QUALCOMM IncorporatedDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 2, 20212020000537 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/269,157 09/19/2016 Vijayalakshmi Rajasundaram Raveendran 1414-244US01/162548 7448 23696 7590 03/02/2021 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 5775 MOREHOUSE DR. SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 EXAMINER SHAHNAMI, AMIR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2021 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): us-docketing@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte VIJAYALAKSHMI RAJASUNDARAM RAVEENDRAN and MINA AYMAN SALEH YANNI MAKAR Appeal 2020-000537 Application 15/269,157 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DAVID M. KOHUT, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5–8, 10–16, and 20–30. Claims 2–4, 9 and 17–19 are cancelled. See Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use “Appellant” to reference the “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Qualcomm Incorporated.” Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-000537 Application 15/269,157 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s Invention According to the Appellant’s Specification, the invention “relates to coding and transmission of 360 degree video” (Spec. ¶ 2), e.g., for “a virtual reality (VR) head-mount display . . . [that] allows the user to . . . chang[e] a viewing angle with a turn of the head” (id. ¶ 3). The invention “avoid[s] the effect of a lag time . . . [,] during changes in a field of view (FoV)” (id. ¶ 19), by using “a hybrid graphics and pixel domain approach where baseline quality and immediate responsiveness is provided by a graphics domain pipeline[] and high resolution video is provided by a pixel domain pipeline” (id. ¶ 20). The approach includes transmitting texture from a graphics processor 19 and pixel domain video data from a video encoder 16 at different frame rates (fps) and resolutions; the texture having a lower fps/resolution. Id. ¶¶ 49–50, 61. Further, though “the texture streamed by the GPU 19 . . . [provides] the entirety of the 360 video image at a lower resolution” (id. ¶ 49), the “[v]ideo encoder16 may . . . transmit a subset of the tiles based on sensed head movement of the user (42)” and so as to “include high resolution tiles at the center of the [(field of view)] determined from the sensor data[] and . . . low resolution[] tiles . . . in the peripheral visual region” (id. ¶ 51). Claim 1 is reproduced below. The italicized limitations illustrate disputed subject matter. 1. An apparatus configured to process video data, the apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store the video data; one or more processors configured to encode a portion of the stored video data in a pixel domain to generate pixel domain Appeal 2020-000537 Application 15/269,157 3 video data, wherein the pixel domain video data comprises a plurality of tiles each having a portion of 360 video image; a first graphics processing unit configured to process the video data in a graphics domain to generate graphics domain video data, wherein the graphics domain video data comprises a texture having an entirety of the 360 video image; and an interface to transmit the graphics domain video data including the texture having the entirety of the 360 video image and a subset of the pixel domain video data including a subset of the plurality of tiles, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to stitch the video data together to form an equirectangular canvas, and wherein the first graphics processing unit is further configured to convert the equirectangular canvas to the texture and render the texture inside a sphere, wherein the first graphics processor is configured to transmit the texture via the interface at a first frame rate, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit the subset of the pixel domain video data via the interface at a second frame rate greater than the first frame rate, and wherein the first graphics processor is configured to transmit the texture via the interface at a first resolution and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit the subset of the pixel domain video data via the interface at a second resolution greater than the first resolution. Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). Rejections Claims 1, 5–8, 10–16 and 21–30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rondinelli (US 2003/0095131 A1; publ. May 22, 2003), Krishnan (US 2016/0012855 A1; publ. Jan. 14, 2016), and Cole (US 2016/0241836 A1; publ. Aug. 18, 2016). Final Act. 2–14. Appeal 2020-000537 Application 15/269,157 4 Claims 7 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rondinelli, Krishnan, Cole, and Tamir (US 2016/0104510 A1; Apr. 14, 2016). Final Act. 14–17. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rondinelli, Krishnan, Cole, and Davari (US 2014/0098185 A1; publ. Apr. 10, 2014). Final Act. 17–18. Claims 10–15 and 25–30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan, Davari, and Cole. Final Act. 18–28. OPINION All claims are rejected over the same modification of prior art in view of Cole.2 As Appellant argues, the Examiner does not articulate a sufficient rationale for the modification. See infra. We agree the Examiner has erred and accordingly do not sustain the obviousness rejections. We address the error with reference to the above-reproduced claim 1 (supra pp. 2–3). The Examiner applies Cole to claim 1’s emphasized limitations (Final Act. 4–6), which recite that a texture and tiles of a 360-image are respectively transmitted at a lower fps/resolution and a greater fps/resolution. The Examiner finds that the other cited prior art teaches the claimed composition of the texture and tiles: a texture comprising graphics domain video data and representing the entirety of the 360-image; tiles comprising pixel domain video data and representing respective portions of the 360-image. Id. at 3–4. Finding the other cited prior art does not teach to 2 The rejections of half the independent claims (1 and 16) propose to modify Rondinelli’s invention in view of Krishnan and Cole (Final Act. 4–6, 10– 11), whereas the rejections of the other half (claims 10 and 25) propose to modify Krishnan’s invention in view of Cole (id. at 20–21, 24–26). In either approach, the Examiner’s reliance on Cole is the same. Appeal 2020-000537 Application 15/269,157 5 “transmit texture data and pixel data at different resolutions,” the Examiner states “[t]hese deficiencies [are] cured” by Cole’s paragraphs 76–77, 129, 170, and 181, quotes a sentence within each citation, and then states: These excerpts teach the UV maps [(i.e., textures)]3 are a part of a set of UV maps corresponding to different resolution allocations, where the motivation for such a combination is to reduce waste in processing all data to make efficient use of limited bandwidth available for streaming image data to a playback device, where some data would only need to be processed at a lower resolution (see Cole [¶ 12]). Ans. 4. The Examiner further explains why, in view of Cole, the other prior art is modified to perform the claimed transmission of a texture and tiles. The Advisory Action states: “Cole . . . teach[es] a processor with the ability to process data at different frame rates.” Adv. Act., Cont’n Sheet. The Final Action states: “One would be motivated [to perform the claimed transmission because] the different resolutions reduce waste in processing by transmitting different forms of data at different rates, where the pixel domain is a higher priority than the texture.” Final Act. 6. Appellant contends Cole does not suggest the claimed transmission because: Cole is describing transmitting the same type of data at different frame rates. For instance, the cited portions of Cole are describing different versions of encoded data at different resolutions[,] but the type of data (e.g., encoded input scene) is the same. In direct contrast, . . . in claim 1, . . . the texture . . . that is transmitted at the first frame rate and the subset of pixel domain data that is transmitted at a second frame rate are different types of data[.] 3 Cole interchangeably references a “texture map” and “UV map.” See, e.g., Cole ¶ 10 (“texture map also sometimes referred to as a UV map”). Appeal 2020-000537 Application 15/269,157 6 Appeal Br. 11. Appellant further explains: [T]he basis for the combination . . . , in view of Cole, is because “the different resolutions reduce waste . . . by transmitting different forms of data at different rates[.] . . . However, . . . Cole describe[s] different data rates with different resolutions for the same type of data. Id. at 14. We are persuaded of error because the Examiner has only shown the prior art parses a 360-image into texture data for the entire image and pixel data for portions thereof; improves bandwidth usage by transmitting lower-priority image data and higher-priority image data at respectively a lower resolution/fps and greater resolution/fps. See Final Act. 4–5. As Appellant contends, these prior art features do not suggest to transmit an image’s texture and tiles at respectively a lower resolution/fps and a greater resolution/fps. Rather, these features suggest doing so if/when the texture and tiles respectively constitute lower-priority image data and higher-priority image data. The Examiner must show that the texture and tiles for a same portion of an image—like the claimed combination of texture for an entire 360-image and tiles for a portion thereof—may respectively constitute lower-priority image data and higher-priority image data. However, Cole’s cited paragraphs 12, 129, 170, and 181 teach only that different portions4 of a 360-image may have different (respective) texture maps and resolutions (which are set by the maps). Specifically, they teach that a portion is 4 Whereas claim 1 recites 360-image comprised of portions, Cole references a 360-environment comprised of images (see, e.g., Cole ¶ 115). For sake of comparison, we use the claim’s terminology to describe Cole’s teachings. Appeal 2020-000537 Application 15/269,157 7 directly or indirectly viewed (Cole ¶ 12), consequently a high or low priority (id.), and accordantly assigned a texture map and resolution (id. ¶ 129). OVERALL CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5–8, 10–16, and 20–30. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 1, 5–8, 10–16, 21– 30 103 Rondinelli, Krishnan, Cole 1, 5–8, 10–16, 21– 30 7, 22 103 Rondinelli, Krishnan, Cole, Tamir 7, 22 24 103 Rondinelli, Krishnan, Cole, Davari 24 10–15, 25–30 103 Krishnan, Davari, Cole 10–15, 25–30 Overall Outcome 1, 5–8, 10–16, 20–30 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation