Ex Parte Shearer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2013

11536074 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2013)

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