UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED 1
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212 2
`
`Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
`
`_____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY 3
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Vedanti Systems Limited has assigned the patent to the current patent owner,
`Vedanti Licensing Limited.
`2 Case IPR2016-00215 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`3 This Sur-Reply is submitted pursuant to the Board’s authorization dated
`December 6, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED 1
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212 2
`
`Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
`
`_____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY 3
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Vedanti Systems Limited has assigned the patent to the current patent owner,
`Vedanti Licensing Limited.
`2 Case IPR2016-00215 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`3 This Sur-Reply is submitted pursuant to the Board’s authorization dated
`December 6, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST ........................................................................................ ii
`
`I. Petitioner’s Reply Raises New Arguments ....................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Petitioner Fails to Specify Where Each Element is Found in the Prior Art ..................... 2
`
`Spriggs does Not Support Petitioner’s New Arguments ................................................ 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00212
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`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.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`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).
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Vedanti Exhibit #
`
`Description
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,459,486 to Iverson et al. (filed April 18,
`1994; issued October 17, 1995).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,633,611 to Sekiguchi et al. (filed October 24,
`1997; issued October 14, 2003).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,373,988 to Thorell et al. (filed November 5,
`1999; issued April 16, 2002).
`
`DE 100 22 331 to Robert Bosch GmbH (filed May 10, 2000;
`issued November 15, 2001).
`
`Melinda – Union Catalogue of Finnish Libraries, Record No.
`004095995, Reference page for Lainema, J., “Motion
`Estimation and Representation for Video Coding Applications,”
`Tampereen Teknillinen Korkeakoulu Tietotekniikan Osasto, 1
`page
`
`iv
`
`
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` This sur-reply is responsive to new arguments raised in Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`The Petition construed Spriggs as disclosing a recursive coding process that
`
`generates region data consisting of corner coordinates and values. The Board’s
`
`Institution Decision acknowledged that Google considered “Spriggs’s corner
`
`coordinates and values to be ‘region data.’” Paper 8, p. 18.
`
` Petitioner’s Reply seeks to re-imagine Spriggs as “certain” steps to generate
`
`region data and “additional” steps for selecting pixel values. However, Google
`
`makes no attempt to identify these steps. Indeed, such steps are not present because
`
`as indicated in the Petition, Spriggs’s process generates region data and along the
`
`way picks out pixels including their coordinates and values for use in the region
`
`generation process. There is no suggestion of a system which corresponds to the
`
`claims of the ’339 patent. Differences in the claims require them to be individually
`
`evaluated, but generally speaking the claims separately recite generating region (or
`
`optimized matrix) data from selecting pixels based on the regions.
`
`
`I.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply Raises New Arguments
`
`According to Google’s Petition, the analysis system of claim 1 corresponds
`
`to the processor 14 of Spriggs. Paper 2, p. 26. For software, Google particularly
`
`identifies that Spriggs’s “recursive region forming process produces region data
`
`(the blocks as defined by the corner coordinates and values) comprised of high
`
`detail (where the greatest number of subdivisions will occur) and low detail (the
`
`larger blocks).” Paper 2, p. 27 (citing to Grindon Decl., Ex. 1003, ¶106-110); id., p.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`40-41; id., p. 55. As stated in the Petition, Spriggs determines whether or not to
`
`split a block “by first generating an interpolated block from the four corners of the
`
`block.” Paper 2, p. 20. The corners for this region generating process necessarily
`
`include their respective coordinates and values. Regions or blocks are ultimately
`
`“defined by the corner coordinates and values.” Paper 2 at 27.
`
`In contrast to the Petition, Petitioner’s Reply is supported by a Supplemental
`
`Declaration from its expert Dr. Grindon (Ex.1030) and argues for an entirely
`
`different reading of the claim on Spriggs. The Reply argues, “a POSA would have
`
`recognized that certain steps in that coding process correspond to the claimed
`
`‘analysis system,’ while other steps correspond to the claimed ‘pixel selection
`
`system.’ (GOOG 1030, ¶¶49-55.)” Paper 22, p. 14. Rather than finding specific
`
`support in Spriggs, the Reply relies upon the newly submitted Supplemental
`
`Declaration for concocting a separation between “‘region data’ generated earlier”
`
`and “additional steps for selecting and transmitting pixel values.” Paper 22, p. 16,
`
`Ex. 1030, ¶53. The Reply now refers to “‘region data’” (such as corner coordinates
`
`of each block or division codes).” Paper 22, p. 16.
`
`As the Board indicated, it should not consider these arguments if it agrees
`
`that they are new. In an abundance of caution, this Sur-reply addresses these
`
`arguments.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Fails to Specify Where Each Element is Found in the Prior
`Art
`
`Google’s new argument is that “certain steps” in Spriggs correspond to the
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`analysis system. There is no indication of which steps are being referenced. The
`
`Reply relies upon the Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Grindon which similarly
`
`references “certain steps” without identifying which steps.
`
`The same goes for the “additional steps” in Spriggs. Google does not
`
`indicate which steps are the corresponding steps in the Reply or in the
`
`Supplemental Declaration. Selecting a set of pixel data is not identified in Spriggs,
`
`wherein selecting requires a number of pixel options from which to choose.
`
`Moreover, there is no showing that the so-called “additional steps” receive the
`
`region data as recited in claim 1 nor that the steps are based on “the optimized
`
`matrix data” as recited in claim 7.
`
`It is Petitioner’s burden to “specify where each element of the claim is found
`
`in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.104(b)(4). Petitioner must identify “specific portions of the evidence that
`
`support the challenge. The Board may exclude or give no weight to the evidence
`
`where a party has failed to state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the
`
`evidence that support the challenge.” 37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)(5). Google’s new
`
`arguments amount to saying the steps are in there somewhere, go find them. Apple
`
`Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc. , IPR2015-00442, Paper 9, p. 7 (“This approach
`
`improperly shifts the burden of deciphering Petitioner’s arguments onto Patent
`
`Owner and the Board.”) This fails to meet the burden of proof in an inter partes
`
`review and fails to provide Patent Owner with the due process required to permit
`
`an adequate opportunity to respond.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`III. Spriggs does Not Support Petitioner’s New Arguments
`
`
`The claimed inventive process and system of the ’339 patent is not disclosed
`
`or suggested in Spriggs. As seen in Fig. 6, a division code of ‘1’ does not indicate
`
`generation of optimized matrix data. The ‘1’ indicates a split is recommended and
`
`five middle points from the sides and center, for example EFGHI, are generated.
`
`But not until a division code of ‘0’ is determined is it known whether a given
`
`region has been optimized and the region finally determined. Thus, Google’s
`
`argument that a division code of ‘1’ triggers the “additional steps” is inconsistent
`
`with the claimed invention which instead generates optimized matrix data on
`
`which the selection of pixel data is based.
`
`Google now contends that “certain steps” in Spriggs generate the region data
`
`and “additional steps” select the pixel data. A pixel in a frame has coordinates and
`
`a value. Determining or selecting a pixel coordinate constitutes selection of the
`
`pixel and its associated value. This is confirmed in Spriggs explicitly. “The
`
`addresses of the corner points of the four new blocks are placed on a ‘stack’ in a
`
`predetermined order ….Each layer of the stack consists of information on one
`
`block, its corner points and the values at those points.” Ex. 1005, 3:12-17. The
`
`creation of a stack with addresses and values is shown in the coding process of Fig.
`
`4 as the blocks “Generate Corner Addresses of Sub-areas” and “Push on Stack.”
`
`Spriggs’s coding process uses the addresses and values from the stack to
`
`Generate Interpolated Samples for comparison with actual pixel samples in the
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`frame to determine whether or not to split the block. Before using the addresses
`
`and values to determine additional regions, the system transmits a ‘1’ and the
`
`sample values as shown in Figs. 4 and 6. There are no “additional steps” for
`
`selecting the pixel values, as the pixel values are already available on the stack for
`
`use in the interpolation steps of the region generation process. Even Google
`
`concedes the dictionary meaning of “selecting” is to choose or pick out from
`
`among others or from a number of options. Spriggs picks out pixels from all the
`
`pixels in the frame to use during the recursive coding process to generate the
`
`regions. Once they have been picked out for region generation, they are readily
`
`available for use in the interpolation process to generate optimized matrices and for
`
`transmission. Patent Owner is unable to discern “additional” steps for selecting
`
`pixel data based on optimized matrix data in Spriggs.
`
`The limited size of the sur-reply does not permit analyzing each claim in
`
`detail with respect to the new arguments. Nevertheless, the above reasoning is
`
`sufficient to allow the Board to ignore or reject these arguments with respect to all
`
`of the challenged claims.
`
`Date: December 13, 2016 By: /Robert M. Asher/
`
`
`Robert M. Asher
`Registration No.: 30,445
`Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP
`125 Summer Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`Tel: (617) 443-9292, Fax: (617) 443-0004
` Counsel for Patent Owner,
`Vedanti Licensing Limited
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Sur-Reply to Petitioner’s Reply was served on December 13, 2016 by
`
`electronic mail (by prior agreement with the Petitioner) to the attorneys of record at:
`
`
`
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`by transmitting the documents to the attorneys' email addresses at:
`
`mikem-PTAB@skgf.com; mholoubek-PTAB@skgf.com; blee-PTAB@skgf.com.
`
`By: /Robert M. Asher/
`
`Robert M. Asher
`Registration No.: 30,445
`Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP
`125 Summer Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`Tel: (617) 443-9292
`Fax: (617) 443-0004
`
`
`
`
`6
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
