Ex Parte Walls et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 16, 2014

11067980 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JEFFREY JOEL WALLS,
DONLEY BYRON HOFFMAN, and BYRON ALAN ALCOM
____________

Appeal 2011-013660
Application 11/067,980
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before GAY ANN SPAHN, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

SPAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Morgan (US 2004/0169657 A1, published Sep. 2, 2004) and Lefebvre
(US 2003/0164834 A1, published Sep. 4, 2003). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-013660
Application 11/067,980

2
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, with paragraph identifiers added, is
illustrative of the appealed subject matter.
1. A multi-node computer graphics system comprising:
[(a)] a master computer capable of executing a graphics
application;
[(b)] a plurality of render nodes configured to
collectively render a graphics image, in response to graphics
data communicated from the master computer;
[(c)] a compositor configured to receive a plurality of
video signals output from the plurality of render nodes and
generate a composite output signal;
[(d)] logic associated with the master computer for
communicating graphics data to the plurality of render nodes;
[(e)] selection logic capable of enabling a user to specify
at least one render node;
[(f)] generating logic associated with the compositor for
generating the composite output signal, the generating logic
capable of eliminating, from at least a portion of the composite
output signal, content from the video signals from all render
nodes not specified.

OPINION
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-22
Appellants argue claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-22 as a group and we select
independent claim 1 as the representative claim. See App. Br. 11; see also
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). Claims 2, 3, 5-9, and 11-22 fall with
claim 1.
The Examiner correctly finds that Morgan discloses paragraph (e) of
claim 1 as quoted supra, because “the front-end node may perform user
interfacing and display control.” Ans. 5 (citing Morgan, para. [0040]). The
Examiner further finds that Morgan discloses “that each rendering node
Appeal 2011-013660
Application 11/067,980

3
drives a display system and the front-end node acts as a communications hub
for the image generation system . . . allow[ing] the front-end system to offer
services such as user interfacing, configuration and display control.” Ans.
11 (citing Morgan, paras. [0039] and [0040]).
Appellants argue “Morgan . . . does not disclose or indicate that a user
may select one or more nodes that contribute (or do not contribute) to the
composite image . . . [and that i]n Morgan, nodes are not selected or
deselected by the user.” App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 3-4. Appellants
further argue that Morgan discloses a progressive data network and
therefore, “Morgan does not imply that a user may select one or more
nodes.” Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments, because the claimed
“selection logic” is a software program that does not appear to be executed
in the claim. Appellants’ arguments assume that paragraph (e) of claim 1
requires user selection or de-selection of nodes. See App. Br. 11; see also
Rep. Br. 3-4. However, paragraph (e) of claim 1 recites only “selection
logic,” and requires no user selection of de-selection of nodes. See App. Br.,
Clms. App’x. The Examiner properly construed “selection logic” to mean
software and cited to paragraph [0040] of Morgan as disclosing a software
user interface. Ans. 5.
With respect to paragraphs (c) and (f) of claim 1, the Examiner finds
that Lefebvre discloses “compositor control logic” and a compositor that
receives data from desperate pipelines and generates a composite data signal
from the received data. See Ans. 5, (citing Lefebvre, paras. [0027], [0028],
and [0065]).
Appeal 2011-013660
Application 11/067,980

4
Appellants argue that “while Lefebvre mentions the word
‘compositor,’ Lefebvre does not disclose a compositor as recited in the
present claims.” App. Br. 15. Appellants further argue that “Lefebvre does
not disclose the recited generating logic or the recited compositor configured
with such generating logic.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 4.
We note that claim 1 does not recite “a compositor configured with . .
. generating logic” as argued by Appellants (id.), and it is well established
that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Rather,
claim 1 merely requires that the claimed generating logic be “associated”
with the compositor. See App. Br., Clms. App’x. The Examiner finds that
Lefebvre discloses a compositor associated with generating logic as recited
in the claims, and Appellant’s argument to the contrary is not persuasive.
Ans. 5. We also note that the Examiner’s finding that Lefebvre discloses
“generating logic” is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Ans. 5
(citing Lefebvre, para. [0065]). Although Appellants argued that the
“generating logic” cited by examiner was distinct from the claimed
“generating logic” (App. Br. 15-16), Appellants failed to explain why or
how they are different and therefore, Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive.
Appellants also argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
“the Examiner has not provided a compelling reason why a person having
ordinary skill in the art would combine the Morgan and Lefebvre references
. . . [and that] the Examiner gave no explanation as to how Morgan might be
modified in the manner proposed by the Examiner or in the manner recited
in the claims.” App. Br. 16.
Appeal 2011-013660
Application 11/067,980

5
The reasons why the claimed invention would have been obvious
were presented by the Examiner. See Ans. 5. Contrary to Appellants’
argument, the reasoning identified by the Examiner in the rejection of
claim 1 was specifically highlighted by the Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) as a valid reasoning, because the
Supreme Court held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according
to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Appellants’ argument is not
persuasive because Examiner did, in fact, provide a compelling reason why a
person having ordinary skill in the art would combine the Morgan and
Lefebvre teachings.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2, 3, 5-9, and 11-22 which fall therewith, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Morgan and Lefebvre.
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the selection logic is
capable of enabling the user to specify the at least one render node to the
compositor by communicating through a video signal output from the render
nodes.” App. Br., Clms. App’x.
Appellants argue that the Morgan and Lefebvre references are “devoid
of [the claimed] feature.” App. Br. 17. Appellants support this argument
first by reasserting the argument that Morgan “does not provide for a user to
specify a render node.” Id. Appellants also argue that Lefebvre does not
disclose communicating with the compositor via “video signals output from
the render nodes.” Id. at 18.
Appeal 2011-013660
Application 11/067,980

6
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. We agree with the
Examiner because, as stated supra, the claimed “selection logic” is a
software program that does not appear to be executed in the claim. See App.
Br., Clms. App’x. The Examiner properly found that the combination of
Morgan and Lefebvre discloses selection of the appropriate nodes, and that
only the selected nodes transmit data to the compositor. See Ans. 6.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Morgan and Lefebvre.
Claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and recites “the compositor is
configured to generate the composite output signal such that the composite
video signal of only the specified render nodes is displayed within a window
of a display.” App. Br., Clms. App’x.
Appellants argue that neither Morgan nor Lefebvre discloses
“generating a composite video signal of selected or specified rendering
nodes, much less displaying such a composite video signal within a window
of a display.” App. Br. 19.
The Examiner finds that Lefebvre discloses a compositor with the
claimed configuration. See Ans. 7. Appellants have not argued that the
Lefebvre compositor lacks the claimed capabilities; rather, Appellants
appear to argue that Lefebvre fails to disclose “generating . . .” and
“displaying . . .” steps. See App. Br. 19. Claim 10 requires neither a
“generating . . .” step nor a “displaying . . .” step and as stated supra, it is
well established that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied
upon for patentability. Self, 671 F.2d at 1348. Thus, Appellants’ argument
is not persuasive because the Examiner need not show that which is not
Appeal 2011-013660
Application 11/067,980

7
claimed and because Appellants did not explain why the Examiner’s finding
is deficient.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Morgan and Lefebvre.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh