NVIDIA CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 30, 2021

2020000212 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2021)

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. 13/730,441 12/28/2012 Scott Saulters NVDA/TP110096US1 1507 102324 7590 04/30/2021 Artegis Law Group, LLP/NVIDIA 7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104 Houston, TX 77095 EXAMINER BEARD, CHARLES LLOYD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2616 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/30/2021 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): bkistler@artegislaw.com jmatthews@artegislaw.com sjohnson@artegislaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SCOTT SAULTERS Appeal 2020-000212 Application 13/730,441 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–21. See Non-Final Act. 1. Although the action appealed from is a non-final rejection, because the application has been twice rejected we have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 134. Ex parte Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d 1420, 1423 (BPAI 1994) (precedential). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as NVIDIA Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-000212 Application 13/730,441 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method for approximating motion blur in a rendered frame from within a graphics driver. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for approximating motion blur in a rendered frame from within a graphics driver, comprising: obtaining values of a first frame transformation matrix for a currently rendered frame and values of a second frame transformation matrix for a previously rendered frame, wherein the values of the first frame transformation matrix are associated with a first scene represented by currently rendered frame and the values of the second frame transformation matrix are associated with a second scene represented by the previously rendered frame; obtaining depth values of the currently rendered frame; and loading a shader onto a GPU to enable the GPU to adjust color values of one or more sample areas on the currently rendered frame based on at least the values of the first transformation matrix associated with the first scene, the values of the second frame transformation matrix associated with the second scene, and the depth values of the currently rendered frame to create a motion blur effect within the currently rendered frame. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Nomura US 5,956,096 Sept. 21, 1999 Deering US 6,426,755 B1 July 30, 2002 Woo US 2008/0100613 A1 May 1, 2008 Litvak US 2011/0211754 A1 Sept. 1, 2011 Son US 2013/0063440 A1 Mar. 14, 2013 Appeal 2020-000212 Application 13/730,441 3 REJECTIONS Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1, 3–10, 12–21 103(a) Deering, Woo, Son, Litvak 2, 11 103(a) Deering, Woo, Son, Litvak, Nomura OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding the pending claims. Instead, we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding that “loading a shader onto a GPU to enable the GPU to adjust color values of one or more sample areas on the currently rendered frame based on at least the values of the first transformation matrix associated with the first scene, the values of the second frame transformation matrix associated with the second scene, and the depth values of the currently rendered frame to create a motion blur effect within the currently rendered frame” as recited in claim 1 is taught by Litvak. Appeal Br. 10–12. Specifically, Appellant argues that Litvak is silent about the idea of adjusting the color values of sample areas on a currently rendered frame based on a transformation matrix associated with the currently rendered frame, a transformation matrix associated with a previously Appeal 2020-000212 Application 13/730,441 4 rendered frame, and the depth values of the currently rendered frame, as the above limitations of claim 1 require. Id. at 10; see also id. at 11 (“Notably, in Litvak, the color information within the color image is never adjusted, let alone adjusted or otherwise modified based on two transformation matrices and depth values, as expressly recite in claim 1.”); id. (“Contrary to the Examiner’s position, this paragraph does not teach anything about adjusting color information for locations on the currently rendered frame.”); id. at 11–12 (“In sum, Litvak fails to disclose any techniques for adjusting the color values of sample areas on a currently rendered frame based on a transformation matrix associated with the currently rendered frame, a transformation previously rendered frame, and the depth values of the currently rendered frame.”). In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues Son does not teach “adjusting the color of a frame that has already been rendered.” Reply Br. 4. The Examiner finds the combination of Son and Litvak teaches the disputed limitation. See Non-Final Act. 18–20; see also Ans. 39–40 (discussing Son). Specifically, the Examiner finds Son teaches “loading a shader onto a GPU to enable the GPU to adjust color values of one or more sample areas on a currently rendered frame . . . based [on] depth values of the currently rendered frame to create a motion blur effect within the currently rendered frame” as recited in claim 1. Non-Final Act. 18–19. The Examiner further relies on Litvak for the additional portions of the “loading a shader” step. Id. at 19–20. As a preliminary matter, because Appellant did not raise the arguments directed to Son in the opening brief and good cause has not been shown why it should be considered, we will not consider the argument raised for the first time in the Reply Brief. See 37 C.F.R. §41.41(b)(2); Ex parte Appeal 2020-000212 Application 13/730,441 5 Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (Informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”). By failing to raise arguments directed to the Examiner’s findings related to Son in a timely fashion, Appellant forfeited that argument. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Because Appellant focuses on Litvak alone, and not the combination of Son and Litvak that the Examiner relies upon, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of those references teach the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 along with the rejection of independent claims 10 and 19 and dependent claims 2– 9, 11–18, 20, and 21, which are not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 12– 13. Appeal 2020-000212 Application 13/730,441 6 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–10, 12–21 103(a) Deering, Woo, Son, Litvak 1, 3–10, 12– 21 2, 11 103(a) Deering, Woo, Son, Litvak, Nomura 2, 11 Overall Outcome 1–21 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED