Andre Slupik et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 17, 2019

14806025 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2019)

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.
14/806,025 07/22/2015 Andre SLUPIK P1485US01 2155
39500 7590 09/17/2019
Anglehart et al.
1939 de Maisonneuve Ouest
Montreal, QUEBEC H3H 1K3
CANADA
EXAMINER
LE, PETER D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2019 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):
james.anglehart@anglehart.et-al.ca
martine@anglehart.et-al.ca
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ANDRE SLUPIK and XAVIER BERARD1
________________

Appeal 2017-010950
Application 14/806,025
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an Appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1–9. An oral hearing was held August 13, 2019. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Appellant is the Applicant and real party in interest, Genetec Inc. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-010950
Application 14/806,025

2

Summary of the disclosure
The Specification discloses a “system to perform processing
operations of input (video) streams.” Abstract.
Illustrative claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A security system video monitoring workstation for
processing and displaying a plurality of streams of encoded or
compressed video, the workstation comprising:
a multi-core central processing unit (CPU);
a data network interface;
a display control device comprising at least one graphics
processing unit (GPU) having multiple hardware cores
configured for video decoding multiple video streams;
memory storing instances of a GPU codec driver executable by
said CPU and each configured to send one of said streams of
encoded or compressed video to said at least one GPU with
instructions to decode said one of said streams and to display
said one of said streams in a predetermined tile of a display;
memory storing instances of at least one video codec program
module executable by said CPU and configured to decode a
format of encoded or compressed video and to send decoded
video image data to said at least one GPU for scaling and
output in a predetermined tile of a display;
memory storing a stream receiving and dispatching program
module executable by said CPU and configured to receive said
plurality of streams of encoded or compressed video from said
data network interface and to selectively relay each one of said
streams to either one of said GPU codec driver instances or to
one of said video codec program module instances; and
memory storing a control program module executable by said
CPU and configured to detect a processing error or failure of
one of said GPU codec driver instances handling a given one of
said streams and, in response to said error or failure, cause
said stream receiving and dispatching program module to relay
said given one of said streams to one of said video codec
Appeal 2017-010950
Application 14/806,025

3

program module instances with instruction to display said
given one of said streams in a same predetermined tile of said
display.
Examiner’s rejection and references
The Examiner rejects claims 1–9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mabey (US 2009/0290645 A1; published Nov. 26, 2009),
Nasoff et al. (US 2003/0189581 A1; published Oct. 9, 2003) (“Nasoff”), and
Cox et al. (US 2008/0303946 A1; published Dec. 11, 2008) (“Cox”). Final
Act. 11–20.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds Mabey’s storage
of computer executable instructions for performing processes related to
encoding of video content, in combination with Cox’s determination
whether a video source is valid and Nasoff’s tiled window images, teaches
or suggests detecting a processing error or failure of a GPU codec driver
instance handling a stream and, in response to the error or failure, causing
a stream receiving and dispatching program module to relay the stream to a
video codec program module instance with instruction to display the stream.
Final Act. 14–15 (citing, e.g., Mabey ¶¶ 39–41, Figs. 3, 4; Cox ¶ 128, Fig.
10; Nasoff ¶ 24, Fig. 2A). The Examiner, in particular, relies on Cox to
teach “‘in response to said error or failure’ in Fig. 10: Ref. 1008 and ‘relay
said given one of said stream to one of said video codec program module
instances’ in Fig. 10: Ref. 1012, 1014, and 1006.” Ans. 14.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the relied upon
disclosure of Cox merely teaches signal validation “used to determine
whether a valid input has been received” (Appeal Br. 15) and, if no valid
Appeal 2017-010950
Application 14/806,025

4

signal is received, to display internally-created images (id. at 16). Appellant
argues that “Cox deals with the absence of a valid signal on the port by
accepting no input from the port and therefore does nothing with an ‘invalid’
video signal.” Id. at 18. Appellant contrasts this with the claimed invention,
which Appellant argues “detect[s] an error or failure of a GPU codec that is
handling a stream, and redispatch[es] the stream to a software codec.”
Reply Br. 2.
We agree with Appellant the Examiner erred. In the Final Action, the
Examiner relies on disclosures in Cox related to detecting that an external
video source is valid and displaying the external video source on a display.
See Final Act. 15 (Cox “Fig. 10: Ref 1010 shows that in response to
validation of [a] correct video format, the video source is relayed to [a]
GPU codec for display”). Relaying a video source to a GPU codec for
display because the video format of the video source is correct (i.e., is valid)
does not teach or suggest responding to an error or failure in the stream; the
video format of the video source being correct is not an error or failure.
In the Answer, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Cox of the
external video source being invalid. Ans. 14 (citing Cox, Fig. 10, Refs.
1006, 1008, 1012, 1014). When the external video source in Cox is found to
be invalid, however, Cox merely waits at step 1012, determines if a timeout
has been exceeded at step 1014, and, if the timeout has not been exceeded,
again determines if the external video source is valid at step 1006. Cox, Fig.
10. If the timeout has been exceeded, then Cox powers down the computer
at step 1016. Id. Thus, Cox does not respond to an invalid video source by
relaying the video source (i.e., the stream) to a video codec module instance
Appeal 2017-010950
Application 14/806,025

5

with instructions to display the stream. Rather, Cox periodically tests the
video source to see if becomes valid before a timeout expires.
The teachings and suggestions of Cox that the Examiner relies on
either do not relate to responding to an error or failure (Final Act. 15) or do
not relate to responding to an error or failure by relaying the video stream in
the claimed manner (Ans. 14), and the Examiner does not show that the
combination of the relied on features of Cox teaches or suggests the disputed
recitations. Moreover, the Examiner does not rely on Mabey or Nasoff to
cure this deficiency in Cox. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner does not show that the combination of Mabey, Cox, and Nasoff
teaches or suggests the recitations of
detect[ing] a processing error or failure of one of said GPU
codec driver instances handling a given one of said streams and,
in response to said error or failure, caus[ing] said stream
receiving and dispatching program module to relay said given
one of said streams to one of said video codec program module
instances with instruction to display said given one of said
streams,
as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–9, which contain similar recitations and
which the Examiner rejects based on similar findings and conclusions. Final
Act. 11–20.
DECISION
We do not sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–9.
REVERSED