DOCKET NO.: 2211726-00179US1
`Filed on behalf of Unified Patents, LLC
`By: David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Scott Bertulli, Reg. No. 75,886
`Trishan Esram, Reg. No. 74,075
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email: david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`Ashraf Fawzy, Reg. No. 67,914
`Roshan Mansinghani, Reg. No. 62,429
`Unified Patents, LLC
`1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
`Washington, DC, 20009
`Tel: (202) 871-0110
`Email: afawzy@unifiedpatents.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INTERDIGITAL VC HOLDINGS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
`DECLARATION OF DIDIER J. LEGALL
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,363,724
`CHALLENGING CLAIMS 1–4, 7–12, 15, 19–23, 26–31, 34, 38–42, 45–50, 53,
`56–60, 63–68, 71, AND 74
`
`UNIFIED 1005
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Didier J. LeGall
`U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 5 
`A. 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 5 
`B. 
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................................ 5 
`III.  LEGAL PRINCIPALS .................................................................................... 7 
`IV.  SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ......................................................................... 10 
`V. 
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY ..................................... 10 
`A.  Non-Virtual Reference Pictures .......................................................... 10 
`B. 
`Virtual Reference Pictures .................................................................. 12 
`VI.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’724 PATENT .......................................................... 14 
`A.  Alleged Invention ................................................................................ 14 
`B. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 18 
`C. 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 20 
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 21 
`VIII.  SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ...................................................... 21 
`A.  Grounds I and II: Claims 1–3, 7, 9, 12, 15, 19–22, 26, 28, 31, 34, 38–
`41, 45, 47, 50, 53, 56–59, 63, 65, 68, 71, and 74 are anticipated or
`rendered obvious by Xin ...................................................................... 22 
`1. 
`Overview of Xin ........................................................................ 22 
`2. 
`Claim 1 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................... 29 
`3. 
`Claim 2 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................... 35 
`4. 
`Claim 3 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................... 37 
`5. 
`Claim 7 is rendered obvious by Xin .......................................... 39 
`6. 
`Claim 9 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................... 41 
`7. 
`Claim 12 is rendered obvious by Xin ........................................ 42 
`8. 
`Claim 15 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 45 
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`B. 
`
`Declaration of Didier J. LeGall
`U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
`9. 
`Claim 19 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 46 
`10.  Claim 20 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 48 
`11.  Claim 21 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 49 
`12.  Claim 22 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 50 
`13.  Claim 26 is rendered obvious by Xin ........................................ 50 
`14.  Claim 28 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 51 
`15.  Claim 31 is rendered obvious by Xin ........................................ 51 
`16.  Claim 34 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 52 
`17.  Claim 38 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 52 
`18.  Claim 39 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 53 
`19.  Claim 40 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 58 
`20.  Claim 41 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 59 
`21.  Claim 45 is rendered obvious by Xin ........................................ 60 
`22.  Claim 47 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 61 
`23.  Claim 50 is rendered obvious by Xin ........................................ 61 
`24.  Claim 53 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 64 
`25.  Claim 56 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 65 
`26.  Claim 57 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 66 
`27.  Claim 58 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 68 
`28.  Claim 59 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 68 
`29.  Claim 63 is rendered obvious by Xin ........................................ 69 
`30.  Claim 65 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 69 
`31.  Claim 68 is rendered obvious by Xin ........................................ 70 
`32.  Claim 71 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 70 
`33.  Claim 74 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 71 
`Ground III: Claims 4, 8, 10, 11, 23, 27, 29 30, 42, 46, 48, 49, 60, 64,
`66, and 67 are obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ............................ 71 
`1. 
`Overview of LeGall .................................................................. 72 
`2. 
`Claim 4 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ........................ 73 
`3. 
`Claim 8 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ........................ 79 
`4. 
`Claim 10 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 81 
`5. 
`Claim 11 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 82 
`6. 
`Claim 23 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 83 
`7. 
`Claim 27 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 84 
`8. 
`Claim 29 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 84 
`9. 
`Claim 30 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 85 
`10.  Claim 42 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 85 
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Didier J. LeGall
`U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
`11.  Claim 46 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 86 
`12.  Claim 48 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 86 
`13.  Claim 49 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 86 
`14.  Claim 60 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 87 
`15.  Claim 64 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 87 
`16.  Claim 66 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 88 
`17.  Claim 67 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 88 
`IX.  AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS EXAMINATION ....................................... 89 
`X. 
`RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT .......................................................................... 89 
`XI. 
`JURAT ........................................................................................................... 90 
`
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I, Didier J. LeGall, declare as follows:
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Didier J. LeGall
`U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Didier J. LeGall. I received a Master of Science and Ph.D.
`
`in Electrical Engineering from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1977 and
`
`1981, respectively. A copy of my curriculum vitae, which includes a more detailed
`
`summary of my background, experience, patents, and publications, is attached as
`
`Appendix A.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Unified Patents, LLC as an independent expert
`
`consultant in the field of video processing and transmission.
`
`3.
`
`I am currently Executive Vice President of Ambarella (2004 to
`
`Present), a semiconductor design company that I founded and that focuses on low-
`
`power, high-definition (HD) and Ultra HD video compression, image processing,
`
`and computer vision processors. Prior to Ambarella, I co-founded and was Chief
`
`Technology Officer of C-Cube Microsystems, Inc. (“C-Cube”) from 1990 until its
`
`acquisition by LSI Logic in 2001. C-Cube was an early pioneer of the Moving
`
`Picture Experts Group (“MPEG”) digital video standard who provided enabling
`
`silicon technology for image compression of digital video and audio. In 1995, the
`
`company received an Emmy award for technical achievement in digital audio-visual.
`
`At LSI Logic, I served as Vice President and General Manager of the Digital Video
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Didier J. LeGall
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
`
`group until 2004 (when I joined Ambarella). Prior to C-Cube, I managed the Visual
`
`Communication group at Bellcore (formerly Bell Communications Research).
`
`4.
`
`During the 1980s and 1990s, I contributed to the development and
`
`standardization of video encoding and decoding, including as Chair of the MPEG
`
`Video Committee (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11) from approximately 1988 to 1995.
`
`During this period, our team developed several standards for compression of video,
`
`including MPEG-1 and MPEG-2.
`
`5.
`
`In addition to working in industry, I worked as an adjunct professor at
`
`Columbia University in the Department of Electrical Engineering from 1985 to
`
`1989.
`
`6.
`
`I co-authored a textbook on MPEG video coding: MPEG Video
`
`Compression Standard (Chapman & Hall, 1997). I also authored an overview of
`
`MPEG that was cited in the MPEG-2 standard itself: “MPEG: A Video Compression
`
`Standard for Multimedia Applications,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 34, no.
`
`4, April 1991. In addition, I received the IEEE Senior Award (Best Paper Award)
`
`in 1991 for a paper I co-authored: “Perfect Reconstruction FIR FilterBanks: Some
`
`Properties and Factorizations,” IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal
`
`Processing, 37(7), 1057-71 (Jul. 1989).
`
`7.
`
`I am also an inventor and I have been awarded a number of patents in
`
`the field of image and video processing, compression, and transmission, including
`2
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Didier J. LeGall
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 10,609,341 (“Automatic maintenance of front and/or rear
`
`windshield visibility”); 10,015,490 (“High efficiency video coding for video with
`
`interlaced and progressive content using lookahead”); 9,478,256 (“Video editing
`
`processor for video cloud server”); 8,768,142 (“Video editing with connected high-
`
`resolution video camera and video cloud server”); 8,675,101 (“Temperature-based
`
`fixed pattern noise and bad pixel calibration”); 7,880,776 (“High resolution zoom: a
`
`novel digital zoom for digital video camera”); 7,688,364 (“Decimating and cropping
`
`based zoom factor for a digital camera”); 6,512,550 (“Motion compensated de-
`
`interlacing”); 6,331,874 (“Motion compensated de-interlacing”); 5,929,916
`
`(“Variable bit rate encoding”); 6,122,442 (“Structure and method for motion
`
`estimation of a digital image by matching derived scores”); 6,071,004 (“Non-linear
`
`digital filters for interlaced video signals and method thereof”); 5,872,598 (“Scene
`
`change detection using quantization scale factor rate control”); 5,761,398 (“Three
`
`stage hierarchal motion vector determination”); 5,630,033 (“Adaptic threshold filter
`
`and method thereof”); 5,128,791 (“Multi-channel HDTV system”); 5,121,216
`
`(“Adaptive transform coding of still images”); 5,049,993 (“Format conversion
`
`preprocessing method and circuit”); 4,897,799 (“Format independent visual
`
`communications”); and 4,829,378 (“Sub-band coding of images with low
`
`computational complexity”).
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Didier J. LeGall
`U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
`In view of the above and my other experience set forth in my curriculum
`
`8.
`
`vitae in Appendix A, I received a Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering and had
`
`more than a two decades of work experience and lecturing experience on
`
`technologies including image and video processing, compression, and transmission
`
`prior to the earliest claimed priority date of the ’724 patent (i.e., July 11, 2006). Thus,
`
`as of that date, I was at least a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’724 patent.
`
`See Section VI.B below.
`
`9.
`
`I am not an attorney and offer no legal opinions. But in my work, I
`
`have studied and analyzed patents and patent claims from the perspective of a person
`
`skilled in the art. For the purposes of this declaration, I have been informed about
`
`certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my opinions, which I summarize below.
`
`My understanding of the law was provided to me by Petitioner’s attorneys.
`
`10. For my work in preparing this expert declaration, I am being
`
`compensated at my usual and customary hourly rate of $350. I have no financial
`
`interest in either party or in the outcome of this proceeding. My compensation is not
`
`dependent on the outcome of these proceedings or the content of my opinions.
`
`11.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1–
`
`4, 7–12, 15, 19–23, 26–31, 34, 38–42, 45–50, 53, 56–60, 63–68, 71, and 74 (the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) of the ’724 patent would have been anticipated by the prior
`
`art references that I discuss below or obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the
`4
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Didier J. LeGall
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
`
`art (“POSA”) as of the earliest claimed priority date (July 11, 2006) in light of the
`
`prior art references. It is my opinion that the Challenged Claims would have been
`
`anticipated by that prior art or obvious to a POSA in view of that prior art for the
`
`reasons I discuss below.
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`A.
`Prosecution History
`12.
`I have reviewed the specification and claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,363,724 (“’724 patent”) (EX1001) and the file history of the ’724 patent (EX1013).
`
`I understand that the ’724 patent was issued on January 29, 2013 from U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 12/309,066, which is a national stage application of International
`
`Application No. PCT/US2007/015719, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional
`
`Application No. 60/830,195, which was filed on July 11, 2006. EX1001, cover.
`
`B.
`13.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed relevant parts of the
`
`publications and exhibits cited in this declaration, including the following
`
`publications, each of which I understand to be prior art to the ’724 patent:
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0146138 (“Xin”
`
`(EX1003)), which was filed on November 30, 2005 and published on
`
`July 6, 2006.
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Didier J. LeGall
`U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
` European Patent 2278816 (“Lim” (EX1006)), which was filed on July 7,
`
`2003 and issued on April 24, 2013.
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0071485 (“Calgar”
`
`(EX1007)), which was filed on August 21, 2001 and published on June
`
`14, 2002.
`
` Guanjun Zhang and Robert L. Stevenson, “Error resilient video coding
`
`using virtual reference picture,” Proc. SPIE 5685, Image and Video
`
`Communications and Processing 2005 (“Zhang” (EX1008)).
`
` U.S. Patent 7,292,636 (“Haskell” (EX1009)), which was filed on March
`
`2, 2004, published on December 2, 2004, and issued on November 6,
`
`2007.
`
` K. Yamamoto et al., “Multiview Video Coding Using View Interpolation
`
`and Color Correction,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for
`
`Video Technology, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 1436-1449, Nov. 2007
`
`(“Yamamoto” (EX1014))
`
`14. Additionally, I understand that my own paper—Didier LeGall, “MPEG:
`
`A Video Compression Standard for Multimedia Applications,” Communications of
`
`the ACM, vol. 34, no. 4, April 1991 (“LeGall” (EX1004))—is prior art to the ’724
`
`patent. The ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) is one of the largest
`
`educational and scientific computing societies in the world. The Communications
`6
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Didier J. LeGall
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
`
`of the ACM is the ACM’s flagship journal, covering the latest discoveries,
`
`innovations, and research in the industry, and is published monthly. “Read by over
`
`85,000 computing researchers and practitioners worldwide, Communications is
`
`recognized as the most trusted and knowledgeable source of industry information
`
`for today’s computing professional.” See https://dl.acm.org/magazines. I attest to
`
`the publication of my paper (“LeGall”) in the April 1991 edition of the
`
`Communications of the ACM and to its public accessibility thereafter to both regular
`
`subscriptions and via newsstand sales.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPALS
`15. As noted above, I am not an attorney and for the purposes of this
`
`declaration, I have been informed about certain aspects of the law that are relevant
`
`to my opinions. My understanding of the law is as follows:
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed and understand that, in an IPR, the petitioner must
`
`prove that a patent is invalid by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim may be
`
`“anticipated” if each element of that claim is present either explicitly or inherently
`
`in a single prior art reference. I was informed and understand that to be inherently
`
`present, the prior art reference must necessarily disclose the limitation, and the fact
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Didier J. LeGall
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
`
`that the reference might possibly practice or contain a claimed limitation is
`
`insufficient to establish that the reference inherently teaches the limitation.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be
`
`considered to have been obvious to a POSA at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`This means that, even if all the requirements of a claim are not found in a single prior
`
`art reference, the claim is not patentable if the differences between the subject matter
`
`in the prior art and the subject matter in the claim would have been obvious to a
`
`POSA at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a determination of whether a
`
`claim would have been obvious should be based upon several factors, including,
`
`among others:
`
` the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed;
`
` the scope and content of the prior art; and
`
` what differences, if any, existed between the claimed invention and the
`
`prior art.
`
`20.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a single reference can alone
`
`render a patent claim obvious if any differences between that reference and the
`
`claims would have been obvious to a POSA at the time of the alleged invention—
`
`that is, if the POSA could have readily adapted the reference to meet the claims of
`
`the patent, by applying known concepts to achieve expected results in the adaptation
`8
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Didier J. LeGall
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
`
`of the reference. Alternatively, the teachings of two or more references may be
`
`combined in the same way as disclosed in the claims, if such a combination would
`
`have been obvious to a POSA. In determining whether a combination based on
`
`either a single reference or multiple references would have been obvious, it is
`
`appropriate to consider, among other factors:
`
` whether the teachings of the prior art references disclose known concepts,
`
`which, when combined in familiar ways, would have yielded predictable
`
`results;
`
` whether a POSA could have implemented a predictable variation, and
`
`would have seen the benefit of doing so;
`
` whether the claimed elements represent one of a limited number of known
`
`design choices, and a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in implementing those finite number of options;
`
` whether a POSA would have recognized a reason to combine known
`
`elements in the manner described in the claim;
`
` whether there is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art or other
`
`motivation to make the modification or combination of elements claimed
`
`in the patent; and
`
` whether the innovation applies a known technique that had been used to
`
`improve a similar device or method in a similar way.
`9
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Didier J. LeGall
`U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
`I understand that a POSA has ordinary creativity and is not an
`
`21.
`
`automaton.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent-at-
`
`issue.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`23. For the reasons I explain below, I have concluded as follows: 1) there
`
`is nothing inventive about claims 1–3, 9, 15, 19–22, 28, 34, 38–41, 47, 53, 56–59,
`
`65, 71, and 74 of the ’724 patent and that these claims are anticipated by Xin; 2)
`
`there is nothing inventive about claims 1–3, 7, 9, 12, 15, 19–22, 26, 28, 31, 34, 38–
`
`41, 45, 47, 50, 53, 56–59, 63, 65, 68, 71, and 74 of the ’724 patent and that these
`
`claims are obvious over Xin; and 3) there is nothing inventive about claims 4, 8, 10,
`
`11, 23, 27, 29, 30, 42, 46, 48, 49, 60, 64, 66, and 67 of the ’724 patent and that these
`
`claims are rendered obvious by the combination of Xin and LeGall.
`
`V. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`A. Non-Virtual Reference Pictures
`24.
`It is well known that videos may be compressed for transmission and
`
`storage using compression
`
`techniques
`
`that are
`
`typically compliant with
`
`internationally-recognized standards. See, e.g., EX1006, ¶¶3–4; EX1007, ¶¶10–17.
`
`Conventional compression techniques include temporally predicting pictures from
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Didier J. LeGall
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
`
`reference pictures, as Lim illustrates in Figure 24 (reproduced below). EX1006, ¶6
`
`(“The hatched pictures in Fig. 24 present the pictures to be stored in the memory for
`
`reference when other pictures are encoded/decoded.”).
`
`Id., FIG. 24
`
`
`
`25.
`
`“The marks of ‘I’ for an intra coded picture, ‘P’ for a predictive coded
`
`picture and ‘B’ for a bi-directionally predictive coded picture are used in order to
`
`differentiate encoding method of each picture.” Id., ¶6. Each P-picture is predicted
`
`from one or more preceding reference pictures, and each B-picture is predicted from
`
`a preceding reference picture and a subsequent reference picture. Id., Fig. 24; see
`
`also EX1007, ¶¶13–15. These reference pictures are known as “non-virtual” in that
`
`they form part of the video that is actually displayed.
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Virtual Reference Pictures
`26. Video transmission is susceptible to errors and data loss. See, e.g.,
`
`Declaration of Didier J. LeGall
`U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
`EX1007, ¶1. Moreover, “errors propagate along decoded video sequence and may
`
`result in severe quality degradation.” EX1008, Abstract. One method to improve
`
`error resilience of video coding is to use virtual reference pictures (VRPs). Id.; see
`
`also EX1007, ¶202. As Calgar explains, “if a video encoder is programmed in such
`
`a way that it periodically uses a virtual frame as a prediction reference instead of a
`
`complete frame, it is likely that the accumulation and propagation of visual artefacts
`
`at a receiving decoder caused by transmission errors affecting the bit-stream will be
`
`reduced or prevented.” EX1007, ¶205. It is important to note that the prior art uses
`
`“frames” and “pictures” interchangeably. See, e.g., EX1003, ¶42 (“As used herein,
`
`a reference picture is defined as any frame that is used during the encoding and
`
`decoding to ‘predict’ a current frame. Typically, reference pictures are spatially or
`
`temporally adjacent or ‘neighboring’ to the current frame.”).
`
`27. VRPs may be generated from previously decoded pictures including
`
`“non-virtual” reference pictures, but unlike “non-virtual” reference pictures, VRPs
`
`are preferably not displayed. See, e.g., EX1007, ¶¶128, 276, FIG. 21. For example,
`
`Zhang illustrates, in Figure 2 (reproduced below), how previously decoded
`
`pictures—including “non-virtual” reference pictures—are used to generate each
`
`VRP, which in turn is used to predict the next incoming picture. EX1008 at 898.
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Didier J. LeGall
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
`
`For example, in Zhang’s Figure 2, VRP0 is created from pictures I0, P1, and P2, and
`
`then used in the prediction of picture P3.
`
`Id., Figure 2 (annotated)
`
`
`
`28. VRPs are also used for prediction in multi-view video encoding and
`
`decoding for applications such as three dimensional television (3DTV) and multi-
`
`camera surveillance. See, e.g., EX1003, ¶3. VRPs, also known as synthesized
`
`reference pictures in the field of multi-view video encoding and decoding, may be
`
`generated from “videos that are acquired of a scene by multiple cameras having
`
`different poses.” Id., ¶¶36, 67. While the particulars of multi-view video are not
`
`pertinent to the ’724 patent’s claims, essentially, in the multi-view video context, a
`
`VRP represents a virtual picture captured by a virtual camera positioned between the
`
`adjacent non-virtual cameras used to capture videos. See id., ¶67.
`13
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’724 PATENT
`
`Declaration of Didier J. LeGall
`U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
`A. Alleged Invention
`29. The ’724 patent is generally directed to “video encoding and decoding
`
`and, more particularly, to methods and apparatus using virtual reference pictures.”
`
`EX1001, 1:16–18. Like in the prior art, in an embodiment of the ’724 patent, VRPs
`
`“can be utilized for prediction, but are not required for display purposes.” Id., 4:66–
`
`5:1.
`
`30. The ’724 patent describes an exemplary video encoder 100, illustrated
`
`in Figure 1 (reproduced below). Id., 3:57–4:26 The video encoder 100 may predict
`
`and encode incoming video pictures into a bitstream using reference pictures from
`
`either previously decoded pictures that are stored in a decoded picture buffer 175
`
`or VRPs stored in a virtual reference picture buffer 170. See id. The arrow from
`
`the decoded picture buffer 175 to the virtual reference picture buffer 170
`
`illustrates that the VRPs are created from previously decoded pictures. See id., 4:64–
`
`65.
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Didier J. LeGall
`U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
`Id., FIG. 1 (annotated)
`
`
`
`31. The ’724 patent also describes an exemplary video decoder 200,
`
`illustrated in Figure 2 (reproduced below). Id., 4:27–57. The video decoder 200
`
`may decode a bitstream to output video pictures to be displayed using reference
`
`pictures from either previously decoded pictures that are stored in a decoded picture
`
`buffer 250 or VRPs stored in a virtual reference picture buffer 255. See id. Like
`
`in the encoder 100, the arrow from the decoded picture buffer 250 to the virtual
`
`reference picture buffer 255 illustrates that the VRPs are created from previously
`
`decoded pictures. See id., 4:64–65.
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Didier J. LeGall
`U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
`Id., FIG. 2 (annotated)
`
`
`
`32. As is conventional in video encoder design and implementation, the
`
`lower portion of the encoder 100 emulates the decoder 200 to create a copy of how
`
`each decoded picture will appear in the decoder 200. See, e.g., EX1009, 3:33–61
`
`(“Specifically, an inverse quantizer (Q−1) unit 130 reverses the quantization of the
`
`video frame information and an inverse Discrete Cosine Transformation (DCT−1)
`
`unit 140 reverses the Discrete Cosine Transformation of the video frame information.
`
`After all the DCT coefficients are reconstructed from iDCT, the motion
`
`compensation unit will use the information, along with the motion vectors, to
`
`16
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Didier J. LeGall
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
`
`reconstruct the encoded frame which is then used as the reference frame for the
`
`motion estimation of the next frame.”).
`
`33. Although the ’724 patent depicts the decoded picture buffer and the
`
`virtual reference picture buffer as separate blocks in the examples of Figures 1
`
`and 2 (e.g., to illustrate that one is generated from the other), it further describes two
`
`approaches to storing VRPs in memory: “(1) in a first approach, store generated
`
`virtual reference pictures in the decoded picture buffer; and (2) in a second approach,
`
`store virtually generated frames in a temporary generated picture buffer which is
`
`only valid during the encoding/decoding of the current frame.” EX1001, 6:15–20.
`
`The claimed invention is generally directed to using the first approach; i.e., VRPs
`
`are stored alongside non-virtual reference pictures in the same decoded picture
`
`buffer. See, e.g., id., claims 1 and 39.
`
`34. Claim 1 is illustrative of the ’724 patent’s claimed encoder:
`
`1[preamble]:
`An apparatus, comprising:
`1[a]: an encoder for encoding at least one picture, using at least
`one virtual reference picture, to form a resultant
`bitstream, wherein
`the at least one virtual reference picture is different than a
`previously decoded picture, and
`the at least one virtual reference picture is stored in a
`decoded picture buffer that also stores non-virtual
`reference pictures.
`
`1[b]:
`
`1[c]:
`
`
`EX1001, claim 1.
`
`17
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Didier J. LeGall
`U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
`35. Claim 39 is illustrative of the ’724 patent’s claimed decoder, but is
`
`otherwise substantively the same as claim 1:
`
`39[preamble]:
`An apparatus, comprising:
`39[a]: a decoder for decoding at least one picture, using at least
`one virtual reference picture, from a bitstream, wherein
`the at least one virtual reference picture is different than a
`previously decoded picture, and
`the at least one virtual reference picture is stored in a
`decoded picture buffer that also stores non-virtual
`reference pictures.
`
`39[b]:
`
`39[c]:
`
`
`EX1001, claim 39.
`
`36. As I demonstrate in the grounds below, the techniques of encoding and
`
`decoding at least one picture using VRPs that are stored with non-virtual reference
`
`pictures in the same decoded picture buffer were well-known in the art before
`
`the ’724 patent’s priority date.
`
`B.
`37.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I have considered the invalidity issues addressed in this declaration
`
`from the perspective of a POSA at the time the ’724 patent application was filed.
`
`38.
`
`I am very familiar with the knowledge and capabilities that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of video encoding and decoding would have possessed in
`
`July 2006. Specifically, my experience in the industry, with colleagues from
`
`academia, and with engineers practicing in the industry during the relevant
`
`timeframe allowed me to become personally familiar with the knowledge and
`
`18
`
`
`

`

`Declaration of Didier J. LeGall
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,363,724
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00102
`
`
`capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the area of video encoding and decoding.
`
`Unless otherwise stated, my testimony below refers to the knowledge of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the area of video encoding and decoding at the time of the
`
`priority date of the ’724 patent.
`
`39.
`
`In my opinion, the level of a POSA needed to have the capability of
`
`understanding of the video encoding and decoding techniques in the ’724 patent is
`
`(i) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or computer
`
`engineering, or a related subject, and (ii) two years of work experience in the fields
`
`of image and video encoding and decoding and/or semiconductors. A lack of work
`
`experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Such academic
`
`and industry experience would be necessary to appreciate what was obvious and/or
`
`anticipated in the industry and what a P