Ex Parte Kuo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2017

14716537 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 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.
14/716,537 05/19/2015 Eric E. Kuo 1213.US.C1 3210
69814 7590 09/28/2017
BROOKS, CAMERON & HUEBSCH , PLLC
1201 Marquette Avenue South
Suite 400
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403
EXAMINER
SAXENA, AKASH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2017 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):
Align. Docketing @ bipl. net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC E. KUO, IGOR KVASOV, ANNA EGOROVA,
and SERGEY GAGARIN1
Appeal 2017-006121
Application 14/716,537
Technology Center 2100
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20. App. Br. 7.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Align Technology, Inc., is listed as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Final Action mailed May 2, 2016 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal
Brief filed August 30, 2016 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed
December 21, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed February 20, 2017
(“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2017-006121
Application 14/716,537
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as being directed to
methods, system, and devices for enhancing “[t]he ability to visualize and
manipulate key digital dental references in a three dimensional”
computerized graphical model. Spec. 1. Independent claim 1, reproduced
below with disputed language emphasized, is illustrative of the appealed
claims:
1. A computing device implemented method of viewing
three dimensional dental elements, comprising:
receiving a virtual initial dental data set (IDDS) of teeth
having spatial information regarding positions of a number of
teeth in the virtual IDDS with respect to each other for
presentation of the teeth in a virtual three dimensional space to
be viewed on a user interface, wherein a reference point on one
of the number of teeth in the virtual IDDS causes a transparency
of at least one of the number of teeth based on an orientation of
the virtual IDDS;
manipulating the orientation of the virtual IDDS; and
manipulating the transparency of at least one of the
number of teeth based on the manipulated orientation of the
virtual IDDS, the reference point, and a line of sight to the
reference point in the virtual IDDS.
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Sachdeva (US 2004/0197727 Al; published Oct. 7, 2004).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
2
Appeal 2017-006121
Application 14/716,537
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that “Sachdeva shows two different examples of
manipulating transparency based on orientation.” Ans. 4 (citing Sachdeva
1216); see also Ans. 4—5 (citing Sachdeva FIG. 66; 1261). The Examiner
additionally questions whether Appellants’ Specification supports the
disputed claim language. Ans. 5—6.
Appellants assert
the Sachdeva reference appears to describe tools for displaying
virtual 3D teeth, where certain teeth may be displayed as semi­
transparent objects or non-transparent objects. The tools may
include tools to manipulate the position and/or orientation of the
teeth. However, the Sachdeva reference does not teach
manipulating a transparency of at least one of the number of teeth
based on a manipulated orientation of a virtual initial dental data
set (IDDS), as recited by independent claims 1, 9, and 14, at least
because the Sachdeva reference fails to teach manipulation of a
transparency of teeth based on a manipulated orientation of the
IDDS. That is, the Sachdeva reference does not describe
manipulating the transparency of the 3D teeth based on a
manipulated orientation of the teeth. In other words, the
orientation of the model including the 3D teeth has no effect on
the transparency of the 3D teeth.
App. Br. 8-9.
ANALYSIS
We interpret Appellants’ arguments to be based on the premise that
the claims require the computer to manipulate the transparency of the teeth
automatically in response to the orientation of the virtual IDDS being
manipulated. We disagree that the disputed claim language demands so
narrow a construction.
3
Appeal 2017-006121
Application 14/716,537
Claim 1, for example, merely requires, in relevant part, “[a]
computing device implemented method [that comprises] manipulating the
transparency . . . based on the manipulated orientation of the virtual IDDS”
(emphasis added). This language is broad enough to read on the situation in
which a user manually manipulates the virtual IDDS and then manually
manipulates the transparency of one or more teeth in order to better see the
desired objects within the manipulated orientation.
Appellants acknowledge that Sachdeva’s system contains at least this
broader functionality. See App. Br 8—9; Reply Br. 3. As such, we need not
decide whether Sachdeva additionally discloses that the system
automatically manipulates the transparency of teeth when an orientation is
manipulated. And we need not decide whether Appellants’ Specification
provides adequate written description for such an automated embodiment.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1. We sustain,
then, the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, as well as claims 2—20, which
Appellants’ do not argue separately. See App. Br. 9.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4