INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 28, 2020

2019004595 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2020)

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.
13/691,033 11/30/2012 Hao Chen CN920110121US1
(163-587)
8352
49267 7590 12/28/2020
Tutunjian & Bitetto, P.C.
401 Broadhollow Road
Suite 402
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
IMPERIAL, JED-JUSTIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2020 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@tb-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HAO CHEN, GUO QUANG HU, QI CHENG LI, LI JUN MEI,
JIAN WANG, YI MIN WANG, and ZI YU ZHU
____________

Appeal 2019-004595
Application 13/691,033
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–20, which constitute all of the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004595
Application 13/691,033
2
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is generally directed to “virtual
world applications,” and more particularly to “the creation of three-
dimensional virtual scene in virtual world applications.” Spec. 1.2
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for generating a three-dimensional (3D) virtual
scene, comprising:
identifying a two-dimensional (2D) object in a 2D picture
of any of a plurality of picture types and a position of the 2D
object in the 2D picture, the plurality of picture types including
every type of picture with individually recognizable 2D objects;
obtaining a three-dimensional model of a 3D object
corresponding to the 2D object based on a mapping relationship
between positions and colors of color blocks in the 2D object and
the 3D object, the colors being any of a plurality of colors in the
visible spectrum;
calculating a corresponding position of the 3D object
corresponding to the 2D object in a horizontal plane of the 3D
scene according to the position of the 2D object in the 2D picture
based on a mapping relationship determined between the 2D
picture and an area of the horizontal plane of the 3D scene; and
simulating a falling of the model of the 3D object onto the
3D scene from a predetermined height above the 3D scene,
wherein the position of the landing point of the model of the 3D
object in the horizontal plane is the corresponding position of the
3D object in the horizontal plane of the 3D scene.
2 We refer to the Specification filed Nov. 30, 2012 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action mailed July 13, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed Dec. 10, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed Mar. 22, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the
Reply Brief filed May 21, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-004595
Application 13/691,033
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Long et al. US 2002/0095439 A1 July 18, 2002
(“Long”)
Yamamoto US 6,677,944 B1 Jan. 13, 2004
Visel US 2007/0156625 A1 July 5, 2007
Loberg US 2010/0268513 A1 Oct. 21, 2010
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 8–11, 14, and 18–20 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Yamamoto and Visel. Final Act. 4, 7.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Yamamoto, Visel, and Loberg. Final
Act. 9.
Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Yamamoto, Visel, Loberg, and Long. Final Act. 13.
ANALYSIS
Section 103 Rejection
Claim 1 recites (with emphasis added):
simulating a falling of the model of the 3D object onto the 3D
scene from a predetermined height above the 3D scene, wherein
the position of the landing point of the model of the 3D object in
the horizontal plane is the corresponding position of the 3D
object in the horizontal plane of the 3D scene.
Appellant argues that Visel does not mention “a 3D object model
formed from 2D objects” or “a 3D object model formed from a 2D object in
which the landing point of the 3D object model is the corresponding position
of the 3D object in the horizontal plane of the 3D scene.” Appeal Br. 18.
Appeal 2019-004595
Application 13/691,033
4
According to Appellant, Visel is “not related to generating a 3D virtual
scene from a 2D picture.” Id.
The Examiner finds that Visel’s box falling from a certain height to
the surface and then bouncing in the virtual world teaches simulating a
falling of the model of the object from a predetermined height and landing in
the position in the horizontal plane of the 3D scene. Final Act. 6 (citing
Visel ¶ 65, Fig. 2A). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Visel’s “box
falling down to a surface, and then bouncing within this virtual world”
teaches “a simulation as it is practically simulating a box falling from a
height and ending at a position in the scene.” Ans. 5–6.
As cited by the Examiner, Visel teaches an “animation sequence”
wherein a “character 202 is provided in the virtual world defined as a series
of vertices in the x, y and z direction.” Visel ¶ 65. In Visel, a “falling box is
illustrated as falling from an upper level, down to a surface, and then
bouncing.” Id. The “character 202 is animated to recognize the box, move
its head to view the box, and follow the box to the upper location to the
lower location and as it bounces,” and to express “emotion . . . as a result of
seeing the box and any actions that may occur with respect to the box in the
environment of the individual.” Id. In other words, Visel teaches an
animation sequence that includes a character viewing a box falling to the
surface and bouncing.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument as the Examiner has not
identified sufficient evidence or provided sufficient explanation as to how
Visel, in combination with Yamamoto, teaches or suggests the disputed
“simulating” limitation as recited in claim 1. Although Visel discloses a box
that falls and bounces, Visel’s bouncing box is part of an animation
Appeal 2019-004595
Application 13/691,033
5
sequence rather than a simulation of a model of a 3D object falling onto a
3D scene. Even if Visel’s animation sequence teaches a simulation of an
object falling, Visel’s animation sequence is directed at a character viewing
a box that falls and bounces, and subsequently reacting. Nothing in the cited
sections of Visel teaches or suggests that “the position of the landing point
of the model of the 3D object in the horizontal plane is the corresponding
position of the 3D object in the horizontal plane of the 3D scene,” as
claimed.
Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments
advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other
arguments.
Accordingly, we are constrained on the record before us to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, along with the rejection of
independent claim 11, which recites limitations commensurate in scope to
the disputed limitation discussed above, and the rejections of dependent
claims 2–10 and 12–20.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1–20.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 8–11, 14,
18–20
103 Yamamoto, Visel 1, 4, 8–11, 14,
18–20
2, 3, 5, 6, 12,
13, 15, 16
103 Yamamoto, Visel, Loberg 2, 3, 5, 6, 12,
13, 15, 16
7, 17 103 Yamamoto, Visel, Loberg,
Long
7, 17
Overall
Outcome
1–20
Appeal 2019-004595
Application 13/691,033
6
REVERSED