Ex parte Mohacsi, Appeal 2020-005885

Ex parte PETER MOHACSI and GABOR HORVATH Technology Center 2600

Appeal 2020-005885

Application 14/788, 552

United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board

July 15, 2021

FILING DATE: 06/30/2015

Before MAHSHIDD. SAADAT, JUSTINBUSCH, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT Administrative Patent Judges.

DECISION ON APPEAL ^[1]

SAADAT, ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant^[2] appeals from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-18, 20, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §6(b).

We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

The claims are directed to a system and a method for building information modeling "that includes a plurality of 2D documentation sets associated with a building, such as floor plans and elevation views." See Spec. ¶ 4. Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter:

1. A system for building information modeling comprising:

a plurality of separate 2D documentation sets associated with a building:

a 3D model associated with the building that is separate from each of the plurality of 2D documentation sets, the 3D model including a plurality of user-selectable controls operating on a processor, wherein each user-selectable control comprises an icon and an associated balloon that is generated by the processor when the icon is user-selected;

the balloon for each user-selectable control comprising a first selection control that causes the processor to generate an animation sequence that ends with one of the plurality of 2D documentation sets; and

the balloon for each user-selectable control comprising a second selection control that causes the processor to generate an animation sequence that ends with a view of the 3D model having an overlay of one of the 2D documentation sets.

Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.).

REFERENCES

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:

Name

Reference

Date

Warner

US 2014/0082557 A1

Mar. 20, 2014

Appleman

US 2014/0095122 A1

Apr. 3, 2014

Dishno

US 2015/0091906 A1

Apr. 2, 2015

Fedosov

US 2016/0240011 A1

Aug. 18, 2016

REJECTIONS

Claims 1-5, 8, 10-14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dishno and Fedosov. Final Act 13-25.

Claims 6, 7, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dishno, Fedosov, and Warner. Final Act 25-28.

Claims 9, 18, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dishno, Fedosov, and Appleman. Final Act. 28-37.

OPINION

We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner errs. We are unpersuaded by Appellant's arguments, and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 13-37; Ans. 3-28) and (2) the corresponding reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer (Ans 28-37) in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner and emphasize the following.

CLAIM 1

The Rejection

With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner relies on Dishno as disclosing the recited system including "a plurality of separate 2D documentation sets associated with a building" and "a 3D model associated with the building that is separate from each of the plurality of2D documentation sets." Final Act. 13-14 (citing Dishno ¶¶ 3, 9-11, 238, 239, Fig. 25). The Examiner also finds Dishno discloses "the 3D model including a plurality of user-selectable controls operating on a processor, wherein each user-selectable control comprises an icon and an associated balloon that is generated by the processor when the icon is user-selected" and "the balloon for each user-selectable control" including "a first selection control" and "a second selection control" that generates an animation sequence resulting in "one of the plurality of 2D documentations" or "a view of the 3D model," respectively. Final Act. 14-15 (citing Dishno ¶¶ 62, 110, 167, 239, 287, Fig. 25). The Examiner finds Fedosov discloses the recited "associated balloon that is generated by the processor when the icon is user-selected" and the recited animation sequence that ends with either a 2D documentation or a view of the 3D model related to the 2D documentation. Final Act. 15-17 (citing Fedosov ¶¶ 75, 91, 107, Figs, 1a, 1b, 9). As for the rationale for combining the references, the Examiner states the proposed modifications by Fedosov "would improve user experience in retrieving, visualizing and interacting with information about real objects (e.g. landmarks or building) that surround a user in a particular real environment (Fedosov, [0027])." Final Act. 17.

Appellant's Arguments

Appellant contends that the Examiner's proposed combination of Dishno and Fedosov does not teach or suggest the recited features of claim 1. Appeal Br. 8. With respect to Dishno Appellant asserts that the reference is concerned with "grids" that are used to create a 3D environment in the form of "a system for web browsing that includes a 3D client that is able to interpret 3D structure definitions and display 3D environments associated with various sets of websites," which does not represent "a 3D model, and the term 'model' is not used anywhere in Dishno, either for a 2D model or a 3D model." Id. Appellant highlights the alleged deficiencies of Dishno as follows:

(1) Dishno does not disclose a plurality of 2D documentation sets associated with a building.

(2) Dishno does not disclose a 3D model associated with a building.

(3) The structure definitions of Dishno do not include user-selectable controls, and thus cannot be a plurality of user-selectable controls of a 3D model.

(4) The kiosk of Dishno is not a user-selectable control of a 3D model.

(5) Dishno discloses animation associated with a user interaction, but does not disclose an animation sequence that starts with a control in the 3D model and that ends with a view of the 3D model having an overlay of one of the 2D documentation sets.

See Id. at 9. With respect to the teachings of Fedosov, Appellant asserts that the disclosed computer-generated virtual object is not the same as "a 3D building model or a plurality of 2D documentation sets associated with a building" (Appeal Br. 11) and highlights the alleged deficiencies of Fedosov as follows:

(6) Fedosov does not disclose a 2D model[sic] [documentation sets] associated with a building.

(7) Fedosov does not disclose a 3D model associated with a building.

(8) The indicators of Fedosov are at best a single user-selectable control that are associated with a point of interest and which are not associated with a model.

(9) Fedosov does not disclose any animation.

See id. at 12. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we focus our analysis on the argued limitations related to the recited "2D documentation sets associated with a building" and "3D model associated with the building."

Claim Construction

"Claim construction is a question of law that may involve underlying factual questions." Amgen lnc. v. Amneal Pharm LLC, 945 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 332 (2015)). Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Our reviewing court states that "the words of a claim 'are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.'" Phillips v. A WH Corp. , 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). However, the broadest reasonable interpretation differs from the broadest possible interpretation. In re Smith lnt'l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is "an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is 'consistent with the specification.'" Id. at 1382-83 (quoting In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).

Regarding the recited "2D documentation sets associated with a building," Appellant's disclosure provides the following:

2D documentation system 104 provides a plurality of 2D user design tools for generating documentation sets, such as 2D floor plans, elevation plans, section plans and other suitable design and model information, including but not limited to 2D locations and dimensions for walls, floors, doors, windows, stairs, rooms, closets, appliances and other suitable building features.

Spec. ¶ 15. Regarding the recited "3D model associated with the building, "

Appellant's disclosure provides the following:

3D model system with embedded controls 106 provides a plurality of user design tools for generating 3D design documents or models, such as models of a building having associated building design features including but not limited to walls, floors, doors, windows, stairs, rooms, closets, appliances and other suitable building features.... In one exemplary embodiment, a building design can include multiple floors and associated 2D floor plans for each floor, 2D elevation views of the building from a number of different locations that are outside of the building, 2D section views that show a section of the building from a point internal to the building, and other suitable 2D information, and 3D model system with embedded controls 106 can include one or more user controls that allows a designer to create a hyperlink control for the 2D documentation sets within the 3D building design model.

Spec ¶ 16. Additionally, we find Appellant's drawings include only general...