Ex Parte Callway et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2016

09923768 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
09/923,768 08/06/2001
29153 7590 03/23/2016
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.
C/O Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
311 S. WACKER DRIVE
Suite 4300
CHICAGO, IL 60606
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Edward G. Callway
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.
00100.00.0820 9391
EXAMINER
SHEPARD, JUSTINE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2016 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):
amddocketinternal@faegrebd.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDWARD G. CALLW A Y and DAVID GLEN
Appeal2014-003872
Application 09/923,768
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 15-20 and 24--29.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ATI Technologies
ULC. (App. Br. 3.)
2 In addition to claims 15-20 and 24--29, claim 31 is also pending. The
Examiner objected to claim 31 as being dependent upon a rejected claim, but
found claim 31 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. (Final
Act. 19-20; Ans. 20-21.)
Appeal2014-003872
Application 09/923,768
EXEMPLARY CLAIMS
Claims 15, 26, and 28 are exemplary and are reproduced below.
15. A method for providing image data for a wireless
monitor comprising:
in a device:
processing graphics drawing commands to render
graphics data using a first processor to produce rendered
graphics image data and storing the rendered graphics image
data to a frame buff er;
retrieving the rendered graphics image data from the
frame buff er over a local bus using a second processor;
determining whether a wireless display mode has been
selected;
in response to selection of the wireless display mode,
encoding, by the second processor, the retrieved rendered
graphics image data to produce encoded graphics image data;
and
sending the encoded graphics image data to a wireless
monitor using a short range wireless transmitter in response to
selection of the wireless display mode.
26. A method for processing graphics and video
compnsmg:
recompressing a received compressed video stream to
produce a recompressed video stream; and
transmitting wirelessly said recompressed video stream
with graphics drawing commands, wherein the graphics
drawing commands when processed produce graphics data.
28. A method for providing image data for a wireless
display comprising:
receiving, via a short range wireless receiver, a
recompressed video stream and graphics drawing commands,
wherein the graphics drawing commands when processed
produce graphics data;
2
Appeal2014-003872
Application 09/923,768
decompressing the received recompressed video stream
to produce decompressed image frames;
processing the wirelessly received graphics drawing
commands to produce rendered graphics image data; and
displaying the decompressed image frames and graphics
image data on a local display.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hannah (US 6,771,704 Bl; issued Aug. 3, 2004), Deering
(US 6,525,725 Bl; issued Feb. 25, 2003), and Slobodin (US 2002/0196378
Al; published Dec. 26, 2002). (Final Act. 5-8.)
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hannah, Deering, Slobodin, and Margulis (US 6,263,503
Bl; issued July 17, 2001). (Final Act. 8-9.)
Claims 20, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hannah, Deering, Margulis, and Slobodin. (Final
Act. 10-15.)
Claims 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hannah and Deering. (Final Act. 2--4.)
Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hannah, Deering, and Margulis. (Final Act. 15-19.)
3
Appeal2014-003872
Application 09/923,768
ISSUES
The issues raised by Appellants' arguments are:
Did the Examiner err by improperly combining Hannah and Deering
to find claim 26 obvious?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Hannah and
Deering teaches or suggests "processing graphics drawing commands ...
using a first processor" and "retrieving the rendered graphics image data ...
using a second processor," as recited in claims 15 and 20?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Hannah and
Deering teaches or suggests "sending the encoded graphics image data to a
wireless monitor using a short range wireless transmitter," as recited in
claim 15?
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Hannah, Deering,
and Margulis teaches or suggests "processing the wirelessly received
graphics drawing commands to produce rendered graphics image data," as
recited in claim 28?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Action (Final Act. 2-19) from which this appeal is
taken and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief (see Ans. 21-25). We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
4
Appeal2014-003872
Application 09/923,768
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 26
Appellants argue the rejection of claim 26 is in error because the
combination of Hannah and Deering is improper. (App. Br. 13-21.)
Specifically, Appellants argue "the motivation provided has no basis in the
cited portions of the reference[ s] or the claims." (Id. at 17 .)
We are not persuaded that the Examiner's motivation to combine the
cited references is improper. In identifying a reason that would have
prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the prior
art teachings, the Examiner must provide articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Here, the Examiner
finds, and we agree, Hannah teaches a system with an enhancement block
which adds a graphical overlay to a decompressed video image to create an
enhanced image; the enhanced image is then recompressed and transmitted
to a remote display. (Ans. 21 (citing Hannah 1:41--46, 2:13-26, 2:49-56,
Fig. 1 ). ) The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Deering teaches a
technique, OpenGL, for creating computer graphic images using graphic
commands. (Id. at 21-22 (citing Deering 3:41-57, 5:48-61, 6:61-65).) The
Examiner combines Hannah and Deering in order to "implement a graphical
overlay on a TV signal" by using Deering's OpenGL technique "to create
and add the graphic overlay" for Hannah's enhanced image. (Final Act. 3
(citing Deering 3:41-57); Ans. 22.)
The Examiner's reason to combine Hannah and Deering is rational
because Deering teaches a technique for creating an image, OpenGL, which
would have been obvious to use to create Hannah's enhanced image.
Furthermore, Appellants' arguments that the Examiner's
5
Appeal2014-003872
Application 09/923,768
motivation is not found in Deering or Hannah (App. Br. 16-17) is
unpersuasive because the Examiner's reason for combining references need
not come from the references themselves. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 419 ("The
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the
importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.").
Additionally, we disagree with Appellants' argument that the motivation
provided by the Examiner is not related to the subject matter of the claim.
(App. Br. 16-17.) The limitations at issue describe the production of a video
stream and the Examiner's motivation, creating an overlay for an enhanced
video stream by using OpenGL (Ans. 22), is similarly directed to the
production of a video stream. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the
Examiner's motivation to combine Hannah and Deering is unrelated to the
subject matter of the claim.
Additionally, Appellants argue the combination of Hannah and
Deering is improper because the combination would change Hannah's
principle of operation. (App. Br. 17-20.) Specifically, Appellants argue
Hannah teaches a "set top box [ ] add[ s] the graphical overlay to a received
video image," but the combination with Deering results in a system in which
"data sources-not set top box manufacturers would add drawing commands
in the stream for graphic overlays to the video content." (Id. at 19-20.)
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, we agree with the
Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to use Deering's
graphic creation technique to create Hannah's enhanced image; that is, the
application of Deering's OpenGL graphic commands would have been
6
Appeal2014-003872
Application 09/923,768
implemented by the enhancement block within Hannah's set top box. (Ans.
22.) Appellants' argument that the Examiner combines the references so
that "drawing commands [are] somehow applied by the data source" (App.
Br. 19) is not responsive to the Examiner's findings and mischaracterizes the
Examiner's combination. The Examiner's combination does not apply
graphic overlays through the data source; instead, the combination applies
graphic overlays through Hannah's enhancement block using Deering's
graphic creation technique. (Ans. 22.) Accordingly, we are not persuaded
the combination of Hannah and Deering changes Hannah's principle of
operation.
Additionally, Appellants argue the combination of Hannah and
Deering is improper because the combination "render[ s] the operation of
Hannah unsatisfactory for its intended purpose." (App. Br. 21.)
Specifically, Appellants argue the combination "would require that the
drawing commands would actually be transmitted with recompressed
video," but doing so is "unsatisfactory for Hannah's intended purpose since
the intended purpose of Hannah is to create the video overlay within the set
top box 100 and use motion vector hints 108 along with motion vectors 118
to perform substantially fewer computations for the compression of the
enhanced image." (Id. at 20-21.)
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, we agree with the
Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to apply Deering's
graphic creation technique to create Hannah's enhanced image through
enhancement block 104. (Ans. 22.) That combination would not alter
Hannah's encoder 106, which transmits compressed enhanced images and
motion vectors for the enhanced image. (See id. at 22-23 (citing Hannah
7
Appeal2014-003872
Application 09/923,768
6:58---64).) Appellants' argument, that the combination "would deny
[Hannah's] use of motion vector hints," (App. Br. 21) is unpersuasive
because the combination does not modify how the enhanced video is
encoded and sent (i.e., with motion vectors) and instead modifies how the
enhanced video is created. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the
combination of Hannah and Deering would render Hannah unsatisfactory for
its intended purpose.
Additionally, Appellants argue the combination of Hannah and
Deering does not teach or suggest "transmitting ... graphics drawing
commands." Specifically, Appellants argue "the term 'graphics drawing
commands' appear[ s] in the claims not simply 'graphics'" but the Examiner
"simply uses the words 'graphics' as opposed to ... graphics drawing
commands." (Reply Br. 1-2 (emphasis omitted).)
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, the Examiner finds that it
would have been obvious to apply Deering's technique, which uses graphics
drawing commands, to create an enhanced image for transmission as taught
in Hannah. (Ans. 22.) Contrary to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner
finds Deering teaches graphics drawing commands which are used to render
Hannah's graphics. (Final Act. 3 (citing Deering 6:61---65).) Appellants'
arguments are not persuasive of error because "one cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where ... the rejections are
based on combinations of references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCP A 1981) (citation omitted). Furthermore, the Examiner also finds that
motion vectors are transmitted by Hannah (Ans. 23 (citing Hannah 6:58-64);
Hannah 8:36-46), and we find that Hannah's motion vectors are graphics
drawing commands (e.g., they are used to generate the transmitted enhanced
8
Appeal2014-003872
Application 09/923,768
image). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by finding
the combination of Hannah and Deering teaches or suggests
"transmitting ... graphics drawing commands," within the meaning of claim
26.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner's decision to reject claim 26, and we sustain that
rejection.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 15 and 20
Appellants argue Hannah does not teach "processing graphics drawing
commands ... using a first processor" and "retrieving the rendered graphics
image data ... using a second processor," as recited in claims 15 and 20.
(App. Br. 22-24, 26-27.) Specifically, Appellants argue Hannah does not
teach or suggest a first and a second processor because the Examiner cites
"the same processor 104 ... for performing both the processing and
retrieving operations whereas the claim recites two different processors."
(Id. at 23.) Appellants further argue Hannah does not teach a second
processor because the Examiner "alleges that the second processor is both
parts 104 and 106." (Id. at 24.) Appellants also argue Hannah does not
teach a second processor because "enhanced image 114" is not a processor.
(Id. at 27.)
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
enhancement block "104 of Hannah would be the first processor" which
"receive[s] the decompressed image 112 in order to add graphic overlays to
the image 112" to create an enhanced image. (Ans. 24; Final Act. 5 (citing
Hannah 2:49-56).) The Examiner further finds, and we agree, encoder "106
would be the second processor" which retrieves the enhanced image from
9
Appeal2014-003872
Application 09/923,768
enhancement block 104 and re-encodes the enhanced image for transmission
to a remote display. (Ans. 24; Final Act. 5 (citing Hannah Fig. 1, part 106).)
Therefore, Appellants' arguments that the Examiner relies on enhancement
block 104 to teach both first and second processors are not persuasive
because the Examiner finds enhancement block 104 is the first processor and
separately finds encoder 106 is the second processor. (Ans. 24.)
Furthermore, Appellants' arguments that the Examiner relies on two
processors, enhancement block 104 and encoder 106, to teach the second
processor is also not persuasive because the Examiner identifies encoder 106
as the second processor (id.). Moreover, Appellants' arguments that
enhanced image 114 does not teach the second processor is not persuasive
because the Examiner cites encoder 106 as teaching the limitation
"encoding, by the second processor," and enhanced image 114 as teaching
the claimed "rendered graphics image data" (see Final Act. 1 O; Ans. 24).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by finding Hannah
teaches or suggests "processing graphics drawing commands ... using a first
processor" and "retrieving the rendered graphics image data ... using a
second processor," within the meaning of claims 15 and 20.
Additionally, Appellants argue Deering does not teach "sending the
encoded graphics image data to a wireless monitor using a short range
wireless transmitter," as recited in claim 15. (App. Br. 24.) Specifically,
Appellants argue that the Examiner finds that "Deering teaches sending
'graphics drawing commands'" in claim 26, but claim 15 "refers to
displayable image data." (Id.) Appellants argue, because the Examiner
relies on Deering to teach both graphics drawing commands and image data,
the Examiner uses Deering "in an inconsistent manner" and the Examiner
10
Appeal2014-003872
Application 09/923,768
does not "give different meanings to different claim terms." (Id.)
Appellants further argue "Deering [ ] makes no mention of sending rendered
image data to a wireless monitor using a short range wireless transmitter."
(Id. at 24--25.)
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, the Examiner finds that
Hannah teaches a system which creates an enhanced video for transmission
to a remote display. (Final Act. 3 (citing Hannah 2:27-33, 2:49-56).) The
Examiner further finds, and we agree, Deering teaches using a wireless link
to couple a system to a remote display. (Id. at 6 (citing Deering 5:48-55).)
The Examiner concludes, and we agree, it would have been obvious to use
Deering' s wireless link to transmit Hannah's enhanced image from its
system to its remote display. (Id.; see also Ans. 24.)
The Examiner does not inconsistently apply Deering as argued by
Appellants. Rather, the Examiner relies on two separate portions of Deering
to teach two separate concepts-namely, using graphic drawing commands
to create images (Final Act. 6 (citing Deering 6:61---65)) and, separately,
using wireless transmission to transmit information to a display (id. (citing
Deering 5:48-55)). Furthermore, Appellants' argument that Deering alone
fails to teach wirelessly transmitting image data is not persuasive because
the Examiner's rejection is based on the combination of Hannah and
Deering. The Examiner relies on Hannah to teach the transmission of an
enhanced image and relies on Deering to teach or suggest that the
transmission of that enhanced image is wireless. (Final Act. 5---6.)
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by finding the
combination of Hannah and Deering teaches or suggests "sending the
encoded graphics image data" within the meaning of claim 15.
11
Appeal2014-003872
Application 09/923,768
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner's decision to reject claims 15 and 20, and we sustain
those rejections.
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 28
Appellants argue Margulis does not teach "processing the wirelessly
received graphics drawing commands to produce rendered graphics image
data," as recited in claim 28. (App. Br. 28-29.) Specifically, Appellants
argue "[t]here is no mention of any graphics drawing commands nor their
use in the cited portions of Margulis." (Id. at 29.)
We are not persuaded because the Examiner's rejection is based on a
combination of references. As discussed supra, the Examiner finds the
combination of Hannah and Deering teaches or suggests using OpenGL
drawing commands to create an enhanced image; the enhanced image is
subsequently recompressed with associated motion vectors and wirelessly
transmitted to a remote display. (Final Act. 16-17 (citing Hannah 2:27-33,
2:49-56; Deering 3:41-57, 6:61---65).) The Examiner further finds, and we
agree, Margulis teaches a system which receives and processes a stream of
compressed data to "generate display data and display video for presentation
on remote TV." (App. Br. 19 (citing Margulis 13:33-37).) The Examiner
concludes, and we agree, it would have been obvious to use Margulis'
system, which processes received compressed data for display, in order to
display the recompressed video and graphics drawing commands sent by the
Hannah and Deering combination. (Ans. 25.)
Appellants' argument, that Margulis does not teach received drawing
commands, improperly attacks Margulis in isolation when the Examiner's
12
Appeal2014-003872
Application 09/923,768
rejection is based on the combination of Hannah, Deering, and Margulis.
Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in finding the combination of Hannah, Deering, and Margulis teaches
or suggests "processing the wirelessly received graphics drawing commands
to produce rendered graphics image data," as recited in claim 28.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner's decision to reject claim 28, and we sustain that
rejection.
Claims 16--19, 24, 25, 27, and 29
Appellants do not argue separate patentability for independent claims
24, 27, and 29. (App. Br. 21, 27, 29-30.) Appellants also do not argue
separate patentability for dependent claims 16-19 and 2 5, which depend
directly or indirectly from claim 15 or 24. (Id. at 25, 28.) For the reasons
set forth above, therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting these claims. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir.
2011) ("We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37
to require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they wish
for individual claims to be treated separately."). Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejections of claims 16-19, 24, 25, 27, and 29. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision to reject claims 15-20
and 24--29 is affirmed.
13
Appeal2014-003872
Application 09/923,768
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
14