11648058 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2012)

Ex Parte Stoll et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 11, 2012

11648058 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 2012)

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. 11/648,058 12/29/2006 Gordon W. Stoll P23818 (I06.469) 9636 94221 7590 10/11/2012 Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC/ Intel Corporation 50 Locust Avenue New Canaan, CT 06840 EXAMINER TSENG, CHARLES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2678 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/11/2012 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte GORDON W. STOLL and WILLIAM R. MARK _____________ Appeal 2010-006670 Application 11/648,058 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before: ROBERT E. NAPPI, JASON V. MORGAN, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006670 Application 11/648,058 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1, 4 through 8, 11 through 15, and 18 through 20. We reverse. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method for use with ray tracing video rendering systems which makes use of digital objects (digital geometries). These digital objects have different versions that are of different detail. The method involves interpolating between two versions of the object to determine a version with a level of detail between the two. See paragraphs 0001, 0009, and 0015 of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: interpolating, using a processor, from a first portion of a digital object having a first level of detail to a second portion of the digital object having a second level of detail, wherein the first portion comprises one or more triangles and the second portion comprises one or more triangles; creating a third portion of the digital object having a third level of detail based on the interpolating, wherein the third portion comprises one or more triangles; and intersecting a ray at the third portion, wherein the interpolating comprises: projecting a first vertex of one of the one or more triangles of the first portion onto a ray to create a first projected point; projecting a second vertex of one of the one or more triangles of the first portion onto the ray to create a second projected point; Appeal 2010-006670 Application 11/648,058 3 projecting a third vertex of one of the one or more triangles of the first portion onto the ray to create a third projected point; and calculating a geometric space coordinate from the projection of the first vertex, the projection of the second vertex, and the projection of the third vertex, and wherein each projected point on the ray is the intersection of a vector that is normal to the ray and intersects each respective vertex. REFERENCES Lengyel US 6,614,428 B1 Sep. 2, 2003 Kudoh US 7,477,253 B2 Jan. 13, 2009 Hugues Hoppe, Progressive Meshes, Proc. 23rd Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH ‘96), 99-108 (1996) (“Hoppe”). Homan Igehy, Tracing Ray Differentials, Proc. 26th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH ‘99), 179-186 (1999) (“Igehy”). Per H. Christensen et al., Ray Differentials and Multiresolution Geometry Caching for Distribution Ray Tracing in Complex Scenes, Eurographics 2003, Volume 22 (2003), Number 3 (“Christensen”). Appeal 2010-006670 Application 11/648,058 4 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 4 through 6, 8, 11 through 13, 15, and 18 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Christensen in view of Hoppe, Kudoh, and Lengyel. Answer 4-91. The Examiner has rejected claims 7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Christensen in view of Hoppe, Kudoh, Lengyel, and Igehy. Answer 9-10. ISSUE Appellants argue on pages 5 through 9 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2 and 3 of the Reply Brief2 that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 is in error. These arguments present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Christensen in view of Hoppe, Kudoh, and Lengyel teaches projecting a first, second and third vertex from a first portion of a digital object onto a ray to create first, second and third projection points? ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’ arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Christensen in view of Hoppe, Kudoh, and 1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on March 9, 2010. 2 Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief dated January 14, 2010 and Reply Brief dated March 18, 2010. Appeal 2010-006670 Application 11/648,058 5 Lengyel teaches projecting a first, second and third vertex from a first portion of a digital object onto a ray to create first, second and third projection points. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite that three vertices of one or more triangles in a first portion of a digital object are projected onto a ray. The Examiner, in response to Appellants’ arguments, cites to figure 14A and finds that Kudoh teaches generating a projection point by casting a ray from a vertex. Answer 12. While we concur with this finding, it does not meet the limitations of the claims, which recite projecting three vertices to a ray (i.e. three points on to one ray). The Examiner has not shown that any of the other references of record teach the projection of a vertex on to a ray. Thus, the Examiner has not shown that all of the limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are obvious. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejections, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 or the claims which depend thereupon. Appeal 2010-006670 Application 11/648,058 6 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4 through 8, 11 through 15, and 18 through 20 is reversed3. REVERSED msc 3 We have decided the appeal before us. However, should there be further prosecution of these claims, the Examiner’s attention is directed to the following sections of the MPEP. Should there be further prosecution of method claim 1, which recites a mathematical algorithm (geometric projections) and interpolation of coordinates based upon the projections, the Examiner’s attention is directed to MPEP § 2106, Patent Subject Matter Eligibility. Should there be further prosecution of claims 1, 8, and 15, the Examiner’s attention is directed to MPEP § 2161, Three Separate Requirements for Specification under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph. It is not clear to us from the Specification, paragraphs 15-16 and 23-28 (cited by Appellants on pages 2 and 3 of the Brief), how the projections of the three vertices of one portion of the digital object at a first level of detail are used to create a third portion of the digital object.