Ex Parte Shoov et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2012

10233353 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 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.
10/233,353 08/30/2002 Boris Shoov 4148.1032-000 6721
21005 7590 01/31/2012
HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C.
530 VIRGINIA ROAD
P.O. BOX 9133
CONCORD, MA 01742-9133
EXAMINER
BROOME, SAID A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2012 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 BORIS SHOOV, JOHN KEKLAK, and ROBERT ZUFFANTE
____________________

Appeal 2009-013574
Application 10/233,353
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-013574
Application 10/233,353

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphasis added,
reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method for modeling real-world objects,
the method comprising:
importing into a modeling system a plurality of two-dimensional
representations of a three-dimensional object, the plurality of two-
dimensional representations comprising projections of the three-dimensional
object as viewed on different planes positioned in three-dimensional space;
receiving input from a user to spatially arrange the plurality of two-
dimensional representations on a plurality of virtual surfaces that are
positioned in a three-dimensional modeling space, the plurality of virtual
surfaces being positioned to correspond to surfaces on which projections of a
three-dimensional model under construction by the user are rendered;
interactively constructing the three-dimensional model of the three-
dimensional object based on user-selection and manipulation of entities of
the two-dimensional representations, the entities being components of the
two-dimensional representations displayed on the virtual surfaces; and
displaying the plurality of two-dimensional representations and the
three-dimensional model simultaneously.

Appeal 2009-013574
Application 10/233,353

3
Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Watanabe (US 5,701,403; Dec. 23, 1997) alone.1
Ans. 3-11.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 8-22; Reply Br. 2-3), the
following issue presents itself:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-20 as being obvious
because Watanabe fails to teach or suggest the limitations at issue in claim 1
of “interactively constructing . . . ” a 3D model with user input, and
“displaying the plurality of two-dimensional representations and the three-
dimensional model simultaneously . . . ,” as recited in claim 1?

1 Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2-12, 15-17, 19,
and 20 (see App. Br. 15-16). Independent claims 13, 14, and 18 recite
similar features as independent claim 1, including simultaneous display of
2D representations and 3D models and interactive construction of the 3D
model based on user interaction/input. We select claim 1 as representative
of the group of claims rejected under § 103(a) (claims 1-20), pursuant to our
authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d
1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“If the brief fails to meet either requirement [of
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)], the Board is free to select a single claim from each
group of claims subject to a common ground of rejection as representative of
all claims in that group and to decide the appeal of that rejection based
solely on the selected representative claim.”). Accordingly, our analysis
herein will only address claim 1.

Appeal 2009-013574
Application 10/233,353

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 8-22) and Reply Brief (Reply Br.
2-3) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken, as well as the Advisory Action (Advisory Action
mailed Oct. 8, 2008 at 2), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 3-
14). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
Watanabe teaches or suggests simultaneous display of 2D
representations and a 3D model (col. 28, ll. 47-63; Figs. 26(c) & 29(c)). In
fact, Appellants state that Watanabe’s Figures 26(c) and 29(c) provide
“illustration of 2D and 3D objects on the same figure . . . ” (App. Br. 13;
Reply Br. 3). Watanabe also teaches or suggests interactively constructing a
3D model with user input, selection, and manipulation of 2D representations
(col. 5, l. 59 to col. 6, l. 2; col. 6, ll. 38-48 and 58-65; col. 21, ll. 32-47).
The Examiner has provided a factual basis and articulated reasoning
with a rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness with
regard to claims 1-20 (see Ans. 3-11). See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to modify Watanabe’s CAD modeling system, method, and
interface:
[t]o provide concurrent association of two-dimensional
representations and the correlated three-dimensional model
because this modification would improve the functionality and
interactive capabilities of the CAD system through eliminating
Appeal 2009-013574
Application 10/233,353

5
the burden of requiring switching between respective two-
dimensional and three-dimensional representations, thereby
enabling straightforward correlation between the three-
dimensional models and their respective two-dimensional
projection drawings as simultaneous adjustments or
manipulations of the models and projections are performed
within the interface as provided by the illustrative teachings of
Watanabe (Figs. 26(c) & 29(c)).

(Ans. 13; see also Ans. 4, providing a similar statement). We also agree
with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to provide simultaneous
display and manipulation of 2D representations and their correlated 3D
models to eliminate the amount of switching required during manipulation,
“thereby reducing the amount of repetitive toggling between 2D and 3D
representations previously considered necessary by the user to enhance the
user’s CAD visualization with a clear simultaneous association between the
three-dimensional models and their respective two-dimensional projection
planes” (Ans. 12). Accordingly, we cannot agree with Appellants’
assertions (App. Br. 10-12) that there is no motivation to develop a user
interface for simultaneously displaying and enabling manipulation of 2D and
3D objects.
We are not persuaded that simultaneous and interactive display and
manipulation of 2D and 3D models was “uniquely challenging or difficult
for one of ordinary skill in the art” at the time of Appellants’ invention (see
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418)). Appellants’ contention that
“Watanabe never envisaged simultaneously and interactively displaying,
manipulating and creating 3D CAD models from 2D projections” is not
persuasive because Appellants have provided no evidence on this record to
Appeal 2009-013574
Application 10/233,353

6
support this assertion apart from mere conclusory statements (Reply Br. 2;
see also App. Br. 14, providing a similar contention). It is well settled that
mere lawyer’s arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported
by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 8-9) that Watanabe fails to teach or
suggest Appellants’ invention as shown in Figure 11 of the Specification is
unpersuasive inasmuch as claim 1 does not claim exactly what is shown in
Figure 11. Claim 1 recites subject matter that is broader in scope than just
Figure 11. Appellants’ claim 1 broadly encompasses Watanabe’s method,
including simultaneous display of 2D representations and 3D models (see
Figs. 26(c) & 29(c)), as determined by the Examiner.
In view of the foregoing, Appellants have not sufficiently shown that
the Examiner erred in finding that (i) it would have been obvious to modify
Watanabe, or (ii) Watanabe as modified teaches or suggests the computer-
implemented method and system for modeling objects recited in claims 1,
13, 14, and 18. The inventions recited in claims 1-20 have not been shown
to be patentably distinguishable from the teachings and suggestions of
Watanabe. Accordingly, we will sustain the obviousness rejection of claims
1-20 based upon the teachings and suggestions of Watanabe.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in determining that Watanabe teaches
or suggests the invention set forth in claims 1-20.
Appeal 2009-013574
Application 10/233,353

7
(2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-20 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 1-20 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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

ke