Ex Parte Hammer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2017

13035381 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2017)

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.
2010508-0071 (GEO-027) 2679
EXAMINER
ZALALEE, SULTANA MARCIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/035,381 02/25/2011
22514 7590
3D Systems, Inc.
3D Systems, Inc.
333 Three D Systems Circle
Rock Hill, SC 29730
03/29/2017
Vincent M. Hammer
03/29/2017 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VINCENT M. HAMMER
Appeal 2014-008593
Application 13/035,3811
Technology Center 2600
Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellant identifies 3D Systems, Inc. as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2014-008593
Application 13/035,381
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to creating near real-time embossed meshes
for preview on a graphical display. (Spec. Title and Abstract.) Claim 1,
reproduced below with argued language shown in italics, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for creating a preview embossed mesh for
graphical display to a user, the system comprising:
a graphical user interface device configured to receive
input from a user and transmit said input to a computer, said
computer comprising a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) and a
Central Processing Unit (CPU);
a memory for use with said computer, the memory
comprising computer software configured to:
(a) determine a 3D volumetric mask representing a region
of a graphical object to be embossed, said region selected by said
user according to said user input;
(b) determine a distance map corresponding to said 3D
volumetric mask; and
(c) render offset geometry, trimmed to said 3D volumetric
mask, wherein said GPU is used to compute said distance map
within said 3D volumetric mask, and wherein said distance map
and said 3D volumetric mask are cached within said memory so
that said distance map and said 3D volumetric mask are
accessible by a shader to provide a preview embossed mesh for
graphical display to said user, and
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed Feb. 25, 2011, the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed Nov. 21, 2013, the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.”) filed Apr. 7, 2014, the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 4, 2014
(“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed July 22, 2014.
2
Appeal 2014-008593
Application 13/035,381
a video display configured to graphically display said
preview embossed mesh to said user.
(App. Br. 14.)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3, 5, 7—12, 14, 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Azar (US 2008/0158253 Al, July 3, 2008), Zuiderveld et
al. (US 2005/0143654 Al, June 30, 2005), and Rice et al. (US
2004/0196285 Al, Oct. 7, 2004). (Final Act. 3-11.)
Claims 4 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Azar, Zuiderveld,
Rice, and Berger (US 2005/0128210 Al, June 16, 2005). (Final Act. 11—
13.)
Claims 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Azar, Zuiderveld,
Rice, and Demers et al. (US 2005/0195210 Al, Sept. 8, 2005). (Final Act.
13-15.)
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellant states that “Azar discloses a method whereby a volumetric
mask is generated from a surface mesh (surface mesh volumetric mask).”
(App. Br. 4 and Reply Br. 2 (citing Azar 141).) Appellant argues “Azar
does not access [a] mask to render offset geometry and thereby provide a
preview embossed mesh (3D volumetric mask preview embossed mesh),”
as recited in claim 1. (Id.)
We agree with Appellant’s argument. The Examiner relies on Azar
for rendering offset geometry, trimmed to a 3D volumetric mask, and to
provide a preview of the offset geometry as a 3D volume display
3
Appeal 2014-008593
Application 13/035,381
corresponding to a closed surface mesh using a temporary surface mask for
each slice of the selected closed surface mesh. (Final Act. 4—5 and Ans. 4—5
(citing Azar || 41—49 and 79, Figs. 4B, 5A—5C and 12).) Thus, Appellant is
correct that the Examiner’s rejection relies on Azar’s rendering a volumetric
mask from a surface mesh, whereas claim 1 requires rendering a preview
embossed mesh from a 3D volumetric mask.
Appellant also argues Rice’s process to “emboss a flat surface” is not
the same as an “embossed mesh” as claimed. (App. Br. 5 and Reply Br. 5
(citing Rice Tflf 5, 79).) We agree with Appellant’s argument. Rice discloses
use of displacement mapping to emboss a flat surface (Rice 1 5), and use of
a displacement shader to shade micropolygons (Rice 179). Although Rice
discloses an “embossed flat surface,” these teachings fall short of disclosing
an “embossed mesh” as claimed. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s
finding that Rice teaches creating an emboss effect on a mesh. (Ans. 4—5
(citing Rice Tflf 5, 79, 105, 106 and Fig. 12).)
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner
has not shown that the combination of Azar, Zuiderveld, and Rice discloses
the claimed invention. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 10
Independent claim 10 recites similar features as argued for claim 1.
Therefore, for the stated reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10.
Remaining Claims
The remaining claims are dependent from either claim 1 or claim 10,
and therefore incorporate all of their limitations. For the same reasons as
stated with respect to the independent claims, we do not sustain the
rejections of these dependent claims. We note that the additional references
Berger cited against claims 4 and 13 as disclosing a Euclidian distance map
4
Appeal 2014-008593
Application 13/035,381
(Final Act. 12 (citing Berger H 38, 119)), and Demers cited against claims 6
and 15 as disclosing the computation of texture displacements (Final Act.
13—14 (citing Demers 1108 and Fig. 6)), are not relied upon to disclose the
noted deficiencies of Azar and Rice. Thus, we do not sustain the rejections
against these claims.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5