13100980 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

Ex Parte Coutinho et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 31, 2018

13100980 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/100,980 05/04/2011 51518 7590 MA YER & WILLIAMS PC 55 Madison A venue Suite 400 Morristown, NJ 07960 08/02/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Murilo Coutinho 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 201003324.02 4048 EXAMINER HILL, SCHILLER D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2618 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2018 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@mwpatentlaw.com mwolf@mwpatentlaw.com kwilliams@mwpatentlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MURILO COUTINHO and RODRIGO IBANEZ Appeal2017-011071 Application 13/100,980 Technology Center 2600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, DENISE M. POTHIER, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1,2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-23. Appeal Br. 2. Claims 6 and 14 have been canceled. See Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Action (Final Act.) mailed September 8, 2016; the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed March 8, 2017; and the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed June 16, 2017. No Reply Briefhas been filed. 2 The real party in interest is listed as Sony Corporation and Sony Pictures Technologies Incorporated. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2017-011071 Application 13/100,980 Invention Appellants' invention relates to a technique for altering portions of a simulation without altering adjoining portions. According to the Specification, this increases the simulation pace and decreases the required simulation amount and size. See Spec., Abstract, Fig. 3. Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis: 1. A method of graphically re-simulating at least a portion of an object in a shot, comprising: a. designating a portion of an object to be re-simulated in a shot, the shot including a number of frames over time, undesignated portions of the object remaining not re-simulated in the shot; b. altering a non-constraint property value associated with the designated portion; c. simulating the designated portion using the altered property value; d. retrieving a simulation or an input mesh corresponding to the undesignated portion of the object; and e. combining the re-simulated portion and the retrieved simulation or input mesh, such that a portion of the object in the shot over time is re-simulated and a portion [is J not re- simulated. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Anderson Bruderlin Demirli US 6,909,431 Bl US 2007 /0273704 Al US 2008/0212894 Al June 21, 2005 Nov. 29, 2007 Sept. 4, 2008 Peter-Pike J. Sloan et al., SHAPE BY EXAMPLE, Procs. of the 2001 Symp. on Interactive 3D Graphics 135--43 (2001). 2 Appeal 2017-011071 Application 13/100,980 Scott Kircher and Michael Garland, EDITING ARBITRARILY DEFORMING SURFACE ANIMATIONS, SIGGRAPH '06 3 1-10 (2006). Adi Levin, MODIFIED SUBDIVISION SURF ACES WITH CONTINUOUS CURVATURE, 25 ACM Trans. On Graphics 1035--40 (July 2006). The Rejections Claims 1--4, 7, 9-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kircher and Anderson. Final Act. 2-15. Claims 5, 8, 13, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kircher, Anderson, and Bruderlin. Final Act. 15-17. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kircher, Anderson, and Demirli. Final Act. 17-19. Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kircher, Anderson, Demirli, and Sloan. Final Act. 19-20. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kircher, Anderson, Demirli, Sloan, and Levin. Final Act. 20-21. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER KIRCHER AND ANDERSON Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Kircher discloses many of its limitations, including "re-"simulating the designated portion using the altered property value and combining the re-simulated portion and the retrieved simulation or input mesh, "such that a portion of the object in the shot over time is re-simulated and a portion [is] not re-simulated" as recited. Final Act. 4 ( citing Kircher 8, Â§ 6); Ans. 2-3 ( citing Kircher 5---6 Â§Â§ 4, 4.3), 5 (citing Kircher 2, 8). 3 This reference states "To Appear in SIGGRAPH 2006." See 25 ACM Trans. On Graphics 1098-1107 (July 2006). 3 Appeal 2017-011071 Application 13/100,980 Appellants argue Kircher fails to disclose re-simulation. Appeal Br. 6-7. In particular, Appellants contend "altering vertices of an already- generated simulation (Kircher) is not the same as re-simulating (instant claims) a portion of an object." Appeal Br. 6. Appellants next assert Kircher does not teach "undesignated portions of the object are not re-simulated while the designated portions are re-simulated." Appeal Br. 6; see also Appeal Br. 6-9. Appellants further contend Anderson in combination with Kircher does not disclose what is purportedly missing from Kircher. Appeal Br. 6. ISSUES UnderÂ§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding Kircher collectively would have taught or suggested: (I) "simulating the designated portion using the altered property value" and (II) "combining the re-simulated portion and the retrieved simulation or input mesh, such that a portion of the object in the shot over time is re-simulated and a portion [is] not re-simulated"? (III) Does the record establish a prima facie case of obvious to combine Anderson with Kircher? ANALYSIS I. We begin by construing the key disputed limitation of claim 1, which calls for, in pertinent part, "simulating." Appeal Br. 13. Notably, claim 1 recites (1) "re-simulating" in its preamble and (2) "designating a portion of 4 Appeal 2017-011071 Application 13/100,980 an object to be re-simulated" and "combining the re-simulated portion" in its body. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App'x). But, unlike step (d) of claim 9, claim 1 does not positively recite re-simulating the designated portion. Compare Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App'x) with Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App'x). A claim is given its broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ( citation omitted). We presume that claim terms have their ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("The ordinary and customary meaning 'is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question."' (Citation omitted)). A patentee may rebut this presumption by acting as her own lexicographer, providing a definition of the term in the specification with "reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision." In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Although discussing examples of simulation ( e.g., Spec. ,r,r 21-22, 39, 43--45, Fig. 3 (step 38), Figs. 4(A)-5(B), Fig. 7 (step 94)), the Specification has not provided a clear definition of the term "simulating." See generally Spec. We therefore presume the term "simulating" in claim 1 has its plain or ordinary meaning. Currently, no such ordinary understanding of this term is of record. At least one dictionary defines "simulation" as "[t]he imitation of a physical process or an object by a program that causes a computer to respond mathematically to data and changing conditions as though it were the process or object itself. See also emulator, modeling ( definition 1 ). " MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 482 (5th ed. 2002). Accordingly, the 5 Appeal 2017-011071 Application 13/100,980 phrase "simulating," as broadly as recited, includes imitating or emulating an item or article by a program and changing conditions as though the imitation/emulation was the item or article. We therefore disagree with Appellants that modifying an already-created simulation (see Appeal Br. 7) by editing parts or conditions of an object, resulting in an object transformation that imitates portions of an article, does not involve simulating ( or re-simulating for that matter) the designated portion of an object" as recited. Turning to Kircher and the Examiner's findings related to the disputed "simulating" step (Final Act. 8; Ans. 3), Kircher discusses multiresolution editing. Kircher 5 (Â§ 4), cited in Ans. 2-3. Kircher explains this technique involves constructing a time-varying multiresolution transform for a given animation sequence as an automatic preprocessing step and, once the transform construction is complete, editing the sequence. Kircher 5 (Â§ 4). The Examiner describes Kircher' s creating a multiresolution transform (see Kircher 5 (Â§ 4), 8 (Â§ 6), 9 (Fig. 11 )) as an initial simulation of an object (Final Act. 4; Ans. 3) and does not map this initial simulation to the recited "simulating the designated portion" as recited. For example, Kircher describes constructing the original collapsing horse shown in Figure 11 's upper interface as "the original simulation." Kircher 8 (Â§ 6), Fig. 11. As for the recited "simulating the designated portion" step, the Examiner finds Kircher' s interactive editing sessions teach or suggest this limitation. See Final Act. 4; see Ans. 3, 5. Kircher discusses a user can interactively edit a sequence and the editing can be stored in a special filter and applied to any frame to produce a corresponding edit. Kircher 5 (Â§ 4), cited in Ans. 2-3. Kircher also describes localizing the edits or specifying 6 Appeal 2017-011071 Application 13/100,980 the exact location or a particular part of a surface where the edit is applied. Kircher 6 (Â§ 4.3), cited in Ans. 3. We find the Examiner's underlying factual findings and legal conclusion of obviousness are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. For example, the Examiner discusses Figure 11, which modifies a horse to generate a camel's hump on a horse creating a camel-horse hybrid. See Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 5. When the user edits the sequence, Kircher describes and shows modifying a horse into "a camel-horse hybrid, complete with hump," in bottom interface of Figure 11. Kircher 8-9, Fig. 11. The resulting product shown in Kircher's Figure 11 (bottom interface) emulates or imitates a camel-horse hybrid (e.g., simulates) by changing the horse's back as though the emulation/imitation was the camel-horse hybrid. Moreover, Kircher simulates the camel-horse hybrid on a designated portion of an object ( e.g., the horse's back to create the hump), whereas other parts remain untouched or unmodified (e.g., horse's legs). See Kircher 8-9, Fig. 11. As the Examiner explains (Final Act. 4; Ans. 5), this localized edit to a camel-horse hybrid occurs using constraints. Ans. 5. Kircher states constraint edits allow a user (1) to specify a particular surface part should be in a certain location and frame and (2) to choose parameters to change how localized the effect of the constraint is. Kircher 6 (Â§ 4.3). For example, Kircher shows in Figure 8 a constraint used to modify a cloth sequence where the constraint is applied at a fine level or is localized, creating a spike effect. Kircher 6 (Â§ 4.3), 7 (Fig. 8). Thus, Kircher's Figure 11 suggests a user specifying the edited hump should be localized to a certain location (e.g., the horse's back) using a constraint. Kircher 6 (Â§ 4.3), 8-9 (Â§ 6), Fig. 11. The resulting camel-horse sequence shown in Figure 11 has a portion 7 Appeal 2017-011071 Application 13/100,980 ( e.g., at the hump) of an object ( e.g., horse) simulated ( or re-simulated) and another portion of the object (e.g., the horse's legs) is not re-simulated (e.g., not imitating the camel but rather is the original simulated horse) as recited in claim 1. Similar to Figures 4(A}-(B) of Appellants' disclosure, Kircher's Figure 11 shows a sequence before simulation (e.g., the upper interface in Figure 11) and after simulation ( e.g., the lower interface in Figure 11 ). That is, like segment 46 in the Specification's Figures 4(A}-4(B), the horse's leg remain unchanged after simulation, whereas, like segments 48 and 48' in Figures 4(A}-4(B), the horse's back changes after simulation. Compare Spec. Figs. 4(A}-(B) with Kircher, Fig. 11. We thus disagree with Appellants (Appeal Br. 7-8) that Kircher does not suggest editing just a portion of an object and thus "simulating the designated portion" as recited and as explained previously. Although Kircher is described as "[a] more complicated edit" (Kircher 8 (Â§ 6)), Kircher does not state which multiresolution editing technique was used in Figure 11. Kircher 8 (Â§ 6), Fig. 11. Even so, Kircher describes signal processing and editing involves applying filters to the detail vector representations of a surface and applying the filters to any frame, including (1) manipulating part of the object using associated edit replicators, which are sufficient to reconstruct the edit (e.g., direct manipulation), (2) specifying the particular part of a surface of the edit ( e.g., constraints), and (3) scaling detail vectors (e.g., geometric signal processing). Kircher 5---6 (Â§Â§ 4, 4.1, 4.3, and 4.4). All of these processes involve simulating a designated portion by imitating or emulating another article as explained previously by editing part of an object to change the object's condition. See 8 Appeal 2017-011071 Application 13/100,980 also Ans. 6-7. We therefore disagree with Appellants that the multiresolution editing, including direct manipulation and constraints, are not the same as "simulating" as broadly as recited and when considered in light of the disclosure. II. Next, Appellants argue Kircher fails to disclose the figures are the "result of combining two different simulations, or a simulation and, e.g., an input mesh. The entire disclosure of the reference is related to multi- resolution editing, with no teaching nor even a suggestion of editing just a portion of an object." Appeal Br. 7. Appellants further contend "there is only one simulation described in the reference. There is no designation of a portion which is to undergo re-simulation and a portion which is not, and then a combining of these two." Appeal Br. 8. Rather, Appellants assert only one mesh is being operated on or the user stretches already existing and simulated vertices. Appeal Br. 8-9 ( citing Kircher Â§ 3 .1 and Fig. 5). We are not persuaded. Following from the above discussion, Kircher does not discuss explicitly the specific multiresolution approach used to form the camel-horse hybrid in Figure 11. Kircher' s Figure 11 shows the results of modifying a horse to imitate a camel-horse (e.g., a re-simulation). Kircher, Fig. 11. Kircher teaches and suggests certain portions of an object (e.g., a horse's back) are modified ( e.g., to include a hump) or re-simulated while other portions are not (e.g., the legs). Using Kircher's direct manipulation technique, edit replicators are allowed to propagate up the hierarchy, such as that shown in Figure 6, where the user edits are replicated and transported to have a resulting edit on a frame (e.g., imitating an object's part and changing 9 Appeal 2017-011071 Application 13/100,980 object conditions or "simulated the designated portion" as recited). Kircher 5-6 (Â§ 4.1 ), Fig. 6. That is, Figure 6 shows replicating an edit on a swface and not an entire object. Kircher 6, Fig. 6 ( describing manipulating a surface). Moreover, as Appellants note (Appeal Br. 8), direct manipulation may involve "a brush texture over a portion of the base surface" and "computing edit replicators for each vertex ... that lies within the textured region" (Kircher 6 (Â§ 4.1) (emphases added)). When considering Figure 11 and Kircher's discussion of multiresolution editing as a whole, we find Kircher teaches or at least suggests designating a portion of an object to undergo editing or re- simulation (e.g., the portion of the horse's back surface) and a portion which will not undergo further editing (e.g., the portion of the horse's leg's surface) and then combining these two portions to yield the resulting Figure 11. See Kircher 5---6, 8-9. We thus disagree that Kircher only teaches or suggests one simulation. 4 III. Lastly for claim 1, Appellants argue the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness. Appeal Br. 9-10. Specifically, Appellants contend Kircher is concerned with making editing convenient and does not discuss computational load, implying that there is no reason to 4 Our reviewing court guides: "the question under 35 USC 103 is not merely what the references expressly teach but what they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made." Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747,750 (CCPA 1976)) (emphasis added). 10 Appeal 2017-011071 Application 13/100,980 modify the references as proposed. See Appeal Br. 9--10. We are not persuaded. The rejection proposes including Anderson's technique with Kircher to reduce computational load. Final Act. 5-6. Kircher describes previous editing mesh techniques as "time consuming and tedious" and its method as "easy to edit," suggesting Kircher's process was sensitive to, and conscious of saving computational time. Kircher, Abstract; see also Kircher 8 (Â§ 7) (discussing easing the designer's burden). The Examiner observes Kircher preprocesses a mesh in a simulation so that only small portions of the mesh's surface need be edited to save on computational load. Ans. 14. Appellants further assert Anderson teaches away from calculations using individual vertices by relying on tacking. Appeal Br. 11. However, the Examiner states "Anderson still uses points but groups them in neighborhoods which are under the influence of the tack point." Ans. 15; see also Anderson 1 :55-56, 1 :62-2: 12, 4:29--54. We thus disagree Kircher's uses of vertices discourages one from following Anderson's path or would be lead in a direction divergent from Anderson. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 1. Claims 9 and 16-18 As for representative claim 9, 5 Appellants refer to previous arguments. Appeal Br. 9. We are not persuaded for reasons already stated. 5 Claims 9 and 16-18 are argued as a group. See Appeal Br. 9--10, 12 (indicating dependent claims not argued are allowable for the same reasons 11 Appeal 2017-011071 Application 13/100,980 Additionally, Appellants argue Kircher does not teach "blending" as recited and more particularly, blending a simulation or mesh with a re-simulation. Appeal Br. 9. Yet, as explained above, we disagree that Kircher fails to teach re-simulation and combining a simulation with a re-simulation. Also, to support Appellants' assertion, Appellants refer to the cape example in Kircher's Figure 13. Appeal Br. 9. However, this argument does not consider the teachings of Kircher's Figure 11 discussed above when addressing claim 1. With specific regard to the recited "first weighting to be associated with re-simulation" in claim 9, Appellants argue Kircher discloses soft constraints that are a weight average of both constrained and unconstrained locations of a mesh. Appeal Br. 9. However, as the Examiner finds (Final Act. 10-11 ), Kircher teaches constraint edits can be localized to a particular part of a surface (Kircher 6 (Â§ 4.3)) and the edits can be weighted by a temporal scaling function governing the strength of an edit (Kircher 5 (Â§ 4)). Moreover, the Examiner concludes, and we agree, that some of the disputed features (e.g., blending a retrieved simulation or mesh with a re-simulation, where the (entire) re-simulation is weighted by a first weighting as it is blended with the retrieved simulation or mesh) are not claimed. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 9 and dependent claims 16-18, which are not separately argued. as their underlying independent claims). We select claim 9 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016). 12 Appeal 2017-011071 Application 13/100,980 Claims 2 and 10 Dependent claims 2 and 10 depend from claims 1 and 9 respectively. For claims 2 and 10, Appellants argue Kircher does not disclose "control vertices," which is a term of art, and Kircher's direct manipulation is very different from control vertices. Appeal Br. 11. Yet, Appellants provide no evidence that the recited "control vertices" are an established term of art, or what the meaning of this phrase is to one skilled in the art. Nor does the Specification provide a definition for this phrase. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 6 (stating a portion of the cloth mesh is a subset of the control vertices but not defining the phrase "control vertices"). , Thus, Appellants merely assert that the phrase "control vertices" has a special meaning to one skilled in the art without providing any evidence in support. Counsel's arguments cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139--40 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claims 2 and 10. Claims 3 and 11 Regarding claims 3 and 11, the claims require "the control vertices are associated with control curves or control surfaces." Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App'x). Appellants argue Kircher's discussion of coarser vertices u at level k and the vertices Mo do not teach or suggest an association of vertices u or level k with surfaces or curves. Appeal Br. 11. This argument is unavailing. The recitation "the control vertices are associated with control curves or control surfaces" is a broad limitation and does not specify the type of association between the recited vertices and curves or surfaces. Appeal Br. 13 Appeal 2017-011071 Application 13/100,980 13 (Claims App'x). As the Examiner explains, Kircher teaches the vertices selected for manipulation control the shape and action of a deforming surface and are associated with both coarser level vertices and finer level vertices. See Ans. 16; see also Kircher 5---6 (Â§Â§ 4.1, 4.3), Fig. 6. The Examiner finds, when modifications occur at a coarser level, the underlying surfaces are control surfaces, thus suggesting the vertices are associated with control surfaces. See Ans. 16. Appellants provide no rebuttal to the Examiner's findings and explanation. Based on the record, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claims 3 and 11. Claims 4 and 12 Regarding claims 4 and 12, Appellants argue Kircher does not have the recited property value. Appeal Br. 11. This argument is not persuasive given the rejection relies on Anderson to teach the recited property value. Final Act. 7 (citing Anderson 2:34--42, 5:29--33, 6:33-35). Appellants also contend Anderson creates a rest position for an entire object rather than a portion of an object being re-simulated. Appeal Br. 11. We are not persuaded as Kircher teaches the re-simulated feature as previously noted. See also Ans. 16. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Based on the record, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claims 4 and 12. Claims 7 and 15 Appellants argue Kircher does not contemplate an input mesh as recited in claims 7 and 15 and thus does not teach the step of "the creating 14 Appeal 2017-011071 Application 13/100,980 further comprises creating a simulation based on the input mesh." Appeal Br. 11. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, does not recite a step of "creating," for which "the creating" in claim 7 refers. In any event, we adopt the Examiner's findings as our own. Ans. 17 (referring to previous discussions, such as Ans. 3, 5 (citing Kircher 2, 8)); see also Final Act. 8 ( citing Kircher 3-5). For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claims 7 and 15. THE REJECTION OVER KIRCHER, ANDERSON, AND DEMIRLI Claim 19 depends from claim 9 and further recites "combining the re- simulation with the final blend according to a second weighting independent from the first weighting." Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App'x). Regarding claim 19, the Examiner finds Kircher and Anderson teach or suggest all its limitations, except for a second weighting. Final Act. 17. The Examiner turns to Demirli in combination with Kircher and Anderson to teach the recited second weighting. Final Act. 17-19 (citing Demirli ,r 94). Appellants argue the second weighting in Demirli is dependent on the first weighting and thus fails to teach claim 19' s limitations. Appeal Br. 12. Specifically, Appellants argue Anderson's slider discloses "traditional blending between two images" where the total of the two weightings equals a constant, and thus the image weightings are dependent on each other. Appeal Br. 12 (citing Demirli ,r 94). We are not persuaded. As the Examiner explains, in the proposed rejection, the simulated image as taught by Kircher and Anderson is first generated. See Ans. 18 ( discussing "the simulated image can be generated off-line.") That is, as 15 Appeal 2017-011071 Application 13/100,980 already addressed, Kircher teaches editing portions of an image ( e.g., a horse in Figure 11) such that the image now imitates another thing (e.g., a camel- horse in Figure 11) and thus simulates ( e.g., the hump of a camel) a designated portion of an object ( e.g., the horse's back) to create a camel- horse hybrid. When addressing claim 9 above, we previously discussed during this editing/simulating process applying a weighting (e.g., temporal scaling function) to govern the strength of an edit on each frame as a function of time. See Kircher 5 (Â§ 4). The rejection of claim 19 proposes, after editing/simulating the object's portion (e.g., camel's hump) and applying the temporal scaling function ( e.g., the first weighting) as suggested by Kircher, to add a slider function like Dermirli's (e.g., a second weighting) to provide another adjustment to the image, permitting blending between the initial image/object and a degree of the simulation to achieve a desired result. See Ans. 18; see also Final Act. 18-19. Although applying the slider as taught by Demirli to the Kircher/ Anderson simulation/ editing process builds from initial adjustment taught by Kircher and Anderson, the weightings used within each adjustment are independent. Thus, we disagree that the two weightings as taught by the prior art are dependent on each other as argued. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claim 19. THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS Appellants do not dispute the remaining rejections, only asserting the dependent claims not specifically addressed are allowable for the reasons their underlying independent claims are allowable. Appeal Br. 12. Because 16 Appeal 2017-011071 Application 13/100,980 we are not persuaded the rejections of independent claims 1 and 9 are in error, we sustain the rejections of claims 5, 8, 13, and 23. As for claims 20-22, they depend directly or indirectly from claim 19. We sustain the rejections of claims 20-22 for the same reasons as we sustain the rejections of claims 9 and 19 previously addressed. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-23 underÂ§ 103. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 17 Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under Patent Appeal No. Notice of References Cited 13/100,980 2017-011071 Examiner Art Unit 2618 Page 1 of 1 U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Date Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Name Classification A US- B US- C US- D US- E US- F US- G US- H US- I US- J US- K US- L US- M US- FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS * Document Number Date Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Country Name Classification N 0 p Q R s T NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS * Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages) u Microsoft Computer Dictionary Fifth Edition V w X *A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP Â§ 707.05(a).) Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PT0-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No. MicrosoftÂ· Microsoft~ om uter . . ' 1c 1onar Fifth Edition Â· IE SIMM lnstructlon processor SIMD. SIMM n. Acronym for single inline memory module. A small circuit board designed to accommodate surface- mount memory chips. Simple API for XML n. See SAX. Simple Authentication and Security Layer ll. See SASL. Simple Control Protocol n. See SCP. Simple Mail Transfer Protocol n. A TCP/IP protocol for sending messages from one computer to another on a net- work. This protocol is used on the Internet to route e-mail. Acronym: SMTP. See also communications protocol, TCP/IP. Compare CCI'IT X series, Post Office Protocol. Simple Network Management Protocol n. See SNMP. Simple Object Access Protocol n. See SOAP. simplex n. Communication that takes place only from sender to receiver. Compare duplex2 (definition J ), half- duplex2. simplex transmission n. See simplex. SIMULA n. Short for simulation language. A general-pur- pose programming language based on ALGOL 60, with special features designed to aid the description and simu- lation of active processes. Visual C++ is based on aspects of this language. simulation n. The imitation of a physical process or an object by a program that causes a computer to respond mathematically to data and changing conditions as though it were the process or object itself. See also emulator, modeling (definition 1)., simultaneous access n. See parallel access. simultaneous processing n. 1. True multiple-processor operation in which more than one task can be processed at a time. See also multiprocessing, parallel processing. 2. Loosely, concurrent operation in which more than one task is processed by dividing processor time among the tasks. See also concurrent, multitasking. 482 single-precision Data processors sine wave 11. A uniform, periodic wave often generated by an object that vibrate~ at a single frequency. See the illustration. Compare square wave. Time Sine wave. single attachment station n. An FDDI node thal ( nects to the primary ring through a concentrator. Co, Â· dual attachment station. single-board adj. Of or pertaining to a computer th occupies only one circuit board, usually with no c;1 for additional boards. Â· Â·Â·Â·Â· single-density adj. Ofor pertaining to a disk Lh{ tied only for use with frequency modulation (FM) ing. A single-density disk can store much Jess_da disk using modified FM encoding or run-lengthl encoding. See also modified frequency modula} ing, run-length limited encoding. Â· Single Image Random Dot Stereogram n .. $ stereogram. Single Image Stereograms n. See auto.stet/ single inline memory module n. See SIM single inline package 11. See SIP. . single inline pinned package n. See SIP. single-instruction, multiple-data stream/ processing n. See SIMD. single-line digital subscriber line n. See single-precision adj. Of or pertaining to)i number having the least precision among t s ell IH sin !hi/ 5/F ing fl<\1 rn//, . S.IPJ