Imagination Technologies Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2021

2020001199 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2021)

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.
15/421,579 02/01/2017 Michael Worcester 2645-0338US01 4902
125968 7590 07/01/2021
Potomac Law Group PLLC (IMGTEC)
8229 Boone Boulevard Suite 430
Vienna, VA 22182
EXAMINER
PRINGLE-PARKER, JASON A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2021 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):
Eofficeaction@appcoll.com
Patents@potomaclaw.com
vdeluca@potomaclaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL WORCESTER, STUART SMITH, and
SIMON FENNEY
Appeal 2020-001199
Application 15/421,579
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES B. ARPIN, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6–10, and 12–20.2 See Final
Act. 1, 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Imagination Technologies Limited.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 The Examiner states, “Claims 5 and 11 overcome[] the prior art. Examiner
notes these are currently rejected under 35 USC§ 101.” Final Act. 11. The
Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. Id. at 10; Ans. 17.
Accordingly, we understand claims 5 and 11 contain allowable subject
matter and would be allowable if rewritten into independent form.
Appeal 2020-001199
Application 15/421,579
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to tile-based computer graphics processing.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A graphics processing system comprising:
a tiling unit configured to tile a first view of a scene into a
plurality of tiles and generate a list of primitives associated with
each tile;
a processing unit configured to identify a first subset of the
tiles that are each associated with at least a predetermined
number of primitives in dependence on the list; and
a rendering unit configured to render to a render target
each of the identified tiles and not render tiles that are not
identified by the processing unit.
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Plowman US 2010/0026682 A1 Feb. 4, 2010
Kazama US 2014/0092087 A1 Apr. 3, 2014

Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–4, 6–10, 12–20 103 Plowman, Kazama
OPINION3
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

3 Appellant argues the rejection with reference only to claim 1. Appeal
Br. 9–13; Reply Br. 1–5. We review Appellant’s arguments with reference
to claim 1 and, except for our ultimate conclusion, do not discuss the merits
of the rejection of the remaining claims.
Appeal 2020-001199
Application 15/421,579
3
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings as set
forth in the Answer and in the Final Action from which this appeal was
taken, and we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. We have considered
Appellant’s arguments, but we do not find them persuasive of error. We
provide the following explanation for emphasis.
Appellant argues the rejection of claim 1 for various reasons. Appeal
Br. 9–13. In particular, Appellant argues Plowman does not teach or suggest
“a processing unit configured to identify a first subset of the tiles that are
each associated with at least a predetermined number of primitives in
dependence on the list,” and Kazama does not cure this deficiency. Id. at 10–
11.
The Examiner finds “Plowman does in fact teach the entire limitation
under certain circumstances, namely if the predetermined number is 0 and
all tiles are rendered.” Ans. 20; see id. at 19 (citing Plowman ¶¶ 18, 89, 99);
see Plowman ¶ 18 (“rasteri[z]ing processes in tile-based rendering systems
may require the use of previously stored tile-lists to identify primitives to be
raster[iz]ed for a tile, primitive tiling (binning) processes may use stored
transformed vertex data to test against the tile positions, and so on”). More
specifically, the Examiner finds:
If the predetermined number is defined as 0 (as an
example), then all tiles are identified, and the subset is all of the
tiles. Since all tiles meet the requirement, the rendering unit will
render all tiles. In this situation, the scene has been tiled, a list of
primitives has been generated, and all tiles are identified as
needing to be rendered, and are then rendered. The claim
indicates tiles that are not identified are not rendered, but does
not require there to be non-rendered tiles.
Ans. 19.
Appeal 2020-001199
Application 15/421,579
4
We understand the Examiner to find that Plowman alone discloses “a
processing unit configured to identify a first subset of the tiles that are each
associated with at least a predetermined number of primitives in dependence
on the list” and “a rendering unit configured to render to a render target each
of the identified tiles and not render tiles that are not identified by the
processing unit.” That is, we understand the Examiner to find that at least
paragraph 18 discloses previously-stored tile lists identifying primitives to
be rasterized for a tile and binning tiles not having at least one primitive.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
In contrast, we disagree with Appellant’s argument that “[t]he
Examiner’s Answer fails to cite to any portion of Plowman describing any
act of identification of any subset of tiles.” Reply Br. 2. The Examiner’s
Answer cites Plowman’s disclosure that reads:
texture mapping processes may require the use of stored texture
maps, raster[z]ing processes in tile-based rendering systems may
require the use of previously stored tile-lists to identify
primitives to be raster[z]ed for a tile, primitive tiling (binning)
processes may use stored transformed vertex data to test against
the tile positions, and so on. In each of these cases, a relevant
graphic process, such as texture mapping, will identify the need
for data to carry out the process and then fetch that data from
memory (which may be a cache memory or other memory, as is
known in the art) and then use the fetched data when performing
its process.
Plowman ¶ 18. Consistent with the Examiner’s analysis, we find that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood this passage to disclose
clearly the use of tile-lists, some of which have “0” primitives to be
rendered, in which case, those without at least the pre-determined number of
Appeal 2020-001199
Application 15/421,579
5
“1” primitive to be rendered are not identified for rendering and, therefore,
are not rendered.4
We also are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the Answer-
created example does not make any technical sense as it would serve no
purpose whatsoever to ‘identify’ tiles having at least zero primitives and
then render all such ‘identified’ tiles.” Reply Br. 2. Attorney arguments and
conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled
to little probative weight. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir.
1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Thus,
because these statements are “conclusory” and “unsupported by factual
evidence,” we give little probative weight to counsel’s assertions of what
would make “no technical sense” and “serve no purpose whatsoever.”
Furthermore, we note Appellant’s re-statement of the Examiner’s
example, in which the Examiner used “zero” as the predetermined number.
Reply Br. 2; Ans. 19. We believe the Examiner intended to use “1” as the
exemplary predetermined number, such that only those tiles with at least “1”
primitive (i.e., more than zero, because we are dealing with integers) to be
rendered are identified. Either way, we find Plowman, taken as a whole,
reasonably teaches or suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art: “a tiling
unit configured to tile a first view of a scene into a plurality of tiles and
generate a list of primitives associated with each tile” and “a processing unit
configured to identify a first subset of the tiles that are each associated with
at least a predetermined number of primitives in dependence on the list.”

4 If prosecution resumes, the Examiner and Appellant should consider
whether the Specification supports the negative limitation “not render[ing]
tiles that are not identified by the processing unit.”
Appeal 2020-001199
Application 15/421,579
6
Because we are persuaded that Plowman alone discloses the argued
limitations, we need not specifically address Appellant’s arguments as to
Kazama not curing the deficiencies and the shortcomings of the
combination. See Appeal Br. 9–13; Reply Br. 1–5. The Board may sustain a
multi-reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by relying on one of the
references alone without having to designate the reliance on less than the
total amount of evidence as a new ground of rejection. In re Boyer, 363 F.2d
455, 458 n.2 (CCPA 1966); In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that claim 1
is unpatentable.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–10,
12–20
103 Plowman, Kazama 1–4, 6–10,
12–20

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(v).
AFFIRMED