Ex Parte Yang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2018

14718576 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/718,576 05/21/2015
125968 7590 05/29/2018
V orys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
(ImgTec)
1909 K St., N.W.
Ninth Floor
Washington, DC 20006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Xile Yang
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.
070852.000182 4746
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, ANH TUAN V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2018 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):
patlaw@vorys.com
vmdeluca@vorys.com
rntisdale@vorys.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XILE YANG
Appeal2018-002403
Application 14/718,57 6
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appeal2018-002403
Application 14/718,57 6
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
assigning primitives to tiles in a graphics processing system. See generally
Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of assigning primitives to tiles in a graphics
processing system which has a rendering space subdivided into
a plurality of tiles, wherein each tile comprises one or more
polygonal regions for which depth comparisons are to be
performed, the method comprising:
in said graphics processing system:
receiving a plurality of primitives forming a mesh,
identifying external edges of the mesh,
identifying intersection points where the identified
external edges of the mesh intersect with lines aligned with the
edges of a polygonal region of a tile, and using the identified
intersection points to determine whether the mesh entirely
covers the polygonal region of the tile,
for each of a plurality of the received primitives which
are present within the polygonal region of the tile:
(i) comparing a first depth value for that primitive
with a depth threshold for the polygonal region, and
(ii) in dependence on the result of the comparison,
selectively including an indication of the primitive in a
display list for the tile to thereby assign the primitive to
the tile; and
if it is determined that the mesh entirely covers the
polygonal region of the tile, updating the depth threshold for the
polygonal region in dependence on a comparison of the depth
threshold for the polygonal region with a second depth value
for at least one of said plurality of the received primitives of the
mesh which is present within the polygonal region of the tile.
2
Appeal2018-002403
Application 14/718,57 6
References and Rejections
Claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kallio (US 2013/0120380 Al; May 16, 2013), Min
(US 2008/0068375 Al; Mar. 20, 2008), and Duluk (US 6,597,363 Bl; July
22, 2003).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kallio, Min, Duluk, and Brown (US 2013/0120391 Al;
May 16, 2013).
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kallio, Min, Duluk, and Morphet (US 2006/0114261 Al;
June 1, 2006).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant's
contention that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Kallio and
Min collectively teach "identifying external edges of the mesh," as recited in
independent claim 1 ( emphasis added). 1 See Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 6.
The Examiner finds "Kallio does not expressly teach ... identifying
external edges of the mesh[.]" Final Act. 6. The Examiner then cites Min's
paragraph 40 for teaching the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 7.
We agree with Appellant that Min's paragraph 40 does not teach
"external" edges, let alone "identifying external edges of the mesh," as
required by claim 1 (emphasis added). See Appeal Br. 14. In response to
1 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal2018-002403
Application 14/718,57 6
Appellant's arguments, the Examiner still does not adequately explain why
and how Min's paragraph 40 teaches or suggests the italicized limitation.
Further, as applied by the Examiner, the teachings of Kallio do not
remedy the deficiencies of Min. See Final Act. 6.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Each of independent claims 6, 19, and 20 recites a claim limitation
that is substantively similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claims
6, 19, and 20. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 6, 19, and 20.
We also reverse the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2-5 and 7-18. Although the Examiner cites additional references for
rejecting some dependent claims, the Examiner has not shown the additional
references overcome the deficiency discussed above regarding the rejection
of claim 1.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
REVERSED
4