Ideahub Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 15, 2021

IPR2020-00702 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 52
Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: September 15, 2021
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC,
Petitioner,
v.
IDEAHUB INC.,
Patent Owner.

IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2

Before BRYAN F. MOORE, KEVIN W. CHERRY, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
JUDGMENT
Final Written Decision
Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
Denying Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion to Amend
35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
I. INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND
Unified Patents, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) to
institute an inter partes review of claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No.
9,641,849 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’849 patent”). See 35 U.S.C. § 311. Ideahub
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
2
Inc. (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6
(“Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to our authorization, Petitioner filed a
Preliminary Reply (“Prelim. Reply,” Paper 7), and Patent Owner filed a
Preliminary Sur-Reply (“Prelim. Sur-Reply,” Paper 8).
On September 17, 2020, based on the record before us at the time, we
instituted an inter partes review of all challenged claims on the sole ground
alleged. Paper 9 (“Institution Decision” or “Dec.”). The sole ground we
instituted trial on is reproduced below:
Claim(s) challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)
1, 4 103(a)1 Kalevo2 and Song3
Petitioner supports its Petition with a Declaration by Dr. Immanuel
Freedman, dated March 12, 2020. Ex. 1003.
Patent Owner filed a Response in opposition to the Petition (Paper 17,
“PO Resp.”). Patent Owner supported its Patent Owner Response with the
Declaration of Cliff Reader, Ph.D. (Ex. 2001). Patent Owner also filed a
contingent Motion to Amend. Paper 18. Petitioner filed a Reply in support
of the Petition (Paper 25, “Pet. Reply”). Petitioner supports the Reply with
the Second Declaration of Dr. Immanuel Freedman (Ex. 1021). Petitioner

1 Because the claims at issue appear to have an effective filing date prior to
March 16, 2013, the effective date of the applicable provisions of the Leahy-
Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011)
(“AIA”), we apply the pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 in this
Decision.
2 U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2001/0017942 A1, published
August 30, 2001(Ex. 1004).
3 U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2009/0225834 A1, published
September 10, 2009 (Ex. 1005).
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
3
filed an Opposition to the Motion to Amend. Paper 24. Patent Owner filed
a Sur-reply responding to the Reply (Paper 30, “PO Sur-Reply”).
On April 8, 2021, we filed Preliminary Guidance on Patent Owner’s
Motion to Amend. Paper 29 (“Preliminary Guidance” or “Prelim. Guide.”).
Patent Owner then filed a Revised Contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 31,
“Rev. Mot. Amend”) proposing to substitute claim 19 (“proposed substitute
claim”) for claim 1. Patent Owner supports its Revised Contingent Motion
to Amend with a Second Declaration of Dr. Clifford Reader (Ex. 2017).
Petitioner filed an Opposition to Patent Owner’s Revised Contingent Motion
to Amend (Paper 37, “Opp.”). Petitioner supports its Opposition with the
Third Declaration of Dr. Immanuel Freedman in Support of Petitioner’s
Opposition, dated June 3, 2021 (Ex. 1035). Patent Owner filed a Reply in
Support of its Contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 39, “PO Reply”). Patent
Owner supports its Reply in support of its Revised Contingent Motion to
Amend with a Third Declaration of Dr. Clifford Reader (Ex. 2021).
Petitioner also filed a Sur-Reply in Opposition to Patent Owner’s Revised
Contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 43, “Pet. Sur-Reply”).
Both parties requested an oral hearing. See Paper 42. A public and
transcript and a confidential transcript of the oral hearing are entered in the
record. Paper 50 (“Public Tr.”); 51 (“Confidential Tr.”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. The evidentiary standard is
a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.1(d) (2019). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
4
For the reasons expressed below, we conclude that Petitioner has
demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that claims 1 and 4 are
unpatentable. We deny Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend.
B. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
The parties do not disclose any related litigation, but assert that the
following U.S. patents and pending patent applications claim priority benefit
of the ’849 patent: U.S. Patent Application 16/407,086; U.S. Patent
Application 16/407,095; U.S. Patent No. 10,623,749; U.S. Patent No.
10,623,750; U.S. Patent No. 10,623,751. Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1.
C. THE ’849 PATENT
The ’849 Patent, entitled “Video Encoding Apparatus, Video
Decoding Apparatus, And Video Decoding Method For Performing Intra-
Prediction Based On Directionality Of Neighboring Block,” relates to
“improving compression efficiency in directional intra-prediction.”
Ex. 1001, [54], [57], 1:23–24. According to the ’849 patent:
[a] fundamental principle of compressing data is based on a
process of eliminating the redundancy from data. The data can
be compressed by eliminating spatial redundancy referring to
repetition of the same color or object in an image, temporal
redundancy referring to little or nothing of variation between
neighboring frames in a moving picture frame or successive
repetition of same sound in the audio, or psycho-visual
redundancy referring to dullness of human vision and sensation
to high frequencies.
Id. at 1:37–45.
The ’849 patent explains that “H.264” is a known compression
standard that uses “directional intra-prediction” [which the ’849 patent
shortens simply to “intra-prediction”] to eliminate spatial redundancy within
a frame. Ex. 1001, 1:50–53. “[I]ntra-prediction refers to a method of
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
5
cop[y]ing one sub-block in a designated direction using neighboring pixels
in upward and leftward directions, predicting values of current sub-blocks,
and encoding only the differences between the copied values and the
predicted value of the sub-blocks.” Id. at 1:54–58. When compressing
video including pixels of a monochromatic sky, for example, the “pixels that
are close to one another within a video frame are likely to have similar
characteristics,” and thus the values of adjacent pixels can be predicted.
Pet. 5. Intra-prediction thereby “reduce[s] the amount of data necessary for
transmission and reconstruction” of an image. Id. at 5–6.
The ’849 patent discloses that in the “intra-prediction technique
complying with the existing H.264 standard, a prediction block is generated
from a current block on the basis of another block having a previous
encoding sequence.” Ex. 1001, 1:66–2:3. “Nine prediction modes can be
selected for each 4x4 block,” namely, “eight modes having directionality”
and one “DC mode.” Id. at 3:8–10. A “video encoder based on H.264
selects one from among the prediction modes with respect to each block.”
Id. at 2:7–11.
According to the ’849 patent, the intra mode information needed in
H.264 standard compression “may act as [] overhead increasing the size of a
coded bitstream.” Id. at 3:19–27. Accordingly, the ’849 patent proposes “a
video encoding [and] decoding method and apparatus” in which the “video
encoding apparatus . . . does not need to record intra-mode information” and
the “video decoding apparatus . . . does not need to receive intra mode
information.” Id. at 3:35–62. The ’849 patent discloses that the
embodiments disclosed therein will “enhanc[e] efficiency of intra-prediction
in video coding.” Id. at 3:25–28. In one embodiment, for example, when a
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
6
compressed image is decoded, the decoder “reconstruct[s] a residual signal
of a current block from an input bitstream; select[s] one from among a
plurality of intra modes; and perform[s] an intra-prediction according to a
directionality of the selected intra mode to reconstruct the current block.”
Id. at 3:64–4:1.
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim among the challenged claims.
Claim 4 depends from claim 1. Independent claim 1, which is illustrative,
recites (with bracketing added):
1. A video decoding method performed by a video
decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
[1.1] determining an intra mode for a neighboring block
of a current block;
[1.2] determining an intra mode for the current block
based on whether the intra mode for the neighboring block is a
directional mode or a non-directional mode;
[1.3] performing intra-prediction according to the intra
mode for the current block to generate a prediction block for the
current block;
[1.4] obtaining quantization coefficients from an input
bitstream;
[1.5] dequantizing the quantization coefficients to
generate transform coefficients;
[1.6] transforming the transform coefficients to a residual
block for the current block; and
[1.7] adding the prediction block and the residual block
to reconstruct the current block,
[1.8] wherein the intra mode for the current block is
determined by using a first set of one or more mathematical
expressions, if the intra mode for the neighboring block is the
non-directional mode,
[1.9] wherein the intra mode for the current block is
determined by using a second set of one or more mathematical
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
7
expressions, if the intra mode for the neighboring block is the
directional mode, and
[1.10] wherein the second set of one or more
mathematical expressions is different from the first set of one or
more mathematical expressions.
Id. at 11:41–12:3.
II. ANALYSIS
A. REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
Patent Owner contends that the Petition fails to name all real parties in
interest (“RPIs”) as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). PO Resp. 33–52.
Section 312(a)(2) requires that the “petition identif[y] all real parties in
interest.” This provision serves important notice functions to patent owners,
to identify whether the petitioner is barred from bringing an IPR due to an
RPI that is time-barred or otherwise estopped, and to the Board, to identify
conflicts of interests that are not readily apparent from the identity of the
petitioner. See NOF Corp. v. Nektar Therapeutics, IPR2019-01397,
Paper 24 at 6 (PTAB Feb. 10, 2020) (citing Office Patent Trial Practice
Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012); CTPG 12 (Nov. 2019).
Accordingly, petitioners must comply with these requirements in good faith.
See 37 C.F.R. §42.11(a) (duty of good faith and candor in proceedings).
Whether a non-party is a RPI is a “highly fact-dependent question” and must
be considered on a case-by-case basis. Ventex Co. v. Columbia Sportswear
N. Am., Inc., IPR2017-00651, Paper 148 at 6 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019)
(precedential) (citing Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,
48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012)).
Petitioner identifies Unified Patents, Inc. (“Unified”) as the sole RPI
in this proceeding. Pet. 1. Patent Owner, relying on the Federal Circuit’s
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
8
decision in Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., 897 F.3d 1336,
1351 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“AIT”), and the Board’s decision on remand from
AIT, RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC, IPR2015-01750,
Paper 128 at 9 (Oct. 2, 2020) (designated precedential Dec. 4, 2020) (“AIT
Remand”), contends that Petitioner also should have named two members of
Unified (“Unnamed RPIs”) as RPIs. PO Resp. 34–35. Patent Owner
contends that because the Unnamed RPIs were paying members of Unified
during the present proceeding, and remain members, the Unnamed RPIs
have a preexisting, established relationship with Unified. Id. at 35–41.
Patent Owner more particularly contends that “which [the Unnamed RPIs—
as Unified’s clients—have an interest in and will benefit from Unified’s
actions, and whether Unified ‘can be said to be representing that interest’
based on its relationship with [the Unnamed RPIs] . . . that Unified files its
IPRs in the Video Codec Zone, including the instant one, to benefit its
unlicensed members. . . .” Id. at 42.
On this record, we determine that we need not address whether the
Unnamed RPIs were improperly excluded because, “even if [they] were, it
would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315.” SharkNinja
Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 at 32 (Oct. 6,
2020) (precedential) (“SharkNinja”). Like in SharkNinja, the Unnamed
RPIs here are currently members of Unified. Unlike in SharkNinja,
however, neither Petitioner nor any of the Unnamed RPIs were sued. Pet.
Reply 18 (asserting that “[n]o Unified member is an RPI, especially
because . . . to the best of Unified’s knowledge, none has been sued or
threatened with suit by Ideahub,” and that thus, “there are no . . . time-bar
issues”). Petitioner also asserts that none of the Unnamed RPIs have
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
9
challenged the ’849 patent. Id. (asserting that “[n]o Unified member is an
RPI, especially because . . . no Unified member has filed its own patent
challenge to the ’849 patent” and that thus, “there are no estoppel . . .
issues”). Accordingly, we determine that neither issues of time bar nor
issues of estoppel are implicated.
Under the Board’s precedential decision in Lumentum Holdings, Inc.
v. Capella Photonics, Inc., the Board’s jurisdiction to consider a petition
does not require a “correct” identification of all RPIs in a petition. IPR2015-
00739, Paper 38 at 6 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2016) (precedential); see also Blue
Coat Sys., Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-01444, Paper 11 at 10 (PTAB July
18, 2017) (“Evidence [of failure to identify all RPIs] is, at best, suggestive of
an issue that is not jurisdictional.”). The Federal Circuit has held that
§ 312(a)(2) is not jurisdictional. See Mayne Pharma Int’l Pty. Ltd. v. Merck
Sharp & Dohme Corp., 927 F.3d 1232, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[I]f a
petition fails to identify all real parties in interest under § 312(a)(2), the
Director can, and does, allow the petitioner to add a real party in interest.”)
(quoting Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 878 F.3d 1364, 1374 n.9 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (en banc)).
In the present proceeding, there is no allegation that Petitioner’s
exclusion of the Unnamed RPIs should result in termination of the
proceeding or denial of institution of review for any reason other than for the
alleged failure of a procedural requirement that can be corrected pursuant to
Board precedent. Additionally, there is no allegation or evidence that any of
the Unnamed RPIs is barred or estopped from this proceeding, or that
Petitioner purposefully omitted any of the Unnamed RPIs to gain some
advantage.
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
10
B. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
We interpret claims in the same manner used in a civil action under
35 U.S.C. § 282(b), “including construing the claim in accordance with the
ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.”
37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019).4 When applying that standard, we interpret
the claim language as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art in light of the specification. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255,
1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Thus, we give claim terms their ordinary and
customary meaning as they would be understood by an ordinarily skilled
artisan. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning ‘is the meaning that the term
would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.’” (quoting
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005))). Only terms
that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent
necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan
Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
In our Institution Decision, we agreed with both parties that no
construction of any term was for our determination of whether to institute
inter partes review. Dec. 7.

4 On October 11, 2018, the USPTO revised its rules to harmonize the
Board’s claim construction standard with that used in federal district court.
Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial
Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340
(Oct. 11, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)). This rule
change applies to petitions filed on or after November 13, 2018. Id.
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
11
After our Institution Decision, Patent Owner raised two claim
construction issues in its Patent Owner Response: (1) “wherein the intra
mode for the current block is determined by using a [first/second] set of one
or more mathematical expressions, if the intra mode for the neighboring
block is the [nondirectional/directional] mode” and (2) “wherein the second
set of one or more mathematical expressions is different from the first set of
one or more mathematical expressions.” PO Resp. 10–18.
We determine that no construction of these terms is necessary for this
Final Written Decision.
1. Other Claim Terms
We discern no other terms in need of express interpretation.
Accordingly, we apply the legal standards set forth above when reading the
claims.
C. THE PARTIES’ POST-INSTITUTION ARGUMENTS
In our Institution Decision, we concluded that the argument and
evidence adduced by Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that
claims 1 and 4 were unpatentable. Dec. 24. We must now determine
whether Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that
the remaining challenged claims are unpatentable over the cited prior art.
35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018). We previously instructed Patent Owner that
“any arguments not raised in the [Patent Owner Response] may be deemed
waived.” Paper 10, 8; see also In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1381
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that patent owner’s failure to proffer argument at
trial as instructed in scheduling order constitutes waiver). Additionally, the
Board’s Trial Practice Guide states that the Patent Owner Response “should
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
12
identify all the involved claims that are believed to be patentable and state
the basis for that belief.” Consolidated TPG at 66.
D. LEGAL STANDARDS
Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1 and 4 on the ground
that the claims are unpatentable as obvious over Kalevo and Song. To
prevail in its challenge to the patentability of the claims, Petitioner must
establish unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C.
§ 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2019). “In an [inter partes review], the
petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the
patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815
F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring
inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence
that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden
never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l
Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing
Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008))
(discussing the burdens of proof in inter partes review).
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398 (2007), reaffirmed the framework for determining obviousness as
set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). The KSR Court
summarized the four factual inquiries set forth in Graham that we apply in
determining whether a claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as follows: (1) determining the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue,
(3) resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) when in
evidence, considering objective evidence indicating obviousness or
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
13
nonobviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 406 (citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18).
In an inter partes review, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving
obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum
Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Petitioner must explain how the proposed combinations of prior art
would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. An obviousness
analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; accord Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259. Petitioner also
must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
combined the prior art references. NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1382.
At this final stage of the proceeding, we determine whether a
preponderance of the evidence of record shows that the remaining
challenged claims would have been rendered obvious in view of the asserted
prior art. We analyze the asserted ground of unpatentability in accordance
with these principles.
E. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
We review the grounds of unpatentability in view of the
understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner proposes that a person of
ordinary skill
A person of ordinary skill in the art at the priority date for the
’849 Patent (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree in
electrical or computer engineering, or a closely related scientific
field such as physics or computer science, and two years of work
experience with video processing. A lack of experience can be
remedied with additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree), and
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
14
likewise, a lack of education can be remedied with additional
work experience (e.g., 4–5 years).
Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 48). Patent Owner does not dispute this
definition of a person of ordinary skill. See generally PO Resp. Patent
Owner’s expert, Dr. Reader, however, testifies that
It is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art in the field of
video compression in the 2009 time period, would have had a
bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science,
or an equivalent degree, and two to three years of experience in
the field of video compression.
Ex. 2001 ¶ 45.
We see no meaningful distinction between these definitions relevant
to the particular issues necessary to decide this case. We adopt Petitioner’s
proposed level of ordinary skill, as it appears to be consistent with the level
of skill reflected by the Specification and in the asserted prior art references.
See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior
art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).

F. CLAIMS 1, 4:
OBVIOUSNESS BASED ON KALEVO AND SONG
Petitioner argues that the combination of Kalevo and Song renders
claims 1 and 4 unpatentable as obvious. Pet. 16–60. Claim 1 is independent
and claim 4 depends from claim 1. Ex. 1001, 11:41–12:3, 12:11–19. Patent
Owner argues that Petitioner’s challenge to claims 1 and 4 fails. See PO
Resp. 18–32; PO Sur-Reply 4–10
1. Independent Claim 1
We first consider Petitioner’s argument that the combination of
Kalevo and Song renders obvious claim 1. Pet. 16–57.
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
15
a. Kalevo
Kalevo is a U.S. Patent Application Publication titled “Method For
Encoding Images, And An Image Coder.” Ex. 1004, [54]. Kalevo discloses
a method in which “spatial prediction for a block . . . is performed to reduce
the amount of information to be transmitted.” Id. at [57]. In Kalevo’s
prediction method, “a classification is determined for at least one
neighbouring5 block (L, U) of said block (C) to be predicted according to the
contents of said neighbouring block (L, U), and a prediction method (P1-
P13) is selected for the current block (C) on the basis of at least one said
classification.” Id. Kalevo also explains that its invention is “based on the
idea that to perform spatial prediction of pixel values for a block to be
coded, adjacent decoded blocks are examined to determine if there exists
some directionality in the contents of the adjacent blocks.” Id. ¶ 23.
Kalevo discloses that an object of the invention is to “improve
encoding and decoding of digital images such that higher encoding
efficiency can be achieved and the bit rate of the encoded digital image can
be further reduced.” Id. ¶¶ 14 (emphasis added), 19–20. Figure 3a of
Kalevo illustrates an embodiment and is reproduced below.

5 When quoting Kalevo, we use the British spelling “neighbouring” as it
appears in Kalevo, notwithstanding the ’849 patent’s spelling,
“neighboring.”
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
16
Figure 3a shows “blocks that are used for prediction,” according to an
embodiment of the invention. Id. ¶ 29. Kalevo discloses determining a
prediction method for the current block (C) based on one or more of the left
neighboring block (L) (first neighboring block) and the upper neighboring
block (U) (second neighboring block). Id. ¶ 38.
b. Song
Song is a U.S. Patent Application Publication titled “Method And
Apparatus For Image Intra Prediction.” Ex. 1005, [54]. Song discloses a
method “for intra prediction of an image” which includes “calculating
arbitrary edge directions and amplitudes of the edges based on the
neighboring pixels of a prediction block,” and “determining an intra
prediction mode” using that information. Id. at [57], ¶ 11. In one
embodiment, Song describes a “moving picture decoding apparatus” that
includes an “entropy decoder 910, a rearrangement unit 920, an inverse
quantization unit 930, an inverse transform unit 940, a motion compensation
unit 950, an intra prediction unit 960, and a filter 970.” Id. ¶ 108 (emphases
added). The “decoder” is used to “extract intra prediction mode information
and quantized coefficient information.” Id. ¶ 109.
c. Analysis
Petitioner argues that the preamble and the limitations “[1.3]
performing intra-prediction,” “[1.4] obtaining quantization coefficients,”
“[1.5] dequantizing the quantization coefficients,” “[1.6] transforming the
transform coefficients,” and “[1.7] adding the prediction block” all recite
standard, well-known aspects of video compression, such as aspects of the
H.264 standard referenced in the ’849 patent itself. Pet. 9–10, 26–38;
Ex. 1003 ¶ 44. The Petition maps the alleged teachings of Kalevo and Song
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
17
to the foregoing limitations, in detail. Pet. 26–38. Regarding the remaining
limitations, i.e., “[1.1] determining and intra mode for a neighboring block,”
“[1.2] determining an intra mode for the current block,” and the “wherein”
clauses [1.8], [1.9], and [1.10], Petitioner argues that these steps were also
well-known and taught or suggested in the cited prior art, particularly
Kalevo. Pet. 10.
For example, as to the “determining” steps in elements [1.1] and [1.2],
Petitioner argues that Kalevo teaches using the intra mode of neighboring,
previously decoded blocks to accurately determine the intra mode of a
current block to be decoded. Pet. 16–25. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that
Kalevo discloses “reduc[ing] redundant information in image data” that can
be used for “intra-frame coding in block-based video coders,” and describes
that “spatial prediction for a block (C) is performed” based on “a
classification . . . determined for at least one neighbouring block . . . of said
block (C) to be predicted.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 12–13, [57]. According to
Petitioner, Kalevo uses the “directionality information” of neighboring
blocks for classification and spatial prediction. Id. ¶ 23.
In sum, Petitioner argues that Kalevo teaches all of “the techniques
alleged by the ’849 patent to be novel, while Song . . . fills in well-
known details and structure of a decoder” for performing the steps that the
’849 patent acknowledges are standard. Pet. 10; Ex. 1001, 6:61–65.
Relying on the testimony of Dr. Freedman and the disclosures in Kalevo,
Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill would have combined the
“prediction methods of Kalevo with the decoding details of Song” according
to “known methods” to yield “predictable results.” Pet. 28–33.
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
18
Patent Owner characterizes the Petition as providing two theories to
account for limitations [1.8]–[1.10]: (1) Kalevo’s decoder uses
mathematical expressions included in each prediction method to evaluate the
prediction methods and select an applicable one for a current block (step 23
in FIG. 2); and (2) Kalevo uses mathematical expressions to classify the
directionality of the neighboring blocks (step 22 in FIG. 2), which is in turn
used to determine the intra mode for the current block. PO Resp. 26; PO
Sur-Reply 4. With respect to the first theory, Patent Owner explained that,
building on its arguments regarding the preamble discussed below, that only
Kalevo’s encoder, not its decoder, perform Kalevo’s prediction method. PO
Resp. 26–29. With respect to the second theory, Patent Owner
acknowledges this method—the directional classification process—is
performed by both the encoder and decoder, but Patent Owner argues that
the directional classification process does not choose between sets of
mathematical expressions according to the determined intra mode for the
neighboring block. Id. at 29. Instead, Patent Owner contends that this
process is performed in order to determine the neighboring block’s
directionality—not the current block’s directionality as required by the
claim. Id.
In its Reply, Petitioner argued that there was a third theory
disclosed—that Kalevo’s mapping of directionality classes to context classes
accounted for these limitations. Pet. Reply 8–9. Specifically, Petitioner
notes that the Petition argued that Kalevo’s “mapping from the directional
and non-directional classes D0 through D10 to context classes C0 through
C6 corresponds to a mathematical operation of many-to-one mapping of
discrete mathematics . . . .” Id. at 9 (quoting Pet. 48–49). And thus, the “set
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
19
of prediction methods (rules) available for each combination of classes of L
block and U block is determined by using one or more mathematical
expressions.” Id.
Petitioner contends that Kalevo’s decoder performs these operations
after the neighboring blocks’ directionality is identified (i.e., these
operations are performed to determine the current block’s intra mode, based
on the neighboring block, corresponding to the non-directional method’s
limitations [1.2] and [1.8]). Id. (citing Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 25–54). Petitioner
asserts that the context class mapping corresponds to Figure 2’s step 20 (see
Ex. 1004 ¶ 41), and the prediction method lookup corresponds to step 22
(see id. at Fig. 2). Id. Petitioner reproduces a version of Figure 2 of Kalevo,
as annotated by Patent Owner to demonstrate that there is no dispute that the
steps of this third theory are performed entirely by the decoder. Id. at 9–10.

IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
20
Figure 2 of Kalevo as annotated by Patent Owner is a block diagram of the
method of Kalevo with red box showing the steps performed by the encoder
and decoder and a blue box showing the steps performed by only the
encoder. PO Resp. 27. Steps 20 and 22 are within the red box. Id.
According to Kalevo, Figure 2 illustrates performing context-dependent
selection 17 of a subset of prediction methods by classifying neighboring
blocks, and performing construction 18 of a prediction block using the
selected prediction method. Ex. 1004 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. Kalevo discloses that
directionality classifier 19 analyzes the directionality of neighboring blocks
using pixel value gradients, and each neighboring block is mapped 20 into
either one of eight directional classes D0–D7 or one of three non-directional
classes D8–D10. Id. ¶ 41.
Petitioner further explains that “if a neighboring block (e.g.,
neighboring block U) is ‘classified as non-directional class D8’ as the
Petition discussed (at 48), Kalevo’s decoder maps that non-directional class
D8 onto context class C5.” Pet. Reply 10. This is shown in Figure 4 of
Kalevo. Further, as shown in Figure 4 of Kalevo, reproduced below, each
directionality class is further mapped to one of six context classes C1–C6.
Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 73–74.
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
21

Figure 4 is a block diagram illustrating the “mapping of directionality
classes to context classes.” Id. ¶ 30.
Petitioner focuses on an excerpt of Figure 4, which was reproduced in
excerpted form on page 21 of the Petition.
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
22

An excerpt of Figure 4 of Kalevo showing the mapping of non-directional
class D8 onto context class C5. Pet. Reply 11. Petitioner argues that this
mapping shown in Figure 4 is a mathematical expression and can be written
as an equation. Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 138; Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 44–53;
Ex. 1013).
Petitioner submits that “[t]his mathematical operation is used to
determine the current block’s intra mode, because these mappings are
performed in Kalevo’s step 20, which is a prerequisite to the prediction
method subset selection (step 22).” Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 54, 55).
Petitioner explains this accounts for limitation [1.8] where the first set of
equations includes the mathematical expression that expresses a surjective
mapping from the neighboring block’s non-directional class D8 to context
class C5, which is used by the decoder to select a prediction method subset
(step 22). Id. Petitioner submits that the decoder uses the subset, along with
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
23
the “rank” from the encoder to “determine the correct prediction method.”
Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 148–149; Pet. 38–49).
For limitation [1.9], Petitioner argues that the Petition cited the
example in which neighboring “block U is classified as context class C4
(mapped from any one of directional classes D5, D6, or D7).” Id. at 13
(citing Pet. 52). Petitioner submits that this mapping is represented by a
many-to-one mathematical expression depicted in Kalevo’s Figure 4. An
excerpt of Figure 4 of Kalevo is reproduced below.

An excerpt of Figure 4 of Kalevo is reproduced above showing the mapping
of Directional classes D5, D6, and D7 onto Context class C5. Pet. Reply 14;
Pet. 22. Petitioner contends that, as described with regards to limitation
[1.8], that these mappings are mathematical expressions. Id.
Finally, Petitioner notes that “this mathematical expression (the
mappings from D5-D7 to C4, which correspond to the second set) is
different than the first set (the mappings from D8-D10 to C5-C6, which
correspond to the first set), consistent with limitation [1.10].” Pet. Reply 15.
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
24
Petitioner further notes these sets are not subsets of each other, consistent
with Patent Owner’s construction. Id. (citing Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 54, 60, 64–66).
Patent Owner’s primary argument against the class mapping or “third”
theory is that it is untimely. PO Sur-Reply 6–8. Patent Owner raises three
points why it contends that the argument was not sufficiently raised
previously. First, Patent Owner asserts that the Petitioner’s argument was
only raised with respect limitation [1.8] and “[n]o reference to this
directionality-to-context mapping was made in the Petition’s analysis of
elements [1.9]-[1.10].” Id. at 6–7. Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner
never alleged ‘with particularity’ that Kalevo’s class mapping corresponds to
the claimed different first and second sets of mathematical expressions.” Id.
at 7. Second, Patent Owner argues that “the one-off statement fairly
conveys one mathematical operation representing all directionality
classifications.” Id. Third, Patent Owner contends that “the Petition
provided no analysis as to how the mapping constitutes a mathematical
expression that is used in the process of determining the current block’s intra
mode.” Id.
We do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s so-called “third”
theory is untimely and should be disregarded. To begin with, there is no
dispute that the theory is, at least, raised with respect to claim limitation
[1.8]. See PO Sur-Reply 6. Patent Owner disputes the particularity of this
contention, but we find that it is sufficiently clear. The theory is not
complicated and the sentence, especially given the detailed explanation of
the other theories and of how Kalevo works, is sufficient to provide notice.
Moreover, the cited paragraph of Dr. Freedman’s First Declaration
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
25
(Paragraph 140) provides additional detail to clarify the theory. Ex. 1003
¶ 140.
Petitioner’s reply does explain how this third theory fits into Patent
Owner’s arguments and claim constructions, but Petitioner’s Reply does not
expand the theory beyond the contours provided in the Petition. As for
limitations [1.9] and [1.10], we also find that the third theory was disclosed.
To begin with the cited sentence in limitation [1.8] and supporting paragraph
from Dr. Freedman’s declaration discusses the mapping of both directional
and non-directional modes to classes, thus including both limitations [1.8]
and [1.9]. As Petitioner points out, the Petition’s analysis of limitation [1.9]
repeatedly refers back the analysis for limitation [1.8] and explicitly
describes on page 52 of the Petition that
Additionally, as a further teaching of this limitation, for the
above case in which block L is classified as context class C3
(mapped to from directional class D4) and block U is classified
as context class C4 (mapped from any one of directional classes
D5, D6, or D7), the determination of each neighboring block’s
classification, and thus, the determination of the intra prediction
mode for the neighboring block, is based on a second set of one
or more mathematical expressions.
Pet. 52. Finally, with respect limitation [1.10], we note that, although it is
less clear, the analysis of limitation [1.10] does explain how classes C1–C6
are not the same in that they involve different underlying rules. Id. at 55–57.
Finally, Patent Owner’s arguments that “the Petition provided no analysis as
to how the mapping constitutes a mathematical expression that is used in the
process of determining the current block’s intra mode” is belied by the
Petition’s detailed explanation of how Kalevo operates. See Pet. 16–25.
Although Petitioner supports this argument with new evidence in its Reply,
the Reply does not raise a new issue or argument. See Chamberlain Group,
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
26
Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., 944 F.3d 919, 925 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Parties
are not barred from elaborating on their arguments on issues previously
raised.”). Moreover, Patent Owner has had an adequate opportunity to
address this new evidence in its Sur-Reply. See In re NuVasive, Inc., 841
F.3d 966, 972 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding “an opportunity to respond was
needed when the petitioner . . . newly pointed to a previously unmentioned
portion of the . . . prior-art patent, even though it had earlier focused
extensively on other portions of that prior-art patent”).
Here, we find that Petitioner’s arguments in its Reply rely on the
arguments advanced in its Petition and respond directly to the narrow claim
constructions for preamble and claim limitations [1.8]–[1.10] advanced by
the Patent Owner. Accordingly, we will consider the “third” theory.
On the merits, Patent Owner raises two arguments, neither of which is
persuasive. PO Sur-Reply 8–10. First, Patent Owner argues that the
functions described by Dr. Freedman—(f1 = {(D8, C5)}—are not described
in Kalevo and the relationships between a non-directional class and a context
class that are described are not mathematical. Id. at 8–9. We do not agree
with either of these contentions. Whether Kalevo expressly discloses the
functions described by Dr. Freedman is beside the point, because as Dr.
Freedman persuasively explains, Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 60–62—Kalevo would suggest
these functions to a person of ordinary skill. See In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380,
383 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[A] reference must be considered not only for what it
expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests.” (alteration in
original)); In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 914 (CCPA 1979) (explaining that
in determining obviousness, all references are assessed “on the basis of what
they reasonably disclose and suggest to one skilled in the art” (quoting In re
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
27
Baum, 374 F.2d 1004, 1009 (CCPA 1967))). We also disagree with Patent
Owner’s contention that the relationships shown in Figure 4 are not
mathematical. PO Sur-Reply 9. As Dr. Freedman explains
a POSITA would recognize that the mapping from the directional
and non-directional classes D0 thru D10 to context classes C0
thru C6 corresponds to a surjective mapping (i.e., a many-to-one
mapping in which every context class C0 through C6 has at least
one directional or non-directional class D0 through D10 mapped
to it), which is a concept known in discrete mathematics (see
Johnsonbaugh, R. “Discrete Mathematics” (2009), [EX1013]),
as does the search operation for looking up the entries in Table 4
indexed by the classes of the L block and the U block
respectively.
Ex. 1003 ¶ 140. We find this opinion to be logical and reasonable and well-
supported by the cited evidence, so we give it substantial weight.
Second, Patent Owner argues that “the now-alleged expressions (f1)
‘represent[ing]’ the class mapping fail anyway because f1 is not used if the
intra mode determined for the neighboring block is the non-directional
mode.” PO Sur-Reply 9. Patent Owner contends that “Kalevo’s non-
directional classes D8, D9, and D10 respectively correspond to flat, smooth
texture, and coarse texture block features.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 41).
Patent Owner asserts “[t]hese are—as Petitioner correctly states—‘non-
directional classes,’ NOT non-directional intra modes.” Id. Finally, Patent
Owner argues that
Even if a flat block is typically predicted in a DC mode, it is not
itself an intra mode and does not characterize an intra mode
(unlike directionalities of prediction). Thus, f1 does not
constitute a first set of mathematical expressions used if a non-
directional intra mode is determined for a neighboring block.
Id. at 10.
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
28
We have reviewed the evidence cited by Patent Owner and it does not
sufficiently support the broad assertion that Kalevo’s non-directional classes
are not non-directional intra modes. Dr. Freedman, on the other hand, has
repeatedly and consistently testified that non-directional classes of Kalevo
are non-directional intra modes. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 140. Patent Owner
does not point us to any cross examination testimony of Dr. Freedman or
even any testimony of Dr. Reader on this point. Without sufficient evidence
or persuasive argument to rebut it, we give Dr. Freedman’s testimony that
the non-directional classes of Kalevo are non-directional intra modes,
substantial weight.
Patent Owner’s remaining arguments center on its contention that the
preamble is limiting, and the claimed method must be performed by a
decoder. PO Resp. 18–24. Patent Owner asserts that some of the Petition’s
identified mathematical expressions (e.g., Kalevo’s equation for calculating
gradients, see Pet. 47–48) are only used for determining the neighboring
block’s intra mode (limitation [1.1]), not determining the current block’s
intra-mode (limitations [1.2], [1.8]). See PO Resp. 25–30. However, even
accepting that the preamble is limiting and the method must be performed by
a decoder, we find that Petitioner’s so-called “third” theory maps claim 1 to
steps performed by the decoder. Pet. Reply 8–15. Accordingly, Patent
Owner’s arguments relating to the “decoder” are not persuasive. Instead, we
determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
the combination of Kalevo and Song account for the claimed “decoding
apparatus” (limitation [1.0]). Pet. 16; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65.
On the entire record and for the reasons explained above, we
determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
29
Kalevo teaches or suggests limitations [1.8]–[1.10]. Patent Owner raises no
other arguments for claim 1. See generally PO Resp. (arguing only with
respect to claim 1 and only with respect to limitations [1.8]–[1.10] and the
preamble). We have reviewed the arguments and evidence as to remaining
limitations of claim 1 and the motivation to combine Kalevo and Song, and
we determine that the Petition has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the combination of Kalevo and Song teaches or suggests each
limitation and that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
combine Kalevo and Song in the manner suggested. Therefore, we adopt
Petitioner’s contentions regarding limitations [1.1]–[1.7] and the motivation
to combine Kalevo and Song (Pet. 16–38) as our own. Accordingly, we
determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
claim 1 would have been unpatentable as obvious over the combination of
Kalevo and Song.
d. Conclusion
Based on our review of Petitioner’s argument and evidence of record,
and for all the reasons expressed above, we conclude that Petitioner has
established by a preponderance of evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable as
obvious over Kalevo and Song.

2. Dependent Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and further recites
wherein determining the intra mode for the current block
comprises: determining candidate intra modes based on whether
the intra mode for the neighboring block is the directional mode
or the non-directional mode; and selecting the intra mode for the
current block among the candidate intra modes.
Ex. 1001, 12:10–18.
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
30
Petitioner relies on its arguments regarding claim 1, described above,
and further relies on Kalevo’s description of determining a “subset of
prediction methods . . . according to the context information of the
neighbouring blocks L, U,” as shown in Table 4 of Kalevo. Pet. 58–60;
Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 78, 143. According to Petitioner, Kalevo describes that “[e]ach
row of Table 4 defines the prediction method subset for a certain pair of
context classes for neighbouring blocks L, U…” and that “each combination
of context classes for the neighboring blocks of a current block results in a
subset of six possible prediction methods, or candidate intra modes, for the
current block.” Pet. 58 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 78); Ex. 1004 ¶ 143. Kalevo
then “select[s] the prediction method from a subset of prediction methods.”
Ex. 1004 ¶ 143. Petitioner also relies on the testimony of Dr. Freedman in
support of its arguments. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 164–168.
Patent Owner raises no separate arguments for claim 4. See generally
PO Resp. (arguing only with respect to claim 1). We have reviewed the
arguments and evidence as to claim 4, and we determine that the Petition has
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Kalevo
and Song teaches or suggests each limitation. Therefore, we adopt
Petitioner’s contentions regarding claim 4 (Pet. 58–60) as our own.
Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of
the evidence that claim 4 would have been unpatentable as obvious over the
combination of Kalevo and Song.

IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
31
3. Summary
For all the reasons expressed above, we conclude that Petitioner has
shown by a preponderance of evidence that the combination of Kalevo and
Song renders claims 1 and 4 unpatentable as obvious under § 103(a).

G. MOTION TO AMEND
1. Proposed Substitute Claim 19
Proposed substitute claim 19 is independent. Claim 19 is proposed as
a substitute for claim 1 in the event we find claim 1 unpatentable, and claim
19 is set out below, showing added language underlined and deleted
language struck out in comparison to challenged claim 1.
[19.Pre] [[1. ]]19. A video decoding method performed by a
video decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
[19.1] determining an intra mode for a neighboring block of a
current block;
[19.2] determining an intra mode for the current block based on
whether the intra mode for the neighboring block is a
directional mode or a non-directional mode;
[19.3] performing intra-prediction according to the intra mode
for the current block to generate a prediction block for
the current block;
[19.4] obtaining quantization coefficients from an input
bitstream;
[19.5] dequantizing the quantization coefficients to generate
transform coefficients;
[19.6] transforming the transform coefficients to a residual
block for the current block; and
[19.7] adding the prediction block and the residual block to
reconstruct the current block,
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
32
[19.8] wherein the intra mode for the current block is
determined by using a first set of one or more
mathematical expressions, if the intra mode for the
neighboring block is the non-directional mode,
[19.9] wherein the intra mode for the current block is
determined by using a second set of one or more
mathematical expressions, if the intra mode for the
neighboring block is the directional mode,[[ and]]
[19.10] wherein the second set of one or more mathematical
expressions is different from the first set of one or more
mathematical expressions[[.]],
[19.11] wherein the second set used by the video decoding
apparatus in response to the intra mode for the
neighboring block being determined as the directional
mode comprises a mathematical expression that is not
included in the first set, and the first set used by the video
decoding apparatus in response to the intra mode for the
neighboring block being determined as the non-
directional mode comprises a different mathematical
expression that is not included in the second set,
[19.12] wherein the mathematical expression included in the
second set and not included in the first set corresponds to
an arithmetic operation between two values in order to
yield a third value, and
[19.13] wherein the intra mode determined for the neighboring
block is represented by an integer among a plurality of
predetermined integers, the plurality of predetermined
integers commonly identifying intra modes available to
be determined for the neighboring block and the current
block, and all the intra modes available to be determined
for the neighboring block are same as all the intra modes
available to be determined for the current block.
Rev. Mot. Amend, App’x A.

IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
33
2. Principles of Law
In an inter partes review, amended claims are not added to a patent as
of right, but rather must be proposed as a part of a motion to amend. 35
U.S.C. § 316(d) (2018). The Board must assess the patentability of
proposed substitute claims “without placing the burden of persuasion on the
patent owner.” Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290, 1328 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (en banc); see also Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-
01129, Paper 15 at 3–4 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential). Subsequent to
the issuance of Aqua Products, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in
Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. Matal, 878 F.3d 1027 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (“Bosch”), as well as a follow-up Order amending that decision on
rehearing. See Bosch Auto. Serv. Sols., LLC v. Iancu, No. 2015-1928 (Fed.
Cir. Mar. 15, 2018) (Order on Petition for Panel Rehearing). In accordance
with Aqua Products, Bosch, and Lectrosonics, a patent owner does not bear
the burden of persuasion to demonstrate the patentability of the substitute
claims presented in the motion to amend. Rather, ordinarily, “the petitioner
bears the burden of proving that the proposed amended claims are
unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Bosch, 878 F.3d at 1040
(as amended on rehearing); see Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 3–4. In
determining whether a petitioner has proven unpatentability of the substitute
claims, the Board focuses on “arguments and theories raised by the
petitioner in its petition or opposition to the motion to amend.” Nike, Inc. v.
Adidas AG, 955 F.3d 45, 51 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims, however, must meet the
statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and the procedural
requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 4–8.
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
34
Accordingly, Patent Owner must demonstrate: (1) the amendment proposes
a reasonable number of substitute claims; (2) the proposed claims are
supported in the original disclosure (and any earlier filed disclosure for
which the benefit of filing date is sought); (3) the amendment responds to
aground of unpatentability involved in the trial; and (4) the amendment does
not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new
subject matter. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121.

3. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Below we address whether Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims
meet the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and the procedural
requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 recited above. We address each of these
requirements in turn.
a. Reasonable Number of Substitute Claims
A motion to amend must “propose a reasonable number of substitute
claims.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1)(B); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3) (“A motion
to amend may cancel a challenged claim or propose a reasonable number of
substitute claims.”). Patent Owner proposes one substitute claim for
challenged claim 1. Rev. Mot. Amend 2. “There is a rebuttable
presumption that a reasonable number of substitute claims per challenged
claim is one (1) substitute claim.” Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 4; see 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.121(a)(3). Petitioner does not argue otherwise. See generally Opp.
Therefore, we determine that Patent Owner proposes a reasonable number of
substitute claims.
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
35
b. Respond to a Ground of Unpatentability
“A motion to amend may be denied where . . . [t]he amendment does
not respond to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial.” 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.121(a)(2)(i). Patent Owner asserts that the proposed substitute claim is
patentable over the combination of references that forms the basis of the
obviousness ground on which we instituted trial. Rev. Mot. Amend 12–19.
Petitioner does not argue otherwise. See generally Opp. We determine that
the amended language in the proposed substitute claim is responsive to a
ground of unpatentability involved in this trial.
c. Scope of the Claim
Patent Owner asserts that the substitute claim is narrower than the
corresponding original claim. Rev. Mot. Amend 2. Petitioner does not
argue otherwise. We determine that the proposed substitute claim is
narrower in scope than original claim 1.
d. Support in the Original Disclosure
A motion to amend may not present substitute claims that introduce
new subject matter. 35 U.S.C. § 316(d); 37 C.F.R. § 41.121(a)(2)(ii). New
matter is any addition to the claims without support in the original
disclosure. See TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomach. v. Gen.
Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“When [an] applicant adds
a claim . . . the new claim[] . . . must find support in the original
specification.”). To evaluate compliance with the prohibition on
amendments that add new matter,
the Board requires that a motion to amend set forth written
description support in the originally filed disclosure of the
subject patent for each proposed substitute claim, and also set
forth support in an earlier filed disclosure for each claim for
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
36
which benefit of the filing date of the earlier filed disclosure is
sought.
Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 7.
The revised MTA provides a listing of purported written description
support in the originally filed disclosures for the proposed substitute claim,
namely, that the claim is supported by the original application of the ‘849
Patent, U.S. Patent Application No. 15/260,240 (“the ‘240 Application,”
Ex. 2014), as well as the parent U.S. Patent Application No. 12/977,928
(“the ‘928 Application,” Ex. 2015) and Korean Priority Application No. 10-
2009-0134017 (“the KR Application,” Ex. 2018). Rev. Mot. Amend 3–11.
With respect to limitation [19.1], “determining an intra mode for a
neighboring block of a current block,” Patent Owner cites the ’240
Application (Exhibit 2014) at 18:1–20:2 and the ’928 Application (Exhibit
2015)6 at 18:1–20:2 as alleged support for this limitation.
Petitioner argues that substitute claim 19 is also not supported by the
written description of the ’849 Patent, and as such, is unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 112. Opp. 12–25. In particular, Petitioner contends that at least
limitation [19.1] of substitute claim 19 is not supported by the ’240
Application. Opp. 13. Petitioner argues that a POSITA would not have
understood that the inventors were in possession of, and actually invented,
the invention in substitute claim 19, because “the ’240 Application does not
determine an intra mode for a neighboring block of a current block and does
not describe an invention that relies on a determined intra mode for a
neighboring block of a current block and does not describe an invention that

6 The citations to the ’928 Application are identical to those for the ’240
Application and the text is the same between the two; for ease of reference,
we hereafter cite only to the ’240 Application.
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
37
relies on a determined intra mode for a neighboring block.” Id. Petitioner
submits that “at best, the ’240 Application discloses an exploratory process
by which multiple intra modes for the neighboring block are evaluated, but it
never describes, consistent with the written description standard, a process
that includes determining the intra mode of the neighboring block.” Id. at
13–14.
To satisfy § 112, the written description must “clearly allow persons
of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is
claimed.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (internal citations and quotations omitted). This standard requires
evaluation of “whether the disclosure of the application relied upon
reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had
possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. In other
words, “the specification must describe an invention understandable to that
skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention
claimed.” Id.
Patent Owner responds that the specification provides an example in
which i that is used in Equation 2 is the “intra mode number” for the
neighboring block and is determined as 0 through 8 in the process of setting
the intra mode for the current block. PO Reply 10. Patent Owner argues
that Petitioner’s argument relies on Petitioner’s interpretation of
“determining,” which is incorrect. Id. Patent Owner submits that the proper
interpretation of “determining” should include “specifying or identifying a
value.” Id. at 11. Patent Owner asserts that this definition is consistent with
the Specification and prosecution history. In particular, Patent Owner points
to the prosecution of a continuation of the ’849 patent, U.S. Application
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
38
No. 15/447,055, which includes similar claim language to proposed
substitute claim 19. Id. Patent Owner notes that in order to overcome a
§ 112 rejection and obtain an Allowance, the Applicant pointed to i in
Equation 2 as an embodiment of the intra mode “determin[ed]” for the
neighboring block. Id. at 12 (citing Ex. 1007, 156, 162–163). Moreover,
Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s construction is incorrect because it
would exclude a preferred embodiment. Id. Thus, Patent Owner concludes
that
a POSITA would understand an example of the claimed
determining is disclosed in the specification with reference to
specifying or identifying (i.e., determining) a value for i (“the
intra mode number” for the neighboring block). Per this
example, “[w]henever the neighboring block intra mode, i, for
the cost function is determined as a directional mode (i = 0, 1, 3-
8), the decoder chooses to apply the directional equation that
leverages that directional property” and “[w]henever the
neighbor block intra mode, i, for the cost function is determined
as a non-directional mode (2), the decoder chooses to use the DC
intra mode equation that calculates an average without
directionality.”
Id. (quoting Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 17, 19).
The ’240 application discloses that a mode selector selects “a mode
suitable for a current block from along a plurality of intra modes using
directionality of neighboring blocks of the current block.” Ex. 2014, 18:2–3
(emphasis added). The ’240 application further discloses:
First, the mode selector 210 or 540 calculates a cost Ci, with
respect to a specific directionality i by means of a sum (or an
average) of deviations according to the directionalities using
Equation 2 below.
[Equation 2]
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
39
𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖 = �𝐷𝐷𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
𝑛𝑛−1
𝑖𝑖=0

In Equation 2, n is the number of pixel pairs k for calculating the
deviation, i is the intra mode number, and Dik is the deviation
between the pixel pairs k corresponding to the specific
directionality i. The symbol n may be selected by another
number depending on an embodiment. In example embodiments
of the present invention, the description will be made on the
assumption that n is set to 12.
Ex. 2014, 18:9–18 (emphasis added).
In the ’240 Application, “a cost Ci with respect to a specific
directionality i” is calculated using Equation 2 for each candidate intra
mode; for example, the “cost C0 of the vertical direction” (mode 0) “is
obtained by selecting 12 pixel pairs in the vertical direction from among
adjacent pixels of the neighboring blocks.” Ex. 2014, 18:19–22. After the
cost C0 for the candidate intra vertical mode is calculated, the ’240
Application describes calculating the cost for the other intra modes
numbered 1 through 8, such that costs C0 through C8 are ultimately
determined. See Ex. 2014, 19:3–4, 19:12–15; 19:21–23; Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 72–73.
After this process, the ’240 Application has nine cost values,
corresponding to nine directionality scenarios for pixels in the neighboring
blocks. See Ex. 2014, 20:3–7. The ’240 Application explains that, because
it describes that “mode selector 210 or 540 can calculate the costs Ci of a
total of nine intra modes . . . and then select one having a minimum cost
from among the intra modes” and it clarifies that this cost calculation is done
“to select the intra mode suitable for the current block.” Ex. 2014, 20:3–9
(emphasis added); see id. at 25:10–15 (original claim 8, describing
calculating costs “on a plurality of directions in the at least one neighboring
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
40
block” and selecting “an intra mode” for the current block); Ex. 2017 ¶ 20
(explaining the process uses the smallest cost value as the intra mode of the
current block); Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 72, 73 (describing the process shown in Figures
7A–7H); Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 65, 66 (describing how the cost calculation iterates
through the nine hypothetical intra modes).
Patent Owner does not dispute this description of the operation of the
process described in the ’240 Application, but it does dispute the meaning of
the variable “i”. PO Reply 10; see also Opp. 16 n.9 (discussing the parties
dispute). In the Preliminary Guidance, we assumed that the variable i in the
passage describing Equation 2 (see supra at 42) corresponds to both the
directionality and the intra mode of the neighboring block. See Prelim.
Guid. 7. Based, in part, on that assumption, we determined that Patent
Owner had met the statutory and regulatory requirements for a motion to
amend and that, on the initial record, Petitioner had not shown a reasonable
likelihood that the claim limitation [19.1] (which was the same as the current
version of limitation [19.1] lacked written description support. See id. Upon
review of the entire record, we agree with Petitioner that the variable i in
Equation 2 refers to the intra mode of the current block, not the intra mode
of the neighboring block as we preliminarily determined and Patent Owner
contends.
The fundamental problem with Patent Owner’s analysis, and where
we went astray in our Preliminary Guidance, begins with Patent Owner’s
assertion that the ’240 Application uses “directionality” and “intra mode”
synonymously. Ex. 2001 ¶ 58; Ex. 2017 ¶ 14. Instead, our detailed review
of the ’240 Application on this complete record shows that the two terms are
not synonymous—they are closely related, but not the same. For example,
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
41
in the Related Art section, the ’240 Application describes H.264 having
“nine prediction modes including a total of eight modes (modes 0, 1, and 3
through 8) having directionality.” Ex. 2014, 3:10–13. Also, in the
Summary of the Invention the ’240 Application states
The performing an intra-prediction according to a directionality
of the selected intra mode to reconstruct the current block may
includes: obtaining a prediction block of the current block from
the at least one neighboring block according to the directionality
of the selected mode; and reconstructing the current block by
adding the residual signal of the current block and the prediction
block.
Ex. 2014, 7:24–8:4 (emphasis added). Again and again, the ’240
Application makes clear that directionality and intra mode are related, but
distinct concepts. They are not interchangeable as Patent Owner argues.
On this point, we find Dr. Freedman’s explanation in Paragraph 68 of
his Third Declaration on the relationship between “intra mode” and
“directionality” to be particularly well-reasoned and persuasive. As
Dr. Freedman explains
Throughout the ’240 Application, the text uses the term
“directionality” to refer to characteristics of neighboring blocks,
whereas the term “intra mode” is used when referring to the
current block. For example, the ’240 Application describes that
“directionality” of neighboring blocks is “estimated from the
neighboring blocks” that “have already been reconstructed”
while the “intra mode” is selected for the current block for
purposes of reconstructing that current block. See, e.g., ’240
Application (Ex-2014), 11:14–12:4, 25:10–15. This is likely
because the neighboring blocks “have already been
reconstructed” and thus, the intra mode number that was used in
reconstructing those blocks is no longer pertinent. Instead, what
is pertinent in the ’240 Application’s method is the directionality
characteristic of those neighboring blocks. Phrased differently,
in the ’240 Application, directionality is a concept that is
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
42
evaluated after performance of intra prediction (i.e., after
reconstruction), whereas the intra mode or number is a concept
used during performance of intra prediction. . . . They are not
equivalent in the context of the ’240 Application. . . .
Ex. 1035 ¶ 68 (footnote omitted). This is further supported by evidence
cited by Dr. Freedman that other references in this field make a similar
distinction between directionality and intra mode. Id. ¶ 68 n.4 (citing
Ex. 1032, Abstract). Thus, we agree with Dr. Freedman that these terms are
not “synonymous” as Dr. Reader and Patent Owner contend.
This error infects Patent Owner’s and Dr. Reader’s entire written
description analysis and leads to the second more significant error, i.e., that
the ’240 Application says that the variable i is the intra mode of the
neighboring block. See Opp. 18–19; Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 14–20 (analysis relying on
the assumption that directionality and intra mode are the same). With the
proper understanding of “intra mode” and “directionality,” we agree with
Petitioner and Dr. Freedman that “the variable i does not refer to the intra
mode of a neighboring block. According to Dr. Freedman, a POSITA would
instead have understood the variable i to refer to the intra mode that is to be
determined for the current block that is undergoing the decoding process.”
Ex. 1035 ¶ 63.
This makes sense. Patent Owner’s contention that i is the “intra mode
number” for the neighboring block, begs a number of questions. See
Opp. 20; Ex. 2017 ¶ 14; PO Reply 12. For instance, if i is the intra mode of
the neighboring block, which neighboring block? A review of any of
Figures 7A–7H illustrates why this question exposes the flaws in Patent
Owner’s and Dr. Reader’s analysis. For example, Figure 7A of the ’240
Application illustrates the cost calculation for mode 0.
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
43

Figure 7A shows an example of calculating the cost of a vertical direction.
As the ’240 Application explains
The cost C0 of the vertical direction is obtained by selecting 12
pixel pairs in the vertical direction from among adjacent pixels
of the neighboring blocks of the current block, and calculating a
sum of deviations with respect to each pixel pair as in Equation 2.
Ex. 2014, 18:19–23. As Figure 7A illustrates, the cost calculation centers on
the current block, not the neighboring blocks, which is unusual if i is the
intra mode of a neighboring block. Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 75–77; see Opp. 19.
Moreover, as shown in Figure 7A, the pixel pairs selected of the neighboring
blocks spans four different neighboring blocks. Patent Owner never explains
which of these four blocks the variable i is supposedly representing. Given
this disclosure, we find Dr. Freedman’s testimony in Paragraph 66 of his
Third Declaration to be persuasive in how this process works
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
44
In other words, the ’240 Application’s technique of determining,
or selecting, the intra mode suitable for the current block
evaluates nine hypothetical scenarios for the current block,
where each scenario corresponds to an intra mode. Each scenario
evaluates a different arrangement of pixel pairs in neighboring
blocks to determine the cost associated with applying the
scenario to the current block, using Equations 2 and 3. That is to
say, the cost Ci is the cost associated with using the intra mode i
for the current block. Thus, for example, if the vertical intra mode
(mode 0) is determined to be applied to the current block, that
means that the cost C0 was the lowest cost out of the costs C0
through C. See Ex-1022, 28:20–24. If the non-directional mode
(mode 2) is determined to be applied to the current block, that
means that the cost C2 was the lowest cost out of the costs C0
through C8. See id. at 28:21–29:6.
Ex. 1035 ¶ 66. This is shown in this flowchart Dr. Freedman provided in his
second declaration and reproduced below.

Above is a flow chart provided by Dr. Freedman illustrating the algorithm to
determine intra mode used in the ’240 Application. Opp. 21; Ex. 1021 ¶ 88.
Patent Owner and Dr. Reader offer no persuasive argument to rebut this
interpretation. Given the flaws and holes we have identified in Dr. Reader’s
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
45
testimony, we find that it is entitled little weight on the question of whether
the ’240 Application supports limitation [19.1] of proposed substitute claim
19. Instead, relying on Dr. Freedman’s persuasive testimony and based on
this correct interpretation of the process described in the ’240 Application,
we determine that a preponderance of the evidence shows that limitation
[19.1] is not supported by the ’240 Application, as filed. See Ex. 1021
¶¶ 69–80; Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 60–79. We further find that, given what we see now
as the correct interpretation of the variable i, we determine that Patent
Owner has failed to carry its burden of showing that the proposed
replacement claim 19 does not add new matter.7 See Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 69–80;
Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 60–79; 35 U.S.C. § 316(d); 37 C.F.R. § 41.121(a)(2)(ii).8
We write further to explain why even under our prior, incorrect
interpretation of the variable i, as denoting the intra mode of the neighboring

7 As for Patent Owner’s contentions regarding the prosecution of the related
application (PO Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1007, 156)), we agree with
Petitioner that the rejection in that child application involved indefiniteness
and not written description and is, therefore, unpersuasive. Pet. Sur-Reply 2.
8 Patent Owner contends that it is somehow improper for Petitioner to raise a
contention that limitation [19.1] lacks written description support. PO Reply
10. We agree with Petitioner that there is nothing improper with Petitioner
maintaining arguments it believes to be meritorious or where we might have
misapprehended arguments in the original opposition. We further see
nothing improper with it challenging limitations that might have been in the
original challenged claims. The proposed substitute claims stand or fall on
their own and may be challenged on other possible grounds of
unpatentability. See Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Prisua Eng‘g Corp., 948
F.3d 1342, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“the Board’s authority with respect to new
and amended claims necessarily extends to other possible grounds of
unpatentability, in particular, a failure to comply with section 112.”);
Amazon.com, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-00948, Paper 34 at
5 (PTAB Jan. 18, 2019) (precedential).
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
46
block, we determine that Patent Owner has not shown that proposed
substitute claim 19, and in particular limitation [19.1], has written
description support.9
In its Opposition, Petitioner argues that, under the proper construction,
limitation [19.1] of proposed substitute claim 19 requires “a conclusive
establishment of a singular intra mode for a neighboring block.” Opp. 16.
Petitioner contends that “[t]he ’240 Application does not conclusively
establish a singular intra mode of a neighboring block according to [this]
interpretation . . . , and thus, the ’240 Application does not provide written
description support for this claim limitation.” Id. Petitioner argues that the
’240 Application describes evaluating nine hypothetical directionality
scenarios for the pixels of neighboring blocks, each of which corresponds to
one of nine intra modes to be used for the current block, performing cost
calculations for each of those nine hypothetical directionality scenarios, and
picking one of the nine intra modes for the current block based on its
associated cost. Id. at 16–18 (citing Ex. 1022, 27:11–13). Petitioner asserts
that, “in this process, there is no conclusive establishment of a singular intra
mode for a neighboring block.” Id. at 18.
Patent Owner argues that this contention depends on Petitioner’s
interpretation of “determining.” PO Reply 10. Patent Owner contends that
the proper interpretation of “determining” includes “specifying or
identifying a value.” Id. at 11. Patent Owner contends that “POSITA would

9 For this section, we analyze whether Patent Owner has shown written
description support for proposed substitute claim 19 using our incorrect
interpretation in the Preliminary Guidance that the variable i in the ’240
Application corresponds to the intra mode of the neighboring block.
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
47
understand an example of the claimed determining is disclosed in the
specification with reference to specifying or identifying (i.e., determining) a
value for i (‘the intra mode number’ for the neighboring block).” Id. at 12.
Patent Owner argues that “[p]er this example, ‘[w]henever the neighboring
block intra mode, i, for the cost function is determined as a directional mode
(i = 0, 1, 3-8), the decoder chooses to apply the directional equation that
leverages that directional property’ and ‘[w]henever the neighbor block intra
mode, i, for the cost function is determined as a non-directional mode (2),
the decoder chooses to use the DC intra mode equation that calculates an
average without directionality.’” Id. (citing Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 17, 19).
As explained above, the ’240 Application describes evaluating nine
hypothetical directionality scenarios for the pixels of neighboring blocks,
each of which corresponds to one of nine intra modes to be used for the
current block, performing cost calculations for each of those nine
hypothetical directionality scenarios, and picking one of the nine intra modes
for the current block based on its associated cost. See Ex. 1022, 27:11–13.
We find that even under Patent Owner’s interpretation of the variable i in
Equation 2, we agree with Petitioner that in the process described in the ’240
Application, there is no “determination” of a singular intra mode for a
neighboring block. See Opp. 16–25; Pet. Sur-Reply 1–6. This is true even
under Patent Owner’s construction of “determining” as “specifying or
identifying a value.” See Pet. Sur-Reply 1–2. In particular, the ’240
Application does not “specify” or “identify” (or “determine”) a single intra
mode for the neighboring block—it merely examines the separate concept of
directionality among pixel pairs in the neighboring block. Ex. 2014, 18:9–
18. We agree with Petitioner, as explained above, see supra pp. 42–44,
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
48
there is no determination of a single intra mode for the neighboring block,
but instead, the intra modes are hypothetical scenarios for application to the
current block while calculating costs with respect to neighboring block pixel
pairs—thus, no intra mode used to decode a neighboring block is needed
much less determined. Ex. 1035 ¶ 68. This is shown in the flowchart
Dr. Freedman provided in his second declaration that we reproduced supra.
Even under the incorrect interpretation of the variable i, the flow chart
demonstrates that no intra mode is specified for the neighboring blocks.
Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 62–67. Instead, we agree with Petitioner that the ’240
Application never specifies a single intra mode of the neighboring block—it
evaluates nine hypothetical intra mode scenarios corresponding to the
neighboring blocks’ pixels, but never determines the intra mode of a
neighboring block: the mode selector 540 always “calculate[s] the costs Ci
of a total of nine intra modes” (Ex. 2014, 20:3–5); it does not limit its cost
calculation to one of (or a subset of) those intra modes, based on the intra
mode of a neighboring block. Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 89–90; Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 73–74.
We also agree with Petitioner that this distinction can also be
explained based on the following hypothetical arrangement of blocks as
depicted below.
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
49

A cartoon showing a current block, an upper neighbor block (having intra
mode 2), and a left neighbor block (having intra mode 0). Opp. 23. Here,
one neighboring block was predicted in a directional mode (mode 0, the
vertical direction), with another neighboring block being predicted in the
nondirectional mode (mode 2). Id. But the mode used for either
neighboring block is of no moment and is never actually specified or
identified. Id. According to the disclosure of the ’240 Application, in this
example, to determine the intra mode to apply to the Current Block, the
decoder calculates costs C0 through C8, using Equations 2 and 3, for each
intra prediction mode 0 through 8 to determine the appropriate intra
prediction mode for the Current Block. Id. (citing Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 91–92;
Ex. 2014, 20:3–7; Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 76–77). We find Dr. Freedman’s testimony
persuasive that the process iterates through all nine hypothetical modes
occurs no matter what the value is for the intra mode for the neighboring
blocks. See Ex. 1021 ¶ 92.
The record evidence shows that the methods of the ’240 Application
do not specify or identify an actual intra mode of the neighboring block;
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
50
rather, the methods must always evaluate each of the 9 scenarios. Ex. 1021
¶ 95; Ex. 2014, 20:3–7; Ex. 1035 ¶ 78. Thus, the ’240 Application does not
describe the determination of a neighboring block’s intra mode, under either
party’s construction or under either the correct interpretation of the process
described in the ’240 Application or our prior, incorrect interpretation.
Thus, we determine that Petitioner has shown by preponderance of the
evidence that the ’240 Application does not support limitation [19.1].
Accordingly, we find that claim 19 fails to satisfy the requirement that a
proposed substitute claim not introduce new matter over the originally filed
application.

III. CONCLUSION
In summary,
Claim(s)
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)
Claim(s)
Shown
Unpatentable
Claim(s) Not
Shown
Unpatentable
1, 4 103 Kalevo, Song 1, 4
Overall Outcome 1, 4
Motion to Amend Outcome Claim
Substitute Claims Proposed in the Amendment 19
Substitute Claims: Motion to Amend Granted
Substitute Claims: Motion to Amend Denied 19
Substitute Claims: Not Reached

IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
51
IV. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is:
ORDERED that Petitioner has shown based on a preponderance of
evidence that claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,641,843 B2 are
unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to
Amend is denied; and
FURTHER ORDERED because this is a final written decision, the
parties to this proceeding seeking judicial review of our Decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
52
PETITIONER:
Raghav Bajaj
David McCombs
Ohathan Bowser
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
Raghav.bajaj.ipr@haynesboone.com
David.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
Jon.bowser.ipr@haynesboone.com

Roshan Mansinghani
Ashraf Fawzy
UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
roshan@unifiedpatents.com
afawzy@usnifiedpatents.com

PATENT OWNER:

William H. Mandir
Fadi Kiblawi
John R. Rabena
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
wmandir@sughrue.com
fkiblawi@sughrue.com
jrabena@sughrue.com
IPR2020-00702
Patent 9,641,849 B2
53