UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR N0. Unassigned
`U.S. Patent 7,974,339
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JOHN R. GRINDON
`
`Google Inc.
`GOOG 1029
`
`IPR2016-00212
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`11.
`
`111.
`
`IV.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Overview .................................................................................................... ..l
`
`Background and Qualifications ................................................................. _.3
`
`Documents Considered .............................................................................. ..5
`
`Relevant Legal Standards ........................................................................ ..l0
`
`Ordinary Skill .......................................................................................... ..ll
`
`Obviousness ............................................................................................. -- 12
`
`V.
`
`State of the Art ......................................................................................... ..l3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Sampling .................................................................................................. ..l4
`
`Variable block sizes ................................................................................. .. 16
`
`VI.
`
`The '339 patent ......................................................................................... ..l9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claims Considered ................................................................................... ..22
`
`Prosecution History.................................................................................. ..26
`
`Claim Construction .................................................................................. ..28
`
`"frame data" .............................................................................................. ..29
`
`"region" .................................................................................................... .-30
`
`"high detail" / "low detail" ....................................................................... ..31
`
`"pixel variation data" ................................................................................ ._33
`
`"matrix" .................................................................................................... ..34
`
`"matrix definition data" / “matrix data" ................................................... ..35
`
`"optimized matrix data“ ........................................................................... ..36
`
`"pixel selection data“/"selection pixel data" ............................................ ..36
`
`"analysis system“ ...................................................................................... ..37
`
`VII.
`
`Analysis.................................................................................................... ..38
`
`A.
`Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are obvious over Belfor in View of
`Thyagarajan in further View of Golin ................................................................. ..38
`
`1. Overview of Belfor ................................................................................... ..38
`
`2. Overview of the Combination of Belfor in view of Thyagarajan and
`further in view of Golin ........................................................................... ..42
`
`

`
`3. Belfor in view of Thyagarajan in further view of Golin under 35 U.S.C.
`§l03 renders independent claim 1 obvious. ............................................ .-5l
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`"A system for transmitting data transmission comprising" .................. ..51
`
`"a analysis system receiving frame data and generating region data
`comprised of high detail and or low detail" ......................................... ..53
`
`"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;" ....................................................................................... ..60
`
`"a data receiving system receiving the region data and the pixel data for
`each region and generating a display;" ................................................ .-6l
`
`"wherein the data receiving system comprises a pixel data system
`receiving matrix definition data and pixel data and generating pixel
`location data;“ ...................................................................................... ..63
`
`"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." ........... ..64
`
`4. Belfor in view of Thyagarajan in further view of Golin under 35 U.S.C.
`§l03 renders dependent claim 13 obvious. ............................................. ..65
`
`5. Belfor in view of Thyagarajan in further view of Golin under 35 U.S.C.
`§l03 renders dependent claim 6 obvious. ............................................... ..67
`
`6. Belfor in view of Thyagarajan in fiirther view of Golin under 35 U.S.C.
`§l03 renders independent claim 7 obvious. ............................................ ..68
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`(1)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`"A method for transmitting data comprising:" ..................................... .-68
`
`"receiving frame data; generating optimized matrix data from the frame
`data" ..................................................................................................... ..69
`
`"selecting one of two or more sets of pixel data based on the optimized
`matrix data“ .......................................................................................... ..74
`
`"wherein receiving frame data comprises receiving an array of pixel
`data" ..................................................................................................... ..76
`
`"wherein generating the optimized matrix data from the frame data
`comprises setting a matrix size based on pixel selection data" ........... ..77
`
`"and transmitting the selection pixel data and the optimized matrix data
`by assembling the optimized matrix data and the selection pixel data
`into a generated display frame." .......................................................... ..77
`
`

`
`7. Belfor in view of Thyagarajan in further view of Golin under 35 U.S.C.
`§l03 renders dependent claim 9 obvious. ............................................... ._80
`
`8. Belfor in view of Thyagarajan in further view of Golin under 35 U-S.C.
`§l03 renders independent claim 10 obvious. .......................................... .-80
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`0)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`"A method for transmitting data comprising:" ..................................... ..81
`
`"dividing an array of pixel data into two or more regions;" ................. ..82
`
`"Selecting a set of pixel data from each region" ................................... .-82
`
`"wherein dividing the array of pixel data comprises dividing the array of
`pixel data into two or more matrices having a uniform size;" ............. ._83
`
`"wherein dividing the array of pixel data comprises dividing the array of
`pixel data into two or more matrices having two or more different
`sizes;" ................................................................................................... .-84
`
`"and transmitting the region data and the pixel selection data for each
`region by assembling the region data and the selection pixel data into a
`display frame." ..................................................................................... ..88
`
`9. Belfor in view of Thyagarajan in further view of Golin under 35 U.S.C.
`§103 renders dependent claim 12 obvious. ............................................. ..91
`
`VIII.
`
`Conclusion ............................................................................................... ..91
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration ofDr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`
`I, Dr. John R. Grindon, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Overview
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of GOOGLE INC. (the "Petitioner") for
`
`the above-captioned Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my time in connection with this IPR at
`
`my standard hourly consulting rate of $400/hour. My compensation does not
`
`depend on any outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that this proceeding involves U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339
`
`("the ‘339 patent," GOOG 1001) titled “ Optimized Data Transmission System And
`
`Method " by Krichevsky et al. and that the ‘339 patent is currently assigned to
`
`Vedanti Systems Limited.
`
`4.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the specification of the ‘339
`
`patent.
`
`I understand that
`
`the ‘339 patent resulted from US. Application No.
`
`10/892,690, filed on July 16, 2002.
`
`I understand that the '339 patent has been
`
`provided as GOOG 1001.
`
`I will cite to the specification using the following
`
`format: (GOOG 1001,
`
`l:l—10). This example citation points to the ‘339 patent
`
`specification at column 1,
`
`lines 1-10. Throughout this declaration, emphasis is
`
`added, unless otherwise indicated.
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration ofDr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`
`5.
`
`In preparing this Declaration,
`
`I have reviewed the '339 patent and
`
`considered each of the documents cited herein, in light of general knowledge in the
`
`art. In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my experience in the relevant
`
`art.
`
`I have also considered the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(ie, a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the field of image processing and data
`
`transmission, defined further below in Section IV.A) prior to January 16, 2002. I
`
`am familiar with the technology at issue as of the January 16, 2002 effective filing
`
`date of the '339 patent. I am also familiar with the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`with respect to the technology at issue as of the January 16, 2002 effective filing
`
`date.
`
`6.
`
`1 have reviewed and am familiar with the file history of the
`
`continuation application l0/892,690 filed 16 July 2004 that issued as the
`
`'339
`
`patent. I have also reviewed and am familiar with the file history of international
`
`application PCT/US/02/00503 filed 16
`
`January 2002 to which the
`
`'690
`
`continuation application claim benefit,
`
`I understand copies of these file histories
`
`have been provided as exhibits GOOG 1002 and GOOG 1018.
`
`7.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the file history of a reissue
`
`application of the '339 patent. I understand a copy of this reissue application file
`
`history has been as exhibit GOOG I017.
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration ofDr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`
`II.
`
`Background and Qualifications
`
`8.
`
`In formulating my opinions,
`
`I have relied upon my training,
`
`knowledge, and experience in the relevant art. A copy of my current curriTculum
`
`vitae is provided as GOOG 1004, and it provides a comprehensive description of
`
`my academic and employment history.
`
`9.
`
`I
`
`received a Bachelor of Science (BS) degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering from the University of Missouri at Rolla, a Master of Science (S.M.)
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
`
`and a Doctor of Science (D.Sc.) degree in Electrical Engineering from Washington
`
`University in St. Louis.
`
`10.
`
`During my college studies,
`
`I was awarded the Westinghouse
`
`Achievement Scholarship.
`
`I was a Hughes Masters Fellow at M.I.T. My doctoral
`
`research at Washington University was in the field of signal processing.
`
`11.
`
`I have more than 40 years of experience in the research, analysis,
`
`design and development of electronic systems and software for acquiring,
`
`processing, analyzing, and communicating signals and images. This work includes
`
`the technology disclosed in the ‘.339 patent. I have experience in both hardware and
`
`software for these systems, including image acquisition, image transmission and
`
`

`
`processing, data communications, microprocessors, memory devices, software
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration ofDr. John R. Grindon (GOOG I003)
`
`algorithm development, and digital electronics.
`
`12.
`
`Since 1990 I have provided independent consulting in the fields of
`
`digital image processing software algorithm development and imaging systems. I
`
`have provided R&D services to Cyra Technologies, Inc., San Ramon, CA, a
`
`division of Leica Geosystems, for systems employing laser scanning and imaging
`
`to determine the three—dimensional shapes of objects. I served as a consultant to
`
`[TC]2 Corporation of Cary, NC, for development of a system to digitize the 3D
`
`shape of imaged objects. For this system, I developed image processing algorithms
`
`to compute 3D shape by processing frames of image data from multiple, spatially-
`
`referenced digital video cameras. A patent was awarded for this work.
`
`13.
`
`From 1987 until 1990,
`
`I served as Executive Vice President and
`
`Director of Research at the former Cencit, Inc. At Cencit,
`
`I created and led an
`
`engineering organization in the research and development of electronic imaging
`
`systems based upon digital video image processing electronics and software
`
`algorithms.
`
`14.
`
`Previously,
`
`I worked with McDonnell Douglas Corporation (now
`
`Boeing). I started my career at McDonnell Douglas with the title of Engineer, and
`
`progressed through various positions of increasing responsibility to the position of
`
`

`
`Branch Chief, Electronics. Among other things, my work there also included
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration ofDr. John R. Grindon (GO0G I003)
`
`digital image processing research and development for autonomous Cruise Missile
`
`guidance employing on—board, computer—controlled digital video cameras.
`
`15.
`
`I am a named inventor or co—inventor on more than five patents, both
`
`U.S. and foreign, in this and related technologies.
`
`III. Documents Considered
`
`16.
`
`In formulating my opinion, I have considered the following:
`
`(}()0(}
`
`Exhibit #
`
`1001
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339 to Krichevsky, et al. (filed July 16,2004;
`issued July 11,2011).
`
`1002
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339.
`
`1003
`
`Declaration of John R. Grindon.
`
`1004
`
`Curriculum Vitae of John R. Grindon.
`
`1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,791,486 to Spriggs, et al. (filed February 3, 1986;
`issued December 13, 1988).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,225,904 to Golin, et al. (filed December 4, 1991;
`issued July 6, 1993)-
`
`Belfor, et al., “Spatially Adaptive Subsampling of Image
`Sequences,” IEEE Tran.s'acu'0n.s* on Image Proce.s'.s'ing, Vol. 3, No. 5
`(1994); pp. 492-500.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,529,634 to Thyagarajan, et al. (filed November 8,
`1999; issued March 4, 2003).
`
`

`
`(}0()(;
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration ofDr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`
`Description
`
`Complaint For Patent Infringement, Vedanti Systems Limited, et al.
`v. (ioogte Inc., et a/._, Case No. 1:14—cv—0l029—GMS (D. Del), filed
`August 9, 2014.
`
`Notice Of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice Pursuant To Rule
`41 Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Vedanti Systems
`Limited, et al. v. Google Inc, et al., Case No.
`l:14—cv—01029—GMS
`(D. Del.), filed September 30, 2014.
`
`Complaint For Patent Infringement, Max Sound Corporation, et a/.,
`V. Google Inc., et al., Case No. 3: 14-CV-0441 2-JCS (N.D. Cal.), filed
`October 1, 2014.
`
`Definitions of “frame” and “pel”, Webster's New Worid Dictionary
`of'Cornputer Terms, 7”" ed. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999;
`pp. 217 and 399.
`
`Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Max
`Sound Corporation, et al., v. (ioogle Inc., et al., Case No. 5:14—cv—
`044l2—EFD (N.D. Cal.), filed February 9, 2015.
`
`Defendants’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Failure
`to State a Claim, Max Sound Corporation, et a/., v. Googie Inc., et
`a[., Case No. 5:14-cv-04412-EFD (N.D. Cal.), filed March 30, 2015.
`
`Defendants’ Preliminary Claim Constructions and Identification of
`Evidence, Max Sound Corporation, et al., v. Google Inc., et aI., Case
`No. 5:14-cv-04412-EFD (N.D. Cal), served August 21, 2015.
`
`Plaintiffs Preliminary Claim Constructions and Identification of
`Evidence, Max Sound Corporation, et a/., v. Googte Inc., et ai., Case
`No. 5:14-cv-04412-EFD (N.D. Cal.), served August 21, 2015.
`
`1017
`
`File History for Reissue Application of U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339.
`
`1018
`
`File History of Parent PCT Application No. PCT/US02/00503 filed
`Jan. 16,2002.
`
`

`
`(}0()(;
`
`Exhibit #
`
`1019
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration ofDr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`
`Description
`
`Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, Max Sound Corporation, er of,
`v. (foogle Inc, or a/., Case No. 5: 14—cv—04412—EFD (N.D. Cal.),
`filed May 13, 2015.
`
`Rostampour, et al., “2-D Median Filtering and Pseudo Median
`Filtering,” Proceedings of the Twentieth Southeastern Symposium
`on System Theory, IEEE (March 20-22, 1988); pp. 554-557.
`
`Certificate of Service on Google 1nc., Max Sound ("orporan'on, el
`al., v. Google Inc., et 611., Case No. 5:14—cv—04412—EFD (N-D. Cal.),
`filed December 17, 2014.
`
`Certificate of Service on Youtube, LLC, Max Sound Corporation, el
`al., v. Google Inc., e! 511., Case No. 5:14—cv—04412—EFD (N.D. Ca1.),
`filed December 17, 2014.
`
`Certificate of Service on 0n2 Technologies, 1nc., Max Sound
`Corporation, er al., v. Google Inc., et al., Case No. 5:l4-cv-04412-
`EFD (N.D. Cal-), filed December 17, 2014.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,418,714 to Sarver (filed April 8, 1993; issued May
`23, 1995).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,687,410 to Brown (filed February 7, 2000; issued
`February 3, 2004).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,031,517 B1 to Le et al. (filed October 1, 1999;
`issued April 18, 2006).
`
`1027
`
`Gilbeit Held, Data and Image Compression (41 ed., Wiley 1996).
`
`1028
`
`Yun Q. Shi & Huifang Sun, Image and Video Compression for
`Multimedia Engineering: Fundamentals, Algorithms, and Standards
`(CRC Press, 2000).
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration ofDr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`
`17.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the following prior art used in
`
`the Petition for Inter Parres Review of the '339 patent:
`
`(1) "Spatially Adaptive Subsampling of Image Sequences" to
`
`Belfor et al. (GOOG 1007) is prior art under at
`
`least 35 U.S_C. §
`
`102(b) because it published in September 1994 years before the
`
`earliest possible filing date of the '339 patent;
`
`(2) U.S. Patent No. 6,529,634 B1 to Thyagarajan, et al. (GOOG
`
`1008) is prior an under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it was filed
`
`on November 8, 1999, years before the earliest possible filing date of
`
`the ‘339 patent; and
`
`(3) U.S. Patent No. 5,225,904 to Golin (GOOG 1006) is prior art
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. § l02(b) because it was issued on July 6,
`
`1993, years before the earliest possible filing date of the '339 patent.
`
`18.
`
`I have also reviewed and am familiar with the following other prior art
`
`documents:
`
`(4) U.S. Patent No. 4,791,486 B2 to Spriggs et al. (GOOG 1005) is
`
`prior art under at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. § l02(b) because it
`
`issued on
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration ofDr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`
`December 13, 1988, years before the earliest possible filing date of
`
`the ‘339 patent on Jan. 16, 2002; and
`
`(5) U.S. Patent No. 5,418,714 to Sarver (GOOG 1024) is prior
`
`art under at least 35 U.S.C. § l02(b) because it issued on May
`
`23, 1995, years before the earliest possible filing date of the
`
`‘339 patent;
`
`(6) U.S. Patent No. 6,687,410 B1 to Brown (GOOG 1025) is
`
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it was filed
`
`February 7, 2000, before the earliest possible filing date of the
`
`‘339 patent; and
`
`(7) U.S. Patent No. 7,031,517 B1 to Le et al. (GOOG 1026) is
`
`prior an under at least 35 U.S.C. § l02(e) because it was filed
`
`October I, 1999, before the earliest possible filing date of the
`
`‘339 patent;
`
`(8) Gilbert Held, Data and Image Compression (4”‘ ed., Wiley
`
`1996) (GOOG 1027) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b) because it was published in 1996, before the earliest
`
`possible filing date of the ‘339 patent;
`
`(9) Yuri Q. Shi & Huifang Sun,
`
`Image and Video
`
`Compression for Multimedia Engineering: Fundamentals,
`
`Algorithms, and Standards (CRC Press, 2000) (GOOG 1028)
`
`is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § l02(b) because it was
`
`published in 2000, before the earliest possible filing date of the
`
`‘339 patent; and
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration ofDr. John R. Grindon (GOOG I003)
`
`(10) "2-D Median Filtering and Pseudo Median Filtering"
`
`to Rostampour et al. (GOOG 1020) is prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. § l02(b) because it published in 1998, years before the
`
`earliest possible filing date of the '339 patent.
`
`19.
`
`The '339 patent describes and claims "a system and method for
`
`transmitting data
`
`." (GOOG 1001, 1:32-33.) I am familiar with the technology
`
`described in the '339 patent as of its earliest possible benefit date of January 16,
`
`2002.
`
`20.
`
`I have been asked to provide my technical review, analysis, insights,
`
`and opinions regarding the '339 patent and the above—noted references that form
`
`the basis for the grounds of rejection set forth in the Petition for Inter Parles
`
`Review of the ‘339 patent.
`
`IV. Relevant Legal Standards
`
`21.
`
`I understand that my analysis requires an understanding of the scope
`
`of the '339 patent claims. I understand that claims subject to inter Partes Review
`
`are given the "broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which it appears." 42 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable if it is anticipated or obvious.
`
`I understand that anticipation of a claim requires that every element of a claim is
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`expressly or inherently disclosed in a single prior art reference. I do not render
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration ofDr. John R. Grindon (GO0G I003)
`
`opinions regarding anticipation in connection with this proceeding.
`
`A. Ordinary Skill
`
`23.
`
`1 was also asked to provide an opinion regarding the skill level of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art of the ‘339 patent prior to January 16, 2002. To
`
`do so, I considered several things. For example, I considered the types of problems
`
`encountered in the art, the solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which
`
`innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the education level
`
`of active workers in the field.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is one who is
`
`presumed to be aware of all pertinent art, thinks along conventional wisdom in the
`
`art, and is a person of ordinary creativity. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`("POSA") would have had knowledge of the image processing and data
`
`transmission fields, and various related technologies as of January 16, 2002.
`
`25.
`
`Applying the above understanding, it is my opinion that, as a general
`
`matter, a POSA at the time of the filing of the '339 patent would at least a BS.
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or an
`
`equivalent field, as well as at least one year of academic or industry experience in
`
`image processing and data transmission.
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration ofDr. John R. Grindon (GOOG I003)
`
`26.
`
`By equivalent field, I mean that the required levels of educational and
`
`industry experience is on a sliding scale relative to each other. For example, a
`
`person of ordinary skill could have a more advanced educational degree with less
`
`industry experience.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`27.
`
`It is my understanding that a patent claim is obvious if the differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter 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
`
`POSA to which said subject matter pertains. I understand that for a single reference
`
`or a combination of references to render the claimed invention unpatentable under
`
`an obviousness rationale, a person of ordinary skill in the art must have been able
`
`to arrive at the claims by altering or combining the applied references.
`
`28.
`
`I also understand that rationales that may support a conclusion of
`
`obviousness include: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods
`
`to yield predictable results;
`
`(b) choosing from a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`(c) simple
`
`substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; ((1) use
`
`of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same
`
`way; (e) applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration ofDr. John R. Grindon (GOOG I003)
`
`29.
`
`I also understand that when considering the obviousness of a patent
`
`claim, one may consider whether a teaching, suggestion or motivation to combine
`
`the references exists so as to avoid impermissibly applying hindsight when
`
`considering the prior art. I understand this test should not be rigidly applied, but
`
`that the test can be important to avoiding such hindsight.
`
`30.
`
`I
`
`also
`
`understand
`
`that
`
`any
`
`secondary
`
`considerations
`
`of
`
`nonobviousness must be considered.
`
`I understand that secondary considerations
`
`must have a nexus to the claim and that even substantial evidence of secondary
`
`considerations may not overcome a strong prima facie showing of obviousness.
`
`V.
`
`State of the Art
`
`31.
`
`By 2002 and prior to the time of invention, all the technology at issue
`
`in the ‘339 patent was broadly applied and well known by developers in image
`
`processing and image transmission. No individual elements of the '339 claims were
`
`novel at the time of the alleged invention, and there was nothing novel about the
`
`manner in which those elements were combined in the claims. Further, there were
`
`no technological barriers to combining these elements to form the claimed
`
`invention. Indeed, the topics of digital image processing and image transmission
`
`have been rapidly growing areas of research and development since the 1960s.
`
`(GOOG 1024, Preface.) In addition, digital image sequence processing has been an
`
`active area of research since at least the 19805. (Id) Both pixel sampling and
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`subdivision into variable sized regions with different level of detail — two aspects
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration ofDr. John R. Grindon (GOOG I003)
`
`called out as features in the '339 patent and its prosecution before the examiner —
`
`were well—known by 2002, as will be shown.
`
`A. Sampling
`
`32.
`
`Sampling of images was known well before 2002, the earliest priority
`
`date of the '339 patent. For example, inter—frame processing was well known at an
`
`early date. In one conditional replenishment technique, a present grey level pixel
`
`value and its position information are transmitted for pixels that change by more
`
`than a threshold between frames. (See e.g., GOOG 1028, pp. 68-69.)
`
`33.
`
`Representing a block of pixels for transmission with a reduced
`
`number of pixels in intraframe processing was also well known in the prior art. For
`
`example, one such approach is to represent an entire pixel block with a single
`
`value. (GOOG 1020, 5:54-6:32.) In this approach, a block, whether it is 4x4, 5x5,
`
`8x8, or any other suitable size, is represented by one pixel value, such as a mean
`
`value of the pixel values of a block. (Id., 3:7—8.) This yields an optimized data
`
`stream that is, for example, 1/ 16”‘, 1/25”‘, or 1/64”‘ of the size of an un—optimized
`
`block for 4x4, 5x5, or 8x8 blocks, respectively.
`
`34.
`
`The key to implementing this approach is to select a single pixel value
`
`that is "a reasonable approximation to the value of all pixels within the block." (Id.,
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`6: l -2.) One approach is to calculate a mean value of all pixels in the block- (Id., 2-
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration ofDr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`
`5.) Also, other methods of selecting a single pixel from among those within a block
`
`(subsampling) to represent
`
`the pixel block were well known in the art. For
`
`example, the median filter was well known. In a median filter, "the value of pixel
`
`is replaced by the median Value of a set of pixels in its local neighborhood."
`
`(oooo 1020, p.554.)
`
`35.
`
`Another type of image sampling involves transmitting only the comer
`
`values of blocks. For example, one method transmits blocks where "all picture
`
`elements (pels) are represented by values linearly interpolated from the comer
`
`values at A, B, C and D.“ (GOOG 1005, 2:26-35.) In this way, an entire image can
`
`be approximated with only a few pixel values, for example the comer values of the
`
`block as illustrated below:
`
`
`
`SD
`SE
`56 SH
`
`SI
`
`3!“!
`SK SL
`50 SR
`
`SN
`SS
`
`l.AB(Dl
`ta\FEIl
`(FBIGl
`iElEHl
`[EKJN]
`IEPGSI
`IPKSUI
`IOSJRJ
`ISORNI
`IIKINLI
`[JNEl*-ll
`lNLHHl
`HGHDI
`
`$$$$$¢$$—'-‘$34
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration ofDr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`
`(Id, FIG- 6-)
`
`B. Variable block sizes
`
`36.
`
`Image segmentation algorithms were well known in the art too. These
`
`algorithms included block subdivision algorithms that segment an image into
`
`variable sized blocks. For example,
`
`the above mentioned image transmission
`
`method of Spriggs also utilizes variable block sizes. First, Spriggs determines the
`
`level of detail of a region (also called a block) according to the variation of pixels
`
`across the block using an inteipolation comparison. (Id., 2:26-35.)
`
`37.
`
`In an embodiment, Spriggs makes
`
`the determination by first
`
`generating an interpolated block from the four corners of the block (Operation 1).
`
`(Id., 2:26-35, "The first step in coding is to calculate a new block in which all
`
`picture elements (p[ix]els) are represented by values linearly interpolated from the
`
`corner values at A, B, C and D.") This interpolated block represents the block that
`
`a decoder would hypothetically generate if the block under consideration were
`
`represented by the comer values. Spriggs compares each pixel of the actual block
`
`to this hypothetical block to determine if the representation is accurate enough.
`
`(1d., 2:32-35, "This new block is compared with the original and if no differences
`
`are found in excess of a certain threshold, t, then the process moves to operation
`
`2.")
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,9 74,339
`Declaration ofDr. John R. Grindon (GOOG I003)
`
`38.
`
`Blocks that have high detail as determined by this test require further
`
`subdividing. (GOOG 1005, 2:51-54.) In this way Spriggs explains "the greatest
`
`number of subdivisions will occur at edges or over fine detail." (Id., 2:56-57.) This
`
`recursive process generates a nested series of blocks and sub-blocks:
`
`
`
`(Id., FIG. 3.)
`
`39.
`
`Although Spriggs does not use the term, Spriggs' disclosure suggests
`
`what is often referred to in the art as "quad tree" segmentation. The quad—tree
`
`approach for segmenting an image into variable block sizes is named for the way it
`
`is used to divide blocks. The way it is done is explained here with reference to
`
`“Le.” (GOOG 1026, 10:63-66.) The quad-tree segmentation method begins with
`
`the entire frame, and recursively subdivides into four smaller sub-blocks based on
`
`a decision process. (Id., 11:53-12:40.) This produces a nested sub-block structure
`
`such as:
`
`-17-
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration ofDr. John R. Grindon (GOOG I003)
`750
`
`
`
`Splilting Final State
`
`Fig. 7E
`
`(Id., FIG. 7E.)
`
`40.
`
`In one example, the decision process is based on contrast "determined
`
`by calculating the difference between the minimum and maximum luminance
`
`values of the pixels in the [block]." (Id.,
`
`ll:55—57.) When a block exceeds a
`
`threshold contrast,
`
`it
`
`is sub-divided into four smaller blocks, and the process
`
`recursively repeats on each sub-block. (Id., 12:1-40.)
`
`41.
`
`Other methods of segmentation using blocks of varying sizes were
`
`well-known in the prior art. For example, in one segmentation method, “the block
`
`size is adaptively selected based on the characteristics of the image pixel data [with
`
`l]arge blocks
`
`used for homogeneous data [and s]maller blocks
`
`utilized for
`
`detailed data." (GOOG 1019, 4:12-18.) In this way, the method "is adaptable to
`
`Variations in pixel region activity." (Id, 4:48-60.) Image transmission is optimized
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`because "[l]arge block sizes with few data bits are utilized to encode pixel
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration ofDr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`
`estimation errors in the homogeneous regions of pixel data where most of the data
`
`has the same value[, and s]maller blocks are utilized for nonhomogeneous regions
`
`which manifest a large quantity of detail." (Id) This method is referred to as
`
`"Block Adaptive lnterpolative Coding (BAIC).” (1d., 7:56-60.)
`
`VI.
`
`The '