Sony Interactive Entertainment America LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 12, 2021

2020003650 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2021)

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.
12/359,233 01/23/2009 Roger van der Laan SONYP533 4019
16051 7590 10/12/2021
PENILLA IP and SONY
1200 PACIFIC AVENUE
SUITE 250
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
EXAMINER
JEBARI, MOHAMMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/12/2021 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):
pipdocket@penillaip.com
scea_patent_docket@Playstation.Sony.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROGER VAN DER LAAN and STEPHEN G. PERLMAN
Appeal 2020-003650
Application 12/359,233
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MARC S. HOFF, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5, 7–10, 12–21, and 34–36. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a) (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sony
Interactive Entertainment America LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003650
Application 12/359,233

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system for streaming databases serving
real-time applications used through streaming interactive video. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:

1. A computer-implemented method for hosting online video
games, performing video compression and transmitting video
comprising:

receiving a request by a server, from a user for playing a
video game on the server which produces a video output;

receiving control signals by the server, the control signals
being generated on a client in response to an input device of the
client being actuated by the user as the user is playing the video
game;

the control signals being transmitted over a network
between the client and the server;

the server responsive to the received control signals while
executing the video game produces a sequence of video images
of the video game;

compressing the sequence of video images to generate a
sequence of compressed video images, wherein compressing the
sequence of video images comprises:

logically subdividing each of the sequence of video
images into a plurality of tiles;

encoding one of the tiles within each video image
of the sequence of video images using a first compression
format to produce an intraframe encoded tile and encoding
a remainder of the tiles within each video image of the
sequence of video images using a second compression
Appeal 2020-003650
Application 12/359,233

3

format to produce interframe encoded tiles, such that each
of the encoded video images includes one intraframe
encoded tile and a remainder of said interframe encoded
tiles, and in successive encoded video images the one
intraframe encoded tile is sequentially distributed to
occupy each tile location of the logically subdivided video
images, and each one of the intraframe encoded tiles and
interframe encoded tiles is compressed separately from
other ones of the plurality of tiles;

transmitting the sequence of compressed video images,
that each include one of the intraframe encoded tiles and said
interframe encoded tiles, to the client for separate decompression
by the client of the respective intraframe encoded tile and
interframe encoded tiles and for rendering by the client on a
display of the client;

wherein said encoding mitigates channel bandwidth peaks
by distributing said intraframe encoded tiles from a compressed
intraframe video image over a sequence of successive video
image times.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Sotheran US 5,603,012 Feb. 11, 1997
Matsumura et al. US 6,125,144 Sept. 26, 2000
Krishnamurthy et al. US 6,754,241 B1 June 22, 2004
Quinard et al. US 2006/0150055 A1 July 6, 2006
Cipolli et al. US 2007/0206673 A1 Sept. 6, 2007

Appeal 2020-003650
Application 12/359,233

4

REJECTIONS2
Claims 1, 12, 15, and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krishnamurthy in view of Matsumura.
Claims 5, 7–10, 17–19, and 34 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krishnamurthy and Matsumura
in further view of Quinard.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Krishnamurthy and Matsumura in further view of
Sotheran.
Claims 20, 21, 35, and 36 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Krishnamurthy and Matsumura in
further view of Quinard and Cipolli.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the combination
of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee’s
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

2 There were obviousness-type double patenting rejections that were
obviated by the acceptance of a Terminal Disclaimer. Therefore, we do not
address those rejections.
Appeal 2020-003650
Application 12/359,233

5

In reviewing the record here, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner’s rejection is based on improper hindsight because Appellant does
not point to any evidence of record that shows combining the teachings of
the cited references in the manner suggested by the Examiner would have
been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or
would have “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)).
We are bound by the controlling guidance of our reviewing court:
“[i]t is the claims that measure the invention.” See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita
Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)
(citations omitted); In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
(citations omitted) (“[T]he name of the game is the claim.”) (emphasis
added). “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the
explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to
import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.” SuperGuide
Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “We
have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred
embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment
described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.” In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
We note claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and taking
into account whatever enlightenment may be had from the specification. In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “In the patentability
Appeal 2020-003650
Application 12/359,233

6

context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations[,]
. . . limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In
re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
“It is well-established that the Board is free to affirm an examiner’s
rejection so long as appellants have had a fair opportunity to react to the
thrust of the rejection.” In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(citations omitted). We find that the Examiner has addressed all the issues
involved in this appeal, particularly in light of the fact that Appellant has
failed to specifically identify errors in the Examiner’s rejection.
Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner’s factual findings, reasoning, and
conclusions (Final Act. 6–16; Ans. 3–16) as our own. See, e.g., In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
With respect to independent claims 1, 12, 15, and 16, Appellant does
not set forth separate arguments for patentability. Appeal Br. 5. As a result,
we exercise our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) and group
independent claims and select independent claim 1 as the representative
claim for the group and will address Appellant’s arguments thereto. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Arguments which Appellant could have made
but did not make in the Brief are deemed to be waived/forfeited. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
With regard to independent claim 1, we agree with the Examiner and
find Appellant’s arguments do not show error in the Examiner’s factual
findings or conclusion of obviousness of representative independent claim 1.
Appeal 2020-003650
Application 12/359,233

7

Appellant argues that claim 1 was amended to recite each one of the
intra-frame encoded tiles and inter-frame encoded tiles are compressed
separately from other ones of the plurality of tiles. Appeal Br. 5.
The Examiner finds that “Krishnamurthy clearly teaches using a
distributed intra-refresh strategies in the encoding process, that will intra-
code a fraction of the macroblocks in every P frame, which means that every
P frame will contain a fraction of a macroblocks (i.e. a block) encoded in
intraframe format and the rest of the P frame would be encoded in interframe
format.” Final Act. 2; Ans. 15 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further
finds that “Matsumura discloses in successive encoded video images the one
intraframe encoded tile is sequentially distributed to occupy each tile
location of the logically subdivided video images (fig. 4 and col. 2 lines 4-
11); and each one of the intraframe encoded tiles and interframe encoded
tiles is compressed separately from other ones of the plurality of tiles;
separate decompression.” Ans. 7.
Appellant argues that nothing is discussed or taught regarding the
separate compression of an intra-frame encoded tile that is like a mini frame,
such that I and P mini frames are transmitted for a client to separately
decompress. Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant argues that “each tile will be encoded as a separate mini
frame. The reasoning provided by the Examiner confirms that ‘every P
frame’ will contain a fraction of macroblocks. That is, the encoding by
Krishnamurthy is indeed failing to separately encode the P tiles or I
tiles, and instead encodes the combination as fractions of one frame.”
Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis omitted).
Appeal 2020-003650
Application 12/359,233

8

Appellant also argues that, in the Matsumura reference, “the process is
not encoding a mini frame of intra encoding to produce an encoded
intraframe tile, but instead is using parts of intra encoded macroblocks that
are cyclically sent in interframes.” Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner confirms that the portions,
being macroblocks, are compressed and decompressed as one frame and
nothing is taught regarding the treatment of each tile as a separately encoded
and decoded mini frame, aside from the Examiner’s assertion that is not
supported by the combined teachings of Krishnamurthy and Matsumura.
Appeal Br. 7–8.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that the Krishnamurthy reference
does not teach each of the encoded video images includes one intraframe
encoded tile and a remainder of said interframe encoded tiles. Reply Br. 2.
Appellant further contends, in the Reply Brief, that the “claimed
technical solution of subdividing each video image into a plurality of tiles
and encoding each video image so that there is one intraframe encoded tile
and the remainder are interframe encoded tiles help mitigate channel
bandwidth peaks” and is depicted in Figures 9A and 9C of the present
application. Reply Br. 3 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant contends that the video stream data rate peaks that exceed
during scene transitions will cause image quality degradation periodically as
different scenes are encountered in game play and that the claimed method
mitigates these peaks to keep the data rate below the peak data rate 941.
Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues that the Krishnamurthy reference does not
suggest these features and instead implements a macroblock refresh strategy
Appeal 2020-003650
Application 12/359,233

9

that will intra-code a fraction of macro blocks in every P frame. Reply Br.
3.
We find Appellant is arguing the references individually rather than
the combination as applied by the Examiner. Rather, the Examiner relied
upon the Matsumura reference to teach and suggest the interleaving of the
intra-encoding and the inter-encoding with the incremental/sequential
movement of intra-encoding portion of the scene. Additionally, Appellant’s
argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim language that does
not recite any details regarding the video stream data rate peaks that exceed
during scene transitions will cause image quality degradation periodically as
different scenes are encountered in game play.
Appellant further argues that the Matsumura reference does not teach
one intraframe encoded tile is sequentially distributed to occupy each tile
location of the logically subdivided video images. Reply Br. 6.
We agree with Appellant that the Matsumura reference does not teach
“one intraframe encoded tile,” but the Matsumura reference teaches the use
of three intraframe encoded tiles. But, we also agree with the Examiner that
Matsumura teaches and suggests the interleaved encoding of intraframe and
interframe encoding and further teaches and suggests sequentially successive
distributing the intraframe encoding. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner
that although the three intraframe encoded macro blocks are expressly
taught, “the process could be applied for one macro-block.” Ans. 15
(emphasis omitted).
Appellant relies upon the disclosed invention in Figure 7A to illustrate
the claimed invention, and the Examiner’s reliance upon the Matsumura
Appeal 2020-003650
Application 12/359,233

10

reference for the one intraframe encoded tile is sequentially distributed to
occupy each tile location of the logically subdivided video images is
traversed by Appellant. Reply Br. 6–7.
Appellant argues the Matsumura reference does not teach each one of
the intraframe encoded tiles and interframe encoded tiles is compressed
separately. Reply Br. 7. Appellant argues that in Matsumura each partition
is coded in a temporal correlation coding method or in an intra-picture
coding method, wherein one or more partitions are determined to be
refreshed for each frame. Reply Br. 7–8. Furthermore, as shown in
Matsumura, Figure 4, Matsumura illustrates that three macro blocks are
refreshed at a time for each frame and even if one macro block is refreshed
at a time, each macro block is not treated the same as each tile where each
tile is compressed separately. Reply Br. 8.
We disagree with Appellant and find that the Examiner has made
findings that the macro blocks are equivalent to “tiles.” Ans. 5, 16. We
further find that the specific end use environment of the data being encoded
for use of the coding would have also been a consideration in the size or
number of the blocks or tiles intra-coded. Appellant does not point to any
evidence of record that shows combining the teachings of the cited
references in the manner suggested by the Examiner would have been
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or
would have “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” We further
agree with the Examiner that the combined references teach and fairly
suggest the claimed combination of intraframe encoded tiles and interframe
encoded tiles and the one intraframe encoded tile is sequentially distributed.
Appeal 2020-003650
Application 12/359,233

11

Appellant argues that the Matsumura reference does not teach
separate decompression by the client of the respective intraframe encoded
tile and interframe encoded tiles. Reply Br. 8.
We note that the language of independent claim 1 recites “[a]
computer-implemented method for hosting online video games, performing
video compression and transmitting video,” and “transmitting the sequence
of compressed video images, . . . to the client for separate decompression by
the client of the respective intraframe encoded tile and interframe encoded
tiles and for rendering by the client on a display of the client.” We find the
decompression is an intended use and does not perform any specific step in
the method of compression and transmitting the video data.
“An[ ]intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the
claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in
which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v.
Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly,
we need not attribute any distinguishing character to the asserted claim
features. Consequently, Appellant’s argument does not show error in the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of independent claim 1.
Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the steps of
the claimed “computer-implemented method for hosting online video
games,” invention. Additionally, with the combination, we disagree with
Appellant that the formatted data must be decompressed and decoded at the
receiver for the data to be useful. Consequently, we find Appellant’s
arguments to be unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s factual findings or
conclusion of obviousness of representative independent claim 1 and
Appeal 2020-003650
Application 12/359,233

12

dependent claims, and dependent claims 5, 7–10, 12–21, and 34–36 not
separately argued.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections are sustained.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 12, 15, 16 103(a) Krishnamurthy,
Matsumura
1, 12, 15, 16
5, 7–10, 17–
19, 34
103(a) Krishnamurthy,
Matsumura,
Quinard
5, 7–10, 17–
19, 34

13, 14 103(a) Krishnamurthy,
Matsumura,
Sotheran
13, 14
20, 21, 35,
36
103(a) Krishnamurthy,
Matsumura,
Quinard, Cipolli
20, 21, 35,
36

Overall
Outcome
1, 5, 7–10,
12–21, 34–
36

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
Appeal 2020-003650
Application 12/359,233

13

AFFIRMED