Ex Parte Verma et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 23, 2019

14863853 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/863,853 09/24/2015 Lochan Verma
112246 7590 04/25/2019
Loza & Loza, LLP/Qualcomm
305 N. Second Ave., #127
Upland, CA 91786
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.
QCOM-2904US (153143) 1074
EXAMINER
LIU, GORDON G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2019 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qualcomm-pto@lozaip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LOCHAN VERMA, MINA A YMAN SALEH
YANNI MAKAR, HONGYU JIANG, XIAODONG WANG,
and VIJA Y ALAKSHMI RA VEENDRAN 1
Appeal2018---007579
Application 14/863,853
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, SHARON PENICK, and
RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
CASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-30, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. Appeal Br. 4. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants list Qualcomm Incorporated as the real party in interest. Appeal
Brief filed September 19, 2017 ("Appeal Br.") 4.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents for their respective details: the Final Action mailed
April 21, 2017 ("Final Act."); the Examiner's Answer mailed October 19,
2017 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed December 15, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2018---007579
Application 14/863,853
THE PRESENT APPLICATION
The present application is directed to a wireless display system for
detecting and recovering from instability in a graphics processing unit
(GPU) located in a display device. Spec. ,r 1. As Appellants' Specification
explains, a wireless display system can include an apparatus referred to as a
"source" that transmits data, such as images and videos, to another apparatus
referred to as a "sink," for display on the sink's display. Id. ,r,r 2, 122. In
such a system, packets of information that are sent from the source to the
sink may be lost during the wireless transmission, causing the GPU of the
sink to enter an unstable state, which can cause system malfunction. Id.
The system of the present invention seeks to overcome this problem
by switching the sink' s display to a different wireless display mode when the
sink's GPU becomes unstable. Id. ,r,r 29-33. Specifically, if the system
detects that the sink has entered an unstable state, the system transmits a
GPU refresh request message to the source, and switches from the current
display mode ( a first wireless display mode) to a second wireless display
mode that is not suffering from loss of packets. Id. ,r,r 32-33.
For example, the first wireless display mode may utilize Graphics
Engine Entity ( GEE) content, and the second wireless display mode may use
Miracast protocols. Id. ,r,r 30-31. The reset refresh message may request
that data sufficient to reset the GPU of the sink to a stable state be
transmitted at an upcoming random access point (RAP) in a trace of the
GPU commands ( which includes all or substantially all of the GPU
commands transmitted by the source to the sink). Id. ,r,r 38-39. After
receiving data sufficient to reset the GPU of the sink from an unstable state
to a stable state, the sink may switch from the second wireless display mode
2
Appeal2018---007579
Application 14/863,853
back to the first wireless display mode, where it can receive packets again
now that the GPU is stable. Id. ,r 42.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims at issue:
1. An apparatus configured for wireless display, the
apparatus comprising:
a transceiver;
a memory;
a graphics processing unit ( GPU); and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the
transceiver, the memory, and the GPU, wherein the at
least one processor and the memory are configured to:
detect a condition indicating that the GPU is in an
unstable state while in a first wireless display
mode;
in response to detecting the condition, transmit a
GPU refresh request message and switch from the
first wireless display mode to a second wireless
display mode;
after transmitting the GPU refresh request
message, at a random access point (RAP) in a trace
of GPU commands, receive data sufficient to reset
the GPU from the unstable state to a stable state;
and
switch from the second wireless display mode to
the first wireless display mode after receiving the
data.
Appeal Br. 31 (Claims Appendix).
3
Appeal2018---007579
Application 14/863,853
THE EXAMINER'S REJECTION AND APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
Claims 1-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Iwami (US 2016/0111039 Al; published April 21, 2016)
in view ofRajamani (US 2016/0188279 Al; published June 30, 2016).
The Examiner relies on Iwami as the primary reference for teaching,
inter alia, a sink display device that switches from a first frequency channel
to a second frequency channel when the device detects that the packet error
rate (PER) of the transmission link exceeds a predetermined threshold
indicating that the link has become unstable. Final Act. 4---6 (citing Iwami
Fig. 19, ,r,r 247, 254--255). The Examiner finds that Iwami lacks the
limitations of claim 1 requiring that the processor, after the refresh request
message, "receive data sufficient to reset the GPU from the unstable state to
a stable state" and "switch from the second wireless display mode to the first
wireless display mode after receiving the data." Final Act. 7.
For the missing claim limitations, the Examiner relies on Rajamani for
teaching a device that switches from a native graphics throwing display
mode to a Miracast display mode when the user starts playing Miracast-
suitable content, such a movie. Final Act. 7. Specifically, the Examiner
relies on Rajamani's disclosure that the apparatus detects when the Miracast-
suitable content stops playing, and then switches back to the native graphics
throwing mode. Final Act. 7 (citing Rajamani Fig. 9, ,r 98).
The Examiner further determines that it would have been obvious to
modify Iwami in view of Rajamani "in order to implement a mode-switch
protocol and mechanism for a hybrid wireless display system with
screencasting and native graphics throwing [] enabled." Final Act. 7-8. As
the Examiner states:
4
Appeal2018---007579
Application 14/863,853
Iwami teaches that when the PER (packet error rate) is high, the
display is switched from one mode to another mode. Rajamani
teaches that the hybrid wireless display system can switch back
and forth between the Miracast mode and the native graphics
mode depending on video content. If movies [are] played, use
the native graphics mode, and when the movies stop, switch
back to the Miracast mode. Thus, it [ would have been] obvious
to try that when the PER is high, switch to the second display
mode[,] which requires less bandwidth, and when the PER is
low, switch back to the first display mode, such as Miracast
mode.
Final Act. 8. See also Ans. 6-7.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Rajamani does not disclose the
limitations of claim 1 that the Examiner relies on it for, namely that the
processor, after the receiving refresh request message, "receive data
sufficient to reset the GPU from the unstable state to a stable state" and
"switch from the second wireless display mode to the first wireless display
mode after receiving the data." Appeal Br. 23. Specifically, Appellants
argue that:
[P]aragraph [0098] [ of Rajamani] includes no disclosure,
teaching, or suggestion regarding receipt of any data sufficient
to reset a GPU from an unstable state to a stable state. Instead,
this section of Rajamani simply discloses that a source detects
that a movie or other Miracast-suitable content is done playing,
and switches the sink back to a native graphics throwing mode.
There is no disclosure relating to the sink receiving any data
sufficient to reset the GPU from an unstable state to a stable
state.
Id. at 22.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner's motivation to combine
Iwami and Rajamani is insufficient:
5
Appeal2018---007579
Application 14/863,853
Iwami and Rajamani are each directed to solving different
problems. Iwami is directed to a sink device that can determine
whether a frequency channel that a source device is transmitting
data over is unstable. See Iwami, ff [0246], [0247], [0253]-
[0255]. Upon a determination of instability, the sink device
selects a more stable frequency channel and sends a request to
the source device (200) to transmit over the selected frequency
channel. Id. Rajamani is directed to mechanisms for switching
display modes (i.e., standards for wireless peer-to-peer screen
casting) such as Miracast and native graphics throwing,
depending on whether an event has occurred ( e.g., a user starts
playing a movie with Miracast content). See Rajamani,
ff [0097], [0098], FIG. 9. Appellant[s] respectfully submits
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to
combine these references because the references have no
common problem to be solved.
For example, the problem of the unstable frequency channel in
Iwami cannot be cured by changing the display mode from
Miracast to a native graphics throwing mode, as described in
Rajamani. More specifically, a display mode change would
have no effect on resolving an unstable frequency channel. As
such, there is no teaching or suggestion in either of Iwami or
Rajamani hinting that the functionality described in one
reference could beneficially be included in the other.
Appeal Br. 25.
ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants that the record does not support the
Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-30. The cited portions of
Rajamani do not teach or suggest, after a refresh request message is
received, "receiv[ing] data sufficient to reset the GPU from the unstable
state to a stable state" and "switch[ing] from the second wireless display
mode to the first wireless display mode after receiving the data," as claim 1
6
Appeal2018---007579
Application 14/863,853
requires. Paragraph 98 of Rajamani, upon which the Examiner relies,
merely teaches that the display device switches from a second wireless
display mode (Miracast) to a first wireless display mode (native graphics
throwing mode) when the device "detects the movie other Miracast-suitable
content stopping." Rajamani ,r 98. There is no teaching or suggestion in the
cited portions of Rajamani that the display device is in an "unstable state,"
or that any data is sent to the display device that resets a GPU from an
unstable state to a stable state. And, the switch in Rajamani from the second
display mode to the first display mode is performed after a movie ( or other
content) stops playing, not in response to data that resets the GPU from an
unstable state. Therefore, the prior art applied by the Examiner lacks these
limitations of claim 1.
We further agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not set forth
sufficient evidence of a reason or motivation to combine Iwami and
Rajamani to make the invention of claim 1. The Examiner states that it
would have been obvious to combine these references because "it is obvious
to try that when the PER is high, switch to the second display mode which
requires less bandwidth, and when the PER is low, switch back to the first
display mode, such as Miracast mode." Final Act. 8. See Ans. 6-7. The
Examiner, however, has not identified a teaching or suggestion in the prior
art that switching to the second display mode in Rajamani (Miracast) in the
system of Iwami would require less bandwidth on a transmission link than
using the first display mode (graphics throwing mode). Nor does the
Examiner point to evidence that Iwami would operate properly if the sink
device was forced to use a Miracast display mode.
7
Appeal2018---007579
Application 14/863,853
To the contrary, we agree with Appellants that the cited portions of
Iwami and Rajamani are directed to solving different problems. Iwami is
directed to a device that detects instability in a frequency channel based on
whether the PER exceeds a threshold, and selects a more stable frequency
channel. Iwami, ff 246-47, 253-55. Rajamani is directed to a device for
switching display modes depending on whether a user starts or stops playing
a movie. Rajamani ff 97-98, Fig. 9. Nothing in the cited portions of the
references suggest that switching display modes in response to playing or
stopping a movie, as disclosed in Rajamani, would improve the problem of
maintaining a stable frequency channel addressed by Iwami.
Accordingly, Appellants have demonstrated error in the Examiner's
determination of obviousness of claim 1. We, therefore, reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2-30, which either depend
from claim 1 or otherwise recite similar limitations.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-30 is reversed.
REVERSED
8