UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00212I
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`____________
`
`RESPONSE OF PATENT OWNER VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`I Case IPR2016-00215 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..............................................................................v
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST .............................................................. vi
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..............................................................1
`
`THE ALLEGED GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY .....................4
`
`III. THE ’339 PATENT DISCLOSES AND CLAIMS AN
`UNPRECEDENTED UNIQUE COMBINATION OF
`APPROACHES ........................................................................................4
`
`IV.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART OF
`IMAGE, VIDEO AND DATA COMPRESSION AND
`TRANSMISSION .................................................................................. 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s Characterization of the Field is Overbroad ................ 11
`
`Dr. Grindon is not Qualified to Opine as to the
`Abilities and Understandings of One of Ordinary Skill
`in the Relevant Art ....................................................................... 13
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................... 15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`“Frame Data” ............................................................................... 16
`
`“Region and Matrix” .................................................................... 17
`
`“Region Data/Matrix Data/Matrix Definition Data”
`and “Data” ................................................................................... 17
`
`“Matrix Size Data” ....................................................................... 18
`
`“A Analysis System Receiving Frame Data and
`Generating Region Data” ............................................................. 18
`
` “Pixel Selection Data”/“Selection Pixel Data” ............................ 22
`
`“selecting one of two or more sets of pixel data” .......................... 23
`
`“selecting a set of pixel data from each region” ............................ 24
`
`VI.
`
`IPR2016-00212 ...................................................................................... 26
`
`A.
`
`Cited References .......................................................................... 26
`
`i
`
`

`
`a.
`
`Spriggs Discloses Quad-tree Decomposition of
`an Image into Variable Regions Defined by a
`Data Stream of Pixel Values Interspersed with
`the 1/0 Subdivision Codes .................................................. 26
`
`b.
`
`Golin Discloses Edge Detection ......................................... 32
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Has Failed to Show All of the Claim
`Elements in the Asserted Combination ......................................... 33
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`The Invention of a System and Method of
`Selecting Pixels from Regions determined by
`analysis or optimization is not found in the
`asserted combination .......................................................... 33
`
`The asserted ground as to claim 1, 6 and 13 fails
`to identify a “pixel selection system” separately
`identifiable from an “analysis system” relying
`instead solely on the coding process of Spriggs
`for both .............................................................................. 37
`
`The asserted grounds incorrectly interpret the
`corner pixel values as both “the region data”
`and “the pixel data” that is based upon the
`“region data” ...................................................................... 41
`
`Neither Spriggs nor Golin disclose a “pixel
`selection system receiving the region data and
`generating one set of pixel data for each region”
`as required by Claims 1, 6 and 13 ....................................... 45
`
`Neither Spriggs nor Golin disclose “selecting
`one of two or more sets of pixel data based on
`the optimized matrix data” as required by
`Claims 7 and 9 ................................................................... 50
`
`Neither Spriggs nor Golin disclose “selecting a
`set of pixel data for each region” as required by
`Claims 10 and 12................................................................ 53
`
`VII.
`
`IPR2016-00215 ...................................................................................... 54
`
`A.
`
`Cited References .......................................................................... 54
`
`ii
`
`

`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`In Belfor, Uniformly Sized Regions are
`Subsampled According to a Selected One from
`a Set of Subsampling Lattice Modes .................................. 54
`
`In Thyagarajan, Uniformly Sized Regions are
`Quad-tree Decomposed into Variable Sub-
`Regions for Application of DCT Compression ................... 62
`
`c.
`
`Golin Discloses Edge Detection ......................................... 64
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Has Failed to Prove Obviousness of Claims
`1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 And 13 ............................................................... 64
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`The Quad-tree Block Subdivision of the
`Uniformly Sized Blocks in Thyagarajan Cannot
`be Simply Substituted for the Block Size
`Determination of the Uniformly Sized Blocks in
`Belfor ................................................................................. 64
`
`The System of Belfor Operates on Uniformly
`Sized Blocks and Offers No Disclosure of How
`to Produce Encodable and Decodable Data with
`Different Sets of Lattices for Blocks of
`Different Sizes ................................................................... 68
`
`Even if Combined, Belfor, Thyagarajan and
`Golin fail to disclose the “region data” and
`“data receiving system receiving the region
`data…generating a display” and the “display
`generation system receiving pixel location data”
`of Claim 1 .......................................................................... 72
`
`Even if Combined, Belfor, Thyagarajan and
`Golin fail to disclose the “assembling”step of
`Claims 7 and 10 ................................................................. 74
`
`Dr. Grindon’s Visualization of Regions in a
`Subsampling Lattice of Belfor Does Not
`Correspond to Anything that Might be Called
`Region Data or Matrix Data in Belfor Nor is
`There any Suggestion to Apply a Subsampling
`Lattice to the Regions Drawn By Dr. Grindon .................... 76
`
`f.
`
`The Petition Fostered Misconceptions About
`the Cited References .......................................................... 80
`
`iii
`
`

`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Thyagarajan Teaches DCT Compression
`Not Pixel Sampling .................................................. 80
`
`Belfor Does Not Set a Block Size and
`Sampling Frequency for Each Block ........................ 83
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 83
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP , 616
`F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................... passim
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp. , 732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................. 71
`
`Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee , 136 S.Ct. 2131 84 USLW
`4438, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1065 (2016) ............................................................... 15
`
`Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2004)............................... 20, 22
`
`In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................... 15
`
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (C.A.Fed.2006) ........................................................ 68
`
`In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................... 15
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................... 15
`
`In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., 2016 WL 4191193 (Fed. Cir., Aug.
`9, 2016)......................................................................................................... 82
`
`Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc. , 256 F.3d 1323 (Fed.
`Cir. 2001) ............................................................................................... 20, 42
`
`KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................... 68
`
`Mangosoft Inc. v. Oracle Corp. , 525 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................... 19
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc ., 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................ 15
`
`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co. , 810 F.2d 1561 (Fed.Cir.
`1987) ............................................................................................................ 82
`
`Schoenhaus v. Genesco, Inc. , 440 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................... 20, 43
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 ...................................................................................................4
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) ........................................................................................15
`
`Regulations
`
`v
`
`

`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Vedanti Exhibit #
`
`Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`Declaration of Dr. Omid Kia.
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Omid Kia.
`
`Transcript of Dr. John R. Grindon Deposition of July
`15, 2016.
`
`PCT Patent No. WO 01/57804 A2 to Brown (filed
`August 9, 2001).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,576,767 to Lee et al. (filed
`September 21, 1995; issued November 19, 1996).
`
`Wiegand, T., “H.26L Test Model Long-Term Number
`9 (TML-9) draft0,” ITU – Telecommunications
`Standardization Sector , December 21, 2001, 78 pages.
`
`Lainema, J., “Motion Estimation and Representation
`for Video Coding Applications,” Tampereen
`Teknillinen Korkeakoulu Tietotekniikan Osasto , June
`5, 1996, 59 pages.
`
`Nokia Research Center, “Nokia Research Center:
`Proposal for Advanced Video Coding,” ITU –
`Telecommunications Standardization Sector, February
`1996, 38 pages.
`
`Sullivan, et al. “Rate-Distortion Optimization for
`Video Compression,” IEEE, November 1998, pages
`74-90.
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Vedanti Exhibit #
`
`Description
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`Riley, M., et al., “Digital Video Communication,”
`Video Compression Techniques and Standards,
`January 31, 1997, pages 26-39.
`
`Panusopone, K., et al., “Progressive Image
`Transmission by Refining Sampling Lattice,” IEEE,
`1997, pages 1294-1298.
`
`International Telecommunication Union
`Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T)
`Recommendation H.262 | International Organization
`for Standardization/International Electrotechnical
`Commission (ISO/IEC) International Standard 13818-
`2 (“MPEG-2”) (1st ed. approved July 10, 1995).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,776,013 to Kafri et al. (filed April 1,
`1987; issued October 4, 1988).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,050,639 to Barnes et al. (filed
`November 24, 1999; issued May 23, 2006).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,785,349 to Keith et al. (filed October
`5, 1987; issued November 15, 1988).
`
`International Search Report for PCT/US02/00503
`(May 31, 2002).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,982,937 to Accad (filed December
`24, 1996; issued November 9, 1999).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,108,383 to Miller et al. (filed July
`15, 1998; issued August 22, 2000).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,334,001 to de Queiroz et al. (filed
`December 7, 2000; issued December 25, 2001).
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Vedanti Exhibit #
`
`Description
`
`2020
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,459,486 to Iverson et al. (filed April
`18, 1994; issued October 17, 1995).
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Google, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed two petitions for inter partes review
`
`against U.S. Patent No. 7, 974,339 (“the ’339 patent”). The Patent Owner is
`
`Vedanti Systems Limited. The invention concerns a system and method for
`
`reducing the amount of data required to transmit frames of data that can be
`
`acceptably reproduced at the receiving end. This is important in relieving
`
`bandwidth requirements for applications such as streaming video over the
`
`Internet. The claimed novel solution is being challenged by Petitioner for
`
`obviousness over two separately asserted grounds.
`
`Spriggs is cited because it uses corner pixels to determine regions through
`
`a quadtree decomposition process. Golin is combined with Spriggs for its
`
`teachings regarding how to make the decision whether or not to split a region.
`
`As will be explained in detail in this Response, the proposed combination of
`
`prior art fails to make the claimed invention obvious for at least a number of
`
`reasons:
`
`• The grounds set forth in the Petition fail to separately identify in the prior
`
`art a frame analysis system and a pixel selection system. Thus, the
`
`grounds have not shown both the “analysis system” and the “pixel
`
`selection system” as required by claim 1.
`
`• The grounds set forth as to all of the challenged claims in the Petition fail
`
`to separately identify in the prior art “region data” and selected “pixel
`
`data”. Thus, the grounds have not presented an argument that shows both
`
`1
`
`

`
`the “region data” or “matrix data” and the selected “pixel data” as
`
`required in all of the claims.
`
`• Regardless of how one interprets Spriggs, it does not disclose or suggest a
`
`pixel selection system that receives region data and generates a set of
`
`pixel data for each region. Thus, the “pixel selection system receiving
`
`region data and generating one set of pixel data for each region” as
`
`required by claim 1 has not been shown.
`
`• The coding process of Spriggs teaches the use of corner pixels to be
`
`transmitted to generate matrix data, and does not use or suggest using the
`
`matrix data in a process that selects pixel data for transmission based on
`
`the matrix data. Thus, the “selecting one of two or more sets of pixel data
`
`base on the optimized matrix data” as required by claim 7 has not been
`
`shown.
`
`• The asserted pixel values at points ABCD of Spriggs do not constitute a
`
`set of pixel data for one of the regions, indeed these are merely an
`
`original set of points used in Spriggs before the frame is divided into
`
`different regions. Thus, “selecting a set of pixel data from each region” as
`
`required by claim 10 has not been shown.
`
`Belfor is cited for its teaching of a subsampling system that selects one
`
`lattice from a set of pixel subsampling lattices for each uniformly sized block.
`
`Thyagarajan, in the field of DCT compression which is used on variably sized
`
`blocks, teaches applying quadtree decomposition to subdivide uniformly sized
`
`2
`
`

`
`blocks. This avoided the need to conduct the resource intensive DCT on all
`
`possible block subdivisions. Golin is combined with Thyagarajan and Belfor for
`
`its teachings regarding how to make the decision whether or not to split a block.
`
`As will be explained in detail in this Response, the proposed combination of
`
`prior art fails to make the claimed invention obvious for at least a number of
`
`reasons:
`
`• The petition argues it would have been a simple substitution to replace
`
`Belfor’s uniform block size with Thyagarajan’s quadtree block sub-
`
`divisioning. This is far from simple leaving the petition without a
`
`rational explanation for combining Belfor with Thyagarajan.
`
`• The petition gives no showing of how one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would make subsampling lattices work with variably sized quadtree
`
`subdivided blocks, wherein the blocks are indicated by a (0,1)
`
`subdivision code referred to as PQR data. There is no rational
`
`explanation as to how one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at a
`
`combination that works as claimed in the ’339 patent.
`
`• The petition relies upon the receiver of Belfor which generates a
`
`display from uniformly sized blocks. There is no showing of a prior
`
`art receiving system that can handle sampling lattices at different
`
`region sizes designated by PQR data. Thus, “the data receiving system
`
`receiving region data … generating a display” as required by claim 1
`
`has not been shown.
`
`3
`
`

`
`• Likewise, there is no showing in the prior art of assembling sampling
`
`lattice mode data, pixel values and PQR data in a manner that will
`
`produce a display frame. Thus, the “assembling” step required by
`
`claims 7 and 10 has not been shown.
`
`II. THE ALLEGED GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
`
`Petitioner proposed that claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103 for having been made obvious over Spriggs in view of
`
`Golin in IPR 2016-00212. The Decision granted review with respect to all of the
`
`proposed claims.
`
`Petitioner proposed that claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103 for having been made obvious over Belfor in view of
`
`Thyagarajan and further view of Golin in IPR 2016-00215. The Decision
`
`granted review with respect to all of the proposed claims.
`
`The Decision consolidated IPR 2016-00215 with IPR 2016-00212
`
`wherein all further filings can be found in case IPR 2016-00212. The expert
`
`declaration from IPR 2016-00215 has been moved to IPR 2016-00212 as
`
`Exhibit 1029. The Petition remains in IPR 2016-00215.
`
`III. THE ’339 PATENT DISCLOSES AND CLAIMS AN
`UNPRECEDENTED UNIQUE COMBINATION OF
`APPROACHES
`
`Coincident with the explosive growth of the Internet through the
`
`utilization of embedded multimedia in the World Wide Web, the invention of
`
`the ‘339 patent addressed a demanding and important telecommunication
`
`4
`
`

`
`requirement for image and video streaming. Ex. 2001, ¶18. The concept of
`
`motion estimation had already formed the basis for video encoding by achieving
`
`high compression rates by simply removing redundancies associated with
`
`moving objects in the scene. Id. With increased memory, processing and
`
`communication improvements a new era of streaming media was ushered in
`
`with video streaming being the most valuable entity. Id.
`
`To address one aspect of managing the transmission requirements for
`
`high throughput and low latency, the inventors of the ’339 patent came up with
`
`a solution of applying a pixel selection process to regions generated by an
`
`analysis process performed on the pixels of a video image. Ex. 2001, ¶19. By
`
`separately using both of these processes, the resulting system allows for
`
`optimization of the regions and, in addition, a pixel selection process that
`
`“allows random, sequenced, or other suitable processes to be used to select and
`
`locate pixels with optimized regions.” ’339 patent, Ex. 1001, 7:7-9. Combining
`
`frame analysis to generate regions and pixel selection for each region as taught
`
`in the patent has been used to significantly improve the quality of video
`
`transmission and reception over the Internet. Ex. 2001, ¶20.
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Referring more particularly to the figures, Fig. 1 of the ’339 patent
`
`separately shows a frame analysis system 106 for generating regions and a pixel
`
`selection system 108 for selecting a set of pixels for each region. The regions
`
`may be of an arbitrary size and shape and the regions are determined based on
`
`the information content of the data contained within a frame. The pixel selection
`
`system 108 receives the region data and generates a set of pixel data for each
`
`region. At least one original pixel from each region is selected and the
`
`optimized frame data including region data defining the size shape and location
`
`of each region and the corresponding set of pixel data for each region is
`
`transmitted. Ex. 1001, 2:65-67.
`
`On the receiving side, the computer implemented processes and data
`
`receiving system include a pixel data system 110 and a display generation
`
`6
`
`

`
`system 112. The data receiving system receives the optimized frame data from
`
`the data transmission system and generates a display for a user that utilizes the
`
`optimized frame data including the region data and pixel data transmitted by the
`
`transmission system. Id., 3:35-40.
`
`For an exemplary embodiment, Figs. 2 and 3 further explain the
`
`processes performed by the frame analysis system and the pixel selection
`
`system of the data transmission system while Fig. 4 further explains the
`
`processes performed by the pixel data system that is part of the data receiving
`
`system.
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Fig. 2 above, the frame analysis system of the data transmission
`
`system further includes additional components including a pixel variation
`
`system, a matrix size system and a matrix identification system. Ex. 1001, 5:12-
`
`20. The pixel variation system 202 determines the level of detail required based
`
`on variations in pixel data. The pixel variation system 202 compares two
`
`adjacent pixels to determine whether the amount of variation between the pixels
`
`7
`
`

`
`exceeds a predetermined tolerance, such as the amount of pixel data required to
`
`transmit the image data for perception. Id., 5:21-32 .
`
`The matrix size system 204 generates matrix size data based on the pixel
`
`variation data from the pixel variation system 202. The matrix size system 204
`
`can generate matrix shapes with non-symmetrical dimension data such as an
`
`NxM matrix, wherein N and M are not equivalent as well as amorphous region
`
`data, circular region data, and elliptical region data or other suitable region
`
`based on the pixel variation data. Id., 5:60-63. Additionally, the matrix size
`
`system can generate matrix control data, such as where a non-uniform matrix or
`
`region size is used within a frame. Id., 5:64-66.
`
`Matrix identification system 206 receives matrix size data and generates
`
`matrix identification data. Id., 6:4-5. Matrix identification system can identify
`
`whether a uniform matrix size is being generated, the number of matrices within
`
`a frame, the sequence data for the matrices when in a non-uniform matrix. Id.,
`
`6:5-13. The matrix identification system 206 generates matrix identification
`
`data for use by data receiving system 104 to allow the generation of the
`
`optimized display of the data. Id., 6:13-16.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`The pixel selection system of Fig. 1 is shown in more detail in Fig. 3
`
`provided above. In one embodiment of the invention, the system includes a
`
`pixel randomizer system 302, a pixel sequencer system 304 and a pixel
`
`identification system 306. Pixel randomizer system 302 selects a pixel from
`
`within each region for transmission. The pixel sequence system 304 determines
`
`the order in which the pixels from each region will be transmitted based upon
`
`their position within the data frame. The pixel identification system 306
`
`generates pixel identification data to identify the pixel that should be
`
`illuminated in the display at the receiver for each of the regions. Thus, the pixel
`
`identification system provides coordinates of the pixels to be illuminated for the
`
`regions.
`
`
`
`Fig. 4 shows the additional components that are within the pixel data
`
`system 110 of the data receiver system 104 including the matrix definition
`
`system 402 and the pixel location system 404. The matrix data and the pixel
`
`data are transmitted to the data receiver system. Id., 7:63-64. The matrix
`
`definition system 402 is used for generating frame data from the received matrix
`
`data or region data for shapes such as ellipses, circles, amorphous shapes or
`
`9
`
`

`
`other suitable shapes. See Id., 7: 25-27. Thus, the matrix definition system
`
`receives as input the locations and sizes/shapes of each matrix/region that make
`
`up the frame of data. The pixel location system 404 receives as input the
`
`location of pixels within each matrix or region within the frame. See Id., 7:28-
`
`29. The pixel location may be randomly assigned or may be set to a
`
`predetermined location.
`
`Fig. 6 (shown above) shows a flowchart of the analysis for determining “matrix
`
`or region” size based on pixel variation, which is the comparison of adjacent
`
`pixel data. Id., 8:24-26. Pixel variation is determined in block 602 by comparing
`
`the adjacent pixels to determine a difference between the pixels. Id., 8:26-30.
`
`The variation between the pixels is then compared to threshold in block 604 and
`
`if the variation is greater than the threshold, a matrix size is assigned 606. Id.,
`
`8:33-37. If the variation is less than the threshold, the methodology goes to the
`
`next pixel in step 608, wherein each additional pixel that is below the threshold
`
`is added to the region. Id., 8:41-48. Thus, the size and shape of the matrix is
`
`10
`
`

`
`dependent on the comparison between adjacent pixels and the matrix/region can
`
`be any arbitrary shape that corresponds to the data variation from a region as
`
`small as or as large as warranted by the data in the frame.
`
`
`
`Receiving the matrix data from the analysis system is the pixel selection
`
`system. An exemplary process for implementing pixel selection is shown above
`
`in Fig. 7. The matrix data is received 702. A method of pixel selection is chosen
`
`704. Pixel selection proceeds region by region. “In operation, method 700
`
`allows pixel data within a matrix or other region to be selected….” Ex. 1001,
`
`9:35-37.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART OF IMAGE,
`VIDEO AND DATA COMPRESSION AND TRANSMISSION
`
`A. Petitioner’s Characterization of the Field is Overbroad
`
`The ’339 patent relates to the art of “optimizing data transmission that
`
`decreases bandwidth requirements for data transmission.” Ex. 1001, 1:6-9. This
`
`is known as the field of data and image compression. This field is recognized by
`
`11
`
`

`
`the title of the text, “Data and Image Compression”. Ex. 1027. The book entitled
`
`“Image and Video Compression for Multimedia Engineering” also references
`
`the fields of “digital data compression” and “image and video compression.”
`
`Ex. 1028, p. 7.
`
`In view of the ’339 patent, the prior art references and the experience of
`
`Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Kia with professional staff in this technological area,
`
`Patent Owner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the
`
`’339 patent as of around January 16, 2002, would have at least a technical
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science or equivalent curriculum
`
`with coursework in image processing and at least one year of hands on
`
`experience with compression and communication techniques. Ex. 2001, ¶15-16.
`
`Alternatively, the person of ordinary skill may have earned a degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering, Computer Science or equivalent curriculum with
`
`coursework in compression and communication and at least one year of hands
`
`on experience in imaging. Id.
`
`Despite the focus of the invention on reducing bandwidth requirements,
`
`i.e, data reduction, Petitioner’s statement of one of ordinary skill is so expansive
`
`it encompasses persons with no coursework and no experience in data
`
`compression. Ex. 2001, ¶17. In fact, in his deposition, Dr. Grindon sought to
`
`broaden the scope of the POSA (“person of ordinary skill in the art”) by
`
`deleting the requirement of image processing and data transmission experience
`
`and replacing it with image processing or data transmission experience. Ex.
`
`12
`
`

`
`2003, 16:17-17:18. Apparently, given Dr. Grindon’s light or non-existent
`
`background in compression he has sought to keep any such requirements out of
`
`the POSA definition. Patent Owner urges the Board to set the ordinary skill
`
`level more closely in alignment with the issues addressed by the invention and
`
`the relevant prior art.
`
`B. Dr. Grindon is not Qualified to Opine as to the Abilities and
`Understandings of One of Ordinary Skill in the Relevant Art
`
`It appears that Dr. Grindon’s experience in the field of video compression
`
`is extremely limited.
`
`Q. Do you have experiences -- experience specifically with
`video compression?
`A. I have quite a bit of experience with video imaging and
`analysis of video images, more for the purpose of extracting
`information from the images than for compression.
`Q. Have you worked with Empeg[MPEG}?
`A. I worked with Empeg[MPEG] to the extent of using it.
`Q. Are you familiar with macroblocks?
`A. When you say "macroblocks," can you explain that a bit?
`Q. Are you familiar with the term "macroblocks"?
`A. I don't recall right now the term macroblocks.
`
`Ex. 2003, 15:4-19.
`
`Consequently and more importantly his exposure to those of ordinary
`
`skill in the field as properly defined is not discernible. During the relevant time
`
`period and indeed from 1990 to the present, Dr. Grindon was an independent
`
`consultant. Ex. 1004, p. 1. He did not teach so he did not have contact with
`
`13
`
`

`
`students of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2003, 18:16-19:4. In discussing his
`
`work on image processing, he described a project in the ’90s with TC Squared.
`
`This involved a three-dimensional imaging system. When asked about its
`
`relevance he testified:
`
`Q. And was there data reduction of those video images that
`were sent to the computer?
`MR. MESSINGER: Objection to form.
`A. I’m not recalling right now. I don’t think so. But I can’t be
`certain. That wasn't really the focus of the project.
`
`Ex. 2003, 21:2-7. Even using his broad definition of one of ordinary skill, his
`
`contact or work experience with such persons was extremely limited.
`
`Immediately after describing the TC Squared project he testified:
`
`Q. Were there other projects in the ‘90s where you encountered
`persons that may fit the description of a person of ordinary skill in
`the art?
`MR. MESSINGER: Objection. Scope.
`A. I’m thinking right now -- let me take a look at the CV again.
`I'm trying to think back to the ‘90s. As I’ve mentioned, the Cencit
`cases or the Cencit projects, the TC Squared projects, the case
`around the late ‘90s, 2000. Right now I’m not thinking of any other
`cases. But if I do, I’ll let you know later.
`Ex. 2003, 21:9-20.
`
`Given Dr. Grindon’s limited experience with compression and limited
`
`exposure to persons of ordinary skill in the art, it should be understood that his
`
`statements concerning what a POSA would have known, thought, understood,
`
`14
`
`

`
`recognized or done are not based on his experience but rather the needs of
`
`Google. Accordingly, the Board should not give weight to such statements.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In an inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board gives patent
`
`claims their “broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of
`
`the patent.” 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee , 136
`
`S.Ct. 2131, 2144-5, 84 USLW 4438, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1065 (2016). Although, in
`
`an inter partes review, the Board embraces giving claims their “broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation”, this standard does not grant the Board unrestricted
`
`latitude for claim construction. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010) (“The broadest-construction rubric coupled with the term
`
`"comprising" does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims to
`
`embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention. Rather claims
`
`should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the
`
`underlying patent.”). The Board's construction “cannot be divorced from the
`
`specification and the record evidence,” and the claims must be “consistent with
`
`the one that those skilled in the art would reach.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn,
`
`Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1297-1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing In re NTP, Inc., 654
`
`F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1999)).
`
`Given the Board’s willingness to institute on grounds that treat region
`
`data and pixel data as the same values, it is necessary to point out that “Where a
`
`15
`
`

`
`claim lists elements separately, “the clear implication of the claim language” is
`
`that those elements are “distinct component[s]” of the patented invention.”
`
`Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP , 616 F.3d 1249, 1254
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`Patent Owner Vedanti presents the construction of certain claim terms
`
`below pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`
`specification standard. The presented claim constructions are offered for the
`
`sole purpose of this proceeding and thus do not necessarily reflect appropriate
`
`claim constructions to be used in litigation and other proceedings wherein a
`
`different claim construction standard applies.
`
`A. “Frame Data”
`
`The term “frame data” should be construed