Ex Parte Ugail

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 24, 2012

11072065 (B.P.A.I. May. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/072,065 03/04/2005 Hassan Ugail 148/392US 8072
19148 7590 05/25/2012
Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP
128 South Tryon Street
Suite 1800
Charlotte, NC 28202-5013
EXAMINER
REPKO, JASON MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2012 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)
0UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte HASSAN UGAIL
__________

Appeal 2009-014924
Application 11/072,065
Technology Center 2600
__________

Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KEVIN F. TURNER, and STEPHEN C. SIU,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-11. Claim 3 has been cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The disclosed invention relates generally to animation of a 3D object
(Spec. 1). Independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method to provide images of an animated 3D object on
a display, comprising the computer-implemented steps of:
Appeal 2009-014924
Application 11/072,065

2
providing a plurality of control curves as boundary conditions
to a partial differential equation;
providing a spine associated with the plurality of control
curves;
defining a manipulation of the spine as a function of time to
cause coordinated manipulation of the plurality of control curves;
solving the partial differential equation with respect to the
plurality of control curves over time, to provide surface patch data
representing a surface patch of the animated 3D object which changes
over time; and
outputting images on the display according to the surface patch
data.
(App. Br. 8, Claims Appendix).

The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 4-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of the following references:
Malcolm I.G. Bloor, et al., Time-dependent Parametric Surface
Models of the Human Heart, IEEE, (1999) (“Bloor”).

Hassan Ugail, On the Spine of a PDE Surface, Mathematics of
Surfaces, (2003) (“Ugail”).

The Examiner also rejects claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. §
101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4-11?

Appeal 2009-014924
Application 11/072,065

3
PRINCIPLE OF LAW
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the combination of Bloor and Ugail fails to
disclose or suggest “‘defining a manipulation of the spine as a function of
time . . .’ and ‘solving the partial differential equation . . . over time, to
provide surface patch data . . . which changes over time’” (App. Br. 6). We
disagree with Appellant for at least the reasons set forth by the Examiner
(Ans. 14-17).
As the Examiner points out and as Appellant does not dispute (Ans.
15-17, App. Br. 6), Ugail discloses providing and manipulating a spine.
While Appellant argues that Bloor (App. Br. 5) and Ugail (App. Br. 6)
disclose only “static” images, we cannot agree with Appellant that the
combination of Bloor and Ugail fails to disclose or suggest the features
recited in claim 1. First, as the Examiner indicates, claim 1 does not appear
Appeal 2009-014924
Application 11/072,065

4
to recite that the images are (or are not) “static” (see, e.g., Ans. 15). Since
Appellant has not demonstrated that claim 1 requires images that are not
“static” and it does not appear that claim 1 recites such a requirement, we are
not persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
Even assuming that Appellant argues that the combination of Bloor
and Ugail fails to disclose or suggest the claimed feature of “. . . as a
function of time,” “solving . . . over time” or “changes over time,” we still
cannot agree with Appellant because, as the Examiner indicates, at least
Bloor discloses a “time dependent parameterization” (see, e.g., Bloor, p.
177, col. 1, section 4), in which a “surface patch is generated as the solution
of a . . . differential equation” (p. 175, col. 1, section 2) over “12 instants
during the . . . cycle” (p. 174, col. 2, l. 10), via “a time-dependent . . . model”
(p. 174, col. 1, l. 15). Appellant does not adequately demonstrate a
difference between Bloor manipulating and solving differential equations
over time (i.e., “time dependent parameterization” or “a time-dependent . . .
model”) and the features recited in claim 1.
Claims 10 and 11 recite similar features as claim 1. Appellant does
not provide additional arguments in support of dependent claims 2 and 4-9.
Affirmance of the rejection for claims 1, 2, and 4-11 as obvious over
the combination of Bloor and Ugail renders it unnecessary to reach the
propriety of the Examiner’s decision to reject those claims on a different
basis. Cf. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As such, we
Appeal 2009-014924
Application 11/072,065

5
need not reach the propriety of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. 101.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2,
and 4-11.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4-11.
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

rvb