Ex Parte Tatsumi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 25, 2012

10948845 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 25, 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.
10/948,845 09/24/2004 Setsuji Tatsumi 07250034AA 1587
30743 7590 01/26/2012
WHITHAM, CURTIS & CHRISTOFFERSON & COOK, P.C.
11491 SUNSET HILLS ROAD
SUITE 340
RESTON, VA 20190
EXAMINER
CHAUHAN, ULKA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/26/2012 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 SETSUJI TATSUMI
____________

Appeal 2009-011625
Application 10/948,845
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-011625
Application 10/948,845

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1-16, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Appeal Brief (filed Dec. 5, 2008), the Answer
(mailed Mar. 23, 2009), and the Reply Brief (filed May 18, 2009) for the
respective details.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a computer graphics system which
simulates conditions and effects produced by actual photographic studios.
See generally Abstract; Spec. 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A computer graphics system displaying a three-dimensional image of
an object created in a virtual three-dimensional coordinate space on a screen
of a display device as a two-dimensional image of the object, comprising:
a database unit which stores at least one set of lighting member
information on a kind of lighting member in accordance with a name of said
lighting member, said lighting member being arranged on a different
position from a position of said object for controlling light from a light
source incident on said object before the light reaches said object arranged in
the virtual three-dimensional coordinate space and optical characteristic
information on optical characteristics of said lighting member corresponding
to said name of said lighting member, wherein said optical characteristic
information on optical characteristics of said lighting member includes
information on optical dependency of light transmitted or reflected from said
lighting member on an incident angle of light on said lighting member;
input means which inputs and instructs shape information of said
object created in the virtual three-dimensional coordinate space, surface
information of said object, positional information of said object within the
Appeal 2009-011625
Application 10/948,845

3
virtual three-dimensional coordinate space, light source information of a
type of light source arranged in the virtual three-dimensional coordinate
space, viewpoint information for displaying said object as said two-
dimensional image, information on said kind of said lighting member, and
positional information of said lighting member arranged in the virtual three-
dimensional coordinate space; and
an operational section which generates image data of said object to be
displayed as said two-dimensional image on the screen based on said shape
information of said object, said surface information of said object, said
positional information of said object, said light source information, said
viewpoint information, said lighting member information, said optical
characteristic information of said lighting member, and said positional
information of said lighting member.
The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art to show
unpatentability:
Rioux US 6,268,863 B1 July 31, 2001
JAMES D. FOLEY ET AL., COMPUTER GRAPHICS: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE
793-806 (2nd ed. 1996).
BRYCE 5 USER MANUAL (Corel Corp. 2001) [hereinafter Bryce].
Claims 8-10, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bryce in view of Foley and Rioux.

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
Appellant’s arguments with respect to the obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1, 6, and 8 focus on the contentions that Foley and Rioux
do not overcome the deficiencies of Bryce in disclosing (i) a lighting
member having a different location from an object for controlling light prior
Appeal 2009-011625
Application 10/948,845

4
to reaching the object and (ii) the use of optical characteristic information
that includes dependency on the angle of incident light, i.e., “optical
dependency” as claimed. According to Appellant (App. Br. 32-39; Reply
Br. 14-17), the radiosity methods disclosed by Foley assume that the light
emanating from a “patch” is uniform in all directions, i.e., there is no optical
characteristic that is dependent on the angle of incident light. With respect
to Rioux, Appellant contends (App. Br. 39-43; Reply Br. 14-17) that, while
Rioux may disclose the use of a bidirectional reflectance distribution
function (BRDF) for accurately simulating the photographing of objects,
there is no teaching or suggestion of using BRDF information for controlling
light incident on an object.
We do not agree with Appellant. Initially, we find no error in the
Examiner’s finding that the created “objects” in Bryce, for which lighting
effects are controlled, can reasonably be considered as corresponding to the
claimed “lighting members” (Ans. 34). Further, Appellant’s arguments are
not convincing of any error in the Examiner’s determination that Foley
overcomes Bryce’s deficiency in disclosing the control of light incident on
an object through an intermediary object (Ans. 8-10). In other words, Foley
teaches the controlling of light incident on an object by taking into
consideration light reflected or emitted from intermediate objects before the
light reaches the object. Further, we find that the Examiner has provided an
articulated line of reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the
determination that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found that the
inclusion of the radiosity teachings of Foley would have served as an
obvious enhancement to the system of Bryce (Ans. 9-10). KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appeal 2009-011625
Application 10/948,845

5
Further, while we agree with the Examiner that the language of the
appealed claims does not require any direct dependency on the angle of
incident light reflected or transmitted from a lighting member, we agree with
the Examiner’s findings that the application of the teachings of Rioux to the
combination of Bryce and Foley satisfies even a narrower interpretation of
the claim language. As set forth by the Examiner, an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have recognized and appreciated the obviousness of including
optical dependency information as a factor in controlling object lighting by
modeling object surfaces to capture BRDF information (Ans. 40-41).
In view of the above discussion, we concur with the conclusion of
obviousness of the claimed invention reached by the Examiner. In addition
to our analysis supra, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.
23-42) in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Accordingly, the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 6, and 8,
as well as the rejection of dependent claims 2-5, 7, and 9-16 not separately
argued with any particularity by Appellant is sustained.1

1 Although Appellant makes a nominal mention of dependent claims 4, 7,
and 10-16 at pages 42, 43, and 45 of the Brief, the extent of the arguments is
to merely restate what the claims require. It is well settled that Error! Main
Document Only.simply pointing out what a claim requires with no attempt
to point out how the claims patentably distinguish over the prior art does not
comply with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(a)(vii) and does not amount to a separate
argument for patentability. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed.
Cir. 1987).
Appeal 2009-011625
Application 10/948,845

6
35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION
We do not sustain the Examiner’s non-statutory subject matter
rejection, introduced as a new ground of rejection in the Answer, of claims
8-10, 15, and 16. According to the Examiner, the rejected claims are
directed to a computer program per se, subject matter which does not fall
within a statutory category of invention. In the Examiner’s view, the
claimed computer program is not tangibly embodied on a computer readable
medium that would allow it to impart functionality into the graphics system
and, therefore, is descriptive material per se (Ans. 4-5).
We agree with Appellant, however, that the Examiner erred in
concluding that the claim language lacks the necessary physical articles or
objects that would impart functionality to the graphics system since
independent claim 8 specifically requires that the computer graphics
program is “running on a computer graphics system including the display
device and a computer.” As argued by Appellant, the claimed running of the
program on the programmed computer system causes the program to
become structurally and functionally interrelated to the computer system to
enable the hardware to perform the claimed functions (Reply Br. 5-13).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that Appellant has shown
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8-10, 15, and 16 as being directed
to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but has not shown
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-16 for obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2009-011625
Application 10/948,845

7
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-16, all of the appealed
claims, 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

babc