Ex Parte McKellar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 23, 2013

10564306 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte COLIN McKELLAR
____________________

Appeal 2010-011695
Application 10/564,306
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-011695
Application 10/564,306

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 14-16, 23, and 26-29. Claims 1-13, 17-22, 24, and 25 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 14 under appeal, with bracketed
lettering added, reads as follows:
14. An apparatus for automatically generating a mipmap
chain of texture images from a portion of texture image data
for use in texturing a computer graphic image in a tile-based
rendering system comprising:
means for supplying texture data;
means for allocating the texture data to at least one tile;
means for storing the texture data allocated to each tile in
a tile buffer;
[A] means for filtering the texture data in the tile buffer
for each tile and generating at least one lower level of mipmap
data from the texture data;
[B] means for temporarily storing each lower level of the
mipmap data in the tile buffer; and
[C] means for storing each lower level of the mipmap
data in a system main memory,
Appeal 2010-011695
Application 10/564,306

3
[D] wherein the filtering means and the temporarily
storing means generate a predetermined number of mipmap
levels to form the mipmap chain of the texture images.

Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 14-16, 23, and 26-29 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sanz-Pastor (US 6,747,649 B1)
and Solomon (US 6,493,858 B2). Ans. 3-5.

Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends (Br. 3-8) that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 14-16, 23, and 26-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination
of Sanz-Pastor and Solomon for numerous reasons including:
(1) Sanz-Pastor does not disclose the “means for filtering” (limitation
[A] recited in representative claim 14) because Sanz-Pastor’s filtering and
simulation of a sea (which is a moving body) is different from the filtering
of texture data in Appellant’s invention since Appellant’s invention provides
lower level mipmap data representing the same texture data for display at
different resolutions (Br. 5-6);
(2) Sanz-Pastor fails to teach temporarily storing each lower level of
the mipmap data in the tile buffer (limitation [C] recited in representative
claim 14) because all the different levels of the mipmap data in Sanz-
Pastor’s image pyramid are stored (Br. 6);
(3) Solomon fails to teach (a) storing each lower level of the mipmap
data in the main memory (limitation [C] recited in representative claim 14)
and (b) generating a predetermined number of mipmap levels to form the
Appeal 2010-011695
Application 10/564,306

4
mipmap chain of the texture images (limitation [D] recited in representative
claim 14) (Br. 7); and
(4) there is no motivation to combine Sanz-Pastor’s 3-dimensional
rendering system and Solomon’s VLSI layout display “because the two
systems have very different purposes and structures which cause
compatibility problems” (Br. 7).

Reply Brief
No Reply Brief has been presented. Therefore, Appellant has not
disputed the Examiner’s analysis of Sanz-Pastor’s Figures 12 and 14 found
in the Response to Argument section of the Answer (Ans. 5-8).
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 3-8), the
following principal issue is presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 14-16, 23, and 26-29 as being
obvious because the combination of Sanz-Pastor and Solomon fails to teach
or suggest limitations [A]-[D] recited in representative and independent
claim 14, and as similarly recited in remaining independent claim 23?
The principal issue above is determined by answering the following
two questions:
(1) Does Sanz-Pastor teach or suggest the “means for filtering” recited
in limitation [A] and the “means for temporarily storing” recited in
limitation [B] of representative claim 14?
(2) Does Solomon teach or suggest the “means for storing” recited in
limitation [C] and the “wherein” clause recited in limitation [D] of
representative claim 14?
Appeal 2010-011695
Application 10/564,306

5

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions in the Appeal Brief (Br. 3-8) that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken, as well as the Advisory Action mailed November 17, 2009,
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer
(Ans. 3-8) in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments regarding Sanz-Pastor and Solomon.
With regard to limitations [A] and [B] of representative claim 14,
Appellant’s arguments in the Brief (Br. 5-6) are not commensurate in scope
with the actual claim language. Whether or not (i) lower level mipmap data
that is being filtered “represent[s] the same texture data for display at
different resolutions” (Br. 6 regarding limitation [A]) and whether or not (ii)
there is any need to store all of the different levels of mipmap data (e.g. as
done in Sanz-Pastor) (Br. 6) have no bearing on the resolution of the appeal
in the instant case because these distinctions are not found in the claims.
Sanz-Pastor discloses (i) a filtering means (col. 14, ll. 26-61; Fig. 14)
equivalent to limitation [A] of representative claim 14 and (ii) a means for
temporarily storing lower level mipmap data in a tile buffer (Ans. 3; Fig. 12,
tile buffers 1206a-n; col. 12, ll. 22-65) that is equivalent to limitation [B] of
representative claim 14.
Appellant’s argument (Br. 7) that limitation [C] is not met by
Solomon is not persuasive because Solomon’s tile buffer 232 and texture
Appeal 2010-011695
Application 10/564,306

6
memory 234 are part of main memory 104 as shown in Figure 2 and,
therefore, are equivalent to the “means for storing each lower level of the
mipmap data in a system main memory” (claim 14). Appellant’s argument
(Br. 7) that limitation [D] is not met by Solomon is not persuasive because
Solomon’s Figure 3 shows a pyramid structure having at least three different
levels that are generated using the process shown in Figure 9; thus, Solomon
teaches or suggests generating a predetermined number (e.g., three) of
mipmap levels in forming the texture images.
We agree with the Examiner’s obviousness statement, rational
underpinning, and motivation for making the modification to the mipmap
method of Sanz-Pastor of allocating texture data and temporarily storing
texture data in a tile buffer and main memory as taught by Solomon “in
order to increase speed of processing and display processes” (Ans. 4). This
is supported by the Examiner’s citation to Solomon’s column 26, lines 39-
56, which states that Solomon’s technique allows the rendering and display
processes to be sped up (see col. 26, ll. 45-50). Appellant has not submitted
any evidence and provided only unsupported conclusory arguments to
support their claim that there is no motivation to combine Sanz-Pastor and
Solomon “because the two systems have very different purposes and
structures which cause compatibility problems” (Br. 7). Thus, Appellant’s
argument (Br. 7) that there is no motivation to combine Sanz-Pastor with
Solomon is not persuasive in light of the Examiner’s explanation (Ans. 4)
that motivation is provided by Solomon’s disclosure at column 26, lines 39-
56 which provides increased processing speed.
In view of the foregoing, Appellant has not sufficiently shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting representative and independent claim 14,
Appeal 2010-011695
Application 10/564,306

7
remaining independent claim 23, or their respective dependent claims 15, 16,
and 26-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and we sustain the rejection before us.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Sanz-Pastor teaches or suggests the “means for filtering” recited in
limitation [A] and the “means for temporarily storing” recited in limitation
[B] of representative claim 14.
(2) Solomon teaches or suggests the “means for storing” recited in
limitation [C] and the “wherein” clause recited in limitation [D] of
representative claim 14.
(3) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 14-16, 23, and 26-
29 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sanz-Pastor and
Solomon.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 14-16, 23, and 26-29 is 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).

AFFIRMED

peb