Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Date: May 19, 2021
`
`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
`Patent 8,363,724 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`KRISTI L. R. SAWERT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Date: May 19, 2021
`
`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
`Patent 8,363,724 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`KRISTI L. R. SAWERT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00102
`Patent 8,363,724 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`A. Background and Summary
`Unified Patents, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter
`partes review 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 No. 8,363,724 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
`’724 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Interdigital VC Holdings, Inc. (“Patent
`Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Upon considering the
`record, for the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition and do not
`institute inter partes review.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The parties indicate the ’724 patent is not subject to any other
`proceeding or district court litigation. Pet. 2; Paper 6, 1.
`C. The ’724 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’724 patent “relate[s] generally to video encoding and decoding
`and, more particularly, to methods and apparatus using virtual reference
`pictures.” Ex. 1001, 1:16−18. The ’724 patent describes video encoder 100,
`illustrated in Figure 1 (reproduced below), that supports virtual reference
`pictures (VRPs). Id. at 2:18−21.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00102
`Patent 8,363,724 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts video encoder 100 receiving a video signal at a non-
`inverting input of combiner 110 and at a first input of motion estimator (ME)
`180. Id. at 3:61−63. The output of combiner 110 is connected in signal
`communication with an input of discrete transformer (DCT) 120, and then
`quantizer (QP) 130. Id. at 3:63−67. The output of the quantizer follows two
`paths. First, after the signal goes through variable length coder (VLC) 140,
`encoder 100 outputs a bitstream of encoded video. Id. at 4:1−4. Second, the
`quantized signal is inverse quantized and processed through inverse discrete
`cosine transformer 155, which feeds the signal to combiner 165. Id. at
`4:5−8. The resulting signal is filtered (loop filter 160) and is processed by
`decoded picture buffer 175 and virtual reference picture buffer 170,
`according to the methods described in the ’724 patent. Id. at 4:10−15. For
`instance, in one embodiment, VRPs may be stored in the decoded picture
`buffer (id. at 6:30−33), and in another embodiment, the VRPs may be stored
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00102
`Patent 8,363,724 B2
`in a virtual reference picture buffer (Id. at 6:47−52). In the embodiment of
`encoding video content using VRP management in a decoded picture buffer,
`when a VRP is generated, it is stored in the decoded picture buffer and the
`reference list construction is updated to reflect the included VRP. Id. at
`7:31−52.
`According to the ’724 patent, VRPs “can be utilized for prediction,
`but are not required for display purposes.” Id. at 4:66−5:1.
`D. Representative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 20, 39, and 57 are independent.
`Claims 1 and 20 are directed to the encoder described above in the summary
`of the ’724 patent. Claims 39 and 57 are directed to a decoder having
`similar limitations to those of claims 1 and 20. Claim 1 is representative of
`the subject matter:
`
`1. An apparatus, comprising:
`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.
`Ex. 1001, 13:18−25.
`
`
`E. Asserted Prior Art and Grounds of Unpatentability
`The asserted grounds in this proceeding involve the following prior art
`references:
`1. Xin: US 2006/0146138 A1, published July 6, 2006, filed as
`Exhibit 1003;
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00102
`Patent 8,363,724 B2
`2. LeGall: “MPEG: A Video Compression Standard for
`Multimedia Applications,” Communications of the ACM, vol.
`34, no. 4, April 1991, filed as Exhibit 1004;
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 5):
`
`References
`
`102
`
`Xin
`
` Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. §
`1−3, 9, 15, 19−22, 28,
`34, 38−41, 47, 53,
`56−59, 65, 71, 74
`1−3, 7, 9, 12, 15,
`19−22, 26, 28, 31, 34,
`38−41, 45, 47, 50, 53,
`56−59, 63, 65, 68, 71,
`74
`4, 8, 10, 11, 23, 27,
`29, 30, 42, 46, 48, 49,
`60, 64, 66, 67
`
`Petitioner also relies on a Declaration of Didier J. LeGall, filed as
`Exhibit 1005 (“LeGall Decl.”).
`
`103(a)
`
`Xin
`
`103(a)
`
`Xin, LeGall
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. Claim Construction
`There are no claim terms in dispute or that need construction for
`purposes of this Decision. See Pet. 14.
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the
`time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17
`(1966). “The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art
`lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00102
`Patent 8,363,724 B2
`Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The
`“person having ordinary skill in the art” is a hypothetical construct, from
`whose vantage point obviousness is assessed. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350,
`1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “This legal construct is akin to the ‘reasonable
`person’ used as a reference in negligence determinations” and “also
`presumes that all prior art references in the field of the invention are
`available to this hypothetical skilled artisan.” Id. (citing In re Carlson, 983
`F.2d 1032, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
`Petitioner proffers that a person having ordinary skill in the art “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.” Pet. 13 (citing LeGall Decl.
`¶ 39). Patent Owner does not address the level of person of ordinary skill in
`the art. We do not find it necessary to define the level of skill with
`specificity save to note that the level of ordinary skill is evidenced by the
`prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
`Cir. 2001) (stating that the absence of specific findings on the level of skill
`in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself
`reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown).
`
`C. Grounds Based on Xin
`Petitioner asserts two grounds based on Xin alone. Pet. 5. The first
`ground asserts anticipation of claims 1–3, 9, 15, 19–22, 28, 34, 38–41, 47,
`53, 56–59, 65, 71, and 74. Id. The second ground asserts obviousness of all
`the claims of the first ground and additionally of dependent claims 7, 12, 26,
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00102
`Patent 8,363,724 B2
`31, 45, 50, 63, and 68. Id.1 All the independent claims recite “using at least
`one virtual reference picture,” which we will refer to as a VRP or VRPs for
`ease of discussion. Whether the prior art discloses a VRP as recited is the
`dispositive issue. After reviewing Petitioner’s argument and evidence, in
`light of Patent Owner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that
`Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its
`assertions of unpatentability because it has failed to demonstrate sufficiently
`that Xin teaches VRPs.
`
`Overview of Xin (Ex. 1003)
`1.
`Xin is a U.S. Patent Application Publication titled “Method and
`System for Synthesizing Multiview Videos.” Ex. 1003, code (54). Xin
`explains that multiview videos are acquired of a scene with corresponding
`cameras aimed in such a way that there is overlap between any pair of
`cameras. Id. at Abstr. Xin also states that a “synthesized multiview video is
`generated from the acquired multiview videos for a virtual camera.” Id.
`Figure 8, reproduced below, depicts a schematic of video synthesis. Id. ¶ 24.
`
`
`
`1 Because the third ground relies on a combination of teachings from Xin
`and LeGall for dependent claims, we do not mention this ground further
`except in our conclusion.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00102
`Patent 8,363,724 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 8 shows frames 801 of a synthesized video generated from
`frames 803 of one or more actual multiview videos. Id. ¶ 67. According to
`the ’724 patent, “view synthesis provides a means to synthesize the frames
`801 corresponding to a selected novel view 802 of the scene 5.” Id. Novel
`view 802 corresponds “to a ‘virtual’ camera 800 not present at the time the
`input multiview videos 401−404 were acquired.” In particular, the ’724
`patent generates synthesized frames “to be used for predicting the current
`frame.” Id. ¶ 71. “The synthesized frames serve as reference pictures from
`which a current synthesized frame can be predicted.” Id.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00102
`Patent 8,363,724 B2
`Reasonable Likelihood Determination
`2.
`The Petition provides background technology information on virtual
`and non-virtual reference pictures. Pet. 5−9. Petitioner explains that video
`is compressed for transmission and storage using compression standards that
`are well known. Id. at 5−6. These compression techniques involve
`predicting pictures from reference pictures. Id. at 6. Three types of pictures
`may be used for predicting further pictures in the video: I-picture, P-picture,
`and B-picture. Id. A P-picture is predicted from one or more preceding
`“reference” pictures. A B-picture is predicted from a preceding “reference”
`picture and a subsequent “reference” picture. Id. Because these “reference”
`pictures are actually displayed, they are referred to as “non-virtual”
`reference pictures. Id. at 7. Petitioner then posits that “virtual” reference
`pictures are also used in the process of producing a video stream—to
`improve error resilience of video coding. Id. at 7. These “virtual” reference
`pictures, unlike the “non-virtual” reference pictures, are preferably not
`displayed. Id. at 7−8.
`Petitioner further explains how VRPs are generated, referring to a
`reference called “Zhang.” Zhang is a paper written by Guanjum Zhang and
`Robert L. Stevenson, titled “Error resilient video coding using virtual
`reference picture.” Ex. 1008. Petitioner relies on Zhang to explain that
`VRPs may be generated from pictures that are decoded for display, i.e. non-
`virtual reference pictures. Pet. 8 (citing LeGall Decl. ¶ 27, which cites
`Ex. 1008, 898, Fig. 2). More importantly, Petitioner states that VRPs are
`“also known as synthesized reference pictures in the field of multi-view
`video encoding and decoding.” Pet. 8−9 (citing LeGall Decl. ¶ 28; Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 36, 67). Petitioner states that in the “multi-view video context, a VRP
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00102
`Patent 8,363,724 B2
`represents a virtual picture captured by a virtual camera positioned between
`the adjacent non-virtual cameras used to capture videos.” Pet. 9 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 67; LeGall Decl. ¶ 28) (emphasis omitted).
`The assertion that synthesized referenced pictures, such as those that
`Xin describes, are VRPs is repeated throughout Petitioner’s analysis of claim
`1.2 For instance, Petitioner argues that “because Xin’s synthesized reference
`pictures are used for prediction and not displayed, they are VRPs.” Pet. 24
`(citing LeGall Decl. ¶ 61); see also Pet. 22 (providing an overview of Xin’s
`operation and stating that because the synthesized reference pictures of Xin
`“are used for prediction and are not displayed, Xin’s synthesized reference
`pictures are VRPs”). In making this assertion, Petitioner also quotes the
`’724 patent in the passage that states “virtual reference pictures can be
`utilized for prediction, but are not required for display purposes.” Id.
`Patent Owner challenges the assertion that Xin’s synthesized
`reference pictures are VRPs because Xin’s synthesized reference pictures are
`displayed. Prelim. Resp. 3. Before delving into details of Xin’s operation,
`Patent Owner provides a technological explanation of reference pictures and
`how the I-, B-, and P-pictures, which were previously decoded, are non-
`virtual frames and are displayed—but a VRP is a picture frame created
`“solely for purposes of serving as a reference picture and is not designed for
`use as a frame of video.” Prelim. Resp. 10−13. Patent Owner supports its
`argument with factual and evidentiary support, such as the Declaration of
`
`
`2 Petitioner relies on or repeats the arguments and evidence regarding VRPs
`presented for claim 1 in the challenge of independent claims 20 (Pet.
`42−43), 39 (id. at 47, 50), and 57 (id. at 58−59). We refer to the arguments
`and evidence presented for claim 1 as representative of the challenge to
`independent claims 20, 39, and 57.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00102
`Patent 8,363,724 B2
`Dr. Robert L. Stevenson, an author of the Zhang article discussed earlier and
`in the Petition. Ex. 2001 (“Stevenson Decl.”); Ex. 1008, 897−898.
`As for Xin’s operation, Patent Owner describes Xin’s multi-view
`camera system as providing an additional camera angle that does not
`correspond to any of the actual cameras on the scene. Prelim. Resp. 19−20.
`Patent Owner explains that Xin creates an additional video from two
`acquired videos, by, for example, interpolation. Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 67). And that this new video angle appears to be from the view of a
`virtual, read here “non-existent,” camera, such as camera 800 of Figure 8.
`Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 67; Stevenson Decl. ¶ 28). Using interpolation, Patent
`Owner explains, Xin generates synthesized video frames for display as part
`of the multi-view video and the synthesized picture frames may also be used
`to predict further frames in the synthesized video. Id. at 20−21 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 3−5, 36, 67, 68; Stevenson Decl. ¶¶ 28−29). Patent Owner also
`supports its assertions regarding synthesized video in a multi-view video
`system with an article titled “Interactive 3-D Video Representation and
`Coding Technologies,” included in the Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 93,
`No.1, January 2005. Ex. 2003, 99, 105−106 (describing interactive stereo
`video and free viewpoint video, which use synthesized views to generate
`virtual video).
`We determine Petitioner has failed to explain adequately how or why
`Xin’s synthesized reference pictures are VRPs as alleged. The Petition
`affirmatively states that Xin’s synthesized reference pictures are VRPs
`because they are used for prediction and are not displayed. Pet. 22, 24.
`Thus, the Petition conveys the contention that, in order for a reference
`picture to be a VRP, it must be used for prediction and not displayed.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00102
`Patent 8,363,724 B2
`Although Xin’s synthesized reference pictures serve as reference pictures
`from which a current synthesized frame can be predicted, Petitioner has not
`effectively shown that the synthesized reference pictures are not displayed.
`The Petition cites the ’724 patent’s description of VRPs and LeGall
`Declaration for this proposition. Id. at 22 (citing LeGall Decl. ¶ 58), 24
`(citing LeGall Decl. ¶ 61). As to the ’724 patent, there is no description of
`VRPs as “synthesized reference pictures.” As for the LeGall Declaration at
`paragraphs 36 and 61, the assertion lacks factual support. The omission is
`significant in light of Xin’s disclosure that synthetic frames or pictures are
`for producing a synthesized video and that the synthetic reference frames are
`included in the video, which would be displayed. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16
`(referring to the “synthesized reference pictures of the synthesized
`multiview video” (emphasis added)), 37−40, 67−73. In other words,
`Petitioner’s assertion that Xin’s synthesized reference pictures are not
`displayed does not appear to be supported by Xin’s disclosure, and the
`opinion testimony on this point is too conclusory and factually unsupported
`to be deemed persuasive. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65.
`As additional reasoning, and as summarized above, Patent Owner has
`explained persuasively, with factual and evidentiary support, that Xin’s
`synthesized reference pictures are part of the synthesized multiview video
`that will be displayed. Prelim. Resp. 18−21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 3−5, 36, 67,
`68; Stevenson Decl. ¶¶ 24−29; Ex. 2003). In light of the presented
`information and the record before us, the Petition fails to persuade us that
`there is a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the assertion that Xin
`teaches the recited VRP.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00102
`Patent 8,363,724 B2
`As stated above, all the challenged independent claims require VRPs.
`And Petitioner does not rely on any other reference or explanation of VRPs
`to remedy the deficiency noted above. For instance, the LeGall reference is
`relied upon for the MPEG standard and its use of a sequence layer syntax.
`See, e.g., Pet. 64−65 (arguing that LeGall teaches a “high level syntax”
`because the sequence layer syntax is hierarchically above the macroblock
`layer syntax). Consequently, Petitioner has failed to meet the reasonable
`likelihood threshold on all challenged independent claims.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`We determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on its assertion that claims 1, 20, 39, and 57 (the independent
`claims) are anticipated by or would have been obvious over Xin. Therefore,
`we determine that the Petition also fails as to all the challenged dependent
`claims depending from claims 1, 20, 39, and 57, as they all depend on Xin
`for the VRP limitation we have found wanting. Accordingly, we deny the
`Petition and do not institute inter partes review.
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) the Petition is denied.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00102
`Patent 8,363,724 B2
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Scott Bertulli
`Trishan Esram
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`scott.bertulli@wilmerhale.com
`trishan.esram@wilmerhale.com
`
`Ashraf Fawzy
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`afawzy@unifiedpatents.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`William A. Meunier
`Kevin C. Amendt
`MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
`wameunier@mintz.com
`kcamendt@mintz.com
`
`
`14
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
