`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________________
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
`
`PETITIONER
`
`v.
`
`NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY,
`
`PATENT OWNER.
`
`___________________
`
`IPR2024-00847, IPR2024-00848
`U.S. Patent No. 7,532,808
`_____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JOSEPH P. HAVLICEK
`
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 7,532,808
`
`1
`
`AMAZON-1003
`7,532,808
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 11
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS........................................................ 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Educational Background .......................................................................... 12
`
`Professional Experience ........................................................................... 13
`
`Publications .............................................................................................. 17
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................................... 18
`
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED AND RELIED UPON .......................................... 19
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................................................... 21
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Priority Date ............................................................................................. 21
`
`Claim Interpretation ................................................................................. 22
`
`Prior Art ................................................................................................... 23
`
`D. Obviousness ............................................................................................. 23
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ................................................................................. 26
`
`VII.
`
`VIII.
`
`TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW ................................................................ 26
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’808 PATENT ..................................................... 30
`
`A.
`
`Subject Matter Overview of the ’808 Patent ........................................... 30
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Brief Summary of ’808 Patent Prosecution History ................................ 39
`
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................... 41
`
`A.
`
`“skip coding mode” .................................................................................. 42
`
`X. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS .................................................... 48
`
`A. Ground 1: Obviousness over Karczewicz (Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9-11, 15, 16,
`
`20-25, 28-30, 32, 34, 36, 39-41, 43, 44, 47-49, 51-54, 58-60, and 62-65)
`
` .................................................................................................................. 48
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Karczewicz .................................................................................... 48
`
`Claim 1 and Dependents: “A method of encoding a video
`
`sequence” ....................................................................................... 57
`
`3.
`
`Claim 7 and Dependents: “A method of decoding an encoded
`
`video sequence” ............................................................................. 87
`
`4.
`
`Claim 10 and Dependents: “A video encoder for encoding a video
`
`sequence” ....................................................................................... 93
`
`5.
`
`Claim 16 and Dependents: “A video decoder for decoding an
`
`encoded video sequence” ............................................................. 124
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2A: Obviousness over Frojdh (Claims 1, 2, 7, 23, 28-30, 34, 39-
`
`41, 65) .................................................................................................... 133
`
`1.
`
`Frojdh ........................................................................................... 133
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1 and Dependents: “A method of encoding a video
`
`sequence” ..................................................................................... 152
`
`3.
`
`Claim 7 and Dependents: “A method of decoding an encoded
`
`video sequence” ........................................................................... 180
`
`C.
`
`Ground 2B: Obviousness over Frojdh in view of H.263 (Claims 6, 9, 24,
`
`25, 32, 36, and 43) ................................................................................. 184
`
`1.
`
`H.263 (1998) ................................................................................ 184
`
`2. Motivation to combine Frojdh and H.263 ................................... 188
`
`3.
`
`Claim 6: A method according to claim 1, wherein if the second
`
`segment has zero motion vector, the zero motion vector is assigned
`
`for skip coding mode of the first segment and the prediction for the
`
`first segment is formed with respect to a corresponding segment of
`
`the reference frame associated with the zero motion vector. ...... 192
`
`4.
`
`Claim 24: A method according to claim 1, wherein if the second
`
`segment has a zero motion vector and the second segment is
`
`predicted using motion-compensated prediction from the reference
`
`picture, the zero motion vector is assigned to the skip coding mode
`
`of the first segment and the prediction for the first segment is
`
`formed with respect to a corresponding segment of the reference
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`frame associated with the zero motion vector. ............................ 198
`
`5.
`
`Claim 25: A method according to claim 1, wherein if the second
`
`segment has a zero motion vector and the second segment is
`
`predicted using motion-compensated prediction from a second
`
`reference picture immediately preceding the picture second
`
`segment belongs to, the zero motion vector is assigned to the skip
`
`coding mode of the first segment and the prediction for the first
`
`segment is formed with respect to a corresponding segment of the
`
`reference frame associated with the zero motion vector. ............ 203
`
`6.
`
`Claim 9: A method according to claim 7, wherein if a segment in a
`
`previously decoded region surrounding the first segment has zero
`
`motion vector, the zero-motion vector is assigned to the skip
`
`coding mode of the first segment and the prediction for the first
`
`segment is formed with respect to a corresponding segment of the
`
`reference frame associated with the zero motion vector. ............ 205
`
`7.
`
`Claim 32: A method according to claim 7, wherein if the second
`
`segment has a zero motion vector, the zero motion vector is
`
`assigned to the skip coding mode of the first segment and the
`
`prediction for the first segment is formed with respect to a
`
`corresponding segment of the reference frame associated with the
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`zero motion vector. ...................................................................... 207
`
`8.
`
`Claim 36: A method according to claim 7, wherein if the second
`
`segment has a zero motion vector and the second segment is
`
`predicted using motion-compensated prediction from the reference
`
`picture, the zero motion vector is assigned to the skip coding mode
`
`of the first segment and the prediction for the first segment is
`
`formed with respect to a corresponding segment of the reference
`
`frame associated with the zero motion vector. ............................ 207
`
`9.
`
`Claim 43: A method according to claim 7, wherein if the second
`
`segment has a zero motion vector and the second segment is
`
`predicted using motion-compensated prediction from a second
`
`reference picture immediately preceding the picture second
`
`segment belongs to, the zero motion vector is assigned to the skip
`
`coding mode of the first segment and the prediction for the first
`
`segment is formed with respect to a corresponding segment of the
`
`reference frame associated with the zero motion vector. ............ 207
`
`D. Ground 2C: Obviousness over Frojdh in view of AAPA (Claims 10, 11,
`
`16, 21, 22, 44, 47-49, 58-60, and 64) ..................................................... 208
`
`1.
`
`’808 Patent Background (AAPA) ................................................ 208
`
`2. Motivation to combine Frojdh and AAPA .................................. 209
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Claim 10 and Dependents: “A video encoder for encoding a video
`
`sequence” ..................................................................................... 210
`
`4.
`
`Claim 16 and Dependents: “A video decoder for decoding an
`
`encoded video sequence” ............................................................. 220
`
`E.
`
`Ground 2D: Obviousness over Frojdh in view of AAPA and H.263
`
`(Claims 15, 20, 51-54, 62, and 63) ........................................................ 232
`
`1. Motivation to combine Frojdh, AAPA, and H.263 ..................... 232
`
`2.
`
`Claim 15: An encoder according to claim 10, wherein if a segment
`
`in a region surrounding the first segment has zero motion vector,
`
`the encoder is arranged to assign the zero motion vector for the
`
`skip coding mode of the first segment and the prediction for the
`
`first segment is formed with respect to a corresponding segment of
`
`the reference frame associated with the zero motion vector. ...... 233
`
`3.
`
`Claim 51: An encoder according to claim 10, wherein if the second
`
`segment has a zero motion vector, the zero motion vector is
`
`assigned to the skip coding mode of the first segment and the
`
`prediction for the first segment is formed with respect to a
`
`corresponding segment of the reference frame associated with the
`
`zero motion vector. ...................................................................... 235
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Claim 52: An encoder according to claim 10, wherein if the second
`
`segment has a zero motion vector and the second segment is
`
`predicted using motion-compensated prediction from the reference
`
`picture, the zero motion vector is assigned to the skip coding mode
`
`of the first segment and the prediction for the first segment is
`
`formed with respect to a corresponding segment of the reference
`
`frame associated with the zero motion vector. ............................ 235
`
`5.
`
`Claim 53: An encoder according to claim 10, wherein if the second
`
`segment has a zero motion vector and the second segment is
`
`predicted using motion-compensated prediction from a second
`
`reference picture immediately preceding the picture second
`
`segment belongs to, the zero motion vector is assigned to the skip
`
`coding mode of the first segment and the prediction for the first
`
`segment is formed with respect to a corresponding segment of the
`
`reference frame associated with the zero motion vector. ............ 236
`
`6.
`
`Claim 20: A decoder according to claim 16, wherein if a segment
`
`in a region surrounding the first segment has zero motion vector,
`
`the zero motion vector is assigned for the skip coding mode of the
`
`first segment, and the prediction for the first segment is formed
`
`with respect to a corresponding segment of the reference frame
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`associated with the zero motion vector. ...................................... 237
`
`7.
`
`Claim 54: A decoder according to claim 16, wherein if the second
`
`segment has a zero motion vector, the zero-motion vector is
`
`assigned to the skip coding mode for the first segment and the
`
`prediction for the first segment is formed with respect to a
`
`corresponding segment of the reference frame associated with the
`
`zero motion vector. ...................................................................... 238
`
`8.
`
`Claim 62: A decoder according to claim 16, wherein if the second
`
`segment has a zero motion vector and the second segment is
`
`predicted using motion-compensated prediction from the reference
`
`picture, the zero motion vector is assigned to the skip coding mode
`
`of the first segment and the prediction for the first segment is
`
`formed with respect to a corresponding segment of the reference
`
`frame associated with the zero motion vector. ............................ 239
`
`9.
`
`Claim 63: A decoder according to claim 16, wherein if the second
`
`segment has a zero motion vector and the second segment is
`
`predicted using motion-compensated prediction from a second
`
`reference picture immediately preceding the picture second
`
`segment belongs to, the zero motion vector is assigned to the skip
`
`coding mode of the first segment and the prediction for the first
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`segment is formed with respect to a corresponding segment of the
`
`reference frame associated with the zero motion vector. ............ 240
`
`XI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 241
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Joseph P. Havlicek, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I have been retained on behalf of Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com
`
`Services LLC (“Amazon” or “Petitioner”) to offer technical opinions related to U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,532,808 (“the ’808 Patent”) (EX-1001). I understand that Amazon is
`
`requesting that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) institute an
`
`inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding of the ’808 Patent. Specifically, I have been
`
`asked to consider the validity of claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-11, 15-16, 20-25, 28-30, 32, 34, 36,
`
`39-41, 43-44, 47-49, 51-54, 58-60, and 62-65 of the ’808 Patent (the “Challenged
`
`Claims”) in view of prior art and obviousness considerations from the perspective of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA”) as it relates
`
`to the ’808 Patent.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at my standard consulting rate. I am
`
`also being reimbursed for expenses that I incur during the course of this work. My
`
`compensation is not contingent upon the results of my study, the substance of my
`
`opinions, or the outcome of any proceeding involving the Challenged Claims. I have
`
`no financial interest in the outcome of this matter or on the pending litigation between
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner.
`
`3. My analysis here is based on my years of education, research, and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials, including those
`
`cited herein.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`I may rely upon these materials, my knowledge and experience, and/or
`
`additional materials to rebut arguments raised by the Patent Owner. Further, I may also
`
`consider additional documents and information in forming any necessary opinions,
`
`including documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`5. My analysis of the materials in this proceeding is ongoing, and I will
`
`continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration represents only
`
`those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise, supplement, and/or
`
`amend my opinions stated herein based on new information and on my continuing
`
`analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`6.
`I am over the age of 18 and am competent to write this declaration. I have
`
`personal knowledge, or have developed knowledge of these technologies, based upon
`
`education, training, or experience, of the matters set forth herein.
`
`7. My qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which is
`
`filed as Exhibit EX-1004. The following is a brief summary of my relevant
`
`qualifications and professional experience.
`
`A.
`8.
`
`Educational Background
`I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in electrical engineering with
`
`minors in mathematics and computer science from Virginia Tech in 1986. I also
`
`received a Master of Science degree in electrical engineering from Virginia Tech in
`
`1988. I received a Ph.D. degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`University of Texas at Austin in 1996. My Ph.D. research was in the field of image
`
`processing.
`
`B.
`9.
`
`Professional Experience
`From December 1984 to May 1987, I was a software engineer at
`
`Management Systems Laboratories, Blacksburg, VA. My main job responsibilities
`
`included developing software for nuclear materials management under contract with the
`
`United States Department of Energy.
`
`10. From June 1987 to January 1997, I was an electrical engineer at the United
`
`States Naval Research Laboratory. For the period of June 1987 through August 1989,
`
`I was an on-site contractor affiliated with SFA, Inc, Landover, Maryland. From August
`
`1989 through January 1997, I was a regular government employee. I was on leave
`
`without pay from August 1987 through July 1988 while completing my Master of
`
`Science Degree. I was also on leave without pay for much of the period from August
`
`1990 through January 1997 while I completed my Ph.D. degree. My main job
`
`responsibilities at the United States Naval Research Laboratory included designing
`
`digital and analog circuits to process real-time video signals and designing and
`
`implementing target detection, tracking, and identification algorithms. I developed
`
`missile warning receivers for Navy aircraft including the Navy’s first two-color infrared
`
`system. I was a recipient of the 1990 Department of the Navy Award of Merit for Group
`
`Achievement for this work. The production version of this system was deployed on
`
`Navy helicopters and saw combat in Afghanistan and Iraq.
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11. From January 1993 through December 1993, I was an on-site contractor at
`
`International Business Machines (IBM) Corporation, Austin, TX. My main job
`
`responsibilities included designing and implementing image compression and
`
`decompression algorithms (CODECs) for IBM products.
`
`12. Since January 1997, I have been a regular faculty member in the School of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK. I
`
`was an Assistant Professor from January 1997 through June 2002. I was promoted to
`
`the rank of Associate Professor and granted tenure in July 2002. I was promoted to the
`
`rank of Professor in July 2007. I was appointed to the Williams Companies Foundation
`
`Presidential Professorship in April 2009. In April 2017 I was appointed to the Gerald
`
`Tuma Presidential Professorship. My main job responsibilities at the University of
`
`Oklahoma include conducting academic research in electrical and computer
`
`engineering, teaching graduate and undergraduate courses in electrical and computer
`
`engineering, and performing professional and institutional service.
`
`13.
`
`I am a member of several professional societies and organizations,
`
`including the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the IEEE Signal
`
`Processing Society,
`
`the IEEE Computer Society, and
`
`the IEEE Intelligent
`
`Transportation Society. I am a Senior Member of the IEEE. From November 2015
`
`through February 2018, I served as a Senior Area Editor for the IEEE Transactions on
`
`Image Processing. I was formerly an Associate Editor for the IEEE Transactions on
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Image Processing from December 2010 through October 2015. I served as a Technical
`
`Area Chair for the IEEE International Conference on Image Processing in the area of
`
`Image & Video Analysis, Synthesis, and Retrieval (2012, 2013) and have served on the
`
`organizing committee of that conference (2007). I have also served as a Technical Area
`
`Chair for the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal
`
`Processing in the area of Image, Video, and Multidimensional Signal Processing (2012-
`
`2014).
`
`14. For over 35 years, I have conducted research and taught classes in the field
`
`of image processing and image analysis. My main scholarly contributions have been in
`
`the areas of modulation domain image models and image processing (AM-FM image
`
`models), video target tracking, and distributed control of video networks for intelligent
`
`transportation systems. I have supervised or co-supervised 11 Ph.D. students to
`
`completion and I am currently supervising two Ph.D. students. I have supervised 27
`
`M.S. students to completion and I am currently supervising two additional M.S.
`
`students. I have served as a committee member on 67 additional doctoral committees
`
`and 68 additional M.S. committees.
`
`15.
`
`I teach a variety of courses at the University of Oklahoma, including the
`
`required junior-level Signals and Systems course ECE 3793 (taught 21 times), the
`
`graduate level Digital Image Processing course ECE 5273 (taught 25 times), and the
`
`graduate level Digital Signal Processing course ECE 5213 (taught 18 times). I have
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`received a number of teaching awards, including the University of Oklahoma College
`
`of Engineering Outstanding Faculty Advisor Award (2005-2006) and the University of
`
`Texas Engineering Foundation Award for Exemplary Engineering Teaching while
`
`Pursuing a Graduate Degree (1992).
`
`16. Since joining the University of Oklahoma in January 1997, I have been
`
`Principal Investigator or Co-Principal Investigator on over 110 externally funded grants
`
`and contracts with a total value of $27,061,653. My main research contributions have
`
`been in the areas of signal, image, and video processing, video target tracking, and
`
`intelligent transportation systems. I have been author or coauthor on over 130 scholarly
`
`publications in these areas. I was a recipient of the 1990 Department of the Navy Award
`
`of Merit for Group Achievement for my work in video target tracking. My research
`
`group at the University of Oklahoma originated the Virtual Traffic Management Center
`
`concept featured in a December 2014 FHWA technical report (Guidelines for Virtual
`
`Transportation Management Center Development) and a November 2014 FHWA
`
`national webinar with the same title. I am co-founder and director of the University of
`
`Oklahoma Center for Intelligent Transportation Systems. Under my supervision, the
`
`Center has collaborated with the Oklahoma Department of Transportation since 1998
`
`to design and implement the Oklahoma Statewide Intelligent Transportation System,
`
`including a geographically distributed video network that is currently deployed on
`
`major highways and interstates across the entire State of Oklahoma.
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`Publications
`17. A complete listing of my publications is found in my curriculum vitae (EX-
`
`1004). I highlight some of the publications relevant to the subject matter of the ’808
`
`patent below.
`
`18.
`
`J.P. Havlicek, T.N. Arian, H. Soltani, T. Przebinda, and M. Özaydın, “A
`
`preliminary case for Hirschman transform video coding,” in Proc. IEEE Southwest
`
`Symp. Image Anal. & Interp., Santa Fe, NM, Mar. 29-31, 2020, pp. 104-07.
`
`19. E. Vorakitolan, J.P. Havlicek, R.D. Barnes, and A.R. Stevenson, “Simple,
`
`Effective Rate Control for Video Distribution
`
`in Heterogeneous Intelligent
`
`Transportation System Networks,” in Proc. IEEE Southwest Symp. Image Anal. &
`
`Interp., San Diego, CA, Apr. 6-8, 2014, pp. 37-40.
`
`20. V. DeBrunner, J.P. Havlicek, T. Przebinda, and M. Özaydın, “Entropy-
`
`Based Uncertainty Measures for L2(Rn), l2(Z), and l2(Z/NZ) with a Hirschman Optimal
`
`Transform for l2(Z/NZ),” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., Aug. 2005, vol. 53, no. 8, pp.
`
`2690-99.
`
`21. O. Alkhouli, V. DeBrunner, and J. Havlicek, “Hirschman Optimal
`
`Transform (HOT) DFT Block LMS Algorithm,” in Adaptive Filtering, L. Garcia, ed.,
`
`ISBN: 978-953-307-158-9, InTech, Sep. 2011, pp. 135-52.
`
`22. V. DeBrunner, M. Özaydın, T. Przebinda, and J. Havlicek, “The optimal
`
`solutions to the continuous- and discrete-time versions of the Hirschman uncertainty
`
`principle,” in Proc. IEEE Int’l. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., Istanbul,
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Turkey, Jun. 5-9, 2000, vol. 1, pp. 81-84.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`23.
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I was asked to
`
`consider the patent claims and the prior art through the eyes of a POSITA at the time of
`
`the alleged invention. I understand there is a dispute whether the Challenged Claims are
`
`entitled to the priority date of the ’808 provisional—March 15, 2002—or the filing date
`
`of its non-provisional application—March 14, 2003. My opinions herein would not
`
`change regardless of which of these dates applies. I understand that the factors
`
`considered in determining the ordinary level of skill in a field of art include the level of
`
`education and experience of persons working in the field; the types of problems
`
`encountered in the field; the teachings of the prior art; and the sophistication of the
`
`technology at the time of the alleged invention. I understand that a POSITA is not a
`
`specific real individual, but rather is a hypothetical individual having the qualities
`
`reflected by the factors above. I understand that a POSITA would also have knowledge
`
`from the teachings of the prior art, including the art cited below.
`
`24. Taking these factors into consideration, in my opinion, at the relevant time,
`
`a POSITA relating to the technology of the ’808 Patent would have had (1) Bachelor’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a
`
`comparable field of study such as physics, and (2) approximately two to three years of
`
`practical experience with video encoding/decoding. In my opinion, more education
`
`could substitute for experience and vice versa.
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25. Before March 15, 2002 (and thus also March 14, 2003), my level of skill
`
`in the art was at least that of a POSITA. I am qualified to provide opinions concerning
`
`what a POSITA would have known and understood at that time, and my analysis and
`
`conclusions herein are from the perspective of a POSITA as of that date. My opinions
`
`would not change regardless of which of the two possible priority dates the Challenged
`
`Claims are entitled to.
`
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED AND RELIED UPON
`26.
`In forming my opinions expressed herein, in addition to relying on my
`
`education and experience, I considered the totality of the following materials:
`
`Exhibit
`
`Reference
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,532,808 (“the ’808 Patent”)
`
`1002 File History of the ’808 Patent (“’808FH”)
`
`1005 U.S. Patent Provisional Application No. 60/365,072
`
`1006
`
`International Patent Publication No. WO 01/11891 A1 (“Karczewicz”)
`
`1007 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0123738 (“Frojdh”)
`
`1008 U.S. Patent Provisional Application No. 60/334,979 (“Frojdh
`Provisional”)
`
`1009
`
`ITU-T Recommendation H.263 (February 1998) (“H.263”)
`
`1010 Martyn J. Riley and Iain E.G. Richardson, Digital Video
`Communications, Artech House, Inc. (1997) (“Riley”)
`
`1011 Gary J. Sullivan and Thomas Wiegand, Rate-Distortion Optimization
`for Video Compression, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, pp. 74-90
`(November 1998) (“Sullivan”)
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`Reference
`
`JVT of ISO/IEC and ITU-T VCEG – JVT-A003r1, Joint Model
`Number 1, Revision 1 (JM-1r1), Pattaya, Thailand, 3-7 December 2001
`
`Ismaeil et al., “Efficient Motion Estimation Using Spatial and
`Temporal Motion Vector Prediction.” In Proceedings 1999
`International Conference on Image Processing (Cat. 99CH36348), vol.
`1, pp. 70-74. IEEE, 1999.
`
`1014 Wang et al., Video Processing and Communications (Prentice Hall,
`2002) (“Wang”)
`
`1015 Bhaskaran, Vasudev, Konstantinides, Konstantinos, Image and Video
`Compression Standards, Algorithms and Architectures, (Kluwer
`Academic Publishers, 1995) (“Bhaskaran”)
`
`1016 Respondents’ Opening Claim Construction Brief, Investigation No.
`337-TA-1379 (ITC)
`
`1017 Complainant’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Investigation No.
`337-TA-1379 (ITC)
`
`1018 Staff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Investigation No. 337-TA-
`1379 (ITC)
`
`1019 Respondents’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief, Investigation No.
`337-TA-1379 (ITC)
`
`1020 Complainant’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, Investigation No.
`337-TA-1379 (ITC)
`
`1021 Staff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, Investigation No. 337-
`TA-1379 (ITC)
`
`1022 Order Construing Claims, Investigation No. 337-TA-1379 (ITC), Order
`No. 38
`
`1026 Declaration of June Ann Munford
`
`I have also considered any materials cited in this declaration even if not included in
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the list above.
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARDS
`27.
`I am not an attorney and offer no legal opinions, but in the course of my
`
`work, I have had experience studying and analyzing patents and patent claims from the
`
`perspective of a POSITA. For the purposes of this Declaration, I have been informed
`
`about certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my analysis, as summarized below.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a nonprovisional patent application publication is prior
`
`art as of the earlier filing date of a provisional application if the disclosure of the
`
`provisional provides written description support for at least one claim in the publication,
`
`and the provisional describes the subject matter relied upon as prior art in the
`
`publication. As I describe below (in Section X.B.1.a (Ground 2A, Priority Analysis)),
`
`Frojdh is entitled to its priority date based on the filing of Frojdh Provisional because
`
`Frojdh Provisional provides written description support for at least one Frojdh claim
`
`(claim 15), and because Frojdh Provisional discloses the subject matter relied upon for
`
`prior art in Frojdh in my discussions below (Section X.B (Ground 2A) and Section X.C
`
`(Ground 2B)).
`
`A.
`29.
`
`Priority Date
`I understand that, to gain benefit of the filing date of an earlier patent
`
`application, each application in the chain leading back to the earlier application must
`
`comply with the statutory written description requirement.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that, to satisfy the written description requirement, a patent’s
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`specification must reasonably convey to a POSITA that the inventor had possession of
`
`the claimed subject matter when the patent application was filed. I understand that, to
`
`show “possession” of the invention, the disclosure must describe the invention,
`
`including all of its claimed limitations. It is not enough that a claimed invention is an
`
`obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification.
`
`31.
`
`I further understand that entitlement to a filing date extends only to subject
`
`matter that is disclosed and not to subject matter that is not disclosed but would be
`
`obvious over what is expressly disclosed. Thus, a prior application itself must describe
`
`an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that a POSITA can clearly conclude that the
`
`inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.
`
`32.
`
`I also understand that a patent’s priority date is a legal determination based
`
`on underlying factual issues. For that reason, I am not rendering a legal opinion on the
`
`ultimate legal question of priority date. Rather, my testimony addresses the underlying
`
`facts and factual analysis that would support a legal determination of the priority date.
`
`B. Claim Interpretation
`33.
`I understand from Counsel that during an IPR proceeding, claims are to be
`
`construed in light of the specification as would be read by a POSITA at the time the
`
`application was filed. I understand that claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning as would be understood by a POSITA in the context of the entire
`
`disclosure. A claim term, however, will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee
`
`acted as his or her own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the claim term
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in the specification. In that case, the claim term will receive the definition set forth in
`
`the patent.
`
`C.
`34.
`
`Prior Art
`I understand from Counsel that certain patents and printed publications can
`
`be considered prior art in an IPR proceeding. I understand that prior art must predate
`
`the effective filing date of the claims of the patent-at-issue.
`
`D. Obviousness
`35.
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable if the claim limitations, as
`
`arranged in a claim, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art as
`
`of the date of invention. For example, a combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methods is likely to be obvious if the combination does no more than produce
`
`predictable results.
`
`36.
`
`In determining obviousness, I understand that the analysis may take into
`
`account multiple prior art references, as well as the common knowledge possessed by a
`
`POSITA (as discussed above). I further understand that the POSITA is not an
`
`automaton but one having common sense and ordinary creativity. I also understand that
`
`a claim is not obvious simply because a combination of prior art refere
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
