Ex Parte Zou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2017

13828772 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 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.
13/828,772 03/14/2013 Lincan Zou 1576-1191 1091
10800 7590 04/25/2017
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
MARTELLO, EDWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2017 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte LINCAN ZOU and LIU REN
____________________

Appeal 2017-000498
Application 13/828,7721
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.

TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection
of claims 11–20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Robert Bosch GmbH.
App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 1–10 have been cancelled. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2017-000498
Application 13/828,772

2
Invention
The claims are directed to a system and method for generating shadow
and lighting effects based on the dimensions of a polygon for three-
dimensional graphic models. Abstract.

Exemplary Claim
Claim 16, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter with disputed limitations emphasized:
16. A system applying a lighting texture to a three-
dimensional graphics object comprising:
a memory configured to store data corresponding to a
plurality of polygons in a three-dimensional graphical model that
depicts an object;
a display device configured to generate a visual depiction
of the three-dimensional graphical model; and
a processor operatively connected to the memory and the
display device, the processor being configured to:
identify an orientation of one polygon in the plurality of
polygons that correspond to the object with respect to a surface
that engages the object in the three-dimensional graphical model
in the memory;
identify a dimension of the one polygon in the identified
orientation extending from the surface;
map a predetermined lighting texture that is stored in the
memory to an entire face of the one polygon in response to the
identified dimension of the one polygon being less than a
predetermined threshold;
map the predetermined lighting texture to only a portion
of a face of the one polygon with a dimension extending from the
surface by a predetermined distance in response to the identified
dimension of the one polygon being greater than the
predetermined threshold; and
Appeal 2017-000498
Application 13/828,772

3
generate a display of the three-dimensional graphical
model including the one polygon in the object with the mapped
predetermined lighting texture.

Applied Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Doi et al. US 5,808,620 Sept. 15, 1998

Corbetta US 2003/0112237 A1 June 19, 2003

Rolando Soler-Bientz et al., Developing A Computational Tool To Assess
Shadow Pattern On A Horizontal Plane, Preliminary Results, 35th IEEE
Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC) 002312-002317 (2010)
(hereinafter “Soler-Bientz”).

REJECTIONS
Claims 16–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Corbetta. Final Act. 2–4.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Corbetta and Soler-Bientz. Id. at 5–6.
Claims 11–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Corbetta and Doi. Id. at 6–9.
Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Corbetta, Doi, and Soler-Bientz. Id. at 9–10.

ANALYSIS
Claims 16–20
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Corbetta discloses
Appeal 2017-000498
Application 13/828,772

4
identify a dimension of the one polygon . . . map a predetermined
lighting texture that is stored in the memory to an entire face of
the one polygon in response to the identified dimension of the
one polygon being less than a predetermined threshold; map the
predetermined lighting texture to only a portion of a face of the
one polygon with a dimension extending from the surface by a
predetermined distance in response to the identified dimension
of the one polygon being greater than the predetermined
threshold,
as recited in claim 16. App. Br. 7–10; Reply Br. 2–8. Specifically,
Appellants argue Corbetta identifies the dimensions of a shadow lighting
texture, instead of identifying the dimensions of an object that the shadow
lighting texture is applied to. App. Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 3. Appellants also
argue Corbetta does not map its shadow lighting texture based on the
dimensions of the object that receives the shadow lighting texture (Reply Br.
6) and instead “Corbetta always applies the shadow to the entire polygon,”
rather than to a portion of the polygon that receives the shadow lighting
texture (id. at 7–8).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds
Corbetta “identif[ies] polygon faces that receive light . . . and identif[ies]
other polygon faces that do not receive light.” Ans. 4 (citing Corbetta Fig.
3). The Examiner further finds Corbetta “identif[ies] edges of the polygons
that may cast shadows in a scene” (Ans. 5 (citing Corbetta Fig. 5); Final Act.
3) to “create shadow volume polygons” (Ans. 8; see Ans. 6–7 (citing
Corbetta ¶¶ 99–103)); those shadow volumes are then mapped onto
“polygon(s) to shadow” (Ans. 7, 12; Final Act. 3–4 (citing Corbetta ¶¶ 198–
200)).
The portions of Corbetta cited by the Examiner, however, do not
disclose mapping a lighting texture to a polygon based on the polygon’s
Appeal 2017-000498
Application 13/828,772

5
dimensions — i.e., Corbetta does not disclose that its shadow lighting
texture is mapped to an object that receives the lighting texture based on the
dimensions of the object— as required by the claims. In particular, the cited
portions of Corbetta are directed to determining the dimensions of a “soft
shadow polygon” that is rendered (Corbetta ¶ 99; see Corbetta ¶¶ 87–90,
100–103, 198–200, Figs. 3, 5), but those cited portions do not disclose
determining the dimensions of the polygon receiving the “soft shadow
polygon.” While the Examiner finds that shadowing “textures, calculated
shadings[,] or patterns . . . are mapped to a cube map and then mapped to the
objects of the modeled scene” (Ans. 12) and that “one has [to] consider all
the lighting and shadowing factors . . . and then identify the corresponding
or correct or suitable texture(s) to apply to the target polygon or surface”
(Ans. 5), the Examiner has not shown or sufficiently explained how Corbetta
maps a predetermined lighting texture to an entire face, or a portion of a
face, of a polygon that receives the predetermined lighting texture.
Additionally, to the extent the Examiner finds the shadow is itself the
recited polygon receiving the mapped lighting texture (see Ans. 5–6
(emphasizing shadow “polygon 501”)), the portions of Corbetta cited by the
Examiner do not disclose applying a lighting texture to all or part of the
shadow based on a threshold. Further, the Examiner has not explained how
Corbetta applies a texture to the shadow based on comparing the shadow
dimensions to a predetermined threshold.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments.
See App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 4–6. It follows, we do not sustain the
Appeal 2017-000498
Application 13/828,772

6
Examiner’s § 102 rejection of independent claim 16 and claims 17 and 18,
which depend directly or indirectly from claim 16.
Furthermore, the Examiner has not shown Soler-Bientz cures the
deficiencies of Corbetta. Accordingly, dependent claims 19 and 20 stand
with independent claim 16, and we need not reach the merits of Appellants’
other arguments directed to claims 19 and 20. See App. Br. 10–11. Thus,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of dependent claims 19 and
20.

Claims 11–15
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Corbetta teaches
identifying a dimension of the one polygon . . . mapping a
predetermined lighting texture to an entire face of the one
polygon in response to the identified dimension of the one
polygon being less than a predetermined threshold; mapping the
predetermined lighting texture to only a portion of a face of the
one polygon with a dimension extending from the surface by a
predetermined distance in response to the identified dimension
of the one polygon being greater than the predetermined
threshold,
as recited in claim 11. App. Br. 11–16; Reply Br. 2–8. These disputed
limitations are similar to the limitations disputed in claim 16, and the
Examiner similarly relies on Corbetta to teach these disputed limitations.
Ans. 11; see Final Act. 7. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed supra, we
agree with Appellants’ arguments that Corbetta does not teach these
disputed limitations. Further, the Examiner has not explained why it would
have been obvious to modify Corbetta to map a shadow lighting texture to a
polygon that receives the shadow lighting texture based on the polygon’s
dimensions compared to a threshold. See Final Act. 7–8; see also Ans. 15–
Appeal 2017-000498
Application 13/828,772

7
16. Furthermore, the Examiner has not shown Doi cures the deficiencies of
Corbetta. See Final Act. 7–8; see also Ans. 15–16.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments.
See App. Br. 12–16. It follows, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of independent claim 11 and claims 12 and 13, which depend
directly or indirectly from claim 11.
Furthermore, the Examiner has not shown Soler-Bientz cures the
deficiencies of the combination of Corbetta and Doi. Accordingly,
dependent claims 14 and 15 stand with independent claim 11, and we need
not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments directed to claims 14
and 15. See App. Br. 16–17. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 14 and 15.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 11–20.

REVERSED