Ex Parte Preetham et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 5, 2016

13540406 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2016)

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.
13/540,406 07/02/2012 Arcot J. PREETHAM AMD-050017-US-CNT 2959
25310 7590 12/07/2016
VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C.
DEPT. AMD
UNITED PLAZA
30 SOUTH 17TH STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
EXAMINER
AMIN, JWALANT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/07/2016 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):
eoffice @ volpe-koenig. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARCOT J. PREETHAM, ANDREW S. POMIANOWSKI,
and RAJA KODURI
Appeal 2016-002336
Application 13/540,4061
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ERIC B. CHEN, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 2—21, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this appeal. Claim 1 has been canceled. App. Br. 3. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as ATI, Technologies Inc.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-002336
Application 13/540,406
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention is directed to a video data processing method
and apparatus using a plurality of video processing units (VPUs) to process a
same video frame data in a single pass. Spec. 135. In particular, upon
receiving a command from a driver (106) to process video frame data from
an application, a first and second VPUs (108, 110) process the frame data at
a first and second sampling rates, respectively. Subsequently, a compositor
(112) composites the sampled frame data to generate an output video. Id. Tffl
36-40, Fig. 1.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 2 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
2. A video processing system comprising:
a driver that allows video data input from an application;
a plurality of video processing units (VPUs) that receive at least one
command from the driver to process frame data from the video data and
process the frame data in a single pass by sampling the pixels of the frame
data such that at least a first VPU processes the frame data using a first
sampling and a second VPU processes the frame data using a second
different sampling; and
a compositor that composites the processed frame data that are based upon
at least two different samplings and generates an output frame;
wherein the first and second samplings are from the same frame data.
2
Appeal 2016-002336
Application 13/540,406
Prior Art Relied Upon
Hayes et al. US 6,574,753 B1 June 3, 2003
Leather et al. US 2004/0066388 Al Apr. 8, 2004
Morgan III et al. US 6,756,989 B1 June 29, 2004
Kaufman et al. US 2004/0125103 Al July 1,2004
Lefebvre et al. US 6,924, 799 B2 Aug. 2, 2005
Hancock US 2005/0206645 Al Sept. 22, 2005
Cote et al. US 6,952,211 B1 Oct. 4, 2005
Bastos et al. US 6,967,663 B1 Nov. 22, 2005
McGee et al. US 2006/0034190 Al Feb. 16, 2006
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 2, 4—10, 14—16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination Lefebvre and Morgan.
Claims 3, 17, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Lefebvre, Morgan, Hancock,
and Leather.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Lefebvre, Morgan, Haynes, and
McGee.2
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Lefebvre, Morgan, Haynes and
McGee.
2 This Examiner’s statement of the rejection inadvertently includes claim 14,
which was discussed in an earlier rejection. Final Act. 8.
3
Appeal 2016-002336
Application 13/540,406
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Lefebvre, Morgan, Hancock, Leather,
Bastos, and Kaufman.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 6—19 and the Reply Brief, pages 4—12.3
Regarding the rejection of claim 2, Appellants argue that the
combination of Lefebvre and Morgan does not teach or suggest a video
processing unit that processes frame data. App. Br. 13. In particular,
Appellants argue that Morgan relates to a system for filtering a texture
applied to a surface of a computer-generated object, whereas the claimed
video processing system uses frame data. Id. at 13—14. According to
Appellants, Morgan’s computer generated object is not compatible with the
processing of video frame data processed by a video processing system,
which would not use “images” having alpha pixel data. Id. at 14—18, Reply
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 17, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed Dec. 4,
2015), and the Answer (mailed Oct. 5, 2015) for their respective details. We
have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). We note Appellants’ arguments alleging the
Examiner’s failure to practice compact prosecution, but instead provides
different theories of rejection based upon Lefebvre alone or in combination
with other references. App. Br. 8—12. However, such arguments would be
better suited in a petition to the Director of the Technology center that
oversees the Examiner’s Art Unit. Consequently, we do not reach those
arguments.
4
Appeal 2016-002336
Application 13/540,406
Br. 7. That is, Morgan’s system is suitable for rendering data, as opposed to
processing video frame data. Id. These arguments are not persuasive.
At the outset, we note Appellants’ own Specification indicates that
embodiments of the invention can be implemented using multisampling and
oversampling techniques in a system with a video processing unit (VPU) or
a graphics processing unit (GPU), wherein VPU and GPU are
interchangeable terms. Spec. 135. Thus, one of ordinary skill would have
been readily apprised that the texture image processing performed by a GPU
is analogous to the frame data processing performed by a VPU.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Morgan’s rendering of texture
image by a graphics processing system (800/900) or a GPU (as evidenced by
Cote 6:18—22) teaches or suggests the processing of frame data by a VPU.
Ans. 7—8. Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1.
Regarding claims 3—21, because Appellants reiterate substantially the
same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 2
above, claims 3—21 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims
2-21.
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
5