Ex Parte Oterhals et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201612588459 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/588,459 10/15/2009 73459 7590 09/28/2016 NIXON & V ANDERHYE, P.C. 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jon Erik Oterhals 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. JRL-613-147 3792 EXAMINER HE,WEIMING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/28/2016 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 JON ERIK OTERHALS, JORN NYSTAD, LARS ERICSSON, EIVIND LILAND, and DAREN CROXFORD Appeal2014-007020 Application 12/588,459 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3-10, 12-20, 22-3 2, 34, 3 5, and 3 7--4 7, all remaining claims of the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. Appeal2014-007020 Application 12/588,459 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to "frame buffer generation and similar operations in graphics processing systems" (Spec. 1 :5-6). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of operating a data processing system in which data generated by the data processing system is used to form an output array of data in an output buffer, the output array having multiple data positions, the method comprising: storing the output array of data in the output buffer by writing blocks of data representing particular regions of the output array of data to the output buffer, where each block of data represents a plurality of data positions in the output array; and when a block of data is to be written to the output buffer, comparing that block of data to at least one block of data already stored in the output buffer by comparing signatures representative of the content of the respective data blocks, and determining whether or not to write the block of data to the output buffer on the basis of the companson, \'I/herein if it is determined not to \'l1rite the block of data to the output buffer on the basis of the comparison, then the block of data is not written to the output buffer. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, 16, 18-20, 22- 24, 26, 28-32, 34, 35, and 37-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Hochmuth (US 2009/0033670 Al; Feb. 5, 2009), Delorme (US 2007/0083815 Al; Apr. 12, 2007), and Murashita (US 6,304,606 Bl; Oct. 16, 2001). The Examiner rejected claims 6, 9, 15, 17, 25, 27, and 40-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Hochmuth, Delorme, Murashita, and Nystad (US 2007/0146380 Al; June 28, 2007). 2 Appeal2014-007020 Application 12/588,459 ANALYSIS Appellants' main contention is the Examiner erred in finding Hochmuth discloses writing to an update buffer in blocks of data as Hochmuth only discloses writing to an update buffer on a pixel-by-pixel basis, as does Murashita (App. Br. 17-22). Appellants then contend the claimed "signatures representative of the content of the respective data blocks" cannot be used in Hochmuth as it would destroy the operation of Hochmuth. With respect to claims 28 and 29 Appellants contend Hochmuth and Delorme do not teach using comparison results for plural data blocks to estimate a correlation between different output arrays (App. Br. 23-24). We do not agree. Appellants argue Hochmuth and Murashita write to a buffer only on a pixel-by-pixel basis. However, as the Examiner finds, Hochmuth discloses each buffer bit "may pertain to an 8-by-8 group of pixels" (a block of pixels/data) (Hochmuth i-fi-f 17, 20; Ans. 2) and Murashita discloses an image includes a plurality of blocks (Final Act. 6; Ans. 3; Murashita, col. 1, 11. 54-- 55; Fig. 6, S2, S4; col. 6, 1. 57---col. 7, 1. 9; Fig. 8, elements 614, 616)). Thus, the Examiner has provided a reasonable finding that Hochmuth and Murashita suggest storing an output array of data in an output buffer by writing blocks of data, as claimed. Appellants do not address the Examiner's findings regarding Delorme. Instead, Appellants merely state the claimed signatures cannot be used in Hochmuth because Hochmuth teaches a comparator that operates on a pixel-by-pixel basis (App. Br. 22- 23). However, as noted above, we agree with the Examiner that Hochmuth does indeed disclose blocks of data as does Murashita. Further, Appellants contention that the proposed modification would "destroy the operation of 3 Appeal2014-007020 Application 12/588,459 Hochmuth" (App. Br. 23) is not persuasive. To establish such a teaching away, the prior art reference must criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the combination or solution claimed. See In re Fulton, 391 F .3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants' arguments do not address the Examiner's rationale for combining Hochmuth and Delorme, and do not provide evidence of either of the references criticizing, discrediting, or discouraging the Examiner's proposed combination other than to state Hochmuth does not operate on a pixel-by-pixel basis (App. Br. 21 ). Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, independent claims 10 and 20 not separately argued, and dependent claims 3-9, 12-19, 20, 22-27, 32, 35, 38, and 39 not separately argued (App. Br. 27). Appellants also contend the combination of Hochmuth, Murashita, and Delorme fails to teach the claim limitations of independent claims 28 and 29 (App. Br. 23). Appellants do not address the Examiner's findings. Rather, Appellants assert neither Hochmuth nor Delorme disclose "using the result of comparisons for plural data blocks to estimate the correlation between different output data arrays," stating the Final Office Action does not identify where Hochmuth discloses this limitation, without more (App. Br. 24). We do not agree. The Examiner finds Hochmuth' s paragraph's 14 and 15 and Delorme's paragraphs 9, 10, 12, 19, and 24 (and Fig. 3) disclose comparing signatures representative of the content of data blocks and using the result to estimate the correlation between different output arrays (Final Act. 16-19; Ans. 6-8). We further note estimating the correlation between different output arrays does not further limit claim 28, or claim 29, in any manner, as 4 Appeal2014-007020 Application 12/588,459 it is not clear what "the correlation" is or how the estimated correlation affects the data processing method (claim 28) or system (claim 29). Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 28 and 29. With respect to dependent claims 6, 9, 15, 17, 25, 27, and 40-47, the Examiner relies on Nystad only for disclosing "tile-based data graphics processing," which the other references do not explicitly disclose, supplementing the teaching of block-by-block operations of Hochmuth, Murashita, and Delorme (Final Act. 19-21; Ans. 8). Appellants' arguments do not take into account what the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art and are, therefore, ineffective to rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness (App. Br. 28-30). As the Court stated in In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981 ): The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the strr1cture of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. (Emphasis added) (citations omitted). Thus, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own and sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 9, 15, 17, 25, 27, and 40- 47. 5 Appeal2014-007020 Application 12/588,459 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-10, 12-20, 22-32, 34, 35, and 37--47 is affirmed. 1 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 1 In light of any further prosecution, the Examiner should consider a rejection of claims 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to software per se. 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation