UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2016-002121
`Patent 7,974,339 B2
`___________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF
`DR. JOHN R. GRINDON
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-00215 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Google Inc.
`GOOG 1030
`IPR2016-00212
`
`

`
`
`
`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I.
`Overview .......................................................................................................... 1
`Documents Considered .................................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. Ordinary Skill .................................................................................................. 3
`IV. Additional Claim Constructions ...................................................................... 6
`A.
`“Data” .................................................................................................... 7
`B.
`“Matrix Size Data” ................................................................................ 8
`C.
`“Selecting One Of Two Or More Sets Of Pixel Data” .......................11
`D.
`“Selecting A Set Of Pixel Data From Each Region” ..........................13
`Spriggs in view of Golin (IPR2016-00212) ..................................................15
`A.
`The combination of Spriggs and Golin discloses both an “analysis
`system” and a “pixel selection system” as required by claims 1, 6, and
`13. ........................................................................................................15
`The combination of Spriggs and Golin discloses a “pixel selection
`system receiving the region data and generating one set of pixel data
`for each region” as required by claims 1, 6 and 13. ............................18
`The combination of Spriggs and Golin discloses “selecting one of two
`or more sets of pixel data based on the optimized matrix data” as
`required by claims 7 and 9. .................................................................20
`The combination of Spriggs and Golin discloses “selecting a set of
`pixel data for each region” as required by Claims 10 and 12. ............21
`VI. Belfor in view of Thyagarajan and further in view of Golin (IPR2016-
`00215) ............................................................................................................22
`A. A POSA would have understood that Belfor’s approach of dividing a
`frame into uniform sized blocks can be substituted with Thyagarajan’s
`subdivision approach, which generates non-uniform blocks. .............22
`A POSA would have been able to incorporate the non-uniform block
`sizes of Thyagarajan with the encoding and decoding process of
`Belfor. ..................................................................................................26
`The combination of Belfor, Thyagarajan and Golin discloses the
`“region data,” the “data receiving system receiving data … generating
`a display,” and the “display generation system receiving pixel location
`data” as recited in claim 1. ..................................................................31
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`
`
`D.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The combination of Belfor, Thyagarajan and Golin discloses the
`“assembling” steps of claims 7 and 10. ...............................................32
`VII. Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend ..............................................33
`A. Additional Claim Constructions ..........................................................33
`1.
`“Different Aspect Ratios” .........................................................33
`2.
`“Non-Predetermined” ...............................................................34
`The combination of Spriggs and Golin discloses “generating
`optimized matrix data from the frame data, wherein the optimized
`matrix data defines at least two regions having different aspect ratios”
`as required by proposed substitute claim 14. ......................................36
`The combination of Spriggs and Golin with Shin discloses
`“generating optimized matrix data from the frame data, wherein the
`optimized matrix data defines at least two regions having different
`aspect ratios” as required by proposed substitute claim 14. ...............37
`The combination of Shin and Spriggs discloses “generating optimized
`matrix data from the frame data, wherein the optimized matrix data
`defines at least two regions having different aspect ratios” and the rest
`of the limitations required by proposed substitute claim 14. ..............38
`1.
`“Different Aspect Ratios” .........................................................38
`2.
`“Selecting One Of Two Or More Sets Of Pixel Data Based On
`The Optimized Matrix Data.” ...................................................39
`“Setting A Matrix Size Based On Pixel Selection Data.” ........39
`“Transmitting The Selection Pixel Data And The Optimized
`Matrix Data By Assembling The Optimized Matrix Data And
`The Selection Pixel Data Into A Generated Display Frame.” ..40
`VIII. Conclusion .....................................................................................................41
`
`3.
`4.
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`I, Dr. John R. Grindon, declare as follows:
`
`Overview
`Previously, I prepared two declarations in support of two Inter Partes
`
`1.
`
`Review (IPR) petitions submitted by Google for U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339 (“the
`
`’339 patent,” GOOG 1001).
`
`2.
`
`In the first declaration, I opined that claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13
`
`of the ’339 patent are obvious over Spriggs (GOOG 1005) in view of Golin
`
`(GOOG 1006). I understand that Google’s petition for which I submitted this
`
`declaration has been instituted for trial and assigned a case number IPR2016-
`
`00212.
`
`3.
`
`In the second declaration, I opined that claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and
`
`13 of the ’339 patent are obvious over Belfor (GOOG 1007) in view of
`
`Thyagarajan (GOOG 1008) and further in view of Golin. I understand that
`
`Google’s petition for which I submitted my second declaration has also been
`
`instituted for trial and assigned a case number IPR2016-00215.
`
`4.
`
`I further understand that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board)
`
`has consolidated case IPR2016-00215 with case IPR2016-00212 to conduct the
`
`two proceedings as one trial. In the consolidated proceeding, I understand my first
`
`declaration is identified as exhibit number GOOG 1003 and my second declaration
`
`is identified as exhibit number GOOG 1029.
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`
`
`5.
`
`I provide this supplemental declaration in response to the additional
`
`papers and exhibits, and the additional testimony provided by Vedanti, in this
`
`consolidated proceeding.
`
`II. Documents Considered
`In preparing this supplemental declaration, I have considered the
`6.
`
`following additional documents:
`
`Paper #
`Description
`2 (in IPR2016-00212) Petition For Inter Partes Review Of U.S. Patent No.
`7,974,339 Under 35 U.S.C. §311 (“IPR2016-00212
`Petition”)
`2 (in IPR2016-00215) Petition For Inter Partes Review Of U.S. Patent No.
`7,974,339 Under 35 U.S.C. §311 (“IPR2016-00215
`Petition”)
`DECISION, Institution of Inter Partes Review
`DECISION, Institution of Inter Partes Review
`Response Of Patent Owner Vedanti Systems Limited
`(“POR”)
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`7
`8
`15
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit #
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`1035
`2001
`2002
`
`Description
`Webster’s New World Dictionary of Computer Terms, 7th ed.,
`Simon and Schuster, 1999, pp. 136-37, 476-77.
`Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th ed., Macmillan USA,
`1999, pp. 368, 1299.
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 4th ed., Microsoft Press, A
`Division of Microsoft Corporation, 1999, pp. 122, 373, 401.
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Omid Kia on October 26, 2016.
`U.S. Pat. 5,724,451 to Shin et al., filed Dec. 27, 1994.
`Declaration of Dr. Omid Kia.
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Omid Kia.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`
`
`III. Ordinary Skill
`In my initial declarations, I provided an opinion that a person of
`7.
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the context of the ’339 patent would have at
`
`least a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Computer
`
`Science, or an equivalent field, as well as at least one year of academic or industry
`
`experience in image processing or data transmission. (GOOG 1003, ¶ 25; GOOG
`
`1029, ¶ 25.) Google adopted my opinion in its IPR2016-00212 Petition (at 11-12)
`
`and IPR2016-00215 Petition (at 10-11).
`
`8.
`
`I understand that the Patent Owner in its Patent Owner Response
`
`(“POR”, Paper 15) offers a different POSA standard based on the opinion of Dr.
`
`Kia. (POR, 12.) In particular, the Patent Owner states that a POSA in the art
`
`pertaining to the ’339 patent would have “a technical degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering, Computer Science or equivalent curriculum with coursework in
`
`image processing and at least one year of hands on experience with compression
`
`and communication techniques” or alternatively, a “degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering, Computer Science or equivalent curriculum with coursework in
`
`compression and communication and at least one year of hands on experience in
`
`image.” (Id.)
`
`9.
`
`The primary difference between my opinion of a POSA (which was
`
`adopted by Google) and the Patent Owner’s opinion of a POSA is that the Patent
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Owner’s standard requires a POSA to have either coursework in compression or
`
`one year of hands on experience with compression.
`
`10. When I provided my opinion as to the type of person who would be a
`
`POSA in the context of the ’339 patent, I did not include knowledge of
`
`compression as a specific requirement because the ’339 patent explicitly
`
`distinguishes its alleged inventions from compression.
`
`11. For example, the ’339 patent states that its inventions involve data
`
`transmission that “use[s] data optimization instead of compression”2 (GOOG 1001,
`
`1:32-39.) The ’339 patent explains that an “important technical advantage of the
`
`present invention is [that its] system and method for transmitting data [does] not
`
`require the data to be compressed at the sending end and decompressed at the
`
`receiving end.” (GOOG 1001, 1:54-57; see also 2:41-46.) In fact, the only time the
`
`use of compression is mentioned in the ’339 patent is when it states that its alleged
`
`inventions can optionally be “used in conjunction with a compression system.”
`
`(GOOG 1001, 5:3-11.)
`
`12. Additionally, as I noted in my initial declarations, the Applicants of
`
`the ’339 patent made many remarks during the prosecution of the ’339 patent that
`
`their alleged inventions are distinguishable from and do not use compression.
`
`(GOOG 1003, ¶¶ 59-60; GOOG 1029, ¶¶ 59-60.)
`
`
`2 In this declaration, emphasis in quotes are added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`

`
`
`
`13. The ’339 patent sought to overcome the use of compression in prior
`
`art data transmission system because the use of compression allegedly contributed
`
`to the “overall difficulty in implementing” such systems. (GOOG 1001, 1:13-29.)
`
`14. Hence, in considering the types of problems the ’339 patent was
`
`seeking to overcome (data optimization without compression) and given that the
`
`’339 patent’s alleged inventions do not utilize compression, there is no need for an
`
`artisan to have compression knowledge in order to understand or implement the
`
`’339 patent.
`
`15. Accordingly, given that the ’339 patent explicitly distinguishes its
`
`alleged inventions from compression, as the term is used in the ’339 patent, and
`
`that no compression is required to implement the alleged inventions of the ’339
`
`patent, there is no basis for requiring a POSA for the ’339 patent to have either
`
`coursework in compression or one year of hands on experience with compression.
`
`16. Even if the Board were to adopt the POSA standard proposed by the
`
`Patent Owner, I would still qualify as a POSA because I have had formal
`
`coursework in undergraduate and graduate school and/or practical experience over
`
`many years as a working engineer, as well as patent litigation support experience,
`
`in the technologies of image processing, transform methods, signal and image
`
`compression, sampled data systems, communications theory, information theory,
`
`statistical processes and much more.
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`
`
`17.
`
`I have reviewed my initial declarations (GOOG 1003; GOOG 1029)
`
`and all of my statements remain valid and applicable even under the Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed POSA standard.
`
`18. Accordingly, for the remainder of this declaration, when I refer to a
`
`POSA, I am referring to a person who qualifies under either Google’s or Vedanti’s
`
`proposed POSA standards.
`
`IV. Additional Claim Constructions
`In the Board’s Decisions (Papers 7 and 8) to institute trial for the
`19.
`
`consolidated proceedings IPR2016-00212 and IPR2016-00215, the Board provided
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretations (BRI) of several claim terms of the ’339
`
`patent. More specifically, the Board provided the following BRI constructions:
`
`Term
`
`region
`matrix
`region data
`matrix data
`matrix definition data
`pixel selection data
`
`selection pixel data
`
`
`
`Board’s BRI construction
`division of a frame
`a region with square or rectangular dimensions
`data that defines at least one region
`data that defines at least one matrix
`data that defines at least one matrix
`data pertaining to one or more pixels from a region
`selected for transmission
`data pertaining to one or more pixels from a region
`selected for transmission
`
`20.
`
`In addition, the Board in its Decision (Paper 7, 12-13) to institute trial
`
`for case number IPR2016-00215 declined to construe the term “analysis system” in
`
`claim 1 of the ’339 patent as requiring any particular type of analysis beyond
`
`“receiving frame data and generating region data,” as recited in claim 1 itself.
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`

`
`
`
`21.
`
`I have reviewed both of my initial declarations (GOOG 1003 and
`
`GOOG 1029) in light of the Board’s BRI constructions. All of the statements I
`
`made in my initial declarations remain valid under the BRI constructions provided
`
`by the Board in its Institution Decisions (Papers 7 and 8).
`
`22. Below, I offer my opinions regarding the BRIs of additional claim
`
`terms the Patent Owner seeks to construe in its POR.
`
`“Data”
`
`A.
`23. The term “data” is used in the ’339 patent claims and specification in
`
`an ordinary manner. The ’339 patent does not offer an atypical definition of “data”
`
`or use it in a manner that is unusual or different than how a POSA would ordinarily
`
`use that term.
`
`24. The Patent Owner proposes that the BRI of “data” is “digital
`
`information” or “bits that can be made available for storage, transmission and/or
`
`interpretation.” (POR, 18.) The ’339 patent does not use the term “digital
`
`information” or the term “bits” (nor even the term “digital”).
`
`25. Although the Patent Owner’s proposed definition would be included
`
`within the bounds of what a POSA would consider “data,” in my opinion, a POSA
`
`would have understood the BRI of “data” is “information in a form suitable for
`
`storing and processing by a computer.”
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`
`
`26.
`
`In the ’339 patent, the term “data” is used to refer to information that
`
`is utilized by computing systems. (GOOG 1001, 2:41-49, 2:65-3:12.)
`
`27. Consistent with that usage of the term, various dictionaries published
`
`near the’339 patent’s earliest priority date (January 16, 2002) defined “data” as:
`
`• “information in a form suitable for storing and processing by a computer”
`(GOOG 1032 (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition,
`1999), 368),
`• “Factual information (such as text, numbers, sounds, and images) in a
`form that can be processed by a computer” (GOOG 1031 (Webster’s
`New World Dictionary of Computer Terms, 7th Edition, 1999), 137), and
`• “Plural of the Latin datum, meaning item of information. In practice, data
`is often used for the singular as well as the plural form of the noun”
`(GOOG 1033 (Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 4th Edition), 122).
`
`28. Hence, consistent with the ’339 patent’s usage of the term “data” and
`
`
`
`contemporaneous dictionary definitions, a POSA would have understood the BRI
`
`of “data” to be “information in a form suitable for storing and processing by a
`
`computer.”
`
`B.
`29.
`
`“Matrix Size Data”
`
` The Patent Owner proposes that the BRI of “matrix size data” is
`
`“matrix data directed to matrix or region size.” (POR, 18.)
`
`30. Although the term “matrix size data” refers specifically to a matrix,
`
`the Patent Owner’s proposed BRI construction includes not only data that is
`
`directed to the size of a matrix but also to data that is directed to the size of a
`
`region in general. But the ’339 patent distinguishes matrix type regions from other
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`
`
`circular, elliptical, and amorphous type regions. (GOOG 1001, 4:6-11.) A POSA
`
`would therefore have recognized that “matrix size data” is directed only towards
`
`matrix type regions and not to any other types of regions as the Patent Owner
`
`proposes.
`
`31. Accordingly, a POSA would have understood the BRI of “matrix size
`
`data” as “data that defines a dimension of a matrix.” This is discussed in more
`
`detail below.
`
`32. Although the ’339 patent does not provide an explicit definition of
`
`“matrix size data,” it uses the phrase “matrix size” to refer to a dimension of a
`
`matrix. For example, the ’339 patent states, “the matrix size … can be uniform,
`
`such that each … matrix has the same dimensions” and “matrix size system 204 …
`
`can generate nonsymmetrical matrix dimensional data, such as N×M dimensions
`
`where ‘N’ and ‘M’ are integers that are not equivalent.” (GOOG 1001, 3:57-59,
`
`5:58-62.)
`
`33. A POSA would have known that such N×M dimensions of a matrix
`
`can be provided in both explicit and implicit forms. For example, such N×M
`
`dimensions can be provided explicitly as N and M values. Alternatively, such
`
`N×M dimensions can be provided implicitly.
`
`34. For example, a POSA would have known that corner coordinates of a
`
`matrix implicitly provide the N×M dimensions of a matrix. When corner
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`
`
`coordinates of a matrix (designating the location of the matrix in an image) are
`
`provided, the N×M dimensions of the matrix are determined by computing the
`
`difference between the two opposite corner coordinates of the matrix. For example,
`
`if the top left corner coordinate of a matrix is (X1, Y1) and the bottom right corner
`
`coordinate of a matrix is (X2, Y2), a POSA would have known that the N×M
`
`dimensions of a matrix are determined as N=abs(X1-X2) and M=abs(Y1-Y2)
`
`where abs(Z) is the absolute value of Z.
`
`35.
`
`In another example, a POSA would have known that the division
`
`codes of Spriggs also implicitly provide the N×M dimensions of the matrix. A
`
`division code of ‘1’ in Spriggs indicates to a receiver that a pre-existing block (i.e.,
`
`a matrix region) is being broken up into 4 equal smaller blocks. (GOOG 1005, 3:4-
`
`12.) Thus a POSA would have known that when a division code of ‘1’ is being
`
`provided for a pre-existing block having dimensions of N×M where N and M are
`
`even numbers, each of the resulting smaller blocks would have dimensions of
`
`(N/2)×(M/2).
`
`36. Furthermore, a POSA would have known that the PQR values of
`
`Thyagarajan also implicitly provide the N×M dimensions of the matrix. As shown
`
`in FIGs 3A, 3B, and 3C of Thyagarajan, the PQR values indicate, for example,
`
`whether a block (i.e., a matrix region) having a 16×16 dimensions is being divided
`
`into four separate 8×8 dimension blocks, and whether each of the 8×8 blocks is
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`
`
`being divided further into four separate 4×4 dimension blocks, and finally whether
`
`each of the 4×4 blocks is being divided further into four separate 2×2 dimension
`
`blocks. (GOOG 1008, 5:42-53.) Hence, a POSA would have known from the PQR
`
`values for a particular block, the manner in which that particular block is being
`
`divided into sub-blocks as well as the dimensions of each sub-block.
`
`37. Thus, a POSA would have understood that while “matrix size data” is
`
`data that provides a dimension of a matrix, the data can take various forms and
`
`provide a dimension of the matrix either explicitly or implicitly. Neither the
`
`disclosure nor the claims limit the form in which matrix size data is provided.
`
`“Selecting One Of Two Or More Sets Of Pixel Data”
`
`C.
`38. The Patent Owner proposes that the BRI of the claim phrase
`
`“selecting one of two or more sets of pixel data” is “requiring a decision to choose
`
`between one of two or more sets of pixel data.” (POR, 23-24.) In comparing the
`
`claim phrase and the proposed BRI construction, the Patent Owner merely
`
`substitutes the claim language “selecting” with the phrase “requiring a decision to
`
`choose between.”
`
`39. But the Patent Owner’s substitution of “selecting” as requiring a
`
`“decision” in addition to “choos[ing] between” one of two items is overly narrow
`
`given that the term “selecting” is used in an ordinary manner in the ’339 patent to
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`
`
`mean simply picking or choosing at least one item from multiple items. No
`
`additional steps are required.
`
`40. All of the claims of the ’339 patent use the term “selecting” in an
`
`ordinary manner to mean picking or choosing at least one item from multiple
`
`items. For example, claims 4 and 5 recite “selecting one of the two or more sets of
`
`pixel data” and claim 8 recites “selecting the pixel from a matrix of sets of pixel
`
`data.” The claims do not suggest anything other than merely picking or choosing at
`
`least one item from multiple items in using the term selecting.
`
`41. The specification of the ’339 patent also uses the term “selecting” in
`
`an ordinary manner as meaning simply picking or choosing at least one item from
`
`multiple items. For example, the Abstract states, “A pixel selection system …
`
`generates one set of pixel data for each region, such as by selecting one of the
`
`pixels contained within each of the original matrices.” (GOOG 1001, Abstract.) In
`
`another example, the specification recites, “A pixel selection system receives the
`
`region data and generates one set of pixel data for each region, such as by selecting
`
`one of the pixels contained within each of the original matrices that comprise the
`
`frame.” (GOOG 1001, 1:46-49.) The specification does not suggest anything other
`
`than merely picking or choosing at least one item from multiple items in using the
`
`term selecting.
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`
`
`42.
`
`In addition, consistent with the ’339 patent’s use of the term
`
`“selecting,” various dictionaries published near the ’339 patent’s earliest priority
`
`date (January 16, 2002) defined “selecting” as:
`
`• “to choose or pick out from among others” (GOOG 1032 (Webster’s
`New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition, 1999), 1299) and,
`• “In information processing, to choose from a number of options or
`alternatives” (GOOG 1033 (Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 4th Edition),
`401).
`
`43. Hence, consistent with the ’339 patent’s usage of the term “selecting”
`
`
`
`and contemporaneous dictionary definitions, a POSA would have understood that
`
`the term “selecting” as used in the ’339 patent simply means picking or choosing at
`
`least one item from multiple items.
`
`44. Accordingly, a POSA would have understood that the BRI of
`
`“selecting one of two or more sets of pixel data” is simply “picking or choosing
`
`one of two or more sets of pixel data” to reflect the ordinary usage of the term
`
`“selecting” in the ’339 patent.
`
`“Selecting A Set Of Pixel Data From Each Region”
`
`D.
`45. The Patent Owner proposes that the BRI of the claim phrase
`
`“selecting a set of pixel data from each region” is “on a region-by-region basis, a
`
`process is performed on one of the regions resulting in data pertaining to a number
`
`of pixels in the region” (POR, 24.)
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`
`
`46. The Patent Owner’s proposed construction, however, unnecessarily
`
`narrows the term, and raises more questions than providing clarification as to the
`
`claim phrase’s meaning. The Patent Owner’s proposed narrowing of the term to
`
`require performance “on a region-by-region basis” may seem to imply a kind of
`
`sequential operation that is not supported by the patent disclosure or the claims.
`
`The claim term simply requires pixel data “from each region.” For another
`
`example, the Patent Owner’s proposed construction requires that a “process” be
`
`performed. But it is not clear what is meant by a “process” in the Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed construction and what types of “process” would satisfy its proposed
`
`construction. Accordingly, a POSA would not have understood the claim phrase
`
`“selecting a set of pixel data from each region” to require such a “process” to be
`
`performed as suggested by the Patent Owner.
`
`47.
`
`Instead, the claim phrase “selecting a set of pixel data from each
`
`region” can be understood as plainly stated, given that the Board has already
`
`construed “region” as a “division of a frame,” the term “selecting” is used in an
`
`ordinary manner in the ’339 patent as discussed above, “pixel data” refers simply
`
`to data relating to a pixel, and the remaining words are ordinary common terms.
`
`48.
`
`If, however, the Board deems construction necessary, a POSA would
`
`have understood the BRI of “selecting a set of pixel data from each region” is
`
`“picking or choosing a set of pixel data from each region” to reflect the ordinary
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`
`
`use of the term “selecting” in the ’339 patent, as discussed above with respect to
`
`the claim phrase “selecting one of two or more sets of pixel data.”
`
`V.
`
`Spriggs in view of Golin (IPR2016-00212)
`A. The combination of Spriggs and Golin discloses both an “analysis
`system” and a “pixel selection system” as required by claims 1, 6,
`and 13.
`
`49. As I stated in my initial declaration for IPR2016-00212, a POSA
`
`would have understood that the combination of Spriggs and Golin discloses both
`
`an “analysis system” and a “pixel selection system” as recited in claims 1, 6, and
`
`13 of the ’339 patent. (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 105-118.) More specifically, I explained that
`
`the transmitter of Spriggs executing a coding process on an input frame discloses
`
`both systems. (Id.; GOOG 1005, 3:51-59.) In particular, a POSA would have
`
`recognized that certain steps in that coding process correspond to the claimed
`
`“analysis system” while other separate steps correspond to the claimed “pixel
`
`selection system.”
`
`50. As I explained in my initial declaration (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 106-110), when
`
`the transmitter of Spriggs receives an input frame, it performs certain steps of its
`
`coding process to recursively divide the frame into potentially many differently
`
`sized blocks. (See also, GOOG 1005, 2:26-3:24, 3:51-62.) Each time new blocks
`
`are created, the coding process generates corner coordinates of each block and
`
`transmits a division code ‘1’ to a receiver to indicate the creation of the new
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`
`
`blocks. (GOOG 1005, 2:26-3:24, 3:51-62.) Such corner coordinates are “region
`
`data” because they define the size and location of a block within the frame.
`
`Additionally, as I discussed at my deposition (Ex. 2003, 107:5-10, 109:4-16) and
`
`in my initial declaration (Ex. 1003, ¶ 121), division codes are also “region data.”
`
`Division codes are “region data” because they define the size and location of
`
`blocks within a frame in terms of how the frame is subdivided. (GOOG 1005,
`
`2:67-3:12.)
`
`51. The transmitter in Spriggs transmits such “region data” (corner
`
`coordinates or division codes) to a receiver both directly and indirectly. The values
`
`of the division codes ‘1’ and ‘0’ are transmitted directly. (GOOG 1005, 3:2-5) The
`
`corner coordinates of each block are transmitted indirectly through the division
`
`codes. (GOOG 1005, 3:24-29.) When a frame is input to the transmitter of Spriggs,
`
`the corner addresses, or coordinates, of the frame are made known to the receiver.
`
`(Id., 2:67-3:2.) As the transmitter in Spriggs divides a frame recursively into
`
`blocks, Spriggs transmits a division code of ‘1’ to inform the receiver that either
`
`the frame or a particular block is being subdivided. (Id., 3:2-12.) Additionally,
`
`whenever the transmitter determines that a particular block does not need to be
`
`subdivided any further, the transmitter of Spriggs transmits a division code of ‘0’
`
`to inform the receiver. (Id.) Hence, from the initial corner coordinates of the frame
`
`and division codes provided by the transmitter for each block, the receiver is able
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`
`
`
`to determine the corner coordinates of each newly created block. (Id., 3:24-29.)
`
`Thus, the transmitter of Spriggs generates “region data” (such as corner
`
`coordinates or division codes) while it divides a frame into multiple blocks and
`
`transmits such “region data” to a receiver, with division codes being transmitted
`
`directly and corner coordinates being transmitted indirectly.
`
`52. Hence, a POSA would have understood that certain steps in the
`
`coding process executed by the Spriggs transmitter performs the functions of the
`
`claimed “analysis system” by receiving a frame and generating “region data” (as
`
`corner coordinates or division codes) that is provided to a receiver either directly or
`
`indirectly.
`
`53. Furthermore, as I explained in my initial declaration (Ex. 1003, ¶¶
`
`117-118), Spriggs discloses that, when new blocks are created, its transmitter
`
`performs additional steps in its coding process to select and transmit the values of
`
`the pixels at the corners of the newly created blocks. (See also, GOOG 1005, 3:30-
`
`59, 3:63-68.) Such pixel values are “pixel data.” (Ex. 1003, ¶ 118.) So that the
`
`transmitter could select and transmit the appropriate “pixel data” for newly created
`
`blocks, a POSA would have recognized that those additional steps of the coding
`
`process would utilize the “region data” generated earlier in the coding process.
`
`Specifically, a POSA would have recognized that information indicating that new
`
`blocks have been created (e.g., division code of ‘1’) would be used to trigger the
`
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`
`
`
`additional steps for selecting and transmitting the corner pixel values. The corner
`
`coordinates of the newly created blocks would be used to select the values of the
`
`pixels at those locations for transmission. (GOOG 1005, 3:16-17.) Accordingly,
`
`the additional steps in the coding process of Spriggs utilize “region data” such as
`
`division codes and corner coordinates to select and transmit corner pixel values.
`
`54. Thus, a POSA would have recognized that the additional steps in the
`
`coding process executed by the transmitter perform the functions of the claimed
`
`“pixel selection system” by receiving such “region data” and generating “pixel
`
`data” for each block that is created.
`
`55. Accordingly, a POSA would have recognized that certain steps in the
`
`coding process performed by the transmitter of Spriggs correspond to an “analysis
`
`system,” while other steps in that process correspond to the claimed “pixel
`
`selection system.”
`
`B.
`
`The combination of Spriggs and Golin discloses a “pixel selection
`system receiving the region data and generating one set of pixel
`data for each region” as required by claims 1, 6 and 13.
`
`56. The Patent Owner contends that the combination of Spriggs and Golin
`
`fails to identify a “pixel selection system” that receives “region data” and
`
`thereafter generates “one set of pixel data for each region.” (POR, 45-50.)
`
`57. As an initial matter, the language in the claims does not appear to
`
`impose any requirement that the “pixel selection system” generate “pixel data” for
`
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`
`
`
`a region only after it receives “region data” for that region. The claim is worded in
`
`a manner that a POSA would have understood as allowing for “pixel data” to be
`
`generated first and then matched later with received “region data.”
`
`58. Nevertheless, a POSA would have understood (as discussed above)
`
`that certain steps in the coding process performed by the transmitter of Spriggs
`
`function as the claimed “pixel selection system” and that those steps receive
`
`“region data” (such as corner coordinates of newly created blocks or division
`
`codes) and thereafter generate “pixel data” (such as corne