Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 24
`Date: July 22, 2021
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, DAVID C. MCKONE,
`and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`A. Background and Summary
`Google LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting
`inter partes review of claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent No. 6,349,154 B1
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’154 patent”). Pet. 2. Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Patent Owner”)
`filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted this proceeding. Paper 10, (“Dec.”).
`Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 12, “PO
`Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 14,
`“Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply to the Reply (Paper 16, “Sur-
`reply”). An oral argument was held on May 13, 2021 (Paper 23, “Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Decision is a final
`written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of claims 1–
`4. Based on the record before us, Petitioner has proved, by a preponderance
`of the evidence, that claims 1–4 are unpatentable.
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’154 patent is at issue in Uniloc 2017
`LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00496 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 1; Paper 3, 2. The
`United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“Texas court”)
`transferred this case to the United States District Court for the Northern
`District of California (“California court”). Ex. 1017. Petitioner states that
`the California court found that another party held sufficient rights in the ’154
`patent such that Patent Owner lacked standing to sue and, accordingly,
`dismissed the litigation for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Paper 13, 1
`(citing Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC, No. 4:20-cv-05345-YGR, Dkt. 210
`(N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2020)).
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`C. The ’154 Patent
`The ’154 patent describes a technique for receiving a sequence of
`lower-resolution pictures, estimating motion in those pictures, and creating a
`high-resolution still digital picture from the sequence of lower-resolution
`pictures. Ex. 1001, 1:6–12. Figures 2 and 3, reproduced below, are
`illustrative.
`
`
`Figure 2 is a block diagram of a system for creating high-resolution pictures.
`Id. at 2:15–17.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 3 depicts sequences of images as they are processed by prediction
`encoder 2 of Figure 2. Id. at 2:18–19, 3:24–53.
`With reference to Figures 2 and 3, image sensor 1 receives images Ai
`(A1, A2, etc.) and generates digitized low-resolution pictures Bi (B1, B2, etc.).
`Id. at 3:4–8. Pictures A1, A2, and A3 show three successive phases of a
`moving object. Id. at 2:23–25. B1 is an autonomously encoded picture and
`D1, showing the pixel values of B1, is applied to motion-compensated
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`prediction encoder 2’s output and stored in frame memory 23. Id. at 3:22–
`27. Motion estimator 24 calculates the amount of motion between
`successive pictures B1, B2, and B3 to predictively encode pictures B2 and B3.
`Id. at 3:28–32. Using the calculated motion vector, motion compensator 25
`generates prediction picture Ci, which is subtracted from picture Bi to form
`difference output picture Di. Id. at 3:34–37. Adder 22 adds prediction
`image Ci and encoded difference Di and stores the sum in frame memory 23.
`Id. at 3:37–39. Here, picture C2 is the motion-compensated prediction
`picture for encoding picture B2, motion vector m12 has the value (1,½),
`picture C3 is the motion-compensated prediction picture for encoding picture
`B3, and motion vector m23 has the value (½,0). Id. at 3:40–51.
`Encoded pictures Di and motion vectors m are stored on storage
`medium 3 and transmitted through a transmission channel to motion-
`compensated prediction decoder 4, which decodes the original sequence of
`low-resolution pictures Bi and supplies them to processing circuit 5. Id. at
`3:54–59, 4:1–4. The operations of processing circuit 5 are shown in
`Figure 4, reproduced below:
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 4 depicts a sequence of images as they are processed by processing
`circuit 5 of Figure 2. Id. at 2:18–19, 4:1–38.
`Up-sampler 51 up-samples pictures Bi to produce pictures Ei, in the
`high-resolution domain. Id. at 4:6–8. Processing circuit 5 outputs high-
`resolution picture G1 (for the first picture, the same as input picture E1) and
`stores it in frame memory 54. Id. at 4:9–11. Motion-compensated picture F2
`is obtained by shifting stored picture G1 by motion vector m'12, which has a
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`value of (2,1), twice motion vector m12. Id. at 4:15–18. Adder 53 adds
`picture F2 and picture E2 to produce picture G2, which is stored in memory
`54. Id. at 4:13–15, 4:18–27. Picture G3 is obtained similarly from pictures
`E3 and F3, and motion vector m'23, which has a value of (1,0), twice motion
`vector m23. Id. at 4:17–18, 4:28–37. These steps are repeated for further
`pictures in the sequence. Id. at 4:39–42.
`Claim 1 is the only independent claim challenged in this proceeding.
`The remaining challenged claims depend from claim 1. Claim 1, reproduced
`below, is illustrative of the invention:
`1. A method of creating a high-resolution still picture,
`comprising the steps of:
`receiving a sequence of lower-resolution pictures;
`estimating motion in said sequence of lower-resolution
`pictures with sub-pixel accuracy; and
`creating the high-resolution still picture from said
`sequence of lower-resolution pictures and said
`estimated motion;
`wherein the method comprises the steps of:
`subjecting the sequence of pictures to motion-
`compensated predictive encoding, thereby
`generating motion vectors representing motion
`between successive pictures of said sequence;
`decoding said encoded pictures; and
`creating the high-resolution picture from said decoded
`pictures and the motion vectors generated in said
`encoding step.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`D. Evidence
`Petitioner relies on the references listed below.
`Reference
`Date
`
`Hwang
`
`US 5,666,160
`
`Yoon
`
`US 5,532,747
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1005
`
`Sept. 9, 1997
`
`July 2, 1996
`
`1007
`
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`(Ex. 1002), and the Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Rodriguez (Ex. 1022).
`Patent Owner does not rely on expert testimony.
`
`E. The Instituted Ground of Unpatentability
`Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §
`Reference(s)/Basis
`1–4
`1031
`Hwang, Yoon
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`For petitions filed after November 13, 2018, we construe claims
`“using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe
`the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the
`claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim
`as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Changes to § 103 apply to
`applications filed on or after March 16, 2013. Because the ’154 patent has
`an effective filing date before March 16, 2013, we refer to the pre-AIA
`version of § 103.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Texas District Court Construction
`number of pixels
`
`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019); see also Phillips v.
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`The Texas court previously construed several claim terms. Ex. 1013,
`9–39. Neither party challenged those constructions at the institution stage.
`Pet. 5–6; Prelim. Resp. 22–23. Accordingly, we adopted those constructions
`for purposes of the Institution Decision. Dec. 20–21. Those constructions
`are summarized in the table below:
`Claim Term
`“resolution”
`(claims 1–4)
`“estimating motion in said
`sequence of lower resolution
`pictures with sub-pixel accuracy”
`(claims 1–4)
`“motion-compensated predictive
`encoding”
`(claims 1–4)
`“generating motion vectors
`representing motion between
`successive pictures of said
`sequence”
`(claims 1–4)
`“motion vector(s)”
`(claims 1–4)
`“sequence of I and P-pictures”
`(claim 3)
`
`estimating motion, in said sequence
`of lower resolution pictures, with
`accuracy capable of representing
`motion that is less than a single pixel
`predictive encoding based on motion
`between a current picture and a
`previously encoded picture
`generating motion vectors
`representing motion of pixels from
`positions in one picture to positions in
`the next picture in the sequence
`
`vector(s) representing motion of a
`block of pixels between two pictures
`sequence of I and P-pictures as
`defined by MPEG standards at the
`time of the invention
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`Claim Term
`“recursively adding, in the high-
`resolution domain, a current
`decoded picture to a previously
`created picture, said previously
`created picture being subjected to
`motion compensation in
`accordance with the motion vector
`which is associated with the
`current decoded picture”
`(claim 4)
`
`
`
`Texas District Court Construction
`recursively adding, in the high-
`resolution domain, the pixel values of
`a current decoded picture to the pixel
`values of a previously created picture,
`said previously created picture being
`subjected to motion-compensation in
`accordance with the motion vector
`which is associated with the current
`decoded picture
`
`In the Response, Patent Owner argues that, “for all claim terms,” we
`should “adopt the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim terms as
`understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” PO Resp. 28. As to
`the Texas court’s constructions, Patent Owner does not adopt or advocate for
`them, but argues that applying them “will result in the prior art not teaching
`the elements of the ’154 Patent.” Id. at 28–29. In any case, Patent Owner
`does not specifically challenge any of the Texas court’s constructions or
`argue that they are incorrect. Nor does Patent Owner propose any express
`construction for any claim term.
`Petitioner argues that it showed, in the Petition, unpatentability under
`the Texas court’s constructions but, if we were to adopt the plain and
`ordinary meaning of the claims, there would be no dispute that the
`challenged claims are unpatentable. Reply 2–3. However, Petitioner does
`not specifically challenge any of the Texas court’s constructions.
`Based on the complete record, we adopt the Texas court’s
`constructions, as reflected in the table above. We do not find it necessary to
`provide express claim constructions for any other terms. See Nidec Motor
`Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`Cir. 2017) (noting that “we 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)).
`
`B. Obviousness of Claims 1–4 over Hwang and Yoon
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–4 would have been obvious over
`Hwang and Yoon. Pet. 17–76. For the reasons given below, Petitioner has
`shown obviousness by a preponderance of the evidence.
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the
`claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective
`filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the
`art to which the claimed invention pertains.” We resolve the question of
`obviousness 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, i.e., secondary considerations. 2
`See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`1. Level of Skill in the Art
`Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Dr. Rodriguez, contends that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in
`Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or the equivalent thereof, and two
`
`
`2 The record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of
`nonobviousness.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`or more years of experience with data compression systems and algorithms,
`including video coding.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 17–19). According to
`Petitioner, “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice
`versa.” Id. at 4.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill is
`“improper” for several reasons, but “does not offer a competing definition
`for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 20–27. However, Patent
`Owner argues that “Google’s grounds and the factual support in the
`Dr. Rodriguez’s Declaration are all based on a level of ordinary skill in the
`art that is higher and more detailed than is warranted based on the record.”
`Id. at 25. According to Patent Owner, “because the Petition applies a level
`of skill in the art that is not supported by the record, [Petitioner] has failed to
`meet its burden as to the challenged claims.” Id. at 27.
`Patent Owner argues that Dr. Rodriguez does not indicate that he was
`informed of the legal standard for determining the level of skill in the art and
`failed to conduct a proper review. Id. at 20–21 (quoting Daiichi Sankyo Co.
`v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (listing factors that
`may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art)).
`Petitioner argues that Dr. Rodriguez did consider the relevant factors. Reply
`23–24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13–16, 18). We agree with Petitioner.
`Dr. Rodriguez’s testimony shows that he considered factors relevant to
`determining the level of skill in the art. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 13–15, 18. Patent
`Owner does not identify any factors that Dr. Rodriguez misapplied or how it
`might have led to an incorrect level of skill.
`Patent Owner next argues that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill,
`particularly as to the terms “more education” and “practical experience,” is
`too imprecise. PO Resp. 21–22. Patent Owner complains that it “cannot be
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`applied with any precision or predictability.” Id. at 22. Petitioner argues
`that Dr. Rodriguez did offer a specific level of skill, and that the language
`Patent Owner finds objectionable “simply recognized the realities of
`someone’s experience.” Reply 24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 18). We agree with
`Petitioner and do not find the proposed level of skill to lack precision. In
`any case, Patent Owner does not point to any instances where the alleged
`imprecision would have any impact on the outcome of this proceeding.
`Patent Owner next argues that Dr. Rodriguez is not a person of
`ordinary skill in the art, and, in particular, that he lacks two years of
`experience with data compression systems and algorithms, which he would
`need to qualify under the standard for one of ordinary skill that he proposes.
`PO Resp. 22–23. According to Patent Owner, Dr. Rodriguez has engaged in
`consulting activities in many different fields outside of data compression,
`evidencing that he is “at most, . . . a generalist that has opined on a whole
`host of technologies that have run the gamut of the electrical arts,” rather
`than one with “any true expertise in data compression.” Id. at 23–25.
`Petitioner responds that Dr. Rodriguez is the Director of the Signal and
`Image Laboratory at the University of Arizona’s Department of Electrical
`and Computer Engineering, teaches classes in digital image processing that
`include material related to image and video compression, and does research
`directed to image and video processing, including research dealing with
`computing high-resolution images from low-resolution images. Reply 24–
`26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 3, 5–11). We agree with Petitioner that
`Dr. Rodriguez is at least a person of ordinary skill in the art, both by virtue
`of his research and teaching experience dealing with data compression and
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`video coding and by virtue of advanced education. 3 Moreover, Patent
`Owner’s arguments do not point to any deficiency in Petitioner’s proposed
`level of skill and, instead, appear to be merely an attack on Dr. Rodriguez’s
`credentials in an effort to have us disregard his testimony in its entirety. See
`PO Resp. 25 (“Google relies heavily on Dr. Rodriguez to demonstrate key
`gaps in the prior art and motivation to combine. His opinions should be
`given no weight for the reasons noted above.”), 27 (“For these reasons,
`Dr. Rodriguez’s Declaration should be given no weight.”).
`In the Institution Decision, we determined, on the preliminary record,
`that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill is consistent with the technology
`described in the Specification and the cited prior art. Dec. 22–23. Patent
`Owner has proposed no alternative and has offered no evidence of its own to
`contradict Petitioner’s proposal. On the complete record, we find, consistent
`with Petitioner’s proposal, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have had a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science,
`or the equivalent thereof, and two or more years of experience with data
`
`
`3 Even if he were not a person of ordinary skill in the art, we would still
`consider his testimony. To testify as an expert under Federal Rule of
`Evidence 702, a person need not be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but
`rather must be “qualified in the pertinent art.” Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte
`Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008); accord SEB S.A.
`v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`(upholding a district court’s ruling to allow an expert to provide testimony at
`trial because the expert “had sufficient relevant technical expertise” and the
`expert’s “knowledge, skill, experience, training [and] education . . . [wa]s
`likely to assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence”); Mytee Prods.,
`Inc. v. Harris Research, Inc., 439 F. App’x 882, 886–87 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`(nonprecedential) (upholding admission of the testimony of an expert who
`“had experience relevant to the field of the invention,” despite admission
`that he was not a person of ordinary skill in the art).
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`compression systems and algorithms, including video coding. Ex. 1002
`¶¶ 17–19. We also find that Dr. Rodriguez’s level of skill is at least that of a
`person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`2. Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`a) Overview of Hwang
`Hwang describes a high resolution digital zooming system for
`enhancing the resolution of a camera image by detecting a camera motion
`component from pixel images across more than one image frame. Ex. 1005,
`1:6–11, 2:39–45. Figure 6, reproduced below, illustrates an example:
`
`
`
`Figure 6 is a block diagram of a digital zooming system. Id. at 3:7–11.
`Motion detector 61 receives an image signal as an input, detects
`horizontal and vertical components of pixel motion, and outputs pixel
`motion signal V(n) and subpixel motion signal v(n). Id. at 3:29–32. Area
`detector 62 “adjusts the image signal P(x;n) according to the horizontal and
`vertical pixel motions V(n) received from the motion detector 61, and
`detects a zoom area in accordance with a zoom magnification factor m.”
`Id. at 3:33–37. Zoomed image compensator 63 “spatially magnifies a
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`sampling interval of the detected image” and adjusts the zoomed image
`according to the subpixel motion signal v(n). Id. at 3:38–42. Image
`interpolator 64 performs a convolution between the known pixel information
`and a rectangle function, and extends the image resolution range to subpixels
`adjacent to known pixels. Id. at 3:43–48. Image synthesizer 65 receives the
`output of image interpolator 64 and a previous image signal, synthesizes
`them, and, using an infinite impulse response (“IIR”) filter with a weighted
`time value, outputs a resultant image signal. Id. at 3:49–54.
`
`
`b) Overview of Yoon
`Yoon describes a method of decoding an encoded image signal
`supplied in the form of a series of encoded image frames. Ex. 1007, Abstr.
`In its obviousness allegations, Petitioner cites to disclosure in Yoon’s
`Description of the Prior Art. See, e.g., Pet. 35–37 (citing Prior Art Figs. 1, 2,
`and related description). This background describes a hybrid coding
`technique, which combines temporal and spatial compression techniques.
`Ex. 1007, 1:23–27. An encoder is described with respect to Figure 1 and a
`decoder is described with respect to Figure 2.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of hybrid coder 100 (also referred to as encoder
`100). Id. at 1:28–29, 3:3. A block of pixels from a digitized input frame is
`fed to subtracter 101, where it is digitally combined with a predicted block
`of pixels from the previous frame. Id. at 1:30–34. After additional
`processing in transformer 102 and quantizer 103, the frame is fed to entropy
`coder 104. Id. at 1:34–40. “At the encoder 100, each block, and thereby the
`entire frame, is reconstructed by inversely quantizing and transforming the
`quantized coefficients and adding them to the pixels of the corresponding
`predicted block at a summer 107,” which stores the frame in memory 108
`for use in constructing the next frame. Id. at 1:41–47.
`Hybrid coder 100 also performs motion compensation, which “is a
`process of predicting each block of pixels in a present frame from the pixels
`in its previous frame based on an estimation of a translatory motion of the
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`block between the present and the previous frames.” Id. at 1:56–62, Fig. 1
`(motion compensated predictor 110). The estimated motion is based on
`motion vectors that consist of horizontal and vertical components indicating
`the offset of the predicted block’s location in the previous frame compared
`to the present block’s location. Id. at 1:62–67, Fig. 1 (motion estimator
`109). 4 A motion vector can be a half-pixel resolution motion vector derived
`from a full-pixel resolution motion vector. Id. at 2:1–10. “The half-pixel
`resolution motion vectors, together with the entropy coded data, are
`forwarded via the transmission channel to the associated decoder 200 for use
`in the conducting motion compensated prediction therein.” Id. at 2:25–28.
`
`
`4 The parties dispute whether Yoon shows motion estimator 109 generating
`motion vectors representing motion between successive pictures of a
`sequence. We address that dispute below.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`Decoder 200 is shown in Figure 2, reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 2 is a block diagram of decoder 200 that matches hybrid coder 100 of
`Figure 1. Id. at 4:4–5, 1:47–50. Decoder 200 performs similar motion
`compensated prediction using the half-pixel resolution motion vectors
`received from encoder 100. Id. at 2:40–61.
`
`3. Claims 1–4, Differences Between the Claimed Subject Matter and
`Hwang and Yoon, and Reasons to Modify or Combine
`Petitioner cites Yoon for the aspects of claim 1 related to deriving
`motion vectors from subsequent lower-resolution pictures, encoding the
`lower-resolution pictures and motion vectors, and decoding the lower -
`resolution pictures and motion vectors. Petitioner cites Hwang for the
`aspects of claim 1 related to receiving decoded lower-resolution pictures and
`motion vectors and creating a high-resolution picture from the lower-
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`resolution pictures and motion vectors. Pet. 38–40. Petitioner’s
`Demonstrative A from the Petition, reproduced below, illustrates how
`Petitioner proposes combining these aspects:
`
`
`
`Demonstrative A is a picture in which Petitioner has combined a portion of
`Hwang’s Figure 6 with blocks from Yoon’s Figures 1 and 2 and provided
`annotations. Id. at 41.
`
`
`a) Hwang’s teachings
`As to the limitations of claim 1, Petitioner argues that Hwang’s
`description of receiving input images teaches “receiving a sequence of
`lower-resolution pictures.” Pet. 20–22 (citing Ex. 1005, 1:6–11, 2:39–44,
`3:7–11, 3:29–32, 4:59–5:4, 6:33–51). Petitioner further contends that
`Hwang’s description of motion detector 61 producing half-pixel resolution
`motion vectors v(n) teaches “estimating motion in said sequence of lower-
`resolution pictures with sub-pixel accuracy.” Pet. 23–25 (citing Ex. 1005,
`2:39–45, 3:5–9, 3:29–32, 3:43–48, 4:57–5:4, 5:10–14, 6:32–41). Petitioner
`further argues that Hwang’s description of processing input image data to
`produce zoomed output data, specifically the operations in blocks 62–65 of
`Figure 6, teaches “creating the high-resolution still picture from said
`sequence of lower-resolution pictures and said estimated motion,” as recited
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`in claim 1. Pet. 25–34. Petitioner supports its allegations with the testimony
`of Dr. Rodriguez. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 52–72.
`Patent Owner argues that Hwang does not teach lower-resolution
`pictures and high-resolution pictures, at least as the Texas court has
`construed “resolution” (“number of pixels”). PO Resp. 30–34. Essentially,
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not shown that the pictures output
`from Hwang’s digital zooming system have more pixels than the pictures
`input into the system. Id. at 7.
`Hwang “relates to a high resolution digital zooming system and
`method which enhances the resolution of a camera image.” Ex. 1005, 1:9–
`11. In its background, Hwang discusses various “methods to form high
`resolution magnified images from small-sized low resolution images.” Id. at
`1:19–20. According to Hwang, “[w]hen magnifying an image, the number
`of pixels for displaying the image increases.” Id. at 1:15–17.
`Nevertheless, Patent Owner argues, Hwang does not define “high
`resolution” or describe that term in relation to other images. PO Resp. 8. In
`particular, Patent Owner argues, Hwang does not define the pictures input to
`the preferred embodiment digital zooming system as low resolution. Id.
`Patent Owner argues that, rather than describing a system that magnifies an
`entire image (thus increasing the number of pixels), Hwang describes a
`system that only zooms a portion of an input image, resulting in an output
`image that has the same number of pixels as the input image, or less. Id. at
`8–15. According to Patent Owner, Hwang uses the term “high resolution” to
`“convey how the resolution of the portion of the zoomed image (but not the
`resolution of the entire input image) is increased using the technique
`disclosed in Hwang.” Id. at 8–9; accord id. at 9 (“[T]he reference to ‘high
`resolution’ in Hwang is in reference to the high resolution zoomed and
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`magnified image, which is only a portion of the entire image.”), 11 (“A
`[person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that the zoomed
`image compensator 63 outputs just the zoomed image, not the entire input
`image.”).
`Hwang states that motion detector 61 “receives an image signal P(x;n)
`as an input,” detects motion from the image signal, and outputs motion
`signals V(n) and v(n). Ex. 1005, 3:29–32. As Patent Owner notes, Hwang
`does not state a specific size (e.g., number of pixels) for image signal P(x;n).
`PO Resp. 10; Sur-reply 3. Area detector 62 receives this image signal P(x;n)
`and motion vector V(n) and “detects a zoom area in accordance with a zoom
`magnification factor m.” Ex. 1005, 3:33–37. According to Patent Owner,
`Hwang does not disclose a value or range for zoom magnification factor m.
`PO Resp. 10. Hwang’s zoomed image compensator 63 receives the signal
`output by area detector 62 and “spatially magnifies a sampling interval of
`the detected image.” Ex. 1005, 3:38–40. Patent Owner argues that this
`“detected image” is “the input images” and that the “sampling interval” is
`“the zoomed in area” of the input images, and not the entire input image.
`PO Resp. 10–11. See also Sur-reply 3 (“As explained in [Patent Owner’s]
`Response, Hwang’s zoom image compensator 63 spatially magnifies just a
`‘sampling interval’ (i.e., the zoomed in area) of the ‘detected images’ (i.e.,
`
`22
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`the input images) and outputs the ‘zoomed image,’ not the entire ‘input
`image.’”). 5
`Hwang continues by describing that image interpolator 64 receives the
`known pixel information corresponding to the spatially zoomed image and
`extends the image by adding subpixels next to the known pixels. Ex. 1005,
`3:44–49. Patent Owner argues that “[i]mage interpolator 64 receives the
`‘zoomed image,’ not the entire input image,” and that
`Because . . . the extension into subpixel resolution is only
`performed on the spatially zoomed image p(i-v(v);n), not the
`entire image, and because values for magnification factor are
`not taught, there is no teaching in Hwang that the number of
`pixels in the resultant image signal q(i;n) is higher than the
`input images.
`PO Resp. 12.
`Patent Owner constructs an example that it argues shows how
`Hwang’s system would operate, with an input image of 1616 pixels (256
`pixels) and a zoom magnification factor m of 2. Id. According to Patent
`Owner, in its example, the sampling interval would be an 88 region of the
`original 1616 image, that sampling interval would be magnified by a
`
`5 At the oral argument, Patent Owner argued that Hwang’s description of a
`“zoom area” also supports its argument that Hwang does not teach
`magnifying the entire input image. Tr. 31:17–23. Patent Owner does not
`present this argument in its papers or provide any meaningful explanation of
`it. Hwang does not define or describe “zoom area” other than to say that
`area detector 62 “detects a zoom area in accordance with a zoom
`magnification factor.” Ex. 1005, 3:33–37. Hwang’s mention of a “zoom
`area” does not describe identifying a subset of an input image to magnify.
`Tr. 27:20–23 (admitting that Hwang does not describe a zoom area less than
`the entire input image). Moreover, as we explain below, the zoom
`magnification factor does not identify a subset of an image to magnify.
`Thus, Hwang’s association of the zoom area and zoom magnification factor
`suggests that a zoom area is not a subset of an input image.
`
`23
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00479
`Patent 6,349,154 B1
`factor of 2, and the resulting output image would be 1616 pixels (256
`pixels), the same size as the input image. Id. at 12–14. Patent Owner argues
`that if the zoom magnification factor was 4, the output image would be 88
`pixels (64 pixels), a lower number of pixels than the input image. Id. at 14.
`Petitioner responds by arguing that Hwang’s entire image is
`magnified, and that the output image has more pixels than the input image
`because pixels are added at subpixel locations next to the pixels from the
`input image. Reply 5–10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 62–69; Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 7–9).
`Petitioner points to description in Hwang that “[w]hen magnifying an image,
`the number of pixels for displaying the image increases,” and other
`examples in which an input image is “magnified” without any indication that
`the description is limited to only a portion of the input image. Id. at 11–13
`(citing Ex. 1005, 1:15–18, 2:33–42; Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 5–6). Petitioner takes issue
`with Patent Owner’s understanding of a sampling interval, arguing that it is
`the distance between pixels and not a portion of the input image t