Ex Parte Xu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 1, 2016

11122724 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111122,724 0510512005
109673 7590 09/06/2016
McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP
3100 Interstate North Circle
Suite 150
Atlanta, GA 30339
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jiangming Xu
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
252209-1330 6258
EXAMINER
RICHER, AARON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/06/2016 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):
uspatents@mqrlaw.com
dan.mcclure@mqrlaw.com
gina.silverio@mqrlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIANGMING XU
Appeal2014-008894
Application 11/122,724
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 12-14, 19-21, 23-25, 27-30, 32, 33, and 37.
Claims 6, 9-11, 15-18, 22, 26, 31, and 34--36 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-008894
Application 11/122,724
PRIOR APPEAL
This Application was subject to a prior appeal 2011-003174, decided
on August 2, 2013, in which this panel of the Board affirmed the Examiner's
rejections of all of the claims then pending before us. 1
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a texture filtering using a programmable
table filter to improve computer graphics performance. Spec., Title. Claim
1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of filtering computer graphics texture data in
a graphics system, comprising:
determining, in the graphics system, a two dimensional
convolutional programmable filter kernel, configured as a texel
array and subdivided into a plurality of texel groups, each texel
group including a plurality of texels, each texel corresponding to
a location of a pixel and associated with a respective horizontal
weight value and a respective vertical weight value;
calculating, in the graphics system, a plurality of fractional
values for each texel group based on the weight values associated
with the respective texels; and
modifying, in the graphics system, a pixel color value,
corresponding to the pixel, according to a bilinear interpolation
using at least one linear interpolator and an accumulator;
wherein at least a portion of the fractional values
corresponding to the texel group are provided as inputs to the
accumulator, each one of the at least a portion of the fractional
1 For purposes of future proceedings before the Board, Appellant and
Appellant's counsel are reminded of their duty to identify prior and pending
appeals that "involve an application or patent owned by the appellant or
assignee, are known to appellant, the appellant's legal representative, or
assignee, and may be related to, directly affect or be directly affected by or
have a bearing on the Board's decision in the pending appeal, except that
such statement is not required if there are no such related cases." 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 41.37( c )(ii) (2013).
2
Appeal2014-008894
Application 11/122,724
values being calculated based on both a plurality of horizontal
weight values and a plurality of vertical weight values.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hicok
Gabriel
Liao '902
Bastos
Kim
Liao '376
us 5,920,495
us 6,005,582
US 6,573,902B1
US 6,967,663 Bl
US 2003/0206175 Al
US 2004/0257376 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
July 6, 1999
Dec. 21, 1999
June 3, 2003
Nov. 22, 2005
Nov. 6, 2003
Dec. 23, 2004
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Non-Final Act. 2-3.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hicok, Liao '902, and Lao '376. Non-Final Act. 4---6.
Claims 2, 5, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hicok, Liao '902, Lao '376, and Kim. Non-Final Act. 6-
7.
Claims 12-14, 19-21, and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Hicok, Liao '902, Lao '376, Kim, and
Gabriel. Non-Final Act. 7-10.
Claims 27-30, 32, 33, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hicok, Bastos, and Gabriel. Non-Final Act. 10-
15.
3
Appeal2014-008894
Application 11/122,724
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Non-Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellant's Appeal Brief and concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. We
consider Appellant's arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal
Brief, pages 7-26 and Reply Brief, pages 1---6.
35 U.S.C. § 112
Because Appellant does not contest the rejection of claims 3 and 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (App. Br. 7), we summarily affirm the
rejection.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant contends the combination of Hicok and Liao '376 is
improper, repeating in ipsissimis verbis argument presented in prior appeal
2011-003174 that "[t]he combined teaching of Liao '376 (to calculate such
fractional values based on both vertical and horizontal weights) actually
teaches away from the teachings of Hicok." App. Br. 10-12, cf Appeal
Brief filed July 10, 2010 at pages 8-9. We again find such argument
unpersuasive for the reasons discussed in our prior opinion of August 2,
2013, which we incorporate herein by reference. Appellant's additional
4
Appeal2014-008894
Application 11/122,724
argument in support of the contention appearing for the first time in the
Reply Brief (Reply Br. 3---6) including that "Liao [']902 [is] non-analogous
art" (Reply Br. 6) is untimely and waived. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d
1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) ("[T]he reply brief [is not] an
opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal
brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not").
Appellant next contends the Examiner's reasoning for modifying
Hicok by incorporating the teaching of Liao '902 and Liao '3 7 6 is not
supported by adequate fact-finding. App. Br. 13-14. Appellant further
argues the combination is improper because the Examiner's reasoning for
modifying Hicok as taught by Liao '902, i.e., to increase efficiency, is
contrary to Liao '902 's teaching that efficiency is increased "as being a
result of [the] use of multiplexer 25 to cascade cache memories, and NOT as
a result of any modification to subdivide the texture filter, as alleged by the
Examiner." App. Br. 14. The Examiner responds by directing attention to
the rationale given at pages 5---6 of the Non-Final Office Action. Ans. 6.
We find Appellant's argument unpersuasive of Examiner error. The
Examiner finds subdividing the texture filter into 2x2 groups according to
Liao '902 "increase[s] utilization efficiency of cache memory" and "[o]ne
could easily substitute the distance weighting factors of Liao [']902 with
calculated fractional values of Hicok." Non-Final Act. 5. In contrast, the
portions of Liao '902 cited by Appellant, rather than contradicting the
Examiner's findings and reasoning, merely disclose another method to
increase efficiency. Therefore, we find insufficient evidence to support
Appellant's conclusion that the argued combination is improper. Instead, we
find that the Examiner has articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings
5
Appeal2014-008894
Application 11/122,724
sufficient to justify the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Therefore, Appellant's assertion that the
references were improperly combined is not persuasive of error and
accordingly, the Examiner has properly relied upon the combination of
Hicok, Liao '902 (which combination is not disputed), and Liao '376 in
formulating the disputed rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
For the reasons discussed supra, Appellant's contentions of error in
connection with the rejection of claim 1 are unpersuasive. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection of claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) together with the
rejections of dependent claims 2-5, 7, and 8 which are not argued separately.
In connection with the rejection of claim 12, Appellant argues Hicok
fails to disclose the recited accumulation logic but, instead, "applies the
horizontal weight values to the image or texture data first [and, only
t]hereafter, ... applies the vertical weight values to the resulting weighted
value." App. Br. 17. The Examiner responds by finding, as in the case of
claim 1, that Liao '376 discloses "each one of the at least a portion of the
fractional values being calculated based on both a plurality of horizontal
weight values and a plurality of vertical weight values." Ans. 8. Thus,
Appellant's argument fails to address the Examiner's finding that Liao '376
in combination with Hicok, not Hicok alone, teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation and is, therefore, unpersuasive of Examiner error.
Appellant next argues Gabriel fails to teach the final "wherein" clause
of claim 12. App. Br. 18-20. The Examiner responds by finding that
Gabriel's Figure 24 teaches the disputed limitations, explaining how the
elements depicted in the figure are mapped to the claim language. Ans. 10-
11. Appellant does not reply to these findings.
6
Appeal2014-008894
Application 11/122,724
Appellant's mere traversal of the Examiner's findings in the absence
of evidence or a cogent line of reasoning explaining why such findings are
erroneous is insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner in finding that Gabriel teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations of the argued "wherein" clause of claim 12.
Next, Appellant argues the propriety of combining Gabriel with the
remaining references relied upon in rejecting claim 12. App. Br. 20.
Appellant argues, because claim 12 is not directed to avoiding sparkle,
avoiding sparkle as disclosed by Gabriel does not constitute a valid reason
for modifying the combination of Hicok, Liao '902, and Liao'376 according
to Gabriel. Id. The Examiner responds by finding
[T]he motivation for the addition of Gabriel was to avoid sparkle
due to aliasing. In other words, the "sparkle" discussed by
Gabriel is merely an aliasing effect that is due to sampling texels
with an incorrect footprint that occurs when an isotropic filter is
used instead of an anisotropic filter (col. 2, lines 15-27 and lines
56-59). The problem of asymmetric/anisotropic texture filtering
is one that is addressed by Hicok, Liao '3 7 6 ... , and Kim (see
title/abstract), as well as Gabriel.
Ans. 12.
In determining obviousness, there is no requirement the Examiner's
reasoning for combining references address the same problem as that to
which the claimed invention is directed. Thus, in the absence of a
persuasive reply to the Examiner's explanation, we find that the Examiner
has articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to justify the
legal conclusion of obviousness.
Appellant next contends that Liao '902 fails to cure the deficiencies of
Hicok and Liao '376, repeating arguments presented in connection with
7
Appeal2014-008894
Application 11/122,724
claim 1. App. Br. 21-22. \Ve find these augments unpersuasive for the
reasons discussed supra.
Finally, Appellant contends that Kim fails to calculate a fractional
value as required by claim 12. App. Br. 22. The Examiner responds, finding
Kim is not cited for teaching the argued limitations. Ans. 14. We agree.
The Examiner finds Hicok teaches the calculation required of the recited
accumulation logic (Non-Final Act. 4, 7) and the combination of Hicok and
Liao '902 teaches or suggests the conversion logic of claim 12 (Non-Final
Act. 7-8). Therefore, Appellant's argument focusing on the alleged
deficiencies of Kim fails to address the Examiner's findings in connection
with the argued limitations and is unpersuasive of Examiner error.
For the reasons discussed supra, Appellant's contentions in
connection with the rejection of claim 12 are unpersuasive of Examiner
error. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) together with the rejections of dependent claims 13, 14, 19-
21, and 23-25 which are not argued separately.
Appellant's contentions of error in connection with the rejection of
independent claim 27 are repetitive of arguments presented in connection
with independent claims 1 and 12 (see App. Br. 23-26) and are thus
unpersuasive of Examiner error for the reasons discussed supra in
connection with independent claims 1 and 12. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of independent claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) together with the
rejections of dependent claims 28-30, 32, 33, and 37 which are not argued
separately.
8
Appeal2014-008894
Application 11/122,724
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 7, 8, 12-14, 19-21, 23-
25, 27-30, 32, 33, and 37 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9