Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 18, 202015195918 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2020) 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. 15/195,918 06/28/2016 Roger Sebastian Kevin Sylvan WHG16323 1052 69316 7590 11/18/2020 MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052 EXAMINER LAMB, CHRISTOPHER RAY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2694 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/18/2020 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): chriochs@microsoft.com usdocket@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ROGER SEBASTIAN KEVIN SYLVAN, PHILIP CHARLES HECKINGER, ARTHUR TOMLIN, and NIKOLAI MICHAEL FAALAND Appeal 2020-002795 Application 15/195,918 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which constitute all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 A telephonic hearing was held for this appeal on October 26, 2020. 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-002795 Application 15/195,918 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s disclosure is directed to computer graphics in which a composite image incorporating visual scene data and vector graphics date (text) is generated and displayed for a user perspective. A rendering pipeline renders an initial view and, prior to displaying the rendered initial view, a reprojection stage receives post rendering user input and separately reprojects visual scene data and vector graphics data. Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ 1, 2, 32–35, 45–49, 51, 54–61; Figs. 2, 3, 8. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows (emphasis added): 1. A computing device, comprising: an input device; a display device; and a processor configured to: at a rendering stage of a rendering pipeline: determine based on data output by an application program a three dimensional scene from an initial user perspective, the three dimensional scene including visual scene data and vector graphic data having locations in the three dimensional scene, the initial user perspective determined based on user input from the input device; render an initial view of the visual scene data from the initial user perspective in the three dimensional scene as two dimensional pixel data to a frame buffer; and generate an initial view of the vector graphic data from the initial user perspective in the three dimensional scene as a signed distance field of edges; Appeal 2020-002795 Application 15/195,918 3 at a reprojection stage of the rendering pipeline prior to displaying the rendered initial view of the visual scene data and the generated initial view of the vector graphic data: receive post rendering user input via the input device that updates the user perspective from the initial user perspective to an updated user perspective that differs from the initial user perspective by a change in orientation with respect to the locations in the three dimensional scene about one or more orthogonal rotation axes, the post rendering user input indicating the change in orientation as detected by one or more sensors; after the initial view of the visual scene data has been rendered and after the initial view of the vector graphic data has been generated for the three dimensional scene from the initial user perspective, generate an updated view of the visual scene data and an updated view of the vector graphic data from the updated user perspective without rendering the three dimensional scene from the updated user perspective by separately performing a first reprojection process on the two dimensional pixel data and a second reprojection process on the signed distance field of edges, each reprojection process based on the post rendering user input indicating the change in orientation as detected by the one or more sensors; generate a composite image of the three dimensional scene from the updated user perspective including the updated view of the visual scene data and the updated view of the vector graphic data; display the composite image on the display device; wherein the first reprojection process includes reprojecting the two dimensional pixel data in the frame buffer from the initial user perspective to the updated user perspective; and wherein the second reprojection process includes sampling and evaluating the signed distance field of edges generated for the initial user perspective based on the updated user perspective. Appeal 2020-002795 Application 15/195,918 4 Appeal Br. 32–33 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES AND REJECTION The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Frisken et al. US 2004/0189666 Al Sept. 30, 2004 Fleck et al. US 2013/0335442 Al Dec. 19, 2013 Michail et al. US 2015/0310665 Al Oct. 29, 2015 Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Michail, Fleck, and Frisken. Final Act. 2–8. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief that the Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief. As discussed below, we are persuaded by Appellant’s contentions of Examiner error. Appellant argues, inter alia, the Examiner errs in finding that Fleck teaches a second reprojection process of the reprojection stage on the vector graphic data is performed prior to displaying the rendered initial view as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 15–17; Reply Br. 2–3. In the Final Action, the Examiner finds the combination of Michail, Fleck, and Frisken teaches the limitations of claim 1. The Examiner finds Michail teaches many of the claim limitations but Michail does not distinguish between visual scene data and vector graphics data when rendering the initial view or when performing reprojection and Michail does not teach generating a signed distance field of edges for the vector graphic Appeal 2020-002795 Application 15/195,918 5 data. Final Act 2–5; see also Ans. 9. The Examiner finds Fleck teaches the following claim 1 limitations (also referred to as “disputed limitations”): generate an initial view of the vector graphic data from the initial user perspective in the three dimensional scene prior to displaying the rendered visual scene (citing Fleck ¶ 17); generate an updated view of the vector graphic data from the updated user perspective (citing Fleck ¶ 20); separately perform a second reprojection process on the vector graphic data (citing Fleck ¶ 26); generate a composite image of the three dimensional scene from the updated user perspective including the updated view of the visual scene data and the updated view of the vector graphic data. (citing Fleck ¶ 27). Id. at 4 (emphasis added). Appellant argues Fleck teaches performing a “geometric transform of the displayed text” where the displayed text changes a small amount between displayed images. Appeal Br. 16. According to Appellant, the displayed images correspond to successive frames that are displayed at a display device because Fleck teaches applying the geometric transform to text that has been displayed in a previous frame to update the displayed text for a subsequent frame. Id. Appellant argues, in contrast to Fleck's approach in which a geometric transform of displayed text is performed, the subject matter of claim I instead provides that the second reprojection process of the reprojection stage is performed prior to displaying the rendered initial view. Id. Appellant then summarizes claim 1: ... generate an initial view of the vector graphic data from the initial user perspective in the three dimensional scene as a signed distance field of edges; at a reprojection stage of the rendering pipeline prior to displaying the rendered initial view of the visual scene data and the generated initial view of the vector graphic data: ... Appeal 2020-002795 Application 15/195,918 6 . . . the second reprojection process includes sampling and evaluating the signed distance field of edges generated for the initial user perspective based on the updated user perspective. Id. at 16. Appellant argues the second reprojection process of claim 1 is performed prior to displaying the rendered initial view of the visual scene data and the generated initial view of the vector graphic data. Therefore, according to Appellant, “Fleck's reliance on the displayed text for the geometric transform is incompatible with and teaches away from the express language of claim 1 providing that the second reprojection process is performed prior to displaying the generated initial view of the vector graphic data.” Id. at 17. In the Answer, the Examiner finds that Fleck specifically states that it performs its text process prior to rendering of the image. Ans. 9 (citing Fleck ¶ 15). The Examiner finds, if Fleck does the text process prior to rendering the image, it is prior to displaying the initial rendered view. Id. The Examiner finds Fleck takes the text portion and the non-text portion and composites them together before the final image is shown. Id. (citing Fleck ¶ 27). The Examiner finds that Fleck teaches that the text and the non-text are rendered separately and then put together for the final image “and the original text in the image is never displayed in Fleck at all - it is stripped out and then rendered separately, and therefore the process is done before anything is ever displayed.” Id. at 9–10. In the Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates Fleck teaches “performing a geometric transformation on content that has already been displayed.” Reply Br. 2 (citing Fleck ¶ 26). Appellant argues that Fleck, paragraph 36, “the only other paragraph in which a geometric transform is disclosed, also Appeal 2020-002795 Application 15/195,918 7 discloses that the geometric transform is performed to adjust for small changes in the user's perspective of displayed text.” Id. Appellant argues “the geometric transform of Fleck, which is cited as disclosing the reprojection process, is therefore not performed prior to displaying a rendered initial view, as recited in claim 1.” Id. Regarding Fleck’s paragraphs 15 and 27 identified by the Examiner in the Answer, Appellant argues neither paragraph teaches performing a geometric transform on text. Id. at 4; see Ans. 9. Appellant argues neither paragraph teaches the reprojection stage of claim 1. Reply Br. 4. According to Appellant, paragraph 15 of Fleck discloses that portions of the image that include text may be identified using a text capture module prior to rendering the image and paragraph 27 discloses compositing text and non-text portions of the image without performing a geometric transformation. We now refer to the disputed limitation discussed, supra, which requires, prior to displaying the rendered initial view of the visual scene and the generated initial view of the visual scene data, the reprojection stage of a rendering pipeline employs post rendering user inputs to separately reproject the vector graphic data and the visual scene data. The reprojected separate vector graphic data and visual scene data are utilized to generate a composite image of the visual scene data and vector graphic data. Then, the composite image is displayed. See also Spec., Fig. 3. On the record before us, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument because the Examiner provides insufficient evidence to support the finding that Fleck teaches performing the claimed reprojection stage prior to displaying the rendered initial view of the visual scene and the generated initial view of the visual scene data. Instead, Fleck teaches displaying the Appeal 2020-002795 Application 15/195,918 8 rendered initial view and then correcting updates using geometric transform as a reprojection process. Additionally, on the record before us, the Examiner presented no persuasive support for the Examiner’s finding that “the original text in the image is never displayed in Fleck at all - it is stripped out and then rendered separately, and therefore the process is done before anything is ever displayed.” See Ans. 9–10. Accordingly, the Examiner does not provide prima facie support for the rejection. “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Therefore, on the record before us, we are constrained to conclude the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1, as well as independent claims 10 and 19 that recite similar limitations, as obvious. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1 and independent claims 10 and 19 which recite the disputed limitations, and dependent claims 2–9, 11–18, and 20. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Because our decision with regard to the disputed limitations is dispositive of the rejections made, we do not address additional arguments raised by Appellant. Appeal 2020-002795 Application 15/195,918 9 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 103(a) Michail, Fleck, Frisken 1–20 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation