0701
`
`Volkswagen 1002 - Part 8 of 8
`
`

`
`memory that the CPU can access but no other rendering engine can access. Only a single
`
`rendering engine can access the memory on a memory module.
`
`FIG. 8 clearly shows this structure since each rendering engine only has access to its own
`
`memory devices. Appellants claim a different configuration wherein the same memory
`
`controller on a chip is in communication with shared memory that is shared between two
`
`graphics processors. The graphics rendering engines in Perego cannot share memory amongst
`
`g1_'aphics engines and do not incorporate a common memory controller to do so. Perego uses the
`
`term “shared memory” because a portion of the memory on each separate memory module is
`
`used by the CPU, the claims do not claim such an operation but instead claim that the memory
`
`controller on the chip is in communication with multiple graphics pipelines and transfers pixel
`
`data between each of the pipelines and the memory controller that is in communication with a
`
`memory shared among the at least two graphics pipelines. Multiple rendering engines in Perego
`
`do not share the same graphics memory through a common memory controller on a chip as
`
`alleged in the office action. Accordingly, Appellants respectfully reversal of the rejections.
`
`Appellants also respectfully reassert their other remarks from their Brief.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`I'Christopher J. Reckampf
`Christopher J. Reckamp
`Registration No. 34,414
`
`Date:
`
`June 6, 2011
`
`Vedder Price P.C.
`222 N. LaSalle Street
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`PHONE:
`(312) 609-7599
`FAX:
`(312) 609-5005
`
`CHICAGO;’#22074'.r'0. l
`
`0702
`
`

`
`mT
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`Dividing work among multiple graphics pipelines using a su per-tiling
`.
`techn IC| ue
`
`First Named lnventorlflpplicant Name:
`
`Mark M. Leather
`
`I
`
`Payment information:
`
`Document
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Pages3 cuappu.»
`
`File Sizae(Bytes)I
`
`Multi
`
`Reply Brief Filed
`
`10459797_Rep|yBrief.pdf
`
`Info rmation:
`
`0703
`
`

`
`Total Files Size (in bytes)
`
`22033
`
`This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO of the indicated documents,
`characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt similar to a
`Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.
`
`New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 1 11
`Ifa new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date [see 37 CFR
`1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shown on this
`Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.
`
`National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371
`If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
`U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCTIDOIEOIQO3 indicating acceptance of the application as a
`national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.
`
`New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office
`If a new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for
`an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 1 810), a Notification of the International Application Number
`and of the International Filing Date [Fonn PCT!RO.+'105) will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
`national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the international filing date of
`the application.
`
`0704
`
`0704
`
`

`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF CONIMERCE
`United Stules Palm]. and Trademark Office
`Andres: COMMISSIONER FDR PATENTS
`R0. Eco: 1450
`Alcasauickia. Virginia 22313-1450
`wu.-w.usplo.gcw
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED ]NVE1\TI‘OR
`
`l0.|"-459,797
`
`0631232003
`
`Mark M. leather
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`‘
`00 l00.02.0D'53
`
`4143
`
`29153
`7590
`06-'I.7:'201l
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES,INC.
`C10 VEDDER PRICE P.C.
`222 N.LAS ALLE STREET
`CHICAGO, LL606Dl
`
`Hsu. Jon:
`
`2628
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`06!] "M201 1
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`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.
`
`P"DOL-90A (Rev. 04:0?)
`
`0705
`
`0705
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONEFI FOF1 PATENTS
`P.O. Box1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`APPLICATION NOJ
`CONTROL NO.
`101459397
`
`FILING DATE
`
`12 June 2003
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTORI
`PATENT IN REEXAMINMTON
`LEATHER ET AL.
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`00l00.02.00S3
`
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.
`c/o VEDDEFI PFIICE P.C.
`222 N.LASALLE smear
`CHICAGO,
`IL 60601
`
`EXAMINER
`
`40”‘ H3‘-’
`
`ART UN|T
`
`PAPER
`
`2628
`
`20110506
`
`DATE MAI LED:
`
`Please find below andlor attached an Office communication concerning this application or
`proceeding.
`
`The Reply Brief filed June 6, 201 1 has been noted by the examiner and has been placed in the file.
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`
`PTO-900 (Rev.04-03]
`
`/Joni Hsu!
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
`
`0706
`
`

`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTIVIENT OF COMNIERCE
`United Stales Paleni. and Trademark Office
`Andres: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Aleatauiclia. Virginia 22313-1450
`wv.-wmsptoigcw
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED ]NVE1\TI‘OR
`
`l0.|"-459,797
`
`0631232003
`
`Mark M. Leather
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`‘
`00 l00.02.0D'53
`
`4143
`
`29153
`7590
`06r'23:'201l
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES,INC.
`cxo VEDDER PRICE P.C.
`222 N.LAS ALLE STREET
`CHICAGO, E60601
`
`nsu, Jon:
`
`2628
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`06."23f20l l
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`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.
`
`P"DOL-90A (Rev. 04:0?)
`
`0707
`
`0707
`
`

`
`United States Patent and Trademark Crfiioe
`
`U ml or Secretary of Comm area for Intellectual Property and
`Director ofthe United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Bo ll: 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.usplo.goir
`
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.
`CIO VEDDER PRICE P.C.
`222 NLASALLE STREET
`CHICAGO, IL 60601
`
`2011-01019?
`Appeal No:
`l0I459.797
`Application:
`Appellant: Mark M. Leather et al.
`
`Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
`Docketin g Notice
`
`Application l0!459,'/'97 was received from the Technology Center at the Board on June 20, 2011
`and has been assigned Appeal No: 2011-010197.
`
`In all future communications regarding this appeal, please include both the application number
`and the appeal number.
`
`The mailing address for the Board is:
`
`BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFEFIENCES
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`P.O. BOX 14-50
`ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22313-1450
`
`The facsimile number of the Board is 571-273-0052. Because of the heightened security in the
`Washington D.C. area, facsimile communications are recommended. Telephone inquiries can be
`made by calling 571-272-9797 and referencing the appeal number listed above.
`
`By order of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
`
`0708
`
`

`
`PTOISBIED (11-D8)
`Approved for use through 1tI3D!201‘E. OW 0651-0035
`US. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF OOMMERCE
`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. no persons are required to respond to a oollaction of information uniess it displays a valid OMB control number.-
`
`"
`
`I hereby appoint:
`Practitioners associated with the Customer Number:
`OR
`
`any and ail patent applications assigned gum to the undersigned according to the USPTO assignment records or assignment documents
`_ attached to this form in accordance with 37 CFR .?,‘i'3(b).
`
`Please change the oorrespondenoe address for the application identified in the attached staternent_I.ind__er 37 CFR 3.T3{t:} to:
`
`[El
`
`The address associated with Customer Number:
`
`
`
`_eiephoneI
`
`I Aasignee Name and Address:
`
`AT! Techrioiogies ULC
`‘i Commerce Valtey Drive East
`' Markham, Ontario, Canada t_3T ‘(X6
`
`'
`
`=
`
`_ tend
`i=s_-to
`3 snisiaes '
`
`A copy of this form. together with a statem under 37 CFR 3.73(b} {Form PTOISBFQS or equivalent} is required to be I
`filed in each application in which this form is used. The statement under 37 CPR 3.730)) may be completed by one of
`the practitioners appointed in this form if the appointed practitioner is authorized to act on taehatf of the assignee.
`and must identt _the _ lication in which this Power of Attorne is to be filed.
`_
`7_
`_
`SIGNATURE of Assignee oi Record
`" ual whose signature and title is supplied below is authorized to ant on behalfof the assigltee
`, iefem.
`. " Kevin A. O'Neil
`'
`'_"reIephona
`289-695-0642
`Title
`_
`_
`"
`E_J_irector._F'atents and'
`‘ _~: ee_:I_e_¢j£id's< reeuemdosr-=2-' I tat. !.§z_'en<§1-.e3,j
`sstsigiiaedtootataas-or t|3_Ufi?§j33_tt’te{Q*_tJ5§§_€";s1‘?_t!i:¥t
`-lixy-_t_iie t.rEiP')'-
`io_'sis_ot';e's's},=st_t sgot:s:i_«.~as.. tioefléeritmi-s_tir-i=§:§d3jr-igtiiim es"-'5t5trrfi;..<-’:« E2? Hi and
`at: ‘Res cgolisdiae rs
`, W=tI<a6rig..1¥id:mriI=sii_ %i=ii'e‘2i=siifiiiri9'.-.fi!§€' seweraaesifire.
`.' liitfii iritfié: U.$¥’FG- Time Wit.-W:a""'==i~9:i>.E8Ir.*;!=’.!'*.ii?.?
`use aarltnisrt of
`reset?! _
`-
`.t_=r.='§ets‘r Rite
`sdgaestiene
`ttikt-tamieii, stwihfheseetz to—t_i':e5'Chi'e7I
`.a_ar5'
`use-.
`'
`'
`of
`s*.o.- am ere". Asexesmia, ?‘<7<_°s_
`i§23i3'~_‘t'»$5ti. an ‘trot sEbrt3-_-Ef:?£§$- on
`Si-'.¥;t.D T9: Comi3'itasi_6n'sr-f<$r'.¥*ieten't'a,:P.£). ens
`Aisxsmia; 'va=g_2;:_i;e-1459.
`'
`'
`
`is:
`
`t
`
`.
`
`rfyou need assistance in completing the form. cal.‘ 1~8o0—PTO-9199 and select option 2.
`
`0709
`
`

`
`PTOISBIQE (0?-09)
`Approved for use through 07l'31f2012. OMB 0651-0031
`US. Patent and Trademark Office: US. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displa s a valid OMB control number.
`
`Appiical-mrpatent owner; Mark M. Leather et al.
`
`STATEMENT UNDER 37 CFR 3.73§b)
`
`Application No.IPatent No.: 193459.797
`T't| d:
`l e
`
`Dividing work among multiple graphics pipelines using a super-tiling technique
`
`Filedilssue Date: JUi'|e 12. 2903
`
`ATI Technologies ULC
`(Name of Assignee)
`
`states that it is:
`
`‘a
`
`Corporation
`(Type of Assignee. e.g.. corporation. pamnership. university. government agency. etc.
`
`the assig nee of the entire right, title, and interest in;
`
`an assignee of less than the entire right. title. and interest in
`(The extent {by percentage) of its ownership interest is
`
`96); or
`
`the assignee of an undivided interest in the entirety of (a complete assignment from one of the joint inventors was made)
`
`the patent applicationipatent identified above. by virtue of either:
`
`A.
`
`OR
`
`An assignment from the inventor(s) of the patent applicationrpatent identified above. The assignment was recorded in
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office at Reel 025573
`. Frame 0443
`, or for which a
`copy therefore is attached.
`
`B. D A chain of title from the inventor(s), of the patent applicationlpatent identified above, to the current assignee as follows:
`1. From:
`To:
`
`The document was recorded in the United States Patent and Trademark Office at
`
`Reel
`
`,
`
`Frame
`
`,
`
`or for which a copy thereof is attached.
`
`The document was recorded in the United States Patent and Trademark Office at
`
`Reel
`
`,
`
`Frame
`
`,
`
`or for which a copy thereof is attached.
`
`To:
`
`To:
`
`2. From:
`
`3. From:
`
`The document was recorded in the United States Patent and Trademark Office at
`
`Reel
`
`.
`
`Frame
`
`,
`
`or for which a copy thereof is attached.
`
`|:|
`
`Additional documents in the chain of title are listed on a supplemental sheet(s).
`
`As required by 37 CFR 3.73(b}(1)(i), the documentary evidence of the chain of title from the original owner to the assignee was,
`or concurrently is being, submitted for recordation pursuant to 37 CFR 3.11.
`
`[NOTE: A separate copy (r'.e., a true copy of the original assignment document(s)) must be submitted to Assignment Division in
`accordance with 37 CFR Part 3, to record the assignment in the records ofthe USPTO. See MPEP 302.08]
`
`The undersigned (whose title is supplied below) is authorized to act on behalf of the assig nee.
`
`lchristopher J. Reckampf
`
`Signature
`
`Christopher J. Reckamp
`
`October 19, 2012
`
`Date
`
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`Title
`Printed or Typed Name
`This collection of information is required by 37 CFR 3.73(b). The information is required to obtain or retain a benefit by the public which is to file (and by the USPTO to
`process) an application. Confidentiality is governed by 35 U.S.C. 122 and 37 CFR 1.11 and 1.14. This collection is estimated to take 12 minutes to complete. including
`gathering. preparing. and submitting the completed application form to the USPTO. Time will vary depending upon the individual case. Any comments on the amount of time
`you require to complete this form andfor suggestions for reducing this burden, should be sent to the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Patent and Trademark Dffioe, U.S.
`Department of commerce. P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria. VA 22313-1450. DO NOT SEND FEES OR COMPLETED FORMS To THIS ADDRESS. SEND TO: commissioner
`for Patents, PO. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
`
`Ifyou need assistance in completing the norm, calf 1-800-PTO-9199 and select option 2.
`
`0710
`
`

`
`Privacy Act Statement
`
`The Privacy Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-579) requires that you be given certain information in connection
`with your submission of the attached form related to a patent application or patent. Accordingly.
`pursuant to the requirements of the Act. please be advised that: (1) the general authority for the
`collection of this information is 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2); (2) furnishing of the information solicited is voluntary:
`and (3) the principal purpose for which the information is used by the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office is to process and/or examine your submission related to a patent application or patent. If you do
`not furnish the requested information, the US. Patent and Trademark Office may not be able to
`process andlor examine your submission. which may result in termination of proceedings or
`abandonment of the application or expiration of the patent.
`
`The information provided by you in this form will be subject to the following routine uses:
`
`1. The information on this form will be treated confidentially to the extent allowed under the
`Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C 552a). Records from
`this system of records may be disclosed to the Department of Justice to determine whether
`disclosure of these records is required by the Freedom of Information Act.
`A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, in the course of
`presenting evidence to a court. magistrate, or administrative tribunal, including disclosures to
`opposing counsel in the course of settlement negotiations.
`to a Member of
`A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use,
`Congress submitting a request involving an individual. to whom the record pertains. when the
`individual has requested assistance from the Member with respect to the subject matter of the
`record.
`A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a contractor of the
`Agency having need for the information in order to perform a contract. Recipients of
`infonriation shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as
`amended. pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).
`A record related to an International Application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in
`this system Of records may be CHSCIOSEU. as a routine USE. ID the lntemational Bureau Of the
`World Intellectual Property Organization. pursuant to the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
`A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use. to another federal
`agency for purposes of National Security review (35 U.S.C. 181) and for review pursuant to
`the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2‘l 8(c)).
`A record from this system of records may be disclosed. as a routine use. to the Administrator,
`General Services. or hislher designee, during an inspection of records conducted by GSA as
`part of that agency's responsibility to recommend improvements in records management
`practices and programs. under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. Such disclosure shall
`be made in accordance with the GSA regulations governing inspection of records for this
`purpose. and any other relevant (r‘.e.. GSA or Commerce) directive. Such disclosure shall not
`be used to make determinations about individuals.
`
`A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use. to the public after
`either publication of the application pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(b) or issuance of a patent
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 151. Further, a record may be disclosed, subject to the limitations of 37
`CFR 1.14, as a routine use. to the public if the record was filed in an application which
`became abandoned or in which the proceedings were terminated and which application is
`referenced by either a published application. an application open to public inspection or an
`issued patent.
`A record from this system of records may be disclosed. as a routine use. to a Federal. State.
`or local law enforcement agency, if the USPTO becomes aware of a violation or potential
`violation of law or regulation.
`
`0711
`
`

`
`mT
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`Dividing work among multiple graphics pipelines using a su per-tiling
`.
`techn IC| ue
`
`First Named lnventorlflpplicant Name:
`
`Mark M. Leather
`
`I
`
`@ P
`
`ayment information:
`
`Document
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Pages3 cuappu.»
`
`File Sizae(Bytes)I
`
`Multi
`
`Power of Attorney
`
`ATI-POA.pdf
`
`Info rmation:
`
`0712
`
`

`
`Assignee showing of ownership per 37
`CFR 371
`
`020053-37-cfr.pdf
`
`423434
`53?fdfd1'569d?c?3oo¢:§b?M:l8»036e ‘- '
`due
`
`Information:
`
`This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO of the indicated documents,
`characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt similar to a
`Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.
`
`New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 1 11
`Ifa new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see 37 CFR
`1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506}, a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shown on this
`Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.
`
`National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371
`Ifa timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
`U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCTIDOIEOIQOB indicating acceptance of the application as a
`national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.
`
`New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office
`If a new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for
`an international filing date {see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 1 810), a Notification of the International Application Number
`and of the International Filing Date [Form PCT!RO!105) will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
`national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the international filing date of
`the application.
`
`0713
`
`0713
`
`

`
`' UNITED STATES PATENT AND TIQADEZMARK OFFIGE
`
`U|'\'T"l‘ET) S'I‘A"l‘F$‘i DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent. and Trademark Otfice
`Amman: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO Box mo
`Alaiundtin,
`22313-l-I50
`wuwwmoqav
`
`10/459,797
`
`06!12f2003
`
`29153
`
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.
`(:10 Faegre Baker Daniels up
`311 S. WACKEFI DFIIVE
`CHICAGO, IL 60606
`
`Mark M. Leather
`
`00l00.02.0053
`CONFIRMATION NO. 4148
`POA ACCEPTANCE LETTER
`
`uiiiiiilimimIlmittttiiiiiiyilgliiiiiiiiiuiiiiimiii
`
`Date Mailed: 11/06/2012
`
`NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF POWER OF ATTORNEY
`
`This is in response to the Power of Attorney filed 10/29f2012.
`
`The Power of Attorney in this application is accepted. Correspondence in this application will be mailed to the
`above address as provided by 37 CFR 1.33.
`
`/ddinhf
`
`Office of Data Management, Application Assistance Unit (571) 272-4000, or (571) 272-4200, or 1-888-786-0101
`
`0714
`
`

`
`' UNITED STATES PATENT AND 'Ti2ADE1~/JARK OFFIGE
`
`U|'\'T"l‘ET) S'I‘!"l‘F$‘i DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent. and Trademark Otfice
`Amman: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO Box mi)
`Alaxmdtin,
`22313-l-150
`wuwwmoqov
`
`10/459,797
`
`06!12f2003
`
`29153
`
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.
`crc Faegre Baker .3..,...re.5 up
`311 S. WACKER DRIVE
`CHICAGO, IL 60606
`
`Mark M. Leather
`
`00l00.02.0053
`CONFIRMATION NO. 4148
`POWER OF ATTORNEY NOTICE
`
`uiiiiiilmiiiuIImi1L!1ii1iiiy;I;I1;I1iII1111111111
`
`Date Mailed: 11/06/2012
`
`NOTICE REGARDING CHANGE OF POWER OF ATTORNEY
`
`This is in response to the Power of Attorney filed 10/29f2012.
`
`- The Power of Attorney to you in this application has been revoked by the assignee who has intervened as
`provided by 37 CFFI 3.71. Future correspondence will be mailed to the new address of record(37 CFR 1.33).
`
`/ddinllf
`
`Office of Data Management, Application Assistance Unit (571) 272-4000, or (571) 272-4200, or 1-888-786-0101
`
`0715
`
`

`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTIVIENT OF COMNIERCE
`United Stales Paleni. and Trademark Office
`Andres: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexauiclia. Virginia 22313-1450
`wv.-wmsptotgcw
`
`1m459,797
`
`06:1 zrzoos
`
`Mark M. Leather
`
`oo1oo.o2.oo53
`
`4143
`
`29153
`mo
`os:2ns:2o14
`ADVANCED MICRO nmcssmc.
`C/O Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
`311 S. WACKER DRIVE
`CHICAGO, E60606
`
`RICHER. ION!
`
`2611
`
`PAPER “W333
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`t'J6."26;’20l4
`
`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):
`inleas@faegrebd.com
`michelledavis@faegrebd.com
`cynthia.payson@facgrebd.com
`
`P"DOL-90A (Rev. 04:0?)
`
`0716
`
`0716
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Ex parte MARC M. LEATHER and ERIC DEMERS
`
`Appeal 2011-010197
`Application 10/459,797
`Technology Center 2600
`
`Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JASON V. MORGAN, and J. JOHN LEE,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
`
`of claims 1 through 7, 10 through 22, 24, and 25.
`
`We affirm-in-part.
`
`INVENTION
`
`The invention is directed to a graphics processing circuit that includes
`
`at least two pipelines operative to process data in a corresponding set of tiles
`
`of a repeating tile pattern, a respective one of the at least two pipelines
`
`operative to process data in a dedicated tile. See Abstract of Appellants’
`
`Specification. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
`
`0717
`
`

`
`Appeal 2011-010197
`Application 10/459,797
`
`1. A graphics processing circuit, comprising:
`at least two graphics pipelines on a same chip operative to
`process data in a corresponding set of tiles of a repeating tile
`pattern corresponding to screen locations, a respective one of
`the at least two graphics pipelines operative to process data in a
`dedicated tile; and
`a memory controller on the chip in communication with the
`at least two graphics pipelines, operative to transfer pixel data
`between each of a first pipeline and a second pipeline and a
`memory shared among the at least two graphics pipelines;
`wherein the repeating tile pattern includes a horizontally and
`vertically repeating pattern of square regions.
`
`REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
`
`The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4, 7, 10, 12, 14, and 25
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maclnnis (U.S. 6,570,579
`
`B1; May 27, 2003) and Perego (US. 6,864,896 B2; Mar. 8, 2005). Answer
`
`4-8.‘
`
`The Examiner has rejected claims 5, 18, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ l03(a) as unpatentable over Maclnnis, Perego, and Kelleher (US.
`
`5,794,016; Aug. 11, 1998). Answer 8-12.
`
`The Examiner has rejected claims 6 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a)
`
`as unpatentable over Maclnnis, Perego, and Furtner (U.S. 6,778,177 B1;
`
`Aug. 17, 2004). Answer 12-13.
`
`The Examiner has rejected claims 11, 13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ l03(a) as unpatentable over Maclnnis, Perego, Kelleher, and Hamburg
`
`(U.S. 5,905,506; May 18, 1999). Answer 13-14.
`
`1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated February 22,
`2011, Reply Brief dated June 6, 2011, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
`April 5, 2011.
`
`0718
`
`

`
`Appeal 2011-010197
`Application 10/459,797
`
`The Examiner has rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a) as
`
`unpatentable over Maclnnis, Perego, Furtner and Kent (US 2003/0164830
`
`Al; Sept. 4, 2003). Answer 14-16.
`
`The Examiner has rejected claims 20 through 22 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ lO3(a) as unpatentable over Perego. Answer 16-18.
`
`Rejection independent claims 1 and 25.
`
`IS SUE S
`
`Appellants argue on pages 16 through 22 of the Appeal Brief and
`
`pages 1 and 2 of the Reply Brief, the Exa;miner’s rejection of independent
`
`claims 1 and 25 is in error. The dispositive issue presented by this argument
`
`is: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Maclnnis and
`
`Perego teach a memory shared among the graphics pipelines?
`
`Rejection independent claim 20.
`
`Appellants argue on pages 27 and 28 of the Appeal Brief that the
`
`Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 is in error. Appellants’ argument with
`
`respect to this claim presents us with the issue: did the Examiner err in
`
`finding that Perego teaches passing the same pixel data to both of the
`
`graphics pipelines on the same chip?
`
`Rejection independent claim 24.
`
`Appellants argue on pages 22 and 23 of the Appeal Brief that the
`
`Examiner’s rejection of claim 24 is in error. Appellants’ argument with
`
`respect to this claim present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in
`
`0719
`
`

`
`Appeal 2011-010197
`Application 10/459,797
`
`finding that the combination of Maclnnis, Perego, and Kelleher teaches both
`
`the front end and the back end circuitry on the same chip as claimed?
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
`
`Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
`
`arguments. We agree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred
`
`rejecting claims 1 through 7, 10 through 22, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a)
`
`but disagree with Appellants’ conclusion the Examiner erred in rejecting
`
`claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`Rejection independent claims 1 and 25.
`
`The Examiner's response, to Appellants’ arguments directed to the
`
`rejection of these claims, cites to Perego’s teaching of memory (item 314 of
`
`Figure 3) which the Examiner finds is shared between the pipelines (items
`
`312 of Figure 3). Answer 4, 5, 19, and 20. We disagree with the
`
`Examiner’s finding. As argued by Appellants on page 17 of the Appeal
`
`Brief, Perego teaches item 314 is a shared memory, but it is shared between
`
`the CPU and the individual rendering engines and not shared among the
`
`rendering engines (which the Examiner equates to graphics pipelines) as
`
`claimed. The Examiner has not found that Maclnnis teaches this feature.
`
`Thus, we do not find the Examiner has shown that combination of Maclnnis
`
`and Perego teaches all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 25.
`
`Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
`
`0720
`
`

`
`Appeal 2011-010197
`Application 10/459,797
`
`through 4, 7, 10, 12, 14, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as unpatentable
`
`over Maclnnis and Perego.
`
`The Examiner has not found that Kelleher, Furtner, Kent, or Hamburg
`
`teaches the shared memory as recited in independent claims 1. Accordingly,
`
`we similarly will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 1 1, 13,
`
`and 15 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a)
`
`Rejection independent claim 20.
`
`The Examiner's response to Appellants’ arguments directed to the
`
`rejection of claim 20 cites to Perego’s teaching of the CPU (item 308 Figure
`
`3) generating the pixel data through the graphic controller (item 310) to the
`
`rendering engines (item 312). Answer 23-24. We disagree with the
`
`Examiner’s finding. As argued by Appellants, on page 28 of the Appeal
`
`Brief, Perego teaches each rendering engine receives different portions of
`
`the processing task. Thus, we do not find the Examiner has shown that
`
`Perego teaches or makes obvious all of the limitations of independent claim
`
`20. Accordingly we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 20
`
`through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a) as unpatentable over Perego, Furtner
`
`and Kent.
`
`Rejection independent claim 24.
`
`The Examiner’s response, to Appellants’ arguments directed to the
`
`rejection of claim 24, cites to Perego’s teaching in Figure 8 that two
`
`different rendering engines, which the Examiner equates with the claimed
`
`back end circuitry, are within the same memory module or chip. Answer 22.
`
`Further, the Examiner finds that Maclnnis teaches that a common front end
`
`0721
`
`

`
`Appeal 2011-010197
`Application 10/459,797
`
`circuitry, a back end circuitry, and a memory controller are on the same
`
`chip. Answer 9, 10, and 22. Appellants’ arguments, directed to the rejection
`
`of claim 24, do not address the teachings of Maclnnis or the combined
`
`teachings. Rather Appellants only assert that Perego does not teach the front
`
`end and back end circuitry on the same chip as claimed. Thus, Appellants’
`
`arguments directed to the rejection of independent claim 24 have not
`
`persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection as it has not addressed the
`
`combined teachings of the references. Accordingly, we sustain the
`
`Examiner’s rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
`
`over Maclnnis, Perego, and Kelleher.
`
`DECISION
`
`The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 7, 10 through
`
`22, 24, and 25 is affirmed-in-part.
`
`No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
`
`this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1. 136(a)(l)(iv).
`
`AFFIRMED-IN-PART
`
`0722
`
`

`
`Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt
`
`T—
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`Dividing work among multiple graphics pipelines using a su per-tiling
`.
`techn IC| ue
`
`First Named lnventorlflpplicant Name:
`
`Mark M. Leather
`
`I
`
`Payment information:
`
`Document
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Pages3 cuappu.»
`
`File Sizae(Bytes)I
`
`Multi
`
`Applicant summary of interview with
`exammer
`.
`
`020053_|nterviewSummary.pd '
`
`Info rmation:
`
`0723
`
`

`
`Total Files Size (in bytes)
`
`98472
`
`This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO of the indicated documents,
`characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt similar to a
`Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.
`
`New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 1 11
`Ifa new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date [see 37 CFR
`1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shown on this
`Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.
`
`National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371
`If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
`U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCTIDOIEOIQO3 indicating acceptance of the application as a
`national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.
`
`New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office
`If a new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for
`an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 1 810), a Notification of the International Application Number
`and of the International Filing Date [Fonn PCT!RO.+'105) will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
`national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the international filing date of
`the application.
`
`0724
`
`0724
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`PATENT APPLICATION
`
`Applicants: Mark. M. Leather et al.
`
`Examiner:
`
`Joni Hsu
`
`Serial No.
`
`10/45 9,797
`
`Art Group:
`
`261 1
`
`Filing Date:
`
`June 12, 2003
`
`Docket No.:
`
`00 100020053
`
`Conf. No.:
`
`4148
`
`Title:
`
`DIVIDING WORK AMONG MULTIPLE GRAPHICS PIPELINES
`
`USING A SUPER TILING TECHNIQUE
`
`EXAMINER INTERVIEW SUMMARY
`
`Dear Examiner:
`
`Applicants’ attorney, Christopher J. Reckarnp, wishes to thank the Examiner for the
`
`courtesies extended during the telephone conferences of August 26, 2014. Applicants’ attorney
`
`and the Examiner discussed