`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 8
`
` Filed: May 20, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Petitioner, Google Inc. (“Google”), filed a Petition (“Pet.”) (Paper 2)
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,974,339 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’339 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 311–19. Patent Owner, Vedanti Systems Limited (“Vedanti”), filed a
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Director may not authorize an inter
`
`partes review unless the information in the petition and preliminary response
`“shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the
`reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1, 6, 7, 9,
`10, 12, and 13 of the ’339 patent on the asserted ground of unpatentability
`presented.
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`Both parties identify the following proceeding related to the ’339
`
`patent (Pet. 3, 59; Paper 5, 2): Max Sound Corp. v. Google, Inc., No. 5:14-
`cv-04412 (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 1, 2014).1 Google was served with this
`complaint on November 20, 2014. See Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1021). The ’339
`
`
`1 In Max Sound, plaintiff Max Sound Corporation (“Max Sound”) sued
`Google and others for infringement of the ’339 patent. Ex. 1011, 1–2.
`Although Max Sound listed Vedanti as a co-plaintiff at the outset of the
`case, Max Sound later alleged Vedanti was a defendant. See id. at 1; Order,
`Max Sound Corp. v. Google, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-04412 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 24,
`2015), ECF No. 139, 3–4. The court dismissed the action for lack of subject
`matter jurisdiction after determining Max Sound did “not demonstrate[e]
`that it had standing to enforce the ’339 patent at the time it initiated th[e]
`action, with or without Vedanti as a party.” See id. at 9. Max Sound has
`appealed the dismissal. See Notice of Appeal, Max Sound Corp. v. Google,
`Inc., No. 3:14-cv-04412 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2016), ECF No. 150. In its
`mandatory notices pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, Vedanti states that it owns
`the ’339 patent and that the Max Sound case was “filed without
`authorization” by Max Sound. Paper 5, 2.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`patent is also the subject of another petition for inter partes review in Case
`IPR2016-00215. Pet. 59; Paper 5, 2.
`
`Google also identifies a second action among the same parties that
`was dismissed without prejudice voluntarily: Vedanti Sys. Ltd. v. Google,
`Inc., No. 1:14-cv-01029 (D. Del. filed Aug. 9, 2014). See Pet. 3 n.1 (citing
`Exs. 1009, 1010), 59 (citing Ex. 1010). We agree with Google (see id. at 3
`n.1) that, as a result of the voluntary dismissal without prejudice, this
`Delaware action is not relevant to the bar date for inter partes review under
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b). See Oracle Corp. v. Click-to-Call Techs., LP, Case
`IPR2013-00312, slip. op. at 15–18 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2013) (Paper 26)
`(precedential in part).
`
`The ’339 patent
`B.
`The ’339 patent is directed to “us[ing] data optimization instead of
`
`compression, so as to provide a mixed lossless and lossy data transmission
`technique.” Ex. 1001, 1:36–39. Although the embodiments in the patent are
`described primarily with reference to transmitting frames of video data, the
`Specification states that the described optimization technique is applicable to
`any type of data. See Ex. 1001, 1:50–52, 4:44–46, 4:60–62, 7:42–45, 9:54–
`56. Figure 1 of the ’339 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts system 100 for transmitting data having data transmission
`system 102 coupled to data receiving system 104. Id. at 2:47–49.
`Data transmission system 102 includes frame analysis system 106 and
`pixel selection system 108. Id. at 2:65–67. The frame analysis system
`receives data grouped in frames, and then generates region data that divides
`frame data into regions. Id. at 1:42–46. Regions can be uniform or non-
`uniform across the frame, and regions can be sized as symmetrical matrices,
`non-symmetrical matrices, circles, ellipses, and amorphous shapes. Id. at
`5:54–6:3. Figure 10 of the ’339 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 10 depicts segmentation of an array of pixel data where the regions
`are non-uniform matrices. Id. at 10:38–41. The pixel selection system
`receives region data and generates one set of pixel data for each region, such
`as by selecting a single pixel in each region. Id. at 1:46–49. In Figure 10
`above, the “X” in each matrix represents a selected pixel. Id. at 10:24–29,
`10:47–52. Transmission system 102 then transmits matrix data and pixel
`data, thereby “reduc[ing] data transmission requirements by eliminating data
`that is not required for the application of the data on the receiving end.” Id.
`at 3:13–15, 7:63.
`Data receiving system 104 further includes pixel data system 110 and
`display generation system 112. Id. at 3:35–36. Pixel data system 110
`receives region data and pixel data and assembles frame data based on the
`region data and pixel data. Id. at 4:32–34. In turn, display generation
`system 112 receives frame data from pixel data system 110 and generates
`video data, audio data, graphical data, textual data, or other suitable data for
`use by a user. Id. at 4:44–46.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`C.
`
`Claim 1
`Claim 1 of the ’339 patent is illustrative of the challenged claims and
`recites:
`1.
`
`A system for transmitting data transmission comprising:
`a analysis system receiving frame data and generating
`region data comprised of high detail and or low detail;
`a pixel selection system receiving the region data and
`generating one set of pixel data for each region forming a new
`set of data for transmission;
`a data receiving system receiving the region data and the
`pixel data for each region and generating a display;
`wherein the data receiving system comprises a pixel data
`system receiving matrix definition data and pixel data and
`generating pixel location data;
`wherein the data receiving system comprises a display
`generation system receiving pixel location data and generating
`display data that includes the pixel data placed according to the
`location data.
`Ex. 1001, 10:62–11:9.
`
`D.
`
`The Prior Art
`Google relies on the following prior art:
`Spriggs et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,791,486, filed Feb. 3,
`1986, issued Dec. 13, 1988 (Ex. 1005, “Spriggs”); and
`Golin et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,225,904, filed Dec. 4, 1991,
`issued July 6, 1993 (Ex. 1006, “Golin”).
`
`
`E.
`
`The Asserted Ground
`Google challenges claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Spriggs and Golin. Pet. 3, 24–58.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`F.
`Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review, we construe claims by applying the broadest
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`see also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–78 (Fed. Cir.
`2015), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct.
`890 (mem.) (2016). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard,
`and absent any special definitions, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech. Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim
`terms or phrases must be set forth “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness,
`and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`For purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, we
`construe certain claim terms or phrases as follows.
`
`“region” and “matrix”
`1.
`Google contends a “region” is a “division of a frame,” Pet. 13,
`whereas Vedanti contends a “region” is “a contiguous group of pixels within
`a frame.” Prelim. Resp. 13. As such, both parties agree that a region is a
`part of a frame, which we conclude is consistent with the usage of “region”
`in the Specification. We therefore consider whether a frame must also be “a
`contiguous group of pixels.”
`Vedanti asserts “a region is the result of an analysis of pixels to
`determine if they share common information and should be part of the same
`region.” Id. Vedanti further asserts the “frame analysis system” creates
`regions “based upon a comparison of pixel data, such as [a comparison of]
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`adjacent pixel data to a threshold in order to determine if a pixel location
`should be included within a region.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 8:26–44).
`Although we agree with Vedanti that the Specification of the ’339 patent
`describes the use of adjacent pixel comparison to create regions, we do not
`agree that pixel comparison—and, by extension, region creation—is
`expressly limited to adjacent or contiguous pixels. See Ex. 1001, 5:52–53
`(“[O]ther suitable pixel variation detection functionality can be provided.”).
`Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we decline to adopt Vedanti’s
`language regarding contiguous pixels and conclude a “region” is a “division
`of a frame.”
`Regarding the term “matrix,” both parties agree that a “matrix” is a
`type of “region,” though Vedanti does not propose an express construction
`for “matrix.” Pet. 16–17; Prelim. Resp. 13–14. Google further contends a
`“matrix” is a “region with square or rectangular dimensions.” Pet. 16–17.
`This is consistent with the Specification, which gives examples of
`symmetrical (square) and nonsymmetrical (rectangular) matrices. See
`Ex. 1001, 4:1–6 (cited at Pet. 17), 5:60–62 (quoted at Prelim. Resp. 14).
`Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we construe “matrix” to mean “a
`region with square or rectangular dimensions.”
`
`“region data,” “matrix data,” and “matrix definition data”
`2.
`The parties propose the following constructions of these terms:
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`Google’s Proposed
`Construction
`None.
`
`Term
`
`region data
`(claims 1, 10,
`12, 13)
`
`Vedanti’s Proposed
`Construction
`Data that defines the region
`including the size, shape,
`and location of the region
`within a frame. Prelim.
`Resp. 14–15.
`Data that defines the region
`including the size, shape,
`and location of the region
`within a frame, wherein the
`region is a matrix. Prelim.
`Resp. 14–15.
`Data that defines the region
`Uniform matrix dimensions
`such as the size, shape, and
`or non-uniform matrix
`location. Prelim. Resp. 15–
`dimensions and sequences.
`16.
`Pet. 17–18.
`Starting our analysis with “matrix data,” both parties’ proposed
`constructions relate to data defining the proportions of a matrix. Pet. 17–18;
`Prelim. Resp. 14–15. This comports with the Specification’s statement that,
`“[i]n one exemplary embodiment, the matrix data can include a matrix size,
`a region size, a region boundary for amorphous regions, or other suitable
`data.” Ex. 1001, 9:8–11. Vedanti’s construction also includes “location of
`the region within a frame,” which is consistent with the notion of a “region
`boundary” in this statement. Nevertheless, the Specification does not
`require that “matrix data” must include all of these markers for a particular
`defined region, so we consider them to be exemplary. Accordingly, for
`purposes of this Decision, we interpret “matrix data” to mean “data that
`defines at least one matrix.” For similar reasons, and because a matrix is a
`type of a region, see supra Section I.F.1, we interpret “region data” to mean
`“data that defines at least one region.”
`
`matrix data
`(claims 7, 9,
`12)
`
`Uniform matrix dimensions
`or non-uniform matrix
`dimensions and sequences.
`Pet. 17–18.
`
`matrix
`definition
`data (claim 1)
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`Regarding “matrix definition data” in claim 1, we observe that this
`recitation is similar to “region data” because both ultimately are received by
`the “data receiving system.” See Ex. 1001, 11:1–5. For purposes of this
`Decision, we adopt the same construction as for “matrix data,” namely,
`“data that defines at least one matrix.”
`
`“pixel selection data” and “selection pixel data”
`3.
`Google contends these terms, which appear in claims 7 and 10, should
`be construed as “selected pixel data transmitted without any further
`processing for each region in a frame.” Pet. 18. Google argues the
`Specification of the ’339 patent states data need not “be compressed at the
`sending end and decompressed at the receiving end” because data
`optimization is used “to transmit only the data that is necessary for the
`application, such that decompression of the data on the receiving end is not
`required.” Id. at 18–19 (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:55–60) (emphases added by
`Google). Google also highlights that, in order to overcome an Examiner’s
`anticipation rejection during prosecution of the patent, the Applicants of the
`’339 patent argued “the generated set of pixel data is selected directly . . .
`and will be transmitted without any further processing, due to the fact that
`the applicants[’] invention does not compress nor decompress data.” Id. at
`9, 19 (both quoting Ex. 1002, 591) (emphasis omitted).
`Vedanti contends these terms should be construed as “pixel data
`representative of a region of a frame for transmission to a receiver.” Prelim.
`Resp. 18. Vedanti cites the Specification’s disclosure that a pixel selection
`system “selects one or more pixels within a predefined matrix or other
`region for transmission in an optimized data system.” Id. at 19 (quoting Ex.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`1001, 4:12–14). Vedanti also disputes the “without any further processing”
`language in Google’s proposed construction. Id. Specifically, Vedanti
`references a statement in the Specification describing the use of the ’339
`patent’s data optimization techniques “in conjunction with a compression
`system, a frame elimination system, or with other suitable systems or
`processes to achieve further savings in bandwidth requirements.” Id.
`(quoting Ex. 1001, 5:3–8).
`We agree with Vedanti that the Specification of the ’339 patent
`describes the possibility of further data processing beyond data optimization.
`See Ex. 1001, 5:3–8. Thus, even though certain portions of the Specification
`of the ’339 patent—and certain arguments in the prosecution history—
`mention that it is possible to optimize data without further processing, other
`portions of the Specification nonetheless contemplate the possibility of
`additional processing after optimization. Because the Specification does not
`foreclose expressly upon additional processing in all cases, we decline to
`adopt the “without any further processing” language in Google’s
`construction. The remaining language in the parties’ proposed constructions
`is similar; both parties acknowledge the selection of pixels relates to
`transmission and that pixel selection is done on a region-by-region basis.
`Pet. 18; Prelim. Resp. 18. This is supported by the Specification, which
`refers to the selection of “one or more pixel[s] within a predefined matrix or
`other region for transmission in an optimized data transmission system.” Ex.
`1001, 4:12–14. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we construe
`“pixel selection data” and “selection pixel data” as “data pertaining to one or
`more pixels from a region selected for transmission.”
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`
`A.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`We now consider Google’s asserted ground and Vedanti’s arguments
`in its Preliminary Response to determine whether Google has met the
`“reasonable likelihood” threshold standard for institution under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a). Google’s unpatentability contentions are supported by the
`testimony of John R. Grindon, D.Sc. See Ex. 1003.
`Google contends claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 would have been
`obvious over the combination of Spriggs and Golin. Pet. 3, 20–58. Vedanti
`disputes Google’s contention. Prelim. Resp. 22–30.
`
`Spriggs
`Spriggs is directed to “image coding and transmission” using “a non-
`uniform sample structure in which non-transmitted p[ix]els are interpolated.”
`Ex. 1005, 1:7–8, 2:3–5. The number of points selected for transmission is
`greatest in detailed areas of the image. Id. at Abstract.
`Starting with an existing block of pixels, such as a full frame, Spriggs
`discloses calculating a new block in which all pixels “are represented by
`values linearly interpolated from the corner values” of the block. Id. at
`2:28–32, 2:43–45. Pixels in the existing block then are compared with the
`interpolated values to determine if there are any differences in excess of a
`threshold. Id. at 2:32–35. If the differences exceed the threshold, the
`existing block is divided into two subblocks, and the interpolation and
`comparison process is repeated on the subblocks. Id. at 2:48–54. This
`process continues until subdivision is no longer necessary (because the
`difference is less than the threshold) or possible. Id. at 2:58–60. Figure 3 of
`Spriggs is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 depicts a block that has undergone this subdivision process “where
`the greatest number of subdivisions wil[l] occur at edges or over fine detail.”
`Id. at 2:55–57. Blocks that have finished this subdivision process can be
`reconstructed in the receiver as “a good approximation to the original” based
`on the interpolated values. Id. at 2:37–43.
`Figure 6 of Spriggs is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 6 depicts “an image area together with the resulting coded output.”
`Id. at 3:63–64. The ones and zeros on the left side of the coded output are
`“division codes”; “0” corresponds to a block that can be interpolated from its
`corner values, whereas “1” corresponds to a block that must be subdivided.
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`Id. at 3:2–5, 3:64. The codes such as “SA, SB etc.” in the middle “indicate
`sample values corresponding to points A, B etc.” Id. at 3:63–65. When
`subdivision of a block is completed, the addresses and values of the corner
`points are transmitted. Id. at 2:32–38. The letters in brackets on the right,
`which do not need to be transmitted, indicate the corresponding area to
`which the information on the left corresponds. Id. at 3:65–68.
`
`Golin
`Golin is directed to “video signal processing generally and
`particularly to systems for reducing the amount of digital data required to
`represent a digital video signal to facilitate uses, for example, such as the
`transmission, recording and reproduction of the digital video signal.”
`Ex. 1006, 1:10–15. A coder splits a video frame “into a number of small
`groups of similar pixels” called “regions.” Id. at 11:44–46. “For each
`region a code is produced for representing the values of all pixels of the
`region.” Id. at 11:46–47. Figure 26 of Golin is reproduced below.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 26 depicts a “quad-tree decomposition” wherein regions are split in
`both horizontal and vertical directions. Id. at 13:40–49. Golin also
`describes a “roughness” estimator for detecting region edges in the pixel
`data based on large changes in adjacent pixels, i.e., when the values of
`adjacent pixels differ by more than a threshold value. Id. at 19:34–44, Fig.
`18. If edges are present in a region, the region is split horizontally or
`vertically. Id. at 20:47–63. Golin also states that “multipoint interpolation
`techniques” can be used as an alternative way of determining roughness. Id.
`at 20:64–66.
`
`C. Obviousness Analysis for Claims 1, 6, and 13
`Claims 1, 6 and 13 are unpatentable “if the differences between the
`subject matter [claimed] and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
`whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a).2 Google’s obviousness analysis relies on Spriggs for
`teaching the recited analysis system, pixel selection system, and data
`receiving system. Pet. 24–32. Google only relies on Golin in conjunction
`with Spriggs with respect to the limitation “generating region data
`comprised of high detail and or low detail.” Id. at 26–30. Specifically,
`although Google cites Spriggs for teaching block subdivision using pixel
`interpolation, id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:36–47, 2:50–54, 2:56–59), Google
`notes that Spriggs’s comparison of pixels “is based on a derived
`interpolation value [and] not a direct comparison of an amount of variation
`between pixels.” Id. Thus, Google cites Golin’s teachings on a roughness
`test for detection of region edges by comparing the differences of adjacent
`pixels with a threshold value. Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1006, 19:34–38, 19:41–
`43, 20:52–55, 20:61–63). Google argues (1) an ordinarily skilled artisan
`would have recognized Golin’s direct pixel comparison to be
`interchangeable with Spriggs’s interpolated pixel variation analysis based
`on, inter alia, Golin’s teaching that these two schemes are alternative types
`of “roughness” tests, and (2) an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had
`reason to use Golin’s processing in the system of Spriggs. Id. at 28–29
`(citing Ex. 1006, 20:64–66).
`Considering Google’s analysis and submitted evidence, and Vedanti’s
`Preliminary Response, we are satisfied there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Google would prevail in showing claim 1 would have been obvious over the
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’339 patent has an
`effective filing date before the effective date of the applicable AIA
`amendment, throughout this Decision we refer to the pre-AIA version of 35
`U.S.C. § 103.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`combination of Spriggs and Golin. We add the following for additional
`explanation.
`Although Vedanti acknowledges the combination of Spriggs and
`Golin may teach generating “region data,” see Prelim. Resp. 26, Vedanti
`contends these references do not teach “a subsequent step for generating
`‘pixel data’ for each region in a ‘pixel selection system’ as required by claim
`1.” Id. at 22. Vedanti characterizes Google’s obviousness analysis as
`having conflated “the term ‘region data’ with the term ‘pixel data’ to attempt
`to show both when only one is present.” Id.
`Based on the current record, however, we are not persuaded that claim
`1 requires “region data” to be separate and distinct from “pixel data” in the
`way suggested by Vedanti. Google maps “the blocks as defined by the
`corner coordinates and values” that are produced by Spriggs’s “recursive
`region forming process” to “region data.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 106–
`10). Further, with reference to Figure 6 of Spriggs, Google maps the
`exemplary “values in the middle such as ‘SA SB SC SD’ [that] indicate
`pixel coordinates and values corresponding to the points A, B, C, and D” to
`the “pixel data” that are generated in claim 1. Id. at 30–31 (citing Ex. 1005,
`3:63–64, Fig. 6). As such, Vedanti appears to object to Google’s common
`mapping of Spriggs’s pixel value data to both the recited “region data” and
`“pixel data.” Yet claim 1 recites that “a pixel selection system receiv[es] the
`region data and generat[es] one set of pixel data for each region.” This
`relationship is reflected in Google’s analysis, wherein Google cites Spriggs
`for teaching a pixel selection system that receives corner coordinates and
`pixel values and generates a set of pixel values. See id. at 30. On this
`record, Vedanti has not persuaded us that it is inconsistent or improper for
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`Google to consider Spriggs’s corner coordinates and values to be “region
`data” generated by an analysis system and the values depicted in Figure 6 of
`Spriggs to be “pixel data” generated by a pixel selection system.
`In a similar fashion, Vedanti argues Spriggs does not teach a “pixel
`selection system,” because Spriggs has no system for receiving region data
`and generating pixel data. Prelim. Resp. 24. Vedanti also argues Spriggs
`does not teach “[a]n algorithm corresponding to a ‘pixel selection system’
`receiving region data to generate pixel data.” Id. at 22. According to
`Vedanti, no pixel selection is necessary in Spriggs because the corner pixel
`data is always included as part of the region data. Id. at 24–25.
`Again, we are not persuaded by Vedanti’s arguments based on the
`current record. Claim 1 does not require that the pixel selection system must
`employ a specific algorithm for selecting pixels. It only requires that the
`pixel selection system “generat[e] one set of pixel data for each region
`forming a new set of data for transmission.” Ex. 1001, 10:65–67.
`Furthermore, Google maps Spriggs’s selection of “corner pixel values” for
`transmission to the “pixel selection” of claim 1. Pet. 30. This selection is
`analogous to the process described in the Specification of the ’339 patent,
`which states the pixel selection system may select pixels “in accordance with
`a predetermined sequence.” Ex. 1001, 4:11–19. In Spriggs, the sequence is
`to send corner pixel values in conjunction with a region being divided. See
`Ex. 1005, 2:36–47, Fig. 6 (cited at Pet. 30, 32–34).
`Vedanti additionally argues Google’s mapping of a “transmitter with
`processor 14” in Spriggs’s Figure 5 to the recited “pixel selection system” is
`made “without support.” Prelim. Resp. 26 (citing Pet. 30). Vedanti
`contends that “[t]he frame store of the transmitter receives and stores image
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`frames of pixel data. It does not receive region data as asserted by the
`Petition and as required by the claims for a pixel selection system.” Id.
`Vedanti’s argument appears to be premised on its notion that processor 14 in
`the “transmitter for coding” of Spriggs’s Figure 5 cannot be regarded as part
`of both the recited “analysis system” and “pixel selection system.” We are
`not persuaded by this argument based on the current record. Google argues
`that the coder shown in Spriggs’s Figure 5 (including processor 14) is an
`“analysis system” as recited in claim 1, and processor 14 is a “pixel selection
`system” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 26–31. Based on that mapping, we do
`not see anything in Spriggs that would prevent processor 14 from
`performing functions of both the analysis system and the pixel selection
`system in the way posited by Google. This is particularly true in light of
`Google’s showing that Spriggs teaches “generating region data” and
`“generating . . . pixel data” as discussed above.
`Finally, Vedanti argues that Google’s mapping of elements from
`Spriggs does not realize “a number of advantages that are possible with the
`’339 claimed invention,” including deciding the number of pixels to transmit
`on a region-by-region basis, randomly selecting pixels, and using regions
`that are shaped differently than rectangles. Prelim. Resp. 25. Although
`these features may be mentioned in the Specification of the ’339 patent, they
`are not required by any limitation in claim 1. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
`1348 (CCPA 1982) (stating that limitations not appearing in the claims
`cannot be relied upon for patentability). Because Vedanti’s argument is not
`commensurate with the scope of claim 1, it is not persuasive.
`For these reasons, and based on the current record, we are persuaded
`that Google has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`obviousness challenge of claim 1 based on Spriggs and Golin. Vedanti
`relies on the same arguments with respect to claims 6 and 13, which depend
`from claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. 22. Thus, based on the same reasons, and
`because we find Google’s obviousness showing sufficient at this stage of the
`proceeding, see Pet. 35–37, we also conclude there is a reasonable likelihood
`that Google would prevail in showing that claims 6 and 13 would have been
`obvious over Spriggs and Golin.
`
`D. Obviousness Analysis for Claims 7 and 9
`Independent claim 7 is a method claim that is similar in scope to claim
`1, and Google’s obviousness analysis of claim 7 is similar to that of claim 1.
`See Pet. 37–47. Having considered Google’s analysis, and Vedanti’s
`Preliminary Response, we are satisfied there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Google would prevail in showing claim 7 would have been obvious over the
`combination of Spriggs and Golin. We add the following for additional
`explanation.
`Claim 7 recites “selecting one of two or more sets of pixel data based
`on the optimized matrix data.” Ex. 1001, 11:32–33. Google cites Spriggs’s
`teaching on “receiv[ing] sets of pixels (blocks) and further produc[ing] one
`set of pixel data for each matrix of a block.” Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:36–
`47). Vedanti acknowledges Spriggs teaches “produc[ing] region data,
`referred to in claim 7 as optimized matrix data,” but Vedanti argues “Spriggs
`does not disclose a further process of selecting one from two or more sets of
`pixel data.” Prelim. Resp. 28. Vedanti also stresses that selection between
`sets of data is not recited in claim 1, and that Google’s analysis “ignores this
`claim language.” Id.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`To the extent Vedanti’s arguments regarding the selection of pixels
`recapitulates its arguments from claim 1, we do not find them persuasive for
`the same reasons mentioned above. Regarding selection from “two or more
`sets of pixel data” in claim 7, we likewise are not persuaded by Vedanti’s
`argument based on the current record because Spriggs teaches selecting
`pixel data for corner points of an optimized matrix (i.e., one set) to the
`exclusion of all other pixel data in the matrix (i.e., a second set). See Pet.
`43–44. Furthermore, Vedanti’s remaining arguments rely on a close reading
`of Google’s cited passage at column 2, lines 36–47 of Spriggs. See Prelim.
`Resp. 29. This passage, which is labeled “Operation 2,” describes how
`blocks in a frame that no longer need subdivision are transmitted. See
`Ex. 1005, 2:32–60. Although Vedanti would have us read the reference to
`“points A, B, C and D” within Operation 2 to specifically refer to the
`undivided frame before matrix optimization, see Prelim. Resp. 29, the
`context of the surrounding paragraphs clarifies that Operation 2 equally is
`applicable to matrices after optimization. See Ex. 1005, 2:32–60 (stating
`that Operation 2 is performed after “sub-division is no longer necessary, or
`no longer possible” based on a comparison with a certain threshold, t).
`Accordingly, Vedanti’s argument is not persuasive on this record.
`For these reasons, and based on the current record, Google has
`established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness
`challenge of claim 7 based on Spriggs and Golin. Vedanti relies on the same
`arguments with respect to claim 9, which depends from claim 7. See Prelim.
`Resp. 27, 29. Thus, based on the same reasons, and because we find
`Google’s obviousness showing sufficient at this stage of the proceeding, see
`Pet. 47–48, we also conclude there is a reasonable likelihood that Google
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`E.
`
`IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`would prevail in showing that claim 9 would have been obvious over
`Spriggs and Golin.
`
`Obviousness Analysis for Claim