Velos Media, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 17, 2020

IPR2019-00635 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2020)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 45
571-272-7822 Date: August 18, 2020

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
Petitioner

v.

VELOS MEDIA, LLC,
Patent Owner.
____________

IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2
____________

Before CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, JASON W. MELVIN,
and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1
A. Background ........................................................................... 1
B. Related Matters...................................................................... 1
C. The ’824 Patent...................................................................... 1
D. The Challenged Claim............................................................ 5
E. Evidence Relied Upon............................................................ 6
1. Tu................................................................................ 6
2. Zhao ............................................................................ 8
3. Fuldseth ....................................................................... 9
4. Huang ........................................................................ 10
F. Grounds of Unpatentability .................................................. 11
II. ANALYSIS................................................................................... 12
A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................... 12
B. Claim Construction .............................................................. 12
1. “location” and “location information” ......................... 14
2. “frame of said video”.................................................. 15
3. “slice”........................................................................ 18
4. “tile” .......................................................................... 21
5. “first information indicating whether
location information . . . is transmitted” ....................... 22
C. Obviousness ........................................................................ 25
1. Grounds Based on Tu ................................................. 26
a. The Combination .............................................. 26
b. Patent Owner Arguments .................................. 27
i. “a frame of said video that
includes at least one slice” ....................... 27
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

ii
ii. “first information indicating
whether location
information . . . is transmitted”................. 30
c. Conclusion Regarding Tu and Zhao................... 31
2. Grounds Based on Zhao.............................................. 32
a. Zhao Alone ...................................................... 32
b. Zhao and Fuldseth ............................................ 32
c. Zhao and Huang ............................................... 33
D. Constitutionality .................................................................. 35
E. Real Party in Interest ............................................................ 35
III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 37
IV. ORDER ........................................................................................ 38

IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Unified Patents (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for inter partes review
of claim 1, the only claim, of U.S. Patent No. 8,767,824 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
’824 patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Velos Media, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a
Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
On August 20, 2019, we instituted an inter partes review of claim 1.
Paper 8 (“Decision”), 20. Patent Owner then filed a Patent Owner Response
(Paper 20, “PO Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 24, “Pet. Reply”),
and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 31, “PO Sur-Reply”). An oral
hearing was held on May 19, 2019, and a transcript of the hearing is
included in the record. Papers 43, 44 (“Tr.”).
The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by
a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 of the ’824 patent is
unpatentable.
B. Related Matters
The parties do not identify any related matters. See Pet. 1; Patent
Owner Mandatory Notices (Paper 5) 2.
C. The ’824 Patent
The ’824 patent is directed to “[a] method for decoding video [that]
includes receiving a frame of the video that includes at least one slice and at
least one tile.” Ex. 1001, Abstract. The patent describes the division of a
frame of video into “macroblocks” and “slices.” For example, Figure 3,
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

2
reproduced below, illustrates the macroblocks of a frame divided into “three
exemplary slices: a first slice denoted ‘SLICE #10’ 100, a second slice
denoted ‘SLICE #1’ 101 and a third slice denoted ‘SLICE #2’ 102.”
Ex. 1001, 3:51–54.

Figure 3 “illustrates an exemplary
slice structure.” Ex. 1001, 1:51.
The patent explains that “[a]n H.264/AVC decoder may decode and
reconstruct the three slices 100, 101, 102 in parallel.” Id. at 3:54–55.
The patent further explains that the slices shown above are called
“reconstruction slices” and “may be self-contained in the respect that values
of the samples in the area of the picture that the reconstruction slice
represents may be correctly reconstructed without use of data from other
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

3
reconstruction slices.” Id. at 4:28–33. Additionally, “[a] reconstruction
slice may be partitioned into more than one entropy slice, wherein an
entropy slice may be self-contained in the respect that symbol values in the
area of the picture that the entropy slice represents may be correctly entropy
decoded without the use of data from other entropy slices.” Id. at 4:37–42.
The patent explains that slices are “computationally efficient” but not
suitable to “highly efficient parallel encoding and decoding” and do not
“tend to group smaller localized regions of the image together that are likely
to have common characteristics highly suitable for coding efficiency.” Ex.
1001, 5:39–44. The inventors address those problems with “a tile
technique” that “divides an image into a set of rectangular . . . regions” (id.
at 5:50–51), as shown in Figure 7:

Figure 7 “illustrates a frame with a
slice and 9 tiles.” Ex. 1001, 1:56.
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

4
In Figure 7, nine tiles are divided by column and row boundaries,
where “[t]he macroblocks . . . within each of the tiles are encoded and
decoded in a raster scan order” and “[t]he arrangement of tiles are likewise
encoded and decoded in a raster scan order.” Ex. 1001, 5:50–55. The patent
also explains that “the frame may define one or more slices, such as the one
slice illustrated in FIG. 7.” Id. at 5:57–58. Figure 7 thus shows a frame with
nine tiles and a single slice.
Figure 8 of the ’824 patent, shown below with added color, depicts a
tile embodiment that “divid[es] an image into a set of three rectangular
columns.” Ex. 1001, 5:64–65.

Figure 8 “illustrates a frame with
three slices and 3 tiles.” Ex. 1001, 1:57.
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

5
The figure shows two (orange and blue) slices within the left tile, and
a third (yellow) slice beginning in the left tile and including the middle and
right tiles.
D. The Challenged Claim
The ’824 patent has one claim:
1. A method for decoding video comprising:
(a) receiving a frame of said video that includes at least one
slice and at least one tile, where each of said at least one slice is
decoded independently of another one of said at least one slice
and includes said at least one tile, wherein said at least one tile
is characterized that it is a rectangular region of said frame and
includes coding units for said decoding arranged in a raster scan
order;
(b) receiving first information indicating whether location
information of said at least one tile is transmitted within said at
least one slice; and
(c) receiving second information suitable for decoding said at
least one tile, said second information including a location of
said at least one tile.
Ex. 1001, 13:11–25.
The claim notably requires “receiving a frame of . . . video that
includes at least one slice and at least one tile,” where “each of said at least
one slice” (i) “is decoded independently of another one of said at least one
slice” and (ii) “includes said at least one tile.” The Figure 7 embodiment has
just one slice, not multiple slices that are “decoded independently,” and the
Figure 8 embodiment shows three slices, two of which do not appear to
“include” a tile.
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

6
E. Evidence Relied Upon
Petitioner relies on the following references:
Reference Exhibit
Zhao US 2009/0245349 A1 1003
Fuldseth US 2012/0183074 Al 1004
Huang US 2010/0135416 Al 1005
Tu US 2007/0280345 Al 1006
Petitioner also relies on Declarations of Lina Karam, filed as Exhibits
1002 and 1037. Patent Owner relies on a Declaration of Iain Richardson,
filed as Exhibit 2016.
1. Tu
Tu concerns a technique for “organizing a bitstream of compressed
data that represents an image,” where “[t]he image may be partitioned into
independently decodable regions.” Ex. 1006, Abstract. In particular, Tu
describes how “macroblocks may be grouped into regular structures called
tiles.” Id. ¶ 30. This is shown, for example, in Figure 2, below, in which
“tile boundaries 208, 210, 212 and 214 divide the image 200 into eight
tiles.” Id. ¶ 30.
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

7

Figure 2 “is a block diagram illustrating
an image that is partitioned.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 10.
Tu also describes “two fundamental modes of operation affecting the
structure of the bitstream––a spatial mode and a frequency mode,” where
“[a] one-bit signal in the image header 802 specifies which of the modes is
used.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 53. “In both the modes, the bitstream is laid out as a
header, followed by a sequence of tiles.” Id. ¶ 53.
Tu’s Figure 11, shown below, “illustrates the packetization and
indexing of a bitstream 1100.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 60.

Figure 11 “is a block diagram illustrating . . .
packetization and indexing of a bitstream.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 19.
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

8
The bitstream “includes an image header 1102, which contains a
variety of information needed to decode the bitstream,” including “a table of
pointers referred to as an index table 1104.” Id. ¶ 60. Tu explains that
“[t]he index table 1104 is optional if the number of tiles is one and the
spatial mode is used”; “[o]therwise, the index table 1104 is mandatory.” Id.
¶ 61. The index table includes “a sequence of pointers known as tile
pointers 1106” that “index from the origin 1112 and provide offsets from the
origin 1112 to respective tiles.” Id. The bitstream 1100 also “includes
image data 1114, which is organized in accordance with the . . . tiling” and
“[e]ach tile in an image is placed in a separate data segment called packet.”
Id. ¶ 62. In Figure 11, “the image data 1114 includes a first packet 1116,
which contains data for a first tile” and “a second packet 1118, which
contains data for a second tile.” Id.
2. Zhao
Zhao, which includes an inventor also named in the ’824 patent,
“relate[s] to systems and methods for parallel video encoding and decoding,”
and its Figure 5, reproduced below, “shows an exemplary video frame 110
comprising eleven macro blocks in the horizontal direction and nine
macroblocks in the vertical direction.” Ex. 1003, Abstract, ¶ 44.
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

9

Figure 5 shows a picture partitioned into
“reconstruction slice[s]” with a reconstruction slice
“partitioned into more than one entropy slice.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 14.
This figure, which is similar to Figure 3 of the ’824 patent, shows “three
exemplary reconstruction slices,” R_SLICE #0, R_SLICE #1, and R_SLICE
#2. Ex. 1003 ¶ 44. It “further shows a partitioning of the second
reconstruction slice . . . into three entropy slices,” denoted by different types
of cross hatching and reference numbers 114, 115, and 116. Id.
Zhao and the ’824 patent thus both describe partitioning an image into
reconstruction slices and partitioning the reconstruction slices into entropy
slices. Zhao does not use the term “tiles.”
3. Fuldseth
Fuldseth “introduces the notion of ‘tiles’ to exploit the two
dimensional dependencies between blocks while also supporting the
exploitation of multiple processors, if available in the encoder, to
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

10
simultaneously perform encoding operations on multiple tiles.” Ex. 1004
¶ 45. Figure 3a, reproduced below, “shows an arrangement of 2x3 tiles”
where “[b]locks having a same letter belong to a common tile and therefore
are best suitable for being processed with one processing core.” Id. ¶ 54.

Figure 3a “show[s] a layout
relationship between encoder processing
order and transmission order.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 40.
4. Huang
Huang describes the use of a “plurality of entropy slices with a causal
criterion on processing order.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 26. Using a “causal criterion on
processing order” means processing the macroblocks within an entropy slice
in an order that is based on the shape of the macroblock. See id. ¶ 30. This
is shown, for example, in Figure 3, reproduced below.
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

11

Figure 3 “illustrates exemplary processing
orders of macroblocks (MBs) corresponding to different
values of an entropy slice height.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 12.
As illustrated, a block that is one row high may be processed from left
to right, and blocks that have more than one row may be processed in a zig-
zag fashion. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 30. Huang also explains that although the
“entropy slices are exactly one MB row or integer multiples of MB rows in
[the] examples, they can contain fractional MB row.” Id. ¶ 37. In other
words, Huang explains that its “causal criterion” technique can work with
entropy slices of different shapes.
F. Grounds of Unpatentability
This trial was instituted on the following grounds:
Reference(s)/Basis 35 U.S.C. § Claim(s) Challenged
Tu, Zhao 103 1
Zhao 103 1
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

12
Reference(s)/Basis 35 U.S.C. § Claim(s) Challenged
Zhao, Fuldseth 103 1
Zhao, Huang 103 1
II. ANALYSIS
We discuss below the level of skill in the art, claim construction, and
the patentability of claim 1.
A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
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. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 42).
The Preliminary Response did not address this issue, and we adopted
Petitioner’s language at institution. See Dec. 7–8. The Patent Owner
Response also does not address this issue, and we thus maintain the
formulation we adopted at institution, which we find to be consistent with
the disclosures of the prior art.
B. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review for a petition filed on or after November 13,
2018, a claim “shall be construed using the same claim construction standard
that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C.
282(b).” See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting
Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

13
Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,358 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
effective November 13, 2018) (now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
(2019)). In applying this claim construction standard, we are guided by the
principle that the words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning,” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in
question at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citation omitted). “In determining the
meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic
evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written
description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc.
v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17).
The Petition requested construction of “location information of said at
least one tile” and “a location of said at least one tile,” and argued that the
rest of the claim terms should be afforded “their plain and ordinary
meaning.” Pet. 24. Patent Owner additionally seeks construction of “frame
of said video,” “slice,” “tile,” and “first information.” See PO Resp. 20.
We discuss the terms in the order raised by the parties.1

1 In the Sur-Reply, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner “did not discharge its
burden of construing disputed claim limitations” because Petitioner has
“refus[ed] to take a definitive claim construction position” regarding a
“frame of said video” and “slice.” PO Sur-Reply 1–2. We do not agree,
because we find the Petition’s discussion of how the references meet these
limitations and Petitioner’s response to Patent Owner’s claim construction
arguments sufficient to understand Petitioner’s position.
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

14
1. “location” and “location information”
The Petition asserted that “[t]he appropriate construction of ‘location
information of said at least one tile’ and ‘a location of said at least one tile’
in the context of the ’824 patent specification and claims, as well as any
relevant extrinsic evidence, is ‘information that identifies a location of one
or more tiles within a frame.’” Pet. 24. The Preliminary Response argued
that we should instead construe these terms to mean “information that
identifies a location of the starting byte of the coded tile in the bitstream.’”
Prelim. Resp. 17.
In the Institution Decision, we determined that “in the context of the
claim, ‘location information’ refers to the location of a tile in the bitstream.”
Decision 8. We did not adopt Petitioner’s suggestion that the location be
one within a frame, and we did not adopt Patent Owner’s suggestion that we
require the location to be that of the starting byte.
Petitioner does not dispute that the “location” is one in the bitstream,
not the frame, but argues that there is no “justification for limiting ‘location
information’ to the “starting byte of the coded tile,” particularly given that
“the patent identifies aligning tiles to ‘bytes’ as an example and not as
requirement.” Reply 8.
Patent Owner responds that the patent’s “disclosure only makes sense
if the location in the bitstream indicates a starting location” because
“[o]therwise, a decoder could not begin decoding multiple tiles in parallel.”
Sur-Reply 18. Patent Owner argues that “[a] starting location facilitates
parallel decoding because the starting location tells a decoder where to begin
its decoding.” Id.
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

15
The remaining disputed issue with these constructions is whether the
location must be that of the “starting byte,” and we conclude that Patent
Owner has not made a sufficient showing to read that requirement into the
claim. The portion of the patent cited by Patent Owner describes only that
“a signal may be included in the bitstream identifying the location of tiles in
the bit-stream.” Ex. 1001, 8:54–66. It says nothing about the locations
being the locations of the “starting bytes.” Although the starting byte may
be a way to identify the location of the tile, the patent does not describe that,
and the record does not show that the only way to identify tile locations is by
using starting bytes. We accordingly decline to narrow the construction of
the “location” terms as urged by the Patent Owner and interpret these terms,
as we did at institution, to refer to a location of a tile in the bitstream.
2. “frame of said video”
Patent Owner argues that “frame of said video” should be construed
as follows: “All of the pixels that comprise an entire image of a video to be
displayed, which is partitioned into one or more slices and/or one or more
tiles. The frame’s coding characteristics are defined by data elements, such
as a sequence parameter set and a picture parameter set.” PO Resp. 22.
Patent Owner’s construction is appropriate, it argues, because a
person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand that a frame of video
has a meaning distinct from a slice.” PO Resp. 21. Patent Owner argues
that, in the H.264 coding scheme, the “decoder receives slices in the
bitstream and inspects each slice’s header,” “[t]he frame_num parameter
within a slice header informs the decoder which frame the slice belongs to,”
and “[t]he slice header also contains a first_mb_in_slice parameter,” which
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

16
“informs the decoder of the X-Y position of a slice within a frame.” Id. at
21–22.
Petitioner responds that “what a frame is, versus how its
characteristics may be encoded, are different,” and that H.264’s frame
definition “never mentions parameter sets.” Pet. Reply 2. Petitioner argues
that Patent Owner’s construction “renders claim language superfluous”
because the claim “recites ‘a frame of said video that includes at least one
slice and at least one tile,’ whereas [Patent Owner]’s construction of ‘frame’
requires a frame to be ‘partitioned into one or more slices and/or one or
more tiles.’” Pet. Reply 3. Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner’s
construction is “inconsistent with the claim language” because “when
‘and/or’ is interpreted as ‘or,’” the “construction is reduced to include either
a slice or a tile, but not necessarily both,” whereas “claim 1 requires both a
slice and a tile.” Id.
We find Patent Owner’s suggestion that the construction of “frame”
should include “which is partitioned into one or more slices and/or one or
more tiles” unnecessary in view of the rest of the claim language, which
already recites that the frame “includes at least one slice and at least one
tile.” See Ex. 1001, 13:13–14. Patent Owner does not adequately explain
why the construction of “frame” should repeat this concept. And, as
Petitioner observes, Patent Owner’s proposed language is inconsistent with
this other part of the claim, which requires both a slice and a tile, not a slice
or a tile. We see no reason why the term “frame” in the claim should be
interpreted to include a slice or a tile when the rest of the claim makes clear
that the claimed frame includes a slice and a tile.
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

17
We also find insufficient reason to add that “[t]he frame’s coding
characteristics are defined by data elements, such as a sequence parameter
set and a picture parameter set.” These features are coding details that the
patent applicant elected to not claim, choosing instead to prosecute and
obtain broader claims. It appears that these details are implemented in
H.264 (see PO Resp. 21–22), but the claims are not limited to H.264.2
Because we find nothing in the specification, or elsewhere, to show
that every frame in every coding method must include the specific
parameters Patent Owner identifies, and because Patent Owner does not
point us to a definition or any other clear indication in the patent or its file
history of an intent to narrow the claim, we decline to read these limitations
into the claims of the ’824 patent. See Bradium Techs. LLC v. Iancu, 923
F.3d 1032, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[I]t is long-settled that even though
‘claims must be read in light of the specification of which they are a part, it
is improper to read limitations from the written description into a claim.’”)
(quoting Wenger Mfg., Inc. v. Coating Mach. Sys., Inc., 239 F.3d 1225, 1237
(Fed. Cir. 2001); In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348
(Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim ‘is not
to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the
specification, which is improper.”’).

2 See Ex. 1001, 2:4–8 (“While any video coder/decoder (codec) that uses
entropy encoding/decoding may be accommodated by embodiments
described herein, exemplary embodiments are described in relation to an
H.264/AVC encoder and an H.264/AVC decoder merely for purposes of
illustration.”); Tr. 23 (“[Q]: Are the claims limited to H.264? [Patent Owner
Counsel]: I would not say that they’re limited to H.264.”).
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

18
Considering the claim as a whole, we conclude that the applicant
included the coding details that were deemed necessary to secure allowance,
and do not find a sufficient reason to now add more. In reaching that
conclusion, we are guided by the fact that the concept described as the
invention was the combination of prior art slices and prior art tiles in a single
system (see Section I.C), so it is not surprising that the applicant sought the
broadest possible claims covering the use of slices and tiles together.
We accordingly construe “frame of said video” to mean “all of the
data comprising an entire image of a video to be displayed.”3
3. “slice”
Patent Owner argues that “a slice” is “a partition of a frame” and is
“comprised of a slice header and slice data.” PO Resp. 22–23 (citing Ex.
1002 ¶ 16; Ex. 1001, 3:31–32, 4:55–5:5; 6:25–29; 6:44–55; 8:66–9:1).
Patent Owner contends that the experts agree that a slice includes a slice
header and slice data. See id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 17; Ex. 2020, 22:16–
20; Ex. 2019 ¶ 72; Ex. 1007, Fig. 6.5; Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 114–120). Patent Owner
also argues that a slice “is independently decodable from other slices” and
that “[t]o facilitate independent decodability, the Patent teaches that ‘the
entropy coding state is reset at the start of each slice.” PO Resp. 25 (citing
Ex. 1001, 3:32–34; 4:28–44, 3:38–40; 6:36–40; Ex. 2016 ¶ 119). Patent
Owner concludes that “slice” should be construed as: “A partition of a
frame consisting of a slice header and consecutive macroblocks in raster

3 The “frame” that is received in claim 1 has been encoded and does not,
strictly speaking, include “pixels.” See Ex. 1036, 55:8–56:7. We therefore
use “data” instead of “pixels” for clarity. The substitution does not affect
the prior art analysis.
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

19
scan order. The slice header includes data elements which enable the slice
to be decoded independently of other slices. At the beginning of the
decoding/reconstruction process for each slice, context models are initialized
or reset.” PO Resp. 25.
Petitioner argues that “slice” does not require resetting or initializing
“context models” and does not require a “slice header.” Pet. Reply 3–4.
We agree with Patent Owner that “slice” should be construed to mean
a partition of a frame that consists of consecutive macroblocks in raster scan
order. Nonetheless, we find the rest of Patent Owner’s proposed
construction inappropriate, the fundamental problem being, again, that the
applicant chose to pursue broad claims, and we do not see a reason to limit
the claims to certain embodiments now.
It is true that the patent describes embodiments in which a slice
includes a slice header that may include data elements that enable the slice to
be decoded independently of other slices. See PO Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 1001,
4:55–5:5; 6:25–29; 6:44–55; 8:66–9:1). Those are just embodiments,
however, and Patent Owner does identify any intrinsic evidence suggesting
that the claims should be limited to those embodiments. We note that the
claim already recites that “each of said at least one slice is decoded
independently of another one of said at least one slice,” suggesting that the
applicant intended to cover all methods in which slices were decoded
independently, not just methods in which that was accomplished using
information from a header.
Patent Owner points to declaration testimony of its expert,
Dr. Richardson, and deposition testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Karam,
in effort to support its argument about the header. See PO Resp. 24. We
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

20
have reviewed that material, but find that it does not justify the construction
Patent Owner seeks because both experts are describing H.264 coding, not
coding in general. See Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 114–120 (Dr. Richardson citing
Ex. 1007, Fig. 6.5, showing an H.264 slice); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 16–17 (Dr. Karam
citing and describing a discussion of H.264 in Ex. 1007). The claims are not
limited to H.264, and the cited testimony does not establish that all coding
schemes using slices would require that the slice information be transmitted
in individual slice headers rather than, for example, in a single header or
other data element associated with the entire frame, or in some other way.
Patent Owner’s construction of “slice” also would require that “at the
beginning of the decoding/reconstruction process for each slice, context
models are initialized or reset.” We do not find this language appropriate
because it too is an aspect of an embodiment that the applicant chose to not
claim, and because the patent specifically describes it as something that
“may” happen. See Ex. 1001, 3:38–40 (“In particular, the entropy coding
state may be reset at the start of each slice.”). Patent Owner argues that
“H.264 specifies that context models are reset at the start of decoding each
slice” (PO Sur-Reply 9), but, again, the claim is not limited to H.264.
Although some, and perhaps many or even most, coding schemes
employing slices would be implemented using a slice header, the ’824 patent
applicant elected not to limit the claims to require a slice header, and we are
unwilling to do that now. We accordingly construe “slice” to mean “a
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

21
partition of a frame consisting of consecutive macroblocks4 in raster scan
order.” As noted above, the claim also tells us, separately, that each slice “is
decoded independently of another one of said at least one slice and includes
said at least one tile.”
4. “tile”
Patent Owner argues that “[a] tile’s rectangular region of a frame is a
non-zero number of macroblocks that may be of an arbitrary height and
width (i.e., an N×M-sized region)” and that the specification explains “that
this rectangular region of macroblocks is defined by ‘any suitable number of
column boundaries (e.g. 0 or more) and there may be any suitable number of
row boundaries (e.g., 0 or more).”’ PO Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:50–57).
Patent Owner concludes that “tile” should be construed to mean: “A[n]
N×M region of macroblocks in raster scan order defined by column and row
boundaries.” PO Resp. 27.
Petitioner argues that the claim already provides a definition of tile––
“a rectangular region of said frame [that] includes coding units for said
decoding arranged in a raster scan order”––and that Patent Owner “fails to
explain why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have looked further
than the express definition in the claim.” Pet. Reply 4–5. Petitioner
contends that the “NxM region” of the construction corresponds to the
already claimed “rectangular region,” and that the “macroblocks” of the

4 The claim also recites “coding units.” The relationship between a
macroblock and a coding unit is not clear (see Ex. 1001, 5:51–53 (“The
macro blocks (e.g., largest coding units) within each of the tiles are encoded
and decoded in a raster scan order.”); id. at 8:6–7 (“First, check to see if the
macroblock (e.g., coding unit) is the first macroblock in a tile.”), but the
parties do not make that an issue, so neither will we.
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

22
construction correspond to the already claimed “coding units.” Id. at 5.
Patent Owner reiterates that “tiles are defined by column and row
boundaries, which give rise to important benefits over slices.” PO Sur-
Reply 13.
We agree with Petitioner, because Patent Owner does not explain why
we should add “NxM region” or “defined by column and row boundaries” to
a claim that already recites “rectangular region,” or why we should add
“macroblocks” to the definition of “tile” where the claim says that the tile
includes “coding units.” We find that one of skill in the art would have
understood a tile to be as already set out in the claim: “a rectangular region
of said frame [that] includes coding units for said decoding arranged in a
raster scan order.”
5. “first information indicating whether location
information . . . is transmitted”
Patent Owner argues that “first information indicating whether
location information . . . is transmitted” should be construed as “information
sufficient to determine whether or not location information is transmitted.”
PO Resp. 27.
Patent Owner contends that there is only one disclosed embodiment of
this feature, the “‘tile_locations_flag’ syntax element used to inform a
decoder that tile locations are transmitted in the bitstream.” PO Resp. 28.
Patent Owner argues that a person of skill in the art “would understand that
the tile_locations_flag is a Boolean value that is examined in a conditional
‘if’ statement” and that “the effect . . . is to inform the decoder whether or
not tile locations are included in the bitstream, i.e., the presence or absence
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

23
of tile locations, and to cause a particular action based on its value. PO
Resp. 28–29 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:54–9:25; Ex. 2016 ¶ 125).
Patent Owner specifically argues that “[i]t would not be proper to
construe ‘first information’ as indicating the presence, but not absence, of
location information” because the “decoder must know whether or not such
information is included, such that it can call other programming logic to
process the location information in the event it is included,” and “if the
decoder were not fully informed of the presence or absence of tile_locations,
it would be unable to determine whether to continue to decode the
tile_locations() syntax structure.” PO Resp. 29–30.
According to Patent Owner, its interpretation “is further compelled by
Claim 1’s inclusion of the word ‘whether’” because “[t]he ordinary
understanding of the word ‘whether’ in this context . . . requires that the
‘first information’ indicate to the decoder the presence, or absence, of the
location information.” PO Resp. 30 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶ 131).
Patent Owner also objects to Petitioner’s attempt to read the “first
information” on Tu’s “mode signal” because the mode signal “does not
indicate the absence of alleged location information.” PO Resp. 30.
Petitioner responds that Patent Owner and its expert “fail to
acknowledge a second (preferred) disclosed embodiment [of the ’824
patent]—the so-called ‘implicit’ technique” that “indicates whether location
information is present (as the claim requires), but not whether location
information is absent, as PO wrongly adds.” Pet. Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1001,
9:43–47, 9:59–60, 9:63–67, 10:16–17, Figs. 12A-B).
Patent Owner answers that “there is no support for Petitioner’s
contention that the ’824 Patent discloses a second embodiment of first
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

24
information.” PO Sur-Reply 14. According to Patent Owner, “the
lightweight_slice_flag relates to the contents of a header” and “could not
possibly signal the presence of a tile header because [it] is a syntax element
contained within the header.” Id. at 15. Patent Owner argues that “[b]y the
time the decoder encounters the [flag], it is already within the header and is
aware of its existence.” Id. at 17. Patent Owner also argues that “Petitioner
has failed to explain how a tile header—the alleged location information—
satisfies a proper construction of claim 1’s ‘location information,’ which the
Board correctly construed as requiring “the location of a tile in the
bitstream.” Id.
This dispute evidently boils down to whether “whether” means
“whether” or “whether or not.” We find nothing in the specification to
indicate that the applicant engaged in lexigraphy regarding “whether,” and
Patent Owner does not argue that “whether” has a unique meaning in the art
of video coding. We, therefore, conclude that the term has its common
meaning, which is reflected in the dictionary definition provided by
Petitioner: “if it is or was true.” Ex. 1039, 4.
Patent Owner’s argument that we cannot rely on a dictionary
definition that “contradicts the sole embodiment of first information” (PO
Sur-Reply 17) is not persuasive because tile_locations_flag is simply one
embodiment of the claimed “first information,” and Patent Owner does not
direct us to anything suggesting that the applicant intended to limit the
claims to that embodiment. And because we see no reason to limit the claim
to the tile_locations_flag embodiment, we need not resolve the parties’
dispute about whether lightweight_slice_flag is an “implicit” embodiment
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

25
showing that “whether” means only “whether” in an affirmative sense, and
not “whether or not.”
Additionally, although Patent Owner’s proposed construction
substitutes “sufficient to determine” for the claim’s “indicating,” Patent
Owner provides no evidence or argument regarding why that substitution
should be made, or what difference it would make. We therefore decline to
make that change as well.
We conclude that “first information indicating whether location
information . . . is transmitted” should be construed as written: “first
information indicating if it is or was true that location information . . . is
transmitted.”
C. Obviousness
A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The
question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) any secondary considerations, if in
evidence.5 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).

5 Patent Owner does not present any objective evidence of nonobviousness
(i.e., secondary considerations) as to any of the challenged claims.
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

26
Petitioner alleges that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) in view of Tu and/or the combination of Tu and Zhao. See Pet. 25–
48. Petitioner also argues that the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) in view of Zhao, either alone or combined with Fuldseth or Huang.
See id. at 25–53. We address Petitioner’s contentions in that order.
1. Grounds Based on Tu
a. The Combination
Petitioner argues that “[t]he ‘tiles’ of Tu correspond to the ‘tiles’ of
the ’824 patent” and that “the ‘images’ of Tu correspond to the ‘slices’ of
the ’824 patent,” as, “[f]or example, like the slices of the ’824 patent, each
slice (image) of Tu includes one or more tiles.” Pet. 55; see id. at 57–59.
Essentially, Petitioner is arguing that Tu’s Figure 2 corresponds to the single
slice embodiment shown in Figure 3 of the ’824 patent, with one slice and a
set of tiles.
Petitioner argues that, in Tu, “each of said at least one slice is decoded
independently of another one of said at least one slice” because “[u]nder the
condition where the ‘at least one slice’ is exactly one slice,” e.g., as shown
in Tu’s Figure 2, “the term ‘where each of said at least one slice’ should be
given no patentable weight because it is conditional on the frame including
two or more slices.” Pet. 61 (citing Ex Parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847
(PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential)). Alternatively, Petitioner argues that
“under the condition where the claimed ‘at least one slice’ can be more than
one slice[],” “Zhao discloses that ‘an input picture comprising a plurality of
macroblocks may be partitioned into one or several slices.’” Pet. 59 (citing
Ex. 1003 ¶ 31, emphasis omitted).
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

27
The tiles, according to Petitioner, are described in Tu as “rectangular
regions” of the frame and include macroblocks, which are coding units for
decoding that are arranged in a raster scan order. Pet. 63 (citing Ex. 1006
¶¶ 33, 54).
Petitioner further argues that Tu includes “first information indicating
whether location information of [a] tile is transmitted within said at least one
slice” in its “mode signal” that “indicates whether tile pointers 1106 are
mandatory or optional.” Pet. 63–65 (quoting Tu ¶ 61 (“tile pointers 1106 are
‘optional if the number of tiles is one and the spatial mode is used’ but
otherwise are “mandatory’”)). And Petitioner argues that Tu includes
“second information suitable for decoding” a tile that “includ[es] a location
of said at least one tile” because its image headers include “tile pointers
1106” that “index from the origin 1112 and provide offsets from the origin
1112 to respective tiles.” Pet 65.
b. Patent Owner Arguments
i. “a frame of said video that
includes at least one slice”
Patent Owner first argues that “Tu’s image does not satisfy the
limitation ‘a frame of said video that includes at least one slice’” because
“[t]he frame at issue is “a frame of [] video,” which is “partitioned into one
or more slices” and “both experts agree that slices include a slice header and
slice data.” PO Resp. 35. This argument is unavailing because it is based on
Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction, which we do not adopt, for the
reasons detailed above. See Section II.B.3.
Patent Owner further argues that “a ‘frame of said video,’ a ‘slice,’
and a ‘tile’ each have distinct meanings to a POSA” and “Tu’s disclosure of
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

28
a single image does not satisfy these constructions.” PO Resp. 36. We do
not agree. The patent applicant chose to pursue, and received, broad claims,
essentially corresponding to the level of detail provided in Figures 7 and 8 of
the patent, and Figure 7 shows a single slice embodiment in which the frame
and slice are coextensive. We find this in Tu, as the claim’s frame
corresponds to Tu’s “image,” the claim’s “tiles” correspond to Tu’s “tiles,”
and the claim’s slice corresponds to the set of macroblocks that make up
Tu’s image, as in Figure 7. See Decision 15.
Patent Owner contends that we “seemingly modified Petitioner’s
argument” regarding Tu because “the Petition does not allege Claim 1’s ‘at
least one slice’ limitation ‘corresponds to the set of macroblocks that make
up Tu’s image.’” PO Resp. 35. We again do not agree. The words may be
different than those used in the Petition, but the substance is the same. See,
e.g., Pet. 53–55 (comparing Tu’s Figure 2 with Figure 7 of the ’824 patent),
58 (“A POSA would recognize that when the ‘at least one slice’ is exactly
one slice, the image of Tu corresponds to both a video frame and a slice that
occupies the entire frame.”).6 The parties agree that a slice is a set of
macroblocks, so the single slice is the set of macroblocks that make up the
entire frame.
Patent Owner also argues that “there is a meaningful difference
between a frame of video partitioned into a single slice . . . versus a single
image that does not contain any slice.” PO Resp. 37. According to Patent

6 We also do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s invalidity
allegations regarding “slice” are “difficult to analyze.” PO Sur-Reply 20.
The allegation is that the frame is the entire image and that, as in the single
slice embodiment of the ’824 patent, the set of macroblocks corresponding
to the image constitutes a single slice.
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

29
Owner, “[i]n the ‘one slice scenario,’ the single slice still includes a slice
header and slice data” because “[t]he slice header caries valuable
information that places the slice within the proper frame of a video
sequence” and “[t]he header also carries information that allows the slice to
be independently decodable.” Id. at 37–38 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶ 149). We find
this argument unpersuasive because Patent Owner and its expert do not
explain why a system that receives a single frame that includes a single slice
would need to “place the slice within the proper frame,” or why a single
slice that occupies an entire frame would need to “carr[y] information that
allows the slice to be independently decodable.” Patent Owner’s expert does
not identify any evidence to support the assertion that a system using just a
single slice would need to include a slice header. See id. ¶¶ 148–149.
We recognize that some video coding methods may use slices that
always include headers like Patent Owner describes. We conclude,
however, that the claims of the ’824 patent were drafted broadly enough to
encompass methods with single slices like that of the patent’s Figure 7,
corresponding to the entire image, as in Tu, and as to be not limited by
details of implementation beyond those already in the claim.7 Patent Owner
has not identified a supportable construction of “slice” that would
distinguish the claims over Tu.

7 We note that Patent Owner could have sought amendment of the claims in
this proceeding to add limitations concerning the slice header, or to require
more than one slice, but elected to not do that.
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

30
ii. “first information indicating whether location
information . . . is transmitted”
Patent Owner argues that Tu lacks “first information indicating
whether location information . . . is transmitted.” PO Resp. 39. Specifically,
Patent Owner argues that Tu’s mode signal “specifies which of the modes is
used” but “does not correlate to the presence or absence of Tu’s tile pointers
for both modes of operation.” Id. at 40. According to Patent Owner,
“[k]nowing . . . Tu’s mode (or . . . Tu’s mode plus the number of tiles) does
not inform the decoder in every case whether Tu’s tile pointers are present or
absent,” and “[i]n the context of a decoder processing a bitstream of
compressed video, this partial ‘knowledge’ is insufficient.” PO Resp. 45.
We do not agree with Patent Owner’s analysis. As Patent Owner
acknowledges, the mode signal identifies which of the modes (spatial or
frequency) is used, and, when the frequency mode is used, tile pointers are
present. See PO Resp. 41; see also Pet. 64 (“[T]ile pointers 1106 are
‘optional if the number of tiles is one and the spatial mode is used’ but
otherwise are ‘mandatory.’”). It follows that when the mode signal of Tu
identifies the frequency mode, it is “indicating” that tile pointers are present.
See Pet. Reply 12. This satisfies our construction of the term at issue
because the mode signal reveals “if it is or was true” that the pointers are
present.
We recognize that if the mode signal identifies the spatial mode, it is
possible (i.e., when there is more than one tile) that the pointers are present
even though the mode signal does not show for certain that they are. As
Patent Owner argues, Tu’s mode “does not inform the decoder in every case
whether Tu’s tile pointers are present or absent.” PO Resp. 45. The
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

31
reference does not have to meet the limitations at all times, however. See
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Sys., 340 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(“Just as ‘an accused product that sometimes, but not always, embodies a
claimed method nonetheless infringes,’ . . . a prior art product that
sometimes, but not always, embodies a claimed method nonetheless teaches
that aspect of the invention.”) (quoting Bell Commc’ns Research, Inc. v.
Vitalink Commc’ns Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 622–623 (Fed. Cir. 1995). It is
sufficient that Tu teaches a method that, as Patent Owner acknowledges, at
least sometimes includes a mode signal indicating it is true that the location
information is present.8
c. Conclusion Regarding Tu and Zhao
We find Patent Owner’s above arguments, which are largely based on
reading limitations into the claims, unpersuasive, and conclude that
Petitioner has established that claim 1 of the ’824 patent would have been
obvious in view of Tu alone. See Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys.,
Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1278 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting the Board’s
conclusion that a prior art reference rendered certain claims obvious “by
virtue of its anticipation of them”).
However, as we did at institution, we agree with Patent Owner that
Petitioner has not adequately established how one would have combined Tu
and Zhao or articulated a sufficient motivation to do so. Petitioner still has
not adequately explained how one would add a plurality of slices to Tu while

8 We find Patent Owner’s argument that Tu has “one embodiment” instead
of two immaterial. The point is that Tu describes a system in which, at least
sometimes, the mode signal indicates the presence of location information.
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

32
retaining Tu’s tiles, does not show that adding slices to Tu’s tiles would
result in H.264 compliance, and does not show that the addition of parallel
decoding would be a motivation to combine, because Tu already employs
parallel decoding. See Decision 17.
2. Grounds Based on Zhao
a. Zhao Alone
For the Zhao grounds, Petitioner correlates the claimed “frame” to
Zhao’s “input picture” and the claimed “slices” to Zhao’s reconstruction
slices. See Pet. 32. Then, for the “tiles” that need be to be included in
slices, Petitioner identifies Zhao’s entropy slices. Id. However, as we
observed in the Institution Decision, Zhao’s entropy slices (like the
reconstruction slices), are shown to be raster scan segments of the picture,
none of which are “rectangular,” as required by claim 1. See Decision 18.
Petitioner argues that “[a]lthough Zhao does not expressly disclose
rectangular entropy slices, such entropy slices were well-known.” Pet.
Reply 13. Even if that were true, however, it does not show it would have
been obvious to modify Zhao to use rectangular entropy slices. One cannot
establish obviousness simply by alleging that elements of the claims were
“well-known.” See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(explaining that “a patent composed of several elements is not proved
obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was,
independently, known in the prior art”).
b. Zhao and Fuldseth
Petitioner alternatively argues that “rectangular entropy slices would
have been obvious in view of Fuldseth.” Reply 14. We addressed this
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

33
argument at institution, finding it unpersuasive because “Fuldseth, describes
partitioning an entire image into rectangular tiles, like the tiles described in
the ’824 patent” and that “Fuldseth does not describe the use of rectangular
entropy slices.” Decision 18. We find that Petitioner still does not
adequately explain how or why the benefits of using tiles described in
Fuldseth would apply to entropy slices in Zhao. Petitioner cannot make
prior art teachings about image tiles apply to entropy slices just by calling
the entropy slices “tiles.”
c. Zhao and Huang
Petitioner alternatively combines Zhao and Huang, which, according
to Petitioner, “discloses a frame of video that includes at least one tile
(entropy slice), where the at least one tile explicitly has a rectangular shape.”
Pet. 50.
Huang does describe that entropy slices can be rectangular. See
Ex. 1005 ¶ 37 (“entropy slices are exactly one MB row or integer multiples
of MB rows in [the] examples”). That leaves the question of whether one of
skill in the art would have been motivated, in light of Huang, to make the
non-rectangular entropy slices of Zhao rectangular.
The Petition argued that one would be motivated to combine “to
exploit [] two dimensional dependencies between blocks” (as informed by
Fuldseth) . . . and thereby “remove redundancies in the information to be
transmitted.” Pet. 51. As noted above, however, Fuldseth describes the use
of rectangular tiles, not rectangular entropy slices. We concluded at
institution that Petitioner had not explained why the benefits associated with
rectangular tiles would translate to rectangular entropy slices. That remains
true. We also found it unclear how this benefit could be realized given that
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

34
Zhao’s reconstruction slices are not rectangular. See Decision 20. Petitioner
does not address that problem in the Reply.
The Petition also argued that a “POSA would have been motivated to
combine Zhao and Huang because Huang expressly builds upon previous
work on entropy slices published by the inventors of Zhao.” Pet. 51–52.
Specifically, Petitioner argues that one would have been motivated to
combine Zhao and Huang “‘to solve the . . . problems [i.e., loss of
compression efficiency, reduced memory access speed, and excessive power
consumption]’ associated with the Zhao inventors’ implementation of
entropy slices.” Pet. 52 (quoting Ex. 1002 ¶ 114). Our review of the
reference, however, reveals that Huang is describing its “causal criterion”
technique, not rectangular entropy slices, as a solution to the identified
problems. Because Huang explains that its causal criterion can be used with
either rectangular or non-rectangular tiles, it does not appear to provide a
reason to use one over the other, and thus does not provide a reason to
modify Zhao to use rectangular entropy slices.
The Petition also argued that changing from a raster order entropy
slice to a rectangular entropy slice would merely be a “design choice.” We
found that unlikely, given that Petitioner argues the change provides a
functional advantage. Decision 21; see, e.g., In re Gal, 980 F.2d 717, 719
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (explaining that use of a different structure to achieve a
different purpose was not an obvious design choice). Petitioner does not
challenge that determination in the Reply.
For these reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not established that
Zhao, or the combination of Zhao and Fuldseth or Huang renders claim 1
obvious. We need not, and therefore do not, reach Patent Owner’s
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

35
arguments about whether Zhao discloses “first information” or “location
information.”
D. Constitutionality
Patent Owner asserts that the “Board lacks the authority to issue a
Final Written Decision in this proceeding because [Administrative Patent
Judges] are principal officers of the United States that must be appointed by
the President and confirmed by the Senate.” PO Resp. 70. According to
Patent Owner, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith &
Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), “did not actually fix the
problem.” Id. at 71.
We, however, are bound by the Federal Circuit’s decision, which
resolved this issue. See Arthrex, 941 F.3d at 1337 (“This as-applied
severance . . . cures the constitutional violation.”). Accordingly, Patent
Owner’s argument is not persuasive.
E. Real Party in Interest
Patent Owner argues that we should dismiss the Petition because it
does not name all real parties in interest. See PO Resp. 72. Patent Owner
identifies a number of companies that have paid membership fees to
Petitioner and asserts that those companies should have been named as real
parties in interest. Id.
Petitioner responds that Unified Patents Inc. is the sole real party in
interest, citing evidence that it alone controls, directs, and funds this
proceeding and that it does not communicate with its members about
potential validity challenges before filing IPRs. See Pet. Reply 19–21 (citing
Ex. 2161, 18:20–20:1, 74:10–78:1, 81:10–83:6, 93:5–17; Ex. 2152, 5, 10–
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

36
11; Ex. 2138, 31:25–33:2, 222:16–223:4; Ex. 1017, 3–7). Petitioner
contends that it searched for and could not identify any communications
with its members regarding the ’824 patent or this proceeding other than
public announcements. See Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 2011; Ex. 2161,
68:22–69:9). Petitioner further points out that no alleged unnamed real party
in interest would be subject to a time bar under § 315(b). Pet. Reply 21.
We have considered the parties’ submissions and determine that
Petitioner has adequately identified the real party in interest. Patent Owner
has introduced no evidence specific to this proceeding that causes us to
question Petitioner’s identification, and has not identified an aspect of
Petitioner’s business structure that we view as showing the alleged unnamed
real parties in interest are clear beneficiaries with respect to this proceeding
that have a preexisting, established relationship with Petitioner. See Ventex
Co. v. Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc., IPR2017-00651, Paper 152, 6–11
(Jan. 24, 2019) (precedential).
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

37
III. CONCLUSION
Claim 1 has been shown to be unpatentable. The results are
summarized below.
Claim
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
Claims Shown
Unpatentable
Claims Not
Shown
Unpatentable
1 103 Tu, Zhao 1
1 103 Zhao 1
1 103 Zhao, Fuldseth 1
1 103 Zhao, Huang 1
Overall
Outcome
1

IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

38
IV. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is:
ORDERED that claim 1 of U.S. Patent 8,767,824 B2 has been shown
to be unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
the parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.9

9 Should Patent Owner wish to pursue amendment of the challenged claims
in a reissue or reexamination proceeding subsequent to the issuance of this
decision, we draw Patent Owner’s attention to the April 2019 Notice
Regarding Options for Amendments by Patent Owner Through Reissue or
Reexamination During a Pending AIA Trial Proceeding. See 84 Fed. Reg.
16654 (Apr. 22, 2019). If Patent Owner chooses to file a reissue application
or a request for reexamination of the challenged patent, we remind Patent
Owner of its continuing obligation to notify the Board of any such related
matters in updated mandatory notices. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), (b)(2).
IPR2019-00635
Patent 8,767,824 B2

39
FOR PETITIONER:

David Cavanaugh
Brian J. Lambson
Jonathan P. Knight
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
brian.lambson@wilmerhale.com
jonathan.knight@wilmerhale.com

Roshan Mansinghani
Ashraf Fawzy
UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
roshan@unifiedpatents.com
afawzy@unifiedpatents.com

Theodoros Konstantakopoulos
DESMARAIS LLP
tkonstantakopoulos@desmaraisllp.com

FOR PATENT OWNER:

Brent N. Bumgardner
Thomas C. Cecil
Barry J. Bumgardner
Matthew C. Juren
Christopher G. Granaghan
NELSON BUMGARDNER ALBRITTON P.C.
brent@nbafirm.com
tom@nbafirm.com
barry@nbafirm.com
matthew@nbafirm.com
chris@nbafirm.com