Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 22, 2018

13728296 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131728,296 12/27/2012
102469 7590 05/24/2018
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./Nvidia
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Taekhyun Kim
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.
SC-12-0306-US 1 8136
EXAMINER
LUO,KATEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2018 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte TAEKHYUN KIM, SWAGAT MOHAPATRA, MUKTA GORE,
and ALOK AHUJA
Appeal2017-010257
Application 13/728,296
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2010-00323010257
Application 11/045,514
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 4--8, 10-15, and 17-20. Claims 2, 3, 9, and 16 have been canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention pertains to cloud video
gaming, where video frames are broken into slices, encoded, and packetized
at a cloud gaming server (see Fig. 1, 11 O; Fig. 2, 200) and sent over a cloud
network (see Fig. 1, 105) to a user for display (see Fig. 1, 120). Spec. i-fi-f l-
6. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent and pertain to a video frame latency
reduction pipeline (claim 1; see Fig. 2, 215), video frame latency reduction
method (claim 8; see Fig. 6, 600), and cloud gaming system (claim 15; see
Fig. 1, 100) using the pipeline and computer-implemented method, including
a slice generator (see Fig. 2, 216; Fig. 3, 305) for generating video frame
slices (see Fig. 3, slices 1--4) for a video frame. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is
reproduced below with emphasis added:
1. A video frame latency reduction pipeline, comprising:
a slice generator which provides a set of separately-
rendered video frame slices required for a video frame;
a slice encoder which encodes each of the set of
separately-rendered video frame slices of the video frame; and
2
Appeal2010-00323010257
Application 11/045,514
a slice packetizer which packetizes each of the set of
separately-rendered video frame slices into transmission
packets, wherein:
each of the set of separately-rendered video frame slices
is a spatially distinct region of the video frame that is encoded
and packetized separately from any other of the set of
separately-rendered video frame slices; and
each of the set of transmission packets are transmitted at
a different time.
Remaining independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations
drawn to providing a set of separately-rendered video frame slices.
The Examiner's Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wiegand, Thomas
et. al., Overview of the H264/AVC Video Coding Standard, IEEE
TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGY, Vol.
13, No. 7, pp. 560-76 (July 2003) (hereinafter, "Wiegand") and Amon (US
2012/0027093 Al; published Feb. 2, 2012) (Final Act. 4--7; Ans. 3-7). 1
1 The heading of the rejection in the Final Rejection incorrectly lists claims
2, 3, and 9 (which have been canceled) as rejected over Wiegand and Amon.
Final Act. 4. And the Final Rejection only addresses claims 1, 4, 8, and 10
on the merits. See Final Act. 4--7. We take this as harmless error, and only
consider the rejection to include claims 1, 4, 8, and 10. Notably, Appellants
recognize, throughout the Appeal Brief(see e.g., App. Br. 1, 5, 9, 10), that
only "[c]laims 1, 4-8, 10-15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103" (App. Br. 5). In the Reply Brief, Appellants only argue claims 1, 8,
and 15 (see Reply Br. 2-3), and ask for relief as to "all of the pending
claims." Reply Br. 4 (emphasis added).
3
Appeal2010-00323010257
Application 11/045,514
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 5-7 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wiegand, Amon,
and Baron (US 2013/0202025 Al; published Aug. 8, 2013) (Final Act. 7-10;
Ans. 7-11).
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Wiegand, Amon, and Perry
(US 2014/0179426 Al; published Jun. 26, 2014) (Final Act. 10-13; Ans.
11-14).
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Wiegand, Amon, Perry, and
Baron (Final Act. 13-16; Ans. 14--17). 2
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-12)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2--4) in light of the Examiner's response to
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief(Ans. 17-19), the following
principal issue is presented on appeal: 3
2 The heading of the rejection in the Final Rejection incorrectly lists claim
16 (which has been canceled) as rejected over Wiegand, Amon, and Perry.
Final Act. 10-11. And the Final Rejection only addresses claims 15 and 17
on the merits. See Final Act. 11-13. We take this as harmless error, and
only consider the rejection to include claims 15 and 17.
3 Appellants argue claims 1, 4, 8, and 10 as a group, and only discuss claims
1 and 8 on the merits, relying on the arguments as to claims 1 and 8 for the
patentability of remaining claims 4--7, 10-15, and 17-20 (App. Br. 6-12).
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite similar limitations pertaining to
providing a set of separately-rendered video frame slices required for a video
frame. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the group of
claims 1, 4, 8, and 10 rejected over Wiegand and Amon. Because
(i) Appellants rely on the arguments presented as to claims 1 and 8 for all
4
Appeal2010-00323010257
Application 11/045,514
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 4--8, 10-15, and 17-20
over the base combination of Wiegand and Amon because Wiegand, and
therefore the base combination, fails to teach or suggest the disputed
limitation of "a slice generator which provides a set of separately-rendered
video frame slices required for a video frame," as recited in representative
independent claim 1 (emphasis added)?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 4--16; Ans.
3-17) in light of Appellants' contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5-
12) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2--4) that the Examiner has erred, as well
as the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief
(Ans. 17-19).
With regard to representative independent claim 1, we adopt as our
own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 4--6; Ans. 3-5), and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
the Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 17-19). We highlight and amplify
certain teachings and suggestions of the references as follows.
The Examiner relies upon Figure 6 and Section D at pages 565
through 566 of Wiegand as teaching or suggesting "a slice generator which
remaining claims; (ii) claim 15 recites similar subject matter as claims 1 and
8; and (iii) the rejections of claims 5-7, 11-15, and 17-20 rely upon the
same base combination used for claim 1, we decide the outcome of claims
5-7, 11-15, and 17-20 on the same basis as representative independent
claim 1.
5
Appeal2010-00323010257
Application 11/045,514
provides a set of separately-rendered video frame slices required for a video
frame" as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 4. The Examiner finds
Wiegand's Figure 6 and pages 565 through 566 show and describe splitting
a video frame into video frame slices in the same manner as Appellants'
Figure 3 and paragraph 27 of the Specification. Ans. 4, 18.
Appellants admit that "Wiegand teaches video frame slices (which
Wiegand defines as 'a sequence of macro blocks' that are partitions of a
picture) which are separate from each other and encoded separately" (Reply
Br. 2 (emphasis added)). Appellants contend (App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2-3)
that although Wiegand's slices may be self-contained and can be decoded
without the use of data from other slices, Wiegand fails to teach or suggest
the slices are separately rendered as claimed. Therefore, Appellants
contend Wiegand, and thus the combination of Wiegand and Amon, fails to
teach or suggest separately-rendered video frame slices. Appellants,
however, do not rebut or otherwise address the Examiner's determination
(Ans. 4, 18) that Wiegand's Figure 6 (showing a picture frame split into
slices each containing a sequence of macro blocks) teaches or suggests the
recited "slice generator which provides a set of separately-rendered video
frame slices required for a video frame" (claim 1 ), based on the similarity
between Wiegand's Figure 6 (see Fig. 6 slices #0, #1, and #2) and
Appellants' Figure 3 (see e.g., Fig. 3, slices 1--4), which both show video
frames split into slices.
Central to the issue of whether Wiegand teaches or suggests
separately-rendered slices is the interpretation of "rendered." Appellants'
Specification (Spec. i-fi-f 19, 21) discloses that video frame slices are
"rendered" on standard graphics processor, such as the graphics processing
6
Appeal2010-00323010257
Application 11/045,514
unit 208 shown in Figure 2. Appellants also disclose that (i) "[a] slice
generator 216 provides a set of separately-generated video frame slices
required for a video frame" (Spec. i123 (emphasis added)); (ii) a video frame
slice generator 305 "generate[s ]" video frame slices (Spec. i125 (emphasis
added)), where "[t]he number of slices in the set of separately-generated
video frame slices may typically depend on a pixel density of the video
frame" (Spec. i127 (emphasis added)); and (iii) "a set of separately-rendered
video frame slices" is generated (Spec. i129 (emphasis added)). 4 Thus, our
review of the Specification reveals that Appellants use the term "rendered"
interchangeably with the term "generated."
Finally, although claim 1 recites that the slice generator 216 "provides
a set of separately-rendered video frame slices required for a video frame,"
claim 1 merely recites a slice generator and no renderer for performing the
separate rendering of the slices. Appellants' Specification is silent as to how
the set of video frame slices are actually "separately-rendered," other than to
describe (i) that video frame slices are "rendered" on a standard graphics
processor, such as the graphics processing unit 208 shown in Figure 2 (see
Spec. i-fi-f 19, 21); and (ii) "a cloud gaming server [200 in Fig. 2] that
provides rendering for a video frame employed in cloud gaming" (Spec. 21,
original claim 15; see also claim 15; App. Br. 4, Summary of Claimed
Subject Matter). Notably, the cloud gaming server 200 is only shown in
Figure 2 as including a slice generator 216, and no device for rendering or
4 Appellants point to step 610 in Figure 6 and paragraph 3 5 in the
Specification as supporting the step of providing a set of separately-rendered
video frame slices required to complete a video frame, recited in claim 8
(see App. Br. 4, Summary of Claimed Subject Matter).
7
Appeal2010-00323010257
Application 11/045,514
separately rendering any slices. 5 Furthermore, rendering step 610 shown in
Appellants' Figure 6 is only described by stating that "a set of rendered
video frame slices required to complete a video frame is provided" (Spec. i-f
35). 6
Interpreting claim 1 in light of Appellants' Specification and
Drawings as just discussed, and in view of the Examiner's reasonable
comparison of Wiegand's Figure 3 with Appellants' Figure 6, we are not
persuaded by Appellants' contentions (App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2-3) that
Wiegand fails to teach or suggest separately-rendered video frame slices. To
the contrary, Wiegand discloses pre-processing and then encoding a video
signal having frames (see Figs. 1, 2) by partitioning a picture or frame "into
fixed-size macroblocks that each cover a rectangular picture area," where
"[ m ]acroblocks are the basic building blocks" (p. 565, Section C). Wiegand
discloses that "a picture can be split into many macroblock scanning
patterns" (p. 566, Section D) by splitting an input video signal into
macroblocks for processing (p. 566 Section E; see also p. 567, Fig. 8), and
one of the possible patterns is shown in Figure 6 (see pp. 565---66, Section
D). And Wiegand discloses that "[a] picture may be split into one or several
slices as shown in Fig. 6" where "[a] picture is therefore a collection of one
5 Although Figure 5 shows a video frame slice renderer 520, Figure S's
disclosure is limited to the client video frame slice processor 505 which is on
the client/user side (Fig. 1, 120) of the system (Fig. 1, 100), and not on the
server side (see Fig. 1, 11 O; Fig. 2, 200).
6 Appellants point to Figures 2 and 3 and paragraphs 21 through 26 as
supporting the slice generator recited in claim 1 (see App. Br. 4, Summary
of Claimed Subject Matter).
8
Appeal2010-00323010257
Application 11/045,514
or more slices" and "[ s ]lices are a sequence of macro blocks which are
processed in the order of a raster scan" (p. 565, Section D). 7
Because Wiegand generates slices by dividing a frame into slices
having grouped macroblocks in the same pattern as Appellants, and
Wiegand processes the slices separately and in a predetermined order (e.g.,
in the order of the raster scan), Wiegand teaches or suggests providing a set
of separately-rendered (or generated) video frame slices as claimed
(especially to the extent "separately-rendered video frame slices" is shown
and/or described in Appellants' Specification). Appellants have not
persuasively shown otherwise.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 4, 8, and
10 grouped therewith. For similar reasons, and because (i) claims 5-7 and
11-14 each respectively depend from claims 1 and 8, therefore contain all of
the salient limitations; (ii) claim 15 recites similar subject matter as claims 1
and 8; and (iii) Appellants argue claims 5-7, 11-15, and 17-20 for the same
reasons as claims 1 and 8 (see App. Br. 10-12), we also sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 5-7, 11-15, and 17-20.
CONCLUSION
Because Appellants have not persuasively overcome the Examiner's
prima facie case of obviousness, relying on Wiegand as teaching or
suggesting "a slice generator which provides a set of separately-rendered
7 Wiegand also discloses a picture "consist[ s] of slices or slice data
partitions that represent the samples of the video picture" (p. 564).
9
Appeal2010-00323010257
Application 11/045,514
video frame slices required for a video frame" (claim 1 (emphasis added)),
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4--8,
10-15, and 17-20 over the base combination of Wiegand and Amon.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 4--8, 10-15, and 17-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
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
10