UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR: Unassigned
`_____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,974,339
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §311
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop "PATENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`
`..... 1 
`..... 3 
`..... 3 
`..... 3 
`..... 3 
`..... 4 
`..... 4 
`..... 7 
`..... 8 
`... 11 
`... 12 
`... 13 
`... 14 
`... 15 
`... 16 
`... 16 
`... 17 
`... 18 
`... 18 
`... 19 
`... 20 
`
`... 20 
`... 20 
`
`... 23 
`
`... 24 
`
`
`
`TABLE OOF CONTTENTS
`
`
`
` 3.
`
`-i-
`
`A B
`
`A B C D E
`
` 
`
`
`I.
` 
`
`II.
` 
`III.
` 
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INNTRODUCCTION ANND STATEMENT OOF RELIEFF REQUE
`STED
` ................
`
`..................................
`
`
`(337 C.F.R. §42.22(a))
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GGROUNDSS FOR STAANDING ((37 C.F.R.. §42.104(aa)) ..............................
`
`
`
`
`IDDENTIFICCATION OOF CHALLLENGE (3
`
`
`7 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b))) ..............
`A.
`
`
`
`
`Statuutory Grounnds for thee Challengee. ..............
`
`..................................
` 
`
`
`B.
`
`
`Citation of Prioor Art .........................................
`
`..................................
` 
`
`
`  TTHE '339 PPATENT ..
`
`..................................
`
`..................................
`................
`A.
`
`
`
`
`.................ent ............  Overrview of the '339 pate
`
`..................................
`
`
`B.
`
`
`Claimms as Printted ..............................................
`
`..................................
` 
`
`
`C.
`
`
`Proseecution Hisstory ..........................................
`
`..................................
` 
`
`
`D.
`
`
`Level of Ordinaary Skill inn the Art ....................
`
`..................................
`
`
`E.
`
`
`Claimm Construcction ..........................................
`
`..................................
` 
` 1.
`"frame d
`
`..................................
`
`..................................
`ata" .........
` 2.
`
`..................................
`
`..................................
`"region"
`................
` 3.
`
`
`
`.................w detail" ...."high dettail" / "low
`
`..................................
` 4.
`
`
`
`"pixel vaariation datta" .............................
`
`..................................
` 5.
`
`
`
`"matrix" ..................................................
`
`..................................
` 6.
`
`
`
`atrix data"data" / "ma"matrix ddefinition d
`
`..................................
` 7.
`
`
`
`"optimized matrix ddata" .........................
`
`..................................
` 8.
`
`
`
`
`lection datta"/"selectiion pixel ddata" ...........................
`"pixel se
` 9.
`
`
`
`.................................."analysiss system" .
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`IDDENTIFICCATION OOF CHALLLENGE (3
`
`
`)) ..............7 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)
`
`AA.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claimms 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, aand 13 aree obvious oover Sprigggs in
` 
`of Golin ..
`
`
`..................................................
`view
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`Overvieww of Sprigggs ..............................
` 1.
`
`..................................
` 2.
`
`
`
`
`Overvieww of the Coombinationn of Sprigggs in view
`of
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`Golin .......................................................
`
`
`Golin undSpriggs iin view of
`
`C. §103 reenders
`er 35 U.S.
`
`
`independdent claim 1 obvious.. ...............
`
`
`..................................
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Pettition of UU.S. Patent No. 7,9744,339
`
`
`
`
`a)
`
` 
`
`b)
` 
`c)
` 
`
`d)
` 
`
`e)
`
` 
`
`f)
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"AA system foor transmittting data trransmissioon
`co
`
`
`mprising:"" .................................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`"a analysis syystem receeiving framme data andd […]" ......
`
`
`
`
`
`"[aa analysis ssystem …]] generatinng region ddata
`co
`
`
`
`
`mprised off high detaail and or loow detail; ..................
`
`
`
`
`
`"a pixel selecction systeem receivinng the regioon data
`h region
`
`
`annd generatinng one set
`
`of pixel daata for each
`" ...............
`
`
`
`
`forrming a neew set of daata for trannsmission;
`
`
`
`
`
`"a data receivving systemm receivinng the regioon data
`rating a
`
`
`
`
`annd the pixell data for eeach regionn and gener
`
`
`
`dissplay;" .......................................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`"wwherein thee data receiiving systeem comprisses a
`
`
`
`
`
`pixxel data syystem receiiving matriix definitioon data
`
`
`
`
`
`annd pixel datta and geneerating pixxel locationn data;" .....
`
`
`
`
`
`"wwherein thee data receiiving systeem comprisses a
`
`
`
`
`
`dissplay generation systtem receiviing pixel loocation
`
`
`
`
`
`daata and gennerating dissplay data tthat includdes the
`data." .......
`
`
`
`
`pixxel data plaaced accorrding to thee location d
`
`
`Spriggs iin view of Golin und
`er 35 U.S.
`
`C. §103 reenders
`
`
`
`dependennt claim 133 obvious. ..................
`
`..................................
`
`
`Spriggs iin view of Golin und
`
`C. §103 reenders
`er 35 U.S.
`
`
`dependennt claim 6 obvious. ....................
`
`
`..................................
`
`
`Spriggs iin view of Golin und
`
`C. §103 reenders
`er 35 U.S.
`
`
`independdent claim 7 obvious.. ...............
`
`
`..................................
`a)
`
`
`
`
`
`"AA method fofor transmittting data ccomprisingg:" ............
` 
`b)
`
`
`
`"reeceiving frrame data;"" ...............
`
`..................................
` 
`
`
`c)
`"generating ooptimized
`
`
`e frame matrix datta from the
` 
`
`
`daata" .............................................
`
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`"seelecting onne of two oor more setts of pixel
`data
`
`
`
`
`
`baased on the optimizedd matrix daata" ............................
`
`
`
`
`
`"wwherein recceiving framme data coomprises reeceiving
`
`
`
`ann array of ppixel data" ..................
`
`..................................
`
` 4.
`
` 5.
`
` 6.
`
`g)
` 
`
`d)
` 
`
`e)
`
` 
`
`... 24 
`... 26 
`
`... 26 
`
`... 30 
`
`... 31 
`
`... 32 
`
`... 34 
`
`... 35 
`
`... 36 
`
`... 37 
`... 37 
`... 38 
`
`... 38 
`
`... 43 
`
`... 45 
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR Pettition of UU.S. Patent No. 7,9744,339
`
`
`
`
`f)
` 
`
`g)
` 
`
`c)
` 
`d)
` 
`
`e)
`
` 
`
`f)
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"wwherein gennerating thhe optimizeed matrix ddata
`
`
`
`
`
`froom the framme data coomprises seetting a maatrix size
`
`
`
`baased on pixxel selectionn data" .....
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`
`
`nd the ixel data an"annd transmiitting the seelection pi
`
`
`
`
`
`opptimized mmatrix data bby assembbling the opptimized
`
`
`
`
`
`maatrix data aand the seleection pixeel data intoo a
`
`
`
`generated dissplay framme." ...........
`
`..................................
`
`
`Golin undSpriggs iin view of
`
`C. §103 reenders
`er 35 U.S.
`
`
`dependennt claim 9 obvious. ....................
`
`
`..................................
`
`
`Spriggs iin view of Golin und
`
`C. §103 reenders
`er 35 U.S.
`10 obviou
`
`
`independdent claim
`..................................
`s. .............
`a)
`
`
`
`
`
`"AA method fofor transmittting data ccomprisingg:" ............
` 
`b)
`
`
`"dividing an array of p
`
`ixel data innto two or
`more
` 
`
`
`reggions;" .......................................
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`"seelecting a sset of pixe
`
`
`ion;" .........l data fromm each regi
`
`
`
`
`
`"wwherein divviding the aarray of pixxel data coomprises
`more
`
`
`
`
`divviding the array of piixel data innto two or
`
`..................................
`
`
`
`maatrices havving a unifoorm size;"
`
`
`
`
`
`"wwherein divviding the aarray of pixxel data coomprises
`more
`
`
`
`
`divviding the array of piixel data innto two or
`
`
`
`
`
`maatrices havving two orr more diffferent sizess;" .............
`
`
`
`"annd transmiitting the reegion data
`
`and the seelection
`
`
`
`
`
`pixxel data for each regiion by asseembling thhe region
`
`
`
`
`
`daata and the selection ppixel data iinto a geneerated
`
`
`
`dissplay framme." .............................
`
`..................................
`
`
`Spriggs iin view of Golin und
`
`C. §103 reenders
`er 35 U.S.
`
`
`
`dependennt claim 122 obvious. ..................
`
`..................................
`
`
`BB.
`
`
`
`The pproposed ggrounds aree noncumuulative. .....
`
`..................................
` 
`VI.
`
`
`
`
`
`  MMANDATOORY NOTTICES (37 C.F.R. §422.8(a)(1)) .
`
`..................................
`
`  CVII. CONCLUS
`
`SION .........
`
`..................................
`
`..................................
`................
`
` 7.
`
` 8.
`
` 9.
`
`... 45 
`
`... 45 
`
`... 47 
`
`... 48 
`... 49 
`
`... 49 
`... 50 
`
`... 52 
`
`... 53 
`
`... 56 
`
`... 57 
`... 58 
`... 58 
`... 60 
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Cases 
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek, LLC,
`2014-1575, Fed. Cir. slip op. decided Nov. 5, 2015. ........................................... 24
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015). ........................................................................... 13
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d. 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010). .......................................................................... 15
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007). ........................................................................... 13
`
`Kamada Ltd., v. Grifols Ther. Inc.,
`IPR2014-00899, Institution Decision, Paper No. 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2014) .... 12
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 24, 29
`
`Macauto U.S.A. v. BOS GMBH & KG,
`IPR2012-00004, Paper No. 18. (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2013) ...................................... 3
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... 15, 19
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339
`
`Statutes  
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .............................................................................................. 4, 58
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(e) .................................................................................................... 58
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 ................................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. §112(2) .................................................................................................... 11
`
`Rules 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ......................................................................................... 3, 20
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.10(b) .............................................................................................. 60
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(d) ................................................................................................ 60
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.63(e) ............................................................................................... 60
`
`37 C.F.R. §104(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 12
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.104(a) .................................................................................................. 3
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.22(a) .................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1) ............................................................................................... 58
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1) ............................................................................................... 58
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2) ............................................................................................... 59
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(3) ............................................................................................... 59
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4) ............................................................................................... 59
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339
`
`
`Exhibit List
`
`GOOG
`Exhibit # 
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339 to Krichevsky, et al. (filed July 16, 2004;
`issued July 11, 2011). 
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339.
`
`Declaration of John R. Grindon.
`
`Curriculum Vitae of John R. Grindon.
`
`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 Transactions on Image Processing, 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).
`
`Complaint For Patent Infringement, Vedanti Systems Limited, et al.
`v. Google Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01029-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. 1:14-cv-01029-GMS
`(D. Del.), filed September 30, 2014.
`
`Complaint For Patent Infringement, Max Sound Corporation, et al.,
`v. Google Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04412-JCS (N.D. Cal.), filed
`October 1, 2014.
`
`-vi-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339
`
`
`GOOG
`Exhibit # 
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`Description
`
`Definitions of “frame” and “pel”, Webster's New World Dictionary
`of Computer Terms, 7th 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. Google Inc., et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-
`04412-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 al., v. Google Inc., et
`al., 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 al., Case
`No. 5:14-cv-04412-EFD (N.D. Cal.), served August 21, 2015.
`
`Plaintiff's Preliminary Claim Constructions and Identification of
`Evidence, Max Sound Corporation, et al., v. Google Inc., et al., Case
`No. 5:14-cv-04412-EFD (N.D. Cal.), served August 21, 2015.
`
`File History for Reissue Application of U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339.
`
`File History of Parent PCT Application No. PCT/US02/00503 filed
`Jan. 16, 2002.
`
`Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, Max Sound Corporation, et al.,
`v. Google Inc., et al., 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 Inc., Max Sound Corporation, et
`al., v. Google Inc., et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-04412-EFD (N.D. Cal.),
`filed December 17, 2014.
`
`-vii-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339
`
`
`GOOG
`Exhibit # 
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`Description
`
`Certificate of Service on Youtube, LLC, Max Sound Corporation, et
`al., v. Google Inc., et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-04412-EFD (N.D. Cal.),
`filed December 17, 2014.
`
`Certificate of Service on On2 Technologies, Inc., Max Sound
`Corporation, et al., v. Google Inc., et al., Case No. 5:14-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).
`Gilbert Held, Data and Image Compression (4th ed., Wiley 1996).
`
`Yun Q. Shi & Huifang Sun, Image and Video Compression for
`Multimedia Engineering: Fundamentals, Algorithms, and Standards
`(CRC Press, 2000).
`
`-viii-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR Pettition of UU.S. Patent No. 7,9744,339
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D (37 QUESTEDLIEF REQT OF RELINNTRODUUCTION AAND STATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.F.R. §42.22(a))
`
`C G
`
`
`ner") petitiGoogle Inc. ("Petition
`
`
`
`ions for innter partes
`
`
`
` review annd cancellaation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of claimms 1, 6, 7,
`
`9, 10, 12,
`
`
`
`and 13 off U.S. Pateent No. 7,9974,339 to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Krichevskky et
`
`
`
`al. (GOOOG 1001..) As the eevidence hhere showss, the '3399 patent shhould not hhave
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`been grranted. It wwas only oobtained aafter a lenggthy proseecution oveer seven yyears
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`requirinng numerouus amendmments, seveeral changges of counnsel, and eextensive bback-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and forrth with thhe examineer and proo se appliccants regaarding the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claims, annd a
`
`
`
`purporteed contrast between
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the inventtors' data ooptimizatioon and weell-known pprior
`
`
`
`
`
`art image compreession andd decomprression tecchniques. EEven moree peculiar,, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`printed
`
`
`
`claims beiing enforceed do not ccorrespondd to the subbject matteer the examminer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and appplicants inddicated as
`
`
`
`
`
`allowed dduring the
`
`
`
`original pprosecutionn, nor was
`
`
`
` this
`
`
`
`error fixxed in a folllow-on reissue appliication, whhich was exxpressly abbandoned.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`electing piixels
`
`
`
`well-knowwn in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TThe challennged claimms of the '3339 patentt essentiallly cover s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`from diifferent reggions of ann image foor transmisssion (or wwhat was
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the prioor art at thee time as ssub-sampliing from vvariable sizzed blocks)). The areaas of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the regiions (also
`
`
`
`called bloocks) vary
`
`
`
`accordingg to the levvel of detaail in a reggion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regionss of relativvely high ddetail wheree pixel vallues vary, llike edges
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of objects
`
` or a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`person’s face, cann cover a ssmall area
`
`
`
`while regiions of rellatively loww detail, liike a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`clear skky or uniforrm color area, can bee larger. AnAn image iss divided innto blocks,, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`matrices are used
`
`
`
`as data strructures too help reprresent the bblocks andd selected ppixel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339
`
`locations for the blocks. Then, the block’s matrix data and selected pixel data can
`
`be used to approximate the image. In this way, the purported invention can reduce
`
`data needed to transmit an image since selected pixel data is sent rather than an
`
`entire image. This is separate from more complicated image processing like
`
`compression at a sending side or decompression at a receiving side.
`
`Far from being a patentable technique for data optimization, the evidence
`
`here shows such pixel selection from different regions sized according to level of
`
`detail was well-known in the prior art before the time of the '339 patent filing.
`
`Even the specific implementation of the '339 patent involving selected pixels from
`
`variable sized blocks and matrix data to help define blocks and selected pixel
`
`locations relative to the blocks were well-known in image processing. The
`
`evidence shows that, in image processing, this technique was used for the same
`
`reason the inventors' '339 patent used it: to reduce data needed to represent an
`
`image apart from any frequency-based compression or decompression.
`
`As set forth below, the applied combination of references, Spriggs in view of
`
`Golin, discloses image transmission as claimed here, and renders claims 1, 6, 7, 9,
`
`10, 12, and 13 of the '339 patent obvious. The Petition and accompanying evidence
`
`demonstrate that a more than reasonable likelihood exists that claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10,
`
`12, and 13 of the '339 patent are unpatentable. Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully
`
`requests that the Board institute trial on the grounds set forth herein.
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`4,339 IPR Pettition of UU.S. Patent No. 7,974
`
`
`
`
`
` GII. GROUNDS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`S FOR STTANDINGG (37 C.F.RR. §42.1044(a))
`
`
`
`
`
`TThe underssigned andd Petitionerr certify thhat the '3339 patent i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s availablee for
`
`review.
`
`
`
`Petitionerr is not barrred or estoopped fromm requestinng an interr partes revview
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`challengging claimms 1, 6, 7,, 9, 10, 122, and 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`petitionn. Petitioner was served with a ccomplaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on the grrounds ideentified in
`
`
`
`this
`
`
`
`for infringgement lesss than one
`
`
`
`year
`
`
`
`ago on NNovemberr 20, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`in the Norrthern Distrrict of Caliifornia (3:
`
`
`
`
`
`14-cv-044
`
`12)1.
`
`
`
`(GOOGG 1011, GOOOG 1021..)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4(b)) R. § 42.104E (37 C.F.RLLENGEIDDENTIFICATION OF CHAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`
`
`
`
`the Challeunds for tStatuutory Grou
`
`
`
`nge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A P
`
`
`
`Petitioner rrequests reeview of claims 1, 66, 7, 9, 10,, 12, and
`
`
`
`
`
`13 on a siingle
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ground. In particuular, claimms 1, 6, 7,
`
`9, 10, 12,
`
`
`
`and 13 arre unpaten
`
`
`
`table undeer 35
`
`U.S.C.
`
`
`
`§ 103 for hhaving beeen made obbvious by
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. NNo. 4,791,
`
`
`
`486 to Sprriggs
`
`et al. in
`
`
`
`
`view of UU.S. Pat. Noo. 5,225,9004 to Golinn.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
` Citattion of Priior Art
`
`
`
`B P
`
`
`
`Petitioner ccites two prrior art refeerences:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Petitionerr was also
`
`
`
`served wiith a compplaint baseed on the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`'339 patennt on
`
`August
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9, 2014. ((GOOG 10009.) Howwever, that t complainnt was dismmissed witthout
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`prejudicce (GOOGG 1010), annd is not rellevant to aan IPR bar
`
`
`
`
`
`date. (Maccauto U.S.AA. v.
`
`
`
`
`
`BOS GMMBH & KGG, IPR201
`
`
`
`
`
`18. (P.T.AA.B. Jan. 244, 2013))
`
`
`
`
`
`2-00004, PPaper No.
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR Pettition of UU.S. Patent No. 7,9744,339
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(11) U.S. Paatent No.
`
`
`
`4,791,486
`
`
`to Sprigg
`
`
`
`gs et al. (GGOOG 10005) is prioor art
`
`
`
`
`
`under aat least 35
`
`
`
`U.S.C. § 1102(b) beccause it isssued on D
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ecember 113, 1988, yyears
`
`
`
`
`
`before tthe earliestt possible ffiling date of the '3399 patent onn Jan. 16, 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(22) U.S. Paatent No. 55,225,904
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to Golin ((GOOG 10006) is pri
`
`
`
`002; and
`
`
`
`or art undder at
`
`
`
`least 355 U.S.C. §
`
`
`
`102(b) beecause it wwas issued d on July 66, 1993, yeears beforee the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patent. earliest possible fiiling date oof the '339
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`
`
` TTHE '339 PPATENT
`
`
`
`A.
`
`
`
` Overrview of thhe '339 pattent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The '339 paatent descrribes and cclaims "a s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ystem andd method fofor transmi
`
`
`
`tting
`
`A T
`
`
`
`data … ." (GOOOG 1001, 11:32-33.) TThe speciffication inntroduces ssystem 1000 as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"allow[iing] data ssuch as viideo data tto be transsmitted in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`require
`
`
`
`the data too be compressed." (IId., 2:41-45
`5.) In this
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`purportss to provvide "manny importaant techni
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cal advanntages" as
`
`
`
`data cann be
`
`
`
`transmittted withoout comprressing at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`receivinng end. (Id., 1:53-57.
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`the sendiing end oor decomppressing att the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a mannerr that doess not
`
`
`
`
`
`way, the ''339 discloosure
`
`
`
`
`
`SSystem 1000 includess a data trransmissioon system
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`102 and
`
`
`
`data receiiving
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`104, whicch are couppled over aa communnications mmedium 1114 as showwn in
`
`
`
`
`
`system
`
`FIG.1:
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339
`
`
`
`(Id., FIG. 1.)
`
`
`
`"Data transmission system 102 includes frame analysis system 106 and pixel
`
`selection system 108, each of which can be implemented in hardware, software or
`
`a suitable combination, and which can be one or more software systems operating
`
`on a general purpose processing platform." (Id., 2:65-3:3.) Likewise, data receiving
`
`system 104 includes pixel data system 110 and display generation system 112 each
`
`of which is implemented in hardware, software or a suitable combination. (Id.,
`
`FIG. 1, 3:35-40.)
`
`In operation, data transmission system 102 can receive frames of video data
`
`and select pixels of data for transmission that are needed to allow the frames of
`
`video data to be viewed by the human eye. (Id., 3:16-19.) The number of pixels
`
`selected depends on whether regions of a frame have high or low detail and can be
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339
`
`decided on a region-by-region basis. (Id., 3:23-34.) More particularly, matrix size
`
`data and selected pixel data from locations within a matrix or other region can be
`
`transmitted for a frame. (Id., 3:51-4:22 and FIG. 5.)
`
`Frame analysis system 106 analyzes an image frame and generates "region
`
`data, such as a uniform matrix size that is used to divide the frame into a
`
`predetermined set of matrices." (Id., 1:44-46.) Regions can be uniform size blocks
`
`such as "a 10x10 matrix" or "matrices varying in size, such as from a 1x1 matrix to
`
`a 5x5 matrix or greater." (Id., 3:62 and 4:2-3.)
`
`The size and configuration of blocks or "matrices" are based on the level of
`
`detail within the block. (Id., 5:21-6:3.) In this way, "the amount of pixel data
`
`required to transmit image data or other suitable data for perception by a human
`
`eye or other suitable applications can be determined." (Id., 5:29-32.) The amount of
`
`pixel data required to reproduce a block is determined by "pixel variation" within a
`
`block. (Id., 5:54-55.) The pixel variation tolerance can be set "such that in areas
`
`having low information con[t]ent, the matrix size is increased whereas in areas
`
`having high information content the matrix size is decreased." (Id., 8:63-67.) That
`
`is, there will be more numerous, smaller blocks generated in areas of high detail
`
`and fewer, larger blocks generated in areas of low detail.
`
`Pixel selection system 108 selects a subset of pixels from each predefined
`
`matrix or other region to transmit in an "optimized" data transmission system. (Id.,
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR Pettition of UU.S. Patent No. 7,9744,339
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4:11-133.) Pixel seelection sysstem 108 aalso generaates "pixell location ddata withinn the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`matrix,
`
`such that
`
`the pixel
`
`
`
`can be reegenerated
`
`
`
`at a preddeterminedd location,
`
`
`
`at a
`
`
`
`randomm location, oor in other suitable mmanners." ((Id., 4:18-221.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iving end,
`AAt the rece
`
`
`
`
`
`pixel dataa system 1
`
`
`
`10 "receivves matrix
`
`
`
`data and ppixel
`
`
`
`data and assemblles frame
`
`
`
`data." (Id.
`, 4:31-33.
`
`
`
`) "Displayy generatioon system
`
`
`
`112
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`receivess frames off data fromm pixel data system 1110 and ge
`
`
`
`
`
`nerates viddeo data, aaudio
`
`
`
`l data, or
`data, grraphical daata, textua
`
`
`
`
`
`other suit
`
`able data
`
`
`
`for use byy a user."
`
`(Id.,
`
`
`
`4:44-477.) Furtheer descripttion of the systemss and methhods are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`provided
`
`with
`
`respect
`
`to system
`
`
`
`modules oof FIGs. 2--4, the metthods in thhe flowchaarts of FIGGs. 5-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`segmentattion in FIGGs. 9
`
`
`
`
`
`Independeent claims
`
`1, 7,
`
`
`
`8, and tthe examples of unifform and nnon-uniforrm matrix
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and 10.
`
`B.
`
`
`
` Claimms as Prinnted
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B T
`
`
`
`The '339 paatent as graanted incluudes 13 tottal claims.
`
`
`
`and 10,
`
`
`
`all challennged here
`
`
`
`along withh dependennt claims 66, 9, 12, aand 13, invvolve
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`samplinng pixels ffrom regioons of diffferent sizess. This sammpling redduces the
`
`
`
`
`
`data
`
`
`
`transmittted.
`
`
`
`WWhile theree is significcant overlaap, the threee independdent claimms approachh the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`subject
`
`
`
`matter with some ddifferences
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in their laanguage liike whetheer they usee the
`
`
`
`
`
`terms reegion, matrrix, or optiimized mattrix data foor areas of f a frame orr array of ppixel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`data. Cllaim 1 recites a "sysstem for trransmittingg data trannsmission"
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(sic) haviing a
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR Pettition of UU.S. Patent No. 7,9744,339
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[frame] analysis system, pixxel selectio
`
`
`
`
`OOG ystem. (GOeceiving syn system, aand data re
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1001, 110:62-11:99.) Claim
`
`
`
`
`
`6 also ddepends frrom claimm 1 and rrecites furrther
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`limitatioons for thee pixel seleection systtem. (Id., 111:25-28.) Claim 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` depends ffrom
`
`
`
`claim 1 and recites further liimitations for a pixel l variation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CClaim 7 reecites a "mmethod forr transmittting data"
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`system. (Idd., 12:31-334.)
`
`
`
`
`
`with stepps of receiiving
`
`
`
`
`
`frame ddata, geneerating opptimized mmatrix dataa, selectinng, and trransmittedd the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`selection pixel daata and thhe optimizzed matrixx data. (Idd., 11:29-112:6.) Claiim 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`dependss from claiim 7 and aadds furtheer limitatio
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ns on dataa in the trannsmitting.
`
`
`
`(Id.,
`
`
`
`12:10-12.) Claim
`
`
`
`10 recitess a "method for transsmitting daata" with ssteps incluuding
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`data into ttwo or moore regionss; selectingg a set of ppixel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"dividinng an arrayy of pixel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`data froom each reegion;" andd "transmiitting the rregion dataa and the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`data." (IId., 12:13--24.) The ddividing inncludes "diividing thee array of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`selection ppixel
`
`pixel data
`
`into
`
`two or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`more matrrices havinng a unifoorm size" aand "two oor more mmatrices haaving
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`two or mmore different sizes." (Id., 12:115-20.) Finnally, claimm 12 depennds from cclaim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10 and aadds furtheer limitatioons on dataa in the trannsmitting.
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id., 12:277-29.)
`
`
`
`'339 patennt was fileed on July
`
`
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`Prosecution History
`
`
`
`C T
`
`
`
`The applicaation leadiing to the
`
`
`
`
`
`continuation of ann internatioonal appliccation, PCTT/US02/000503, filed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16, 2004
`
`as a
`
`
`
`Jan. 16, 22002.
`
`
`
`(GOOGG 1002, p.
`
`
`
`1.) The orriginal prosecution bbefore the EExaminer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`was exten
`
`sive.
`
`
`
`
`
`It spannned 7 yearss with nummerous offiice actions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`, several cchanges of
`
`
`
`counsel, aand a
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339
`
`series of amendments and interviews between the Examiner and Applicants before
`
`the patent was granted July 5, 2011.
`
`To distinguish the prior art during prosecution, Applicants made many
`
`remarks and repeatedly maintained that their claimed invention transmits data
`
`without compression. (See, e.g., Jan. 24, 2011 Amendment, Id., 591 ("the
`
`generated set of pixel data is selected directly … and will be transmitted
`
`without any further processing, due to the fact that the applicants['] invention
`
`does not compress nor decompress data.") (emphasis in original).) This
`
`emphasis on optimization without compression was part of an extensive back and
`
`forth with the Examiner and highlighted with remarks and text entered in each
`
`independent claim preamble at allowance. (See April 1, 2011 Amendment After
`
`Allowance and Examiner's Interview Summary of April 1, 2011 agreement with
`
`Applicants, Id., 634 and 642.)
`
`Applicants also characterized their invention as varying a size of a matrix or
`
`region based on its pixel variation to reduce the amount of data transmitted. In the
`
`Jan. 24, 2011 Supplemental Amendment Applicants reproduced FIGs. 6 and 10 in
`
`full and said "[t]he present invention employs an algorithm in which nearby
`
`pixel values are compared. If the difference between pixels exceeds a
`
`threshold, that means that the picture is changing (e.g., changing spatially or
`
`temporally) rapidly; accordingly, a smaller region size is selected, with --one
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`IPR Petition of U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339
`
`pixel or one set meaning zero, one or more pixels, being transmitted for that
`
`region. If the difference between the pixels does not exceed the threshold, that
`
`means that the picture is changing (spatially or temporally) slowly, and only a
`
`small amount of data will need to be transmitted…; accordingly, a larger
`
`matrix size is selected." (emphasis in original.) (Id., 585-589.)
`
`The printed '339 patent claims though do not reflect the final claims allowed
`
`by the Examiner. Several limitations made or required during prosecution are
`
`omitted. For example, preamble
`
`limitations are omitted. The Examiner's
`
`Amendment of June 1, 2011 like the earlier claim version submitted by Applicants
`
`on April 1, 2011, amended the preambles of claims 1, 11, and 16 (renumbered at
`
`issue as claims 1, 7 and 10) making clear the claimed system and methods are "for
`
`transmitting data optimization instead of data compression." (GOOG 1002, 648-
`
`649) (emphasis in original).) Other claim limitations are also missing from or
`
`added to the printed claims compared to the claims set out in the Examiner's
`
`Amendment of June 1, 2011. For example, claim 1 has at least two limitations
`
`missing: the term "frame" to modify "analysis system" and "display," and the
`
`phrase "wherein transmitting the data to" before a data receiving system. In sum,
`
`the issued claims as printed do not reflect all amendments entered after the
`
`February 24, 2011, Examiner Amendment (See Feb. 24, 2011 Notice of Allowance
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR Pettition of UU.S. Patent No. 7,9744,339
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`with Exxaminer Ammendmentt, April 1,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2011, Ammendment,
`
`
`