2020005859 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2021)

Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 30, 2021

2020005859 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 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. 14/641,121 03/06/2015 Roelof Roderick Colenbrander SCEA14041US00 4988 15840 7590 04/30/2021 Joshua D. Isenberg 809 Corporate Way Fremont, CA 94539 EXAMINER LARSEN, CARL VICTOR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/30/2021 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): josh@jdipatent.com robert@jdipatent.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 ROELOF RODERICK COLENBRANDER and DAVID PERRY ____________ Appeal 2020-005859 Application 14/641,121 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, 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 1–31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC. (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2020-005859 Application 14/641,121 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Appellant’s claimed invention relates to systems and methods for determining the display capabilities of an output device and then formatting two or more streams of data configured for display on the output device (Spec. 1, lines 4–7). Claim 1, reproduced below with the italics added, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A non-transitory computer readable medium having processor- executable instructions embodied therein, wherein execution of the instructions by a processor causes the processor to implement a method, the method comprising: a) determining the display capabilities of an output device from information received over a network from the output device wherein the information received over the network includes at least a current setting for the output device; b) formatting two or more data streams configured for display on the output device such that the content is displayed in a manner consistent with the display capabilities of the output device, wherein the display capabilities of the output device at least include an output resolution of the output device, wherein the two or more data streams include a data stream for user interface data and a separate data stream for video data, wherein a resolution of the user interface data and a resolution of the video data are scaled separately; and c) delivering the two or more streams of content data over the network to the output device, wherein the two or more data streams are formatted for the determined display capabilities of the output device before delivery. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Appeal 2020-005859 Application 14/641,121 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1, 2, 7, 9–14, 16, 19–21, 24–30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Laakkonen, Baumgarten, and Kunkel. 2. Claims 3–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Laakkonen, Baumgarten, Kunkel, and Dota 2. 3. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Laakkonen, Baumgarten, Kunkel, and Raciborski. 4. Claims 15, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Laakkonen, Baumgarten, Kunkel, and Barrett. 5. Claims 17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Laakkonen, Baumgarten, Kunkel, and Elnathan. Name Reference Date Kunkel US 2006/0230427 A1 Oct. 12, 2006 Baumgarten US 2009/0044128 A1 Feb. 12, 2009 Elanthan US 2010/0071010 A1 Mar. 18, 2010 Barrett US 2012/0249736 A1 Oct. 4, 2012 Raciborski US 2013/0139091 A1 May 30, 2013 Laakkonen US 2014/0155154 A1 June 5, 2014 Head-up display Dota 2 Wiki 1–5 available at http://wayback.archive.org/web/20131122153039/http://dota2.gamepedia.com Appeal 2020-005859 Application 14/641,121 4 FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2. ANALYSIS The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because the cited prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation for “wherein a resolution of the user interface data and a resolution of the video data are scaled separately” (Appeal Br. 5–8, Reply Br. 5–8). In contrast, the Examiner cites to the argued claim limitation as being suggested in the combination of references by Laakkonen at Table 1, paragraphs 50, 53, and 55, and Kunkel at Figures 5, 7, and paragraphs 77– 79, 92, and 96, in the rejection which also includes the Baumgarten reference (Ans. 14–22). We agree with the Examiner. Here, the argued claim limitation requires “wherein a resolution of the user interface data and a resolution of the video data are scaled separately.” Laakkonen at Table 1 does disclose using both “Video” and “UI Data” (user interface) data. Laakkonen at para. 50 also discloses using “different streams” of data generated during playing the device and that the streams can be “video, audio or [that] it can also refer to any data which is stored/sent/recorded in certain order.” Laakkonen at para. 53 also discloses that the video is “transcoded at various bitrates to suit different communication streaming rates.” Baumgarten discloses 2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). Appeal 2020-005859 Application 14/641,121 5 determining the best resolution for a device and sending information that matches that device for that resolution (Fig. 8, paras. 32–34, 54–56). Kunkel at para. 77 discloses “controlling the scaling and positioning of the video feeds.” Kunkel at paragraph 92 discloses that the “encoder 130 may control compression efficiencies, density/quality, and other parameters associated with the video and user interface, such as to adjust quality and resolution at different areas of the screen.” Thus, citation to Laakkonen discloses separate streams for “user interface data” and “video data” and Kunkel discloses “scaling” of feeds but it not specifically disclosed that “wherein a resolution of the user interface data and a resolution of the video data are scaled separately.” However, rather than asserting that the argued claim limitation for the user interface and video to be scaled “separately” is in one of the individual references alone, the rejection asserts that such a modification would have been obvious “in order [to] display the various content at a resolution that [is] most advantageous for fidelity of that particular content being displayed while minimizing the impact on the bandwidth required to transmit the video” (Final Rej. 4). The Examiner’s present similar remarks in the Answer at page 20. We agree with the Examiner. In KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) the Court stated that when considering obviousness that “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable Appeal 2020-005859 Application 14/641,121 6 solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See id. at 421. Here, the modification of the device of Laakkonen which includes separate streams of user and video data to be modified by Baumgarten for the enhanced resolution and Kunkel and have the data streams scaled separately would have been obvious to have the data transferred to better meet the resolution of the video screen and also minimize impact on the bandwidth required to transmit the video. Here, with regard to scaling of the video and data streams there are a finite number of solutions as to the sequence of the scaling: the scaling could be performed at the same time or separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that performing the scaling at the same time would provide faster processing if enough computing speed was available, while performing the scaling separately would minimize impact on bandwidth if required. The Appeal Brief at page 6 argues that the prior art fails to disclose the cited claim limitation, but here, the rejection of record has provided an articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for argued claim limitation and in the cited combination of prior art. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The Appellant has not provided separate arguments for the remaining claims and the rejection of these claims is summarily affirmed as not argued. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section above. Appeal 2020-005859 Application 14/641,121 7 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 7, 9– 14, 16, 19– 21, 24–29, 30, 31 103 Laakkonen, Baumgarten, Kunkel 1, 2, 7, 9– 14, 16, 19– 21, 24–30, 31 3–6 103 Laakkonen, Baumgarten, Kunkel, Dota 2 3–6 7, 8 103 Laakkonen, Baumgarten, Kunkel, Raciborski 7, 8 15, 18, 22 103 Laakkonen, Baumgarten, Kunkel, Barrett 15, 18, 22 17, 23 103 Laakkonen, Baumgarten, Kunkel, Elnathan 17, 23 Overall Outcome 1–31 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED