Ex Parte Emerson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2014

11209527 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte THEODORE F. EMERSON, ROBERT L. NOONAN,
DAVID F. HEINRICH, and DON DYKES
____________

Appeal 2011-008542
Application 11/209,527
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008542
Application 11/209,527

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-24, and 26-35.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to a method for providing graphical,
textual, or other data to a remote management system (see Spec. ¶ [0023]).
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. A remote management controller comprising:
a capture engine configured to obtain a slice of video
data output from a video graphics controller, said slice
comprising multiple portions with multiple pixels comprising
each portion, said capture engine is further configured to
calculate a single value that is correlative to all of the pixels in
each portion of the slice of video data, a separate single value
calculated for each portion, and, if the calculated value for any
portion of the slice differs from a value for a previously
obtained corresponding portion, move the portion to
corresponding portion in a virtual screen buffer utilizing a
Direct Memory Access (DMA) engine and update a first table
associated with the virtual screen buffer with the calculated
value, wherein the first table is configured to store values for
each slice of video data; and
a processor configured to access the video data from the
virtual screen buffer, calculate a single value correlative to all
of the pixels in each portion of video data in the virtual screen
buffer, a separate single value calculated for each such portion,
and process the portion of video data in the virtual screen buffer
for transmission to a remote system if the calculated value for

1 Claims 4, 15, and 25 have been canceled.
Appeal 2011-008542
Application 11/209,527

3
the portion of video data in the virtual screen buffer differs
from the calculated value for the corresponding portion of video
data stored in a second table associated with an image related to
the remote system.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-14, 17-24, 26-31, and 33-35 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coleman (US 2004/0042547
A1; Mar. 4, 2004) and Valmiki (US 2004/0056864 A1; Mar. 25, 2004). (See
Ans. 3-9).
Claims 11, 16, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Coleman, Valmiki, and Gordon (US 6,651,252 B1;
Nov. 18, 2003). (See Ans. 9-10).
The Examiner relies on Coleman for disclosing the remote
management controller of claim 1 except for the use of Direct Memory
Access, for which the Examiner relies on Valmiki (Ans. 4-5). The Examiner
further concludes that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, at
the time of Appellants’ invention, to incorporate the teachings of Valmiki
into the process taught by Coleman in order to provide faster transfer of
graphics data without occupying processor time (Ans. 5).
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants argue that each of Coleman’s calculated average values is
a separate average value for each and every pixel in the current frame buffer
rather than the claimed “single value that is correlative to all of the pixels in
each portion of the slice of video data” (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 1).
Additionally, Appellants contend Coleman does not teach separate steps of
moving a portion of a captured slice to the virtual screen buffer based on a
comparison of the calculated value to a previously calculated value for that
Appeal 2011-008542
Application 11/209,527

4
portion and processing a portion of video for transmission from the virtual
screen buffer to a remote system based on another computation and use of a
particular value (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 1). Appellants specifically assert
Coleman determines whether a block of pixels has changed by computing an
average pixel value for each pixel, aggregating all averages over a threshold,
and if the total aggregated value exceeds a total threshold, then determining
that the block has changed and transmitting the changed block to a local
computer (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 1). Appellants also contend Coleman
does not teach first storing changed blocks in a virtual screen buffer and then
again computing the values to determine whether a block in the virtual
screen should be transmitted to a remote system (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 2).
Issue on Appeal
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-14, 17-24, 26-
31, and 33-35 by determining that Coleman’s calculated average values is
the claimed “single value that is correlative to all of the pixels in each
portion of the slice of video data” and that the reference provides for a multi-
step process?

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 action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal 2011-008542
Application 11/209,527

5
Appeal Brief (see Ans. 10-12). However, we highlight and address specific
arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
The Examiner properly determined the compression process of
Coleman is performed on each pixel block until the entire image has been
compressed (Ans. 10 (citing Coleman ¶ [0137])). Coleman, in fact, divides
an image into a plurality of pixel blocks, each containing a plurality of
pixels, which are filtered to reduce the number of colors in each block by
converting less frequently occurring pixel colors to more frequently
occurring colors (see ¶¶ [0124], [0126]). As further stated by the Examiner
(Ans. 10), Coleman performs a difference test on each block of pixels stored
in a frame buffer by comparing each block to a corresponding block of the
previous frame (¶ [0137]). Therefore, Coleman performs image
representation, compression, filtering, and update checks on blocks of pixels,
rather than for each pixel, as Appellants urge (see Reply Br. 1).
We also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 11) that paragraphs 130-32 of
Coleman describe a process including noise reduction and color code
conversion, followed by comparing the most recent block value in the buffer
against the value in the cache and sending the new block to the local
computer if there is a change between blocks. The Examiner also correctly
finds this represents a two-step process by which blocks of pixels are
sequentially stored, analyzed, and valued in the buffer and if there is a
change between subsequent block values the new block value is sent to a
computer.
With respect to the teachings of Gordon, we also agree with the
Examiner’s findings and conclusion. As found by the Examiner, Gordon’s
capture engine “tracks slices of video data to ensure that all slices of a video
Appeal 2011-008542
Application 11/209,527

6
image have been scanned before previously scanned slices are re-scanned,”
as recited in claims 11, 16, and 32 (Ans. 11-12). Furthermore, Gordon scans
slices in the predictive-coded guide and the video portion wherein the guide
portion slices remain unchanged and are marked as skipped macro blocks
(col. 9, ll. 25-39). As such, since the unchanged slices are skipped, it
follows that the new slices differing from those in a previous time period are
scanned before scanning the unchanged guide slices.
Appellants’ contentions in support of the patentability of independent
claims 12 and 22 are focused on similar arguments raised for claim 1, which
are discussed above and found to be unpersuasive. Similarly, the remaining
claims have been argued based on their dependency from their
corresponding base claims, allowing those claims to fall with representative
claim 1.

CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us, we conclude that, because the references
teach or suggest all the disputed claim limitations, the Examiner has not
erred in rejecting the claims as being obvious over Coleman and Valmiki, or
in further combination with Gordon.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-24, and
26-35 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2011-008542
Application 11/209,527

7
AFFIRMED

bab