Ex Parte ShearerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 21, 201311536074 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/536,074 09/28/2006 Robert A. Shearer ROC920060148US1 8488 46797 7590 11/21/2013 IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW DEPT 917, BLDG. 006-1 3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829 EXAMINER RICKS, DONNA J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2612 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/21/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ROBERT A. SHEARER ____________ Appeal 2011-007164 Application 11/536,074 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007164 Application 11/536,074 2 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, and 18. Claims 5, 11, and 17 were canceled during prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s claimed invention relates generally to “methods and apparatus for performing ray tracing.” (Spec., ¶ [0011]). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method of distributing workload in a ray tracing image processing system, the method comprising: configuring one or more processors to perform an operation, comprising: dividing a frame of pixels into at least a first region of pixels and a second region of pixels; assigning the responsibility for initiating ray tracing for rays which traverse through the first region of pixels to a first processing element; assigning the responsibility for initiating ray tracing for rays which traverse through the second region of pixels to a second processing element; and partitioning a spatial index having nodes defining bounded volumes of a three dimensional scene into at least a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first processing element executes algorithms associated with traversing a ray through the first portion of the spatial index, and wherein the second processing element executes algorithms associated with traversing a ray through the second portion of the spatial index. (Disputed limitations emphasized). Appeal 2011-007164 Application 11/536,074 3 REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings and suggestions of Keller (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0043018 A1, pub. Feb. 21, 2008) in view of Kunimatsu (U.S. Publication No. 2003/0174132 A1, pub. Sept. 18, 2003). (Ans. 4-11). 2. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 18, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings and suggestions of Keller, Kunimatsu, and Schmittler (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0066607 A1, pub. Mar. 30, 2006). (Ans. 12). CLAIM GROUPING Based on Appellant’s arguments, we decide the appeal of the first- stated obviousness rejection on the basis of representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). 1 1 Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on April 2, 2010. The date of filing the Notice of Appeal determines which set of rules applies to an Ex Parte appeal. If a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to January 23, 2012, then the 2004 version of the Board Rules last published in the 2011 edition of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (37 C.F.R. § 41.1 et seq.) applies to the appeal. See also MPEP Rev. 8, July 2010. Appeal 2011-007164 Application 11/536,074 4 ANALYSIS At the outset, we note Appellant acknowledges that “[t]he cited portion of Keller discloses partitioning a bounding volume into a left bounding volume and a right bounding volume.” (Br. 11). 2 Appellant additionally contends: [T]he bounding volume of Keller is not equivalent to the claimed region of pixels. Respectfully, "bounding volume" and "pixel" are terms from the computer arts - namely, from the nomenclature of computer graphics - that persons of ordinary skill in the art will be acquainted with. Persons of ordinary skill in the art will recognize the distinction between image space and object space in computer graphics. Image space may include pixels of a raster image - while object space may include bounding volumes in a 3D object space. (Br. 11). However, we are in accord with the Examiner’s broader reading of the claim, which is silent regarding the argued image space or object space: The claims do not recite whether the "region of pixels" is located in image space or object space. Broadly speaking, Keller's bounding volume includes a "region of pixels". Also, Kunimatsu teaches: "A screen 24 shown in Fig. 1 is constructed by an infinite number of pixels 20 ... as shown in Fig. 2, first screen 24 in Fig. 1 is divided equally into a plurality of subscreens 26." ([0066], [0067], Figs. 1 and 2). This is also 2 Keller expressly teaches “partition[ing] the set of virtual objects contained within the original axis-aligned bounding box into a set of left objects and a set of right objects.” (¶ [0192]). Appeal 2011-007164 Application 11/536,074 5 equivalent to dividing the frame (screen) of pixels into at least a first region of pixels and a second region of pixels. (Ans. 13). We also observe the Evidence Appendix indicates “None” (Br. 23), regarding any evidence of record to support Appellant’s more narrow construction. Appellant additionally contends “[h]owever, the cited portions of Keller do not disclose at least a first processing element and a second processing element that perform algorithms for traversing a ray through a spatial index.” (Br. 14). We note the Examiner relies on Kunimatsu for teaching the first and second processors (processing elements): Kunimatsu teaches a first and second processor being assigned to a first and second region for ray tracing (Kunimatsu, [0068], Fig. 2) With the combination of Keller and Kunimatsu, there is a processor assigned to each portion (or in this case, the first portion and the second portion, respectively) of the spatial index (for ray tracing performed by the processor), and an algorithm is being used to perform ray traversal in the first and second portions. (Ans. 14-15). We observe Kunimatsu expressly teaches the higher efficiency realizable with a plurality of image processing units (parallelism): “[0008] It is another object of the present invention to provide an image processing system which includes a plurality of image processing units which can achieve a higher speed and a higher efficiency in an image process, and implements a low cost system.” Appeal 2011-007164 Application 11/536,074 6 Therefore, we find the Examiner has set forth articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. (Ans. 5, 15). In particular, we note the Examiner’s rejection is based on the combined teachings and suggestions of Keller and Kunimatsu. Our reviewing court guides that under § 103 the “analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Moreover, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417 This reasoning is applicable here. On this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s broader claim interpretation is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with Appellant’s Specification. We also observe that Appellant has not filed a Reply Brief to further rebut the Examiner’s responsive arguments. Appellant’s arguments notwithstanding, we find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, for essentially the same reasons articulated by the Examiner in the Answer (13-16), as discussed above, we sustain the § 103 rejection of representative independent claim 1. Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18 (not argued separately) fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). See n.1 supra. Appeal 2011-007164 Application 11/536,074 7 Second-stated Rejection of claims 2, 8, and 14 Regarding the second-stated rejection under § 103, Appellant contends “[t]he rejection to claims 2, 8 and 14 incorporates the rejection to independent claims 1, 7 and 13, respectively, over Keller in view of Kunimatsu. As stated above, the rejection to independent claims 1, 7 and 13 is believed to be overcome.” (Br. 16). However, we find no deficiencies with the base combination of Keller in view of Kunimatsu, for the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 1. Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 8, and 14. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, and 18 under § 103. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation