UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2016-00212
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`___________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00212 of
`Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` 
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii 
`I. 
`Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 
`II. 
`Argument ..................................................................................................... 2 
`A. 
`Vedanti’s Motion fails to provide a proper construction for new claim
`terms having language not found in the specification. ........................................... 3 
`Vedanti’s Motion fails to demonstrate patentability of the proposed
`B. 
`substitute claims with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112. ................................................. 5 
`1.  The specification of the ’339 patent fails to provide adequate written
`description and enablement for the new claim elements. ............................ 5 
`2.  The terms of the proposed substitute claims are indefinite.......................... 8 
`a.  “Uniform matrix size data” ....................................................................... 8 
`b.  “Non-predetermined” ............................................................................... 9 
`Vedanti’s Motion fails to show patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of the
`C. 
`proposed substitute claims over the known material prior art. ............................ 11 
`1.  Vedanti’s motion fails to demonstrate patentability of the claim language
`itself. ........................................................................................................... 11 
`2.  Vedanti’s motion fails to demonstrate patentability over the prior art for
`“generating optimized matrix data from the frame data, wherein the
`optimized matrix data defines at least two regions having different
`aspect ratios.” (Claims 14-15) ................................................................... 13 
`3.  Vedanti’s motion fails to demonstrate patentability over the prior art for
`“selecting a non-predetermined set of pixel data.” (Claims 16-17) .......... 18 
`Vedanti’s motion fails to demonstrate patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`D. 
`of substitute claims 14 and 15 over other material prior art................................. 20 
`i.  Spriggs in view of Golin, and further in view of Shin ........................ 21 
`ii.  Shin in view of Spriggs ....................................................................... 23 
`Conclusion ................................................................................................. 25 
`
`III. 
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00212 of
`Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Supreme Court Cases
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ......................................... 16, 17
`Federal Circuit Cases
`ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 838 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................... 16, 17
`In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .......................................................... 16
`In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959) ................................................................... 16
`Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................7, 8
`LizardTech v. Earth Res. Mapping Inc., 424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................. 7
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ....................... 3
`Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Int’l, 316 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................... 5
`Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharma., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ....................... 7
`Board Decisions
`CaptionCall, L.L.C. v. Ultratec, Inc., IPR2015-00637, Paper 98 (PTAB 2016) .. 7, 8, 9
`Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (BPAI 2008) ........................................... 9, 10
`Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 (PTAB 2014) .....2, 3
`JDS Uniphase Corp. v. Fiber, LLC, IPR2013-00318, Paper 45 (PTAB 2014) ......... 5
`MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc., IPR2015-00040, Paper 42 (PTAB 2015) ..... 13
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................. 5, 11, 20
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ......................................................................................................3, 5
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) ............................................................................................ 5, 6, 8
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) .............................................................................................. 5, 10
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00212 of
`Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
`
`Petitioner Google Inc. (“Google”) hereby opposes Patent Owner’s Contingent
`
`Motion to Amend (Paper 16 (“Mot.”)) by Vedanti Systems Limited (“Vedanti”).
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Vedanti filed a Motion to Amend that seeks to substitute claims 14-17 in
`
`place of canceled claims 7, 9, 10, and 12, respectively. Claim 14 adds a
`
`requirement for “different aspect ratios”—a term without support in the ’339
`
`specification. Claim 16 adds that regions are defined by region data, and Vedanti
`
`contrives an indefinite term—“non-predetermined” set of pixel data—in its attempt
`
`to avoid prior art. As the evidence here shows, none of these limitations adds
`
`anything patentable to the independent claims. Claims 15 and 17 also add nothing
`
`patentable, as they simply correspond to issued claims 9 and 12 respectively, with
`
`just their dependencies updated.
`
`The Motion to Amend is itself deficient in several respects and should be
`
`denied. The Motion does not provide a proper claim construction for two new
`
`claim limitations: “different aspect ratios” and “non-predetermined.” This is
`
`troublesome, as these terms are not in the original specification, lack adequate
`
`written description support and enablement, and are indefinite.
`
`Vedanti also fails to demonstrate the patentability of the proposed substitute
`
`claims over known material prior art, including Spriggs, Golin, and Keith. This
`
`failure is acute, as Vedanti overlooks teachings of blocks with different aspect
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00212 of
`Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`ratios in Spriggs (GOOG 1005), and a specific teaching in Golin (GOOG 1006)
`
`(and Keith (Ex. 2015)) describing randomly selecting pixels. Vedanti alleges a lack
`
`of motivation to combine Spriggs and Golin (or Keith), but falls short. Vedanti’s
`
`arguments are misdirected at fill codes taught in Golin and Keith, rather than the
`
`actual block division teachings used to render the claims obvious. In this way,
`
`Vedanti has not shown claims 14-17 to be patentable over Spriggs in view of Golin
`
`(or Keith).
`
`Further, substitute claims 14-15 would have been obvious based on new
`
`material prior art by Shin. Shin (GOOG 1035) teaches subdividing an image into
`
`blocks with different aspect ratios, and is properly combinable with Spriggs in
`
`view of Golin to render claims 14-15 obvious. Alternatively, claims 14-15 are
`
`unpatentable using Shin as a primary reference combined with the pixel selection
`
`teaching of Spriggs.
`
`Because Vedanti fails to set forth a prima facie case for the relief requested
`
`or satisfy its burden of proof, its motion should be denied in its entirety.
`
`II. Argument
`In a motion to amend, the Patent Owner bears the burden of proof to
`
`demonstrate patentability of its proposed substitute claims over the prior art, and,
`
`thus, entitlement to add these claims to its patent. Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom,
`
`Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 26, at 7 (PTAB 2014); see also Microsoft Corp. v.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00212 of
`Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1304-06 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the Board stated in
`
`Idle Free:
`
`The burden is not on the petitioner to show unpatentability,
`but on the patent owner to show patentable distinction over
`the prior art of record and also prior art known to the patent
`owner. Some representation should be made about the
`specific technical disclosure of the closest prior art known to
`the patent owner, and not just a conclusory remark that no
`prior art known to the patent owner renders obvious the
`proposed substitute claims. Idle Free, Paper 26, at 7.
`
`Vedanti has not met its burden. The evidence shows that the proposed
`
`substitute claims are unpatentable on multiple grounds.
`
`A.
`Vedanti’s Motion fails to provide a proper construction for new
`claim terms having language not found in the specification.
`
`The flaws in Vedanti’s Motion begin with its introduction of two new claim
`
`terms—“different aspect ratios” and “non-predetermined”—that are not found in
`
`the patent’s specification. The Motion’s flaws are compounded by Vedanti’s
`
`failure to provide claim constructions for these terms, or explain what the proper
`
`claim constructions are under a BRI. The Board has held that a “motion to amend
`
`claims must identify how the proposed substitute claims are to be construed,
`
`especially when the proposed substitute claims introduce new claim terms.” JDS
`
`Uniphase Corp. v. Fiber, LLC, IPR2013-00318, Paper 45, at 47 (PTAB 2014)
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`(citing Idle Free, Paper 26, at 7).
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00212 of
`Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
`
`In particular, Vedanti adds the terms “different aspect ratios” (Claim 14) and
`
`“non-predetermined” (Claim 16), even though neither term appears in the ’339
`
`Patent specification or underlying PCT application. Vedanti admits as much in its
`
`Motion on pages 3-4, where it provides no citations or references for either term.
`
`At most, the Motion alleges support based on limited examples in the specification,
`
`despite the claims using different language. (Id.) For example, for “different aspect
`
`ratios,” as recited in claim 14, Vedanti points to Fig. 10 and its accompanying text.
`
`(See Mot. 3.) Vedanti also points to general text on “non-uniform sizes” and “non-
`
`symmetrical shapes” (id.), but none of the text explicitly recites the term “aspect
`
`ratio,” much less the term “different aspect ratios.” Nor does Vedanti provide a
`
`proper claim construction for the new term. Vedanti instead muddies the water by
`
`characterizing claim 14 as requiring “non-uniform aspect ratios” (Mot. 2, 13),
`
`which is different from the actual language of claim 14.
`
`In a similar vein, for “non-predetermined” (Claim 16), Vedanti points to text
`
`stating that pixels can be selected “(1) in accordance with a ʻpredetermined’
`
`sequence or location, (2) randomly, or (3) using some other suitable selection
`
`criteria.” (Id. at 4.) From this series, Vedanti appears to assume that the term “non-
`
`predetermined” is supported by reference to a random selection. Not only is this
`
`incorrect, but Vedanti still does not provide a proper construction under a BRI for
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00212 of
`Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`the term “non-predetermined,” much less identify whether it is limited or not
`
`limited to random selection.
`
`Like the patent owner in JDS, Vedanti failed to provide any explicit
`
`construction of new claim terms introduced by its Motion. See JDS Uniphase
`
`Corp. IPR2013-00318, Paper 45, at 47-48 (PTAB 2014). “Claim construction is an
`
`important step in patentability determination.” Id. at 46 (citing Oakley, Inc. v.
`
`Sunglass Hut Int’l, 316 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Because Vedanti has
`
`failed to take this crucial first step, Vedanti has failed to meet its burden to
`
`demonstrate patentability of substitute claims 14-17 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`
`For these reasons alone, Vedanti’s Motion should be denied because a proper
`
`claim construction was not provided. In the absence of a claim construction,
`
`Vedanti cannot show patentability of its substitute claims 14-17 under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 112(a), 112 (b) and 103.
`
`Even apart from its lack of claim construction, Vedanti still has not met its
`
`burden to show that substitute claims 14-17 are patentable under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 112(a), 112 (b) and 103. Each of these failures is described in turn below.
`
`B.
`Vedanti’s Motion fails to demonstrate patentability of the pro-
`posed substitute claims with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`1.
`The specification of the ’339 patent fails to provide adequate
`written description and enablement for the new claim elements.
`
`Vedanti has not shown that claims 14-17 are adequately described and
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00212 of
`Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`enabled under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). For claim 14, Vedanti relies entirely on the
`
`specification at col. 10, lines 38-47, and Fig. 10 as allegedly supporting “at least
`
`two regions having different aspect ratios.” (Mot. 2-3 (citing GOOG 1018 ¶ 67).)
`
`However, nowhere in the drawings, the specification, or the original claims does
`
`the term “aspect ratio” appear, let alone the term “different aspect ratios.” Instead,
`
`written description merely states, “[e]ach matrix of the array [of pixel data] can be
`
`of different size, but the matrices must form the array when combined.” (GOOG
`
`1001, 10:39-41.) “Different size” does not require different aspect ratios. For
`
`example, the specification states that the “size of matrices within the frame can be
`
`varied, such that a given frame is made up of matrices varying in size, such as from
`
`a 1×1 matrix to a 5×5 matrix or greater.” (Id., 4:1-3; GOOG 1030 ¶ 94.) Here,
`
`different sizes maintain the same aspect ratio of 1:1. Similarly, the later described
`
`“non-symmetrical” matrices of different sizes still have the same, uniform aspect
`
`ratio N:M. (GOOG 1001, 4:3-6.) The ’339 patent has only a single example in Fig.
`
`10 where selected matrices may be considered to have proportionally different
`
`numbers of horizontal and vertical pixels. This sole example does not isolate two
`
`different aspect ratios as such, and does not convey to a POSA that the inventor
`
`possessed a claimed invention covering all possible frames with “at least two
`
`regions having different aspect ratios.” (Cf. GOOG 1030 ¶ 93.)
`
`Thus, the ’339 patent does not clearly convey that the inventor “had
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00212 of
`Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing” and “would enable
`
`one of ordinary skill to practice the full scope” of substitute claims 14 and 15.
`
`LizardTech v. Earth Res. Mapping Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(citations omitted). Accordingly, the motion to amend should be denied at least
`
`with respect to claims 14 and 15.
`
`Substitute claim 16 includes the new term “non-predetermined.” This
`
`negative limitation does not appear anywhere in the disclosure of the ’339 patent.
`
`For this newly added negative limitation to have proper written description
`
`support, the disclosure must at least list reasons for selecting a non-predetermined
`
`set, or specify alternatives where applicable. See CaptionCall, L.L.C. v. Ultratec,
`
`Inc., IPR2015-00637, Paper 98, at 108-09 (PTAB 2016) (citing Inphi Corp. v.
`
`Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharma.,
`
`Inc., 694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Here, the specification only discloses
`
`“predetermined sequence,” “predetermined order,” and “predetermined location”
`
`with respect to pixel selection in a “predefined matrix.” (GOOG 1001, 4:11-30.)
`
`The negative limitation of “selecting a non-predetermined set of pixel data,” or any
`
`supporting rationale, is nowhere to be found in the specification or by any
`
`reasonable inference from a POSA. As such, the disclosure is unclear as to why
`
`“random” selection or “other suitable manners” (id.) would be an alternative to the
`
`“predetermined” means specified. Introducing the “non-predetermined” language
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00212 of
`Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`appears to be an “arbitrary dissection” of the ’339 patent—“amending the claims in
`
`order to avoid the prior art,” which the Board and the Federal Circuit have
`
`disallowed. CaptionCall, IPR2015-00637, Paper 98, at 109 (quoting Inphi, 805
`
`F.3d at 1356). Lacking support, the new language of substitute claims 16 and 17
`
`constitutes impermissible new matter.
`
`2.
`
`The terms of the proposed substitute claims are indefinite.
`a. “Uniform matrix size data”
`Considering substitute claim 15 as a whole with the limitations of claim 14,
`
`the term “uniform matrix size data” is indefinite. According to Vedanti, claim 14’s
`
`recitation, “wherein the optimized matrix data defines at least two regions having
`
`different aspect ratios,” refers directly to Fig. 10 of the patent. (E.g., GOOG 1001,
`
`10:38-47; see also Mot. 3; GOOG 1001, 5:54-66.) This stands in contrast to the
`
`uniform matrix size of Fig. 9, recited in claim 15. (E.g., GOOG 1001, 10:19-23
`
`(“Each matrix of the array is of uniform size, such as 4×4. Thus the matrix size
`
`data for the entire frame can be represented by a single data set.”).) Because
`
`regions having different aspect ratios are non-uniform (see Mot. 2, 13), claim 15
`
`requires a frame to have both uniform and non-uniform matrix size data at the
`
`same time. (See GOOG 1030 ¶ 97.) Yet this is not possible. (Id.) Because of this
`
`conflicting claim scope, substitute claim 15 is further indefinite and unpatentable.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00212 of
`Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
`
`b. “Non-predetermined”
`The term “non-predetermined” in substitute claims 16 and 17 is indefinite,
`
`as not clearly reciting the metes and bounds of the claimed invention and subject to
`
`multiple meanings. A POSA could not determine
`
`the scope of “non-
`
`predetermined.” This is not surprising, because the specification gives no guidance
`
`on the term’s meaning. (See id.) The “non-predetermined” term was simply
`
`contrived by Vedanti to avoid prior art (see CaptionCall, IPR2015-00637, Paper
`
`98, at 109). The scope of “non-predetermined” could refer to “not known ahead of
`
`time” based on its ordinary meaning, or it could refer to “random,” given the only
`
`other example in the ’339 specification that is not predetermined.
`
`The Board has held that claims are indefinite where an element “is amenable
`
`to two plausible definitions.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215 (BPAI
`
`2008) (precedential). Such ambiguity may exist when a definition in the
`
`specification differs from the ordinary meaning of the words in the claim, and
`
`where “neither the specification, nor the claims, nor the ordinary meanings of the
`
`words provides any guidance as to what [Patentee] intends to cover with this claim
`
`language.” Id.
`
`The
`
`first plausible definition
`
`is
`
`the ordinary meaning of “non-
`
`predetermined,” which signifies something not already determined before a
`
`selection event occurs. Vedanti’s own expert supports this construction, swearing
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00212 of
`Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`that this term means “not known ahead of time.” (GOOG 1034 at 125:8-14.)
`
`On the other hand, Vedanti also argues that the term is supported by the
`
`specification’s implication of what the term is not. The specification includes
`
`“random” and “other suitable manners” as other possibilities compared to
`
`“predetermined.” (See Mot. 4 (citing GOOG 1018, ¶¶ 25, 37-40, 46, 57-60).)1 This
`
`gives rise
`
`to a different yet equally plausible
`
`interpretation
`
`that “non-
`
`predetermined” means random. This ambiguity is further compounded by not
`
`explaining how the term “other suitable manners” affects the meaning of “non-
`
`predetermined.” Indeed, language similar to “other suitable means” is used in the
`
`’339 patent to describe “predetermined” examples that are outside the scope of the
`
`substitute claims (GOOG 1001, 4:17-18 and 4:41-43).
`
`Under Miyazaki, because substitute claims 16-17 recite or incorporate a
`
`limitation amenable to multiple ambiguous definitions that cannot be resolved,
`
`they are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Vedanti’s Motion to Amend should
`
`thus be denied as to claims 16 and 17.
`
`
`1 Because the ’339 patent also fails to define what is “random,” the ordinary
`
`meaning in the art must govern, which is that of lacking order or predictability.
`
`(See GOOG 1033 at 373 (1999).) This definition is not necessarily a basis to form
`
`a clear understanding of the term “non-predetermined.”
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00212 of
`Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
`
`C.
`Vedanti’s Motion fails to show patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`of the proposed substitute claims over the known material prior art.
`
`With respect to prior art, Vedanti has not met its burden to show patent-
`
`ability over at least two material references (Golin, GOOG 1006, and Keith, Ex.
`
`2015). Both of these references were well-known to Vedanti, as they were either
`
`applied in this proceeding or cited in the original patent prosecution. Vedanti fails
`
`to direct its patentability analysis to the claim language itself, and ignores material
`
`teachings having text that is identical to the newly added claim language. Even if
`
`these deficiencies are ignored, Vedanti fails to substantively show that its
`
`substitute claims are patentable.
`
`
`
`In addressing obviousness of the new claims over Spriggs and Golin (and
`
`other art), Google builds on the assumption that Spriggs and Golin, as cited in this
`
`proceeding, have already rendered the corresponding original claim elements
`
`obvious, and that the new limitations in Vedanti’s Motion to Amend are newly
`
`considered here in combination with the original claim elements.
`
`1.
`Vedanti’s motion fails to demonstrate patentability of the
`claim language itself.
`
`As mentioned above, substitute claims 14 and 15 now recite “at least two
`
`regions having different aspect ratios.” Vedanti admits in its Motion that Golin and
`
`Keith at Fig. 27 teach a subregion 2706 that “has a different aspect ratio than the
`
`other subregions.” (Mot. 7.) Vedanti later mischaracterizes Golin and Keith as
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00212 of
`Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`teaching “non-uniform aspect ratios” (id.) rather than “different aspect ratios.” By
`
`doing this, Vedanti admits that different aspect ratios are taught by each of Golin
`
`and Keith, but does not explain why such different aspect ratios are not
`
`combinable. Vedanti only provides analysis (albeit incorrect) for why “non-
`
`uniform aspect ratios” cannot be combined with Spriggs.
`
`Failing to address material teachings in Golin and Keith for claims 16 and 17
`
`is even more telling. Substitute claims 16 and 17 recite “selecting a non-
`
`predetermined set of pixel data from each region,” and Vedanti explicitly points to
`
`“random pixel selection” as one example that provides support for the “non-
`
`predetermined” claim term. (Mot. 4.) Yet Vedanti does not discuss relevant parts
`
`of Golin and Keith that read directly on this new language. Instead, Vedanti
`
`generically argues that both Golin and Keith “do[] not teach or suggest pixel
`
`selection.” (Mot. 22.) Such an argument is incorrect. Golin and Keith both
`
`explicitly disclose “a pixel randomly selected from each of these sub-regions.”
`
`(GOOG 1006, 28:1-2; Ex. 2015, 27:63-64 (emphasis added).) Vedanti offers no
`
`explanation of non-obviousness to account for these parts of Golin and Keith,
`
`which clearly read on Vedanti’s substitute claims 16 and 17.
`
`The Motion to Amend should thus be denied in its entirety for filing to
`
`address the material prior art of record.
`
`Vedanti questions the publication dates of Exhibits 2006-2008, but fails to
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00212 of
`Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`discuss their teachings on the merits. Further, Vedanti has not submitted or made
`
`any specific reference to the material prior art of record from the prosecution of the
`
`patent, e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,778,092, 5,784,175, 5,838,333, 5,878,169, 6,014,181,
`
`6,078,307, 6,198,467, 6,326,981, 6,473,062, 6,608,632, and 7,551,189, which are
`
`cited on the face of the ’339 patent, along with European patent documents and
`
`other publications. Vedanti glosses over these “additional references,” stating only
`
`that “Patent Owner does not believe that any disclose” the claim language. (See
`
`Mot. 11.) Vedanti provides no further discussion of the references’ teachings, even
`
`in general terms. As such, Vedanti has failed to meet its “duty of candor and good
`
`faith” by grouping prior art references together according to their particular
`
`teachings. MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc., IPR2015-00040, Paper 42, at 3
`
`(PTAB 2015).
`
`Even if these flaws in Vedanti’s analysis are ignored, the evidence still does
`
`not show non-obviousness of the proposed substitute claims over Spriggs in view
`
`of Golin (or Keith).
`
`2.
`Vedanti’s motion fails to demonstrate patentability over the
`prior art for “generating optimized matrix data from the frame data,
`wherein the optimized matrix data defines at least two regions hav-
`ing different aspect ratios.” (Claims 14-15)
`
`As established on the record of this proceeding, Spriggs in view of Golin
`
`renders obvious claims 7, 9, 10 and 12. The newly proposed substitute claims
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Case IPRR2016-002112 of
`Patent No
`
`. 7,974,3399 B2
`
`
`
`obvious oover Sprigggs in vieww of Goliin. Indeed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`would ssimilarly hhave been
`
`
`
`
`
`claims 114-15, Veddanti admitts that the nnew limitaations are ttaught by GGolin and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`challengges the commbination of the teacchings.
`
`
`
`, for
`
`only
`
`
`
`SSpriggs disscloses thaat transmittted data ““comprisess a sequennce of diviision
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`codes,
`
`
`
`divisionn code beinng followeed by the codes correesponding
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`each indiccating wheether or nnot the corrrespondinng area is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`divided;
`
`each
`
`
`
`to parts off the respecctive
`
`
`
`
`
`area.” (GGOOG 1005, Fig. 6, 5:27-31 (sshown in ppart immeddiately beloow).)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UUnder a BRRI, Spriggss’ vertices
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“define att least two
`
`
`
`regions haaving diffeerent
`
`
`
`
`
`aspect rratios.” Sppriggs, Figg. 6. For eexample,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the recttangles deffined by FFBIG versuus JLCH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`or EPJRR, each havving a difffferent aspeect ratio,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`would
`
`
`
`have beenn obvious. In this eexample,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JLCH iss four timees as wide
`
`
`
`
`
`as EPJR aand half th
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e height off FBIG, annd EPJR iss one
`
`
`
`fourth aas wide as
`
`
`
`d half the FBIG andd JLCH an
`
`
`height of
`
`
`
`FBIG. (Seee, e.g., GOOOG
`
`
`
`
`
`1030 ¶ 95; GOOGG 1034, 102:6-15, 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25:15-1266:4.) Sprigggs even teeaches sennding
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sample
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`values witth each divvision codee includingg 0s and 1s.. (GOOG 11005, 3:2-112.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EEven if Sprriggs alonee may not hhave rendeered substiitute claimm 14 obviouus to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a POSAA, Golin inn combination with SSpriggs woould have,
`
`
`
`
`
`for at leastt the followwing
`
`
`
`
`
`reasons:
`
`
`
`FFig. 27 of
`
`
`
`on” of an gionalizatiory tree regGolin shoows “binar
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`image, wwhich
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Case IPRR2016-002112 of
`Patent No
`
`. 7,974,3399 B2
`
`vertically,
`
`
`
`dependingg on
`
`
`
`a region iinto sub-reegions, eitther horizoontally or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`divides
`
`
`
`edge deetection in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`parts of thhe region. AA first spliit in Fig. 227 is horizoontal, folloowed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`been founnd to
`
`
`
`by a seccond split bbelow the hhorizontal split, vertiically dividding the boottom half.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Binaryy tree regioonalizationn is the prreferred mmode becauuse it has
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`normallly result in fewer regiions and h
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ence fewerr bits.” (GOOOG 10066, 13:46-488.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AAs shown
`
`
`
`in Fig. 277 (right), fofor examplle, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`right sidde of “split 2” (2706) is a recctangular rregion
`
`
`
`having
`
`an aspect
`
`ratio that
`
`
`
`is half thee width off split
`
`
`
`1’s top
`
`
`
`side of (22704), andd twice thee height off split
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3’s botttom side (22710).
`
`
`
`
`
`BBecause thee heights aand widthss of the othher rectanggles are noot proportiional
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to thosee of 2706,, these recctangles arre the resuult of a binnary tree rregionalizaation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“generaating optimmized matrrix data frrom the fraame data”” (e.g., id.,, Figs. 50--51),
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`which ““defines att least twoo regions hhaving diffferent aspeect ratios,”” as claimeed in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`substituute claim 144.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AA POSA poossessing thhe teachinggs of Sprigggs and Goolin at the ttime of alleeged
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inventioon would hhave seen GGolin’s binnary tree diivisions ass a simple ssubstitutionn for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Spriggs’ division
`
`
`
`codes, witth a predicctable resuult. (GOOGG 1030 ¶¶¶ 105-109.)) For
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`examplee, being abble to use rregions of f different aaspect rati
`
`
`
`
`
`the accuracy of
`
`
`
`coding reggions as ttaught by
`
`
`
`Golin to
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`os would hhave improoved
`
`
`
`
`
`be able tto differenntiate
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00212 of
`Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`additional splits as horizontal or vertical, depending on the number of edges in a
`
`region to be subdivided. (GOOG 1030 ¶ 106.) Simply by accounting for the
`
`different dimensions of multiple subregions, as one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have done, this modification would have yielded further reductions in data
`
`transmitted. This would have improved transmission data size, compared to simply
`
`keeping splits having the same aspect ratio. This would not have rendered Golin
`
`inoperable for its intended purpose, let alone change its principle of operation. Cf.
`
`In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813
`
`(CCPA 1959).
`
`
`
`Vedanti admits that Golin and Keith contain the new teachings of claim 14,
`
`but attacks the motivation to combine with Spriggs. Vedanti contends that “[o]ne
`
`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,” because “when the
`
`objective is to reduce data, non-uniform aspect ratio would increase the necessary
`
`division code data.” (Mot.,6-7.) This is overly restrictive, as it views the references
`
`in a piecemeal fashion and fails to consider the proper motivation a POSA would
`
`have to combine the teachings of Golin or Keith with Spriggs.
`
`As the Supreme Court noted in KSR, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a
`
`person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
`
`U.S. 398, 421 (2007). “KSR does not require that a combination only unite old
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00212 of
`Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`elements without changing their respective functions.” ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`
`838 F.3d 1214, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “KSR instructs that the obviousness inquiry
`
`requires a flexible approach.” Id. (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415). Under ClassCo,
`
`even if different aspect ratios would increase division code data, there are other
`
`considerations that would have made this combination obvious to try. See ClassCo,
`
`838 F.3d at 1219. Vedanti improperly assumes that Spriggs was rigidly designed
`
`with a simple split/no split flag, and thus unable to support different aspect ratios.
`
`(Mot. 7.) Vedanti maintains that a POSA would have lacked motivation to use
`
`different aspect ratios, because it would have added bits to the data transmission.
`
`(Id.) Yet, Vedanti’s own expert, Dr. Kia, admitted that the number of bits needed
`
`to transmit matrix data defining different aspect ratios would be small—on the
`
`order of six bits or less. (GOOG 1034, 42:1–47:12.)
`
`Vedanti employs the same type of rigid argument that the Federal Circuit
`
`warned against in ClassCo: KSR “explains that the ordinary artisan recognizes ‘that
`
`familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many
`
`cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents
`
`together like pieces of a puzzle.’ [KSR, 550 U.S.] at 420. The rationale of KSR