IPR2021-00102 Petition
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`IPR2021-00102
`U.S. Patent 8,363,724
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`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 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`V. 
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1 
`A. 
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2 
`C. 
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 2 
`D. 
`Service Information, Email, Hand Delivery and Postal ........................ 2 
`III.  CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 3 
`IV.  OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 3 
`A. 
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications ............................................ 3 
`B. 
`LeGall is Prior Art ................................................................................. 4 
`C. 
`Grounds of Challenge ............................................................................ 5 
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ................................................................. 5 
`A.  Non-Virtual Reference Pictures ............................................................ 5 
`B. 
`Virtual Reference Pictures .................................................................... 7 
`VI.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’724 PATENT ............................................................ 9 
`A.  Alleged Invention .................................................................................. 9 
`B. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 13 
`C. 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 13 
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 14 
`VIII.  SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ...................................................... 15 
`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 ...................................................................... 15 
`1. 
`Overview of Xin ........................................................................ 15 
`2. 
`Claim 1 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................... 23 
`3. 
`Claim 2 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................... 29 
`4. 
`Claim 3 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................... 31 
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`Claim 7 is rendered obvious by Xin .......................................... 32 
`5. 
`Claim 9 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................... 34 
`6. 
`Claim 12 is rendered obvious by Xin ........................................ 36 
`7. 
`Claim 15 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 39 
`8. 
`Claim 19 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 40 
`9. 
`10.  Claim 20 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 42 
`11.  Claim 21 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 43 
`12.  Claim 22 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 44 
`13.  Claim 26 is rendered obvious by Xin ........................................ 44 
`14.  Claim 28 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 44 
`15.  Claim 31 is rendered obvious by Xin ........................................ 45 
`16.  Claim 34 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 45 
`17.  Claim 38 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 45 
`18.  Claim 39 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 45 
`19.  Claim 40 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 51 
`20.  Claim 41 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 52 
`21.  Claim 45 is rendered obvious by Xin ........................................ 52 
`22.  Claim 47 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 52 
`23.  Claim 50 is rendered obvious by Xin ........................................ 53 
`24.  Claim 53 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 56 
`25.  Claim 56 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 57 
`26.  Claim 57 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 58 
`27.  Claim 58 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 60 
`28.  Claim 59 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 60 
`29.  Claim 63 is rendered obvious by Xin ........................................ 60 
`30.  Claim 65 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 60 
`31.  Claim 68 is rendered obvious by Xin ........................................ 61 
`32.  Claim 71 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 61 
`33.  Claim 74 is anticipated or rendered obvious by Xin ................. 61 
`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 ............................ 62 
`1. 
`Overview of LeGall .................................................................. 62 
`2. 
`Claim 4 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ........................ 63 
`3. 
`Claim 8 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ........................ 69 
`4. 
`Claim 10 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 71 
`5. 
`Claim 11 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 72 
`6. 
`Claim 23 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 73 
`7. 
`Claim 27 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 74 
`
`ii
`
`B. 
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`Claim 29 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 74 
`8. 
`Claim 30 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 75 
`9. 
`10.  Claim 42 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 75 
`11.  Claim 46 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 76 
`12.  Claim 48 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 76 
`13.  Claim 49 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 77 
`14.  Claim 60 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 77 
`15.  Claim 64 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 78 
`16.  Claim 66 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 78 
`17.  Claim 67 is obvious over Xin in view of LeGall ...................... 79 
`IX.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 79 
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`Unified Patents, LLC (“Unified” or “Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter
`
`partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1–4, 7–12, 15, 19–23, 26–31, 34, 38–42, 45–50, 53,
`
`56–60, 63–68, 71, and 74 of U.S. Patent 8,363,724 (the “’724 patent”) (EX1001)
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§311–319 and 37 C.F.R. §42.1 et seq.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The ’724 patent is directed to techniques of using virtual reference pictures in
`
`video encoding and decoding. The allegedly inventive concepts described in the
`
`’724 patent, including the use of a decoded picture buffer to store both virtual
`
`reference pictures and non-virtual reference pictures, were well-known in the prior
`
`art, as detailed in the grounds below.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies that Unified Patents,
`
`LLC is the sole real party-in-interest, and further certifies that no other party
`
`exercised control or could have exercised control over Unified’s participation in this
`
`proceeding, the filing of this petition, or the conduct of any ensuing trial. In view of
`
`Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., 903 F.3d 1237, 1242–44 (Fed. Cir. 2018), Unified has
`
`submitted the Declaration of Kevin Jakel (EX1002) in support of its certification.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`B. Related Matters
`According to USPTO records, the ’724 patent is owned by Interdigital VC
`
`Holdings, Inc. (“Patent Owner”). As of the filing date of this petition, Petitioner is
`
`not aware of any related proceedings involving the ’724 patent.
`
`C. Counsel
`David L. Cavanaugh (Reg. No. 36,476) will act as lead counsel; Ashraf Fawzy
`
`(Reg. No. 67,914) will act as first back-up counsel; Roshan Mansinghani (Reg. No.
`
`62,429), Scott Bertulli (Reg. No. 75,886), and Trishan Esram (Reg. No. 74,075) will
`
`act as back-up counsel.
`
`D.
`Service Information, Email, Hand Delivery and Postal
`Unified consents to electronic service at:
`
` david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com;
`
` afawzy@unifiedpatents.com;
`
` roshan@unifiedpatents.com;
`
` scott.bertulli@wilmerhale.com;
`
` trishan.esram@wilmerhale.com.
`
`Petitioner can be reached at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP,
`
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20006, Tel: (202) 663-6000, Fax:
`
`(202) 663-6363, and Unified Patents, LLC, 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10,
`
`Washington, DC 20009, (202) 871-0110.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which review
`
`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`is sought is available for inter partes review (IPR) and that Petitioner is not barred
`
`or estopped from requesting an IPR challenging the claims on the grounds identified
`
`in this Petition.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)–(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1–4, 7–12, 15, 19–23, 26–31, 34, 38–42, 45–50, 53, 56–60, 63–68, 71, and
`
`74 of the ’724 patent.
`
`A.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications
`The following references are pertinent to the grounds of unpatentability
`
`explained below:1
`
` U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0146138 (“Xin” (EX1003))
`
`(filed on November 30, 2005; published on July 6, 2006) is prior art under at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e).
`
`
`1 For purposes of this petition, Petitioner assumes, but does not concede, that the
`
`earliest priority date of the ’724 patent is July 11, 2006, which is before the effective
`
`date of the America Invents Act (AIA). Accordingly, Petitioner has applied the pre-
`
`AIA statutory framework.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`Patent 8,363,724
`
` 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 under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b), 102(a),
`
`and 102(e).
`
`Xin and LeGall are not of record in the ’724 patent.
`
`B.
`LeGall is Prior Art
`LeGall is a printed publication that was publicly accessible in or shortly after
`
`April 1991. Therefore, LeGall is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b), 102(a),
`
`and 102(e).
`
`LeGall’s publication and public availability in or shortly after April 1991 is
`
`confirmed by the Declaration of Didier J. LeGall (“LeGall Declaration” (EX1005))
`
`and the Declaration of Rachel J. Watters (EX1015).
`
`In his declaration, Dr. LeGall discusses his personal knowledge—as author—
`
`of LeGall’s publication in the well-known industry journal Communications of the
`
`ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) in April 1991 and accessibility
`
`thereafter through distribution to those interested in the related industry. EX1005,
`
`¶14.
`
`Ms. Watters’s declaration explains that the April 1991 issue of the
`
`Communications of the ACM journal “was received by the Kurt Wendt Library,
`
`University of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries on April 18, 1991” and “catalogued and
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`
`
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`
`available to library patrons within a few days or at most 2 to 3 weeks after April 18,
`
`1991.” EX1015 at 1–2.
`
`C. Grounds of Challenge
`Petitioner requests cancellation of challenged claims 1–4, 7–12, 15, 19–23,
`
`26–31, 34, 38–42, 45–50, 53, 56–60, 63–68, 71, and 74 of the ’724 patent as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The grounds are:
`
` Ground I: Claims 1–3, 9, 15, 19–22, 28, 34, 38–41, 47, 53, 56–59, 65, 71,
`
`and 74 are anticipated by Xin.
`
` Ground 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 obvious over Xin.
`
` 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.
`
`This Petition, supported by the LeGall Declaration (EX1005), demonstrates
`
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to
`
`unpatentability of the challenged claims. 35 U.S.C. §314(a). Petitioner respectfully
`
`requests institution. SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348 (2018).
`
`V. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`A. Non-Virtual Reference Pictures
`It is well known that videos may be compressed for transmission and storage
`
`using compression techniques that are typically compliant with internationally-
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`
`
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`
`recognized standards. See, e.g., European Patent 2278816 (“Lim”) (EX1006), ¶¶3,
`
`4; U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0071485 (“Calgar” (EX1007)),
`
`¶¶10–17. Conventional compression techniques include temporally predicting
`
`pictures from 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.”). EX1005, ¶24.
`
`EX1006, FIG. 24
`
`
`
`“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
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`
`
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`
`also EX1007, ¶¶13–15. These reference pictures are known as “non-virtual” in that
`
`they form part of the video that is actually displayed. EX1005, ¶25.
`
`B. Virtual Reference Pictures
`Video transmission is susceptible to errors and data loss. See, e.g., EX1007,
`
`¶1. Moreover, “errors propagate along decoded video sequence and may result in
`
`severe quality degradation.” 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)), 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.”2 EX1007, ¶205. VRPs may
`
`
`2 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.”).
`
`EX1005, ¶26.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`
`
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`
`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., id., ¶¶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. 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. EX1005, ¶¶26, 27.
`
`EX1008, Figure 2 (annotated)
`
`
`
`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
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`
`
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`
`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; EX1005, ¶28. 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 EX1003, ¶67.
`
`EX1005, ¶28.
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’724 PATENT
`
`A. Alleged Invention
`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. EX1005, ¶29.
`
`The ’724 patent describes an exemplary video encoder 100, illustrated in
`
`Figure 1 (reproduced below). EX1001, 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
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`
`
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`
`illustrates that the VRPs are created from previously decoded pictures. See id., 4:64–
`
`65. EX1005, ¶30.
`
`EX1001, FIG. 1 (annotated)
`
`
`
`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. As is conventional in video encoder design and
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`
`
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`
`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.,
`
`U.S. Patent 7,292,636 (“Haskell”) (EX1009), 3:33–61. EX1005, ¶¶31, 32.
`
`EX1001, FIG. 2 (annotated)
`
`
`
`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
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`
`
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`
`valid during the encoding/decoding of the current frame.” Id., 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. EX1005, ¶33.
`
`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. EX1005, ¶34.
`
`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. EX1005, ¶35.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`As the grounds below demonstrate, 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. EX1005, ¶36.
`
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the earliest
`
`claimed priority date of the ’724 patent (July 11, 2006) would have had at least the
`
`equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering,
`
`computer science, or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the
`
`fields of image and video encoding and decoding and/or semiconductors. Less work
`
`experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a Master’s
`
`Degree, and vice versa. EX1005, ¶39.
`
`C.
`Prosecution History
`The ’724 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 12/309,066, which
`
`is a national stage application of International Application No. PCT/US2007/015719
`
`(filed on July 10, 2007), which in turn claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application
`
`No. 60/830,195 (filed on July 11, 2006).
`
`In response to the first non-final Office Action of October 7, 2011, the
`
`applicant amended all independent claims to add the limitation “the at least one
`
`virtual reference picture is stored in a decoded picture buffer that also stores non-
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`
`
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`
`virtual reference pictures.” Amendment (11/30/2011) (EX1010). The applicant
`
`argued that the cited references do not teach or suggest the added limitation. Id. at
`
`19–21. In the final Office Action of February 16, 2012, the examiner found that the
`
`added limitation was not supported by the written description and maintained his
`
`rejections over the cited prior art, which the applicant appealed. Appeal Brief
`
`(3/2/2012) (EX1011). The applicant explained how the examiner erred in rejecting
`
`the claims for lack of written description and reiterated that the cited references fail
`
`to teach or suggest “the at least one virtual reference picture is stored in a decoded
`
`picture buffer that also stores non-virtual reference pictures.” Id. at 12–26. The
`
`examiner subsequently issued a Notice of Allowance. Notice of Allowance
`
`(7/19/2012) (EX1012).
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The challenged claims of the ’724 patent are construed “using the same claim
`
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (Nov. 13, 2018). Each claim term
`
`should be given its plain and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, in accordance with Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (en banc). If Patent Owner, seeking to avoid the prior art, offers a specific
`
`construction or interpretation, Petitioner reserves the right to respond.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`
`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)–(5), the following sections (as confirmed in
`
`LeGall Declaration (EX1005), ¶¶47–185) detail the grounds of unpatentability, the
`
`limitations of challenged claims 1–4, 7–12, 15, 19–23, 26–31, 34, 38–42, 45–50, 53,
`
`56–60, 63–68, 71, and 74 of the ’724 patent, and how these claims were therefore
`
`anticipated by, or obvious in view of, the prior art. EX1005, ¶¶47–185.
`
`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
`1. Overview of Xin
`
`Just like the ’724 patent, Xin describes techniques for predicting current
`
`frames (i.e., “pictures”) 3 of multi-view videos during encoding and decoding
`
`according to reference pictures, which include synthesized reference pictures of a
`
`synthesized multi-view video. EX1003, Abstract, ¶16; cf. EX1001, 5:17–25 (“In
`
`multi-view video coding, the redundancy between adjacent camera views can be
`
`exploited through view synthesis. . . . The synthesized picture can be used as a
`
`reference picture for the prediction of the current view picture, which could provide
`
`
`3 The prior art uses “frames” and “pictures” interchangeably. See, e.g., EX1003,
`
`¶42. EX1005, ¶48.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`
`
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`
`better prediction sources comparing to disparity compensated prediction.”).
`
`EX1005, ¶48.
`
`Xin illustrates in Figure 8 (reproduced below) “a process by which frames 801
`
`of a synthesized video are generated from frames 803 of one or more actual
`
`multiview videos.” EX1003, ¶67; see also id., ¶118. According to Xin, the
`
`synthesized video provides a synthetic view 802 of the scene 5 that corresponds to a
`
`virtual camera 800. Id. Each of the frames 801 is a synthesized picture. EX1005,
`
`¶49.
`
`EX1003, FIG. 8
`
`
`
`Xin discloses “a reference picture management for multiview encoding and
`
`decoding,” as illustrated in Figure 10 (reproduced below). Id., ¶84. Xin refers to
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`
`
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`
`temporal reference pictures 1003, spatial reference pictures 1001, and synthesized
`
`reference pictures 1002 collectively as multi-view reference pictures 1005. Id. The
`
`multi-view reference pictures 1005 are managed by a multi-view reference picture
`
`list (RPL) manager 1010. Id. The multi-view RPL manager 1010 determines
`
`insertion 1020 and removal 1030 of the multi-view reference pictures 1005 to and
`
`from a decoded picture buffer (DPB) 1040. Id. EX1005, ¶50.
`
`EX1003, FIG. 10 (annotated)
`
`
`
`For each video frame (i.e., picture) to be encoded or decoded, Xin maintains
`
`a RPL 1050 to indicate the frames that are stored in the DPB 1040. Id., ¶84. “That
`
`is, the RPL [1050] is an index for the DPB [1040].” Id. “Before encoding a current
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`
`
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`
`frame in the encoder or before decoding the current frame in the decoder, a set of
`
`multiview reference pictures 1005 can be indicated in the multiview RPL 1050.”
`
`Id., ¶87. Xin notes that “a set can have zero (null set), one or multiple elements.”
`
`Id.. Moreover, “[a]ll frames inserted in the multiview RPLs 1050 are initialized and
`
`marked as usable for prediction.” Id., ¶88. EX1005, ¶51.
`
`Xin describes the operation of its multi-view reference picture management in
`
`conjunction with Figure 15, which is reproduced below. EX1005, ¶52.
`
`EX1003, FIG. 15
`
`
`
`Xin uses three views in an embodiment of its multi-view encoding and
`
`decoding system—I-view, P-view, and B-view (not to be confused with I, P, and B
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`
`
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`
`frames or pictures). Id., ¶¶103, 105. Xin explains that the I-view “uses conventional
`
`encoding and prediction modes, without any spatial or synthesized prediction.” Id.,
`
`¶106; cf. EX1006, ¶6, FIG. 24, discussed in Section V.A above. The “P-view allows
`
`prediction from another view to exploit the spatial correlation between views” and
`
`can also use synthesized reference pictures. EX1003, ¶108. The B-view “may
`
`reference pictures in multiple views” and, like the P-view, can use synthesized
`
`reference pictures. Id., ¶110. EX1005, ¶53.
`
`In Figure 15, display order 1501 illustrates the order in which the first three
`
`frames, in each of the three views, are displayed as time progresses, along with
`
`prediction dependencies shown by the arrows. EX1003, ¶105. For instance, in the
`
`I-view, frame I0 is displayed first, frame B0 is displayed next, followed by frame
`
`P0. EX1005, ¶54. Also, frame I0 does not have any prediction dependency (i.e., no
`
`reference picture is needed to predict frame I0), while frame P0 is predicted from
`
`frame I0, and frame B0 is predicted from both frame I0 and frame P0. Id. As can
`
`be seen, the frames in the I-view do not depend on the frames from the other two
`
`views (i.e., there is no spatial prediction), while the P-view frames depend on the I-
`
`view frames, and the B-view frames depend on both the I-view and P-view frames.
`
`Id.
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`EX1003, FIG. 15 (excerpted and annotated)
`
`
`
`Given the prediction dependencies, in Xin’s Figure 15, coding order 1502
`
`illustrates, for each view, the order in which each frame is encoded or decoded at
`
`time instants t0, t1, and t2. Id., ¶105. Additionally, “[t]he order of the multiview
`
`reference pictures [(i.e., temporal reference pictures 1003, spatial reference pictures
`
`1001, and synthesized reference pictures 1002) in DPB 1040] is shown in block 1520
`
`for each time instant.” Id. EX1005, ¶55.
`
`Xin explains:
`
`As shown in FIG. 15, for the I-view, when frame I0
`
`is encoded or decoded at t0, there are no multiview
`
`reference pictures used for prediction. Hence, the
`
`DBP[ 1040]/RPL[ 1050] is empty. At time t1, when
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`frame P0 is encoded or decoded, I0 is available [in the
`
`DPB 1040] as a temporal reference picture. At time t2,
`
`when the frame B0 is encoded or decoded, both frames I0
`
`and P0 are available [in the DPB 1040] as temporal
`
`reference pictures.
`
`EX1003, ¶107. EX1005, ¶56.
`
`
`
`EX1003, FIG. 15 (excerpted and annotated)
`
`Further:
`
`As shown in FIG. 15, for the P-view, when frame I2
`
`is encoded or decoded at t0, a synthesized reference picture
`
`S20 and the spatial reference picture I0 are available [in the
`
`DPB 1040] for prediction. . . . At time t1, when P2 is
`
`encoded or decoded, I2 is available [in the DPB 1040] as a
`
`temporal reference picture, along with a synthesized
`
`reference picture S21 and a spatial reference picture P0
`
`from the I-view. At time t2, there exist [in the DPB 1040]
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2021-00102 Petition
`
`Patent 8,363,724
`
`two temporal reference pictures I2 and P2, as well as a
`
`synthesized reference picture S22 and a spatial reference
`
`picture B0, from which predictions can be made.
`
`EX1003, ¶109. EX1005, ¶57.
`
`
`
`EX1003, FIG. 15 (excerpted and annotated)
`
`Xin similarly walks through the predictions of the frames in the B-view. Id.,
`
`¶110. Because synthesized reference pictures S20, S21, and S22 in the P-view and
`
`synthesized reference pictures in the B