Trials@uspto.

gov Paper 14
571-272-7822 Entered: October 15, 2019

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,

Petitioner

v.

VELOS MEDIA, LLC,

Patent Owner
____________

Case IPR2019-00806
Patent 9,277,241 B2
____________

Before J. JOHN LEE, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI,

and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108
Case IPR2019-00806
Patent 9,277,241 B2

I. INTRODUCTION

Unified Patents (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes review

of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9–13 of U.S. Patent No. 9,277,241 B2 (Ex. 1001,
“the ’241 patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Velos Media, LLC (“Patent Owner”)
filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the
information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that
there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a);
see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108.
Having considered the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the
evidence of record, we conclude there is not a reasonable likelihood that
Petitioner will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any challenged
claim of the ’241 patent and, therefore, do not institute inter partes review.

A. Related Matters

The parties do not identify any related matters. See Pet. 1; Patent
Owner Mandatory Notices (Paper 5) 2.

B. Video Encoding

A video encoder typically consists of a temporal model, a spatial

model, and an entropy encoder.1 The temporal model receives an
uncompressed video sequence and attempts to reduce temporal redundancy
by exploiting similarities between neighboring video frames, usually by

1
The information in the first four paragraphs of this section is paraphrased
from Ex. 1007, 29–30.
2
Case IPR2019-00806
Patent 9,277,241 B2

constructing a prediction of the current video frame. The prediction may be

formed from one or more previous or future frames, and compensates for
differences between the frames, a technique known as motion compensation.
The temporal model outputs a residual frame that is created by subtracting
the prediction from the actual current frame, and a set of model parameters,
which are typically a set of motion vectors describing how the motion was
compensated.
The residual frame is the input to the spatial model, which makes use
of similarities between neighboring samples in the residual frame to reduce
spatial redundancy. This may be achieved by applying a transform to the
residual samples and quantizing the results. The transform converts the
samples into another domain in which they are represented by transform
coefficients, and the coefficients are quantized to remove insignificant
values, leaving a small number of significant coefficients.
The parameters of the temporal model (typically motion vectors) and
the spatial model (coefficients) are then compressed by the entropy encoder.
The compression process removes redundancies in the data (for example, by
representing commonly-occurring vectors and coefficients by short binary
codes) and produces a compressed bit stream or file that may be transmitted
or stored.
A video decoder can reconstruct a video frame from the compressed
bit stream. The motion vectors and coefficients are decoded by an entropy
decoder, and the spatial model is decoded to reconstruct a version of the
residual frame. The decoder uses the motion vector parameters, together
with one or more previously decoded frames, to create a prediction of the

3
Case IPR2019-00806
Patent 9,277,241 B2

current frame, and the frame itself is reconstructed by adding the residual
frame to the prediction.
Context-based Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding (“CABAC”) is a
form of entropy coding that “achieves good compression performance
through (a) selecting probability models for each syntax element according
to the element’s context, (b) adapting probability estimates based on local
statistics and (c) using arithmetic coding.” Ex. 1008, 1. CABAC encodes
“coded block flags,” which indicate the occurrence of significant
coefficients in a block of coefficients. See Pet. 15. The Cb and Cr coded
block flags indicate whether chroma transform blocks contain non-zero
transform coefficients. Id. at 16. The coded block flags are encoded using a
context model (a “context”) selected from a group of context models (a
“context set”). See Pet. 16; Prelim. Resp. 5–6.

4
Case IPR2019-00806
Patent 9,277,241 B2

Table II of Exhibit 1009, reproduced below as annotated at page 17 of

the Petition, shows how, for example, context indices 85–104 identify the
contexts used to encode coded_block_flag:

Table of Syntax Elements from Ex. 1009

C. The ’241 Patent

The ’241 patent explains that “[f]or the chroma coded block flag
syntax elements (cbf_cb and cbf_cr) two different context sets (5 contexts in
each context set) are used for CABAC,” where “[t]he index of the actual
context used in each set is equal to the current transform depth associated
with chroma coded block flag[] being coded.” Ex. 1001, 23:17–19. This is
depicted in Table 16, below, showing Context Set 1 and Context Set 2:

5
Case IPR2019-00806
Patent 9,277,241 B2

Table 16 of the ’241 patent shows two

context sets for cbf_cb and cbf_cr in CABAC

The patent’s “disclosure proposes that cbf_cb and cbf_cr share one
context set,” where “[t]he index of the actual context used in each set may
still be equal to the current transform depth associated with the chroma
coded block flag being coded.” Ex. 1001, 23:33–36. This is depicted in
Table 17, below, showing that cbf_cb and cbf_cr share Context Set 1:

Table 17 of the ’241 patent shows one

context set for cbf_cb and cbf_cr in CABAC

For readability purposes, we will use “CbF” and “CrF” in the rest of
this decision to refer to the Cb chroma coded block flag and Cr chroma
coded block flag, respectively.

D. The Challenged Claims

Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 5, and 12 are independent. Claim

1 is to a method of decoding video, claim 5 is to an apparatus for decoding

6
Case IPR2019-00806
Patent 9,277,241 B2

video, and claim 12 is to a method of encoding video. Claims 1 and 12 are,

thus, representative of the challenged claims:
1. A method of decoding video data comprising:
selecting a context for decoding a Cb chroma coded block flag from a
context set including one or more contexts, wherein selecting the
context is based on a transform depth of a transform unit
associated with a block of video data, the transform unit
comprising a Cr transform block and a Cb transform block;
entropy decoding, from a video bitstream, using context adaptive
binary arithmetic coding (CABAC) and the selected context, the
Cb chroma coded block flag indicating whether the Cb transform
block contains non-zero transform coefficients;
entropy decoding, from the video bitstream, using CABAC and the
selected context, a Cr chroma coded block flag indicating whether
the Cr transform block contains non-zero transform coefficients,
wherein entropy decoding the Cr chroma coded block flag
comprises using the same context set as the Cb chroma coded
block flag; and
entropy decoding, from the video bitstream, the transform unit
associated with the block of video data.
12. A method of encoding video data comprising:
selecting a context for encoding a Cb chroma coded block flag from a
context set including one or more contexts, wherein selecting the
context is based on a transform depth of a transform unit
associated with a block of video data, the transform unit
comprising a Cr transform block and a Cb transform block;
entropy encoding, to a video bitstream, the Cb chroma coded block
flag for the Cb transform block using context adaptive binary
arithmetic coding (CABAC) and the selected context;
entropy encoding, to the video bitstream, a Cr chroma coded block
flag for the Cr transform block using CABAC, wherein entropy
coding the Cr chroma coded block flag comprises using the same
context set as the Cb chroma coded block flag.
Ex. 1001, 36:23–42, 38:1–17.

7
Case IPR2019-00806
Patent 9,277,241 B2

Essentially, the challenged claims are directed to conventional

encoding and decoding using CABAC, except for recitations in claims 1, 5,
and 12 that CbF and CrF are encoded or decoded using the same “context
set,” and in claim 1 that CbF and CrF are decoded using the same “context.”

E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability

Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9–13 are unpatentable on

the following grounds:

References Basis Claims

Sasai 2 § 103(a) 1, 2, 5, 6, and 9–13
Sasai and Kao 3 § 103(a) 1 and 2

Petitioner also relies on a Declaration of Alan C. Bovik, Ph.D., filed

as Exhibit 1002.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Level of Skill in the Art

The level of skill in the art is a factual determination that provides a

primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. See Al-Site
Corp. v. VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham
v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)). The level of skill in the art
also informs the claim construction analysis. See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v.
Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015) (explaining that claim construction

2
US 2013/0003861 A1, published Jan. 3, 2013 (Exhibit 1003).
3
US 2009/0196355 A1, published Aug. 6, 2009 (Exhibit 1004).

8
Case IPR2019-00806
Patent 9,277,241 B2

seeks the meaning “a skilled artisan would ascribe” to the claim term “in the
context of the specific patent claim”).
Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have
had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering,
computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject and two or
more years of experience in the field of video coding” and that “[l]ess work
experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a
Master’s Degree, and vice versa.” Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1002 (Bovik)
¶ 47). Patent Owner does not address this issue in the Preliminary
Response.
Because Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization
of the level of skill in the art, and because we find it generally consistent
with the subject matter of the ’241 patent and cited references, we adopt it
for purposes of this analysis.

B. Claim Construction

In inter partes review proceedings based on petitions filed on or after

November 13, 2018, such as this one, we construe claims using the same
claim construction standard that would be used in a civil action under
35 U.S.C. § 282(b), as articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
Because the parties do not seek any claim constructions (see Pet. 23;
Prelim. Resp. 26), and because we do not otherwise see a need for formal
claim construction to determine whether to institute, we do not expressly
construe any claim terms in this decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

9
Case IPR2019-00806
Patent 9,277,241 B2

(explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and
only as necessary to resolve the controversy).

C. The Prior Art

1. Sasai

Sasai concerns “an image coding and decoding apparatus” using

“arithmetic coding or arithmetic decoding.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 2. Figure 3,
reproduced below, “is a table in which the control parameters 130 each using
a context model based on a value of the control parameter 130 of a
neighboring block are sorted out” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 130).

Sasai’s Figure 3 is “a table of a context model

of a control parameter.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 19.
Column c3 of Figure 3 “indicates a binarization scheme to be applied
to the control parameter 130 (SE) specified in the immediately left column.”
Ex. 1003 ¶ 133. Sasai explains that “‘0, 1, 2, 3’ in column c4 indicates that
the context to be applied to the first element (binIdx=0) included in the
binary sequence 151 is selected from among one of four values, either 0, 1,
2, or 3.” Id. ¶ 136.

10
Case IPR2019-00806
Patent 9,277,241 B2

2. Kao
Kao describes a decoder in which “parallelism is adopted to accelerate
the speed of decoding.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 6. According to Petitioner, “Kao
describes that when decoding video using contexts, in some cases, ‘the same
context’ is used to decode bins of a data sequence,” and “[b]ins are bits . . .
in a sequence of data, which is the same format as [CrF and CbF] that are
decoded as disclosed by Sasai.” Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 23, 25, 121,
168–172, 287, Figs. 2, 6; Ex. 1008, 1).
Kao states that “[c]ontext numbers vary from 0 to 398,” “[i]n some
cases the Context number for the next bin depends on the result of the
currently decoded bin,” and “[i]n other cases the same Context is used to
decode a consecutive number of bins of a sequence element.” Ex. 1004
¶ 25. Kao does not appear to provide a specific reason for, or advantage to,
using the same context.

D. Reasonable Expectation of Success Analysis

Petitioner alleges that all challenged claims are unpatentable under

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Sasai. See Pet. 4. Petitioner also alleges that
independent claim 1 and claim 2 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
in view of Sasai “and/or” in view of Sasai and Kao. See id.

1. All Challenged Claims: Using the Same Context Set

Claim 1 requires that “entropy decoding [CrF] comprises using the

same context set as [CbF],” claim 5 requires that “to entropy decode [CrF],
the processor is configured to use the same context set as [CbF],” and claim
12 recites that “entropy coding [CrF] comprises using the same context set

11
Case IPR2019-00806
Patent 9,277,241 B2

as [CbF].” In other words, the claims all require that CrF and CbF be either
encoded or decoded using the same context set.
Petitioner contends that Sasai “discloses that the ‘same context set’ is
used to entropy decode both [CrF] and [CbF].” Pet. 46. In particular,
Petitioner argues that Sasai “discloses that, as shown in Figure 3, for [CbF]
and [CrF] the context applied during decoding is selected ‘from among one
of four values, either 0, 1, 2, or 3.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 136, Fig. 3).
According to Petitioner, “Sasai refers to these numerical values 0, 1, 2, and 3
as each indicating a ‘context to be applied.’” Id. ¶ 136.
Patent Owner argues that Figure 3 does not show a shared set of
contexts, but, instead, “simply indicates that [CbF] and [CrF] each have
different context sets, where each unique context set has [the] same number
of indices (0, 1, 2, 3).” Prelim. Resp. 37.
We agree with Patent Owner. As explained in the ’241 patent, and
not contradicted elsewhere in the record, the conventional approach in
CABAC was to use different context sets for CrF and CbF. See Ex. 1001,
23:17–19 (“For the chroma coded block flag syntax elements . . . , two
different context sets (5 contexts in each context set) are used for
CABAC.”), Table 16. We recognize that Sasai states “the context to be
applied . . . is selected from among one of four values, either 0, 1, 2, or 3,”
but, given that those values clearly are not themselves contexts,4 we
conclude that they are simply indices into the respective context sets. This is
consistent with Petitioner’s own discussion of the art, as it identifies values
85–104 in Table II of Ex. 1009 as “context indices.” See Pet. 16–17.

4
See Ex. 2004, 182 (“[E]ach context is specified by the probability pLPS of
the LPS and the value of MPS (valMPS), which is either 0 or 1.”).
12
Case IPR2019-00806
Patent 9,277,241 B2

Petitioner has shown only that CrF and CbF in Sasai share a set of index
values, not that the index values would correspond to the same set of
contexts for both CrF and CbF.
We thus conclude that Petitioner has not shown it would have been
obvious in view of Sasai to use the same context sets for CrF and CbF.

2. Claims 1 and 2: Using the Same Context for CrF and CbF
With respect to claim 1, Petitioner argues that it would have been
obvious, in view of Sasai alone or in combination with Kao, to decode CbF
and CrF using the same context.

a. Sasai Alone
Petitioner first argues that “because Sasai describes selecting a context
for decoding [CbF and CrF] based on depth, and because the same depth is
associated with both [CbF and CrF] for a given x0, y0, and trafodepth, a
POSA would have understood that the selected context for decoding [CbF
and CrF] would have been the same or at least that it would have been a
common option to have them be the same.” Pet. 39–40 (citing Ex. 1002
(Bovik) ¶ 89). This is not persuasive. It does not follow from the fact that
the depths are the same that the contexts would be the same, and Petitioner
does not show that it would have been a “common option to have them be
the same.” Instead, as noted above, the conventional approach was to use
different context sets for CrF and CbF, indexing by depth. See Ex. 1001,
23:17–21 (describing the conventional use of different context sets and that
“[t]he index of the actual context used in each set is equal to the current
transform depth”).

13
Case IPR2019-00806
Patent 9,277,241 B2

Petitioner next argues that “[i]t would have . . . been obvious to try
entropy decoding Sasai’s [CrB and CrF] using the same selected context,
because a POSA would have been choosing contexts from a finite number of
identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.”
Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1002 (Bovik) ¶ 90). According to Petitioner, “[t]here
were only a finite number of identified, predictable potential context
selection solutions to this recognized need: either using the same context to
decode a [CbF and CrF] or using different contexts to decode.” Pet. 40.
Petitioner also argues “a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of
success” because “the process of Sasai would have simply been modified so
that the same context is used for both [CbF and CrF].” Pet. 42. These
arguments are not persuasive because they are based on hindsight. The
“choice” Petitioner identifies is between the prior art approach and the
inventive approach. Petitioner does not show that the choice between
different contexts or the same contexts for CbF and CrF was known in the
prior art or would have been obvious to a skilled artisan.
Petitioner further argues “[a] POSA would have pursued these known
potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; namely, a
POSA would have pursued selection of the same context from context
models 0, 1, 2, and 3 for decoding both of [CbF and CrF].” Pet 41. This
argument is not sufficiently explained or supported because “0, 1, 2, 3” in
Sasai could be indices to contexts, not contexts, in accordance with the
convention as explained above. Even if it were obvious to use 0, 1, 2, and 3
for both CrF and CbF, that would simply mean it would have been obvious
to use the same index (for example, to index according to depth), not the
same underlying context.

14
Case IPR2019-00806
Patent 9,277,241 B2

We conclude that Petitioner has not shown it would have been

obvious, in view of Sasai alone, to use the same contexts for CrF and CbF.

b. Sasai and Kao

Petitioner alternatively argues that “Kao describes using the same

context to decode different data values (i.e., bins)” and that “[a] POSA
would have been motivated to modify Sasai with the teachings of Kao.” Pet.
43. In particular, Petitioner argues that (a) “the combination would have
simply been the combination of prior art elements according to known
methods to yield predictable results,” (b) “the prior art includes each element
as claimed,” (c) “the modified system of Sasai in view of Kao would have
performed the same function as Sasai and Kai do individually,” (d) “[a]
POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully combining
the elements,” and (e) “the combination of Sasai and Kao would have
worked for its intended purpose of improved video decoding.” Id. at 43–45.
None of these contentions, however, provide a sufficient reason for
modifying Sasai to use the same contexts in the first place.
Petitioner also argues that “due to [the] limited number of options, a
POSA would have recognized that the result of combining Sasai with Kao
would have been a system that uses the same context.” Pet 44–45. Like the
similar argument made for Sasai alone and discussed in the preceding
section, this is a hindsight analysis that improperly draws from the
disclosure of the ’241 patent. Petitioner has not shown that using the same
contexts was an “option” known in the art or obvious to a skilled artisan.
Finally, Petitioner argues that “Kao describes that its system uses
CABAC decoding, and that benefits [of] its decoding include ‘exploiting
symbol correlations,’ ‘fast adaption,’ and ‘fast binary arithmetic coding,’ as

15
Case IPR2019-00806
Patent 9,277,241 B2

well as ‘bit-rate saving,’” and that “Sasai discloses that its decoding system
is provided to ‘reduce memory usage,’ which is known to similarly result in
decoding benefits such as improved speed and bit-rate savings.” Pet. 45
(citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 22, 23, 25; Ex. 1002 ¶ 102). Although these may be
benefits of the respective systems, Petitioner does show, or even argue, that
they result from use of the same contexts, or explain how or why they would
have motivated a person of skill in the art to modify Sasai in the way
proposed. Notably, Kao does not appear to identify any particular benefit
from using the same contexts. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 23, 25.
For these reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown it would
have been obvious to modify Sasai, in view of Kao, to use the same context
for CrF and CbF.

III. CONCLUSION

Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing

in showing the unpatentability of claims 1–12 of the ’241 patent.5

IV. ORDER

In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:

ORDERED that an inter partes review is not instituted in this
proceeding.

5
Because we find that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable expectation of
success on the merits, we do reach Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner
failed to establish that Sasai is entitled to the filing date of its provisional, or
Patent Owner’s argument regarding multiple petitions filed by Petitioner.
16
Case IPR2019-00806
Patent 9,277,241 B2

FOR PETITIONER:

David Cavanaugh
Jonathan R. Bowser
Roshan S. Mansinghani
Theodoros Konstantakopoulos
david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
jbowser@unifiedpatents.com
roshan@unifiedpatents.com
theodoros.konstantakopoulos@wilmerhale.com

FOR PATENT OWNER:

Brent N. Bumgardner
Barry Bumgardner
Thomas C. Cecil
Matthew Juren
brent@nbafirm.com
barry@nelbum.com
tom@nbafirm.com
matthew@nelbum.com

17