Ex Parte Fear

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2018

13870430 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/870,430 04/25/2013
102469 7590 12/25/2018
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./Nvidia
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andrew Fear
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.
AU-12-0838-USl 7289
EXAMINER
HAILU, TADESSE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/25/2018 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 ANDREW FEAR
Appeal2018-004260
Application 13/870,430
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and MATTHEW J.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1---6, 8-12, 15-17, 19, and 20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is a graphics processor that scales user interface
(UI) elements according to client screen size for display on smaller screens.
To this end, a rendered scene is combined with a scaled UI to produce a
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as NVIDIA Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-004260
Application 13/870,430
composite image displayable on a screen of a client device. See generally
Abstract; Spec. 1, 6-8, 24--26. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A graphics processor, comprising:
a scene renderer configured to render a scene to provide a
rendered scene from scene data generated by a graphics
application for transmission over a network to a remote client
device having a display screen associated therewith;
a user interface (UI) renderer configured to render
intercepted UI from UI data generated by said graphics
application;
a UI scaler configured to scale said UI independent of
said rendered scene and before said UI is composited with said
rendered scene, according to display size properties of said
display screen to provide a scaled UI; and
a compositor operable to combine said rendered scene
and said scaled UI into a composite image displayable on said
display screen of said remote client device.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1---6, 8-12, 15-1 7, 19, and 2 0 under 3 5
U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as anticipated by Amann (US 2004/0189677 Al;
published Sept. 30, 2004). Ans. 2-7. 2
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Amann discloses every recited element of
claim 1 including (1) a UI renderer configured to render intercepted UI from
UI data generated by a graphics application, and (2) a UI scaler configured
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed September
25, 2017 (supplemented October 17, 2017) ("App. Br."); (2) the Examiner's
Answer mailed March 8, 2018 ("Ans."); and (3) the Reply Brief filed March
14, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2018-004260
Application 13/870,430
to scale the UI independent of a rendered scene and before the UI is
composited with the rendered scene. Ans. 2-3, 8-10.
Appellant argues that Amann does not disclose these two elements.
App. Br. 5-11; Reply Br. 2--4. According to Appellant, Amann fails to
disclose a UI renderer that renders intercepted UI from UI data, let alone
scale the UI independent of the rendered scene before the UI is composited
with the rendered scene. Id.
ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Amann discloses the recited UI renderer and scaler?
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that claim 1 recites a graphics processor with two
independent and distinct elements that each render different data generated
by a graphics application, namely ( 1) a scene renderer that provides a
rendered scene from scene data, and (2) a UI renderer that renders
intercepted UI from UI data. That is, a scene and a UI are rendered
separately by different components of the processor-separate rendering that
is illustrated by respective parallel paths in graphics processing unit ( GPU)
126 in Appellant's Figure 2 reproduced below.
3
Appeal2018-004260
Application 13/870,430
APPLICAT!ON /
DATA
SCENE
Rl:NDEFffR i-------
£1.Q
UI
RENDERER
250
UISCALER
260
/ CUENTDATA
I
I J1Q ..._ ____ !
COMPOSITOR
Z.ZQ
GPU
11§
/ COMPOSITE
IMAGE
/ 22.Q /
Appellant's Figure 2 showing the GPU's parallel paths for respectively
rendering a scene and a UI
A key aspect of the claimed invention is that the UI is scaled
independently of the rendered scene so that the scaled UI is combined with
the rendered scene to form a composite image displayable on a remote client
device. See Spec. ,r,r 24---26. This independent UI scaling is shown in
Appellant's Figure 2 above where the UI scaler 260 scales only the rendered
UI from UI renderer 250 before compositor 270 combines the scaled UI
with the unscaled rendered scene. As the Specification's paragraph 24
explains, this UI scaling is based on client data 230 indicating that the client
device has a smaller screen and, therefore, the UI elements are enlarged so
that they appear bigger with respect to the rendered scene.
Given this functionality, we find the Examiner's anticipation rejection
problematic on this record. In the rejection (Ans. 3), the Examiner cites
various passages from Amann that are said to disclose the recited UI
renderer and scaler, but provides no supporting explanation or analysis to
show that the recited elements are present in these passages apart from
4
Appeal2018-004260
Application 13/870,430
merely quoting the claim language-an omission that makes our task of
discerning the Examiner's position all the more difficult.
Nevertheless, the Examiner cites Amann' s ( 1) Abstract, (2)
paragraphs 13, 27, and 49; and (3) claim 13 for disclosing the recited UI
scaler. Amann's Abstract describes transforming a rendered three-
dimensional (3D) image on a host system from a first image format to a
second compressed image format; (2) scaling the image; and (3) transferring
the image to a remote node for display. But even assuming, without
deciding, that this rendered image includes an intercepted UI as the
Examiner seems to suggest, we fail to see-nor has the Examiner shown-
how this rendered UI is scaled independent of a rendered scene, let alone
that rendered UI is scaled before compositing with the rendered scene as
claimed.
Amann's paragraphs 13, 27, and 49 and claim 13 fare no better in this
regard. To be sure, these passages describe scaling transformed images to fit
a remote device's screen size before sending the images to that device, and
that scaling may occur before transformation in paragraph 49. Nevertheless,
we fail to see-nor has the Examiner shown-how this rendered UI is scaled
independent of a rendered scene, let alone that rendered UI is scaled before
compositing with the rendered scene as claimed.
We reach the same conclusion regarding Amann' s paragraph 66 that
the Examiner cites in the Answer's Response to Arguments section in
connection with the recited UI scaler. See Ans. 10. Here again, although
this paragraph describes converting a rendered image to another format, and
scaling that image to a screen size specified for a remote node, we fail to
see-nor has the Examiner shown-how this rendered UI is scaled
5
Appeal2018-004260
Application 13/870,430
independent of a rendered scene, let alone that rendered UI is scaled before
compositing with the rendered scene as claimed.
That the Examiner finds that Amann scales a scene to fit a client's
display size (Ans. 9--10) is telling in this regard, for the rendered scene is not
scaled in the claimed invention, but rather the UI. Indeed, the point of the
invention is to scale the UI independently of the rendered scene so that UI
elements appear bigger with respect to the rendered scene as noted in
paragraph 24 of the Specification.
So even if we were to accept the Examiner's finding that Amann's
system can render intercepted UI from UI data, the Examiner has still not
shown that Amann's system can scale the UI independent of the rendered
scene and before the UI is composited with the rendered scene, as claimed.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1)
independent claim 1 ; (2) independent claims 8 and 15 that recite
commensurate limitations; and (3) the dependent claims for similar reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1---6, 8-12, 15-17, 19, and 20
under§ 102.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6, 8-12, 15-
17, 19, and 20.
REVERSED
6