UNITED STA 1ES p A 1ENT 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.
`
`90/012,590
`
`09/14/2012
`
`6243099
`
`GRND-L6
`
`2143
`
`29106
`7590
`Groover & Associates PLLC
`Box 293748
`Lewisville, TX 75029
`
`08/02/2013
`
`EXAMINER
`
`KE,PENG
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`08/02/2013
`
`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)
`
`

`

`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-·1450
`W"aAA"I.IJ:.'=ptO.QOV
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`Pasky I P Law LLC
`321 N. Clark St., Suite 500
`Chicago IL 60654
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 901012.590.
`
`PATENT NO. 6.243.099.
`
`ART UN IT 3992.
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1 .550(f)).
`
`Where this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1 .535, or the time for filing a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be
`acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1 .550(g)).
`
`PTOL-465 (Rev.0?-04)
`
`

`

`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Control No.
`90/012,590
`
`Examiner
`SIMON KE
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`6243099
`
`Art Unit
`3992
`
`-- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`
`b[8J This action is made FINAL.
`a!ZI Responsive to the communication(s) filed on 15 Apri/2013.
`c!ZI A statement under 37 CFR 1.530 has not been received from the patent owner.
`
`A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire?. month(s) from the mailing date of this letter.
`Failure to respond within the period for response will result in termination of the proceeding and issuance of an ex parte reexamination
`certificate in accordance with this action. 37 CFR 1.550(d). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`If the period for response specified above is less than thirty (30) days, a response within the statutory minimum of thirty (30) days
`will be considered timely.
`
`Part I
`THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION:
`1. D Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PT0-892.
`3. D Interview Summary, PT0-474.
`4. D_
`2.
`[8J Information Disclosure Statement, PTO/SB/08.
`
`Part II
`
`1 a.
`
`SUMMARY OF ACTION
`[8J Claims 11 are subject to reexamination.
`
`1 b.
`[8J Claims 1-10 and 12-22 are not subject to reexamination.
`2. D Claims __ have been canceled in the present reexamination proceeding.
`3. D Claims __ are patentable and/or confirmed.
`[8J Claims 11 are rejected.
`4.
`5. D Claims __ are objected to.
`6. D The drawings, filed on __ are acceptable.
`7. D The proposed drawing correction, filed on __ has been (7a)0 approved (7b)0 disapproved.
`8. D Acknowledgment is made of the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`a)D All b)D Some* c)D None
`of the certified copies have
`1 D been received.
`20 not been received.
`
`30 been filed in Application No. __ .
`
`40 been filed in reexamination Control No. __
`sO been received by the International Bureau in PCT application No. __ .
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`9. D Since the proceeding appears to be in condition for issuance of an ex parte reexamination certificate except for formal
`matters, prosecution as to the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C. D.
`11, 453 O.G. 213.
`1 0. D Other: __
`
`cc: Requester (if third party requester)
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Off1ce
`PTOL-466 (Rev. 08·06)
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Part of Paper No. 20130718
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,590
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`Detailed Action
`
`This office action address claim 11 of United States Patent Number 6,243,099 ( Oxaal et
`
`al) for which it has been determined in the Order Granting Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`(hereafter the "Order") mailed 10/11/12 that a substantial new question of patentability was
`
`raised in the Request for ex parte reexamination filed 9114/12 (hereafter the "Request").
`
`This office action addresses the amendment filed on 4115113. This is a final office action.
`
`IDS Note
`
`The IDSs filed on 4/15113, 4112113, 4111/13, 6/30113 have been given due consideration.
`
`In addition, where the IDS citations are submitted but not described, the examiner is only
`responsible for cursorily reviewing the references. The initials of the examiner on the PT0-1449
`indicate only that degree of review unless the reference is either applied against the claims, or
`discussed by the examiner as pertinent art of interest, in a subsequent office action. See
`Guidelines for Reexamination of Cases in View of In re Portola Packaging, Inc., 110 F.3d 786,
`42 USPQ2d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1997), 64 FRat 15347, 1223 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office at 125 (response
`to comment 6).
`Consideration by the examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means that the
`examiner will consider the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search
`files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of
`search. The initials of the examiner placed adjacent to the citations on the PT0-1449 or
`PTO/SB/08A and 08B or its equivalent mean that the information has been considered by the
`examiner to the extent noted above.
`Regarding IDS submissions MPEP 2256 recites the following: "Where patents,
`publications, and other such items of information are submitted by a party (patent owner or
`requester) in compliance with the requirements of the rules, the requisite degree of consideration
`to be given to such information will be normally limited by the degree to which the party filing
`the information citation has explained the content and relevance of the information."
`Accordingly, the IDS submissions have been considered by the Examiner only with the scope
`required by MPEP 2256, unless otherwise noted.
`
`Declaration
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,590
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`
`The declarations submitted by James H. Oliver, PHD and Ford Oxxal have been given
`
`due consideration.
`
`Rejections
`
`The rejections below are confined to what has been deemed to be the best available art
`
`from the Request. However, prior to conclusion of this reexamination proceeding, claims must
`
`be patentable over all prior art cited in the order granting reexamination in order to be
`
`considered patentable or confirmed on the reexamination certificate. The references cited in the
`
`request but not utilized in the current office action appear to be largely cumulative to the
`
`teachings in the reference applied below.
`
`Claim Rejection Paragraphs
`
`The following are quotations from the MPEP regarding the types of rejections to be
`
`utilized below:
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in
`section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person
`having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the
`manner in which the invention was made.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,590
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`
`Issue Set (1)
`
`Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luken US Patent
`
`5,923,334 in view of Greene.
`
`Claim# U.S. Patent 6,243,099
`
`Luken US Patent 5,923,334 & Greene.
`
`11
`
`A method of modeling of the visible Luken teaches modeling the visible world.
`
`world using full-surround image
`
`(Luken, col. 3, lines 10-30) In fact in fig. 6,
`
`data, comprising:
`
`Lucken using six images to create an octahedral
`
`environmental mapping. (see Luken col. 6, lines
`
`35-58) However, Lucken does not explicitly
`
`state full-surround image data.
`
`Greene teaches full surround image. (see
`
`Greene page 109; section 4; Rendering a cube
`
`projection) A cube is included PO's definition
`
`of full-surround image. (see PO's specification
`
`col. 3, lines 1-5; col. 5, lines 50-62; Full-
`
`surround image data is the surface of the p-
`
`sphere and p-sphere includes a cube)
`
`It would have been obvious to an artisan at the
`
`time of the invention to include Greene's
`
`teaching with method of Luken in order to
`
`create a projection of the complete
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,590
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`environment.
`
`Providing said full surround image
`
`(see Luken col. 6, lines 35-58)
`
`data;
`
`Greene teaches full surround image. (see
`
`Greene page 109; section 4; Rendering a cube
`
`projection)
`
`Selecting a view point within a p-
`
`Luken (figs. 11-12; col. 12, lines 1-30)
`
`surface
`
`Texture mapping full-surround
`
`Luken teaches modeling the visible world.
`
`image data onto said p-surface with
`
`(Luken, col. 3, lines 10-30) In fact in fig. 6,
`
`that the resultant texture map
`
`Lucken using six images to create an octahedral
`
`substantially equivalent to projecting environmental mapping. (see Luken col. 6, lines
`
`full-surround image data onto the p-
`
`35-58)
`
`surface from said view-point to
`
`Luken (figs. 11-12; col. 12, lines 1-30)
`
`thereby generate a texture mapped
`
`Greene teaches full surround image. (see
`
`p-sphere; and
`
`Greene page 109; section 4; Rendering a cube
`
`projection)
`
`Displaying predetermined portion of Luken (figs. 11-12; col. 12, lines 1-37)
`
`said texture mapped p-sphere.
`
`Greene teaches full surround image. (see
`
`Greene page 109; section 4; Rendering a cube
`
`projection)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,590
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`Issue Set (2)
`
`Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Luken US Patent
`
`5,923,334 in view of Haeberli.
`
`Claim# U.S. Patent 6,243,099
`
`Luken US Patent 5,923,334 & Haeberli.
`
`11
`
`A method of modeling of the visible Luken teaches modeling the visible world.
`
`world using full-surround image
`
`(Luken, col. 3, lines 10-30) In fact in fig. 6,
`
`data, comprising:
`
`Luken using six images to create an octahedral
`
`environmental mapping. (see Luken col. 6, lines
`
`35-58) However, Lucken does not explicitly
`
`state full-surround image data.
`
`Haeberli teaches full surround image. (see
`
`Haeberli page 6; section 4.10; Environment
`
`Mapping) A cube is included PO's definition of
`
`full-surround image. (see PO's specification col.
`
`3, lines 1-5; col. 5, lines 50-62; Full-surround
`
`image data is the surface of the p-sphere and p-
`
`sphere includes a cube, and a sphere)
`
`It would have been obvious to an artisan at the
`
`time of the invention to include Haeberli's
`
`teaching with method of Luken in order to
`
`create a projection of the complete
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,590
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`environment.
`
`Providing said full surround image
`
`(see Luken col. 6, lines 35-58)
`
`data;
`
`Haeberli teaches full surround image. (see
`
`Haeberli page 6; section 4.10; Environment
`
`Mapping)
`
`Selecting a view point within a p-
`
`Luken (figs. 11-12; col. 12, lines 1-30)
`
`surface
`
`Texture mapping full-surround
`
`Luken teaches modeling the visible world.
`
`image data onto said p-surface with
`
`(Luken, col. 3, lines 10-30) In fact in fig. 6,
`
`that the resultant texture map
`
`Lucken using six images to create an octahedral
`
`substantially equivalent to projecting environmental mapping. (see Luken col. 6, lines
`
`full-surround image data onto the p-
`
`35-58)
`
`surface from said view-point to
`
`Luken (figs. 11-12; col. 12, lines 1-30)
`
`thereby generate a texture mapped
`
`Haeberli teaches full surround image. (see
`
`p-sphere; and
`
`Haeberli page 6; section 4.10; Environment
`
`Mapping)
`
`Displaying predetermined portion of Luken (figs. 11-12; col. 12, lines 1-37)
`
`said texture mapped p-sphere.
`
`Haeberli teaches full surround image. (see
`
`Haeberli page 6; section 4.10; Environment
`
`Mapping)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,590
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`Issue Set (3)
`
`Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gullichsen US
`
`5,796,426 in view of Greene.
`
`Claim# U.S. Patent 6,243,099
`
`Gullichsen US Patent US 5,796,426 & Greene.
`
`11
`
`A method of modeling of the visible Gullichsen teaches modeling the visible world.
`
`world using full-surround image
`
`(Gullichsen, col. 5, lines 8-30)
`
`data, comprising:
`
`However, Gullichsen does not explicitly state
`
`full-surround image data.
`
`Greene teaches full surround image that
`
`includes a sphere and a cube. (see Greene
`
`pages 110-111; section 6; Cube Projections vs
`
`Mercator Projections)
`
`A sphere and a cube are included PO's
`
`definition of full-surround image. (see PO's
`
`specification col. 3, lines 1-5; col. 5, lines 50-
`
`62; Full-surround image data is the surface of
`
`the p-sphere and p-sphere includes a sphere)
`
`It would have been obvious to an artisan at the
`
`time of the invention to include Greene's
`
`teaching with method of Gullichsen in order to
`
`create a projection of the complete
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,590
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`environment.
`
`Providing said full surround image
`
`(see Gullichsen, col. 3, lines 65-66; col. 9, lines
`
`data;
`
`20-33)
`
`Greene teaches full surround image. (see
`
`Greene pages 110-111; section 6; Cube
`
`Projections vs Mercator Projections)
`
`Selecting a view point within a p-
`
`Gullichsen (col. 4, lines 36-60)
`
`surface
`
`Texture mapping full-surround
`
`Gullichsen teaches modeling the visible world.
`
`image data onto said p-surface with
`
`(Gullichsen, col. 5, lines 8-30)
`
`that the resultant texture map
`
`Greene teaches full surround image. (see
`
`substantially equivalent to projecting
`
`Greene pages 110-111; section 6; Cube
`
`full-surround image data onto the p-
`
`Projections vs Mercator Projections)
`
`surface from said view-point to
`
`thereby generate a texture mapped
`
`p-sphere; and
`
`Displaying predetermined portion of
`
`Gullichsen (col. 5, lines 64-col. 6, lines 8)
`
`said texture mapped p-sphere.
`
`Greene teaches full surround image. (see
`
`Greene pages 110-111; section 6; Cube
`
`Projections vs Mercator Projections)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,590
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`Issue Set ( 4)
`
`Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gullichsen US
`
`5,796,426 in view of Haeberli.
`
`Claim# U.S. Patent 6,243,099
`
`Gullichsen US Patent US 5,796,426 &
`
`Haeberli.
`
`11
`
`A method of modeling of the visible Gullichsen teaches modeling the visible world.
`
`world using full-surround image
`
`(Gullichsen, col. 5, lines 8-30)
`
`data, comprising:
`
`However, Gullichsen does not explicitly state
`
`full-surround image data.
`
`Haeberli teaches full surround image that
`
`includes a sphere and a cube. (see Haeberli
`
`page 6; section 4.10; Environment Mapping)
`
`A sphere and a cube are included PO's
`
`definition of full-surround image. (see PO's
`
`specification col. 3, lines 1-5; col. 5, lines 50-
`
`62; Full-surround image data is the surface of
`
`the p-sphere and p-sphere includes a sphere)
`
`It would have been obvious to an artisan at the
`
`time of the invention to include Haeberli's
`
`teaching with method of Gullichsen in order to
`
`create a projection of the complete
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,590
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`
`environment.
`
`Providing said full surround image
`
`(see Gullichsen, col. 3, lines 65-66; col. 9, lines
`
`data;
`
`20-33)
`
`Heaberli teaches full surround image. (see
`
`Haeberli page 6; section 4.10; Environment
`
`Mapping)
`
`Selecting a view point within a p-
`
`Gullichsen (col. 4, lines 36-60)
`
`surface
`
`Texture mapping full-surround
`
`Gullichsen teaches modeling the visible world.
`
`image data onto said p-surface with
`
`(Gullichsen, col. 5, lines 8-30)
`
`that the resultant texture map
`
`Haeberli teaches full surround image. (see
`
`substantially equivalent to projecting
`
`Haeberli page 6; section 4.10; Environment
`
`full-surround image data onto the p-
`
`Mapping)
`
`surface from said view-point to
`
`thereby generate a texture mapped
`
`p-sphere; and
`
`Displaying predetermined portion of
`
`Gullichsen (col. 5, lines 64-col. 6, lines 8)
`
`said texture mapped p-sphere.
`
`Haeberli teaches full surround image. (see
`
`Haeberli page 6; section 4.10; Environment
`
`Mapping)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,590
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`
`Response To Argument
`
`Luken & Greene
`
`PO's position:
`
`A) Luken and Greene does not render claim 11 obvious because it is not obvious to
`
`combine Luken with Greene. PO argues that examiner did not provide a clear reason why an
`
`artisan at the time of invention would want to combine the two environments. (see PO's response
`
`pages 24- 25)
`
`B) Luken
`
`teaches away from
`
`the combination because Luken states spherical
`
`environment maps "have distinct limitation that restrict their usefulness;" and Luken and Greene
`
`are non-analogous art (see PO's response page 27-28)
`
`C) The combination of Luken and Greene fails to teach "texture mapping full-surround
`
`image data onto said p-surface such that the resultant texture map substantially equivalent to
`
`projecting full-surround image data onto the p-surface from said view point to thereby generate a
`
`texture mapped p-sphere." (see PO's response page 26)
`
`D) The combination of Luken and Greene fails to teach "selecting a view point with a p-
`
`surface." (see PO's response page 26)
`
`E) The combination of Luken and Greene fails to teach "displaying a predetermined
`
`portion of said texture mapped p-sphere." (see PO's response page 26)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,590
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`F) The combination of Luken and Greene fails to teach conventional texture mapping and
`
`therefore they are not enable to be combined. (see PO's response pages 27-28)
`
`Legal Principle: 103 Obviousness
`
`Jl!e ratimwle to support o conclusion tlwt the clairn would fuwe been obvious is that all
`
`the claimed elements >vere known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined
`
`the elements as rlairned by known rnethods with no change in their respective .fimrtions, and the
`
`combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`KS'R, 550 U,)'. at-~· -82 US'PQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. f1G Pro, Inc., 425 US. 273. 282, 189
`
`US'PQ 449. 453 (1976); . .tnderson 's- Blark Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co .. 396 tl.S. 57, 62-
`
`63, 163 [J,SPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. S'uperrnarket Equipment Corp.,
`
`340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). "jfjt can be important to ident{hi a reason that
`
`i•vould have prompter! a person {~!'ordinary skill in the rele<'ati! field to combine the einnents in
`
`the way the claimed new invention does . . , K5'R, 550 U.5'. at __________ . 82 U5'PQ2d at 1396. If any of
`
`these _flndings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that
`
`the clairn tvould lul<'e been obvious to one ofordinary skill in the art.
`
`Examiner's response:
`
`A) Luken and Greene renders claim 11 obvious. Luken teaches an environment mapping
`
`method that improves upon traditional a three dimensional environment but it does not explicitly
`
`state a full-surround image data. (see Luken col. 3, lines 10-30) And Greene teaches a three
`
`dimensional environment with a full-surround image data. (see Greene page 109; section 4;
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,590
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 14
`
`Rendering a cube projection)
`
`It is obvious to combine Luken with Greene because the
`
`combination would yield a predictable result that allows Luken to create a three dimensional
`
`environment with a full-surround image data.
`
`B) Regarding PO's argument that Luken teaches away from a p-sphere environment
`
`because Luken noted the limitations of spherical environment, it is noted that PO's definition of
`
`p-sphere includes a tetrahedron; (see Oxxal '099 Patent's specification col. 5, lines 50-62) and
`
`Luken teaches a tetrahedron environment. (see Luken, col. 6, lines 4-8) Therefore, Luken does
`
`not teach away from a p-sphere environment.
`
`In response to applicant's argument that Luken and Greene are nonanalogous art, it has
`
`been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant's endeavor or, if not,
`
`then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned,
`
`in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977
`
`F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Luken and Greene teaches
`
`rendering of a 3D environment (see Luken col. 3, lines 10-30 and Green abstract) which is in the
`
`same field of endeavor as Oxxal '099 Patent. (see Oxxal '099 Patent col. 1, lines 10-15)
`
`C) The combination of Luken and Greene teaches "texture mapping full-surround image
`
`data onto said p-surface such that the resultant texture map substantially equivalent to projecting
`
`full-surround image data onto the p-surface from said view point to thereby generate a texture
`
`mapped p-sphere." Luken teaches modeling the visible world with (Luken, col. 3, lines 10-30)
`
`six images to create an octahedral environmental mapping (see Luken col. 6, lines 35-58) and
`
`Greene teaches the use of a full surround image. (see Greene page 109; section 4; Rendering a
`
`cube projection; see Oxxal' 099 patent's specification col. 3, lines 1-5; col. 5, lines 50-62; Full-
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,590
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 15
`
`surround image data is the surface of the p-sphere and p-sphere includes a cube) Therefore, the
`
`combination teaches the limitation.
`
`D) The combination of Luken and Greene teaches "selecting a view point within a p-
`
`surface," because Luken teaches selecting or a field of view using an input device. (see Luken
`
`col. 11, lines 60-col. 12, lines 25)
`
`E) The combination of Luken and Greene teaches "displaying predetermine portion of a
`
`said texture mapped p-sphere," because Luken teaches displaying environment map to the view
`
`window corresponds to the field of view. (see Luken col. 12, lines 30-35)
`
`F) The combination of Luken and Greene teaches conventional texture-mapping.
`
`According to Oliver's declaration, texture-mapping is "applying a decal to a physical object" and
`
`"rendering a textured CG scene." (see Oliver's declaration paragraph 11) Luken teaches texture
`
`mapping because it applies panoramic screens (see Luken col. 3, lines 10-30) to triangular grids
`
`that create a p-sphere/ octahedral environment. (see Luken, col. 6, lines 1-10) Furthermore,
`
`since memory locations are associated with locations within the environment map in Luken, (see
`
`Luken col. 3, lines 28-32) copying colors into the memory locations is associating color with
`
`vertex locations.
`
`Therefore, the combination Luken and Greene renders claim 11 obvious.
`
`Luken & Haeberli
`
`PO's positions are similar to that of Luken and Greene:
`
`A) Luken and Heaberli does not render claim 11 obvious because it is not obvious to
`
`combine Luken with Heaberli. PO argues that examiner did not provide a clear reason why an
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,590
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 16
`
`artisan at the time of invention would want to combine the two environments. (see PO's response
`
`pages 29-30)
`
`B) Luken
`
`teaches away from
`
`the combination because Luken states spherical
`
`environment maps "have distinct limitation that restrict their usefulness;" and Luken and
`
`Haeberli are non-analogous art (see PO's response pages 30 and 33)
`
`C) The combination of Luken and Haeberli fails to teach "texture mapping full-surround
`
`image data onto said p-surface such that the resultant texture map substantially equivalent to
`
`projecting full-surround image data onto the p-surface from said view point to thereby generate a
`
`texture mapped p-sphere." (see PO's response page 31)
`
`D) The combination of Luken and Haeberli fails to teach "selecting a view point with a p-
`
`surface." (see PO's response page 32)
`
`E) The combination of Luken and Haeberli fails to teach "displaying a predetermined
`
`portion of said texture mapped p-sphere." (see PO's response page 31)
`
`F) F) The combination of Luken and Haeberli fails to teach conventional texture mapping
`
`and therefore they are not enable to be combined. (see PO's response pages 31 and 33)
`
`Examiner's Response:
`
`A) Luken and Haeberli renders claim 11 obvious. Luken teaches an environment
`
`mapping method that improves upon traditional a three dimensional environment but it does not
`
`explicitly state a full-surround image data. (see Luken col. 3, lines 10-30) And Haeberli teaches
`
`a three dimensional environment with a full-surround image data. (see Haeberli page 6; section
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,590
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 17
`
`4.10; Environment Mapping)
`
`It is obvious to combine Luken with Haeberli because the
`
`combination would yield a predictable result that allows Luken to create a three dimensional
`
`environment with a full-surround image data.
`
`B) Regarding PO's argument that Luken teaches away from p-sphere because Luken
`
`noted the limitations of spherical environment, it is noted that PO's definition of p-sphere
`
`includes a tetrahedron; (see Oxxal '099 Patent's specification col. 5, lines 50-62) and Luken
`
`teaches a tetrahedron environment. (see Luken, col. 6, lines 4-8) Therefore, Luken does not
`
`teach away from a p-sphere.
`
`In response to applicant's argument that Luken and Haeberli are nonanalogous art, it has
`
`been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant's endeavor or, if not,
`
`then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned,
`
`in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977
`
`F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Luken and Haeberli teaches
`
`rendering of a 3D environment (see Luken col. 3, lines 10-30 and see Haeberli page 6; section
`
`4.10; Environment Mapping) which is in the same field of endeavor as Oxxal '099 Patent. (see
`
`Oxxal '099 Patent col. 1, lines 1 0-15)
`
`C)-F) Examiner's response for these arguments are the same as those for Luken and
`
`Greene C)-F) (see Above)
`
`Gullichsen & Greene
`
`PO's position:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,590
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 18
`
`A) Gullichsen and Greene does not render claim 11 obvious because it is not obvious to
`
`combine Gullichsen with Greene. PO argues that examiner did not provide a clear reason why
`
`an artisan at the time of invention would want to combine the two environments. (see PO's
`
`response pages 35-36)
`
`B) Greene teaches away from the combination because Greene only uses singular photo
`
`images and Gullichsen uses a six-fisheye arrangement. (see PO's response page 37) and
`
`Gullichsen and Greene are non-analogous art (see PO's response pages 40)
`
`C) Gullichsen and Greene
`
`fails
`
`to
`
`teach "texture mapping ... onto
`
`said p-
`
`surface ... substantially equivalent to projecting."(see PO's response pages 37-39)
`
`D) Gullichsen and Greene fail to teach "selecting a view point within a p-surface," and
`
`"displaying predetermined portion of a said texture mapped p-sphere." (see PO's response pages
`
`39-40)
`
`E) Gullichsen and Greene do not enable one to combine the two references. (see PO's
`
`response page 40)
`
`Examiner's Response:
`
`A) Gullichsen and Greene renders claim 11 obvious. Gullichen teaches mapping a three
`
`dimensional environment with pre-record video (see Gullichen col. 2, lines 55-col. 3, lines 11)
`
`but it does not explicitly state a full-surround image data. (see Luken col. 3, lines 10-30) And
`
`Greene teaches a three dimensional environment with a full-surround image data. (see Greene
`
`page 109; section 4; Rendering a cube projection)
`
`It is obvious to combine Gullichen with
`
`Greene because the combination would yield a predictable result that allows Gullichen to create
`
`a three dimensional environment with a full-surround image data.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,590
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 19
`
`B) Greene does not teach away from Gullichen because the element of a fully-surround
`
`image data does not depends on singular photo or photo mosaics. (see Greene 4 Rendering a
`
`cube projection)
`
`In response to applicant's argument that Gullichen and Greene are nonanalogous art, it
`
`has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant's endeavor or, if
`
`not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was
`
`concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re
`
`Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Gullichens and
`
`Greene teaches rendering of a 3D environment (see Gullichen's abstract and Green abstract)
`
`which is in the same field of endeavor as Oxxal Patent. (see Oxxal '099 Patent col. 1, lines 10-
`
`15)
`
`C) The combination of Gullichsen and Greene teaches "texture mapping ... onto said p-
`
`surface ... substantially equivalent to projecting." According to Oliver's declaration, texture-
`
`mapping is "applying a decal to a physical object" and " rendering a textured CG scene." In
`
`Gullichsen teaches rendering a 3D viewing environment by using digital image capture by
`
`spherical fisheye camera. (see Gullichen col. 2, lines 55 col. 3, lines 10) Therefore, by rendering
`
`a 3d viewing environment/textured CG scene Gullichsen teaches texture mapping. Furthermore,
`
`Greene also teaches texture-mapping because it renders images/decal onto a cube/ object. (see
`
`Greene page 109; section 4; Rendering a cube projection) Finally, Greene teaches projecting
`
`full-surround image data onto the p-surface by creating a cube projection that renders a 3D
`
`world. (see Greene 6, Cube Proejct vs. Mercator Projections)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,590
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 20
`
`In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of
`
`applicant's invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., exclusion of
`
`reproduction of spherical image from cubical environment maps from the term "projecting") are
`
`not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the
`
`specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van
`
`Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`D) Gullichens teaches selecting a view point within a p-surface because Gullichens
`
`allows user to select a view point within the three-dimensional environment using an input
`
`device. (see Gullichens col. 4, lines 48-60) Furthermore, Gullichens teaches "displaying
`
`predetermined portion of a said texture mapped p-sphere" by displaying dewarped video signal
`
`based on user selection. (see Gullichens col. 4, lines 50-60)
`
`E) The combination of Gullichens and Greene is enable because Greene teach how to
`
`texture mapping images on to a p-sphere/cube environment (see Greene 4 Rendering a cube
`
`projection) and it would be obvious to substitute Greene's images with that of Gullichens.
`
`Gullichsen & Haeberli
`
`PO's position:
`
`A) Gullichsen and Haeberli does not render claim 11 obvious because it is not obvious to
`
`combine Gullichsen with Haeberli. PO argues that examiner did not provide a clear reason why
`
`an artisan at the time of invention would want to combine the two environments. (see PO's
`
`response pages 41-42)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/012,590
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 21
`
`B) Haeberli teaches away from the combination because Gullichsen's intended purpose to
`
`create virtual environment that permits multiple viewers to engage in concurrently and
`
`independently; and Haeberli teaches texture mapping on a p-surface. (see PO's response pages
`
`42-43) and Gullichsen and Haebe