Ex Parte Brunner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 21, 2012

11696553 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RALPH BRUNNER and JOHN HARPER ____________ Appeal 2010-001013 Application 11/696,553 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before, JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-001013 Application 11/696,553 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1 through 12. Appeal Brief 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to “t]echniques to generate partial display updates in a buffered window system in which arbitrary visual effects are permitted to any one or more windows.” Abstract. Illustrative Claim 1. A method to generate a display-wide visual effect, comprising: copying an image buffer’s contents into a second buffer; causing the second buffer’s contents to be filtered back into the image buffer through an application programming interface function to generate a specified visual effect, the second buffer associated with a system frame buffer, the application programming interface function using a graphics processing unit; and compositing an application-specific window buffer into the image buffer, wherein the act of compositing is performed by the graphics processing unit after the act of filtering. Appeal 2010-001013 Application 11/696,553 3 Rejections on Appeal1 Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hamburg (U.S. Patent Number 7,042,467 B1; issued May 9, 2006) and Wilt (U.S. Patent Number 7,038,690 B2; issued May 2, 2006). Answer 3-17. Claims 2, 6, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hamburg, Wilt, and Hanggie (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0088452 A1; published April 28, 2005). Answer 17-18. Issue on Appeal Does the “graphic processing unit” recited in independent claims 1, 5, 8, and 12 read upon Wilt’s “graphics arbiter?” ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection – Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, and 10-12 The Examiner finds that the “graphics processing unit” recited in independent claims 1, 5, 8, and 12 reads upon Wilt’s graphics arbiter 400. Answer 3-17. The Appellants argue that the phrase “graphics processing unit” has a specific meaning in the art and does not refer to any processing unit that carries out graphics operations. Appeal Brief 7. 1 The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph rejection of claims 1-12 has been withdrawn. Answer 3. Appeal 2010-001013 Application 11/696,553 4 The Examiner further finds that: [W]hile the graphics arbiter 400 in Wilt is described, at 9:15-10:18, as an intelligent interface including the functionality of arbitrating among other processes, the same section also describes “[w]hile the present application is focused on the inventive features provided by the new graphics arbiter 400, there is no attempt to exclude from the graphics arbiter’s functionality any features provided by traditional graphics systems. For example, traditional graphics systems often provide video decoding and video digitization features. The present graphics arbiter 400 may also provide such features in conjunction with its new features.” Answer 20. Appellants also argue that: Furthermore, the Applicants] may be their own lexicographer. See M.P.E.P. 2111.01 (IV). Under this authority the Applicants] clearly defined the term “Graphics Processing Unit” in the specification. The Board is directed to the specification at ¶¶ 20-21 which clearly an unequivocally defines the term “fragment program” and further explains that these fragment programs are designed to execute on a “programmable GPU.” Therefore, the term GPU (graphics processing unit) as used in the claims refers to a specific type of processor and not any processor capable of performing graphics operations as asserted by the Examiner. Appeal Brief 8. We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive and agree with the Examiner’s findings. It is evident that a “graphic processing unit” a unit of electrical circuits that is dedicated to processing graphic related data. See Appeal Brief 8; see also Answer 19-20. Wilt’s graphics arbiter is dedicated to processing graphic related data and because of this, we therefore find that Appeal 2010-001013 Application 11/696,553 5 Wilt teaches or suggests the claimed graphics processing unit. See Wilt (Figure 4; column 3, lines 3-9; lines 43-48). Further we recognize that Appellants may be their own lexicographer. However, the example provided in the Specification (paragraphs [0021- 0022]) does not narrow the scope of the graphic processing unit limitation recited in the independent claims, nor does it help distinguish the disputed limitation over Wilt’s graphic arbiter. Although giving claims their “broadest reasonable interpretation” must take into account any definitions given in the Specification (In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), it is improper to read into the claims limitations from examples given in the Specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments (citations omitted). Therefore the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 5, 8, and 12, argued together (Appeal Brief 12), as well as, those claims that are dependent therefrom are sustained. DECISION The rejections of claims 1-12 are 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Appeal 2010-001013 Application 11/696,553 6 llw