UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2016-002121
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`___________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION OF THE
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. JOHN R. GRINDON
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-00215 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2016-002121
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`___________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION OF THE
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. JOHN R. GRINDON
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-00215 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Google submits this response to Vedanti’s Motion For Observation Of
`
`Cross-Examination Of Dr. John R. Grindon (Paper 31) pursuant to the Scheduling
`
`Order (Paper 9).
`
`
`
`Response to Observation No. 1
`
`Dr. Grindon testified during his cross examination that he has “extensive
`
`experience” with frequency transforms (Ex. 2025, 13:2-17) of which “DCT is a
`
`fine-tuned variant” (id., 13:18-21, 15:1-7), and worked as a consultant assessing
`
`technology involving DCT (id., 17:17-18:5). Dr. Grindon also testified that he had
`
`formal coursework in transform methods (id., 42:11-43:2), which provides an
`
`understanding of “frequency transform methods of which the DCT is one” (id.,
`
`10:18-11:8). Dr. Grindon testified that such DCT variants would be “immediately
`
`apparent to anyone with as extensive a background as I have but certainly also
`
`immediately apparent to someone with much less experience than I have.” (Id.,
`
`15:13-23.) Vedanti does not point to any aspect of DCT which Dr. Grindon failed
`
`to understand or could not explain.
`
`The above testimonies negate Vedanti’s suggestion in its Observation No. 1
`
`that formal coursework specifically
`
`in DCT
`
`is necessary
`
`to understand
`
`Thyagarajan.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Response to Observation No. 2
`
`Contrary to Vedanti’s assertion in its Observation No. 2, Dr. Grindon
`
`testified that he specifically has experience with DCT image compression working
`
`as a consultant (Ex. 2025, 17:17-18:5). As discussed above with respect to
`
`Vedanti’s Observation No. 1, Dr. Grindon also testified at length that he has an
`
`extensive background in frequency transforms, of which DCT is but one. Again,
`
`Vedanti does not point to any aspect of DCT image compression which Dr.
`
`Grindon failed to understand or could not explain.
`
`
`
`Response to Observation No. 3
`
`Dr. Grindon
`
`testified
`
`that he had formal coursework
`
`in “general
`
`compression” in his undergraduate (University of Missouri) and graduate studies
`
`(M.I.T. and Washington University). (Ex. 2025, 42:4-43:5; Ex. 1004 (Dr.
`
`Grindon’s CV)). Dr. Grindon testified that he also had formal coursework in
`
`transform methods, sample data systems, communications theory, information
`
`theory and statistical processes (Ex. 2025, 42:4-43:5), which “are the building
`
`block technologies of compression” (id., 43:6-20). Dr. Grindon further testified
`
`that aside from perhaps information theory, he has work experience as an engineer
`
`in all of the above technologies including “image compression.” (Id., 19:19-20:7
`
`(referring to his declaration, Ex. 1030, ¶ 16).)
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Given that Vedanti’s POSA standard only requires either coursework or
`
`work experience in general compression (Paper 15, p. 12), the above testimonies
`
`negate Vedanti’s suggestion that Dr. Grindon is somehow not a POSA under
`
`Vedanti’s POSA standard (Paper 31, Observation No. 3).
`
`
`
`Response to Observation No. 4
`
`Contrary to Vedanti’s assertion, when Dr. Grindon was asked whether he
`
`was suggesting the use of “some different algorithm or approach to subdividing
`
`than is taught in Thyagarajan” in combining Belfor and Thyagarajan, Dr. Grindon
`
`answered, “No.” (Ex. 2025, 35:15-20.) Dr. Grindon explained how Belfor is
`
`combined with Thyagarajan in his initial declaration (Ex. 1029) at, for example,
`
`paragraphs 88-99, and provided additional clarification in his supplemental
`
`declaration (Ex. 1030) at, for example, paragraphs 71-85. As Dr. Grindon testified
`
`during cross examination, “in Thyagarajan we have the frame division … Then
`
`applying that division approach to Belfor would allow Belfor to use non-uniform
`
`blocks.” (Ex. 2025, 35:7-14.)
`
`The above testimonies refute Vedanti’s allegation that Dr. Grindon is
`
`somehow suggesting that something different is needed than what is described in
`
`his declarations to combine Belfor and Thyagarajan (Paper 31, Observation No. 4).
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Response to Observation No. 5
`
`Vedanti offers a vague suggestion in its Observation No. 5 that a frame
`
`subdivision performed by the methods of Thyagarajan or Golin as combined with
`
`Belfor would not produce regions having similar spatial frequency. But Vedanti
`
`fails to point to any evidence to show that would be the case. And, Vedanti has not
`
`identified any specific contradictions between Dr. Grindon’s cross examination
`
`testimony and his declarations for how Belfor would be combined with
`
`Thyagarajan as well as with Golin.
`
`Vedanti’s Observation No. 5 simply does not support its suggestion that
`
`Thyagarajan’s or Golan’s subdivision approach cannot be simply substituted with
`
`Belfor’s subdivision approach.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
` /
`
` Michael Messinger /
`
`
`Michael V. Messinger, Reg. No. 37,575
`Michelle K. Holoubek, Reg. No. 54,179
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`Date: January 24, 2017
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PETITIONER’S
`
`RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION OF
`
`THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. JOHN R. GRINDON was served
`
`electronically via e-mail on January 24, 2017, in its entirety on the following:
`
`Robert M. Asher
`John J. Stickevers
`Brandon Scruggs
`SUNSTEIN KANN MURPHY & TIMBERS LLP
`125 Summer Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`Tel: (617) 443-9292
`Fax: (617) 443-0004
`rasher@sunsteinlaw.com
`jstickevers@sunsteinlaw.com
`bscruggs@sunsteinlaw.com
`sunsteinip@sunsteinlaw.com
`
`
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
` /
`
` Michael Messinger /
`
`
`Michael V. Messinger
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Registration No. 37,575
`
`Michelle K. Holoubek
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Registration No. 54,179
`
`
`
`Date: January 24, 2017
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
