IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In the Inter Partes Review of:
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`Filed: Nov. 13, 1996
`
`Issued: Feb. 9, 1999
`
`Inventor(s): Kwok Kit Chau
`
`Assignee: Avago Technologies General
`IP (Singapore) PTE Ltd.
`
`Title: MPEG Decoder System and
`Method Having a Unified Memory for
`Transport Decode and System
`Controller Functions
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Review
`Commissions for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. CHANDRAJIT BAJAJ UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 5,870,087
`
`
`
`
`
`SONY EX. 1003
`Page 1
`
`

`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Qualifications ................................................................................................... 3
`
`III. Understanding of Patent Law .......................................................................... 8
`
`IV. Background on the ’087 Patent ..................................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Technology Background ..................................................................... 10
`
`Summary of the ’087 Patent ................................................................ 15
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................. 16
`
`V.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art .................................................. 17
`
`VI. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 17
`
`VII. Detailed Invalidity Analysis .......................................................................... 18
`
`A.
`
`Background on Prior Art References .................................................. 18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Background on Fujii ................................................................. 18
`
`Background on Maturi .............................................................. 20
`
`Background on Lam .................................................................. 20
`
`Background on Bheda ............................................................... 21
`
`Background on Yao .................................................................. 21
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1, 7, 10-11, and 16 Are Anticipated by Fujii .......................... 22
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Independent Claims 1, 10, and 16 ............................................. 22
`
`Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 45
`
`Dependent Claim 11 ................................................................. 47
`
`C.
`
`Claims 1-3, 7, 10-13, and 16-18 are Obvious in view of Fujii
`and Bheda ............................................................................................ 49
`
`
`
`i
`
`SONY EX. 1003
`Page 2
`
`

`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 12, and 17 ............................................... 50
`
`Dependent Claims 3 and 18 ...................................................... 54
`
`Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................. 54
`
`D.
`
`Claim 5 Is Obvious in View of Fujii and Lam .................................... 55
`
`1.
`
`Claim 5: “The MPEG decoder system of claim 1,
`wherein the memory stores anchor frame data during
`reconstruction of temporally compressed frames.” .................. 55
`
`E.
`
`Claims 1, 7, 10-11, and 16 Are Obvious in View of Maturi and
`Yao ...................................................................................................... 58
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`A Person of Ordinary Skill Would Have Combined
`Maturi and Yao ......................................................................... 58
`
`Independent Claims 1, 10, and 16 ............................................. 63
`
`Dependent Claim 7 ................................................................... 79
`
`Dependent Claim 11 ................................................................. 81
`
`F.
`
`Claims 1-3, 7, 10-13, and 16-18 are Obvious in view of Maturi,
`Yao, and Bheda ................................................................................... 82
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Dependent Claims 2, 12, and 17 ............................................... 83
`
`Dependent Claims 3 and 18 ...................................................... 86
`
`Dependent Claim 13 ................................................................. 87
`
`G.
`
`Claim 5 is Obvious in view of Maturi, Yao, and Lam ........................ 87
`
`1.
`
`Dependent Claim 5 ................................................................... 87
`
`VIII. Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ........................................... 88
`
`IX. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 89
`
`
`
`ii
`
`SONY EX. 1003
`Page 3
`
`

`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`I, Chandrajit Bajaj, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`1.
`
`Introduction
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of Sony Corporation for
`
`the above-captioned Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,870,087 (“the ’087 Patent”). I am being compensated for my time in
`
`connection with this IPR at my standard consulting rate of $550 per hour.
`
`My compensation is not affected by the outcome of this matter.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1-3, 5,
`
`7, 10-13, and 16-18 (“Challenged Claims”) of the ’087 Patent are invalid as
`
`anticipated or would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`3.
`
`The ’087 Patent issued on February 9, 1999, from U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`
`748,269, filed on November 13, 1996. Ex. 1001 at [22], [45]. The ’087
`
`patent names a single inventor, Kwok Kit Chau.
`
`4.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the ’087 Patent, the file
`
`history of the ’087 Patent, prior art references, technical references and other
`
`publications from the time of the alleged invention, as well as the Petition,
`
`Preliminary Patent Owner’s Response, Institution Decision, and Patent
`
`Owner’s Response in IPR2016-00646.
`
`5.
`
`I understand that claims in an IPR for an unexpired patent are given their
`
`1
`
`SONY EX. 1003
`Page 4
`
`

`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the patent specification and the
`
`understandings of one having ordinary skill in the relevant art, while claims
`
`for an expired patent are construed under Philips, meaning they are given
`
`their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art in view of the specification and prosecution history, unless those
`
`sources show an intent to depart from such meaning.
`
`6.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in my Declaration, I relied upon my
`
`education and experience in the relevant field of the art, and I have
`
`considered the viewpoint of a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art
`
`as of the priority date of the ’087 Patent. My opinions are based, at least in
`
`part, on the following:
`
`Reference
`
`Ex. 1004, U.S. Patent No.
`5,898,695 (“Fujii”)
`
`Ex. 1005, U.S. Patent No.
`6,002,441 (“Bheda”)
`
`Ex. 1006, U.S. Patent No.
`5,960,464 (“Lam”)
`
`Date of Public
`Availability
`April 27, 1999 (filed on
`March 27, 1996; claims
`priority to March 29,
`1995)
`
`December 14, 1999
`(filed on October 28,
`1996)
`
`September 28, 1999
`(filed on August 23,
`1996)
`
`Prior Art Status
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`Ex. 1007, U.S. Patent No.
`5,559,999 (“Maturi”)
`
`September 24, 1996
`(filed on September 9,
`
`§ 102(a)
`
`2
`
`SONY EX. 1003
`Page 5
`
`

`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`
`1994)
`
`Ex. 1008, Yao, “Unified
`Memory Architecture Cuts
`PC Cost,” Volume 9,
`Issue No. 8 of
`Microprocessor Report
`Ex. 1009, Business Wire,
`VESA Announces Release
`of Unified Memory
`Architecture Standard
`Ex. 1010, H.262 Standard
`
`Ex. 1011, Ng, “Fast
`computer memories,”
`IEEE Spectrum.
`
`June 19, 1995
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`March 8, 1996
`
`§ 102(a)
`
`July 1995
`
`October 1992
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`
`II. Qualifications
`7. My curriculum vitae (“CV”) is attached hereto as Attachment A and
`
`provides an accurate identification of my background and experience.
`
`8.
`
`I am currently employed as a Professor of Computer Science at the
`
`University of Texas at Austin (“UT Austin”). I currently hold the
`
`Computational Applied Mathematics endowed Chair in Visualization. I am
`
`also the Director of the Computational Visualization Center at UT Austin,
`
`which has been funded by the National Institutes of Health, the National
`
`Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the Department of
`
`Defense. The center personnel include fifteen researchers, scientists, post-
`
`graduate students, and staff.
`
`3
`
`SONY EX. 1003
`Page 6
`
`

`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`9.
`
`I have a Bachelor of Technology degree in Electrical Engineering, which I
`
`obtained from the Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi (IITD) in 1980. I
`
`also have a Master of Science degree and a Doctorate in Computer Science
`
`from Cornell University in 1983 and 1984 respectively.
`
`10. Prior to my employment at the University of Texas, I was an assistant
`
`professor, then associate professor, and finally professor of Computer
`
`Sciences at Purdue University (Purdue) from 1984 until I resigned in 1997
`
`and transferred to UT Austin. During this time, I was also the Director of
`
`Image Analysis and Visualization Center at Purdue University. I was a
`
`visiting associate professor of Computer Science at Cornell University from
`
`1990–1991. I have also been invited for collaborative visits by several
`
`academic institutions, and have presented numerous keynote presentations
`
`worldwide. I have been an editorial member of the SIAM Journal on
`
`Imaging Sciences, and the ACM Transactions on Graphics, and continue my
`
`editorial role for ACM Computing Surveys and the International Journal of
`
`Computational Geometry and Applications.
`
`11.
`
`I have spent the better part of my career, both at Purdue and UT Austin,
`
`researching, designing, teaching and using computer systems to model,
`
`simulate, and visualize natural and synthetic objects, combining
`
`computational image and geometric processing. I am knowledgeable about
`
`4
`
`SONY EX. 1003
`Page 7
`
`

`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`
`and have much experience in both hardware and software, including
`
`algorithms, used for capturing, analyzing and displaying interactive imagery.
`
`12.
`
`In the 1970s, while majoring in Electrical Engineering at Indian Institute of
`
`Technology with a minor in Computer Sciences, I was intimately involved
`
`in the design and fabrication of microprocessor-controlled circuits as well as
`
`the development of microprocessor controller software. In the 1980s, while
`
`at Cornell University, my past experiences led to research in image and
`
`geometry processing and optimization and the development of robot motion
`
`planning software. In the early 1990s, I created 3D collaborative multimedia
`
`software environments which were fully navigable for multi-person
`
`computer gaming and simulation. In 1994, I co-authored a technical paper
`
`entitled “Shastra: Multimedia Collaborative Design Environment.” The
`
`need for increasing computer graphics display realism without sacrificing
`
`interactivity led me also to explore image processing techniques such as
`
`texture mapping with data compression, such as described
`
`in my
`
`publications “Compression-Based 3D Texture Mapping for Real-Time
`
`Rendering,” and “3D RGB
`
`Image Compression
`
`for
`
`Interactive
`
`Applications.” During this time I was also intimately involved with the
`
`development of a new synthetic-natural hybrid data compression MPEG
`
`(Motion Pictures Expert Group) standard. During this time I also applied and
`
`5
`
`SONY EX. 1003
`Page 8
`
`

`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`
`received a joint patent “Encoding Images of 3-D Objects with Improved
`
`Rendering Time and Transmission Process,” August 2002, U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,438,266.
`
`13.
`
`In the early to mid-2000s, and now at University of Texas (UT) at Austin, I
`
`began to create, using novel hardware and software, spatially-realistic 3D
`
`graphical environments for a combination of different types of acquired and
`
`reconstructed imagery within which a user may explore, query, and learn.
`
`My publications included “Volumetric Video Compression and Interactive
`
`Playback” and “SIMD Optimization of Linear Expressions
`
`for
`
`Programmable Graphics in Hardware.” During this time at UT Austin, I was
`
`involved in developing hardware and software technology that allowed
`
`multiple computers with multiple programmable graphics cards (GPUs) to
`
`simultaneously and synchronously display to large multi-screen immersive
`
`displays. We called this the UT Meta-Buffer solution. One of the
`
`publications that resulted from this is titled “Active Visualization in a
`
`Multidisplay Immersive Environment.” Much of my past and current work
`
`involves issues relating to interactive computer multimedia, including
`
`interactive 3D video and real-time retrieval of texture image data for use in
`
`rendering applications in computer graphics. Over the course of my career, I
`
`have participated in the design and use of several computer systems
`
`6
`
`SONY EX. 1003
`Page 9
`
`

`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`
`including handhelds, laptops, graphics workstations to PC/Linux clusters, as
`
`well as very large memory supercomputers for capturing, modeling and
`
`displaying virtual and scientific phenomena. My experience with computer
`
`modeling and displaying computer graphics imagery encompasses many
`
`fields, such as interactive games, molecular, biomedical and industrial
`
`diagnostics, oil and gas exploration, geology, cosmology, and military
`
`industries.
`
`14. Currently at UT Austin, I hold faculty appointments with, and supervise
`
`M.S. and Ph.D. students from several UT departments, including, electrical
`
`engineering, biomedical engineering, and mathematics. I currently serve on
`
`the editorial boards for the International Journal of Computational Geometry
`
`and Applications, and the ACM Computing Surveys. Much of my recent
`
`work involves issues relating to interactive image and video processing for
`
`super-resolution, 3D modeling, bio-informatics, computer graphics, and
`
`computational visualization. Examples of my publications, including peer-
`
`reviewed publications, are listed in my CV.
`
`15. As set forth in my CV, I have authored approximately 154 peer-reviewed
`
`journal articles, 33 book chapters (which were also peer reviewed), and 140
`
`peer-reviewed conference publications.
`
`7
`
`SONY EX. 1003
`Page 10
`
`

`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`16.
`
`I have written and edited four books, on topics ranging from image
`
`processing, geometric modeling and visualization techniques, to algebraic
`
`geometry and its applications. I have given 170 invited-speaker keynote
`
`presentations. I am a Fellow of the American Association for the
`
`Advancement of Science, a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Engineers (IEEE), a Fellow of the Society of Industrial and
`
`Applied Mathematics (SIAM), and also a Fellow of the Association of
`
`Computing Machinery (also known as ACM), which is the world’s largest
`
`education and scientific computing society. ACM Fellow is ACM’s most
`
`prestigious member grade and recognizes the top 1% of ACM members for
`
`their outstanding accomplishments in computing and information technology
`
`and/or outstanding service to ACM and the larger computing community.
`
`III. Understanding of Patent Law
`17.
`I understand that prior art to the ’087 Patent includes patents and printed
`
`publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the ’087
`
`Patent.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated or obvious.
`
`Anticipation of a claim requires that every element of a claim be disclosed
`
`expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference, arranged in the prior
`
`art reference as arranged in the claim. Obviousness of a claim requires that
`
`8
`
`SONY EX. 1003
`Page 11
`
`

`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`
`the claim be obvious from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the relevant art at the time of the alleged invention. I understand that a
`
`claim may be obvious in view of a combination of two or more prior art
`
`references.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an understanding of the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the alleged
`
`invention and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in evaluating the
`
`pertinent art.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that certain factors—often called “secondary considerations”—
`
`may support or rebut the obviousness of a claim. I understand that such
`
`secondary considerations include, among other things, commercial success
`
`of the alleged invention, skepticism of those having ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the alleged invention, unexpected results of the alleged
`
`invention, any long-felt but unsolved need in the art that was satisfied by the
`
`alleged invention, the failure of others to make the alleged invention, praise
`
`of the alleged invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and
`
`copying of the alleged invention by others in the field. I further understand
`
`that there must be a nexus—a connection—between any such secondary
`
`considerations and
`
`the alleged
`
`invention.
`
` I also understand
`
`that
`
`contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a secondary
`
`9
`
`SONY EX. 1003
`Page 12
`
`

`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`
`consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`21.
`
`I further understand that a claim can be found obvious if it unites old
`
`elements with no change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by
`
`mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, and that
`
`combination yields predictable results. While it may be helpful to identify a
`
`reason for this combination, common sense should guide, and there is no
`
`rigid requirement for a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine.
`
`When a product is available, design incentives and other market forces can
`
`prompt variations of it, either in the same field or different one. If a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement a predictable
`
`variation, obviousness likely bars patentability. Similarly, if a technique has
`
`been used to improve one device, and a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art would recognize that the technique would improve similar devices in the
`
`same way, use of the technique is obvious. I further understand that a claim
`
`may be obvious if common sense directs one to combine multiple prior art
`
`references or add missing features to reproduce the alleged invention recited
`
`in the claims.
`
`IV. Background on the ’087 Patent
`A. Technology Background
`22. Multimedia data, in particularly video, has historically required a large
`
`10
`
`SONY EX. 1003
`Page 13
`
`

`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`
`amount of storage space. The Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) was
`
`established in the late 1980s with the goal of creating a standard to allow for
`
`the compression of multimedia data in order to decrease those storage
`
`requirements.
`
` That group,
`
`in conjunction with
`
`the
`
`International
`
`Organization for Standardization (“ISO”), has developed multiple MPEG
`
`standards overtime.
`
`23. MPEG-1, was published in the early 1990s as ISO/IEC 11172. It consisted
`
`of multiple sub-parts, such as 11172-1 (System), 11172-2 (Video), and
`
`11172-3 (Audio). MPEG-1 built on the work of the Joint Photographic
`
`Experts Group (JPEG), which developed a standard for image compression.
`
`24. MPEG-2 was published by 1996 as ISO/IEC 13818, though draft versions
`
`were published before then. Like MPEG-1, MPEG-2 consisted of subparts 1
`
`(System), 2 (Video), 3 (Audio), and others. Portions of MPEG-2 were also
`
`published by the International Telecommunications Union (“ITU”) as
`
`H.220.0 (corresponding to 13818-1) and H.262 (corresponding to 13818-2).
`
`Ex. 1010 at 2 (“The identical text is also published as ISO/IEC International
`
`Standard 13818-1.”) DVD’s use MPEG-2 compression. MPEG-4 was
`
`ratified in the late 1990s, and MPEG-4 Part 10 (H.264) in the early 2000s.
`
`25. Both MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 compress video by taking advantage of spatial
`
`and temporal redundancies. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 3:38-41. Spatial
`
`11
`
`SONY EX. 1003
`Page 14
`
`

`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`
`redundancy refers to the fact that different portions of an image (a single
`
`video frame) often contain the same or similar color and light values.
`
`MPEG1 uses various algorithms, such as discrete cosine transform,
`
`quantization, and entropy coding, to take advantage of these intra-frame
`
`redundancies.
`
`26. Temporal redundancy refers to the fact that many portions of sequential
`
`frames do not change over short periods of time. Rather than store each
`
`such frame in its entirety, MPEG encoding compares surrounding frames to
`
`generate motion vectors that describe these changes. The decoder reverses
`
`this process in a step called motion compensation. This, however, requires
`
`reference to a previous and/or future frame. Rather than make every frame
`
`dependent on each other, in which case a single frame drop would
`
`destabilize the decoding process, MPEG defines “intra-frames” (“I” frames)
`
`that are not dependent on other frames. MPEG also defines “predicted
`
`frames” (“P” frames) that are temporally compressed against a past frame,
`
`and “bi-directional frames” (“B” frames) that are temporally compressed
`
`against both a past and a forward frame. I frames provide a reference point
`
`for P and B frames, and P frames can form a reference point for future P
`
`
`1 I use “MPEG” to refer to both MPEG-1 and MPEG-2.
`
`12
`
`SONY EX. 1003
`Page 15
`
`

`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`
`frames. The ’087 Patent refers to references frames as “anchor” frames. An
`
`example portion of a video stream containing I, B, and P frames is shown in
`
`the MPEG-2 standard:
`
`Ex. 1010 at 7.
`
`27. As I mentioned earlier, an MPEG multimedia stream contains not only video
`
`
`
`data but also audio, text and pictures for subtitles, tables identifying the
`
`streams, electronic guides and other program-specific information or stream
`
`metadata. See Ex. 1010 at 8-9. In MPEG-1, data is placed into a “program
`
`stream.” In MPEG-2, data can be placed into either a “program stream”
`
`(“PS”) or a “transport stream” (“TS”). TS allows for error correction and
`
`stream synchronization, while PS lacks error correction and is used in
`
`conditions where one does not expect to drop data, e.g. with DVDs. A
`
`transport stream consists of a series of TS packets, each of which is 188
`
`bytes in size and includes a header as well as a payload. These “TS packets”
`
`13
`
`SONY EX. 1003
`Page 16
`
`

`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`
`are depicted in Fujii’s Figure 3A:
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at Fig. 3A. A TS packet’s payload can contain multiple PES
`
`
`
`(“Packetized Elementary Stream”) packets, each of which contains a PES
`
`Packet Header that identifies the type of program element (e.g., video, audio,
`
`text, etc.) contained in that PES packet. Fujii’s Figure 3B shows that the TS
`
`packet’s data payload can include program-specific information as well. Ex.
`
`1004 at Fig. 3B.
`
`28. Whether the stream is a program or transport stream, the PES packets have
`
`to be combined into a single stream to be placed in the PS or TS packet.
`
`This combining process is called multiplexing. Generally speaking, this is
`
`done by interleaving packets containing video, audio, or other types of data.
`
`In order to decode the stream, this process must be reversed, i.e.
`
`demultiplexed. While demuliplexing is necessary to decode a program or
`
`14
`
`SONY EX. 1003
`Page 17
`
`

`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`
`transport stream, it is not the same as decoding. Decoding converts the
`
`demultiplexed but encoded (compressed) video or audio or text stream into
`
`raw (uncompressed) data.
`
`B.
`Summary of the ’087 Patent
`29. The ’087 Patent does not claim to have invented MPEG compression or
`
`decompression. Indeed, both MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 were known before the
`
`filing of the patent. Rather, the ’087 Patent relates to the memory
`
`architecture of a decoding system.
`
`30. The ’087 Patent acknowledges that MPEG decoders were known to use
`
`“external memory” in the decoding process. Ex. 1001 at 4:14-21. The
`
`patent also admits that hardware to demultiplex an encoded stream
`
`(“transport logic”) and to control the operations of the system (“system
`
`controller”) were known in the art. Id. at 4:22-28. The ’087 Patent’s
`
`supposed contribution to the field was the use of a “unified memory for
`
`multiple functions,” including the “transport logic, a system controller, and
`
`MPEG decoder logic.” Ex. 1001 at 4:67-5:3. According to the Patent, prior
`
`art decoders utilized separate memory for each of those tasks. Id. at 4:28-35.
`
`31.
`
`Independent claim 1, which is representative of independent claims 10 and
`
`16, requires:
`
`15
`
`SONY EX. 1003
`Page 18
`
`

`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`
`
`
`32. Challenged Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent claims. Challenged
`
`Claims 2-3, 5, and 7 depend on claim 1. Challenged Claims 11-12 depend
`
`on claim 10. And Challenged Claims 17-18 depend on claim 16.
`
`C.
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`33. The ’087 Patent issued from application number 748,269, filed on Nov. 13,
`
`16
`
`SONY EX. 1003
`Page 19
`
`

`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`
`1996. Ex. 1001 at [21], [22]. During prosecution, the Examiner allowed
`
`claims 1-11 and 13-20, and rejected claim 12 as indefinite as certain terms
`
`lacked antecedent basis. Ex. 1002 at 114. In response, the applicant
`
`amended claim 12 to depend on claim 11, rather than claim 10. Id. at 121.
`
`The examiner then allowed the claim. Id. at 122.
`
`V. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art
`34.
`I understand that there are multiple factors relevant to determining the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including the educational level of active
`
`workers in the field at the time of the alleged invention, the sophistication of
`
`the technology, the type of problems encountered in the art, and the prior art
`
`solutions to those problems.
`
`35.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the
`
`time of invention of the ’087 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer
`
`Science, and at least two years of experience in the design and development
`
`of multimedia processor systems utilizing memory.
`
`VI. Claim Construction
`36.
`I understand that the terms in the claims of the ’087 Patent, which is expired,
`
`are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification and prosecution
`
`17
`
`SONY EX. 1003
`Page 20
`
`

`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`
`history, unless those sources show an intent to depart from such meaning.
`
`37.
`
`It is my opinion that, for purposes of my analysis, claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-13,
`
`and 16-18 do not require claim construction.
`
`VII. Detailed Invalidity Analysis
`38.
`I have been asked to provide an opinion as to whether the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’087 Patent are invalid in view of the prior art. Below I
`
`describe in detail how the prior art references identified in Section I
`
`anticipate or render obvious the Challenged Claims.
`
`39. As part of my invalidity analysis, I rely upon the filing date of the ’087
`
`Patent as the time of the alleged invention. I have also considered the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`40. As part of my obviousness analysis, I have considered the scope and content
`
`of the prior art, and whether any differences between the claimed invention
`
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have
`
`been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the priority
`
`date for the ’087 Patent.
`
`A. Background on Prior Art References
`41. Below is a brief summary of the prior art.
`
`1.
`Background on Fujii
`42. Fujii is entitled “Decoder for Compressed and Multiplexed Video and Audio
`
`18
`
`SONY EX. 1003
`Page 21
`
`

`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`
`Data.” Ex. 1004 at [54]. Fujii was filed on March 27, 1996 and claims
`
`priority to two Japanese applications filed on March 29, 1995. Ex. 1004 at
`
`[30].
`
`43. Like the ’087 patent, Fujii recognizes that using buffers separate from
`
`“system memory” for MPEG decoding is disadvantageous as it increases
`
`cost and the number of system components. Ex. 1004 at 2:61-67. Fujii thus
`
`proposes placing the packet landing buffers in the system memory RAM
`
`together with memory used
`
`for
`
`system control, decoding and
`
`demultiplexing. Id. at 3:60-64; see also id. at 3:65-67, 4:1:19.
`
`44. Fujii discloses three preferred embodiments that use this single memory.
`
`The first preferred embodiment is depicted in Figures 1 through 10. See id.
`
`at 6:1-2. The second preferred embodiment is depicted in Figures 11
`
`through 15. See id. at 9:10. And a third preferred embodiment in Figures 16
`
`through 23. See id. at 10:32. However, many of the described components
`
`and functions are common between these three preferred embodiments. For
`
`instance, Fujii explains that for its second preferred embodiment, “Blocks
`
`common to the first embodiment are represented by identical reference
`
`numerals, and the description thereof is omitted.” Id. at 9:12-14. Therefore,
`
`while my declaration focuses on the second preferred embodiment, I cite
`
`some portions of the specification that concern the first embodiment but that
`
`19
`
`SONY EX. 1003
`Page 22
`
`

`
`Declaration of Chandrajit Bajaj Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,870,087
`
`
`are also included in the second embodiment.
`
`2.
`Background on Maturi
`45. Maturi is entitled “MPEG Decoding System Including Tag List for
`
`Associating Presentation Time Stamps wit