Ex Parte Saldanha et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 15, 2009

09439225 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 15, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CARLOS SALDANHA, ANDREA M. FRONCIONI, PAUL A.
KRUSZEWSKI, GREGORY J. SAUMIER-FINCH, CAROLINE M.
TRUDEAU, FADI G. BACHAALANI, NADER MORCOS, SYLVAIN B.
COTE, PATRICK R. GUEVIN, JEAN-FRANCOIS ST-ARNAUD, SERGE
VEILLET, and LOUIS L. GUAY
____________

Appeal 2008-002844
Application 09/439,2251
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided2: June 15, 2009
____________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

1 Application filed November 12, 1999. The real party in interest is Public
Technologies Multimedia, Inc.
2 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 2008-002844
Application 09/439,225

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-45, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a computer-simulated environment for
displaying a mannequin wearing a garment or garments. (Abstract;
Spec. 2:6-7.)
Claims 1 and 16 are exemplary:
1. A method for producing an image of a computer-
simulated mannequin wearing a garment as defined by selected
mannequin and garment parameter values, comprising:

generating objects corresponding to a representative
mannequin and a garment placed in a simulation scene within a
three-dimensional modeling environment;

simulating draping and collision of the garment with the
representative mannequin within the simulation scene to
generate a three-dimensional rendering frame of the
representative mannequin wearing the garment;

constraining portions of the garment to reside within or
outside of one or more shells defined around the representative
mannequin in the rendering frame during the draping and
collision simulation, wherein each shell is a three-dimensional
construct designed to mimic the physical interaction of the
garment with another garment; and,

2
Appeal 2008-002844
Application 09/439,225

rendering a two-dimensional image of the garment from
the rendering frame and layering the rendered garment image
upon a two-dimensional image of a selected mannequin.

16. A method for producing an image of a computer-
simulated mannequin wearing a garment as defined by selected
mannequin and garment parameter values, comprising:

generating objects corresponding to a first mannequin
and a first garment placed in a simulation scene within a three-
dimensional modeling environment;

simulating draping and collision of the first garment with
the first mannequin within the simulation scene to generate a
first three-dimensional rendering frame of the first mannequin
wearing the first garment;

generating a second rendering frame containing a second
mannequin and a second garment as defined by selected
parameter values that specify different dimensions from the first
mannequin and/or first garment by shape blending
corresponding objects of the first rendering frame, wherein the
shape blending is performed by linearly combining parameters
of the first rendering frame and performing a partial draping
and collision simulation; and,

rendering an image from the second rendering frame.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sakaguchi US 6,310,627 B1 Oct. 30, 2001
Weaver US 2002/0021297 A1 Feb. 21, 2002

Pascal Volino et al., The Evolution of a 3D System for Simulating
Deformable Clothes on Virtual Actors, MIRALab 1998, ("Volino").
3
Appeal 2008-002844
Application 09/439,225

Claims 1-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Sakaguchi, Volino, and Weaver.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Except as noted in this decision, Appellants have not presented any
substantive arguments directed separately to the patentability of the
dependent claims. In the absence of a separate argument with respect to
those claims, they stand or fall with the representative independent claim.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Only those arguments actually made by
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that
Appellants did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See id.

ISSUE
With respect to claims 1-15, 18-31, and 33-45, Appellants argue that
the applied references do not teach or suggest the claimed limitation of
constraining portions of a garment to reside within or outside of one or more
shells defined around a mannequin in the rendering frame during a draping
and collision simulation, where each shell is a three-dimensional construct
designed to mimic the physical interaction of the garment with another
garment. (App. Br. 18-20; Reply Br. 4-6.)
With respect to claims 16-18 and 32-33, Appellants argue that the
applied references do not teach or suggest the claimed limitation of
generating a second rendering frame by shape blending corresponding
objects of a first rendering frame, where the shape blending is performed by
4
Appeal 2008-002844
Application 09/439,225

linearly combining parameters of the first rendering frame. (App. Br. 20;
Reply Br. 7-9.)
Appellants' arguments present the following issue:
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?
The resolution of this issue turns on the following subsidiary issues:
1. Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
applied references teach or suggest constraining portions of the garment to
reside within or outside of one or more shells defined around the mannequin
in the rendering frame during the draping and collision simulation, where
each shell is a three-dimensional construct designed to mimic the physical
interaction of the garment with another garment?
2. Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Sakaguchi and Volino teach or suggest generating a second rendering frame
by shape blending corresponding objects of the first rendering frame, where
the shape blending is performed by linearly combining parameters of the
first rendering frame?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.

1. Appellants' Specification states that, in one embodiment, "the
invention includes the generation of a rendering frame containing a
mannequin wearing a particular garment from a collision and draping
simulation and the further addition of garment constraints
5
Appeal 2008-002844
Application 09/439,225

corresponding to particular predefined shells around the mannequin
that mimic the way the garment behaves when worn with another
particular garment." (Spec. 3:1-5; see also Spec. 8:26-29, 9:1-7,
15:1-14, 25-27.) "These garment constraints are defined so as to
conform to various dressing conventions or rules relating to how
clothes are worn, e.g., the wearing of a coat over a shirt."
(Spec. 3:5-7.) Constraining the garment to reside within or outside of
particular predefined shells approximates the physical interaction
between multiple garments (Spec. 8:26-29), but "allows single
garments to be independently simulated and rendered for later
combination into a composite image" (Spec. 9:6-7).

2. Appellants' Specification states that, "[i]n one embodiment, the
present invention includes . . . generating rendering frames containing
mannequins and garments as defined by selected parameter values by
shape blending the mannequins and/or garments of previously
generated rendering frames." (Spec. 2:22-27; see also Spec. 6:28 to
7:13; 16:24-27; 19:8-10.) "Linear combinations of the parameter
values of previously generated rendering frames (e.g., as produced by
interpolating between such values) are thus used to generate rendering
frames with the desired mannequin and garment." (Spec. 2:27-31; see
also Spec. 6:28 to 7:13; 16:24-27; 19:8-10.) For example, "the
dimensions of a mannequin may be changed by blending the shapes of
previously simulated mannequins. . . . using a linear combination of
parameter values (e.g., interpolation or extrapolation) generated from
a previous simulation." (Spec. 7:6-11.)
6
Appeal 2008-002844
Application 09/439,225

3. Sakaguchi describes a method and system for generating a
stereoscopic image of a garment when it is put on a person. (Abstract;
col. 1, ll. 5-9.) An operator can input information regarding the
garment (col. 7, ll. 5-20) and command a stereoscopic image of the
garment to be generated (col. 7, ll. 21-24) using image data "of the
human model and image data of patterns corresponding to the inputted
shape of the garment" (col. 7, ll. 24-28). Referring to Figure 4, "the
images of the respective patterns D are deformed as to be put on a
human model M." (Col. 7, ll. 31-32; see also col. 7, ll. 33-51, col. 21,
ll. 1-63.)

4. Sakaguchi describes a standard garment C suited to a standard figure
model M and the preparation of a customized "special garment" C'
suited to the size of a customized individual figure model M'.
(Col. 21, ll. 3-63.) Sakaguchi teaches a first projection function T
which represents the correspondence between the standard figure
model M and the standard garment C (col. 21, ll. 12-16; Fig. 22), a
second projection function F which represents the correspondence
between the individual figure model M' and the standard figure model
M (col. 21, ll. 44-55; Fig. 22), a projection function Z for projecting
the image of the special garment C' onto patterns D' (col. 22, ll. 4-9;
Fig. 22), and a projection function G for projecting the image of the
standard garment C onto the image of the special garment C' (col. 22,
ll. 9-13; Fig. 22). If the projection function G is known, Sakaguchi
teaches that the image of the special garment C' may be obtained by
generating the image of the standard garment C and deforming it
7
Appeal 2008-002844
Application 09/439,225

using the projection function G. (Col. 22, ll. 14-18.) On the other
hand, if the projection function G is not known, Sakaguchi teaches
that the image of the special garment C' can be obtained by applying
the projection relationship F of the standard figure model M and the
individual figure model M' to the image of the standard garment C.
(Col. 22, ll. 28-43.) "Therefore, . . . the generation of the stereoscopic
image of the special garment C' by the projection function G is
equivalently accomplished by following a course of from the standard
garment C, to the standard figure model M, to the individual figure
model M' and to the special garment C'." (Col. 22, ll. 37-43.)

5. Volino describes a system for simulating deformable clothes on
humans. (Abstract.) Volino teaches that "[a]nother innovation of our
new software is the possibility of creating any kind of person to wear
our clothes. This means that we may dress men, women, and children
of various sizes." (Page 5.) Volino teaches that, "[i]n order to
automatically generate human models with different sizes and
proportions, five normalized parameters (Fig. 6) are used to scale the
standard skeleton template to accommodate variations." (Page 11; see
also page 17, section 4.3.2.) Volino's clothing is constructed by
assembling 2D panels and the actor is dressed using these panels.
(Page 14.) Volino describes animating the clothing by applying
deformations to the dressed body. (Page 17.)

8
Appeal 2008-002844
Application 09/439,225

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
All timely filed evidence and properly presented arguments are
considered by the Board in resolving an obviousness issue on appeal. See In
re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In the examination of a patent application, the Examiner bears the
initial burden of showing a prima facie case of unpatentability. Id. at 1472.
When that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the Applicant to rebut.
Id.; see also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding
rebuttal evidence unpersuasive). If the Applicant produces rebuttal evidence
of adequate weight, the prima facie case of unpatentability is dissipated. In
re Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472. Thereafter, patentability is determined in
view of the entire record. Id. However, on appeal to the Board it is the
Appellant's burden to establish that the Examiner did not sustain the
necessary burden and to show that the Examiner erred. See In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("On appeal to the Board, an applicant can
overcome a rejection [for obviousness] by showing insufficient evidence of
prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence
of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.") (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d
1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
"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). In KSR, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that "[t]he combination of
9
Appeal 2008-002844
Application 09/439,225

familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results." Id. at 416.
"[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. "To facilitate review, this analysis
should be made explicit." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. However, "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.
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). "[T]he words of a claim 'are
generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.'" Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations
omitted). The "ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the
meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the
patent application." Id. at 1313.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-15, 18-31, and 33-45
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-15, 18-31, and 33-45 as being obvious over Sakaguchi, Volino, and
Weaver are persuasive. We agree with Appellants that none of the applied
references, alone or in combination, teach or suggest the limitation of
10
Appeal 2008-002844
Application 09/439,225

constraining portions of the garment to reside within or outside of one or
more shells defined around the mannequin, where each shell is a three-
dimensional construct designed to mimic the physical interaction of the
garment with another garment, as claimed.
The Examiner broadly interpreted the claims and found (Ans. 4-8, 22)
that the claimed shells were taught by pattern D' surrounding the human
model M', as shown in Figure 4 of Sakaguchi. The Examiner also found
(Ans. 8-10, 23-26) that Volino teaches the claimed shells by teaching a
multilayer cloth in a geometrical surface region hierarchy. The Examiner
further found that the skin surfaces of Sakaguchi could be shells. (Ans. 36.)
However, the Examiner's interpretation is contrary to the plain language of
the claim and is not consistent with the Specification.
The disputed claim limitation requires that portions of the garment be
constrained to reside within or outside of the shell and that the shell be
defined around that mannequin. In other words, the shell cannot be either
the mannequin or the garment. This interpretation is consistent with the
description of the claimed "shells" provided in the Specification (FF 1).
Therefore, Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding
that the applied references teach or suggest constraining portions of the
garment to reside within or outside of one or more shells defined around the
representative mannequin in the rendering frame during the draping and
collision simulation, where each shell is a three-dimensional construct
designed to mimic the physical interaction of the garment with another
garment. In addition, there is no evidence before us to show that this
limitation is a predictable variation of the prior art. Nor is there evidence
11
Appeal 2008-002844
Application 09/439,225

before us to show that this limitation would be common sense or a creative
step that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
Therefore, we conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-15, 18-31, and 33-45.

Claims 16, 17, and 32
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 16,
17, and 32 as being obvious over Sakaguchi, Volino, and Weaver are not
persuasive.
As the Examiner correctly found (Ans. 13-16, 37-41), both Sakaguchi
and Volino teach or suggest generating a second rendering frame by shape
blending corresponding objects of the first rendering frame, where the shape
blending is performed by linearly combining parameters of the first
rendering frame. (FF 4-5.) For example, Figure 22 of Sakaguchi and
Figure 6 of Volino teach or suggest generating a second mannequin and
garment by shape blending, as claimed. (FF 4-5.) The shape blending
taught by Sakaguchi and Volino (FF 3-5) involves generating a mannequin
or garment having different dimensions from a previously generated
mannequin or garment and is consistent with the shape blending recited in
the claims and discussed in Appellants' Specification (FF 2).
Therefore, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Sakaguchi and Volino teach or suggest "generating a second
rendering frame . . . by shape blending corresponding objects of the first
rendering frame, wherein the shape blending is performed by linearly
combining parameters of the first rendering frame."
12
Appeal 2008-002844
Application 09/439,225

Accordingly, we conclude that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 16, 17, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that:
(1) Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-15, 18-31, and 33-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
(2) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 16, 17, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-15, 18-31, and 33-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is reversed.
The rejection of claims 16, 17, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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-IN-PART
sss

SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
13