for the negative limitation of claim 23
from the background of the specification” and Appellants are attempting “to
claim the invention by excluding what the inventors did not invent,” and
thus, the Examiner does not give patentable weight to the claim limitation
(Ans. 39).
After reviewing the record on appeal, we agree with Appellants.
Though we agree with the Examiner that Zhang does disclose that each of
the input images is aligned (registered) with the location on the 3D model
(FF 3), we cannot find any teaching or suggestion in the Examiner’s recited
portion of Zhang of “registering [which] does not include registering the
images based on a mark, a texture, a pattern, or a combination thereof,
associated with the object” as required by claim 23 (emphasis, added). That
is, since there is adequate support in the Specification for the claim
limitation (Spec. ¶¶ [0002] and [0029]), we cannot agree with reading the
claim overly broadly to exclude the claim limitation as the Examiner
proposes (Ans. 39-40).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Zhang, as well as,
the Examiner’s cumulative rejection based on anticipation by Zhang under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Claims 5 and 17
As to claim 5, Appellants contend that “the Meuller reference is silent
about providing [a] lighting arrangement so as to provide or acquire a
Appeal 2009-015264
Application 11/020,893

13
silhouette of the object in each of the plurality of images” (App. Br. 21).
Appellants assert that “identifying the silhouette in an image is not the same
as providing or arranging the light to acquire a silhouette in each image that
may aid in registration” (id.). However, the Examiner finds that Mueller
provides “light(ing) [controls for controlling the shading of an object]” and a
method of generating “silhouette [of an object in a plurality of images]”
(Ans. 17).
Mueller discloses the processor generates the lighting control for
shading an object and identifies the silhouette of the object in each of the
two dimensional color images of the object (FF 7). We find that identifying
the silhouette as Mueller teaches comprises arranging lighting relative to the
object to provide a silhouette of the object in each of the plurality of images.
That is, we find Mueller at the least suggests “comprising arranging lighting
relative to the object to provide a silhouette of the object in each of the
plurality of images” as required by claim 5.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Zhang in
view of Mueller.
Similarly, claim 17 recites “a plurality of lighting devices for enabling
the plurality of imaging devices to acquire a silhouette of the object in each
of the plurality of images.” As discussed, we find Zhang in view of Mueller
at least suggests this feature. Accordingly, we find Appellants have not
shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over Zhang in view of Mueller.

Appeal 2009-015264
Application 11/020,893

14

Claims 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, and 21
As to claim 11, Appellants contend that the “‘repeatedly changes’
element [as disclosed in Baumberg] may not be equated with iterating the
step of registering for minimizing a registration error” (App. Br. 14).
However, the Examiner finds that Baumberg discloses that “[t]he user is
able to align accurately the two 3D computer models … in 3D space by
changing their relative positions and orientations so that the errors between
the alignment of the projected silhouettes in images … are minimized” (Ans.
19).
As noted supra, we find that Zhang’s registration of the images with
the corresponding 3D model comprises “registering the images.” In
addition, Baumberg discloses that the user is able to change the relative
positions and orientations of the two 3D computer models, so that the errors
between the alignment of the projected silhouettes in images are minimized
(FF 8). We find that changing in relative positions and orientations
comprises multiple registrations that are used to minimize error, and thus
find that Baumberg at the least suggests “iterating the step of registering for
minimizing a registration error” as required by claim 11. Thus, we find no
error in the Examiner’s finding that Zhang’s registration of pixels with the
repeated sampling of Baumberg would have resulted in iterated (repeated)
registration of the pixels which would be obvious (Ans. 19).
Similarly, claim 21 recites “code adapted to iterate the step of
registering for minimizing a registration error.” As discussed, we find
Zhang in view of Baumberg at least suggests this feature.
Appeal 2009-015264
Application 11/020,893

15
As to claim 12, Appellants contend that although Baumberg discloses
edge points matched between the plurality of images, the combined teaching
of Zhang and Baumberg “does not require matching edge points between the
plurality of images to create a global texture map” (App. Br. 22). However,
the Examiner finds that Baumberg discloses a “‘silhouette’ [which]
corresponds to ‘edge points’” (Ans. 19).
After reviewing the record on appeal, we agree with Appellants.
Though we agree with the Examiner that Zhang discloses that generation of
a global texture map (FF 4) and Baumberg does disclose silhouette which
represents edge points of the object (FF 9), we cannot find any teaching or
suggestion in the Examiner’s recited portion of Zhang and Baumberg that
the combination teaches that “wherein reconstructing the second model
comprises reconstructing a model of the object based on one or more edge
points matched between the plurality of images, wherein the one or more
edge points are derived from the plurality of images and the first model
registered with one another” as required by claim 12 (emphasis, added).
That is, since generation of the global texture map as disclosed in Zhang is
not derived from the matching of edge points as disclosed in Baumberg, we
cannot find any suggestion that the combined teaching suggest
“reconstructing the second model … based on one or more edge points
matched between the plurality of images” (claim 12).
As to claim 14, Appellants contend that “the principal point [disclosed
in Baumberg], which is an input data defining intrinsic parameters of the
camera” “has nothing to do with the measurement of features from the
Appeal 2009-015264
Application 11/020,893

16
second model, which will be an output parameter” (App. Br. 23). However,
the Examiner finds that Baumberg discloses measuring the features by
measuring “‘intersection’ [points]” (Ans. 20).
Baumberg discloses that the camera records the images at different
positions and orientations; wherein, the camera includes the intrinsic
parameter of a principle point which represents the point at which the optical
axis intersects the imaging plane (FF 10). We find that the intrinsic
parameter of the camera as Baumberg teaches comprises measuring the
intersection between the optical axis of the camera and the imaging plane of
the object. Thus, we find that Baumberg at the least suggests “wherein
measuring the one or more features comprise measuring … intersection
points” as required by claim 14.
As to claim 15, Appellants contend that the “mere mention of ‘each
silhouette … lies in the two-dimensional plane’ and ‘3D computer model’
[as disclosed in Baumberg] may not be equated with each of the plurality of
images is a two-dimensional image of the object and wherein the first and
the second model is a three-dimensional model of the object” (App. Br. 23).
However, the Examiner finds that Baumberg discloses “‘each silhouette …
lies in the two-dimensional plane’ [having a] corresponding [] ‘3D computer
model’” (Ans. 19).
As noted supra, Zhang discloses a system and method of generating a
global (3D) texture map from a sparse set of input images (two dimensional)
of the object and a three dimensional (3D) model of the object (FF 1-4). We
find that the input images are 2D and the first model and the global texture
map are 3D objects and thus find that Zhang at the least suggests “wherein
Appeal 2009-015264
Application 11/020,893

17
each of the plurality of images is a two-dimensional image of the object and
wherein the first and the second model is a three dimensional model of the
object” as required by claim 15.
In addition, Baumberg discloses silhouette images lying in a two-
dimensional plane associated with a 3D computer model (FF 9). We find
that the silhouette images are 2D and the first model is a 3D object, and thus
find that Baumberg also suggests “wherein each of the plurality of images is
a two-dimensional image of the object and wherein the first … model is a
three dimensional model of the object.”
Similarly, claim 19 recites “wherein each of the plurality of images is
a two-dimensional image of the object and wherein the first and the second
model is a three-dimensional model of the object.” As discussed, we find
Zhang in view of Baumberg at least suggests this feature.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11, 14, 15, 19, and 21 but have shown
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Zhang in view of Baumberg.
Claim 6
As for claim 6, Appellants contend that “matching different images of
the scene corresponds to the registration” “has nothing to do with computing
a plurality of occluding contour points for each of the plurality of images of
the object” (App. Br. 24). However, the Examiner finds that Berestov
discloses “‘computing a plurality of occluding contour points for each of the
plurality of images of the object’” (Ans. 21).
Berestov discloses elimination of the errors due to occluding contours
using a simple filter/interpolation techniques or replacement of erroneous
Appeal 2009-015264
Application 11/020,893

18
values with the first accurate value to the right of each point (FF 11). We
find that these techniques for elimination of errors due to occluding contours
as Berestov teaches comprises computing the occluding contour points with
respect to each of the plurality of images and thus find that Berestov at the
least suggests “wherein registering comprises computing a plurality of
occluding contour points for each of the plurality of images of the object”
(claim 6).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Zhang in
view of Berestov.
Claim 9
Appellants contend that “sampling rate [disclosed in Bronskill] is
proportional to the local radius of curvature and not inversely proportional
to the radius of curvature” (App. Br. 25, emphasis added). However, the
Examiner finds that Bronskill discloses “sampling rate proportional to the
inverse of a local radius of curvature of at least a part of the object” (Ans.
22).
After reviewing the record on appeal, we agree with Appellants.
Though we agree with the Examiner that Zhang discloses sampling (FF 6)
and Bronskill discloses decreasing the sampling interval in proportion to the
decrease in the radius of the curvature (FF 12), we cannot find any
suggestion in the Examiner’s recited portion of Zhang and Bronskill that the
combination teaches that “wherein sampling comprises a sampling rate
proportional to the inverse of a local radius of curvature of at least a part of
the object” as required by claim 9 (emphasis, added). That is, since
sampling rate is proportional to the local radius of curvature as disclosed in
Appeal 2009-015264
Application 11/020,893

19
Bronskill, we find no suggestion that the combined teachings of Zhang and
Bronskill would suggest that the sampling rate is inversely proportional to
the local radius of curvature in the recited portions of the references noted by
the Examiner.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Zhang in view of
Bronskill.
Claim 10
Appellants contend that “[t]he sampling described in Bronskill is
related to generating a holographic stereogram” (App. Br. 25). However, the
Examiner finds that Baba discloses “‘sampling comprises at least two
sample points on a straight segment of at least a part of the object’” (Ans.
23).
Baba discloses use of mapping lines (straight lines) interconnecting
light exposure points (associated with the image) with sampling point (FF
13). We find that use of straight mapping lines that interconnect light
exposure points and sampling points as Baba teaches comprises sampling on
a straight segment, and thus find that Baba at the least suggests “wherein
sampling comprises at least two sample points on a straight segment of at
least a part of the object” (claim 10).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Zhang
in view of Baba.
Appeal 2009-015264
Application 11/020,893

20

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 13-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 12
and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
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

pgc