Ex Parte Sevastianov et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 29, 2010

10953868 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 29, 2010)

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.
10/953,868 09/30/2004 Igor Sevastianov ITL.1951US (P19317) 1870
47795 7590 11/30/2010
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
1616 S. VOSS RD., SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631
EXAMINER
REPKO, JASON MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2628
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex Parte IGOR SEVASTIANOV, ALEXEI M. SOUPIKOV, and
ALEXANDER V. RESHETOV
____________

Appeal 2009-007978
Application 10/953,868
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
BRADLEY WILLIAM BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-12, 14-19, 21-23, and 26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-007978
Application 10/953,868

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is a method for rendering a computer
graphics scene as a set of triangles. For each triangle a list of photons (kd-
tree) is constructed. For each triangle a set of control points is identified.
(Abstract)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method comprising:

distributing photons over a computer graphics scene comprising
a plurality of triangles; and

for a first triangle,

constructing a list of photons that strike the first triangle;

building a first kd-tree of photons for the first triangle;

selecting at least one control point in the first triangle;

computing a specific illumination estimate for each
control point in the first triangle based on at least one photon in
the kd-tree of photons;

building a first kd-tree of control points distinct from the
first kd-tree of photons for the first triangle;

determining an illumination estimate for the first triangle
based on at least one control point in the kd-tree of control
points; and

displaying the first triangle having the illumination
estimate on an output device.

Appeal 2009-007978
Application 10/953,868

3
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15-19, 21-23, and 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Jensen (Global
Illumination Using Photon Maps (hereinafter “Jensen 1”))2, Jensen
(Rendering Caustics on Non-Lambertian Surfaces (hereinafter “Jensen 2”))3,
Christensen (Faster Photon Map Global Illumination)4, and Larsen
(Optimizing Photon Mapping Using Multiple Photon Maps for Irradiance
Estimates)5.
The Examiner rejected remaining claims 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 19, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of various combinations
of the above references in addition to Cammarano (Time Dependent Photon
Mapping)6 and Davis (US 5,997,965).
The Examiner finds Appellants’ claims do not require control point
locations and photon map locations be mutually exclusive (Ans. 29). The
Examiner further finds Christensen discloses using photon locations for
control points (Section 2.1; Ans. 29).
Appellants contend the Examiner is incorrect in finding photons and
control points are the same, as the claims specifically recite “a first kd-tree
of control points distinct from the first kd-tree of photons” for a first triangle
(App. Br.12-14; Reply Br. 1; emphasis added). Further, Appellants contend,

2 Jensen, Global Illumination Using Photon Maps, June 17, 1996, pp. 21-30.
3 Jensen, Rendering Caustics on Non-Lambertian Surfaces, May 1996.
4 Christensen, Faster Photon Map Global Illumination, Journal of Graphics
Tools, Vol. 4, No. 3, April 1999, pp. 1-10
5 Larsen, Optimizing Photon Mapping Using Multiple Photon Maps for
Irradiance Estimates, February 3, 2003
6 Cammarano, et al., Time Dependent Photon Mapping, June 26, 2002, pp.
135-144
Appeal 2009-007978
Application 10/953,868

4
Christensen and the remaining cited art teach only one kd-tree (App. Br. 14;
Reply Br. 2).
Section 2.1 of Christensen relates to precomputation of irradiances.
The Examiner has not explained how these irradiances relate to control
points, other than to say they do (Ans. 8, 28). Further, the claims
specifically recite “building a first kd-tree of control points distinct from the
first kd-tree of photons for the first triangle” (emphasis added). This
language does require the control point locations and photon map locations
to be mutually exclusive, contrary to the Examiner’s assertion. We also
agree with Appellants that Larsen does not suggest finding kd-trees for
something other than photon locations (App. Br. 14). Thus, combining
Larsen with Christensen, where Christensen stores only photon positions,
would not result in Appellants’ claimed invention (Reply Br. 3).
Because Larsen and Christensen were cited against independent
claims 12, 15, 19, 22 and 26, and these claims include substantially the same
limitations as claim 1, these claims and dependent claims 2-11, 14, 16-18, 21
and 23, are not obvious over the collective teachings of the cited references.7

7 Claim 26 recites “building a first kd-tree of control points in the first
triangle distinct from the kd-tree of control points” (emphasis added). It
appears this is a typographical error as claims 1 and 15 both recite “distinct
from the kd-tree of photons” as amended by the Amendment of November 5,
2007. Thus, we take this language to be harmless error and leave this matter
to be addressed by Appellants and the Examiner in any further prosecution
in this application.
Appeal 2009-007978
Application 10/953,868

5
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-12, 14-19, 21-23, and 26
is reversed.
REVERSED

KIS

TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
1616 S. VOSS RD., SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631