VMware, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 28, 2021

2020004824 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 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.
13/921,017 06/18/2013 Jonathan CLARK B010 5231
151795 7590 10/28/2021
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (VMware)
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
HESS, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2021 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):
PATDOCTC@fr.com
ipadmin@vmware.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN CLARK

Appeal 2020-004824
Application 13/921,017
Technology Center 2400

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–22. Claims App. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed June 18, 2013 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed Mar. 27, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed Jan. 31,
2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed Apr. 16, 2020 (“Ans.”);
and Reply Brief, filed June 11, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as VMware, Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-004824
Application 13/921,017
2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to a method and system for
compressing video pixels using an image block matching technique in
virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) deployments by pre-calculating hash
values for a reference frame prior to other frames becoming available based
on changes to a graphical user interface (GUI) thereby reducing latency in
compressing videos. Spec. ¶¶ 4, 9. Figure 1, reproduced below, is useful for
understanding the claimed subject matter:

Appeal 2020-004824
Application 13/921,017
3
Figure 1 depicts GUI 119 for desktop 117 generated by a virtual machine
hosted on server computer 110, which generates, updates and compresses a
video from the GUI contents based on image block matching and
subsequently transmits them to client computer 164. Id. ¶¶ 4, 9.
Independent claim 1, with disputed limitations emphasized, is
illustrative:
1. A system comprising:

a server computer for communicating with a client, the server
computer having one or more processors and one or more computer-
readable storage medium, the server computer being configured to:
generate a video from contents and updates to a graphical user
interface for a desktop generated by a virtual machine hosted on the
server computer, including encoding the updates to the graphical user
interface into the video;
compress the video for transmission from the server to the
client based on image block matching, wherein the video is
compressed prior to sending the video to the client, and wherein the
compressing comprises:
accessing a reference frame of an image in the video, wherein
the reference frame is a particular prior frame of the video and
represents a prior view of the graphical user interface;
separating the reference frame into a plurality of reference
blocks of pixels;
pre-calculating, using a hash function, a hash value for each of
the plurality of reference blocks of pixels prior to a current frame of
the video becoming available based on an update to the graphical
user interface; and
for each subsequently received current frame of an image in the
video and that represents an updated view of the graphical user
interface that was updated after the hash values for the plurality of
reference blocks of pixels being calculated:
separate the current frame into a plurality of current blocks of
pixels;
calculate, using the hash function, a hash value for each of the
plurality of current blocks of pixels;
Appeal 2020-004824
Application 13/921,017
4
compare the hash values associated with corresponding
reference blocks of pixels of the reference frame with the hash values
associated with corresponding current blocks of pixels of the current
frame;
identify each hash value for a reference block of pixels of the
reference frame that matches a hash value for a current block of pixels
of the current frame; and
for each pair of matching hash values, store information
indicating that the hash value in the reference frame matches the hash
value in the current frame for the matching blocks of pixels that
correspond to the pair of matching hash values;
generating a compressed video by compressing the video based
on data specifying an offset in time and distance between each of the
matching blocks of pixels; and
send the compressed video to the client after identifying all
matching hash values in the video.
Appeal Br. 8–9 (emphasis added).
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Reference Date
Burgess US 2004/0131115 A1 July 8, 2004
Wu US 2005/0262543 A1 Nov. 24, 2005
Hobbs US 7,672,005 B1 Mar. 2, 2010
Kamay US 2010/0293248 A1 Nov. 18, 2010
Choudhury US 2011/0093605 A1 Apr. 21, 2011
Albu US 2011/0299785 A1 Dec. 8, 2011
IV. REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Burgess, Albu, and Kamay.

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-004824
Application 13/921,017
5
Final Act. 4–17.
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 5–12 and the Reply Brief, pages 2–4.4 We are not
persuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated herein
below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final
Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief.5 Final Act. 2–19; Ans. 3–23. However, we highlight and address
specific arguments and findings for emphasis, as follows.
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding that the combined
teachings of Burgess, Albu, and Kamay render claim 1 obvious. Appeal
Br. 4–5. In particular, Appellant argues that none of the cited references
teaches or suggests, “calculating, using a hash function, a hash value for
each of the plurality of reference blocks of pixels,” as recited in independent
claim 1. Id. at 5. According to Appellant, Burgess discloses computing and
comparing a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) for a new block of pixels and
all corresponding blocks of pixels, instead of comparing the whole block of
pixels. Id. Further, Appellant argues that Burgess’s calculation of CRCs to

4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
5 See ICON Health and Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1042
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“As an initial matter, the PTAB was authorized to
incorporate the Examiner’s findings.”); see also In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560,
1564 n.13 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (upholding the PTAB’s findings, although it “did
not expressly make any independent factual determinations or legal
conclusions,” because it had expressly adopted the examiner’s findings).
Appeal 2020-004824
Application 13/921,017
6
determine a cache hit or cache miss does not teach both the pre-calculating
and calculating steps, as recited in the claim. Id. Furthermore, Appellant
argues that Burgess does not teach video data representing an updated view
of a GUI. Id. at 5–6.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner
error. As an initial matter, the claim does not require comparing a “whole
block of pixels.” Instead, the claim requires comparing hash values
corresponding to a block of pixels, which is taught by Burgess’s disclosure
of comparing CRCs corresponding to the blocks of pixels stored in the
cache. Further, Burgess discloses a server sharing real-time video signals
displayed on a local GUI with a remote computer, wherein the video signal
is digitized, compressed and transmitted to the remote computer. Burgess
¶¶ 2, 8, 18, 25. In particular, Burgess discloses applying a smoothing sub-
algorithm to the digital video image data including a block of pixels by
computing a CRC similar to a hash code for the block, which is stored in the
cache as a reference hash code. Id. ¶¶ 94–98, 133. Further, Burgess discloses
comparing the computing for each subsequent block of pixels associated
with updated video signals corresponding to hash codes, which are
compared to the reference hash code stored in the cache to determine a cache
hit or a cache miss. Id.
We agree with the Examiner that Burgess’s disclosure of computing a
hash code, which is stored in the cache for subsequent comparison with
computed hashes for real-time video signals teaches pre-calculating a
reference hash value. Ans. 19–21. Likewise, we agree with the Examiner
that Burgess’s disclosure of computing a hash code corresponding to a block
of pixels in real-time video signal teaches calculating, using the hash
Appeal 2020-004824
Application 13/921,017
7
function, a hash value for each of the plurality of current blocks of pixels. Id.
Consequently, on this record, the Examiner has established that the
combination of Burgess, Albu, and Kamay teaches or suggests the disputed
claim limitations. Because we are not persuaded of Examiner error, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious over the combination
of Burgess, Albu, and Kamay.
Regarding the rejections of claims 2–22, Appellant either does not
present separate patentability arguments or reiterates substantially the same
arguments as those discussed above for the patentability of claim 1. As such,
claims 2–22 fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
VI. CONCLUSION
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–22.
VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–22 103 Burgess, Albu,
Kamay
1–22
VIII. 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED