throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 49
`
`Entered: September 6, 2018
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION, MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.,
`HTC CORPORATION, and HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00890
`Patent 6,522,695 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Determining Claims 14, 15, and 17 Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00890
`Patent 6,522,695 B1
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Mobile Inc., HTC Corporation, and
`HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) sought an inter partes review
`of claims 14, 15, and 17 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`6,522,695 B1 (“the ’695 patent”). Paper 1 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). Patent
`Owner Koninklijke Philips N.V. filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6.
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we instituted
`an inter partes review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314 of the challenged claims.
`Paper 7 (“Decision on Institution” or “Dec. on Inst.”), 29.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`
`II.
`BACKGROUND
`Procedural History and Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`A.
`Petitioner advanced the following grounds of unpatentability under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in the Petition (Pet. 4):
`1. Claims 14, 15, and 17 over Green1 and Blue2;
`2. Claims 14 and 15 over Clark3;
`
`
`1 Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems Report Concerning
`Space Data System Standards: Lossless Data Compression, Green Book
`(“Green”) (Ex. 1003).
`2 Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems Report Concerning
`Space Data System Standards: Lossless Data Compression, Blue Book
`(“Blue”) (Ex. 1009).
`3 Clark, U.S. Patent No. 5,177,480 (“Clark”) (Ex. 1004).
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00890
`Patent 6,522,695 B1
`
`
`3. Claim 17 over Clark and Bliss4;
`4. Claims 14 and 15 over Venbrux5; and
`5. Claims 17 over Venbrux and Bliss.
`In our Decision on Institution, we instituted review of claims 14 and
`15 over Green and Blue, claims 14 and 15 over Venbrux, and claim 17 over
`Venbrux and Bliss. Dec. on Inst. 29. We, thus, instituted review of all
`challenged claims, albeit on fewer than all asserted grounds. Id. On
`April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held that a decision to institute under
`35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute review on less than all claims challenged
`in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 2018 WL 1914661, at *10 (U.S.
`Apr. 24, 2018). Thereafter, we modified our Decision on Institution to
`institute all grounds of unpatentability asserted against claims 14, 15, and
`17, as presented in the Petition. Paper 40, 2.
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
`(Paper 25, “PO Resp.”) and observations on cross examination (Paper 34).
`Patent Owner also filed, with our prior authorization, a motion for additional
`discovery. Paper 15. Petitioner opposed (Paper 19) and we denied Patent
`Owner’s motion. Paper 47.
`Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner Response (Paper 30,
`“Reply”) and a response to Patent Owner’s observations on cross
`examination (Paper 44). Petitioner also filed, with our prior authorization, a
`motion to submit supplemental information. Paper 14. Patent Owner
`
`
`4 Venbrux et al., A VLSI Chip Set for High-Speed Lossless Data
`Compression, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video
`Technology, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Dec. 1992) (“Venbrux”) (Ex. 1005).
`5 Bliss, et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,009,549 (“Bliss”) (Ex. 1006).
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00890
`Patent 6,522,695 B1
`
`opposed this motion. Paper 17. We resolve below Petitioner’s motion to
`submit supplemental information. See infra Section IV.
`In addition to the foregoing papers, the parties also filed cross motions
`to exclude certain evidence. Paper 38 (Pet. Motion); Paper 35 (PO Motion).
`Each party opposed the other party’s motion. Paper 43 (Pet. Opposition);
`Paper 42 (PO Opposition). Each party replied in support of its own motion
`to exclude. Paper 46 (Pet. Reply); Paper 45 (PO Reply). We resolve below
`the parties’ motions to exclude. See infra Sections V, VI.
`Both parties requested an oral hearing, and a hearing was held on
`May 22, 2018. Paper 41. A transcript of the oral hearing has been entered
`into the record. Paper 48 (“Tr.”).
`B.
`Testimony
`Petitioner supports its challenges with declarations of Dr. Kenneth R.
`Castleman. Exs. 1002, 1031. Dr. Castleman testified by depositions on
`November 21, 2017, and on April 12, 2018, and transcripts of his testimony
`have been entered into evidence. Exs. 2018, 2028.
`Patent Owner supports its challenges with a declaration of Dr. Charles
`Boncelet, Jr. Ex. 2016. Dr. Boncelet testified by deposition on February 16,
`2018, and a transcript of his testimony has been entered into evidence.
`Ex. 1032.
`Related Proceedings
`C.
`Petitioner identifies several actions for infringement of the ’695 patent
`pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
`Pet. 1–2.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00890
`Patent 6,522,695 B1
`
`
`D. Overview of the ’695 patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’695 patent relates to compressing a digital information signal
`and efficiently transmitting it. Ex. 1001, 1:10–12. The ’695 patent seeks to
`transmit the digital information signal using as few bits as possible. Id. at
`1:39–41 (“It is an object of the invention to provide a transmitter and/or
`receiver which transmits a digital information signal with a smaller or at the
`most equal number of bits.”). The ’695 patent discloses a transmitter that
`encodes the digital information signal for compression and provides the
`signal to a receiver that decodes the signal. Id. at 1:10–12, 1:40–44.
`The invention of the ’695 patent “is based on recognition of the fact
`that by using an encoder, the number of bits required to transmit a digital
`information signal is not always reduced.” Id. at 2:60–63. In some
`instances, encoding results in a signal using more bits than the original
`digital information signal itself. Id. at 2:63–65. Because the ’695 patent
`aims to use as few bits as possible, the ’695 patent describes transmitting
`either the encoded or original digital information signal, depending on
`whichever requires the smaller number of bits. Id. at 2:66–3:1. An
`identification signal is included in the transmission, indicating whether the
`transmission has been encoded by a given encoding method. Id. at 3:2–4.
`Figure 2 of the ’695 patent is reproduced below.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00890
`Patent 6,522,695 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts “a receiver in accordance with the invention, for
`receiving a composite signal TRM.” Id. at 5:64–65. “A version of the
`digital information signal is derived from the composite signal TRM. An
`exact or a non-exact copy of the digital information signal will be derived
`depending on the coding used in the transmitter.” Id. at 5:65–6:2.
`The composite signal TRM is input into demultiplexer 62. Id. at 6:2–
`3. Demultiplexer 62 derives from the composite signal TRM a version of
`the digital information signal, and this version may include one or more
`signal portions. Id. at 6:5–10. A signal portion can be, for instance, a track
`of a disk. Id. This version of the digital information signal is applied to
`output 64. Id. Demultiplexer 62 also derives from the composite signal
`TRM an identification signal. Id. at 6:2–4. The identification signal
`“specifies how the version of the digital information signal has been
`encoded.” Id. at 6:11–6:13. The identification signal further specifies
`whether each signal portion on output 64 has been encoded. Id. at 6:13–15.
`The identification signal is applied to output 66. Id. at 6:11–13.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00890
`Patent 6,522,695 B1
`
`
`Identifier 70 receives the identification signal at input 68 and derives a
`control signal therefrom. Id. at 6:16–19. If the corresponding signal portion
`of the digital information signal is encoded, the control signal derived by
`identifier 70 will be of a first type. Id. at 6:19–22. If, however, the
`corresponding signal portion is not encoded, the control signal derived by
`identifier 70 will be of a second type. Id. at 6:22–26. The control signal is
`applied to output 72. Id. at 6:17–19.
`Decoding unit 76 receives the control signal at input 78 and the
`corresponding signal portion of the digital information signal at input 74. Id.
`at 6:27–29. The signal portion is passed to decoder 77, which applies the
`decoded signal portion to switch 79. Id. at 6:29–32. The signal portion is
`also passed directly to switch 79, bypassing decoder 77. Id. at 6:32–37,
`Fig. 2. If the control signal is of a first type (indicating that the signal
`portion is encoded), switch 79 couples the decoded signal portion to output
`80. Id. If, however, the control signal is of a second type (indicating that
`the signal portion is not encoded), the corresponding signal portion is not
`encoded, and switch 79 couples the signal portion in substantially
`unmodified form to output 80. Id. at 6:32–37, 6:46–48.
`In one embodiment, the receiver of Figure 2 is included within a
`reproducing receiver. Id. at 7:24–28, Figure 4 is reproduced below.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00890
`Patent 6,522,695 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 4 depicts a reproducing receiver including circuit block 400,
`which “is equivalent to the block diagram” of Figure 2. Id. at 7:24–28.
`“The reproducing receiver further includes a reader 402, a channel decoder
`406 and an error detector 408 for detecting or, if possible, an error corrector
`408 for correcting errors in the signal.” Id. at 7:28–32. Reader 402 provides
`a signal from record carrier 402b/b’ to channel decoder 406 and error
`detector/corrector 408. Id. at 7:33–35. The output of detector/corrector 408
`is supplied to the receiver of Figure 2 on input 60, i.e., the composite signal
`TRM. Id. at 7:24–28.
`E.
`Challenged Claims
`Claim 14 is independent, and claims 15 and 17 depend therefrom.
`Claims 14, 15, and 17 are reproduced below, with bracketed material added.
`14. A receiver comprising:
`[14a.] receiving means for receiving a composite signal
`from a transmission medium;
`[14b.] demultiplexing means for deriving at least one
`signal portion from the composite signal and for deriving
`a first identification signal of a first type and a second type
`from the composite signal;
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00890
`Patent 6,522,695 B1
`
`
`[14c.] decoding means for decoding at least one signal
`portion and for decoding a signal portion into a portion of
`the [sic] digital information signal and to supply the
`portion of a digital information signal depending on a
`control signal of a first type and to supply a signal portion
`as a portion of the digital information signal in a
`substantially unmodified form depending on a control
`signal of a second type; and
`[14d.] means for generating the control signal for
`application to the decoding means including a control
`signal of the first type depending on the first identification
`signal of the first type.
`15. The receiver of claim 14, in which:
`[15a.] the demultiplexing derive [sic] a first identification
`signal of a second type from the composite signal; and
`[15b.] the means for generating the control signal generate
`a control signal of the second type depending on the first
`identification signal of the second type;
`17. A receiving device as claimed in claim 14, in which
`the receiver further comprises:
`[17a.] a device for reading out a signal recorded on a
`record carrier; and
`at least one of
`[17b.] channel decoding means for the channel decoding
`of the read-out signal and
`[17c.] error detection/correction means detecting and
`correcting errors in the read-out signal.
`
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`Principles of Law
`A.
`Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the
`challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent
`Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375,
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00890
`Patent 6,522,695 B1
`
`1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail in its challenges to the challenged claims,
`Petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the
`claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d).
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
`U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis
`of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and, if presented, (4) objective
`evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations such as
`commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, and failure of others.
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). The obviousness
`inquiry further requires an analysis of “whether there was an apparent reason
`to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at
`issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
`2006) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
`support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)).
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner states that a person having ordinary skill in the art “for the
`technology in the ’695 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in
`electrical engineering and three to five years of experience in audio and/or
`video compression and decompression.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 44–46).
`Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition, presents an analysis
`based on Petitioner’s definition, and argues that, even under Petitioner’s
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00890
`Patent 6,522,695 B1
`
`definition, Petitioner has failed to show the challenged claims are
`unpatentable. PO Resp. 8 (Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 30–40).
`In view of the foregoing, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the
`level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, this level of ordinary skill is
`reflected by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350,
`1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of
`ordinary skill in the art).
`C.
`Claim Construction
`1.
`Applicable Standards and General Principles
`We interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard). Although the ’695 patent’s expiration
`date is not mentioned by either party, we note that the ’695 patent issued
`from an application filed March 16, 1999, does not claim the benefit of any
`earlier-filed application, and accordingly expires no later than March 16,
`2019. 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2). Because the ’695 patent has not expired, we
`apply the broadest reasonable construction standard. See id.
`Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms
`generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). The claims, however, “should always be read in light of the
`specification and teachings in the underlying patent,” and “[e]ven under the
`broadest reasonable interpretation, the Board’s construction cannot be
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00890
`Patent 6,522,695 B1
`
`divorced from the specification and the record evidence.” Microsoft Corp.
`v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citations omitted).
`Further, any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a
`definition, limitations are not to be read from the specification into the
`claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`A claim limitation using the phrase “means for” creates a rebuttable
`presumption that the drafter intended to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.6 See
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`Section 112 ¶ 6 provides that:
`An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a
`means . . . for performing a specified function without the recital
`of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim
`shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material,
`or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`Construing a means-plus-function claim term is a two-step process,
`wherein we first identify the claimed function and then determine what
`structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed
`function. Id. at 1351; Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta
`AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v.
`St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Moreover,
`“structure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if
`
`
`6 Section 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Pub. L. No.
`112-29, § 4(c), 125 Stat. 284 (2011), re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 as
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Because the ’695 patent has a filing date before
`September 16, 2012 (effective date of the statute), we refer to the pre-AIA
`version of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00890
`Patent 6,522,695 B1
`
`the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that
`structure to the function recited in the claim.” Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart
`Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Cardiac Pacemakers,
`296 F.3d at 1113. This analysis applies under the broadest reasonable
`construction standard. In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`(“[T]he broadest reasonable interpretation . . . [of] means-plus-function
`language is that statutorily mandated in [Section 112] paragraph six.”
`(quoting In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1194–95 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en
`banc))); Donaldson, 16 F.3d at 1193 (“[P]aragraph six applies regardless of
`the context in which the interpretation of means-plus-function language
`arises, i.e., whether as part of a patentability determination in the PTO or as
`part of a validity or infringement determination in a court.”).
`Our Rules specifically require that a petition for inter partes review
`identify how each challenged claim is to be construed, including
`identification of the corresponding structure for means-plus-function
`limitations. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). In particular, where the claim to be
`construed contains a means-plus-function limitation as permitted under
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, the construction of the claim must identify the specific
`portions of the specification that describe the structure, material, or acts
`corresponding to each claimed function. Id.
`Petitioner asserts the following claim limitations constitute means-
`plus-function limitations as permitted under 35 U.S.C. 112 ¶ 6: 14a–14d,
`15a and 15b, and 17a–17c. Pet. 9–14; see also supra Section II.E (bracketed
`notations identifying limitations). For each limitation, Petitioner identifies a
`recited function and corresponding structure disclosed in the Specification.
`Pet. 9–14. Patent Owner contends that limitation 14b is not properly
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00890
`Patent 6,522,695 B1
`
`construed as a means-plus-function limitation. PO Resp. 14. Patent Owner
`does not challenge Petitioner’s identification of other limitations as subject
`to construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 or Petitioner’s corresponding
`proffered constructions of those limitations. Id. Because Petitioner’s
`constructions of limitations 14a, 14c, 14d, 15a, 15b, and 17a–17c are not
`controverted in the record before us, we do not construe these terms. See
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`1999) (explaining that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed,
`and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).
`2.
`Limitation 14b: demultiplexing means for deriving at
`least one signal portion from the composite signal and for
`deriving a first identification signal of a first type and a second
`type from the composite signal
`Petitioner asserts this limitation is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
`Pet. 10. Relying on Dr. Castleman’s testimony, Petitioner states the recited
`functions are “deriving at least one signal portion from the composite signal”
`and “deriving a first identification signal of a first type and a second type
`from the composite signal.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 53). Petitioner identifies
`“demultiplexer unit 62 and its equivalents” as the structure corresponding to
`the recited demultiplexing means. Id (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 54). Conversely,
`Patent Owner contends “that this term should not be construed under 35
`U.S.C. § 112, 6th paragraph.” PO Resp. 14.
`A claim limitation using the phrase “means for” creates a rebuttable
`presumption that the drafter intended to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. See
`Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. We agree with Petitioner that construction of
`limitation 14b is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and we adopt Petitioner’s
`construction thereof. Patent Owner fails to rebut persuasively the
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00890
`Patent 6,522,695 B1
`
`assumption that the recited demultiplexing means is intended to invoke
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. PO. Resp. 14. For instance, Patent Owner offers no
`evidence from the Specification or prosecution history in support of its
`assertion. Id. Accordingly, Patent Owner has not sufficiently rebutted in the
`record before us the presumption that limitation 14b was intended to invoke
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
`We note, in any event, that Patent Owner’s alternative construction of
`limitation 14b as “a demultiplexer (e.g., demultiplexer 62) that carries out
`the claimed function, and equivalents thereto” accords with Petitioner’s
`identification of structure corresponding to the recited demultiplexing
`means. Compare Pet. 10, with PO Resp. 14.
`3.
`Limitation 14c: “a portion of the digital information
`signal in a substantially unmodified form”
`In our Decision on Institution, we directed the parties to address
`specifically the meaning of this element. In so doing, we instructed that the
`parties should cite all evidence in support of their positions, including but
`not limited to any relevant portions of the Specification, the prosecution
`history, and testimony.
`The parties agree that limitation 14c requires decoding and supplying
`the portion of the digital information signal depending on a control signal of
`a first type, and for supplying a signal portion in a substantially unmodified
`form depending on a control signal of a second type. Patent Owner states,
`“[p]ut even more simply, the first type control signal corresponds to decoded
`form, and the second type control signal corresponds to substantially
`unmodified form.” PO Resp. 11 (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner
`explains, ‘“substantially unmodified’ refers to a comparison between (1) the
`input (‘a signal portion’) of the ‘decoding means for decoding at least one
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00890
`Patent 6,522,695 B1
`
`signal portion,’ and (2) the output (what is ‘supplied’) of the ‘decoding
`means for decoding at least one signal portion.” Id. at 12 (emphasis
`omitted). Thus, Patent Owner concludes, “claim 14 recites a distinction
`between (1) encoded signal portions and (2) signal portions that are
`substantially unmodified.” Id. at 13 (emphasis omitted).
`Petitioner agrees with Patent Owner that “the ’695 patent uses the
`term ‘substantially unmodified’ to differentiate signal portions that are not
`encoded or decoded from those that are.” Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:9–
`12 (“the encoder can apply an encoded digital information signal or a
`substantially unmodified digital information signal to the output”); id. at
`4:45–47 (“the encoding unit 6 supplies a signal to the output 10 of the
`encoding unit 6 in an encoded form or in a substantially unmodified form”);
`id. at 6:44–48 (signal applied to output 80 of the decoding unit 76 is either a
`“decoded signal” or a “substantially unmodified” version of the input
`signal)). Thus, Petitioner contends, the term “substantially unmodified” in
`claim 14 refers to signal portions that simply pass through the decoding
`means (i.e., “not decoded”) from portions that are decoded. Reply 2.
`In light of the foregoing usage in the Specification and the parties’
`consensus regarding the scope of term, we construe the term “substantially
`unmodified” to mean “not modified,” such that, in the context of
`independent claim 14, the term denotes signals that are not decoded.
`4.
`Limitation 14d: a control signal of the first type
`depending on the first identification signal of the first type
`Patent Owner seeks construction of the term “depending upon,”
`because, according to Patent Owner, “what Petitioners identify as the
`‘control signal of the first type’ in Green and Blue is independent of what
`they identify as the ‘first identification signal of the first type.’”
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00890
`Patent 6,522,695 B1
`
`PO Resp. 13–14 (emphasis added). Because our analysis below reaches
`only the grounds of unpatentability based on Venbrux—not the grounds
`based on Green and Blue––and the parties do not dispute whether Venbrux
`meets this limitation, we decline to construe this term. See Vivid Techs., Inc.
`v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining
`that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy).
`D.
`Asserted Obviousness of Claims 14 and 15 over Venbrux
`1.
`Overview of Venbrux
`Venbrux is a journal article that “describes the first complete chip set
`implementation of the Rice algorithm and is designed to perform high-speed,
`adaptive, lossless compression and decompression.” Ex. 1005, 381.
`Venbrux discloses an encoder and decoder chip set implementation, using
`distinct encoding schemes for different blocks of data. Id. The Rice
`algorithm aims to maximize the efficiency of data transmission by selecting,
`for each block of data, the encoding option that provides the best
`compression for that block. Id. at 382–83. As described in Venbrux, the
`Rice algorithm architecture includes a “default” coding option that does not
`encode the data. Id. Figure 7 of Venbrux is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00890
`Patent 6,522,695 B1
`
`
`Figure 7 depicts a block diagram of Venbrux’s Universal Source
`Decoder. Venbrux describes its decoder as performing the reverse of
`Venbrux’s encoder. Id. at 385. According to Venbrux:
`The main decoding section includes three pipelines. If a
`block is coded by FS and k splits, then the FS data are
`routed to the FS pipeline for decoding and the k splits are
`routed to the k split pipeline. Likewise, if the block of data
`is default, the data would be routed to the default pipeline.
`
`
`Id. Thereafter, “[d]efault data, as well as concatenated sigma data, are then
`sent to the unmapper, which performs the reverse of the mapping function
`along with the reverse of DPCM. The decoded data are available at the
`output of the unmapper section.” Id.
`2.
`Status of Venbrux as Prior Art
`Petitioner offers the declaration of Ms. S. Rampersad (Ex. 1008,
`“Rampersad Declaration”) in support of its assertion that Venbrux
`constitutes prior art to the ’695 patent because it is a printed publication that
`was publically accessible no later than December 1992. Pet. 15 (citing
`Ex. 1008). During the trial, Petitioner did not make Ms. Rampersad
`available for deposition, but instead made Ms. Rampersad’s supervisor,
`Nigel Spencer, available for deposition. PO Resp. 50; Reply; Exs. 1033–
`1035, 2020–2025. Patent Owner declined to depose Mr. Spencer. Ex. 1035;
`see also Tr. 32:17–33:11. Because Petitioner did not offer Ms. Rampersad
`for deposition, Patent Owner asserts that “[t]he Rampersad declaration
`therefore should be given no weight.” PO Resp. 50. Significantly, however,
`Patent Owner does not dispute that Venbrux constitutes prior art to the
`’695 patent. Id.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00890
`Patent 6,522,695 B1
`
`
`We do not rely on the Rampersad Declaration to establish Venbrux’s
`status as prior art to the ’695 patent. Rather, we rely on Venbrux’s
`substantial indicia of publication, namely its header indicating Venbrux is a
`journal article included in “IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for
`Video Technology, Vol. 2, No. 4, December 1992” and its footer reciting a
`1992 IEEE copyright date. Ex. 1005; Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan,
`Inc., IPR2015-01979, Paper 62 at 22–25 (PTAB Mar. 15, 1997) (crediting
`indicia of publication on article in ACM journal); Microsoft Corp. v.
`Bradium Techs. LLC, IPR2016-00449, Paper 9 at 13 (PTAB July 27, 2016)
`(noting generally that “IEEE publications, such as the one in which Reddy
`appeared, are distributed widely and intended to be accessible to the
`public”). We further rely on the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant
`Dr. Boncelet that the particular series of journals in which Venbrux appears,
`IEEE Transactions, is long-established and well-known. Ex. 1032, 11:9–
`13:7. In light of the foregoing evidence, we determine that Petitioner has
`met its burden to establish that Venbrux constitutes prior art to the ’695
`patent, which Patent Owner does not dispute in the record before us.
`3.
`Independent claim 14
`Petitioner, relying on the Castleman Declarations, asserts Venbrux
`renders obvious claim 14 in the following manner. Pet. 59–68 (citing
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 156–176). Petitioner identifies Venbrux’s “decompression end
`of the system” as the claimed receiving means. Id. at 61–62. In particular,
`Petitioner identifies Venbrux’s receiver “un-packer” block, depicted in
`Figure 12, as receiving a composite signal. Id. at 62. Figure 12, as
`annotated by Petitioner, is reproduced below.
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00890
`Patent 6,522,695 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 12 is a system diagram for image compression, showing
`Venbrux’s receiver “un-packer” block receiving compressed data via a
`channel or storage media. Petitioner further asserts the claimed
`“demultiplexing means for deriving at least one signal portion from the
`composite signal and for deriving a first identification signal of a first type
`and a second type from the composite signal” is taught or suggested by
`Venbrux’s decoder. Pet. 63. Venbrux describes that “[b]efore processed
`data are sent out, ID bits are prepended to inform the decoder which of the
`code options have been used to compress the block of data.” Ex. 1005, 383.
`Thus, the composite signal received includes ID bits and data. Id. Once
`received, Venbrux states that its ID Decode unit within its decoder then
`decodes “the ID bits in order to direct data to the pipeline that is to decode
`the data.” Id. at 385. Figure 7 of Venbrux, depicting the block diagram of
`the decoder including the ID Decode unit, is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00890
`Patent 6,522,695 B1
`
`Figure 7 is a block diagram of Venbrux’s Universal Source Decoder,
`including the ID Decode unit. Thus, Petitioner asserts, “[t]he ID bits, which
`are different for the different types of compression options, are [the claimed]
`‘a first identification signal of a first type and a second type [derived] from
`the composite signal.’” Pet. 64.
`Petitioner and Dr. Castleman rely on Venbrux’s ID Decode unit as
`me

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket