Ex Parte Dwyer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 23, 2018

13962079 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2018)

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