Ex Parte Kent

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 21, 2006

10086980 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is
not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte OSMAN KENT
__________

Appeal No. 2006-1687
Application No. 10/086,980
___________

HEARD: September 12, 2006
___________

Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH, and MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5 and 7 through 35.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and system for bypassing a defective one of a
plurality of parallel graphics computational units, and distributing incoming tasks only among
operative ones of the parallel graphics computational units.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
1. A graphics processor, comprising:
a plurality of parallellized graphics computational units; and
one or more task allocation units programmed to bypass defective ones of said units
within said groups, and to distribute incoming tasks only among operative ones of
said units .

Appeal No. 2006-1687
Application No. 10/086,980

2
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Brent et al. (Brent) 5,459,864 Oct. 17, 1995
Baldwin 6,025,853 Feb. 15, 2000
Claims 1, 3 through 5 and 7 through 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baldwin in view of Brent.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5 and 7 through 35.
We agree with the examiner’s finding (answer, page 3) that “Baldwin teaches a graphics
processor [Figure] (2E) comprising a plurality of parallelized graphics computational units (col.
64, lines 16-21, 25-29 and 38-40), such as, rasterizer, scissor, stipple, alpha test, fog, texture,
stencil test, depth test, local and frame buffer controllers.” We additionally agree with the
examiner’s finding (answer, page 3) that “Baldwin fails to explicitly teach or suggest one or
more task allocation units programmed to bypass defective ones of said subunits within said
groups, and distribute incoming tasks only among operative ones of said subunits.”
With respect to Brent, we agree with the examiner’s finding (answer, page 3) that “Brent
teaches a load balancing, error recovery and reconfiguration control in a data movement
subsystem with cooperating plural queue processors (Fig. 2, abstract, col. 2, lines 39-45, col. 5,
lines 49-52 and col. 6, lines 11-18).” We do not, however, agree with the examiner’s conclusion
Appeal No. 2006-1687
Application No. 10/086,980

3
(answer, pages 3 and 4) that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify the
teachings of Baldwin with the teachings of Brent for the advantage of “automatic load balancing
among plural processors, automatic recovery from any failing processor, and automatic
reconfiguration for the subsystem containing the processors without intervention from the
operating system as taught by Brent (col. 1, lines 18-24)” because Baldwin only uses a single
graphics processor. If Baldwin’s single graphics processor fails, then the system will cease to
function for lack of another graphics processor to turn to for help (brief, page 15).
In summary, the rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5 and 7 through 35 is reversed for lack
of a prima facie case of obviousness.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 3 through 5 and 7 through 35 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.

Appeal No. 2006-1687
Application No. 10/086,980

4
REVERSED

KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ALLEN R. MACDONALD )
Administrative Patent Judge )

KWH/kis

Appeal No. 2006-1687
Application No. 10/086,980

5
GROOVER & HOLMES
BOX 802889
DALLAS, TX 75380-2889