Ex Parte Girard

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2018

12504532 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/504,532 07/16/2009
107456 7590 10/01/2018
Artegis Law Group, LLP
John Carey
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Girard
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.
AUT0/1193 1282
EXAMINER
SALVUCCI, MATTHEW D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2018 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):
algdocketing@artegislaw.com
kcruz@artegislaw.com
rsmith @artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL GIRARD 1
Appeal2017-004853
Application 12/504,532
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Autodesk, Inc.
Appeal2017-004853
Application 12/504,532
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-9, 11-17, 19, 20, 22, and 25-27, which constitute all claims
pending in the application. Claims 10, 18, 21, and 23-24 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
PRIOR APPEAL AND CONTINUED EXAMINATION
Claims in this application were also the subject of Appeal No. 2014-
000109, where we affirmed the Examiner's then-pending rejection. See
Decision on Appeal, dated November 19, 2015. After we issued our
decision for that appeal, Appellant filed a request for continued examination
and amended his claims. See Request for Continued Examination and
Amendment Accompanying Request for Continued Examination, dated
January 19, 2016. This appeal was docketed on February 14, 2017.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention relates to a system and method for real-
time character animation. Spec. ,r 1. Specifically, the claimed invention
relates to a system and method for generating a motion sequence of a
character object in a rendering application executing on a computer system.
Spec. ,r 8. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method for generating a motion sequence of a
character object in a rendering application executing on a
computer system, the method comprising:
2
Appeal2017-004853
Application 12/504,532
classifying a first motion clip into a first motion class,
wherein the first motion clip is stored in a memory included
within the computer system, and a motion class is one of a
continuous locomotion motion class, an ending performed
motion class, a stationary performed motion class, a leading
performed motion class, discontinuous locomotion motion class,
and an interrupted locomotion motion class;
classifying a second motion clip into a second motion class
that is different from the first motion class, wherein the second
motion clip is stored in the memory included within the computer
system, and the first motion class and the second motion class
are operationally combined with one another using a registration
type that comprises at least one of (1) an ending registration
defined by transitioning from a continuous locomotion motion
class to an ending performed motion class, (2) a stationary
registration defined by transitioning from the ending performed
motion class to a stationary performed motion class, (3) a leading
registration defined by transitioning from a leading performed
motion class to the continuous locomotion motion class, ( 4) a
continuous registration defined by transitioning from the
continuous locomotion motion class to another continuous
locomotion motion class, ( 5) a first enveloping registration
defined by transitioning from the continuous locomotion motion
class to a discontinuous locomotion motion class, and then
transitioning back to the continuous locomotion motion class,
and ( 6) a second enveloping registration defined by transitioning
from the continuous locomotion motion class to an interrupted
locomotion motion class, and then transitioning back to the
continuous locomotion motion class;
generating a registration curve that temporally and
spatially aligns one or more frames of the first motion clip with
one or more frames of the second motion clip based on the first
motion class and the second motion class; and
rendering the motion sequence of the character object by
blending the one or more frames of the first motion clip with one
or more frames of second motion clip based on the registration
curve.
3
Appeal2017-004853
Application 12/504,532
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1-9, 11-17, 19, 20, 22, and 25-272 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. §I03(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Kovar (Lucas
Kovar & Michael Gleicher, Flexible Automatic Motion Blending with
Registration Curves, Eurographics/SIGGRAPH Symposium on Computer
Animation (2003)) and Koga (US 6,208,357 Bl; March 27, 2001). Final
Act. 4, 30; Adv. Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Kovar teaches all limitations recited by claim
1, except the recited leading and second enveloping registrations. Final Act.
4--8. The Examiner finds Koga teaches those registrations. Id. at 8.
Appellant argues that Kovar and Koga do not teach or suggest the
following limitations of claim 1:
(a) classifying a first motion clip into a first motion class,
classifying a second motion clip into a second motion class
2 The Final Action sets forth that claims 25-27 stand rejected. Final Act. 1.
The statement of the Examiner's pending rejection on page 4 of the Final
Action, however, does not include those claims. The Final Action and the
Examiner's Answer, however, addresses claims 25 and 26 with respect to
Kovar and Koga. Final Act. 30; Ans. 28. And the Advisory Action and the
Examiner's Answer address claim 27 with respect to Kovar and Koga. Adv.
Act. 2; Ans. 30. Therefore, the pending obviousness rejection over Kovar
and Koga includes claims 25-27. To the extent there was any issue of
whether the Advisory Action or Examiner's Answer created a new ground of
rejection by including claim 27 or 25-27 in this rejection, that issue would
have to been raised by petition, rather than through briefing on appeal. 37
C.F.R. § 4I.40(a).
4
Appeal2017-004853
Application 12/504,532
that is different from the first motion class, and generating
a registration curve that temporally and spatially aligns
one or more frames of the first motion clip with one or
more frames of the second motion clip based on the first
motion class and the second motion class; and
(b) that a motion class is one of a continuous locomotion
motion class, an ending performed motion class, a
stationary performed motion class, a leading performed
motion class, discontinuous locomotion motion class, and
an interrupted locomotion motion class.
App. Br. 13.
Appellant argues that:
although Kovar discusses different types of motions and
transitions between those motions, nowhere in Kovar is there any
teaching or suggestion of classifying motion clips into different
motion classes, as required by claim 1, much less that the motion
clips are classified into two of the different classes enumerated
in claim 1.
App. Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 3--4. Appellant further argues that although
"Kovar generally discloses that a registration curve may be generated
between a jogging motion clip and a sneaking motion clip ... [,] Kovar fails
to disclose that motion clips are first classified into different motion classes
or that the registration curve is generated based on the different motion
classes." App. Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 4. Appellant provides a similar
argument for Kovar's disclosure regarding generating a registration curve
between a straight-line walking motion clip and a sharp tum motion clip.
App. Br. 14.
The Examiner responds that the Specification and the pending claims
do not provide any special meaning for the term "classifying." Ans. 29.
Therefore, presumably applying the ordinary meaning for the term, the
Examiner finds that Kovar classifies each of the motion classes recited by
5
Appeal2017-004853
Application 12/504,532
claim 1 by disclosing them. Id. The Examiner further cites Kovar's
disclosure regarding constraint matches and registration curves, which the
Examiner finds deals entirely with combining and blending individual,
different motions. Id. The Examiner also cites Kovar's disclosure of
transitioning from jogging to a significantly slower sneaking motion. Id.
In response, Appellant argues that jogging and a slower sneaking
motion are part of the same class of motion (i.e., the continuous motion
class) and that the Examiner has not cited any teachings from Kovar or Koga
for any motion class, other than the continuous motion class. Reply Br. 4.
Appellant also argues that a constraint is a characteristic of a model at a
point in time and not a classification of the model's motion. Id.
After reviewing the arguments and evidence of record, we agree with
the Examiner that Kovar teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of
claim 1. First, the Examiner identifies how Kovar and Koga disclose a
continuous locomotion motion class, an ending performed motion class, a
stationary performed motion class, a leading performed motion class,
discontinuous locomotion motion class, and an interrupted locomotion
motion class. Final Act. 6-8. In discussing registrations in Kovar and Koga,
the Examiner identifies how Kovar and Koga disclose each of the recited
motion classes. Id. And the motion classes cited by the Examiner
correspond to more than just continuous locomotion motion classes. See,
e.g., Final Act. 6-7 (finding standing still and turning in place correspond to
the ending performed motion class and the stationary performed motion
class, respectively). Second, we do not agree with Appellant that jogging
and sneaking motions are both continuous motions and, therefore, part of the
same continuous motion class. The language of claim 1 makes clear there is
6
Appeal2017-004853
Application 12/504,532
more than one continuous motion class by reciting "transitioning from the
continuous locomotion motion class to another continuous locomotion
motion class." ( emphasis added). Third, by disclosing how to perform
registration between different motion classes (e.g., standing still to turning in
place, jogging to sneaking), Kovar and Koga would suggest to an ordinarily
skilled artisan classifying motion clips to perform those registrations. In
other words, an ordinarily skilled artisan would be guided to classify its
motion clips into jogging and sneaking clips to take advantage of the
teachings of how transition from one type of motion to the other.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2-9, 11-17, 19, 20, 22, 25, and 26
Appellant does not separately argue claims 2-9, 11-17, 19, 20, 22, 25,
and 26. App. Br. 15. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-9,
11-17, 19, 20, 22, 25, and 26.
Claim 27
Appellant argues that Kovar and Koga fail to teach any techniques for
generating a registration curve between reference clips associated with
specific motion classes, as recited in claim 27. App. Br. 15-16. The
Examiner responds that Kovar discloses generating registration curves
between different motions and that the combination of Kovar and Koga
disclose each of the recited motion classes. Ans. 30. The Examiner cites as
an example Kovar's disclosure of applying dynamic timewarping to a
walking and sneaking motions. Id. Appellant responds that walking and
sneaking correspond to the same motion class-the continuous motion class.
Reply Br. 6. Appellant argues that the Examiner fails to cite any teachings
7
Appeal2017-004853
Application 12/504,532
where a registration curve is generated from reference clips associated with
different motion classes. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments for claim 27. As
discussed above, we disagree with the argument that all continuous motions
are part of a single continuous motion class, and we also disagree with the
argument that Kovar and Koga fail to disclose any motion class other than
continuous motion classes. We further note that the Examiner has set forth
how Kovar and Koga teach generating registration curves from reference
clips associated with different motion classes. Final Act. 6-8. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of claim 27.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-9, 11-17, 19, 20, 22, and 25-27.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8