Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 18, 2020

2020002795 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2020)

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.
15/195,918 06/28/2016 Roger Sebastian Kevin Sylvan WHG16323 1052
69316 7590 11/18/2020
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
LAMB, CHRISTOPHER RAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/18/2020 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):
chriochs@microsoft.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROGER SEBASTIAN KEVIN SYLVAN, PHILIP CHARLES
HECKINGER, ARTHUR TOMLIN, and NIKOLAI MICHAEL FAALAND

Appeal 2020-002795
Application 15/195,918
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which constitute all pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 A telephonic hearing was held for this appeal on October 26, 2020.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-002795
Application 15/195,918

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to computer graphics in which a
composite image incorporating visual scene data and vector graphics date
(text) is generated and displayed for a user perspective. A rendering pipeline
renders an initial view and, prior to displaying the rendered initial view, a
reprojection stage receives post rendering user input and separately
reprojects visual scene data and vector graphics data. Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ 1,
2, 32–35, 45–49, 51, 54–61; Figs. 2, 3, 8.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows (emphasis
added):
1. A computing device, comprising:
an input device;
a display device; and
a processor configured to:
at a rendering stage of a rendering pipeline:
determine based on data output by an application program a
three dimensional scene from an initial user perspective, the three
dimensional scene including visual scene data and vector graphic data
having locations in the three dimensional scene, the initial user
perspective determined based on user input from the input device;
render an initial view of the visual scene data from the initial
user perspective in the three dimensional scene as two dimensional
pixel data to a frame buffer; and
generate an initial view of the vector graphic data from the
initial user perspective in the three dimensional scene as a signed
distance field of edges;
Appeal 2020-002795
Application 15/195,918

3
at a reprojection stage of the rendering pipeline prior to
displaying the rendered initial view of the visual scene data and the
generated initial view of the vector graphic data:
receive post rendering user input via the input device that
updates the user perspective from the initial user perspective to an
updated user perspective that differs from the initial user perspective
by a change in orientation with respect to the locations in the three
dimensional scene about one or more orthogonal rotation axes, the
post rendering user input indicating the change in orientation as
detected by one or more sensors;
after the initial view of the visual scene data has been rendered
and after the initial view of the vector graphic data has been
generated for the three dimensional scene from the initial user
perspective, generate an updated view of the visual scene data and an
updated view of the vector graphic data from the updated user
perspective without rendering the three dimensional scene from the
updated user perspective by separately performing a first reprojection
process on the two dimensional pixel data and a second reprojection
process on the signed distance field of edges, each reprojection
process based on the post rendering user input indicating the change
in orientation as detected by the one or more sensors;
generate a composite image of the three dimensional scene
from the updated user perspective including the updated view of the
visual scene data and the updated view of the vector graphic data;
display the composite image on the display device; wherein
the first reprojection process includes reprojecting the two
dimensional pixel data in the frame buffer from the initial user
perspective to the updated user perspective; and wherein
the second reprojection process includes sampling and
evaluating the signed distance field of edges generated for the initial
user perspective based on the updated user perspective.

Appeal 2020-002795
Application 15/195,918

4
Appeal Br. 32–33 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Frisken et al. US 2004/0189666 Al Sept. 30, 2004
Fleck et al. US 2013/0335442 Al Dec. 19, 2013
Michail et al. US 2015/0310665 Al Oct. 29, 2015

Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Michail, Fleck, and Frisken. Final Act. 2–8.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief that the Examiner has
erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments in the
Appeal Brief. As discussed below, we are persuaded by Appellant’s
contentions of Examiner error.
Appellant argues, inter alia, the Examiner errs in finding that Fleck
teaches a second reprojection process of the reprojection stage on the vector
graphic data is performed prior to displaying the rendered initial view as
required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 15–17; Reply Br. 2–3.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds the combination of Michail,
Fleck, and Frisken teaches the limitations of claim 1. The Examiner finds
Michail teaches many of the claim limitations but Michail does not
distinguish between visual scene data and vector graphics data when
rendering the initial view or when performing reprojection and Michail does
not teach generating a signed distance field of edges for the vector graphic
Appeal 2020-002795
Application 15/195,918

5
data. Final Act 2–5; see also Ans. 9. The Examiner finds Fleck teaches the
following claim 1 limitations (also referred to as “disputed limitations”):
generate an initial view of the vector graphic data from the initial user
perspective in the three dimensional scene prior to displaying the rendered
visual scene (citing Fleck ¶ 17);
generate an updated view of the vector graphic data from the updated
user perspective (citing Fleck ¶ 20);
separately perform a second reprojection process on the vector
graphic data (citing Fleck ¶ 26);
generate a composite image of the three dimensional scene from the
updated user perspective including the updated view of the visual scene data
and the updated view of the vector graphic data. (citing Fleck ¶ 27).

Id. at 4 (emphasis added).
Appellant argues Fleck teaches performing a “geometric transform of
the displayed text” where the displayed text changes a small amount
between displayed images. Appeal Br. 16. According to Appellant, the
displayed images correspond to successive frames that are displayed at a
display device because Fleck teaches applying the geometric transform to
text that has been displayed in a previous frame to update the displayed text
for a subsequent frame. Id. Appellant argues, in contrast to Fleck's
approach in which a geometric transform of displayed text is performed, the
subject matter of claim I instead provides that the second reprojection
process of the reprojection stage is performed prior to displaying the
rendered initial view. Id. Appellant then summarizes claim 1:
... generate an initial view of the vector graphic data from the
initial user perspective in the three dimensional scene as a signed
distance field of edges;
at a reprojection stage of the rendering pipeline prior to
displaying the rendered initial view of the visual scene data and the
generated initial view of the vector graphic data: ...
Appeal 2020-002795
Application 15/195,918

6
. . . the second reprojection process includes sampling and
evaluating the signed distance field of edges generated for the initial
user perspective based on the updated user perspective.

Id. at 16.
Appellant argues the second reprojection process of claim 1 is
performed prior to displaying the rendered initial view of the visual scene
data and the generated initial view of the vector graphic data. Therefore,
according to Appellant, “Fleck's reliance on the displayed text for the
geometric transform is incompatible with and teaches away from the express
language of claim 1 providing that the second reprojection process is
performed prior to displaying the generated initial view of the vector graphic
data.” Id. at 17.
In the Answer, the Examiner finds that Fleck specifically states that it
performs its text process prior to rendering of the image. Ans. 9 (citing
Fleck ¶ 15). The Examiner finds, if Fleck does the text process prior to
rendering the image, it is prior to displaying the initial rendered view. Id.
The Examiner finds Fleck takes the text portion and the non-text portion and
composites them together before the final image is shown. Id. (citing Fleck
¶ 27). The Examiner finds that Fleck teaches that the text and the non-text
are rendered separately and then put together for the final image “and the
original text in the image is never displayed in Fleck at all - it is stripped out
and then rendered separately, and therefore the process is done before
anything is ever displayed.” Id. at 9–10.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates Fleck teaches “performing a
geometric transformation on content that has already been displayed.”
Reply Br. 2 (citing Fleck ¶ 26). Appellant argues that Fleck, paragraph 36,
“the only other paragraph in which a geometric transform is disclosed, also
Appeal 2020-002795
Application 15/195,918

7
discloses that the geometric transform is performed to adjust for small
changes in the user's perspective of displayed text.” Id. Appellant argues
“the geometric transform of Fleck, which is cited as disclosing the
reprojection process, is therefore not performed prior to displaying a
rendered initial view, as recited in claim 1.” Id.
Regarding Fleck’s paragraphs 15 and 27 identified by the Examiner in
the Answer, Appellant argues neither paragraph teaches performing a
geometric transform on text. Id. at 4; see Ans. 9. Appellant argues neither
paragraph teaches the reprojection stage of claim 1. Reply Br. 4. According
to Appellant, paragraph 15 of Fleck discloses that portions of the image that
include text may be identified using a text capture module prior to rendering
the image and paragraph 27 discloses compositing text and non-text portions
of the image without performing a geometric transformation.
We now refer to the disputed limitation discussed, supra, which
requires, prior to displaying the rendered initial view of the visual scene and
the generated initial view of the visual scene data, the reprojection stage of a
rendering pipeline employs post rendering user inputs to separately reproject
the vector graphic data and the visual scene data. The reprojected separate
vector graphic data and visual scene data are utilized to generate a composite
image of the visual scene data and vector graphic data. Then, the composite
image is displayed. See also Spec., Fig. 3.
On the record before us, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument
because the Examiner provides insufficient evidence to support the finding
that Fleck teaches performing the claimed reprojection stage prior to
displaying the rendered initial view of the visual scene and the generated
initial view of the visual scene data. Instead, Fleck teaches displaying the
Appeal 2020-002795
Application 15/195,918

8
rendered initial view and then correcting updates using geometric transform
as a reprojection process. Additionally, on the record before us, the
Examiner presented no persuasive support for the Examiner’s finding that
“the original text in the image is never displayed in Fleck at all - it is
stripped out and then rendered separately, and therefore the process is done
before anything is ever displayed.” See Ans. 9–10.
Accordingly, the Examiner does not provide prima facie support for
the rejection. “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Therefore, on the record before us, we are constrained to conclude the
Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1, as well as independent claims 10 and 19
that recite similar limitations, as obvious.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 1 and independent claims 10 and 19 which recite the
disputed limitations, and dependent claims 2–9, 11–18, and 20. Cf. In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Because our decision with regard to the disputed limitations is
dispositive of the rejections made, we do not address additional arguments
raised by Appellant.

Appeal 2020-002795
Application 15/195,918

9
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103(a) Michail, Fleck,
Frisken
1–20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED