Ex Parte Meier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2018

13923482 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/923,482 06/21/2013
102469 7590 05/25/2018
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./Nvidia
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas Meier
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-12-0866-US 1 8856
EXAMINER
LIU, GORDON G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS MEIER, CHONG ZHANG, BHANU MURTHY,
SHARAD GUPTA, and KARTHIK VITJAYAN
Appeal2017-010979
Application 13/923,482
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-11, and 13-20, constituting all claims pending in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2017-010979
Application 13/923,482
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to computer graphics processing, and
in particular, a graphics server and method for streaming rendered content
via a remote graphics processing service. Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1 and 8,
reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, are exemplary of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A graphics server, comprising:
a graphics renderer configured to identify when rendered
content is either at least partially changed or when said rendered
content has not changed;
a frame capturer;
an encoder; and
a processor, wherein:
when said graphics renderer identifies said rendered
content as at least partially changed, said processer is
configured to:
cause said frame capturer to capture frames of said
rendered content at a frame rate;
cause said encoder to encode said captured frames
at said frame rate; and cause said encoded frames to be
transmitted; and
when said graphics renderer identifies said rendered
content has not changed, said processor is configured to:
cause said frame capturer to not capture said
frames of said rendered content;
cause said encoder to not encode said frames of
said rendered content; and
cause a pre-encoded skipjrame message to be
transmitted without requiring any pixel processing.
2
Appeal2017-010979
Application 13/923,482
8. A method of streaming rendered content via a remote graphics . .
processmg service, compnsmg:
when a graphics renderer identifies said rendered content as at
least partially changed causing:
a frame capturer to capture frames of said rendered
content at a frame rate;
an encoder to encode said captured frames at said frame
rate; and
said encoded frames to be transmitted; and
when said graphics renderer identifies said rendered content has
not changed causing:
said frame capturer to not capture said frames of said
rendered content;
said encoder to not encode said frames of said rendered
content; and
a pre-encoded skip-frame message to be transmitted
without requiring any pixel processing.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4, 6-11, and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Tian et al. (US 2012/0057636
Al; published Mar. 8, 2012) ("Tian"), Rodriguez et al. (US 8,429,699 B2;
issued Apr. 23, 2013) ("Rodriguez"), and Dai et al. (US 2010/0027663 Al;
published Feb. 4, 2010) ("Dai").
ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Tian,
Rodriguez, and Dai teaches or suggests "when said graphics renderer
identifies said rendered content has not changed ... cause said encoder to
3
Appeal2017-010979
Application 13/923,482
not encode said frames of said rendered content," as recited in independent
claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 8 and 15?
The Examiner finds Tian teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
Non-Final Act. 5 (citing Tian Fig. 4, i-fi-12, 36); see also Ans. 3--4.
Appellants argue "while Tian may teach that encoding of specific
macroblocks of a frame may be skipped, the cited portions of Tian do not
teach causing its 'encoder to not encode said frames of said rendered
content' when its 'rendered content has not changed."' App. Br. 7.
According to Appellants, "[ t ]he cited portions of Tian do not teach a 'skip-
frame' message, the cited portions of Tian teach a 'skip-macro block'
message." App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2 ("Appellant maintains that the
cited portions of Tian include disclosure of skipping encoding of
macroblocks but they do not include this feature of skipping encoding of an
entire frame.")
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Tian is generally
directed to skip coding during video conferencing in a network environment.
Tian i-f l. Tian describes skipping macro blocks of a video signal during
encoding of a video sequence, which means no coded data will be
transmitted for those macroblocks. Tian i-f 13. 1 Tian uses reference frames
to aid in determining skip coding decisions. Tian i136. A metric for frame
difference is evaluated against two thresholds, and, depending on the noise
level, the video block can be coded as skip if the frame difference metric is
below a lower threshold. Tian i136. Alternatively, the video block can be
1 Tian states: "A picture element can be considered to be one pixel in the
original image, or a resolution-reduced (down-scaled) image. Pixels can be
combined to form macro blocks of the image, and the image can be grouped
into a 16x16 macroblock grid in this particular example." Tian i130.
4
Appeal2017-010979
Application 13/923,482
coded as non-skip if the frame difference metric is above the larger
threshold. Tian i-f 36. Tian illustrates that after the skip coding decision is
made, "the non-skipped frames can be encoded." Tian i-f 3 8 (emphasis
added); Fig. 5. In other words, Tian describes encoding frames. We agree
with the Examiner that if none of the macro blocks in the frame have
changed (i.e., frame difference metric is below a lower threshold, as
evaluated in the skip coding decision), then the frame is not encoded. See
Ans. 3. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Tian,
Rodriguez, and Dai teaches or suggests "when said graphics renderer
identifies said rendered content has not changed ... cause a pre-encoded
skip-frame message to be transmitted without requiring any pixel
processing," as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited
in independent claims 8 and 15?
The Examiner finds Dai teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Dai Figs. 2, 5, 6, i-fi-133, 81); see also Ans. 4.
Appellants argue "Dai teaches that when a similarity metric of a
current frame is greater than a threshold, its video encoder device 32 simply
skips transmission of the current frame (by causing its frame skip unit 37 to
cause its communication unit 39 to skip transmission)." App. Br. 9.
Appellants thus, argue "no 'pre-encoded skip-frame message' is created and,
as a result, no 'pre-encoded skip-frame message' can be 'transmitted."'
App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 3. Moreover, Appellants argue the "cited
portions of Dai teach that its frame skip unit operates on encoded frames,"
which is "precisely 'pixel processing," so "Dai clearly teaches skipping
5
Appeal2017-010979
Application 13/923,482
frames with pixel processing." App. Br. 9--10. Appellants further argue
"Dai teaches encoding frames even when content has not changed (similarity
metric above a threshold)." App. Br. 10.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments with respect to
independent claims 1 and 15. Dai is generally directed to frame skipping
techniques, including use of a "similarity metric designed to identify good
candidates for frame skipping." Dai Abstract. Dai describes a frame skip
unit included in a video encoder device that "performs frame skipping in the
compressed domain in order to remove one or more frames from encoded
frames." Dai i-fi-133, 34. In other words, Dai teaches either transmitting
encoded frames, or not transmitting encoded frames. Id.; see also Dai Fig.
5. We disagree with the Examiner that skipping (not transmitting) the
encoded frame is equivalent to the claimed transmitting a pre-encoded skip-
frame message without requiring any pixel processing. See Ans. 4.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1 and 15. However, clam 8 is a method claim that recites conditional
limitations, namely, that the rendered content has either at least partially
changed or the rendered content has not changed. In Ex Parte Schulhauser,
2016 WL 6277792, Appeal No. 2013-007848 (PTAB April 28, 2016)
(precedential), the Board held when construing a method claim according to
its broadest reasonable interpretation, conditional steps in process claims
need not be carried out to be within the scope of the claim. According to the
broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 8, in situations where the
condition "the rendered content has not changed" is not met, the following
three recited steps, including the "cause a pre-encoded skip-frame message
to be transmitted without requiring any pixel processing" step are not
6
Appeal2017-010979
Application 13/923,482
necessarily performed. As such, claim 8 is met by merely carrying out the
"rendered content [h ]as at least partially changed" conditions and the three
steps following that condition. Appellants do not argue the limitations
pertaining to the "rendered content [h ]as at least partially changed"
limitation are not taught in the recited references. As such, Appellants'
arguments are not persuasive as to claim 8.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1and15, as
well as dependent claims 2--4, 6, 7, and 16-20. We sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 8, as well as dependent
claims 9--11, 13, and 14, which were not separately argued.
DECISION
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 7, and
15-20 is reversed.
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 8-11, 13, and
14 is 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-IN-PART
7