Ex Parte Gateau

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 6, 2018

14625885 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/625,885 02/19/2015
102469 7590 12/10/2018
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./Nvidia
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Samuel Gateau
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.
13-SC-1568-USOl 4673
EXAMINER
SHIN, ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/10/2018 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
Exparte SAMUEL GATEAU 1
Appeal2018-004002
Application 14/625,885
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 "The real party in interest in this appeal is the Assignee, NVIDIA
Corporation." App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-004002
Application 14/625,885
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is "directed, in general, to rendering graphics," which
"is a process of generating graphics or images from a model using a CAD
tool" and "enables visualization of a model by transforming the model ( e.g.,
a two-dimensional model) to an image." Spec. ,r,r 2-3. Claims 1-20 are
pending; of these, claims 1, 8, and 13 are independent. App. Br. 5. Claim 1
is reproduced below for reference:
1. A method of rendering graphics comprising:
defining one or more paths from a plurality of pre-
determined commands;
applying geometric transformations to map the paths from
an object space to a surface which is to be rendered;
binding the paths in use for rendering to a path input stage
of a path rendering pipeline; and
stroking the paths bound to the path input stage based on
a stroke style.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Kiss
Takikawa
Brown
Falchetto
us 5,592,597
US 2008/0273797 Al
us 7,589,730
US 2009/0295811 Al
Jan. 7, 1997
Nov. 6, 2008
Sept. 15, 2009
Dec. 3, 2009
Claims 1--4, 8-11, and 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Kiss, Takikawa, and Falchetto. Final Act. 3-8.
Claims 5-7, 12, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Kiss, Takikawa, Falchetto, and Brown. Final Act. 8-10.
2
Appeal2018-004002
Application 14/625,885
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential).
We are not persuaded the Examiner's rejection is in error. We adopt
the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own, and we add the
following for emphasis.
Appellant argues the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 is in
error, because "the applied combination of the cited portions of Kiss,
Takikawa, and Falchetto does not include either defining one or more paths
from a plurality of commands or include a path input stage ( and, therefore,
does not include binding paths to a path input stage)." App. Br. 9.
Specifically, Appellant argues: (1) "there simply is no teaching, explicitly or
implicitly, in Kiss that its 'trajectories of a moving stylus' is a 'command"'
as claimed (Reply Br. 2); and (2) "there is no teaching or suggestion in the
cited portions of Kiss that its computer based paint application is, or even
contains, a path input stage" as claimed (App. Br. 8). See App. Br. 6-8;
Reply Br. 2-5.
We are not persuaded the Examiner's rejection is in error.
Appellant's arguments focus solely on the teachings of Kiss. See App. Br. 7
and 8 ("Takikawa and Falchetto have not been cited to cure the above-noted
deficiencies of the cited portions of Kiss."). The Examiner however, relies
on the teachings of Takikawa and Falchetto, respectively, for the disputed
limitations. See Ans. 11-12. Specifically, the Examiner finds: (1)
"Takikawa teaches defining one or more paths [e.g. stroke data, 0063] from
3
Appeal2018-004002
Application 14/625,885
a plurality of pre-determined commands [Fig. 3; e.g. predetermined
commands, 0063, also see claim 3 of Takikawa]" (Final Act. 4); and (2)
"Falchetto teaches ... a path input stage [ e.g. path stage, 0049-0055, also
see 0037] of a path rendering pipeline [e.g. graphics pipeline, 0049-0055,
also see 0037]" (Final Act. 5). The Examiner's findings with respect to
Takikawa and Falchetto are reasonable, and are not challenged by Appellant.
See App. Br. 7, 8; Reply Br. 2-5; Takikawa ,r,r 2-8, 63; Falchetto ,r 49-50.
As such, we need not reach the issue of whether Kiss cumulatively teaches
the disputed limitations. Appellant's arguments are not responsive to the
Examiner's rejection, and accordingly do not show error therein.
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and
claims 2-20 for which no additional substantive arguments are provided.
See App. Br. 9-10.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4