Ex Parte Comair et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2013

12198217 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CLAUDE COMAIR, SUN TJEN FAM,
PRASANNA GHALI, and
JONATHAN J. JOHNSON
____________________

Appeal 2011-007335
Application 12/198,217
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-007335
Application 12/198,217

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 17-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The invention on appeal is directed to “providing efficient techniques
for modeling and/or rendering water and other effects (e.g., surface
disturbances and motions) in an efficient way that can be performed in real
time or near real time using relatively low-capability processing resources
such as those found in typical home video game systems and personal
computers.” (Spec. ¶ [0008]). Claim 17, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
17. A method of generating images of effects produced by a
virtual coating such as water droplets or ice that at least
partially covers a virtual viewing surface such as a window or
lens through which a user views at least a part of a three-
dimensional scene, comprising:

creating an indirect texture map modeling distortion due
to a coating on the virtual viewing surface, said indirect texture
map comprising texels providing difference offsets
used to distort a view on a display device;

using said indirect texture map to access texels
corresponding to an undistorted direct texture image providing
an undistorted image when viewed through said virtual
viewing surface; and

displaying, on the display device, a distorted rendered
based on said direct and indirect texture maps, said distorted
image being selectively distorted by said indirect texture map to
simulate image distortion said virtual coating would create if a
person were looking at a scene through said viewing surface
having said virtual coating thereon.
Appeal 2011-007335
Application 12/198,217

3

REJECTIONS
A. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the teachings and suggestions of Witting (Computational Fluid
Dynamics in a Traditional Animation Environment, Proc. 26th
Conference on Computing Graphics and Interactive Techniques, 129-136
(ACM 1999, 0- 201-48560-5/99/08)).
B. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combined teachings and suggestions of Witting and Law (U.S.
Patent No. 7,061,502 B1, Jun. 13, 2006).
C. Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combined teachings and suggestions of Witting and
of Keahey (The Generalized Detail-In-Context Problem, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Proc. IEEE Symposium on Information
Visualization, 44-51 (1998)).

GROUPING OF CLAIMS1
We address the appeal of claims 17-20 on appeal and the three
obviousness rejections separately, infra.

1 Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on June 15, 2010. The date of filing
the Notice of Appeal determines which set of rules applies to an Ex parte
appeal. If a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to January 23, 2012, then the
2004 version of the Board Rules last published in the 2011 edition of Title
37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (37 C.F.R. § 41.1 et seq.) applies to
the appeal. See also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Rev. 8,
July 2010.
Appeal 2011-007335
Application 12/198,217

4
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 17
Regarding independent claim 17, Appellants contend “Witting does
not disclose the features of using an indirect texture map providing
difference offsets used to distort a view through a virtual coating.” (App.
Br. 11).
The Examiner points to Witting (p. 132, section 3.2.1 as teaching or
suggesting the contested claimed texture mapping equation) and finds:
Witting describes texture mapping process by mapping
elements of an image to create a distorted image based on
displacement offsets of elements between original location at
time t=0 to time t= some time later and generates a set of two
differential equations to control the process. The displacement
offsets are regarded as difference offsets as claimed by the
Applicant.
(Ans. 8 (emphasis in original omitted, emphasis added)).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants respond:
The Examiner states that he interprets Witting’s “displacement
offsets” to correspond to the claimed “different offsets” (see
Answer at pg. 8). However, the Examiner is ignoring the fact
that Witting only describes using these difference offsets when
implementing periodic boundary conditions (see Witting, 3.2.l).
This strongly suggests that the displacement offsets are not used
throughout the texture mapping process and thus the texture
mapping process described by Witting is not equivalent to the
claimed indirect texture mapping process.
Further, claim 17 recites that that the indirect texture
mapping is to model distortion due to a coating on a virtual
viewing surface. Witting fails to teach this feature. Rather, the
image that Witting shows in Fig. 2 is an image which is
distorted in its entirety and this distortion is clearly not meant to
model a coating on a virtual viewing surface.
(Reply Br. 1-2).
Appeal 2011-007335
Application 12/198,217

5
At the outset, we observe the “indirect texture map” created by the
method of claim 17 is only defined in the claim to the extent that the map
comprises “texels providing difference offsets used to distort a view on a
display device.” We particularly note the “indirect texture map” is described
throughout the Specification in terms of exemplary, non-limiting
embodiments.2 We will not read limitations from the Specification into the
claims.
As an initial matter of claim construction, we conclude the “distortion
[modeled by the indirect texture map] due to a coating on the virtual viewing
surface” that is displayed as a “distorted image” in the last step of claim 17
is directed to non-functional descriptive material that is intended to be
perceived by a person.3
Because the “distorted image” (claim 17) displayed on a display
device is intended to be viewed by a person, the informational content of the
claimed “model[ed] distortion” and “distorted image” is not positively
recited as actually being used to: (1) change or affect any machine or
computer function, or (2) alter how the recited “creating” and “displaying”

2 See e.g., Spec. ¶ [0046] (“In the preferred exemplary embodiment, software
executing on system 50 creates an indirect texture map that models the
imaging distortion that would be produced by water droplets on a window
(Figure 7, block 1050). In the exemplary and non-limiting embodiment,
each texel in the indirect texture map provides a ‘delta’ or difference that
will be used to distort the view on the screen.” (emphasis added)).
3 See Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008)
(precedential); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005)
(informative), aff’d, No. 2006-1003 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2006) (Rule 36); Ex
parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (informative), aff’d, 191 Fed.
Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Appeal 2011-007335
Application 12/198,217

6
steps are performed.4 Thus, given the binding authority of Ex parte Nehls
(see n.2 supra), a question arises as to how much patentable weight, if any,
should be given to the “model[ed] distortion” and “distorted image” within
the meaning of claim 17.
Assuming arguendo that our reviewing court may give the contested
data limitations patentable weight, we find the weight of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate legal
conclusion of obviousness, for essentially the same reasons as articulated in
the Answer (8-11).
Regarding Appellants additional contention that “Witting fails to
specifically disclose or suggest the features of ‘using said indirect texture
map to access texels corresponding to an undistorted direct texture image
providing an undistorted image when viewed through said virtual viewing
surface’” (App. Br. 11), we are not persuaded of error regarding the
Examiner’s findings with respect to Witting at page 132, left column, Figure
2, and the last paragraph of the left column, and on page 134, right column
i.e., the bullet Texture Mapping. See Ans. 4 (“p. 134, col. 2, section 3.2.1
Texture Mapping Equation. Witting teaches texture mapping for distorted
image in paragraph 2 of col. 2 on page 134”).
Nor are we persuaded that it would not have been obvious to modify
Witting in the manner proffered by the Examiner, as Appellants contend:
Witting is about simulating turbulence (“buoyancy-
driven vertices”) within a fluid. See Abstract. This has nothing

4 See MPEP § 2111.05(III) (“[W]here the claim as a whole is directed [to]
conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the
intended computer system, and/or the computer-readable medium merely
serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship
exists.”).
Appeal 2011-007335
Application 12/198,217

7
to do with, and does not suggest, distorting a view based e.g. on
a coating such as ice, water or steam on e.g. a window pane.
One skilled in the art would not get assistance from Witting’s
disclosure of simulating motion within a liquid if she were
trying to simulate how a scene would look when viewed
through e.g. a window pane covered with fog, or ice crystals.
Furthermore, Witting does not disclose the use of direct and
indirect texturing to provide such a simulation as claim 17
requires.
(App. Br. 12).
We disagree with Appellants’ contention that Witting “has nothing to
do with [Appellants’ invention], and does not suggest, distorting a view
based e.g. on a coating such as ice, water or steam” (Id.). To the contrary,
we observe Witting expressly describes:
 Simulating a Variety of Flow Situations: The equations
being solved and the solution method should be capable of
modeling a wide variety of flow situations, i.e. shear flow
instabilities (Kelvin-Helmholtz), vortex motions, buoyant
instabilities (Rayleigh-Taylor), Coriolis effects, gravity
waves, compressible effects, etc. In addition, arbitrary
forcing functions, or source terms, would be desirable to
make many more situations possible, even those without any
physical justification. Users should have easy access to
setting up the various flow situations.
(Witting, p. 130, “2 Design Goals”).
Cf with Appellants’ Specification which describes effects such as
“water sports games, realistic effects showing water disturbances such as
waves, wakes, splashes, water droplets and other water surface effects.”
(Spec. ¶ [0007]).
Given the claim construction issues discussed above, on this record,
we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s broader reading of the claims on
the cited prior art is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the
Appeal 2011-007335
Application 12/198,217

8
Specification.5 Therefore, for essentially the same reasons articulated by the
Examiner in the Answer (8-11), as discussed above, we sustain the § 103
rejection of independent claim 17 over Witting.

Dependent Claim 18
Regarding claim 18, Appellants contend “[c]laim 18 depends from
claim 17 and is allowable for the reasons set forth above.” (App. Br. 12).
However, we do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive regarding
independent claim 17, for the reasons discussed above. Therefore, for
essentially the same reasons articulated by the Examiner in the Answer (6),
as discussed above, we sustain the § 103 rejection of dependent claim 18
over the combination of Witting and Law.

Independent Claim 19
Appellants urge “Keahey fails to overcome Witting’s deficiencies
noted above of using an indirect texture map to project image distortion due
to virtual coating above in connection with claim 17. Thus, claims 19 and
20 are allowable in view of the foregoing discussion in connection with
claim 17.” (App. Br. 12). However, we do not find any deficiencies with
Witting, for the reasons discussed above regarding claim 17. Therefore,
we sustain the § 103 rejection of independent claim 19 over the combination
of Witting and Keahey.

5 Because “applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad
construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or
patentee.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
Appeal 2011-007335
Application 12/198,217

9
Dependent Claim 20
Appellants further contend that “claim 20 recites dynamically
adjusting the number of layers used to model said liquid surface. Although
Witting generally mentions two-dimensional simulations using layers which
are integrated into a final image (section 4.1), Witting does not disclose
dynamically adjusting the number of layers.” (App. Br. 13).
The Examiner found “Witting teaches said surface modeling
component dynamically adjusts the number of said layers used to model said
liquid surface (p. 133 col. 1 section 4.1 Design Decision 1st bullet).” (Ans.
7).
The cited portion of Witting describes:
 Control Through Layering: Animators can build up
libraries of elements produced by simulations, all of which
can be easily repositioned, scaled, and even put into
perspective within the compositor. The bottom of figure 3
shows two layers and how they were integrated into the final
image above. The top element was scaled and had animating
transforms to match to the motion of one of the magician’s
hands. The lower element had an animating transform to
react to the sliding of one of his feet. Individual layers allow
artists to make independent decisions for colors, opacities,
rendering parameters, and transforms.
(Witting, p. 133, section 4.1 “Design Decisions” 1st bullet).
Contrary to Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 13), we find Witting’s
description of “control through layering” which includes elements produced
by simulations “all of which can be easily repositioned, scaled, and even put
into perspective within the compositor” (Witting, p. 133, section 4.1 “Design
Decisions” 1st bullet), would have at least suggested the contested limitation
of “dynamically adjust[ing] the number of said layers” within the meaning
of claim 20. Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner
Appeal 2011-007335
Application 12/198,217

10
erred. We sustain the § 103 rejection of dependent claim 20 over the
combination of Witting and Keahey

Reply Brief
To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s position in the Answer, we note
that “[a]ny bases for asserting error, whether factual or legal, that are not
raised in the principal brief are waived.” Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d
1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative). Cf. with Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion
Beam Appl’ns. S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]n issue not
raised by an appellant in its opening brief . . . is waived.”) (citations and
quotation marks omitted).

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 17-20 are
affirmed.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED

msc