Ex Parte Walls et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 24, 2011

10899865 (B.P.A.I. May. 24, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

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

Appeal 2009-006847
Application 10/899,865
Technology Center 2600
____________________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-006847
Application 10/899,865

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants invoke our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-36. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary independent claims 1 and 17 under appeal read as follows.
1. A multi-processor computer graphics system comprising:

a plurality of processors configured to collectively render a graphics
image;
a datastore configured to store parameters that are used to control the
rendering of the graphics image;
a datastore manager configured to manage the parameters stored in the
datastore;
a plurality of entities associated with the plurality of processors, each
of the plurality of entities comprising logic for communicating to the
datastore manager an interest in being notified of changes to at least
one of the parameters; and
logic associated with the datastore manager for notifying interested
entities that a change has been made to at least one parameter stored
in the datastore.
17. A computer graphics system comprising:
logic distributed across a plurality of processors for collectively
rendering a graphics image based on a plurality of specified
parameters;
Appeal 2009-006847
Application 10/899,865

3
a datastore for storing the plurality of specified parameters;
logic associated with the datastore for notifying the logic distributed
across the plurality of processors of a change in at least one of the
parameters; and
logic associated with the logic distributed across the plurality of
processors for updating a configuration of at least one processor based
on the change in the at least one parameter.
Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Willems US 5,613,090 Mar. 18, 1997
Lengyel US 6,016,150 Jan. 18, 2000
Walls US 6,348,933 B1 Feb. 19, 2002
Pinedo US 2003/0142037 A1 July 31, 2003
Bowman-Amuah US 6,636,242 B2 Oct. 21, 2003

1. Claims 29-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter (Ans. 3-4).
2. Claims 17-20, 33, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Pinedo (Final Action 7-8).
3. Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 15, 16, 23-26, and 29-32 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pinedo and Willems
(Final Action 9-14).
4. Claims 3, 4, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Pinedo, Willems, and Bowman-Amuah
(Final Action 14-15).
Appeal 2009-006847
Application 10/899,865

4
5. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pinedo, Willems, and Lengyel (Final Action 15-
16).
6. Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pinedo, Willems, and Walls (Final Action 16-
17).
7. Claims 21, 22, 35, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Pinedo and Bowman-Amuah (Final
Action 17-18).
8. Claims 1-4, 17-19, 23, 24, 26-30, and 32-35 are provisionally
rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, and 15-
21 of copending application serial no. 11/136,192 (Final Action 5-
6).

Appellants’ Contentions
All of Appellants’ patentability contentions are directed to the sole
anticipation rejection and the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-10, 15,
16, 23-26, and 29-32 set out supra (App. Br. 6-18; Reply Br. 1-3).
Appellants do not argue in opposition to any of the other rejections.
Appellants first contend that Pinedo is misapplied for both the argued
anticipation and obviousness rejections (App. Br. 6-9). Appellants argue
that the claimed graphics processing embodiments store a plurality of
parameters and communicate parameter changes to rendering nodes that
provide imagery data for presentation on a single display, whereas “the
system and method of Pinedo is concerned with ensuring that multiple
Appeal 2009-006847
Application 10/899,865

5
separate displays (when operated as a SLS [single logical screen]) are
operated in the same ‘context’” (App. Br. 8). These differences, Appellants
contend cause the Examiner’s findings from Pinedo to be misapplied.
Appellants further dispute the anticipation rejection by contending
that the independent claim 17 recited computer graphics system has logic
associated with a datastore “for notifying . . . processors of a change in at
least one of the parameters,” whereas, “no ‘notification’ [is] taught in
Pinedo” (App. Br. 10).
Appellants dispute the addressed obviousness rejection by contending
that “there is no coherent disclosure between the [reported combination of
Pinedo and Willems] references” (App. Br. 14-15) that teach or suggest the
independent claim 1 recited processor entities “communicating to the
datastore manager an interest in being notified of changes to at least one of
the parameters.” Appellants also continue reliance on the asserted Pinedo
misapplication argument to contend that “Wille[m]s and Pinedo are directed
to non-analogous art” (App. Br. 17).
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) in rejecting
independent claim 17 because Pinedo is misapplied and also fails to
explicitly or inherently teach disputed limitations?
2. Did the Examiner err under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in rejecting
independent claim 1 because Pinedo and Willems are non-analogous
and also fail either alone or in combination to teach or suggest
disputed limitations?

ANALYSIS
Appeal 2009-006847
Application 10/899,865

6
Anticipation Rejection
Appellants’ misapplication of prior art contention, supra, is
unavailing. We agree that the claimed embodiments and the Pinedo taught
system and method are different, but we disagree that Pinedo is misapplied
as anticipatory art because of such differences. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 1982) (Arguments that cited anticipatory prior art is
“non-analogous art,” “teaches away,” or is not recognized as solving a
problem addressed by a claimed invention “are not germane to a § 102
rejection.”).
In association with the misapplication contention, Appellants also
argue (App. Br. 7-8) that Pinedo is directed to displays operating with the
same “context,” whereas the claimed embodiments are concerned with
“parameters.” The Examiner acknowledges this argument and identifies
finding from Pinedo in paragraph [0033] that the disclosed context
comprises lighting parameters, transform matrices, and other information of
this type (Ans. 20). Relying on these findings, the Examiner further finds
and concludes that “Pinedo teaches ensuring context is consistently
communicated to each of plurality of display hardware (render nodes) [0033,
0043, 0045], so is considered to teach ensuring parameters, which are used
in rendering of graphics image are consistently communicated to all render
nodes” (Ans. 20). Appellants dispute these findings and conclusion with a
continued assertion that the “Examiner’s interpretation of Pinedo is
misplaced” (Reply Br. 3). Specifically, Appellants repeat the Examiner’s
immediately above reproduced statement and conclude without explanation
that “[i]n essence, the Examiner is basing the rejection on the Examiner’s
position of an inherent teaching of Pinedo” (id.). From our review of
Appeal 2009-006847
Application 10/899,865

7
Pinedo and the record, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusion that the recited “parameters,” which has not been argued by
Appellants as having any special meaning apart from its ordinary and
customary meaning, reads on Pinedo’s explicitly disclosed “context”.
Appellants separately dispute the anticipation rejection of independent
claim 17 by contending that no “notification,” as is recited in the claim, is
taught in Pinedo (App. Br. 10). The particular claim 17 limitation identified
by Appellants reads: “logic associated with the datastore for notifying the
logic distributed across the plurality of processors of a change in at least one
of the parameters” (id.). The Examiner responds that:
Claim 17 does not recite how entities are being notified. Pinedo
teaches as soon as change occurs, device driver directs context
information to display hardware [0045]. So, display hardware is
notified that change has been made by receiving context information.
So, Pinedo does teach “notification” as it is recited in Claim 17.

(Ans. 21). Appellants are silent in the Reply Brief concerning the
Examiner’s above findings, explanation, and reasoning. From our review of
the record, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s conclusion that Pinedo
teaches that entities are notified, i.e., sent identification of change
occurrences, which is the extent to which “notifying” is claimed.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Pinedo anticipates claim 17.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the anticipation rejection of
independent claim 17 and also sustain the anticipation rejection of
independent claim 33, which Appellants argue is patentable by reliance on
the same reasons advanced in connection with claim 17 (App. Br. 12).
Additionally, we sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 18-22 that
Appeal 2009-006847
Application 10/899,865

8
depend from claim 17, and we sustain the rejection of claim 34 that depends
from claim 33. These dependent claims are not separately argued.
Obviousness Rejection over Pinedo and Willems
The Examiner responds to Appellants’ contention that Willems and
Pinedo are non-analogous art (App. Br. 17) with the following:
Pinedo . . . teach[es] multi-render nodes system for rendering three-
dimensional graphics [0034]. Main reference Pinedo teaches X-
Window System configuration [0028] containing SLS X-Server 200
that manages multiple physical monitors, with multiple DDXs 212a-
212n [0029] (device dependent X) [0027]. . . . Willems teaches X-
Windows application connects to translation layer that behaves as if it
were X server [see col. 2, ll. 39-48]. . . . So, Pinedo and Willems both
relate to X-Window System configuration containing X-Server that
manages multiple DDX. . . . [S]ince Willems is analogous to main
reference Pinedo, and since main reference Pinedo does teach multi-
render nodes systems for rendering three-dimensional graphics, it is
considered to be proper to combine Pinedo and Willems, and this
combination is considered to be proper to reject claims.

(Ans. 22-23). Appellants are silent in response to this explanation and
reasoning.
From our review of the record, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s findings and conclusion. We note that the Supreme Court has
explained that “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known in
the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by [a] patent can
provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). See also Medtronic,
Inc., v. Cardiac Pacemakers, 721 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (A claimed
cardiac pacemaker included an inhibitor for preventing application of pulses
at too high a frequency rate. Two references disclosed circuits used in high
Appeal 2009-006847
Application 10/899,865

9
power, high frequency devices which inhibited the runaway of pulses from a
pulse source. The court held that one of ordinary skill in the pacemaker art
faced with a rate-limiting problem would look to the solutions of others
faced with rate limiting problems, and therefore the references were in an
analogous art.). Since Pinedo and Willems address use of at least X-
Windows configurations containing X-Servers, we agree with the Examiner
that the cited references are in analogous art that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would look to for solving a related problem.
Finally, Appellants contend “there is no coherent disclosure between
the [cited Pinedo and Willems] references” (App. Br. 14-15) that teaches or
suggests the independent claim 1 recited processor entities “communicating
to the datastore manager an interest in being notified of changes to at least
one of the parameters.” The Examiner responds with detailed findings and
explanation concerning the reasoning and rationale for concluding that the
combination of Pinedo and Willems render the claim 1 limitation obvious
(Ans. 23-25). Appellants’ Reply Brief is silent in response to the
Examiner’s reported explanation and reasoning. Based on our review of the
record, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1 and also sustain the obviousness rejection of
independent claims23 and 29, which Appellants argue for by reliance on the
same reasons advanced in connection with claim 1 (App. Br. 18).
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of (i)
claims 2-16 that depend from claim 1, (ii) claims 21-22, (iii) claims 24-28
that depend from claim 23, (iv) claims 30-32 that depend from claim 29, and
Appeal 2009-006847
Application 10/899,865

10
(v) claims 35-36. We sustain the obviousness rejections of these dependent
claims, which are not separately argued.
Rejections under §§ 101 and 103 on the ground of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting

With respect to the remaining rejections, Appellants have not
presented any rebuttal arguments. Therefore, we sustain all the remaining
rejections pro forma.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Examiner has not erred under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) in rejecting
independent claim 17 because Pinedo is not misapplied and does teach
the disputed limitations.
2. The Examiner has not erred under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in rejecting
independent claim 1 because Pinedo and Willems are analogous art
and teach disputed limitations.
3. Based on the record of this appeal, claims 1-36 are not patentable.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-36 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)(v).

AFFIRMED

gvw