Ex Parte Tripathi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 2018

13627885 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/627,885 09/26/2012
81310 7590 11/23/2018
Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & G (Apple)
P.O. BOX 398
Austin, TX 78767-0398
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brijesh Tripathi
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.
5888-89900 4336
EXAMINER
YODICHKAS, ANEETA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2018 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
ptomhkkg@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIJESH TRIP ATHI
Appeal2018-000569
Application 13/627 ,885
Technology Center 2600
Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
ZADO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000569
Application 13/627,885
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Specification and claims generally disclose methods and systems
for providing pixels to a graphics display at a clock rate corresponding to an
effective refresh rate that is nearest to and below the display' s target refresh
rate. Spec. ,r 8. The Specification discloses that the closest equivalent to a
refresh rate for a display is its frame rate, which is often locked at an exact
number, such as 60 frames per second, or 60 Hz. Id. ,r,r 6, 33. The
Specification states, however, that it may be impossible to implement a pixel
clock rate that facilitates delivery of pixels to the display at an exact refresh
rate of 60 Hz, depending on "display resolution parameters and available
options for pixel clock rate of a given design." Id. ,r 6; id. ,r 33 ("[T]here
might be no way to implement a pixel clock rate ... that would yield a
refresh rate of 60 Hz."). The Specification discloses "a method may be
employed to match the target refresh rate [ e.g., 60 Hz in the above example]
while providing pixels to the graphics display at the implemented pixel clock
rate," wherein the implemented pixel clock rate corresponds to what the
Specification calls an effective refresh rate. Id. ,r 8; id. ,r 33 (disclosing
designing the system to provide pixels to display 160 at a pixel clock rate
that effectively results in a display refresh rate of 60 Hz). The method
includes adding additional "dummy" or blank pixels to image frames such
that when data for the combined image pixel data and additional pixel data is
2 Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief for the positions of Appellant and the Final Office Action and
Answer for the positions of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually
made by Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments that
Appellant did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
2
Appeal2018-000569
Application 13/627,885
delivered to the display at the pixel clock rate, the frame delivery rate
matches the display's target refresh rate. Id. ,r,r 8-9, 35-38. The number of
additional pixels added to an image frame is calculated based at least on ( 1)
the effective refresh rate, (2) the target refresh rate, and (3) the pixel
resolution of the image frame. Id. ,r,r 8-9, 34, 38. The dummy/blank pixels
are interpreted by the display as errors, and therefore, ignored by the display.
Id. ,I 38.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 5 are exemplary:
1. A method for matching refresh rates for a graphics
display, the method comprising:
providing, by a display controller circuit, image pixel
values representative of respective pixels of an image frame at
an implementable pixel clock frequency that corresponds to an
effective display refresh rate that is nearest to and lower than a
target display refresh rate;
providing, by the display controller circuit, additional
pixel values representative of a first number of additional pixels
for the image frame at the implementable pixel clock
frequency;and
receiving, by a display driver circuit, the image pixel
values and the additional pixel values for displaying the
respective pixels of the image frame on the graphics display
according to the target display refresh rate.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising displaying
the respective pixels of the image frames on the graphics
display without displaying the first number of additional pixels,
responsive to the display driver circuit driving the graphics
display.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the additional pixels
are blank pixels.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the first number for
the first number of additional pixels is based at least on the
3
Appeal2018-000569
Application 13/627,885
effective display refresh rate, the target display refresh rate, and
a pixel resolution of the image frame.
PRIOR ART RELIED UPON IN THE REJECTIONS
US 2013/0141642 Al Wu June 6, 2013
US 2008/0055342 Al Liao Mar. 6, 2008
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains "[ e ]very ground of rejection set forth" in the
office action from which the appeal is taken. Ans. 2-16; see also Final
Act. 2-16 ( office action from which the appeal is taken, setting forth
grounds of rejection).
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
ineligible subject matter. Ans. 2-5.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) as
anticipated by Wu. Ans. 5-7.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as obvious over the combination of Wu and Liao. Ans. 7-16.
ANALYSIS
1. 35 USC§ JOI-Subject matter eligibility
Section 101 of title 35 of the United States Code defines the subject
matter eligible for patent protection. 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court
in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), held
§ 101 contains an implicit judicial exception: "[l]aws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas." Id. at 2354. In applying the exception, the
Court stated "we must distinguish between patents that claim the 'buildin[g]
block[ s]' of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks
4
Appeal2018-000569
Application 13/627,885
into something more, thereby 'transform[ing]' them into a patent-eligible
invention." Id. ( alterations in original) ( citations omitted).
The Examiner rejects claims 1-22 under§ 101 as being directed to a
judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, without adding significantly
more. Ans. 2-5. Relying on Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830
F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Examiner finds the claims are directed to
"nothing more than the abstract idea of using categories to organize, store
and transmit information." Id. at 2--4, 17. The Examiner finds, moreover,
that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception on grounds that the
claimed graphics display, display controller circuit, and display driver
circuit, are generic components that are well known in the industry and
perform well-known functions. Id.
Appellant argues the claims on appeal are not directed to a judicial
exception. App. Br. 6. In particular, Appellant argues the claims are not
directed to an abstract idea in which the claimed components are used
merely as a tool, but instead are directed to an improvement over existing
display controllers and display drivers. Id. at 7-9 (stating "the first step in
the Alice inquiry ... asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific
asserted improvement in computer capabilities ... or, instead, on a process
that qualifies as an 'abstract idea' for which computers are invoked merely
as a tool" ( emphasis omitted) ( quoting Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016))). According to Appellant, the display
controller and display driver circuit do more than collect and analyze
information and display the results-the display controller controls graphics
displays and the display driver drives video display. App. Br. 7. Appellant
5
Appeal2018-000569
Application 13/627,885
argues further that the display controller of the claims includes novel
functionality that represents an improvement over other display controllers.
Id. at 8. The alleged novel functionality includes a solution that permits the
display controller to provide pixels to a display at an effective refresh rate,
without having to provide pixels at the refresh rate of the target display,
which the Specification states may not be possible to achieve. Id.
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments. We find persuasive the
argument that the claims are not directed to using computers merely as a tool
to perform abstract ideas. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. As pointed out by
Appellant, the claims are directed to providing pixel data to a display in
order to drive display output. App. Br. 7. Also persuasive is Petitioner's
argument that the claims are directed not to an abstract idea, but rather are
directed to improvements in display controllers and drivers. App. Br. 8;
Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336 (finding the "plain focus of the claims is on an
improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks
for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity," and finding the
claims therefore "are not directed to an abstract idea ... [ r ]ather, they are
directed to a specific improvement [in] the way computers operate"). The
Specification explains "it may not be possible to implement a pixel clock
rate that exactly corresponds to the target refresh rate of a graphics display,"
and addresses this problem by (1) selecting a pixel clock rate that
corresponds to an effective refresh rate that is nearest to and lower than the
target refresh rate, and (2) adding additional pixels to the image frame
wherein the number of additional pixels is based at least on the effective and
target display refresh rates. Spec. ,r 8.
6
Appeal2018-000569
Application 13/627,885
For the foregoing reasons, we determine the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to ineligible
subject matter.
2. 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)-Anticipation of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9 by Wu
For reasons discussed below, we are persuaded by Appellant's
argument that the Examiner has not shown Wu discloses "providing, by a
display controller circuit, image pixel values representative of respective
pixels of an image frame at an implementable pixel clock frequency that
corresponds to an effective display refresh rate that is nearest to and lower
than a target display refresh rate," as recited in claim 1, and the similarly
recited limitation in claim 6.
The Examiner relies on Wu's disclosure that display controller 330
provides pixel values to a display at a display refresh rate 324, without
further explanation. Ans. 5 (citing Wu Figs. 3--4, ,r,r 38, 42). We agree with
Appellant that the Examiner's rejection fails to explain how Wu discloses an
"effective display refresh rate" and a "target display refresh rate," as recited
in the claims. App. Br. 23. The rejection calls out only one refresh rate,
display refresh rate 324, and does not explain whether rate 234 is an
effective or a target display refresh rate. Ans. 5. We agree with Appellant,
moreover, that Wu does not disclose a refresh rate "that is nearest to and
lower than a target display refresh rate." App. Br. 23. Wu discloses an
embodiment in which "multiple video sources are processed and combined
together into a single display, as would be typical with videos played in
different windows on a desktop-style graphical user interface." Wu ,r 34.
The cited Wu disclosure explains playback video streams 300 and 350
provide video data to a compositor 320. Id. ,r 38. Compositor 320 receives
7
Appeal2018-000569
Application 13/627,885
information about video frame rates 312 and 362 for video streams 300 and
350, respectively, and combines this information to "select a refresh rate 324
that is appropriate for both playback streams when composited." Id. "The
output display data 322 and selected refresh rate 324 are provided to the
display controller 330, which sets the refresh rate of the display 332 and
displays the video data." Id. Paragraphs 39 and 42 of Wu provide
disclosure regarding possible ways compositor 320 can set a refresh rate, but
we agree with Appellant that Wu is "silent" on implementing a refresh rate
nearest to and lower than a target display refresh rate. Id. Wu discloses, for
example, if the video frame rates for multiple playback streams are integer
multiples of each other, the higher video frame rate can be used. Wu ,r 39.
Wu discloses also that "a number of different heuristics can be used,
depending on the desired user experience," but the Examiner does not
identify, nor do we discern, express disclosure of selecting a rate that is
nearest to and lower than a target display refresh rate.
In the Answer, the Examiner identifies Wu's refresh rate 324 selected
by compositor 320 as an "effective display refresh rate," and video frame
rate 362 3 of playback stream 350 as the "target display refresh rate."
Ans. 22. However, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner's Answer
fails to rebut Appellant's argument that Wu is silent with regard to a refresh
rate that is nearest to and lower than a target display refresh rate. Reply Br.
5.
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded by Appellant's arguments
that Wu does not disclose "providing, by a display controller circuit, image
3 The Examiner erroneously refers to video frame rate 3 62 as refresh rate
326.
8
Appeal2018-000569
Application 13/627,885
pixel values representative of respective pixels of an image frame at an
implementable pixel clock frequency that corresponds to an effective display
refresh rate that is nearest to and lower than a target display refresh rate," as
recited in claim 1, and "a display controller configured to: provide image
pixel values representative of pixels of each image frame of one or more
image frames at a pixel clock rate corresponding to an implemented refresh
rate nearest to and lower than a target refresh rate," as recited in claim 6.
Therefore, we determine the Examiner erred in rejecting, under§ 102,
independent claims 1 and 6, and claims 2, 5, and 9, which depend either
from claim 1 or 6. Appellant raises additional arguments regarding the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9 under§ 102. However,
because we reverse the Examiner's rejection on the grounds discussed
above, we need not, and do not, address Appellant's other arguments.
3. 35 US.C. § 103(a)-Obviousness of claims 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10-22 over
Wu and Liao
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10 depend either from claim 1 or 6. Because the
Examiner has not shown Wu discloses the above-discussed limitations of
claims 1 and 6, and the Examiner's application of Liao to claims 3, 4, 7, 8,
and 10 does not cure these deficiencies, we determine the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10 under§ 103.
With regard to independent claim 11, Appellant argues the Examiner
has not shown the combination of Wu and Liao teaches or suggests the
limitation "wherein the additional pixels are not part of the image frame to
be displayed." App. Br. 35-36. The Examiner acknowledges Wu does not
disclose this claim limitation, but finds Liao discloses this limitation, relying
on Liao's disclosure of blank area 24 on the periphery of display area 22.
9
Appeal2018-000569
Application 13/627,885
Ans. 11 (citing Liao ,r,r 14--15). We agree with Appellant that, contrary to
the Examiner's finding, Liao does not disclose this limitation. App. Br. 36.
We find persuasive Appellant's argument that blank area 24 does not
represent pixels that are not displayed, but instead represents an area that
displays data, albeit blank data. Liao discloses blank area 24 results when an
image frame has lower resolution, and therefore fewer pixels, than the
display, resulting in displaying blank data. Id. (citing Liao, Abstract). Liao
discloses blank area 24 "can be displayed as black data or any predetermined
data." Id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting Liao ,r 15). Accordingly, we are
persuaded blank area 24 represents displayed data, and therefore neither
teaches nor suggests additional pixels that are not part of an image frame to
be displayed.
We also agree that Wu does not disclose the limitation at issue. App.
Br. 35; Ans. 11. The Examiner identifies Wu's disclosure of combining
video of a second playback stream with video of a first playback stream.
Ans. 10. The Examiner finds the video pixel data from the second stream,
when composited with the video pixel data from the first stream, constitutes
"additional pixels." Id. We agree with Appellant that the "additional
pixels" in Wu "will be displayed, and as such they cannot be characterized
as not being part of the image(s) to be displayed." App. Br. 35 (emphasis
omitted). Appellant relies on Wu's disclosure that compositor 320 combines
"the video data from each playback stream ... generating composited
video." Id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting Wu ,r 42). With regard to the
composited video, Wu discloses "multiple video sources are processed and
combined together into a single display, as would be typical with videos
played in different windows on a desktop-style graphical user interface."
10
Appeal2018-000569
Application 13/627,885
Wu ,r 34. Therefore, Wu discloses that the composited video, including the
"additional pixels," is displayed.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 11, and claims 12-17 depending therefrom, under§ 103.
With regard to independent claim 18, Appellant argues the Examiner
has not shown Wu discloses the limitation "a processing element configured
to determine, based at least on a first refresh rate and a second refresh rate
higher than the first refresh rate, a number of respective blank pixels for
each image frame of a plurality of image frames." App. Br. 3 8. We agree.
The Examiner provides no explanation of how Wu discloses this limitation,
stating only that "Fig. 3--4, paragraphs 0038 and 0042, where the display
controller (330) provides pixel values a display refresh rate (324)." Ans. 13.
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that Wu is silent with regard to
the number of pixels in an image frame, and provides no teachings regarding
determining a number of pixels based on a first refresh rate and a second
refresh rate higher than the first refresh rate, App. Br. 38, because the cited
disclosure in Wu describes only combining video playback streams with no
discussion of the number of pixels for an image frame, Wu Figs. 3--4, ,r,r 38,
42. The Examiner does not rely on Liao to cure this deficiency.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 18, and claims 19-22 depending therefrom, under§ 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22 is reversed.
REVERSED
11