Ex Parte DwyerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 23, 201813962079 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/962,079 08/08/2013 125968 7590 04/25/2018 V orys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP (ImgTec) 1909 K St., N.W. Ninth Floor Washington, DC 20006 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Aaron Dwyer 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. 070852.000236 8280 EXAMINER YANG, ANDREW GUS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2614 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/25/2018 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 rntisdale@vorys.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AARON DWYER Appeal2017-005055 Application 13/962,079 1 Technology Center 2600 Before DENISE M. POTHIER, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17. The Examiner has indicated that claims 2--4, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 18-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. 2 Final Act. 13. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). 1 Appellant identifies Imagination Technologies Limited as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. 2 Appellant explains that claim 18 is an independent claim. App. Br. 1. Thus, Appellant asserts claim 18 and claims 19-21, which depend Appeal2017-005055 Application 13/962,079 We affirm-in-part. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention is directed to ray tracing based rendering two-dimension representations from three-dimensional scenes. Spec. i-f 1. According to the Specification, ray tracing "involves obtaining a scene description composed of geometric primitives, such as triangles, that describe surfaces of structures in the scene, and modeling how light interacts with primitives in the scene by tracing light rays, starting from a virtual camera, through numerous potential interactions with scene objects." Spec. i-f 2. Further, when a primitive is determined to have been intersected by a ray, additional rays may be used to determine if the intersected surface is in a shadow from potential light sources, or for other purposes, such as characterizing reflections. Spec. i-f 2. In particular, when a primary ray is found to have intersected a surface (i.e., a primitive), "occlusion rays [(i.e., secondary rays)] may be cast to determine shadowing at the point of intersection." Spec. i-f 4, Fig. 2. In a disclosed embodiment, the origin of the secondary rays are offset from the surface. Spec. i-f 5. "An amount of offset is variable among the secondary rays and dependent on an intersection location of a respective parent ray on the primitive." Spec. i-f 5. therefrom, stand allowed on the record. App. Br. 1. The Examiner does not respond to this assertion by Appellant. 2 Appeal2017-005055 Application 13/962,079 Figure 3 from Appellant's Specification is illustrative and is reproduced below: Artist supplied vector 12 5 to vector 39 modified occlusion ray 35 modified dlight25 Implicit curved surface 40 '---- Intersection point 20 FIG. 3 Plane perpend i cu la r to vector 38 Figure 3 is a side-view of a primitive (2) showing the casting of secondary rays (35, 36) having origin offsets (41, 42). Spec. i-fi-f 12, 28. A side-view of primitive (2) having a vertex (5) and a vertex (7). Spec. i127. Artist supplied vectors (12, 13) are associated with their respective vertices and "control a relative orientation of implicit curved surface 40 to the planar surface of primitive 2." Spec. i127. As shown, primary ray (15) intersects the primitive (2) at intersection point (20). Spec. i128. Original occlusion ray (31) illustrates a secondary ray (e.g., an occlusion ray) if an origin offset were not used. Spec. i-fi-126, 28. In disclosed embodiments, a modified occlusion ray may be cast from offset origin (42), determined by offsetting along per-primitive normal (11) a determined amount (e.g., to implicit curved surface (40)). Spec. i128. Alternatively or additionally, an occlusion 3 Appeal2017-005055 Application 13/962,079 ray (3 5) may be cast from offset origin ( 41 ), determined by an intersection point between the primary ray (15) and the implicit curved surface ( 40). Spec. ,-r 28. Claims 1 and 14 are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and are reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics: 1. A processor-implemented method of shading primitives in a 3-D scene in a computer graphics system, comprising: identifying, by a processor, an intersection point between a primary ray and a planar primitive defining an object located in the 3-D scene; defining, by a processor, a secondary ray to have an origin determined from the intersection point of the ray with the primitive, the origin being offset from a surface of the primitive by an amount dependent on indicia of curvature calculated for the primitive and on a relative position of the intersection point to vertexes defining the primitive; tracing, by a processor, the secondary ray to identify an intersection involving the secondary ray; and using the results of the tracing of the secondary ray by a processor in shading of the primitive. 14. An apparatus for ray tracing a 3-D scene in a computer graphics system, comprising: a ray intersector configured to identify an intersection point between a primary ray and a primitive defining a surface located in the 3-D scene; a specifier of a secondary ray configured to specify a secondary ray to be emitted for tracing in the 3-D scene, the secondary ray having an origin and a direction, wherein the specifier is further configured to determine a position of the origin of the secondary ray by determining an offset amount from the intersection point, the offset amount dependent on a relative position of the intersection point to vertices defining the swface located in the 3-D scene, the specifier being coupled to the ray 4 Appeal2017-005055 Application 13/962,079 intersector for providing the secondary ray to be tested for intersection by the ray intersector; a storage medium configured to store data including said primitive and intersection points of said primary and secondary rays; and at least one processor configured to render said primitive in a rendering space of said 3-D scene using said stored data. The Examiner's Rejections3 1. Claims 14 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Pharr et al. (US 2003/0227457 Al; Dec. 11, 2003) ("Pharr"). Final Act. 3-5. 2. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pharr and Howson et al. (US 2014/0063016 Al; Mar. 6, 2014) ("Howson"). Final Act. 6-7. 3. Claims 1, 8, 9, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pharr and Harada et al. (US 2013/0328873 Al; Dec. 12, 2013) ("Harada"). Final Act. 7-11. 4. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pharr, Harada, and Howson. Final Act. 11-13. 3 The Examiner had rejected claims 1-21under35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2-3. In the Advisory Action (mailed July 12, 2016), the Examiner found Appellant's argument persuasive that the claimed invention improves the technology in the computer graphics field. Adv. Act. 2. Accordingly, we treat the rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as having been withdrawn by the Examiner. 5 Appeal2017-005055 Application 13/962,079 ANALYSIS 4 Rejection under 35 USC§ 102 Claim 14 recites, in relevant part, "determining an offset amount [(for the origin of a secondary ray)] from the intersection point [(between a primary ray and a primitive)], the offset amount dependent on a relative position of the intersection point to vertices defining the surface located in the 3-D scene." The Examiner finds Pharr discloses, inter alia, determining the offset amount, as claimed. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Pharr i-fi-f 106, 107, 133, 135-137). We begin our analysis with a brief review of Pharr. Pharr is generally directed to "shading a plurality of objects included in an object scene." Pharr i-f 14. Pharr discloses that prior art rendering systems (e.g., REYES (renders everything you ever saw)) may incorporate ray tracing, but may be susceptible to issues with rays invalidly intersecting or failing to intersect primitives. Pharr i1i12, 7, 12. Pharr describes that objects within an object scene are often modeled with primitives. Pharr i132. Additionally, Pharr describes that in some embodiments, a primitive may be split such that a pointer may only point to a portion of a primitive. Pharr i1 48. After selecting the primitive (or portion of a primitive), a renderer bounds the primitive with a bounding box (i.e., an imaginary box representing the maximum dimensions of the primitive that allows a renderer to quickly determine whether the primitive may occupy certain space in the object scene). Pharr i149. Alternatively, Pharr discloses the 4 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed October 31, 2016 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed January 30, 2017 ("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed November 28, 2016 ("Ans."); and the Final Office Action, mailed April 27, 2016 ("Final Act."), from which this Appeal is taken. 6 Appeal2017-005055 Application 13/962,079 primitive (or portion of a primitive) may be diced into a grid of polygons and the bounding box may be applied to the grid of polygons. Pharr i-f 51. The renderer determines whether the primitive, or a portion thereof, as defined by the bounding box is on-screen. Pharr i-fi-152-55. Data (i.e., polygons) that are not on-screen may be culled to avoid unnecessary processing. Pharr i-f 56. In a preferred embodiment, each polygon is smaller than a pixel (of the target display) and the renderer "computes colors or color values for each vertex that defines a polygon." Pharr i-f 64. Pharr describes that part of the shading process includes tracing rays for a position on a first primitive into an object scene and the renderer computes color values for positions on the same or other primitives intersected by these rays. Pharr i-f 65. 7 Appeal2017-005055 Application 13/962,079 Figure 4 of Pharr is illustrative and is reproduced below: light 0 source ----- 420 /, .~ light source 410~----~===-:=:t~----_::.--~.,., ray 450 primitive 120-2 primitive 120·1 Figure 4 Figure 4 of Pharr illustrates a ray tracing example within a simplified object scene. Pharr i-f 23. As shown, there are two light sources (410, 420) and three primitives (120-1, 120-2, 120-3). Pharr i-f 106. Pharr explains in this illustration, a vertex of the first primitive ( 120-1) is being shaded. Pharr i-f 106. Rays 430 and 440 are cast toward the first and second light sources ( 410, 420), respectively. Pharr i-f 106. The first light source ( 410) is intersected by a ray ( 430), so it shines light on the vertex being shaded. Pharr i-f 106. The second ray ( 440) is cast to the second light source ( 420) but is blocked by primitive (120-3). Pharr i-f 106. As such, the vertex being shaded is in a shadow cast from the second light source (420) and third 8 Appeal2017-005055 Application 13/962,079 primitive (120-3). Pharr i-f 106. A third ray (450) is cast and intersects the second primitive (120-2). Pharr i-f 106. Pharr describes the renderer responds to this intersection by casting three additional rays (460, 470, 480) from this intersection. Pharr i-f 106. Pharr further describes the rays cast from the second primitive (i.e., rays 460, 470, 480) "may be thought of as secondary rays since they are used to compute a color value for the intersection of another ray and a primitive." Pharr i-f 107. Further, regarding a potential issue which Pharr purports to address, Pharr describes an adjustment to the casting of rays to avoid casting rays into invalid object scene space. Pharr i-fi-1133-134. Figure 6A is of Pharr is illustrative and is reproduced below: Valid object scene space 610 Second primitive 120-2 /,./ / / ..... Invalid object scene space 612 Primitfve-edge vertex 606 Figure 6A Figure 6A of Pharr illustrates a side-view of two perpendicular primitives (120-1, 120-2). Pharri-fi-f 26, 133. As shown, the area to the right of the second primitive (120-2) is an interior cavity of a common object and is invalid object scene space. Pharr i-f 133. As shown, the renderer may cast a set of rays (608) directly into the invalid object scene space (612). Pharr 9 Appeal2017-005055 Application 13/962,079 i-f 134. To avoid this problem, Pharr discloses offsetting the origin of the set of rays ( 608) so that the rays are not cast directly into invalid object scene space (612). Pharr i-f 135. Figure 6B of Pharr illustrates the result of offsetting the origin of the rays ( 608) and is reproduced below: First primitive 120-·1 ·""-"··-..... ··'-.)I Second primitive 120~2 Valid object scene space 610 Rays 608 \. .'7"\ '\/_ .... : Primitive-edge vertex 606 Figure 68 lnva!id object scene space 612 Figure 6B of Pharr illustrates a shifting of the origin of rays ( 608) to address the problem illustrated in Figure 6A. Pharr i-fi-127, 136. As shown, the origin of the set of rays ( 608) is offset from the vertex. Pharr discloses the amount by which the rays are shifted may be fixed for all ray origins or may be "a function of a distance between the primitive-edge vertex and surrounding vertices." Pharr i-f 13 7. Appellant argues Pharr does not disclose that the offset amount is dependent upon a relative position of an intersection point to vertices, but rather on the relative position of vertices to one another. App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2-3. Specifically, Appellant asserts "it appears that the offset in Pharr is not at all dependent upon where a primary ray intersects a primitive." App. Br. 5. 10 Appeal2017-005055 Application 13/962,079 The Examiner responds that Figure 4 of Pharr discloses a primary ray (450) intersecting a primitive (120-2) and that secondary rays (460, 470, 480) are cast from the point where ray 450 intersects the primitive (i.e., the intersection point). Ans. 2-3. Regarding offsetting the origin of the secondary rays, the Examiner relies on Figures 6A and 6B of Pharr as disclosing offsetting the origin so that the secondary rays are not cast into invalid object scene space. Ans. 4--5. Additionally, the Examiner finds Pharr addresses a potential problem when casting rays from vertices of primitives, "which results in offsetting the rays relative to the vertices defining the primitive." Ans. 5 (citing Pharr i-f 133). Because Pharr discloses the casting of rays occurs from the intersection point (i.e., where a primary ray intersects a primitive), the Examiner finds Pharr also discloses the offsetting of rays is based on a relative position of the intersection point to vertices defining the primitive. Ans. 5. "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Additionally, to anticipate, a prior art reference must disclose more than "multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention." Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972) ("[T]he [prior art] reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference."). 11 Appeal2017-005055 Application 13/962,079 Here, we agree with the Examiner that in Figure 4 of Pharr, ray ( 450) corresponds to the claimed primary ray and intersects a primitive (120-2) at an intersection point and that secondary rays (460, 470, and 480) are cast from that intersection point. Further, we agree with the Examiner that in Figure 6A of Pharr, a set of rays ( 608) is cast from point where a vertex of a first primitive (120-1) abuts a vertex of a second primitive (120-2). Additionally, in Figure 6B of Pharr, the origin of the set of rays ( 608) is offset. However, Pharr does not expressly disclose, nor does it necessarily follow, that the set of rays ( 608) are secondary rays cast from the intersection of a primary ray and a primitive. In other words, Figure 6A of Pharr does not illustrate a primary ray intersecting a primitive (e.g., 120-1) at a vertex of the primitive (as suggested by the Examiner) such that the set of rays ( 608) are secondary rays. We note that in Figure 4 of Pharr, a set of rays ( 430, 440, 450) are cast from a first primitive (120-1) from a point on the primitive that had not been intersected by another (i.e., a primary ray). The Examiner appears to find that Pharr suggests, based on the disclosures in Figures 4, 6A, 6B and accompanying text, a primary ray may intersect a vertex of a primitive and that, to avoid casting secondary rays into invalid object scene space, the origin of a set of secondary rays are offset dependent on a relative position of the intersection point to vertices defining the surface. See, e.g., Pharr i-f 137. However, a rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not before us. Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018). 12 Appeal2017-005055 Application 13/962,079 For the reasons discussed supra, we are constrained by the record before us and do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 14. For similar reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 7, which depends therefrom. Rejections under 35 US.C. § 103 Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, "the origin [(of a secondary ray)] being offset from a surface of the primitive by an amount dependent on indicia of curvature calculated for the primitive and on a relative position of the intersection point to vertexes defining the primitive." Appellant disputes the Examiner's finding that the rays cast from the second primitive (120-2), as illustrated in Figure 4 of Pharr, may be thought of as the claimed secondary rays because "it does not comport with the manner in which a person having skill in the art would have read and understood Pharr." App. Br. 7-8 (citing Declaration of Luke Peterson, filed July 27, 2016 ("Deel."), i-f 6). Appellant also argues the Examiner has improperly ignored the Declaration of Luke Peterson. Reply Br. 4. As an initial matter, the Examiner did not ignore the Declaration of Luke Peterson, but gave the declaration minimal weight because the declaration lacked sufficient factual evidence and the Declarant is an interested party. Ans. 7. Appellant asserts Mr. Peterson was a co-founder of Caustic Graphics, Inc., which is not an assignee of the present application. Reply Br. 4. We note that Caustic Graphics was acquired by Imagination Technologies Limited (the assignee of the pending application) and that Mr. Peterson was the Director ofR&D for PowerVR Ray Tracing at Imagination 13 Appeal2017-005055 Application 13/962,079 Technologies Limited. 5 See, e.g., https://www.imgtec.com/blog/powervr- ray-tracing-delivering-interactive-lightmap-editing-in-unity-5/ (last visited April 16, 2018). Moreover, we disagree that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not consider rays (e.g., 460, 470, 480) cast from primitive (e.g., 120- 2) as secondary rays. Pharr expressly states: "rays 460, 470, 480 cast from the second primitive 120-2 may be thought of as secondary rays since they are used to compute a color value for the intersection of another ray and a primitive." Pharr i-f 107. This is consistent with Appellant's claimed secondary ray. As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that Pharr teaches casting secondary rays from the intersection point of a primary ray and a surface of a primitive. See Ans. 3--4; see also Pharr, Fig. 4. Further, Pharr reasonably suggests that if the intersection point of a primary ray and a primitive were located at a vertex of the primitive (particularly, where the primitive abuts another primitive), the origin of secondary rays cast is offset (to avoid casting into invalid object scene space, for example). See Ans. 4-- 5; see also Pharr i-fi-1133-137, Figs. 6A, 6B. Pharr describes the offset may be determined as "a function of a distance between the primitive-edge vertex and surrounding vertices." Pharr i-f 137. Thus, if the intersection point is at a vertex of the primitive, Pharr suggests the offset is dependent on a relative position of the intersection point to vertices defining the primitive. Appellant additionally argues Pharr is not related to offsetting the origin of a secondary ray by an amount dependent on indicia of curvature for the primitive. App. Br. 7. 5 We remind Appellant and Appellant's counsel of their duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Patent Office. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 (2016). 14 Appeal2017-005055 Application 13/962,079 Appellant's argument is not persuasive of Examiner error because it is not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Harada, in combination with Pharr, to teach offsetting an origin of a secondary ray dependent on indicia of curvature of the primitive. Final Act. 8-9 (citing Harada i-f 70); see also Ans. 8-9. Appellant does not present any evidence rebutting the Examiner's findings related to Harada. See App. Br. passim. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. Additionally, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 15, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom and were not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l). We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a)( 1 )(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 15 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation