Ex Parte Duluk et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2016

12898624 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/898,624 10/05/2010
102324 7590 08/10/2016
Artegis Law Group, LLP/NVIDIA
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JeromeF. DulukJR.
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.
NVDA/SC-09-0295-USO-US 1 4159
EXAMINER
TRAN, KIM THANH THI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2016 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):
kcruz@artegislaw.com
ALGdocketing@artegislaw.com
mmccauley@artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEROME F. DULUK JR., THOMAS ROELL, and
PATRICKR. BROWN
Appeal2015-002075
Application 12/898,624
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-002075
Application 12/898,624
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The invention relates to splitting one or more graphics primitives into
groups of vertices for batch processing in a graphical processing unit (GPU)
(see Spec. i-fi-12, 7, and 64--75).
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for splitting a set of
vertices into a plurality of batches for processing, the method
compnsmg:
receiving one or more primitives, wherein each primitive
includes an associated set of vertices;
for each of the one or more primitives:
generating a beginning batch that includes one or more
vertices associated with the primitive,
generating a set of intermediate batches, wherein each
intermediate batch includes one or more vertices associated with
the primitive,
generating an end batch that includes one or more vertices
associated with the primitive,
routing the beginning batch, the set of intermediate
batches, and the end batch to a processing pipeline to process
each batch as a separate primitive, and
wherein the beginning batch, the set of intermediate
batches, and the end batch are processed to produce results
substantially the same as those of processing the entire primitive
as a single entity.
2
Appeal2015-002075
Application 12/898,624
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Chiu et al. ("Chiu")
Deering et al. ("Deering")
Brothers et al. ("Brothers")
Hasselgren et al. ("Hasselgren")
Zhang et al. ("Zhang")
US 7 ,002,586 B2
US 7,071,935 Bl
US 2007 /0091102 Al
US 2010/0026684 A 1
US 2011/0029982 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Feb.21,2006
July 4, 2006
Apr. 26, 2007
Feb.4,2010
Feb. 3, 2011
Claims 1, 4, 10, 13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Zhang.
Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Zhang and Brothers.
Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Zhang and Deering.
Claims 7, 8, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Zhang and Chiu.
Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhang and Hasselgren.
ANALYSIS
The Anticipation Rejection
The Examiner finds Zhang discloses all the elements of claim 1,
including receiving "one or more primitives, wherein each primitive
includes an associated set of vertices" (Final Act. 3, emphasis omitted).
Appellants contend Zhang does not disclose "one or more primitives, where
3
Appeal2015-002075
Application 12/898,624
each primitive includes an associated set of vertices" because, while
Zhang's "mark and afterall primitives function to synchronize threads that
are executing redistribution processes on a flow-control network that
includes vertices, these primitives do not, in themselves, include the vertices
of that flow-control network" (App. Br. 11). We agree with Appellants.
The present invention relates to graphics processing for "one or more
primitives each containing an associated set of vertices" (Spec. i-f 7), where
"[g]raphics primitives include triangles, line segments, points, patches, and
the like" (Spec. i-f 57). Accordingly, we construe the claimed "primitives" as
geometric entities used in graphics processing. Zhang's primitives bear no
relation to this construction of the term "primitives," as shown below.
Zhang discloses a procedure for balancing flows in a network that
includes a number of vertices (Zhang, Abstract; Fig. 1 ). This procedure
reqmres:
[S]ynchronization is performed between multiple flow
redistribution threads such that each of the flow redistribution
threads read consistent data . . . . A synchronization point 606 is
identified (represented by a vertical line in FIG. 6), where the
synchronization point can be any point between the end of the
reading phase 604 and the start of a "critical section" 608.
The synchronization point 606 can be invoked by using a
Synchronize primitive ....
Instead of using Synchronize primitive, two separate
primitives Mark and AfterAll can be used instead.
(Zhang, i-f 44--46). Thus, Zhang's primitives are programming control
features in the operation of a network balancing process. Such programming
features are unrelated to geometric entities used in graphics processing.
Further, the fact that the network that is the object of Zhang's balancing
4
Appeal2015-002075
Application 12/898,624
process includes points called vertices (Zhang, Abstract; Fig. 1) does not
mean Zhang' s primitives can be said to "include an associated set of
vertices," as recited in claim 1. Zhang' s primitives themselves do not
include any vertices.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, and independent claims 10 and 19
which recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 4 and 13 for
similar reasons.
The Obviousness Rejections
The Examiner has not shown that the addition of the Brothers,
Deering, Chiu, and Hasselgren references cures the deficiencies of Zhang
with respect to independent claims 1, 10, and 19 discussed above.
Accordingly, we also find the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims
2, 3, 5-9, 11, 12, 14--18, and 20, which depend from claims 1, 10, and 19.
CONCLUSIONS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1,
4, 10, 13, and 19.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 2,
3, 5-9, 11, 12, 14--18, and 20.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 are
reversed.
5
Appeal2015-002075
Application 12/898,624
REVERSED
6