Ex Parte Bolz et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 15, 2019

14627496 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/627,496 02/20/2015
102469 7590 04/17/2019
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./Nvidia
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeffrey Bolz
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.
14-AU-0081-US02 8393
EXAMINER
LIU, GORDON G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/17/2019 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY BOLZ, XINHENG LI, ERIC LUM,
and EMMETT KILGARIFF
Appeal2018-007339
Application 14/627,496
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-007339
Application 14/627,496
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to a graphics rendering method and system
"for reducing redundant rendering of frames" by comparing "draw calls
including state information for a frame" to draw calls of one or more
previous frames, and "identifying draw calls that are not identical in the
compared frames." (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of reducing redundant rendering of frames,
compnsmg:
receiving a list of draw calls including graphics pipeline
state information for a frame;
generating respective bounding boxes for each of the draw
calls, wherein the bounding boxes are generated by transforming
vertex data according to received vertex programs and
transformation matrices;
comparing the list of draw calls of the frame to a list of
draw calls of one or more previous frames;
identifying draw calls in the list of draw calls for the frame
that have changed compared to draw calls in the list of draw calls
of the one or more previous frames, including draws whose 3D
graphics pipeline state has changed, whose bounding boxes have
1 Appellants indicate that NVIDIA Corporation is the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 3).
2
Appeal2018-007339
Application 14/627,496
changed, or draws that are added to or removed from the previous
frames;
identifying the bounding boxes containing altered regions
of the frames based on the draw calls in the list of draw calls for
the frame that are not identical with the draw calls in the list of
draw calls in the compared frames;
saving draw call information from the current frame to
compare in a subsequent frame; and
rendering only inside the altered regions.
App. Br. 11-15 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
O'Neill
Ephanov
Hutchins
US 2004/0008212 Al
US 6,924,814 Bl
US 2012/0176386 Al
REJECTIONS
Jan. 15,2004
Aug. 2, 2005
July 12, 2012
Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hutchins in view of Ephanov.
Claims 4, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hutchins in view ofEphanov, and further in view of
O'Neill.
3
Appeal2018-007339
Application 14/627,496
ANALYSIS
For at least the reasons discussed below, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner's findings and legal conclusions, as set forth in the Final Action
and Answer. In our analysis below, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis.
With respect to independent claims 1, 12, and 16, Appellants argue
the claims together. (App. Br. 6). Therefore, we select independent claim 1
as the representative claim for the group and will address Appellants'
arguments presented in both Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2017). Arguments that Appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed waived. Id. With respect to
representative independent claim 1, Appellants contend that the Examiner
erred in finding Hutchins teaches "a list of draw calls" as claimed. (App. Br.
7-8; Reply Br. 2--4). Specifically, Appellants contend Hutchins' "tiles" and
"signatures" do not teach the claimed "draw calls"
[] Claims 1, 12, and 16 do not recite receiving a list of"tiles" and
their "signatures" for frames. Instead, pending Claims 1, 12, and
16 recite receiving "draw calls" for each frame and then
processing based on the draw calls ( determining which draw
calls in a list of draw calls that have changed in a frame from a
list of draw calls in a previous frame).
It appears the Office Action is equating Hutchins' "tiles"
with the claimed "draw calls." This is incorrect. Hutchins' tiles
are specific portions of an image in a frame.[] Thus, Hutchins
processes based on a signature of a portion of an image in a
frame. This is not the same as the claimed processing of draw
calls for a frame. In fact, these methods are so different that it
impacts what kind of hardware can implement each optimization.
In summary, a tile is not a draw call.
4
Appeal2018-007339
Application 14/627,496
(App. Br. 7 (footnote omitted)). In response to the Examiner's discussion of
Hutchins' "signatures" in the Answer (Ans. 4), Appellants explain that
Hutchins' "signatures" cannot be "draw calls" as defined in Appellants'
Specification and as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. (Reply
Br. 2--4). Specifically, Appellants contend that:
RECOGNIZED DEFINITION OF "DRAW CALL" IN
SPECIFICATION MUST BE USED
[E]ven though the features defined in the instant application "are
not in the claims," this definition of these features must be used .
. . . the definition of the claimed term "draw call" must be that
specified in the instant specification.
Applicant respectfully submits that nowhere in the instant
application are the claimed draw calls taught to be equivalent to
Hutchins' signature of its tiles. As such, correctly applying BRI
[(broadest reasonable interpretation)] consistent with the
specification, would not construe the draw calls of pending
Claims 1, 12, and 16 to include Hutchins' signatures of its tiles.
[T]he term "draw call" in pending Claims 1, 12, and 16 is a term
of the art .... Appellant respectfully submits that one of ordinary
skill in the pertinent art would not construe Hutchins' signatures
for its tiles as the claimed draw calls.
(Reply Br. 2--4 ).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Particularly, we agree with
Appellants that Hutchins' image portions (tiles) do not teach the claimed
"draw calls." However, we also agree with the Examiner that Hutchins'
signatures of each tile's drawing commands teach Appellants' claimed "list
of draw calls." (Ans. 4 (citing Hutchins Figs. 4--5); Final Act. 3--4 (citing
Hutchins ,r,r 54, 63---64, Figs. 12 and 14)).
5
Appeal2018-007339
Application 14/627,496
Appellants bear the burden on appeal to demonstrate error in the
Examiner's position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006). We find, however, Appellants have not particularly explained how
the Examiner erred. In the Appeal Brief, Appellants have not identified a
specific definition of the term "draw call" in Appellants' Specification. We
find the Specification uses the term "draw calls" repeatedly, but does not
provide an explicit and exclusive definition of "draw call" as Appellants
contend. (See Reply Br. 2-3; Spec. 2-15). Additionally, Appellants' Reply
Brief also does not identify any specific definition for "draw call" in the
Specification.Appellants' arguments do not address the Examiner's specific
findings that Hutchins' signatures of draw commands teach the claimed "list
of draw calls" as recited in claim 1. (Ans. 3--4; Final Act. 3--4). Rather,
Appellants merely repeat the language of the claim and contend Hutchins
does not teach the claimed "draw calls." (Reply Br. 2-3; App. Br. 7). For
example, Appellants argue "the Examiner's Answer improperly applies a
broadest reasonable interpretation ('BRI') in mapping the claimed draw calls
to Hutchins' signatures for its tiles" but Appellants provide no persuasive
evidence or reasoning as to why the Examiner's mapping is improper.
(Reply Br. 3). The Examiner, on the other hand, has made reasonable
findings that Hutchins' per-tile signatures of draw commands are
commensurate with the term "draw calls" as claimed. (Ans. 4; Final Act. 3-
4 (citing Hutchins ,r,r 54, 63-64, Figs. 5, 12, and 14)). "In the patentability
context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations[,]
... limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification." In
re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
Applicants always have the opportunity to amend the claims during
6
Appeal2018-007339
Application 14/627,496
prosecution and broad interpretation by the Examiner reduces the possibility
that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified.
In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404---05 (CCPA 1969).
Appellants also argue "one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art would
not construe Hutchins' signatures for its tiles as the claimed draw calls" but
provide no evidence supporting their argument. (Reply Br. 4). Appellants
also provide no explanation or evidence that "these methods [Appellants'
and Hutchins'] are so different that it impacts what kind of hardware can
implement each optimization." (App. Br. 7). The Examiner, on the other
hand, has made reasonable findings that Hutchins' comparison of signatures
for each tile's draw command stream teaches the claimed "comparing the list
of draw calls." (Ans. 5; Final Act. 3--4). We do not find that Appellants'
general contentions show error in the Examiner's factual findings or
conclusion of obviousness of representative independent claim 1.
As to Appellants' argument that "the Office Action has not articulated
a finding that the applied combination of the cited portions [ ofJ Hutchins and
Ephanov includes 'each element claimed,"' we find the Examiner has found
each of the elements of the claimed invention and provided an articulated
reasoning to modify those elements in the combination. (Ans. 4--5; see
generally Final Act. 3---6). Moreover, the Examiner has articulated reasons
to combine the prior art teachings from the references and provided a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness, i.e., "to
modify Hutchins to have generating respective bounding boxes for each of
the draw calls, wherein the bounding boxes are generated by transforming
vertex data according to received vertex programs and transformation
matrices as taught by Ephanov in order to provide an efficient system and
7
Appeal2018-007339
Application 14/627,496
method that applies texturing techniques typically only found on high-end
systems to the average consumer." (Ans. 4--5; Final Act. 6-7) (citing
Ephanov 3:8-13). We find the Examiner has provided reasoned
explanations in response to Appellants' arguments. (Ans. 4--5). Appellants
generally disagree without specifically addressing the Examiner's rationale
to combine the teachings of the two references. Merely alleging that the
references fail to support an obviousness rejection is insufficient to persuade
us of Examiner error. Attorney arguments and conclusory statements that
are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe,
736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693,
slip op. at 7-8 (BP AI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative), available at
https ://www. uspto. gov/ sites/ default/files/ip/boards/bpai/ decisions/inform/f dO
9004693.pdf.
As Appellants' Briefs have not shown error in the Examiner's
proffered prima facie case of obviousness under § 103, we sustain the
Examiner's decision in rejecting representative independent claim 1,
grouped independent claims 12 and 16, and dependent claims 2, 3, 5-11, 13,
14, and 18-20, not separately argued, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Additionally, with respect to dependent claims 4, 15, and 17,
Appellants rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent
claims 1, 12, and 16. (App. Br. 9). Appellants additionally argue claims 4,
15, and 17 are patentable because O'Neill does not cure the alleged
deficiencies of Hutchins and Ephanov. (Id.). Because we find the
combination of Hutchins and Ephanov is not deficient, O'Neill is not needed
to cover any deficiency therein, and, therefore, we sustain the rejection of
8
Appeal2018-007339
Application 14/627,496
dependent claims 4, 15, and 17 for the reasons stated with respect to the
independent claims.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 based upon
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 1-20 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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
9