Ex Parte Kim et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 22, 2009

10990576 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 22, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHOONG-SIK KIM, SEONG-WOON BOOH,
DONG-WOO LEE, and JIN-WOO CHO
____________

Appeal 2008-5069
Application 10/990,576
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided:1 June 22, 2009
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF,
and KARL D. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-5069
Application 10/990,576

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a method and apparatus for generating
a three-dimensional finite element mesh (FEM) for finite element analysis
(FEA) (Spec. 1).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A method of generating a three-dimensional finite
element mesh (FEM), comprising the steps of:

generating a surface mesh by meshing the surface of a three-
dimensional model of a three-dimensional object;

generating a projected contour by projecting the three-
dimensional model from one direction;

generating a projected contour mesh by meshing the surface of
the projected contour;

generating a solid base mesh by stacking solid elements on a
base side formed of two-dimensional elements of the projected
contour mesh;

substituting the surface mesh into the solid base mesh in
alignment with the projected contour; and

generating a final solid mesh by distinguishing solid elements
surrounded by the surface mesh in the solid base mesh.

References
The prior art applied in rejecting the claims on appeal is:
2
Appeal 2008-5069
Application 10/990,576

Hull US 5,345,391 Sep. 6, 1994
Van Rens US 6,781,582 B1 Aug. 24, 2004

Rejection
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Van Rens in view of Hull.
We refer to the Briefs (Appeal Brief filed Aug. 15, 2007 and Reply
Brief filed Jan. 28, 2008) and the Answer (mailed Nov. 28, 2007) for their
respective details. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have
been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants did not make
in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
The Examiner relies on Van Rens for disclosing the steps of
generating a surface mesh, generating a projected contour, and generating a
projected contour mesh of claim 1 except for the steps of generating a solid
base mesh, substituting the surface mesh, and generating a final solid mesh,
for which the Examiner relies on Hull (Ans. 4-8). With respect to the
rejection of claims 1-6, Appellants do not dispute the teachings of Hull and
merely challenge the teachings of Van Rens with respect to claimed steps of
generating a projected contour, and generating a projected contour mesh
(App. Br. 5-7). Appellants specifically argue that the combination of the
references does not teach all the claimed features since the process described
by Van Rens corresponds to the conventional solid mesh generation process
(App. Br. 7). Regarding the rejection of claims 7-10, we note that
Appellants provide arguments identical to those presented with respect to
3
Appeal 2008-5069
Application 10/990,576

claims 1-6 (App. Br. 8-13). Therefore we select claim 1 as representative of
the claims on appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Therefore, the arguments made by Appellants present us with the
following issue:
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-
10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by combining Van Rens and Hull to
specifically teach the claimed steps of generating a projected contour, and
generating a projected contour mesh?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FF) are relevant to the issue involved
in the appeal.
1. Appellants do not dispute the teachings of Hull that are relied
on by the Examiner in rejecting the claims and state that Hull describes a
method and apparatus for producing high resolution three-dimensional
objects (App. Br. 5).
2. Appellants limit their arguments related to Hull to the assertion
that Hull does not make up for the deficiencies of Van Rens with respect to
the claimed steps of generating a projected contour and generating a
projected contour mesh (App. Br. 5-8).
3. Van Rens relates to a method for generating meshes of an
object having an object volume within a shape defined by its surfaces.
(Abstract; col. 1, ll. 55-61.)
4. As shown in Figure 6, Van Rens describes the steps carried out
by the mesh generator by referring to three coaxial tubes 53, 55, and 57.
(Col. 7, ll. 5-10.)
4
Appeal 2008-5069
Application 10/990,576

5. Van Rens shows tubes 53, 55, and 57 in Figure 6 as the three-
dimensional bodies used for meshing.

Figure 6 of Van Rens

6. Van Rens describes the first tube 53 as having a front cross-
sectional surface 59 enclosed by an outer contour 71. (Col. 7, ll. 11-12.)
7. Van Rens describes the second tube 55 as having a front cross-
sectional surface 61 with an outer contour 73 and an inner contour 71’. The
inner contour 71’ is a projection of contour 71 of the front surface 59 of the
tube 53 on the plane in which the outer contour 73 is located. (Col. 7, ll. 13-
16.)
8. Van Rens describes the third tube 57 as having a front cross-
sectional surface 63 with an outer contour 75 and an inner contour 73’.
5
Appeal 2008-5069
Application 10/990,576

Further, the inner contour 73’ is a projection of the outer contour 73 of the
front surface 61 of the second tube 55 on the plane in which the outer
contour 75 is located. (Col. 7, ll. 17-21.)
9. For purposes of the mesh generation, Van Rens discloses
generating a projection surface 61’ of the surface 61 on the plane in which
the front surface 63 of the third tube 57 is located, as well as projection
contours 71” and 71’”, respectively, of the outer contour 71 of front surface
59 of the first tube 53 are defined. Projection contour 71” is located in the
plane in which the front surface of tube 57 is located. Projection contour
71’” is located in the plane in which the rear surface of the third tube 57 is
located. (Col. 7, ll. 36-43.)
10. Van Rens discloses the steps of mesh generating to calculate
the meshes for the entire structure by first, generating a cross-sectional
surface mesh for cross-sectional surface 59 starting from the projection
contour 71. (Col. 7, ll. 47-53.)
11. Van Rens discloses the next step as copying the mesh from the
first step to cross-sectional surfaces 59’, 59”, and 59’”. (Col. 7, ll. 54-55.)
12. Van Rens discloses the second step as generating envelop
surface meshes for the envelope surface 65, as well as for the envelop
surfaces 65’ and 65” of the extensions, respectively, of tube 53 within tubes
55 and 57, respectively. Thereafter, the meshes of the cross-sectional
surfaces 59, 59’, 59”, 59’”, and the envelop surfaces 65, 65’, and 65” need to
be conformed; i.e., nodes located on the boundaries between the envelop
surfaces 65, 65’, 65” and cross-sectional surfaces 59, 59’, 59”, and 59’”
coincide for the respective envelop surface meshes and cross-sectional
surface meshes. (Col. 7, ll. 56-65.)
6
Appeal 2008-5069
Application 10/990,576

13. Van Rens discloses the last step as generating a volume mesh
for tube 53 using the cross-sectional surface meshes of the cross-sectional
surfaces 59, 59’, 59”, and 59’” and the envelop surface meshes of the
envelop surfaces 65, 65’, and 65”. (Col. 7, l. 66 – col. 8, l. 2.)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966) (stating that 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 leads to three basic factual inquiries: the scope and content of the prior
art, the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and the
level of ordinary skill in the art). “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden,
on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie
case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior
art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
Such a showing requires
7
Appeal 2008-5069
Application 10/990,576

‘some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness’ . . . [H]owever, the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would employ.

Id. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s line of reasoning and find that Van
Rens does teach the claimed steps of generating a projected contour, and
generating a projected contour mesh, as set forth in claim 1. As pointed out
by the Examiner (Ans. 17-18), the disclosure of Van Rens relates to
generating meshes of an object volume (FF 1) wherein coaxial tubes 53, 55,
and 57 represent the three-dimensional bodies (FF 4-8). The Examiner
appropriately relies (Ans. 18-19) on the disclosure of Van Rens describing
the claimed step of projecting the contour of each three-dimensional tube
onto an opposing surface from one direction as the projection of tube 53 in a
direction perpendicular to surface 59 on surfaces 63 and 63’ as areas 59” and
59’” having contours 71” and 71’” (FF 6, 9). Similarly, we find that the
other three-dimensional bodies 55 and 57 have projected contours 73’/73”
and 63’ in the same perpendicular direction (FF 7-9).
With respect to the claimed step of generating a projected contour
mesh, we also find the Examiner’s reliance on Van Rens (Ans. 19-20) to be
reasonable. The Examiner also appropriately refers to areas 59, 59’, 59”,
and 59’” in Figure 6 of Van Rens, showing that the projected contours are
used for generating a surface mesh (FF 9-11). Thereafter, Van Rens
8
Appeal 2008-5069
Application 10/990,576

generates a volume mesh using the generated projected contour meshes and
the meshes of the cross-sectional surfaces 59, 59’, 59”, and 59’” (FF 12-13).
Therefore, contrary to Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 6) that the contours
71’, 73’, and 73” of Van Rens are merely projections of front surfaces 59
and 61, the projections are indeed based on the entire three-dimensional
objects depicted as tubes 53, 55, and 57 in Figure 6.
We note that Appellants’ initial arguments in the Appeal Brief with
respect to Hull are limited to how the teachings of Hull do not make up for
the deficiencies of Van Rens with respect to the claimed steps of generating
a projected contour and generating a projected contour mesh (FF 1-2).
However, Appellants raised new arguments in the Reply Brief that are
drawn to the specific teachings of Hull, the motivation for combining the
references, the scope of claim terms, and compatibility of the applied art
(Reply Br. 7-9). Appellants waived these new arguments as not timely
raised. 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); Ex parte Scholl, No.
2007-3653, (BPAI Mar. 13, 2008)((Informative), at 17-18, available at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/its/fd073653.pdf).

CONCLUSION
In view of our analysis above, we do not find error in the Examiner’s
position with respect to the combination of the applied references. In that
regard, using KSR standards, the evidence provided by the Examiner
supports a finding that combining the teachings of Van Rens and Hull would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and a prima facie case
9
Appeal 2008-5069
Application 10/990,576

has been made. We find that the teachings of the applied prior art, when
considered as a whole, support the Examiner’s obviousness rejection by
teaching the claimed steps of generating a projected contour, and generating
a projected contour mesh. Thus, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of independent claims 1 and 7, as well as claims 2-6 and 8-10 argued
together with their base claims (App. Br. 14), over the teachings of Van
Rens and Hull.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-10 is 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).

AFFIRMED

gvw

THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, PC
333 EARLE OVINGTON BOULEVARD
SUITE 701
UNIONDALE, NY 11553
10