Ex Parte Marino

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 21, 2009

10057817 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 21, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHARLES F. MARINO
____________

Appeal 2008-6323
Application 10/057,817
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: January 21, 2009
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MARC S. HOFF, and CARLA M. KRIVAK,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, and 15-18. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appeal 2008-6323
Application 10/057,817

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant invented a method and system for blending images. The
method includes the step of bit slicing the multiplier of a blending unit so
that multiple operations can be performed per cycle. The system similarly
includes a blending unit with multipliers that perform multiple operations
per cycle. This method and system perform the blending function at a lower
cost.1 Independent claim 1 is reproduced below:

1. A method of blending at least two images using a blending
unit in a graphics engine, the blending unit including a plurality
of multipliers, the method comprising:

receiving a request for blending the at least two images,
each image having a pixel format; and

reconfiguring each blending unit multiplier to perform at
least two operations per multiplier per cycle, wherein the
reconfiguring includes bit slicing each multiplier according to
the pixel format.

The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejection:
Christensen US 5,612,710 Mar. 18, 1997
Allen US 5,838,387 Nov. 17, 1998
Flahie US 5,912,832 Jun. 15, 1999
Blomgren US 5,935,198 Aug. 10, 1999

1. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Blomgren (Ans. 3-5).

1 See generally Spec. 3:15-4:12 and 7:21-8:20.
Appeal 2008-6323
Application 10/057,817

2. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Blomgren, Flahie, and Christensen (Ans. 6).
3. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Blomgren and Allen (Ans. 7).
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
refer to the Brief and the Answer2 for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellant. Arguments, which Appellant could have made but did not make
in the Brief, have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ANTICIPATION REJECTION
Regarding representative independent claim 1,3 the Examiner finds
that Blomgren discloses all the recited elements (Ans. 3). Appellant first
argues that Blomgren does not disclose the step of reconfiguring the
multiplier to include bit slicing according to the pixel format (Br. 3-5).
Specifically, Appellant contends Blomgren discloses dividing the multiplier
into four eight-bit or sixteen-bit sections regardless of the pixel format and,
thus, fails to disclose the recitation in claim 1 of being “according to the
pixel format.” (B. 4-5) Appellant also argues Blomgren fails to disclose
blending two images as recited in claim 1 (Br. 5).

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed April 25,
2007, and (2) the most recent Examiner’s Answer mailed September 13,
2007.
3 Appellant argues claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, and 15-17 as a group (Br. 3-5).
Accordingly, select independent claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
3
Appeal 2008-6323
Application 10/057,817

ISSUES
The following issues have been raised in the present appeal:
(1) Has the Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding Blomgren
discloses bit slicing each multiplier “according to the pixel format” as
recited in claim 1?
(2) Has the Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding Blomgren
discloses a method for blending two images as recited in claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. Blomgren discloses the color of a pixel is made from red, green, and
blue components, and each color may be represented by an eight-bit
or sixteen-bit value (Blomgren, col. 1, ll. 49-52 and col. 13, l. 29).
2. Blomgren states that 3D graphic operations can be performed using
interpolation that includes operands B and C representing sub-pixels
of eight-bit or sixteen-bit color components of a pixel. This allows for
single step instructions (Blomgren, col. 6, ll. 38-61).
3. Blomgren explains that a thirty-two bit multiplier can be divided into
smaller sections of four eight-bit sections and that four smaller pixel
components can be interpolated simultaneously or in parallel
operation. Similarly, a sixty-four bit multiplier is divided into four
sixteen-bit sections that can be interpolated simultaneously or in
parallel (Blomgren, col. 13, ll. 28-42).
4
Appeal 2008-6323
Application 10/057,817

4. Blomgren discloses that the special effects feature uses the
interpolation instructions in order to create mist or fog superimposed
over another image or object (Blomgren, col. 3, ll. 19-54).
5. Independent claims 8 and 13 do not recite blending images.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Calif., Inc., 814
F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
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).

ANALYSIS
Blomgren discloses that the color of a pixel is made from red, green,
and blue components, and these colors can be represented by an eight-bit or
sixteen-bit value (FF 1). Thus, the color format in Blomgren for each pixel
or one type of pixel format includes an eight-bit or sixteen-bit value. (Id.)
Blomgren further explains that large multipliers having thirty-two or sixty-
four bits can be divided into smaller four eight-bit or sixteen-bit sections
respectively (FF 3). When performing 3D graphic operations, these smaller
sections represent sub-pixels or color pixel components and can be
processed simultaneously or in parallel during interpolation (FF 2-3). Given
the pixel format for red, green, and blue are eight or sixteen-bits, and the
5
Appeal 2008-6323
Application 10/057,817

multiplier is divided into either four eight-bit or sixteen-bit sections (FF 1-
3), Blomgren discloses that the multiplier is also divided according to the
image’s color pixel format. Moreover, Blomgren performs 3D graphic
operations using interpolation that includes operands representing sub-pixels
of a pixel (FF 2). We consider this pixel division into sub-pixels to be a type
of bit slicing that each multiplier performs. Thus, Blomgren discloses
“reconfiguring each blending unit multiplier . . . wherein the reconfiguring
includes bit slicing each multiplier according to the pixel format” as recited
in claim 1.
Moreover, we find that Appellant’s argument that Blomgren does not
disclose “bit slicing a same multiplier according to different pixel formats”
(Br. 4) (emphasis omitted) is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
Claim 1 does not recite a different pixel format, only “the pixel format.”
Thus, the pixel format of each image in the prior art can be the same, such as
Blomgren’s eight-bit or sixteen-bit color pixel format (FF 1), and still meet
the limitations of claim 1.
Lastly, Appellant contends that Blomgren does not disclose blending
two images (Br. 5). As a preliminary matter, we note that claim 1 recites the
limitations of “[a] method of blending at least two images using a blending
unit” and “receiving a request for blending the at least two images.” No
active blending step exists in the claim. In any event, as the Examiner notes
(Ans. 9-10), Blomgren discloses that the interpolation procedure can be used
to superimpose special effects, such as fog, translucency, or ghost effects,
over another image or object (FF 4). When superimposing special effects
over an image, a blending of colors as discussed in Blomgren (FF 4) must
occur. Blomgren, therefore, discloses “[a] method of blending at least two
6
Appeal 2008-6323
Application 10/057,817

images using a blending unit” and “receiving a request for blending the at
least two images” as recited in claim 1.
Additionally, as independent claims 8 and 13 do not include a
limitation of blending two images (FF 5), this argument is not commensurate
with the scope of independent claims 8 and 13.
For the above reasons, the rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, and 15-
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Blomgren is sustained.

REJECTION OVER BLOMGREN, FLAHIE, AND CHRISTENSEN
The Examiner finds the combination of Blomgren, Flahie, and
Christensen teaches all the recited limitations of claim 7 (Ans. 6-7).
Appellant refers to “[t]he above arguments regarding claim 1” (Br. 5) and
states neither Flahie nor Christensen cure the purported deficiencies. We are
not persuaded by Appellant’s argument for the reasons disclosed above with
regard to Blomgren and claim 1 and need not address whether Flahie or
Christensen cures any deficiency. This argument also fails to persuasively
rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness – a position we find
reasonable.
For the above reasons, Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Blomgren, Flahie, and Christensen.

REJECTION OVER BLOMGREN AND ALLEN
The Examiner finds that the combination of Blomgren and Allen
teaches all the recited limitations of claim 18 (Ans. 7). Appellant refers to
“[t]he above arguments regarding claim 13” (Br. 5) and states Allen does not
7
Appeal 2008-6323
Application 10/057,817

cure the purported deficiencies. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s
argument for the reasons disclosed above with regard to Blomgren and claim
1 and need not address whether Allen cures any deficiency. This argument
also fails to persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness – a position we find reasonable.
For the above reasons, Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Blomgren and Allen.

CONCLUSION
(1) The Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding
Blomgren discloses bit slicing each multiplier “according to the pixel
format” as recited in claim 1.
(2) The Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding
Blomgren discloses a method for blending two images as recited in claim 1.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, and 15-18
is affirmed.
8
Appeal 2008-6323
Application 10/057,817

No 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

ELD

HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC
75 STATE STREET
14TH FLOOR
ALBANY, NY 12207
9