Ex Parte Harper et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 201311696647 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOHN HARPER, RALPH BRUNNER, PETER GRAFFAGNINO, and MARK ZIMMER ____________ Appeal 2010-003412 Application 11/696,647 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, THU A. DANG, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-003412 Application 11/696,647 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION Appellants claimed invention is directed to producing images including an application program interface. Abstract. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A system for command-based interface to graphics resources comprising: a first process using a microprocessor resource to request a graphics service in a request at runtime, said request comprising an indication of a function and an association between said function and a graphics object; and a second process receiving said request and, based upon said request, evaluating a plurality of specifically interrelated graphics program modules by running an optimization routine, said optimization routine examining and optimizing said graphics program modules and their inter-relationships to produce an optimized and compiled version of said graphics program modules, said graphics program modules being executable on a graphics processor resource to implement filter functions on graphics objects, wherein said optimized and compiled version of said graphics program modules is executable on said graphics processor resource to generate a result graphics object at runtime. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6-9, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grantham (US 6,215,495 B1; issued Apr. 10, 2001) and McCrossin (US 6,660,840 B1; issued Jul. 29, 2003). Appeal 2010-003412 Application 11/696,647 3 2. The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grantham, McCrossin, and further in view of Kilgard (US 6,982,718 B2; issued Jan. 3, 2006). 3. The Examiner rejected claims 5, 11, 13-16, and 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grantham, McCrossin, and further in view of Boudier (US 6.995,765 B2; issued Feb. 7, 2006). 4. The Examiner rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grantham, McCrossin, Boudier, and further in view of Parikh (US 6,424,348 B2; issued Jul. 23, 2002). ISSUES The issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding that: 1. Grantham teaches a first process to “request a graphics service” with the request “comprising an indication of a function and an association between said function and a graphics object” as recited in claim 1; 2. Boudier teaches (a) determining whether an output product of a first of said graphics program modules will comprise data that is similar to an input product of a second of said graphics program modules, (b) examining each program line in said second graphics program module to determine if it negates the possibility of combining said first and second graphics program modules, (c) identifying references to said input product in the program code of said second graphics program module, and (d) altering or replacing Appeal 2010-003412 Application 11/696,647 4 said identified references to said input product, as recited in claim 13. ANALYSIS Claims 1-3, 6-9, and 12 Appellants argue that Grantham does not teach a first process to “request a graphics service” with the request “comprising an indication of a function and an association between said function and a graphics object” as recited in the claim 1. We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments. Grantham teaches that the VRML file that is requested instructs API (Application Programming Interface) 112 to make a number of function calls, wherein the API is structured as collection of class hierarchies (col. 4, l. 63-col. 5, l. 23), including Graphics State classes that includes Context, Appearance, Material, Texture, and TexTransform classes (col. 28, ll. 14-16). The context class maintains the graphics state for a particular graphics context (col. 3, ll. 2-4). The other Graphics State classes define how the resulting image is to be created (col. 8, ll. 38-46). Thus, the Graphics State classes indicate parameters associated with the creation of the resulting image. The DrawAction class is used to draw a scene (col. 7, ll. 31-33). We agree with the Examiner that since the first process requests this VRML file, and the request for this VRML file results in a request for a graphics service, then the first process is considered to request a graphics service with the request comprising an indication of a function (i.e., creation of context, creation of result image) (Ans. 13). The Examiner finds (Ans. 13) and we agree that Grantham teaches a processor 108 of computer system 116 initiating a request (col. 4, ll. 63-67). Therefore, a microprocessor Appeal 2010-003412 Application 11/696,647 5 resource (108) is used to request the graphics service, as it is recited in the claims. Further, we find no error in the Examiner’s application of McCrossin to teach that the request comprises an association between said function (filter) and a graphics object (col. 6, l. 46-col. 7, 1.9). Appellants further argue that Grantham does not teach a second process to “produce an optimized and compiled version of said graphics program modules” as recited in claims 1 and 7. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Grantham teaches a scene graph rendered by a graphics subsystem 109 (col. 5, ll. 9-11). Grantham discloses “portions of a scene graph are called subgraphs” (col. 4, ll. 24-26). Thus, the scene graph has defined functions that are performed by engines at a computer (graphics subsystem 109). Grantham teaches that the VRML file that is requested instructs API 112, and API is structured as a collection of class hierarchies (col. 4, l. 63-col. 5, l. 23), including CompileAction class 403 (col. 7, ll. 50-52). Therefore, a second process receives the request (i.e., receives the VRML file) and, based upon the request, executes the CompileAction class 403 (VRML file that is received instructs API 112, and executes the CompileAction class 403 included in API) (col. 4, l. 63-col. 5, l 23; col. 7, ll. 50-52). Grantham teaches that the “CompileAction class 403 compiles a specified subgraph into a data structure which is more efficient for traversals” (col. 7, ll. 50-52). Classes represent data objects (col. 5, l. 29). Grantham teaches that the “data objects ... allow many general and platform-specific optimizations to be advantageously exploited” (col. 4, ll. 55-58). So, the defined functions (i.e., scene graph) performed by the engines at the computer (graphics subsystem 109) (col. 5, ll. 9-11) can be examined and optimized by the CompileAction class 403 to produce an Appeal 2010-003412 Application 11/696,647 6 optimized and compiled version of such calls or functions (i.e., compiles a specified subgraph into a data structure which is more efficient for traversals) (col. 7, ll. 50-52; col. 5, l. 29; col. 4, ll. 55-58). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the second process receives the request (i.e., receives a VRML file), and based upon the request, produces an optimized and compiled version of the graphics program modules (i.e., the VRML file that is received instructs API 112, executes the CompileAction class 403 included in API, and the CompileAction class 403 produces an optimized and compiled version of said graphics program modules) (col. 4, 1. 63-col. 5, l. 23; col. 7, ll. 50-52; col. 7, ll. 50-52). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 7. We also affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2-3, 6-9, and 12 which were not separately argued. Claims 5, 11, 13-16, and 18-21 Appellants argue that Boudier is silent as to: (a) determining whether an output product of a first of said graphics program modules will comprise data that is similar to an input product of a second of said graphics program modules, (b) examining each program line in said second graphics program module to determine if it negates the possibility of combining said first and second graphics program modules, (c) identifying references to said input product in the program code of said second graphics program module, and (d) altering or replacing said identified references to said input product as recited in claim 13 (Br. 18). The Examiner finds, and we agree, Boudier describes that the optimization gathers geometries that are in the same state to create an aggregate node (Ans. 15). In particular, the input scene graph is traversed Appeal 2010-003412 Application 11/696,647 7 and, for each node, a determination is made as to whether the subtree consists of geometry (Ans. 15). The geometries of the subtree are then combined (col. 8, ll. 4-23). Boudier describes “Scene graphs are often represented in object oriented languages such as C++” (col. 1, ll. 36-37). The Examiner reasons that in order to have the input scene graph, a first of the graphics program modules must produce this input scene graph. Since the scene graph is an “input scene graph,” this means that the scene graph is an input product of a second of said graphics program modules (Ans. 15). Therefore, Boudier teaches (a) determining whether an output product of a first of said graphics program modules will comprise data that is similar to an input product of a second of said graphics program modules. Since the input scene graph is traversed and each node is examined to determine if it is possible to combine the first and second graphics program modules (col. 8, ll. 4-23), and the scene graphs are represented in C++ (col. 1, ll. 36-37), we conclude that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that examining each node is equivalent to examining each program line. Therefore, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Boudier teaches (b) examining each program line in said second graphics program module to determine if it negates the possibility of combining said first and second program modules, (c) identifying references to said input product in the program code of second graphics program module (i.e., identifying geometry), and (d) altering or replacing said identified references to said input product (combining geometries of the subtree in the input scene graph) (col. 8, ll. 4-23; col. 1, ll. 36-37). Appellants further argue that Grantham and McCrossin are not analogous art (Br. 20-21). Appeal 2010-003412 Application 11/696,647 8 It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant's endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Grantham is pertinent to the problem of optimizing graphics program modules (col. 2, 1. 52-col. 3, l. 1; col. 4, ll. 55-58; col. 7, l. 50-52). McCrossin is also pertinent to the problem of optimizing graphics program modules (col. 1, ll. 18-21; col. 5, ll. 46-58). The particular problem with which the Appellants are concerned is also optimizing graphics program modules. Therefore, we conclude that Grantham and McCrossin are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the Appellants are concerned, and therefore, can be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 5, 11, 14-16, and 18-21 which were not separately argued. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in finding that: 1. Grantham teaches a first process to “request a graphics service” with the request “comprising an indication of a function and an association between said function and a graphics object” as recited in claim 1; 2. Boudier teaches (a) determining whether an output product of a first of said graphics program modules will comprise data that is similar to an input product of a second of said graphics program Appeal 2010-003412 Application 11/696,647 9 modules, (b) examining each program line in said second graphics program module to determine if it negates the possibility of combining said first and second graphics program modules, (c) identifying references to said input product in the program code of said second graphics program module, and (d) altering or replacing said identified references to said input product, as recited in claim 13. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-21 is affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED rwk Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation