Ex Parte Peterson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 23, 2018

14936986 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/936,986 11/10/2015 125968 7590 03/27/2018 V orys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP (ImgTec) 1909 K St., N.W. Ninth Floor Washington, DC 20006 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Luke T. Peterson 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. 070852.000156-1 2062 EXAMINER BROOME, SAID A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2619 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2018 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): patlaw@vorys.com vmdeluca@vorys.com rntisdale@vorys.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LUKE T. PETERSON, JAMES ALEXANDER McCOMBE, RYAN R. SALSBURY, and STEVEN J. CLOHSET Appeal2017-009671 Application 14/936,986 1 Technology Center 2600 Before NATHAN A. ENGELS, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--10, and 14--19. Claims 3, 11-13, and 20 stand subject to an objection. Final Act. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Imagination Technologies Limited as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2017-009671 Application 14/936,986 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of rendering a plurality of images of a particular instance of a 3-D scene from a respective plurality of perspectives by ray tracing in a computer system, the method comprising: receiving shape data defining shapes to be rendered in the particular instance of the 3-D scene from said plurality of perspectives; defining rays for the plurality of perspectives to be tested for intersection in the particular instance of the 3-D scene; processing rays from the different perspectives together, the processing comprising at least one of: testing the rays against common geometric shapes within the particular instance of the 3-D scene, and performing shading operations using a common shader module. Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App'x). THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 2, 4--10, 14, 15, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Sven Woop et al., RPU: A Programmable Ray Processing Unit for Realtime Ray Tracing, in ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 Papers (SIGGRAPH '05) 434--44 (2005) ("Woop"). Final Act. 2--4. 2. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Woop and McGill et al. (US 6,313,908 Bl; Nov. 6, 2001) ("McGill"). Final Act. 4--5. 2 Appeal2017-009671 Application 14/936,986 ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 USC Â§ 102(b) In rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Woop, the Examiner relies on W oop 's ray processing unit ("RPU") that performs realtime renderings of 3D scenes using realtime ray tracing. Final Act. 2-3 (citing Woop at 434-- 35, 441--43, Figs. 1, 2, 6). Appellants argue Woop does not disclose "rendering a plurality of images of a particular instance of a 3-D scene from a respective plurality of perspectives by ray tracing," as recited in claim 1, because, according to Appellants, "[t]here is nothing in Woop that relates to rendering a plurality of images of the same instance of a scene from different perspectives (i.e.[,] different viewpoints)." Appeal Br. 6, accord id. at 5-8. Instead, Appellants assert "representations from different viewpoint perspectives in W oop are of different scenes, as a scene may change over time. For any particular instance of a 3-D scene in Woop, there is only one image rendered from only one viewpoint." Appeal Br. 5, see also id. at 7-8 (describing Figures 1 and 6 of W oop as depicting images of "separate, independent, and different 3D scene[s]" and "not different views from different perspectives of an instance of a 3D scene"). We disagree with Appellants' arguments and agree with the Examiner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood the claim language to read on W oop 's disclosure. See Final Act. 2-3. W oop discloses the use of its RPU for efficiently rendering views of a particular scene, with a focus on the "realtime" rate of the rendering of each view. See Woop 434 (Abstract), 441 (Results section, Table 4). A person of ordinary skill would understand that Woop' s uses of spatial index structures and "global" shading effects to render those views discloses rendering views of a scene from 3 Appeal2017-009671 Application 14/936,986 different perspectives, particularly with W oop contrasting minor viewpoint changes with "abrupt" changes and dynamic scenes. See, e.g., Woop 442 (describing that, as the camera position changes "only small changes in the set of visible scene parts must be transfered [sic] per frame, unless the camera abruptly changes the view (e.g., by walking around a comer)"); see also Woop at 436 (Scalable Design section), Fig. 3. These disclosures indicate the use of W oop 's RPU for a scene in which the camera view has changed, separate and apart from changes to the scene itself-i.e., "a particular instance of a 3-D scene from a respective plurality of perspectives." Appellants' Specification similarly discloses rendering a plurality of images of a given scene by using rays at each of a plurality of different perspectives, such that the collection of "rays can be attributed to a plurality of camera positions." Spec. i-f 116. Appellants' assertion that W oop' s disclosure "represents ... a different scene over time as a camera moves through a space" is unpersuasive. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that "a particular instance of a 3-D scene" can persist over time, and nothing in Appellants' Specification contravenes this plain and ordinary meaning. Thus, as the camera position in Woop moves around an otherwise unchanging instance of a scene, Woop discloses rendering a plurality of images of that particular instance of the 3D scene from a respective plurality of perspectives, as recited. We also agree with the Examiner that Woop discloses "receiving shape data," as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 2. For example, Woop discloses that implementing its RPU architecture "is possible for scenes with a reasonable number of visible triangles as the RPU units are fed from 4 Appeal2017-009671 Application 14/936,986 primary caches." Woop at 442. Woop also describes a ray tracing procedure as one in which "a traversal operation through [a 3D spatial index structure in object space] conservatively enumerates the set of triangles hit by the ray in front to back order." Woop at 435. Further, the various images depicted in Figures 1 and 6 of W oop illustrate examples of the various shapes (e.g., spheres and triangle) that Woop's RPU can detect, render, index, and cache. W oop Figs. 1, 6; see also id. at 441 ("The highly complex Terrain and SunCOR scenes use even more instantiated geometry resulting in scenes with millions of triangles. The Spheres and the SPD Balls scenes combine triangles and spheres as geometric primitives and additionally show advanced shading effects such as reflection and refraction on curved surfaces."). Appellants further argue that W oop does not disclose "processing rays from different perspectives together," as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 4--5. We disagree with Appellants and agree with the Examiner that W oop' s RPU discloses this limitation, for example, by using shader processing units ("SPU s") for geometry intersections and shading computations with respect to a given scene. Final Act. 3 (citing Woop Figs. 2, 3); see also Woop at 435 (explaining the "core [SPU] ... is used for geometry intersection and shading computations."), 436 ("During traversal the [traversal processing unit ("TPU")] invokes the SPU for executing a data dependent shader for every entry encountered in the k-D tree .... After traversal the SPUs can call a material shader for the found intersection point."). Accordingly, having considered each of Appellants' arguments and the evidence of record, we disagree with Appellants' arguments and affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as the Examiner's Â§ 102 (b) 5 Appeal2017-009671 Application 14/936,986 rejection of claims 2, 4--10, 14, 15, and 17-19, which Appellants do not argue separately. Rejection under 35 USC Â§ 103(a) Appellants argue the rejection of claim 16 as unpatentable over Woop and McGill "does not explain how Woop would be modified or what would be done to Woop from the disclosure of holographic images of McGill, nor does McGill provide the teaching missing from Woop." Appeal Br. 9. Appellants assert "[t]he Answer cannot reasonably be considered to suggest that it would be obvious to modify any and every imaging system to be a holographic imaging system simply because McGill disclosed a holographic image." Reply Br. 6. We disagree with Appellants. "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the combination of references makes obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art." In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969); In re Mapelsden, 329 F.2d 321, 322 (CCP A 1964). "Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). Here, the Examiner's articulated rationale for combining the teachings of Woop and McGill is reasonable-i.e., "because this modification enhances the visualization [] of a plurality of virtual models within a three-dimensional scene through the use of holographic object imagery." Final Act. 4--5. As such, the Examiner has sufficiently "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness" (see In re 6 Appeal2017-009671 Application 14/936,986 Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418)). Moreover, Appellants arguments center on a feature-holographic imaging systems-that Appellants' Specification describes only in general terms. See Spec. i-f 116 ("In one application, these systems and methods can be used in rendering representations of a 3-D scene for use in holographic imaging systems. In an example approach to rendering for holographic imaging systems, a plurality of images of a given scene are to be rendered, each from a different perspective."); Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App 'x; claim 16 reciting "The system of claim 9 wherein the plurality of images are rendered for a holographic imaging system."). Appellants cannot require more detail from the prior art than that disclosed in Appellants' own Specification, and the Specification's lack of detail regarding holographic imaging systems evidences that a person of ordinary skill would have understood holographic imaging systems were among the known applications of the disclosed technology, which is consistent with the Examiner's rationale. See In re Epstein, 32 F. 3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (upholding decision of the Board where the Board observed that appellant did not provide the type of detail in his specification that he argued was necessary in prior art references). Accordingly, having considered each of Appellants' arguments and the evidence of record, we disagree with Appellants' arguments and affirm the Examiner's Â§ 103(a) rejection of claim 16. 7 Appeal2017-009671 Application 14/936,986 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--10, 14, 15, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b). We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). 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 ). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv)(2016). AFFIRMED 8