14106582 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 2020)

HE, Yong et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 8, 2020

14106582 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 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. 14/106,582 12/13/2013 Yong HE NVDA/SC131311US2 5158 102324 7590 01/08/2020 Artegis Law Group, LLP/NVIDIA 7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104 Houston, TX 77095 EXAMINER SHIN, ANDREW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/08/2020 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): ALGdocketing@artegislaw.com jmatthews@artegislaw.com kcruz@artegislaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte YONG HE, ERIC B. LUM, ERIC ENDERTON, HENRY PACKARD MORETON, and KAYVON FATAHALIAN ____________ Appeal 2019-001069 Application 14/106,582 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 10–12, 19, and 20. Claims 4–9 and 13–18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 NVIDIA Corporation (“Appellant”) is the applicant as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-001069 Application 14/106,582 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention relates “generally to graphics processing and, more specifically, to adaptive shading in a graphics processing pipeline.” Spec. 2 (Field of the Invention). Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A computer-implemented method for adaptively selecting coarse shading pixels, the method comprising: receiving a pixel block visibility mask corresponding to a pixel block that includes a set of pixels; selecting a plurality of coarse shading pixels associated with a subset of the set of pixels, wherein the plurality of coarse shading pixels includes a first pixel but does not include a second pixel; performing a first pixel shading operation on each of the coarse shading pixels to calculate first coarse shading results; and performing one or more interpolation operations on the first coarse shading results to calculate a second coarse shading result that is associated with the second pixel. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Seiler US 2006/0033735 A1 Feb. 16, 2006 Hoppe US 2007/0002071 A1 Jan. 4, 2007 Du US 2008/0235316 Sept. 25, 2008 Vaidyanathan US 2015/0170345 A1 June 18, 2015 Appeal 2019-001069 Application 14/106,582 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 10, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Du, Seiler, and Hoppe. Final Act. 4–6. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Du, Seiler, Hoppe, and Vaidyanathan. Final Act. 7–8. ANALYSIS Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–3, 10–12, 19, and 20 as unpatentable. Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that Hoppe discloses “performing one or more interpolation operations on the first coarse shading results to calculate a second coarse shading result that is associated with the second pixel.” Appeal Br. 10. While Appellant recognizes that Hoppe describes using interpolation, Appellant maintains that the interpolation of Figure 21, which is relied upon by the Examiner, “does not relate in any way to interpolation operations performed on coarse shading results.” Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br 4. Appellant further explains Hoppe discloses that an “interpolation is performed between the two circles,” namely “for added control and broader adaptation at coarser levels, two radii are stored, namely, the inner radius and the outer radius and the radius per-level is interpolated from these two radii values.” Appeal Br. 12 (citing Hoppe ¶ 175). As such, Appellant maintains that “Hoppe cannot be properly interpreted as teaching or suggesting the above limitations of the independent claims.” Reply Br. 4. Appeal 2019-001069 Application 14/106,582 4 We agree. The Examiner finds that “Hoppe’s first and third constraint regions corresponds to the claimed first coarse shading results,” (Ans. 3) however, the Examiner fails to sufficiently explain this finding. As Appellant explains, Hoppe’s constraint regions, two circles, are interpolated for in between resolution levels. Hoppe in no way refers or remotely suggests shading results or interpolation of shading results. While the Examiner also points to Du as teaching shading results, the Examiner fails to explain how or why Hoppe’s general teaching of using interpolation would be incorporated into Du’s graphics process. As such, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejections of the claimed invention. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we reverse the rejections of claims 1–3, 10–12, 19, and 20 as unpatentable. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 10, 19 103 Du, Seiler, Hoppe 1, 10, 19 2, 3, 11, 12, 20 103 Du, Seiler, Hoppe, Vaidyanathan 2, 3, 11, 12, 20 Overall Outcome 1–3, 10–12, 19, 20 REVERSED