Ex Parte Azar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2017

13632210 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2017)

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.
13/632,210 10/01/2012 Hassane S. Azar SC-12-0315-US1 6584
102469 7590 10/03/2017
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./Nvidia
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
EXAMINER
PARIKH, DAKSHESH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2017 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HASSANE S. AZAR, STEFAN ECKART,
DAWID PAJAK, BRYAN DUDASH, and SWAGAT MOHAPATRA
Appeal 2017-006296
Application 13/632,2101
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as NVIDIA Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed
September 26, 2016; Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed February 9, 2017;
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed December 9, 2016; Final Office Action
(“Final Act.”) mailed February 26, 2016; and original Specification
(“Spec.”) filed October 1, 2012.
Appeal 2017-006296
Application 13/632,210
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to three-dimensional (3D) modeling and
video encoding systems and methods, shown in Figures 2 and 3, for
improving video encoding using content information. Spec. ^ 1,5, 7, Title;
Abstract.
Appellants’ Figures 2 and 3 are reproduced below with additional
markings for illustration.
GAME SYSTEM! ^
'""■200
/
CONTENT
TNFOEMATTON
FIG. 2 FIG. 3
Figure 2 depicts Appellants’ 3D modeling and video encoding system
including a video encoder to produce an encoded video stream using content
information, and Figure 3 illustrates a video encoder. Spec. Tflf 10-11, 25,
31-32.
As shown in Figure 2, Appellants’ 3D modeling and video encoding
system sends a 3D model (204)—such as a 3D scene file including
geometry, viewpoint, texture, lighting, and shading information in a
description of a virtual scene—from a content engine (202) to a renderer
(206), which in turn produces one or more corresponding two-dimensional
2
Appeal 2017-006296
Application 13/632,210
(2D) images or frames of video data (208). Spec. Tflf 13, 25, 31. A video
encoder (300) shown in Figure 3 receives the 2D frames or images (208,
308) and content information (214, 314) related to the content of the 2D
images or frames (208, 308) to produce an encoded video stream (212, 312).
Spec. 5, 25—26, 31—32; Abstract. The encoder (210, 300) then transforms
the content information (214, 314) into encoder control information (310),
and adjusts the encoding of the video data frames based upon the encoder
control information (310) in order to produce better quality video images for
a specified video stream bit rate, or a lower video stream bit rate for a
specified video image quality. Spec. H 26, 31.
Claims 1,8, and 15 are independent. Representative claim 15 is
reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics:
15. A three-dimensional (3D) modeling system producing an
encoded video stream, the system comprising:
a content engine which produces a 3D model;
a renderer coupled to said content engine and configured
to receive from the content engine said 3D model and produce
corresponding two-dimensional (2D) images; and
a video encoder coupled to said renderer and configured
to receive the 2D images from the renderer and produce a
corresponding encoded video stream,
wherein the encoder is further configured to receive from
the content engine content information relating to the 2D
images, transform the content information into encoder control
information, and control encoding of the 2D images according
to the encoder control information.
App. Br. 11—15 (Claims App’x).
Examiner’s Rejections and References
(1) Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Titus (US 2010/0295847 Al;
3
Appeal 2017-006296
Application 13/632,210
published November 25, 2010) and Cheung et al. (US 2006/0056717 Al;
published March 16, 2006; “Cheung”). Final Act. 3—7.
(2) Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, and 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Titus, Cheung, and Piehl et al.
(US 2004/0095999 Al; published May 20, 2004; “Piehl”). Final Act. 7-9.
(3) Claims 6, 13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Titus, Cheung, and Bando et al. (JP 2008-113292
A; published May 15, 2008; “Bando”). Final Act. 9-10.
(4) Claims 7, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Titus, Cheung, Ishtiaq
et al. (US 2007/0036227 Al; published February 15, 2007;
“Ishtiaq”), and Zhao (US 2007/0268964 Al; published November 22, 2007).
Final Act. 11—12.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the combination of Titus and Cheung teaches or suggests “wherein
the encoder is further configured to receive from the content engine content
information relating to the 2D images,” as recited in Appellants’
independent claim 15, and the similar limitations recited in independent
claims 1 and 8. App. Br. 6—8; Reply Br. 2—5.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 15, the Examiner finds Titus’
server computer 102 generates 3D models providing digital and visual
representations of real world items, thereby teaching a content engine which
4
Appeal 2017-006296
Application 13/632,210
produces a 3D model, as claimed. Final Act. 3 (citing Titus H 26, 28, 30,
35, Fig. 1).
To support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner relies on
Cheung for teaching the claimed renderer and video encoder. Final Act. 4—
5. In particular, the Examiner finds Cheung’s graphics rendering unit (210)
teaches the claimed renderer coupled to a content engine (Cheung’s game
server 108) and configured to receive from the content engine a 3D model
(model 205 of objects in a computer game) and produce corresponding 2D
images (215), as shown in Cheung’s Figure 2. Final Act. 4 (citing Cheung
1118, 23, Figs. 1—3). The Examiner further finds Cheung’s video encoder
(230) receives the 2D images from the renderer and produces a
corresponding encoded video stream (235), as required by claim 15’s video
encoder. Final Act. 4 (citing Cheung 120, Fig. 2). The Examiner
additionally finds Cheung’s video encoder is configured to (i) receive from
the content engine content information (Cheung’s composition information
225) relating to the 2D images, (ii) transform the content information into
encoder control information, and (iii) control encoding of the 2D images
according to the encoder control information, as recited in claim 15. Final
Act. 4—5 (citing Cheung H 19-26, 37, 41, Figs. 2-4).
Cheung’s Figure 2 is reproduced below with additional markings for
illustration.
5
Appeal 2017-006296
Application 13/632,210
110. R
FIG. 2
Cheung’s Figure 2 is a block diagram of a graphics-to-video encoder (110)
including a graphics rendering unit (210), a composition information
extractor (220), and a video encoder (230). The graphics-to-video encoder
(110) performs a process for three-dimensional graphics to two-dimensional
video encoding. Cheung || 9, 17.
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s factual findings regarding Cheung.
Appellants contend Cheung does not teach “the claimed encoder [that] is
configured to receive the claimed content information from the claimed
content engine”; rather, “Cheung teaches its renderer, not its content engine,
provides content information to its encoder.” App. Br. 6—7 (emphasis
added). That is, Cheung teaches its “video encoder 230 receives its
equivalent content information (Cheung’s composition information 225)
from Cheung’s Composition Information Extractor 220 which is part of
Cheung’s graphics rendering unit 210,” but “does not teach that its video
encoder 230 receives composition information 225 from its game server
108.” App. Br. 7 (citing Cheung, Fig. 2) (emphasis added); Reply Br. 3.
Appellants further argue Cheung’s encoder (230) cannot receive the content
information (composition information 225) from the content engine (game
6
Appeal 2017-006296
Application 13/632,210
server 108) having the 3D models as claim 15 requires, because Cheung’s
content information (225) is not present at the content engine, i.e., Cheung’s
content information (225) is not “information already contained in Cheung’s
3D models 205”; rather, Cheung’s content information (225) is created by
the renderer operating on the 3D model. Reply Br. 3—5 (citing Cheung
1119-20).
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive or commensurate
with the scope of Appellants’ claim 15. Instead, we find the Examiner
provides a comprehensive response to Appellants’ arguments supported by a
preponderance of evidence. Ans. 14—15. As such, we adopt the Examiner’s
findings and explanations. Ans. 14—15. For additional emphasis, we note
Appellants’ claim 15 does not require the content information to bypass the
Tenderer. Claim 15 recites the encoder receives the content information
from the content engine, however, claim 15 does not preclude the renderer
from passing the content information from the content engine to the encoder.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Cheung’s encoder (230) receives
content information from the content engine as required by claim 15,
because Cheung’s content information (225) is extracted from a 3D model
(205) received from the content engine. Ans. 15. The fact that Cheung’s
encoder (230) receives the content information (225) from the content
engine via the renderer (210, 220) does not contradict claim 15, which does
not require the content information to bypass the renderer.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Cheung’s
encoder cannot receive content information from the content engine because
Cheung’s content information (225) is (i) not present at the content engine,
and (ii) is only created at the renderer (210, 220). Reply Br. 4—5. Rather,
7
Appeal 2017-006296
Application 13/632,210
we note Cheung discloses that “the composition information includes depth
values of object of 3D model 205.” See Cheung 119. Thus, Cheung’s “3D
model [provided by the content engine] already contains (embedded/
multiplexed) composition information [content information]” such as depth
values. Ans. 15. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that Cheung’s
content information is present at, and is provided by, the content engine as
information embedded in the content engine’s 3D model. Ans. 15.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not persuaded us of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 15.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 8, Appellants argue on the
same basis as independent claim 15 (see App. Br. 6—7; Reply Br. 3).
Similarly to claim 15, claims 1 and 8 also do not require the content
information to bypass the renderer,. See claim 1 (“receiving from an
application . . . content information related to a content of the frame of video
data[] from a content engine, . . . and changing an encoding of the frame of
video data based upon the encoder control information” obtained by
“transforming the content information into encoder control information”),
and claim 8 (“an encoding engine,” and “a transform function” that is
“coupled to said encoding engine and configured to: receive a signal
representing content information . . . from a content engine coupled to the
encoding engine, . . . transform the content information into encoder control
information, and control operation of the encoding engine using the encoder
control information”). App. Br. 11—13 (Claims App’x). Thus, for the same
reasons as claim 15, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 8,
8
Appeal 2017-006296
Application 13/632,210
and dependent claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 17, and 18, for which no substantive
arguments are provided. App. Br. 8.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, and
20, Appellants provide substantially the same arguments as for claims 1, 8,
and 15, and additionally argue that Piehl, Bando, Ishtiaq, and Zhao do not
cure the alleged deficiencies of Titus and Cheung. App. Br. 9. Because we
find Titus and Cheung are not deficient, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, and 20 for the same reasons as
claims 1, 8, and 15.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—20 under
35U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we affirm the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9