Ex Parte Green et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 21, 2010

10959695 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 21, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBIN JAMES GREEN, AXEL MAMODE,
and ROY TADASHI HASHIMOTO
____________

Appeal 2009-003537
Application 10/959,695
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: June 22, 2010
____________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-003537
Application 10/959,695

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 38-59, which are all of the pending claims. Claims 1-37 have been
canceled.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Appeal Brief (filed February 1, 2008), the Answer
(mailed April 14, 2008), and the Reply Brief (filed June 16, 2008) for the
respective details. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have
been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to the rendering of an image with a
graphics processor that is driven by a multi-pass shader program that
includes a predetermined set of default steps. The multi-pass shader
program is pre-compiled to generate binary execution code for execution by
the graphics processor. (See generally Spec. ¶¶ [0009]-[0011]).
Claim 38 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
38. A method for rendering an image with a graphics processor, the
graphics processor being driven by a multi-pass shader program including a
predetermined set of default steps, the method comprising:

1 Our understanding of the statement that “[t]he Appellants have elected to
appeal only the rejection of independent claims 38, 48, 58, and 59” (Br. 3) is
that Appellants are treating the rejection of the dependent claims as standing
or falling with the rejection of the independent claims.
Appeal 2009-003537
Application 10/959,695

3
pre-compiling the multi-pass shader program to generate binary
execution code for execution by the graphics processor;
receiving a first parameter of the image;
executing a first pass of the multi-pass shader program utilizing the
binary execution code and the first parameter to obtain a first data value;
modifying at least one default step of a second pass of the multi-pass
shader program based upon the first data value; and
executing a second pass of the multi-pass shader program utilizing the
binary execution code including the at least one default step as modified
based upon the first data value to obtain a second data value.

The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references:
Baker US 2002/0140703 A1 Oct. 3, 2002
Dietrich, Jr. (Dietrich) US 2003/0179220 A1 Sep. 25, 2003
Claims 38, 48, 58, and 59, all of the appealed claims, stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baker in view of
Dietrich.

ISSUES
Based on Appellants’ contentions, as well as the findings and
conclusions of the Examiner, the pivotal issues before us are whether the
Examiner erred in determining:
a) the implementation of Baker’s multi-pass graphics rendering
system, in which multiple passes are made through multiple texture units, to
render the shading characteristic of a three-dimensional object on a two-
dimensional display, corresponds to the claimed “shader program”; and
b) the obviousness to the ordinarily skilled artisan of applying the
pre-compiled shader program teachings of Dietrich to the system of Baker.
Appeal 2009-003537
Application 10/959,695

4

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following relevant findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence:
1. Baker discloses (¶ [0006]) that computer graphics processes
include rendering three-dimensional characteristics such as shadows and
variations in color and shade of an object on a two-dimensional display
device.
2. Baker further discloses (¶ [0007]) that a conventional
technique for applying multiple texture maps to render a three-dimensional
image includes using a single texture unit and a single frame buffer.
3. The improved technique described by Baker (Figs. 5A, 5B, 6;
¶¶ [0021]-[0023]) uses multiple texture units to apply multiple texture maps
in multiple rendering passes to blend data to model a three-dimensional
object.
4. Baker further discloses (¶ [0052]) that multiple texture maps
can be used to “generate text, pictures, graphical patterns, lighting effects,
etc.”
5. Dietrich discloses (Fig. 1A-1; ¶¶ [0049], [0070]) a graphic
processing system, which utilizes pre-compiled shader files, including a
shader 153 that computes the final fragment of a pixel “by applying texture
maps or shader programs.”

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
Appeal 2009-003537
Application 10/959,695

5
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966) (stating that 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 leads to three basic factual inquiries: the scope and content of the prior
art, the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and the
level of ordinary skill in the art). Furthermore,
“there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” . .
. . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim,
for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Also, “‘[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.’” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 416). “One of the ways in which
a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there
existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an
obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” KSR, 550 U.S. at
419-20.

ANALYSIS
With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of each of
the appealed independent claims 38, 48, 58, and 59, Appellants’ arguments
focus on the contention that the Examiner has erroneously interpreted the
multiple pass rendering system of Baker, which applies texture maps to the
Appeal 2009-003537
Application 10/959,695

6
surface of a three-dimensional object to generate lighting effects, as
corresponding to the claimed multi-pass shader. According to Appellants
(App. Br. 11-15; Reply Br. 3-5), texture mapping and shaders are two
different graphic processing concepts and are not equivalent to each other as
advanced by the Examiner.
We do not agree with Appellants. Contrary to Appellants’ contention,
we do not interpret the Examiner’s stated position (Ans. 10-15) as asserting
the equivalence of texture mapping and shaders. Rather, it is apparent to us
that the Examiner’s position is that the graphics rendering process of Baker,
which involves multiple passes through a series of texture mapping units,
when implemented to render the shading characteristic of a three-
dimensional object on a two-dimensional display device, corresponds to the
claimed shader program.
We find ample evidence within the disclosure of Baker to support the
Examiner’s position. Baker discloses (FF 1) that computer graphics
processes include rendering three-dimensional characteristics such as
shadows and variations in color and shade of an object on a two-dimensional
display device. Further, Baker describes an improvement over the
conventional technique of applying shadow maps on opaque objects using a
single texture unit (FF 2) by utilizing multiple passes through multiple
texture units (FF 3) to “generate text, pictures, graphical patterns, lighting
effects, etc.” (FF 4 (emphasis added)). Accordingly, we find no error in the
Examiner’s conclusion that Baker’s described rendering process, involving
multiple passes through a plurality of texture mapping units, when
implemented to render a shading characteristic of a three-dimensional
object, corresponds to the claimed “shader program” in a manner which is
Appeal 2009-003537
Application 10/959,695

7
consistent with Appellants’ description in the Specification, for example at
paragraphs [0005] and [0051].
We further find unpersuasive Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 14-15;
Reply Br. 4-5) that Baker, which describes the use of texture mapping and
texture units, does not disclose a shader program because a shader need not
necessarily use texture units. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 14-15),
however, that merely because texture maps are not required by shaders does
not mean that they cannot be used in shaders and, in fact, Baker discloses
that texture maps can be used to generate shading characteristics.
Appellants’ further argument (App. Br. 14) alleging the distinctness of
texture mapping and shaders directs attention to the portion of Dietrich (FF
5) which states that a shader computes a final pixel fragment “by applying
texture maps or shader programs.” Contrary to Appellants’ contention that
this portion of Dietrich reinforces Appellants’ position, we find this
disclosure of Dietrich actually supports the Examiner. We find that the cited
portion of Dietrich merely states that shaders can be implemented in more
than one way, one of which is by applying texture maps such as the
technique disclosed by Baker.
Lastly, we find that the Examiner has provided an articulated line of
reasoning with a rational underpinning for applying Dietrich’s teaching of
using pre-compiled shader files to the multi-pass rendering system of Baker
which utilizes texture units to render an object’s three-dimensional
characteristics such as shading. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 5, 16-18)
that the combining of the known multi-pass graphics rendering system of
Baker with the known pre-compiled shader program teachings of Dietrich
would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary
Appeal 2009-003537
Application 10/959,695

8
skill in the art. According to Leapfrog, when a combination of familiar
elements according to methods known to the skilled artisan achieves a
predictable result, it is likely to be obvious. Further, although Appellants
allege (App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 5) that the supposed “single read” benefit
of texture mapping is inapplicable to a multi-pass shader program, we find
that Baker’s technique of iterating multiple passes through multiple texture
units is remarkably similar to the multiple passes through texture units 415
described in Appellants’ Specification at paragraphs [0030], [0031] and the
description of Table 1 at paragraphs [0038]-[0040].
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 38, 48, 58, and 59 and the rejection of
dependent claims 39-47 and 49-57, which are not separately argued.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 38-59 for obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 38-59 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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) (2007).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2009-003537
Application 10/959,695

9

babc

CARR & FERRELL LLP
2200 GENG ROAD
PALO ALTO, CA 94303