2019003494 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2020)

Koo, Anthony WL. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 2, 2020

2019003494 (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. 15/338,492 10/31/2016 Anthony WL Koo 160260-US-NP 9402 163037 7590 12/02/2020 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP 301 Congress Avenue Suite 1350 Austin, TX 78701 EXAMINER VALDEZ, PATRICK F 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): eofficeaction@appcoll.com kate@klspatents.com office@klspatents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANTHONY WL KOO and SYED ATHAR HUSSAIN Appeal 2019-003494 Application 15/338,492 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–24. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ATI Technologies ULC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-003494 Application 15/338,492 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for dynamically reducing application render-to-on screen time in a desktop environment. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system, comprising: a computing device operable to render video content for display on a display device and to periodically refresh that display device, the video content including at least one application window; a desktop compositor operable to wake and execute commands to compose video frames that are composited surfaces that include the at least one application window and to initiate a buffer flip to deliver the video frames to the display device; and a high resolution timer operable to cause the desktop compositor to wake in multiple instances between display refreshes to execute the commands if rendered video content is sensed. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Ording US 2003/0107604 A1 June 12, 2003 Joung US 2012/0060161 A1 Mar. 8, 2012 Louie US 2013/0155101 A1 June 20, 2013 Brown US 8,547,480 B1 Oct. 1, 2013 Noro US 2015/0241951 A1 Aug. 27, 2015 Law US 2017/0053620 A1 Feb. 23, 2017 REJECTIONS2 Claims 1–3, 7–11, 15–19, 23, and 24 are rejected under U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Law and Noro. Final Act. 4. 2 The Examiner’s rejection regarding indefiniteness was withdrawn. Ans. 3. Appeal 2019-003494 Application 15/338,492 3 Claims 4, 12, and 20 are rejected under U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Law, Noro, and Joung. Final Act. 10. Claims 5, 13, and 21 are rejected under U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Law, Noro, Ording, and Louie. Final Act. 11. Claims 6, 14, and 22 are rejected under U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Law, Noro, and Brown. Final Act. 12. OPINION We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and we add the following for emphasis. Claims 1–3, 7–11, 15–19, 23, and 24 rejected under U.S.C. § 103 Appellant argues that Noro does not teach or suggest the limitation of “the desktop compositor to wake in multiple instances between display refreshes to execute the commands if rendered video content is sensed” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 19–25. The Examiner in response provides an annotated version of Noro’s Figure 5 as provided below, finding that Noro’s “composition process” is operable to “wake” multiple times between depicted display refreshes at Vsync2 and Vsync4. Ans. 7. The Examiner finds that Noro does teach the limitation, “a desktop compositor to wake in multiple instances between display refreshes to execute the commands if rendered video content is sensed” because there is no claimed requirement that the display refreshes be “consecutive” display refreshes or that the compositor wake in multiple instances between each display refresh, as argued by the Appellant. Id. Annotated Figure 5 is illustrated below. Appeal 2019-003494 Application 15/338,492 4 Annotated Figure 5 above shows multiple composition processes (highlighted herein in green) operable to “wake” multiple times between depicted display refreshes Vsync2 and Vsync4 (highlighted herein in yellow). See Ans. 8. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s finding is essentially tantamount to using Appellant’s Figure 5 prior art subject matter which is essentially the same as Noro’s Figure 5 to reject the disputed limitation. See Reply Br. 2. In other words, the two DWM Processes 170 and 175 between Refresh 1 and Refresh 3 in Appellant’s Figure 5 read on claim 1. Id. Appellant believes this interpretation does not follow the broadest reasonable interpretation test because it is not consistent with the Specification. Id. 2–3. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are Appeal 2019-003494 Application 15/338,492 5 not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). During ex parte prosecution, claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow since Applicant has the power during the administrative process to amend the claims to avoid the prior art. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Appellant could have amended the claim to include the term “consecutive” to overcome the prior art of Noro’s Figure 5 and the admitted prior art of Appellant’s Figure 5. Although claims are interpreted in light of Appellant’s Specification, limitations from the Specification such as the term “consecutive” are not read into the claims. See Van Geuns at 1184. Appellant has the power during the administrative process to amend the claims to avoid the prior art. See Zletz, at 322. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the rejection of claims 2, 3, 7–11, 15–19, 23, and 24. Claims 4–6, 12–14, and 20–22 rejected under U.S.C. § 103 We also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4–6, 12–14, and 20–22 for the same reasons as stated above. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–24 is affirmed. Appeal 2019-003494 Application 15/338,492 6 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 7–11, 15–19, 23, 24 103(b) Law, Noro 1–3, 7–11, 15–19, 23, 24 4, 12, 20 103(b) Law, Noro, Joung 4, 12, 20 5, 13, 21 103(b) Law, Noro, Ording, Louie 5, 13, 21 6, 14, 22 103(b) Law, Noro, Brown 6, 14, 22 Overall Outcome 1–24 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED