Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 28, 2020

14574041 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 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.
14/574,041 12/17/2014 Robert D. Kenney 8888-46201 1004
81310 7590 09/28/2020
Kowert Hood Munyon Rankin & Goetzel (Apple)
1120 S. Capital of Texas Hwy
Building 2, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78746
EXAMINER
SUN, HAI TAO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2020 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT D. KENNEY, BENJIMAN L. GOODMAN, and
TERENCE M. POTTER
____________

Appeal 2019-002377
Application 14/574,041
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-002377
Application 14/574,041

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–12 and 14−20, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a graphics unit that
renders a frame of graphics data using a plurality of pass groups in which the
frame of graphics data includes a plurality of frame portions. Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. An apparatus, comprising:

graphics circuitry configured to render a frame of
graphics data using a plurality of pass groups, wherein the
frame includes a plurality of frame portions, wherein each
frame portion includes a plurality of pixels that is less than an
entirety of pixels of the frame, and wherein the graphics
circuitry comprises:

scheduling circuitry configured to:

receive a plurality of graphics processing tasks,
including an initial task corresponding to each of the plurality
of frame portions;

maintain, for each of the plurality of tasks,
information that identifies one of the plurality of frame portions

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Apple Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002377
Application 14/574,041

3
and pass group information that identifies one of the plurality of
pass groups;

maintain age information that indicates an ordering
for the plurality of frame portions wherein the ordering is based
on when the corresponding initial task for each frame portion
was received, such that the age information indicates, for first
and second different frame portions of the plurality of frame
portions, whether the initial task for the first frame portion was
received before the initial task for the second frame portion,
wherein the age information is maintained after completion of
the initial tasks for the plurality of frame portions;

select, for execution by the graphics circuitry, a
task from among the plurality of tasks based on the age
information and the pass group information, wherein the
selection selects a first task from a current pass group prior to
selecting a second task from a different pass group, wherein the
first task corresponds to a frame portion with a younger initial
task than a frame portion of the second task; and

execute the selected task using one or more
graphics processing elements.

Appeal Br. 26 (Claims Appendix).

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is the following:
Nishimura US 2003/0037091 A1 Feb. 20, 2003
McDermott US 6,584,587 B1 June 24, 2003
Aila US 2005/0134588 A1 June 23, 2005
McCabe US 7,119,809 B1 Oct. 10, 2006
Koduri US 2006/0271717 A1 Nov. 30, 2006
Jiao US 2010/0123717 A1 May 20, 2010
Duluk US 2011/0080416 A1 Apr. 7, 2011
Lottes US 2014/0259016 A1 Sept. 11, 2014
Appeal 2019-002377
Application 14/574,041

4
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 8, 9, 15, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Lottes, Jiao, Koduri, and McCabe. Final Act. 9.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 10–12, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Lottes, Jiao, Koduri, McCabe, and Nishimura.
Final Act. 25.
Claims 6 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lottes, Jiao, Koduri, McCabe, and Aila. Final Act. 30.
Claims 7 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lottes, Jiao, Koduri, McCabe, and Duluk. Final Act. 31.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Lottes, Jiao, Koduri, McCabe, and McDermott. Final Act. 32.

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner’s articulated reasoning
provides a rational underpinning to support a legal conclusion of
obviousness.
ANALYSIS
We note that if Appellants failed to present arguments on a particular
rejection, we will not unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the
rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(The Board may treat arguments Appellants failed to make for a given
ground of rejection as waived).
Appeal 2019-002377
Application 14/574,041

5
Appellant argues that “the Examiner’s proposed modifications
interfere with functionality of the reference and the Examiner’s own
mapping to other claim features” (Appeal Br. 21). Appellant contends that
“the Examiner’s reasoning cannot provide a ‘rational underpinning’ when
the combination destroys a reference’s functionality or interferes with the
Examiner’s own mapping” (Reply Br. 4). Appellant further contends that
“the Examiner’s rejection is internally inconsistent and illogical” (Reply Br.
4).
We agree. Regarding the “maintain age information” limitation, the
Examiner finds, and we agree, that “Jiao teaches the ages information. The
oldest thread is selected and provided to the arbiter 184 for the next cycle. In
Fig. 6 and [¶ 68], Jiao teaches FIFO 156” (Ans. 16, quoting Jiao ¶ 76; see
also Jiao Fig. 7). Jiao then teaches a first-in-first-out queue, and teaches an
age information determination for each frame portion/task combination
corresponding to the claimed limitation, and made without respect to the
pass group information.
Regarding the “select, for execution” limitation, the previously-
determined age information is used in conjunction with the pass group
information, wherein the:
selection selects a first task from a current pass group prior to
selecting a second task from a different pass group, wherein the
first task corresponds to a frame portion with a younger initial
task than a frame portion of the second task.

In finding that McCabe teaches the claimed “a second task from a
different pass group,” the Examiner applies a second queue that is first-in-
last-out, in which:
Appeal 2019-002377
Application 14/574,041

6
data is transferred to and from in a predetermined order; first-
in-last-out buffer contains a second task from a different pass
group; first-in-last-out contains different pass group; first-in is a
second task in the stack buffer 508.

(Final Rejection 15, citing McCabe Fig. 5, 8:1–10).
The Examiner further finds the motivation to combine McCabe with
the combination of Lottes, Jiao, and Koduri:
would have been to store results of rasterization in an easy
traversal and retrieval form; to move the bitmap/pixmap from
the stack buffer 508 to the frame buffer in memory 414 as
taught by McCabe in col. 6, lines 60–65, and col. 7, lines 30–
35.

(Ans. 29, emphasis added). The rejection is unclear whether the Examiner is
finding that one skilled in the art would apply McCabe’s teaching of a first-
in-last-out queue to:
i. modify Jiao’s queue to go from last-in-first-out to first-in-last-out;
or
ii. add a second queue to the combination of Lottes, Jiao, and Koduri.
Under case (i), we agree with Appellant that the modification of Jiao’s
queue “would substantially impair its intended functionality” (Reply Br. 4)
and the combination would no longer be able to perform the claimed
“maintain age information” limitation, because a first-in-last-out queue
would not satisfy the limitation that:
the age information indicates, for first and second different
frame portions of the plurality of frame portions, whether the
initial task for the first frame portion was received before the
initial task for the second frame portion.

Appeal 2019-002377
Application 14/574,041

7
Under case (ii), the only rationale the Examiner has supplied for
adding a second queue is that it “would have been to store results of
rasterization in an easy traversal and retrieval form” (Ans. 29); however,
under this rationale one skilled in the art would not consider adding a second
queue, but instead would consider the application of the benefits of
McCabe’s data structure to Jiao’s queue. In this case, the addition of a
second queue appears to be using Appellant’s disclosure as a blueprint to
reconstruct the claimed invention from the isolated teachings of the prior art.
See, e.g., Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Products Co., 840
F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In sum, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning fails to provide a rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We are constrained by the
record to reverse the rejection of independent claim 1, as well as
independent claims 9 and 16 commensurate in scope, and all dependent
claims.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s articulated reasoning fails to provide a rational
underpinning to support a legal conclusion of obviousness.

DECISION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 8, 9, 15,
16, 20
103 Lottes, Jiao,
Koduri, McCabe
1, 8, 9, 15,
16, 20
Appeal 2019-002377
Application 14/574,041

8
2, 3, 5, 10–
12, 17, 18
103 Lottes, Jiao,
Koduri, McCabe,
Nishimura
2, 3, 5, 10–
12, 17, 18
6, 14 103 Lottes, Jiao,
Koduri, McCabe,
Aila
6, 14
7, 19 103 Lottes, Jiao,
Koduri, McCabe,
and Duluk
7, 19
4 103 Lottes, Jiao,
Koduri, McCabe,
and McDermott
4
OVERALL
OUTCOME
1–12,
14−20

REVERSED