UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00827
`Patent No. 9,781,448
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00827
`Patent No. 9,781,448
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’448 PATENT ............................................................ 3
`II.
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 7
`A. “Prediction Value” ...................................................................................... 8
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 16
`A. Moon ......................................................................................................... 16
`B. Teng .......................................................................................................... 18
`C. Wilkins ...................................................................................................... 19
`THE PETITION’S PROPOSED GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`ARE DEFECTIVE ......................................................................................... 21
`A. Ground 1 Is Deficient ............................................................................... 21
`
`V.
`
`a) Wilkins’s “split mode” and “non-split mode” intra-
`prediction parameters are inapplicable to the boundary
`strengths (Bs) on which Moon determines “whether” to
`apply a filter .................................................................... 28
`b) Wilkins evaluates “split mode” and “non-split mode”
`intra-prediction parameters only after making a decision
`“whether” to apply a filter .............................................. 48
`c) Wilkins’s “split mode” and “non-split mode” intra-
`prediction parameters are attributes that apply to
`
`i
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`macroblocks of a fixed size, and therefore do not indicate
`a “size of the current block” in Wilkins or the proposed
`combination .................................................................... 53
`
`B. Ground 2 Is Deficient ............................................................................... 62
`
`VI. UNIFIED’S PAYING SEP VIDEO ZONE MEMBERS ARE RPIS ........... 68
`A. SharkNinja Does Not Permit Ignoring The RPI Issue Here .................... 69
`B. Unified’s Paying Video Zone Members Are RPIs ................................... 72
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 78
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Declaration of Kayvan Noroozi in Support of Pro Hac Vice
`Admission
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Kevin Jakel, IPR2021-00275,
`March 16, 2021 (Redacted Public Version)
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Kevin Jakel, IPR2019-00194,
`August 23, 2019 (Redacted Public Version)
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Kevin Jakel, IPR2019-00482,
`October 15, 2019 (Redacted Public Version)
`
`Unified Press Release re: OPAL & OVAL
`
`Unified Proposal and Presentation (Redacted Public Version)
`
`Unified Proposal and Report (Redacted Public Version)
`
`Unified Press Release re ETRI Patent Challenged
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`
`Exhibit 2003
`
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`
`Exhibit 2005
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`Exhibit 2007
`
`Exhibit 2008
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Institution of the present Petition for inter partes review should be denied.
`
`I.
`
`The inventions described and claimed in the ’448 patent relate to video coding, and
`
`the “intra prediction” aspect of video coding in particular. This is reflected in
`
`limitations of the Challenged Claims, for example, directed to a processor that
`
`performs “intra prediction,” and when doing so, (1) “determines whether to apply a
`
`second filter to a prediction value of [a] current block” and (2) “applies the second
`
`filter to the prediction value of the current block” in accordance with the
`
`determination. EX1001, 12:19-21, 12:47-50.
`
`Confronted with these limitations, the Petition was unable to identify prior
`
`art that actually filters a “prediction value” of a block when “intra prediction” is
`
`performed. Indeed, as explained in Section III.A below, “intra prediction”
`
`corresponds to a distinct phase of video coding that involves generation of
`
`“prediction values” for a prediction block. But in a transparent attempt to stretch
`
`the prior art onto the claimed inventions, the Petition disregards the requirement
`
`for the second filter to operate on a “prediction value” when intra-prediction is
`
`performed. In both Grounds 1 and 2, the Petition instead relies on a “deblocking
`
`filter 120” from Moon as allegedly providing the recited “second filter”—despite
`
`Moon’s filter having an entirely different function of filtering “reconstructed”
`
`values outside of the “intra prediction” process. Infra, Sections V.A.1, V.B.1.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Highlighting these errors, the Petition’s flawed mappings even conflate the prior
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`art’s own distinct treatment of “prediction” and “reconstruction” values.
`
`The Petition’s attempt in Ground 1 to identify in the prior art filtering
`
`criteria based on a “size” of a current block (as recited in claims 1 and 3) is also
`
`deficient. Infra, Section V.A.2. Wilkins’s “split mode” and “non-split mode”
`
`parameters do not actually indicate a “size” of a current block, but even if they did,
`
`the parameters are incompatible with Moon’s conditions for determining whether
`
`to apply filtering based on boundary strengths. Id.
`
`The Petition should also be rejected under RPX Corp. v. Applications in
`
`Internet Time, LLC, IPR2015-01750, Paper 128 at 35 (Oct. 2, 2020) (Precedential)
`
`(“AIT Remand”). When there are “arrangements in which an entity would benefit
`
`from having another entity file a petition on its behalf—or on the behalf of it and
`
`other similarly-situated entities—. . . . all such entities should be named as RPIs
`
`. . . .” AIT Remand at 32 (emphasis added). Unified is a for-profit, private equity-
`
`owned business, EX2002, 9:2-3, 9:14-16, which brings IPRs to benefit its highly
`
`paying members. According to Unified, filing IPRs to invalidate patents or obtain
`
`licenses “is what we sell to people.” EX2002, 73:2-21. As this Preliminary
`
`Response demonstrates, Unified’s paying Video Codec Zone members are clear
`
`intended beneficiaries here, and “should be named as RPIs.” AIT Remand at 32.
`
`The Board should thus deny institution under §§ 312(a)(2) and 314(a), or else
`
`2
`
`
`
`require Unified to name those members.
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’448 PATENT
`The ’448 patent describes video coding technology, and particularly
`
`describes solutions for selectively applying pre- and post- filters to blocks of a
`
`video frame in an intra-prediction process. EX1001, 1:7-11.
`
`For context, Figure 1 depicts a representative encoder that provides a
`
`framework for many of the techniques described in the specification of the ’448
`
`patent:
`
`EX1001, FIG. 1 (annotated); see also id., FIG. 2 (decoder depiction).
`
`As shown in Figure 1, the encoder partitions an original frame Fn into blocks
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`and, for each block, predicts the current block based on information about nearby
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`blocks in the frame (referred to as “intra prediction”) or information from a
`
`reference frame other than the current frame (referred to as “inter prediction”).
`
`EX1001, 4:6-42. By determining a prediction block ‘P’ for an original block from
`
`the current frame, the encoder reduces the amount of information necessary to later
`
`reconstruct an approximation of the original block at a decoder. Because the
`
`decoder can calculate the same prediction block ‘P’ as the encoder using
`
`information from other blocks or frames, the only information necessary for the
`
`decoder to approximately reconstruct the original block is an indication of how the
`
`prediction block ‘P’ was computed and a residual macroblock that represents a
`
`difference between the prediction values in prediction block ‘P’ and the original
`
`pixel values in the original block. Id., 4:43-5:5.
`
`The techniques described in the ’448 patent focus particularly on the “intra-
`
`prediction” aspect of video coding. Id., 1:65-2:7. In some embodiments, the video
`
`coder is configured to apply different algorithms in different “intra-prediction
`
`modes” to determine prediction values for a prediction block ‘P’ based on samples
`
`(referred to as “reference pixels”) from blocks immediately to the left and above
`
`the current block. Id., 5:7-6:4. The prediction values from the intra-prediction
`
`mode that produce the least error relative to the original block can be adopted as
`
`the prediction values for that block. Id. Figure 4, for example, illustrates nine
`
`4
`
`
`
`possible intra-prediction modes for luma blocks in the H.264 AVC standard:
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 4.
`
`The description of the “Background Art” in the ’448 patent notes that “[i]n
`
`typical cases, when intra-prediction is performed in the H.264/AVC standard, a
`
`filter is applied to reference pixel values, and the values to which the filter has
`
`been applied are used for the intra-prediction.” Id., 1:48-52. “However, the
`
`performance of video coding may be increased when the intra-prediction is
`
`performed without applying the filter rather than when the intra-prediction is
`
`5
`
`
`
`performed after the filter is applied, according to circumstances.” Id., 1:52-56.
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`Accordingly, the ’448 patent offered solutions for the selective application
`
`of filters in relation to intra-prediction. In particular, the ’448 patent describes
`
`techniques for selectively applying filters both to the reference pixels adjacent the
`
`current block (referred to as a “pre-filter”) and to the “prediction values” that were
`
`predicted in the prediction block ‘P’ (referred to as a “post-filter”). Id., 1:65-2:7,
`
`6:44-50, 8:9-18.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 6 (annotated).
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`The ’448 patent additionally describes various criteria for determining
`
`whether to apply a pre-filter or a post-filter in intra-prediction. Table 1 shows two
`
`such criteria as the “size” of the current block and the intra-prediction “mode” of
`
`the current block:
`
`
`
`EX1001, 7:30-50.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Patent Owner acknowledges that all claim terms are to be interpreted
`
`according to the Phillips standard. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005); 37 C.F.R. §42.100. Patent Owner specifically addresses the meaning
`
`of one claim term below. Except for this term and to the extent indicated
`
`otherwise by argument in Section V, Patent Owner submits that additional
`
`constructions are presently unnecessary to resolve the controversies at issue in this
`
`proceeding. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to
`
`7
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`resolve the controversy.”).
`
`A.
`
`“Prediction Value”
`
`The Board should construe the term “prediction value,” as recited in claims
`
`1 and 3, to mean a value generated in an intra-prediction process for determination
`
`of a prediction block. This meaning is supported by the express language of the
`
`Challenged Claims, the clear and consistent use of the term “prediction value”
`
`throughout the specification of the ’448 patent, and extrinsic evidence that shows
`
`how, in the field of video coding, the term “prediction” has a common and well-
`
`understood meaning that distinguishes it from values processed by other stages of a
`
`video coder (e.g., “reconstructed, “residual,” “reference,” or “original” values).
`
`Starting with the claims themselves, the term “prediction value” appears in
`
`the context of the following limitations (identically recited in claims 1 and 3):
`
`when the intra-prediction for the current block is
`
`performed, the processor determines whether to apply a
`
`second filter to a prediction value of the current block …,
`
`and applies the second filter to the prediction value of the
`
`current block if, as a result of the determination, the
`
`second filter is determined to be applied
`
`EX1001, 12:18-25 (claim 1), 12:46-53 (claim 3) (emphasis added).
`
`The first clause of this limitation sets the proper context for understanding
`
`8
`
`
`
`the recited “prediction value.” By specifying that the determination whether to
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`apply the second filter to the prediction value, and the application of the second
`
`filter to the prediction value (if the second filter is determined to be applied),
`
`occurs “when the intra-prediction for the current block is performed,” the claims
`
`expressly link the actions in this limitation to the “intra-prediction” of the current
`
`block. Id.; see also id., 12:10-11 & 12:38-39 (“perform intra-prediction for the
`
`current block”). The “prediction value” must therefore be a value that arises in the
`
`context of “intra-prediction.”
`
`The specification further informs the bounds of “intra-prediction,” and
`
`establishes a definite endpoint for an “intra-prediction” process—beyond which the
`
`application of the second filter to a “prediction value” could not occur. For
`
`example, Figure 1 depicts the functional blocks of an H.264-based video coder:
`
`9
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 1 (annotated).
`
`As described in the specification, the video encoder of Figure 1 includes two
`
`paths: a “forward path” and a “reconstruction path.” Id., 4:3-5. In the forward
`
`path, the encoder partitions an input frame Fn into blocks (e.g., fixed-sized
`
`“macroblocks” of 16x16 luma pixels). For each macroblock in the input frame Fn,
`
`the encoder generates a prediction block ‘P’ through either an “inter-prediction”
`
`process or an “intra-prediction” process. Id., 4:6-32, 5:6-6:4 (describing details of
`
`intra-prediction), FIGS. 3-4. For either kind of prediction (inter- or intra-), the
`
`encoder determines a prediction block ‘P’ for the current block. Id. And for intra-
`
`prediction in particular, the prediction block ‘P’ is generated by determining (and
`
`10
`
`
`
`optionally filtering) “prediction values” for the prediction block ‘P’ based on
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`reference values in blocks adjacent to the current block. Id. The intra-prediction
`
`module calculates the “prediction values” for the prediction block ‘P’ in the
`
`example H.264 embodiments using an algorithm defined by one of the standard
`
`intra-prediction “modes” that is determined to minimize error in the prediction
`
`block. Id., 5:6-6:4, FIG. 4.
`
`Importantly, “intra-prediction” identifies a distinct phase of the video
`
`coder’s operations that concludes with the final determination of a prediction block
`
`‘P’. Id. The coder can use the output of the “intra-prediction” process, i.e.,
`
`prediction block ‘P’, to carry out additional operations, but these always occur
`
`outside the context of intra-prediction. This can again be seen in Figure 1, which
`
`shows how the prediction block ‘P’ is used to create other blocks that define other
`
`types of values, such as a “residual” block Dn (by subtracting the prediction block
`
`‘P’ from the original block) and the “reconstruction” block uFn’ (by combining the
`
`prediction block ‘P’ with the lossy/restored macroblock Dn’). See id., 4:6-59, FIG.
`
`1; see also id., 4:60-5:5 & FIG. 2 (describing an example H.264-based decoder
`
`with similar delineation between “prediction” and “reconstructed” blocks).
`
`The fact that the recited “prediction value” in claims 1 and 3 refers to a value
`
`generated in an intra-prediction process for determination of a prediction block is
`
`further supported by the express description in the ’448 patent of what can be
`
`11
`
`
`
`encompassed by intra-prediction—and what cannot. According to the
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`specification, “intra-prediction” includes 1) generating “prediction values” based
`
`on a particular intra-prediction “mode” (e.g., as shown in FIG. 4), 2) determining
`
`whether to apply a filter to the “prediction values,” and 3) applying the filter to the
`
`“prediction values” to generate a final prediction block ‘P’ (if the filter is
`
`determined to apply). For instance, consistent with the language of claims 1 and 3,
`
`the specification describes how “intra-prediction” encompasses more than just a
`
`single execution of one of the intra-prediction “modes” (e.g., as shown in FIG. 4),
`
`but also encompasses actions related to filtering the “prediction values” for the
`
`prediction block ‘P’. See, e.g., EX1001, 1:7-11 (“[t]he present invention relates to
`
`… performing intra prediction by applying an adaptive filter to … the predicted
`
`pixel values of a current block”), 1:57-59 (“a method of determining whether to
`
`apply a filter when performing intra-prediction”), 2:12-20 (“[t]he method of
`
`performing intra-prediction includes … determining whether to apply a second
`
`filter”), FIG. 6 & 6:41-43, 8:9-12 (describing operations in the flowchart of Figure
`
`6 for “performing intra-prediction” that includes “[a]t step S204[] … determin[ing]
`
`whether to apply the filter to a prediction value” and “applying” the filter to the
`
`prediction value at step S205).
`
`On the other hand, the ’448 patent is clear that “intra prediction” for a
`
`current block does not extend beyond computation of the final prediction block
`
`12
`
`
`
`‘P’:
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`“If, as a result of the determination, the filter is
`
`determined to have been applied to the prediction value,
`
`the encoder applies the filter to the prediction value at step
`
`S205” and “[a]ccordingly, the prediction of the current
`
`block is completed, and the encoder calculates a residual
`
`signal and performs entropy coding.”
`
`EX1001, 9:14-19 (emphasis added).
`
`In light of these disclosures (which are consistent with well-understood
`
`differences in the common stages of a video coder), the claimed determination of
`
`whether to apply the second filter to a “prediction value” of the current block, and
`
`the application of the second filter to the “prediction value” for the current block,
`
`simply cannot occur after a final determination of the prediction block. Such
`
`actions would otherwise not occur “when the intra-prediction for the current block
`
`is performed,” as recited in claims 1 and 3. EX1001, 12:18-25, 12: 46-53; see also
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[A]
`
`construction ‘cannot be divorced from the specification and the record evidence,’”
`
`and “ [a] construction that … does not ‘reasonably reflect the plain language and
`
`disclosure’ will not pass muster.”); PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical
`
`Comm’s RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 734, 740-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Phillips “seek out the
`
`13
`
`
`
`correct construction—the construction that most accurately delineates the scope of
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`the claimed invention”).
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction is also consistent with the common
`
`and well-understood meaning of “prediction” within the field of video coding.
`
`“Prediction” in video coding is something entirely different from “reconstruction,”
`
`and hence a “prediction value” has an entirely different character from other types
`
`of values such as a “reconstruction” or “residual” value. See id., 4:3-5:5, FIGS. 1-
`
`2. These differences should not be ignored, as even the Petition acknowledges that
`
`“[t]he field of endeavor of the ’448 Patent relates to video coding.” Pet., 12;
`
`EX1001, Title (“Method and Apparatus for Performing Intra-Prediction Using
`
`Adaptive Filter”), 1:7 (“The present invention relates to video coding”), Claim 1
`
`(“video decoding apparatus”), Claim 3 (“video encoding apparatus”); see also
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“[D]etermining the ordinary and customary meaning of
`
`the claim requires examination of terms that have a particular meaning in a field of
`
`art.”). Moreover, the record evidence amply demonstrates that a POSITA in the
`
`field of video coding would have recognized that a “prediction value” has a precise
`
`meaning that distinguishes it from other values in a video coding system, just as
`
`claims 1 and 3 precisely delineate between a “reference pixel value” and a
`
`“prediction value.”
`
`For example, Exhibit 1009 (“Richardson”) is a textbook submitted by
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petitioner and credited by Dr. Freedman as a reliable authority on the subject of
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`video coding. See, e.g., EX1003, ¶58. Richardson provides similar diagrams of
`
`H.264-based encoders and decoders as those in the ’448 patent, and explains that
`
`“[e]ach macroblock is encoded in intra or inter mode and, for each block in the
`
`macroblock, a prediction PRED (marked ‘P’ …) is formed based on reconstructed
`
`picture samples.” EX1009, 186; see also id., 185-187. By contrast, “[t]he
`
`prediction block PRED is added to D’n to create a reconstructed block uF’n (a
`
`decoded version of the original block; u indicates that it is unfiltered).” Id., 186;
`
`see also id., 202-209 (H.264 intra-prediction); 209-212 (H.264 deblocking filter).
`
`Thus, Richardson, like the ’448 patent, expressly differentiates “predicted” blocks
`
`from “reconstructed” blocks—both in the context of H.264 and in its overview of
`
`video coding systems generally (outside the context of H.264). See, e.g., id., 55
`
`(“The goal … is to reduce redundancy … by forming a predicted frame and
`
`subtracting this from the current frame. The output of this process is a residual
`
`(difference) frame … . The residual frame is encoded and sent to the decoder
`
`which re-creates the predicted frame, adds the decoded residual and reconstructs
`
`the current frame.”) (emphasis added); see also EX1010, 167.
`
`Finally, even the prior art applied in Grounds 1 and 2 of the Petition use the
`
`term “prediction” consistent with the meaning advanced by Patent Owner, clearly
`
`distinguishing a “prediction” from a “reconstruction” value or values generated at
`
`15
`
`
`
`other points in the coding processes. E.g., EX1004, [0038]-[0048], FIG. 1;
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`EX1006, 3:20-58, FIGS. 1-2. The Petition’s own “Technology Background”
`
`likewise admits that “predict[ed] pixels” in a “predicted block” are “created during
`
`the partitioning step”—which corresponds in the Petition’s explanation to the
`
`forward encoding path rather than the reconstruction path where reconstruction
`
`values are processed. Pet., 5.
`
`In sum, the Petition’s conflation of “prediction values” with “reconstruction
`
`values” should be rejected and construed as described above. See infra, Sections
`
`V.A.1, V.B.1.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`A. Moon
`
`Moon describes a “deblocking filter” for the reconstruction path of a video
`
`coding system based on the H.264 AVC standard. See EX1004, [0041], [0053],
`
`[0065], [0103], FIG. 1. Figure 1 shows such a deblocking filter 120:
`
`16
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`
`
`EX1004, FIG. 1 (annotated).
`
`Moon’s deblocking filter 120 processes reconstructed macroblocks uFn’,
`
`e.g., to remove blockiness in a restored picture frame Fn’ that can result from
`
`coding errors and block partitioning. EX1004, [0048], [0056]-[0063], FIGS. 5A-
`
`5B, 6A-6B; see also id., EX1009, 209-212 (describing deblock filtering in the
`
`H.264 AVC standard).
`
`Notably, Moon’s deblocking filter 120 is located outside the coder’s “intra-
`
`prediction” loop. Deblocking filter 120 never filters reference values used by intra
`
`predictor 106 in the intra-prediction process, nor does filter 120 filter any
`
`prediction values in the prediction block ‘P’. Moon’s deblocking filter 120 thus
`
`serves a far different role in the video coder than the pre-filters or post-filters
`
`17
`
`
`
`described for intra-prediction in the ’448 patent. Supra, Section II; compare
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`EX1004, FIG. 1 with EX1001, FIG. 1.
`
`Moon further explains that the strength of the filtering applied by deblocking
`
`filter 120 to a reconstructed block is based on the calculated “boundary strength”
`
`of the block. EX1004, [0085]-[0087]. To quantify the strength of the boundary,
`
`Moon calculates a boundary strength (Bs) score according to the following
`
`conditions (which are the same conditions defined in H.264 AVC):
`
`
`
`EX1004, [0085]. Subject to additional criteria described in at least paragraphs
`
`[0088]-[0094], Moon’s deblocking filter 120 will apply a deblocking filter along a
`
`boundary of the current block if the Bs score is positive (i.e., 1-4). However,
`
`“[t]he Bs parameter of 0 indicates that there is no need for filtering.” Id., [0087].
`
`B.
`
`Teng
`
`Teng, like Moon, discloses “deblock filtering techniques,” and specifically
`
`techniques that purport to “address both originated blockiness and inherited
`
`blockiness that can manifest as a result of prediction-based video coding.”
`
`18
`
`
`
`EX1005, 2:28-30; generally id., 2:28-57, 11:18-13:3, FIG. 4. However, Teng also
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`does not disclose filtering on prediction values in a prediction block of an intra-
`
`prediction process, and the Petition does not rely on Teng for such teachings.
`
`C. Wilkins
`
`As with Moon and Teng, Wilkins describes techniques for filtering
`
`reconstructed macroblocks. Generally EX1006, 6:25-8:9, FIGS. 1, 5. Wilkins’
`
`adaptive filtering is implemented in “loop filter 34,” as shown in Figure 1:
`
`
`
`EX1006, FIG. 1 (highlighting added).
`
`Wilkins discloses techniques for setting the strength of the loop filter 34 by
`
`combining a “baseline” filter strength (f) for a current frame with a “filter strength
`
`modifier” for a current macroblock within the frame. Id., 6:25-65, FIG. 5. The
`
`19
`
`
`
`filter strength modifier is selected in accordance with properties of the current
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`macroblock, including whether the macroblock was inter-coded or intra-coded, and
`
`if the macroblock was intra-coded, whether intra-coding was performed in a “split
`
`mode” or a “non-split mode”:
`
`
`
`EX1006, FIG. 5; see also id., 5:37-67, 6:25-65.
`
`The Petition also refers to a “deblocking filter 33” in the decoder of Wilkins
`
`(see FIG. 2), but neither loop filter 34 nor deblocking filter 33 apply filtering to
`
`prediction values for a prediction block when intra-prediction is performed. See
`
`Pet., 21-22, 26-27, 48.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`V. THE PETITION’S PROPOSED GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`ARE DEFECTIVE
`A. Ground 1 Is Deficient
`
`
`The Moon-Teng-Wilkins Combination Fails to Provide a
`“Second Filter” to Apply to a “Prediction Value” of the
`Current Block “When [] Intra-Prediction for the Current
`Block is Performed”
`
`The Petition first fails to show that the teachings of Moon, Teng, and Wilkins
`
`disclose a processor that “when the intra-prediction for the current block is
`
`performed, … determines whether to apply a second filter to a prediction value of
`
`the current block” and then “applies the second filter to the prediction value of the
`
`current block if, as a result of the determination, the second filter is determined to
`
`be applied,” as recited in claims 1 and 3. See Pet., 47-49, 51-52.
`
`The Petition provides a depiction of the proposed combination in Ground 1
`
`as follows:
`
`21
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`
`
`Pet., 47 (Petitioner’s original text in red; Patent Owner’s annotation in green).
`
`As shown in the figure above, Petitioner maps filter 120 to the recited
`
`“second filter” of claims 1 and 3. See Pet., 48 (“the second filter, (i.e. Moon’s
`
`filter 120)”), 47 (“filter 120 is applied immediately before the restored picture is
`
`output”). Moon describes the function of filter 120 in the original system as
`
`follows:
`
`The restored picture is stored in the frame memory 122,
`
`and is then used to perform an inter-prediction on a picture
`
`that follows the current picture. If the restored picture
`
`passes through the filter 120, it becomes the original
`
`22
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`picture that additionally includes several encoding errors.
`
`EX1004, [0048] (emphasis added); see also id., [0057].
`
`Thus, Moon teaches that filter 120 is a “deblocking filter” configured to
`
`process “restored” picture values, e.g., to remove discontinuities in a reference
`
`frame for the inter-prediction loop. Id. In the proposed combination of Ground 1,
`
`as depicted above, filter 120 operates similarly except that the input to the filter
`
`120 may be first filtered by the so-called “Moon-Wilkins In-Loop Filter.” See Pet.,
`
`47-49, 26-30. That is, the “Moon-Wilkins In-Loop Filter” (alleged to correspond to
`
`the recited “first filter”) initially processes an unfiltered reconstruction/restored
`
`macroblock uFn’, and then filter 120 (alleged to correspond to the recited “second
`
`filter”) processes a filtered version of the reconstruction macroblock (which will be
`
`referred to as fFn’).
`
`Critically, by operating on a filtered reconstruction macroblock fFn’, the
`
`filter 120 cannot possibly apply filtering to a “prediction value” of the current
`
`block “when the intra-prediction for the current block is performed,” as required of
`
`the “second filter” in claims 1 and 3. As previously discussed, the term “prediction
`
`value” in the context of the ’448 patent refers to a value generated in an intra-
`
`prediction process for determination of a prediction block. Supra, Section III.A.
`
`The filtered reconstruction macroblock fFn’, however, contains filtered
`
`reconstruction values, which would be understood as something entirely different
`
`23
`
`
`
`than a “prediction value” as recited in claims 1 and 3. Unlike the ’448 patent,
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`which describes a second filter that applies to the prediction values of a prediction
`
`block generated by an intra-prediction process, filter 120 in the Moon-Teng-
`
`Wilkins combination of Ground 1 is a deblocking filter for an entirely different
`
`stage of the video coder (i.e., the reconstruction/restoration stage) rather than the
`
`intra-prediction stage. Compare EX1001, FIG. 6 (s204) & 8:9-18 with EX1004,
`
`[0048] & [0057].
`
`To illustrate just how far the Petition’s mapping in Ground 1 strays from the
`
`’448 patent, consider that Moon and the exemplary embodiments of the ’448 patent
`
`are both described in the context of an H.264 AVC video coding system. EX1001,
`
`3:30-33, 4:1-2, 4:60-61, 6:7-11; EX1004, [0041], [0053], [0055], [0065], [0069],
`
`[0091], [0103]. Consistent with typical descriptions of H.264 AVC systems, the
`
`’448 patent distinguishes between prediction values of a prediction block ‘P’ as the
`
`output of an intra-prediction process and the reconstruction values of a
`
`reconstruction macroblock uFn’:
`
`24
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2021-00827
`Attorney Docket No: 07314-0040IP1
`
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 1 (annotated).
`
`In the context of the example H.264-based system disclosed in the ’448
`
`patent, the second filter is applied to prediction values in the prediction block ‘P.’
`
`EX1001, 4:16-24, 4:67-5:10, 8:9-18, FIGS. 1-2, 6 (s204). By contrast, the Petition
`
`attempts to map the recited “second filter” of claims 1 and 3
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
