Ex Parte Elmieh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 5, 2017

12507756 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 2017)

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.
12/507,756 07/22/2009 BABACK ELMIEH 080971 6609
23696 7590 06/07/2017
OTTAT mMM TNmRPORATFD
EXAMINER
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
RICHER, AARON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/07/2017 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BABACK ELMIEH, JAMES P. RITTS, and ANGUS DORBIE
Appeal 2015-006724
Application 12/507,756
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—56, all the pending claims in the
present application. See Claim Appendix. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-006724
Application 12/507,756
The present invention relates generally to identifying which graphics
instructions and associated graphics data may be associated with identified
performance issues. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
receiving graphics instructions from an external device;
receiving mapping information from the external device,
wherein the mapping information comprises at least one link between
one or more graphics instructions within the graphics instructions and
associated primitive graphics data that is used to render one or more
graphics images during execution of the one or more graphics
instructions;
identifying a performance issue associated with
execution of at least one graphics instruction within the graphics
instructions, wherein the performance issue is associated with overly
high processor usage;
using the mapping information to automatically identify a
portion of the primitive graphics data that is associated with the at
least one graphics instruction that is associated with the performance
issue; and
displaying a graphical representation of the identified
portion of the primitive graphics data to visually highlight to a user
that the identified portion of the primitive graphics data is associated
with the performance issue.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Rl. Claims 1—9, 12, 15—23, 26, 29-37, 40, 43—51, and 54 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aronson (US
2008/0007563 Al, Jan. 10, 2008) and Cahill (US 2008/0120543 Al, May
22, 2008);
R2. Claims 10, 11, 24, 25, 38, 39, 52, and 53 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aronson, Cahill, and
Ouaknine (US 6,091,422, July 18, 2000); and
2
Appeal 2015-006724
Application 12/507,756
R3. Claims 13, 14, 27, 28, 41, 42, 55, and 56 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aronson, Cahill, and Kiel
(US 8,296,738 Bl, Oct. 23, 2012).
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Aronson and Cahill
collectively teach or suggest using the mapping information to automatically
identify a portion of the primitive graphics data . . . associated with the
performance issue, as set forth in claim 1?
Appellants contend that “[a]s in Aronson, a developer using the
system of Cahill must notice a graphical element associated with relatively
higher processor usage and manually select that element in the user
interface” (App. Br. 12).
In the Final Action, the “Examiner agrees that Aronson discloses that
a developer selects a pixel after noticing a rendering problem” (see Final
Act. 2) (emphasis added), instead of using the mapping information to
automatically identify a portion of the primitive graphics data, as required by
claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner imports Cahill to cure the deficiencies in
Aronson. As such, we shall look for error in the Examiner’s interpretation
of Cahill.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Cahill “does automatically
identify performance issues” (see Final Act. 2). However, we find that this
response from the Examiner confuses issues by addressing “automatically
identifying performance issues,” whereas the argued claim limitation recites
“using the mapping information to automatically identify a portion of the
primitive graphics data” (see claim 1). Although the Examiner is correct
3
Appeal 2015-006724
Application 12/507,756
that claim 1 does not require identification of the performance issue to be
fully automatic (see Ans. 3; see also claim 1), we find that such a rebuttal is
not relevant to Appellants’ contention that in Cahill a developer, not the
system, must notice a graphical element associated with a high processor
usage and manually select that element in the user interface (see App. Br.
12). Thus, the question that needs to be answered is whether Cahill
teaches/suggests using mapping information to automatically identify a
portion of the primitive graphics data.
Cahill discloses in Fig. 3 a visual representation of performance data
and that it “may use that data to determine a relative and/or absolute
processing time for the visual elements in the display . . . then displays a
visual indicator for each visual element” (| 24). While the aforementioned
disclosure may teach displaying a graphical representation of the identified
portion of the primitive graphics data to visually highlight to a user that the
identified portion ... is associated with the performance issue, the Examiner
fails to clearly point out where Cahill teaches using mapping information to
automatically identify a portion of the primitive graphics data . . . that is
associated with the performance issue.
In fact, the Examiner relies upon Aronson, not Cahill, to teach the
claimed mapping information (see Final Act. 3 4). Thus, the Examiner’s
rejection is improper, because the chain of causation is split between the two
references in the Examiner’s proffered combination of Aronson and Cahill.
Stated differently, if Aronson is being used to teach the claimed mapping
information, how is Cahill using such mapping information to automatically
identify graphics data, as required by claim 1? The Examiner’s analysis of
the argued claim limitation appears to ignore the claimed portion reciting
4
Appeal 2015-006724
Application 12/507,756
using mapping information (see Ans. 7—8). An Examiner cannot entirely
ignore any limitation in a claim while determining whether the subject
matter of the claim would have been obvious. In re Wilson, 484 F.2d 1382,
1385 (CCPA 1970).
Even if we agree with the Examiner that Aronson teaches the claimed
“mapping information,” the Examiner has not shown that either Aronson or
Cahill uses this “mapping information” to identify a portion of the primitive
graphics data. For example, Aronson merely discloses that “[djuring
rendering of a visual representation ... a developer or other user may
observe a rendering error . . . The developer may select the pixel and be
provided with a browsable pixel history window” (Abstract). Aronson
further discloses that “[f]rom the information displayed in the pixel history
window 142, the developer or other user may then determine a source of a
rendering error associated with the pixel” (141), and that “there may be
multiple sources of the rendering error” (142).
In other words, Aronson’s developer/user observes a rendering error,
selects a pixel, and then is provided with a pixel history window which
provides the developer with access to the sources of the error, including
primitives. As such, Aronson uses the developer’s observation/selection, not
mapping information, to identify a portion of the primitive graphics data.
Further, the Examiner fails to explain how mapping information, as
taught by Aronson, is used by Cahill to automatically identify primitive
graphics data, nor has the Examiner clearly rebutted Appellants’ contention
that Cahill also uses a developer to select graphical elements in the user
interface. We are, therefore, constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 1, and claims 2—56 for
5
Appeal 2015-006724
Application 12/507,756
similar reasons. Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced
by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of claims 1—56.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—56 is reversed.
REVERSED
6