Ex Parte Hakura et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 26, 2017

13843981 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 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.
13/843,981 03/15/2013 Ziyad Sami Hakura NVIDP826/SC-13-0142-US1 1014
75359 7590 12/28/2017
ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- NVID
1155 N. 1st St.
Suite 105
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
EXAMINER
WILLS, DIANE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2017 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):
zk-uspto@zilkakotab.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZIYAD SAMI HAKURA, YURY URALSKY, TYSON
BERGLAND, ERIC BRIAN LUM, JEROME F. DULUK JR., and
HENRY PACKARD MORETON
Appeal 2017-006889
Application 13/843,981
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 7—9, 12, 14—17, 19, 20, 24, and 26. Claims
21—23, 25, and 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base
claim. Final Act. 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2017-006889
Application 13/843,981
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a system, method, and computer
program product for executing processes involving at least one primitive in a
graphics processor, utilizing a data structure. Spec. 13. The processes
include selecting at least one surface or portion thereof to which to render or
selecting at least one of a plurality of viewpoints. Spec. 13. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
generating a bit mask for a primitive, by a graphics
processor, wherein:
(a) each bit in the bit mask corresponds with a different
surface or portion thereof to be rendered by the graphics
processor and when set indicates that the primitive is to be
projected onto one of the different surfaces or portions thereof
corresponding to the bit, or
(b) each bit in the bit mask corresponds with a different
viewport and when set indicates that the primitive is to be
output to one of the different viewports corresponding to the
bit, each of the viewports being a two-dimensional rectangle at
a different position and further each of the viewports being a
different size and/or offsetting to a different surface; and
executing, by the graphics processor, a plurality of
processes involving the primitive, utilizing the bit mask,
wherein the plurality of processes includes:
when each bit in the bit mask corresponds with a
different surface or portion thereof, then for each bit set in the
bit mask selecting the corresponding surface or portion thereof
and projecting the primitive onto each selected surface or
portion thereof, and
when each bit in the bit mask corresponds with a
different viewport, then for each bit set in the bit mask selecting
the corresponding viewport and projecting the primitive onto
each selected viewport.
2
Appeal 2017-006889
Application 13/843,981
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 17, 19, 20, 24, and 26 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Diard
(US 7,602,395 Bl; issued Oct. 13, 2009), Wei et al. (US 2008/0165199 Al;
published July 10, 2008) (“Wei”), and Bertolami et al. (US 2008/0309660
Al; published Dec. 18, 2008) (“Bertolami”).
Claim 9 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Diard, Wei, Bertolami, and Sellers et
al. (US 2013/0328895 Al; published Dec. 12, 2013) (“Sellers”).
Claim 12 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Diard, Wei, Bertolami, and Hubert
Nguyen, ed., GPU Gems 3, available at https://developer.nvidia.com/
gpugems/GPUGems3/gpugems3_pref01.html, Chapter 10 available at
https://developer.nvidia.com/gpugems/GPUGems3/gpugems3_chl0.html,
last visited Dec. 22, 2017 (2008) (“GPU Gems 3”).
Claim 14 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Diard, Wei, Bertolami, and Mantor et
al. (US 2011/0057942 Al; published Mar. 10, 2011) (“Mantor”).
Claim 15 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Diard, Wei, Bertolami, and Duluk et
al. (US 6,525,737 Bl; issued Feb. 25, 2003) (“Duluk”).
Claim 16 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Diard, Wei, Bertolami, and Touma et
al. (US 6,167,159; issued Dec. 26, 2000).
3
Appeal 2017-006889
Application 13/843,981
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies on paragraphs 16 and 24 of Bertolami to teach or
suggest “each of the viewports being a different size and/or offsetting to a
different surface,” as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately
recited in claims 19 and 20. Final Act. 4. Appellants argue Bertolami does
not disclose offsetting “in terms of a ‘viewport.’” App. Br. 8.
Appellants’ claims are drafted to perform limitation (a) or
limitation (b). The plain meaning of the term “or” means the items in the
sequence are alternatives to each other. E.g., Schumer v. Lab. Comput. Sys.,
Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied
Concepts, Inc., 264 F.3d 1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Brown v. 3M, 265
F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Therefore, as the Examiner points out
(Ans. 2-4), Appellants’ claim is drafted in such a manner as to recite two
alternatives. The first alternative corresponds to generating a bit mask
pursuant to limitation (a):
A method, comprising:
generating a bit mask for a primitive, by a graphics processor,
wherein:
(a) each bit in the bit mask corresponds with a different surface
or portion thereof to be rendered by the graphics processor and when
set indicates that the primitive is to be projected onto one of the
different surfaces or portions thereof corresponding to the bit, or
(b) each bit in the bit mask corresponds with a different
viewport and when set indicates that the primitive is to be output to
one of the different viewports corresponding to the bit, each of the
viewports being a two dimensional rectangle at a different position
and further each of the viewports being a different size and/or
offsetting to a different surface; and
4
Appeal 2017-006889
Application 13/843,981
executing, by the graphics processor, a plurality of processes
involving the primitive, utilizing the bit mask, wherein the plurality of
processes includes:
when each bit in the bit mask corresponds with a different
surface or portion thereof, then for each bit set in the bit mask
selecting the corresponding surface or portion thereof and projecting
the primitive onto each selected surface or portion thereof, and
when each bit in the bit mask corresponds with a different
viewport, then for each bit set in the bit mask selecting the
corresponding viewport and projecting the primitive onto each
selected viewport.
App. Br. 13, Claims App’x (emphasis and strikethrough added; Ans. 2—3).
The second alternative corresponds to generating a bit mask pursuant
to limitation (b):
A method, comprising:
generating a bit mask for a primitive, by a graphics processor,
wherein:
(a) each bit in the bit mask corresponds with a different surface
or portion thereof to be rendered by the graphics processor and when
set indicates that the primitive is to be projected onto one of the
different surfaces or portions thereof corresponding to the bit, or
(b) each bit in the bit mask corresponds with a different
viewport and when set indicates that the primitive is to be output to
one of the different viewports corresponding to the bit, each of the
viewports being a two-dimensional rectangle at a different position
and further each of the viewports being a different size and/or
offsetting to a different surface; and
5
Appeal 2017-006889
Application 13/843,981
executing, by the graphics processor, a plurality of processes
involving the primitive, utilizing the bit mask, wherein the plurality of
processes includes:
when each bit in the bit mask corresponds with a different
surface or portion thereof, then for each bit set in the bit mask
selecting the corresponding surface or portion thereof and projecting
the primitive onto each selected surface or portion thereof, and
when each bit in the bit mask corresponds with a different
viewport, then for each bit set in the bit mask selecting the
corresponding viewport and projecting the primitive onto each
selected viewport.
App. Br. 13, Claims App’x (emphasis and strikethrough added; Ans. 2—3).
We agree with the Examiner that the applied references need not teach the
limitations in alternative (b) if the references teach the limitations in
alternative (a). Ans. 4.
Appellants’ arguments in the opening Appeal Brief pertain to
alternative (b). App. Br. 7—11. In the Reply Brief, in addition to presenting
arguments pertaining to alternative (b), Appellants present arguments
pertaining to alternative (a). Reply Br. 6—8. Specifically, Appellants argue
Wei does not teach or suggest “when each bit in the bit mask corresponds
with a different surface or portion thereof, then for each bit set in the bit
mask selecting the corresponding surface or portion thereof and projecting
the primitive onto each selected surface or portion thereof.” Reply Br. 7.
Appellants argue “Wei discloses sub-dividing a display area into sub-screens
with vertex output information superimposed thereon, with independent sub­
screen tasks being put in a task list and retrieved in order by different
available processing threads for processing (i.e. pixel rendering) of the sub-
screen.” Reply Br. 7
6
Appeal 2017-006889
Application 13/843,981
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Diard and Wei
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation pertaining to alternative (a).
Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner relies on Diard to teach or suggest the
claimed “each bit in the bit mask,” and on Wei to teach or suggest the
remainder of the limitation. Final Act. 3^4. Wei explicitly describes
“before the pixel rendering stage 140 displays a 3D image representative of
the triangle on the display area 18, the processing for all sub-divided
portions of the triangle should be complete.” Wei 1 62 (emphasis added);
see also Fig. 13, Tflf 63—64, 71. Appellants have not persuasively argued
why such disclosure does not teach or suggest “projecting the primitive onto
each selected surface or portion thereof.”
Appellants also argue “the Examiner failed to provide a prior art
showing of the above claim language in (a), instead focusing on the rejection
of the claim language that is specifically recited in (b).” Reply Br. 6
(emphasis omitted). We disagree. The Examiner relies on the same
citations to Diard for both limitation (a) and limitation (b). Final Act. 3.
As we find the Examiner has at least shown the combination of Diard
and Wei teaches or suggests the limitations pertaining to alternative (a), we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1,19, and 20. For
the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2,
7—9, 12, 14—17, 24, and 26, which were not separately argued.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 7—9, 12, 14—17, 19,
20, 24, and 26.
7
Appeal 2017-006889
Application 13/843,981
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8