PTAB

IPR2016-00010

Sharp Corp v. Wi LAN Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Methods and Systems for Displaying Interlaced Video on Non-Interlaced Monitors
  • Brief Description: The ’654 patent discloses methods for converting interlaced video for display on non-interlaced (progressive scan) monitors. The technology specifically addresses the problem of vertical positional offset that exists between the alternating odd and even fields of an interlaced video signal, purporting to correct this offset by adjusting one field relative to the other during the de-interlacing process.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9 are obvious over Katsumata in view of Hollander.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Katsumata (Patent 5,181,110) and Hollander (Patent 4,701,793).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Katsumata, the primary reference, taught the core elements of challenged claim 1. This included a method for displaying interlaced video on a non-interlaced monitor by capturing paired video fields into respective buffers, scaling the fields to fill the monitor's vertical resolution, and adjusting one field to correct for the inherent one-half line vertical offset. Petitioner contended that Katsumata's method of inserting blank lines at read-out constituted the claimed "adjusting," and its use of line interpolation and repetitive read-out constituted the claimed "scaling." The combination with Hollander was used to show that performing these steps "concurrently" was obvious, as Hollander provided well-known implementation details for generating blank lines during the read-out process, the same time at which Katsumata's scaling occurred. Petitioner further mapped limitations of dependent claims to specific disclosures in Katsumata, including scaling via line replication (claim 2), vertical interpolation (claim 4), scaling to a size other than two times (claim 5), and changing display positions by one or more lines (claim 8).
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) implementing the de-interlacing system of Katsumata would have been motivated to consult a reference like Hollander for known, predictable techniques to implement the blank-line insertion function. Both references are in the same field of video processing, and the combination would predictably improve image quality by properly aligning the de-interlaced fields.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings, as it involved applying a known implementation technique (from Hollander) to a known system (from Katsumata) to achieve the expected result of vertical field alignment.

Ground 2: Claim 3 is obvious over Katsumata and Hollander in view of Jack.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Katsumata (Patent 5,181,110), Hollander (Patent 4,701,793), and Jack ("Video Demystified - A Handbook for the Digital Engineer," 1993).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claim 3, which specifies that scaling is achieved by "line dropping." Petitioner argued that while Katsumata taught scaling up (enlargement) via line replication and interpolation, the Jack textbook taught the complementary and conventional technique of scaling down (reduction) via line dropping or decimation. Jack explained this technique in the context of fitting video into an arbitrary-sized window on a computer display. The combination of Katsumata's de-interlacing and vertical correction with Jack's conventional down-scaling technique would render claim 3 obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Jack's teaching with the Katsumata/Hollander system to add the desirable and conventional functionality of video down-scaling. This would provide the flexibility to fit the de-interlaced video into any size display window, not just larger ones. The motivation was to create a more versatile and commercially useful video display system.
    • Expectation of Success: There was a high expectation of success, as applying a standard down-scaling method (line dropping) to a video processing system was a predictable design choice that would yield the expected result of a smaller de-interlaced image.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner argued for the following constructions under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard:

  • "scaling": Proposed as "increasing or decreasing a number of lines in a field of video data, which may include changing a size of an image." This construction was argued to be consistent with the specification's disclosure of line replication, interpolation, and line dropping as scaling techniques.
  • "adjusting one of the first field or second field of the pair of fields": Proposed as "vertically repositioning either the first or second field for display." Petitioner asserted this construction aligned with the patent's stated purpose of correcting the "positional offset" between fields and with statements made by the Patent Owner during prosecution.
  • "concurrently": Proposed as "taking place within a common interval of time." This construction, supported by a technical dictionary, was central to Petitioner's argument that the scaling and adjusting steps occurred together during the read-out phase from memory.
  • "line dropping": Proposed as "omitting one or more lines of a field from display." This construction was based on the concept of decimation, as explained in the Jack reference, where data is selectively discarded to reduce resolution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-5, 8, and 9 of Patent 6,359,654 as unpatentable.