QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 28, 2022

2020005093 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2022)

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. 15/845,862 12/18/2017 Ye-Kui Wang 1414-342US01/171300 1008 15150 7590 02/28/2022 Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 EXAMINER SUH, JOSEPH JINWOO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2022 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): ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte YE-KUI WANG and GEERT VAN DER AUWERA Appeal 2020-005093 Application 15/845,862 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use “Appellant” to reference the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “QUALCOMM Incorporated.” Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-005093 Application 15/845,862 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s Invention The present invention “relates to the processing and transmission of virtual reality (VR) video, such as 360-degree video.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of argued subject matter. 1. A method of processing video data, the method comprising: receiving 360-degree video data; receiving one or more first syntax elements indicating preferred regions-of-interest or preferred viewports of the 360-degree video data; receiving one or more second syntax elements, different from the one or more first syntax elements, that indicate a preferred rendering operation for rendering the preferred regions-of-interest or preferred viewports, wherein the preferred rendering operation renders the preferred regions-of-interest based on an aspect ratio of a display or renders the preferred viewports based on the aspect ratio of the display; and rendering the 360-degree video data based on the preferred rendering operations. Appeal Br. 16. Rejections Claims 1-7, 9-16, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (US 2016/0337706 A1; Nov. 17, 2016), Budagavi (US 2016/0142697 A1; May 19, 2016), and Carlos (US 2016/0320936 A1; Nov. 3, 2016). Final Act. 3-10. Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang, Budagavi, Carlos, and Gleicher (US 8,218,895 B1; July 10, 2012). Final Act. 10-11. Appeal 2020-005093 Application 15/845,862 3 Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang, Budagavi, Carlos, and Cook (US 2017/0249920 A1; Aug. 31, 2017). Final Act. 11-12. Claims 22-28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang, Budagavi, Carlos, and Amano (US 2016/0219606 A1; July 28, 2016). Final Act. 12-17. Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang, Budagavi, Carlos, Amano, and Gleicher. Final Act. 18-19. ANALYSIS All claims are rejected as obvious. Final Act. 3-19. For the following reasons, Appellant presents no error by the Examiner. We therefore sustain all rejections. The contentions of Appellant and the Examiner address only claim 1 on the merits. Appeal Br. 7 et seq.; Ans. 19 et seq.; Reply Br. 5 et seq. We accordingly present the issues with reference to claim 1. Appellant contends: . . . The Final Office Action cited to [Hwang’s] cropping coordinate values . . . as allegedly teaching both of Appellant’s first and second syntax elements. At paragraph [123], Hwang describes that “[a]n embodiment . . . may transmit cropping coordinate values for dividing a panoramic image [of] arbitrary size [among] receivers[.]” Hwang further describes that “[those] receivers may receive the entire panoramic image, decode the panoramic image[,] and then crop the panoramic image using the cropping coordinate values.” . . . In this context, . . . the cropping coordinate values of Hwang cannot be both the first and second syntax elements of Appellant’s claim[ed] . . . first syntax elements [“]indicating preferred regions-of-interest . . . of the 360-degree video data[]” . . . [and] second syntax elements “indicat[ing] a preferred Appeal 2020-005093 Application 15/845,862 4 rendering operation for rendering the preferred regions-of-interest . . . based on an aspect ratio of a display[;]” . . . the second syntax elements [thus being] different from the first syntax elements. . . . Hwang fails to teach or suggest the[se] features of Appellants claim[ 1.] . . . Furthermore, the cropping coordinate values of Hwang do not in any way indicate a preferred rendering operation for a preferred region-of-interest . . . , much less indicate a preferred rend[er]ing operation that “renders the preferred regions-of-interest based on an aspect ratio of a display . . . ,” as is recited in Appellant’s claim 1. Hwang’s cropping coordinate values simply do not indicate any rendering operations[.] Appeal Br. 8-9 (footnote omitted). Appellant also provides “[n]on-limiting [Specification] examples of [the invention’s] rendering operations” and then contends “the [Examiner’s] interpretation of [the claimed] preferred rendering operation to be the same as Hwang’s cropping coordinate values is not . . . consistent with [the S]pecification.” Id. at 9, 10. Before addressing Appellant’s contentions, we will explain the Examiner’s pertinent findings and our agreement therewith. We do so with reference to Hwang’s Figure 8, which is reproduced below and illustrates a diagram of Hwang’s cited panorama service (i.e., the embodiment described by paragraph 123). Hwang ¶¶ 39, 122. Appeal 2020-005093 Application 15/845,862 5 Hwang’s Figure 8 is reproduced below: As shown, the four “cropping coordinates” of “extraction info metadata” (Figure 8) represent the four corners of an image that is extracted from an encompassing “panorama service” image (shown as grayscale). See Hwang ¶ 123. The Examiner corresponds the two x-values of the cropping coordinates to the claimed first syntax elements and the two y-values of the cropping coordinates to the claimed second syntax elements. Final Act. 3; Ans. 19. The Examiner proposes, in view of Carlos, to choose the cropping coordinates such that the extracted image (i.e., cropped image) has the same aspect ratio as the receiving device’s display. Final Act. 4. As is claimed, the proposed system’s x-values and y-values of the cropping coordinates are “syntax elements” (claim 1) because: the x-values represent an x-vector range (a first property) of the coordinate system (for the panoramic image); and the y-values represent a y-vector range (a second property) of the coordinate system. See “syntax.” Merriam Webster Dictionary, available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/syntax “[Hwang’s] FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating a panorama service composition of scenario 2 according to an embodiment of the . . . invention.” Hwang ¶ 39. Appeal 2020-005093 Application 15/845,862 6 (last visited Feb. 11, 2022) (defining “syntax” as “syntactics[-]especially as dealing with the formal properties of . . . calculi”). The x-values and y-values are also “different” (claim 1) syntax elements because their respectively represented vectors (x-vector range and y-vector range) are orthogonal vectors. Further, the two x-values are “first syntax elements indicating [a] preferred region[]-of-interest . . . of the 360-degree video data” (claim 1) because the two x-values define the spanned region-of-interest (ROI) within the panoramic image. That is, the two x-values set the panoramic ROI that is defined along the panned direction (and forms a vertical band of the panoramic view). And further, the two y-values are “second syntax elements indicating a preferred rendering operation for rendering the preferred region[]-of-interest . . . based on an aspect ratio of a display” (claim 1) because the two y-values define the rendered (i.e., displayed) portion of the panoramic ROI and comport with the aspect ratio of the receiving device’s display. That is, the two y-values control the rendering of the panoramic ROI so as to produce a rendered portion having an x-y ratio (x-direction length and y-direction width) equal to the display’s aspect ratio. Contrary to Appellant’s above contentions, the y-values “indicate a preferred rendering operation . . . [that] renders the preferred region[]-of-interest based on an aspect ratio of a display” (claim 1). The y-values indicate a “rendering operation” by indicating how, and namely what portion of, the panoramic ROI will be rendered on the receiving device’s display. The rendering operation is “preferred” because it comports with, and also is “based on,” the aspect ratio of the display (i.e., the desired Appeal 2020-005093 Application 15/845,862 7 ratio). And, consistent with Appellant’s Specification examples of rendering operations, this a “rendering operation[] . . . used in situations where [the] preferred ROI[] . . . [is] adjusted to fit the size and/or aspect ratio of a user’s display.” Spec. ¶ 8 (“general[izing]” the disclosed examples of rendering operations). Also contrary to Appellant’s above contentions, the x-values and y-values are “different” (claim 1) syntax elements because they constitute different characteristics of the coordinate system. See, e.g., Sorensen v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 427 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[The] claim . . . requires that the first and second materials have ‘different characteristics.’ . . . [A]ny difference in characteristics . . . would satisfy the claim language[, e.g.,] . . . a difference in color alone[.]”). In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends the x-values and y-values are nonetheless not different types of syntax elements. Reply Br. 7. As Appellant fails to present good cause for raising this argument in the Reply Brief, we will not address whether claim 1 requires the first syntax elements and second syntax elements to be different types of syntax elements. See Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“An expanded panel was convened in this appeal to consider whether arguments that could have been presented in the Principal Brief on Appeal, but were not, may be presented in the Reply Brief in the absence of a showing of good cause. We conclude . . . 37 C.F.R. § 41 (2009) . . . do[es] not require the Board to consider such belated arguments.”). We add, however, Appellant also fails to present a reason (e.g., evidence) to construe “different” (claim 1) syntax elements as different types of syntax elements. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 Appeal 2020-005093 Application 15/845,862 8 (CCPA 1974) (“The fatal defect in this argument is that there is no competent evidence which would negate the [Office’s] conclusion[.]”). In addition to the foregoing contentions, Appellant further contends that an artisan would not have consulted both Hwang and Carlos because “Hwang addresses problems related to transceiving a broadcast signal for panorama service[,] whereas Carlos addresses problems related to consistent display of digital assets for collaboration software.” Appeal Br. 11-12. We are unpersuaded because an artisan would have recognized that both Hwang and Carlos teach adapting of an image to a receiving device. Hwang explains that its broadcast signal is “about the image” (Hwang ¶¶ 9, 10, 16), “may include information for cropping the panoramic image” (id. ¶ 15), and may include information for cropping the image to the aspect ratio of a receiving device’s display (id. ¶¶ 123-24). Carlos explains that its sharing of digital assets also concerns adapting of an image to a receiving device and, as part thereof, may include fitting of the image to the aspect ratio of the receiving device’s display. Carlos ¶¶ 3, 5-6. Given these similarities, an artisan would recognize that Carlos’ teachings may present advantages for Hwang’s invention and particularly for the invention’s adapting of the panoramic image to the aspect ratio of a receiving device’s display (Hwang ¶ 124). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-30. Appeal 2020-005093 Application 15/845,862 9 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-7, 9-16, 18, 20, 21 103 Hwang, Budagavi, Carlos 1-7, 9-16, 18, 20, 21 8, 17 103 Hwang, Budagavi, Carlos, Gleicher 8, 17 19 103 Hwang, Budagavi, Carlos, Cook 19 22-28, 30 103 Hwang, Budagavi, Carlos, Amano 22-28, 30 29 103 Hwang, Budagavi, Carlos, Amano, Gleicher 29 Overall Outcome 1-30 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). AFFIRMED