Ex Parte Saulters

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 3, 2018

13730473 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 2018)

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. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/730,473 12/28/2012 Scott Saulters NVDA/TPl 10010TW1US 7446
102324 7590 01/05/2018
Artegis Law Group, LLP/NVIDIA
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
EXAMINER
BEARD, CHARLES LLOYD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/05/2018 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):
kcruz @ artegislaw.com
ALGdocketing @ artegislaw.com
rsmith @ artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT SAULTERS
Appeal 2017-009045
Application 13/730,4731
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3—10, and 12—21. Appellant has canceled claims 2 and 11. Br. 16
and 18. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies NVIDIA Corporation as the real party in interest.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-009045
Application 13/730,473
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to “driving a
graphic processing unit using interpolation.” Spec. 16. In a disclosed
embodiment, in response to a request to process three graphics frames (i.e., a
first frame, a second frame, and a third frame), a graphics processor will
render only the first and third frames and interpolate the second frame
according to the rendered first and third frames. Spec. H 34—39. According
to the Specification, by using rendered frames adjacent to the frame to be
interpolated, the interpolated frame will have greater accuracy due to a high
correlation with the adjacent rendered frames. Spec. 144. Further, the
Specification discloses “frame rendering by the graphics processing unit. . .
will consume more processing time and power” than interpolating the
second frame. Spec. 138. Thus, according to the Specification, Appellant’s
disclosed and claimed invention may be used “to achieve the effects of
saving processing time and power.” Spec. 138.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
1. A method for driving a graphic processing unit (GPU),
comprising:
receiving a request for rendering a first frame, a second
frame, and a third frame; and
in response to receiving the request:
controlling the GPU to render the first frame and the
third frame according to the request and to not render the
second frame;
controlling the GPU to perform an interpolation for
generating the second frame according to the rendered first
frame and the rendered third frame, wherein interpolating
2
Appeal 2017-009045
Application 13/730,473
the second frame and not rendering the second frame is
based on a shorter processing time for interpolating the
second frame compared to rendering the second frame;
and
controlling the GPU to sequentially display, in the
following order, the rendered first frame, the interpolated
second frame, and the rendered third frame.
The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7—10, 12, 13, and 16—21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Whited et al. (US
2011/0018880 Al; Jan. 27, 2011) (“Whited”); Engel et al. (US
2005/0264578 Al; Dec. 1, 2005) (“Engel”); Dane et al. (US 2009/0148058
Al; June 11, 2009) (“Dane”); Wu et al. (US 2011/0075027 Al; Mar. 31,
2011) (“Wu”); and Martins et al. (US 6,438,275 Bl; Aug. 20, 2002)
(“Martins”). Final Act. 6—28.
2. Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Whited, Engel, Dane, Wu, Martins, and White et
al. (US 7,653,825 Bl; Jan. 26, 2010) (“White”). Final Act. 28-32.
ANALYSIS2
Appellant assert the applied references—particularly Wu and
Martins—do not teach or suggest “wherein interpolating the second frame
and not rendering the second frame is based on a shorter processing time for
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
December 5, 2016 (“Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed March 20, 2017
(“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action, mailed June 2, 2016 (“Final Act.”),
from which this Appeal is taken.
3
Appeal 2017-009045
Application 13/730,473
interpolating the second frame compared to rendering the second frame,” as
recited in independent claims 1,10, and 19. Br. 10-14.
Specifically, Appellant argues Wu is directed to a frame rate up-
conversion (FRUC) technique in which additional frames are added to a
source data stream to produce a data stream having a higher frame rate.
Br. 10 (citing Wu, Abstract). Appellant asserts the additional frames (i.e.,
intermediate frames) are either repeated from the preceding frame or
interpolated between adjacent frames of the source. Br. 10—11 (citing Wu
11 5-8, 37—39, Fig. 6A). However, Appellant argues Wu does not describe
the repeated frames are rendered frames or that there is “any comparison of
processing times between producing repeated frames . . . and interpolating
the frames.” Br. 11. At most, Appellant acknowledges Wu describes a
process to reduce the processing time for interpolating frames, but asserts
“Wu is entirely silent regarding interpolating frames being associated with a
shorter processing time as compared to producing repeated frames.” Br. 11—
12 (citing Wu 33, 38, and 55). Finally, Appellant argues Wu discloses
that the decision to interpolate frames (as opposed to repeating frames) is
based on the quality of motion vectors and not on a shorter processing time
for interpolation. Br. 12 (citing Wu 125).
Regarding Martins, Appellant asserts Martins is directed to a frame
rate upsampling (FRU) technique in which fewer frames are transmitted
from a sender to a receiver. Br. 12 (citing Martins, Abstract). On the
receive side, new intermediate frames are generated (interpolated) to
improve the overall quality and effective frame rate. Br. 12—13 (citing
Martins, col. 1,11. 33—43, Abstract). Appellant argues Martins discloses a
technique of classifying pixels during interpolation to reduce the overall
interpolation process time, but that Martins “fails to disclose that this
4
Appeal 2017-009045
Application 13/730,473
reduction in overall processing time relates in any way to interpolating a
frame as compared to rendering the frame.” Br. 13 (citing Martins, col. 6,
11. 53-55).
Independent claims 1,10, and 19 do not affirmatively recite
comparing the processing time to interpolate the second frame to the
processing time required to render the second frame. Instead, the disputed
limitation merely indicates that it requires less processing time to interpolate
the second frame than rendering it. We note Appellant’s Specification also
does not describe comparing the processing time to interpolate the second
frame to the processing time to render the second frame. Indeed, the
Specification explicitly states “[t]he present embodiment does not actually
render the second frame.” Spec. 145. The Specification describes
comparing the duration (i.e., processing time) for rendering the first and
third frames with the duration for interpolating the second frame. Spec.
147. The Specification also discloses the difference may be used to put
some components of the graphics processor in a sleep mode, which may
avoid inconsistent frame rates (which could result in undesired artifacts such
as micro stuttering of the video) and require less power. Spec. Tflf 46-47.
Thus, to the extent Appellant argues Wu and Martins do not teach
comparing the processing time to interpolate a frame with the processing
time to render a frame, such argument is not persuasive of error as they are
not commensurate in scope to the language of the claims. See In re Self, 671
F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (indicating that limitations not appearing in
the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability).
Further, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
5
Appeal 2017-009045
Application 13/730,473
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
The Examiner finds “using interpolat[ed] frames over original [(i.e.,
rendered)] frames is known by one of ordinary skill in the art as a means to
save processing time over using original [(rendered)] frames.” Ans. 38.
Appellant does not rebut this finding by the Examiner. The Examiner’s
finding of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art is also supported
by another one of the cited references. See Dane 1 56 (recognizing
resource/power savings associated with interpolating frames as opposed to
reference (i.e., rendered) frames); see also Okajima v. Bourdeau 261 F.3d
1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating the level of one of skill in the art
may be reflected by the prior art). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would understand, by using interpolation to generate intermediate frames as
part of the frame rate up-conversion as taught by Wu, the processing time to
generate the interpolated frames would be shorter than the processing time to
render the intermediate frames.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 10 and 19, which recite similar limitations and were not
argued separately. See Br. 14; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Additionally, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3—9, 12—18, 20,
and 21, which depend therefrom and were not argued separately.
6
Appeal 2017-009045
Application 13/730,473
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—10, and 12—
21.
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). See
37 C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7