Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 48
`
`Entered: September 29, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VELOS MEDIA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00763
`Patent 10,110,898 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
`AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All of the Challenged Claims to be Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 48
`
`Entered: September 29, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VELOS MEDIA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00763
`Patent 10,110,898 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
`AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All of the Challenged Claims to be Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00763
`Patent 10,110,898 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Unified Patents Inc.1 (“Petitioner”) requested an inter partes review
`
`of claims 1, 3–5, 7, and 8 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,110,898 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’898 patent”). Paper 2 (“Petition” or “Pet.”).
`
`Velos Media, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7
`
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to Board authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply
`
`(Paper 9, “Prelim. Reply”) to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response and
`
`Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 10, “Prelim. Sur-Reply”).
`
`On October 1, 2019, we entered a Decision on Institution (“Institution
`
`Decision” or “Inst. Dec.,” Paper 11) 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 26), to which Petitioner filed a Reply (“Pet. Reply,”
`
`Paper 31).2 Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (“Sur-Reply,” Paper 33).3 A
`
`hearing was held on July 8, 2020. The transcript of the hearing has been
`
`entered into the record. Paper 46 (“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 conclude
`
`Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3–5,
`
`7, and 8 of the ’898 patent are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner has informed us that Unified Patents Inc. has changed its name
`to Unified Patents, LLC. Paper 25.
`2 Ex. 1044 is the redacted version of the Patent Owner’s Response. Ex. 1054
`is the redacted version of the Petitioner’s Reply.
`3 Ex. 1055 is the redacted version of Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00763
`Patent 10,110,898 B2
`
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’898 patent is not
`
`asserted in any related district court proceedings. Paper 4, 2; Pet. 57.
`
`Petitioner indicates that the application underlying the ’898 patent “claims
`
`the benefit of the filing date of U.S. Patent Application No. 13/744,759,” and
`
`that “there are three currently pending applications that claim the benefit of
`
`the filing date of [that] common parent [No. 13/744,759] to the ’898 patent:
`
`U.S. Patent Application Nos. 15/253,035; 16/111,961; and 16/239,010.”
`
`Pet. 57.
`
`Although Patent Owner stated, in its Preliminary Response, that
`
`“Petitioner has filed a total of thirteen requests for IPR 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,
`
`none of these proceedings appear to concern either the ’898 patent or a
`
`patent related to the ’898 patent. Prelim. Resp. 2 n.1.
`
`B.
`
`The ’898 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’898 patent concerns extending chroma quantization parameters
`
`to have, for example, the same range as luma quantization parameters (e.g.,
`
`0 to 51). Ex. 1001, code (57). The ’898 patent discloses that, “[p]reviously,
`
`values of Chroma QP [quantization parameters] only extended up to 39.” Id.
`
`The ’898 patent discloses determining the chroma quantization parameters
`
`based on luma quantization parameters and picture level chroma offsets. Id.
`
`More particularly, the ’898 patent discloses two equations for determining
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00763
`Patent 10,110,898 B2
`
`quantization parameters for chroma components Cb and Cr, respectively,
`
`using picture-level offsets. Id. at 5:8–10. These equations, labeled
`
`equations (1) and (2), are reproduced below:
`
`𝑄𝑃𝐶𝑏 = 𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑝 (0, 51, 𝑄𝑃𝑌 + Cb_QP_offset)
`
`𝑄𝑃𝐶𝑟 = 𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑝 (0, 51, 𝑄𝑃𝑌 + Cr_QP_offset)
`
`Equations 1 and 2 above determine the two respective quantization
`
`parameters between 0 and 51, based on luma quantization parameter, QPy
`
`and Cb_QP_offset or Cr_QP_offset, which are the two chroma QP offset
`
`parameters. Id. at 5:11–19. The ’898 patent further discloses equations for
`
`calculating the same quantization parameters using slice-level offsets. Id. at
`
`5:33–37 (Eqns. 3 and 4).
`
`C.
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Challenged claims 1 and 5 are independent. Challenged claims 3, 4,
`
`7, and 8 depend therefrom. Independent claim 1 is illustrative and
`
`reproduced below.
`
`1. A decoding apparatus, comprising:
`circuitry configured to:
`set a first chroma quantization parameter (QP) included
`in a chroma QP range from 0 to 51 equal to a luma QP range,
`based on a parameter including a picture level chroma QP offset
`added to a luma QP; and
`inverse quantize quantization data that is decoded from a
`bit stream, based on the first chroma QP.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:44–51.
`
`D.
`
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner supports the following challenges with the First and Second
`
`Declarations of Dr. Joseph P. Havlicek (Exs. 1002, 1047).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00763
`Patent 10,110,898 B2
`
`
`Reference(s)
`Advanced Video Coding for Generic
`Audiovisual Services, ITU-T5
`Recommendation H.264 (11/2007) (Ex.
`1004, “H.264”)
`H.264 in view of U.S. Patent Application
`Publication No. 2006/0018559 A1 to Kim
`et al. (Ex. 1006, “Kim”)
`
`Basis4 Claims Challenged
`§ 103 1, 3–5, 7, and 8
`
`§ 103 1, 3–5, 7, and 8
`
`Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s challenges and relies on the
`
`Declaration of Iain Richardson (Ex. 2009).
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Principles of Law
`
`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;
`
`(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,
`
`
`4 Because the application leading to the ’898 patent claims an effective filing
`date before March 16, 2013, patentability is governed by the version of
`35 U.S.C. § 103 preceding the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). See Ex. 1001, code (22), (60),
`(63).
`5 ITU-T stands for International Telecommunication Union
`Telecommunication Standardization Sector.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00763
`Patent 10,110,898 B2
`
`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.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`For inter partes reviews filed on or after November 13, 2018, 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.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00763
`Patent 10,110,898 B2
`
`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)). Because the instant Petition
`
`was filed on March 6, 2019, we apply that standard here. Accordingly, we
`
`construe each challenged claim of the ’898 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.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`Petitioner does not propose a construction for any claim term. Pet. 18
`
`(“Petitioner submits that no claim term or phrase in the challenged claims
`
`requires an express construction,” and “[t]herefore, the analysis presented in
`
`this Petition applies the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language as
`
`it would have been understood by a POSA [Person of Ordinary Skill in the
`
`Art].”).
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner proposed to construe the
`
`phrase “a chroma QP range from 0 to 51 equal to a luma QP range” recited
`
`in claims 1 and 5 as “a chroma QP range including values 0 to 51, said
`
`chroma QP range being equal to a luma QP range including values 0 to 51.”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 17–18. Patent Owner supported its proposal by arguing that
`
`“the parameter required by the challenged claims must have a range from 0
`
`to 51 under a particular set of conditions.” Id. at 16 (emphasis added).
`
`Patent Owner now contends that its “reference to ‘a single set of
`
`conditions’ in the [Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response] did not capture
`
`the reason that a ‘range’ in the context of the claims of the ’898 Patent
`
`cannot be satisfied by aggregating separate, discrete sets of ‘permissible
`
`values.’” PO Resp. 18. Patent Owner also contends “that the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of the claim language applies and that a POSITA would
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00763
`Patent 10,110,898 B2
`
`understand the meaning of the phrase ‘a chroma QP range from 0 to 51
`
`equal to a luma QP range’ in the context of the challenged claims.” Id. at
`
`21. Patent Owner explains that “a disjoint ‘range’ cannot satisfy the claim
`
`language because the claims apply at the ‘picture level.’” Id. at 18. More
`
`particularly, Patent Owner argues
`
`Because there is never a chroma QP in H.264 that has a
`lower bound of 0 and an upper bound of 51 at any single point in
`the decoding process or in any single picture, there is (1) no
`chroma quantization parameter with a range of 0–51.
`Additionally, because chroma QP always saturates at a reduced
`range compared to luma QP in H.264, there is (2) never a chroma
`QP that has a range equal to a luma QP range. Finally, because
`Petitioner relies on aggregated sets of “permissible values” for
`the chroma QP range in the Petition, there cannot be a chroma
`QP with a range of 0–51 that can be (3) used to inverse quantize
`quantization data. To inverse quantize quantization data, such as
`a coded block, it is necessary to determine (set) a chroma QP that
`has a minimum and maximum permissible value at the point of
`determining/setting the chroma QP.
`
`Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 98).
`
`We preliminarily construed “a chroma QP range from 0 to 51 equal to
`
`luma QP range” to mean that a chroma QP can take on values between 0 and
`
`51 and a luma QP can take on values between 0 and 51. Inst. Dec. 8. We
`
`maintain that construction for the following reasons. In the Institution
`
`Decision, we determined that “[n]either claim 1 nor claim 5 requires
`
`calculating or setting a full range of values, 0 to 51, for a chroma QP” and
`
`“neither claim 1 nor claim 5 requires that the values 0 to 51 in the chroma
`
`QP range be obtainable under a single set of conditions.” Id. at 7. Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments do not persuade us to deviate from our preliminary
`
`conclusion. We now conclude that, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments,
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00763
`Patent 10,110,898 B2
`
`neither claim 1 nor claim 5 is limited to setting a chroma QP or inverse
`
`quantizing at “a single point,” at a “picture level,” or within a “single
`
`picture.” See PO Resp. 18–19.
`
`None of Patent Owner’s arguments point to language in the
`
`Specification of the ’898 patent that specifically defines the claimed “range,”
`
`or any other portion of claim 1 or 5, as requiring a full complement of
`
`contiguous integer values starting at 0 and ending at 51, or as limited to
`
`being obtained under a single set of conditions. Patent Owner’s arguments
`
`likewise do not point us to any extrinsic or intrinsic evidence that supports
`
`the requirement that setting a chroma QP or inverse quantizing occurs at a
`
`single point, at a picture level, or within a single picture. See generally PO
`
`Resp. Patent Owner’s argument is, in effect, that if we do not construe the
`
`claims as it urges, the invention of the ’898 patent will not be captured.
`
`Although we interpret the claims in light of the specification, we do not
`
`import limitations from the specification into the claims to cover the
`
`invention or to make it operable.
`
`As Petitioner argued before institution (see Prelim. Reply 2–3), “the
`
`’898 patent supports the converse proposition––namely, that obtaining all of
`
`the values, 0 to 51, in the chroma QP range requires differing sets of
`
`conditions.” In its post-institution Reply, Petitioner supports this argument
`
`with the diagram reproduced below, which depicts the range of integer
`
`values for the chroma quantization parameter that is obtainable for each
`
`distinct value of picture level chroma QP offset. Pet. Reply 3 (citing Ex.
`
`1047 ¶ 12); see Ex. 1047 ¶ 13.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00763
`Patent 10,110,898 B2
`
`
`Diagram from Petitioner’s Reply and Dr.
`Havlicek’s Second Declaration depicting the range
`of chroma quantization parameters that can be
`obtained for each value of picture level chroma QP
`offset. Pet. Reply 3.
`
`
`
`In Petitioner’s diagram, the orange bars represent contiguous ranges
`
`of integer values for chroma quantization parameters, either QPCb or QPCr.
`
`Id. The orange bars differ for each value of picture level chroma QP offset
`
`and are “clipped” in the gray portions of the diagram. Id. According to
`
`Petitioner, “the red lines show the clipping in equations (1) [𝑄𝑃𝐶𝑏 =
`
`𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑝 (0, 51, 𝑄𝑃𝑌 + Cb_QP_offset)] and (2) [𝑄𝑃𝐶𝑟 = 𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑝 (0, 51, 𝑄𝑃𝑌 +
`
`Cr_QP_offset)] of the ’898 patent.” Id.; see Ex. 1001, 5:8–10 (Eqns. 1 and
`
`2). Clipped values in the gray portions of the diagram are not part of the
`
`obtainable ranges, and therefore not representative of values that may be
`
`taken by the chroma quantization parameters for that particular value of
`
`picture level chroma QP offset.
`
`As can be seen from Petitioner’s diagram, only one value for picture
`
`level chroma QP offset, 0, produces a contiguous range of integer values
`
`between 0 and 51 for the chroma quantization parameter. Pet. Reply 3.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00763
`Patent 10,110,898 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that, contrary to Petitioner’s argument, “the ’898
`
`Patent does not ‘claim[] embodiments in which a non-zero offset is added to
`
`QPY to obtain the chroma QP.’” Sur-Reply 12 (quoting Pet. Reply 4).
`
`Patent Owner contends that “[e]ven if Petitioner is correct that Patent
`
`Owner’s claim construction would require an offset of zero to achieve the
`
`range specified in the claim (0–51), such a zero offset is still included in the
`
`embodiments disclosed in the specification and does not offend Vitronics.”
`
`Id. at 13 (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582–
`
`83 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). We understand Patent Owner to take the position, for
`
`the first time in its post-institution Sur-Reply, that a contiguous “chroma QP
`
`range from 0 to 51” can be achieved if the claimed picture level chroma QP
`
`offset is set to zero. See Sur-Reply 13. Patent Owner argues that, “[g]iven
`
`the other requirements in the claim, the offset that satisfies the claim
`
`language happens to be 0,” and “[t]here is nothing improper about excluding
`
`other disclosed but unclaimed embodiments.” Id.
`
`None of Patent Owner’s arguments persuade us that the claim
`
`language requires limiting the claimed “picture level chroma qp offset” to
`
`zero. Accordingly, we are not persuaded to exclude embodiments disclosed
`
`in the ’898 patent in which “picture level chroma qp offset” takes on non-
`
`zero values. Stated differently, we conclude that the claims also encompass
`
`a “picture level chroma qp offset” that is non-zero. As Petitioner’s diagram
`
`shows, when the “picture level chroma qp offset” is non-zero, a contiguous
`
`“chroma qp range from 0 to 51” cannot be obtained, and as such, Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments urging us to adopt its construction are neither consistent
`
`with nor supported by the Specification of the ’898 patent. For these
`
`reasons, we maintain our conclusion that the above-quoted claim limitation
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00763
`Patent 10,110,898 B2
`
`does not require that each value in the chroma QP range be obtainable using
`
`a single or common set of conditions, nor does it require calculating each
`
`value in the chroma QP range. Our preliminary construction, which we
`
`maintain here, is consistent with the Specification, which discloses that,
`
`“[t]he quantization parameters (QP) for Chroma are extended up to and more
`
`preferably to the same range as Luma QP (e.g., 0 to 51).” Ex. 1001 at code
`
`(57) (emphasis added).
`
`C.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in Art
`
`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
`
`[A] bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a closely
`related scientific field, such as physics, computer science, or
`computer engineering, or similar advanced post-graduate
`education in this area, with two years of experience with video
`processing systems. Ex. 1002, ¶ 28. A person with less
`education but more relevant practical experience, depending on
`the nature of that experience and degree of exposure to video
`compression algorithms, could also qualify as a person of
`ordinary skill in the field of the ’898 patent . . . A POSA would
`have been familiar with ubiquitous video coding standards, such
`as those developed by the Motion Pictures Expert Group
`(“MPEG”)
`and
`those
`adopted by
`the
`International
`Telecommunications Union (“ITU”). Ex. 1002, ¶ 29.
`
`Pet. 17–18. 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 ’898 patent and the asserted prior art, and we adopt that
`
`definition. We note, however, the conclusions and findings rendered in this
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00763
`Patent 10,110,898 B2
`
`decision do not turn on selecting the particular level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art that Petitioner proposes.
`
`D. Obviousness over H.264
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 3–5, 7, and 8 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over H.264. Pet. 14–59. We are persuaded that
`
`the evidence, including Dr. Havlicek’s testimony, supports Petitioner’s
`
`arguments. Petitioner thus establishes that these claims are unpatentable as
`
`obvious over H.264 by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`1.
`
`Overview of H.264 (Ex. 1004)
`
`H.264 is a compression standard for high-definition digital video that
`
`is also known as MPEG-4 Part 10 or Advanced Video Coding (MPEG-4
`
`AVC). H.264 discloses a derivation process for chroma quantization
`
`parameters. Ex. 1004, 198.6 “The value of QPC for a chroma component is
`
`determined from the current value of QPY and the value of
`
`chroma_qp_index_offset (for Cb) or second_chroma_qp_index_offset (for
`
`Cr).” Id.
`
`2.
`
`H.264 Printed Publication Status
`
`Petitioner contends that H.264 “was publicly accessible no later than
`
`May 29, 2008,” and supports this contention with the Declaration of Dr.
`
`Wenger. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 20, 24). Petitioner further contends that
`
`Dr. Wenger’s testimony shows that “the November 2007 version of H.264
`
`was approved in November 2007 and made widely available shortly
`
`thereafter,” and that the ordinarily skilled artisan “would have known that
`
`approved H.264 editions were posted on the ITU-T website
`
`
`6 With respect to Exhibit 1004, we refer to page numbers added by Petitioner
`on the bottom right side, not the internal document page numbers.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00763
`Patent 10,110,898 B2
`
`(https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.264/en) without restriction on access and
`
`were thus publicly available as of the date of posting.” Id. (citing Ex. 1015
`
`¶¶ 16–19, 23, 24; Ex. 1016). Petitioner contends that “[t]he dates of posting
`
`shown on the ITU-T website are reliable and consistent with the experience
`
`of a member of the working group responsible for drafting the standard,”
`
`and that “[t]he ITU-T website would have been well-known to a POSA, and
`
`includes a listing of ITU-T standards that can be easily accessed using only
`
`the standard number, without any restriction on access.” Id. at 20 (citing Ex.
`
`1015 ¶¶ 22, 24; Ex. 1017).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertion regarding the
`
`printed publication status of H.264. See generally PO. Resp. We are
`
`persuaded that H.264 was publicly accessible, that the ordinarily skilled
`
`artisan would have been aware of how to access it, and, thus, that it
`
`constitutes a prior art printed publication.
`
`3.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`[Preamble] “A decoding apparatus, comprising:
`circuitry configured to . . . ”
`
`Claim 1 recites “[a] decoding apparatus, comprising: circuitry
`
`configured to” perform the functions recited in claim 1. Petitioner contends
`
`H.264 defines a “decoder” as “[a]n embodiment of a decoding
`process,” and a “decoding process” as a process that is specified
`in the standard that “reads a bitstream and derives decoded
`pictures from it.” . . . A POSA would have understood from these
`disclosures, as well as the techniques set forth in H.264 more
`generally,
`that a decoder was an apparatus, and
`thus
`contemplated a decoder as the equipment for performing the
`decoding processes defined by H.264.
`
`Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1004, 29). Petitioner further contends that “an H-264-
`
`compliant decoder implementing H.264 needs to be able to decode any
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00763
`Patent 10,110,898 B2
`
`permissible bit stream received according to the syntax defined by the
`
`standard,” and that, because Petitioner shows that the parameters as claimed
`
`are representative of parameters and permissible values for these parameters
`
`disclosed by H.264, an H.264-compliant decoder must have circuitry
`
`configured to decode the permissible values in H.264-compliant bit streams.
`
`Id. at 49.
`
`
`
`Petitioner also contends a “POSA would have been motivated to
`
`implement H.264 in a decoder and its attendant circuitry either based on the
`
`teachings of H.264 alone or in view of Kim.” Id. at 47 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶
`
`97, 135, 136). We discuss the combination over H.264 and Kim below.
`
`Petitioner argues that “[a] POSA would have . . . plainly expected to succeed
`
`in creating a circuit configured to implement the claimed functionality
`
`because it is required by the standard.” Id. at 49 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 136;
`
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 903 F.3d 1354, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
`
`Having reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and the cited evidence of
`
`record, we are persuaded that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have
`
`known that H.264 would be implemented in a decoder apparatus with the
`
`appropriate circuitry and, thus, that H.264 teaches the “circuitry” recited in
`
`the preamble.7
`
`[element A] “set[ting] a first chroma quantization
`parameter (QP) included in a chroma QP range from 0
`to 51 equal to a luma QP range”
`
`Claim 1 recites “set[ting] a first chroma quantization parameter (QP)
`
`included in a chroma QP range from 0 to 51 equal to a luma QP range.”
`
`
`7 We need not determine whether the preamble is limiting because Petitioner
`has shown that the recitation in the preamble is satisfied by the prior art.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00763
`Patent 10,110,898 B2
`
`Petitioner contends H.264’s teaching of QP’C corresponds to the claimed
`
`“first chroma quantization parameter (QP)”:
`
`𝑄𝑃′𝐶 = 𝑄𝑃𝐶 + 𝑄𝑝𝐵𝑑𝑂𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡𝐶.
`
`Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1004, 198 (Eqn. 8-318)). Petitioner asserts that “[t]he
`
`variable QPC that is a part of QP’C is determined ‘for each chroma
`
`component Cb and Cr,’” and that “QpBdOffsetC—another component of
`
`QP’C—is defined in H.264 as the ‘chroma quantisation parameter range
`
`offset.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 90, 198; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 101, 102). According to
`
`Petitioner, H.264 discloses that “[t]he value of QPC for each chroma
`
`component is determined as specified in Table 8-15 based on the index
`
`denoted as qPI.” Id. at 37 (quoting Ex. 1004, 198). Table 8-15 of H.264 is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`Table 8-15 illustrates values QPC can take that are
`determined as a function qPI. Ex. 1004, 198.
`
`
`
`Petitioner explains that qPI values, in turn, are calculated using the following
`
`equation:
`
`𝑞𝑃𝐼 = 𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑝3(−𝑄𝑝𝐵𝑑𝑂𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡𝐶, 51, 𝑄𝑃𝑌 + 𝑞𝑃𝑂𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡).
`
`Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1004, 198 (Eqn. 8-317)). According to Petitioner, Table
`
`8-15, reproduced above, illustrates that “when qPI is at its maximum of 51,
`
`QPC has a value of 39,” and thus, “the range of permissible QPC values is
`
`from –QpBdOffsetC to 39.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 198 (Table 8-15); Ex. 1002
`
`¶¶ 105, 106).
`
`
`
`Based on determining the range of permissible QPC values, Petitioner
`
`derives a range of permissible QP’C values, which Petitioner contends
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00763
`Patent 10,110,898 B2
`
`teaches “set[ting] a first chroma quantization parameter,” as claimed. Id.
`
`Petitioner’s annotations to Equation 8-318 of H.264, reproduced below,
`
`illustrate how a lower bound and upper bound for the range are derived.
`
`Equation 8-318 of H.264 with Petitioner’s
`annotations illustrates a range for QPC, and
`consequently, QP’C.
`
`
`
`With respect to QpBdOffsetC, Petitioner contends that it “is defined in H.264
`
`as the ‘chroma quantisation parameter range offset,’ and it is specified as”
`
`follows:
`
`𝑄𝑝𝐵𝑑𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡𝐶 = 6 ∗ (𝑏𝑖𝑡𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ𝑐ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑠8
`
`+ 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑓𝑙𝑎𝑔
`
`).
`
`Id. at 39 (citing Ex. 1004, 90 (Eqn. 7-5)). According to H.264, the value of
`
`bit_depth_chroma_minus8 “shall be in the range of 0 to 6, inclusive” and
`
`according to Petitioner “POSAs were aware that the residual_colour_
`
`transform_flag can assume a value of zero.” Id. (citing-in-part Ex. 1002
`
`¶¶ 101, 107, n.7; Ex. 1004, 90). Petitioner explains that
`
`When the residual transformation is not performed (and thus
`residual_colour_transform_flag = 0), QpBdOffsetC is any one of
`0, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, or 36. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 107–108. The H.264
`standard thus taught an implementation in which the value of
`QpBdOffsetC is 12. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 107, 108.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00763
`Patent 10,110,898 B2
`
`
`When the QpBdOffsetC is set to 12 (and recalling that the
`maximum value of QPC is 39), the highest value for QP’C is 51
`as shown in the equation below:
`
`𝑄𝑃′𝐶 = 𝑄𝑃𝐶 + 𝑄𝑝𝐵𝑑𝑂𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡𝐶 = 39 + 12 = 51.
`
`Id. at 40 (Ex. 1004, 118 (Eqn. 7–36), 198). Based on the foregoing,
`
`Petitioner contends that “H.264 teaches a ‘first chroma quantization
`
`parameter’—i.e., QP’c—that is ‘included in a chroma QP range from 0 to
`
`51’ as required by claim 1.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 109, 110, 129).
`
`Using similar equations, Petitioner derives permissible values of QP’Y
`
`in its range, which Petitioner contends corresponds to the claimed “luma QP
`
`range.” See id. at 40–42. Based on these derivations, Petitioner contends
`
`that H.264 discloses “a luma QP range (for QP’Y) of 0-51 that is equal to the
`
`chroma QP range (for QP’C), which is also 0-51.” Id. at 42. Petitioner
`
`contends that
`
`Because a luma bit depth of 8 and a chroma bit depth of 10
`represent standard-compliant bit depths . . . the decoder must
`have circuity configured to decode such a stream . . .Nonetheless,
`even if it were required to set the chroma and luma bit depths to
`be 10 and 8, respectively, thus leading to both the QP’C and QP’Y
`values being in the range of 0-51 to meet this claim, it would
`have been obvious to a POSA to do so . . . The range of
`permissible bit depths under H.264 for chroma and luma is
`between 8 and 14 because BitDepthC and BitDepthY are defined
`as 8 plus some number between 0 and 6 . . . This is a limited
`number of possibilities . . . H.264 teaches at least one example in
`which “different components, e.g., Y and Cb, need not have the
`same bit depth,” . . . A POSA would have had good reason to
`pursue these known options among the finite number of
`predictable solutions[.]
`
`Id. at 42–44 (internal citations omitted).
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00763
`Patent 10,110,898 B2
`
`
`a)
`
`Patent Owner’s Contentions
`
`Patent Owner presents several arguments disputing Petitioner’s
`
`showing for this claim limitation. PO Resp. 53. First, that Petitioner’s
`
`challenge improperly relies on “an intermediate value [QP’C] in between the
`
`actual chroma quantization parameter [QPC] . . . and the quantization step in
`
`H.264.” Id. Second, that Petitioner’s challenge improperly “calculates QP’C
`
`using a chroma bit depth of 10 (while calculating a luma QP range using a
`
`bit depth of 8, despite Petitioner’s expert’s acknowledgement that he is
`
`unaware of any coding device in the world that works that way).” Id. Third,
`
`that Petitioner’s challenge improperly “aggregates discrete sets of
`
`‘permissible values’ for the alleged chroma quantization parameter to obtain
`
`a lower bound (which would appear in one picture using one offset) and an
`
`upper bound (which would appear in a different picture using a different
`
`offset), despite the absence of any support for this in the ’898 Patent
`
`specification.” Id. Fourth, that Petitioner’s challenge “ignores the fact that
`
`the approach taken in the Petition does not even solve the extended-range
`
`problem the ’898 Patent addresses.” Id.
`
`b)
`
`Petitioner’s Responsive Contentions
`
`With respect to Patent Owner’s first contention, that Petitioner
`
`improperly relies on QP’C instead of QPC as teaching the claimed “first
`
`chroma quantization parameter,” Petitioner responds that objective evidence
`
`such as Kim discloses that a quantization parameter of a chrominance
`
`component is calculated as follows: 𝑄𝑃’𝐶 = 𝑄𝑃𝐶 + 𝑄𝑝𝐵𝑑𝑂𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑐. Pet.
`
`Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 14). Petitioner further notes that Kim’s equation
`
`is “the same equation that defines QP’C in H.264” and “H.264 itself refers to
`
`QP’Cr and QP’Cb as ‘chroma quantisation parameters.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1004,
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00763
`Patent 10,110,898 B2
`
`198 (Eqn. 8-318), 472 (section G.8.5.1)). According to Petitioner, “this
`
`evidence shows that those in the field described parameters as chroma
`
`quantization parameters even if they are expressed with the variables QP’C,
`
`QP’Cr, QP’Cb, Qp’Cb, or Qp’Cr.” Id. at 8–9.
`
`c)
`
`Discussion
`
`
`
`We are persuaded that the cited portions of H.264 and Kim each
`
`individually support Petitioner’s position that not only QPC, but also QP’C,
`
`would have been understood by the
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
