Ex Parte Kii

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 25, 2011

10797743 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 25, 2011)

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.
10/797,743 03/09/2004 Yasuyuki Kii 61003 (70820) 3397
21874 7590 01/25/2011
EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER & DODGE LLP
P.O. BOX 55874
BOSTON, MA 02205
EXAMINER
REPKO, JASON MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte YASUYUKI KII
____________________

Appeal 2009-007253
Application 10/797,7431
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 The real party in interest is Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha.
2 The two month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304 or for filing a request for rehearing as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007253
Application 10/797,743

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s invention relates to a graphic processing apparatus and
method for providing shadowing of three-dimensional objects that
eliminates unintentional shadowing of edge portions of shadow polygons
due to errors in coordinate conversion calculated values (Abstract). The
graphic process is completed in three stages: a visual-point coordinate
conversion process, a hidden surface removal process, and a shadow
process. Specifically, a visual-point coordinate conversion processing unit 1
converts normal polygons representing the three-dimensional object(s) and
shadow polygons representing a shadow volume into visual-point
coordinates including x-coordinates and y-coordinates and depth values (Fig.
1; Spec. 9:15–10:1; ¶ [0078]). The visual point coordinates and depth values
of the shadow polygons are sorted into front-facing shadow polygons and
back-facing shadow polygons (Spec. 10:2-6). A calculation section 5
performs hidden surface removal processing on the normal polygons based
upon the visual-point coordinates and depth values (Abstract; Fig. 1).
Accordingly, pixel memory 6 and a Z-buffer memory 7 are updated with any
modification to the values (Abstract; Fig. 1). Based upon a comparison of
the depth values for each polygon and Z values stored in the Z-buffer
memory 7, shadow processing is conducted only on a coordinate region
positioned in front of back-facing shadow polygons and behind front-facing
shadow polygons (Abstract; Fig. 1). After the shadow processing is
performed, pixel memory 6 is updated (Abstract).
Appeal 2009-007253
Application 10/797,743

3
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A graphic processing apparatus having a Z-buffer memory
storing a Z value representing a depth of a display object when seen
from a visual point per pixel and a pixel memory storing color data on
each pixel for creating an image of a shadowed three-dimensional
object having a shadow produced by obstructing a ray of light from a
light source by the three-dimensional object, comprising:
a visual-point coordinate conversion processing section for
upon input of graphic data on normal polygons constituting each
object including the three-dimensional object and on shadow polygons
constituting a shadow volume that defines a shadow space produced
by obstructing the ray of light from the light source by the three-
dimensional object, converting the graphic data to visual-point
coordinates including x-coordinates and y-coordinates and depth
values, and outputting the obtained visual-point coordinates and depth
values in a state of being sorted into those of front-facing shadow
polygons that face front, those of back-facing shadow polygons that
face back when seen from the visual point, and those of the normal
polygons; and
a hidden surface removal and shadowing processing section for
obtaining a coordinate region that is positioned behind the front-
facing shadow polygons and in front of the back-facing shadow
polygons when seen from the visual point based on the visual-point
coordinates, the depth values and the Z-buffer memory after hidden
surface removal processing by Z-buffer method is performed on the
normal polygons, and updating color data on pixels in the pixel
memory corresponding to the obtained coordinate region to shadow
color data.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kelley US 5,517,603 May 14, 1996
Takeuchi US 6,402,615 B1 Jun. 11, 2002
Shimizu US 6,744,430 B1 Jun. 1, 2004
(filed Jul. 20, 2000)
Appeal 2009-007253
Application 10/797,743

4
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Shimizu.
Claims 2 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Kelley.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Takeuchi.

ISSUE
Appellant contends that Shimizu does not disclose performing hidden
surface removal and shadow processing in order to obtain a coordinate
region “positioned behind the front-facing shadow polygons and in front of
the back-facing shadow polygons,” as claimed (App. Br. 7). Appellant
asserts that the “‘layer by layer’ approach to outputting polygon IDs, as
disclosed in Shimizu, does not teach or suggest the Appellant’s claimed
coordinate region ‘positioned behind the front-facing shadow polygons and
in front of the back-facing shadow polygons’” and that the claims “do not
require ‘layer by layer’ processing” (App. Br. 7). Appellant argues that the
Examiner has used impermissible hindsight reasoning since there is no
support in Shimizu that “‘if a polygon is inside a volume, then it is behind
the front facing shadow polygons and in front of the back facing shadow
polygons relative to a viewpoint, and vice versa’” (App. Br. 8 (quoting Final
Office Action 14)).
Appellant’s contentions present us with the following dispositive
issue: Do the references disclose a graphic processing apparatus that
includes:
Appeal 2009-007253
Application 10/797,743

5
a hidden surface removal and shadowing processing
section for obtaining a coordinate region that is positioned
behind the front-facing shadow polygons and in front of the
back-facing shadow polygons when seen from the visual point
based on the visual-point coordinates, the depth values and the
Z-buffer memory after hidden surface removal processing by Z-
buffer method is performed on the normal polygons, and
updating color data on pixels in the pixel memory
corresponding to the obtained coordinate region to shadow
color data (claim 1)?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Invention
1. A shadow volume defines a shadow space produced by a ray of
light from a light source being obstructed by an object. The shadow volume
is bounded by the front-facing shadow polygon(s) (CBFG and AEFB) and
the back-facing shadow polygon(s) (AEGC) (Fig. 12; ¶ [0006]-[0007];Spec.
5:14-16).
Shimizu
2. Shimizu discloses that when an opaque polygon 91 is
positioned in the foreground and another opaque polygon 92 is positioned
behind polygon 91, intercepting area 93 is not delineated since it will not be
seen from the viewpoint of an observer (Fig. 15A; col. 12, ll. 64-66).
3. Shimizu discloses an attribute alteration unit 76 that performs
processing for decision volumes such as shadow volumes and modifier
volumes. Specifically, “Dijon volume processing determines whether a
subject polygon is inside or outside of a [sic] shadow volume polygons or
Appeal 2009-007253
Application 10/797,743

6
modifier volume polygons” (Figs. 22, 24; col. 17, ll. 9-14). One
embodiment of the attribute alteration unit includes region buffers 130-1 to
130-n that store information regarding whether pixel data corresponding to a
subject polygon is inside or outside of a volume (region), pixel by pixel (Fig.
24; col. 18, ll. 10-12, 49-51).
4. Shimizu discloses a geometry block 63 that converts polygon
data PD1 from a three-dimensional world coordinate system to polygon data
PD2 in a two-dimensional screen coordinate system (Fig. 10; col. 10, ll. 45-
50). Polygon data PD2 is supplied to pixel data generator 64 for further
conversion to pixel data PD3 using fractal processing or raster scan
processing (Fig. 10; col. 11, ll. 8-10). A pixel sorter 65 rearranges the pixel
data in Z value order, where the pixel data includes the polygon ID, polygon
attribute information, screen coordinates (Sx, Sy), Z values, color
information (R, G, B, a value), texture IDs, texture coordinates (Tx, Ty), and
level of detail (LOD) offset values (Figs. 10, 13; col. 11, ll. 25-36).
5. Shimizu discloses that since polygon C is on the inside of
volume A defined by a front-facing polygon a1 (“front surface”) and back-
facing polygon a2 (“back surface”), the light volume with respect to shadow
processing of relevant pixels is invalidated (Fig. 26A; col. 20, ll. 6-12; col.
22, ll. 4, 31, 56-59)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
Anticipation pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102 is established when a single
prior art reference discloses expressly or under the principles of inherency
each and every limitation of the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v.
Appeal 2009-007253
Application 10/797,743

7
IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under 35
U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope of the claim. We
determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the
basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable
construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The properly interpreted claim must then be
compared with the prior art.
Obviousness
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 9-11
We select claim 1 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Representative claim 1 recites a graphic processing apparatus that
includes
a hidden surface removal and shadowing processing
section for obtaining a coordinate region that is positioned
behind the front-facing shadow polygons and in front of the
Appeal 2009-007253
Application 10/797,743

8
back-facing shadow polygons when seen from the visual point
based on the visual-point coordinates, the depth values and the
Z-buffer memory after hidden surface removal processing by Z-
buffer method is performed on the normal polygons, and
updating color data on pixels in the pixel memory
corresponding to the obtained coordinate region to shadow
color data.
Independent claims 4 and 9 contain claim limitations similar in scope.
We do not consider Appellant’s arguments to be persuasive to show
Examiner error. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Shimizu
discloses a “hidden surface removal processing” where “area 93 of the
opaque polygon 92 is not delineated, so that it will not be seen from the view
point of an observer” (Ans. 18; FF 2). Specifically, Shimizu discloses that
when an opaque polygon 91 is positioned in the foreground and another
opaque polygon 92 is positioned behind polygon 91, intercepting area 93 is
not delineated since it will not be seen from the viewpoint of an observer
(FF 2). Therefore, Shimizu discloses that specific overlapping regions of an
object are removed when they are hidden from visual point of the observer
(FF 2).
We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that Shimizu discloses
shadow processing where the “coordinate region that is positioned behind
the front-facing shadow polygons and in front of the back-facing shadow
polygons when seen from the visual point based on the visual-point
coordinates” is the region that is subjected to shadow processing as claimed
(Ans. 6-7). Shimizu discloses an attribute alteration unit 76 that performs
processing for decision volumes such as shadow volumes and modifier
volumes (FF 3). Specifically, Dijon volume processing determines whether
a subject polygon is inside or outside of a shadow volume polygons or
Appeal 2009-007253
Application 10/797,743

9
modifier volume (polygons) (FF 3). One embodiment of attribute alteration
unit 76 includes region buffers 130-1 to 130-n that store information as to
whether pixel data corresponding to the subject polygon is inside or outside
a volume (region), pixel by pixel (FF 3). By definition, shadow volume
defines a shadow space produced by a ray of light from a light source being
obstructed by an object (FF 1). The shadow volume is bounded by front-
facing and back-facing shadow polygons (FF 1). Therefore, we agree with
the Examiner that if a polygon is within the shadow volume, “it is behind the
front-facing shadow polygons and in front of the back-facing shadow
polygons relative to a viewpoint, and vice versa” (Ans. 6-7).
Regarding the coordinate region determination, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Shimizu discloses that the region of “relevant
pixels” is defined by the screen coordinates (x, y) that indicate positions on
the display screen (Ans. 19 (May 28, 2008); FF 4). Shimizu discloses a
geometry block 63 that converts polygon data PD1 from a three-dimensional
world coordinate system to polygon data PD2 in a two-dimensional screen
coordinate system (FF 4). Polygon data PD2 is supplied to pixel data
generator 64 for further conversion to pixel data PD3 using fractal
processing or raster scan processing (FF 4). A pixel sorter 65 that rearranges
the pixel data in Z value order, where the pixel data includes the polygon ID,
polygon attribute information, screen coordinates (Sx, Sy), Z values, color
information (R, G, B, a value), texture IDs, texture coordinates (Tx, Ty), and
level of detail (LOD) offset values (FF 4). The screen coordinates (Sx, Sy)
correspond to the coordinate region determination. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Shimizu discloses that a coordinate region is
obtained for polygon C which is inside of volume A defined by front-facing
Appeal 2009-007253
Application 10/797,743

10
polygon a1 and back-facing polygon a2 (FF 5). Shimizu discloses that,
when a subject polygon is inside of a volume, the light with respect to
shadow processing of relevant pixels is invalidated (FF 5).
With respect to the layer-by-layer approach, we agree that although
the claimed invention does not require a layer-by-layer approach, the claim
limitations do not exclude the layer-by-layer approach (Ans. 16-17). As
such, we find that Appellant’s argument that Shimizu’s layer-by-layer
approach to outputting polygon IDs does not teach or suggest Appellant’s
claimed coordinate region positioning (App. Br. 7) is not commensurate
with the scope of the claims.
Therefore, we find that Shimizu teaches a graphic processing
apparatus recited in claim 1. As a result, we will sustain the Examiner’s
§ 102 rejection of representative claim 1 and that of claims 3, 4, 6, and 9-11.
Claims 2 and 5
Appellant presents no separate argument for the patentability of
dependent claims 2 and 5, which depend from claims 1 and 4, respectively.
We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Kelley for the same reasons expressed
supra with respect to parent claims 1 and 4.
Claims 7 and 8
Appellant presents no separate argument for the patentability of
dependent claims 7 and 8, which depend from claim 4. We therefore affirm
the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as be unpatentable
over Shimizu in view of Takeuchi for the same reasons expressed supra with
respect to independent claims 1 and 4.

Appeal 2009-007253
Application 10/797,743

11
CONCLUSION
The references disclose a graphic processing apparatus that includes
a hidden surface removal and shadowing processing
section for obtaining a coordinate region that is positioned
behind the front-facing shadow polygons and in front of the
back-facing shadow polygons when seen from the visual point
based on the visual-point coordinates, the depth values and the
Z-buffer memory after hidden surface removal processing by Z-
buffer method is performed on the normal polygons, and
updating color data on pixels in the pixel memory
corresponding to the obtained coordinate region to shadow
color data (claim 1).

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 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

babc

EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER & DODGE LLP
P.O. BOX 55874
BOSTON, MA 02205