UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR No. Unassigned
`U.S. Patent 7,974,339
`_____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JOHN R. GRINDON
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Google Inc.
`GOOG 1003
`IPR of US Pat. No. 7,974,339
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`Overview ...................................................................................................... 1 
`Background and Qualifications ................................................................... 3 
`II. 
`Documents Considered ................................................................................ 5 
`III. 
`Relevant Legal Standards .......................................................................... 10 
`IV. 
`Ordinary Skill ............................................................................................ 11 
`A. 
`Obviousness ............................................................................................... 12 
`B. 
`State of the Art ........................................................................................... 13 
`V. 
`Sampling .................................................................................................... 14 
`A. 
`Variable block sizes ................................................................................... 16 
`B. 
`The '339 patent ........................................................................................... 19 
`VI. 
`Claims Considered ..................................................................................... 22 
`A. 
`Prosecution History .................................................................................... 26 
`B. 
`Claim Construction .................................................................................... 28 
`C. 
`1.  "frame data" ................................................................................................ 29 
`2.  "region" ...................................................................................................... 30 
`3.  "high detail" / "low detail" ......................................................................... 31 
`4.  "pixel variation data" .................................................................................. 33 
`5.  "matrix" ...................................................................................................... 34 
`6.  "matrix definition data" / "matrix data" ..................................................... 35 
`7.  "optimized matrix data" ............................................................................. 36 
`8.  "pixel selection data"/"selection pixel data" .............................................. 36 
`9.  "analysis system" ........................................................................................ 37 
`VII. 
`Analysis...................................................................................................... 38 
`A. 
`Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are obvious over Belfor in view of
`Thyagarajan in further view of Golin ................................................................... 38 
`1.  Overview of Belfor ..................................................................................... 38 
`2.  Overview of the Combination of Belfor in view of Thyagarajan and
`further in view of Golin ............................................................................. 42 
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`f) 
`
`3.  Belfor in view of Thyagarajan in further view of Golin under 35 U.S.C.
`§103 renders independent claim 1 obvious. .............................................. 51 
`a)  "A system for transmitting data transmission comprising" .................... 51 
`b)  "a analysis system receiving frame data and generating region data
`comprised of high detail and or low detail" ........................................... 53 
`c)  "a pixel selection system receiving the region data and generating one
`set of pixel data for each region forming a new set of data for
`transmission;" ......................................................................................... 60 
`d)  "a data receiving system receiving the region data and the pixel data for
`each region and generating a display;" .................................................. 61 
`e)  "wherein the data receiving system comprises a pixel data system
`receiving matrix definition data and pixel data and generating pixel
`location data;" ........................................................................................ 63 
`"wherein the data receiving system comprises a display generation
`system receiving pixel location data and generating display data that
`includes the pixel data placed according to the location data." ............. 64 
`4.  Belfor in view of Thyagarajan in further view of Golin under 35 U.S.C.
`§103 renders dependent claim 13 obvious. ............................................... 65 
`5.  Belfor in view of Thyagarajan in further view of Golin under 35 U.S.C.
`§103 renders dependent claim 6 obvious. ................................................. 67 
`6.  Belfor in view of Thyagarajan in further view of Golin under 35 U.S.C.
`§103 renders independent claim 7 obvious. .............................................. 68 
`a)  "A method for transmitting data comprising:" ....................................... 68 
`b)  "receiving frame data; generating optimized matrix data from the frame
`data" ....................................................................................................... 69 
`c)  "selecting one of two or more sets of pixel data based on the optimized
`matrix data" ............................................................................................ 74 
`d)  "wherein receiving frame data comprises receiving an array of pixel
`data" ....................................................................................................... 76 
`e)  "wherein generating the optimized matrix data from the frame data
`comprises setting a matrix size based on pixel selection data" ............. 77 
`"and 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." ............................................................ 77 
`
`f) 
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`
`
`7.  Belfor in view of Thyagarajan in further view of Golin under 35 U.S.C.
`§103 renders dependent claim 9 obvious. ................................................. 80 
`8.  Belfor in view of Thyagarajan in further view of Golin under 35 U.S.C.
`§103 renders independent claim 10 obvious. ............................................ 80 
`a)  "A method for transmitting data comprising:" ....................................... 81 
`b)  "dividing an array of pixel data into two or more regions;" ................... 82 
`c)  "selecting a set of pixel data from each region" ..................................... 82 
`d)  "wherein dividing the array of pixel data comprises dividing the array of
`pixel data into two or more matrices having a uniform size;" ............... 83 
`e)  "wherein dividing the array of pixel data comprises dividing the array of
`pixel data into two or more matrices having two or more different
`sizes;" ..................................................................................................... 84 
`"and transmitting the region data and the pixel selection data for each
`region by assembling the region data and the selection pixel data into a
`display frame." ....................................................................................... 88 
`9.  Belfor in view of Thyagarajan in further view of Golin under 35 U.S.C.
`§103 renders dependent claim 12 obvious. ............................................... 91 
`Conclusion ................................................................................................. 91 
`
`f) 
`
`VIII. 
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration of Dr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`
`I, Dr. John R. Grindon, declare as follows:
`
`Overview
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of GOOGLE INC. (the "Petitioner") for
`
`the above-captioned Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my time in connection with this IPR at
`
`my standard hourly consulting rate of $400/hour. My compensation does not
`
`depend on any outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that this proceeding involves U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339
`
`("the '339 patent," GOOG 1001) titled " Optimized Data Transmission System And
`
`Method " by Krichevsky et al. and that the '339 patent is currently assigned to
`
`Vedanti Systems Limited.
`
`4.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the specification of the '339
`
`patent. I understand that the '339 patent resulted from U.S. Application No.
`
`10/892,690, filed on July 16, 2002. I understand that the '339 patent has been
`
`provided as GOOG 1001. I will cite to the specification using the following
`
`format: (GOOG 1001, 1:1-10). This example citation points to the '339 patent
`
`specification at column 1, lines 1-10. Throughout this declaration, emphasis is
`
`added, unless otherwise indicated.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration of Dr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the '339 patent and
`
`5.
`
`considered each of the documents cited herein, in light of general knowledge in the
`
`art. In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my experience in the relevant
`
`art. I have also considered the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(i.e., a person of ordinary skill in the field of image processing and data
`
`transmission, defined further below in Section IV.A) prior to January 16, 2002. I
`
`am familiar with the technology at issue as of the January 16, 2002 effective filing
`
`date of the '339 patent. I am also familiar with the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`with respect to the technology at issue as of the January 16, 2002 effective filing
`
`date.
`
`6.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the file history of the
`
`continuation application 10/892,690 filed 16 July 2004 that issued as the '339
`
`patent. I have also reviewed and am familiar with the file history of international
`
`application PCT/US/02/00503 filed 16 January 2002
`
`to which
`
`the
`
`'690
`
`continuation application claim benefit, I understand copies of these file histories
`
`have been provided as exhibits GOOG 1002 and GOOG 1018.
`
`7.
`
` I have reviewed and am familiar with the file history of a reissue
`
`application of the '339 patent. I understand a copy of this reissue application file
`
`history has been as exhibit GOOG 1017.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration of Dr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`II. Background and Qualifications
`8.
`In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my training,
`
`knowledge, and experience in the relevant art. A copy of my current curriculum
`
`vitae is provided as GOOG 1004, and it provides a comprehensive description of
`
`my academic and employment history.
`
`9.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering from the University of Missouri at Rolla, a Master of Science (S.M.)
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
`
`and a Doctor of Science (D.Sc.) degree in Electrical Engineering from Washington
`
`University in St. Louis.
`
`10. During my college studies, I was awarded the Westinghouse
`
`Achievement Scholarship. I was a Hughes Masters Fellow at M.I.T. My doctoral
`
`research at Washington University was in the field of signal processing.
`
`11.
`
`I have more than 40 years of experience in the research, analysis,
`
`design and development of electronic systems and software for acquiring,
`
`processing, analyzing, and communicating signals and images. This work includes
`
`the technology disclosed in the '339 patent. I have experience in both hardware and
`
`software for these systems, including image acquisition, image transmission and
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration of Dr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`processing, data communications, microprocessors, memory devices, software
`
`algorithm development, and digital electronics.
`
`12. Since 1990 I have provided independent consulting in the fields of
`
`digital image processing software algorithm development and imaging systems. I
`
`have provided R&D services to Cyra Technologies, Inc., San Ramon, CA, a
`
`division of Leica Geosystems, for systems employing laser scanning and imaging
`
`to determine the three-dimensional shapes of objects. I served as a consultant to
`
`[TC]² Corporation of Cary, NC, for development of a system to digitize the 3D
`
`shape of imaged objects. For this system, I developed image processing algorithms
`
`to compute 3D shape by processing frames of image data from multiple, spatially-
`
`referenced digital video cameras. A patent was awarded for this work.
`
`13. From 1987 until 1990, I served as Executive Vice President and
`
`Director of Research at the former Cencit, Inc. At Cencit, I created and led an
`
`engineering organization in the research and development of electronic imaging
`
`systems based upon digital video image processing electronics and software
`
`algorithms.
`
`14. Previously, I worked with McDonnell Douglas Corporation (now
`
`Boeing). I started my career at McDonnell Douglas with the title of Engineer, and
`
`progressed through various positions of increasing responsibility to the position of
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration of Dr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`Branch Chief, Electronics. Among other things, my work there also included
`
`digital image processing research and development for autonomous Cruise Missile
`
`guidance employing on-board, computer-controlled digital video cameras.
`
`15.
`
`I am a named inventor or co-inventor on more than five patents, both
`
`U.S. and foreign, in this and related technologies.
`
`III. Documents Considered
`16.
`In formulating my opinion, I have considered the following:
`
`GOOG
`Exhibit # 
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339 to Krichevsky, et al. (filed July 16, 2004;
`issued July 11, 2011). 
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339.
`
`Declaration of John R. Grindon.
`
`Curriculum Vitae of John R. Grindon.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,791,486 to Spriggs, et al. (filed February 3, 1986;
`issued December 13, 1988).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,225,904 to Golin, et al. (filed December 4, 1991;
`issued July 6, 1993).
`
`Belfor, et al., “Spatially Adaptive Subsampling of Image
`Sequences,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, Vol. 3, No. 5
`(1994); pp. 492-500.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,529,634 to Thyagarajan, et al. (filed November 8,
`1999; issued March 4, 2003).
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`GOOG
`Exhibit # 
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration of Dr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`Description
`
`Complaint For Patent Infringement, Vedanti Systems Limited, et al.
`v. Google Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01029-GMS (D. Del.), filed
`August 9, 2014.
`
`Notice Of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice Pursuant To Rule
`41 Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Vedanti Systems
`Limited, et al. v. Google Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01029-GMS
`(D. Del.), filed September 30, 2014.
`
`Complaint For Patent Infringement, Max Sound Corporation, et al.,
`v. Google Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04412-JCS (N.D. Cal.), filed
`October 1, 2014.
`
`Definitions of “frame” and “pel”, Webster's New World Dictionary
`of Computer Terms, 7th ed. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999;
`pp. 217 and 399.
`
`Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Max
`Sound Corporation, et al., v. Google Inc., et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-
`04412-EFD (N.D. Cal.), filed February 9, 2015.
`
`Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Failure
`to State a Claim, Max Sound Corporation, et al., v. Google Inc., et
`al., Case No. 5:14-cv-04412-EFD (N.D. Cal.), filed March 30, 2015.
`
`Defendants' Preliminary Claim Constructions and Identification of
`Evidence, Max Sound Corporation, et al., v. Google Inc., et al., Case
`No. 5:14-cv-04412-EFD (N.D. Cal.), served August 21, 2015.
`
`Plaintiff's Preliminary Claim Constructions and Identification of
`Evidence, Max Sound Corporation, et al., v. Google Inc., et al., Case
`No. 5:14-cv-04412-EFD (N.D. Cal.), served August 21, 2015.
`
`File History for Reissue Application of U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339.
`
`File History of Parent PCT Application No. PCT/US02/00503 filed
`Jan. 16, 2002.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration of Dr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`Description
`
`Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, Max Sound Corporation, et al.,
`v. Google Inc., et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-04412-EFD (N.D. Cal.),
`filed May 13, 2015.
`
`Rostampour, et al., “2-D Median Filtering and Pseudo Median
`Filtering,” Proceedings of the Twentieth Southeastern Symposium
`on System Theory, IEEE (March 20-22, 1988); pp. 554-557.
`
`Certificate of Service on Google Inc., Max Sound Corporation, et
`al., v. Google Inc., et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-04412-EFD (N.D. Cal.),
`filed December 17, 2014.
`
`Certificate of Service on Youtube, LLC, Max Sound Corporation, et
`al., v. Google Inc., et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-04412-EFD (N.D. Cal.),
`filed December 17, 2014.
`
`Certificate of Service on On2 Technologies, Inc., Max Sound
`Corporation, et al., v. Google Inc., et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-04412-
`EFD (N.D. Cal.), filed December 17, 2014.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,418,714 to Sarver (filed April 8, 1993; issued May
`23, 1995).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,687,410 to Brown (filed February 7, 2000; issued
`February 3, 2004).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,031,517 B1 to Le et al. (filed October 1, 1999;
`issued April 18, 2006).
`Gilbert Held, Data and Image Compression (4th ed., Wiley 1996).
`
`Yun Q. Shi & Huifang Sun, Image and Video Compression for
`Multimedia Engineering: Fundamentals, Algorithms, and Standards
`(CRC Press, 2000).
`
`GOOG
`Exhibit # 
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration of Dr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the following prior art used in
`
`17.
`
`the Petition for Inter Partes Review of the '339 patent:
`
`(1) "Spatially Adaptive Subsampling of Image Sequences" to
`
`Belfor et al. (GOOG 1007) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b) because it published in September 1994 years before the
`
`earliest possible filing date of the '339 patent;
`
`(2) U.S. Patent No. 6,529,634 B1 to Thyagarajan, et al. (GOOG
`
`1008) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it was filed
`
`on November 8, 1999, years before the earliest possible filing date of
`
`the '339 patent; and
`
`(3) U.S. Patent No. 5,225,904 to Golin (GOOG 1006) is prior art
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it was issued on July 6,
`
`1993, years before the earliest possible filing date of the '339 patent.
`
`I have also reviewed and am familiar with the following other prior art
`
`(4) U.S. Patent No. 4,791,486 B2 to Spriggs et al. (GOOG 1005) is
`
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it issued on
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`18.
`
`documents:
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration of Dr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`December 13, 1988, years before the earliest possible filing date of
`
`the '339 patent on Jan. 16, 2002; and
`
`(5) U.S. Patent No. 5,418,714 to Sarver (GOOG 1024) is prior
`art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it issued on May
`23, 1995, years before the earliest possible filing date of the
`'339 patent;
`
`(6) U.S. Patent No. 6,687,410 B1 to Brown (GOOG 1025) is
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it was filed
`February 7, 2000, before the earliest possible filing date of the
`'339 patent; and
`
`(7) U.S. Patent No. 7,031,517 B1 to Le et al. (GOOG 1026) is
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it was filed
`October 1, 1999, before the earliest possible filing date of the
`'339 patent;
`
`(8) Gilbert Held, Data and Image Compression (4th ed., Wiley
`1996) (GOOG 1027) is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §
`102(b) because it was published in 1996, before the earliest
`possible filing date of the '339 patent;
`
`(9) Yun Q. Shi & Huifang Sun, Image and Video
`Compression for Multimedia Engineering: Fundamentals,
`Algorithms, and Standards (CRC Press, 2000) (GOOG 1028)
`is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it was
`published in 2000, before the earliest possible filing date of the
`'339 patent; and
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration of Dr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`(10) "2-D Median Filtering and Pseudo Median Filtering"
`to Rostampour et al. (GOOG 1020) is prior art under at least 35
`U.S.C. § 102(b) because it published in 1998, years before the
`earliest possible filing date of the '339 patent.
`
`19. The '339 patent describes and claims "a system and method for
`
`transmitting data … ." (GOOG 1001, 1:32-33.) I am familiar with the technology
`
`described in the '339 patent as of its earliest possible benefit date of January 16,
`
`2002.
`
`20.
`
`I have been asked to provide my technical review, analysis, insights,
`
`and opinions regarding the '339 patent and the above-noted references that form
`
`the basis for the grounds of rejection set forth in the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of the '339 patent.
`
`
`IV. Relevant Legal Standards
`
`21.
`
`I understand that my analysis requires an understanding of the scope
`
`of the '339 patent claims. I understand that claims subject to Inter Partes Review
`
`are given the "broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which it appears." 42 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable if it is anticipated or obvious.
`
`I understand that anticipation of a claim requires that every element of a claim is
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration of Dr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`expressly or inherently disclosed in a single prior art reference. I do not render
`
`opinions regarding anticipation in connection with this proceeding.
`
`A. Ordinary Skill
`23.
`I was also asked to provide an opinion regarding the skill level of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art of the '339 patent prior to January 16, 2002. To
`
`do so, I considered several things. For example, I considered the types of problems
`
`encountered in the art, the solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which
`
`innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the education level
`
`of active workers in the field.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is one who is
`
`presumed to be aware of all pertinent art, thinks along conventional wisdom in the
`
`art, and is a person of ordinary creativity. A person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`("POSA") would have had knowledge of the image processing and data
`
`transmission fields, and various related technologies as of January 16, 2002.
`
`25. Applying the above understanding, it is my opinion that, as a general
`
`matter, a POSA at the time of the filing of the '339 patent would 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 and data transmission.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration of Dr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`26. By equivalent field, I mean that the required levels of educational and
`
`industry experience is on a sliding scale relative to each other. For example, a
`
`person of ordinary skill could have a more advanced educational degree with less
`
`industry experience.
`
`B. Obviousness
`27.
`It is my understanding that a patent claim is obvious if the differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`POSA to which said subject matter pertains. I understand that for a single reference
`
`or a combination of references to render the claimed invention unpatentable under
`
`an obviousness rationale, a person of ordinary skill in the art must have been able
`
`to arrive at the claims by altering or combining the applied references.
`
`28.
`
`I also understand that rationales that may support a conclusion of
`
`obviousness include: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods
`
`to yield predictable results; (b) choosing from a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (c) simple
`
`substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (d) use
`
`of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same
`
`way; (e) applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration of Dr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`I also understand that when considering the obviousness of a patent
`
`29.
`
`claim, one may consider whether a teaching, suggestion or motivation to combine
`
`the references exists so as to avoid impermissibly applying hindsight when
`
`considering the prior art. I understand this test should not be rigidly applied, but
`
`that the test can be important to avoiding such hindsight.
`
`30.
`
`I
`
`also understand
`
`that
`
`any
`
`secondary
`
`considerations of
`
`nonobviousness must be considered. I understand that secondary considerations
`
`must have a nexus to the claim and that even substantial evidence of secondary
`
`considerations may not overcome a strong prima facie showing of obviousness.
`
`V.
`
`State of the Art
`31. By 2002 and prior to the time of invention, all the technology at issue
`
`in the '339 patent was broadly applied and well known by developers in image
`
`processing and image transmission. No individual elements of the '339 claims were
`
`novel at the time of the alleged invention, and there was nothing novel about the
`
`manner in which those elements were combined in the claims. Further, there were
`
`no technological barriers to combining these elements to form the claimed
`
`invention. Indeed, the topics of digital image processing and image transmission
`
`have been rapidly growing areas of research and development since the 1960s.
`
`(GOOG 1024, Preface.) In addition, digital image sequence processing has been an
`
`active area of research since at least the 1980s. (Id.) Both pixel sampling and
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration of Dr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`subdivision into variable sized regions with different level of detail – two aspects
`
`called out as features in the '339 patent and its prosecution before the examiner –
`
`were well-known by 2002, as will be shown.
`
`A. Sampling
`32. Sampling of images was known well before 2002, the earliest priority
`
`date of the '339 patent. For example, inter-frame processing was well known at an
`
`early date. In one conditional replenishment technique, a present grey level pixel
`
`value and its position information are transmitted for pixels that change by more
`
`than a threshold between frames. (See e.g., GOOG 1028, pp. 68-69.)
`
`33. Representing a block of pixels for transmission with a reduced
`
`number of pixels in intraframe processing was also well known in the prior art. For
`
`example, one such approach is to represent an entire pixel block with a single
`
`value. (GOOG 1020, 5:54-6:32.) In this approach, a block, whether it is 4x4, 5x5,
`
`8x8, or any other suitable size, is represented by one pixel value, such as a mean
`
`value of the pixel values of a block. (Id., 3:7-8.) This yields an optimized data
`
`stream that is, for example, 1/16th, 1/25th, or 1/64th of the size of an un-optimized
`
`block for 4x4, 5x5, or 8x8 blocks, respectively.
`
`34. The key to implementing this approach is to select a single pixel value
`
`that is "a reasonable approximation to the value of all pixels within the block." (Id.,
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`
`Inter
`
`
`Partes Revview of USSPN 7,9744,339
`003)
`
`
`
`Declarration of DDr. John R.. Grindon
`(GOOG 1
`
`
`mean valuue of all piixels in thee block. (Idd., 2-
`
`6:1-2.) OOne approoach is to ccalculate a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5.) Alsoo, other meethods of seelecting a single pixeel from ammong those
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(subsammpling) to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`representt the pixeel block wwere well
`
`
`
`known inn the art.
`
`For
`
`
`
`examplee, the meddian filter wwas well kknown. In aa median ffilter, "the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`is replaaced by thhe median
`
`
`
`value of
`
`
`
`(GOOGG 1020, p.5554.)
`
`
`
`
`
`a set of ppixels in iits local nneighborhoood."
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`within a bblock
`
`
`
`value of ppixel
`
`
`
`35. Anotther type of image saampling invvolves trannsmitting oonly the coorner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`values
`
`
`
`of blocks. For exammple, one
`
`
`
`
`
`method trransmits bllocks wheere "all piccture
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`elementts (pels) aare represeented by vvalues lineearly interppolated froom the coorner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`values aat A, B, C
`
`
`
`and D." (GGOOG 10005, 2:26-355.) In this wway, an enntire imagee can
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`be approximated wwith only aa few pixel values, foor examplee the corneer values o
`
`
`
`
`
`f the
`
`
`
`block ass illustratedd below:
`
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,974,339
`Declaration of Dr. John R. Grindon (GOOG 1003)
`
`(Id., FIG. 6.)
`
`B. Variable block sizes
`36.
`Image segmentation algorithms were well known in the art too. These
`
`algorithms included block subdivision algorithms that segment an image into
`
`variable sized blocks. For example, the above mentioned image transmission
`
`method of Spriggs also utilizes variable block sizes. First, Spriggs determines the
`
`level of detail of a region (also called a block) according to the variation of pixels
`
`across the block using an interpolation comparison. (Id., 2:26-35.)
`
`37.
`
`In an embodiment, Spriggs makes the determination by first
`
`generating an interpolated block from the four corners of the block (Operation 1).
`
`(Id., 2:26-35, "The first step in coding is to calculate a new block in which all
`
`picture elements (p[ix]els) are represented by values linearly interpolated from the
`
`corner values at A, B, C and D.") This interpolated block represents the block that
`
`a decoder would hypothetically generate if the block under consideration were
`
`represented by the corner values. Spriggs compares each pixel of the actual block
`
`to this hypothetical block to determine if the representation is accurate enough.
`
`(Id., 2:32-35, "This new block is compared with the original and if no differences
`
`are found in excess of a certain threshold, t, then the process moves to operation
`
`2.")
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`
`
`Inter
`
`
`Partes Revview of USSPN 7,9744,339
`003)
`
`
`
`Declarration of DDr. John R.. Grindon
`(GOOG 1
`
`
`
`
`38. Blockks that havve high dettail as deteermined byy this test
`
`require furrther
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`subdividding. (GOOOG 1005,, 2:51-54.)) In this wway Sprigggs explainss "the gre
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`atest
`
`2:56-57.)
`
`This
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`numberr of subdivisions willl occur at eedges or ovver fine deetail." (Id.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`recursivve process generates a nested seeries of bloocks and suub-blocks:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(IId., FIG. 3
`.)
`
`
`
`9. Altho
`3
`
`
`
`
`ough Sprigggs does nnot use the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`term, Sprriggs' discllosure sugggests
`
`what is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` often refferred to inn the art aas "quad ttree" segmmentation.
`
`
`
`
`
`The quadd-tree
`
`
`
`approacch for segmmenting an
`
`
`
`
`
`image intoo variable
`
`
`
`block sizees is namedd for the wway it
`
`
`
`
`
`is used
`
`to divide
`
`blocks. T
`he way it
`
`
`
`is done iss explainedd here witth referencce to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Le.” (GGOOG 10026, 10:63--66.) The
`
`
`
`
`
`quad-tree
`
`
`
`segmentattion methood begins
`
`
`
`with
`
`
`
`the entire frame, aand recursively subddivides intoo four smaaller sub-bllocks baseed on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a decisiion process. (Id., 11::53-12:40.)) This prodduces a neested sub-bblock struccture
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`such as::
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`
`
`Inter
`
`
`Partes Revview of USSPN 7,9744,339
`003)
`
`
`Declarration of DDr. John R.. Grindon
`(GOOG 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(IId., FIG. 7E.)
`
`
`
`
`
`440.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In onne examplee, the decission processs is basedd on contraast "determmined
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by calcculating thhe differennce betweeen the mi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`nimum annd maximuum luminnance
`
`values
`
`
`
`of the pixxels