throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper 42
` Entered: September 14, 2020
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOREAN ADVANCED INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND
`TECHNOLOGY, KOREAN BROADCASTING SYSTEM, and
`HEVC ADVANCE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00725
`Patent 9,838,720 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before DENISE M. POTHIER, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00725
`Patent 9,838,720 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background and Summary
`
`Unified Patents, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Corrected Petition1 (Paper
`
`10, “Pet.”) requesting institution of an inter partes review of claims 1–6
`
`(“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,838,720 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
`
`’720 patent”). Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology,
`
`Korean Broadcasting System, and HEVC Advance LLC (collectively
`
`“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. We granted Petitioner’s
`
`request for additional briefing to address the issues of whether a document is
`
`a printed publication (Issue 1) and whether the claims of the ’720 patent are
`
`entitled to a particular priority date (Issue 2) and to submit related
`
`declarations. Paper 11, 1. The parties submitted additional briefing and
`
`testimonial evidence. Papers 12, 14; Ex. 1044. Subsequently, we instituted
`
`inter partes review of the challenged claims. Paper 15 (“Dec. Inst.”).
`
`Patent Owner requested rehearing of the Decision to Institute. Paper
`
`18 (“Req. Reh’g”). We denied the request. Paper 20 (“Reh’g Dec.”).
`
`Following institution, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 21, “PO
`
`Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 25, “Reply”), and Patent Owner filed
`
`a Sur-Reply (Paper 30,“Sur-reply”). A hearing was held on June 15, 2020,
`
`and a transcript of the hearing has been made part of the record. Paper 41.
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`
`1 We granted Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion Seeking to Correct Clerical
`Mistake in Petition and ordered Petitioner to submit a Corrected Petition.
`Paper 9, 4.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00725
`Patent 9,838,720 B2
`
`
`
`For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that Petitioner has
`
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–6 of the ’720 patent
`
`are unpatentable.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Patent Owner indicates U.S. Application No. 16/572,704 “is currently
`
`pending before the Patent Office and shares a claim of priority with the ’720
`
`patent to U.S. Patent Application No. 13/202,906” (“the ’906 application”),
`
`which issued into U.S. Patent 9,485,512 B2 (“the ’512 patent”). Paper 37, 1;
`
`Ex. 1006, codes (10), (21).
`
`The parties indicate that they are unaware of any other, related matter
`
`involving the ’720 patent. Pet. 1; Paper 4, 2.
`
`C. The ’720 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’720 patent issued December 5, 2017, from an application filed
`
`September 7, 2016, and indicates the ’720 patent is a “[c]ontinuation of
`
`application No. 13/202,906, filed as application No. PCT/KR2010/001125
`
`on Feb. 23, 2010, now Pat. No. 9,485,512.” Ex. 1001, code (63); id., codes
`
`(22), (45), 1:10–18; Ex. 1006, codes (10), (21)–(22), (86).
`
`The ’720 patent concerns a video encoding and decoding method that
`
`divides a picture into division blocks and encodes and decodes the division
`
`blocks. Ex. 1001, code (57), 1:23–26. Encoding efficiency can be improved
`
`by encoding and decoding division blocks (or sub-division blocks) using
`
`both inter and intra predictions and encoding a block video signal using
`
`square transforms or non-square transforms based on the division block’s
`
`size. Id. at 1:23–33. These techniques attempt to resolve encoding
`
`efficiency, which degrades with high or ultra-high definition video encoding
`
`or when an encoding unit is a super-macroblock (e.g., size of 32x32 or
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00725
`Patent 9,838,720 B2
`
`more) “that has the same or greater size than a macroblock” (e.g., size of
`
`16x16). Id. at 2:41–42; id. at 2:4–7, 2:18–49, 5:29–40.
`
`An exemplary super-macroblock, shown below as an NxN unit block
`
`on the far left, is reproduced from the ’720 patent’s Figure 2:
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 2. The above Figure 2 illustrates a super-macroblock (e.g., NxN
`
`unit block) divided into sub-blocks or division block types (e.g., two
`
`Nx(N/2) blocks, two (N/2)xN blocks, or four (N/2)x(N/2) blocks). Id. at
`
`6:1–8, code (57), Fig. 2. The sub-blocks are encoded using intra or inter
`
`prediction encoding, and the super-macroblock can be encoded so that both
`
`intra and inter prediction encoding modes can be used in the final encoding
`
`mode to increase video encoding efficiency. Id. at 6:1–15, code (57), Fig. 2;
`
`see id. at 6:58–7:34, Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`The ’720 patent further discusses transform encoding “a residual
`
`signal of a super-macroblock having an increased size.” Id. at 6:26–27. For
`
`example, the ’720 patent describes “selectively applying a square transform
`
`kernel having a size of 16x16 or more, which is greater than existing sizes of
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00725
`Patent 9,838,720 B2
`
`4x4 and 8x8, or a non-square transform kernel having a size of 16x8, 8x16,
`
`or more for a non-square transform according to a size of a division block.”
`
`Id. at 6:29–34. Equation 2 of the ’720 patent is a possible calculation if a
`
`square transform kernel having a size of 16x16 or more is applied to a super-
`
`macroblock:
`
`Y=AX
`
`where X denotes an NxN input video signal matrix, A denotes an NxN
`
`square transform kernel matrix, and Y denotes a transform coefficient
`
`matrix. Id. at 6:35–41. Equation 3 of the ’720 patent includes a possible
`
`calculation for a non-square sub-block:
`
`Y=A1XA2
`
`where X denotes an Mx(M/2) input video signal matrix, A1 denotes an MxM
`
`square transform kernel matrix, A2 denotes an (M/2)x(M/2) transform kernel
`
`matrix, and Y denotes a transform coefficient matrix. Id. at 6:41–49.
`
`D. The Challenged Claims
`
`The ’720 patent has six claims. Id. at 9:5–10:58. Petitioner
`
`challenges all six claims. Independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
`
`1. A method of video decoding, comprising:
`[a] dividing a decoding unit block within a current slice
`into four first sub-decoding-unit-blocks;
`[b] dividing at least one first sub-decoding-unit-block
`among the four first sub-decoding-unit-blocks into four second
`sub-decoding-unit-blocks,
`[c] wherein each of the second sub-decoding-unit-blocks
`is a basis of a prediction mode, and
`[d] wherein the prediction mode for each of the second
`sub-decoding-unit-blocks is intra prediction mode or inter
`prediction mode;
`[e] transforming at least one second sub-decoding-unit-
`block among the four second sub-decoding-unit-blocks using a
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00725
`Patent 9,838,720 B2
`
`
`first transform kernel and a second transform kernel having a
`different size from the first transform kernel; and
`[f] performing prediction on the at least one second sub-
`decoding-unit-block according to the prediction mode for the at
`least one second sub-decoding-unit-block,
`[g] wherein the decoding unit block comprises the at least
`one second sub-decoding-unit-block divided into the first
`transform kernel, and the second transform kernel,
`[h] wherein the decoding unit block comprises at least one
`divided first sub-decoding-unit-block, divided into the four
`second sub-decoding-unit-blocks, and at least one undivided first
`sub-decoding-unit-block not divided into the four second sub-
`decoding-unit-blocks,
`[i] wherein the undivided first sub-decoding-unit-block is
`a basis of a prediction mode,
`[j] wherein the prediction mode for the undivided first
`subdecoding-unit-block is intra prediction mode or inter
`prediction mode,
`further comprises
`transforming
`the
`[k] wherein
`transforming the at least one undivided first sub-decoding-unit-
`block using a third transform kernel and a fourth transform
`kernel having a different size from the third transform
`kernel,
`[l] wherein the performing prediction further comprises
`performing prediction on the at least one undivided first
`sub-decoding-unit-block according to the prediction mode for
`the at least one undivided first sub-decoding-unit-block,
`[m] wherein the decoding unit block comprises the at least
`one undivided first sub-decoding-unit-block divided into the
`third transform kernel, and the fourth transform kernel, and
`[n] wherein the decoding unit block is a square block and
`the at least one first sub-decoding-unit-block is a square block.
`
`Id. at 9:5–53 (bracketed lettering added).
`
`Claims 2–5 depend from claim 1. Independent claim 6 recites “[a]
`
`method of video encoding” and has limitations similar to claim 1. Id. at
`
`10:13–58; Prelim. Resp. 27 (stating claim 6 “recites the features consistent
`
`with claim 1”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00725
`Patent 9,838,720 B2
`
`
`E. Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserted the following grounds of unpatentability in the
`
`Petition and, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), on September 16, 2019, we
`
`instituted inter partes review on these grounds:
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`References/Basis
`
`1–6
`1–6
`1–6
`1–6
`
`102(a)(1), (2)2
`103
`102(a)(1)
`103
`
`Winken3
`Winken, Kim4
`JCTVC-R10135
`JCTVC-R1013, Kim
`
`
`
`Pet. 4; Dec. Inst. 7.
`
`
`
`Petitioner provides a Declaration of Michael Orchard, Ph.D.
`
`(Ex. 1002) and a Second Declaration of Michael Orchard, Ph.D. (Ex. 1053).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner provides a Declaration of Dr. Clifford Reader
`
`(Ex. 2001) and a Second Declaration of Dr. Clifford Reader (Ex. 2028).
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Changes to §§ 102
`and 103 apply to applications filed on or after March 16, 2013. We refer to
`the amended versions of §§ 102 and 103 (AIA) in this decision because, as
`explained later, the claims of this patent are entitled to a filing date no earlier
`than September 7, 2016.
`3 Winken, U.S. Publication No. 2013/0034171 A1, published February 7,
`2013 (Ex. 1004, “Winken”).
`4 Kim, U.S. Publication 2012/0128070 A1, published May 24, 2012
`(Ex. 1010, “Kim”).
`5 Jill Boyce et al., Draft high efficiency video coding (HEVC) version 2,
`combined format range extensions (RExt), scalability (SHVC), and multi-
`view (MV-HEVC) extensions, 18th Meeting Joint Collaborative Team on
`Video Coding 1–535 (June 30–July 9, 2014) (Ex. 1005, “JCTVC-R1013”).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00725
`Patent 9,838,720 B2
`
`
`F. Real Parties in Interest
`
`Petitioner identifies Unified Patents, LLC as the real party in interest.
`
`Paper 23, 2. Patent Owner identifies Korea Advanced Institute of Science
`
`and Technology, Korean Broadcasting System, and HEVC Advance LLC as
`
`the real parties in interest. Paper 40, 1.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Legal Standards
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if a prior art reference
`
`discloses each and every element of the claimed invention, either explicitly
`
`or inherently. Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1995); see MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999) (“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose
`
`every limitation of the claimed invention . . . ;” any limitation not explicitly
`
`taught must be inherently taught and would be so understood by a person
`
`experienced in the field.); In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1991) (the dispositive question is “whether one skilled in the art
`
`would reasonably understand or infer” that a reference teaches or discloses
`
`all of the elements of the claimed invention).
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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 the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. 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;
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00725
`Patent 9,838,720 B2
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective
`
`evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
`
`(1966). “To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot
`
`employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate
`
`specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal of
`
`obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Petitioner asserts that
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing [of]
`the ’720 Patent . . . would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree
`in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or Electrical
`Engineering, and two to three years of experience in digital
`video encoding and/or decoding . . . More work experience
`could substitute for education, and vice versa.
`
`Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 99–104). Patent Owner provides testimonial
`
`evidence similarly indicating “one of ordinary skill in the art in the field of
`
`video compression . . . would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering or computer science, or an equivalent degree, and two to three
`
`years of experience in the field of video compression.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 74. We
`
`determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner is consistent
`
`with the ’720 patent and the asserted prior art.
`
`Dr. Orchard has a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering. Ex. 1002 ¶ 6. He
`
`(1) is a professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, teaching classes
`
`in digital signal processing and image processing, (2) has researched in the
`
`fields of image and video compression algorithms and image rendering and
`
`applications, and (3) has supervised Ph.D. students on various image and
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00725
`Patent 9,838,720 B2
`
`video processing topics. Id. ¶¶ 6, 8–9, 13. He has served in various
`
`capacities for IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, OSA’s Digital Image
`
`Processing and Analysis Conference, and the IEEE International Conference
`
`on Image Processing. Id. ¶¶ 12–13. He has also consulted in the fields of
`
`image and video processing at various companies. Id. ¶¶ 8, 10, 13. Dr.
`
`Orchard’s qualifications are sufficient as a person of skill in the art for
`
`purposes of this proceeding under either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed level of ordinary skill level.
`
`Dr. Reader has a Doctoral degree, where he presented a thesis on
`
`“Orthogonal Transform Coding of Still and Moving Pictures.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 6.
`
`He has performed research in video compression, including adaptive block
`
`transform coding, and presented a thesis was on “Orthogonal Transform
`
`Coding of Still and Moving Pictures.” Id. He has various industry
`
`experience in digital imaging (id. ¶¶ 7–9, 13–14) and has been involved with
`
`developing MPEG standards (e.g., MPEG-1, MPEG2, MPEG-4, H.263, and
`
`H.264) (id. ¶¶ 10–16). He also consults in areas of imaging and video,
`
`including image and video compression and imaging. Id. ¶ 17. Dr. Reader’s
`
`qualifications are sufficient as a person of skill in the art for purposes of this
`
`proceeding under either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s proposed level of
`
`ordinary skill level.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`On October 11, 2018, the Office revised its rules to harmonize the
`
`Board’s claim construction standard with that used in federal district court
`
`cases under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See Changes to the Claim Construction
`
`Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00725
`Patent 9,838,720 B2
`
`§ 42.100(b) for petitions filed on or after November 13, 2018) (now codified
`
`at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)). The instant Petition was filed on February
`
`28, 2019 (Paper 3, 1), and, therefore, the revised district-court type claim
`
`construction standard applies to this proceeding. Id.; see Pet. 16 (stating “no
`
`explicit construction (beyond plain and ordinary meaning under the Phillips
`
`standard) is required”).
`
`Accordingly, we apply the principles set forth in Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under that
`
`standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and
`
`customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person
`
`of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire
`
`patent including the specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13; see id.
`
`at 1315 (stating “claims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which
`
`they are a part.’”) (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d
`
`967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996)). “In determining the
`
`meaning of [a] disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic
`
`evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written
`
`description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc.
`
`v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`(citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). Extrinsic evidence is “less significant
`
`than the intrinsic record in determining ‘the legally operative meaning of
`
`claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. Only those terms in
`
`controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`
`the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00725
`Patent 9,838,720 B2
`
`
`Also, a “court does not interpret claim terms in a vacuum, devoid of
`
`the context of the claim as a whole.” Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int'l Trade
`
`Comm'n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Hockerson–
`
`Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
`
`ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
`
`Instead, a “proper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of the entire
`
`claim in context, not a single element in isolation.” Hockerson–
`
`Halberstadt, 183 F.3d at 1374; see also ACTV, 346 F.3d at 1088 (stating
`
`“[w]hile certain terms may be at the center of the claim construction debate,
`
`the context of the surrounding words of the claim also must be considered
`
`. . . .”).
`
`As we explained in the Decision to Institute, Petitioner contends that
`
`each claim term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning in this
`
`proceeding and that “no explicit construction (beyond plain and ordinary
`
`meaning under the Phillips standard) is required.” Dec. Inst. 25 (quoting
`
`Pet. 16). Patent Owner, on the other hand, proposed construing these
`
`phrases found in the challenged claims: “a basis of a prediction mode,”
`
`“divided into,” and “a different size.” Prelim. Resp. 19–25. We
`
`preliminarily construed each of those terms in the Decision to Institute,
`
`based on the record then before us. Dec. Inst. 26–29. Patent Owner made
`
`additional arguments on the construction of these terms and additionally
`
`proposes construing additional limitations found in the challenged claims,
`
`including “dividing a decoding unit block within a current slice into four
`
`first sub-decoding-unit-blocks” in step [a], “the at least one first sub-
`
`decoding-unit-block is a square block” in step [n], the “at least one
`
`undivided first sub-decoding-unit-block” in steps [h]–[m], and “dividing at
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00725
`Patent 9,838,720 B2
`
`least one first sub-decoding-unit-block . . . into four second sub-decoding-
`
`unit-block” in step [b]. PO Resp. 15–27. Petitioner responds to Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments in its Reply; Patent Owner further responds in its Sur-
`
`reply. Reply 11–22; Sur-reply 20–25. Below we address claim construction
`
`issues to the extent required to resolve the issues before us.
`
`1. “dividing a decoding unit block within a current slice into four
`first sub-decoding-unit-blocks” in step [a], “dividing at least one first sub-
`decoding-unit-block . . . into four second sub-decoding-unit-blocks” in step
`[b], the “at least one undivided first sub-decoding-unit-block” or “the
`undivided first sub-decoding-unit-block” in steps [h]–[m], and “the at least
`one first sub-decoding-unit-block is a square block” in step [n]
`
`We consider the above limitations in the context of claim 1 as whole
`
`and further construe these steps of claim 1 in the context of the Specification
`
`of the ’720 patent and any relevant prosecution history.6
`
`
`
`Claim 1 recites in pertinent part:
`
`A method of video decoding comprising:
`
`[a] dividing a decoding unit block within a current slice
`into four first sub-decoding-unit-blocks;
`[b] dividing at least one first sub-decoding-unit-block
`among the four first sub-decoding-unit-blocks into four second
`sub-decoding-unit-blocks,
`[c] wherein each of the second sub-decoding-unit-blocks
`is a basis of a prediction mode,
`. . .
`[e] transforming at least one second sub-decoding-unit-block
`among the four second sub-decoding-unit-blocks using a first
`transform kernel and a second transform kernel having a different size
`from the first transform kernel
`. . .
`
`
`6 This discussion applies equally to independent claim 6, addressing “[a]
`method of video encoding” comprising similar recitations to claim 1. See
`Ex. 1001, 10:13–58.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00725
`Patent 9,838,720 B2
`
`
`[h] wherein the decoding unit block comprises at least one
`divided first sub-decoding-unit-block, divided into the four
`second sub-decoding-unit-blocks, and at least one undivided first
`sub-decoding-unit-block not divided into the four second sub-
`decoding-unit-blocks,
`[i] wherein the undivided first sub-decoding-unit-block is
`a basis of a prediction mode,
`. . .
`[k] wherein the transforming further comprises transforming the
`at least one undivided first sub-decoding-unit-block using a third
`transform kernel and a fourth transform kernel having a different size
`from the third transform kernel,
`. . .
`[n] wherein the decoding unit block is a square block and
`the at least one first sub-decoding-unit-block is a square block.
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:5–12, 16–19, 27–33, 37–41, 51–53.
`
`Parties’ General Contentions
`
`Patent Owner proposes its interpretation of how claim 1’s steps [a],
`
`[b], [h], and [n] should be construed. PO Resp. 15–19; Sur-reply 20–22. In
`
`particular, Patent Owner argues:
`
`Claim 1 recites step n, “the at least one first sub-decoding-unit-
`block is a square block.” (Ex. 1001, 9:51-53). The phrase “at
`least one first sub-decoding-unit-block” appears first in step b,
`“dividing at least one first sub-decoding-unit-block among
`the four first sub-decoding-unit-blocks into four second sub-
`decoding-unit-blocks.” (Bold added). Accordingly, “the at
`least one first sub-decoding-unit-block” in step n does not refer
`to the “at least one undivided first sub-decoding-unit-block” in
`steps h, i, j, k, l and m; rather, it refers to the “at least one
`divided first sub-decoding-unit-block,” which is referenced in
`steps b and h.
`
`PO Resp. 17.
`
`“[F]ollowing its plain and ordinary meaning, Patent Owners propose
`
`that step a be construed to mean simply dividing a decoding unit block into
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00725
`Patent 9,838,720 B2
`
`four first sub-decoding-unit-blocks” and an additional requirement should
`
`not be read into step [a] “specifying that each first sub-decoding-unit-block
`
`is either a square or non-square block.” Id. at 15.
`
`
`
`In the Sur-reply, Patent Owner additionally states “[t]he claim
`
`language speaks for itself. As shown in Patent Owner’s color annotated
`
`chart below, claim 1’s steps b, h and n, taken together, state that ‘at least one
`
`first sub-decoding-unit-block’ [in step [b]] means at least one ‘divided’ first
`
`sub-decoding-unit-block [in step [h]].” Sur-reply 20; see id. at 22 (stating
`
`“the antecedent basis of the claim language points to the ‘divided’ first sub-
`
`decoding-unit-block”). The described “chart” (id. at 20–21) is reproduced
`
`below:
`
`
`
`Chart Containing Language (Annotated by Patent Owner with Color,
`Bolding, and Highlighting) Found in Claim 1’s Steps [n], [b], and [h]
`
`Id. at 21. The above chart reproduces portions of steps [n], [b], and [h], and
`
`includes bolding, colors, and highlighting added by Patent Owner to various
`
`language related to the “at least one first sub-decoding-unit-block” and
`
`“second sub-decoding-unit-blocks” language in claim 1. Patent Owner
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00725
`Patent 9,838,720 B2
`
`argues “[t]he phrases in step b serve as antecedent basis for the phrases in
`
`step h and step n (see in red).” Id. at 20.
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that the Board’s conclusion that the “sub-decoding-
`
`unit-blocks” in claim 1 are square is correct. Reply 15–17; see id. at 20
`
`(stating “a POSITA[7] would have understood this to necessitate that all of
`
`the recited ‘first sub-decoding-unit-block’ are square”). Petitioner asserts,
`
`when construing steps [b] and [h], that Patent Owner ignores steps [i]–[m],
`
`which “support the Board’s conclusion.” Id. at 16. Petitioner further argues
`
`that “nothing in [] claim [1 step [n]’s] language suggests that the step is only
`
`directed to the ‘divided’ first sub-decoding-unit-block, as Patent Owner
`
`alleges.” Id. Petitioner contends the terms “divided” and “undivided” first
`
`sub-decoding-unit-blocks are introduced in step [h]. Id. at 16–17 (citing Ex.
`
`1001, 9:8–10, 26–30). Petitioner further argues that steps [i]–[m] are
`
`directed to the “undivided” first sub-decoding-unit-block, and the “divided”
`
`first sub-decoding-unit-block in step [h] “is never mentioned again by any of
`
`the claims.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:31–50). Petitioner further argues
`
`that, even if step [n], “must be construed to apply to only one type of first
`
`sub-decoding-unit-block (i.e., divided or undivided), nothing in the claim
`
`language suggests” that this step would only apply to “‘divided’ first
`
`sub-decoding-unit-blocks.” Id.
`
`
`
`In the Sur-reply, Patent Owner additionally argues “method claim
`
`steps in a patent are presumed not to require a specific order.” Sur-reply 21;
`
`id. at 21 n.8 (citing Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256
`
`F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
`
`
`7 A Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00725
`Patent 9,838,720 B2
`
`
`
`Based on the parties’ respective positions outlined above, we consider
`
`whether all “four first sub-decoding-unit-blocks” and “four second-sub-
`
`decoding-unit-blocks” recited in claim 1 are square.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner that “not every process claim is limited
`
`to the performance of its steps in the order written.” See Loral Fairchild
`
`Corp. v. Sony Corp., 181 F.3d 1313, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, just
`
`because step [n] follows from steps [i]–[m], which recite limitations related
`
`to “the undivided first sub-decoding-unit-block” (e.g., steps [i]–[j]) or “the at
`
`least one undivided first sub-decoding-unit-block” (e.g., steps [k]–[m])8 (see
`
`Reply 17), this claimed order does not necessarily mean the recited “the at
`
`least one first sub-decoding-unit-block is a square” in step [n] is the same
`
`unit-block in step [k] directed to “the at least one undivided first sub-
`
`decoding-unit-block.” Ex. 1001, 9:32–53. Given this principle, step [h]’s
`
`“at least one undivided first sub-decoding-unit-block” is not necessarily also
`
`step [n]’s “the at least one first sub-decoding-unit-block.” Additionally,
`
`claim 1 recites “dividing at least one first sub-decoding-unit-block among
`
`the four first sub-decoding-unit-blocks” in step [b]. Id., 9:8–10. As such,
`
`we have reconsidered and reject the implication that step [n]’s “the at least
`
`one first sub-decoding-unit-block” is limited to the recited “at least one
`
`undivided first sub-decoding-unit-block” recited in step [h]. See Dec. Inst.
`
`21; see Rh’g Dec. 7–8.
`
`
`8 Claim 1 fails to maintain consistency in its language related to “the
`undivided first sub-decoding-unit-block,” reciting both the “at least one
`undivided first sub-decoding-unit-block” and “the undivided first sub-
`decoding-unit-block.” Ex. 1001, 9:29–50.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00725
`Patent 9,838,720 B2
`
`
`We further disagree with Petitioner that “the at least one first sub-
`
`decoding-unit-block” in step [n], when viewing the claim as a whole (e.g.,
`
`with step [b]), does not specify this unit-block is a divided unit-block. See
`
`Reply 15, 17. That is, when viewing claim 1 as whole, claim 1’s step [h]
`
`indicates that the “at least one divided first sub-decoding-unit-block” is same
`
`as the “at least one first-sub-decoding-unit-block” in step [b] because step
`
`[b] recites “dividing at least one first-sub-decoding-unit-block . . . into four
`
`second sub-decoding-unit-blocks” and step [h] further recites “the decoding
`
`unit block comprises at least one divided first sub-decoding-unit-block,
`
`divided into the four second sub-decoding-unit-blocks.” See Ex. 1001, 9:8–
`
`10, 27–29 (emphases added); see also PO Resp. 17; see also Sur-reply 21.
`
`However, this determination does not end our claim construction
`
`analysis (or resolve the priority issue in dispute), for we must also consider
`
`claim 1 in its entirety in the context of the ’720 patent’s Specification as an
`
`ordinarily skilled artisan would interpret the claim, including other
`
`recitations related to the “at least one undivided first sub-decoding-unit-
`
`block” and the “at least one second sub-decoding-unit-block.” See Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1313.
`
`For example, claim 1 recites in steps [a], [b], [h], and [n], when read
`
`collectively, that “the at least one first-sub-decoding-unit-block” (i.e., steps
`
`[b] and [n]) (1) “is a square block” (i.e., step [n]), resulting from “a decoding
`
`unit block” that is “divid[ed] . . . into four first sub-decoding-unit-blocks”
`
`(i.e., step [a]), and (2) is further “divided . . . into four second sub-decoding-
`
`unit-blocks (i.e., steps [b] and [h]). Ex. 1001, 9:6–10, 27–31, 51–53. Claim
`
`1 further recites in steps [a], [b], and [n] collectively that the “decoding unit
`
`block,” which is divided to create each of the “four first sub-decoding-unit-
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00725
`Patent 9,838,720 B2
`
`blocks” of which the “at least one first sub-decoding-unit-block” (i.e., step
`
`[b] is one of these four “unit-blocks” (i.e., step [a]), “is a square block” (i.e.,
`
`step [n]). Id., 9:6–10, 51–53.
`
`Figure 2 of the ’720 patent reproduced above in Section (I)(C) shows
`
`an example of square unit block (e.g., NxN decoding unit block on the far
`
`left) divided into four first sub-coding-unit-blocks (e.g., N/2xN/2 sub-unit-
`
`blocks on the upper, far right) . Id., Fig. 2. This figure is the only visual
`
`example in the ’720 patent of how to divide “unit-blocks” according to claim
`
`1’s “method of video decoding” (through the “reverse process of the
`
`encoding method”9). In this example, each of the four divided first decoding
`
`unit-blocks is square. Id.
`
`Thus, in the context of the ’720 patent’s Figure 2, an ordinarily skilled
`
`artisan would have understood that each of the recited “four first sub-
`
`decoding-unit-blocks” recited in claim 1’s step [a] is a square block as
`
`Petitioner asserts. See Reply 18 (stating “the specification only discloses a
`
`block being divided into equal parts (e.g., four equal squares or two equal
`
`rectangles), as illustrated below. See, e.g., Fig. 1-2.”); see id. at 19
`
`(reproducing Ex. 1001, Fig. 2)). This is because claim 1’s step [n] requires
`
`both “the decoding unit block is a square block” (e.g., NxN block in Figure
`
`2), and “

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