Ex Parte Houlton

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

12720983 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121720,983 03/10/2010
88032 7590 05/03/2016
Jordan IP Law, LLC
c/o CPA Global
900 2nd A venue South, Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Houlton
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.
P33517 1185
EXAMINER
YANG, ANDREW GUS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 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):
info@jordaniplaw.com
admin@jordaniplaw.com
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID HOULTON
Appeal2014-007621
Application 12/720,983
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
finally rejecting claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-20, all the claims pending in the
application. Claims 8 and 1 7 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-007621
Application 12/720,983
The present invention relates generally to atmospheric scattering
simulation, and more specifically to determining an illumination of a view
ray for a pixel of a graphical scene. Spec. i-fi-f l, 7.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
calculating a view ray for a pixel of a graphical scene,
wherein the calculating is conducted by a software module;
sending parameters of the view ray to a hardware texture
unit;
selecting a plurality of sample locations along the view
ray based on the parameters;
comparing the plurality of sample locations to a shadow
texture to obtain a corresponding plurality of illumination values;
summing the plurality of illumination values to obtain an
illumination of the view ray, wherein the selecting, comparing and
summing are conducted by the hardware texture unit; and
sending the illumination to the software module.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
RI. Claims 1, 3-7, 11-15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Best (US 2010/0302244 Al,
Dec. 2, 2010) and Biri et al. ("Real-Time Animation of Realistic Fog,"
Thirteenth Eurographics Workshop on Rendering, 2002).
R2. Claims 2, 9, 10, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Best, Biri et al., and Sulatycke (US
2008/0231632 Al, Sept. 25, 2008).
2
Appeal2014-007621
Application 12/720,983
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Brief, the Examiner's
rejection, and the Examiner's response to the Appellant's arguments. We
concur with Appellant's conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that
the Biri reference teaches or suggests the claimed comparing the plurality of
sample locations to a shadow texture to obtain a corresponding plurality of
illumination values (see claim 1 ).
Here, the Examiner relies on Biri to teach or suggest the above noted
feature (see Final Act. 4--5). The Examiner finds that Biri's "blending the
incoming color with the fog color" teaches or suggests "comparing the
plurality of sample locations to a shadow texture" (id.). The Examiner
further finds that Biri's "fog texture is effectively mapped onto the size of
the screen" (Ans. 4) and "the position of each ray-screen intersection is
compared with the fog texture, in order to obtain the contribution of the fog
color from the fog texture" (id.), and that "comparing the ray-screen
intersection position with the fog texture reads on the comparing of a sample
location to a shadow texture" (id.). We disagree with this interpretation.
As identified by Appellant, in the claimed invention, the hardware
texture unit "compares a plurality of sample locations to a shadow texture"
(Br. 8), although Biri "at best stands for 'blending the incoming color with
the fog color, or shadow texture, at sample locations"' (id.).
Specifically, Biri describes:
For each pixel of the screen,fog must be rendered using equation
(5) which mixes incoming color (i.e.[,] the color of point P) with
the fog color Cfag· Coefficient f, representing the transparency,
is computed with equation (8). To obtain this blend we draw a
plan, which has the fog color, in the screen position and put a
transparency texture on it as represented in figure 4. The
3
Appeal2014-007621
Application 12/720,983
transparency is used by OpenGL hardware to blend incoming
color with the fog color.
We take advantage of texture mapping to fit texture size
of fog with the size of the screen. [Because] we could choose the
size of the fog texture, we are able to maintain real-time, in
choosing a smaller texture when it is needed. Drawback is that
the smaller the texture is, the larger the aliasing will be.
(Biri pg. 4, § 4.1) (emphasis added).
In other words, Biri merely teaches mixing or blending incoming
color with fog color, and obtaining a blend with the fog color and
transparency texture. Although the Examiner states that in Biri "the position
of each ray-screen intersection is compared with the fog texture" (see Ans.
4), we find that the aforementioned cited portion of Biri fails to support this
interpretation. In other words, the Examiner has not shown where Biri
compares the incoming color (sample locations) and the fog color (shadow
texture), as required by claim 1. Instead, Biri merely mixes (i.e., blends)
incoming color with fog color. In contrast, the ordinary and usual meaning
of the term "compare" signifies examining two or more things in order to
see what is similar or different about them. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary, p. 267 (9th Edition 1990).
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner's finding that Biri' s blending
teaches the claimed comparing, as recited in each of the independent claims.
The Examiner also has not found that any of the other references of record
teach this features.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant's other arguments.
4
Appeal2014-007621
Application 12/720,983
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of
claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-20.
DECISION
The decisions of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-20
are reversed.
REVERSED
5