Ex Parte Stevens et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

12588461 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2017)

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.
12/588,461 10/15/2009 Ashley Stevens JRL-613-148 4813
73459 7590 02/02/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
HE, WEIMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ASHLEY STEVENS, ELVIND LILAND, DAREN CROXFORD,
and JOE TAPPLY
Appeal 2016-005281
Application 12/588,4611
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 23, 26, 27, and 30-
34. Claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 28, and 29 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is ARM Limited.
Appeal 2016-005281
Application 12/588,461
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to
A graphics processing system include[ing] a graphics
processor 1 that renders output frames that are written to a frame
buffer in a memory 2 for display on a display 7. Comparison and
control hardware 5 of the graphics processing system operates to
compare successive output frames that are being generated for
display, and then controls one or more aspects of the way in
which the display of the output frames generated by the graphics
processor 1 is carried out.
Abstract. Spec., 11. 4—6.
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A method of operating a data processing system in
which a stream of output frames to be displayed is generated by
the data processing system and written to a frame buffer for
display on a display device local to the frame buffer, the method
comprising:
the data processing system generating a stream of output
frames to be displayed; and
writing the frames to the frame buffer;
the data processing system, for plural output frames of a
sequence of output frames, comparing a newly generated output
frame to be written to the frame buffer with an output frame that
is currently stored in the frame buffer to obtain a measure of
correlation for the sequence of output frames;
controlling at least one aspect of the way in which the
output frames are provided for display on the display device local
to the frame buffer on the basis of the obtained measure of
correlation for the sequence of output frames,
wherein the step of comparing the output frames to be
displayed comprises comparing blocks of data representing
particular regions of the respective output frames with each
other, and the data processing system is a tile-based graphics
processing system and each data block that is compared
corresponds to a rendered tile that the graphics processing system
produces,
2
Appeal 2016-005281
Application 12/588,461
wherein the number of data blocks determined to match or
to mismatch between the newly generated output frame and the
output frame that is currently stored in the frame buffer based on
the comparison is used as the measure of correlation for the
sequence of output frames,
wherein the controlling comprising at least one of:
altering the number of frames per second at which frames
are read from the frame buffer and provided to the display device
to refresh the display device on the basis of the obtained measure
of correlation for the sequence of output frames; and
controlling the way that the output frame is stored in the
frame buffer by selecting the format in which the frame is stored
in the frame buffer from a lower quality format and a higher
quality format on the basis of the obtained measure of correlation
for the sequence of output frames.
THE REJECTIONS2
Claims 1, 4, 7, 11, 14, 17, 21, 23, 26 and 30—34 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee (US 2006/0152515 Al; pub.
July 13, 2006), Hayon (US 2008/0002894 Al; pub. Jan. 3, 2008), and
Greene (US 8,254,685 B2; iss. Aug. 28, 2012). Final Act. 8—17.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lee, Hayon, Greene, and Hollevoet (US 2007/0188506 Al; pub. Aug.
16,2007). Final Act. 18.
2 We note that the Final Action rejects claims 19, 20, 28, 29 and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), 4th paragraph. See Final Act. 8. However,
Appellants’ Amendment, dated July 17, 2015, which was entered by the
Examiner (see Advisory Action dated July 29, 2015), cancels claims 19, 20,
28, and 29 and amends claim 31 to depend from claim 1 instead of canceled
claim 9. As such, we understand the Examiner inadvertently included this
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), 4th paragraph and we find this
error harmless.
3
Appeal 2016-005281
Application 12/588,461
Claims 8, 18, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee, Hayon, Greene, and Pierini (US 7,671,873 Bl;
iss. Mar. 2, 2010). Final Act. 18—19.
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection Based on Lee, Hayon, and Greene
Claims 1, 4, 7, 11, 14, 17, 21, 23, 26 and 30—34
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 4, 7, 11, 14, 17, 21, 23, 26 and 30-34.
Appellants argue that Lee fails to teach or suggest “the data
processing system, for plural output frames of a sequence of output frames,
comparing a newly generated output frame to be written to the frame buffer
with an output frame that is currently stored in the frame buffer to obtain a
measure of correlation for the sequence of output frames,” as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 14—15.
Appellants maintains that there is no direct comparison of the current
frame with the previous frame in Lee and, as such, Lee cannot teach
comparing a newly generated output frame to be written to the frame buffer
with an output frame that is currently stored in the frame buffer. App. Br.
15; Reply Br. 3. According to Appellants, Lee uses a “dirty bit” to detect
the update areas. For example, Appellants assert that
It is well-known in the graphics processing art that a dirty bit is
set when a block of memory associated with the dirty bit is
written to (modified) by a processor. There is no direct
comparison between the newly-written data and the previously-
4
Appeal 2016-005281
Application 12/588,461
stored data, which involves examining the actual content of the
data.
App. Br. 16.
Notably absent, though, is any persuasive support for this argument.
For example, Appellants fail to identify any supporting disclosure of Lee or
extrinsic evidence to support use of the alleged “dirty bit.” To the contrary,
Lee describes that, prior to the generation of the DPVL packet, “a host
controller [] detect[s] a plurality of update areas corresponding to the video
data of a current frame changed from a previous frame.” Ans. 2 (citing Lee
Abstract); see also Ans. 3 (citing Lee 137); Lee Tflf 9, 15, 19, 37, 54, Fig. 5
(labeling step 310 as detecting plural update areas). As the Examiner further
explains, Lee’s disclosures at least suggest to a skilled artisan that the
current and previous image frames would be compared to detect the data
changes. See Final Act. 3. As such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in finding that Lee teaches or suggests comparing a newly generated
output frame to be written to the frame buffer with an output frame that is
currently stored in the frame buffer.
Next, Appellants assert that Hayon does not “obtain a measure of
correlation for the sequence of output frames,” as required by claim 1. App.
Br. 19. Specifically, Appellants contend that there is no teaching or
suggestion that Hayon’s outputted “indication” of changed files, or any of
the other examples in Hayon, are a measure of correlation for a sequence of
output frames. App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 3^4.
We find Appellents’ argument unavailing. Claim 1, as well as the
Specification, describes a measure of correlation as merely whether
successive frames are the same or similar. See claim 1 (“the number of data
blocks determined to match or to mismatch between the newly generated
5
Appeal 2016-005281
Application 12/588,461
output frame and the output frame that is currently stored in the frame buffer
based on the comparison is used as the measure of correlation for the
sequence of output frames”); Spec., p. 18 11. 24—26 (“the number of data
blocks found to match or to mismatch in the two output frames being
compared is used as a measure of the correlation of the frames); Spec. p. 12,
11. 1—10 (explaining that the comparison process is to assess correlation
between successive and/or sequences of output frames and determining
whether one frame is the same or similar to another).
Hayon similarly teaches “[a]n indication of changed tiles in the
second image with respect to the first image.” Hayon Abstract; see also
Hayon 115. In other words, Hayon’s indication identifies a number of
mismatched tiles. Moreover, as the Examiner explains, “[t]he claim
language ‘a measure of correlation’ can refer to any relationship of two
image frames, i.e. same, similar, very similar, tiny different, very different
etc.” Ans. 4; see also Spec. p. 12,11. 1—10. As such, Appellants fail to
persuasively explain why Hayon’s indication does not satisfy the recited
claim limitation.
Appellants further emphasize that the measure of correlation is for a
sequence of plural output frames. See Reply Br. 4; App. Br. 19-20.
However, as discussed above, Hayon indicates the changed tiles in the
second image with respect to the first image. Hayon indication, then, is for a
sequence of plural output frames, i.e. a first and second output frame.
Moreover, a skilled artisan would understand, given that Hayon is directed
to video frames, Hayon would not be limited to only a first and second
image frame but would continue the described process for successive image
6
Appeal 2016-005281
Application 12/588,461
frames. As such, we are not persuaded that Hayon fails to teach or suggest
the recited measure of correlation for a sequence of plural output frames.
We also find Appellants’ arguments with respect to Greene
unpersuasive. Appellants, in particular, allege that
Although Greene discloses a low quality format for a changed
image and high quality format for a [sic] unchanged image,
Greene’s control is not based on a measure of correlation for a
sequence of frames as defined in claim 1, i.e., number of
matching or mismatching data blocks. None of Greene's
“different algorithms” discloses or suggests the claimed measure
of correlation.
App. Br. 24; see also Reply Br. 4—5.
Greene, however, teaches detecting content change between a new
image and a previous image and increasing or decreasing image quality
based on the detected content change. Ans. 5 (citing Greene col. 10,11. 13—
40 and Fig. 3); see also Fig 3 (showing (in steps 310, 314, and 315) that
image quality may increase or decrease based on content change of an
image). Greene expressly describes the image comparison may include an
indication of change, no change or a degree or amount of change between a
new image and a previous image. Greene col. 10,11. 17—20. And that the
image quality may be increased or decreased based on this indication.
Greene, col. 10,11. 20-40. As such, Appellants have not shown how
Greene’s indication of change, no change or degree or amount of change
does not satisfy the recited measure of correlation.
Likewise unavailing is Appellants’ emphasis on a sequence of output
frames. As discussed above with respect to Hayon, Greene compares and
indicates change between a new and previous image, i.e. a sequence of
output frames. Moreover, Greene, like Hayon, is directed to “a streaming
7
Appeal 2016-005281
Application 12/588,461
image system” and, as such, a skilled artisan would understand the process
to be performed for a sequence of plural output frames. Thus, we are not
persuaded that Greene fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation.3
Finally, Appellants make blanket assertions that each of the cited
references fails to teach or suggest certain limitations. For example,
Appellants list various limitations that are supposedly absent from Lee. See
App. Br. 18; see also App. Br. 20 (listing limitations alleged absent from
Hayon). These conclusory assertions, without any persuasive explanation or
support, are unpersuasive. See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“A
statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 4,
7, 11, 14, 17, 21, 23, 26, and 30—34 not argued with particularity, as
unpatentable over Lee, Hayon, and Greene.
The Remaining Obviousness Rejections
Claims 3, 8, 13, 18, and 27
Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of claims 3, 8, 13,
18, and 27, and instead rely on the arguments presented for claim 1. See,
e.g., App. Br. 25. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded
that the Examiner erred in rejecting these claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain
3 We note, as the Examiner did, that the claims require the controlling to
comprise “at least one of’ the limitations of altering or controlling the way
the frame is stored. Ans. 4—5. Because we agree with the Examiner that
Greene teaches or suggests the controlling the way the frame is stored
limitation, we need not address whether Hayon teaches or suggests the
altering limitation.
8
Appeal 2016-005281
Application 12/588,461
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 8, 13, 18, and 27 as unpatentable over
the cited combinations of prior art.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17,
18, 21, 23, 26, 27, and 30—34 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
9