Ex Parte LUM et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 2018

13969398 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/969,398 08/16/2013 102324 7590 09/21/2018 Artegis Law Group, LLP/NVIDIA 7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104 Houston, TX 77095 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR EricB.LUM 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. NVDA/SC-12-0511-USl 7946 EXAMINER LIU, GORDON G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/21/2018 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): kcruz@artegislaw.com ALGdocketing@artegislaw.com rsmith @artegislaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERIC B. LUM and HENRY PACKARD MORETON Appeal2018-003365 Application 13/969,398 1 Technology Center 2600 Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. McMILLIN, 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 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is NVIDIA Corporation. App. Br. 3. Appeal2018-003365 Application 13/969,398 THE CLAIMED INVENTION The present invention relates to "graphics processing and, more specifically, to rendering to multi-resolution hierarchies." Spec. ,r 1. Independent claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method; independent claim 10 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium; and independent claim 19 is directed to a system. App. Br. 15, 16, 18. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method for processing a multiresolution hierarchy, the method comprising: associating a first composite virtual address with a first fragment that is included in a first hierarchical level of the multi- resolution hierarchy; mapping the first composite virtual address to a first physical address in a memory resource; rendering the first fragment to a composite render target based on the first composite virtual address, wherein the composite render target includes all hierarchical levels of the multi-resolution hierarchy; and mapping a first texture virtual address associated with the first hierarchical level to the first physical address. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, 15-17, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Shebanow et al. (US 2012/0281004 Al; published Nov. 8, 2012) ("Shebanow"), Hoppe (US 6,426,750 Bl; issued July 30, 2002), and Wu et al. (US 2010/0158101 Al; published June 24, 2010) ("Wu"). Final Act. 3. 2 Appeal2018-003365 Application 13/969,398 Claims 4, 5, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Shebanow, Hoppe, Wu, and Everitt (US 7,746,352 B2; issued June 29, 2010). Final Act. 24. Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Shebanow, Hoppe, Wu, and Bakalash (US 2009/0135190 Al; published May 28, 2009) ("Bakalash"). Final Act. 26. ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites "wherein the composite render target includes all hierarchical levels of the multi-resolution hierarchy." The Examiner finds Wu's storing of different bit rate audiovisual ("AV") files for playback teaches the claimed composite render target, and Wu's AV data configured to be streamed at different bit rates teaches different resolutions and the claimed hierarchical levels of a multi-resolution hierarchy. Final Act. 6 (citing Wu Fig.I, ,r,r 24, 32); see Ans. 3. According to the Examiner, Wu's different bit rates teach different bit-depths, which measure color resolution, and thereby encompass all hierarchical levels of a multi-resolution hierarchy. Ans. 3. We disagree with these findings. The claimed invention requires including all hierarchical levels of the multi-resolution hierarchy. See claim 1. Appellants' Specification details an example where a "mipmapped texture 410 is a multi-resolution hierarchy that includes three hierarchical levels" (Spec. ,r 78) and the "layout shown for the mipmapped texture 410 corresponds to the layout of the mipmapped texture in both the PP memory 204 and the virtual address space associated with the texture unit 315" (Spec. ,r 79), and the "composite render target is large enough to include all of the levels included in the mipmapped texture 3 Appeal2018-003365 Application 13/969,398 41 O" (Spec. ,r 80). We find that the claimed including all levels of the multi- resolution hierarchy, in light of Appellants' Specification, requires including all resolutions and is distinguished from including different bit rates. Here, we agree with Appellants that Wu does not teach the concept of resolution or storing all hierarchical levels of a multi-resolution hierarchy. App. Br. 11. Specifically, we agree with Appellants that the "bitrate of a given media file is not equivalent to, and is not an accurate indicator of, the resolution of the media file." App. Br. 11. As cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 6; Ans. 3), Wu teaches "server 101 stores files of AV program 103 that contain AV data configured to be streamed to the decoder ... at three different bit rates." Wu ,r 24. We find Wu teaches storing files with different bit rates, but does not teach storing data at all levels of a multi-resolution hierarchy as recited in claim 1. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner's finding that Wu teaches the argued limitation. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants regarding claim 1, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner'sÂ§ 103(a) rejections of independent claim 1, as well as commensurate independent claims 10 and 19, and dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, 20, and 21. See App. Br. 12-13. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) are reversed. 4 Appeal2018-003365 Application 13/969,398 REVERSED 5