Ex Parte Hendry et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2018

13955443 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/955,443 07 /31/2013
81310 7590 05/25/2018
Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & G (Apple)
P.O. BOX 398
Austin, TX 78767-0398
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ian C. Hendry
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.
8888-03000 3349
EXAMINER
WONG, ALLEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2018 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
ptomhkkg@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IAN C. HENDRY and KENNETH CHRISTIAN DYKE
Appeal2017-006386
Application 13/955,443
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 26. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Apple, Inc. App. Br. 2.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection ("Final Act.")
mailed April 4, 2016; the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed October 4, 2016;
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed January 6, 2017; and the Reply
Brief ("Reply Br.") filed March 6, 2017.
Appeal2017-006386
Application 13/955,443
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention switches between different video-
processing modes to conserve power. Abstract. In the first mode,
Appellants' apparatus performs minimal processing before sending
frames to a display controller. Id. In a second mode, the apparatus
performs additional video rendering before sending frames to the
display controller. Id. Additional rendering includes compositing of
graphical input with rendered video frames. Id. When compositing is
unnecessary or the device is in low power mode, the apparatus may
switch from the second mode to the first to conserve power. Id.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with our emphasis:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a plurality of functional blocks configured to process video
frames from a video stream and to store the processed
video frames as frame data in a memory to be read and
processed by a display controller for display to a display
device;
wherein the apparatus is configured to process the video frames
for display according to two or more video processing
modes, wherein, to process the video frames according to
the two or more video processing modes, the apparatus is
configured to:
direct the plurality of functional blocks and the display
controller to process video frames for display
according to one of the two or more video
processing modes;
process and display one or more video frames according
to the video processing mode;
determine that a next video frame is to be processed and
displayed according to another one of the two or
more video processing modes;
in response to said determining, direct the plurality of
functional blocks and the display controller to
2
Appeal2017-006386
Application 13/955,443
process video frames according to the other video
processing mode; and
process and display one or more subsequent video frames
according to the other video processing mode;
wherein the two or more video modes include:
a first video processing mode in which the functional
blocks are configured to convert the video frames to
an intermediate video format and store the
converted video frames as frame data in the
intermediate video format, and in which the display
controller is configured to process the frame data in
the intermediate video format to generate display
frames in a display format of the display device for
display to the display device; and
a second video processing mode in which the functional
blocks are configured to process the video frames to
generate display frames in the display format of the
display device, and in which the display controller
is configured to read the display frames from the
memory for display to the display device.
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Bezine et al.
Van Hook et al.
US 2004/0075670 Al
US 2005/0162436 Al
THE REJECTIONS
Apr. 22, 2004
July 28, 2005
Claims 1--4, 6, 7, 11-13, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 (a)(2) as anticipated by Van Hook. Final Act. 3-12.
Claims 5, 8-10, 14, 15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Van Hook and Bezine. Final Act. 13-29.
3
Appeal2017-006386
Application 13/955,443
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
The Examiner's Findings
The Examiner finds that Van Hook teaches every limitation recited in
claim 1. Final Act. 3-8. In particular, the Examiner finds that Van Hook's
YUV mode corresponds to the recited first video-processing mode, and Van
Hook's copy-out operations correspond to the second video-processing
mode. Id. at 7 (citing Van Hook i-fi-1 32, 149).
Appellants' Contentions
Appellants argue that Van Hook's system lacks the recited first and
second video-processing modes. App. Br. 9-14. According to Appellants,
the copy-out operations write frame data into Van Hook's external frame
buffer (XFB) in YUV display format. Id. at 13. In Appellants' view, the
Examiner has identified only one mode in Van Hook. Id. at 14; Reply Br. 7.
Analysis
In the recited first mode, "the display controller is configured to
process the frame data in the intermediate video format to generate display
frames in a display format of the display device" (emphasis added). In the
recited second mode, "the functional blocks are configured to process the
video frames to generate display frames in the display format of the display
device" and "the display controller is configured to read the display frames
from the memory for display to the display device" (emphasis added). For
example, this difference is apparent in the embodiments shown in Figures
IA and IB, which are reproduced below.
4
Appeal2017-006386
Application 13/955,443
fr..--~::Tlf::S
.l..ill
display
1 ·12
FIG. 1A
apf'.-.ctF'i3:~LtS ·
1GD
.................... ·, ..................................... ~ ~
i~~o=r1
• 1Q1
:········->---········ . .
--~~t~~~;l;.;i~lt~.;···, .
v~foc:· tu~i:·1~~ : :
video fmme
processing
122
graphic.a! input
PIOG!lSSir>g
124
;;.~ndow CDrnposifing
12B
Gis~Ji-~w
~!"?1:1WS
FIG. 18
Regarding the first mode, Figure IA shows display controller 108 process
intermediate video-format frames 105 to generate display frames 110.
Spec. i-f 7. Regarding the second mode, Figure IB shows display controller
108 reading display frames 110 that have already been generated. Id. i-f 8.
That is, the two modes-as shown in the Figures and reflected in the
5
Appeal2017-006386
Application 13/955,443
claims---determine which component generates display frames in the display
format. See id. i-fi-128-29.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown that Van
Hook's copy pipeline has the recited two modes. App. Br. 9-14.
Specifically, the Examiner explains that Van Hook's copy-out
operations are the second video-processing mode. Ans. 23. Van Hook's
copy pipeline implements the copy-out operations. Van Hook i-f 149. A
block diagram of Van Hook's copy pipeline is shown in Figure 12, which is
reproduced below.
r-"628 ~623
Co!ar buff.er~ vertical rntet c~:amma
=~ ? lap ...,...._ __ ........,. !ables
IJ1'0Qram mable)
~-~C:.-644 Tile
641
RGBto
-
-Y-C-rC-b .... ----]. (4:4:4)
625a
.;:::.~~~-- 642
YCrCll
(4:4:4)
YCrCb
(4:22)
[
_.. lwlferA
____ _ (3.2x32)
Tile
buffer B
32!!32
y scale
lttiit
-~.· . ,~:~:~.]
..----~ • {EF8) -
Color buffer YCbCr(4:2:0) lo
YCbCr(4:4:4)
646
640
YCllCt(4:4:4)
to RGB .--~-___,
648
Van Hook's Figure 12 shows that the copy pipeline contains block 642,
which is called "Display format YUV (4:2:2)." If the data is intended for
display, block 626 performs Y scaling and the scaled data is copied to main
memory in the YUV422 display format. Id. i-f 153. In this way, Van Hook's
copy pipeline generates display frames in the display format. See id.
6
Appeal2017-006386
Application 13/955,443
But claim 1 requires that the display controller generates display-
formatted frames in a first mode and the functional blocks do so in a second
mode. Apart from the copy pipeline, the Examiner has not identified
another feature in Van Hook that generates display frames in the display
format. Rather, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner cites the same
feature for both modes. See, e.g., App. Br. 12. Specifically, the Examiner
discusses the YUV display format regarding the first mode. Final Act. 7
(citing Van Hook i-fi-132, 139-140, 144). The Examiner then discusses the
copy pipeline regarding the second mode. Final Act. 7-8 (citing Van
Hook i-f 149). Therefore, at most, the Examiner has shown that Van Hook's
copy pipeline generates display frames in the display format. Id. This,
however, is insufficient to establish that Van Hook discloses the two modes
having different components generating display frames, as recited in claim
1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Van Hook. Nor do we sustain claims 2--4, 6, 7, and 11, which
depend from claim 1, as well as independent claim 16, which also recites the
two modes.
Claims 12 and 13
Like claim 1, claim 12 recites the two video-processing modes. Claim
12, however, recites a method.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a method claim having
contingent limitations requires only those steps required to be performed
when the condition precedent is met. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal
2013-007847, slip op. at 10 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) ("If the
7
Appeal2017-006386
Application 13/955,443
condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance
recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to
be performed."); see also MPEP § 2111.04 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)
("The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim
having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be
performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed
because the condition(s) precedent are not met."). Notably, the
interpretation may differ for device claims because a component capable of
performing the function must be present regardless of whether the condition
is met and the function is actually performed. Schulhauser at 14.
Unlike the contingent limitations in Schulhauser, claim 12 recites two
processing steps that must be performed. Specifically, claim 12 recites
"processing and displaying one or more video frames according to the video
processing mode" and "processing and displaying one or more subsequent
video frames according to the other video processing mode" (emphasis
added). The claim further requires "two or more video modes." Under the
broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the Specification (see,
e.g., Figs. IA and IB), the term "other" requires a second video-processing
mode different from the first, and two processing steps that process the
frames according to each mode. Accordingly, we interpret claim 12's
method as requiring that both video processing modes be performed without
a contingency.
For the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1, we agree
with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown that Van Hook discloses
both modes. App. Br. 16-17. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
8
Appeal2017-006386
Application 13/955,443
Examiner's rejection of claim 12 and claim 13, which depends from claim
12.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
We do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 5, 8-
10, 14, 15, and 17-20 for the same reasons discussed above in connection
with their respective independent claim. The additional reference, Bezine,
was not relied upon to teach the modes missing from Van Hook, and, thus,
does not cure the deficiency discussed above. See Final Act. 13-29.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20.
REVERSED
9