QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2021

2020000537 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 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.
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