Ex Parte Thompson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2017

12913998 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017)

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.
12/913,998 10/28/2010 Brian Thompson 10758-018US1 4978
96039 7590 09/27/2017
Mennier Parlin Rr PiiiTtrian T T C
EXAMINER
999 Peachtree Street NE HANN, JAY B
Suite 1300
Atlanta, GA 30309 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2123
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2017 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@mcciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN THOMPSON, ANTON TSYPKIN, YIHMIN CHIN,
YACOV ESTRIN, and PAUL SAGAR
Appeal 2017-002974
Application 12/913,99s1
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—28, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Parametric Technology
Corporation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-002974
Application 12/913,998
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
The claimed invention relates to computer aided design (CAD) and,
specifically, a CAD system combining “direct” modeling and “parametric”
(history-based) modeling techniques, thereby realizing the advantages of
each technique.2 Spec. H 1—4. Claims 1, 14, and 24 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and the subject matter of the appeal,
and reads as follows:
1. A computer-aided design (CAD) system comprising:
a computing device comprising a processor configured to
execute:
a parametric geometry engine configured for creating, via
a parametric modeling user interface, a historic instruction list
of feature-based geometry of a CAD object such that
modification of a given earlier-created feature in the historic
instruction list causes the parametric geometry engine to
recalculate later-created geometric features to carry through the
effects of the change to the given earlier-created feature, wherein
the historic instruction list is graphically presented in the
parametric modeling user interface, and
2 In “direct” modeling, a user directly manipulates an object’s features using
the CAD interface (such as clicking or dragging the mouse), and the feature
manipulated changes accordingly. Spec. 12. In “parametric” modeling, the
CAD application tracks design “dependencies” to construct a “recipe” for
the object being modeled, such that when one feature subsequently is edited,
all features depending on it also are changed automatically throughout the
model. Id. at H 2, 4—6. For example, the history (instructions) in a
parametric model could specify a hole is centered in a rectangular board, and
if a user subsequently lengthens one edge of the board in the parametric
model, the hole also would shift automatically to remain centered. Id. at
176.
2
Appeal 2017-002974
Application 12/913,998
a direct modeling user interface configured for directly
modifying geometry of the CAD object agnostic of associative
geometric relationships within the CAD object,
wherein the processor is configured to, while the CAD
object is accessed for modification by the direct modeling user
interface, map the received modification of the CAD object made
in the direct modeling user interface to one or more parametric
features, and
wherein the processor is configured to add the mapped
modification to the historic instruction list having one or more
earlier-created features such that all of the one or more earlier
created features are maintained in the historic instruction list and
such that the one or more parametric features of the mapped
modification are regenerated by the parametric geometry engine
based on a respective location in the historic instruction list.
App. Br. 36 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14—19, and 24—28 stand rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gandikota et al. (US
2009/0259442 Al; Oct. 15, 2009) (“Gandikota”) and Leu et al., “NX5 for
Engineering Design,” Missouri U. Science & Tech. (2008) (“Leu”). Final
Act. 7-28.
Claims 6, 22, and 23 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Gandikota, Leu, and Vredenburgh et al. (US
2005/0071135 Al; Mar. 31, 2005) (“Vredenburgh”). Final Act. 28—29.
Claim 9 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gandikota, Leu, and Schneider et al. (US 8,941,650 B2;
Jan. 27, 2015). Final Act. 29-30.
3
Appeal 2017-002974
Application 12/913,998
Claims 12, 13, 20, and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gandikota, Leu, and Brown et
al. (US 2008/0062195 Al; Mar. 13, 2008). Final Act. 30-32.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41,37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth
in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s
Answer, and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis.
Claims 1—13, 22, and 25—28
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, as well as
its dependent claims 2—13, 22, and 25—28, because “the cited references do
not disclose all of the elements of [claim 1] and the Examiner has not
properly articulated his reasoning” to combine Gandikota with Leu. App.
Br. 14—15; see also Reply Br. 2, 12. Specifically, Appellants argue
Gandikota does not teach a “historic instruction list” (and history-based
implementation) as recited in claim 1, but rather, “specifically teaches away
from the use of history-based or [i.e.] parametric systems.” App. Br. 16, 22.
Similarly, Appellants argue Gandikota does not teach “modification” of an
earlier created feature in the historic instruction list causes a parametric
engine to “recalculate later-created geometric features,” as recited in claim
1. App. Br. 22—23. We, however, are not persuaded of error.
We first address Appellants’ argument of teaching away. As the
Examiner finds, Gandikota, like Appellants’ invention, is directed to a CAD
4
Appeal 2017-002974
Application 12/913,998
system utilizing both direct modeling and parametric (history-based)
features. Ans. 3—5. Gandikota teaches there are disadvantages to relying
solely on parametric modeling, and relying solely on “history-less” systems.
Gandikota ^fl[ 3—6. Gandikota does not, as Appellants allege, teach away
from utilizing any parametric (history-based) modeling whatsoever, but
rather, teaches using history-based information in modifying a direct model.
See, e.g., id. at || 33—35. We, accordingly, discern no error in the
Examiner’s rationale to combine Gandikota’s teachings of using history-
based features in solid modeling, with Leu’s graphical presentation of a
“model history” (historic instruction list). Final Act. 9; see Innovention Toys
LLC v. MGA Entertainment Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see
id. at 1322—23 (finding sufficient basis for combining references that share
the “same purpose,” “goal,” or “objective”); cf. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551,
553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (reference teaches away from combination “when a
person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference . . . would be
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference”).
We also are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the combined
references fail to teach the limitations recited in claim 1. Appellants first
argue Gandikota fails to teach or suggest “modification of a given earlier-
created feature in the historic instruction list causes the parametric geometry
engine to recalculate later-created geometric features to carry through the
effects of the change,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 22—24. Again,
however, this argument is based upon Appellants’ contention that Gandikota
teaches only disadvantages of “history-based [parametric] systems.” Id. at
23. As the Examiner finds, however, Gandikota teaches a “recipe, or history
tree, is created to reflect how [geometric features] are related to one another.
5
Appeal 2017-002974
Application 12/913,998
When a change is made to one original [feature], all [features] created later
in time from the original. . . are updated.'’'’ Gandikota 3, 35 (emphasis
added); Ans. 7. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Similarly, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Gandikota
teaches or suggests “map[ping]” the modification of the CAD object made in
the direct modeling interface “to one or more parametric features” and
“add[ing] the mapped modification to the historic instruction list.” App. Br.
24— 26. These arguments, like the foregoing arguments, essentially rely on
Appellants’ contention that Gandikota does not teach any parametric
modeling features. We, however, agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Gandikota teaches the use of history-based (parametric) features to modify a
direct model and, specifically, mapping the direct modification to parametric
features, which are stored as part of a history list. Ans. 7—9; Gandikota Tflf
3-5, 19, 29, 33-35.
Appellants do not argue the dependent claims separately.
Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 1—13, 22, and
25- 28.
Remaining Claims
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims
14 and 24, and their dependent claims, for the same reasons as claim 1.
App. Br. 31—34. Appellants further contend the additional references
Schneider, Vredenburgh, and Brown do not cure the deficiencies in the
Examiner’s findings, in the claims for which these references are cited. For
the same reasons set forth in our analysis of claim 1, however, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claims 14—21, 23, and 24.
6
Appeal 2017-002974
Application 12/913,998
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—28.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7