Nvidia CorporationDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 18, 20212020000063 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/043,978 02/15/2016 Thrinadh Kottana 14-BG-0317-US01 7439 102469 7590 05/18/2021 PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./Nvidia 14241 DALLAS PARKWAY SUITE 620 DALLAS, TX 75254 EXAMINER HOSSAIN, FARZANA E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/18/2021 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): docket@pj-iplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THRINADH KOTTANA, VINAYAK PORE, CHIRAYU GARG, and SOUMEN KUMAR DEY Appeal 2020-000063 Application 15/043,978 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and MATTHEW J. MCNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner rejected claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nvidia Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-000063 Application 15/043,978 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Examiner rejected claims 1–20 in the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) as follows: Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–12, and 14–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Tokumo et al. (US 2009/0262837 A1, published Oct. 22, 2009) (“Tokumo”). Final Act. 4. Claims 4, 7, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Tokumo and Nguyen et al. (US 2010/0150232 A1, published Jun. 17, 2010) (“Nguyen”). Final Act. 9. Independent claim 1 is representative and copied below: 1. A video viewing device, comprising: a screen; a decoder configured to decode a data frame received in a bitstream from a transmitter to provide a decoded data frame; and an error concealer configured to discard said decoded data frame when a content complexity of said decoded data frame is higher than a content complexity threshold and select said decoded data frame for display on said screen when said content complexity of said decoded data frame is lower than said content complexity threshold. REJECTIONS Anticipation The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–12, and 14–19 as anticipated by Tokumo. The Examiner found that Tokumo describes a video viewing device with a screen, decoder, and error concealer, the same three elements required by independent claim 1. Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner further found that the error concealer described by Tokumo uses a complexity threshold to determine whether to discard or select a frame for Appeal 2020-000063 Application 15/043,978 3 display, citing paragraph 75 of Tokumo for its discussion of using a threshold to determine when to display a frame. Final Act. 5. A “content complexity threshold” is required by the last clause of claim 1. The Examiner also generally cited paragraphs 62–75 in Tokumo to support the finding that Tokumo anticipates claim 1. Id. Appellant argues that paragraph 75 of Tokumo describes discarding frames based on the number of error blocks in a frame. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant contends that “the number of error macro blocks is not one of the frame statistics used to determine the content complexity (see, e.g., par. 19 of the specification).” Id. at 6–7. Appellant further argues that the number of error macro blocks in a frame “cannot be reasonably interpreted as a statistic related to the content complexity because the content complexity can vary irrespective of the number of error macro blocks.” Id. at 7. Rather, Appellant argues that error blocks are used by Tokumo to determine image quality. Id. The Examiner responds that while “error macro blocks,” as described by Tokumo in paragraph 75, are not listed in the Specification as a frame statistic indicative of content complexity, “limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.” Ans. 9–10. The Examiner also responded that Appellant “did not indicate what a content complexity is in the claim.” Ans. 10. The issue before us is whether Tokumo describes using a content complexity threshold to determine when to discard and when to select a decoded data frame of a bitstream, as required by the last clause of claim 1. We begin with claim interpretation because before a claim can be compared to the prior art, its scope must be understood. During patent examination proceedings, claim terms are given “the broadest reasonable Appeal 2020-000063 Application 15/043,978 4 meaning . . . in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim 1 is directed to a video viewing device with a screen, a decoder, and an error concealer. As explained in the Specification, in streaming games over the cloud for playing on a remote device, the game output is in the form of a video stream, which is typically encoded into packets (the “bitstream” in claim 1). Spec. ¶ 2. The packets are transferred to the client device for viewing. Id. The claimed “screen” is the device component on which the video stream is viewed. The encoded bitstream received by the device must be decoded into frames for it be viewed on the screen. This step is performed by the claimed “decoder.” The Specification explains that packets may be lost during streaming which results in “stutters during game play and severe corruption.” Spec. ¶ 4. To compensate for these losses, error concealment methods are used. Id. The claimed “error concealer” performs this function on the decoded bitstream. The Specification further explains, in its description of the invention, that “the subjective video quality of the final outcome of the conventional [error] concealing methods at the client/receiver is highly dependent on the complexity of the video/game content” and can result in frame corruption of not only the received frame but in subsequent frames. Spec. ¶ 16. The Specification states that “the existing methods for hiding streaming errors fail to consider the complexity of the streaming content.” Spec. ¶ 17. To Appeal 2020-000063 Application 15/043,978 5 address this problem, the Specification discloses that it “provides a quality aware error concealment (QEC) scheme that understands the complexity of the video or game content and intelligently determines whether a frame of the video or game content should be dropped or can be used as a reference frame.” Spec. ¶ 18. This solution described in the Specification is performed by the claimed “error concealer” which is “configured to discard” the decoded data frame “when a content complexity of said decoded data frame is higher than a content complexity threshold” and “select said decoded data frame for display on said screen when said content complexity of said decoded data frame is lower than said content complexity threshold.” Thus, the claimed method uses the “content complexity” of the decoded bitstream frames to determine when to drop a frame or when to select a frame for display on a screen. By dropping or discarding a frame when the complexity is higher than a threshold value, the Specification states that the claimed method “reduces frame corruption and error propagation while also reducing frame stutters of the streaming video or game content.” Spec. ¶ 18. The Specification describes complexity as follows: In various embodiments disclosed herein, the complexity of streaming content is understood by examining statistics from the bit stream of the streaming content and decoded frames of the streaming content. Complexity can be estimated using frame statistics such as average bits per macroblock, motion information, number of inter/intra macro-blocks in the frame, etc. Frame statistics used for estimating complexity can be generated during the decoding process at the client side or can be sent from the server. One skilled in the art will understand that the above noted statistics are not exhaustive; other statistics can be incorporated into the QEC logic disclosed herein to estimate complexity. Spec. ¶ 19. Appeal 2020-000063 Application 15/043,978 6 The error concealer 230 is further configured to determine the complexity based on a frame statistic or statistics of the data frame. In one embodiment, the frame statistics include at least one of or a combination of the following core statistics: average bits per macro-block in the data frame, motion information (horizontal or vertical), number of inter macro-blocks in the data frame, number of intra macro-blocks in the data frame, bitrate (BR) and the number of skipped macro-blocks. Additional statistics, such as PSNR [peak signal-to-noise ratio] between consecutive data frames of the data frame, can also be used to determine complexity. Spec. ¶ 37. We agree with the Examiner that limitations from the Specification are not ordinarily imported into the claims. Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, “[c]laims must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc). A proper claim construction analysis endeavors to assign a meaning to a disputed claim term “that corresponds with . . . how the inventor describes his invention in the specification.” In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In this case, the Specification describes “complexity” as being determined based on frame statistics of the decoded bit stream. Spec. ¶¶ 19, 37. Various examples of the frame statistics are disclosed in the Specification, including “average bits per macro-block in the data frame, motion information (horizontal or vertical), number of inter macro-blocks in the data frame, number of intra macro-blocks in the data frame, bitrate (BR) and the number of skipped macro-blocks.” Spec. ¶ 37. The Specification explains that mentioned statistics are not “exhaustive” and that “[a]dditional statistics . . . can also be used to determine complexity.” Spec. ¶¶ 19, 37. Appeal 2020-000063 Application 15/043,978 7 Nonetheless, from the description of frame statistics in the Specification, it can be discerned that “content complexity” corresponds to certain attributes of the frame, such as macro-block and motion information. We next turn to the dispositive issue in this rejection of whether the error-blocks described in Tokumo are indicative of content complexity as we interpret this term in light of the Specification. The Examiner cited paragraph 75 of Tokumo as disclosing content complexity and using it to determine when to discard and when to select a frame for viewing. Paragraph 75 of Tokumo is reproduced below: If the number nE of the error macro blocks is greater than a predetermined threshold T2 (nE> T2), the frame may be discarded without performing the concealment. This can prevent the image quality from deteriorating due to displaying a frame including an extremely large number of errors. Tokumo ¶ 75. Tokumo does not define “error macro blocks.” Tokumo shows a decoded frame having 99 blocks in total, where the blocks in the frame are categorized as intra-macro blocks, inter-macro blocks, and error macro blocks. Tokumo ¶¶ 65–69; Fig. 5. The inter- and intra-blocks, as indicated by Appellant, are used by Tokumo to determine an “image for concealment.” Id. ¶¶ 72, 74, 76. The Examiner did not cite them as indicative of content complexity for determining when to discard or select a frame. The error macro blocks are used to determine when to discard a frame. Id. ¶ 75. The Examiner, however, did not explain how “error” blocks are a measure of “complexity,” when complexity is described in the Specification with respect to attributes of the frame, such as “average bits per macro-block in the data frame, motion information (horizontal or vertical), number of inter macro-blocks in the data frame, number of intra Appeal 2020-000063 Application 15/043,978 8 macro-blocks in the data frame, bitrate (BR) and the number of skipped macro-blocks.” Spec. ¶ 37. Although the Examiner characterized the number of error blocks in Tokumo as part of the “statistics” related to a frame (see Ans. 10), the Examiner did not consider the type of statistics associated with a frame complexity, as described in Appellant’s disclosure cited above. The Specification discloses that “existing methods for hiding streaming errors fail to consider the complexity of the streaming content.” Spec. ¶ 17; see supra. 4–5. Thus, the Specification distinguishes between errors and complexity. The Examiner did not address this difference in how the terms are used in the Specification. “An examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, the claim requires discarding a decoded frame “when a content complexity of said decoded data frame is higher than a content complexity threshold” and selecting “said decoded data frame for display on said screen when said content complexity of said decoded data frame is lower than said content complexity threshold.” The claim therefore uses “content complexity” to determine when to discard a frame and when to select a frame. The Examiner did not adequately explain how the “error macro block” described in Tokumo represents content complexity as required by the claim, when the inventors used “content complexity” to describe an attribute of a frame (Spec. ¶¶ 19, 37) and used the term “error” is a different context (Spec. ¶ 17). See Smith, 871 F.3d at 1383. A claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 when publication “disclose[s] all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document” and “arranged as in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Appeal 2020-000063 Application 15/043,978 9 Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Because the Examiner did not establish that error macro blocks is an attribute of complexity as required by the claim 1, we are compelled to reverse the anticipation rejection. Independent claims 8 and 15 also require complexity threshold to discard a frame and therefore are reversed for the same reasons. Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9–12, 14, and 16–19 incorporate the limitations of the independent claims and are reversed for the same reasons. Obviousness The Examiner further cited Nguyen for limitations in dependent claims 4, 7, 13, and 20. The Examiner found that Nguyen discloses an error concealer that receives complexity information from a transmitter, such as frame statistics. Final Act. 9. However, the Examiner did not explain, based on the combination of Tokumo and Nguyen, why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a complexity threshold to determine when to discard and select a frame as required by the claim. Accordingly, the obviousness rejection of claims 4, 7, 13, and 20 is reversed. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5, 6, 8– 12, 14–19 102 Tokumo 1–3, 5, 6, 8– 12, 14–19 4, 7, 13, 20 103 Tokumo, Nguyen 4, 7, 13, 20 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation