12658058 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

Ex Parte Taerum et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 2016

12658058 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/658,058 02/01/2010 Torin Taerum 96039 7590 09/29/2016 Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC 999 Peachtree Street NE Suite 1300 Atlanta, GA 30309 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. 10172-004US 1 1350 EXAMINER BEUTEL, WILLIAM A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2616 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/29/2016 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): docketing@mcciplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TORIN TAERUM, MONROE M. THOMAS, MICHAEL BEAUREGARD, and DEREK SCHERGER Appeal 2015-0077 64 Application 12/658,058 1 Technology Center 2600 Before MARC S. HOFF, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a final rejection of claims 1-7 and 9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 The real party in interest is Calgary Scientific Inc. Appeal2015-007764 Application 12/658,058 Appellants' invention is a method and system for reducing bandwidth used to transmit image data from the graphics processing unit (GPU) to system memory. Using a first processor, a first image and second image are divided into sub regions. Using the first processor, image difference data are determined by performing a differencing operation between corresponding pixels of the second image and first image. Sub region difference data are determined in dependence upon the sub regions and the image difference data. Using the first processor, image data in dependence upon the sub region difference data are transmitted to the second location of the computer system. The image data correspond to sub regions having at least a different pixel value in the first and second image. Using a second processor at the second location, the image data are replaced in the respective sub regions of the first image. Spec. i-fi-12, 7. Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal: 1. A method comprising: providing, at a first location in a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) memory of a computer system, data indicative of a first image and data indicative of a second image; providing, at a second location in a system memory of the computer system, data indicative of the first image, the second location in the system memory being connected to the first location in the GPU memory via a data communication link, wherein the GPU memory and the system memory are co- located within a housing of a workstation; using a GPU, dividing the first image and the second image into sub regions in a same fashion, wherein each sub region comprises an array of pixels having dimension w x h, where w is the width of the sub region of a size not less than two pixels and not greater than the pixel width of the respective first or second image, and h is the height of the sub region of a 2 Appeal2015-007764 Application 12/658,058 size not less than two pixels and not greater than the pixel height of the respective first or second image; using the GPU, determining image difference data by performing a differencing operation between corresponding pixels of the second image and the first image; using the GPU, determining sub region difference data in dependence upon the sub regions and the image difference data, the sub region difference data being indicative of sub regions having substantially same pixel values in the first and the second image and being indicative of sub regions having at least a different pixel value in the first and the second image; using the GPU, transmitting image data in dependence upon the sub region difference data to the second location in the system memory of the computer system, the image data corresponding to sub regions having at least a different pixel value in the first and the second image; and, using a system processor, replacing at the second location in the system memory the image data in respective sub regions of the first image, wherein the GPU_ and the system processor are co-located within the housing. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Monroe Willis et al. MacMahon et al. Cahill et al. Wloka US 2003/0025599 Al US 6,888,551 B2 US 2005/0111718 Al US 2007 /0036402 Al US 2007/0103567 Al Feb. 6,2003 May 3, 2005 May 26, 2005 Feb. 15,2007 May 10, 2007 Claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monroe, Willis, MacMahon, and Wloka. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monroe, Willis, MacMahon, Wloka, and Cahill. 3 Appeal2015-007764 Application 12/658,058 Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Nov. 4, 2014) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed June 2, 2015) for their respective details. ISSUE Appellants' arguments present us with the following issues: 1. Does the combination of Monroe, Willis, McMahon, and Wloka disclose or suggest co-locating the GPU and the system processor within the housing? 2. Does Monroe teach away from combination with Wloka? PRINCIPLES OF LAW The Examiner's articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). To teach away, prior art must "criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed." Mere disclosure of alternative embodiments is not a teaching away. In re Fulton, 391F.3d1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int'!, 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1995). 4 Appeal2015-007764 Application 12/658,058 ANALYSIS CLAIMS 1, 2, 5-7, AND 9 We do not agree with Appellants that the Examiner concludes, "without any support whatsoever," that it would have been obvious to modify Monroe, Willis, and MacMahon given the teachings of Wloka, to obtain the invention under appeal. See App. Br. 16. The Examiner concludes that the combination would have been obvious because it would "produce the predictable result of comparing image data for multiple images to detect differences ... by utilizing a separate processing unit to improve the processing speed and freeing up the remaining parts of the system for other processing, with the separate components contained in a single compact and easy-to-manage device." Final Act. 12-13. We find that the Examiner's reasoning possesses a rational underpinning to sufficiently support the legal conclusion of obviousness. Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. Appellants' argument that Monroe "affirmatively teaches away from the combination of a GPU and system processor co-located in a common housing" is also unpersuasive. See Ans. 23. Monroe does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. Monroe merely discloses an image processing embodiment in which a camera transmits image data to another location. See, e.g., Monroe i-f 27. We agree with the Examiner that there is no disclosure in Monroe discouraging the combination of a GPU and system processor co-located in a common housing. See Ans. 23. We find no error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 2, 5-7, and 9, as being unpatentable over Monroe, Willis, MacMahon, and Wloka. We sustain the Examiner'sÂ§ 103 rejection. 5 Appeal2015-007764 Application 12/658,058 CLAIMS 3 AND 4 Appellants present no separate argument for the patentability of these dependent claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Â§ 103 rejection of claims 3 and 4 over Monroe, Willis, McMahon, Wloka, and Cahill, for the same reasons given with respect to the rejection of independent claim 1, supra. CONCLUSION 1. The combination of Monroe, Willis, McMahon, and Wloka teaches co-locating the GPU and the system processor within the housing. 2. Monroe does not teach away from combination with Wloka. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7 and 9 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l ). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6