Ex Parte Raschke

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 12, 2012

10246880 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 12, 2012)

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.
10/246,880 09/18/2002 Ulrich Raschke 2002P57010 US 1948
45113 7590 03/13/2012
Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
170 Wood Avenue South
Iselin, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
SAXENA, AKASH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ULRICH RASCHKE
____________
Appeal 2009-015079
Application 10/246,880
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-015079
Application 10/246,880

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-22. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We reverse.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a method and computer readable tangible media
that generally relates to computer-aided design and, in particular, to
simulating human movement. Spec. 1:4-6.
Illustrative Claim
1. A computerized method for simulating movement
of a physical object, the method performed by logic encoded in
one or more tangible media when executed by a computer, the
method comprising:

storing a plurality of sets of data in a tangible memory,
each set of data indicative of a measured movement of a first
physical object having a first joint, each set of data describing
an empirical overall change from an empirical start point to an
empirical end point, each set of data recording an empirical
curve of an empirical angular profile, the empirical angular
profile comprising a first axis representing an angle and a
second axis representing time, the empirical curve representing
movement of the first joint through the angle with respect to
time;

storing a desired start point and a desired end point of a
desired overall change for a desired movement of a second joint
of a second physical object in the memory, the first physical
object different from the second physical object, the second
joint comparable to the first joint, the empirical overall change
different from the desired overall change;

comparing the desired movement to the sets of data;
Appeal 2009-015079
Application 10/246,880

3

selecting, based on the comparison, a set of data that is
representative of the desired movement of the second joint to
yield a selected set of data;

superimposing the empirical curve on the desired
movement of the second joint from the desired start point to the
desired end point in order to:

determine a first change in position of the first
joint of the first physical object associated with the
selected set of data;

determine a percentage representing a fraction of
the first change over the empirical overall change of the
selected set of data;

determine a second change in position of the
second joint based on the percentage and the desired
overall change between the desired start point and the
desired end point, the second change determined from the
percentage of the desired overall change; and

displaying a simulation of the desired movement of the
second physical object on a tangible output device in
accordance with the established second change.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Handelman US 6,088,042 July 11, 2000
Even-Zohar (“Zohar”) US 6,738,065 B1 May 18, 2004
(filed Aug. 10, 2000)

Victor B. Zordan and Jessica K. Hodgins, Motion capture-driven
simulations that hit and react, ACM, pp. 89-96 and 193 (2002) (“Zordan”).

Douglas J. Wiley and James K. Hahn, Interpolation Synthesis of
Articulated Figure Motion, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, pp.
39-45 (1997) (“Wiley”).
Appeal 2009-015079
Application 10/246,880

4

Rejections on Appeal
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Zohar and Zordan. Ans. 4-8.
Claims 2, 9, 15, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Zohar, Handelman, and Zordan.
Ans. 10-16.
Claims 3-8, 10-14, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Zohar, Handelman, Zordan,
and Wiley. Ans. 16-20.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Zohar, Zordan, and Wiley. Ans. 8-10.
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner finds that Appellant does not explicitly define the claim
term “superimposing” in the present Specification. Ans. 21. Nonetheless,
upon reviewing the present Specification for context, the Examiner finds that
the claim term “superimposing” can be construed as “speeding up the angle
in a specified duration (e.g., 30 degrees in 10 percent of the time duration)
based on [] some time based curve superimposed on a motion curve.” Ans.
22. Further, the Examiner finds that Zordan’s disclosure of obtaining
synthetic positions (i.e., new positions) using inverse kinematics (“IK”), and
then smoothing over such positions using a weighted sinsusoidal, teaches or
suggests “superimposing the empirical curve on the desired movement of the
second joint [. . . ][,]” as recited in independent claim 1. Ans. 26-27.
Appeal 2009-015079
Application 10/246,880

5
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s claim construction with
respect to the claim term “superimposing” is not supported by the present
Specification. App. Br. 19-21; Reply Br. 4-5. Further, Appellant argues that
since the Examiner relies upon an incorrect interpretation of the claim term
“superimposing,” the combination of Zohar and Zordan cannot teach or
suggest “superimposing the empirical curve on the desired movement of the
second joint from the desired start point to the desired end point[. . . ][,]” as
recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 21-22; Reply Br. 6. Moreover,
since the Examiner concedes that superimposing is not the same as
interpolation, Appellant alleges that Zordan’s disclosure of interpolation
does not teach or suggest the claimed “superimposing” method step. App.
Br. 22; Reply Br. 7.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in
concluding that the combination of Zohar and Zordan teaches or suggests
“superimposing the empirical curve on the desired movement of the second
joint from the desired start point to the desired end point[. . . ][,]” as recited
in independent claim 1.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
Zordan
FF 1. Zordan discloses an IK solver that adjusts raw or synthetic
motion segments in order to control the position and orientation of a hitting
action, such as throwing a punch in boxing or swinging a racket at a ball in
Appeal 2009-015079
Application 10/246,880

6
table tennis. In particular, Zordan discloses time-scaling table tennis swings
to align the beginning, end, and hit time, and interpolating such swings to
generate a denser library with 550 synthetic swings. Pg. 91, sec. 4, cols. 1-2.
FF 2. Zordan discloses a sinsusoidal weighting that smoothly adjusts
the timestep of the motion capture data such that it moves from the original,
to the scaled timestep at the time of contact, and back again. Pg. 91, sec. 4,
col. 2.

IV. ANALYSIS
Claim 1
We find error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1. Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, “superimposing the
empirical curve on the desired movement of the second joint from the
desired start point to the desired end point[. . .][.]”
We begin our analysis by considering the scope and meaning of the
claim term “superimposing,” which must be given its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with Appellant’s disclosure. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (stating that during examination “claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow”). Appellant’s
Specification states that “curve 222 is ‘superimposed’ on a straight line
interpolation of joint 302 from end effector’s 306 start position 314 to end
position 316.” Spec. 10:17-19.
Upon reviewing Appellant’s Specification for context, we fail to find
an explicit definition for the claimed term “superimposing” and, therefore,
resort to its ordinary and customary meaning. See Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
Appeal 2009-015079
Application 10/246,880

7
415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (stating that claim terms are
“generally given their ordinary and customary meaning”). Since the claim
term “superimposing” is a commonly understood word, we will rely on a
general purpose dictionary in ascertaining its meaning. See Agfa Corp. v.
Creo Products, Inc., 451 F.3d 1366, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (noting that
dictionaries may be helpful when claim construction involves “little more
than the application of widely accepted meaning of commonly understood
words”). Referring to a dictionary, the claim term “superimposing” can be
defined as “to set or place on or over something else.”1 With this claim
construction in mind, we turn to the merits of the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection.
At best, we find that Zordan discloses using interpolation to construct
a new table tennis swing with a wider range of motion from a synthetic table
tennis swing (FF 1), and using sinsusoidal weighting to smoothly speed up
or slow down the newly constructed table tennis swing (FF 2). However, we
find that Zordan does not teach or suggest that the disclosed interpolation
and sinsusoidal weighting entails setting or placing an empirical curve of a
synthetic table tennis swing on or over the desired motion range of a new
table tennis swing, as required by independent claim 1. While Zordan’s
interpolation and sinsusoidal weighting may encompass setting or placing a
synthetic table tennis swing on or over the desired motion range of the new
table tennis swing, we find no such teachings or suggestions in Zordan to
indicate that this course of action is even contemplated. Such conjecture

1 Collins English Dictionary, © HarperCollins Publishers (2000) (retrieved
from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/hcengdict/superimpose) (last
visited Mar. 8, 2012).

Appeal 2009-015079
Application 10/246,880

8
would therefore require us to resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions,
or hindsight reconstruction. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA
1967). We will not resort to such speculation or assumptions to cure the
deficiencies in the factual basis in order to support the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection. Further, we find that Zohar does not remedy the
above-noted deficiency in the Zordan reference.
Since Appellant has shown at least one error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, we need not reach the merits
of Appellant’s other arguments. It follows that the Examiner erred in
concluding that the combination of Zohar and Zordan renders independent
claim 1 unpatentable.
Claims 2-22
We note that independent claims 9, 15, and 21, and dependent claims
2-8, 10-14, 16-20, and 22, either recite the same or a similar claim limitation
as discussed supra, or incorporate such a claim limitation by reference.
Further, we find that neither Handelman nor Wiley, as applied by the
Examiner, remedy the above-noted deficiency in the Zordan reference.
Accordingly, for the same reason set forth in our discussion of independent
claim 1, the Examiner has erred in concluding that: 1) the combination of
Zohar, Handelman, and Zordan renders claims 2, 9, 15, and 21 unpatentable;
2) the combination of Zohar, Handelman, Zordan, and Wiley renders claims
3-8, 10-14, and 16-20 unpatentable; and 3) the combination of Zohar,
Zordan, and Wiley renders claim 22 unpatentable.

Appeal 2009-015079
Application 10/246,880

9
V. CONCLUSION
The Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1-22 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
VI. DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-22.

REVERSED

msc