`
`Filed on behalf of: Velos Media, LLC
`
`
`By: Barry J. Bumgardner
`Registration No. 38,397
` NELSON BUMGARDNER ALBRITTON P.C.
`
`3131 W. 7th Street, Suite 300
`
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`Telephone: (817) 377-3494
`Email: barry@nbafirm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`VELOS MEDIA, LLC
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`Case IPR2019-00757
`Patent 9,930,365
`______________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2019-00757
` Patent No. 9,930,365
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSE .................................................................. 1
`
`
`I.
`
`II. KALKER .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`A. Scanning Circuit 41 does not “Segment” ......................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Kalker’s Decoder Doesn’t Partition Either ..................................................... 13
`
`C. Petitioner has not Presented Evidence that Novotny Applies to
`Sub-Blocks ...................................................................................................... 16
`
`D. Response to Some of Petitioner’s Gross Misstatements of Fact .................... 17
`
`E. Patent Owner’s Further Views on Footnote 6 ................................................ 18
`
`A. Unified’s Arguments Misunderstand the Law ................................................ 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. PETITIONER HAS NOT CORRECTLY LISTED ALL REAL PARTIES-
`IN-INTEREST ................................................................................................ 21
`
`B. Unified Filed These IPRs at its Members’ Behest and for Their Benefit ...... 22
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Case IPR2019-00757
` Patent No. 9,930,365
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page(s):
`
`
`Cases:
`
`Applications in Internet Time v. RPX Corp.,
`897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................... 22, 25
`
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC,
`926 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ...................................................................... 22-23
`
`
`Other Authorities:
`
`Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) .................................................................. 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex
`
`. 2001
`
`Ex
`
`. 2002
`
`Ex
`
`. 2003
`
`Ex
`
`. 2004
`
`Ex
`
`. 2005
`
`Ex
`
`. 2006
`
`Ex
`
`. 2007
`
`Ex
`
`. 2008
`
`Ex
`
`. 2009
`
`Ex
`
`. 2010
`
`Ex
`
`. 2011
`
`Ex
`
`. 2012
`
`Ex
`
`. 2013
`
`Ex
`
`. 2014
`
`Ex
`
`. 2015
`
`Ex
`
`. 2016
`
`Ex
`
`. 2017
`
`Ex
`
`. 2018
`
`Ex
`
`. 2019
`
`Ex
`
`. 2020
`
`Ex
`
`. 2021
`
`Ex
`
`. 2022
`
`Case IPR2019-00757
`Patent No. 9,930,365
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description and Short Name
`Statements made by Petitioner’s Co-Founder and COO
`concerning Patent Owner on LinkedIn
`ITU-T TELECOMMUNICATION
`STANDARDIZATION SECTOROFITU, SERIES H:
`AUDIOVISUAL AND MULTIMEDIA SYSTEMS-
`Infrastructure of audiovisual services — Coding of moving
`video, Advanced video coding for generic audiovisual
`services, Recommendation ITU-T H.264 (March 2009
`Definition of “separate” from Google Search (June 11,
`2019
`Unified Patents Press Release, April 9, 2019
`Unified Patents Press Release, January
`9, 2019
`Statements made by “VP Marketing @ Beamr”on
`Patent Owner’s [Proposed] Interrogatories to Petitioner
`Patent Owner’s [Proposed] Requests for Production to
`Petitioner
`Patent Owner’s [Proposed] Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Oral
`Deposition of Petitioner Unified Patents Inc.
`Patent Owner’s [Proposed] Notice of Deposition of
`Shawn Ambwani
`Unified Patents’ Collaborative Deterrence Approach
`from Internet Archive Wayback Machine
`Unified Patents Press Release, March 1, 2019
`Unified Patents Press Release, October 9, 2019
`Unified Patents Press Release, November 8, 2018
`Unified Patents Press Release, December6, 2018
`Excerpt from Redacted Transcript of Deposition of Kevin
`Jakel filed in IPR2019-00194 (Ex. 1029
`Declaration of Iain Richardson (“Richardson Decl.”
`Curriculum Vitae of Iain Richardson
`Transcript of Deposition of Immanuel Freedman, Ph.D,
`Taken on October 22, 2019 (“Freedman Depo.”
`“Graph” (Exhibit 3 from Freedman Depo.
`“Graph” (Exhibit 4 from Freedman Depo.
`“Graph” (Exhibit 6 from Freedman Depo.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`IV
`
`
`
` Case IPR2019-00757
` Patent No. 9,930,365
`9/4/17 Email from Kevin Jakel with Attachments
`9/14/17 Email from Shawn Ambwani with Attachments
`11/24/17 Email from Shawn Ambwani with Attachments
`12/3/17 Email from Kevin Jakel with Attachments
`1/18/18 Email from Shawn Ambwani with Attachments
`1/19/18 Email from Shawn Ambwani with Attachments
`2/3/18 Email from Shawn Ambwani with Attachments
`2/9/18 Email from Shawn Ambwani with Attachments
`1/2/18 Email from Shawn Ambwani with Attachments
`12/6/19 Kevin Jakel Deposition Transcript
`Final Written Decision from Unified Patents, Inc. v.
`Uniloc USA, Inc., IPR2018-00199, Paper 33 (PTAB May
`31, 2019)
`Petitioner’s Supplemental Second Voluntary
`Interrogatory Responses
`Unified Patents Member Agreement
`Unified Patents Press Release, November 8, 2018
`Unified Patents Press Release, April 9, 2019
`Unified Patents Press Release, January 9, 2019
`LinkedIn Post from Shawn Ambwani
`Email from Fred Telecky of Velos
`Mass Email Titled “Unified Files IPR Against US
`9,338,449 Owned by Velos Media LLC”
`Unified Patents Newsletter from November 2018
`Part Two of Written Interview given by Kevin Jakel to
`abovethelaw.com
`Transcript of Deposition of Kevin Jakel
`Unified Success Page
`
`Ex. 2102
`Ex. 2103
`Ex. 2109
`Ex. 2111
`Ex. 2113
`Ex. 2114
`Ex. 2122
`Ex. 2127
`Ex. 2132
`Ex. 2138
`Ex. 2150
`
`Ex. 2151
`
`Ex. 2152
`Ex. 2153
`Ex. 2154
`Ex. 2155
`Ex. 2156
`Ex. 2157
`Ex. 2158
`
`Ex. 2159
`Ex. 2160
`
`Ex. 2161
`Ex. 2162
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
` Case IPR2019-00757
` Patent No. 9,930,365
`
`SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSE
`Petitioner’s entire case hangs on two instances of the word “segmented” in
`
`Column 5 of Kalker. Based on these two words, Petitioner has constructed a tale
`
`about how Kalker renders obvious the Challenged Claims. But, this particular tale
`
`comes undone when the implications of Petitioner’s claim are examined. In
`
`addition, Patent Owner has brought to light positions independent of Petitioner’s
`
`“segmenting” claims that show with equal force how little Kalker has to do with the
`
`Challenged Claims. In short, Petitioner, not Patent Owner, ignores the express
`
`teachings of the reference in a futile attempt to force Kalker into the mold of the
`
`Challenged Claims.
`
`There are many examples of Petitioner twisting Kalker’s disclosure to suit its
`
`ends. For instance, Kalker describes a segmentation circuit that segments and a
`
`scanning circuit that scans. Kalker, 2:60-3:24. But, according to Petitioner, the
`
`scanning circuit also segments, even though this functionality is nowhere described.
`
`On a related topic, Kalker’s picture transform circuit is shown using the same
`
`segmentation map as the map encoding circuit. According to Petitioner, however,
`
`they use different maps. Kalker states that its picture blocks are not sub-dividable
`
`and teaches away from the use of sub-blocks. Id., 1:51-53. But, contrary to this
`
`disclosure, Petitioner somehow finds sub-blocks in Kalker. As a final example,
`
`Petitioner repeatedly states that decoders perform the inverse functions of an
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`encoder, but then insists that both Kalker’s encoder and decoder perform segmenting
`
` Case IPR2019-00757
` Patent No. 9,930,365
`
`functions. These are just some of the logical inconsistencies that flow from
`
`Petitioner’s positions.
`
`The key to resolving this IPR is to simply understand Kalker. With a proper
`
`understanding, the deficiencies of Kalker as applied to the Challenged Claim are
`
`readily apparent.
`
`II. KALKER
`Patent Owner extensively discussed the technical aspects of Kalker in its
`
`Patent Owner Response (“POR”, Paper 18). It will briefly review some of the more
`
`salient aspect of Kalker as an introduction to its comments below.
`
`The bulk of Kalker’s disclosure is related to encoding a segmentation map.
`
`See Kalker, Summary of the Invention. The segmentation map is produced by
`
`segmentation circuit 3 which analyzes a “video picture or part thereof.” Id., 2:45-
`
`46. No details are provided about the actual method employed by the segmentation
`
`circuit to determine the appropriate block sizes. The output of segmentation circuit
`
`3 is a segmentation map. Id., 2:64-3:2. The map consists of a plurality of variable
`
`sized blocks. Id. Examples of segmentation maps are shown in Figs. 3, 7, and 9 of
`
`Kalker. Segmentation circuit 3 is mentioned once in the Petition and is not relied
`
`upon to show any aspect of the ’365 Patent and/or the Challenged Claims.
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Map-encoder circuit 4 takes as input the segmentation map output by
`
` Case IPR2019-00757
` Patent No. 9,930,365
`
`
`
`segmentation circuit 3 and encodes the contents of the segmentation map for
`
`transmission. Id., Fig. 1 (reproduced below), 3:1-7, and 19-25. Map-encoder circuit
`
`4 is comprised of scanning circuit 41, a linear combination circuit 42, a run-length
`
`coder 43, and a Huffman coder 44. Id., Fig. 2 (also reproduced below). Scanning
`
`circuit 41 “scans the segmentation map on the basis of a grid corresponding to the
`
`smallest block size” in one embodiment, and scans “on the basis of the largest block
`
`size” in another embodiment. Id., 3:23-24 and 5:31-35. The algorithm carried out
`
`by scanning circuit 41 is shown in Fig 4. Scanning circuit 41 simply reads the two-
`
`dimensional segmentation map and outputs a one-dimensional series of block size
`
`codes corresponding to the segmentation map.
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2019-00757
` Patent No. 9,930,365
`
`
`
`Importantly, scanning circuit 41 doesn’t alter the segmentation map provided
`
`to it by segmentation circuit 3. Its job is to scan it and turn it in to a string of numbers.
`
`See, e.g., id. at 5:58. This functionality is confirmed by Fig. 4, which “shows a flow
`
`chart illustrating the operation of the segmentation map-encoding circuit . . .” and
`
`the description of Fig. 4. Id., 2:22-25.
`
`Indeed, the segmentation map cannot be altered by scanning circuit 41. As
`
`shown in Fig. 1, the same segmentation map that is provided to map encoder 4
`
`(which includes scanning circuit 41) is also provided to transform circuit 1.
`
`Transform circuit 1 uses the picture block sizes specified in the segmentation map
`
`to perform transforms on the picture blocks. Id. 2:49-52 (“transform circuit 1 []
`
`subjects picture blocks having a variable block size S to a picture transform. In the
`
`present example, the block size is 4*4, 8*8 or 16*16 pixels.”). On the decoder side,
`
`the segmentation map that flows out of map encoder 4 is used to perform an inverse
`
`transform on the blocks transformed by transform circuit 1. Id., Fig. 1. If there is a
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`mismatch between the block sizes used by the transform and inverse transform
`
` Case IPR2019-00757
` Patent No. 9,930,365
`
`circuits, the output of the inverse transform circuit will be meaningless.
`
`The functionality of scanning circuit 41 was further confirmed by Petitioner’s
`
`expert. When questioned about Fig. 9, which is the subject of Kalker’s Column 5,
`
`Petitioner’s expert was asked to confirm that the figure below (Ex. 2019, Exhibit 4
`
`to Petitioner’s expert’s deposition) was the full segmentation map represented by
`
`Figure 9 of Kalker:
`
`
`
`Deposition of Petitioner’s Expert Dr. Freedman (Ex. 2019), 107:20-108:1. As
`
`compared to Figure 9 of Kalker, this figure makes clear that the segmentation map
`
`is a grid/matrix composed of numbers between 1 and 3, which represent block size
`
`codes in Kalker. Note that this segmentation map does not contain any data
`
`describing the picture itself (e.g., data representing pixels in the picture). This
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`segmentation map simply describes how segmentation circuit 3 decided to divide a
`
` Case IPR2019-00757
` Patent No. 9,930,365
`
`picture into blocks, and in that sense is “related” to the picture.
`
`A.
`Scanning Circuit 41 does not “Segment”
`In the Petition and in Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 26), Petitioner repeatedly
`
`parrots two sentences in Column 5 of Kalker that contain the word “segmented.”
`
`The first sentence states, “[t]his block is segmented into smaller blocks and will now
`
`completely be scanned before proceeding to the next 16*16 block.” In its Reply,
`
`Petitioner continues to falsely assert that this sentence is evidence that scanning
`
`circuit 41, which is part of map-encoder circuit 4, is performing some sort of
`
`segmenting action. If Petitioner is to be believed, Kalker’s scanning circuit 41
`
`receives a segmentation map from segmentation circuit 3 and further
`
`segments/divides it. This is simply contrary to the express disclosures of Kalker.
`
`Patent Owner addressed this issue extensively in POR. POR at 34-39. In
`
`addition to this analysis, Patent Owner makes the following observations. The
`
`phrase “this block” in the sentence from Kalker quoted above refers to scanning a
`
`region of the segmentation map “on the basis of the largest block size”, which, for a
`
`block size code of 3, is 16x16 (in comparison, Fig. 3 shows how scanning is carried
`
`out on the basis of the smallest block size). See id. at 15-16 (discussing Kalker’s
`
`two uses of the term “block”). The phrase “this block” does not refer to any picture
`
`block having a block size code. Instead, it is simply repeating what was discussed
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`in the prior paragraph of Kalker (Kalker, 5:31-35) – that the segmentation map in
`
` Case IPR2019-00757
` Patent No. 9,930,365
`
`this embodiment is scanned in 16x16 regions (the largest block size) instead of 4x4
`
`regions (the smallest block size) as shown in Fig 3.
`
`This same paragraph gives context to the portion of Kalker that Petitioner
`
`heavily relies upon. This paragraph states:
`
`In a further embodiment of the scanning circuit 41 (see FIG. 2), the
`segmentation map is scanned on the basis of the largest block size. If a
`block comprises smaller blocks, it is scanned on the basis of the next
`smaller block size. This is an iterative process.
`
`A key sentence from above states that if a “block” contains smaller blocks, it is
`
`scanned on the basis of the next smaller block size. Again, this use of “block” does
`
`not refer to a block having a size code, rather, it refers to the region of the
`
`segmentation map scanned by scanning circuit 41. Conclusive proof of this
`
`statement is found in the next paragraph, where Kalker discusses scanning four
`
`16x16 blocks. The top left 16x16 “block” (referred to as a region of the
`
`segmentation map in POR) contains a single picture block represented by block size
`
`code 3. See Kalker, Fig. 9 and Ex. 4 to Petitioner’s expert’s depo. Kalker discloses
`
`the following about the processing of this region of the segmentation map:
`
`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.
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Kalker, 5:38-40. How does Kalker’s scanning circuit 41 know that this block is “not
`
` Case IPR2019-00757
` Patent No. 9,930,365
`
`further divided into smaller blocks”? It knows this because the picture block in this
`
`scanning area is represented by block size codes of 3. Since Kalker’s picture blocks
`
`are not divisible into smaller blocks, once Kalker’s encounters a picture block of size
`
`3 (i.e., a 16x16 picture block represented by S=3) in a segmentation map, it can skip
`
`that picture block and move to the next 16x16 region of the segmentation map for
`
`processing. The same concept is repeated again when Kalker encounters a picture
`
`block size of 2 – “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.” Id., 5:37-40. As
`
`discussed above, once scanning circuit 41 encounters a picture block having a block
`
`size code 2 (i.e., an 8x8 picture block represented by S=2), it can skip that picture
`
`block and move to the next picture block, because it knows that picture blocks are
`
`not divisible.
`
`The second use of the word “segmented” in Column 5 of Kalker mirrors the
`
`first. It simply states that the 8x8 region being analyzed at the moment is divided
`
`into picture blocks that are smaller than 8x8 (i.e., they are picture blocks having a
`
`block size code of 1). Thus, this area is “segmented” into four, 4x4 blocks, instead
`
`of one 8x8 block.
`
`To be clear, this portion of Column 5 is describing the operation of Kalker’s
`
`scanning circuit 41. So, Petitioner’s reading of “segmented” as a verb requires
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`scanning circuit 41 to be carrying out this “segmenting.” If Petitioner were to be
`
` Case IPR2019-00757
` Patent No. 9,930,365
`
`believed, this 8x8 area would have been “something else” prior to being divided by
`
`scanning circuit 41. But, Kalker states that Fig. 9 is a “segmentation map” which is
`
`output by segmentation circuit 3. This map is the initial input to scanning circuit 41.
`
`Petitioner’s argument requires that Fig. 9 not be the segmentation map provided to
`
`scanning circuit 41 from segmentation circuit 3, as it shows certain blocks in their
`
`alleged “post-segmented” state (i.e., the state they are in after “the block” was
`
`segmented). According to Petitioner’s logic, this segmentation map is some altered
`
`version of what was initially received by scanning circuit 41 from segmentation
`
`circuit 3. But, this sort of alteration is never described or mentioned in Kalker. This
`
`is but one more example of the inconsistencies that flow from Petitioner’s view of
`
`Kalker’s scanning circuit 41 performing some function other than scanning as
`
`described in Fig. 4.
`
`In fact, such behavior is required for Kalker’s encoder and decoder to
`
`function. Kalker’s transform circuit 1 uses the “locally optimal block size codes”
`
`generated by the segmentation circuit to apply the correspondingly-sized forward
`
`transforms when transforming the actual picture data. See id., Fig. 1 (showing signal
`
`Xin (e.g., a video picture) and the output of segmentation circuit 3 being used as input
`
`by transform circuit 2) and 2:45-46. Thus, using the segmentation map shown in
`
`Fig. 9 for example, transform circuit 1 may perform a Discrete Cosine Transform on
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`ten separate blocks of video data (i.e., the three 16x16, three 8x8, and four 4x4
`
` Case IPR2019-00757
` Patent No. 9,930,365
`
`picture blocks shown in Fig. 9, applying 16x16, 8x8, or 4x4 transform sizes,
`
`respectively), resulting in ten separate DCT blocks.
`
`It is axiomatic that any inverse transform circuit operating on data
`
`representing such a series of DCT blocks would have to perform inverse transforms
`
`on the basis of the same number of blocks and block sizes used to transform the data.
`
`In the example above, if a DCT circuit transformed blocks of video data into ten
`
`separate DCT blocks, the inverse circuit would have to know the number of DCT
`
`blocks and the size of the transform to be applied to each (16x16, 8x8, or 4x4 in the
`
`example above) in order to generate a proper output signal. See Pet. at 6 (“The
`
`[decoded] coefficients are then subject to inverse transformation operations to
`
`reverse the DCT process”) and 52 (“[Kalker’s] receiving station applies the relevant
`
`block size S to the inverse transform circuit for decoding encoded data”).
`
`Petitioner’s argument leads to Kalker’s receiving station applying the wrong
`
`block size S to the inverse transform circuit and therefore cannot be correct.
`
`Consider the following example with respect to Kalker’s Fig. 9. Assume that the
`
`segmentation map output by segmentation circuit 3 only consisted of four 16x16
`
`(i.e., S=3) picture blocks, but that scanning circuit 41 further “segmented” this
`
`segmentation map to what is shown in Fig. 9, as alleged by Petitioner (consisting of
`
`the three 16x16, three 8x8, and four 4x4 picture blocks, represented by block size
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`codes 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3 – Id., 5:50). This is exactly what Petitioner is
`
` Case IPR2019-00757
` Patent No. 9,930,365
`
`assuming when it cites to the word “segmented” as being used by as a verb in
`
`Column 5. See Freedman Depo., 108:19-110:6. This would result in a flow of
`
`information as shown below:
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Kalker, Fig 1 (annotated to show the illogical result of scanning circuit 41 (part of
`
` Case IPR2019-00757
` Patent No. 9,930,365
`
`the map encoder) “segmenting” according to Petitioner’s allegations). When the
`
`decoded segmentation map and transform coefficients reach inverse transform
`
`circuit 8, there is a “collision”, for lack of a better word. The inverse transform
`
`circuit will try to perform ten inverse transforms of varying sizes on coefficient data
`
`corresponding to four equal-size pixel blocks, resulting in non-sensical data being
`
`output as Xout.
`
`The sole purpose of encoding and transmitting the segmentation map is to
`
`inform inverse transform circuit 8 of the correct sequence of block sizes used to
`
`perform the original transforms, a concept to which Petitioner agrees wholeheartedly
`
`- “Fundamentally, the entire point of sending block size codes from the encoder to
`
`the decoder is to enable the decoder to segment an image in the exact same way it
`
`was segmented at the encoding side so that the blocks of image data can be
`
`reconstructed and decoded in exactly the inverse of the way they were encoded.”
`
`Reply at 7.
`
`In sum, if one credits Petitioner’s argument about the word “segmented”, one
`
`is immediately faced with a number of issues that are simply irreconcilable with
`
`Kalker’s disclosure. The disclosure of Kalker would have to be completely rewritten
`
`to fit this narrative. The Board should decline the invitation to do so.
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2019-00757
` Patent No. 9,930,365
`
`B. Kalker’s Decoder Doesn’t Partition Either
`The discussion above is somewhat irrelevant to the Challenged Claims in that
`
`Kalker’s Figs. 3, 4, and 9, as well as Petitioner’s oft relied upon portion of Column
`
`5 all relate to Kalker’s encoder whereas the Challenged Claims are all directed to a
`
`decoder (or the functionality thereof). Thus, the time spent by Petitioner twisting
`
`Kalker’s encoder into something it is not is really immaterial because it is Kalker’s
`
`decoder that is material to the Challenged Claims. It is also interesting to note that
`
`nearly all of Petitioner’s citations in the sections of its Reply dealing with Kalker’s
`
`decoder are to Kalker’s encoder. See Reply at 9-11. There are no citations to
`
`Kalker’s Figure 6, for instance, that describe the operation of Kalker’s decoder or to
`
`the corresponding discussion thereof in Kalker’s specification.
`
`As an initial matter, Petitioner never really attempts to reconcile the obvious
`
`logical disconnect regarding how Kalker’s encoder and decoder can both partition
`
`data, given Petitioner’s view that video encoders generally perform inverse steps as
`
`video decoders. Petitioner spends one sentence addressing this issue in its Reply,
`
`but it never addresses the fundamental issue of how partitioning big blocks into small
`
`ones on the encoder side is also carried out on the decoder side. Is the result even
`
`smaller blocks? Petitioner has no answer.
`
`Likewise, Petitioner never addresses the unambiguous statement in Kalker
`
`that “only block-size codes are transmitted [from the encoder to the decoder] for
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`blocks which are not divided into smaller blocks” other than to say it is only found
`
` Case IPR2019-00757
` Patent No. 9,930,365
`
`in the Summary of the Invention section of Kalker. This one sentence, which is
`
`characterizing “the invention” in Kalker, dooms Petitioner’s positions by itself. If
`
`the picture blocks represented by the block size codes transmitted to Kalker’s
`
`decoder are indivisible (i.e., not capable of being divided into smaller blocks), what
`
`blocks remain for Kalker’s decoder to partition (regardless of what is happening in
`
`Kalker’s encoder)? The answer is none – there are no blocks available to Kalker’s
`
`decoder which are capable of being divided.
`
`In further support of Patent Owner’s position, Petitioner inadvertently slips-
`
`up in its analysis of Kalker’s decoder in the Reply. Petitioner states:
`
`When the syntax element S=3 is received at the decoder, the inverse is
`true, i.e., the current block is identified as a 16x16 block and the
`decoder can immediately proceed to the next block without additional
`scanning because the decoder is aware that S=3 is the syntax element
`representing the largest block size of 16x16. The receipt of an S=3
`allows the decoder to determine (or recognize) that the current block is
`equal to the maximum size block.
`
`Contrary to PO’s suggestion, not all blocks in Kalker are the same size,
`i.e., the decoder must determine whether the size of the current block is
`the maximum so that it can skip forward, or if not the maximum size,
`the decoder must continue analyzing the sub-blocks.
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Reply at 9-10.1 Petitioner slips-up when it states that Kalker’s decoder determines
`
` Case IPR2019-00757
` Patent No. 9,930,365
`
`whether the size of the current block is the maximum so that it can skip forward, or
`
`if not the maximum size, the decoder continues analyzing the “sub-blocks.” Here,
`
`Petitioner is admitting that if Kalker’s decoder encounters a block size represented
`
`by a block size code 3 (i.e., the maximum block size), the decoder skips forward
`
`because it understands that there are no sub-blocks associated with this block. This
`
`is one of the rare areas where Petitioner and Patent Owner agree when it comes to
`
`Kalker. Just like Kalker’s encoder can advance to a certain extent when
`
`encountering picture blocks having a block size of 3 or 2, Kalker’s decoder can do
`
`the same. See POR at 44-49 (illustrating how Kalker’s decoder writes sixteen 3’s to
`
`a segmentation map when encountering a single block size code of 3 in the stream
`
`of block size codes it receives from Kalker’s encoder), and see also Kalker, steps 64
`
`and 65 in Kalker’s Fig. 6 (illustrating a flowchart of Kalker’s decoding process
`
`which skips over non-zero locations in a segmentation map (i.e., locations in a
`
`
`1 Patent Owner never stated that Kalker’s blocks are all the same size – it said that
`
`Kalker contemplates variable sized blocks, but that these blocks are independent
`
`from one another and not sub-blocks of another block (a distinction that seems lost
`
`on Petitioner). See, e.g., POR at 18.
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`segmentation map that have been previously assigned a block-code value) before
`
` Case IPR2019-00757
` Patent No. 9,930,365
`
`extracting another block size code (step 61)).
`
`Compare this to the language of the Challenged Claims, which states that
`
`when a current block has a starting size equal to the maximum block size, it starts
`
`the partitioning process:
`
`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 . . . .
`
`’365 Patent (Ex. 1001), Claim 1. Stated another way, when Kalker’s decoder
`
`encounters a maximum size block, it skips to the next block, whereas the Challenged
`
`Claim requires partitioning the current block when it is determined to be the
`
`maximum block size. In short, Kalker’s decoder’s treatment of maximum size
`
`picture blocks, as described by Petitioner, is opposite of that required by the
`
`Challenged Claims and therefore doesn’t disclose or otherwise suggest this aspect
`
`of the Challenged Claims.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner has not Presented Evidence that Novotny Applies to Sub-
`Blocks
`Petitioner’s application of Novotny to the Challenged Claims in the Petition
`
`and its expert’s declaration never mention sub-blocks or 4x4 blocks. Thus,
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s citation to paragraph 65 of its expert’s declaration in the Reply to
`
` Case IPR2019-00757
` Patent No. 9,930,365
`
`support its (current) position that “Novotny’s Intra4x4 encoding mode instructs the
`
`decoder that a 4x4 region, which is a sub-block of a larger 16x16 macroblock, is
`
`encoded in intra-prediction mode” is improper for the simple reason that it doesn’t
`
`support Petitioner’s statement. See Reply at 11-12. As discussed in POR, Novotny’s
`
`MB (macroblock) type “specifies how a macroblock . . . is partitioned (or
`
`segmented) and/or encoded.” POR at 56 (quoting Novotny, ¶50). Paragraph 50 of
`
`Novotny doesn’t mention the applicability of its MB types to sub-blocks and neither
`
`do the Petition or Petitioner’s expert’s declaration. Whatever is left in the Reply is
`
`simply attorney argument that cannot take the place of evidence, especially when it
`
`is contradicted by the portion of Novotny relied upon by Petitioner. Given that the
`
`relevant portions of the Challenged Claims require the disclosure of a third syntax
`
`element applicable to the coding of sub-blocks (i.e., not macroblocks), the evidence
`
`supplied by Petitioner falls short and doesn’t disclose this third syntax element that
`
`specifies the coding of sub-blocks.
`
`D. Response to Some of Petitioner’s Gross Misstatements of Fact
`Petitioner makes several misstatements of fact in its Reply that Patent Owner
`
`would like to correct. Petitioner starts out by saying that “PO admits the term
`
`‘segmenting’ is synonymous with the term ‘partitioning,’ and that both terms refer
`
`to the division of larger blocks into smaller sub-blocks.” Reply at 1. The portion of
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`this sentence referring to sub-blocks is false. Petitioner never equates “segmenting”
`
` Case IPR2019-00757
` Patent No. 9,930,365
`
`with the creation of sub-blocks. Petitioner’s next statement is likewise objectively
`
`false – “Kalker repeatedly refers to segmenting blocks into sub-blocks throughout
`
`its disclosure.” Id. As mentioned before, Kalker never uses the term “sub-blocks”
`
`once (or any other term that would be understood as referring to sub-blocks).
`
`Petitioner also tries to spin a deposition quotation from Patent Owner’s expert that
`
`he agrees with Kalker’s segmenting blocks into sub-blocks. Id. at 5-6. Simply
`
`reading the quote found below Petitioner’s false statement in its Reply shows that
`
`Patent Owner’s expert made no such statement. Id. at 6.
`
`E.
`Patent Owner’s Further Views on Footnote 6
`The topic of redefining the size of blocks associated with a particular block
`
`size code comes up again in the Reply. As an initial matter, it is helpful to review
`
`the evidence on both sides of this issue. When asked about the written support in
`
`Kalker that best describes the alleged capability in Kalker to transmit information
`
`from Kalker’s encoder to its decoder relating to the change of the size of a block
`
`associated with a block size code 3, for example, Petitioner’s expert cited to the last
`
`step of Claim 1 of Kalker as the “only” support in Kalker about such transmissions.
`
`Freedman Depo., 92:12-97:15. On the other hand, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Iain
`
`Richardson, whose seminal book, H.264 and MPEG-4 Video Compression (2003),
`
`is cited by Petitioner in this Petition (Ex. 1011) and most of the other Petitions it has
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`filed against Patent Owner’s patents, explains in great detail why Petitioner’s claim
`
` Case IPR2019-00757
` Patent No. 9,930,365
`
`is wrong. S
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
