Imagination Technologies, Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 4, 2020

14202722 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2020)

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.
14/202,722 03/10/2014 Cuneyt OZDAS 2645-0230US01 6691
104840 7590 09/04/2020
Imagination Technologies
c/o Potomac Law Group PLLC
8229 Boone Boulevard Suite 430
Vienna, VA 22182
EXAMINER
SONNERS, SCOTT E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2020 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):
Eofficeaction@appcoll.com
Patents@potomaclaw.com
vdeluca@potomaclaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte CUNEYT OZDAS, LUKE TILMAN PETERSON,
STEVEN BLACKMON, and STEVEN JOHN CLOHSET
________________

Appeal 2019-001703
Application 14/202,722
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 3–7, 9, 11–18, 23, and 34.1 Appeal Br. 1. Claims 2, 8,
10, 19–22, 27, and 35–63 have been canceled. Id. Claims 24–26 and 28–33
are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to a restriction requirement. Id.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Board conducts a limited
de novo review of the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
We REVERSE.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Imagination Technologies
Limited. Appeal Brief filed June 25, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”) 1.
Appeal 2019-001703
Application 14/202,722

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
Aspects relate to tracing rays in 3-D scenes that comprise objects
that are defined by or with implicit geometry. In an example, a
trapping element defines a portion of 3-D space in which implicit
geometry exist. When a ray is found to intersect a trapping
element, a trapping element procedure is executed. The trapping
element procedure may comprise marching a ray through a 3-D
volume and evaluating a function that defines the implicit
geometry for each current 3-D position of the ray. An
intersection detected with the implicit geometry may be found
concurrently with intersections for the same ray with explicitly-
defined geometry, and data describing these intersections may be
stored with the ray and resolved.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the appealed
claims:
1. A computer-implemented method of testing a ray for
intersection with an implicit surface in a 3-D space of a computer
graphics scene to be rendered, comprising:
entering, by a processor, a surface of a shell bounding a
3-D volume in said 3-D space with a ray, the shell defining a
maximum extent for implicitly-defined geometry within the
shell;
iteratively stepping, by a processor, a current 3-D position
of the ray along its path through the 3-D volume defined by the
shell;
for each current 3-D position, by a processor
projecting the current 3-D position of the ray to a
current position on an explicitly defined 2-D surface in
said 3-D space and bounded in the shell,
producing data for the implicitly-defined geometry
using the current position on the explicitly-defined 2-D
surface in said 3-D space, and
Appeal 2019-001703
Application 14/202,722

3
characterizing the ray as either hitting or missing the
implicitly-defined geometry at the current 3-D position in
said 3-D space, using the produced data; wherein the ray
characterization is used in rendering of said scene on a
visual display.

STATEMENT OF THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–6, 9, 11–13, 15–18, 23, and 34 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Porumbescu et al. (Shell Maps; AMC
Transactions on Graphic (TOG). Vol. 24. No. 3 ACM, published 2005,
hereinafter Porumbescu). Final Act. 2–13.2
Claims 1, 3–6, 9, 11–13, 15–18, 23, and 34 stand rejected
alternatively under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Porumbescu and Hirche et al. (Hardware Accelerated Per-Pixel
Displacement Mapping; Proceedings of Graphics interface published 2004,
hereinafter Hirche). Final Act. 2–13.
Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Porumbescu, Hirche, and Szirmay-Kalos & Tamas
Umenhoffer (Displacement Mapping on the GPU– State of the Art;
Computer Graphics Forum. Vol. 27. No. 6 published 2008, hereinafter
Szirmay). Final Act. 13–14.

2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellant’s arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents for their respective details: the Final Action mailed
January 24, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 19,
2018 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed December 19, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-001703
Application 14/202,722

4
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
I.
Contentions
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting the above-noted
claims as anticipated by Porumbescu. Appeal Br. 5–10. Appellant first
points out, inter alia, the difference, within the context of claim 1, between
explicitly defined geometry and implicitly defined geometry. Id. 5–8.
Appellant next argues that “Porumbescu is different than the subject matter
as set forth in claim 1 in that Porumbescu is not directed to implicitly-
defined surfaces[,] but rather to shell maps.” Id. at 8; see also id. at 8–10
(supporting this argument).
In relation to the first point, Appellant argues,
In the specification, explicitly-defined geometry is geometry that
is defined by meshes of vertex data, such as meshes of triangles.
The implicit geometry relates to the geometric surfaces defined
by evaluating whatever programmatic or procedural refinement
of the coarse geometry is indicated. When implicitly-defined
geometry is used, the determination as to whether a ray intersects
with the geometry is more complicated than a corresponding
determination for explicitly-defined geometry.
Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant continues,
The use of implicitly-defined geometry allows highly
detailed geometry to be used in ray tracing, without using a large
amount of storage space to define that geometry. The implicitly-
defined geometry can be expressed as a hybrid of explicitly
defined geometry and a programmatic refinement. This allows a
relatively coarse geometry structure to express a more nuanced
surface by allowing a programmatic or procedural refinement to
the geometry surface.
Appeal Br. 6.
Appeal 2019-001703
Application 14/202,722

5
In relation to Appellant’s second point, which regards the teachings of
Porumbescu, Appellant argues,
Porumbescu relates to the use of shell maps in which a bijective
mapping3 between a 3-D shell space and a 3-D texture space is
generated so as to allow a 3-D volume in texture space to be
mapped onto a surface. The arrangement of Porumbescu defines
a shell between a base surface (on which the 3-D volume is to be
mapped) and an offset surface having the same structure as the
base surface and positioned above the surface. A correspondence
between the 3-D space defined by the surfaces (shell space) and
the 3-D space of the texture (texture space) is determined[,]
which [correspondence determination] enables the 3-D volume
in texture space to be mapped onto the base surface S. In this
way, it is possible to texture a surface with a 3-D volume such as
a series of columns or a representation of a rabbit[,] as illustrated
in Figures 8 to 10.
Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant further points out that Porumbescu expressly explains,
Shell mapping does not supplant displacement mapping or other
texturing techniques, but complements them. Displacement
mapping modifies a surface by moving vertices along associated
normal, whereas shell mapping adds 3D geometric detail to the
shell map region without modification of the original surface.
Appeal Br. 9 (citing Porumbescu, section 5).
The Examiner finds Appellant’s arguments to be unpersuasive
because the Examiner finds (1) the claims do not recite “displacement

3 In mathematics, “[a] function is bijective for two sets if every element of
one set is paired with only one element of a second set, and each element of
the second set is paired with only one element of the first set. This means
that all elements are paired and paired once.”
https://brilliant.org/wiki/bijection-injection-and-surjection/#bijective.

Appeal 2019-001703
Application 14/202,722

6
mapping” and (2) the plain meaning of the claim term “implicitly-defined
geometry” is not limited to the context of displacement mapping. Ans. 15–
18. Based on a broader interpretation of implicitly defined geometry, the
Examiner interprets Porumbescu’s shell space as corresponding to the
claimed shell space. Final Act. 2–3 (citing Porumbescu’s Figure 7 and
Appellant’s Figure 6). The Examiner then interprets the claimed “explicitly-
defined 2-D surface in the 3-D space” as corresponding to a surface of
Porumbescu’s texture space, and the Examiner interprets “an implicit
surface in a 3-D space” as corresponding to the surface of Porumbescu’s
shell space. Final Act. 4.
Analysis
Even if we were to agree with the Examiner that the claimed
“explicitly-defined 2-D surface” and “implicit surface” are not limited to the
context of displacement mapping, the Examiner still has not established a
prima facie showing of anticipation. Claim 1 requires that the two claimed
surfaces exist within the same 3-D space. See claim 1 (reciting a method of
testing a ray for intersection with an implicit surface in a 3-D space that
comprises passing a ray through a shell defining a maximum extent for
implicitly-defined geometry within the shell and then projecting a current
3-D position of the ray to a current position on an explicitly defined 2-D
surface in said 3-D space).
In contrast, Porumbescu’s shell space and textured space are not the
same 3-dimensional space. As Porumbescu explains,
Displacement mapping . . . explicitly models surface
displacement by height fields. Smits et al. . . . describe methods
to make displacement mapping reasonable for ray tracing. . . .
Appeal 2019-001703
Application 14/202,722

7
We present a straightforward and powerful method for mapping
three-dimensional regions containing textures or geometry into
regions between surfaces and their offsets. The mapping is
bijective[,] which allows the use of applications that map shell-
space points to texture space, and texture-space points to shell
space. This method allows many object types to be placed
directly into texture space, greatly expanding the detail that can
be created on surface models.
Porumbescu, section 2 (emphasis added).
Moreover, claim 1 recites, “projecting the current 3-D position
of the ray to a current position on an explicitly-defined 2-D surface in
said 3-D space,” and then “producing data for the implicitly-defined
geometry using the current position on the explicitly-defined 2-D
surface.” In contrast,
Porumbescu discloses generating a bijective mapping between
a 3-D shell space and a 3-D texture space to allow a 3-D volume
in texture space to be mapped onto a surface S. A shell is
defined between a base surface S and an offset surface S0
having the same structure as the base surface and positioned
above the base surface.
Reply Br. 2 (citing Porumbescu, p. 627; Fig. 2).
The Examiner does not sufficiently explain how Porumbescu
allegedly teaches projecting the current position of a ray to an explicitly
defined surface and then using the results to produce data for the implicitly
defined geometry. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 3–6, 9, 11–13, 15–18, 23, and 34,
which either depend from claim 1 or otherwise include similar claim
language as claim 1.
Appeal 2019-001703
Application 14/202,722

8
II.
Contentions
The Examiner additionally finds that even if Porumbescu is
interpreted as being silent as to projecting the current 3-D position of a ray
to a current position on an explicitly defined 2-D surface, “Hirche teaches
that it [was] known to cast a ray into a 3D space to ‘find out whether the ray
intersects the displacement map . . . in a manner similar to Por[u]mbescu
teaching entrance into the bounding prisms.” Final Act. 5 (citing Hirche,
section 3). The Examiner further finds,
[i]n the same manner described by the claims, Hirche
teaches the ray entering a shell and stepping a 3-D position along
its path and projected onto the explicitly defined geometry on the
base surface of the shell which defines the implicit geometry at
that section to determine whether an intersection occurs with the
implicit geometry in the shell.
Final Act. 6.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to combine
the teachings of Porumbescu and Hirche for the following reasons:
Porumbescu teaches specifically that the method describe[d] is
meant to “complement” displacement mapping (section 5) and
that the base surface upon which the shell maps are generated can
be any texture space containing “geometric objects, procedural
volume textures, scalar fields (section 3) and that the illustrated
use is in “applications utilizing geometry as generalized
displacement maps” (section 1). Hirche as disclosed above then
could have been combined with Por[u]mbescu to supply the
specific projection technique as more clearly explained by
Hirche in order to sample implicit geometry within the volume
as defined by the claims. The results of such a combination
would be predictable as it simply supplies an implementation
Appeal 2019-001703
Application 14/202,722

9
technique for sampling within a volume containing implicit
geometry.
Final Act. 7.
Appellant acknowledges that Appellant has not invented displacement
mapping per se, but argues that the claims require more than mere
displacement mapping. Appeal Br. 10–12. Appellant further argues,
[t]he point of the Hirche paper is presenting an approach
to displacement mapping that creates the appearance of a
displaced surface on a per pixel basis, without requiring any
insertion of vertices to retessellate the mesh. Hirche explicitly
states that “The algorithm uses only pixel shaders and does not
rely on adaptively adding geometry.”
Appeal Br. 12. According to Appellant,
Hirche does not disclose iteratively stepping, by a processor, a
current 3-D position of the ray along its path through the 3-D
volume defined by the shell; for each current 3-D position, by a
processor
projecting the current 3-D position of the ray to a
current position on an explicitly-defined 2-D surface in
said 3-D space and bounded in the shell,
producing data for the implicitly-defined geometry
using the current position on the explicitly-defined 2-D
surface in said 3-D space, and
characterizing the ray as either hitting or missing the
implicitly-defined geometry at the current 3-D position in
said 3-D space, using the produced data.
Appeal Br. 11.
Analysis
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. The Examiner has not
established that Hirche’s process of iteratively stepping a current 3-D
position of a ray along a path through the 3-D volume further includes the
following requirements of claim 1:
Appeal 2019-001703
Application 14/202,722

10
projecting the current 3-D position of the ray to a current
position on an explicitly-defined 2-D surface in said 3-D
space and bounded in the shell,
producing data for the implicitly-defined geometry
using the current position on the explicitly-defined 2-D
surface in said 3-D space, and
characterizing the ray as either hitting or missing the
implicitly-defined geometry at the current 3-D position in
said 3-D space, using the produced data.
And as explained in Section I of our Analysis, the Examiner has not
demonstrated that this functionality is taught by Porumbescu either.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s alternative, obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 3–6, 9, 11–13, 15–18, 23, and 34, which all require this
particular functionality.
III.
With respect to the remaining obviousness rejection of dependent
claims 7 and 14, the Examiner does not rely upon Szirmay-Kalos to cure the
deficiency of the anticipation and obviousness rejections explained above.
Final Act. 13–14. Accordingly, we reverse the obviousness rejections of
claims 7 and 14 for the reasons set forth above in relation to claim 1.

Appeal 2019-001703
Application 14/202,722

11
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

REVERSED4

4 Upon further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider whether the
last limitation of claim 1, “wherein the ray characterization is used in
rendering of said scene on a visual display,” constitutes an affirmative
method step of “rendering” that is sufficient to integrate the claim’s
recitations of abstract mathematical calculations and mental evaluations into
a practical application, or whether the last limitation merely constitutes a
recitation of an intended use of the other, affirmatively recited method steps.
And if the Examiner determines that the last limitation merely constitutes an
intended use of the recited method, the Examiner may wish further to
consider whether claim 1 should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being
directed to a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter without
reciting significantly more.
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–6, 9, 11–13,
15–18, 23, 34
102(b) Porumbescu 1, 3–6, 9,
11–13, 15–
18, 23, 34
1, 3–6, 9, 11–13,
15–18, 23, 34
103(a) Porumbescu,
Hirche
1, 3–6, 9,
11–13, 15–
18, 23, 34
7, 14 103(a) Porumbescu,
Hirche,
Szirmay-Kalos
7, 14
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–7, 9,
11–13–18,
23, 34