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.
`
`F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`10/459,797
`
`06/12/2003
`
`Mark M. Leather
`
`00100.02.0053
`
`4148
`
`29153
`7590
`06/26/2014
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES,INC.
`C/O Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
`311 S. WACKER DRIVE
`CHICAGO, IL 60606
`
`RICHER, JONI
`
`2611
`
`06/26/2014
`
`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):
`
`inteas @ faegrebdcom
`michelle.daVis @ faegrebd. com
`cynthia.pays0n @ faegrebdcom
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`UNIFIED 1015
`
`UNIFIED 1015
`
`
`
`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.
`
`F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`10/459,797
`
`06/12/2003
`
`Mark M. Leather
`
`00100.02.0053
`
`4148
`
`29153
`7590
`06/26/2014
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES,INC.
`C/O Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
`311 S. WACKER DRIVE
`CHICAGO, IL 60606
`
`RICHER, JONI
`
`2611
`
`06/26/2014
`
`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):
`
`inteas @ faegrebdcom
`michelle.daVis @ faegrebd. com
`cynthia.pays0n @ faegrebdcom
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`UNIFIED 1015
`
`UNIFIED 1015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Ex parte MARC M. LEATHER and ERIC DEMERS
`
`Appeal 2011—O10197
`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 affir1n—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:
`
`
`
`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 (U.S. 6,864,896 B2; Mar. 8, 2005). Answer
`
`4-8.1
`
`The Examiner has rejected claims 5, 18, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Maclnnis, Perego, and Kelleher (U.S.
`
`5,794,016; Aug. 11, 1998). Answer 8-12.
`
`The Examiner has rejected claims 6 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (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.
`
`§ 103(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.
`
`
`
`Appeal 2011—O10197
`Application 10/459,797
`
`The Examiner has rejected claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`unpatentable over Maclnnis, Perego, Furtner and Kent (US 2003/0164830
`
`A1; Sept. 4, 2003). Answer 14-16.
`
`The Examiner has rejected claims 20 through 22 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Perego. Answer 16-18.
`
`Rejection independent claims 1 and 25.
`
`ISSUES
`
`Appellants argue on pages 16 through 22 of the Appeal Brief and
`
`pages 1 and 2 of the Reply Brief, the Examiner’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
`
`
`
`Appeal 2011—O10197
`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. § lO3(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
`
`
`
`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, 11, 13,
`
`and 15 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(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. § 103 (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
`
`
`
`Appeal 201 l—Ol0l97
`Application l0/459,797
`
`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 affinned—in—part.
`
`No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
`
`this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.l36(a)(l)(iV).
`
`AFFIRMED-IN-PART
`
`ELD
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
