Ex Parte Kim et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 22, 201813728296 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation