Ex Parte Goel et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 29, 2019

13830075 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/830,075 03/14/2013 15150 7590 04/02/2019 Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Vineet Goel 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 1212-156US01/120813 1052 EXAMINER MAZUMDER, SAPTARSHI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/02/2019 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): pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VINEET GOEL, ANDREW E. GRUBER, and DONGHYUN KIM Appeal2018-004594 Application 13/830,075 1 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHN A. EV ANS, JASON J. CHUNG, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. INVENTION The invention is directed to performing shading operations associated with shader stages of a graphics rendering pipeline. Spec. ,r 5. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method for rendering graphics, the method compnsmg: 1 According to Appellants, Qualcomm Incorporated is the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2018-004594 Application 13/830,075 performing, with a hardware unit of a graphics processing unit designated for vertex shading, a vertex shading operation to shade a plurality of input vertices so as to output vertex shaded vertices, wherein performing the vertex shading operation comprises, by the hardware unit, outputting a single vertex for each respective input vertex of the plurality of input vertices; and performing, with the hardware unit of the graphics processing unit designated for vertex shading, one or more tessellation operations on one or more of the vertex shaded vertices, wherein performing the one or more tessellation operations comprises performing a hull shading operation on at least one of the one or more vertex shaded vertices to output one or more control points. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2 Claims 1-3, 6, 9-12, 15, 18-21, 24, 27-30, 33, 36, and 37 stand rejected3 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 7-16. Claims 1, 10, 19, 28, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chang (US 2011/0310102 A 1; published Dec. 22, 2011) and Sathe (US 2010/0164954 Al; published July 1, 2010). Ans. 16-21. Claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 14, 20, 21, 23, 29, 30, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chang, Sathe, and Legakis (US 2010/0079454 Al; published Apr. 1, 2010). Final Act. 21-27. 2 The Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 19-27 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(b ). Ans. 2. 3 The Examiner concludes claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, 23, 25, 26, 31, 32, 34, and 35 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 because they include limitations corresponding to an improvement. 2 Appeal2018-004594 Application 13/830,075 Claims 4, 13, 22, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chang, Sathe, Legakis, Fortin (US 2012/0229460 Al; filed Mar. 9, 2012), and Nystad (US 2012/0223947 Al; filed Feb. 28, 2012). Final Act. 27-30. Claims 6-8, 15-17, 24--26, and 33-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chang, Sathe, and Loop (Charles Loop, "Hardware Subdivision and Tessellation of Catmull- Clark Surfaces"; Technical Report 1-15 (2010)). Final Act. 30-35. Claims 9, 18, 27, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Chang, Sathe, and Kato (US 2009/0051687 Al; published Feb. 26, 2009). Final Act. 35-36. ANALYSIS I. Claims 1-3, 6, 9-12, 15, 18-21, 24, 27-30, 33, 36, and 3 7 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 1 OJ A. The Examiner's Conclusions and Appellants' Arguments The Examiner concludes the present claims are directed mathematical relationships or mathematical formulas-similar to the abstract idea in Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972). Ans. 3; Final Act. 9-15. The Examiner also concludes the present claims are directed to organizing human activity because they concern a mathematical concept. Final Act. 10-15. Appellants argue the present claims are not directed to an abstract idea in Gottschalk because the claims in Gottschalk were related to converting binary-coded decimal numbers into binary numbers, which is unlike the present claims' graphics processing. App. Br. 14--15; Reply Br. 2-3. We agree with Appellants. 3 Appeal2018-004594 Application 13/830,075 B. Legal Principles An invention is patent eligible if it claims a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 to include implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 ("On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk."). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95 (1978)); and mental processes ( Gottschalk, 409 U.S. at 69). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as "molding rubber products" (Diamondv. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); "tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267---68 (1854))); 4 Appeal2018-004594 Application 13/830,075 and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 ( citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 ("We view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula."). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim "seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, ... and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment." Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187 ("It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection."). If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 ( quotation marks omitted). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id. ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). "[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[ s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id. 5 Appeal2018-004594 Application 13/830,075 The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") recently published revised guidance on the application ofÂ§ 101. USPTO's January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("Memorandum"). Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites: ( 1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") Â§ 2106.0S(a}-(c), (e}-(h)). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP Â§ 2106.0S(d)); or ( 4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Memorandum. C. Step 2A, Prong 1 (Alice Step 1) Discussion We consider claim 1 (with emphasis), reproduced below. 1. A method for rendering graphics, the method compnsmg: performing, with a hardware unit of a graphics processing unit designated for vertex shading, a vertex shading operation to 6 Appeal2018-004594 Application 13/830,075 shade a plurality of input vertices so as to output vertex shaded vertices, wherein performing the vertex shading operation comprises, by the hardware unit, outputting a single vertex for each respective input vertex of the plurality of input vertices; and performing, with the hardware unit of the graphics processing unit designated for vertex shading, one or more tessellation operations on one or more of the vertex shaded vertices, wherein performing the one or more tessellation operations comprises performing a hull shading operation on at least one of the one or more vertex shaded vertices to output one or more control points. The emphasized text above includes limitations that are based upon mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations. However, these mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations are not explicitly recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 ( and similarly recited independent claims 10, 19, and 28) does not recite a mathematical concept. Claim 1 does not recite mental processes because it does not recite concepts performed in the human mind. Moreover, claim 1 does not recite certain methods of organizing human activity because it does not recite: (1) fundamental economic principles (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); (2) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising; marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; or (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Furthermore, we consider claims 2, 3, 6, 9, and 37 (with emphases), reproduced below. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein performing the vertex shading operation and performing the hull shading 7 Appeal2018-004594 Application 13/830,075 operation are associated with performing a first rendering pass, and further comprising performing a second rendering pass compnsmg: performing, with the hardware unit of the graphics processing unit designated for vertex shading, a domain shading operation comprising generating vertex values based at least in part on the control points; and performing, with the hardware unit of the graphics processing unit designated for vertex shading, a geometry shading operation on the one or more domain shaded vertices to generate one or more new vertices, wherein the geometry shading operation operates on at least one of the one or more domain shaded vertices to output the one or more new vertices. 3. The method of claim 2, further comprising completing the first pass before performing the second pass such that one or more components of the graphics processing unit are idle between the first pass and the second pass. 6. The method of claim 1, wherein performing the hull shading operation comprises: executing a first instance of a hull shader program with the hardware unit of the graphics processing unit; executing a second instance of the hull shader program with the hardware unit of the graphics processing unit; outputting a single control point from the first instance of the hull shader program so as to adhere to a single input to single output interface of the hardware unit; and outputting a second, single control point from the second instance of the hull shader program so as to adhere to the single input to single output interface of the hardware unit. 9. The method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to performing the hull shading operation, switching a program counter and one or more resource pointers for the hull shading operation. 37. The method of claim 1, wherein performing the vertex shading operation to shade input vertices so as to output 8 Appeal2018-004594 Application 13/830,075 vertex shaded vertices comprises performing the vertex shading operation to shade input vertices so as to output patch control points, and wherein performing the hull shading operation on one or more of the vertex shaded vertices comprises performing the hull shading operation on the patch control points to generate the one or more control points and one or more tessellation factors. The emphasized text above includes limitations that are based upon mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations. However, these mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations are not explicitly recited in claim 2, 3, 6, 9, and 37 (and similarly recited claims 11, 12, 15, 18, 20, 21, 24, 27, 29, 30, 33). Therefore, the claims rejected by the Examiner do not recite a mathematical concept. For at least the same reasons as explained in the claim 1 discussion above, these dependent claims do not recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. Because the rejected claims do not recite mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity, we need not proceed any further in our 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 analysis. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of: (1) independent claims 1, 10, 19, and 28; and (2) dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 18, 20, 21, 24, 27, 29, 30, 33, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. II. Claims 1-37 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 The Examiner finds Chang teaches vertex shader 254 processes vertices by performing operations such as transformations, skinning, and lighting and vertex shader 243 outputs control points, which the Examiner maps to the limitation performing, with the hardware unit of the graphics processing unit designated for vertex shading, one or more tessellation 9 Appeal2018-004594 Application 13/830,075 operations on one or more of the vertex shaded vertices, wherein performing the one or more tessellation operations comprises performing a hull shading operation on at least one of the one or more vertex shaded vertices to output one or more control points recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in independent claims 10, 19, and 28). Ans. 13-19; Final Act. 16-17, 45--46 (citing Chang ,r 29-30). Moreover, the Examiner construes the limitation: performing, with the hardware unit of the graphics processing unit designated for vertex shading, one or more tessellation operations on one or more of the vertex shaded vertices, wherein performing the one or more tessellation operations comprises performing a hull shading operation on at least one of the one or more vertex shaded vertices to output one or more control points recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in independent claims 10, 19, and 28) as "performing, with the hardware unit of the graphics processing unit designated for vertex shading, to output one or more control points." Ans. 13-19. The Examiner construes claim 1 this way because the Examiner concludes the limitation "performing the one or more tessellation operations comprises performing a hull shading operation on at least one of the one or more vertex shaded vertices" ( emphasis added) means that "performing the one or more tessellation operations" is defined as "performing a hull shading operation on at least one of the one or more vertex shaded vertices." Id. Similarly, the Examiner concludes that the limitation "performing a hull shading operation on at least one of the one or more vertex shaded vertices to output one or more control points" means that "performing a hull shading operation on at least one of the one or more vertex shaded vertices" is defined as "to output one or more control points." Id. 10 Appeal2018-004594 Application 13/830,075 Appellants argue that Chang's vertex shader 254 does not perform hull shading as assumed improperly by the Examiner because hull shader 241 performs hull shading, which is a separate operation. App. Br. 32; Reply Br. 7-11. We agree with Appellants. As an initial matter, we disagree with the Examiner's claim construction. The Examiner is concluding improperly that the limitation "performing a hull shading operation on at least one of the one or more vertex shaded vertices to output one or more control points" means that "performing a hull shading operation on at least one of the one or more vertex shaded vertices" is defined as "to output one or more control points." This conclusion is improper because it ignores the nuance of the previous limitation "performing a hull shading operation on at least one of the one or more vertex shaded vertices," which is the method step claim 1 must take before the result of "to output one or more control points." Consequently, Chang teaches vertex shader 254 processes vertices by performing operations such as transformations, skinning, and lighting and vertex shader 254 outputs control points. Ans. 13-19; Final Act. 16-17, 45- 46 ( citing Chang ,r,r 29-30). However, we disagree with the Examiner's finding that the cited portions of Chang's vertex shader 254 performs both vertex shading and hull shading (Ans. 13-19; Final Act. 16-17, 45--46) because Chang teaches a separate hull shader 241 that performs hull shading (App. Br. 32; Reply Br. 7-11). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of: (1) independent claims 1, 10, 19, and 28; and (2) dependent claims 2-9, 11- 18, 20-27, and 29-37 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. 11 Appeal2018-004594 Application 13/830,075 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 9-12, 15, 18-21, 24, 27-30, 33, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-37 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. REVERSED 12