Farell, James Paul.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2020

2019004514 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2020)

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.
15/097,989 04/13/2016 James Paul Farell V213-0013/VIS1005PUS 6226
156760 7590 12/02/2020
Quinn IP Law / Visteon
21500 Haggerty Rd, Ste 300
Northville, MI 48167
EXAMINER
WANG, YI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2020 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):
adomagala@quinniplaw.com
usdocketing@quinniplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAMES PAUL FARELL
___________

Appeal 2019-004514
Application 15/097,989
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–16, all of the pending claims. Final Act. 2.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Visteon Global
Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of Visteon Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
October 4, 2018); the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed March 6,
2018), the Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.,” mailed July 20, 2018), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed January 11, 2019); and the
Specification (“Spec.,” filed April 13, 2016). Rather than repeat the
Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to
these documents.
Appeal 2019-004514
Application 15/097,989

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed systems and displays “relate[] to a multi-path graphics
rendering. Exemplary embodiments may also be directed to the systems and
methods for employing the rendering, and display devices incorporating said
concepts.” Spec. ¶ 11.
As noted above, claims 1–16 are pending. Claims 1, 7, and 10 are
independent and recite corresponding limitations. Appeal Br. 19 (claim 1),
20 (claims 7 and 10) (Claims App.). Claims 2–6 and 16 depend directly or
indirectly from claim 1, claims 8 and 9 depend directly from claim 7, and
claims 11–15 depend directly from claim 10. Id. at 19–21.
Claims 1 and 7, reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized, are illustrative.
1. A system for creating a data set associated with an
application's image rendering, comprising:
an application receiver configured to receive the
application;
a brute force learner configured to identify a plurality of
images associated with the application, render each of the
plurality of images with a first image rendering technique chosen
from one of a group comprising at least one of a GPU based
technique and a CPU based technique and a software based
technique and a second image rendering technique chosen from
a different one of the group comprising at least one of the GPU
based technique and the CPU based technique and the software
based technique, and to assign a score for each of the plurality
of images applied to each of the first and second image rendering
techniques based on a plurality of criteria associated with image
presentation; and

Appeal 2019-004514
Application 15/097,989

3

a data set creator configured to assign each of the plurality
of images with the image rendering technique associated a
highest score.
Id. at 19 (emphases added).
7. A system for employing a created data set with
correlations of a rendering technique chosen from one of a
group comprising at least one of a GPU based technique and a
CPU based technique and a software based technique with a set
of images associated with an application executed on a
microprocessor, comprising:
an image analyzer to receive image data from the
microprocessor;
a rendering retriever to correlate the received image data
with the created data set, and to retrieve a rendering technique
chosen from one of the group comprising at least one of the
GPU based technique and the CPU based technique and the
software based technique previously assigned to the received
image data; and
a rendering communication configured to communicate
the retrieved rendering technique to the microprocessor.
Id. at 20 (emphasis added).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name3 Reference Issued/Publ’d Filed
Higuchi US 2007/0236498 A1 Oct. 11, 2007 Mar. 27, 2007
Dufourd US 2009/0079735 A1 Mar. 26, 2009 Oct. 30, 2006
Day US 2016/0242740 A1 Aug. 25, 2016 Feb. 23, 2015
Kono US 2016/0337445 A1 Nov. 17, 2016 July 6, 2016
Qian US 2017/0148371 A1 May 25, 2017 Nov. 16, 2016

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-004514
Application 15/097,989

4

The Examiner rejects claims 1–12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over the combined teachings of Day, Qian, and Dufourd. Final
Act. 5–17. The Examiner also rejects claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Day, Qian, Dufourd, and Higuchi
(id. at 17–18) and claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Day, Qian, Dufourd, and Kono (id. at 19).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). The Examiner and Appellant focus their findings and
contentions on claims 1, 7, and 10; so do we. See Appeal Br. 7–18;
Ans. 18–23. Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Unless otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s
findings in the Final Office Action, Advisory Action, and the Answer as our
own and add any additional findings of fact for emphasis. We address the
rejections below.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Day, Qian, and Dufourd
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 1–12, 14, and 15 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Day, Qian, and Dufourd. Final
Act. 5–17. For the reasons given below, we are persuaded the Examiner errs
in rejecting these claims.

Appeal 2019-004514
Application 15/097,989

5

1. Independent Claims 1, 7, and 10
a. Claim 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system for creating a data set associated with
an image rendering. Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds Day
teaches or suggests the majority of the recited limitations of claim 1. Final
Act. 6–7 (citing Day ¶¶ 35, 65, 68–83, 91, 144, Fig. 2); see Adv. Act. 2. In
particular, the Examiner finds Day teaches or suggests
a brute force learner configured to identify a plurality of images
associated with the application, render each of the plurality of
images with a first image rendering technique . . . and a second
image rendering technique . . . , and to assign a score for each of
the plurality of images applied to each of the first and second
image rendering technique,
as recited in claim 1. Id. at 6–7 (citing Day ¶¶ 35, 67–83, 144). Further, the
Examiner finds Qian teaches or suggests that the first and second techniques
may be “chosen from a one of the group comprising at least one of a
[graphical processing unit (GPU)] based [technique]” “and the [central
processing unit (CPU)] based technique and the software based technique.”
Id. at 7 (citing Qian ¶ 14). The Examiner also finds a person of ordinary
skill in the relevant art would have had reason to combine the teachings of
Qian with those of Day to achieve the disputed limitations, as recited in
claim 1. Id. at 7–8.4

4 As discussed below, the Examiner relies on Day and Qian to teach or
suggest corresponding limitations recited in claim 10. Final Act. 14–16
(citing Day ¶¶ 33, 91; Qian ¶ 14).
Appeal 2019-004514
Application 15/097,989

6

Appellant contends the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 for two
reasons. Appeal Br. 9–14, 16–18. After considering these reasons, we are
persuaded the Examiner errs.
First, the Examiner finds, “[r]endering using different parameters read
on rendering with different rendering techniques.” Adv. Act. 2 (emphases
added); see Ans. 18 (“The key disagreement between the Appellant and the
Examiner is whether the Day reference teaches rendering each image with
different techniques or processes.”). Appellant contends the Examiner
improperly equates rendering parameters, as disclosed by Day, with
“rendering techniques,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7–15; see Spec.
¶¶ 7, 8, 23–26, 38, 71, Figs. 7(a), 7(b) (describing “techniques”).
Day discloses, “[r]endering orientation parameters may be
representative of the three-dimensional orientation of the image relative to a
viewpoint. The rendering orientation parameters may include a viewing
point and/or viewing direction. The rendering parameters also include an
isosurface value.” Day ¶ 69. In particular, in an embodiment, Day
discloses,
the rendering unit 14 is configured to generate the rendering
images by performing a surface rendering process for the volume
data based on the plurality of parameters. . . . In the present
embodiment, the isosurface is representative of the surface of the
fetus. The rendering unit 14 constructs a representation of the
isosurface, for example as a mesh or grid. The rendering unit 14
then renders an image of the isosurface and outputs a rendering
image data set that is representative of the rendering image. Any
appropriate surface rendering process may be used.
Id. ¶ 70 (emphasis added); cf. id. ¶ 71 (describing another embodiment, in
which images are generated by different techniques). Day explains, “[i]n
alternative embodiments, other rendering parameters may be varied for the
Appeal 2019-004514
Application 15/097,989

7

different rendering images.” Id. ¶ 83; see id. ¶ 80 (images rendered for each
combination of roll and yaw angle values).
Appellant contends, “[t]he Day reference teaches a system that
renders images using a single rendering process, i.e., technique, with
different sets of rendering parameters to generate different quality images.”
Appeal Br. 7. In particular, Appellant contends, “technique” and
“parameter” are not synonyms (id. at 8), and these words are understood to
have different meanings (id. at 9). Therefore, Appellant concludes, “the Day
reference teaches that all of the different images are rendered using the same
technique or process, i.e., the surface rendering process, but that the different
images are varied to obtain the best quality by rendering the images with
different values for the different rendering parameters.” Id. at 7. We agree
with Appellant.
The Examiner finds that Day discloses, “[t]he method of image
optimization described above may be described as a brute-force method of
searching a parameter space by generating rendering images at different
places in the parameter space (for example, having different values of the
parameters for roll angle and yaw angle).” Ans. 18 (quoting Day ¶ 144)
(emphasis omitted). However, as noted above, Day discloses the images are
generated for each of these parameters using the same process or techniques.
See Day ¶¶ 76–77. Further, the Examiner finds, “Day discloses that
different processes or techniques can be used for image optimization, and
recites ‘any suitable process of image optimization may be used’ ([Day]
¶ 145). Therefore, Day indeed discloses using different rendering process
for image optimization.” Ans. 18. Specifically, Day discloses that different
processes and techniques may be used in different embodiments, not that a
Appeal 2019-004514
Application 15/097,989

8

brute force learner uses multiple techniques to process images from data
including various parameters. See Day ¶ 146 (“The parameter adjustment
unit 16 may work in conjunction with the rendering unit 14 to iteratively
explore the space of possible images, and identify the best one according to
the selected object detector (for example, according to the score that is
output by the face detection algorithm).”). Hence, we disagree with the
Examiner.
Second, Appellant contends, although Qian discloses “selecting, from
a plurality of processors comprising at least a central processing unit (CPU)
and a graphics processing unit (GPU), at least one processor to dither pixels
of the regions depending upon corresponding sizes and attribute types of the
regions” (Qian ¶ 14), “[t]he Qian reference does not teach rendering each
image using two different rendering techniques, e.g., a CPU based technique
and a GPU based technique, as is required by claim 1 of the subject
application” (Appeal Br. 12 (citing Qian ¶¶ 77, 84)). We agree with
Appellant.
The Examiner does not rely on Qian alone to teach or suggest
rendering images by multiple techniques. Final Act. 7; see Ans.19–20.
Instead, the Examiner finds Day teaches or suggests rendering images using
multiple techniques and Qian teaches or suggests that the techniques taught
by Day may be a GPU based technique or a CPU based technique. See Final
Act. 7–8; Ans. 20.
Nevertheless, Appellant concludes,
the Day reference teaches using a single rendering process to
render each image using different values for rendering
parameters of the single rendering process. The Qian reference
teaches using a single rendering process to render images, and
Appeal 2019-004514
Application 15/097,989

9

then using either a CPU or a GPU to dither different regions of
the graphic objects. Neither the Day reference or the Qian
reference teach a brute force learner that is operable to “render
each of the plurality of images with a first image rendering
technique chosen from one of a group comprising at least one of
a GPU based technique and a CPU based technique and a
software based technique and a second image rendering
technique chosen from a different one of the group comprising at
least one of the GPU based technique and the CPU based
technique and the software based technique”, as is required by
independent claim 1 of the pending application.
Appeal Br. 12–13 (emphases added). We agree with Appellant.
Finally, with respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Day teaches or
suggests, “assign[ing] a score for each of the plurality of images applied to
each of the first and second image rendering techniques.” Final Act. 6–7
(quoting Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.) (emphasis omitted, italics added);
citing Day ¶ 35). The Examiner finds Day discloses, “assigning a score for
each rendered image, and reciting ‘provide a score for each rendered image
dependent on the image quality of the face detected.’” Id. at 7.
Nevertheless, Day discloses:
In the present embodiment, the system of FIG. 2 is used to
perform a scan of a patient 3 2 who is carrying a fetus 34, to
render images of the fetal face from volume data generated from
the scan, to perform face detection on each rendered image and
provide a score for each rendered image dependent on the image
quality of the face detected, and to select image orientation
parameters based on the scores for the images.
Day ¶ 35 (emphasis added). Thus, Day discloses selecting parameters, not
images or their rendering techniques, based on assigned scores.
Hence, we are persuaded the Examiner errs in finding that the
combined teachings of Day and Qian teach or suggest the disputed
limitations of claim 1.
Appeal 2019-004514
Application 15/097,989

10

b. Claim 10
Claim 10 recites limitations corresponding to the disputed limitations
of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 19, 20 (Claims App.). In particular, claim 10
recites a display selecting a rendering technique based on a previous
assignment, comprising
a plurality of rendering techniques including a first rendering
technique chosen from one of a group comprising a GPU based
technique and a CPU based technique and a software based
technique and a second image rendering technique chosen from
a different one of the group comprising the GPU based technique
and the CPU based technique and the software based technique.
Id. at 20 (emphases added). The Examiner again finds that Day teaches or
suggests the first and second rendering techniques are preassigned to the
images. Final Act. 14–15 (citing Day ¶ 91); see Ans. 22–23.
For the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, Appellant
contends Day does not teach or suggest using and selecting multiple
rendering techniques, but, instead, Day discloses using and selecting
multiple rendering parameters. Appeal Br. 17. Consequently, we agree
with Appellant that Day does not teach or suggest that the display selects a
rendering technique, based on a previous assignment of that technique from
amongst multiple rendering techniques. Id. Hence, we also are persuaded
the Examiner errs in finding that the combined teachings of Day and Qian
teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 10.
c. Claim 7
Claim 7 is directed to a system for employing a created data set
correlated to a rendering technique. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). In
particular, claim 7 recites
Appeal 2019-004514
Application 15/097,989

11

a rendering retriever to correlate the received image data with the
created data set, and to retrieve a rendering technique chosen
from one of the group comprising at least one of the GPU based
technique and the CPU based technique and the software based
technique previously assigned to the received image data.
Id. (emphasis added). Similar to the rejection of claim 10, the Examiner
finds Day teaches or suggests the first and second rendering techniques are
preassigned to the received image data. Final Act. 12. Specifically, the
Examiner finds “Day teaches ‘a method of, and apparatus for, optimization
of ultrasound images’ ([Day] ¶1). Day further teaches to assign a plurality
of images with an image rendering technique associated [with] a highest
score (See Claim 1 rejections for detailed analysis).” Id. (emphasis added).
Nevertheless, Appellant contends,
the Day reference does not teach using multiple rendering
techniques. Rather, the Day reference teaches using a single
rendering technique, with different rendering parameters. The
Qian reference also teaches using a single rendering technique.
As such, neither the Day reference, the Qian reference, or the
Dufourd reference, either individually or in combination, teach
retrieving a rendering technique chosen from one of the group
comprising at least one of the GPU based technique and the CPU
based technique and the software based technique previously
assigned to the received image data.
Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis added). For the reasons discussed above, we agree
with Appellant that the Examiner does not show that Day, Qian, and
Dufourd, alone or in combination, teach or suggest selecting a technique
“previously assigned to the received image data” from among multiple
techniques, as recited in claim 7. Hence, we also are persuaded the
Examiner errs in finding that the combined teachings of Day and Qian teach
or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 7.
Appeal 2019-004514
Application 15/097,989

12

For the reasons given above, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 7, and 10.
2. Dependent Claims 2–6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15
Because we are persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1, 7,
and 10 as obvious over Day, Qian, and Dufourd; we also are persuaded the
Examiner errs in rejecting claims 2–6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15, which depend
from claim 1, 7, or 10. Consequently, we also do not sustain the rejection of
claims 2–6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15, as obvious over the combined teachings
of Day, Qian, and Dufourd.
Obviousness over Day, Qian, Dufourd, and Higuchi or Kono
As noted above, the Examiner also rejects claims 13 and 16 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Day, Qian, Dufourd, and Higuchi or
Kono. Final Act. 17–19. Appellant contests the rejections of claims 13 and
16 in view of deficiencies in the rejection of their base claims, claims 10 and
1, respectively. Appeal Br. 18. Because, for the reasons given above, we
are persuaded the Examiner errs with respect to the rejection of independent
claims 1 and 10, we are persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 13
and 16, and we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of those claims.
DECISION
1. The Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1–12, 14, and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Day, Qian,
and Dufourd.
2. The Examiner errs in rejecting claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Day, Qian, Dufourd, and
Higuchi.
Appeal 2019-004514
Application 15/097,989

13

3. The Examiner errs in rejecting claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Day, Qian, Dufourd, and
Kono.
4. Thus, on this record, claims 1–16 are not unpatentable.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–16.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–12, 14, 15 103 Day, Qian, Dufourd 1–12, 14, 15
13 103 Day, Qian,
Dufourd, Higuchi
13
16 103 Day, Qian,
Dufourd, Kono
16
Overall
Result
1–16

REVERSED