Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 41
`
`Date: August 18, 2020
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VELOS MEDIA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00757
`Patent 9,930,365 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, JASON W. MELVIN, and
`AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining None of the Challenged Claims to be Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 41
`
`Date: August 18, 2020
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VELOS MEDIA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00757
`Patent 9,930,365 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, JASON W. MELVIN, and
`AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining None of the Challenged Claims to be Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00757
`Patent 9,930,365 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Unified Patents Inc. 1 (“Petitioner”) requested an inter partes review of
`claims 1–20 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,930,365 B2 (Ex.
`1001, “the ’365 patent”). Paper 2 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). Velos Media, LLC
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`On September 11, 2019, we entered a Decision on Institution
`(“Institution Decision” or “Inst. Dec.,” Paper 7) instituting an inter partes
`review as to all of the challenged claims on all of the grounds set forth in the
`Petition.
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
`(“PO Resp.,” Paper 18), to which Petitioner filed a Reply (“Pet. Reply,”
`Paper 26). 2 Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (“Sur-Reply,” Paper 31). 3 A
`hearing was held on June 16, 2020. The transcript of the hearing has been
`entered into the record. Paper 39 (“Transcript” or “Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This final written decision
`is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). As explained below, we determine
`Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–
`20 of the ’365 patent are unpatentable.
`II. BACKGROUND
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’365 patent is not
`asserted in any related district court proceedings. In particular, Petitioner
`
`
`1 Petitioner has informed the Board that it has changed its name to Unified
`Patents, LLC. Paper 20.
`2 Ex. 1024 is the redacted version of the Patent Owner’s Response. Ex. 1023
`is the redacted version of the Petitioner’s Reply.
`3 Ex. 1038 is the redacted version of Patent Owner’s Sur-reply.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00757
`Patent 9,930,365 B2
`
`states that it “is unaware of any law suits in which the ’365 Patent is asserted
`or challenged” (Pet. 64), and Patent Owner states that, at the time of the
`Preliminary Response, it “has not filed a patent infringement lawsuit”
`(Prelim. Resp. 1).
`Although Patent Owner states that “Petitioner has now filed thirteen
`IPRs against Velos patents,” specifically, IPR2019-00194, IPR2019-00635,
`IPR2019-00660, IPR2019-00670, IPR2019-00707, IPR2019-00710,
`IPR2019-00720, IPR2019-00749, IPR2019-00757, IPR2019-00763,
`IPR2019-00806, IPR2019-00883, and IPR2019-01130, other than the instant
`proceeding (IPR2019-00757), none of these proceedings appear to concern
`either the ’365 patent or a patent related to the ’365 patent. Id. at 1–2 n.1.
`The ’365 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`B.
`The ’365 patent issued on March 27, 2018, based on application No.
`15/696,263, which claims priority to, among other applications, provisional
`application Nos. 61/102,787 filed October 3, 2008, 61/144,357 filed January
`13, 2009, and 61/166,631 filed April 3, 2009. Ex. 1001, codes (21), (45),
`(60). The ’365 patent concerns techniques for encoding and decoding digital
`video data using macroblocks. Id. at code (57). Figure 12 of the ’365 patent
`is reproduced below.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00757
`Patent 9,930,365 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 12 of the ’365 patent illustrates a 64×64 pixel
`macroblock that has been partitioned into sub-partitions of
`varying sizes, each of which has an encoding mode. Id. at
`6:22–24
`“[V]ideo encoder 20 may receive a set of various-sized blocks for a
`coded unit,” which “may comprise a video frame, a slice, or a group of
`pictures (also referred to as a ‘sequence’),” and includes a macroblock or a
`partition of a macroblock. Id. at 12:19–21, 38:45–47, 52–54. As shown in
`Figure 12, a large, 64×64 pixel macroblock has different sub-block partitions
`within the same large macroblock; these sub-blocks have different coding
`modes for each partition. Id. at 33:35–37, 33:47–49. The differently coded
`sub-blocks include, for example, a 32×32, B-coded partition and an 8×8, I-
`coded partition. Id. at 34:26–31. The encoder “generate[s] block-type
`syntax information that . . . identifies the partitions and the encoding modes
`used to encode the partitions.” Id. at 13:56–58. The syntax information
`further “includes values corresponding to the largest block in the coded unit
`and the smallest block in the coded unit.” Id. at 39:21–24.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00757
`Patent 9,930,365 B2
`
`
`A video decoder receives the “coded unit and the syntax information
`for the coded unit from the video encoder.” Id. at 39:27–28. The video
`decoder “determine[s] when a block does not have further separately
`encoded sub-partitions based on the indication in the coded unit syntax
`information of the smallest encoded partition.” Id. at 39:37–41. For
`example, when “the largest block is 64×64 pixels and the smallest block is
`also 64×64 pixels, then it can be determined that the 64×64 blocks are not
`divided into sub-partitions smaller than the 64×64 size.” Id. at 39:41–44.
`Alternatively, when “the largest block is 64×64 pixels and the smallest block
`is 32×32 pixels, then it can be determined that the 64×64 blocks are divided
`into sub-partitions no smaller than 32×32.” Id. at 39:44–48.
`Using syntax information that identifies the encoding mode, the
`decoder “decode[s] the video block based on the block-type syntax
`information” that identifies the encoding mode. Id. at 14:19–21.
`C. Challenged Claims
`Challenged claims 1, 7, and 15 are independent. Challenged claims
`2–6, 8–14, and 16–20 depend from claims 1, 7, and 15. Independent claim 1
`is illustrative and is reproduced below.
`1. A method of decoding video data, the method comprising:
`decoding a first syntax element associated with a sequence of
`pictures of the video data, the first syntax element representing a
`minimum size of blocks of the sequence of pictures;
`decoding a second syntax element, separate from the first syntax
`element, associated with the sequence of pictures, the second
`syntax element representing a maximum size of the blocks of the
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00757
`Patent 9,930,365 B2
`
`
`sequence of pictures, wherein the maximum size is greater than
`16×16 pixels;
`determining that a current block of a plurality of blocks of the
`sequence of pictures has a starting size equal to the maximum
`size using the second syntax element;
`partitioning the current block to obtain a plurality of sub-blocks
`for
`the current block, wherein partitioning comprises
`determining that a sub-block of the sub-blocks of the current
`block does not include further separately encoded sub-partitions
`when the size of the sub-block is equal to the minimum size
`indicated by the first syntax element;
`decoding a third syntax element, separate from the first syntax
`element and the second syntax element, the third syntax element
`representing an encoding mode used to encode the sub-block,
`wherein the encoding mode comprises one of an intra-prediction
`mode and an inter-prediction mode; and
`decoding the sub-block according to the encoding mode, without
`further partitioning the sub-block, based on the determination
`that the block does not include further separately encoded
`subpartitions.
`Ex. 1001, 40:28–59.
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`D.
`Petitioner supports the following challenges with the Declaration of
`Dr. Immanuel Freedman (Ex. 1009).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00757
`Patent 9,930,365 B2
`
`
`Reference(s)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,999,6555 to Kalker et al.
`(“Kalker,” Ex. 1006) and U.S. Publication
`No. 2005/0123282 A16 to Novotny et al.
`(“Novotny,” Ex. 1007)
`Kalker, Novotny, and U.S. Patent No.
`6,084,9087 to Chiang et al. (“Chiang,” Ex.
`1008)
`
`
`
`Basis4 Claims Challenged
`§ 103 1–4, 6–10, 12–18,
`20
`
`§ 103 5, 11, 19
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`Principles of Law
`A.
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented 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;
`
`
`4 The relevant sections of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), took effect on March 16,
`2013. Because the effective filing date of the ’365 is before that date, our
`citations to Title 35 are to its pre-AIA version. See Ex. 1001, codes (22),
`(60), (63).
`5 Kalker issued on December 7, 1999. Ex. 1006, code (45). Kalker’s issue
`date predates the earliest possible priority date of the ’365 patent. See Ex.
`1001, codes (60), (63).
`6 Novotny published on June 9, 2005. Ex. 1007, code (45). Novotny’s
`publication date predates the earliest possible priority date of the ’365
`patent. See Ex. 1001, codes (60), (63).
`7 Chiang issued on July 4, 2000. Ex. 1008, code (45). Chiang’s issue date
`predates the earliest possible priority date of the ’365 patent. See Ex. 1001,
`codes (60), (63).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00757
`Patent 9,930,365 B2
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness,
`i.e., secondary considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`17–18 (1966).
`“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
`onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is
`unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review
`petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the
`grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). The burden of persuasion never
`shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics,
`Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp.
`Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the
`burden of proof in an inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner cannot
`satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory
`statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016).
`Thus, to prevail in an inter partes review, Petitioner must explain how
`the proposed combinations of prior art would have rendered the challenged
`claims unpatentable. We analyze the challenges presented in the Petition in
`accordance with the above-stated principles.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`B.
`We review the grounds of unpatentability in view of the
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends that the ordinarily
`skilled artisan would have had at least
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00757
`Patent 9,930,365 B2
`
`
`[A] person having, as of October 3, 2008: (1) at least an
`undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or closely related
`scientific field, such as physics, computer engineering, or
`computer science, or similar advanced post-graduate education
`in this area; and (2) two or more years of experience with video
`or image processing systems.
`Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 30–32). Patent Owner does not propose a
`definition for the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO.
`Resp.
`We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner is
`consistent with the ’365 patent and the asserted prior art and we adopt that
`definition. We note, however, the conclusions and findings rendered in this
`decision do not turn on selecting the particular level of ordinary skill in the
`art that Petitioner proposes.
`C. Claim Construction
`We apply the same claim construction standard used by Article III
`federal courts and the ITC, both of which follow Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. See Changes to the
`Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings
`Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51340, 51,340,
`51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective
`November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)).
`Accordingly, we construe each challenged claim of the ’365 patent to
`generally have the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history
`pertaining to the patent.
`Petitioner does not propose particular constructions for any claim
`terms. Pet. 13–14 (“At this time, Petitioner proposes that the claims be
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00757
`Patent 9,930,365 B2
`
`construed pursuant to their plain and ordinary meaning in light of the
`specification of the ’365 Patent.”). In its Preliminary Response, Patent
`Owner proposed constructions for four claim limitations, “a first syntax
`element,” “a second syntax element,” “a third syntax element,” and “a
`second syntax element, separate from the first syntax element.” We
`preliminarily construed these terms in our Institution Decision. Dec. 8–15.
`In its Response, Patent Owner does not allege error with our
`preliminary constructions or propose constructions for any other term. See
`generally PO Resp. Petitioner does not address these terms in its Reply. See
`generally Pet. Reply. Having reviewed the complete record developed
`during trial, we do not discern a dispute between the parties regarding these
`terms and we do not need to construe these terms to decide the issues before
`us. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868
`F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are
`in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”
`(quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`(Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`D. Obviousness over Kalker and Novotny
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–4, 6–10, 12–18, and 20 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kalker and Novotny.
`Pet. 14–59. For the reasons that follow, we are not persuaded that the
`evidence supports Petitioner’s arguments and Dr. Freedman’s testimony.
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner establishes unpatentability
`of claims 1–4, 6–10, 12–18, and 20 by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00757
`Patent 9,930,365 B2
`
`
`Overview of Kalker (Ex. 1006)
`1.
`Kalker concerns a video encoding and decoding technique which
`“encod[es] [a] segmentation map” of a video picture by “assigning a block-
`size code to each block size . . . to obtain a one-dimensional series of block-
`size codes.” Ex. 1006, 1:46–50; see id. at 6:10–25 (Claim 1).
`Figure 9 of Kalker is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 9 shows a segmentation map of a
`video picture. Id. at 2:36–37.
`As shown in Figure 9, a “plurality of variable-size blocks of a picture
`constitute a ‘segmentation map.’” Id. at 2:66–67. In the segmentation map,
`“[e]ach block size is represented by a block-size code S,” for example, “S=1
`for 4*4 blocks, S=2 for 8*8 blocks and S=3 for 16*16 blocks.” Id. at 3:30–
`33. The block sizes in the segmentation map are represented by a bit stream
`representing a sequence of block sizes. See id. at 5:58–60. The sequence of
`block sizes is generated via a “scanning circuit [that] scans the segmentation
`map on the basis of a grid corresponding to the smallest block size,” as
`shown by scanning pattern 91. Id. at 3:22–24; 5:36–38. For example:
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00757
`Patent 9,930,365 B2
`
`
`First, the top left 16*16 block is analyzed. As this block is not
`further divided into smaller blocks, the block size code S=3 is
`generated. Then, the next (top right) 16*16 block is analyzed.
`This block is segmented into smaller blocks and will now
`completely be scanned before proceeding to the next 16*16 block.
`More particularly, the top left 8*8 block is now analyzed. As it
`is not further divided, the block size code S=2 is generated.
`Similarly, the block size code S=2 is generated for the next (top
`right) 8*8 block. Then the bottom left 8*8 block is analyzed. It
`is segmented into smaller blocks and will thus be scanned before
`proceeding to the next 8*8 block. Accordingly, an S=1 block size
`code is generated for the top left 4*4 block, the top right 4*4
`block, the bottom left 4*4 block and the bottom right 4*4 block,
`successively.
`Id. at 5:38–52. The scanning of the segmentation map of Figure 9 “yields
`the following sequence of block size codes: 3,2,2,1,1,1,1,2,3,3,EOS[end-of-
`scan code].” Id. at 5:58–60. The sequence of block code sizes is decoded
`via a corresponding segmentation map-decoding circuit and a segmentation
`map reconstruction circuit in which “an element is extracted from the
`sequence” to assign “the value S to each grid location within said block.”
`Id. at 4:36–37, 43–45, 53–59.
`Overview of Novotny (Ex. 1007)
`2.
`Novotny concerns video encoding and decoding techniques. Ex. 1007
`¶ 22. In particular, Novotny describes “a picture (e.g., an image, a frame, a
`field, etc.) 70i may be divided (e.g., segmented, partitioned, etc.) into a
`number of macroblocks 86.” Id. ¶ 31 (referring to Fig. 3, not reproduced).
`Novotny further describes that encoded video includes macroblock syntax
`elements “that may include but are not limited to: macroblock type[s]” (id.
`¶ 37) which “generally include, but are not limited to, Intra16×16 [and]
`Intra4×4” (id. ¶ 50).
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00757
`Patent 9,930,365 B2
`
`
`Independent Claim 1
`3.
`Independent claim 1 recites “decoding a first syntax element
`associated with a sequence of pictures of the video data, the first syntax
`element representing a minimum size of blocks of the sequence of pictures.”
`Claim 1 further recites “partitioning the current block to obtain a plurality of
`sub-blocks for the current block, wherein partitioning comprises determining
`that a sub-block of the sub-blocks of the current block does not include
`further separately encoded sub-partitions when the size of the sub-block is
`equal to the minimum size indicated by the first syntax element.”
`Petitioner’s Contentions
`a)
`According to Petitioner, “Kalker teaches an encoding-side
`transmitting station that assigns particular size values to multiple block-size
`codes (i.e., syntax elements) for an entire coded unit (e.g., a picture or frame
`in Kalker)” and transmits these block-size codes to a decoding-side
`receiving station, which “decode[s] the data and reconstruct[s] the image.”
`Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:8–18, 1:20–24, 3:31–35, 4:55–56, claims 1,
`8). More particularly, Petitioner asserts that:
`[T]he encoder sets a block-size code of “3” to represent the
`largest blocks in the coded unit, such as 16×16 blocks, a block-
`size code of “2” can represent intermediary blocks, such as 8×8
`blocks, and a block-size code of “1” represents the smallest, or
`minimum block size in the coded unit, e.g., 4×4 blocks.
`Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:25–34, 5:36–57, 4:43–67). Petitioner also asserts
`that “[b]ecause the block-size codes may vary from picture to picture, the
`encoder must not only communicate” which particular block-size code (e.g.,
`1 or 3) is assigned to a given partition in a current picture, but “it must also
`communicate what value the block-size code represents for a given picture
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00757
`Patent 9,930,365 B2
`
`(e.g., 4×4, 8×8, 16×16).” Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1006, 5:15–21 (describing
`alternatives for block-size codes, such as S=3 corresponding to an 8×8
`block); Ex. 1009 ¶ 49).
`Noting that Kalker does not explicitly disclose the assigning and
`transmitting of block-size codes at the decoder side, Petitioner further asserts
`“Kalker teaches both encoding and decoding video data” and that while
`“[i]ts most detailed discussion is provided from the perspective of the
`encoding process,” a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”)
`would have recognized “Kalker’s teachings of its encoding steps would be
`reversed by a corresponding decoder device.” Pet. 25 (citing-in-part Ex.
`1006, 2:43–3:5, 3:8–18, 3:36–67, 4:36–42, 4:48–50; Ex. 1009 ¶ 52).
`To teach the “partitioning” limitation, Petitioner quotes the following
`portion of Kalker:
`Then, the next (top right) 16*16 block is analyzed. This block is
`segmented into smaller blocks and will now completely be
`scanned before proceeding to the next 16*16 block. More
`particularly, the top left 8*8 block is now analyzed. As it is not
`further divided, the block size code S=2 is generated. Similarly,
`the block size code S=2 is generated for the next (top right) 8*8
`block. Then the bottom left 8*8 block is analyzed. It is
`segmented into smaller blocks and will thus be scanned before
`proceeding to the next 8*8 block. Accordingly, an S=1 block
`size code is generated for the top left 4*4 block, the top right 4*4
`block, the bottom left 4*4 block and the bottom right 4*4 block,
`successively.
`Pet. 43 (quoting Ex. 1006, 5:40–52, referring to Fig. 9) (emphasis omitted).
`Petitioner contends Kalker teaches that “when an S=2 block is partitioned,
`the sub-blocks are each assigned S=1 without the need for performing
`further scanning of the S=1 block for sub-partitions.” Id. at 44–45 (citing
`Ex. 1006, 5:47–52). According to Petitioner, the ’365 patent makes the
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00757
`Patent 9,930,365 B2
`
`claimed “determination” in the same way: “[w]hen the size of a sub-block is
`equal to the minimum size, it is recognized that the block does not have
`separately encoded sub-partitions.” Id. at 45 (citing Ex. 1001, 39:37–41,
`39:5–12).
`Petitioner further contends that,
`[I]n Kalker, the decoder partitions the current block (i.e., a block
`of the scanning grid that has a starting size equal to the maximum
`size, represented by S=3 and equal to 16×16 pixels), to obtain a
`plurality of sub-blocks (8×8 and 4×4 blocks in the exemplary
`embodiment) for the current block, wherein partitioning
`comprises determining that a sub-block (4×4 block) of the sub-
`blocks (8×8 blocks) of the current block (16×16 block) does not
`include further separately encoded subpartitions when the size of
`the sub-block is equal to the minimum size (4×4 pixels) indicated
`by the first syntax element (S=1).
`Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 5:31–57, Fig. 9).
`Patent Owner’s Contentions
`b)
`Patent Owner argues that
`Even if the Board were to find that map encoder 4 and scanning
`circuit 41, both of which are part of Kalker’s encoder, are
`performing some sort of partitioning process comparable to
`Claim 1’s “partitioning the current block” step, such a finding
`would necessarily mean that such partitioning is not being
`performed in Kalker’s decoder.
`PO Resp. 40. According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner’s efforts to prove that
`Kalker’s map encoder is performing a partitioning step in order to show that
`the map decoder is performing the same step (i.e., not an inverse step) are
`confusing at best.” Id. at 42.
`Patent Owner further argues that reconstruction of the segmentation
`map at Kalker’s map decoder “is not a segmentation process” because
`“[n]othing is being divided or partitioned” and, “[i]n fact, the process is
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00757
`Patent 9,930,365 B2
`
`additive,” because “[d]ifferent sized map elements representing different
`size picture blocks (i.e., elements of size 3, 2, and 1) are being used” in the
`decoder “to reconstruct the segmentation map.” Id. at 50 (emphasis added);
`see also id. at 43–49 (illustrating Patent Owner’s contention as to
`reconstruction of the segmentation map).
`Petitioner’s Responsive Contentions
`c)
`Petitioner responds that “[w]hen the block size code S=3 is applied by
`the decoder, the stream of pixel data is divided into a 16x16 block, not a 4x4
`array of a segmentation map consisting of 3’s as shown in PO’s diagram.”
`Pet. Reply 8 (citing PO Resp. 44). And, Petitioner submits, Patent Owner’s
`“suggestion that this map is simply ‘read’ by the decoder and involves no
`partitioning of actual image data is demonstrably false” because “Kalker
`expressly teaches that image data ‘is segmented into smaller blocks’ by the
`encoder, and that the corresponding process results in the segmentation of
`picture data by the decoder.” Id. at 8–9 (citing Ex. 1006, 3:8–18; 5:38–57)
`(emphasis added).
`
`d) Discussion
`Petitioner argues that, because “the partitioning process [at the
`encoder] in Kalker scans a current block in the grid with a starting size equal
`to the maximum size . . . and then partitions down through an iterative
`partitioning process potentially to the smallest block size,” “a PHOSITA
`would have recognized that the decoder is performing the inverse of these
`steps.” Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 43, 52; Ex. 1006, 4:43–50) (emphasis
`omitted). Petitioner’s position––that the inverse of an encoder-side, iterative
`partitioning process is also partitioning, but at the decoder side––is not
`supported by sufficient evidence for the reasons discussed below.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00757
`Patent 9,930,365 B2
`
`
`Kalker discloses few specific details of its decoder. See generally
`Ex. 1006; see Pet. 25 (acknowledging Kalker’s “most detailed discussion is
`provided from the perspective of the encoding process, while much of the
`decoding process is generally described with respect to the information and
`data received from the encoder”). Petitioner nevertheless contends “a
`PHOSITA would have recognized, Kalker’s teachings of its encoding steps
`would be reversed by a corresponding decoder device.” Id. (citing-in-part
`Ex. 1009 ¶ 52; Ex. 1006, 4:48–50 (scanning order performed by decoder
`corresponds to scanning order in the encoder)). In his supporting testimony,
`Dr. Freedman testifies that
`[A] PHOSITA would have recognized . . . that Kalker’s
`decoding unit is simply reversing the encoding process in both
`embodiments given Kalker’s teachings describing that “scanning
`order [employed by the decoder] corresponds to the scanning
`order in the encoder.” Id. at 4:48-50. A PHOSITA would
`therefore have recognized that this same concept of the decoder
`performing a reconstruction corresponding to the scanning
`order of the encoder applies to the embodiment described
`generally at 5:31-57 of Kalker and illustrated in Figure 9—
`because the encoder scans a grid based on the largest block size
`to partition blocks, a decoder generally would be programmed to
`follow instructions provided by an encoder to inverse the
`encoding process using the largest block size in this embodiment.
`Ex. 1009 ¶ 52 (emphasis added).
`Dr. Freedman further testifies that “[i]n one embodiment, the encoder
`identifies the largest block size and builds the map (and the decoder
`reconstructs the map) on the basis of a grid corresponding to the largest
`block size, such as a 16×16 block, denoted by S=3.” Id. ¶ 50 (citing Ex.
`1006, 3:19–25, 4:36–47, 5:29–65, Fig. 5, 7, 9). Dr. Freedman further
`testifies that “[i]n the example of this embodiment, the largest block size is
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00757
`Patent 9,930,365 B2
`
`represented by code S=3, which is a 16×16 starting block size for the
`coding/decoding grid,” and that “[a] grid block with starting size of 16×16
`may be subdivided into smaller blocks down to a minimum block size,
`represented by the block-size code S=1 (e.g., 4×4).” Id. (citing Ex. 1006,
`5:29–65, Fig. 9).
`Dr. Freedman’s testimony cited in support of Petitioner’s contentions
`for the “partitioning” limitation is unpersuasive as it is conclusory and not
`supported by underlying evidence. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 (“Expert
`testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the
`opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). The portion of Kalker in
`column 3 cited in support of Dr. Freedman’s testimony concerns scanning
`circuit 41, which scans a segmentation map based on the a grid having a
`block size corresponding to the largest or smallest block size to generate a
`sequence of block size codes S at the encoder side. The cited portion in
`column 5 and Figure 9 of Kalker provides further detail on how the
`segmentation map is generated, but does not specifically disclose whether
`that process occurs at the decoder. Only the cited portions in column 4 and
`Figures 5 and 7 concern a process occurring at the decoder side. Ex. 1006,
`4:36–47 (“The decoded sequence of block-size codes S is applied to a
`segmentation map reconstruction circuit 91. This circuit comprises a
`segmentation map memory having a grid corresponding to the smallest
`block size (4×4 in the present example).”). We are not persuaded that
`Kalker supports Petitioner’s position because the evidence cited by
`Petitioner in support of its above-quoted contentions and underlying Dr.
`Freedman’s testimony does not sufficiently support finding that Kalker
`teaches or suggests “partitioning the current block to obtain a plurality of
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00757
`Patent 9,930,365 B2
`
`sub-blocks” in which the current block is “a current block of a plurality of
`blocks of the sequence of pictures” after “decoding a first syntax element”
`and “decoding a second syntax element,” as recited in claim 1.
`Even assuming that Kalker’s segmentation map, during its creation, is
`scanned based on a grid having the largest block size, such that sub-blocks
`of pixel data are partitioned from larger blocks of pixel data, there is
`insufficient evidence that supports the proposition that the inverse action on
`the decoder side would also be partitioning larger blocks of picture data into
`sub-blocks of picture data. Despite this, Petitioner would have us find that,
`after Kalker’s encoder partitions, for example, a 16×16 block of pixels to
`obtain 8×8 and 4×4 sub-blocks, the encoder would convey information to
`the decoder so that the decoder could recreate the process from the encoder
`side by again partitioning the 16×16 block of pixels to obtain 8×8 and 4×4
`sub-blocks. We find that Patent Owner has the better position––that instead
`of being partitioned or divided, pixel data is subject to an additive process in
`which already partitioned blocks from the encoder are used, in the decoder,
`in a reconstruction process. See PO Resp. 42–50.
`For the foregoing reasons, we find that the combination of Kalker and
`Novotny does not teach or suggest the partitioning limitation. As such, we
`are not persuaded that Petitioner establishes that claim 1 is obvious over
`Kalker and Novotny by a preponderance of the evidence.
`Independent Claims 7 and 15 and Dependent Claims 2–
`4.
`4, 6–8, 10, 12–14, 16–18, and 20
`Petitioner relies on the same analysis for its challenges to claims 1, 7,
`and 15. Pet. 23–50. For reasons substantially similar to those set forth
`above with respect to independent claim 1, we are not persuaded that
`Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00757
`Patent 9,930,365 B2
`
`independent claims 7 and 15 are obvious in view of Kalker and Novotny.
`We reach the same conclusion with respect to dependent claims 2–6, 8–14,
`and 16–20 as these claims depend from independent claims 1, 7, and/or 15.
`E. Obviousness over Kalker, Novotny, and Chiang
`Petitioner contends that claims 5, 11, and 19 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kalker, Novotny, and Chiang. Id. at 59–62.
`As these claims depend from independent claims 1, 7, and 15, and as Chiang
`was not cited to cure the deficiencies of Kalker and Novotny discussed
`above with respect to the independent claims (see Pet. 61–62), we reach the
`same conclusion—that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of
`the evidence that claims 5, 11, and 19 are unpatentable as obvious in view of
`Kalker, Novotny, and Chiang.
`Real Party in Interest Arguments
`F.
`Patent Owner argues that we should dismiss the Petition because it
`does not name all real parties in interest. PO Resp
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
