Ex Parte King

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 13, 2009

10145234 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 13, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte WILLIAM DAVIS KING
________________

Appeal 2009-004694
Application 10/145,234
Technology Center 2100
________________

Decided: November 13, 2009
________________

Before LEE E. BARRETT, JEAN R. HOMERE, and DEBRA K.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-004694
Application 10/145,234

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 27-50. Claims 1-26 were cancelled.1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellant, the invention relates “to a method and
apparatus for changing the level of detail in computer graphics as a function
of available power.” (Spec. [1]). Further, “the invention makes image
rendering quality choices automatically in response to a pre-set user selected
desired image quality level and internal information or power statistics for
available power, current power usage, and target power levels.”
(Spec. [13]). “The complete set of instructions and all of the data used for
rendering the graphics are broken up into sets known as primitives. These
primitives are passed to the video graphics card or graphics accelerator 130,
where they are processed for display.” (Spec. [16]).

Exemplary Claim
27. A method for power management in a graphics display
system, comprising:
generating a user interface that enables a user to select a level of
graphics detail for each of a set of predetermined power levels in the
graphics display system;
rendering a graphics image using the level of detail that
corresponds to a current power level in the graphics display system by
adjusting a set of primitives sent to a geometry processing module.

1 App. Br. 13, Claims App'x.
Appeal 2009-004694
Application 10/145,234

3
Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Schmitz 5,544,318 Aug. 6, 1996
Aldrich 2003/0201990 A1 Oct. 30, 2003
Collins 6,697,953 B1 Feb. 24, 2004
Examiner's Rejections
1. The Examiner rejected claims 27-50 under 35 U.S.C. §112,
second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 27-28, 30-36, 38-44, and 46-50
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Collins and Aldrich.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 29, 37, and 45 under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Collins, Aldrich, and Schmitz.

THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. §112, SECOND PARAGRAPH
Claims 27-50
Appellant argues
[t]he examiner has stated that the omitted essential steps are
"how the system uses the settings to adjust the primitives" and
"what happens after the geometry processing module" … but
has not stated how the language of the specification makes it
clear that these "steps" are critical for the invention to function
as intended as required by MPEP §2164.08(c).

(App. Br. 8). Further, Appellant argues "that none of the steps enumerated
by the examiner on page 10 of the Examiner's Answer are essential within
the meaning of MPEP §2172.01 because the language of appellant's
specification does not make it clear that those seven steps are critical for the
invention to function” (Reply Br. 2).
Appeal 2009-004694
Application 10/145,234

4
The Examiner found (1) "[t]he recited claims seem to have a
disconnect;” (2) "[i]t is not clear from the claims how the level of graphics
detail and the primitives coincide nor how sending the primitives to some
module will affect the display;” and (3) "[t]he claims adjust primitives that
were not previously set or defined and does not explain how this is done."
(Ans. 10).

ISSUE
Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding that claims 27-50
are incomplete for omitting essential steps under 35 U.S.C. §112, second
paragraph?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
The test for definiteness under this standard is whether “those skilled in the
art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the
specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d
1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). Also, claims do not stand
alone, but rather “must be read in view of the specification, of which they
are a part.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(citation omitted).

FINDINGS OF FACTS
1. The invention of the present application “makes image rendering quality
choices automatically in response to a pre-set user selected desired image
Appeal 2009-004694
Application 10/145,234

5
quality level and internal information or power statistics for available power,
current power usage, and target power levels.” (Spec. [13]).
2. “The complete set of instructions and all of the data used for rendering
the graphics are broken up into sets known as primitives. These primitives
are passed to the video graphics card or graphics accelerator 130, where they
are processed for display.” (Id. at [16]).

ANALYSIS
Based on our review, we find one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand exemplary claim 27, when the claim is read in light of the
Specification. We find that a user of the present invention selects a desired
image quality level (i.e., the user selects a level of graphics detail), and for
that selected level of graphics detail there is corresponding internal
information or power statistics for available power, current power usage, and
target power levels (i.e., power levels that correspond to the level of graphics
detail selected) (FF 1).
Further, we find the present invention makes image rendering quality
choices (i.e., adjusts primitives), in response to the user's selection of the
level graphics detail and the corresponding power level, and the primitives
are passed to the video graphics card or graphics accelerator 130 (i.e., a
component that includes graphics processing functions), to be processed for
display (i.e., for rendering a graphics image) (FF 1-2).
Independent claims 35 and 43 are analogous and thus, for the reasons
stated above, we find that Appellant argues claims 27-50 as a group based
on representative claim 27 (App. Br. 7-8; see also Reply Br. 1-2).
Accordingly, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the Examiner's
Appeal 2009-004694
Application 10/145,234

6
conclusion that claims 27-50 are incomplete for omitting essential steps
under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as we find claims 27-50 are clear.
Thus, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 27-50 under
35 U.S.C. § 112.

THE §103(a) REJECTION OVER COLLINS AND ALDRICH
Claims 27-28, 30-36, 38-44, and 46-50
Appellant argues Aldrich (1) "teaches adjusting the number of bits per
pixel of data sent to a display and not adjusting a set of primitives sent to a
geometry processing module," and (2) "the display of Aldrich is not a
geometry processing module" (App. Br. 9) (emphasis omitted). Appellant
argues "the display of Aldrich is a display panel or monitor such as an LCD
panel … and the pixel data sent to the display of Aldrich is RGB color data"
(id.) (emphasis omitted). Further, Appellant argues
[i]n contrast, a set of primitives as claimed in claims 27, 35, and
43 defines a set of vertices for triangles, points, and lines along
with texture map, z-depth, and other 3D geometry information
… and a geometry processing module … transforms the
triangles, points, and lines into screen space coordinates for
subsequent generation of data for a display

(id. at 9-10).
Appellant also argues "[']bits per pixel['] as taught by Aldrich does not
define such geometry" (Reply Br. 2). Additionally, Appellant argues "if one
were to accept the [E]xaminer's argument that bits per pixel of data
anticipates appellant's claimed primitives[,] then appellant's claimed
geometry processing module would have no function because the examiner's
definition of primitives provides no geometry data.” (Id.).
Appeal 2009-004694
Application 10/145,234

7
The Examiner found that Appellant's Specification broadly defines
"primitives" as "'[t]he complete set of instructions and all of the data used
for rendering the graphics are broken up into sets known as primitives.
These primitives are passed to the video graphics card or graphics
accelerator 130, where they are processed for display.'" (Ans. 11) (quoting
Spec. [16]). Further, the Examiner found "Aldrich teaches adjusting the
number of bits-per-pixel used to render the graphics to be displayed." (Id.).
Additionally, the Examiner found "the term 'geometry processing module' is
merely a name without function and does not distinguish the claims over the
prior art" (id.).

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACTS
4. In computer graphics, a primitive is defined as shape, such as a line,
circle, curve, or polygon that can be drawn, stored and manipulated as a
discrete entity by a graphic program. A primitive also refers to one of the
elements from which a large graphic design is created. See MICROSOFT
COMPUTER DICTIONARY 419 (5th ed. 2002).

Aldrich Reference
5. Aldrich teaches an adaptive color depth control block 140 that
may receive input signals from power mode block 110, ambient
light sensor 120 and/or resource usage monitor 130. Any of
these three input signals may allow adaptive color depth control
block 140 to adjust the performance of system 10 through
adaptation of the number of bits-per-pixel for each of the three
primary colors, e.g., the color depth of the image file, supplied
to the display.

([0024]).
Appeal 2009-004694
Application 10/145,234

8

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
If the Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
Appellant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

ANALYSIS
We find a primitive is defined as one of the elements from which a
large graphic design is created. (See FF 4). Aldrich teaches adjusting the
performance of a system 10 by adaptation (i.e., changing) the bits-per-pixel
for each of the three primary colors (e.g., the color depth of the image file).
(See FF 5).
Thus, we find it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art that bits-per-pixel data are primitives, as images (i.e., graphic
designs) are created from pixels, and the bit-per-pixel data determines, for
example, the color depth of the image (i.e., graphic design) that will be
created on the display. Accordingly, the bits-per-pixel data are elements
utilized to create an image.
Appeal 2009-004694
Application 10/145,234

9
Further, exemplary claim 27 recites "rendering a graphics image … by
adjusting a set of primitives sent to a geometry processing module."
(App. Br. 13, Claims App'x). Based on our review of Appellant's
Specification, we find that Appellant fails to provide an express definition
for a "geometry processing module". Thus, we find one of ordinary skill in
the art would recognize the geometry processing module as a module that
receives primitives which are utilized to render a graphics image.
Additionally, we find the display of Aldrich, like the geometry processing
module of exemplary claim 27, receives the bit-per pixel-data (i.e.,
primitives) and utilizes it for rendering a graphics image (see FF 5).
Thus, Appellant has failed to persuade of us error in the Examiner's
conclusion of obviousness with regard to exemplary claim 27. Independent
claims 35 and 43 are commensurate in scope with independent claim 27, as
they similarly recite primitives that are sent to a geometry processing
module. (See App. Br. 14-15, Claims App'x). Accordingly, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of (1) independent claim 27, and claims 28, and 30-34
which depend therefrom and were not separately argued; (2) independent
claim 35, and claims 36, and 38-42 which depend therefrom and were not
separately argued; and (3) independent claim 43, and claims 44 and 46-50
which depend therefrom and were not separately argued.

THE §103(a) REJECTION OVER COLLINS, ALDRICH AND SCHMITZ
Claims 29, 37, and 45
With regard to claims 29, 37, and 45 Appellant fails to present any
new arguments. Thus, for the reasons discussed above with regard to
exemplary claim 27, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of (1) claim 29
Appeal 2009-004694
Application 10/145,234

10
which depends from independent claim 27; (2) claim 37 which depends from
independent claim 35; and (3) claim 45 which depends from independent
claim 43.
CONCLUSION
1. Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
27-50 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being incomplete for
omitting essential steps.
2. Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 27-28, 30-36, 38-44, and 46-50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Collins and Aldrich.
3. Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 29, 37, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Collins, Aldrich and Schmitz.

DECISION
We therefore:
(1) reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 27-50 under
35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph;
(2) affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 27-28, 30-36, 38-44, and
46-50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); and
(3) affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 29, 37, and 45 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).

Appeal 2009-004694
Application 10/145,234

11
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

nhl

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS CO 80528