Ex Parte McDonald et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 15, 201713971246 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/971,246 08/20/2013 John McDonald AU-13-0124-US1 4132 102469 7590 12/19/2017 PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./Nvidia 14241 DALLAS PARKWAY SUITE 620 DALLAS, TX 75254 EXAMINER NGUYEN, ANH TUAN V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2614 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/19/2017 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): docket@pj-iplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN MCDONALD and CASS EVERITT Appeal 2017-007309 Application 13/971,246 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-007309 Application 13/971,246 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added); 1. A texture filter unit operable to process a plurality of pixels having respective pixel colors, comprising: an alpha blender configured to receive a post-multiplied pixel color and convert to apre-multipliedpixel color, and a filter configured to apply texture filtering to said plurality of pixels based on pre-multiplied pixel colors. App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix). Rejections on Appeal1 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-19, and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dye et al. (US 2002/0135585 Al; published Sept. 26, 2002), and Kirk (US 6,577,320 Bl; issued June 10, 2003).2 2. The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 being unpatentable over Dye, Kirk, and Mertens (US 2008/0303913 Al; published Dec. 11,2008). 1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Ans. 2. 2 The patentability of claims 2-22 is not separately argued from that of claim 1. See App. Br. 12-15. Thus, except for our ultimate decision, claims 2-22 are not discussed further herein. 2 Appeal 2017-007309 Application 13/971,246 3. The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dye, Kirk, and Wong (US 2009/0167785 Al; published July 2, 2009). Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious? PRINCIPLES OF LAW The mere existence of differences between the prior art and the claim does not establish non-obviousness. See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230 (1976). Instead, the relevant question is “whether the difference between the prior art and the subject matter in question is a [difference] sufficient to render the claimed subject matter unobvious to one skilled in the applicable art.” Dann, 425 U.S. at 228 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Indeed, the Supreme Court made clear that when considering obviousness, “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSRIntI Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Further, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). 3 Appeal 2017-007309 Application 13/971,246 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35U.S.C. § 103 because: [Pjending Claim 1 recites “an alpha blender configured to receive a post-multiplied pixel color and convert to a pre multiplied pixel color.” Thus, pending Claim 1 requires that its alpha blender is configured to both “receive a post-multiplied pixel” and “convert to a pre-multipliedpixel color. ” The Office Action . . . fails to recognize that its equivalent to the claimed alpha blender, Dye’s FIR filter unit 650, is also required to convert the received post-multiplied pixel color to a pre multiplied pixel color. Instead, the Office Action applies Kirk’s step 125 of its method of Fig. 6 to teach the conversion to premultiplied pixel colors. However, as noted above, pending Claim 1 requires the alpha blender to also convert and, as the Office Action recognizes, Dye's equivalent of the claimed alpha blender, its FIR filter unit 650, does not “convert to a pre multiplied pixel color. ” As such, the applied combination of the cited portions of Dye and Kirk does not include each element claimed in pending Claim 1. App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 2-3. This argument is not persuasive. Appellants’ argument that neither Dye nor Kirk teaches or suggests an alpha blender configured to both receive a post-multiplied pixel color and convert the received post- multiplied pixel color to a pre-multiplied pixel color does not address the Examiner’s combination of references. More specifically, the Examiner relied upon Dye to teach an alpha blender configured to receive a post- multiplied pixel color, and further relied upon Kirk to teach a filter 4 Appeal 2017-007309 Application 13/971,246 configured to convert a received post-multiplied pixel color to a pre multiplied pixel color. See Final Act. 3-5 (citing Dye 292, 301; Kirk 5:43—48, 63-67); see also Ans. 3—4. The Examiner further found it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the converted pre-multiplied pixel colors taught by Kirk to the filtering/alpha blending taught by Dye. See Final Act. 5. As Appellants’ argument does address the actual reasoning of the Examiner’s rejection, the argument does not persuade us of Examiner error. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-22 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. (2) Claims 1-22 are not patentable. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-22 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation