Ptab Ipr2019 00660 8

[email protected] Paper No.
8
571-272-7822 Entered: August 7, 2019
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________
UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,

Petitioner,
v.
VELOS MEDIA, LLC,

Patent Owner.
____________
Case IPR2019-00660
Patent 8,768,077 B2
____________
Before RAMA G. ELLURU, JASON W. MELVIN, and AARON W.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION
Denying Inter Partes Review
35 U.S.C. § 314
Case IPR2019-00660
Patent 8,768,077 B2
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner, Unified Patents, Inc., filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
requesting inter partes review of claims 1–10 (“the challenged claims”) of
U.S. Patent No. 8,768,077 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’077 patent”). Patent Owner,
Velos Media, LLC, timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim.
Resp.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have
authority to determine whether to institute review.
An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information
presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a
reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the
reasons set forth below, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown a
reasonable likelihood it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of
at least one challenged claim. We, therefore, do not institute inter partes
review of the ’077 patent in this proceeding.
A. THE ’077 PATENT

The ’077 patent is titled “Image processing device and imaging
processing method” and describes techniques related to encoding video data.
Ex. 1001, [54], 1:6–7. The patent is directed to image processing using
coding units further broken into transform units, which are square matrices
that are each processed using a quantization matrix. Id. at 1:46–51. Although
prior methods allowed for only one quantization matrix for each transform-
unit size, the ’077 patent addresses proposals to allow multiple quantization
matrices for each transform-unit size. Id. at 1:52–60. Because using multiple
quantization matrices degrades coding efficiency, the ’077 patent seeks to
2
Case IPR2019-00660
Patent 8,768,077 B2
“suppress[] an increase in amount of codes due to an increase in the number

of quantization matrices.” Id. at 2:13–25.
To that end, the ’077 patent describes generating a quantization matrix
after selecting the size of a transform unit. Id. at 2:29–42. By starting from a
first, smaller quantization matrix, the elements of a second, larger
quantization matrix may be generated by either duplicating elements of the
smaller matrix or interpolating between elements of the smaller matrix. Id. at
2:59–3:3, 10:5–11:33.
B. CHALLENGED CLAIMS
Challenged claims 1 and 8 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and
is reproduced below:
1. An image processing device comprising:
circuitry configured to:
generate, from an 8x8 quantization matrix, a 16x16
quantization matrix corresponding to a 16x16
transform unit; and
inversely quantize quantized transform coefficient data
for image data using the 16x16 quantization matrix
when the 16x16 transform unit is used for inverse
orthogonal transformation,
wherein the circuitry is configured to generate the 16x16
quantization matrix by duplicating one of a first element
and a second element adjacent to each other in the 8x8
quantization matrix as an element between the first
element and the second element in the 16x16
quantization matrix.
Id. at 32:44–58. Claim 8 recites parallel limitations, as steps of a method. Id.

at 33:13–34:7.
3
Case IPR2019-00660
Patent 8,768,077 B2
C. PROPOSED GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY

Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability, each based
on 35 U.S.C. § 103:
References Claims
Zhang-I1 and AAPA2 1–4 and 8–10
Zhang-I, Seo, 3 and AAPA 5–7
AVC 4 and Zhang-II5 1–4 and 8–10
AVC, Zhang-II, and Nagasawa 6 5–7
Pet. 4. Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Lina J. Karam, Ph.D.

(Ex. 1002). See generally Pet. 4–71.
II. DISCUSSION
A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
For an inter partes review petition filed after November 13, 2018, we
construe claim terms “using the same claim construction standard that would
1
U.S. Patent No. 8,326,068 (filed Aug. 30, 2006; issued Dec. 4, 2012)
(Ex. 1004).
2
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA): Petitioner submits that “[t]he
subject matter identified in the ’077 Patent as ‘Background Art’ should be
treated as admitted prior art.” Pet. 25.
3
U.S. Publication No. 2006/0087585 (filed Oct. 26, 2005; published Apr.
27, 2006) (Ex. 1005).
4
Recommendation ITU-T H.264 (03/2009), Advanced video coding for
generic audiovisual services, International Telecommunication Union
(Ex. 1006).
5
U.S. Publication No. 2011/0096834 (filed Oct. 28, 2010; published
Apr. 28, 2011) (Ex. 1007).
6
U.S. Publication No. 2010/0272417 (filed Apr. 22, 2010; published Oct.
28, 2010) (Ex. 1008).
4
Case IPR2019-00660
Patent 8,768,077 B2
be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37

C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for
Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51340, 51358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018).
1. “quantization matrix”
Petitioner proposes a construction for “quantization matrix” as “a
matrix of quantization parameters used for quantization, which has
substantially the same size as an orthogonal transform unit.” Pet. 16–17.
Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s proposed construction, arguing it is too
narrow because it excludes quantization matrices used for inverse
quantization during the decoding process. Prelim. Resp. 22–23. We conclude
that, for purposes of this Decision, there is no need to construe “quantization
matrix.” See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868
F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g,
Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
2. “duplicating one of a first element and a second element adjacent to

each other in the 8×8 quantization matrix as an element between the first
element and the second element in the 16×16 quantization matrix”
Patent Owner seeks a construction of “duplicating” as distinct from
“interpolating” in the context of creating an expanded quantization matrix.
Prelim. Resp. 23–25. Petitioner, in the context of mapping the claim
language to the prior art, asserts that skilled artisans “would have understood
duplication to merely be a type of interpolation” and that “duplication is one
of the simplest and most common forms of interpolation.” Pet. 43 (citing
Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 145–147; Ex. 1012, 3; Ex. 1013, 2).
5
Case IPR2019-00660
Patent 8,768,077 B2
We agree with Patent Owner that the Specification distinguishes

between duplication and interpolation. See Prelim. Resp. 23–25. It describes
that the “prediction section” uses a first quantization matrix retrieved from a
buffer to predict a second quantization matrix that is larger than the first.
Ex. 1001, 10:5–9. The Specification describes two distinct methods:
duplication and interpolation. Id. at 10:10–30. For duplication used to create
an 8x8 matrix from a 4x4 matrix, prediction expression (2) shows that a
single element is repeated in the horizontal and vertical directions, such that
the single element is used to generate four elements in the doubled matrix.
Id. at 10:30–38. After describing duplication, the Specification states that
“[i]nstead, predicted matrix PSL2 may be calculated from quantization
matrix SL1 according to prediction expression (3),” which describes linearly
interpolating between elements of the first matrix to generate additional
elements for the second matrix. Id. at 10:45–11:4 (emphasis added). Because
the right- and bottom-edge elements from the first matrix do not have a
corresponding element to use for interpolation, the Specification discloses
using duplication, or alternatively linear extrapolation, for those positions.
Id. at 11:4–22. The Specification instructs that choosing between duplication
and interpolation involves a tradeoff:
Prediction expression (2) [duplication] can generate

predicted matrix PSL2 at less calculation costs than prediction
expression (3) [interpolation]. The use of prediction expression
(3) can generate a smooth predicted matrix more approximate
to a quantization matrix to be used originally. Therefore, the use
of prediction expression (3) can reduce the amount of encoded
information by approximately zeroing elements of a difference
matrix to be described later.
Id. at 11:23–30.
6
Case IPR2019-00660
Patent 8,768,077 B2
In light of the Specification’s distinction between duplication and

interpolation, we conclude that “duplicating,” as claimed, cannot encompass
interpolation. See In re Man Machine Interface Technologies LLC, 822 F.3d
1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (rejecting a broadest-reasonable construction for
“adapted to be held by the human hand” that encompassed a computer
mouse in part because the specification distinguished the claimed device
from a mouse). We need not further construe the claims to resolve the
present dispute. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.
B. UNPATENTABILITY
1. Zhang-I and AAPA

Petitioner maps the claim language onto Zhang-I’s disclosures.
Pet. 29–44. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner does not adequately show
that Zhang-I discloses “circuitry . . . configured to generate the 16x16
quantization matrix by duplicating one of a first element and a second
element adjacent to each other” in claim 1 or the parallel limitation in
claim 8. Prelim. Resp. 45–48.
For this limitation, Petitioner relies on Zhang-I’s disclosure that “[t]he
8x8 quantization matrix may then be deduced by interpolating between the
coefficients in the 4x4 quantization matrix.” Pet. 30; accord id. at 40.
Although Zhang-I discloses interpolating to generate additional coefficients,
Petitioner contends that a person of skill in the art “would have understood
duplication to merely be a type of interpolation.” Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1002
¶¶ 145–146; Ex. 1012, 3). We do not agree. As discussed above, the
Specification of the ’077 patent distinguishes between duplication and
interpolation. See supra at 5. In light of that distinction, claims that recite
only duplication cannot also encompass interpolation. Thus, we agree with
7
Case IPR2019-00660
Patent 8,768,077 B2
Patent Owner that “duplicating” does not read on Zhang-I’s disclosure of

interpolation.
Petitioner proposes a theory of the prior art teaching a species by
disclosing the genus that includes the species. Pet. 43–44 (arguing skilled
artisans “would have understood duplication to merely be a type of
interpolation”). Although Petitioner submits evidence to support its assertion
(see id. (citing Ex. 1012; Ex. 1013; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 145–148)), such an
interpretation would not be consistent with the Specification, as discussed
above.
Petitioner submits also that, “while the example given in Zhang-I is
more complicated than duplication, the particular interpolation technique of
Zhang-I renders obvious the duplication recited in claim 1.” Pet. 44 (citing
Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 145–148). Petitioner, however, does not provide sufficient
analysis regarding why skilled artisans would consider duplication obvious,
other than by considering it a type of interpolation.
Patent Owner argues also that skilled artisans would have no reason to
modify Zhang-I’s use of interpolation by using duplication instead. Prelim.
Resp. 48–53. Petitioner’s declarant submits it would have been obvious to
use duplication rather than interpolation, stating, “the difference between
implementing one well-known type of interpolation and another is a matter
of design choice” because “whether one prioritizes one quality or another,
e.g., computational efficiency or perceived video quality, could determine
which design choice a POSA would make, but would not render either
choice any less obvious.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 148. Such a conclusion, however, is
not consistent with the design-choice doctrine, which applies when a
particular design choice does not have a functional impact on the system.
8
Case IPR2019-00660
Patent 8,768,077 B2
See In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that “design choice”
cannot apply where the record shows a functional impact of the choice). As
Patent Owner argues, using duplication is faster and simpler than
interpolation, which trades off increased complexity for improved image
quality. Prelim. Resp. 49. Without adequate analysis from Petitioner, we
decline to speculate regarding the motivations that would lead skilled
artisans to use duplication rather than interpolation.
Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable
likelihood it would prevail with respect to unpatentability over Zhang-I and
AAPA. This conclusion applies to all challenged claims.
2. Zhang-I, Seo, and AAPA

Petitioner’s assertions against dependent claims 5–7 suffer from the
same deficiency as those against the independent claims. Thus, for the same
reasons discussed above, we conclude Petitioner has not shown a reasonable
likelihood it would prevail with respect to unpatentability over Zhang-I, Seo,
and AAPA.
3. AVC and Zhang-II

The Petition relies on Zhang-II in place of Zhang-I but the assertions
regarding obviousness over Zhang-II’s disclosures are not meaningfully
different than those discussed above. Compare Pet. 40–44 (discussing
Zhang-I), with id. at 60–63 (discussing Zhang-II). Therefore, for the same
reasons discussed above regarding Zhang-I, Petitioner fails to show that
Zhang-II discloses the claimed duplicating. Accordingly, we conclude
Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood it would prevail with
respect to unpatentability over AVC and Zhang-II.
9
Case IPR2019-00660
Patent 8,768,077 B2
4. AVC, Zhang-II, and Nagasawa

Petitioner’s assertions against dependent claims 5–7 suffer from the
same deficiency as those against the independent claims. Thus, for the same
reasons discussed above, we conclude Petitioner has not shown a reasonable
likelihood it would prevail with respect to unpatentability over AVC, Zhang-
II, and Nagasawa.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude Petitioner has not
shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to
unpatentability for any of the asserted grounds.
IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), no inter partes
review of the ’077 patent is instituted.
10
Case IPR2019-00660
Patent 8,768,077 B2
PETITIONER:
Paul Ragusa
Daniel Rabinowitz
Paul Weinand
BAKER BOTTS LLP
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Ashraf Fawzy
Roshan Mansinghani
Jonathan Stroud
UNIFIED PATENT INC.
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
PATENT OWNER:
Barry J. Bumgardner
Thomas C. Cecil
Brent N. Bumgardner
Matthew C. Juren
NELSON BMGARDNER ALBRITTON P.C.
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
11

Ptab Ipr2019 00660 8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ptab Ipr2019 00660 8

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ptab Ipr2019 00660 8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[email protected] Paper No.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,

VELOS MEDIA, LLC,

Before RAMA G. ELLURU, JASON W. MELVIN, and AARON W.

MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

A. THE ’077 PATENT

“suppress[] an increase in amount of codes due to an increase in the number

Id. at 32:44–58. Claim 8 recites parallel limitations, as steps of a method. Id.

C. PROPOSED GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY

Zhang-I, Seo, 3 and AAPA 5–7

AVC 4 and Zhang-II5 1–4 and 8–10

AVC, Zhang-II, and Nagasawa 6 5–7

Pet. 4. Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Lina J. Karam, Ph.D.

be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37

2. “duplicating one of a first element and a second element adjacent to

We agree with Patent Owner that the Specification distinguishes

Prediction expression (2) [duplication] can generate

In light of the Specification’s distinction between duplication and

1. Zhang-I and AAPA

Patent Owner that “duplicating” does not read on Zhang-I’s disclosure of

2. Zhang-I, Seo, and AAPA

3. AVC and Zhang-II

4. AVC, Zhang-II, and Nagasawa

You might also like