Ex parte Kerker, Jr., et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 21, 1998

08126443 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 21, 1998)

Application for patent filed September 23, 1993. 1
According to applicants, the application is a continuation of
Application 07/947,027, filed September 17, 1992, abandoned;
which is a continuation of Application 07/495,811, filed
March 19, 1990, abandoned.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte ROBERT P. KERKER, JR.,
GERALD H. OTTAWAY AND MICHAEL T. PEETS
_____________
Appeal No. 95-3378
Application 08/126,4431
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 95-3378
Application No. 08/126,443
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 7. In an Amendment After Final (paper number 18), claims
1 and 7 were amended, and claim 2 was canceled. Accordingly,
claims 1 and 3 through 7 remain on appeal.
The disclosed invention relates to a method of operating and
storing data in a graphics display system to facilitate creation
and display of sectional views of solid objects.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A method of operating a graphics display system to
facilitate creation and display of sectional views of solid
objects, said method comprising the steps of:
defining a base model or accessing a pre-existing base model
of a solid object to be displayed in a sectional view;
defining a model of a sectioning object or accessing a pre-
existing model of a sectioning object;
specifying a desired Boolean logic operation for applying
said sectioning object model to said base model;
generating a hierarchically combined model of said solid
object for subsequent generation of at least one view of said
object, said combined model incorporating both said base model
and said sectioning object model, for sectioning in accordance
with said sectioning object model and in accordance with said
Boolean logic operation as applied to said base model;
modifying said sectioning model while simultaneously viewing
said base model;
modifying said base model within said hierarchically
Appeal No. 95-3378
Application No. 08/126,443
3
combined model;
generating at least one sectioned view of said solid object
as represented by said modified base model and said modified
sectioning object model.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Mortenson, “Geometric Modeling,” John Wiley & Sons, 1985, pages
431 through 480.
Claims 1 and 3 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Mortenson.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Mortenson discloses (page 461) constructive solid geometry
modeling methods that define complex solids as compositions of
simpler solids or primitives. Boolean operators are used to
execute the composition. “Constructive solid geometry
representations of objects are ordered binary trees whose leaf or
terminal nodes are either primitives or transformation data for
rigid-body motions” (page 462). “The most common approach in
contemporary modeling systems is to offer a finite set of
concise, compact primitives whose size, shape, position, and
orientation are determined by a small set of user-specified
parameters” (page 463). “The Boolean operators used by CSG
systems are the familiar threesome: union, difference, and
Appeal No. 95-3378
Application No. 08/126,443
4
intersect” (page 465 ).
The examiner indicates (Answer, page 4) that a “model is
shown in the upper portion of figure 10.34 where the union of
cylinders define a sectioning object which is combined with a
base model (the sphere),” and that “Mortenson further discloses
at page 462 that the resulting combination of primitive models is
also a model.” The examiner acknowledges (Answer, pages 4 and 5)
the following:
It is noted that Mortenson does not explicitly disclose
that a resulting view is generated, however, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to include this
feature because it is well known that modeling methods
such as those disclosed by Mortenson are used in
computer systems (in CAD systems in particular) and
that in such systems it is often desired that the
results of an operation be displayed for review or
confirmation. It is also noted that Mortenson does not
explicitly disclose a modifying operation, however, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to include this
feature because modeling methods such as those
disclosed by Mortenson are used in computer systems (in
CAD systems in particular) and such systems often
require that the model be modified (changing sizes or
adding additional primitives for example). It is noted
that Mortenson does not explicitly disclose that the
sectioning object is defined while simultaneously
viewing the base model, however, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to do so because Mortenson does
teach at page 463 that the position of each element
must be specified and figure 10.36 shows that in order
to generate a desired sectioned or cutaway view the
proper position for the sectioning object, in respect
to the base model, must be selected and it is well
Appeal No. 95-3378
Application No. 08/126,443
5
known in the art that displaying the two objects
simultaneously while positioning allows the user to
easily see the resulting position.
It is evident that the examiner is of the opinion that all
of the claimed steps not taught by Mortenson are well known in
the art, and would have been obvious to include in Mortenson.
The claimed features missing from Mortenson may indeed be well
known in the art, but we have no evidence of that fact in the
record. The broadly stated conclusions by the examiner can not
take the place of evidence or a convincing line of reasoning that
the claimed invention would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan. The 1989 publication cited by the examiner (Answer,
page 8) entitled “Using AutoCAD” by James E. Fuller has little
relevance, if any, to the claimed features of a “combined model
incorporating both said base model and said sectioning object
model,” and “modifying said sectioning model while simultaneously
viewing said base model.” In view of appellants’ challenge
(Brief, page 8) to the examiner’s failure to cite any “authority
whatsoever for his assertions of features beyond the admittedly
limited teachings of Mortenson,” the obviousness rejection of
claims 1 and 3 through 7 is reversed because the examiner has
failed to make a prima facie showing of the obviousness of the
claimed invention via evidence or a convincing line of reasoning.
Appeal No. 95-3378
Application No. 08/126,443
6
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 and 3
through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 95-3378
Application No. 08/126,443
7
Lawrence D. Cutter
IBM Corporation
Intellectual Property Law
Large Scale Computing Division
522 South Road (MS-P903)
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601-5400