Ex Parte LUM et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2018

13969398 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/969,398 08/16/2013
102324 7590 09/21/2018
Artegis Law Group, LLP/NVIDIA
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
EricB.LUM
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.
NVDA/SC-12-0511-USl 7946
EXAMINER
LIU, GORDON G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2018 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):
kcruz@artegislaw.com
ALGdocketing@artegislaw.com
rsmith @artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC B. LUM and HENRY PACKARD MORETON
Appeal2018-003365
Application 13/969,398 1
Technology Center 2600
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is NVIDIA Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-003365
Application 13/969,398
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention relates to "graphics processing and, more
specifically, to rendering to multi-resolution hierarchies." Spec. ,r 1.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method;
independent claim 10 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium;
and independent claim 19 is directed to a system. App. Br. 15, 16, 18.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for processing a
multiresolution hierarchy, the method comprising:
associating a first composite virtual address with a first
fragment that is included in a first hierarchical level of the multi-
resolution hierarchy;
mapping the first composite virtual address to a first
physical address in a memory resource;
rendering the first fragment to a composite render target
based on the first composite virtual address, wherein the
composite render target includes all hierarchical levels of the
multi-resolution hierarchy; and
mapping a first texture virtual address associated with the
first hierarchical level to the first physical address.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, 15-17, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shebanow et al. (US 2012/0281004
Al; published Nov. 8, 2012) ("Shebanow"), Hoppe (US 6,426,750 Bl;
issued July 30, 2002), and Wu et al. (US 2010/0158101 Al; published June
24, 2010) ("Wu"). Final Act. 3.
2
Appeal2018-003365
Application 13/969,398
Claims 4, 5, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shebanow, Hoppe, Wu, and Everitt (US 7,746,352 B2;
issued June 29, 2010). Final Act. 24.
Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shebanow, Hoppe, Wu, and Bakalash (US 2009/0135190
Al; published May 28, 2009) ("Bakalash"). Final Act. 26.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites "wherein the composite render target includes all
hierarchical levels of the multi-resolution hierarchy."
The Examiner finds Wu's storing of different bit rate audiovisual
("AV") files for playback teaches the claimed composite render target, and
Wu's AV data configured to be streamed at different bit rates teaches
different resolutions and the claimed hierarchical levels of a multi-resolution
hierarchy. Final Act. 6 (citing Wu Fig.I, ,r,r 24, 32); see Ans. 3. According
to the Examiner, Wu's different bit rates teach different bit-depths, which
measure color resolution, and thereby encompass all hierarchical levels of a
multi-resolution hierarchy. Ans. 3. We disagree with these findings.
The claimed invention requires including all hierarchical levels of the
multi-resolution hierarchy. See claim 1. Appellants' Specification details an
example where a "mipmapped texture 410 is a multi-resolution hierarchy
that includes three hierarchical levels" (Spec. ,r 78) and the "layout shown
for the mipmapped texture 410 corresponds to the layout of the mipmapped
texture in both the PP memory 204 and the virtual address space associated
with the texture unit 315" (Spec. ,r 79), and the "composite render target is
large enough to include all of the levels included in the mipmapped texture
3
Appeal2018-003365
Application 13/969,398
41 O" (Spec. ,r 80). We find that the claimed including all levels of the multi-
resolution hierarchy, in light of Appellants' Specification, requires including
all resolutions and is distinguished from including different bit rates.
Here, we agree with Appellants that Wu does not teach the concept of
resolution or storing all hierarchical levels of a multi-resolution hierarchy.
App. Br. 11. Specifically, we agree with Appellants that the "bitrate of a
given media file is not equivalent to, and is not an accurate indicator of, the
resolution of the media file." App. Br. 11.
As cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 6; Ans. 3), Wu teaches "server
101 stores files of AV program 103 that contain AV data configured to be
streamed to the decoder ... at three different bit rates." Wu ,r 24. We find
Wu teaches storing files with different bit rates, but does not teach storing
data at all levels of a multi-resolution hierarchy as recited in claim 1. Thus,
we disagree with the Examiner's finding that Wu teaches the argued
limitation.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants regarding claim 1, we need not reach the merits of Appellants'
other arguments.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections of
independent claim 1, as well as commensurate independent claims 10 and
19, and dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, 20, and 21. See App. Br. 12-13.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are reversed.
4
Appeal2018-003365
Application 13/969,398
REVERSED
5