Ex Parte Venezia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 6, 2014

12053756 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOSEPH A. VENEZIA
and THOMAS J. APPOLLONI
____________________

Appeal 2012-007154
Application 12/053,756
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-007154
Application 12/053,756

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a system and method for correlating
and synchronizing a three-dimensional site model and two-dimensional
imagery. Spec. ¶ 1.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. An imaging system, comprising:
a 3D database configured for storing data relating to a
three-dimensional site model image having vantage point
positions and orientations when displayed and further
comprising a texture map image corresponding to a surface of
the three-dimensional site model image;
a 2D database configured for storing data relating to two-
dimensional images that correspond to vantage point positions
and orientations for the three-dimensional site model image;
a display for displaying both the three-dimensional site
model image and two-dimensional imagery; and
a processor operative with the 2D and 3D databases and
the display and configured to create and display the three-
dimensional site model image and two-dimensional imagery
from data retrieved from the 2D and 3D databases and correlate
and synchronize the three-dimensional site model image and
two-dimensional imagery to establish and maintain a spatial
orientation between the images as a user interacts with the
Appeal 2012-007154
Application 12/053,756

3
system, said processor further operative to create a surface on
the three-dimensional site model image by determining texture
coordinates of the texture map image that are applied to the
three-dimensional site model image.

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Medalia (US 2008/0033641 A1, Feb. 7, 2008) and Jiang
(US 2006/0245639 A1, Nov. 2, 2006). Ans. 4–15.

ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 14–30, and the Reply Brief, pages 4–7.
Based upon our review of the record before us, we find no error with
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection regarding independent claims 1, 10,
and 18.
The Examiner finds “Medalia teaches all limitations, e.g., the 2D
image and 3D image, as in instant claim 1 (paragraphs [0009]-[0010],
[0033]), except for the texture mapping to the 3D site model image, which is
disclosed in Jiang et al (paragraphs [0014]-[0015]).” Ans. 16–17.
Appellants contend:
One skilled in the art would not be motivated to apply
this complicated facial recognition system as described in Jiang
that identifies the various feature points of a 2D image in a
standard face image in order to interpolate points for a 3D face,
and apply it to Medalia’s 2D mapping and 3D representation of
a jogging course or similar virtual reality scene.

App. Br. 27.
Appeal 2012-007154
Application 12/053,756

4
Appellants further contend:
Medalia, on the other hand, is a dynamically changing
jogging course scene that uses a low polygon count modeling
application to form the dynamically changing scene. In
contrast, Jiang is a fixed facial recognition system with no
dynamically changing scenes as in the Medalia jogging course.
There is no foreseeable reason for one skilled in the art to look
to the static facial recognition system in Jiang that applies
texture to the face and apply it to the dynamically changing
jogging course scene of Medalia to form the claimed subject
matter. Thus, one skilled in the art would not look to Jiang’s
facial recognition system and apply it to Medalia’s 3D imaging
to form the claimed subject matter.

Reply Br. 6.
The Examiner finds creating a surface on the three-dimensional site
model image by determining texture coordinates of the texture map image
that are applied to the three-dimensional site model image, was within the
level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Ans. 6. Appellants
dispute the Examiner’s conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to combine Medalia’s teaching of a 3D database and a
2D database with Jiang’s texture mapping. Reply Br. 6. Therefore, the
pivotal issue before us turns on whether the combination of the afore-cited
teachings of Medalia and Jiang as proposed the Examiner would be proper
within the context of obviousness. We answer this inquiry in the
affirmative.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “[t]he 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). The Court further instructs that:
Appeal 2012-007154
Application 12/053,756

5
[o]ften it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated
teachings of multiple patents; . . . and the background
knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the
art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent
reason for combining the known elements in a the fashion
claimed by the patent at issue.

Id. at 418.
Additionally, the Court instructs that:
[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 . . . . [H]owever,
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. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
We find that the ordinarily skilled artisan, being a creative individual
would have been able to fit the teachings of Medalia and Jiang (including
established knowledge in the art) together like pieces of a puzzle to
predictably result in the disputed limitations. In particular, we agree with
the Examiner that the proffered combination of Medalia with Jiang would
predictably result in a realistic appearance of the surface on the 3D model.
Ans. 17. In our view, such a statement suffices as an articulated reason with
a rational underpinning to support the proffered combination. As noted
above, the case law allows the Examiner to look to the state of the prior art,
including the knowledge of the ordinarily skilled artisan to arrive at such a
reason for combining the known elements of the prior art. Consequently, the
Examiner’s reliance upon widely available knowledge in order to arrive at
Appeal 2012-007154
Application 12/053,756

6
an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to support the proffered
combination is proper.
We adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of fact and reasons set
forth in the Examiner’s Answer and concur with the Examiner’s
conclusions. It follows that Appellants have not shown error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 10, and 18.
Regarding dependent claims 2–9, 11–17, and 19–25, while Appellants
raised additional arguments for patentability of the cited dependent claims
(App. Br. 28–30), we find that the Examiner has rebutted in the Answer each
and every one of those arguments supported by sufficient evidence. Ans.
19–20. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying
reasoning, which are incorporated herein by reference.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–25 as set forth above.
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

msc