Ex Parte Yu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

11435454 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111435,454 05/16/2006
23696 7590 05/03/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chun Yu
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.
060785 6266
EXAMINER
TUNG,KEEM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHUN YU, BRIAN RUTTENBERG,
GUOFANG JIAO, and YUN DU
Appeal2013-002367
Application 11/435,4541
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, JASON J. CHUNG, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection
of claims 1-22 and 24-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a graphics system which performs various
graphics operations to render graphic images. Spec. ,-i 4. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the invention and is reproduced below:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm Incorporated.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2013-002367
Application 11/435,454
1. An apparatus comprising:
a plurality of units arranged in a pipeline configured to render a
graphics image composed of pixels including z values,
wherein the plurality of units in the pipeline include at least a
fragment shader and a single stencil and depth engine, wherein the
single stencil and depth engine is configured to process pixels before
the fragment shader in response to a first selection value, and wherein
the single stencil and depth engine that is configured to process pixels
before the fragment shader is also configured to process pixels after the
fragment shader in response to a second selection value.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11-16, 18 and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Leather (7,633,506 Bl;
Dec. 15, 2009) (hereafter "Leather") in view of Seiler (2006/0033735 Al; Feb. 16,
2006) (hereafter "Seiler"). Ans. 3-6.
Claims 3, 5, 17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Leather, Seiler, and further in view of
Donovan (2006/0028482 Al; Feb. 9, 2006) (hereafter "Donovan"). Ans. 6-9.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Leather, Seiler, and further in view of Duluk
(2004/0130552 Al; Jul. 8, 2004) (hereafter "Duluk"). Ans. 9-10.
2 We have decided the Appeal before us; however, in the event of further
prosecution, the Examiner should evaluate claims 11 and 12 in light of In re
Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer
Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010); and the
precedential Decision in Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857 (PTAB
2013)(precedential).
Appeal2013-002367
Application 11/435,454
Claims 24-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Leather, Seiler, and further in view of Anderson
(2005/0195198 Al; Sep. 8, 2005) (hereafter "Anderson"). Ans. 10-12.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 15 recites the following limitations (which are similarly recited
in claims 11 and 13):
wherein the single stencil and depth engine is configured to process
pixels before the fragment shader in response to a first selection value,
and wherein the single stencil and depth engine that is configured to
process pixels before the fragment shader is also configured to process
pixels after the fragment shader.
Appellants contend that Leather's separate and bracketed data paths
traversing over an early Z-Interface and a late Z-Interface illustrate two depth
engines rather than a single depth engine. App. Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 3-5. In
addition, Appellants argue that Leather's usage of the word "where" implies that
there are two different depth engines. App. Br. 10-13. Moreover, Appellants
contend that Seiler does not remedy the deficiencies of Leather because Seiler' s
combined stencil and depth engine fails to teach the chronological process of "the
single stencil and depth engine that is configured to process pixels before the
fragment shader" and "is also configured to process pixels after the fragment
shader" (emphasis added). App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 6-7. We disagree with
Appellants.
As for Appellants' first two arguments, the cited portions of Leather relied
upon by the Examiner teach a Z buffer logic 555 (e.g., single depth engine) which
performs early and late depth processing (e.g., process pixels before the fragment
shader in response to a first selection value, and process pixels after the fragment
Appeal2013-002367
Application 11/435,454
shader in response to a second selection value). Ans. 13-16 (citing Leather, col. 6,
11. 22-23, col. 6, 11. 64-66, Fig. 5). Figure 5 of Leather is reproduced below.
Figure 5, which the Examiner relies on, illustrates Z Buffer Logic 555 (e.g.,
the claimed single depth engine) that processes pixels before unified shader 570
(e.g., the claimed fragment shader) and processes pixels after unified shader 570
(e.g., the claimed fragment shader). Ans. 3-4, 16-17 (citing Leather, Fig. 5).
Moreover, Figure 5 of Leather illustrates Z Buffer Logic 555 with a boundary line
that encompasses Hierarchical Z-Interface, Early Z-Interface, and Late Z-Interface
(Ans. 14-16; Leather, Fig. 5), which teaches a "single ... depth engine," as recited
in claims 1, 11, 13, and 15. In addition, we disagree with Appellants' first two
arguments because claims 1, 11, 13, and 15 do not recite "a single interface."
Rather, claims 1, 11, 13, and 15 merely recite a "single ... depth engine," which
the Examiner finds, and we agree, is taught by Leather's Z Buffer Logic 555.
Regarding Appellants last argument, we disagree with Appellants because
one cannot show nonobviousness "by attacking references individually" where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
Appeal2013-002367
Application 11/435,454
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Jn re Keller, 642 F .2d 413, 426 (CCP A 1981 )).
In this case, the Examiner relies on Leather to teach the chronological process of
"the single stencil and depth engine that is configured to process pixels before the
fragment shader" and "is also configured to process pixels after the fragment
shader" (emphasis added). Ans. 3--4 (citing Leather, col. 6, 11. 22-30, col. 6, 11. 64-
col. 7, 11. 4, Fig. 5). Further, the Examiner relies on Seiler to teach a single stencil
and depth engine. Ans. 4 (citing Seiler, Figs. 2 and 6).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 11, 13 and 15 and dependent claims 2-12, 14, 16-22 and 24-
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Because Appellants have provided similar arguments
against the rejections of claims 2-22 and 24-26 (App. Br. 14), these claims fall
with claim 1 for the same reasons as set forth above. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22 and 24-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED