UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`GOOGLE LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Patent No. 7,012,960
`____________________
`
`DECLARATION OF JEFFREY J. RODRIGUEZ, PH.D.
`
`Page 1 of 136
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1002
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................1
`I.
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS................................................2
`II.
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED AND SUMMARY OF OPINIONS..............8
`IV.
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................10
`A.
`Claims 1, 4, and 5...............................................................................10
`B.
`Claims 4 and 5....................................................................................11
`THE ’960 PATENT......................................................................................13
`V.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .........................................................................20
`A.
`“transformed signal[s]” (Claims 1 and 4) and “transformed
`coefficients” (Claim 1).......................................................................20
`“transformed motion-compensated signal” (Claims 1 and 4)............24
`B.
`Summary ............................................................................................26
`C.
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE REFERENCES........................................................28
`A.
`Overview of Keesman (Ex. 1005)......................................................28
`B.
`Overview of Neri (Ex. 1006)..............................................................32
`C.
`Overview of Dubois (Ex. 1007).........................................................34
`D.
`Overview of Kim (Ex. 1008)..............................................................37
`E.
`Overview of Matsumura (Ex. 1009) ..................................................39
`VIII. THE REFERENCES DISCLOSE ALL OF THE LIMITATIONS OF
`CLAIMS 1, 4 and 5 OF THE ’960 PATENT...............................................42
`A.
`Keesman in combination with Neri Discloses or Suggests the
`Limitations of Claim 1 .......................................................................42
`1.
`Claim 1.....................................................................................42
`a)
`A method of transcoding a primary encoded signal
`(S1) comprising a sequence of pictures, into a
`secondary encoded signal (S2), said method of
`transcoding comprising at least the steps of:.................42
`decoding a current picture of the primary encoded
`signal,.............................................................................49
`
`b)
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`said decoding step comprising a dequantizing sub-
`step (12) for producing a first transformed signal
`(R1),...............................................................................53
`encoding,
`following
`the decoding step,
`for
`obtaining the secondary encoded signal,.......................57
`said encoding step comprising a quantizing sub-step
`(13),................................................................................61
`wherein said method of
`transcoding further
`comprises a filtering step between the dequantizing
`sub-step and the quantizing sub-step, said filtering
`step using a recursive filter............................................63
`wherein the recursive filtering step is intended to
`use a recursive filter such as: Rf[i]=(1—.alpha.[i])
`(R1[i]+Rmc[i]), where Rf[i], R1[i] and Rmc[i] are
`transformed
`coefficients
`comprised
`in
`the
`transformed signals (Rf,R1,Rmc) and .alpha.[i] is a
`filter coefficient comprised between 0 and 1; and ........78
`predicting a
`transformed motion-compensated
`signal from a transformed encoding error derived
`from the encoding step, .................................................79
`said prediction step being situated between the
`encoding and decoding steps,........................................85
`wherein the recursive filtering step is for receiving
`the transformed motion-compensated signal and the
`first transformed signal and for delivering a filtered
`transformed signal to the quantizing sub-step...............87
`Keesman, Neri, and Dubois Disclose or Suggest the Limitations
`of Claim 1...........................................................................................91
`Keesman and Kim Disclose or Suggest the Limitations of Claims
`4 and 5 ................................................................................................98
`1.
`Claim 4.....................................................................................98
`
`g)
`
`h)
`
`i)
`
`j)
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`a)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`e)
`
`f)
`
`b)
`
`A method of transcoding a primary encoded signal
`comprising a sequence of pictures, into a secondary
`encoded signal, said method of
`transcoding
`comprising at least the steps of:.....................................98
`decoding a current picture of the primary encoded
`signal,.............................................................................98
`said decoding step comprising a dequantizing sub-
`step for producing a first transformed signal,................99
`encoding,
`following
`the decoding step,
`for
`obtaining the secondary encoded signal,.......................99
`said encoding step comprising a quantizing sub-
`step,................................................................................99
`wherein said method of
`transcoding further
`comprises a filtering step between the dequantizing
`sub-step and the quantizing sub-step; and.....................99
`predicting a
`transformed motion-compensated
`signal from a transformed encoding error derived
`from the encoding step, ...............................................111
`said prediction step being situated between the
`encoding and decoding steps,......................................112
`wherein the filtering step is a spatial filtering step
`for receiving the transformed motion-compensated
`signal and the first transformed signal and for
`delivering a filtered transformed signal to the
`quantizing sub-step,.....................................................113
`said spatial filtering step being only applied to intra-
`coded macroblocks contained in the current picture.
`.....................................................................................117
`Claim 5...................................................................................118
`
`g)
`
`h)
`
`i)
`
`j)
`
`2.
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`a)
`
`D.
`
`A method of transcoding as claimed in claim 4,
`characterized in that it further comprises a detection
`step for giving a label to a current macroblock, the
`spatial filtering step being adapted to apply a filter
`to the current macroblock as a function of said label.
`.....................................................................................118
`Keesman, Kim, and Matsumura Disclose or Suggest the
`Limitations of Claims 4 and 5..........................................................121
`1.
`Claim 4...................................................................................121
`2.
`Claim 5...................................................................................126
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE ’960 PATENT ..............................................129
`CONCLUSION...........................................................................................131
`
`IX.
`X.
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`I, Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained by Google LLC (“Petitioner”) as an independent
`
`expert consultant in this proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“PTO”) regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960 (“the ’960 patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`I have been asked to consider whether certain references disclose or suggest the
`
`limitations recited in claims 1, 4, and 5 (“the challenged claims”) of the ’960 patent.
`
`My opinions are set forth below.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at my rate of $525 per hour for the time I spend
`
`on this matter. My compensation is in no way contingent on the nature of my
`
`findings, the presentation of my findings in testimony, or the outcome of this or any
`
`other proceeding. I have no other interest in this proceeding.
`
`1
`
`Page 6 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`3.
`I am a professor at the University of Arizona in the Department of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering, where I hold or have held the following
`
`positions: (a) Tenured Associate Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering
`
`(1997–present), (b) Director of the Signal and Image Laboratory (1990–present), (c)
`
`Director of Image Analysis, Cancer Imaging Shared Services, Arizona Cancer
`
`Center (2009–2014), (d) Director of Graduate Studies for the Department of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering (2000–2003, 2005–2016). A copy of my
`
`current curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1003, which includes a list of my prior
`
`publications and a list of cases in which I have testified as an expert at deposition or
`
`trial.
`
`4.
`
`My formal education includes a bachelor’s degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin in May 1984, a master’s degree
`
`in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in June
`
`1986, and a Ph.D. Degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Texas at
`
`Austin in May 1990.
`
`5.
`
`I teach courses at both the graduate and undergraduate level through the
`
`Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering and the College of Optical Sciences.
`
`The courses I have taught include Digital Image Processing (ECE/OPTI 533),
`
`Digital Image Analysis (ECE/OPTI 532), Digital Signal Processing (ECE 429/529),
`
`2
`
`Page 7 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`Advanced Digital Signal Processing (ECE 528), Signals and Systems (ECE 340),
`
`and Circuit Analysis (ECE 320). Image and video compression technology is part
`
`of the material that I have covered in the Digital Image Processing course that I
`
`teach.
`
`6.
`
`My research activity is generally directed to systems for automated
`
`digital signal/image/video processing and analysis. Past projects include content-
`
`adaptive
`
`improved error concealment methods
`
`for H.264/AVC video
`
`communication, super-resolution techniques for image enhancement, a real-time
`
`video processing system for detection and tracking of zebrafish, automobile
`
`detection and tracking in aerial video of urban traffic scenes, tongue detection and
`
`tracking using ultrasound, video segmentation of the right ventricle in cardiac
`
`magnetic resonance image sequences, performance evaluation of superpixel
`
`algorithms for
`
`image segmentation,
`
`image
`
`inpainting, segmentation and
`
`measurement of lesions in magnetic resonance images, etc.
`
`7.
`
`My work in the area of video compression has included the
`
`development of improved error concealment techniques for H.264/AVC video
`
`communication systems. This work involved improved error concealment of the
`
`corrupted H.264/AVC video sequences and included both a spatial and temporal
`
`error concealment method. Using the information of Intra prediction modes from
`
`the coded bit-stream, a spatial error concealment method was developed with
`3
`
`Page 8 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`reduced computational complexity, which improved the concealment performance
`
`and the visual quality of the damaged Intra frames. In addition, a content-adaptive
`
`temporal error concealment method for packet losses occurring in the Inter frames
`
`of the video sequence was developed. Using the mode information of the
`
`neighboring macroblocks, a lost macroblock was partitioned by adaptively selecting
`
`the most suitable of eight partition types to guarantee smoothness in the
`
`reconstructed image. Also, the concept of overlapped block motion compensation
`
`was exploited to avoid spatial discontinuities.
`
`8.
`
`Another area of my research has been the development of super-
`
`resolution (SR) techniques for computing a high-resolution image from one or more
`
`low-resolution images. For example, my research lab developed a new method for
`
`single-image SR using dictionary-based local regression to produce a high-
`
`resolution image from a single low-resolution image without any external training
`
`image sets. We used a dictionary-based regression model using local self-similar
`
`example patches within the input image. Our method was inspired by the observation
`
`that image patches can be well represented as a sparse linear combination of
`
`elements from a chosen over-complete dictionary and that a patch in the high-
`
`resolution image has good matches around its corresponding location in the low-
`
`resolution image. A first-order approximation of a nonlinear mapping function,
`
`learned using the local self-similar example patches, is applied to the low-resolution
`4
`
`Page 9 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`image patches to obtain the corresponding high-resolution image patches. We
`
`extended
`
`the technique by developing a graph regularized block sparse
`
`representation (GRBSR) for
`
`images, which
`
`is used for patch-based SR
`
`reconstruction of a high-resolution image from a low-resolution image.
`
`9.
`
`In another SR project, my research lab developed a non-regularized SR
`
`algorithm that directly solves a multi-shift image reconstruction problem to compute
`
`a realistic high-resolution image from multiple low-resolution images without being
`
`penalized by improper assumptions made in the inverse problem. A forward
`
`observation model is first characterized using information such as an estimate of the
`
`blurring kernels (resulting from the imaging optics and the sensor’s finite size) and
`
`the relative shifts between the acquired low-resolution images to find a full-rank
`
`matrix representation of the multi-shift imaging point spread function, and by
`
`characterizing the noise statistics. The high-resolution reconstruction is then found
`
`by directly solving a set of linear equations. This technique produces a unique exact
`
`restoration under ideal shift estimates and in-focus noiseless measurements, making
`
`the inverse a well-posed problem. The realistic scenarios of inaccurate shift
`
`estimates and blurred noisy measurements in some cases may result in more
`
`unknowns than the number of equations or small changes in some variables which
`
`may hurt the stability of the solution. For such scenarios, we introduced an adaptive
`
`5
`
`Page 10 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`frequency-based filtering scheme to upper bound the reconstruction errors while still
`
`producing more fine details as compared with other regularized SR techniques.
`
`10. Another research project of mine involved the design and development
`
`of a real-time image and video processing system for automated behavioral analysis
`
`of zebrafish for use in ototoxicity assessment of drugs. The system we designed and
`
`built includes an array of Raspberry Pi microcomputer systems configured with
`
`video cameras for parallel video capture of sixteen zebrafish populations. Each
`
`Raspberry Pi features a system on a chip, which includes a CPU, a video graphics
`
`processing unit (GPU), a disk storage system, and a memory system. Our zebrafish
`
`analysis system automatically captures and transmits video data to a high-
`
`performance cluster to implement customized algorithms for further video
`
`processing and analysis, resulting in automated assessment of zebrafish swimming
`
`behavior.
`
`11.
`
`I am a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers (IEEE) and the IEEE Signal Processing Society. I served as General Chair
`
`of the 2016 IEEE Southwest Symposium on Image Analysis and Interpretation
`
`(SSIAI), and General Chair of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Image
`
`Processing (ICIP). In addition, during 2005–2011, I served on the IEEE Signal
`
`Processing Society Technical Committee on Image, Video, and Multidimensional
`
`Signal Processing. Over the years, I have served on numerous other professional
`6
`
`Page 11 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`committees, and I have served as a technical reviewer for numerous journals and
`
`professional conferences.
`
`7
`
`Page 12 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED AND SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`12.
`The opinions contained in this Declaration are based on the documents
`
`I reviewed and my professional judgment, as well as my education, experience,
`
`and/or knowledge regarding technologies relating to, among other things, video or
`
`image signal processing.
`
`13.
`
`In forming my opinions expressed in this Declaration, I reviewed the
`
`following materials:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’960 patent (Ex. 1001);
`the prosecution file history for the ’960 patent (Ex. 1004)
`Keesman et al. “Transcoding of MPEG bitstreams,” Signal Processing: Image
`Communication, Vol. 8, No. 6 (September 1996) (Ex. 1005)
`Neri et al. “Inter-block filtering and downsampling in DCT domain,” Signal
`Processing: Image Communication, Vol. 6, No. 4 (August 1994) (Ex. 1006)
`Dubois et al., “Noise Reduction in Image Sequences Using Motion-
`Compensated Temporal Filtering,” IEEE Transactions on Communications,
`Vol. Com-32, No. 7 (July 1984) (Ex. 1007)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,249,549 to Kim (Ex. 1008)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,792,045 to Matsumura et al. (Ex. 1009)
`Excerpts from Smith, The Scientist and Engineer’s Guide to Digital Signal
`Processing (1997) (Ex. 1010)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,456,663 to Kim (Ex. 1013, “Kim ’663”);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,428,456 to Parulski et al. (Ex. 1014)
`European Application No. 00402939 (Ex. 1015)
`European Application No. 01400588 (Ex. 1016)
`Mitchell et al., MPEG Video Compression Standard, Chapman & Hall (1996)
`(Ex. 1018)
`Any other materials I refer to in this Declaration in support of my opinions.
`
`8
`
`Page 13 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`14.
`
`In support of my opinions, I have taken into account how a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (as defined below in Section IV) would have understood the
`
`claims and the specification of the ’960 patent at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`My opinions reflect how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`the ’960 patent, the references, and the state of the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention.
`
`15. As I discuss in detail below, it is my opinion that certain references
`
`disclose or suggest all the limitations recited in claims 1, 4 and 5 of the ’960 patent.
`
`9
`
`Page 14 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`IV.
`A. Claims 1, 4, and 5
`16.
`I have been asked to consider the time of the alleged invention for
`
`claims 1, 4, and 5 of the ’960 patent to be the late 2000 time frame, including October
`
`24, 2000, which I understand is the filing date of European Application No.
`
`00402939 (“the EP ’939 application”) (Ex. 1015) that is associated with the ’960
`
`patent. (Ex. 1001 at Cover.) Accordingly, I applied this understanding in my
`
`analysis under Sections VIII.A-C below.
`
`17. Based on my knowledge and experience, I understand what a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have known at the time of the alleged
`
`invention (as described in the previous paragraph). My opinions herein are, where
`
`appropriate, based on my understanding as to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the alleged invention. In my opinion, based on the materials I have
`
`reviewed, and based on my experience in the technical areas relevant to the ’960
`
`patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the
`
`’960 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`science, or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with data
`
`compression systems and algorithms, including video coding. Significantly more
`
`practical experience could also qualify one not having the aforementioned education
`
`10
`
`Page 15 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`as a person of ordinary skill in the art while, conversely, a higher level of education
`
`could offset a lesser amount of experience.
`
`18.
`
`I provide my analysis of the ’960 patent, the references, and my
`
`opinions in this declaration from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, as I have defined it above, during the relevant time frame stated above, where
`
`appropriate.
`
`B. Claims 4 and 5
`19. As I discuss below in Section IX, the EP ’939 application does not
`
`support each and every limitation set forth in challenged claims 4 and 5 of the ’960
`
`patent. (See below at Section IX.) I have been informed that claims 4 and 5 of the
`
`’960 patent are thus not entitled to the October 24, 2000 filing date. Accordingly, I
`
`have been asked to consider a scenario under Section VIII.D in which the time of
`
`the alleged invention for claims 4 and 5 of the ’960 patent is the early 2001 time
`
`frame, including March 6, 2001, which I understand is the filing date of European
`
`Application No. 01400588 (“the EP ’588 application”) (Ex. 1016) that is associated
`
`with the ’960 patent. (Ex. 1001 at Cover.) Accordingly, I applied this understanding
`
`in my analysis under Section VIII.D below.
`
`20. Based on my knowledge and experience, I understand what a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have known at the time of the alleged invention (as
`
`described in the previous paragraph). My opinions herein are, where appropriate
`
`11
`
`Page 16 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`(e.g., in my analysis of claims 4 and 5 along with the references under Section
`
`VIII.D), based on my understanding as to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention. In my opinion, based on the materials I have reviewed,
`
`and based on my experience in the technical areas relevant to the ’960 patent, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’960
`
`patent with respect to claims 4 and 5 would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering, computer science, or the equivalent, and two or more years of
`
`experience with data compression systems and algorithms, including video coding.
`
`Significantly more practical experience could also qualify one not having the
`
`aforementioned education as a person of ordinary skill in the art while, conversely,
`
`a higher level of education could offset a lesser amount of experience.
`
`21.
`
`I provide my analysis of the ’960 patent, the references, and my
`
`opinions in this declaration (e.g., in my analysis of claims 4 and 5 along with the
`
`references under Section VIII.D) from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art, as I have defined it above, during the relevant time frame stated above,
`
`where appropriate.
`
`12
`
`Page 17 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`V. THE ’960 PATENT
`22.
`The ’960 patent relates generally to “a method of transcoding a primary
`
`encoded signal comprising a sequence of pictures, into a secondary encoded signal.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 1:7–10.) In particular, the ’960 patent’s goal is “to provide a
`
`transcoding method and a corresponding device that allows a better quality of
`
`pictures for low bitrate applications.” (Id. at 1:47–49.) The ’960 patent states that
`
`it achieves this goal by implementing “filters . . . [with] the prior art transcoder.”
`
`(Id. at 2:1–3.)
`
`23.
`
`Transcoding, as the ’960 patent admits, is well known. (Id.; see also
`
`id. at 1:50–58.) An exemplary application of transcoding is to lower the bitrate of a
`
`video stream “in order to meet requirements imposed by the means of transport
`
`during broadcasting.” (Id. at 1:25–30.) The ’960 patent provides that this may be
`
`accomplished by converting “a primary stream encoded at a bitrate BR1 . . . into a
`
`secondary video stream encoded at a bitrate BR2, lower than BR1.” (Id.) An
`
`exemplary transcoding device, well-known prior to the alleged invention of the ’960
`
`patent, is reproduced below.
`
`13
`
`Page 18 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`(Id. at FIG. 1; see also id. at 2:44–47 (“FIG. 1 is a block diagram corresponding to
`
`a transcoding device according to the prior art”).) This well-known transcoding
`
`device (100), as shown in Figure 1, performs the transcoding of encoded digital
`
`signals (S1), and comprises a decoding channel (shown generally in gray), an
`
`encoding channel (shown generally in yellow), and a prediction channel (shown
`
`generally in purple).1 (Id. at 1:30-35, FIG. 1.) The encoded digital signals (S1) and
`
`(S2) are each “representative of a sequence of images.” (Id.1 at 1:30-35, FIG. 1.)
`
`
`1 Throughout my declaration, I use colors (e.g., gray, yellow, and purple) in figures
`
`of the ’960 patent or the references to generally indicate portions of the transcoder
`
`(e.g., decoding portion, encoding portion, and predicting portion).
`
`14
`
`Page 19 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`24.
`
`The decoding channel (gray) includes a variable length decoder VLD
`
`(11) and an inverse quantizer IQ (12). (Id. at 1:30-35, FIG. 1.) An encoding channel
`
`(yellow) follows the decoding channel. (Id. at 1:30-35, FIG. 1.) The encoding
`
`channel includes a quantizer Q (13), a variable length coder VLC (14) and an inverse
`
`quantizer IQ (15). (Id. at 1:30-35, FIG. 1.) Situated between the encoding and
`
`decoding channels is a prediction channel (purple). (Id. at 1:30-35, FIG. 1.) In
`
`particular, the prediction channel “is connected in cascade between these two
`
`channels.” (Id. at 1:35-43.)
`
`25.
`
`The “prediction channel comprises, in series, between two subtractors
`
`(101,102), an inverse discrete cosine transform circuit IDCT (16), a picture memory
`
`MEM (17), a circuit for motion-compensation MC (18) in view of displacement
`
`vectors (V) which are representative of the motion of each image, and a discrete
`
`cosine transform circuit DCT (19).” (Id. at 1:30–35.)
`
`26.
`
`The ’960 patent states “using [the] prior art transcoding method, will
`
`lead to conspicuous quantization artifacts” when re-quantizing the input signal. (Id.
`
`at 1:59–63.) The ’960 patent provides that “[t]o overcome this drawback, the
`
`transcoding method . . . further comprises a filtering step between the dequantizing
`
`sub-step and the quantizing sub-step.” (Id. at 1:64–67.) In other words, the ’960
`
`patent implements filters with the “prior art transcoder” in order to reduce noise in
`
`the transformed signal. (Ex. 1001 at 2:1–5.)
`15
`
`Page 20 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`27.
`
`The ’960 patent provides a temporal filter (blue) with the well-known
`
`transcoder as shown in Figure 2, reproduced below.
`
`(Id. at FIG. 2 (annotated); see also id. at 2:49–52 (“FIG. 2 is a block diagram
`
`corresponding to a first embodiment of a transcoding device according to the
`
`invention, said device comprising a temporal filter circuit,”); 5:17–40.) The ’960
`
`patent provides that in this embodiment, there is “a temporal filtering step for
`
`receiving the transformed motion-compensated signal [Rmc] and the first
`
`transformed signal [R1] and for delivering a filtered transformed signal [Rf] to the
`
`quantizing sub-step [Q].” (Id. at 2:9–17.) The “temporal filtering step allows noise
`
`reduction to be performed.” (Id. at 2:18–20.) And this step can be carried out using
`
`“a recursive filter.” (Id.)
`
`16
`
`Page 21 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`28.
`
`The ’960 patent also provides a spatial filter (blue) with the well-known
`
`transcoder as shown in Figure 4, reproduced below.
`
`(Id. at FIG. 4 (annotated); see also id. at 2:55–58 (“FIG. 4 a block diagram
`
`corresponding to a third embodiment of a transcoding device according to the
`
`invention, said device also comprising a spatial filter circuit,”), 7:15–17.) The ’960
`
`patent provides that in this embodiment, there is “a spatial filter circuit Ws (41), for
`
`receiving said sum [of the transformed motion-compensated signal (Rmc) and the
`
`first transformed signal (R1)] and for delivering a filtered transformed signal (Rf) to
`
`the encoding channel.” (Id. at 7:38–40, FIG. 4.) The ’960 patent provides that while
`
`“spatial filtering is not so efficient to reduce the noise as motion-compensated
`
`temporal filtering is[,]” “it can prevent blocking artifacts at low bit-rate, smoothing
`
`down sharp edges that would otherwise create ringing effects.” (Id. at 5:53:58.) And
`17
`
`Page 22 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`spatial filtering can “simplify complex patterns that would otherwise be randomly
`
`distorted from one picture to the other, resulting in the so-called mosquito noise.”
`
`(Id. at 5:58–60.)
`
`29.
`
`The ’960 patent also provides a transcoder with selectable filtering
`
`(blue) as shown in Figure 5, reproduced below.
`
`(Id. at FIG. 5 (annotated); see also id. at 2:55–558 (“FIG. 5 a block diagram
`
`corresponding to a fourth embodiment of a transcoding device according to the
`
`invention, said device also comprising a spatial filter circuit and, possibly, a
`
`temporal filter circuit”).) The ’960 patent provides that in this embodiment, there is
`
`18
`
`Page 23 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`“a switch (52)” with a plurality of positions (e.g., a, b, and c). (Id. at 7:64–66, FIG.
`
`5.) “In a first position (a) of the switch, a spatial filter circuit Ws (51) is adapted to
`
`receive the output of the adder and to deliver a filtered transformed signal (Rf) to the
`
`quantizing circuit (13).” (Id. at 7:65–8:1.) “In a second position (b) of the switch,
`
`no filtering is applied: this position corresponds mainly to non intra-coded
`
`macroblocks.” (Id. at 8:5–7.) The ’960 patent states that “the spatial filter circuit is
`
`not applied to every macroblocks contained in the current picture, but is only applied
`
`to intra-coded macroblocks contained in said picture.” (Id. at 8:2–5.) Finally,
`
`“position (c) . . . corresponds to a temporal filter circuit Wt (51) . . . [which is]
`
`adapted to receive the output of the adder and to deliver a filtered transformed signal
`
`(Rf) to the quantizing circuit (13).” (Id. at 8:8–12.)
`
`19
`
`Page 24 of 136
`
`

`

`Declaration of Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,012,960
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`30.
`I have been asked to consider and apply in my analysis certain
`
`constructions of claim terms, as I discuss below. I also have been asked to give each
`
`remaining claim term in the challenged claims its plain and ordinary meaning, as
`
`would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of
`
`the alleged invention, taking into consideration the language of the claims, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history of the ’960 patent. I have applied these
`
`understandings of the claim terms in my analysis and in forming my opinions where
`
`appropriate in this Declaration.
`
`A. “transformed signal[s]” (Claims 1 and 4) and “transformed coefficients”
`(Claim 1)
`31.
`I have been asked to assume that the terms “transformed signal[s],”
`
`recited in claims 1 and 4, and “transformed coefficients,” recited in claim 1, both
`
`should be construed as “data concerning video that has been discrete cosine
`
`transformed and inverse quantized.” This definition is consistent with the usage of
`
`both “transformed signal[s]” and “transformed coefficients” in the claims of the ’960
`
`patent, which provide that the data has been transformed (see Ex. 1001 at cls. 1, 4, 6
`
`and 7) and inverse quantized (see id. (e.g., claims 1 and