UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01500
`Patent 7,321,368
`____________
`
`Declaration of Mitchell A. Thornton, PH. D.
`
`Page 1 of 67
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01500
`Patent 7,321,368
`____________
`
`Declaration of Mitchell A. Thornton, PH. D.
`
`Page 1 of 67
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`I am over the age of eighteen (18) and otherwise competent to make
`1.
`
`this declaration.
`
`2. My name is Mitchell Aaron Thornton. I am offering this declaration
`
`in the matter listed above on behalf of Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture
`
`LLC and at the behest of their attorneys Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi &
`
`Mensing P.C. I am being compensated at my usual rate and my compensation is
`
`not dependent on any opinions that I may take in this matter, any testimony, or any
`
`intermediate or final resolution in the matter.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that the Board has issued an institution Decision in the
`
`above-captioned IPR concluding that the Petitioner has established a reasonable
`
`likelihood of success with respect to the following grounds (collectively “Instituted
`
`Grounds”):
`
`a. Obviousness of claims 1, 5, 71, 13, 15, 18, 20, 24 and 25 over Bowes
`
`and the MPEG Standard;
`
`
`1 Although the Board’s analysis focuses on claim 7 [Institution Decision at 13], the
`
`Board’s conclusion identifies claim 6 as a claim with respect to which an IPR is
`
`instituted and it does not identify claim 7. [Institution Decision at 23]. In my
`
`analysis, I address claim 7, not claim 6 which is not a challenged claim.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 67
`
`
`
`b. Obviousness of claims 17, 19, and 23 over Bowes, the MPEG
`
`Standard and Rathnam; and
`
`c. Obviousness of claims 2, 3, 14, and 21 over Bowes, the MPEG
`
`Standard and Stearns.
`
`4.
`
`This declaration is directed to an analysis of these Instituted Grounds.
`
`II. My Background and Qualifications
`
`5.
`
`I earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from
`
`Oklahoma State University in 1985. In 1990, I earned a Masters of Science degree
`
`in Electrical Engineering from the University of Texas at Arlington. In 1993, I
`
`earned a Masters of Science degree in Computer Science from Southern Methodist
`
`University. I earned a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering from Southern Methodist
`
`University in 1995. I am a Licensed Professional Engineer in the states of Texas,
`
`Mississippi, and Arkansas. I also hold a Commercial General Radiotelephone
`
`Operator License (GROL) with Ship Radar endorsement issued by the Federal
`
`Communications Commission (FCC).
`
`6.
`
`I am currently the Cecil H. Green Chair of Engineering and Professor
`
`in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering and in the Department of
`
`Electrical Engineering at Southern Methodist University. Prior to 2002, I served as
`
`a faculty member at Mississippi State University in the Department of Electrical
`
`and Computer Engineering from 1999 through 2002. I served as a faculty member
`
`2
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 67
`
`
`
`at the University of Arkansas from 1995 through 1999 in the Department of
`
`Computer Systems Engineering. In my university positions, my responsibilities
`
`are research, teaching, and providing service in my profession. My teaching and
`
`research area of expertise is generally in the area of computer engineering where I
`
`specialize in hardware design for information processing systems.
`
`7.
`
`In addition to my academic rank of professor, I am also the Associate
`
`and Technical Director of the Darwin Deason Institute for Cyber Security at
`
`Southern Methodist University. The Institute mission is to advance the science,
`
`policy, application and education of cyber security through basic and problem-
`
`driven, interdisciplinary research. As Associate and Technical Director, I am
`
`responsible for the coordination and oversight of all research projects within the
`
`auspices of this multi-million dollar endowed research Institute that is comprised
`
`of 11 principal investigators and their associated research teams. In this role, I am
`
`routinely involved with several different state-of-the-art projects regarding the
`
`technical aspects of information processing system processes, methods, software,
`
`and hardware.
`
`8.
`
`Prior to my academic career, I was employed in the commercial sector
`
`as an engineer. I was employed full-time at E-Systems, Inc. (now L3
`
`Communications) in Greenville, Texas from 1986 through 1991 and resigned from
`
`my position as Senior Electronic Systems Engineer in 1991 to pursue full-time
`
`3
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 67
`
`
`
`graduate studies in Computer Science and Computer Engineering. My duties at E-
`
`Systems involved the design, analysis, implementation, and test of a variety of
`
`different electronic systems including various information processing systems
`
`centered around signal processing, data transmission and processing, and
`
`communications systems. The communications systems I was involved with
`
`processed a variety of different types of signals including data, audio, and video
`
`systems. These systems were comprised of components such as receivers,
`
`transmitters, computers, and special purpose circuitry.
`
`9.
`
`During the time I was in graduate school pursuing the Ph.D. degree, I
`
`also worked part-time and full-time during the summer of 1992 at a commercial
`
`integrated circuit (IC) design company named the Cyrix Corporation. At Cyrix, I
`
`was a member of a design team that ultimately produced a microprocessor that is
`
`compatible with the Intel Pentium. My duties included the design of the bus
`
`controller and memory interface circuitry for this IC.
`
`10. My practice and research covers a range of topics centered around
`
`hardware design and analysis including secure circuit and embedded system
`
`design, electronic design automation (EDA) methods, and algorithms for quantum,
`
`classical digital systems, and large systems design. I have also maintained an
`
`independent professional engineering practice since 1993 as a sole proprietor that
`
`is a registered engineering firm in the state of Texas.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 67
`
`
`
`11.
`
`I am a named inventor on three (3) issued patents and two (2) patent
`
`applications under consideration at the USPTO. I have authored or coauthored over
`
`200 scholarly publications in the fields of electrical engineering and computer
`
`science.
`
`12. My curriculum vitae and testimony list are included in Appendix A to
`
`this declaration, which more fully sets forth my qualifications.
`
`III. Documents Considered
`In addition to my knowledge and experience, I have reviewed and
`13.
`
`relied upon the following materials in performing my analysis:
`
`• The `368 Patent (including the publications incorporated therein) and its
`
`file history;
`
`• Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,321,368 including
`
`the exhibits [IPR2015-1500];
`
`• Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in IPR2015-1500;
`
`• Decision on Institution in IPR2015-1500;
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,546,547 to Bowes [Ex. 1003] (“Bowes”);
`
`• MPEG Standard [Ex. 1004] (also referred to as “MPEG”);
`
`• S. Rathnam et al., “An Architectural Overview of the Programmable
`
`Multimedia Processor, TM-1,” IEEE Proceedings of COMPCON `96,
`
`pp. 319-326 (1996) [Ex. 1005] (“Rathnam”);
`
`5
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 67
`
`
`
`• U.S Patent No. 5,774,676 to Stearns [Ex. 1007] (“Stearns”);
`
`• Declaration of Harold S. Stone, Phd. [Ex. 1030] (“Stone Decl.”);
`
`• DSP3210 Information Manual [Ex. 2001];
`
`• AT&T DSP3210 Digital Signal Processor The Multimedia Solution,
`
`Data Sheet, AT&T Microelectronics, March 1993
`
`[Ex. 2003]
`
`(“DSP3210 Datasheet”);
`
`• Developer Note – Macintosh Quadra 840AV and Macintosh Centris
`
`660AV Computers [Ex. 2005] (“Quadra Developer Notes”);
`
`• Deposition testimony of Harold S. Stone, Phd. dated March 17, 2016
`
`[Ex. 2006] (“Stone Depo.”);
`
`• Excerpts from Stone, H.S., High-Performance Computer Architecture,
`
`Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts, 1993,
`
`ISBN 0-201-52688-3 [Ex. 2007];
`
`• Kitson, F. and Bhaskaran, V., Interactive Video from Desktops to
`
`Settops, HPL-95-58, Hewlett-Packard white paper, June 1995 [Ex.
`
`2008].
`
`IV. Summary of Opinions
`14. As detailed below, it is my opinion that the challenged independent
`
`claims are not obvious in view of Bowes and the MPEG Standard and that the
`
`challenged dependent claims are also not obvious for at least the same reasons.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 67
`
`
`
`V. Legal Standards
`
`15.
`
`I am not an attorney or patent agent, and thus, I have relied upon
`
`certain legal factors that have been explained to me. Some of these, which form the
`
`legal framework for the opinions I am providing, are summarized below.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that claims are to be interpreted from the perspective of
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art. I understand that in determining the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, the following factors may be considered: (1) the
`
`educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3)
`
`prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made;
`
`(5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in
`
`the field.
`
`17.
`
`I understand from reading the Board’s decision that in this inter partes
`
`review, claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable construction in light
`
`of the patent specification. I also understand that claim terms are presumed to be
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, I understand that an inventor may provide a
`
`contrary definition of a term in the specification, if it is done with reasonable
`
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision. I also understand that care must be taken not
`
`to read a particular embodiment appearing in the specification into the claim if the
`
`claim language is broader than the embodiment.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 67
`
`
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a claim may be invalid as anticipated or as being
`
`obvious. I understand that anticipation is not at issue in this IPR and therefore, my
`
`analysis is focused on the obviousness issue.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the obviousness standard is defined in the patent
`
`statute (35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). I also understand that a claim is not patentable and is
`
`obvious if the differences between a claim and the prior art are such that the
`
`claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. I understand that this
`
`inquiry involves examination of number of factors including: (1) determining the
`
`scope and content of the prior art; (2) ascertaining the differences between the
`
`claim and the prior art; (3) resolving the level of ordinary skill in the prior art; and
`
`(4) considering any secondary or objective evidence of non-obviousness. I
`
`understand that secondary or objective evidence of non-obviousness include
`
`factors such as commercial success, long felt need for the invention, and failure of
`
`others.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis involves comparing a claim
`
`to the prior art to determine whether the claimed invention would have been
`
`obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSA”) in view of the prior art,
`
`and in light of the general knowledge in the art. I also understand when a POSA
`
`8
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 67
`
`
`
`would have reached the claimed invention through routine experimentation, the
`
`invention may be deemed obvious.
`
`21.
`
`I also understand that obviousness can be established by combining or
`
`modifying the teachings of the prior art to achieve the claimed invention. It is also
`
`my understanding that where this is a reason to modify or combine the prior art to
`
`achieve the claimed invention, there must also be a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in so doing. I understand that the reason to combine prior art references
`
`can come from a variety of sources, not just the prior art itself or the specific
`
`problem the patentee was trying to solve. And I understand that the references
`
`themselves need not provide a specific hint or suggestion of the alteration needed
`
`to arrive at the claimed invention; the analysis may include recourse to logic,
`
`judgment, and common sense available to a person of ordinary skill that does not
`
`necessarily require explication in any reference. Finally, it is my understanding that
`
`obviousness can be established by choosing from a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`22.
`
`I further understand that a patent composed of several elements is not
`
`proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was,
`
`independently, known in the prior art. I further understand that a showing of a
`
`suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine the prior art references is an
`
`essential evidentiary component of an obviousness conclusion. I further understand
`
`9
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 67
`
`
`
`that a claim is not obvious if the references relied upon in a proposed combination
`
`teach away from the claimed combination in a way that would deter any
`
`investigation into such a combination. For instance, it is my understanding that a
`
`reference teaches way from a combination when using it in that combination would
`
`produce an inoperative result.
`
`VI. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In formulating my opinions, I have also considered the viewpoint of a
`23.
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the filing of the `368
`
`Patent.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that Dr. Stone has opined that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art as of the effective filing date of the `368 Patent would have held an
`
`accredited Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering and/or Computer Science
`
`and/or Computer Engineering and had three years’ experience in the fields of data
`
`compression and overall computer system architecture. [Stone Decl., Ex 1030,
`
`¶79].
`
`25. Based upon my knowledge of this field, I conclude that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in this art at the time of the filing of the `368 Patent, and for that
`
`matter, at all subsequent times through the present, would have held at least an
`
`accredited Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or an
`
`equivalent degree in a related discipline from an accredited institution of higher
`
`10
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 67
`
`
`
`learning and at least two to three years’ experience in signal and/or image
`
`processing, computer architecture at both the systems and micro-architecture level.
`
`In lieu of two to three years of experience, a person of ordinary skill in the art may
`
`hold, in addition to a Bachelor’s degree as described above, a Master’s or other
`
`graduate degree in electrical or computer engineering with a focus in computer
`
`architecture and signal and/or image processing with one year of relevant
`
`experience.
`
`26. My analysis was performed from the perspective of such a person. If
`
`I were to apply the level of ordinary skill as proffered by Dr. Stone in his
`
`declaration, my analysis and conclusions would remain unchanged.
`
`VII. State of the Prior Art and the `368 Patent
`27. The computer memory storage requirements of a digital representation
`
`of an uncompressed image is dependent on its resolution, color depth, and size in
`
`pixels. Video files are comprised of sequences of images that are further enhanced
`
`with a corresponding audio track to accompany them. As a result, a video file
`
`quickly becomes large in size. The transmission of uncompressed video files is
`
`prohibitively expensive.
`
`28. Accordingly, video files are typically compressed at a transmitting
`
`device. The compressed file is then transmitted to a receiving device where it is
`
`decompressed. To that end, an encoder at the transmitter compresses the video file
`
`11
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 67
`
`
`
`and a decoder decompresses the file received at the receiver in order to retrieve the
`
`original video and audio data. In order to ensure compatibility between devices, a
`
`number of standards for encoding and decoding video files were developed. One of
`
`those standards was developed by the Motion Picture Expert Group (“MPEG”) and
`
`has been adapted as a standard for the communication of video.
`
`29. Typically, a decoder requires its own dedicated memory. For instance,
`
`traditional MPEG decoders require a 2 Mbyte dedicated memory which is utilized
`
`during the decoding process. This dedicated memory is necessary to allow the
`
`decoder to decode images in real-time without dropping frames which would result
`
`in a deterioration of the video quality at the receiver. This prior art implementation
`
`is shown, for example, in Figure 1c of the `368 Patent.
`
`30. The `368 Patent discloses an improved system where the decoder and
`
`another device (e.g., a microprocessor) share the main system memory. This
`
`improved configuration eliminates the need for a dedicated decoder memory and
`
`results in a more efficient utilization of main system memory by ensuring that
`
`memory resources not used by the decoder remain available to other system
`
`components.
`
`VIII. Claim Construction
`
`12
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 67
`
`
`
`31.
`
`I understand that the Board has construed the term “decoder” to mean
`
`“hardware and/or software that translates data streams into video or audio
`
`information.” (Institution Decision, Paper 14, at 8-9).
`
`32.
`
`I have used the Board’s construction of the term “decoder” in
`
`performing my analysis. I have used the plain and ordinary meaning of the
`
`remaining claim terms when performing my analysis.
`
`IX. Analysis of Instituted Grounds
`A. Claims 1, 5, 7, 13, 15, 18, 20, 24, and 25
`1) Bowes and MPEG Standard fail to disclose the decoder receiving
`data from the main memory corresponding to at least one previously
`decoded image [claims 1, 5, 7, 13, 20]
`33. Figure 1c of the `368 Patent depicts a system having a decoder in
`
`accordance with the prior art.
`
`
`
`34. The system includes a number of components that are connected to a
`
`peripheral bus (170) via interfaces. [`368 Pat., 2:64-3:4]. A Central Processing Unit
`
`(“CPU”) (152) communicates with the peripheral bus (170) through an interface
`13
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 67
`
`
`
`circuit (146) enabling the main memory (168) of the system to be shared between
`
`the CPU (152) and other peripherals that may require it. [`368 Pat., 3:5-8].
`
`Typically, one of the peripherals connected to the peripheral bus (170) as a master
`
`is a decoder (10). [`368 Pat., 3:9-11]. The decoder (10) receives encoded or
`
`compressed data from a source peripheral (22) and decodes that data. For instance,
`
`if the data to be decoded is image data, the decoder then directs the decoded
`
`images to a video controller (120) for display. [`368 Pat., 3:11-22].
`
`35. Traditionally, the decoder (10) included its own dedicated memory
`
`(22) which was divided into three image area buffers (M1, M2, M3) and a
`
`Compressed Data Buffer (CDB) where the compressed image to be decoded is
`
`stored before it is decoded. [`368 Pat., 3:22-28]. Typically, the decoding of images
`
`involves processing of “I”, “P” and “B” frames. “I” frames are so called “intra”
`
`image frames whose compressed data directly corresponds to an actual image.
`
`[`368 Pat., 3:31-32]. “P” frames are so called “predicted” image frames the
`
`construction of which uses pixel blocks of a previously decoded image frame.
`
`[`368 Pat., 3:32-35]. Finally, “B” frames are so called “bidirectional” image frames
`
`the construction of which uses pixel blocks from two previously decoded images.
`
`[`368 Pat., 3:35-37]. Accordingly, the “I” and “P” image frames are required to be
`
`used to reconstruct subsequent “P” and “B” frames while “B” frames are not used
`
`to decode subsequent image frames. [`368 Pat., 3:36-39].
`
`14
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 67
`
`
`
`36. Figure 1c depicts how a prior art decoder (10) uses the buffers M1,
`
`M2, and M3 of its dedicated memory (22) during the decoding process. [`368 Pat.,
`
`3:28-30; 3:40-60]. Accordingly, in prior art systems, although the system included
`
`a main memory (168) which the decoder (10) could access via the peripheral bus
`
`(170), the decoder (10) utilized its local dedicated memory (22) not the main
`
`memory (168) when decoding an image. Specifically, an image to be decoded was
`
`stored in the CDB of the dedicated memory (22). The decoder (10) then received
`
`the image to be decoded from the CDB in its dedicated memory (22). The decoder
`
`(10) also received a previously decoded image (i.e., an “I” image frame or a “P”
`
`image frame) from the buffers (M1, M2, M3) in its dedicated memory (22). The
`
`decoder (10) then used the previously decoded image (i.e., the “I” or “P” image
`
`frame) to decode the image to be decoded using, for example, the MPEG decoding
`
`standard. The use of this dedicated memory (22) allowed the decoder (10) to
`
`decode a compressed image without having to access the main memory and
`
`avoided dropping image frames while preserving the available bandwidth on the
`
`peripheral bus (170). [`368 Pat., 4:3-59].
`
`37. The `368 Patent discloses an improved system which allows the
`
`decoder and a first device (e.g., a CPU) to share the main system memory when
`
`decoding an image and eliminates the need for a dedicated memory for the
`
`15
`
`decoder.
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 67
`
`
`
`38.
`
` Figure 4 of the `368 Patent depicts an embodiment of the claimed
`
`invention where the decoder/encoder (80) shares the main memory (168) with
`
`other peripheral devices (e.g., the CPU (152)). [`368 Pat., 10:35-38]. As shown in
`
`Figure 4, the decoder/encoder (80) does not have a dedicated memory and instead
`
`uses a region (22’) of the main memory (168) of the system for the decoding
`
`process. [`368 Pat., 10:45-47]. The region (22’) of the main memory (168) includes
`
`a Compressed Data Buffer (CDB) into which the image source (122) writes a
`
`compressed image (i.e., an image to be decoded) and two image buffers M1, and
`
`M2 associated with “I” and “P” image frames (i.e., previously decoded images).
`
`[`368 Pat., 10:49-52]. The third buffer (M3) used in dedicated memory of prior art
`
`decoders has been eliminated and the “B” frames which are not used to decode
`
`other images are directly supplied to the display adapter (120) as they are being
`
`decoded. [`368 Pat., 10:52-55].
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 67
`
`
`
`39. Accordingly, in the improved system of the `368 Patent an image to
`
`be decoded is directed from the source (122) to the CDB in the main memory
`
`(168). [`368 Pat., 10:56-58]. This image to be decoded is transferred from the CDB
`
`in the main memory (168) to the decoder/encoder (80) over the peripheral bus
`
`(170) and is decoded by the decoder. [`368 Pat., 10:58-61]. If the decoded image is
`
`an “I” image frame or a “P” image frame, the decoder/encoder (80) retransmits the
`
`decoded image to buffers M1 and M2 in the main memory (168). [`368 Pat., 10:58-
`
`61]. These “I” and “P” image frames may then be transmitted from the buffers M1
`
`and M2 in the main memory (168) back to the decoder and used in decoding of
`
`subsequent “P” or “B” image frames or may be transmitted to the display adapter
`
`(120) for display. [`368 Pat., 10:66-11:2]. If an image to be decoded corresponds to
`
`a “B” image frame, the decoder/encoder (80) decodes the image and directly
`
`supplies it to the display adapter (120) without storing it in the main memory (168)
`
`if it is ready for display in the display sequence time frame. [`368 Pat., 10:61-64].
`
`40. Accordingly, in the improved system disclosed in the `368 Patent, the
`
`decoder’s dedicated memory is eliminated and instead, the decoder receives an
`
`image to be decoded (i.e., compressed image stored in CDB) and a previously
`
`decoded image (i.e., “I” image frames or “P” image frames stored in M1 and M2)
`
`from a region 22’ in the main memory (168). These “I” and “P” image frames may
`
`17
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 67
`
`
`
`then be utilized in decoding of subsequent “P” or “B” image frames by the
`
`decoder. [`368 Pat., 10:66-11:2].
`
`41. Consistent with this improvement, the independent claims recite: the
`
`decoder receiving data from the main memory corresponding to at least one
`
`previously decoded image” (claim 1); “transferring from the main memory to a
`
`decoder data corresponding to images that have been previously decoded” (claim
`
`5); “the decoder receiving data from the main memory corresponding to at least
`
`one previously decoded [image]” (claim 7); “the video decoder receiving data from
`
`the system memory corresponding to at least one previously decoded image”
`
`(claim 13); and “the decoder receiving data from the memory corresponding to at
`
`least one previously decoded image” (claim 20). In my opinion, Bowes does not
`
`disclose these limitations.
`
`42. The Petitioner relies on the combination of Bowes and the MPEG
`
`Standard for disclosing a decoder that receives a previously decoded video image
`
`from the main memory. First, as discussed below, a POSA would not have been
`
`motivated to combine Bowes and the MPEG Standard. Moreover, even if a POSA
`
`were to combine Bowes with the MPEG Standard, such a combination would not
`
`disclose a video decoder that receives a previously decoded video image from the
`
`main memory for at least three reasons: (1) Bowes’ DSP is not a video decoder; (2)
`
`if such a combination was made, a POSA would have stored a previously decoded
`
`18
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 67
`
`
`
`image in the dedicated memory of the Bowes’ DSP (as in the prior art disclosed in
`
`the `368 Patent); and (3) Bowes does not disclose the DSP writing data into the
`
`main memory and then reading the same data from the main memory.
`
`BOWES’ DSP IS NOT A VIDEO DECODER
`
`43.
`
`I understand that the Petitioner has identified the DSP (20) of Bowes
`
`as being analogous to the video decoder recited in the `368 Patent. [Petition at 39].
`
`The word “video” is only mentioned four times in Bowes. [Bowes, 1:34; 1:37;
`
`1:41; 6:16]. The first three times the term “video” is used in conjunction with a
`
`description of related art and the fourth time, the term “video” is used in reference
`
`to a NuBus peripheral bus video controller and not in reference to a processing
`
`application. The words “decode” or “decoding” never appear in Bowes.
`
`44.
`
`Instead, Bowes specifically teaches that the DSP in the preferred
`
`embodiment is suitable for audio processing, image signal processing, speech
`
`processing, and modem emulation. [Bowes Pat., 1:48-49; 6:32-37]. Bowes does
`
`not state that the DSP is suitable for video compression and decompression
`
`applications such as the implementations of the MPEG Standard. A POSA would
`
`recognize that audio processing, speech processing and modem emulation are
`
`clearly distinct from video compression and decompression. The same is true with
`
`respect to “image processing.”
`
`19
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 67
`
`
`
`45. Dr. Stone, Petitioner’s expert, defines “image processing” in his
`
`textbook as “a computation performed on a digitized representation of an image
`
`whose purpose is to enhance the image or to extract information about the image.”
`
`[Ex. 2007 at 499]. This textbook was published in 1993 and accurately reflects
`
`how a person of skill in the art would have understood the term “image
`
`processing” as of the priority date of the `368 Patent. In contrast, the MPEG
`
`Standard is directed to compressing and decompressing video sequences. [Ex.
`
`1004, p. 4]. Such a compression and decompression of video sequences is wholly
`
`different from
`
`image processing. For example, video compression and
`
`decompression requires maintaining the temporal relationship between consecutive
`
`image frames, an important concept that is absent when processing a single image.
`
`[See Stone Deposition, 102:19-104:5].
`
`46. There are additional reasons why a POSA would recognize that a DSP
`
`used for
`
`image processing
`
`is not suitable for video compression and
`
`decompression. Specifically, image processing requires precision and involves a
`
`host of arithmetic operations. In contrast, the primary concern in video
`
`compression and decompression is speed to ensure that video is delivered to
`
`viewer in real time. Therefore, video compression and decompression processes
`
`typically do not require the same level of precision and arithmetic operations as
`
`image processing. As a result, a POSA would typically use a different type of DSP
`
`20
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 67
`
`
`
`for image processing as compared to video compression and decompression.
`
`Specifically, the internal architecture of a DSP may be categorized according to the
`
`type of numerical format it utilizes. A “floating point” DSP utilizes a format
`
`wherein a single value is specified with three fields, a sign field indicating whether
`
`the value is positive or negative; a mantissa or significand field indicating the
`
`precision of the value; and a signed exponent field indicating the magnitude. In
`
`contrast, a “fixed point” DSP utilizes a format wherein a single value represents
`
`the signed value using an appropriate signed value encoding such as 2’s
`
`complement and where the binary- or radix point is in a “fixed” position.
`
`47. That the DSP (20) of Bowes is not suitable for video compression and
`
`decompression is further evident from the fact that Bowes states that in a preferred
`
`embodiment, the DSP (20) of Bowes is the AT&T DSP3210. [Bowes, 6:28-30].
`
`Such a DSP is not suitable for MPEG video decoding because it is a floating point
`
`DSP. [Ex. 2003, at 1]. Specifically, the AT&T DSP3210 utilizes a floating-point
`
`Data Arithmetic Unit (DAU) that “is the primary execution unit for signal
`
`processing algorithms.” [Ex. 2003, at 5].
`
`48. Due to its use of a more complex format, a floating point DSP
`
`generally incurs increased latency but provides increased accuracy and dynamic
`
`range (i.e., it can represent a wider range of numerical values). In contrast, a fixed
`
`point DSP allows higher performance but at the expense of decreased accuracy and
`
`21
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 67
`
`
`
`dynamic range. Therefore, a POSA would appreciate that a floating point DSP is
`
`not well-suited for video compression and decompression. [See, also, Stone Depo.,
`
`Ex. 2006, 201:20-202:7].
`
`49. A POSA would appreciate that MPEG decoding is a high throughput
`
`operation consisting in part, of repeated inverse discrete cosine transforms (IDCT),
`
`VLD, de-quantization, and other processes. Floating-point DSPs (such as the
`
`DSP3210) provide for higher dynamic range and more accuracy in their
`
`computations, but at the expense of increased latency whereas a fixed point DSP
`
`requires shorter internal data paths providing for performance advantages. While it
`
`may appear that the increased accuracy provided by floating-point DSPs would be
`
`advantageous in IDCT operations, for video and specifically MPEG video
`
`decompression, the IDCT operations are performed over relatively short bit-exact
`
`data that ultimately represents a pixel value, thus increased precision as provided
`
`by a more costly floating-point DSP would offer no advantage when used as an
`
`MPEG video decoder. Further, the other intensive processes require a considerable
`
`amount of control instructions to be executed rather than arithmetic instructions
`
`(e.g., table lookups). A POSA would therefore recognize that a floating point DSP
`
`(such as the DSP3210 of Bowes) is not well-suited for MPEG video decoding.
`
`Indeed the disclosed and intended applications of the DSP in the preferred
`
`embodiments of Bowes are those that would require the extended dynamic range
`
`22
`
`
`
`Page 23 of 67
`
`
`
`and precision provided by a floating point DSP such as audio, image processing,
`
`speech processing, and modem emulation. [Bowes Pat., 1:48-49; 6:32-37].
`
`50. Moreover, floating-point processors are incompatible with MPEG
`
`decoding due to the format of the encoded and decoded MPEG video data as in the
`
`MPEG standard and the H.262 specifications. The video data as per the standard
`
`and specification is not in the form of floating point values and would require
`
`conversions to floating-point prior to decoding and a conversion back to its initial
`
`format after decoding. A POSA would recognize that these conversions would
`
`incur additional processing delay that would be otherwise unnecessary if a fixed-
`
`point DSP were used. Floating-point values require that the signi
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
