Ex Parte Sorgard et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 19, 2017

11987265 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/987,265 11/28/2007 Edvard Sorgard JRL-613-126 4246
23117 7590 10/23/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
AMINI, JAVID A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/23/2017 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDVARD SORGARD, BORGAR LJOSLAND, JORN NYSTAD,
MARIO BLAZEVIC, and FRANK LANGTIND
Appeal 2015-007717
Application 11/987,2651
Technology Center 2600
Before MARC S. HOFF, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—25. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify ARM Norway AS as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-007717
Application 11/987,265
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to processing
graphics in a tile-based graphics processing system. Spec. 1:5—7; see also
Spec. 7:24—26. According to the Specification, in a tile-based rendering
system, the scene to be displayed is sub-divided into a plurality of smaller
sub-regions, or tiles. Spec. 2:21—25. Further, it is known to prepare a list of
so-called “primitives” to be rendered for each tile. Spec. 3:10-22. The
Specification further indicates “graphics ‘primitives’ are usually in the form
of simple polygons, such as triangles, and are usually described by defining
their vertices.” Spec. 1:18—21. In a disclosed embodiment, rather than a
listing of primitives, the graphics descriptors in tile lists are “something
other than simple base primitives, such as simple polygons, such as
triangles, quads, lines or points that may be and will be used to describe the
scene for the actual rendering process (and thus will not be in [the] form of
simple primitives, such as triangles, lines, quads or points).” Spec. 9:27—34;
see also Spec. 10:29—34 (describing the graphics descriptors as not being a
simple polygon or primitive). According to the Specification, by using (i.e.,
listing) graphics descriptors that are not simple primitives, various
advantages such as better control over and knowledge of memory usage
requirements, improved sorting and culling of graphics data, and improved
time and processing resource efficiency may be realized. Spec. 8:6—28.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics'.
1. An apparatus for sorting graphics data for processing in a
graphics processing system, the apparatus comprising:
2
Appeal 2015-007717
Application 11/987,265
a processor for sorting graphics descriptors that relate to
or have associated with them a location or locations in a scene to
be rendered into a plurality of lists, each list for a particular area
or sub-region of the scene, each graphics descriptor being
something other than a primitive of the scene to be rendered,
wherein the graphics descriptors comprise one or more of
graphics descriptors that are non-primitive-based descriptions of
objects to be rendered or of graphics processes to be performed.
The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1—10 and 12—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Maclnnis et al. (US 2011/0280307 Al; Nov. 17,
2011) (“Maclnnis”) and Fujimoto (US 6,911,985 Bl; June 28, 2005). Final
Act. 2-9.
2. Claims 11 and 15—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Maclnnis, Fujimoto, and Duluk, JR. et al. (US
2007/0165035 Al; July 19, 2007) (“Duluk”). Final Act. 9-11.
3. Claims 1, 2, and 12—14 alternatively stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maclnnis and Duluk. Final
Act. 11-13.
Issues on Appeal1
Did the Examiner err in finding the citied prior art teaches or suggests
graphics descriptors that are “something other than a primitive of the scene
to be rendered,” as recited by the pending independent claims?
2 We only address this issue, which is dispositive. We do not address
additional issues raised by Appellants’ arguments.
3
Appeal 2015-007717
Application 11/987,265
ANALYSIS3
In rejecting claim 1 the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of
Maclnnis and Fujimoto or, alternatively, the combined teachings of
Maclnnis and Duluk. Final Act. 2—5, 11—13. Thus, we provide a brief
overview of these references below.
Maclnnis is generally directed to an integrated circuit system for
processing and displaying video and graphics. Maclnnis 13. Maclnnis
describes a graphics display system comprising a video decoder, video
scaler, window controller, and display engine. Maclnnis 1 89. Maclnnis
discloses that graphics data is processed using logical windows. Maclnnis
193. The graphics windows may overlap and comprise text and graphics,
patterns, GIF images, live video, control panels, cursors, three-dimensional
graphics, or menus. Maclnnis 193. Additionally, the graphics windows
may be characterized by window descriptors. Maclnnis 194. “Window
descriptors are data structures that describe one or more parameters of the
graphics window. . . . [and] may include, for example, image pixel format,
pixel color type, alpha blend factor, location on the screen, address in
memory, depth order on the screen, or other parameters.” Maclnnis 194.
Fujimoto is generally directed to reducing the frame buffer size in a
three-dimensional graphics system. Fujimoto, col. 1,11.56—58. Fujimoto
discloses in the three-dimensional graphics system, “an object is typically
drawn using numerous polygons such as triangles, and the like.” Fujimoto,
3 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
February 18, 2015 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed August 24, 2015
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed June 23, 2015 (“Ans.”); and
the Final Office Action, mailed June 16, 2014 (“Final Act.”), from which
this Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal 2015-007717
Application 11/987,265
col. 2,11. 51—52. According to Fujimoto, the need to store two full frames
worth of data (i.e., double buffering of data) may be eliminated by sorting
rendering commands based on the location of a triangle ahead of time and
processing those triangles that fall in a particular section of the screen.
Fujimoto, col. 3,11. 47—56. As an example, Fujimoto describes treating the
bottom half of a screen as a first section whereas the top half of the screen is
a second section. Fujimoto, col. 4,11. 12—14. Fujimoto further describes, as
part of a rendering operation, the CPU may sort polygons (e.g., triangles)
based upon their location (i.e., whether they are present in the first and/or
second sections). Fujimoto, col. 4,11. 16—27. “If the polygon crosses the
boundary between the first section and the second section of the screen, the
CPU may add the corresponding rendering command to both the first list
and the second list.” Fujimoto, col. 4,11. 30—33.
Duluk is generally directed to differed shading in three-dimensional
graphics processing. Duluk 112. In particular, a Deferred Shading
Graphics Processor (DSGP) pipeline is described that performs shading,
sub-pixel anti-aliasing, and texture- and bump-mapping in hardware. Duluk
1478. Duluk discloses the DSGP may interface to a host processor via an
Advanced Graphics Port (AGP). Duluk 1479. Duluk further describes the
input stream from to the DSGP as comprising commands and data wherein
the data includes geometrical object data (e.g., colors, surface normal, and
texture coordinates). Duluk || 485 486.
Each of the independent claims distinguishes the claimed graphics
descriptor from being a single primitive of the scene to be rendered. See
claims 1, 2, and 12—14. In explaining the rejection, the Examiner finds it is
known to divide a scene (i.e., image or screen) into a plurality of sub-regions
5
Appeal 2015-007717
Application 11/987,265
(i.e., tiles) and that “each sub-region’s primitive or the location of the sub-
region is equal to the graphic descriptor.” Ans. 14 (emphasis omitted).
Additionally, the Examiner indicates the primitive of a scene is equated to
what claim 1 recites as “something other than a primitive of the scene.”
Ans. 14 (emphasis omitted). Further, the Examiner finds “when a primitive
of a scene [is] divided into [a] sub-scene, then the primitive of a sub-scene is
not the same as the primitive of the scene.” Ans. 16 (emphasis omitted).
As an initial matter, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s
mapping of a “primitive” to “something other than a primitive” is
inconsistent with what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a
primitive in the graphic arts to be. See Reply Br. 6. Additionally, contrary
to the Examiner’s explanation, we agree with Appellants that there is no
distinction between primitives of a scene and primitives of a tile. Reply
Br. 4. There are just primitives for the scene as a whole. Thus, to the extent
the Examiner’s finding relies on primitives specific to a tile (i.e., sub-region
of the scene) as being “something other than a primitive of the scene” (as
recited in claim 1), we disagree.
Although Maclnnis teaches that the various windows are associated
with window descriptors that may comprise location information, the
Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence or explanation that Maclnnis’
graphic windows correspond to the claimed graphics descriptors.
Additionally, contrary to the Examiner’s findings, Fujimoto’s disclosure of a
polygon (e.g., triangle) that may be located in both sections of a screen, and,
therefore, would be included as part of the rendering operations for each
section, is suggestive of an exact binning process wherein a primitive (i.e., a
simple polygon such as a triangle) is listed in the tile list of those tiles in
6
Appeal 2015-007717
Application 11/987,265
which it is located. See Spec. 3:3 5—4:15, Fig. 1 (describing “exact
binning”); see also App. Br. 15. In other words, the Examiner has not
provided sufficient explanation or reasoning how the graphic descriptors of
Fujimoto are “something other than a primitive of the scene to be rendered.”
Further, the Examiner has not explained how the descriptive information
associated with geometrical objects in Duluk corresponds to the claimed
graphics descriptors. See Final Act. 12—13.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent
claim 1. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
independent claims 2 and 12—14, which recite similar limitations.
Additionally, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3—11
and 15—25, which depend therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—25.
REVERSED
7