Karlsruher Institut f¿r Technologie

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2020

14324301 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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.
14/324,301 07/07/2014 Carsten Dachsbacher 814573 1039
95683 7590 03/27/2020
Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. (Frankfurt office)
Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900
180 North Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601-6731
EXAMINER
MAZUMDER, TAPAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2020 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):
chgpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARSTEN DACHSBACHER
Appeal 2018-007274
Application 14/324,301
Technology Center 2600
Before LARRY J. HUME, JUSTIN BUSCH, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20, which are all claims pending in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lightrig
GmbH. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-007274
Application 14/324,301

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The claims are directed to a method and system for light transport
path manipulation. See Spec. (Title). In particular, Appellant’s disclosed
embodiments and claimed invention “relate[] to electronic data processing,
and more particularly, relate[] to methods, computer program products and
systems for digital scene illumination.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 20, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphases and formatting added to contested prior-art limitations):
Exemplary Claim
20. A computer system for light transport path
manipulation, comprising:
an interface component adapted to receive a three-
dimensional virtual scene description, the scene description
including location properties and optical behavior properties of
a plurality of three-dimensional virtual objects and at least one
virtual light source;
a light transport path generator component adapted to
generate at least one portion of a particular light transport path
within the three-dimensional scene by applying a ray tracing-
based light transport algorithm to the scene description;
a comparator component adapted to compare the at least
one portion of the particular light transport path with a path
selection scheme, the path selection scheme defining a sub-
space of the entire path space, the entire path space being
defined by the ray tracing-based light transport algorithm

2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
June 2, 2017); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 9, 2018); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 9, 2018); Final Office Action (“Final Act.,”
mailed Feb. 10, 2017); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed
July 7, 2014). An oral hearing was conducted March 17, 2020, and a
transcript of the hearing will be made of record in due course.
Appeal 2018-007274
Application 14/324,301

3
describing the distribution of light in the three-dimensional
scene;
a modification component adapted to leave the at least
one portion of the particular light transport path unchanged if
the at least one portion of the particular light transport path
does not match the path selection scheme, and to modify the at
least one portion of the particular light transport path in
accordance with a modification request associated with an
orientation of the at least one portion of the particular light
transport path if the at least one portion of the particular light
transport path matches the pre-defined path selection scheme,
the light transport path generator component being
adapted to generate at least one further portion of the
particular light transport path within the three-dimensional
scene by applying the ray tracing-based light transport
algorithm to the scene description including the at least one
modified portion of the particular light transport path;
an accumulation component adapted to compute
contributions of the at least one modified portion and the at
1east one further portion particular light transport path to pixel
locations of an image of the three-dimensional scene; and
a control component adapted to repeatedly invoke the
light transport path generator, comparator, modification, and
accumulation components for processing a plurality of light
transport paths.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Keller et al. (“Keller”) US 2011/0025682 A1 Feb. 3, 2011
Siebert US 2014/0327672 A1 Nov. 6, 2014
Jarosz et al. (“Jarosz”) US 2015/0035831 A1 Feb. 5, 2015
Tobias Ritschel et al., Interactive Reflection Editing, ACM
Transactions on Graphics, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 129:1–7 (2009)
(“Ritschel”).
Appeal 2018-007274
Application 14/324,301

4
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Jarosz, Siebert, Ritschel, and Keller.
Final Act. 9.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 5‒10; Reply Br. 2‒6)
and our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of
patent-ineligible subject matter Rejection R1 of claims 1–20 on the basis of
representative claim 20.3
ISSUE
Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 5–10; Reply Br. 2–6) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Jarosz, Siebert, Ritschel, and Keller is in error. These
contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests “[a] computer system for light transport path manipulation” that
includes, inter alia, the limitations of:
a modification component adapted to leave the at least
one portion of the particular light transport path unchanged if
the at least one portion of the particular light transport path does

3 “Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In addition, when Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of
dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appeal 2018-007274
Application 14/324,301

5
not match the path selection scheme, and to modify the at least
one portion of the particular light transport path in accordance
with a modification request associated with an orientation of the
at least one portion of the particular light transport path if the at
least one portion of the particular light transport path matches
the pre-defined path selection scheme,
the light transport path generator component being
adapted to generate at least one further portion of the particular
light transport path within the three-dimensional scene by
applying the ray tracing-based light transport algorithm to the
scene description including the at least one modified portion of
the particular light transport path,
as recited in independent claim 20?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). “The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 425.
In KSR, the Court stated “[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).
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
Appeal 2018-007274
Application 14/324,301

6
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. . . . [A] court
must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.
Id. at 417.
Further, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth
“some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Finally, during prosecution, claims must be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation when reading claim language in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under
this standard, we interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable
meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellant. To the extent Appellant has not
advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other
issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2018-007274
Application 14/324,301

7
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–20
and, unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by reference herein and adopt as
our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s arguments. We highlight
and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 20 for
emphasis as follows.
The Examiner finds Ritschel teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations of claim 20, in particular, finding that the recitation of “a
modification component adapted . . . to modify the at least one portion of the
particular light transport path in accordance with a modification request”
reads on Ritschel’s modification of a reflected light transport path based
upon user input. Final Act. 13 (citing Ritschel § 4, Figs. 3(a)–3(c)).
Appellant contends Ritschel “describes a method for changing what
an observer sees as the reflection in a mirror directly visible to the observer
in violation of the law of mirrors,” but “does not disclose or suggest a light
source or light transport paths from such a light source to an observer, and
therefore does not disclose or suggest modifying light transport paths,” as
claimed. Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant further argues Ritschel Figures 3(a)–
3(c) and 4(a)–4(c) “merely illustrate a mirrored sphere which can reflect
different parts of the scene. Thus, the normal reflection to an observer can
be distorted. However, Ritschel does not disclose or suggest that a portion
of a light path from a light source is modified. Because Ritschel does not
disclose or suggest light transport paths, there would be no apparent reason
to modify the light paths of Jarosz.” Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2018-007274
Application 14/324,301

8
In response, the Examiner finds Ritschel teaches or suggests the
disputed modification component because “Section 4 of Ritschel discloses
that reflection is changed based on the user movement of constraints. When
the reflection is changed it generally means, reflection path of light or light
transport path is changed. It is also clear from the Ritschel’s disclosure on
Page 2, ‘It can handle animated meshes and allows more general specular
light transport, like glossy reflections and refractions.’” Ans. 4. (emphases
omitted). The Examiner further finds:
In response to appellant’s argument that there is no
reason to modify the light paths of Jarosz, Examiner replies, the
motivation to include the teaching of Ritschel is to provide user
control to have the lighting path to match with a user request.
The primary reference already teaches the ray tracing of path
from a light source to an observer or a camera. Ritschel’s
reflection path is also a light path. So Ritschel is combinable
with Jarosz for purpose of providing user control in generating
light path.
Ans. 5 (emphasis added).
Appellant further argues “there would be no reason to perform
sampling or ray tracing a second time in Jarosz based on Ritschel. As
discussed above, Ritschel is silent to a light source or light transport paths
and merely teaches that distortions can be effected in a mirror from the view
point of an observer.” Appeal Br. 7.
We disagree with Appellant’s argument because the Examiner relies
upon the combination of Jarosz, Siebert, and Ritschel to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation. In particular, the Examiner finds:
Ritschel additionally generates additional portion of light
transport path within the three-dimensional scene, see Fig. 3B
to Fig. 3C. See in Fig.3c it deforms the reflection into multiple
Appeal 2018-007274
Application 14/324,301

9
paths, one of them is the claimed at least one further portion of
the particular light transport path. In Fig. 3C user included an
additional red constraint. So reflection is happening from blue
to first red constraint and then (claimed additional portion of
light transport path) from first red constraint to a second red
constraint which is just added. The additional portion of
transport path can also be from blue to second red constraint.
This teaching is shown in Fig.4 also. Due to movement of a
constraint, a first path is changed in Fig.4 to a changed red
handle and as a result additional path is created to send the light
to green handle from red handle (see Fig. 4(b)).
Examiner proposed to modify Jarosz as modified by
Siebert to modify at least one particular portion of the particular
light transport path in accordance with a modification request
associated with the orientation of at least one particular portion
of the particular light transport path and to generate at least one
further portion of the particular light transport path within the
three-dimensional scene including the at least one modified
portion of the particular light transport path as taught by
Ritschel to provide user control to have the lighting path to
match with the request and this generation of modified light
path can be done by the primary reference Jarosz based on
Jarosz [0029] and Fig.2 step 204 by applying Monte Carlo
method which is a ray tracing algorithm.
Ans. 5–6 (emphases omitted).
In response, Appellant alleges “Ritschel does not disclose or suggest
modifying any other portion of a particular light transport path or generating
a further portion of a light transport path. Rather, Ritschel can only be used
to edit the single reflected ray directly viewable by a viewer through a
reflective object.” Reply Br. 2.
We agree with the Examiner and disagree with Appellant because
Appellant is arguing the Ritschel reference separately, when the rejection is
for obviousness in which the Jarosz, Siebert, Ritschel, and Keller references
Appeal 2018-007274
Application 14/324,301

10
are considered for what the combination would have suggested to a skilled
artisan. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
The Examiner finds Ritschel teaches modifying one portion of a light
transport path (i.e., a portion that is reflected). Ans. 4. Although the
Examiner states “Ritschel additionally generates additional portion of light
transport path within the three-dimensional scene,” the Examiner explains
that the finding is based on combining Ritschel’s and Jarosz’s teachings to
teach or suggest the generating a further portion step. Ans. 6.
Specifically, we understand the Examiner to find Ritschel, when
combined with Jarosz, teaches modifying an intermediate reflected path and,
in response to modifying such a portion, the combined system generates a
modified light path include the modified reflected path wherein “this
generation of modified light path can be done by the primary reference
Jarosz.” Ans. 6; see Ans. 8 (“Ritschel’s teaching can be applied to any part
of [the] whole ray traced path of Jarosz as user can move object/constraints
within the existing ray traced path and thus generates modified light
transport path along with additional light transport path”).
Appellant asserts Ritschel teaches modifying only a reflected path
“directly viewable by a viewer,” Reply Br. 4. Appellant does not point to
persuasive evidence supporting the contention that Ritschel’s teachings are
inapplicable to modifying an intermediate reflected path.
Moreover, Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s
proffered combination of references would have been “uniquely challenging
or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
Appeal 2018-007274
Application 14/324,301

11
U.S. at 418). Nor has Appellant provided objective evidence of secondary
considerations which our reviewing court guides “operates as a beneficial
check on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder
Sys., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 20, nor do
we find error in the Examiner’s resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 20, and grouped claims 1–19 which fall therewith. See
Claim Grouping, supra.
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellant may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 2–6) not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s position in
the Answer, arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the
Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s
Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellant has not shown.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to the obviousness rejection of
claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the cited prior art combination of
record, and we sustain the rejection.
Appeal 2018-007274
Application 14/324,301

12
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis /
References Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103
Obviousness
Jarosz, Siebert,
Ritschel, Keller
1–20
FINALITY AND RESPONSE
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED