Ex Parte Gruber et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 201813421523 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/421,523 03/15/2012 15150 7590 09/05/2018 Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Andrew Gruber 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. 1010-965US01/l 13250 8425 EXAMINER MAZUMDER, SAPTARSHI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2617 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2018 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): pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDREW GRUBER and RA VI S. JENKAL Appeal2017-005318 Application 13/421,523 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ERIC B. CHEN, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2017-005318 Application 13/421,523 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-32, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to visibility-based state updates in graphical processing units (GPUs). (Abstract.) Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A method for rendering image data comprising: generating, in a graphics processing unit, visibility information for a plurality of primitives defined by the image data during a first pass of a multi-pass rendering process, wherein the visibility information indicates for each of the plurality of primitives whether any of an object formed by the plurality of primitives will be visible anywhere in an image rendered from the image data during a second pass of the multi-pass rendering process; and retrieving, in the graphics processing unit, state data associated with the object a single time for the entire object per rendered portion of the image data based on the visibility information for the plurality of primitives, wherein the state data is used by the second pass of the multi- pass rendering process in rendering the object, and wherein the first pass finishes prior to completion of the second pass. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26, 30, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Greene (US 6,646,639 Bl; Nov. 11, 2003) and Dilliplane (US 2003/0146917 Al; Aug. 7, 2003). 2 Appeal2017-005318 Application 13/421,523 Claims 3, 8, 11, 16, 19, 24, 27, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Greene, Dilliplane, and Nystad (US 2008/0100627 Al; May 1, 2008). Claims 4, 12, 20, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Greene, Dilliplane, and Kowalski (US 2007/0171222 A 1; July 26, 2007). Claims 5, 13, 21, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Greene, Dilliplane, and Rich (US 5,923,338; July 13, 1999). ANALYSIS § 103 Rejection-Greene and Dilliplane We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 9) that the combination of Greene and Dilliplane would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "retrieving, in the graphics processing unit, state data associated with the object ... per rendered portion of the image data based on the visibility information for the plurality of primitives." The Examiner finds the multi-pass rendering algorithm of Greene, which teaches transforming an object and determining culling, and rendering a bounding box of texture coordinates of a polygon, collectively correspond to the claim limitation "retrieving, in the graphics processing unit, state data associated with the object ... per rendered portion of the image data based on the visibility information for the plurality of primitives." (Final Act. 3- 4.) In particular, the Examiner finds that "according to Greene's definition, a bounding box is an object and the object/bounding box has six faces" and 3 Appeal2017-005318 Application 13/421,523 "a polygon is a primitive, thus the bounding box or the object is composed of a plurality of primitives." (Ans. 3.) We do not agree with the Examiner's findings. Greene relates to computer graphics, in particular, "rendering images of three-dimensional scenes using z-buffering." (Col. 1, 11. 22-23.) Figure 11 of Greene illustrates a flowchart for tiling a convex polygon. (Col. 8, 11. 12-13.) Green explains that "if a polygon is being rendered with texture mapping and texture coordinates are computed during tiling, the bounding box of texture coordinates for the polygon could be output to inform the z-buffer renderer 140 which regions of a texture map will need to be accessed." (Col. 20, 11. 18-22.) Greene provides for a "computer program product ... for avoiding processing in a multi-pass rendering algorithm in a graphics pipeline," such that "[d]uring a first pass, an object is transformed" and "is then determined whether at least a portion of the object has been culled." (Col. 6, 11. 59---63.) Greene further defines "the term 'object' (or 'geometric object') [as] more general than the term 'primitive' (or 'geometric primitive'), since it may refer to a primitive, a bounding box, a face of a bounding box, and so forth." (Col. 10, 11. 40-43.) Although the Examiner cited to the "object" of Greene as including a "bounding box" having multiple polygons, and cited to the rendering process for the polygon of Greene, in which "the bounding box of texture coordinates for the polygon could be output," the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that Greene teaches the limitation "retrieving, in the graphics processing unit, state data associated with the object ... per rendered portion of the image data based on the visibility information for the plurality of primitives." In particular, while Greene 4 Appeal2017-005318 Application 13/421,523 explains that "if a polygon is being rendered with texture mapping and texture coordinates are computed during tiling, the bounding box of texture coordinates for the polygon could be output" ( col. 20, 11. 18-20), Green is silent respect to the bounding box (i.e., the claimed "plurality of primitives") itself having a texture (i.e., the claimed "state data"). On this record, we agree with Appellants the Examiner has not demonstrated that Greene teaches the contested limitation. Moreover, the Examiner's application of Dilliplane does not cure the deficiencies of Greene. Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that "the Examiner factually and legally erred by ignoring this explicit definition in Greene that a polygon is a single primitive and interpreting Greene in a manner inconsistent with the actual description in Greene" and "Greene simply does not disclose or even suggest 'state data associated with [an] object [formed by the plurality of primitives],' as recited by claim 1." (App. Br. 9 ( alterations in original)( emphases omitted).) Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2, 6, and 7 depend from claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. Independent claims 9, 17, and 25 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 9, 17, and 25, as well as dependent claims 10, 14, 15, 18, 22, 23, 26, 30, and 31, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. 5 Appeal2017-005318 Application 13/421,523 § 103 Rejection-Greene, Dilliplane, and Nystad Claims 3, 8, 11, 16, 19, 24, 27, and 32 depend from independent claims 1, 9, 17, and 25. Nystad was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 3, 8, 11, 16, 19, 24, 27, and 32. (Final Act. 9- 12.) However, the Examiner's application ofNystad does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Greene and Dilliplane. § 103 Rejection-Greene, Dilliplane, and Kowalski Claims 4, 12, 20, and 28 depend from independent claims 1, 9, 17, and 25. Kowalski was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 4, 12, 20, and 28. (Final Act. 13-14.) However, the Examiner's application of Kowalski does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Greene and Dilliplane. § 103 Rejection-Greene, Dilliplane, and Rich Claims 5, 13, 21, and 29 depend from independent claims 1, 9, 17, and 25. Rich was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 4, 12, 20, and 28. (Final Act. 14--17.) However, the Examiner's application of Rich does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Greene and Dilliplane. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-31 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation