Ex Parte Kerzner et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 29, 2019

14227461 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/227,461 03/27/2014
88032 7590 05/01/2019
Jordan IP Law, LLC
12501 Prosperity Drive, Suite 401
Silver Spring, MD 20904
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ethan Kerzner
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.
P62103 1627
EXAMINER
LIU, ZHENGXI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2019 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):
info@jordaniplaw.com
admin@jordaniplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ETHAN KERZNER and MARCO SAL VI 1
Appeal2018-008009
Application 14/227,461
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAEVSKY, 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 1-24, all the pending claims in the
present application (see Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants name Intel Corporation as the real party in interest (App. Br. 3).
1
Appeal2018-008009
Application 14/227,461
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention generally relates to storing surfaces as entries in
a geometry buffer (G-buffer) if a memory overflow condition for the G-
buffer is not met. See Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A system to output visual content, comprising:
a memory to store a geometry buffer (G-buffer)
corresponding to a pixel of an image;
a rendering pipeline, implemented at least partly in one or
more of configurable logic or fixed-functionality logic hardware
using circuit technology, including a deferred shader stage
having,
a fragment module, implemented at least partly in
one or more of configurable logic or fixed-functionality
logic hardware using circuit technology, to receive
fragment data for the pixel,
a surface module, implemented at least partly in one
or more of configurable logic or fixed-functionality logic
hardware using circuit technology, to identify one or more
surfaces in the pixel based on the fragment data,
a buffer module, implemented at least partly in one
or more of configurable logic or fixed-functionality logic
hardware using circuit technology, to store each identified
surface as an entry in the G-buffer corresponding to the
pixel if a memory overflow condition for the pixel to be
stored in the G-buffer is not met; and
a weight module to assign a weight to each surface
in the G-buffer based on an occlusion status of the surface;
and
a display to output the visual content based on the G-
buffer, wherein the deferred shader stage reduces a size
requirement of the G-buffer by tracking pixel information on a
per surface basis, reduces power consumption and extends
battery life.
2
Appeal2018-008009
Application 14/227,461
App. Br. 15 (Claims Appendix).
Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Salvi et al. (Marco Salvi et al., Surface Based Anti-Aliasing, I3D '12
Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Interactive 3D
Graphics and Games, 159-164 (Mar. 9-11, 2012)) and Kyusojin (US
2009/0110110 Al, pub. Apr. 30, 2009). Final Act. 8.
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Salvi fails to teach or suggest claim l's "a buffer
module ... to store each identified surface as an entry in the G-buffer
corresponding to the pixel if a memory overflow condition for the pixel to be
stored in the G-buffer is not met." App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 5-8.
Appellants argue this limitation in two parts, which we will address in tum.
Appellants first contend Salvi fails to teach or suggest "to store each
identified surface as an entry in the G-buffer." App. Br. 11. Specifically,
Appellants contend "nowhere in [Salvi] is there any mention of a G-buffer
surface, let alone 'to store each identified surface as an entry in the G-
buffer,' as claimed." Id. Instead, Appellants assert, Salvi "'mentions G-
buffer sample' on several occasions." Id.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Salvi teaches "storing a
surface" because Salvi discloses "only one color sample per surface" and
3
Appeal2018-008009
Application 14/227,461
"[t]herefore, a surface sample Si represents a surface." Ans. 5. In addition,
the Examiner finds, and we agree, "assigning surface sample Si a G-buffer
sample is 'storing a surface,' because Salvi recites 'Ifwe assign to each
surface sample Si a G-buffer sample and store only a small and fixed (e.g., 2
or 3) number of surfaces per pixel .... "' Id. ( quoting Salvi § 3 .1 ). On
Reply, Appellants concede "Salvi does, in fact, discuss and contemplate
storing only a small and fixed ( e.g., 2 or 3) number of surfaces per pixel."
Reply Br. 7. Appellants then contend, however, that Salvi "had not yet
contemplated the novel, unobvious solution of storing an identified surface
as an entry in the G-buffer corresponding to the pixel if a memory overflow
condition for the pixel to be stored in the G-buffer is not met." Id.
Appellants' contention that it would not have been obvious to store a
surface as an entry in a G-buffer is not persuasive. We address the "memory
overflow" portion of Appellants' contention below. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, "'[e]ntry' is a very broad term." See Ans. 7. Although the
Specification does not appear to define "entry," a relevant dictionary defines
"entry" broadly and consistent with the Specification as "an item recorded."
Dictionary.com, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/entry (last accessed
April 29, 2019); see Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1063 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (holding that under the broadest reasonable interpretation
standard, "reliance on [a] dictionary definition ... when considered in the
context of the written description and plain language of the claims [is]
proper"). Appellants already concede that Salvi teaches storing surfaces
(Reply Br. 7), that Salvi discloses "assign[ing] to each surface sample a G-
buffer sample" (App. Br. 11 ), and do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's
finding that Salvi teaches or suggests storing surfaces as entries in a G-
4
Appeal2018-008009
Application 14/227,461
buffer. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of "entry" in light
of the Specification, we agree with the Examiner that Salvi teaches or
suggests the claimed "to store each identified surface as an entry in the G-
buffer. "2
Appellants next contend that the cited references do not teach or
suggest "storing in the G-buffer, if a memory overflow condition for the G-
buffer is not met." App. Br. 12. Appellants first assert that the Examiner
conceded Salvi does not disclose this limitation. Id. But the Examiner
disputes any alleged concession. Ans. 8. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
that Salvi alone teaches or at least suggests the disputed limitation because
Salvi recites "[i]f we assign to each surface sample Si a G-buffer sample and
store only a small and fixed (e.g., 2 or 3) number of surfaces per pixel." Id.
As explained by the Examiner, "[t]his means when the number of surfaces
stored for a pixel is less than the fixed 'n', memory storage space for the
surfaces of the pixel does not overflow, a newly identified surface may be
added, because after the addition, the maximum of n surfaces will not be
exceeded." Id. at 8-9. The Examiner then points to Appellants'
Specification, which performs the same analysis as Salvi: "block 3 8
provides for storing each identified surface as an entry in a G-buffer
2 In any event, to the extent Appellants rest patentability on storing
something as an "entry" of a G-buffer, this assertion is misplaced.
Appellants admit that storing something as an entry of a G-buffer is prior art
in the Background of the Specification, stating, "a geometry buffer ( G-
buffer) may be used to store data ... , wherein each sample may have an
entry in the G-buffer." Spec. ,i 1 (emphasis added); see McRO, Inc. v.
Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
( approving the reliance of "admitted prior art" in the "background of the
patents").
5
Appeal2018-008009
Application 14/227,461
corresponding to the pixel if a memory overflow condition (e.g., maximum
of two or three surfaces) for the G-buffer is not met." Id. at 9 (quoting Spec.
iJ 17).
The Examiner then finds, and we agree, that "the example in the
specification for memory overflow condition: maximum of two or three
surfaces for a pixel is exactly the same as the example given in Salvi, which
recites 'store only a small and fixed (e.g., 2 or 3) number of surfaces per
pixel."' Id. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Salvi teaches or
at least suggests this limitation.
Appellants next contend Kyusojin fails to teach or suggest the
"memory overflow" limitation because "neither[] the memory 13 nor the
transmission buffer 21 ofKyusoiin is disclosed as being a G-buffer." App.
Br. 12. The Examiner explains that he cited to Kyusojin for the "memory
overflow" feature as an "additional and alternative ground[.]" Ans. 9. As
explained above, we agree that Salvi at least suggests this limitation. In any
event, Appellants' arguments attacking Kyusojin for not disclosing a G-
buffer are inapposite, as the Examiner relied on Salvi for disclosing the G-
buffer. See Final Act. 10. Appellants' arguments attacking Salvi and
Kyusojin in isolation do not persuasively rebut the underlying factual
findings made by the Examiner, which are based upon the combined
teachings and suggestions of the cited references. One cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually, where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants also contend, "the Examiner has not established a reason
why the memory and transmission buffer techniques of Kyusoiin would be
6
Appeal2018-008009
Application 14/227,461
applied to Salvi." App. Br. 12 ( emphasis omitted). Appellants' contention
is incorrect because the Examiner did supply a reason to combine Salvi and
Kyusojin, namely, "[t]he suggestion/motivation would have been in order to
prevent memory overflow, which may introduce errors and possibly cause
some waste of computing efforts." Final Act. 15. Furthermore, Appellants
fail to explain why the Examiner's articulated reasoning does not have some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007). See Ex parte
Belinne, Appeal No. 2009-004693, slip op. at 7 (PTAB 2009) (informative)
("Appellants do not present any arguments to explain why the Examiner's
explicit fact finding is in error. Arguments not presented in the Appeal Brief
'will be refused consideration by the Board, unless good cause is shown'
(i.e., are waived).").
Lastly, for the first time on Reply, Appellants provide arguments for
dependent claims 4 and 5. Reply Br. 7. Appellants have not explained why
these arguments, which Appellants could have raised in the Appeal Brief,
were not raised therein. We, therefore, do not consider these new
arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.4l(b)(2); see also In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d
1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an argument not first raised in the
Brief to the Board is waived on appeal); Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d
1834 (BP AI 2010) ( explaining that arguments and evidence not timely
presented in the principal Brief will not be considered when filed in a Reply
Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument could
not have been presented in the Principal Brief).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appellants' arguments regarding the rejection of the remaining independent
7
Appeal2018-008009
Application 14/227,461
claims rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellants do not
argue separate patentability for the dependent claims. See App. Br. 14. We,
therefore, also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-24. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims 1-24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8