Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 3, 2021

2020006687 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 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.
15/853,207 12/22/2017 Skyler Jonathon Saleh AMD-170220-US-NP 9174
25310 7590 06/03/2021
Volpe Koenig
DEPT. AMD
30 SOUTH 17TH STREET -18TH FLOOR
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
EXAMINER
HE, YINGCHUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/03/2021 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):
eoffice@volpe-koenig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SKYLER JONATHON SALEH,
MAXIM V. KAZAKOV, and VINEET GOEL
Appeal 2020-006687
Application 15/853,207
Technology Center 2600

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, 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 1–3, 6–12, and 15–20.2 See Final
Act. 1. Oral arguments were heard on May 10, 2021. A transcript of the
hearing has been placed in the record. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Advanced
Micro Devices, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 4, 5, 13, and 14 stand objected to as being dependent upon a
rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form
including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Appeal 2020-006687
Application 15/853,207
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a texture processor based ray tracing
acceleration method and system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for texture processor based ray tracing
acceleration, the method comprising:
receiving, at a texture processor from a shader, a texture
instruction which includes at least a bounded volume hierarchy
(BVH) node pointer and ray data;
fetching, by the texture processor, BVH node data from a
cache based on the BVH node pointer;
receiving, by a ray intersection engine of the texture
processor, the ray data and the BVH node data;
performing, by the ray intersection engine of the texture
processor, ray-BVH node type intersection testing using the ray
data and the BVH node data; and
sending, by the ray intersection engine via a texture data
return path to the shader, intersection results based on the ray-
BVH node type intersection testing.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Hanika US 2010/0289799 A1 Nov. 18, 2010
Droske US 2014/0340403 A1 Nov. 20, 2014
Obert (Obert910) US 2016/0110910 A1 Apr. 21, 2016
Obert (Obert908) US 2016/0292908 A1 Oct. 6, 2016
Ceylan US 2017/0243375 A1 Aug. 24, 2017

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 9, 10, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Obert908 and Ceylan. Final Act. 9.
Claims 2, 3, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Obert908, Ceylan, and Obert910. Final Act. 13.
Appeal 2020-006687
Application 15/853,207
3
Claims 6, 7, 15, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Obert908, Ceylan, and Droske.3 Final Act. 14.
Claim 8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Obert908, Ceylan, Droske, and Hanika. Final Act. 16.

OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011))
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections . . . .”). Upon review of the
evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record, we find
that the preponderance of evidence supports Appellant’s position in the
record. Accordingly, we reverse each of the Examiner’s rejections on appeal
for the reasons discussed below.
“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 985–86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350,
1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
[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. If that burden is met, the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shifts to the applicant.
After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant in
response, patentability is determined on the totality of the record,

3 Claim 20 is not expressly recited in the rejection, but contains similar
limitations to claims 7 and 16.
Appeal 2020-006687
Application 15/853,207
4
by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration to
persuasiveness of argument.
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
“Obviousness may not be established using hindsight or in view of
the teachings or suggestions of the inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W.L. Gore
& Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983
“It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or
‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed
invention is rendered obvious.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir.
1992) (citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
We agree with Appellant that the Ceylan reference does not teach or
disclose performing “ray-BVH node type intersection testing using the ray
data and the BVH node data” based upon a “texture instruction which
includes at least a bounded volume hierarchy (BVH) node pointer and ray
data.”
With respect to independent claims 1, 10, and 19, Appellant argues
that the Obert908 reference does not teach receiving, at a texture processor,
from a shader, a texture instruction that includes at least a bounded volume
hierarchy (BVH) node pointer and ray data, or fetching, by the texture
processor, BVH node data from a cache based on the BVH node pointer and
the Ceylan reference does not cure the deficiencies of Obert908. Appeal
Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 4. Appellant further argues that the detailed examples
provided by the Ceylan reference do not relate to BVH traversal. Appeal Br.
9.
Appellant also argues that in the technique of Ceylan, as used for
BVH traversal, the texture unit traverses the entire BVH tree using many
Appeal 2020-006687
Application 15/853,207
5
execution iterations in a loop. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant further argues that
the independent claims require that a shader sends to a texture processor a
texture instruction that includes at least a bounded volume hierarchy (BVH)
node pointer and ray data, that the texture processor performs ray-BVH node
type intersection using the sent ray data and the BVH node data, and that the
ray intersection engine of the texture processor returns to the shader
intersection results based on the ray-BVH node type intersection testing.
Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant argues that independent claims 1, 10, and 19 describe that a
texture processor performs individual tests of BVH nodes against a ray and
returns the results of those individual tests to the shader. Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant further argues that in claims 1, 10, and 19, the shader sends the
texture processor information for an individual node of a BVH, and the
texture processor performs a ray-BVH node type intersection test using the
ray data and the individual node data, and returns the result of that
intersection test for an individual node to the shader. Appeal Br. 9–10.
Appellant also argues that claims 1, 10, and 19 are distinct from the
disclosure of Ceylan, because Ceylan teaches performing an entire tree
traversal in a texture unit, including iterating through the different nodes of
the BVH tree without interruption by a shader. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant
contends that claims 1, 10, and 19 recite:
“performance of an intersection test for an individual node,
meaning that the shader orchestrates BVH tree traversal. One
specific step recited in claims 1, 10, and 19 that cannot be
performed by the technique of Ceylan is the shader transmitting
a texture instruction that includes a BVH node pointer data to a
texture unit.”
Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis omitted).
Appeal 2020-006687
Application 15/853,207
6
Appellant further contends that it is not clear how Ceylan would
indicate which BVH to traverse to the texture unit, or even if such
information would be directly communicated from the shader to the texture
unit. Appeal Br. 10. Further, even if it could be said that Ceylan somehow
indicates which BVH tree is to be traversed by the texture unit, the shader in
Ceylan certainly does not provide a pointer for an individual BVH node to
the texture unit, and Ceylan cannot teach an instruction that is sent from a
shader to a texture unit that includes a BVH node pointer. Appeal Br. 10.
Regarding the Obert908 reference, the Examiner finds that the
Obert908 reference discloses a bounding volume hierarchy with a ray
intersection of nodes using ray data and BVH nodes, but not an instruction
from a shader and that the Ceylan reference discloses an instruction from a
shader processor. Ans. 4–5.
The Examiner finds that the Obert908 reference does a similar process
to the claimed ray processing at plural nodes in an iterative manner, but
there is no “instruction from a shader” and that the Ceylan reference
discloses an instruction in a similar process for “(BVH) tree traversal for ray
tracing, texture unit 34 may be configured for the ray-box intersection test
and to traverse the tree using many execution iterations of operations in a
loop ([0089]).” Ans. 5–6 (emphasis altered). The Examiner combines the
two teachings together and concludes that this renders obvious the claimed
invention with the motivation to “limit calls to the texture unit as taught by
Ceylan ([0003]).” Ans. 6.
The Examiner finds that the Obert908 reference does not teach
transferring an instruction from a shader having the claimed “a texture
instruction which includes at least a bounded volume hierarchy (BVH) node
pointer and ray data” because the Obert908 reference at best discloses that
Appeal 2020-006687
Application 15/853,207
7
the texture processor “identifies” or “determines” the node rather than
receiving the node and ray data. Ans. 5; Obert908 ¶ 94. The Examiner finds
that the Ceylan reference teaches transferring a texture instruction from a
shader to a texture processor and having the texture processor fetch the BVH
node data and to perform the ray-BVH intersection test. Ans. 5. But the
Examiner merely quotes paragraphs 66 and 89 of the Ceylan reference,
which does not expressly teach or suggest what the Examiner proffers.
Appellant argues that the Examiner does not point to any specific
disclosure in the Ceylan reference to support the Examiner’s position, and
there is no actual and sufficient disclosure from Ceylan to support the
obviousness rejection. Moreover, Appellant asserts the Examiner’s
argument is factually incorrect. Reply Br. 5.
Appellant contends that the pending claims specifically require that a
single texture instruction includes both a node pointer and ray data, and “[i]t
is by no means clear from the scant disclosure of Ceylan that any instruction
transmitted to a texture unit would actually include both of this
information.” Reply Br. 5. Appellant further contends that “it is not
necessary, as the Examiner asserts, that any single instruction would have to
include both a node pointer and ray data, or even that the shader, rather than
some other entity, would send any such information to the texture unit.”
Reply Br. 5.
“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(citing Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988). The Examiner’s burden of proving non-
patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761
Appeal 2020-006687
Application 15/853,207
8
F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“[P]reponderance of the evidence is the
standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections.”). “A rejection
based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis.” In re Warner, 379
F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office has the initial duty of
supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . . resort to
speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply
deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has provided no express
teaching or suggestion of providing a single instruction containing both a
node pointer and ray data. Moreover, the Examiner’s finding that Obert908
teaches that “a node can be ‘identified’ by an element in the indexing data
structure, the element points to the BVH node actually is a BVH node
pointer” (Ans. 5) is not well supported by the teachings identified by the
Examiner. Although the Examiner speculates that the node pointer would be
required in a BVH to traverse a BVH tree, the Examiner has not identified in
either reference how the starting node is identified, determined, or received
and merely speculates that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to have received both the node
pointer and the ray data from the shader to the texture processor.
Consequently, we find Appellant has shown error in the Examiner’s factual
findings and conclusion of obviousness of illustrative independent claim 1
and independent claims 10 and 19, which contain similar limitations and
their respective dependent claims 2, 3, 6–9, 11, 12, 15–18, and 20.

Appeal 2020-006687
Application 15/853,207
9
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 6–12, and 15–20 is
REVERSED.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 9, 10, 18,
19
103 Obert908, Ceylan 1, 9, 10, 18,
19
2, 3, 11, 12 103 Obert908, Ceylan,
Obert910
2, 3, 11, 12
6, 7, 15, 16,
20
103 Obert908, Ceylan,
Droske
6, 7, 15, 16,
20
8, 17 103 Obert908, Ceylan,
Droske, Hanika
8, 17
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 6–12,
15–20

REVERSED