Ex Parte SPITZER et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 3, 201914094291 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/094,291 12/02/2013 45594 7590 05/06/2019 NVIDIA C/0 MURABITO, HAO & BARNES LLP 111 NORTH MARKET STREET SUITE 700 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 John SPITZER 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. NVID-P-SC-13-0035-US 1 4656 EXAMINER RICHER, AARON M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2618 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/06/2019 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN SPITZER, REV LEBAREDIAN, and TONY TAMAS! Appeal2018-006524 Application 14/094,291 1 Technology Center 2600 Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nvidia Corporation (App. Br. 1 ). Appeal2018-006524 Application 14/094,291 THE CLAIMED INVENTION The present invention relates to "the field of graphics processing." Spec. ,-J 1. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method; independent claim 8 is directed to a system; and independent claim 15 is directed to a method. App. Br. 34, 36, 38. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of generating analyzed configurations for an application, said method comprising: using a client device, gathering subjective end-user feedback concerning a set of adjustable application parameters wherein said set of adjustable application parameters comprise image quality settings associated with a graphics rendering application, wherein said set of adjustable application parameters are used to adjust the operation of said graphics rendering application controlling a GPU to render, on said client device, frames in accordance with said image quality settings, wherein a respective image quality setting for a respective adjustable application parameter impacts an amount the respective adjustable application parameter is used by said graphics rendering application to influence said frames; calculating a respective image quality score for each adjustable application parameter of said set of adjustable application parameters responsive to said subjective end-user feedback; and communicating said image quality scores to a host computer system for generating computed settings for customizing display of said graphics rendering application during execution on said client device. 2 Appeal2018-006524 Application 14/094,291 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-17, and 19 stand rejected under35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaswamy et al. (US 8,908,987 Bl; issued Dec. 9, 2014) ("Krishnaswamy") and Dumbeck et al. (US 2011/0148899 Al; published June 23, 2011) ("Dumbeck"). Ans. 2. Claims 5 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaswamy, Dumbeck, and Penke et al. (US 2008/02261 78 A 1; published Sept. 18, 2008) ("Penke"). Ans. 9. Claims 7, 14, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaswamy, Dumbeck, and Jenkins (US 2014/0267439 Al; published Sept. 18, 2014). Ans. 10. ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections Claim 1 recites "calculating a respective image quality score for each adjustable application parameter of said set of adjustable application parameters responsive to said subjective end-user feedback." Appellants argue "Krishnaswamy is concerned with adjusting display settings for a still image to improve 'the general appeal of the image to people"' but does "not teach or suggest calculating an image quality score for each adjustable application parameter, but merely disclose[ s] associating scores with adjusted images." App. Br. 15. According to Appellants, Krishnaswamy' s "scores associated with adjusted images do not teach calculating an image quality score for each adjustable application parameter," as claimed. App. Br. 15. 3 Appeal2018-006524 Application 14/094,291 We agree with the Examiner's finding that Krishnaswamy' s "each 'adjustment type' can correspond to an adjustable application parameter." Ans. 2-3 (citing Krishnaswamy col. 4, 11. 9-43, col. 7, 11. 11-15); see Ans. 12. Specifically, the Examiner finds Krishnaswamy's "each image with a specific adjustment type ... being rated subjectively by the end user as discussed in col. 4 ... can correspond to a specific adjustable application parameter" and "by a user rating or scoring each image, wherein each image corresponds to a different changed parameter, what is being done is calculating an image quality score for each adjustable application parameter." Ans. 12. Specifically, Krishnaswamy teaches the "system can determine the types of image adjustments to apply to the original image" by "examin[ing] the preferences for image adjustments of users of the system . . . where the preferred adjustment types are included in the determined adjustment types for the original image" and the "system can evaluate each adjusted image and determine a score for each adjusted image" and the "score can be based on selections indicating the judgment of persons as to a quality of other images having one or more characteristics similar to the adjusted images." Krishnaswamy col. 4, 11. 9-22. In other words, as cited by the Examiner (Ans. 12), Krishnaswamy teaches adjustment types used for adjusted images that are then evaluated and scored based on user judgments. Appellants have not persuasively argued how Krishnaswamy's evaluating and scoring images affected by adjustment types based on user judgements does not teach or suggest the claimed "calculating a respective image quality score for each adjustable application parameter of said set of 4 Appeal2018-006524 Application 14/094,291 adjustable application parameters responsive to said subjective end-user feedback." Claim 1 further recites "communicating said image quality scores to a host computer system for generating computed settings for customizing display of said graphics rendering application during execution on said client device." Appellants argue Krishnaswamy "merely disclose[ s] calculating image quality scores at a server system" and "the use of client devices," but "fails to teach or suggest that these client devices can calculate image quality scores themselves, much less communicate these scores to server system." App. Br. 16. According to Appellants, Krishnaswamy is "entirely silent with regard to communicating said image quality scores to a host computer system for generating computed settings for customizing display of said graphics rendering application during execution on said client device." App. Br. 17. Specifically, Appellants contend Krishnaswamy's "image adjustment types are not communicated to a remote client device, rather the image adjustment types are applied to the original image and the resultant adjusted image is stored in a storage device, such as a database," rather than the claimed "communicating said image quality scores to a host computer system for generating computed settings for customizing display of said graphics rendering application during execution on said client device." App. Br. 18. We agree with the Examiner's finding that Krishnaswamy's "server perform[ing] steps in the method including the combination of scores to determine highest scores for customized image display rendered to a user ... would necessitate the communication of the scores to the server so they can 5 Appeal2018-006524 Application 14/094,291 be operated upon." Ans. 3 (citing Krishnaswamy Figs. 3, 5, col. 8, 11. 1-13, col. 22, 11. 1-10); see also Ans. 13. Specifically, Krishnaswamy teaches the "system can evaluate each adjusted image and determine a score for each adjusted image" and the "score can be based on selections indicating the judgment of persons as to a quality of other images having one or more characteristics similar to the adjusted images." Krishnaswamy col. 4, 11. 17-22. Krishnaswamy further teaches "method 500 can be implemented, for example, on a server system 102" and "one or more client devices can perform one or more blocks instead of or in addition to a server system performing those blocks." Krishnaswamy col. 22, 11. 6-10. In other words, Krishnaswamy teaches the system evaluating and scoring the adjusted images from adjustment types based on user judgments, and the implementation of the method using client devices and a server system. Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner's finding that Krishnaswamy's "[u]sers are present at client devices ... and the users rate or score each image by choosing preferred images," and "[i]f users are scoring the image at the client, and calculations based on the scores are performed at the server, the scores must be communicated to the server," and "if a user at a client has chosen a preferred image over other images, that is a score parameter that has been calculated at the client." Ans. 13. Appellants have not persuasively argued Krishnaswamy's implementation of a method that scores adjustment types based on user judgements on a server system and using client devices and a server system, necessitating communication of the scores to the server, does not teach or suggest the claimed "communicating said image quality scores to a host 6 Appeal2018-006524 Application 14/094,291 computer system for generating computed settings for customizing display of said graphics rendering application during execution on said client device." Claim 1 also recites "wherein said set of adjustable application parameters are used to adjust the operation of said graphics rendering application controlling a GPU to render, on said client device, frames in accordance with said image quality settings." Appellants argue "there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Krishnaswamy with the teachings ofDumbeck." App. Br. 18. Specifically, Appellants contend "Krishnaswamy and Dumbeck teach away from Claims 1 and 8, specifically, 'wherein said set of adjustable application parameters are used to adjust the operation of said graphics rendering application controlling a GPU to render, on said client device, frames in accordance with said image quality setting."' App. Br. 18. According to Appellants, "Dumbeck ... specifically discloses that the types of image quality settings, including brightness, contrast, and sharpness settings ... as taught by Krishnaswamy, are not related to the performance of a processor or the performance of a graphics processing pipeline." App. Br. 19 ( citing Dumbeck ,-J,-J 16, 26). A reference "does not teach away from the claimed subject matter unless the prior art reference also criticizes, discredits or otherwise discourages the solution claimed." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We agree with the Examiner's finding that there is "nothing in Krishnaswamy or Dumbeck to criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage controlling a GPU to render, on a client device, frames in accordance with image quality settings, and [ A Jppellant has not pointed to any teachings in 7 Appeal2018-006524 Application 14/094,291 either reference that in any way criticize, discredit, or discourage such a solution." Ans. 16-17. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner's finding that "section 0026 of Dumbeck does not state that the settings have no impact on how an application controls a GPU," and instead "Dumbeck is stating that an image quality setting may not directly affect the time in which a processor/pipeline can complete its task," and just because Dumbeck "does not impact a performance parameter, such as frames per second, has no bearing on whether Dumbeck is using adjustable application parameters to adjust the operation of an application controlling a GPU to render." Ans. 15. We further agree with the Examiner's finding that Dumbeck's GPU rendering images for application running on the GPU teaches "in accordance with dynamic image quality configuration logic which adjusts parameters for each application." Ans. 3 ( citing Dumbeck ,-J,-J 31-34). Specifically, as cited by the Examiner (Ans. 3), Dumbeck teaches "GPU 205 may run a plurality of applications 207, which may correspond to the various application windows 103 displayed on the screen space 100" (Dumbeck ,-J 31) and "dynamic image quality configuration logic 300 detect the running of an application ... the dynamic image quality configuration logic 300 may be implemented in various ways and may, for example, be distributed between the GPU 205 and the CPU 211 in some embodiments" (Dumbeck ,-J 32). In other words, Dumbeck teaches dynamic image quality configuration logic implemented on a GPU running applications across various application windows. Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner's findings regarding Dumbeck' s dynamic image quality configuration logic and GPU rendering. 8 Appeal2018-006524 Application 14/094,291 As such, Appellants have not persuasively argued Dumbeck does not teach or suggest the claimed "wherein said set of adjustable application parameters are used to adjust the operation of said graphics rendering application controlling a GPU to render, on said client device, frames in accordance with said image quality settings." Furthermore, as explained above, Appellants have not established Dumbeck or Krishnaswamy criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages controlling a GPU to render frames in accordance with image quality settings, and therefore Appellants have not persuasively argued Dumbeck and Krishnaswamy teach away from the claimed "wherein said set of adjustable application parameters are used to adjust the operation of said graphics rendering application controlling a GPU to render, on said client device, frames in accordance with said image quality settings." Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 1, as well as commensurate independent claim 8, not separately argued, and independent claim 15, argued for the same reasons as claim 1 (see App. Br. 21-27), and the rejections of dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, argued based on their dependencies from the independent claims (see App. Br. 27-32). DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation