Ex Parte Brunner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2012

11696553 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RALPH BRUNNER and JOHN HARPER
____________

Appeal 2010-001013
Application 11/696,553
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before, JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-001013
Application 11/696,553

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1 through 12. Appeal Brief 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2002).
We affirm.

Introduction
The invention is directed to “t]echniques to generate partial display
updates in a buffered window system in which arbitrary visual effects are
permitted to any one or more windows.” Abstract.

Illustrative Claim
1. A method to generate a display-wide visual effect,
comprising:

copying an image buffer’s contents into a second buffer;

causing the second buffer’s contents to be filtered back
into the image buffer through an application programming
interface function to generate a specified visual effect, the
second buffer associated with a system frame buffer, the
application programming interface function using a graphics
processing unit; and

compositing an application-specific window buffer into
the image buffer, wherein the act of compositing is performed
by the graphics processing unit after the act of filtering.

Appeal 2010-001013
Application 11/696,553

3
Rejections on Appeal1
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hamburg (U.S. Patent Number
7,042,467 B1; issued May 9, 2006) and Wilt (U.S. Patent Number 7,038,690
B2; issued May 2, 2006). Answer 3-17.
Claims 2, 6, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hamburg, Wilt, and Hanggie (U.S. Patent Application
Publication Number 2005/0088452 A1; published April 28, 2005). Answer
17-18.

Issue on Appeal
Does the “graphic processing unit” recited in independent claims 1, 5,
8, and 12 read upon Wilt’s “graphics arbiter?”

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection – Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, and 10-12
The Examiner finds that the “graphics processing unit” recited in
independent claims 1, 5, 8, and 12 reads upon Wilt’s graphics arbiter 400.
Answer 3-17. The Appellants argue that the phrase “graphics processing
unit” has a specific meaning in the art and does not refer to any processing
unit that carries out graphics operations. Appeal Brief 7.

1 The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph rejection of claims 1-12 has been
withdrawn. Answer 3.

Appeal 2010-001013
Application 11/696,553

4
The Examiner further finds that:
[W]hile the graphics arbiter 400 in Wilt is described, at
9:15-10:18, as an intelligent interface including the
functionality of arbitrating among other processes, the
same section also describes “[w]hile the present
application is focused on the inventive features provided
by the new graphics arbiter 400, there is no attempt to
exclude from the graphics arbiter’s functionality any
features provided by traditional graphics systems. For
example, traditional graphics systems often provide video
decoding and video digitization features. The present
graphics arbiter 400 may also provide such features in
conjunction with its new features.”
Answer 20.
Appellants also argue that:
Furthermore, the Applicants] may be their own
lexicographer. See M.P.E.P. 2111.01 (IV). Under this
authority the Applicants] clearly defined the term
“Graphics Processing Unit” in the specification. The
Board is directed to the specification at ¶¶ 20-21 which
clearly an unequivocally defines the term “fragment
program” and further explains that these fragment
programs are designed to execute on a “programmable
GPU.” Therefore, the term GPU (graphics processing
unit) as used in the claims refers to a specific type of
processor and not any processor capable of performing
graphics operations as asserted by the Examiner.
Appeal Brief 8.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive and agree with
the Examiner’s findings. It is evident that a “graphic processing unit” a unit
of electrical circuits that is dedicated to processing graphic related data. See
Appeal Brief 8; see also Answer 19-20. Wilt’s graphics arbiter is dedicated
to processing graphic related data and because of this, we therefore find that
Appeal 2010-001013
Application 11/696,553

5
Wilt teaches or suggests the claimed graphics processing unit. See Wilt
(Figure 4; column 3, lines 3-9; lines 43-48).
Further we recognize that Appellants may be their own lexicographer.
However, the example provided in the Specification (paragraphs [0021-
0022]) does not narrow the scope of the graphic processing unit limitation
recited in the independent claims, nor does it help distinguish the disputed
limitation over Wilt’s graphic arbiter. Although giving claims their
“broadest reasonable interpretation” must take into account any definitions
given in the Specification (In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997)), it is improper to read into the claims limitations from examples
given in the Specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir.
1989). See also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir.
2005)(“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific
embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining
the claims to those embodiments (citations omitted).
Therefore the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 5, 8, and
12, argued together (Appeal Brief 12), as well as, those claims that are
dependent therefrom are sustained.

DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-12 are affirmed.
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
Appeal 2010-001013
Application 11/696,553

6

llw