`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before The Honorable Doris Johnson Hines
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN VIDEO CAPABLE
`ELECTRONIC DEVICES, INCLUDING
`COMPUTERS, STREAMING DEVICES,
`TELEVISIONS, CAMERAS, AND
`COMPONENTS AND MODULES
`THEREOF
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1379
`
`
`RESPONDENTS’ JOINT DISCLOSURE OF FINAL INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS IN
`RESPONSE TO INDIVIDUAL INTERROGATORY NOS. 7-9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON-1023
`7,532,808
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. GENERAL RESERVATIONS .............................................................................................. 1
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................. 5
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,532,808 ............................................................................................... 5
`A.
`Identification of Relevant Prior Art ................................................................... 5
`1.
`Prior Art Patent Publications ..................................................................... 7
`2.
`Prior Art Non-Patent Publications ............................................................. 9
`3.
`Prior Art Items and/or Knowledge ........................................................... 18
`4.
`Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(f) and 102(g) ..................................... 18
`Anticipation and Obviousness .......................................................................... 23
`1.
`Frojdh in view of Hwang and AAPA ...................................................... 28
`2.
`Karczewicz ............................................................................................... 37
`3.
`Yamada .................................................................................................... 40
`4.
`Srinivasan ................................................................................................. 41
`5.
`Jozawa ...................................................................................................... 41
`6.
`Sun ........................................................................................................... 42
`7.
`Moore ....................................................................................................... 43
`8.
`VCEG-N77 .............................................................................................. 44
`9.
`MPEG-1 ................................................................................................... 45
`10.
`H.263+ ..................................................................................................... 51
`Other Invalidity Grounds ................................................................................. 56
`11.
`35 U.S.C. § 101 – Ineligible Subject Matter ............................................ 57
`12.
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) – Enablement and Written Description ..................... 58
`13.
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) – Indefiniteness ......................................................... 60
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,204,134 ......................................................................................... 61
`A.
`Identification of Relevant Prior Art ................................................................. 61
`1.
`Prior Art Patent Publications ................................................................... 62
`2.
`Prior Art Non-Patent Publications ........................................................... 65
`3.
`Prior Art Items and/or Knowledge ........................................................... 73
`4.
`Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(f) and 102(g) ..................................... 73
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`Anticipation and Obviousness .......................................................................... 74
`1.
`Casavant in view of Oliver, Lyon and/or Ran ......................................... 78
`2.
`Yagasaki in view of Oliver, Lyon and Ran .............................................. 86
`3.
`Kelly in view of Lee ................................................................................ 96
`4.
`Sun ........................................................................................................... 99
`5.
`Apostolopoulos ........................................................................................ 99
`6.
`Bolduc .................................................................................................... 100
`7.
`Fung I and Fung II ................................................................................. 101
`8.
`H.264 ...................................................................................................... 101
`Other Invalidity Grounds ............................................................................... 104
`9.
`35 U.S.C. § 101 – Ineligible Subject Matter .......................................... 104
`10.
`35 U.S.C. § 112(a) – Enablement and Written Description ................... 105
`11.
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) – Indefiniteness ....................................................... 108
`VI. UNENFORCEABILITY .................................................................................................... 109
`A.
`Laches, Acquiescence, and Waiver................................................................. 109
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Procedural Schedule set in Order No. 13, Respondents HP, Inc. f/k/a
`
`Hewlett-Packard Company, Amazon.com, Inc., and Amazon Services LLC (collectively
`
`“Respondents”) hereby provide their final invalidity contentions for U.S. Patent No. 7,532,808
`
`(“the ’808 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,204,134 (“the ’134 patent”) (collectively, “the asserted
`
`patents”). Complainants Nokia Technologies Oy and Nokia Corporation (“Nokia” or
`
`“Complainants”) assert 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 and claims 1-22 of the ’134 patent (collectively,
`
`“the asserted claims”).
`
`These contentions are Respondents’ supplemental responses to Nokia’s contention
`
`interrogatories, including at least Interrogatory Nos. 7-9. Each Respondent’s supplemental
`
`responses to Nokia’s burden contention interrogatories incorporate and attach these invalidity
`
`contentions in accordance with Order No. 13. See Respondent Amazon’s Second Supplemental
`
`Response to Interrogatory No. 8 and Fourth Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 7, 9
`
`and Respondent HP’s Sixth Supplemental Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 7-9.
`
`II.
`
`GENERAL RESERVATIONS
`
`Respondents reserve the right to revise or supplement these contentions in light of party
`
`and third-party discovery, Nokia’s infringement contentions, any claim construction order issued
`
`by the ALJ, review and analysis by expert witnesses, and further investigation and discovery
`
`regarding the defenses asserted by Respondents. For example, Respondents expressly reserve the
`
`right to amend these contentions after review of Nokia’s infringement contentions, after review of
`
`Nokia’s validity contentions, after issuance of a claim construction order, should Nokia provide
`
`any information that it failed to provide in its disclosures, or if Nokia amends its disclosures in any
`
`way. Because discovery is ongoing Respondents reserve the right to revise, amend, and/or
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`supplement the information provided herein, including identifying, charting, and relying on
`
`additional references. Respondents additionally reserve their rights to revise, amend, or
`
`supplement when Nokia provides additional discovery. Further, Respondents reserve the right to
`
`revise their contentions concerning the invalidity of the asserted claims, which may change
`
`depending upon further and ongoing investigation, the construction of the asserted claims and/or
`
`positions that Nokia or expert witnesses may take concerning claim construction, infringement,
`
`and/or invalidity issues.
`
`To the extent that the following contentions reflect constructions of claim limitations
`
`consistent with or implicit in Nokia’s infringement allegations as set forth in the Complaint, no
`
`inference is intended nor should any be drawn that Respondents agree with Nokia’s infringement
`
`allegations or claim interpretations, and Respondents expressly reserve the right to contest such
`
`allegations. Respondents offer such contentions in response to Nokia’s infringement allegations as
`
`set forth in the Complaint and without prejudice to any position that Respondents may ultimately
`
`take as to any claim construction issues. Specifically, Respondents base these final invalidity
`
`contentions at least in part upon the claim scope and certain claim constructions that are implicitly
`
`or explicitly asserted by Nokia, and nothing herein should be construed or represented as
`
`evidencing any express or implied agreement with any of Nokia’s claim construction or
`
`infringement positions.
`
`Respondents intend to rely on admissions concerning the scope of the prior art relevant to
`
`the asserted patents found in, inter alia: the asserted patents and related patents and/or patent
`
`applications; the patent prosecution histories for the asserted patents and related patents and/or
`
`patent applications (including all prior art cited therein); any deposition testimony of the named
`
`inventors on the asserted patents and related patents and/or patent applications in this matter or
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`any other matter; evidence and testimony relating to the level of ordinary skill in the art; and the
`
`papers filed and any evidence submitted by Nokia in connection with this matter.
`
`Respondents’ claim charts cite to particular teachings and disclosures of the prior art as
`
`applied to features of the asserted claims. However, persons having ordinary skill in the art
`
`generally may view an item of prior art in the context of other publications, literature, products,
`
`and understanding. As such, the cited portions are only examples, and Respondents reserve the
`
`right to rely on uncited portions of the prior art references and on other publications, expert
`
`testimony, and other evidence as aids in understanding and interpreting the cited portions, as
`
`providing context thereto, and as additional evidence that the prior art discloses a claim limitation
`
`or any of the asserted claims as a whole. Respondents further reserve the right to rely on uncited
`
`portions of the prior art references, other publications, and testimony, including expert testimony,
`
`to establish bases for combinations of certain cited references that render the asserted claims
`
`obvious.
`
`The references discussed in the claim charts may disclose the elements of the asserted
`
`claims explicitly and/or inherently, and/or they may be relied upon to show the state of the art in
`
`the relevant timeframe. The suggested obviousness combinations are provided in addition to and/or
`
`in the alternative to Respondents’ anticipation contentions and are not to be construed to suggest
`
`that any reference included in the combinations is not by itself anticipatory. The combinations of
`
`prior art references referred to in these final invalidity contentions are exemplary. Respondents
`
`reserve the right to rely on any combination of prior art references identified in the initial
`
`contentions and these final contentions served in accordance with Order No. 13. The rationale or
`
`motivations to combine the prior art references identified in these invalidity contentions are also
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`exemplary. Respondents further reserve the right to amend or supplement the rationale or
`
`motivation to combine the prior art references identified in their invalidity contentions.
`
`The following discussion and exhibits provide exemplary prior art citations and
`
`obviousness positions. The citations and discussion in the charts are organized by claim (and claim
`
`limitation) for convenience, but each limitation or claim section applies to the larger context of
`
`each claim, to any related dependent or independent claims, as well as all claims containing similar
`
`limitations or elements. For example, citations as to any recited limitation, step, or component in
`
`the claims apply wherever each such limitation, step, or component is repeated elsewhere in the
`
`claim or asserted patents. Where Respondents cite to a particular drawing or figure in the attached
`
`claim charts, the citation encompasses the description of the drawing or figure, as well as any text
`
`associated with the drawing or figure. Similarly, where Respondents cite to particular text
`
`concerning a drawing or figure, the citation encompasses that drawing or figure as well. Relatedly,
`
`certain portions of patent or other prior art disclosures build upon other disclosures, even if they
`
`are referred to as a separate or alternative embodiment. Thus, Respondents’ citations to structures
`
`or functions incorporate by reference all disclosures to related structures or functions, including
`
`any additional detail provided as to the operation or design of those structures or functions.
`
`Discovery of inventors is ongoing. Respondents reserve the right to assert that the asserted
`
`claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) in the event Respondents obtain additional evidence
`
`that the inventors of the asserted patents did not invent the subject matter claimed therein. Should
`
`Respondents obtain such evidence, they will provide the name of the person(s) from whom and
`
`the circumstances under which the alleged invention or any part of it was derived.
`
`Respondents also reserve the right to challenge any of the claim terms herein under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 beyond the grounds outlined in their responses to interrogatories related to invalidity,
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`including by arguing that they are indefinite, not supported by the written description, or not
`
`enabled. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as a waiver of any argument available under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`III.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention of the
`
`asserted patents would have had a (1) Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`engineering, computer science, or a comparable field of study, and (2) approximately two to three
`
`years of practical experience with video and/or image processing or coding. Additional experience
`
`can substitute for the level of education, and vice-versa.
`
`IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,532,808
`
`A.
`
`Identification of Relevant Prior Art
`
`Respondents identify the following prior art references that anticipate and/or render
`
`obvious the asserted claims of the asserted patents. The following patents and publications are
`
`prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), (e), (f), and/or (g). Whether a prior art reference
`
`anticipates or renders obvious the asserted claims of the ’808 patent may depend upon claim
`
`construction. Respondents have identified each prior art patent by its inventor, title, number,
`
`country of origin, date of filing, date of issue, and, where applicable, the relevant priority date, or
`
`such information may be derived from the face of the patent. Each prior art publication is identified
`
`by its title, date of publication, and, where feasible, author and publisher. For prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b), Respondents have identified the item offered for sale or publicly used or known,
`
`the date by which the offer or use took place or the information became known, and the identity
`
`of the person or entity which made the use or which made and received the offer, or the person or
`
`entity which made the information known or to whom it was made known, to the full extent
`
`currently known.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Based on the information reasonably available to Respondents, the priority date for the
`
`’808 patent is March 14, 2003, the filing date of Application No. 10/390,549 that led to the issuance
`
`of the ’808 patent. The ’808 patent purports to claim the benefit of the filing date of U.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/365,072, filed on March 15, 2002.
`
`Yet, at least two limitations in claim 1, at least two limitations in claim 7, at least three
`
`limitations in claim 10, at least two limitations of claim 16, and numerous dependent claims of the
`
`’808 patent lack written description support in U.S. Patent Application No. 60/365,072 (March 15,
`
`2002). These claim limitations are, for example:
`
` 1[b], 10[b], 7[b], 16[b]: assigning either a zero motion vector or a predicted non-
`
`zero motion vector for the skip coding mode for the first segment;
`
` 1[d], 10[d]: providing in an encoded bitstream an indication of the skip coding
`
`mode;
`
` 7[a], 16[a]: receiving an indication of a skip coding mode;
`
` 10[a]: a coding controller for assigning a skip coding mode to a first segment;
`
` 10[d]: a multiplexer for providing in an encoded bitstream an indication of the skip
`
`coding mode;
`
` 16[a]: a demultiplexer for receiving an indication of a skip coding mode assigned
`
`to a first segment;
`
` 16[b]: a motion compensated prediction block for assigning either a zero motion
`
`vector or a predicted non-zero motion vector for the skip coding mode for the first
`
`segment based at least in part on the motion information of a second segment
`
`neighboring the first segment;
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
` 2, 11: wherein the second segment is a previously encoded segment neighboring
`
`the first segment;
`
` 21, 22: a multimedia terminal;
`
` 25, 43, 53, 63: the second segment is predicted using motion-compensated
`
`prediction from a second reference picture immediately preceding the picture
`
`second segment belongs to;
`
` 29, 40, 48, 59: deriving the predicted non-zero motion vector based at least in part
`
`on the motion vector of the second segment and motion vector of a third segment
`
`neighboring the first segment;
`
` 30, 41, 49, 60: wherein no residual information is provided for the first segment in
`
`the encoded bitstream.
`
`Nokia bears the burden of showing on a claim-by-claim basis that it is entitled to a priority
`
`date earlier than March 14, 2003, including the filing date and description of the alleged inventions
`
`claimed in the ’808 patent in any earlier provisional application. Nokia has not done so. In fact,
`
`while Nokia’s responses to Interrogatory No. 3 identify numerous alleged disclosures from the
`
`provisional (Application No. 60/365,072), none of those disclosures provide any support for the
`
`limitations specified above. If Nokia contends or demonstrates that any of the asserted claims of
`
`the ’808 patent are entitled to a priority date before March 14, 2003, then Respondents reserve the
`
`right to identify additional prior art references which anticipate or make obvious the asserted
`
`claims of the ’808 patent.
`
`1. Prior Art Patent Publications
`
`Respondents contend that the asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or
`
`103 based on the following prior art patent publications. These patent publications constitute prior
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and their patent numbers, countries of origin, and dates of publication
`
`and/or issue are included on the face of those documents. Respondents reserve the right to
`
`supplement this list as it learns in the course of discovery of other prior art patent publications that
`
`would anticipate and/or render the asserted claims obvious.
`
`Country
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`EP
`EP
`
`Number
`
`5,148,272
`5,151,784
`5,191,436
`5,398,068
`5,442,400
`5,448,297
`5,552,832
`5,619,281
`5,689,307
`5,699,129
`5,701,164
`5,724,446
`5,748,789
`5,781,249
`5,784,108
`5,946,043
`6,097,842
`6,192,148
`6,295,376
`6,430,222
`6,498,810
`6,560,280
`6,658,157
`6,683,987
`6,785,331
`6,895,048
`6,931,070
`7,050,500
`7,200,275
`7,215,710
`7,532,808
`2003/0123738
`2001/0001614
`0 863 674 A2
`1 185 104 A1
`
`8
`
`First Named Inventor/
`Patentee
`
`Acampora
`Lavagetto
`Yonemitsu
`Liu
`Sun
`Alattar
`Astle
`Jung
`Sugahara
`Tayama
`Kato
`Liu
`Lee
`Hwang
`Skaletzky
`Lee
`Suzuki
`Lin
`Nakaya
`Okada
`Kim
`Sachar
`Satoh
`Sugahara
`Jozawa
`Boice
`Moore
`Sun
`Srinivasan
`Yamada
`Lainema
`Frojdh
`Boice
`Eifrig
`Hobson
`
`

`

`Country
`JP
`JP
`WO
`WO
`
`Number
`08-126012
`2001-251627
`1998/036577
`2001/011891
`
`
`
`
`
`First Named Inventor/
`Patentee
`
`Arai
`Kuriki
`Jozawa
`Karczewicz
`
`2.
`
`Prior Art Non-Patent Publications
`
`Respondents contend that the asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or
`
`103 based on the following published works of prior art. These publications constitute additional
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and their titles, authors, publishers, and dates of publication are
`
`included on the face of those documents. In addition to the references listed below, Respondents
`
`hereby disclose as prior art publications all references disclosed below in Section 3 (regarding on
`
`sale/public use), such as press releases, users manuals, and other related documentation about such
`
`prior art products. Respondents reserve the right to supplement this list as it learns in the course of
`
`discovery of other references, prior art public use, and/or sale that would anticipate and/or render
`
`the asserted claims obvious.
`
`Title
`Fast Multiresolution Motion
`Vector Estimation for Video
`Coding by Using Spatial
`Correlation
`Simulation Results of
`Reference Model 8
`
`Publication
`SPIE Proc. Vol. 2564,
`Applications of Digital Image
`Processing XVIII, (22 August
`1995)
`CCITT SGXV
`Working Party XV/1
`
`An Improved
`Multiresolution Motion
`Estimation Algorithm
`Motion estimation using
`interblock correlation
`ISO/IEC 11172-2:1993
`Information technology —
`Coding of moving pictures
`and associated audio for
`
`Acta Scientarium Naturalium
`Universitatis Sunyatseni, Vol.
`40, No. 2
`IEEE International Symposium
`on Circuits and Systems
`
`
`9
`
`Date
`8/22/1995
`
`Name of First
`Author
`Chalidabhongse,
`Junavit
`
`6/1989
`
`3/2001
`
`Specialists Group
`on Coding for
`Visual Telephony
`H.M. Liu
`
`1990
`
`Chaur-Heh Hsieh
`
`8/1/1993
`
`ISO/IEC
`
`

`

`
`
`Publication
`
`Date
`
`Name of First
`Author
`
`ISO/IEC PDTR 14496-7
`
`7/2001
`
`International
`Organisation for
`Standardisation;
`ISO/IEC
`JTC1/SC29/WG11
`ITU/T
`
`ITU/T
`
`5/1996
`
`2/1998
`
`2/1998
`
`ITU/T
`
`1/29/2002-
`2/1/2002
`
`Hideaki Kimata
`
`5/6/2002-
`5/10/2002
`
`Hideaki Kimata
`
`12/3/2001-
`12/7/2001
`
`Hideaki Kimata
`
`12/3/2001-
`12/7/2001
`
`Hideaki Kimata
`
`12/3/2001-
`12/7/2001
`
`Hideaki Kimata
`
`Title
`digital storage media at up
`to about 1,5 Mbit/s — Part
`2: Video (“MPEG-1”)
`Text of 14496-7 PDTR;
`Optimization Model
`Version 3.0
`
`DRAFT ITU-T
`Recommendation H.263
`ITU-T Recommendation
`H.263: Video coding for
`low bit rate communication
`ITU-T Recommendation
`H.324
`GMVC and GMC switched
`by MV (JVT-B046)
`
`GMVC and GMC with B-
`picture (JVT-C043)
`
`Proposal of Global Motion
`Compensation enhancing
`Global Motion Vector
`Coding scheme (VCEG-
`O29)
`
`Proposal of Global Motion
`Compensation enhancing
`Global Motion Vector
`Coding scheme (VCEG-
`O29r1)
`
`Proposal of Global Motion
`Compensation enhancing
`Global Motion Vector
`Coding scheme (VCEG-
`O29r2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Joint Video Team (JVT) of
`ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T
`VCEG (ISO/IEC
`JTC1/SC29/WG11 and ITU-T
`SG16 Q.6) 2nd Meeting:
`Geneva, CH
`Joint Video Team (JVT) of
`ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T
`VCEG (ISO/IEC
`JTC1/SC29/WG11 and ITU-T
`SG16 Q.6); 3rd Meeting:
`Fairfax, Virginia, USA
`ITU - Telecommunications
`Standardization Sector; Study
`Group 16 Question 6; Video
`Coding Experts Group
`(VCEG); 15th Meeting:
`Pattaya, Thailand
`ITU - Telecommunications
`Standardization Sector; Study
`Group 16 Question 6; Video
`Coding Experts Group
`(VCEG); 15th Meeting:
`Pattaya, Thailand
`ITU - Telecommunications
`Standardization Sector; Study
`Group 16 Question 6; Video
`Coding Experts Group
`
`10
`
`

`

`Title
`
`Proposal of GMVC syntax
`(VCEG-O28)
`
`Proposal of GMVC syntax
`(VCEG-O28r1)
`
`Skip Mode Motion
`Compensation (JVT-C027)
`
`
`Efficient MPEG-2
`Encoding of Interlaced
`Video
`JVT (of ISO/IEC MPEG
`and ITU-T VCEG) 1st
`Meeting and VCEG (ITU-T
`SG16 Q.6) 15th Meeting
`Reports (JVT-B002d2)
`
`Meeting Report of the 14th
`VCEG Meeting (VCEG-N-
`88 draft 1)
`
`Adaptive Motion-Vector
`Resampling for Compressed
`Video Downscaling
`JVT (of ISO/IEC MPEG
`and ITU-T Q.6/16 VCEG)
`2nd Meeting Report (JVT-
`B001 draft 1)
`
`
`
`Publication
`(VCEG); 15th Meeting:
`Pattaya, Thailand
`ITU - Telecommunications
`Standardization Sector; Study
`Group 16 Question 6; Video
`Coding Experts Group
`(VCEG); 15th Meeting:
`Pattaya, Thailand
`ITU - Telecommunications
`Standardization Sector; Study
`Group 16 Question 6; Video
`Coding Experts Group
`(VCEG); 15th Meeting:
`Pattaya, Thailand
`Joint Video Team (JVT) of
`ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T
`VCEG (ISO/IEC
`JTC1/SC29/WG11 and ITU-T
`SG16 Q.6); 3rd Meeting:
`Fairfax, Virginia, USA
`Can. J. Elect. & Comp. Eng.,
`Vol. 23, Nos. 1-2
`
`Joint Video Team (JVT) of
`ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T
`VCEG (ISO/IEC
`JTC1/SC29/WG11 and ITU-T
`SG16 Q.6) 2nd Meeting:
`Geneva, CH
`ITU - Telecommunications
`Standardization Sector
`STUDY GROUP 16 Question
`6 Video Coding Experts Group
`(VCEG); 14th Meeting: Santa
`Barbara, CA
`IEEE Transaction on Circuits
`and Systems for Video
`Technology, Vol. 9, No. 6.
`Joint Video Team (JVT) of
`ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T
`VCEG (ISO/IEC
`JTC1/SC29/WG11 and ITU-T
`SG16 Q.6) 2nd Meeting:
`Geneva, CH
`
`11
`
`Date
`
`Name of First
`Author
`
`12/3/2001-
`12/7/2001
`
`Hideaki Kimata
`
`12/3/2001-
`12/7/2001
`
`Hideaki Kimata
`
`5/6/2002-
`5/10/2002
`
`Jani Lainema
`
`1998
`
`Yuen-Wen Lee
`
`12/2001
`
`Gary Sullivan
`
`9/24/2001-
`9/27/2001
`
`Gary Sullivan
`
`9/1999
`
`Bo Shen
`
`1/29/2001-
`2/1/2001
`
`Gary Sullivan
`
`

`

`Title
`JVT (of ISO/IEC MPEG
`and ITU-T Q.6/16 VCEG)
`2nd Meeting Report (JVT-
`B001 draft 2)
`
`JVT (of ISO/IEC MPEG
`and ITU-T Q.6/16 VCEG)
`2nd Meeting Report (JVT-
`B001 draft 3)
`
`JVT (of ISO/IEC MPEG
`and ITU-T Q.6/16 VCEG)
`2nd Meeting Report (JVT-
`B001 draft 4)
`
`JVT (of ISO/IEC MPEG
`and ITU-T Q.6/16 VCEG)
`2nd Meeting Report (JVT-
`B001 draft 5)
`
`Core Experiment
`Description: Motion Vector
`Coding with Global Motion
`Parameters (VCEG-N77)
`
`Core Experiment
`Description: Motion Vector
`Coding with Global Motion
`Parameters (VCEG-N77r1)
`
`Global Motion Vector
`Coding (GMVC) (VCEG-
`O20)
`
`
`
`Publication
`Joint Video Team (JVT) of
`ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T
`VCEG (ISO/IEC
`JTC1/SC29/WG11 and ITU-T
`SG16 Q.6) 2nd Meeting:
`Geneva, CH
`Joint Video Team (JVT) of
`ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T
`VCEG (ISO/IEC
`JTC1/SC29/WG11 and ITU-T
`SG16 Q.6) 2nd Meeting:
`Geneva, CH
`Joint Video Team (JVT) of
`ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T
`VCEG (ISO/IEC
`JTC1/SC29/WG11 and ITU-T
`SG16 Q.6) 2nd Meeting:
`Geneva, CH
`Joint Video Team (JVT) of
`ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T
`VCEG (ISO/IEC
`JTC1/SC29/WG11 and ITU-T
`SG16 Q.6) 2nd Meeting:
`Geneva, CH
`ITU - Telecommunications
`Standardization Sector
`STUDY GROUP 16 Question
`6 Video Coding Experts Group
`(VCEG); 14th Meeting: Santa
`Barbara, CA
`ITU - Telecommunications
`Standardization Sector
`STUDY GROUP 16 Question
`6 Video Coding Experts Group
`(VCEG); 14th Meeting: Santa
`Barbara, CA
`ITU - Telecommunications
`Standardization Sector
`STUDY GROUP 16 Question
`6 Video Coding Experts Group
`(VCEG); 15th Meeting:
`Pattaya, Thailand
`
`12
`
`Date
`1/29/2001-
`2/1/2001
`
`Name of First
`Author
`Gary Sullivan
`
`1/29/2001-
`2/1/2001
`
`Gary Sullivan
`
`1/29/2001-
`2/1/2001
`
`Gary Sullivan
`
`1/29/2001-
`2/1/2001
`
`Gary Sullivan
`
`9/24/2001-
`9/28/2001
`
`Shijun Sun
`
`9/24/2001-
`9/28/2001
`
`Shijun Sun
`
`12/4/2001-
`12/7/2001
`
`Shijun Sun
`
`

`

`Title
`Global Motion Vector
`Coding (GMVC) (VCEG-
`O20r1)
`
`Global Motion Vector
`Coding (GMVC) (VCEG-
`O20r2)
`
`Global Motion Vector
`Coding (GMVC) (JVT-
`B019)
`
`GMVC: Core Experiment
`Report (VCEG-O21)
`
`Motion Vector Coding with
`Global Motion Parameters
`(VCEG-N16)
`
`Additional “Zero-motion”
`Sub-block Mode for
`“Motion Copy (JVT-C022)
`
`Fast Motion Estimation
`using Circular Zonal Search
`
`Joint Model Number 1 (JM-
`1) (JVT-A003)
`
`
`
`Publication
`ITU - Telecommunications
`Standardization Sector
`STUDY GROUP 16 Question
`6 Video Coding Experts Group
`(VCEG); 15th Meeting:
`Pattaya, Thailand
`ITU - Telecommunications
`Standardization Sector
`STUDY GROUP 16 Question
`6 Video Coding Experts Group
`(VCEG); 15th Meeting:
`Pattaya, Thailand
`Joint Video Team (JVT) of
`ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T
`VCEG (ISO/IEC
`JTC1/SC29/WG11 and ITU-T
`SG16 Q.6) 2nd Meeting:
`Geneva, CH
`ITU - Telecommunications
`Standardization Sector
`STUDY GROUP 16 Question
`6 Video Coding Experts Group
`(VCEG); 15th Meeting:
`Pattaya, Thailand
`ITU - Telecommunications
`Standardization Sector
`STUDY GROUP 16 Question
`6 Video Coding Experts Group
`(VCEG); 14th Meeting: Santa
`Barbara, CA, USA
`Joint Video Team (JVT) of
`ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T
`VCEG (ISO/IEC
`JTC1/SC29/WG11 and ITU-T
`SG16 Q.6) 3rd Meeting:
`Fairfax, Virginia, USA
`Proceedings of SPIE - The
`International Society for
`Optical Engineering
`Joint Video Team (JVT) of
`ISO/IEC MPEG and ITU-T
`VCEG; Pattaya, Thailand
`
`13
`
`Date
`12/4/2001-
`12/7/2001
`
`Name of First
`Author
`Shijun Sun
`
`12/4/2001-
`12/7/2001
`
`Shijun Sun
`
`1/29/2001-
`2/1/2001
`
`Shijun Sun
`
`12/04/2001-
`12/07/2001
`
`Shijun Sun
`
`9/24/2001-
`9/28/2001
`
`Shijun Sun
`
`5/6/2002-
`5/10/2002
`
`Shijun Sun
`
`6/2000
`
`Alexis Tourapis
`
`12/03/2001-
`12/07/2001
`
`Thomas Weigand
`
`

`

`
`
`Publication
`Joint Video Team (JVT) of
`ISO/IEC MPEG and ITU-T
`VCEG; Pattaya, Thailand
`IEEE Transactions on Circuits
`and systems for Video
`Technology
`Joint Video Team (JVT) of
`ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T
`VCEG (ISO/IEC
`JTC1/SC29/WG11 and ITU-T
`SG16 Q.6) 6th Meeting:
`Awaji, Island, JP
`Joint Video Team (JVT) of
`ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T
`VCEG (ISO/IEC
`JTC1/SC29/WG11 and ITU-T
`SG16 Q.6) 6th Meeting:
`Awaji, Island, JP
`Joint Video Team (JVT) of
`ISO/IEC MPEG & ITU-T
`VCEG (ISO/IEC
`JTC1/SC29/WG11 and ITU-T
`SG16 Q.6) 6th Meeting:
`Awaji, Island, JP
`ITU - Telecommunications
`Standardization Sector
`STUDY GROUP 16 Question
`6 Video Coding Experts Group
`(VCEG); 15th Meeting:
`Pattaya, Thailand
`ITU - Telecommunications
`Standardization Sector
`STUDY GROUP 16 Question
`6 Video Coding Experts Group
`(VCEG); 15th Meeting:
`Pattaya, Thailand
`1997 IEEE International
`Conference on Acoustics,
`Speech, and Signal Processing
`
`Date
`12/3/2001-
`12/7/2001
`
`Name of First
`Author
`Thomas Weigand
`
`7/2003
`
`Thomas Weigand
`
`12/5/2002-
`12/13/2002
`
`Thomas Weigand
`
`12/5/2002-
`12/13/2002
`
`Thomas Weigand
`
`12/5/2002-
`12/13/2002
`
`Thomas Weigand
`
`12/4/2001-
`12/6/2001
`
`Mathias Wien
`
`12/4/2001-
`12/6/2001
`
`Mathias Wien
`
`04/21/1997-
`04/24/1997
`
`Yuen-Wen Lee
`
`Title
`Joint Model Number 1,
`Revision 1(JM-1r1) (JVT-
`A003r1)
`Rate-Constrained Coder
`Control and Comparison of
`Video Coding Standards
`Study of Final Committee
`Draft of Joint Video
`Specification (ITU-T Rec.
`H.264 | ISO/IEC 14496-10
`AVC) (JVT-F100)
`
`Editor’s Proposed Changes
`Relative to JVT-
`E146d37ncm, revision 4
`(JVT-F100d1)
`
`Study of Final Committee
`Draft of Joint Video
`Specification (ITU-T Rec.
`H.264 | ISO/IEC 14496-10
`AVC), Draft 2 (JVT-
`F100d2)
`Core Experiment Report on
`Global Motion Vector
`Coding (VCEG-O33)
`
`Core Experiment Report on
`Global Motion Vector
`Coding (VCEG-O33r1)
`
`Prediction and Search
`Techniques for RD-
`Optimized Motion
`Estimation in a Very Low
`Bit Rate Video Coding
`Framework
`
`14
`
`

`

`Date
`9/19/1996
`
`Name of First
`Author
`Yuen-Wen Lee
`
`9/1991
`
`Sohail Zafar
`
`12/1997
`
`Faouzi Kossentini
`
`12/1999
`
`Gallant
`
`12/1996
`
`10/1999
`
`Barry G. Haskell
`
`I. Ismaeil
`
`4/1998
`
`YW Lee
`
`4/2/2001-
`4/4/2001
`
`1/9/2001-
`1/12/2001
`
`Gary Sullivan
`
`Gary Sullivan
`
`10/9/2002-
`10/17/2002
`
`Simon Booth
`
`Title
`Very Low Rate DCT-Based
`Video Coding Using
`Dynamic VQ
`Predictive Block-Matching
`Motion Estimation for TV
`Coding –Part 1:
`inter-Block Prediction
`Predictive RD Optimized
`Motion for Estimation for
`Very Low Bit Rate Video
`Coding (1997)
`An Efficient Computation-
`Constrained Block-Based
`Motion Estimation
`Algorithm for Low Bit Rate
`Video Coding
`Digital Video: An
`Introduction to MPEG-2
`Efficient Motion Estimation
`Using Spatial and Temporal
`Motion Vector Prediction”
`Rate-Computation
`Optimized Block Based
`Video Coding
`Meeting Report of the 13th
`VCEG Meeting (Document:
`VCEG-M00r0)
`
`Meeting Report of the 12th
`ITU-T VCEG (Q.6/16)
`Meeting (