Ex Parte Queric

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 6, 2018

13906156 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/906, 156 05/30/2013 Mikael Alan Govrian Queric
21005 7590 06/08/2018
HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C.
530 VIRGINIA ROAD
P.O. BOX 9133
CONCORD, MA 01742-9133
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
4201.1079-000 7799
EXAMINER
KIM, SANGH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/08/2018 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):
docketing.department@hbsr.com
helpdesk@hbsr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIKAEL ALAN GOVRIAN QUERIC 1
Appeal2017-011524
Application 13/906,156
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, 10-12, and 14. Claims 3, 7, 9, and 13 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Dassault Systemes as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2017-011524
Application 13/906,156
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention relates to a computer method for navigating a
three-dimensional scene using a graphical tool in the shape of a
parallelepiped with the background sides unfolded so they are visible, where
each side of the graphical tool has a two-dimensional view of the
corresponding three-dimensional scene. Spec., Abstract.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is representative:
1. A computer-implemented method for navigating
into a three-dimensional scene, the method comprising the steps
of:
superimposing a graphical tool over the three-
dimensional scene of a computer aided design (CAD) system,
the graphical tool having the shape of a motionless
parallelepiped represented in isometric projection having three
foreground sides and three background sides, each of the sides
being associated with orthographic view of the three-
dimensional scene, wherein the three background sides, but not
the three foreground sides, are unfolded for them to be visible
simultaneously as the foreground sides, the graphical tool being
arranged so that all faces are accurately selectable by the user,
the graphical tool displaying, on each of its six sides, a preview
rendering of the view of the three-dimensional scene associated
with each corresponding side;
selecting one side of the graphical tool; and
displaying the orthographic view of the three-
dimensional scene associated to the selected side of the
graphical tool
wherein a preview of the orthographic views is printed on
the sides of the graphical tool, and
wherein the preview is rotated to make it more readable
for the user.
2
Appeal2017-011524
Application 13/906,156
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 2 10-12, and 14 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ghosh (U.S. Patent
Application 2008/0238916 Al; published Oct. 2, 2008), Schrag (U.S. Patent
Application 2005/0028111 Al; published Feb. 3, 2005), and Horowitz (U.S.
Patent Application 2007/0267813 Al; published Nov. 22, 2007). 3 Final Act.
5-11.
The Examiner has rejected claim 5 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ghosh, Schrag, Horowitz, and Nagiyama (U.S. Patent
Application 2007/0261001 Al; published Nov. 8, 2007). Final Act. 11-12.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellant argues Ghosh, Schrag, and Horowitz, individually and in
combination, do not teach or suggest a parallelepiped graphical tool,
unfolded, with a preview rendering of the view of the three-dimensional
("3D") scene associated with each corresponding side of the 3D scene
printed on the sides of the tool and rotated to make it more readable to the
user, as required in claim 1. App. Br. 10-15; Reply Br. 1--4. Specifically,
2 The Examiner objected to claim 8 for being dependent upon canceled
claim 7, and requested correction. Final Act. 4.
3 The Final Action lists claims 1, 2, 4--12, and 14 as rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ghosh, Schrag, and Horowitz. We note that
claims 3, 7, 9, and 13 have been cancelled and claim 5 is rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ghosh, Schrag, Horowitz, and
Nagiyama. Final Act. 2, 5, 11-12. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-12, and 14 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ghosh, Schrag, and
Horowitz. This is harmless error.
3
Appeal2017-011524
Application 13/906,156
Appellant argues Ghosh does not teach a preview rendering on all sides of a
rotatable graphical tool, but instead teaches using words or a proxy image on
the tool which Appellant contends is not a preview rendering of the scene, as
required. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 2--4. Appellant further argues neither
Schrag nor Horowitz teaches a preview rendering. App. Br. 14--15; Reply
Br. 4.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive because they attack the
references individually, although the rejection is based on the combination
of Ghosh, Schrag, and Horowitz. Nonobviousness cannot be established by
attacking the references individually when the rejection is based on a
combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner finds that the Ghosh teaches a graphical tool with a
preview rendering of a 3D scene on each side of the tool, which is rotated to
make it more readable to the user. Final Act. 5-7; Ans. 2-3. The Examiner
cites Figure 12 of Ghosh, which shows preview renderings of a standard
house on a cube. Final Act. 6; Ans. 3. Contrary to Appellant's argument
that Ghosh does not teach a preview rendering of the scene, in the
corresponding disclosure for Figure 12 Ghosh teaches that the labeling
schemes on the cube can change or be adaptive and can be user-defined or
customized (i.e., orthographic views of the 3D scene). Ghosh i-f 88. As
Appellant acknowledges, Ghosh teaches rotating the cube by dragging it or
clicking on it. App. Br. 11; Ghosh i-fi-1134, 135, 141; see Final Act. 6;
Ans. 3. Thus, Ghosh teaches a rotatable graphical tool with a customizable
preview rendering on each side of the 3D scene.
4
Appeal2017-011524
Application 13/906,156
The Examiner further relies on Schrag in combination with Ghosh for
teaching a directional view for each side, not for teaching the claimed
preview rendering. Final Act. 7; Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Ghosh's
rotatable preview rendering and Schrag's scene orientation change capability
to provide the user with orientation information and selectable controls for
view manipulation that visually guides the user to a desired view. Final
Act. 7; see Ans. 4.
The Examiner further relies on Horowitz to teach that it was known to
show an unfolded or exploded view of a shape to view sides that would
otherwise not be visible (i.e., "wherein the three background sides, but not
the three foreground sides, are unfolded for them to be visible
simultaneously as the foreground sides" of the graphical tool in claim 1 ), not
for teaching the preview rendering. Final Act. 8; Ans. 6. The Examiner
further finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
teachings of Ghosh and Schrag with the teaching of Horowitz to enable the
user to view all sides of the graphical tool in a single view on a display.
Final Act. 8.
Accordingly, the Examiner finds the combination of Ghosh, Schrag,
and Horowitz teaches a parallelepiped graphical tool, unfolded, with a
preview rendering of the view of the 3D scene associated with each
corresponding side of the 3D scene printed on the sides of the tool and
rotated to make it more readable to the user, as required in claim 1.
Appellant's arguments too narrowly characterize the teachings of the
references and do not address the combination of the teachings of the
5
Appeal2017-011524
Application 13/906,156
references in the rejection as proposed by the Examiner, and, thus, have not
demonstrated that the Examiner erred.
Appellant further argues that Horowitz is non-analogous art because
Horowitz teaches a physical object and not a computer rendering of an
object. App. Br. 16-17.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. "Whether a reference
in the prior art is 'analogous' is a fact question." In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,
658 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d
1561, 1568 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Two criteria have evolved for answering
the question: "(1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the
field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved." Id.
at 658-59 (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)).
Appellant's invention involves ways to show hidden sides of a cube to
the user. Spec. i-fi-114, 15, 23, 44. Therefore, references such as Horowitz
that deal with showing hidden faces on cubes, whether physical or
computer-rendered, are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the inventor is involved, because the references logically would have
commended themselves to the attention of one considering the invention as a
whole. See Ans. 6.
Independent claims 11 and 12 recite similar limitations as claim 1.
Appellant does not present separate arguments for dependent claims 2, 4, 6,
8, 10, and 14. App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 4--5. For the reasons above, we
6
Appeal2017-011524
Application 13/906,156
sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 2, 4,
6, 8, 10-12, and 14 over Ghosh, Schrag, and Horowitz.
Claim 5
Appellant argues the combination of Ghosh, Schrag, Horowitz, and
Nagiyama does not teach or suggest that the "connecting edges [of the
unfolded graphical tool] do not meet each other," as recited in claim 5. App.
Br. 18; Reply Br. 5. Appellant further argues Nagiyama does not cure the
alleged deficiencies in the combination of Ghosh, Schrag, and Horowitz
regarding teaching a preview rendering or that the preview is rotated, as
required in claim 1 from which claim 5 depends. App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 5.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments.
First, regarding the connecting edges, the Examiner finds that
Nagiyama Figure 17B teaches this feature. Final Act. 11. Appellant has not
addressed the content of the Examiner's rejection or explained why the
Examiner's explicit fact finding is in error. Thus, Appellant's argument
does not particularly show error and is unpersuasive.
Second, regarding alleged deficiencies in the combination of Ghosh,
Schrag, and Horowitz with respect to the limitations in claim 1, we find no
such deficiencies for the reasons explained above. Thus, we do not find
Appellant's second argument to be persuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
dependent claim 5 based on the combination of Ghosh, Schrag, Horowitz,
and Nagiyama.
7
Appeal2017-011524
Application 13/906,156
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8, 10-12, and 14 are
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8