Ex Parte Crassin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2017

13830142 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2017)

United States Patent 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.
13/830,142 03/14/2013 Cyril CRASSIN NVDA/FR-12-0615-US2 7427
102324 7590 11/24/2017
Arte.ois T aw Omim T T P/NVTDTA
EXAMINER
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
MAZUMDER, SAPTARSHI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/24/2017 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):
kcruz @ artegislaw.com
ALGdocketing @ 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 CYRIL CRASSIN, YURY Y. URALSKY,
ERIC ENDERTON, ERIC B. LUM, JEROME F. DULUK, JR.,
HENRY PACKARD MORETON, and DAVID LUEBKE
Appeal 2017-006217
Application 13/830,142
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2017-006217
Application 13/830,142
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method for performing voxelization,
comprising:
determining that a first graphics primitive intersects a
voxel;
calculating a first set of coefficients associated with a
first plane defined by the intersection of the first graphics
primitive and the voxel;
determining that a second graphics primitive intersects
the voxel;
calculating a second set of coefficients associated with
a second plane defined by the intersection of the second
graphics primitive and the voxel;
calculating a third set of coefficients based on the first
set of coefficients and the second set of coefficients, wherein
the third set of coefficients is associated with a third surface
that has a front side and a back side; and
calculating at least one of an amount of the voxel that
is located on the back side of the third surface and an
occlusion value based on the third set of coefficients.
REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1—3, 5, 6, 8, 10—12, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Crassin (Cyril Crassin and Sinon
Green, “Octree-Based Sparse Voxelization Using GPU Hardware
Rasterizer,” OpenGL Insights, CRC Press, 303—319 (2012) (“Crassin”)),
Akeley (US 5,369,739; iss. Nov. 29, 1994), and Park et al.
(US 2010/0004861 Al; pub. Jan. 7, 2010, “Park”). Final Act. 6-18.
(2) Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Crassin, Akeley, Park, and Roget (Beatrice Roget and
Jayanarayanan Sitaraman, “Wall Distance Search Algorithm Using
2
Appeal 2017-006217
Application 13/830,142
Voxelized Marching SpheresSeventh International Conference on
Computational Fluid Dynamics (ICCFD7), 1—23, Big Island, Hawaii (2012)
(“Roget”)). Final Act. 18-20.
(3) Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Crassin, Akeley, Park, and Crassin (Cyril Crassin, Fabrice
Neyret, Miguel Sainz, Simon Green, and Elmar Eisemann, “Interactive
Indirect Illumination Using Voxel Cone Tracing,” Vol. 30, No. 7, The
Eurographics Association and Blackwell Publishing Ltd., (2011) (“Crassin-
Neyret”)). Final Act. 21—23.
(4) Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Crassin, Akeley, Park, and Bourke (Paul Bourke, “Spheres,
equations, and terminology,” 1—29,
http://paulbourke.net/geometry/circlesphere (last visited Oct. 20, 2017)
(1992).). Final Act. 23-26.
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-3,5, 6, 8,10-12,14,15,17,19,
and 20 over Crassin, Akeley, and Park
Contentions
The Examiner finds the combination of Crassin, Akeley, and Park
teaches all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 6—12; see also Ans. 2—11. In
particular, the Examiner finds Crassin as modified by Akeley and Park
teaches the recited (claim 1) “calculating at least one of an amount of the
voxel that is located on the back side of the third surface and an occlusion
value based on the third set of coefficients.” Final Act. 11—12 (citing Akeley
col. 12,11. 63—68); see also Final Act. 12 (“In Fig. 9C [of Akeley] 5/16 is the
3
Appeal 2017-006217
Application 13/830,142
occupancy as 5 out [of] 16 points are on the back side of the plane 907 in a
pixel.”).
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding that Crassin as modified by
Akeley and Park teaches the recited (claim 1) “calculating at least one of an
amount of the voxel that is located on the back side of the third surface and
an occlusion value based on the third set of coefficients.” See App. Br. 15—
19. In support of this contention, Appellants present the following principal
arguments:
i.
First, Crassin does not teach or suggest calculating an
amount of the voxel that is located on the back side of the third
surface. Crassin describes computes the voxels that are actually
intersected by each projected triangle. See id. at p. 307.
Importantly, Crassin fails to disclose any calculation of an
amount of a voxel that is located on a particular side of a
surface. More specifically, Crassin makes no mention of
calculating an amount of the voxel that is located on the back
side of the third surface. Second, Crassin does not teach or
suggest calculating an occlusion value. In fact, Crassin is
entirely silent regarding occlusion values.
App. Br. 16; see also App. Br. 18 (“Crassin has no mechanism for
computing the amount of a voxel that is behind a surface.”) and Reply Br. 4—
8.
ii. “[T]he claimed voxel cannot be properly equated to the pixel in
Akeley.” App. Br. 17. “Akeley describes a technique to merge masks
associated with three half-planes in order to determine which subsample
points are inside a triangle primitive 305, and which subsample points are
outside of the triangle primitive 305.” App. Br. 17; see also App. Br. 18
(“Akeley provides no mechanism whatsoever for determining whether the
pixel location is in front of or behind the triangle (z-direction).”) and Reply
4
Appeal 2017-006217
Application 13/830,142
Br. 4—7. “Akeley does not teach or suggest calculating an occlusion value
based on the third set of coefficients.” App. Br. 17.
iii. “Park makes no mention of voxels or occlusion values.” App.
Br. 18; see also App. Br. 18 (“[T]he techniques described in Park have
nothing to do with calculating.”) and Reply Br. 4—6.
Our Review
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). We do not see any error in the Examiner’s disputed findings
regarding Crassin, Akeley, and Park. Instead, we agree with and adopt as our
own the Examiner’s findings that Crassin as modified by Akeley and Park
teaches the recited (claim 1) “calculating at least one of an amount of the
voxel that is located on the back side of the third surface and an occlusion
value based on the third set of coefficients.”
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding Appellants’ arguments (i), (ii), and (iii) against the
references individually, the disputed limitation is taught by Crassin as
modified by Akeley and Park. It is undisputed that Crassin teaches
voxelization. See Final Act. 6 (citing Crassin 306); see also Crassin 306
(“[A] very simple voxelization algorithm that operates in four main steps
5
Appeal 2017-006217
Application 13/830,142
inside a single draw call.”). It is also undisputed that Crassin as modified by
Akeley and Park teaches the recited (claim 1) “calculating a third set of
coefficients based on the first set of coefficients and the second set of
coefficients, wherein the third set of coefficients is associated with a third
surface that has a front side and a back side.” See Final Act. 10-11 (citing
Park 148); see also Park 148 (“[A] plane equation may be created from the
average of the grouped planes, and a plane may be obtained from the created
plane equation.”).
Akeley teaches generating a point sample mask:
FIG. 9C shows a mask 911 which is based on the signs of
the respective vertical distance metrics calculated above. It can
be seen that a “1” is assigned to those subsample points having
a positive vertical distance metric, and a “0” is assigned to those
subsample points having a negative vertical distance metric.
Akeley col. 12,11. 63-68.
When Akeley’s teaching of a point sample mask for a half-plane and
pixel (Akeley, Fig. 9C) is applied to the “third surface” and “voxel” taught,
collectively, by Crassin, Akeley and Park, an amount of the “voxel” that is
located on the back side of the “third surface” is calculated in the same way
that Akeley (point sample mask 911, Fig. 9C) calculates an amount of the
pixel located within a half-plane. See Final Act. 12 (“Crassin as modified
by Akeley and Park is modified to calculate amount of a [voxel] that is
located on the back side of the third surface.”). Put another way, a skilled
artisan would have extended Akeley’s technique, in light of the collective
teachings of the references, from pixel coverage by a half-plane (Akeley,
Fig. 9C) to voxel coverage by a (third) surface.
The Examiner’s reasoning for the combination is supported by
evidence and provided with rational underpinning, as required by KSR Int 7
6
Appeal 2017-006217
Application 13/830,142
Co. v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). See Final Act. 10 (“The
motivation for the above is for generating a table that provides information
of coverage information of [a] voxel.”); see also Akeley Fig. 9C (coverage
information of a pixel) and Crassin 306 (voxelization). Appellants have not
presented any particularized explanation as to why this reasoning is
erroneous. See App. Br. 15—19.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10—12, 14, 15, 17, 19,
and 20, which are not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 19.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 4 and 13 over Crassin, Akeley,
Park, and Roget
Appellants do not present any separate arguments for claims 4 and 13.
See App. Br. 19; see also Reply Br. 8—9. We, therefore, sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 13.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 7 and 16 over Crassin, Akeley,
Park, and Crassin-Neyret
Appellants do not present any separate arguments for claims 7 and 16.
See App. Br. 19; see also Reply Br. 8—9. We, therefore, sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 16.
7
Appeal 2017-006217
Application 13/830,142
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 9 and 18 over Crassin, Akeley,
Park, and Bourke
Appellants do not present any separate arguments for claims 9 and 18.
See App. Br. 19; see also Reply Br. 8—9. We, therefore, sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 18.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is 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).
AFFIRMED
8