NVIDIA Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 2, 2020

2019003244 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 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.
15/411,918 01/20/2017 Yong HE NVDA/SC-13-1311USC1 8438
102324 7590 10/02/2020
Artegis Law Group, LLP/NVIDIA
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, PHU K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2020 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):
jmatthews@artegislaw.com
kcruz@artegislaw.com
sjohnson@artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YONG HE, ERIC B. LUM, ERIC ENDERTON,
HENRY PACKARD MORETON, and KAYVON FATAHALIAN

Appeal 2019-003244
Application 15/411,918
Technology Center 2600
Before JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN, LINZY T. MCCARTNEY, AND
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCKEOWN, 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 1–25. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 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 NVIDIA
Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003244
Application 15/411,918
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention generally relates “to graphics processing and,
more specifically, to adaptive shading in a graphics processing pipeline.”
Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
selecting a first pixel from a plurality of pixels based on
which pixels included in the plurality of pixels are covered by a
graphics primitive;
performing a first pixel shading operation on the first pixel
to compute a first coarse shading value;
performing a second pixel shading operation on the first
pixel to compute a first fine shading value; and
computing a first composite shading value for the first
pixel based on the first coarse shading value and the first fine
shading value.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Nichols Nichols et al., Interactive, Multiresolution
image-space rendering for dynamic area
lighting. Computer Graphics Forum, 29(4),
1279-1288.
2010
Yang Yang et al., Geometry-aware Framebuffer
level of detail. Computer Graphics
Forum, 27(4), 1183-1188.
2008

Appeal 2019-003244
Application 15/411,918
3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Yang and Nichols. Final Act. 2–7.
The Examiner rejected claims 1–25 on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No.
9,552,667. Final Act. 7–9.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON NICHOLS AND YANG
Claims 1–25
The Examiner finds that Yang teaches the limitations of claim 1,
except Yang fails to explicitly teach “computing a first composite shading
value for the first pixel based on the first coarse shading value and the first
fine shading value.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner, however, determines that
Yang’s “feature-preserving reconstruction technique, which processes
object’s portion on different levels of detail, suggests a combination of low
level and high level of processes. . . .” Final Act. 3. According to the
Examiner, it would have been obvious to modify Yang, in view of Nichols,
to combine the results from processes of different levels. Final Act. 2.
Appellant, on the other hand, argues that Yang fails to teach
“selecting a first pixel from a plurality of pixels based on which pixels
included in the plurality of pixels are covered by a graphics primitive.”
Appeal Br. 10. Appellant points out that the Examiner, in the Final Action,
construes a graphic primitive as “regions of change described in Yang.”
Appeal Br. 10 (citing Final Act. 3–4). Appellant explains that under this
interpretation Yang fails to satisfy the claimed limitation because Yang does
not teach selecting a pixel based on pixels covered by a region of change.
Appeal 2019-003244
Application 15/411,918
4
Appeal Br. 10–11. Instead, according to Appellant, Yang’s “pixel shader
considers discontinuities in the scene geometry during the second pass based
on shading information stored in 'L' during the first pass.” Appeal Br. 11
(citing Yang §§ 2, 2.1).
The Examiner then, in the Answer, construes graphics primitives as
“Yang’s block of r x r pixels.” Ans. 9. The Examiner explains
To map into the claimed invention, Yang's block of r x r pixels
is equivalent to the claimed ‘graphics primitive’ in which the
claimed ‘first pixel from a plurality of pixels based on which
pixels included in the plurality of pixels are covered by a
graphics primitive’ is a pixel in the Yang's coarse buffer L, and
this pixel is also in a r x r block of pixels stored in the fine buffer
H.
Id.
Appellant, however, argues that a graphic primitive is distinct from a
block of pixels in a buffer. Reply Br. 4. Appellant points out that
given the Examiner's new claim mappings, in order to teach the
above limitations of claim 1, Yang would have to disclose that a
first pixel from a plurality of pixels in the frame buffer 'L' is
selected based on which pixels of the plurality of pixels in the
frame buffer 'L' are covered by an r x r block of pixels in the
frame buffer 'H.’
Reply Br. 4. As such, Appellant maintains that Yang does not teach or
suggest selecting a first pixel based on which pixels included in the plurality
of pixels are covered by a graphics primitive. Reply Br. 4.
We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. While the Specification
does not expressly define a graphic primitive, the Specification provides the
exemplary embodiment of a triangle primitive and explains the selected
pixels are those covered by the primitive or inside the graphics primitive.
Spec. ¶¶ 55–56. Appellant also points out, a skilled artisan would
Appeal 2019-003244
Application 15/411,918
5
understand “a graphics primitive is a non-interactive rudimentary element
displayed on a screen, such as a line, circle, arc, or rectangle.” Reply Br. 4.
It is unclear, based on the record before us, how Yang’s teaching of a
pixel corresponding to a r x r pixel block satisfies the claimed selecting from
a plurality of pixels based on which pixels included in the plurality of pixels
are covered by a graphics primitive limitation. For example, “Yang
describes a frame buffer technique for controlling the pixel workload in an
interactive rendering application.” Reply Br. 3 (citing Yang, Abstract). In
particular, Yang describes a buffer technique where each frame is rendered
in two passes. During the first pass, information, such as color, depth and
surface normal is saved for each pixel. This information is then used in the
second pass. Yang §§2, 2.1. While Yang’s pixel blocks may at times be
covered by a graphics primitive, Yang does not teach or suggest performing
the two step buffering technique on a first pixel selected based on which
pixels included in the plurality of pixels are covered by a graphics primitive.
Therefore, based on the record before us, we persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1–25 as unpatentable
over Yang and Nichols.
THE NONSTATUTORY DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION
Claims 1–25
The Examiner rejects claims 1–25 on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting over claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No. 9,552,667. Final Act.
9. The Examiner notes that “[a]lthough the claims at issue are not identical,
they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed
invention of the US patent contains all features of the claims of the pending
application.” Final Act. 9. Appellant fails to respond to this rejection. As
Appeal 2019-003244
Application 15/411,918
6
such, we summarily affirm the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of
claims 1–25.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–25 as unpatentable over Yang
and Nichols is reversed, but the non-statutory double patenting rejection of
claims 1–25 is summarily affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–25 103 Yang, Nichols 1–25
1–25 Nonstatutory
Double Patenting
1–25
Overall
Outcome
1–25

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED