Ex Parte Saulters

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2017

13730441 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2017)

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.
13/730,441 12/28/2012 Scott Saulters NVDA/TPl 10096US1 1507
102324 7590 03/10/2017
Artegis Law Group, LLP/NVIDIA
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
EXAMINER
BEARD, CHARLES LLOYD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/10/2017 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
mmccauley @ artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT SAULTERS
Appeal 2016-006216
Application 13/730,4411
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute all of the claims pending
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies NVIDIA Corporation as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-006216
Application 13/730,441
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed “to a method for
approximating motion blur in a rendered frame from within graphics driver.”
Spec. 12.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the relevant claim language
emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for approximating motion blur in a rendered
frame from within a graphics driver, comprising:
obtaining values of a frame transformation matrix for a
current rendered frame and a previous rendered frame
respectively;
obtaining depth values of the current rendered frame; and
loading a shader onto a GPU, in order to enable the GPU
to adjust color values of one or more sample areas on the current
rendered frame, based on at least the values of the frame
transformation matrix for the current rendered frame and the
previous rendered frame and the depth values of the current
rendered frame, a motion blur effect being created in the current
rendered frame.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Deering US 6,426,755 B1 July 30,2002
Aguaviva et al. (“Aquaviva”) US 2008/0033696 A1 Feb. 7, 2008
Son et al. (“Son”) US 2013/0063440 Al Mar. 14, 2013
REJECTION
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Deering in view of Aguaviva and Son. Final Act.
5—24; Adv. Act. 2.
2
Appeal 2016-006216
Application 13/730,441
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We
are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 1—20.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the cited prior art
teaches or suggests “obtaining values of a frame transformation matrix for a
current rendered frame and a previous rendered frame,” as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 3—7. According to Appellant, “[ojther than the
somewhat vague reference to a transformation matrix at [34:11—21], Deering
makes no other mention of transformation matrices.” App. Br. 10; see also
Reply Br. 3^4. Appellant further argues the Examiner merely identifies a
frame buffer, not a frame transformation matrix. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4.
Appellant also argue the Examiner’s claim construction is wrong.
App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 4—7. According to Appellant, “a transformation
matrix is a special matrix that describes 20 and 30 transformations. See
http://mathforum.org/mathimages/index.php/Transformation_Matrix.” App.
Br. 11.
The Examiner finds Deering teaches “obtaining values of a frame
transformation matrix for a current rendered frame and a previous rendered
frame respectively,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 6. More specifically,
the Examiner maps the disputed limitation to the Deering “frame buffer
and/or sample buffer associated with managing aspects of data of one or
more frames/scenes . . ., in relation with data modifications associated with
frames.” Final Act. 6 (emphasis omitted) (citing Deering 2:28—53, 3:21—53,
9:66—10:3, 10:18—29). The Examiner further finds:
3
Appeal 2016-006216
Application 13/730,441
Deering teaches calculated pixels that are stored in a frame buffer
(Deering; [Col. 10, lines 1—4]), wherein a frame buffer
corresponding to data memory 152 (Deering; [Col. 10, lines 18—
29 and Fig. 9]) that manages data values of a rendering unit 150
(i.e. setup and rendering process) that preforms one or more
calculations on said data values (Deering; [Fig. 9 and Col. 9, lines
14—41]), and wherein said calculation are transformations
(Deering; [Col. 9, lines 3—8 and lines 42-46 and Col. 34, lines
14—17]). Therefore, Deering teaches a memory and rendering
unit, wherein the memory is a frame buffer that comprises values
that have been transformed mathematically (i.e. translating,
scaling, rotating) corresponds to an abstract data structure (i.e.
matrix, memory allocation(s)) that represents any type of
(arbitrary) values related with linear transformations (i.e.
translating, scaling, rotating) that are in a consistent/unchanging
format (i.e. stored format).
Ans. 28 (emphasis omitted).
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) (internal citations and quotations
omitted). There is a presumption that a claim term carries its ordinary and
customary meaning. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
Cir. 2007). An applicant may rebut this presumption, however, by acting as
his own lexicographer, providing a definition of the term in the specification
with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” See In re Paulsen,
30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition,
limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims. In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “[Although the
specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we
have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those
4
Appeal 2016-006216
Application 13/730,441
embodiments. . . . [Cjlaims may embrace ‘different subject matter than is
illustrated in the specific embodiments in the specification.’” Phillips v.
AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (enbanc) (citations
omitted).
Appellant does not rely not on the Specification to support the
proposed claim construction. Instead, Appellant relies on a definition on a
webpage. See App. Br. 11. Appellant has not persuasively demonstrated
that the definition provided on that webpage is the ordinary and customary
meaning of the claim term. Accordingly, we do not adopt Appellant’s
construction. Instead, based on the current record, we determine no explicit
construction of the term is necessary to resolve the dispute. See Vivid
Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
We agree with the Examiner that Deering teaches a transformation
matrix. Specifically, Deering teaches that the blurring effect can be
achieved using a transformation matrix:
In other embodiments, the viewpoint used when rendering the
blurred objects is “jiggled” to implement depth of field effects,
and the scene (or perhaps just a part of it) is rendered multiple
times. The same or a similar effect may be achieved by
modifying the transformation matrix that is used during the set
up and rendering process for objects or scenes that are to be
blurred. In some embodiments, the motion blur effect described
above may be implemented by interpolating between an initial
model matrix state and a final model matrix state for one or more
intermediate states that will be filtered together to form the
blurred output pixels.
Deering 34:11—21 (emphasis added). Therefore, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred.
5
Appeal 2016-006216
Application 13/730,441
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejections of claims 10 and 19, which are argued on the same
grounds (App. Br. 13—14), along with dependent claims 2—9, 11—18 and 20,
which are not separately argued (id. ).
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting
claims 1—20.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6