Ex Parte Heikkonen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 17, 2012

11117440 (B.P.A.I. May. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TEEMU HEIKKONEN, IIRO OJALA,
VILLE ROUSU, PERTTI ALHO,
JUKKA PARTANEN, JUKKA SUOMI, and
RAGNAR WESSMAN
____________

Appeal 2010-003462
Application 11/117,440
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003462
Application 11/117,440

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to using a magnetic control plane to modify a
model part. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for enabling modification and/or transfer of a
model part in a modeling system, the method comprising at
least:

creating a plane for the model so that a handle associated with
the model part is on the plane; and

defining the plane as a magnetic control plane to enable
modification and/or transfer of the model part,

transferring the magnetic control plane; and

storing the outcome of the transferring,

wherein a transfer of the magnetic control plane makes the
handle on the magnetic control plane move correspondingly,
and the move of the handle causes modification, including
transfer, of the model part.

REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Letcher, Jr. US 5,856,828 Jan. 5, 1999

Appeal 2010-003462
Application 11/117,440

3
REJECTION
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Letcher, Jr. (“Letcher”).

ANALYSIS
Regarding representative claim 1, Appellants contend that Letcher
fails to disclose using a magnetic control plane to modify or transfer a model
part having a handle on the plane (App. Br. 13-18). While Appellants admit
“LETCHER teaches that moving a magnet point moves a plane tied to the
magnet point,” Appellants argue that this teaching is contrary to the claimed
invention (App. Br. 17). That is, “Letcher teaches that the magnet
movement is the first action and the surface/plane modification is the
responsive result,” whereas “in the claimed invention, the first action is the
movement of the magnetic control plane and the responsive result is the
movement of a handle on the surface” (Reply Br. 1-2).
The Examiner responds that Letcher’s Figure 27 shows a model with
magnetic points on multiple surfaces of the model, and that adjustment of a
point on one of the surfaces results in a modification of the whole model
(Ans. 6-8). The Examiner finds that Letcher’s magnetic points are “handles”
and that the surfaces are “magnetic control planes” (Ans. 7-8).
We agree with the Examiner that the surfaces of Letcher’s model are
magnetic control planes (See Ans. 6-8; Letcher, Fig. 27). As described in
Appellants’ Specification, a “magnetic control plane” may be “an actual
model plane, for instance a slab or a top surface of a slab” (Spec. ¶ 0017).
Appellants’ argument that Letcher moves magnetic points and not magnetic
control planes (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 1-2) is not persuasive because claim 1
Appeal 2010-003462
Application 11/117,440

4
does not preclude moving a handle on the magnetic control plane to move
the plane, which in turn causes other handles on the plane to move. In other
words, claim 1 does not specify that a handle on the magnetic control plane
cannot be used to initiate movement of the plane, including the other handles
on the plane, as disclosed in Letcher.
Specifically, Letcher’s system automatically preserves the relative
positioning and connectivity of all surfaces of the model when a particular
point is modified (Letcher, col. 16, ll. 44-51). This means that moving a
magnetic point, or “handle,” moves the surface on which the point is located,
as Appellants admit (See App. Br. 17). Further, movement of a surface in
Letcher controls the movement of the other magnetic points, or “handles,”
on the surface because Letcher defines a magnet as “a point constrained to
lie on a surface” (Letcher, col. 4, l. 55). Thus, Letcher discloses “wherein a
transfer of the magnetic control plane makes the handle on the magnetic
control plane move correspondingly, and the move of the handle causes
modification, including transfer, of the model part,” as recited in claim 1.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1. Although independent claims 12 and 14 are separately addressed,
Appellants’ arguments for claims 12 and 14 are similar to the arguments for
claim 1 (See App. Br. 19-25). We are not persuaded by these arguments for
the reasons discussed above.
Appellants argue the patentability of claims 2-10, 13 and 15-19 on
appeal as groups by arguing the rejection of claims 1, 12, and 14. In
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we consider the claims on
appeal as falling with their parent claims 1, 12, and 14.

Appeal 2010-003462
Application 11/117,440

5
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b).

DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-19.
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

tkl