UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Doris Johnson Hines
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of:
`
`CERTAIN VIDEO CAPABLE DEVICES,
`INCLUDING COMPUTERS,
`STREAMING DEVICES, TELEVISIONS,
`CAMERAS, AND COMPONENTS AND
`MODULES THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1379
`
`COMPLAINANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON-1017
`7,532,808
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................................................2
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Lexicography ...........................................................................................................2
`
`Claim Differentiation ...............................................................................................3
`
`Technical Background to the ’808 Patent ................................................................4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Video Coding and Motion Compensation ...................................................4
`
`Skip Coding Modes at the Time of the Invention ........................................9
`
`The Problems Existing in the Art ...............................................................10
`
`The ’808 Patent’s Redefined “Skip Coding Mode” Solved a
`Problem in the Art ......................................................................................11
`
`a.
`
`The Redefined Skip Coding Mode Skips Residual
`Information ....................................................................................12
`Advantages of the Redefined Skip Coding Mode..........................12
`b.
`The Disputed Claim Term .....................................................................................15
`
`D.
`
`1.
`
`“skip coding mode”....................................................................................15
`
`IV. ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Inventor’s Lexicography Governs ..................................................................16
`
`Claim Differentiation Does Not Override Lexicography or the Teachings
`of the Specification ................................................................................................17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Respondents’ Construction Contradicts the Lexicography........................17
`
`Respondents’ Construction Contradicts the Repeated and
`Consistent Descriptions of Invention in the Specification .........................19
`
`C.
`
`Respondents Misapply Claim Differentiation .......................................................20
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................23
`
`
`
`i
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1379
`COMPLAINANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`V.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Astrazeneca AB, Aktiebolaget Hassle, KBI-E, Inc. v. Mut. Pharm. Co.,
`384 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................3
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................16
`
`Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc.,
`438 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................................3, 22
`
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009)......................................................................................3, 21, 22
`
`Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc.,
`822 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................4, 17
`
`Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc.,
`939 F.2d 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1991)..................................................................................................3
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ..........................................2
`
`Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd.,
`133 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..............................................................................................3, 4
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .....................................................................2, 16, 17
`
`Schoenhaus v. Genesco, Inc.,
`440 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................3
`
`Tandon Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`831 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987)..................................................................................................3
`
`Tubular Rollers, LLC v. Maximus Oilfield Prod., LLC,
`No. 2021-2319, 2023 WL 4230371 (Fed. Cir. June 28, 2023) ..................................................4
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1379
`COMPLAINANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`MARKMAN EXHIBITS LIST
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1
`
`JVT-A003 (JM1 of the JVT)
`NOK_AMHP_ITC00079634–00079711
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2
`
`DECLARATIONS
`
`Description
`
`Declaration of Dr. Michael Orchard
`
`iii
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1379
`COMPLAINANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Per Order No. 13 (January 9, 2024), Complaints’ Nokia Technologies Oy and Nokia Corp.
`
`provide their opening claim construction brief regarding the disputed term “skip coding mode” in
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,532,808 (the “’808 Patent”).
`
`Nokia and the Commission Investigative Staff’s proposed construction for “skip coding
`
`mode” is copied directly from the lexicography provided in the patent. Respondents seek to alter
`
`this lexicography due to alleged claim differentiation. The ALJ should adopt Nokia and the Staff’s
`
`proposed construction for three reasons.
`
`First, under Phillips, the inventor’s lexicography governs the meaning of a term. Here,
`
`there is a clear statement of lexicography applied by Nokia’s and the Staff’s proposed construction.
`
`Second, claim differentiation is at most a rebuttable presumption that cannot override
`
`lexicography or the teachings of the specification. Respondents’ proposed construction contradicts
`
`both the inventor’s lexicography and the specification’s repeated and consistent descriptions of the
`
`invention, which state that no additional information (including residual information) is provided
`
`by the skip coding mode for a skip mode macroblock.
`
`Third, Respondents’ application of claim differentiation is mistaken because the respective
`
`independent and dependent claims are different on their face. As will be explained, the ’808
`
`Patent’s skip coding mode does not include “residual information.” Respondents’ apparent
`
`contention is that this fact this renders four dependent claims superfluous. This is incorrect. The
`
`four dependent claims in question add the limitation “wherein no residual information is provided
`
`for the first segment [the skip mode macroblock] in the encoded bitstream.” (Emphasis added.)
`
`Not providing residual information anywhere in the encoded bitstream is a further limitation
`
`beyond the ’808 Patent’s skip coding mode, which itself is only one part of the bitstream. Thus,
`
`
`
`

`

`this is not a situation where the independent claims require the same limitation added by certain
`
`dependent claims as Respondents appear to allege.
`
`II.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) for the ’808 Patent would have at least a
`
`bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, with about
`
`two years of experience in video decoding or encoding technologies. More work or practical
`
`experience may qualify one not having the requisite education as a person with ordinary skill in
`
`the art while a higher level of education could offset less experience.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`Claim construction is a matter of law for the court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`
`52 F.3d 967, 970-971 (Fed Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Claim construction
`
`focuses on the intrinsic evidence, including the claims, patent specification, and prosecution
`
`history. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Claims are
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning to a POSITA at the time of the invention. Id. at 1313.
`
`Despite the importance of claim terms, Phillips made clear that “the POSITA is deemed to read
`
`the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears,
`
`but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. Accordingly the
`
`specification is the “primary basis for construing the claims.” Id. at 1316.
`
`Lexicography
`
`A.
`The written description in a patent specification “may act as a sort of dictionary, which
`
`explains the invention and may define terms used in the claims.” Markman, 52 F.3d 967 at 979.
`
`This is called lexicography, where “a special definition [is] given to a claim term by the patentee
`
`that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (citations
`
`
`
`2
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1379
`COMPLAINANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`omitted). An inventor is free to act as his or her own lexicographer. Schoenhaus v. Genesco, Inc.,
`
`440 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). An inventor “may set forth any special
`
`definitions of the claim terms in the patent specification or file history, either expressly or
`
`impliedly.” Id. Lexicography does not require “a statement in the form ‘I define _____ to mean
`
`_____’… such rigid formalism is not required.” Astrazeneca AB, Aktiebolaget Hassle, KBI-E, Inc.
`
`v. Mut. Pharm. Co., 384 F.3d 1333, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`When the meaning of a claim term is at issue, “the inventor’s lexicography governs.”
`
`Phillips¸415 F.3d at 1316 (citation omitted).
`
`Claim Differentiation
`
`B.
`By contrast, “claim differentiation is a rule of thumb that does not trump the clear import
`
`of the specification.” Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2009). “Claim differentiation is a guide, not a rigid rule.” Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d
`
`1533, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
`
`The doctrine of claim differentiation “presumes that there is a difference in scope among
`
`the claims of a patent.” Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1479 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1998). As relevant here, claim differentiation “refers to the presumption that an independent
`
`claim should not be construed as requiring a limitation added by a dependent claim.” Curtiss-
`
`Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2006). This follows the
`
`statute. Id.; 35 U.S.C. § 112 (“[A] dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously
`
`set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed.”). However, “practice
`
`has long recognized that “claims may be multiplied ... to define the metes and bounds of the
`
`invention in a variety of different ways.” Tandon Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 831 F.2d
`
`1017, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citations and quotation omitted).
`
`
`
`3
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1379
`COMPLAINANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`Claim differentiation cannot “broaden claims beyond their correct scope.” Multiform
`
`Desiccants, 133 F.3d at 1479. The Federal Circuit has held that “claim differentiation is a
`
`rebuttable presumption that may be overcome by a contrary construction dictated by the written
`
`description or prosecution history.” Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., 822 F.3d 1312,
`
`1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Indeed, courts have “adopted a construction rendering dependent claims
`
`meaningless when that construction was supported by either the specification or the prosecution
`
`history.” Tubular Rollers, LLC v. Maximus Oilfield Prod., LLC, No. 2021-2319, 2023 WL
`
`4230371, at *6 (Fed. Cir. June 28, 2023).
`
`C.
`
`Technical Background to the ’808 Patent
`
`Video Coding and Motion Compensation
`
`1.
`The ʼ808 Patent relates to motion compensation in video coding. ʼ808 Patent at 1:9-11.
`
`Video coding makes storage, playback, and transmission of digital video content more efficient
`
`through, for example, decreasing the size of digital video files—without noticeably degrading the
`
`picture quality—by “reducing the redundant or perceptually irrelevant parts of video sequences.”
`
`ʼ808 Patent at 2:36-38. Efficient video coding makes it easier to send high quality videos without
`
`the need for high transmission bandwidth and without degrading the picture quality. This benefit
`
`is important to anyone who watches, stores, or sends videos and is used in many everyday
`
`applications, such as streaming videos over a wireless network.
`
`The inventions of the ʼ808 Patent disclose solutions that minimize the size of video files
`
`while maintaining high video quality for viewing. Specifically, the ʼ808 Patent relates to specific
`
`motion compensated prediction techniques for coded video sequences. ʼ808 Patent at 3:11-15. A
`
`coded video sequence is comprised of a number of frames (sometimes referred to as “images” or
`
`“pictures”). ʼ808 Patent at 1:29-33. The image frames of a video sequence are displayed one after
`
`
`
`4
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1379
`COMPLAINANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`the other at a relatively fast rate to create the illusion of motion. ’808 Patent at 1:15-19. One way
`
`a video can be encoded or compressed without unnecessarily losing picture quality is by reducing
`
`redundancy between frames in a sequence—for example a stationary object that appears in view
`
`for some duration of a movie. One type of redundancy in video compression is temporal
`
`redundancy. The term “temporal redundancy expresses the fact that objects appearing in one frame
`
`of a [video] sequence are likely to appear in subsequent frames.” ʼ808 Patent at 2:42-43.
`
`For example, a moving object may travel across a stationary background, such as when an
`
`airplane flies over a stationary backdrop. As an additional example, a camera may pan across a
`
`scene such that stationary areas would appear moving while moving objects may look either slower
`
`or faster depending on the direction of panning relative to the motion of the moving objects. See
`
`’808 Patent at 1:26-31. The example below shows three video frames and illustrates how the
`
`redundant or perceptually irrelevant data (e.g., pixels constituting the background) may exist
`
`across several frames of a video sequence. For example, the tree in each picture does not move,
`
`and the image of the plane does not change but moves across the picture. In this example, even
`
`though the plane has moved, the plane itself contains no new information.0F
`
`1
`
`
`
`In the exemplary video frames shown above, the tree may correspond to redundant or
`
`perceptually irrelevant data in a video file. Additionally, the video data relating to the plane, which
`
`
`1 This is distinct from a scenario where the image content making up the plane itself changes. This can occur, for
`instance, with lighting or motion changes that alter the appearance of the plane from the perspective of a camera.
`
`
`5
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1379
`COMPLAINANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`involves the motion of an object across the screen, includes a redundant image of the plane, but
`
`must account for the plane’s motion. Redundancy here refers to “temporal redundancy,” that the
`
`objects (i.e., the tree and the plane) contain no new information across frames.
`
`Motion compensated prediction can reduce temporal redundancy by allowing the image
`
`content of some frames in a digital video sequence to be “predicted” from one or more other frames
`
`in the sequence. ʼ808 Patent at 3:15-20. For example, the encoder can provide motion information
`
`to the decoder that allows the decoder to predict where the plane should appear in the frame.
`
`One way to do this involves different categories of frames when encoding a video.
`
`“Reference frames” (or “reference pictures”) can serve as points of comparison from which the
`
`content of other frames can be predicted, for example, by tracking the motion of objects or regions
`
`between the reference frame and the other frames using “motion vectors.”1F
`
`2 ʼ808 Patent at 3:18-21.
`
`Another category of frames (sometimes called “INTER-coded” or “P-frames”) can be predicted
`
`from reference frames. ’808 Patent at 3:18-28. Motion compensated prediction allows for
`
`transmitting less data while still achieving the same or similar quality of streaming video.
`
`In order to, for example, better address motion within a frame, a video coding system may
`
`divide each frame of a video sequence into “macroblocks,” which in the preferred embodiment are
`
`formed from regions of 16x16 image pixels. ʼ808 Patent at 1:58-2:6. Figure 9 of the ʼ808 Patent
`
`depicts a video frame, which consists of the entire rectangle divided into macroblocks, where each
`
`smaller square is an individual macroblock.
`
`
`2 Motion vectors, as a type of vector, convey both (1) direction and (2) magnitude. A “zero motion
`vector” will have a magnitude of zero. A non-zero motion vector will have a magnitude greater
`than zero and some direction. The direction of a vector can be expressed by multiple directional
`components (e.g., horizontal or vertical components). Negative numbers may be used to express
`certain directions. As an example, Figure 9 of the ʼ808 Patent depicts multiple non-zero vectors
`with the same direction and magnitude.
`
`
`6
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1379
`COMPLAINANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`
`
`In some video coding systems, “video pictures are divided into macroblocks…and coded
`
`on a macroblock-by-macroblock basis.” ʼ808 Patent at 10:41-42. Macroblocks can be assigned a
`
`“coding mode” by encoders based on the characteristics of the macroblock in question and also
`
`according to the motion in the video sequence. ʼ808 Patent at 10:47-50. The “coding mode”
`
`provides an indication to the decoder as to how to predict that macroblock. The ʼ808 Patent
`
`describes various coding modes associated with a particular prior art codec, referred to as JM1 of
`
`the JVT codec. ʼ808 Patent at 10:40-67. JM1 of the JVT codec was the video coding
`
`recommendation that was being developed prior to the ’808 Patent by the Joint Video Team of the
`
`Motion Pictures Expert Group (MPEG) and the Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG). See ʼ808
`
`Patent at 10:27-39. The recommendation sought to improve many elements of the H.263 codec.
`
`The coding modes of JM1 are shown in Table 3 of the ’808 Patent.
`
`
`
`7
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1379
`COMPLAINANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`
`
`“UVLC Codeword” in Table 3 refers to “Universal Variable Length Codes” that represent
`
`data elements in a video bitstream. ’808 Patent at 11:32-37. In JM1, the “codewords indicating the
`
`coding modes are assigned in such a way that the shortest codeword is used to represent the coding
`
`mode that is statistically most likely to occur.” ’808 Patent at 11:29-32. JM1 assumed SKIP was
`
`the most likely coding mode.2F
`
`3 ’808 Patent at 12:18-20. As Dr. Michael Orchard explains in his
`
`declaration, a POSITA would understand that the non-skip coding modes of JM1 in Table 3 use
`
`additional information called prediction error values (residual information) for the reconstruction
`
`of pixel values of image blocks.3F
`
`4 Ex. 2, Declaration of Michael Orchard (“Orchard Dec.”) at ¶ 18.
`
`By contrast, a POSITA would understand that the SKIP mode of JM1 skips this additional
`
`information and thus the pixel values of SKIP blocks are reconstructed directly from pixel values
`
`of the reference frame without residual information as part of the SKIP mode. Orchard Dec. at ¶
`
`19.
`
`Decisions as to which coding mode will apply to a given macroblock are made by video
`
`encoders as part of the “motion estimation process performed by [] motion estimation block[s].”
`
`
`3 As will be discussed, the ’808 explained that this was not a valid assumption. ’808 Patent at 12:41-43.
`4 The ’808 Patent explains that these non-SKIP modes are INTER modes named based on the division of
`macroblocks into NxM pixel sub-blocks. ’808 Patent at 10:50-63. For example, the 4x4 mode involves sub-blocks of
`size 4x4 pixels. See id.
`
`
`8
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1379
`COMPLAINANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`ʼ808 Patent at 11:1-8. For example, an encoder can perform motion estimation operations to
`
`determine the most efficient coding mode for a given macroblock. ʼ808 Patent at 11:14-18.
`
`Because encoders can assign particular coding modes to each macroblock, a corresponding video
`
`decoder must be aware of these coding modes “in order for it to correctly decode received
`
`information relating to the macroblock in question.” ʼ808 Patent at 11:19-24. Encoders (after
`
`selecting coding modes through the motion estimation process) can provide “an indication of the
`
`coding mode assigned to each macroblock” in a video bitstream. ʼ808 Patent at 11:24-27.
`
`Depending on the coding mode in question, in the video bitstream this indication may
`
`accompany other information necessary for the decoder to appropriately predict the macroblock
`
`(e.g., “prediction error,” which is a form of residual information). ’808 Patent at 3:25-39; Orchard
`
`Dec. at ¶ 18. For example, the ’808 Patent describes that, where motion-compensated prediction
`
`alone does not provide “a sufficiently precise representation of the image content,” prediction error
`
`“represents the difference between a decoded version of the INTER-coded frame and the image
`
`content of the frame to be coded.” ’808 Patent at 3:28-35. As explained, a POSITA would
`
`understand at the time of the invention that prediction error processes are used for inter prediction
`
`(or INTER) modes but are skipped for skip coding modes. Orchard Dec. at ¶¶ 18-19.
`
`Skip Coding Modes at the Time of the Invention
`
`2.
`The prior art “SKIP (or skip) mode” of the JM1 of the JVT codec is particularly important
`
`for the ʼ808 Patent. This mode was used to “indicate[] that the macroblock is to be copied from
`
`the reference video frame without using motion compensated prediction.” ʼ808 Patent at 10:64-
`
`67; Orchard Dec. at ¶ 19. In other words, the macroblock in the frame being decoded is the exact
`
`same as a previous macroblock that was transmitted as part of the reference video frame. Because
`
`it is the exact same, the decoder can just copy the corresponding macroblock from the prior video
`
`
`
`9
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1379
`COMPLAINANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`frame, and the encoder does not have to transmit the content of that macroblock a second time.
`
`Thus, in scenarios involving objects exhibiting no motion across frames, use of the prior art “SKIP
`
`(or skip) mode” provided compression benefits. As a person of skill in the art would understand,
`
`JM1 skip coding mode did not involve any prediction error or residual information as part of that
`
`coding mode. Orchard Dec. at ¶ 19; ’808 Patent at 10:63-67; Ex. 1, JVT-A003 (JM1 of the JVT)
`
`at Subclause 3.4.1 (defining skip mode macroblocks) NOK_AMHP_ITC00079643 at 79650.
`
`Indeed, as Dr. Michael Orchard explains in his declaration, a person of skill in the art would
`
`appreciate that “a key aspect of skip coding modes is that the coding, transmission, and decoding
`
`of residual information is ‘skipped’ for the skip coding mode macroblocks.” Orchard Dec. at ¶ 26.
`
`The Problems Existing in the Art
`
`3.
`The ʼ808 Patent points out that a problem with JM1 of the JVT codec was its inability to
`
`address specific types of motion in video sequences, such as panning or zooming. ʼ808 Patent at
`
`12:41-47. In particular, when certain motions were present, the older JM1 of the JVT coding
`
`system could not use the prior art skip mode and instead “the codec [was] forced to use high
`
`overhead []macroblock coding modes,” ʼ808 Patent at 12:45-47, which results in more data
`
`needing to be sent for a given video stream. Thus, in the prior art, skip coding mode could only be
`
`used when no motion was present. As a result, one problem with the JM1 approach was that “the
`
`assumption that skip mode is always the most probable is not valid.” ’808 Patent at 12:41-43.
`
`The ʼ808 Patent describes two prior attempts to address the problem of efficiently coding
`
`motion such as panning or zooming. Both of these attempts continued to use the old skip modes
`
`and also had additional shortcomings that the ʼ808 Patent was able to overcome. These attempts
`
`were known as (a) “global motion compensation” (such as that used in H.263+) and (b) “Global
`
`Motion Vector Coding.” ʼ808 Patent at 12:48-58. The ʼ808 Patent describes how each of these
`
`
`
`10
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1379
`COMPLAINANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`attempts to handle motions such as panning and zooming resulted in additional complexity. Both
`
`global motion compensation and Global Motion Vector Coding required more complex motion
`
`estimation operations to be done by encoders and also greater amounts of information to be
`
`included in encoded bitstreams. ʼ808 Patent at 13:67-14:5 (“Although the related technique of
`
`global motion vector coding is computationally less demanding than global motion compensation,
`
`it does involve a certain increase in encoder complexity and additional information must be still
`
`transmitted in the video bit-stream to enable correct decoding of the video data.”); see generally
`
`id. at 12:59-14:5.
`
`4.
`
`The ’808 Patent’s Redefined “Skip Coding Mode” Solved a Problem
`in the Art
`
`The inventor of the ʼ808 Patent recognized these limitations and set out to solve them by
`
`defining a new type of skip coding mode. As described below in the context of the claim term
`
`“skip coding mode,” the ʼ808 Patent sought to provide improved coding efficiency with only a
`
`negligible increase in complexity “based on a redefinition of the skip mode concept used in JM1
`
`of the JVT codec.” ʼ808 Patent at 14:6-18. The ’808 Patent provides the following definition of
`
`the redefined skip coding mode:
`
`According to the invention, the coding modes used by encoder 600 correspond to
`those provided by JM1 of the JVT codec (shown in Table 3), with the exception
`that the SKIP mode is redefined to allow representation of global and regional
`motion. More specifically, the SKIP mode is modified in such a way that a zero
`(non-active) motion vector or a non-zero (active) motion vector is associated with
`each skip mode macroblock, depending on the characteristics of the motion in
`image segments surrounding the macroblock in question. In the following this type
`of motion vector will be referred to as a “skip mode motion vector”.
`
`Unlike prior art skip coding modes, the ʼ808 Patent’s redefined skip coding mode is able
`
`to address both active and non-active motion scenarios. The ’808 Patent’s redefined skip coding
`
`mode can assign zero and predicted non-zero motion vectors to skip mode macroblocks in order
`
`
`
`11
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1379
`COMPLAINANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`to reduce the amount of information required in a bitstream to address motions, such as when video
`
`frames have both non-active and active areas when there is camera or object movement. See, e.g.,
`
`ʼ808 Patent at 17:43-53, 14:14-22.
`
`a.
`The ’808 Patent explains that—just like in prior art skip coding modes—prediction error
`
`The Redefined Skip Coding Mode Skips Residual Information
`
`and residual information are skipped as part of skip coding mode: “[A]ccording to the invention,
`
`no additional information must be sent to the decoder in order to model global or regional motion.”
`
`’808 Patent at 14:62-64; Orchard Dec. at ¶¶ 20-25. Emphasizing the contrast between INTER-
`
`coding modes and the redefined skip coding mode according to the invention, the ’808 Patent
`
`explains the following:
`
`Depending on the coding mode, the compressed video data included in the bit-
`stream for an INTER-coded macroblock may comprise a combination of VLC
`encoded prediction error information for each block, motion vector information for
`the macroblock (or sub-blocks) and encoded control information including an
`indication of the coding mode used to encode the macroblock in question. If a
`macroblock is encoded in skip mode, no prediction error or motion vector
`information relating to the macroblock is included in the bit-stream.
`
`’808 Patent at 20:43-55. In other words, additional information such as “prediction error
`
`information for each block” (residual information), see Orchard Dec. at ¶ 18, and “motion vector
`
`information” are included for INTER-coding modes other than the skip coding mode. For skip
`
`mode, “no prediction error or motion vector information relating to the macroblock is included in
`
`the bit-stream.” ’808 Patent at 20:43-55.
`
`b.
`One advantageous aspect of the ʼ808 Patent is the redefined skip coding mode covered by
`
`Advantages of the Redefined Skip Coding Mode
`
`the asserted claims allows for an analysis of the motion of “surrounding macroblocks or sub-
`
`blocks” for a given macroblock in order to determine whether active or non-active motion exists
`
`
`
`12
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1379
`COMPLAINANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`and then, based on that analysis, determine a motion vector to be assigned. ʼ808 Patent at 14:52-
`
`64. This is depicted in Figure 8 below.
`
`
`
`Encoding and decoding for “skip mode macroblocks” in the ʼ808 Patent requires analyzing
`
`surrounding motion in order to assign zero or non-zero motion vectors. An encoder uses a “motion
`
`estimation block” for these functions,’808 Patent at 18:28-33, and—if the ’808 Patent’s redefined
`
`skip coding mode is the most efficient coding mode available—the encoder will include an
`
`indication of skip coding mode in an encoded bitstream. A decoder receives an indication of skip
`
`coding mode and uses a “motion compensated prediction block” to analyze and classify the
`
`“motion of previously decoded macroblocks and/or sub-blocks in a predefined region surrounding
`
`the macroblock to be decoded in a manner exactly corresponding to that used in encoder 600.”
`
`ʼ808 Patent at 21:40-46. This duplication of “analysis and classification of motion in the
`
`surrounding region” for skip coding mode “means that according to the invention, no additional
`
`information must be sent to the decoder in order to model global or regional motion.” ʼ808 Patent
`
`at 19:15-20. The ʼ808 Patent also describes that the decision “to generate a zero valued skip mode
`
`motion vector or a non-zero valued skip mode motion vector” is made “by analysing and
`
`
`13
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1379
`COMPLAINANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`

`

`classifying the motion of macroblocks to be coded using a predetermined analysis scheme.” ʼ808
`
`Patent at 18:34-40. One embodiment of the ʼ808 Patent describes conditions under which
`
`surrounding motion may be classified as “non-active motion”:
`
`In this embodiment the classification to the “non-active motion” category takes
`place if either or both of the two conditions below are true, otherwise the motion is
`classified as “active motion”:
`
`Condition 1: The macroblock immediately above or the macroblock immediately
`to the left of the macroblock under consideration is not available (that is, is out of
`the picture or belongs to a different slice).
`
`Condition 2: The macroblock or block immediately above, or the macroblock or
`block immediately to the left that are used in motion vector prediction for the 16×16
`INTER mode has a zero motion vector and uses the latest picture as reference in
`motion compensation.
`
`
`ʼ808 Patent at 20:12-25.
`
`A key benefit of the ’808 Patent’s redefined skip coding mode is that it obtains the
`
`significant compression savings of earlier skip coding modes