11953238 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2014)

Ex Parte LeFrancois

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 30, 2014

11953238 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2014)

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. 11/953,238 12/10/2007 Martin-Karl LeFrancois MENT-204-US 1818 86739 7590 10/01/2014 Jacobs & Kim / MI 303 Wyman Street Suite 300 Waltham, MA 02451-1208 EXAMINER HOANG, PHI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2613 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/01/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MARTIN-KARL LEFRANCOIS ____________ Appeal 2012-007111 Application 11/953,238 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CATHERINE SHIANG, and CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-007111 Application 11/953,238 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 4–8, and 12–14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to accurately rendering transparency by configuring a shader element of the computer graphics system to first extract all layers of an image representation and obtain depth information therefrom, and then rendering all layers back-to-front with shading enabled, such that information obtained from a previously processed layer is available for processing of a current layer. See Abstract. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method, executable in a computer graphics system, the computer graphics system being operable to render images for storage or for displaying on a display element, the computer graphics system comprising a shader for shading elements and layers of an image representation, the displaying comprising the display of images on the display element, wherein the rendering of an image comprises utilizing the shader and the computer graphics system to generate pixel values corresponding to pixels in an image representation, the method comprising: configuring the shader to execute transparency rendering, the transparency rendering comprising: (A) in the shader, first extracting a plurality of layers of an image representation and obtaining depth information therefrom, and (B) in the shader, then rendering the plurality of layers back-to- front with shading enabled, such that information obtained from a previously processed layer is available for processing of a current layer, to enable accurate rendering of transparency; and configuring the shader to execute local volume rendering, using Appeal 2012-007111 Application 11/953,238 3 information obtained from the layer extracting, wherein executing local volume rendering comprises utilizing ray marching. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 7, 8, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) being unpatentable over Lathrop (US 6,597,359 B1; Jul. 22, 2003) in view of Yang (US 2005/0285858 A1; Dec. 29, 2005). 2. The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lathrop, Yang, and Lokovic (US 2006/0119600 A1; Jun. 8, 2006). 3. The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lathrop, Yang, Lokovic, and Chen (US 2006/0028468 A1; Feb. 9, 2006). ISSUE The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding Lathrop in view of Yang teaches “first extracting a plurality of layers of an image representation and obtaining depth information therefrom” as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 4–8, and 12–14 Appellant argues, inter alia, Lathrop does not teach “first extracting a plurality of layers of an image representation and obtaining depth information therefrom” (App. Br. 26). Appellant in particular argues Lathrop does not perform layer-by-layer rendering, but rather, renders transparent object 5 by using a weighted average of light traveling through Appeal 2012-007111 Application 11/953,238 4 the object, and the light reflecting off of the surface of the object (App. Br. 29). We agree with Appellant. The Examiner, citing Lathrop, asserts that one skilled in the art would know that there is determination of layers each time rays are created due to an interaction of a previous ray with an object (see col. 1, l. 52-col. 2, l. 22; Ans. 19). We do not agree with the Examiner’s assertion, as the cited sections by the Examiner neither teach nor suggest determination of layers. We note that the additional reference of Yang does not cure the above cited deficiencies. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1and for the same reasons, the rejections of claims 4–8 and 12–14. Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 for the same reasons as stated supra. We note that the additional references of Lokovic and Chen, either alone or in combination, do not cure the above cited deficiencies. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that Lathrop in view of Yang teaches “first extracting a plurality of layers of an image representation and obtaining depth information therefrom” as recited in claim 1. Appeal 2012-007111 Application 11/953,238 5 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4–8, and 12–14 is reversed. REVERSED dw