Ex Parte Hakura et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

14043432 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 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.
14/043,432 10/01/2013 Ziyad S. HAKURA NVDA/SC-13-0119-US1 2142
102324 7590 10/02/2017
Arte.ois T aw Omim T T P/NVTDTA
EXAMINER
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
THOMPSON, JAMES A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 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):
kcruz @ artegislaw.com
ALGdocketing @ artegislaw.com
rsmith @ artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZIYAD S. HAKURA and JEROME F. DULUK JR.
Appeal 2017-006819
Application 14/043,432
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1—4, 9-13, and
18—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2017-006819
Application 14/043,432
Introduction
The invention is directed “generally to graphics processing and, more
specifically, to two pass cache tile processing for visibility testing in a tile-
based architecture.” Specification, paragraph 2.
Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)'.
1. A graphics processing system configured to perform
visibility testing in a tile-based architecture, the graphics
processing system comprising:
a screen-space pipeline configured to perform visibility
testing and fragment shading operations; and
a tiling unit configured to:
determine that a first set of primitives overlaps a
first cache tile,
first transmit the first set of primitives to the
screen-space pipeline with a first command
configured to cause the screen-space pipeline to
process the first set ofprimitives in a z-only mode,
and
then transmit the first set ofprimitives to the
screen-space pipeline with a second command
configured to cause the screen-space pipeline to
process the first set ofprimitives in a normal
mode,
wherein in the z-only mode, at least some fragment
shading operations are disabled in the screen-space pipeline
and in the normal mode, fragment shading operations are
enabled in the screen-space pipeline, and
wherein the first set of primitives is processed only once
by a world-space pipeline.
3
Appeal 2017-006819
Application 14/043,432
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1—4, 9—13, and 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Hakura (US Patent Application Publication
2011/0080406 Al; published April 7, 2011). Final Rejection 5—14.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 21, 2016), the Reply Brief
(filed March 20, 2017), the Final Rejection (mailed May 17, 2016) and the
Answer (mailed January 18, 2017) for the respective details.
Appellants contend:
[T]he Examiner still has not cited any portions of Hakura which
disclose that a particular set of primitives is transmitted to the
screen-space pipeline twice, where, in each transmission to the
screen-space pipeline, the same set of primitives is processed in
a different manner (i.e., in a z-only mode and in a normal mode)
based on transmitting a different command with the set of
primitives. Instead, in the rejections, the Examiner is simply
citing different stages of the screen-space pipeline, without
pointing to any specific teachings in Hakura of a first
transmission of a set of primitives to the pipeline, a first
command transmitted with the set of primitives, a second
transmission of the same set of primitives to the pipeline, or a
second command transmitted with the set of primitives, as
required by claim 1.
Appeal Brief 12.
The Examiner finds Hakura discloses in paragraph 44, “[t]he first
command is for early z-buffer culling, which is a z-only command since it
operates to cull primitives based on coverage due to the z value of the
primitive, thus affecting the primitive based on its z value.” Answer 3. The
Examiner further finds Hakura discloses:
4
Appeal 2017-006819
Application 14/043,432
[ajfter the z-buffer culling is processed, []the preROP unit
(included in the GPCs, as discussed in paragraph [0048] of
Hakura) directs data to the ROPs to perform operations, such as
color blending, organizing pixel color data, and address
translation (second commands), on the primitives according to
addressing in screen space.
Answer 4.
Appellants reiterate arguments made in the Appeal Brief in response
to the Examiner’s findings in the Answer, “the Examiner still has not cited
any portions of Hakura which disclose that a particular set of primitives is
transmitted to the screen-space pipeline twice.” Reply Brief 4. Appellants
further argue:
[T]he Examiner again cites different stages that are performed
by the GPCs, without pointing to any specific teachings in
Hakura of a first transmission of a set of primitives to the
GPCs, a first command transmitted with the set of primitives, a
second transmission of the same set of primitives to the GPCs,
or a second command transmitted with the set of primitives, as
required by claim 1.
Reply Brief 4.
Appellants contend Hakura’s paragraphs 44 (“which was generally
cited in the Final Office Action within a list of relevant paragraphs, but for
which no discussion was provided”) and 48 (previously uncited by the
Examiner until the Answer) fail to support the Examiner’s position. Reply
Brief 4—5 (citing Answer 3^4; Final Rejection 5). Appellants contend
Hakura’s paragraphs 44 and 48 fail to support the Examiner’s findings
because, unlike Hakura’s disclosure, claim 1 requires:
a particular set of primitives is transmitted to the GPCs - to which
the Examiner maps the claimed screen-space pipeline - twice,
once with a first command that causes a GPC to process the set
of primitives in a z-only mode, and then with a second command
5
Appeal 2017-006819
Application 14/043,432
that causes a GPC to process the set of primitives in a normal
mode.
Reply Brief 5.
We disagree with the Examiner’s findings. We find Appellants’
arguments persuasive and agree with Appellants that Hakura fails to
anticipate the invention recited in claim 1 because:
In sum, the portions of Hakura cited by the Examiner disclose a
single pass of a set of graphics primitives through a screen-space
pipeline. By contrast, the above limitations of claim 1 require
two different passes through a screen space pipeline with the
same set of primitives, where a first pass includes transmitting
the set of primitives with a first command associated with a z-
only mode, and a second pass includes transmitting the set of
primitives with a second command associated with a normal
mode. Because the portions of Hakura cited by the Examiner
describe only one pass through the screen-space pipeline, these
portions of the reference cannot be properly interpreted as
meeting the above limitations of claim 1.
Reply Brief 5—6.
Consequently, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as, independent claims 10 and 19
commensurate in scope. We also reverse the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of dependent claims 2-4, 9, 11—13, 18, and 20 for the same
reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1—4, 9—13, and 18—20
is reversed.
REVERSED
6