throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket