Ex Parte Broadhurst et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 23, 201914875873 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/875,873 10/06/2015 125968 7590 05/28/2019 V orys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP (ImgTec) 1909 K St., N.W. Ninth Floor Washington, DC 20006 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Richard Broadhurst 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. 070852.000218 1850 EXAMINER TSENG, CHARLES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2613 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/28/2019 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): patlaw@vorys.com vmdeluca@vorys.com vorys _ docketing@cardinal_ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD BROADHURST, JOHN HOWSON, and ROBERT THEED Appeal2018-007175 Application 14/875,873 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN A. EV ANS, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 1-9 and 18-20. App. Br. 1. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. 3 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Imagination Technologies Limited as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. 2 Claims 10-17 are objected to as depending from a rejected claim. App. Br. 1. These claims are not the subject of the present appeal. Id. 3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we Appeal2018-007175 Application 14/875,873 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to a graphics processing system that includes a tiling unit for performing tiling calculations and a hidden surface removal (HSR) unit for performing HSR on fragments of the primitives. See Abstract. INVENTION Claims 1, 18, 19, and 20 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of illustrative Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. A graphics processing system having a rendering space sub-divided into a plurality of tiles, the system being configured to process primitives which are present in one or more of the tiles, the system comprising: a tiling unit configured to process the primitives to: (i) determine, for each of the primitives, which of the tiles the primitive is present in, and (ii) generate tile control streams for the tiles, wherein the tile control stream for a tile includes indicators of primitives which are present in that tile; and a hidden surface removal unit configured to: (i) retrieve data relating to the primitives which are present in a tile as indicated by the generated tile control stream for that tile, and (ii) perform hidden surface removal on fragments of the indicated primitives at sample positions of that tile; refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 12, 2018, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief (filed July 2, 2018, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed May 2, 2018, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed October 10, 2017, "Final Act."), and the Specification (filed October 6, 2015, "Spec.") for their respective details. 2 Appeal2018-007175 Application 14/875,873 wherein the tiling unit is further configured to: determine depth information for the tiles by performing depth tests on fragments of the primitives as the primitives are processed in the tiling unit; and make the determined depth information available for use by the hidden surface removal unit; and wherein the hidden surface removal unit is configured to use the determined depth information in performing said hidden surface removal. Sorgard et al. Barczak Nystad et al. References and Rejections4 US 2007 /0146378 Al June 28, 2007 US 2010/0231588 Al Sept. 16, 2010 US 2014/0168220 Al June 19, 2014 The Claims stand rejected as follows: 1. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a plurality of statutory classes. Final Act. 7-8. 5 2. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite as directed to a plurality of statutory classes. Final Act. 8-9. 3. Claims 1---6, 8, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nystad and Sorgard. Final Act. 10-18. 4. Claims 7, 9, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Nystad, Sorgard, and Barczak. Final Act. 18-21. 4 The present application is being examined under the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA. 5 The rejections of Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112 were withdrawn in the Advisory Action. 3 Appeal2018-007175 Application 14/875,873 Allowable Subject Matter. Claims 10-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 21. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-9 and 18-20 in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We are persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. CLAIMS 1-9 AND 18-20: OBVIOUSNESS OVER NYSTAD, SORGARD, AND BARCZAK. Appellants argue all claims as a group over the limitations of independent Claim 1. App. Br. 7 and 12. Therefore, we decide the appeal on the basis of representative Claim 1, and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as "the claims." See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants explain Claim 1 is directed to a graphics processing system comprising a tiling unit which processes graphics primitives and determines within which tile said primitive resides. App. Br. 7. Appellants explain claim 1 recites the tiling unit also determines depth information which is passed to a hidden surface removal (HSR) unit. Id. (citing Spec., 9, 11. 26- 34). Appellants contend that neither Nystad nor Sorgard disclose such an approach. Id. Appellants further contend that Barczak fails to provide such 4 Appeal2018-007175 Application 14/875,873 teaching. App. Br. 12. Appellants argue Nystad's rasterizer fails to generate a tile control stream for each tile wherein the tile control stream includes indicators of the primitives present within each tile, as claimed. App. Br. 9. The Examiner finds Nystad discloses a rasterizer which receives input primitives and determines the corresponding tiles to which the primitives belong, and therefore the rasterizer is a tiling unit, as claimed. Ans. 3 ( citing Nystad, Fig. 1; ,r 186). The Examiner finds Nystad does not disclose generating a tile control stream for which teaching the Examiner cites Sorgard. Ans. 4. Appellants argue Nystad's rasterizer cannot be a tiling unit because it fails to determine the tile in which each primitive is located, nor does the rasterizer generate a tile control stream. App. Br. 9. Appellants further argue Nystad's rasterizer cannot be a tiling unit because Nystad explicitly states Figure 1 shows pipeline stages after the graphics primitives for inputs to the rasterizer have been generated. Id. (citing Nystad, ,r 184). We agree with Appellants. Appellants argue Nystad's rasterizer operates after the tiling stage has been completed. App. Br. 9 (citing Nystad, ,r 184) ("FIG. I shows schematically the pipeline stages after the graphics primitives (polygons) 2 for input to the rasterization process have been generated."). Nystad, ,r 184. The Examiner finds Sorgard discloses a tile- based graphics-processing system and that Sorgard teaches "tiles are processed to produce corresponding streams of primitives for distribution to appropriate processing units." Ans. 4. Thus, as found by the Examiner, Sorgard teaches "tiles are processed to produce corresponding streams of primitives" and Nystad teaches "pipeline stages after the graphics primitives (polygons) 2 for input to the rasterization process have been generated." 5 Appeal2018-007175 Application 14/875,873 Ans. 4; Nystad, ,r 184. Therefore, the rasterizer cannot be the claimed tiling unit. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejections of Claims 1-9 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The rejections of Claims 1-9 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are REVERSED. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation