`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`––––––––––
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`––––––––––
`Kakadu R&D Pty Ltd. and Kakadu Software Pty Ltd.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`intoPIX SA,
`Patent Owner.
`––––––––––
`U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`––––––––––
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,332,258
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`THE CHALLENGED PATENT .................................................................... 2
`A.
`The ’258 specification .......................................................................... 2
`B.
`The Recent Reissue Application .......................................................... 5
`C.
`Prosecution History .............................................................................. 6
`D.
`Priority date .......................................................................................... 6
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ......................................................... 6
`A.
`Statutory Grounds................................................................................. 6
`B.
`Relied-Upon Prior Art .......................................................................... 7
`1.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0019876 A1 (“Cai”)
`(Ex-1005) ................................................................................... 7
`U.S. Patent No. 7,701,365 (“Fukuhara”) (Ex-1006) ................ 11
`2.
`Standing .............................................................................................. 14
`C.
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ................................................................. 14
`V.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 15
`A.
`“words of m bits” ............................................................................... 15
`B.
`“GCLI” ............................................................................................... 16
`C.
`“GCLI bits” ........................................................................................ 17
`D.
`“output data” ....................................................................................... 18
`E.
`“de-correlative transform” .................................................................. 19
`F.
`“entropic encoding” ............................................................................ 19
`G.
`“means for grouping,” “means for detecting,” and “means for
`producing” .......................................................................................... 19
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE GROUNDS .................................. 20
`A. Grounds 1 and 2: Claims 1-16 are Anticipated by Cai, and/or
`rendered obvious by Cai in view of the knowledge of a
`POSITA .............................................................................................. 20
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................ 21
`1.
`Dependent Claim 2 .................................................................. 38
`2.
`Dependent Claim 3 .................................................................. 40
`3.
`Dependent Claim 4 .................................................................. 42
`4.
`Dependent Claim 5 .................................................................. 43
`5.
`Dependent Claim 6 .................................................................. 44
`6.
`Dependent Claim 7 .................................................................. 45
`7.
`Dependent Claim 8 .................................................................. 47
`8.
`Dependent Claim 9 .................................................................. 52
`9.
`10. Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................ 53
`11. Dependent Claim 11 ................................................................ 54
`12. Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................ 55
`13.
`Independent Claim 13 .............................................................. 58
`14. Dependent Claim 14 ................................................................ 61
`15. Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................ 61
`16. Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................ 61
`B. Ground 3: Claims 1-16 Are Rendered Obvious by Cai in View
`of Fukuhara ......................................................................................... 62
`1.
`A POSITA would be motivated to combine the teachings
`of Cai and Fukuhara and would have a reasonable
`expectation of success in doing so ........................................... 62
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................ 64
`Dependent Claim 2 .................................................................. 71
`Dependent Claim 3 .................................................................. 72
`Dependent Claim 4 .................................................................. 73
`Dependent Claim 5 .................................................................. 74
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`Dependent Claim 6 .................................................................. 75
`7.
`Dependent Claim 7 .................................................................. 76
`8.
`Dependent Claim 8 .................................................................. 77
`9.
`10. Dependent Claim 9 .................................................................. 79
`11. Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................ 81
`12. Dependent Claim 11 ................................................................ 85
`13. Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................ 87
`14.
`Independent Claim 13 .............................................................. 87
`15. Dependent Claim 14 ................................................................ 89
`16. Dependent Claim 15 ................................................................ 90
`17. Dependent Claim 16 ................................................................ 91
`C. Ground 4: Claim 11 is Rendered Obvious by Cai in View of
`Chen .................................................................................................... 91
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 94
`VIII. MANDATORY NOTICES AND FEES ...................................................... 95
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258 (“the ’258 patent”)
`1002
`Prosecution File History for U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`1003
`Prosecution File History for U.S. Reissue Application No.
`16/950,863 (“the ’258 reissue”)
`Declaration of Dr. Kenneth A. Zeger, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0019876 A1 (“Cai”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,701,365 (“Fukuhara”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0084921 A1 (“Chen”)
`Information Technology-JPEG 2000 Image coding System-
`JPEG 2000 Committee Draft version 1.0, Dec. 9, 1999
`(“JPEG2000 December Committee Draft”)
`Information Technology-Digital Compression and Coding of
`Continuous-Tone Still Images-Requirements and Guidelines,
`Recommendation T.81, ISO/IEC 10918-1: 1993(E), September
`1992 (“JPEG Standard”)
`Excerpt from Taubman David S. and Marcellin, Michael W.,
`JPEG2000 Image Compression Fundamentals, Standard and
`Practice , Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands (2002)
`IPX HTJ2K - Patent Statement and Licensing Declaration Form
`(06/19/2020)
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Kenneth A. Zeger, Ph.D.
`Xiong et al., Low complexity reconfigurable architecture for the
`5/3 and 9/7 discrete wavelet transform, Journal of Systems
`Engineering and Electronics, 17(2):303-308 (2006)
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`Introduction
`Kakadu R&D Pty Ltd. and Kakadu Software Pty Ltd., (collectively,
`
`“Petitioner”) request inter partes review (“IPR”) of Claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,332,258 (“the ’258 Patent”) (Ex-1001), assigned to intoPIX SA (“Patent
`
`Owner”).
`
`The ’258 patent relates to a method of compressing an input data stream into
`
`an output data stream. In particular, the patent describes well-known image and
`
`data processing techniques, such as image transformations, entropy encoding, and
`
`magnitude-level encoding, which had long been used in the prior art. Ex-1001,
`
`1:24-3:35; Ex-1004, ¶33-37. The ’258 combines these known elements into a
`
`compression and decompression system purporting to “have[] an acceptable
`
`compression efficiency while minimizing codec complexity.” Ex-1001, 3:42-44.
`
`But none of these alleged benefits appear in the claims. Moreover, the’258 claims
`
`simply combine the well-known techniques in predictable ways.
`
`This Petition demonstrates that the combinations of magnitude-level
`
`encoding, entropy encoding, and image transformations of the ’258 patent involved
`
`nothing more than well-known design choices in the art. The art shows that a
`
`POSITA understood how to use these trivial design choices to address well-known
`
`concerns regarding compression and coding efficiency. Thus, Claims 1-16 of the
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`’258 Patent would have been obvious. Moreover, all elements of several claims are
`
`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`found in the prior art, arranged as claimed in the ’258 patent.
`
`The grounds presented in this Petition are reasonably likely to prevail, and
`
`the challenged claims should be cancelled.
`
`II. The Challenged Patent
`A. The ’258 specification
`The ’258 patent generally “relates to a method for compressing an input data
`
`stream comprising a sequence of m-bit words into an output data stream and for
`
`decompressing said output data stream.” Ex-1001, 1:14-16; Ex-1004, ¶38-39. The
`
`‘258 patent discusses well-known magnitude-level encoding, also called “block
`
`fixed length coding” in the ‘258 specification. Ex-1001, 1:59-2:7.
`
`As well-known in the art, magnitude-level encoding techniques relate
`
`generally to identifying the greatest magnitude level of a data value or set of data
`
`values. Ex-1004, ¶33. For example, if a word size in a computing system is set to 8
`
`bits, a smaller data value (or magnitude) of “3” is expressed as “00000011,” using
`
`the same amount of bits (8) as a larger data value of “135,” expressed as
`
`“10000111.” Id. The leading zeros in the binary “00000011” are wasted, because
`
`they are not needed to express the decimal digit “3,” which is “11” in binary. Id.
`
`Magnitude-level encoding will more efficiently encode information that does not
`
`vary significantly in magnitude for groups of adjacent data words, such as image
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`data. Id. If groups of nearby image pixels have around the same magnitude (e.g.
`
`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`magnitudes close to “3” for example), then leading zero bits in groups of data
`
`words can be truncated. The values are thus represented using a smaller number of
`
`bits, i.e. with less memory and transmitted at a lower data rate, without losing
`
`information. Id. The ’258 specification describes exactly this.
`
`The ’258 patent uses the term “Greatest Coded Line Index (GCLI),” which
`
`is “the index of the highest weight non-zero bit among the bits, excluding any sign
`
`bit, of the words in [a group of n words of m bits].” Ex-1001, 3:48-56. The
`
`specification also explains “[t]he GCLI is the line index of the most significant
`
`non-null bitplane.” Id., 5:59-60. “A bitplane is the set of bits in the group having
`
`same weight. The line index of a bitplane is 1 for the LSB bitplane, and increases
`
`upwards.” Id., 5:41-44.
`
`Once a sequence of n words of m bits is grouped together, the GCLI is
`
`detected for this group. Id., 5:53-59. The bits within the GCLI bitplane and all less-
`
`significant bitplanes (i.e., the GCLI bits) are output, along with the value of the
`
`GCLI, as an output stream. Id., 5:53-66, 3:56-65; Ex-1004, ¶40-41. This process is
`
`nothing more than well-known magnitude-level encoding.
`
`As shown in Figure 1, the zero bit-planes above the GLCI bit-plane are
`
`truncated and not included in the RAW transfer. Instead, the RAW transfer
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`includes only the sign bits, the GCLI value, and the nonzero bit-planes (i.e. the
`
`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`GCLI bits).
`
`
`
`Claim 1 is directed to magnitude-level encoding as described. The claim
`
`uses many words, but has four basic elements: 1) grouping the data words, 2)
`
`determining the GCLI value of the grouped data words, 3) creating an output that
`
`includes the GCLI value and the bits of the data words in the non-zero bit-planes of
`
`that group, i.e., the GCLI bits, and then 4) creating an output stream of this data.
`
`This saves space in the output stream because the leading zeros (also known as
`
`zero bit-planes) in common between the grouped datawords contain no information
`
`and can thus be discarded without losing data.
`
`The ’258, “invention is defined by the independent claims [e.g. claim 1].
`
`The dependent claims define advantageous embodiments.” Ex-1001, 3:46-47.
`
`Indeed, the dependent claims merely add well-known implementation details
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`regarding additional processing steps performed before, after, or during the
`
`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`magnitude-level encoding of Claim 1. Ex-1004, ¶42-43, ¶34-37.
`
`B.
`The Recent Reissue Application
`On November 17, 2020, Patent Owner filed a reissue application, App. No.
`
`16/950,863, for the ’258 patent, submitted as Ex-1003. As of January 11, 2020, the
`
`reissue application has not advanced because Patent Owner has not submitted the
`
`required inventor’s oath. A notice to file missing parts was mailed on November
`
`20, 2020, and remains outstanding.
`
`Patent Owner submitted a preliminary amendment with the reissue
`
`application, amending all independent claims to incorporate limitations from
`
`dependent Claims 5 and 8.1 Ex-1003, p.23-27. Claims 5 and 8 were cancelled.
`
`Patent owner thus effectively concedes that independent Claims 1 and 13 and
`
`dependent Claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9-12, and 14-16, which do not include the elements
`
`of Claims 5 and 8 in their current form, are defectively broad and invalid. 35 USC
`
`§ 251(a). If IPR is instituted, Petitioner intends to move to stay any reissue
`
`proceedings so that invalidity of all claims can be fully resolved in this proceeding.
`
`
`1 The time has passed for broadening reissue, so Patent Owner may only narrow its
`claims.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`C.
`Prosecution History
`The only Office Action issued on September 9, 2015. Ex-1002, 47-51. The
`
`examiner rejected Claims 1-12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §112 for insufficient
`
`antecedent basis, and Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as directed to an improper
`
`hybrid claim type. Id., 49-50. On December 7, 2015, Patent Owner made a few
`
`minor amendments to resolve the objections and rejections. Id. at 33-36. The
`
`examiner did not address any prior art issues under §102 or 103 before issuing a
`
`notice of allowance about two months later, on February 3, 2016.
`
`D.
`Priority date
`The application leading to the ’258 patent was filed on Feb. 28, 2014, after
`
`the AIA became effective, but claims priority to a provisional application filed on
`
`March 1, 2013, before the AIA became effective with regard to 35 U.S.C. §102.
`
`For purposes of this Petition only, Petitioner applies pre-AIA §102/103 and the
`
`priority date applicable to the provisional application, March 1, 2013.2
`
`III.
`
`Identification of Challenge
`A.
`Statutory Grounds
`The Petition presents the following grounds:
`
`Ground Claims
`1
`1, 2, 4-8, 12-16
`
`References
`Statutory Basis
`§102 Anticipation Cai
`
`
`2 Petitioner reserves arguments that post-AIA law applies, that the provisional
`application does not support the ’258 claims, and that the ’258 patent is not entitled
`to a priority date earlier than its filing.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`2
`
`3
`4
`
`1-16
`
`1-16
`11
`
`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`§103 Obviousness Cai in view of the
`knowledge of a POSITA
`§103 Obviousness Cai in view of Fukuhara
`§103 Obviousness Cai in view of Chen
`
`B. Relied-Upon Prior Art
`None of the following references were cited or considered during the
`
`original prosecution of the ’258 patent. Cai was cited in an information disclosure
`
`statement accompanying the recently filed reissue application, which has not been
`
`examined. Ex-1003, pp. 9, 6-7.3
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0019876 A1 (“Cai”) (Ex-
`1005)
`Cai, filed on July 25, 2005 and published on January 25, 2007, is entitled
`
`“lossless image compression with tree coding of magnitude levels.” Cai is prior art
`
`at least under pre-AIA §102(a), (b), and (e).
`
`Cai is generally directed to a magnitude-level encoding technique. Ex-1005,
`
`Abstract; Ex-1004, ¶50-54. Cai’s abstract sets out typical magnitude-level
`
`encoding:
`
`Data values, such as residual values based on a predictive value,
`are compressed based on a number of significant digits used to
`represent the data value that is termed a magnitude level. Data values
`are grouped, and a highest magnitude level of the magnitude levels
`associated with each of the data values is associated with each
`group. The magnitude level is expressible in fewer digits than a value
`
`
`3Petitioner brought Cai to the attention of Patent Owner during several discussions
`to resolve subsidiary business issues between them.
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`of that magnitude. Further, selecting one magnitude level for each
`group reduces a number of magnitude levels stored, further reducing
`the size of the resulting file. Choosing a magnitude level associated
`with a group of related data values in most cases results in the
`highest magnitude level being close to the magnitude level for each
`of the data values it represents, resulting in few bits being wasted
`in coding the data values.
`Cai also discloses doing additional processing with the magnitude-level
`
`encoding, including predictive transforms, entropy coding, and other types of data
`
`coding. For example, “[A]rithmetic coding or other coding methods may be used
`
`to achieve[] greater coding efficiency.” Ex-1005, [0008]. Additionally, “[o]ther
`
`forms of magnitude-level coding are suitable for use with magnitude level
`
`compression.” Ex-1005, [0062].
`
`Cai Figure 2 discloses an encoding system, including a “predictor” for
`
`performing predictive transforms of image data, and a “magnitude level detector,”
`
`“magnitude level coder,” and a “residual value coder” for performing magnitude-
`
`level encoding.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`
`A portion of Cai’s method is further shown in the flow chart of Figure 12:
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`Cai’s Figure 13 is a flow chart showing various types of entropic encoding
`
`on the data output during the magnitude-level coding process in elements 1314,
`
`1316, and 1318:
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`
`2.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,701,365 (“Fukuhara”) (Ex-1006)
`Fukuhara, claiming priority to PCT No. PCT/JP2006/322953 filed on
`
`August 16, 2007, is entitled “Encoding Device and Method, Composite Device and
`
`Method, and Transmission System.” Fukuhara issued on April 20, 2010. It is thus
`
`prior art at least under pre-AIA §102(a), (b), and (e).
`
`Fukuhara “particularly relates to an encoding device and method, … wherein
`
`encoding and decoding can be performed at higher speeds.” Ex-1006, 1:9-12; Ex-
`
`1004, ¶55-58. Fukuhara’s abstract also sets out a typical magnitude-level coding
`
`technique:
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`An encoding method encodes, with an encoding device, second
`data made up of a plurality of first data representing predetermined
`numerical values. The encoding method includes taking a significant
`digit having, of the numerical values represented by each of the
`first data, the greatest absolute value, as a maximum significant
`digit of the first data. The encoding method also includes outputting,
`with the encoding device, code indicating the maximum significant
`digit and code indicating whether or not the maximum significant digit
`has changed. The encoding method additionally includes outputting
`code indicating the absolute value of a numerical value represented
`by the first data. Further, the encoding method includes outputting
`code indicating the sign of a numerical value represented by the first
`data.
`Fukuhara’s Figure 3 shows an example magnitude-level coding process. The
`
`value “B” in Fukuhara is the same as the value “M” in Cai.
`
`Just like Cai, Fukuhara also discloses doing additional processing with the
`
`magnitude-level encoding, including wavelet transforms and entropy coding the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`
`output data. Fukuhara Figure 1 discloses an encoding system including a “wavelet
`
`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`transformation unit” for performing wavelet transforms of image data, and an
`
`“entropy coding unit” for performing magnitude-level encoding and entropy
`
`encoding.
`
`
`
`Fukuhara’s Figure 4 shows the entropy encoding unit. The “VLC encoding
`
`units,” 62, 64, 66, and 68 take in data, such as the truncated RAW data bits, and
`
`output a continuous bit stream: “The VLC encoding unit 66 encodes the code
`
`‘101’, ‘011’, ‘110’ and ‘010’, supplied from the significant digit extracting unit 65,
`
`and outputs code ‘101011110010’” Ex-1006, 18:4-8.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`
`
`C.
`Standing
`Petitioner certifies that it is not barred or estopped from requesting inter
`
`partes review, and the ’258 patent is eligible for review.
`
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the 2013 timeframe
`
`would have had at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`science, or a related subject, and coursework in image processing and data
`
`compression, including random processes, information theory, and source coding
`
`courses. Ex-1004, ¶59-60. A person with less education, but more relevant
`
`practical experience may also meet this standard. Id.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`V. Claim Construction
`This Petition applies the Phillips claim construction standard. 37 C.F.R.
`
`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`42.102(b); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). To resolve the
`
`particular grounds presented in this Petition,4 Petitioner does not believe that any
`
`term deviates from the plain and ordinary meaning of such term, in view of the
`
`specification in which it sits. Ex-1004, ¶61-62. The ’258 specification discloses
`
`certain embodiments that it describes as within the scope of several claim terms.
`
`These claim terms would thus have been understood as at least broad enough to
`
`encompass such disclosed embodiments. Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., 514 F.3d 1271,
`
`1276 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“We normally do not interpret claim terms in a way that
`
`excludes embodiments disclosed in the specification.”) This is not a concession
`
`that the full scope of the respective claim term satisfies the requirements of section
`
`112 (enablement, written description, definiteness, etc.). Instead, under any
`
`plausible reading, the claim term would have been understood to include such
`
`disclosed embodiments, and should thus be understood as described below.
`
`A.
`“words of m bits”
`The term “words of m bits” appears throughout the claims. The specification
`
`states that “[t]he words of m bits are also known as coefficients, in the field of
`
`
`4 Petitioner reserves all arguments regarding the proper scope of any claim term
`asserted in any litigation, in view of alleged infringement and/or other issues then
`presented.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`image processing.” Ex-1001, 5:56-57. Accordingly, the term “words of m bits”
`
`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`would have been understood as including at least “coefficients” created and used
`
`during image processing operations. Ex-1004, ¶63.
`
`B.
`“GCLI”
`The term “GCLI” is defined in Claim 1 itself as “the index of the highest
`
`weight non-zero bit among the bits.” The “GCLI” is simply a number. It is “the
`
`index of the highest weight non-zero bit among the bits, excluding any sign bit, of
`
`the words in [a group of n words of m bits].” Ex-1001, 3:48-56. Also “[t]he GCLI
`
`is the line index of the most significant non-null bitplane.” Ex-1001, 5:59-60. “A
`
`bitplane is the set of bits in the group having same weight. The line index of a
`
`bitplane is 1 for the LSB bitplane, and increases upwards.” Ex-1001, 5:41-44.
`
`This is shown in Figure 1 of Ex-1001. The “words of m bits” are columns,
`
`and each indexed bitplane is a row. The GCLI of the shown data words is “4.”
`
`Counting up from the bottom, the “LSB” or least significant bitplane has an index
`
`of 1. After line index 4, all remaining bits in the words (other than the sign bit)
`
`have a value of “0.” Accordingly, the index of the highest weight non-zero bit in
`
`the group of data words is “4,” and that is the claimed GCLI. Ex-1004, ¶64-65.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`Sign bits
`Index n
`Index 5
`Index 4
`Index 3
`Index 2
`Index 1
`
`
`
`C.
`“GCLI bits”
`The claims use the term “GCLI bits” to refer to a dataset created using the
`
`GCLI value discussed in the preceding section. The specification defines “GCLI
`
`bits”: “According to the method of the invention, the sign bits as well as the GCLI
`
`bits of lowest weight, i.e. the data encircled in the right hand side of FIG. 1, are
`
`copied to the output stream, in a raw transfer.” Ex-1001, 5:53-56.
`
`Index 4
`Index 3
`Index 2
`Index 1
`
`
`
`The “GCLI bits” in Figure 1 are the lower circled group of bits. Ex-1004,
`
`66-67. This circled group represents the bits of the words with indexes from the
`
`GCLI value (“4” in this example) down to the LSB index of 1. Id. In Figure 1,
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`
`these bits are a 4x4 array, including all bits in the words with indexes of 4, 3, 2,
`
`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`and 1. These are the bits of the data words in the non-zero bit-planes of that group.
`
`Accordingly, the term “GCLI bits” would have been understood as “the bits of the
`
`words with indexes from the GCLI value down to lowest significant bitplane
`
`(index value 1).” Id.
`
`D.
`“output data”
`The term “output data” appears in steps c) and d) of Claim 1, and also
`
`Claims 13 and 7. A POSITA would have understood that “the output data”
`
`includes “the value of the GCLI” index and the “GCLI bits” based on a plain
`
`reading of the claim. Ex-1004, 68-69. Accordingly, “the output data” as claimed
`
`includes both “the value of the GCLI” index and the “GCLI bits.” In the Figure 1
`
`example, the “output data” would include at least the GCLI value of “4” and the
`
`4x4 array of the GCLI bits boxed in red below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`E.
`“de-correlative transform”
`Claims 2-4 recite a “de-correlative transform.” The specification
`
`acknowledges that de-correlative transforms were known in the art, and lists well-
`
`known types of such transforms: “De-correlative transforms commonly used in
`
`image compression are colour transform, inter/intra prediction, DCT or wavelet
`
`transforms.” Ex-1001, 1:46-48. Accordingly, a “de-correlative transform” would
`
`have been understood to include any of these disclosed transforms. Ex-1004, ¶70.
`
`F.
`“entropic encoding”
`Claims 8-9 of the ’258 patent recite “entropic encoding”. The specification
`
`again acknowledges that entropic encoding is known in the art, and lists well-
`
`known types of such encoding: “Numerous entropy coding methods exist, such as
`
`Fixed Length Coding, Variable Length Coding, binary entropy coding (UVLC,
`
`zero-trees) or arithmetic coding with various complexity and features.” Ex-1001,
`
`1:53-58. Accordingly, “entropic encoding” would have been understood to include
`
`any of these disclosed types of encoding. Ex-1004, ¶71.
`
`G.
`
`“means for grouping,” “means for detecting,” and “means for
`producing”
`Claims 13-16 include various “means” terms. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(3), Petitioner identifies the following as “the specific portions of the
`
`specification that describe the structure, material, or acts corresponding to each
`
`claimed function.”
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`The ’258 specification states:
`
`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`a) “The means for grouping may comprise 4-input or-gates and a set of 4
`
`registers for storing the 4 words of a group.” Ex-1001, 8:14-16.
`
`b) “The means for detecting the GCLI (‘GCLI finding’) is implemented
`
`with a set of logic gates.” Ex-1001, 8:16-17.
`
`c) “The means for producing the output data and the means for producing
`
`the output data stream are implemented using a set of registers and
`
`gates.” Ex-1001, 8:41-43.
`
`The ’258 patent additionally elaborates on the “means for grouping,” “the
`
`means for detecting,” and the “means for producing,” stating that they “may be
`
`implemented, as well-known in the art, using individual gates and registers, ASICs
`
`or FPGAs.” Ex-1001, 8:45-47. Accordingly, gates, registers, ASICs, or FPGA
`
`structures, and their equivalents, describe the structure, material, or acts for
`
`performing the claimed functions. Ex-1004, ¶72-74.
`
`VI. Detailed Explanation of the Grounds
`A. Grounds 1 and 2: Claims 1-16 are Anticipated by Cai, and/or
`rendered obvious by Cai in view of the knowledge of a POSITA
`Claims 1-16 are anticipated and/or rendered obvious by Cai. Ex-1004, ¶75.
`
`Specifically, as Ground 1, Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 12-16 are anticipated by Cai, and
`
`as Ground 2, Claims 1-16 are rendered obvious by Cai in view of the knowledge of
`
`a POSITA. Any limitation not explicitly or implicitly disclosed by Cai would have
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`been obvious because a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Cai using,
`
`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`for example, well-known de-correlative transform or entropy coding techniques.
`
`Ex-1004, ¶33-37. Cai teaches to use well-known additional processes to achieve
`
`further compression, noting the tradeoff between additional transformation and
`
`processing steps and increased computational complexity for compression. Ex-
`
`1005, [0006], [0025]. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Cai’s
`
`described processes to achieve increased compression, or to implement other
`
`standard design trade-offs. Ex-1004, ¶75. And a POSITA would have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success in doing so at least because, as the ’258 patent
`
`states, the techniques were well-known and “easy-to-implement.” Ex-1001, 5:62.
`
`1.
`Independent Claim 1
`1[pre] A method for compressing an input data stream comprising a
`sequence of words of m bits into an output data stream, the method
`comprising the steps of:
`
`To the extent limiting, Cai discloses and/or teaches 1[pre]. Ex-1004, ¶76-79.
`
`Cai’s title is “Lossless image compression with tree coding of magnitude
`
`
`
`levels.” Cai’s Figure 2 is “a block diagram of an embodiment of an encoder used in
`
`lossless compression.” Ex-1005, [0012].
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`Input data stream
`
`Output data stream
`
`
`“[I]mage data 210” comprises an “array of data values 400” shown in Figure
`
`4. Ex-1005, [0041]. Figure 4 shows “a four-by-four array 400 of coefficients c1
`
`through c16 representing eight-bit grayscale values associated with … an image
`
`file.” As explained above, the claimed “words of m bits” would have been
`
`understood to include “coefficients.” As such, Cai discloses “compressing an input
`
`data stream comprising a sequence of words of m bits.”
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR Petition on U.S. Patent No. 9,332,258
`
`
`1[A]- a) grouping said words of said s