Ex Parte Zhao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2018

14889481 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/889,481 11/06/2015
45113 7590 08/27/2018
Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yong Feng Zhao
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2013P07731WOUS 6360
EXAMINER
MAPAR,BDAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2018 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YONG FENG ZHAO, HUI QIN, XIUCHANG LI,
JAMES JOSEPH WOJCIK, DEREK ENGLAND, and
FENG YU
Appeal2018-005661
Application 14/889 ,481 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13-17, and 20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") identifies Siemens Product
Lifecycle Management Software Inc. as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2018-005661
Application 14/889 ,481
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to modeling of blends on a solid model of a
pocket. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for accurately modeling blends in a solid
model, the method performed by a data processing system and
compnsmg:
receiving a solid model including a plurality of faces by
the data processing system;
identifying a pocket from the plurality of faces, by the
data processing system, including a pocket edge to be blended;
performing an analyze pockets process on the pocket by
the data processing system to identify at least one of undercuts,
angled walls, or tool inaccessibility areas;
displaying pocket details to a user by the data processing
system, the pocket details including the identified at least one of
undercuts, angled walls, or tool inaccessibility areas;
identifying and displaying to the user at least one
selectable tool type and selectable tool dimension for
machining the pocket, by the data processing system;
receiving a selection from the user, of the identified tool
type and tool dimension for machining the pocket, by the data
processing system;
performing a blend pocket process, by the data
processing system, to model blends on the pocket edge based
on the selected tool type and tool dimension for machining the
pocket, including comparing the selected tool type and tool
dimension, by the processing system, to a dimension of the
pocket to detect and report to the user problem areas;
receiving a further selection by the data processing
system from the user that minimizes the reported problem
areas;
adding a blend to the solid model at the pocket edge, by
the data processing system according to the blend pocket
process and the further selection, to produce a modified solid
model; and
2
Appeal2018-005661
Application 14/889 ,481
displaying the modified solid model by the data
processing system.
App. Br. 15-16 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Rameau US 2011/0282632 Al Nov. 17, 2011
Somavar Muniappan, Vinodhkumar, "Automatic Feature Recognition
and Tool Path Generation Integrated with Processing Planning" A
THESIS PRESENTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO (2012)
("Soma var").
Denkena B., et al., "CAD-based cost calculation of mould cavities,"
PROD. ENG. RES. DEVEL. vol. 5, pp. 73-79 (Oct. 26, 2010) ("Denkena").
Mansour, S., "Automatic generation of part programs for milling
sculptured surfaces," 127 JOURNAL OF MATERIALS PROC. TECH., pp. 31-
39 (Mar. 12, 2002) ("Mansour").
Solidworks Whitepaper, "Designing Better Products with Solidworks
Premium," (2010) ("SolidWorks").
Regli, W.C. et al., "Technical Research Report: Extracting Alternative
Machining Features: An Algorithmic Approach," T.R. 94--55, INSTITUTE
FOR SYSTEMS RESEARCH, ( 1994) ("Regli").
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13-17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. 2
2 The rejection under § 101 was initially withdrawn in the Final Office
Action. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner subsequently reinstituted the
rejection in the Answer as a new ground of rejection. Ans. 27-33.
3
Appeal2018-005661
Application 14/889 ,481
Claims 1, 2, 7-9, and 14--17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Rameau, Somavar, Denkena, Mansour, and
SolidW orks.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rameau, Soma var, Denkena, Mansour, SolidW orks, and
Regli.
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the claims are
ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the claims are
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103?
ANALYSIS
First Issue
The Examiner rejects the claims as being directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Examiner determines the claims
are directed to the abstract idea of "manipulating geometric surfaces and
design rule tolerances of a solid model." Ans. 28. The Examiner further
finds the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea
because "their collective functions merely provide conventional computer
implementations." Ans. 29.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because even if the Examiner's
characterization of the claims is correct, a process of "manipulating
Appellant did not re-open prosecution, and instead argued against the
rejection in the Reply Brief. See Reply Br. 2-5.
4
Appeal2018-005661
Application 14/889 ,481
geometric surface and design rule tolerances of a solid model" is not
abstract. Reply Br. 2. Appellants further argue the Examiner's
characterization of the claims ignores the technical features of the claims and
reduces them to broad generalizations. Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants also
contend the claims are similar to those found eligible in McRO, Inc. v.
Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) because
they are limited to specific technical features and do not improperly
monopolize the alleged abstract idea. Reply Br. 3. Appellants also
challenge the Examiner's determination that the claims do not amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In particular, Appellants
argue the combination of features amount to more than the abstract idea
because they "yield the benefit of increasing the ease and accuracy of model
blends on internal edges, e.g., to produce blends that will better represent the
actual pocket geometry as it will be machined." Reply Br. 4. Appellants
also contend the Examiner has failed to provide sufficient evidence under
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) to support the finding
that the elements in the claim are well-understood, routine, and
conventional. Reply Br. 5. We agree with Appellants.
Under the new examination procedure published online by the
USPTO on April 19, 2018, entitled "Changes in Examination Procedure
Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility
Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)" (hereinafter "Berkheimer
Memorandum"), there is a new fact finding requirement for Examiners, as
applicable to rejections under § 101. Specifically, Examiners must now
provide specific types of evidence to support a finding that claim elements
5
Appeal2018-005661
Application 14/889 ,481
( or combinations of elements) are well-understood, routine, and
conventional.
Here, the Examiner's determination that the claims are directed to an
abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea
is predicated, at least in part, on an unsupported finding that Appellants'
claims are directed to routine, conventional, computer operations. See, e.g.,
Ans. 28 ( characterizing claimed process steps as conventional operations of
comparing, manipulating, and displaying data). As such, we find persuasive
Appellants' argument that the Examiner is failed to provide sufficient
evidence based on: (1) Berkheimer (881 F.3d at 1369), and (2), the
Berkheimer Memorandum, which changed the examination procedures to be
fully compliant with Berkheimer.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of Appellants' claims under
35 U.S.C. § 101. 3
Second Issue
Appellants argue claim 1 as representative of claims 2, 7-9, and 14--
17, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In rejecting claim 1, the
Examiner finds Rameau teaches the use of pocket blends and/or fillets in
CAD software. Final Act. 5-6. The Examiner further finds Somavar
teaches that feature recognition algorithms were known, and in particular,
algorithms for recognizing pockets and edges. Final Act. 8. The Examiner
finds Denkena teaches that CAD software was known to detect undercuts
3 We further note that, although we do not reverse the rejection on this basis,
we see merit in Appellants' argument that the characterization of the claims
as being directed to the abstract idea of "manipulating geometric surfaces
and design rule tolerances of a solid model" is overly broad and does not
give adequate consideration to the details of the features recited therein.
6
Appeal2018-005661
Application 14/889 ,481
and also to address issues relating to the machining undercuts. Final Act. 8-
9. The Examiner further finds Denkena also demonstrates that it was known
to determine appropriate tools for machining pockets by taking into account
sizes and undercuts, and to select the appropriate tool. Final Act. 9. The
Examiner relies on Mansour to show that it was known to allow user
selection of cutting tools. Final Act 10. And finally, the Examiner relies on
SolidW orks to show that it was known in the prior art for CAD software to
identify and minimize problem areas. Final Act. 10-11.
Based on our understanding of the positions set forth in Appellants'
briefs, Appellants argue the following: (1) "there is no reasonable apparent
reason that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the combination of
Rameau, Denkena, Somavar, and Mansour with Solidworks" (App. Br. 10,
12); (2) Denkena teaches erosion instead of blending (App. Br. 11); and (3)
Denkena and SolidW orks do not teach the "adding a blend" limitation in
claim 1 (App. Br. 11-12). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments,
and we adopt as our own the reasoning and explanations set forth on pages
30-33 of the Examiner's Answer. Ans. 30-33. We address each argument
below for further emphasis.
The essence of Appellants' first argument is that because the
teachings of the various cited references are in many ways duplicative, there
would be no reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
references in the manner proposed by the Examiner, and the rejection must
therefore rely on impermissible hindsight. See App. Br. 10. We do not find
this argument persuasive for two reasons. First, Appellants do not explain
why the rationale for combining SolidWorks with Rameau provided by the
Examiner is insufficient. As the Examiner explains, "[t]he Solidworks
7
Appeal2018-005661
Application 14/889 ,481
reference directly encourages the use of its systems in 3D model design,"
and as such "motivate[s] one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Solidwork's
features to modeling methodologies," such as those described in the
remaining cited references. Ans. 32. The Examiner further explains that
"the features of Solidworks cited in the rejection are noted as allowing a user
to 'easily identify potential problem areas upfront and reduce the number of
costly prototypes' (Solidworks, p.3)." Id. Merely alleging that the
combination relies on hindsight is not persuasive of Examiner error where,
as is the case here, the Examiner has provided "articulated reasoning with
rational underpinnings sufficient to justify the legal conclusion of
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[R]ejections
on obviousness grounds ... must ... [include] some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness").
Appellants' second argument is also not persuasive of error.
Appellants contend the Examiner's reliance on Denkena is misplaced
because Denkena teaches addressing pockets via erosion, a reductive
machining process, instead of blending, which is an additive process. App.
Br. 11. Appellants make a similar argument with respect to SolidW orks. Id.
However, the Examiner does not rely on either Denkena or SolidWorks for
the claimed "blending." Rather, the Examiner relies on the teachings of
Rameau in this regard. Ans. 31 ("[Appellants' arguments] fail to address the
teachings of Rameau, the relied upon reference for rendering the claim's
blending features obvious in the combination.").
We also are not persuaded by Appellants' third argument that
Denkena and SolidW orks do not teach the "adding a blend" limitation in
8
Appeal2018-005661
Application 14/889 ,481
claim 1. Appellants' assert that the "adding a blend" must be based on both
a blend pocket process and a user selection that minimizes problem areas.
App. Br. 12. As explained by the Examiner, however, Rameau teaches
performing a blend pocket process (Rameau ,r,r 7 4--7 6), and Denkena
teaches modeling based on selected tool types and tool dimensions (Denkena
p. 76-77). Final Act. 9; Ans. 31. Thus, taken together, Rameau and
Denkena teach the claimed "blend pocket process." Similarly, SolidWorks
teaches the identification of problem areas and receiving selections to
minimize them. See Ans. 32. Thus, the Examiner correctly relies upon
SolidWorks' minimization of problem areas together with the blend pocket
process as taught by Rameau/Denkena to find the prior art renders the
"adding a blend" limitation obvious. Appellants' argument suggests that the
"adding a blend" limitation, or more specifically, the two determinations that
form the basis of the blending, must be found entirely within a single
reference. See App. Br. 11. Such an argument is inconsistent with the law
of obviousness, under which "[i]t is well settled that a prior art reference is
relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art," In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1992) and "[i]n determining whether
obviousness is established by combining the teachings of the prior art, the
test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested
to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1581
(Fed. Cir. 1995) (internal quotations omitted). Here, in finding claim 1
obvious, the Examiner properly relies on all of the teachings in the cited
references, including what their combined teachings would have suggested
to a person of ordinary skill in the art, in reaching the conclusion of
obviousness. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' third
9
Appeal2018-005661
Application 14/889 ,481
argument, and we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as of claims 2, 7-
9, and 14--17, for which claim 1 was presented as representative.
Dependent Claims 6, 13, and 20
Appellants also argue separately for patentability of claims 6, 13, and
20, which each recite the limitation "wherein the further selection includes a
comer clearance dimension to minimize a sharp tum tool path at a comer,
wherein the blend added to the solid model is generated by the pocket
process according to the comer clearance dimension." App. Br. 16 (claim
6), 18 (claim 13), and 20 (claim 20). In rejecting claim 6, the Examiner
relies on Regli as teaching the recited "comer clearance dimension." Final
Act. 29 ( citing Regli pp. 8, 12, 18, and Fig. 8). The Examiner finds that
Regli teaches taking machinability considerations of sharp comers into
account by selecting a comer radius parameter which offsets convex comers
inward. Id. The Examiner explains that the offsetting of the convex comers
is a form of blending, and because it is based on comer parameters, it is
within the broadest reasonable interpretation of "comer clearance." Id.
Appellants argue Regli "discusses adjusting a milling profile to
provide an offset feature." App. Br. 13. Appellants argue Regli, like
Denkena, is used in the context of machining parts and not creating blends.
Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Appellants do not
explain why Regli' s offsetting of convex comers based on comer parameters
is insufficient to render obvious the disputed limitation in claim 6. As the
Examiner explains in the Answer, "[t]he interpretation that a 'comer radius
parameter falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of comer
clearance' ... is not addressed or even rebutted by [A]ppellant." Ans. 33.
10
Appeal2018-005661
Application 14/889 ,481
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6
and we sustain its rejection, along with that of claims 13 and 20.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13-17, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13-1 7, and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Because we have affirmed the rejection of each claim under at least
one ground, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13-17,
and 20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11