Yoong Chert. Foo et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 13, 2019

15047466 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2019)

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.
15/047,466 02/18/2016 Yoong Chert Foo 070852.000096-1 1062
125968 7590 09/13/2019
Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
(ImgTec)
1909 K St., N.W.
Ninth Floor
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
MCCULLEY, RYAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2019 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
vorys_docketing@cardinal_ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte YOONG CHERT FOO, SALIL SAHASRABUDHE, and
ANDREW DAVY
____________________

Appeal 2018-008359
Application 15/047,4661
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, JOHN A. EVANS and JASON J. CHUNG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Imagination Technologies
Limited. App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 5 and 12 stand objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base
claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Final Act.
2.
Appeal 2018-008359
Application 15/047,466

2
Appellants’ invention is a method and system for multisample
antialiasing that enables memory bandwidth to be conserved. For each of
one or more pixels, it is determined whether all or a plurality of sample areas
of a pixel are located within a particular primitive. If all the sample areas of
a pixel are located within that primitive, a value is stored in a multisample
memory for a smaller number of the sample areas of that pixel than the total
number of the sample areas of that pixel, and data is stored indicating that all
the sample areas of that pixel are located within that primitive. Abstract.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method for generating three dimensional computer
graphics images using multisample antialiasing by sequentially
processing a plurality of primitives for at least a first pixel
which is divided into a plurality of sample areas, the method
comprising:
processing a first primitive, by
storing, when all the sample areas of the first pixel are
located within said first primitive, a value for the first primitive
in a multisample memory for a smaller number of the sample
areas of the first pixel than the total number of the sample areas
of the first pixel, and storing data indicating that all the sample
areas of the first pixel are located within the first primitive; and
subsequently processing a second primitive, by
comparing, when not all the sample areas of the first
pixel are located within said second primitive, the sample areas
of the first pixel located within the second primitive with the
sample areas of the first pixel in which the first primitive value
is stored, and
writing, when the only sample areas of the first pixel not
located within the second primitive are sample areas for which
the value of the first primitive has been stored, to the
multisample memory the value of the second primitive for each
sample area of the first pixel located within the second
primitive for which the value of the first primitive is not stored.
Appeal 2018-008359
Application 15/047,466

3
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:

Foran US 5,684,939 Nov. 4, 1997
Iourcha US 2009/0256848 A1 Oct. 15, 2009
Jiao US 2009/0073168 A1 Mar. 19, 2009

Claims 1–4, 6, 9–11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Foran.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Foran and Iourcha.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Foran and Jiao.

Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed March 15, 2018), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
August 15, 2018), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 15,
2018) for their respective details.

Appeal 2018-008359
Application 15/047,466

4
ISSUE
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issue:
Does Foran teach or suggest storing a value for a first primitive in a
multisample memory for a smaller number of the samples of the first pixel
than the total number of the sample areas of the first pixel?
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1–4, 6, 9–11, AND 13
Independent claims 1 and 6 requires that when all the sample areas of
the first pixel are located within said first primitive a first primitive value is
stored for a smaller number of the sample areas of the first pixel than the
total number of the sample areas of the first pixel. Independent claim 13
requires “determining whether all sample areas of said first pixel were
located within a processed first primitive, the value of which is stored in a
multisample memory for less than all sample areas of the first pixel.”
The Examiner finds that Foran teaches that it is an “important aspect
of the present invention” that “there is no requirement that the color values
assigned to a pixel or a region be stored with a particular supersample3 . . .
since the frame buffers can also be used to store color values.” Ans. 4–5;
Foran col. 10:65–11:8 (emphasis added). The Examiner further finds that

3 A “region” in Foran is “those supersample representations having common
polygon coverage within that pixel.” Ans. 4; Foran col. 6:18–20.
Supersampling increases “the number of data samples that are taken at or
around each pixel location corresponding to a portion of the image to be
displayed, and then combining the resulting values of these multiple data
samples to obtain a final display value for each pixel location.” Foran col.
1:37–41.
Appeal 2018-008359
Application 15/047,466

5
this section impliedly teaches that color values may, optionally, be stored
with a particular supersample. Ans. 5.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding. The cited portion of
Foran relied upon by the Examiner teaches that a single value is maintained
for each region corresponding to the samples which are covered by a single
polygon. App. Br. 11; Foran col. 10:50–54. We agree with Appellants’
argument that Foran thus teaches that no value for the first primitive is
stored for the samples themselves. Id. Appellants further argue, and we
agree, that Foran teaches that coverage mask 40 (Figure 2B) is set to “1” for
each sample area covered by a single polygon (or a common set of polygons,
in blended mode). Reply Br. 3. Coverage mask 40 is associated with a
color value that is stored in color buffer. Id.; Foran col. 10: 44–54.
The Examiner finds that “Foran does not expressly disclose, in exact
words, that the single, representative color value is stored in a sample area as
opposed to somewhere else.” Ans. 4. Even if we interpret the Examiner’s
inference regarding Foran, cited supra, as an argument that Foran inherently
teaches storing one or more color values in a sample area, the Examiner has
only established the possibility of such storage. “Inherency, however, may
not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a
certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”
In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).
We find that Foran does not teach or suggest all the limitations of
independent claims 1, 6, and 13. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1–4, 6, 9–11, and 13 over Foran.
Appeal 2018-008359
Application 15/047,466

6
CLAIMS 7 AND 8
Claims 7 and 8 depend from independent claim 6, the rejection of
which we do not sustain, supra. We have reviewed Iourcha and Jiao, and we
agree with Appellants that they do not remedy the deficiencies of Foran.
App. Br. 12. Therefore, we do not sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 7
over Foran and Iourcha, and the § 103(a) rejection of claim 8 over Foran and
Jiao, for the reasons given supra with respect to independent claim 6.
NON-STATUTORY OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING
Appellants’ arguments concerning the Examiner’s now-withdrawn
non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1–13
over claims 1–5 and 9–15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,275,492 are considered moot
in view of Appellants’ Terminal Disclaimer filed June 30, 2017.
CONCLUSION
Foran does not teach or suggest storing a value for a first primitive in
a multisample memory for a smaller number of the samples of the first pixel
than the total number of the sample areas of the first pixel.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13 is
reversed.

REVERSED