Ex Parte Molnar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 21, 2016

12904927 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/904,927 10/14/2010 102324 7590 07/25/2016 Artegis Law Group, LLP/NVIDIA 7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104 Houston, TX 77095 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Steven E. MOLNAR 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-09-0124-USO-US2 6899 EXAMINER HE,WEIMING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2612 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/25/2016 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): kcruz@artegislaw.com ALGdocketing@artegislaw.com mmccauley@artegislaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEVEN E. MOLNAR, EMMETT M. KILGARIFF, WALTER E. DONOVAN, CHRISTIAN AMSINCK, and ROBERT OHANNESSIAN Appeal2015-001115 Application 12/904,927 Technology Center 2600 Before CATHERINE SHIANG, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7 and 10-18, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Claims 8, 9, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent from a rejected base claim and, therefore, not before us. See Final Act. 11. Appeal2015-001115 Application 12/904,927 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The present invention relates to graphics processing. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method of producing a pixel coverage mask based on an alpha value, the method comprising: combining a virtual coverage mask that indicates which virtual samples and real samples within a pixel are covered by a graphics primitive and a quantized alpha mask based on the alpha value to produce the pixel coverage mask; and outputting the pixel coverage mask for the pixel, wherein the quantized alpha mask represents the alpha value in a coverage mask format and indicates which virtual samples within the pixel are deemed to be covered based on the alpha value. References and Rejections Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-13, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Donham (US 7,817,165 Bl, issued Oct. 19, 2010) and Hsu (US 2008/0284780 Al, published Nov. 20, 2008). Claims 3, 4, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Donham, Hsu, and King (US 7,333,119 Bl, issued Feb. 19, 2008). ANALYSIS On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1. We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and 2 Appeal2015-001115 Application 12/904,927 (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our analysis below.2 Therefore, we provide the following for emphasis. Appellants contend Donham and Hsu do not collectively teach "the quantized alpha mask represents the alpha value in a coverage mask format and indicates which virtual samples within the pixel are deemed to be covered based on the alpha value," as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 10- 12; Reply Br. 5-7. In particular, Appellants argued the Donham does not teach "a coverage mask that represents alpha values in a coverage." App. Br. 1 O; see also Reply Br. 5. Appellants contend Hsu does not teach the disputed claim limitation because it does not mention virtual samples. See App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 6-7. Appellants have not persuaded us of error. The Examiner finds-and Appellants do not dispute-Donham teaches "a quantized alpha mask" and "virtual samples." See Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 2. We understand the Examiner finds-and Appellants do not dispute- Hsu teaches "represent[ing] the alpha value in a coverage mask format and indicat[ing] which [] samples within the pixel are deemed to be covered based on the alpha value." See Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 3; Hsu, i-f 24 ("[w]hen performing the alpha-to-coverage transformation, a value in a transparency column of a pixel is converted to corresponding coverage masks which corresponds to n bits of n sub-samples of nX MSAA"); Figs. 2, 6; see also Reply Br. 5 (arguing the disputed claim limitation "representing an alpha value as a coverage mask, which is alpha-to-coverage"). 2 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.41(b)(2). 3 Appeal2015-001115 Application 12/904,927 Therefore, the Examiner reasonably finds Donham and Hsu collectively teach "the quantized alpha mask represents the alpha value in a coverage mask format and indicates which virtual samples within the pixel are deemed to be covered based on the alpha value," as recited in claim 1. Combining the Donham and Hsu techniques would have predictably used prior art elements according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 422 (2007). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and corresponding dependent claims, which Appellants do not separately argue. For similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 10 and 11, and corresponding dependent claims, which Appellants do not separately argue. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7 and 10-18. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 4