Ex Parte FISK

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 10, 2019

13355862 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/355,862 01/23/2012
104840 7590 01/14/2019
Imagination Technologies
c/o Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
1909 K St., NW
Ninth Floor
Washington, DC 20006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Donald FISK
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.
070852.000118 6999
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, KIMBINH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/14/2019 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
rntisdale@vorys.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DONALD FISK
Appeal 2018-002145
Application 13/355,862 1
Technology Center 2600
Before NORMAN H. BEAMER, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-19, 21, and 23, which constitute all of the claims pending in this
application. Claims 20 and 22 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Imagination Technologies Limited as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-002145
Application 13/355,862
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed "a method and
apparatus for compression of tile-based depth buffer and of the type used in
a 3-dimensional computer graphics system, to reduce the volume of data
being read from and written to memory used for the depth buffer."
Spec. 1:4--7.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the relevant claim language
italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for compressing depth buff er data in a 3-
dimensional computer graphics system, comprising:
dividing the depth buffer data into a plurality of
rectangular tiles corresponding to rectangular areas of an
associated image;
for each tile to be compressed, identifying a plurality of
starting point pixels in the tile;
for each starting point pixel of the plurality of starting
point pixels:
determining a difference in depth between a depth
value at the starting point pixel and respective depth
values at each of at least two further pixels to determine
changes in depth for x and y directions of the tile, and
predicting a depth value at a plurality of other
pixels in the tile from the determined changes in depth
for the x and y directions of the tile, and where a
predicted depth value for a pixel substantially matches an
actual depth value for that pixel, assigning that pixel to a
geometrical plane associated with the starting point pixel;
identifying pixels within a tile that are not assigned to
any geometrical plane associated with the plurality of starting
point pixels;
for each tile, storing:
for each geometrical plane, starting point pixel and
depth value data at the starting point pixel, depth change
data, and plane assignment data, the plane assignment
2
Appeal2018-002145
Application 13/355,862
data indicating which pixels in the tile are assigned to
that geometrical plane, and
data indicating which pixels in the tile are not
assigned to any of the geometrical planes and depth
values for those pixels.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Van Dyke
Anderson
Voorhies
US 6,961,057 Bl
US 8,089,486 B2
US 8,854,364 Bl
REJECTIONS
Nov. 1, 2005
Jan.3,2012
Oct. 7, 2014
Claims 1-8, 11-19, and 23 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Voorhies. Final
Act. 2-10.
Claims 9, 10, and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Voorhies and Van Dyke.
Final Act. 10-12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We
are persuaded by Appellant's arguments regarding the pending claims that
the Examiner erred.
The Examiner finds Anderson teaches "for each tile to be compressed,
identifying a plurality of starting point pixels in the tile" as recited in
3
Appeal2018-002145
Application 13/355,862
claim 1. See Final Act. 3; Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 4--5. Specifically, the Examiner
finds Anderson teaches:
for each tile to be compressed (if a tile is compressible, then the
depth values in the tile can be represented as a linear function),
identifying a plurality of starting point pixels in the tile (here x
and y denote the horizontal and vertical coordinates of each
pixel within 4x4 tile. By giving the depth value of the upper-
left pixel of the tile the value of (Zoo), Az and Bz the remaining
pixels of the tile can be obtained by interpolating ... ; col. 8,
lines 30-45).
Ans. 4--5 (emphasis omitted); see also Final Act. 5 (citing Anderson 8:30-
45).
Appellant argues in contrast to the claimed invention, Anderson only
uses a single starting point pixel in each tile:
In contrast to the present invention as set forth in the
claims, Anderson discloses that depth values Z(x,y) for a pixel
having coordinates x,y within a tile can be represented as a
linear function Z(x,y) = Azx + Bzy + Cz. The depth value of the
upper-left pixel within the tile (denoted Zoo) is used to
interpolate the depth values for the remaining pixels in the tile
according to the equation: Zij = Az *i + B~ + Zoo (i=0-3, j=0-3).
The values Az, Bz and Zoo can then be stored as compressed
depth information for the tile.
App. Br. 8 (citing Anderson 8:34--51).
The cited section of Anderson describes a formula that can be used to
find the depth values of the pixels of the tile can be interpolated based on
knowing the depth value of the upper-left pixel. Anderson 8:31--45. That is,
a single starting point is used. The cited section does not teach or suggest
using any other starting point pixel besides the upper-left pixel.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant the Examiner's finding that Anderson
teaches the disputed limitation is in error because it is not supported by a
4
Appeal2018-002145
Application 13/355,862
preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed.
Cir. 1985) (Examiner's burden of proving non-patentability is by a
preponderance of the evidence); see also In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017
(CCPA 1967) ("The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the
factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the
invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis."). 2
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1 along with the rejection of claim 11, which
recites a limitation commensurate in scope to the disputed limitation
discussed above, and dependent claims 2-8, 12-19, and 23.
Moreover, because the Examiner has not shown that Van Dyke cures
the foregoing deficiencies regarding the rejection of the independent claims,
we will not sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 9, 10, and
21 for similar reasons.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's decisions rejecting
claims 1-19, 21, and 23.
REVERSED
2 Appellant raises additional issues in the Appeal Brief. Because we are
persuaded the Examiner erred with respect to this dispositive issue, we do
not reach the additional issues.
5