Ex Parte Salvi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 12, 201813924713 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 13/924,713 06/24/2013 Marco Salvi P54753 1092 88032 7590 01/17/2018 TnrHanTPT aw T T C EXAMINER 12501 Prosperity Drive, Suite 401 Silver Spring, MD 20904 NGUYEN, PHONG X ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2618 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/17/2018 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): info@jordaniplaw.com admin @jordaniplaw.com inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARCO SALVI, AARON LEFOHN, and LARRY SEILER Appeal 2017-008658 Application 13/924,713 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants1 appeal from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—24, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to “REAL-TIME RENDERING FOR HIGH PIXEL DENSITY DISPLAYS.” Spec. 1 (title). More particularly, the disclosed invention relates to reducing the blurring of 1 Appellants identify the real party of interest as Intel Corporation. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-008658 Application 13/924,713 high definition/resolution edges produced by up-sampling lower resolution images to produce high resolution images. See Spec. 1 1. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 1. A system to render images, comprising: a graphics processor including, a depth module to obtain a plurality of visibility samples for an image at a sample resolution, wherein a first subset of the plurality of visibility samples has corresponding color samples and a second subset of the plurality of visibility samples lacks corresponding color samples, wherein both the first and second subsets of visibility samples include non-color sample data, an anti-aliasing module to replicate one or more of the color samples from the first subset to the second subset of the plurality of visibility samples without replicating non-color sample data, and a render module to render the visibility samples and the color samples at a native display resolution, wherein the sample resolution is to be greater than a pixel resolution of the image and greater than or equal to the native display resolution; and a display to reproduce the image based on the rendered color samples. Claims 1, 4—7, 10-13, 16—19, and 22—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Halstvedt et al. (US 2014/0267377 Al; Sept. 18, 2014) (“Halstvedt”). See Final Act. 5-11. Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, 15, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Halstvedt and Nystad et al. (US 2010/0110102 Al; May 6, 2010) (“Nystad”). See Final Act. 11-12. Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Brief (“Br.” filed May 5, 2016) and the Specification (“Spec.” filed June 24, 2013) for the positions of Appellants and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.” mailed 2 Appeal 2017-008658 Application 13/924,713 Nov. 4, 2015), and Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” mailed Oct. 5, 2016) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). ISSUES Appellants argue all pending claims together, without particularizing the arguments to the individual claims. See Br. 11—16. We discuss the appeal by reference to claim 1. The salient issues presented by Appellants’ arguments are as follows: First Issue: Does the Examiner err in finding Halstvedt teaches or suggests “obtaining] a plurality of visibility samples for an image at a sample resolution, wherein a first subset of the plurality of visibility samples has corresponding color samples and a second subset of the plurality of visibility samples lacks corresponding color samples” (hereinafter the “sampling limitation”), as recited in claim 1? Second Issue: Does the Examiner err in finding Halstvedt teaches or suggests “replicat[ing] one or more of the color samples from the first subset to the second subset of the plurality of visibility samples without replicating non-color sample data” (hereinafter the “replicating limitation”), as recited in claim 1 ? ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments and contentions (Br. 11—16) in light of the Examiner’s findings and explanations (Final Act. 2—12; 3 Appeal 2017-008658 Application 13/924,713 Ans. 3—13) regarding the argued claims. We generally agree with the Examiner’s findings, explanations, and conclusions, and, except as set forth below, we adopt them as our own. The following discussion, findings, and conclusions are for emphasis and to supplement those presented by the Examiner. First Issue The Examiner finds Halstvedt teaches or suggests the sampling limitation. Final Act. 5—6 (citing Halstvedt || 49, 73, 207, 212, 231, 248; Figs. 3, 7b); Ans. 3—5. In particular, the Examiner explains Fig. 7b and paragraph [0248] of Halstvedt discloses an exemplary fragment having four samples 90a, 90b, 90c, and 90d. Sample 90a has a valid color (Color 0), and therefore corresponds to the claimed ‘first subset[.’] On the other hand, samples 90b—90d do not have a valid color (hence labeled ‘N/A’ in Fig. 7b), and therefore can be regarded as the ‘second subset[.’] Ans. 11 (first bracket pair in original). Appellants argue, among other things, that “Halstvedt does not teach that only one of the subsets contains color data, as claimed. ... To the contrary, Halstvedt teaches at paragraph [0248] that both first and second subsets of visibility samples contain color data.” Br. 13 (citing Halstvedt 1248). Appellants further argue “Halstvedt expressly teaches at paragraphs [0244] to [0246] that all of the samples depicted in FIGS. 7a and 7b include color data.” Br. 14. We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive. Halstvedt is generally directed to computer graphics processing. Halstvedt 11. Halstvedt’s rasterizer receives an image and generates sets of four sampling points for each pixel of the image. See id. ^fl[ 59, 230; Figs. 3^4. Halstvedt’s four 4 Appeal 2017-008658 Application 13/924,713 sampling points for each pixel include data value types comprising color (RGB), transparency, and depth values. See id. 1231; Fig. 6. Halstvedt’s Figure 7B is reproduced below: 90 OolbniG N/A N/A N/A 90a 1 90b 90 c \ 90d T 98 FIG. 7b Halstvedt’s Figure 7b illustrates “sample data 90 that is stored for each group of four sampling positions that correspond to respective pixels of the render output in the tile buffer 106.” Halstvedt 1244. Sample data 90a, 90b, 90c, and 90d corresponds to a given pixel’s first, second, third, and fourth sampling positions, respectively. Id. 1245. Figure 7b of Halstvedt further “illustrates the situation where the sample data [90] should be taken to be the same for all of the sampling positions, and so the metadata 98 is set to ‘ 1’ to indicate this.” Id. 1248. Halstvedt further discloses that “only sample data 90a for the first sample position needs to contain valid data.” Id. The sampling limitation recites “obtain a plurality of visibility samples for an image at a sample resolution, wherein a first subset of the plurality of visibility samples has corresponding color samples and a second subset of the plurality of visibility samples lacks corresponding color samples.” Br. 18 (Claims App’x). The sampling limitation does not recite any limitations as to how the visibility samples for an image are determined or obtained other than at a sample resolution, and does not preclude Halstvedt’s sample data 90 that is stored for a group of four sampling 5 Appeal 2017-008658 Application 13/924,713 positions corresponding to a pixel. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Halstvedt obtains sample data 90a, 90b, 90c, and 90d (the recited “plurality of visibility samples”) for an image at a sample resolution, wherein sample data 90a at the given pixel’s first sampling position (the recited “first subset of the plurality of visibility samples”) has a color (the recited “corresponding color samples”) and sample data 90b, 90c, and 90d at the given pixel’s second, third, and fourth sampling positions (individually or collectively the recited “second subset of the plurality of visibility samples”) each have “N/A” (the recited “lacks corresponding color samples”). Second Issue The Examiner finds that Halstvedt discloses replicating one or more of the color samples from the first subset to the second subset of the plurality of visibility samples. Final Act. 6—7 (citing Halstvedt H 54—55, 151); Ans. 3—5. Although the Examiner acknowledges that “Halstvedt does not expressly disclose that non-color data is not replicated,” Final Act. 7, the Examiner cites Halstvedt for teaching this element. See Final Act. 8—9 (citing Halstvedt H 86, 101-02); Ans. 12—13 (additionally citing Halstvedt 11238, 243). The Examiner concludes “it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in a blending operation, it would not be necessary to replicate the depth data (non-color data) because this type of data is irrelevant.” Ans. 13. Appellants argue “the changes proposed by the [Examiner] are not motivated or suggested by Halstvedt. In addition, and assuming arguendo that one could or would modify Halstvedt as proposed by [the Examiner], 6 Appeal 2017-008658 Application 13/924,713 Appellants] further respectfully submit[] that the modification would nonetheless fail to teach” the replicating limitation. Br. 15—16. On appeal, an appellant may rebut the Examiner’s findings and reasoning with opposing evidence or argument. Failure to do so may constitute a waiver of potential arguments. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Appellants’ argument does not establish Examiner error because it is no more than a conclusory allegation of error without identifying the specific deficiencies in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Id.\ see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted [a previous version of] Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”); cf. In re Baxter TravenolLabs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“ft is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”). Summary Appellants do not persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of (1) claim 1; (2) independent claims 7, 13, and 19 which is argued relying on the arguments made for claim 1 (see Br. 15); (3) claims 2—6, 8—12, 14—18, and 20—24, which variously 7 Appeal 2017-008658 Application 13/924,713 depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 1,7, 13, and 19, and were not separately argued with particularity (see id. at 15—16). DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—24 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation