Ex Parte Kii et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

10946615 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/946,615 0912212004
23117 7590 03/02/2016
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Y asuyuki Kii
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.
LB-829-628 8504
EXAMINER
HAJNIK, DANIEL F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Y ASUYUKI KII and ISAO NAKAMURA
Appeal2014-003738
Application 10/946,615
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
finally rejecting claims 1 and 3-10, all the pending claims in the present
application. Claim 2 is canceled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to a three dimensional image
rendering apparatus for rendering polygons forming a three dimensional
object on a two dimensional display screen. See Abstract.
Appeal2014-003738
Application 10/946,615
Claim 9 is illustrative:
9. A three dimensional image rendering method for
rendering polygons forming a three dimensional object on a two
dimensional display screen, comprising:
a first step of obtaining information of at least one of a
first polygon which is closest to a point of view, and a second polygon
which is second closest to the point of view for each of the pixels
forming the display screen; and
a second step of, depending on a value of an edge
identification factor, which has only two values, a value of "1" when a
target pixel is located on at least one edge of the first polygon, and a
value of "O" when the target pixel is not located on an edge of the first
polygon, a color information of the target pixel is selectively obtained,
if the edge identification factor indicates that the target pixel is located
on at least one edge of the first polygon and the first polygon is
overlapping the second polygon, the color information of the target
pixel is obtained by mixing color information of the first polygon and
color information of the second polygon from the portion of the
second polygon located within the target pixel, wherein mixing is
performed in accordance with the formula:
where
cl(x,y) is color information of the first polygon,
c2(x,y) is color information of the second polygon,
a(x,y) is a mixing coefficient equal to the percentage of
the area in the pixel occupied by the first polygon closest to the point
of view, otherwise,
the color information of the target pixel is obtained
directly as being the same as the color information of the first
polygon, and outputting the color information for each of the pixels
forming the two dimensional display screen as image data being
displayed on the display screen.
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
2
Appeal2014-003738
Application 10/946,615
unpatentable over Dawson (US 2003/0197707 Al, Oct. 23, 2003),
Kuchkuda (US 5,872,902, Feb. 16, 1999), and Carpenter (Loren Carpenter,
The A-buffer, an Antialiased Hidden Surface Method Computer Graphics,
Vol. 18 pp. 103-106 (July 1984)).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 3-10
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined cited art
teaches or suggests that mixing is performed in accordance with the formula:
{cl(x,y)xa(x,y)+c2(x,y)x(IOO-a(x,y))}/100, where c2(x,y) is color
information of the second polygon, as set forth in claim 9?
Appellants contend "the Examiner has at best only shown that when a
different solution (of Carpenter) is applied to a very specific situation (of
Kuchkuda), the resulting effect can be analogous to the resulting effect of
the claimed invention .... the references fail to teach or suggest calculating
a color mix using the claimed color mixing formula" (App. Br. 12).
Appellants further contend that "in the proposed combination of Kuchkuda
and Carpenter, the mixing formula depends, in addition to the color
information of the first polygon, also on the color information of all the
other overlapping polygons (involved in the recursive calculation of Cout)"
(App. Br. 13) and "in the code of Carpenter, an entirely separate subroutine
is needed to recursively check whether there are remaining fragments,
regardless of how many total fragments there are" (Reply Br. 4).
The Examiner finds that "the formula in Carpenter actually becomes
equal to Appellants' formula in terms of functionality in the situation where
two polygons completely cover a given pixel. ... based upon (1) the
3
Appeal2014-003738
Application 10/946,615
evidence of record as demonstrated by the prior art and (2) the knowledge of
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention" (Ans. 4). We agree
with the Examiner.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that "Carpenter teaches an obvious
variation 1 of this mixing equation" (Final Act. 5)( emphasis omitted). For
example, Carpenter teaches dividing "the pixel into two parts, inside and
outside, ... the outside part is some yet to be discovered color weighted by
the complement of the fragment's area.
C = Cin X Ain + Cout X (1-Ain)
The yet to be discovered color is found by recursively calling the packing
routine .... " (see page 105 - section 7, second and third paragraphs).
Recognizing that claim 9 requires that "c2(x,y) is color information of
the second polygon" (see claim 9), the Examiner finds, and we agree, "when
Carpenter's formula is dealing with only two polygons (two fragments) in a
given pixel, then the equation of Carpenter is performing the color blending
in the same way [as] [Appellants'] claimed formula in claim 9" (Ans. 6). In
fact, Kuchkuda teaches the precise situation where only two polygons (i.e.,
pixlinks) are within a given pixel (see col. 9, 11. 40-43). Obviousness under
§ 103 is a legal conclusion based on factual evidence (In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). The Examiner has provided a factual basis for
concluding the Carpenter's formula actually becomes equal to Appellants'
formula in terms of obtaining color information of the second polygon in the
1 We note that whether a claim limitation is an "obvious variation" is
generally a key question in an obviousness-type double patenting analysis,
not a rejection under§ 103(a). Instead, obviousness under§ 103 is a legal
conclusion based on factual evidence (In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed.
Cir. 1988)). Therefore, our analysis here shall focus on the Examiner's
factual evidence.
4
Appeal2014-003738
Application 10/946,615
situation disclosed in Kuchkuda where two polygons completely cover a
given pixel.
In fact, "Appellant[s] agree[] with [the] Examiner's analysis of how
the computer code provided by Carpenter calculates Cout" (see Reply Br. 3),
but contend that "in the code of Carpenter, an entirely separate subroutine is
needed to recursively check whether there are remaining fragments" (id. at
4). In other words, Appellants contend that the claimed formula is
distinguishable from Carpenter's formula because Carpenter's code requires
additional steps, even in the two polygons scenario. We find this argument
unpersuasive.
Specifically, claim 9 recites "[a] ... method for rendering polygons ..
. comprising: .... " Here, the use of "comprising" in the preamble renders
the claim open to the use of additional steps and components, such as a
recursive step. Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261,
1271 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, even if Carpenter's code includes
additional steps, Appellants fail to persuasively rebut the Examiner's finding
that Carpenter's formula actually becomes equal to Appellants' formula in
terms of obtaining color information of the second polygon in the situation
disclosed in Kuchkuda where two polygons completely cover a given pixel.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9.
Appellants' arguments regarding the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 rely on the same arguments as for claim 9, and Appellants do not
argue separate patentability for the dependent claims. We, therefore, also
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-8, and 10.
5
Appeal2014-003738
Application 10/946,615
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1and3-10.
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
6