UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-002121
`U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S CONTINGENT MOTION TO AMEND
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2016-00215 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-002121
`U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S CONTINGENT MOTION TO AMEND
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2016-00215 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1
`
`ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`I. The Substitute Claims Do Not Enlarge the Scope of Any Original Claim .... 1
`
`II. The Substitute Claims Do Not Introduce New Matter and Are Supported
`by the Original Disclosures .......................................................................... 2
`
`III. The Substitute Claims Are Patentable Over the Alleged Art ........................ 4
`
`A. Proposed Substitute Claims 14-15 ........................................................... 5
`
`1. The Substitute Claims Are Patentable Over the Art Cited by and to
`the Board ............................................................................................ 5
`
`2. Other References and Alleged Prior Art ........................................... 11
`
`B. Proposed Substitute Claims 16-17 ......................................................... 19
`
`1. The Substitute Claims Are Patentable Over the Art Cited by and to
`the Board .......................................................................................... 19
`
`2. Other References and Alleged Prior Art ........................................... 23
`
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 .................................................................................................. 1, 2
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121 ............................................................................................. 1, 2
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`SUMMARY
`
`Patent Owner’s contingent motion to amend seeks the following:
`
`• First, in the event that independent claim 7 is found unpatentable,
`
`substitute claim 14 for claim 7, and substitute dependent claim 15 for
`
`dependent claim 9 (to update the dependency).
`
`• Second, in the event that independent claim 10 is found unpatentable,
`
`substitute claim 16 for claim 10, and substitute dependent claim 17 for
`
`dependent claim 12 (to update the dependency).
`
`The Appendix accompanying this motion sets forth the substitute claims in
`
`markup form to identify the amendments (additions underlined and deletions
`
`stricken). Only one substitute claim is proposed for each of the challenged claims
`
`7, 9, 10, and 12. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Patent Owner’s conditional motion presents allowable substitute claims.
`
`I.
`
`The Substitute Claims Do Not Enlarge the Scope of Any Original
`Claim
`
`Each of the substitute claims includes a new limitation in addition to the
`
`limitations found in each respective original claim, satisfying the statutory
`
`requirement that the changes “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the
`
`patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)(ii).
`
`Proposed substitute claim 14 includes all of original independent claim 7’s
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`limitations as well as the following new limitation: “wherein the optimized matrix
`
`data defines at least two regions having different aspect ratios.” Proposed
`
`substitute dependent claim 15 corresponds to original claim 9. Proposed claim 15
`
`was amended to update the dependency to new claim 14.
`
`Proposed substitute claim 16 includes all of words of original independent
`
`claim 10, including the following underlined additions: dividing an array of pixel
`
`data into two or more regions defined by region data; and selecting a non-
`
`predetermined set of pixel data from each region to produce selection pixel data for
`
`each region. The “non-predetermined” language is a new limitation. The other
`
`added language was necessarily implied by the original text of original claim 10.
`
`Proposed substitute dependent claim 17 corresponds to original claim 12.
`
`Proposed claim 17 was amended to update the dependency to new claim 16.
`
`II. The Substitute Claims Do Not Introduce New Matter and Are
`Supported by the Original Disclosures
`
`The substitute claims do not introduce new matter, 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3),
`
`and are supported by the July 16, 2004 original application (Ex. 1002) as well as
`
`the January 16, 2002, PCT application (Ex. 1018), 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b).
`
`Substitute claim 14 adds a requirement that the optimized matrix data that is
`
`generated “defines at least two regions having non-uniform aspect ratio . . . .” The
`
`original and PCT applications each disclose that, after receiving frame data,
`
`optimized matrix data is generated, and that the matrix data can define regions
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`having uniform and nonuniform sizes, and symmetrical and nonsymmetrical
`
`shapes. (Exs. 1002 and 1018 at ¶¶ 24, 33, 52-53, 55, 64.) The data is then
`
`transmitted, and the system is able to take the “non-similar matrices” and assemble
`
`them into a frame. (Id. at ¶ 42.) As a result of having nonsymmetrical regions that
`
`vary in size, the regions can have different aspect ratios. For example, as
`
`illustrated in Figure 10 and made explicit in the applications, the regions can be “(7
`
`x 3), (5 x 6), (5 x 4), (7 x 7) , (2 x 3), (2 x 7),” (Id. at ¶ 67 and Fig. 10), which
`
`results in aspect ratios of 7x3, 5x6, 5x4, 1x1, 2x3, and 2x7.
`
`Substitute claim 16 makes three changes to the claims, shown in underlines
`
`below:
`
`dividing an array of pixel data into two or more regions
`defined by region data;
`
`selecting a non-predetermined set of pixel data from each
`region to produce selection pixel data for each region;
`
`The first and third changes do not broaden or narrow the claim: they recite
`
`what was already implied by the claim language. A “region” in original claim 10
`
`is necessarily defined by region data. Indeed, original claim 10 later states that
`
`region data is transmitted. (Ex. 1001 at 12:21.) Also, when “selecting” a “set of
`
`pixel data from each region,” the method of claim 10 necessarily will produce
`
`“selection pixel data for each region.” Indeed, original claim 10 later states that
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`the selection pixel data is transmitted for each region. (Ex. 1001 at 12:21-22.)
`
`Support for these amendments can be found in various portions of the original
`
`application and the PCT application. (Exs. 1002 and 1018 at ¶¶ 25, 36-40, 46, 47,
`
`57-60, 66, 67.)
`
`The second change adds a requirement that the selection of a set of pixel
`
`data from each region involve “selecting a non-predetermined set of pixel data
`
`from each region . . . .” In addition to the disclosures described above, the
`
`applications disclose selecting pixels from two or more regions. In the
`
`applications’ embodiments, the pixel selection system can select the pixels (1) in
`
`accordance with a “predetermined” sequence or location, (2) randomly, or (3)
`
`using some other suitable selection criteria. (Id. ¶ 25; see also at ¶¶ 37-40, 46, 57-
`
`60.) The amendment excludes the “predetermined” location embodiment—e.g.,
`
`where the system knows beforehand which of the pixels for a given region will be
`
`selected. It encompasses and is at least supported by the random pixel selection
`
`embodiment.
`
`III. The Substitute Claims Are Patentable Over the Alleged Art
`Patent Owner’s Response, submitted today, explains why the original claims
`
`distinguish the prior art relied upon in the IPR. This motion focuses on how the
`
`proposed changes added by the substitute claims impact those arguments.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`Proposed Substitute Claims 14-15
`
`A.
`The art cited by and to the Board, the additional art of record, and other art
`
`known to the Patent Owner, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the
`
`new claimed combination. Proposed substitute claim 15 depends from proposed
`
`substitute claim 14 and is patentable over the art cited by and to the Board for at
`
`least the same reasons as proposed substitute claim 14 and further in view of the
`
`additional features recited therein.
`
`1.
`
`The Substitute Claims Are Patentable Over the Art
`Cited by and to the Board
`
`Neither of the primary references relied upon by the Board (Spriggs or
`
`Belfor) include the new limitation added to claim 14: “wherein the optimized
`
`matrix data defines at least two regions having different aspect ratios.” To the
`
`extent that they have “regions,” the regions have uniform aspect ratios.
`
`Spriggs discloses an image transmission system that calculates an estimated
`
`value for all of the picture elements (“pels”) in a block by linearly interpolating the
`
`actual values of the four corner pels of the block. (Ex. 1005 at 2:29–35.) Spriggs
`
`compares the estimated value to the actual values and, when the estimated value
`
`and an actual value differ by more than a threshold value, subdivides the block into
`
`four subblocks. (Id. Figs. 2–3, 6; 2:48–54.) Spriggs repeats this process for each
`
`subblock until subdivision is no longer necessary or possible—or until a minimum
`
`block size is defined. (Id. at 2:51–60.) Spriggs’s blocks and subblocks, however,
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`have the same aspect ratios. (Id. Figs. 2–3, 6; 3:5–7; 3:21–23; 3:44–46.) Spriggs
`
`does not disclose or even suggest generating optimized matrix data that “defines at
`
`least two regions having different aspect ratios,” as recited in proposed substitute
`
`claim 14.
`
`Belfor discloses a spatially adaptive subsampling method that subdivides an
`
`image into square blocks and, for each square block, assigns a specific
`
`subsampling lattice to represent the pixels to be transmitted for that square block.
`
`(Ex. 1007 at Fig. 4; 1; 4.) However, as Petitioner concedes, Belfor only discloses
`
`uniformly subdividing the image into a plurality of uniformly-sized square blocks
`
`having a uniform aspect ratio—it does not have at least two regions with different
`
`aspect ratios. (Ex. 1029, Grindon Decl. ¶172 (“Belfor teaches only uniform size
`
`matrices.”)) Nowhere does Belfor disclose or even suggest generating optimized
`
`matrix data, or any other data, that “defines at least two regions having different
`
`aspect ratios,” as recited in proposed substitute claim 14.
`
`Patent Owner is, however, aware of prior art disclosing blocks of data
`
`having different aspect ratios. Golin (Ex. 1006) and U.S. Patent No. 4,785,349 to
`
`Keith (Ex. 2015) disclose this feature. Golin is one of the references at issue in
`
`this IPR. Keith was cited by the Examiner in the original prosecution history of
`
`the ’339 patent. Although Golin and Keith are unrelated, they appear to share the
`
`same inventors, and their disclosures for purposes of Patent Owner’s motion are
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`substantially similar. Golin discloses a digital video transmission system that
`
`detects edges between adjacent pixels whose values differ by more than a threshold
`
`value. (Ex. 1006 at Fig. 18; 19:33–49.) When Golin detects an edge (i.e., when
`
`the values of adjacent pixels in the region differ by more than the threshold value),
`
`Golin splits the region in half, either horizontally or vertically, or in quarters. (Id.
`
`at Figs. 26–27; 13:22–49.) Golin then determines, for each subregion, a fill code
`
`for representing the pixel values of each subregion. (Id. at 13:12–19.) As a result
`
`of splitting regions in half, subregions with different aspect ratios can be obtained.
`
`(Id. at Fig. 27.) For example, subregion 2706 in Figure 27 of Golin and Keith has
`
`a different aspect ratio than the other subregions.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have had no incentive to apply the
`
`non-uniform aspect ratios disclosed by Golin and Keith in Spriggs. The non-
`
`uniform aspect ratios require additional bits to describe the different actions –
`
`horizontal split action, vertical split action and fill action. Ex. 2015, Fig. 30; Ex.
`
`1006, Fig. 30 Whereas Spriggs merely requires a 0 or 1 to describe split or no split.
`
`Thus, when the objective is to reduce data, non-uniform aspect ratio would
`
`increase the necessary division code data. Rather if one were to combine Spriggs
`
`with Golin or Keith, Google suggests in its petition that one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would substitute the adjacent pixel variation roughness test of Golin for the
`
`interpolation type of roughness test of Spriggs. Paper 2, p. 28. Spriggs’ uniform
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`aspect ratio subdivision method is retained by the combination proffered by
`
`Google.
`
`Further, as argued in patent owner’s response, there would have been
`
`disincentive to combine the multiple block size approach with the subsampling
`
`lattice mode system of Belfor designed for a uniform block size. Ex. 2001, ¶87, 88
`
`(quoted at p. 21 below) The disincentive to combine Belfor with Golin or Keith
`
`would have been even greater if one were to further complicate the system with
`
`vertical and horizontal rectangles each requiring its own set of modes that would
`
`need to be recognized in decoding.
`
`None of the other art before the Board discloses the new limitation:
`
`“wherein the optimized matrix data defines at least two regions having different
`
`aspect ratios.” Thyagarajan discloses an image compression system for Discrete
`
`Cosine Transform (“DCT”) analysis that divides an image into a plurality of 16x16
`
`blocks and, when the variance of pixel values within a particular 16x16 block is
`
`larger than a threshold, subdivides the block into four uniformly-sized square
`
`subblocks. (Ex. 1008 at Fig. 3A; abstract; 5:35–44; 5:56–57.) More specifically,
`
`Thyagarajan first computes the variance of pixel values within each 16x16 block
`
`and, when the variance of pixel values within a 16x16 block is larger than a
`
`threshold T16, subdivides the 16x16 block into four 8x8 blocks. (Id. at 5:42–50;
`
`5:57–58; 6:9–12.) The same goes for an NxM block. Thyagarajan computes the
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`variance of pixel values within the block and, when the variance of pixel values
`
`within a particular NxM block is larger than a threshold, the block is subdivided
`
`into four N/2xM/2 blocks.
`
`Thyagarajan’s DCT image compression system merely evaluates blocks
`
`and, in some cases, evenly subdivides the block into four subblocks having the
`
`same uniform aspect ratio as the original. An NxM block splits into four N/2xM/2
`
`blocks. The aspect ratio remains uniform. Nowhere does Thyagarajan disclose or
`
`even suggest generating optimized matrix data, or any other data, that “defines at
`
`least two regions having different aspect ratio,” as recited in proposed substitute
`
`claim 14.
`
`Rostampour discloses image filtering techniques for noise removal which
`
`replace the value of a pixel with the median value of a set of pixels in the pixel’s
`
`“local neighborhood.” (Ex. 1020 at 1–2.) Rostampour’s “local neighborhood” is a
`
`fixed, square window size of 2N+1 by 2N+1 for a predetermined value of N, such
`
`as a 3 by 3 window size for N = 1. (Id. at 2–3.)
`
`Sarver discloses a block adaptive interpolative coding technique for image
`
`compression. (Ex. 1024 at abstract; 7:58–60.) Sarver begins by dividing an image
`
`into uniformly-sized square MxM pixel blocks. (Id. at 7:67–68; 9:3–5.) Sarver
`
`then predicts pixel values for the current MxM block under consideration by
`
`linearly interpolating pixel values from neighboring blocks. (Id. at 7:68–8:46.)
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`Finally, Sarver computes the residual error for the MxM block and, when the
`
`residual error for the block exceeds a predefined threshold Te, repeatedly
`
`subdivides the block into four uniformly-sized subblocks until the residual error
`
`falls below the threshold or the subblock size reaches the minimum block size of
`
`1x1. (Id. at Fig. 4; 8:47–59; 9:3–10; 12:54–57; 13:21–30.)
`
`Brown discloses a compression scheme for compressing audio and video
`
`data that divides an image into uniformly-sized, square MxM blocks of pixels and
`
`tests each block to determine a compression scheme for that block. (Ex. 1025 at
`
`abstract; 2:53–3:24.)
`
`Le discloses a method for seeding and segmenting an image. (Ex. 1026 at
`
`abstract.) Starting with the original undivided image, Le determines the contrast of
`
`a rectangular block by calculating the difference between the minimum and
`
`maximum luminance values of the pixels in the block and, when the contrast
`
`exceeds a predetermined threshold value and the size of the block exceeds a
`
`predetermined minimum size, repeatedly splits the rectangular block into four
`
`uniformly-sized rectangular subblocks. (Id. at Figs. 4B, 7E; 11:53–12:39; 13:11–
`
`31; 19:43–20:5.)
`
`Held discloses various image compression techniques, such as JPEG and
`
`GIF, which subdivide an image into uniformly-sized square blocks of pixels
`
`having the same or similar pixel characteristics. (Ex. 1027 at Fig. 7.1; 13.)
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`Shi discloses differential pulse code modulation (“DPCM”) techniques for
`
`image and video coding pertaining to transformation, quantization, and codeword
`
`assignment. (Ex. 1028 at 17.)
`
`Rostampour, Sarver, Brown, Le, Held, and Shi at best disclose, if at all,
`
`subdividing a block into subblocks having a uniform aspect ratio, not two or more
`
`regions with different aspect ratios.
`
`2. Other References and Alleged Prior Art
`Keith (Ex. 2015), described above, is a prior art reference that was not
`
`before the Board that illustrates non-uniform aspect ratios. This section discusses
`
`other references that are not before the Board.
`
`The ’339 patent’s prosecution history includes a number of additional
`
`references. But the Patent Owner does not believe that any disclose “generating
`
`optimized matrix data from the frame data, wherein the optimized matrix data
`
`defines at least two regions having different aspect ratios,” as recited in proposed
`
`substitute claim 14. For example, Kafri (U.S. Patent No. 4,776,013) discloses an
`
`image encryption method that uses a master grid to convert an image to an image
`
`grid composed of an image matrix of pixel intensity values. (Ex. 2013 at Fig. 1;
`
`abstract; 3:7–24.) More specifically, Kafri generates, for each pixel in the image, a
`
`“superpixel” that encodes a distinct number of grey levels using a predetermined
`
`combination of duplicated pixels, complemented pixels, and random pixels. (Id. at
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`5:17–7:39.) For example, Kafri discloses generating, for each pixel in an image, a
`
`2x2 superpixel that provides nine grey levels. (Id. at Fig. 8; 6:31–33.)
`
`In another example, Barnes (U.S. Patent No. 7,050,639) discloses an image
`
`data compression and decompression technique that divides an image data stream
`
`into subregions of differing lengths. (Ex. 2014 at Fig. 4; abstract; 5:51–53; 6:40–
`
`46; 6:50–54; 7:3–9. Barnes then analyzes each subregion of the image data stream
`
`to identify the relative variation in the pixel intensities, or entropy, within each
`
`subregion and select a predetermined compression algorithm for each subregion as
`
`a function of the identified entropy for that region. (Id. at abstract; 2:22–35; 6:57–
`
`61; 7:3–15.) In other words, Barnes merely subdivides an image data stream into
`
`one-dimensional subregions corresponding to the individual rows of an image.
`
`Barnes then selects a compression code for each subregion and compresses each
`
`subregion according to the selected compression code.
`
`The Patent Owner is also aware of International Telecommunication Union
`
`Recommendation H.262. (Ex. 2012.) The H.262 standard discloses a generic
`
`video coding scheme that divides a frame into 16x16 macroblocks comprised of
`
`four 8x8 blocks of luminance samples and two, four, or eight 8x8 blocks of
`
`chrominance samples. (Id. §§ 3.85, 6.1.3; Figs. 6-10, 6-11, 6-12.) Accordingly,
`
`the standard discloses subdividing a frame into blocks having a uniform aspect
`
`ratio. There is no disclosure in the standard for generating optimized matrix data
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`that “defines at least two regions having non-uniform aspect ratio,” as recited in
`
`proposed substitute claim 14.
`
`The International Search Report for PCT/US02/00503 (to which the ’339
`
`patent claims priority) is attached as Exhibit 2016. The report includes references
`
`to Accad (U.S. Patent No. 5,982,937), Miller (U.S. Patent No. 6,108,383), de
`
`Queiroz (U.S. Patent No. 6,334,001), and Iverson (U.S. Patent No. 5,459,486).
`
`(Exs. 2016-2020.)
`
`None of these references discloses “generating optimized matrix data from
`
`the frame data, wherein the optimized matrix data defines at least two regions
`
`having different aspect ratios,” of claim 14. Rather, those references that disclose
`
`subdividing a block into subblocks have subblocks with uniform aspect ratios as
`
`discussed below.
`
`• Accad discloses a method and an apparatus for compressing a raster
`
`page that separates (i) text and line art objects into a first raster data
`
`layer and (ii) image and photo objects into a second raster data layer.
`
`(Ex. 2017 at Figs. 4a, 4b; 6:35–7:10; 7:51–8:9.) Accad subjects the
`
`first raster data layer of text and line art objects to a lossless
`
`compression procedure such as run-length encoding. (Id. at Fig. 4a;
`
`10:13–28.) In contrast, Accad subjects the second raster data layer of
`
`image and photo objects to a lossy compression procedure such as
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`JPEG by schematically partitioning the second raster later into
`
`uniformly-sized, square 8x8 blocks of pixels and applying standard
`
`JPEG operations on a row-by-row and block-by-block basis. (Id. at
`
`Fig. 4b; 10:28–11:8.)
`
`• Miller discloses a system that compresses a source image as a series
`
`of uniformly-sized, square 4x4 blocks of pixels and associates each
`
`4x4 block with one of two supertypes, either Intraframe or Interframe,
`
`and one of seven subtypes, either High Res, Medium Res, or Null Res
`
`for Intraframe supertypes or Still, Motion, or Update for Interframe
`
`supertypes. (Ex. 2018 at 1:35–59; cf. 8:17–25 (Miller determines
`
`Chroma Vectors using 2x2 blocks of pixels).) Miller then transforms
`
`the series of 4x4 blocks into a token sequence and compresses the
`
`token sequence using known lossless methods, including Huffman
`
`coding. (Id. at 7:62–67; 15:57–66.)
`
`• De Queiroz discloses an iterative smoothing technique for
`
`compressing mixed raster planes in a mixed raster content (“MRC”)
`
`image that represents a color or gray scale document. (Ex. 2019 at
`
`abstract; 3:28–43.) First, de Queiroz converts an original document
`
`into a pixel map representation composed of uniformly-sized, square
`
`blocks of pixels, such as 8x8 blocks of pixels. (Id. at 5:8–17; 5:46–
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`54; 6:46–51; 6:60–65.) Next, de Queiroz decomposes, on a block-by-
`
`block basis, the document’s pixel map representation into a three-
`
`plane representation: a reduced-resolution “upper” plane and a
`
`reduced-resolution “lower” plane for JPEG compression; and a high-
`
`resolution binary selector plane for symbol-based compression. (Id. at
`
`5:17–23; 5:54–6:32.) Finally, de Queiroz uses an iterative smoothing
`
`technique to pre-process the reduced-resolution upper and lower
`
`planes using the information contained in the high-resolution binary
`
`selector plane. (Id. at 6:33–65.)
`
`• Iverson discloses a color-mapped display subsystem that combines
`
`palettes of multiple images into a single shared palette by refining the
`
`colors included in the palettes into a set of 256 colors. (Ex. 2020 at
`
`abstract; 4:32–67.)
`
`A foreign counterpart to the ’339 patent is the subject of a nullity proceeding
`
`in Germany. In that proceeding, Google has cited to Exs. 1005 (Spriggs) and 1024
`
`(Sarver), which already were cited in this IPR, and Ex. 2004, which appears to be a
`
`counterpart to Ex. 1025 in this IPR. In addition, Google cited to Exs. 2005-2011.
`
`With respect to Exs. 2006-2008 (D5-D7 in the German proceeding), Google
`
`has not established that the references were published prior to the January 16,
`
`2002, priority date of the ’339 patent. Thus, they are not prior art. For Exhibit
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`2006 (D5), Google argues that two links show that the reference was published
`
`prior to the priority date. First, Google points to a website: http://wftp3.itu.int/av-
`
`arch/video-site/0109_San/. While Exhibit 2006 (D5) is accessible on the site (via a
`
`link to” VCEG-N83d1.doc”), there is no evidence that the reference was available
`
`on that website prior to January 16, 2002. Second, Google points to an Internet
`
`archive link:
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20020112043536/http:/standards.pictel.com/ftp/video -
`
`site/0109_San/. That WayBack Machine link purports to be archived on January
`
`12, 2002. But it does not include any link that allows one to access or download
`
`Exhibit 2006—not all the links lead to active pages or downloadable documents. It
`
`is unclear when the document was published. Exhibit 2007 (D6) appears to be a
`
`thesis, and it is unclear whether and when it was indexed or available to the
`
`relevant public. Similarly, it is unclear when and how Exhibit 2008 (D7) became
`
`available.
`
`With respect to Exs. 2005 and 2009-2011 (D4 and D8-D10 in the German
`
`proceeding), none of these references discloses “generating optimized matrix data
`
`from the frame data, wherein the optimized matrix data defines at least two regions
`
`having different aspect ratios,” as recited in proposed substitute claim 14. Rather,
`
`those references that disclose subdividing a block into subblocks have subblocks
`
`with uniform aspect ratios:
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`• Lee (U.S. Patent No. 5,576,767) (D4) discloses a video compression
`
`system and method that uniformly divides a frame into 32x32 blocks
`
`of pixel data, wherein each 32x32 block is composed of either one
`
`32x32 block, four 16x16 subblocks, sixteen 8x8 subblocks, sixty-four
`
`4x4 subblocks, or a combination of 16x16, 8x8, and 4x4 subblocks.
`
`(Ex. 2005 at Figs. 4a–4b; abstract; 6:55–67.) Lee then performs
`
`motion estimation by replacing a 32x32 base block of pixel data in the
`
`current frame with a composite 32x32 block of predicted pixel data
`
`from the previous frame. (Id. at abstract; 7:1–13.) Specifically, Lee
`
`generates the composite 32x32 block of predicted pixel data by
`
`selecting, from a window of pixel data in the previous frame, the
`
`32x32 block, four 16x16 subblocks, sixteen 8x8 subblocks, sixty-four
`
`4x4 subblocks, or combination of 16x16, 8x8, and 4x4 subblocks of
`
`pixel data that best matches the 32x32 base block of pixel data in the
`
`current frame. (Id. at Fig. 5; 7:1–13.)
`
`• Sullivan (D8) discloses a video compression method that uniformly
`
`divides a frame into 16x16 blocks, 8x8 blocks, or a combination of
`
`16x16 and 8x8 blocks of luminance samples for motion estimation.
`
`(Ex. 2009 at Fig. 3; 9–10.)
`
`• Riley (D9) discloses a video compression method that uniformly
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`divides a frame into 16x16 macroblocks composed of four 8x8 blocks
`
`of luminance samples, one 8x8 block of red-difference chrominance
`
`samples, and one 8x8 block of blue-difference chrominance samples.
`
`(Ex. 2010 at Fig. 3.13; 3.) Riley further discloses intracoding and
`
`intercoding using either 16x16 blocks or 8x8 blocks. (Id. at 3, 5.)
`
`• Panusopone (D10) discloses a progressive image transmission
`
`technique that uses increasingly dense sampling lattices for each stage
`
`of a multi-stage image transmission. (Ex. 2011 at Fig. 1; Table 1; 1–
`
`5.) Panusopone begins by successively splitting the image using
`
`quad-tree partitioning to separate background regions from detail
`
`regions. (Id. at 2.) Quad-tree partitioning uses square blocks for
`
`subdivisions. Panusopone then analyzes the local characteristics of
`
`each region and allocates different sampling lattices to each
`
`background or detail region. (Id. at 1–2.) Panusopone uses a diluted
`
`lattice with less samples for homogeneous regions in the background
`
`and a dense lattice with more samples for nonhomogeneous regions in
`
`detail areas. (Id. at Table 1; 1–5.) Panusopone then selects vector
`
`quantization to code samples on lattices. (Id. at 3.) Finally,
`
`Panusopone reconstructs the regions by adding the transmitted values
`
`to the estimated value at the right position and then fills the remaining
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`positions by means of linear interpolation. (Id. at 2.) Thus, Panuspone
`
`uses standard-sized regions for divisions that have the same aspect
`
`ratio.
`
`B.
`
`Proposed Substitute Claims 16-17
`
`The art cited by and to the Board, the additional art of record, and other art
`
`known to the Patent Owner, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the
`
`new claimed combinations. Proposed substitute claim 17 depends from proposed
`
`substitute claim 16 and is patentable over the art cited by and to the Board for at
`
`least the same reasons as proposed substitute claim 16 and further in view of the
`
`additional features recited therein.
`
`Although substitute claim 16 makes three sets of changes to the claims, the
`
`response below focuses on one of them: “selecting a non-predetermined set of
`
`pixel data from each region . . . .”
`
`1.
`
`The Substitute Claims Are Patentable Over the Art
`Cited by and to the Board
`
`One of the primary references relied upon by the Board (Spriggs) fails to
`
`include the new limitation added to claim 16: “selecting a non-predetermined set
`
`of pixel data from each region . . . .” As explained in the accompanying patent
`
`owner response, Spriggs has not been shown to include a process of selecting
`
`pixels from each region. Spriggs does transmit pixels in its encoding process,
`
`however the pixels are always at predetermined locations. As shown in Fig. 6 of
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`Spriggs, Spriggs first transmits the four corner pixel values for an image and
`
`whenever the image is to be subdivided, Spriggs transmits the same five center
`
`pixel values for the subregions. These pixels are always predetermined.
`
`Q. Right. The selection of the corners is built into the system. It's
`predetermined and will be used to select the pixels for any given
`undivided block?
`A. For an undivided block, yes.
`Grindon Dep. Ex. 2003, 97:10-14. With respect to any given region that is created,
`
`the transmitted pixels for that region are always the four corner pixels according to
`
`Spriggs. Spriggs does not teach a pixel selection system and offers no suggestion
`
`of “selecting a non-predetermined set of pixel data from each region.”
`
`Patent Owner is, however, aware of prior art disclosing non-predetermined
`
`pixel selection. Belfor (Ex. 1006) discloses this feature. As discussed above,
`
`Belfor subdivides an image into uniformly-sized square blocks and, for each
`
`square block, represents the pixels to be transmitted by assigning
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
