Ex Parte Xu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2013

11122724 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JIANGMING XU
____________________

Appeal 2011-003174
Application 11/122,724
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before: MARC S. HOFF, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003174
Application 11/122,724

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-5, 7, 8, 12-14, 19-21, 23-25, 27-30, 32, 33, and 37. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a texture filtering using a programmable
table filter to improve computer graphics performance. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of filtering computer graphics texture data in a
graphics system, comprising:
determining, in the graphics system, a filter kernel,
configured as a texel array and subdivided into a plurality of
texel groups, each texel group including a plurality of texels,
each texel corresponding to a location of a pixel and associated
with a respective horizontal weight value and a respective
vertical weight value;
calculating, in the graphics system, a plurality of
fractional values for each texel group based on the weight
values associated with the respective texels; and
modifying, in the graphics system, a pixel color value,
corresponding to the pixel, according to a bilinear interpolation
using at least one linear interpolator and an accumulator;
wherein at least a portion of the fractional values
corresponding to the texel group are provided as inputs to the
accumulator, each one of the at least a portion of the fractional
values being calculated based on both a plurality of horizontal
weight values and a plurality of vertical weight values.

Appeal 2011-003174
Application 11/122,724

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hicok
Liao
Bastos
US 5,920,495
US 6,573,902
US 6,967,663
Jul. 6, 1999
Jun. 3, 2003
Nov. 22, 2005
Kim
Liao
US 2003/0206175 A1
US 2004/0257376 A1
Nov. 6, 2003
Dec. 23, 2004

REJECTIONS1
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hicok, Liao ’902, and Liao ’376. Ans. 3.
Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 12-14, 19-21, and 23-25 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hicok, Liao ’902, Liao ’376, and
Kim. Ans. 5.
Claims 27-30, 32, 33, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hicok, Bastos, and Liao ’376. Ans. 9.

1 In connection with all rejections Appellant solely contends that the
combination of Hicok and Liao ’376 is improper. Although Appellant
repeats this contention in connection with each of the rejections, merely
restating with respect to a second claim an argument previously presented
with respect to a first claim, is not an argument for separate patentability of
the two claims. In view of the foregoing, we select claim 1 as representative
of all the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and our analysis will
only address that claim.
Appeal 2011-003174
Application 11/122,724

4
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 7-18)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1-3), the issue presented on appeal is whether the
combination of Hicok and Liao ‘376 is proper.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions as to all rejections. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis we highlight
Appellant’s arguments seriatim as they are presented in the Appeal Brief,
pages 7-18.
Appellant contends that the combination of Hicok and Liao ’376 is
improper. App. Br. 9. Appellant argues that the main purpose of Hicok is to
solve a problem of asymmetry wherein the weights in horizontal and vertical
directions are programmed and processed separately. Id. According to
Appellant, “[t]he combined teaching of Liao ’376 (to calculate such
fractional values based on both vertical and horizontal weights) actually
teaches away from the teachings of Hicok.” Id. The Examiner finds that both
Hicok and Liao ’376 teach asymmetric filtering. Ans. 14-15.
The difference between Hicok and Liao ’376 is not that one
filters asymmetrically and one does not. Rather, the difference
is that Hicok filters asymmetrically with two independent filters
and Liao ’376 filters asymmetrically in both directions at the
Appeal 2011-003174
Application 11/122,724

5
same time. As noted in the Final Rejection, this is the advantage
of the Liao ’376 reference. Implicit in this advantage is the
saving of time and processing power, which the Liao ’376
reference is concerned with (see p. 2, sections 0014 and 0015).
Thus, one skilled in the art of asymmetric filtering, looking to
improve upon the separate filter scheme of Hicok, would look
to asymmetric filtering references which took into account both
both [sic] horizontal and vertical weights in each fractional
value so that filtering in both directions could be performed in
one operation.
Ans. 15.
Based on the record before us, we find that the Examiner did not err in
combining the Hicok and Liao ’376 references. While Appellant contends
that Liao ’376 teaches away from the combination (App. Br. 9), no further
evidence or argument is provided. We note that “[a] reference may be said
to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference,
would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or
would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the
applicant.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). A
reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for
an alternative invention from amongst options available to the ordinarily
skilled artisan, and the reference does not discredit or discourage
investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201
(Fed. Cir. 2004). Here Appellant provides insufficient evidence or argument
to persuade us that references so discredit or discourage the modification of
Hicok and Liao ’902 (the combination of which is not disputed) to use both
directional weight values to calculate fractional values in order to achieve
filtering in both directions at the same time as taught by Liao ’376 so as to
Appeal 2011-003174
Application 11/122,724

6
teach away from the modification and the resulting combination. As found
by the Examiner, “[a]symmetric filtering requires that the number of filter
coefficients in each direction be different, but not that filtering be done
completely separately for each direction.” Ans. 14. Therefore we agree that
Hicok’s use of two independent filters does not teach away from Liao ’376’s
asymmetrical filtering in both directions simultaneously.
We are also unpersuaded that the combination is improper because
“[o]ne would not be motivated to combine the selective teaching from Liao
’376 with Hicok.” App. Br. 9. The Examiner finds that “[i]t would have
been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Hicok and Liao ’902 to use
both directional weight values to calculate fractional values in order to
achieve filtering in both directions at the same time as taught by Liao ’376.”
Ans. 5. We agree with the Examiner. Upon reviewing the record before us,
we find that the Examiner has articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings sufficient to justify the legal conclusion of obviousness. See
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006.) Therefore, Appellant’s
assertion that the references were improperly combined is not persuasive of
error and accordingly, the Examiner has properly relied upon the
combination of Hicok, Liao ’902 (which combination is not disputed), and
Liao ’376 in formulating the disputed rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Finding Appellant’s contentions lacking sufficient evidence or argument to
persuade us of reversible error, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and, for
the same reasons, sustain the rejections of claims 12 and 27 together with the
rejections of claims 2-5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 19-21, 23-25, 28-30, 32, 33, and 37,
not separately argued.

Appeal 2011-003174
Application 11/122,724

7
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in combining the disclosures of Hicok and
Liao ’376 in formulating the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Hicok, Liao ’902, and Liao ’376. Therefore, we sustain the rejections
of:
Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hicok, Liao ’902, and Liao
’376;
Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 12-14, 19-21, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Hicok, Liao ’902, Liao ’376, and Kim; and
Claims 27-30, 32, 33, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hicok,
Bastos, and Liao ’376.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5, 7, 8, 12-14, 19-21, 23-
25, 27-30, 32, 33, and 37 is affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

msc