PTAB

IPR2018-00534

Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC v. Techno View IP Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: MPEG-2 Compatible Stereoscopic Image Decoding and Display System
  • Brief Description: The ’742 patent describes an MPEG-2 compatible system for decoding and displaying stereoscopic image data. The system uses interframe predictive coding techniques to compress video data and relies on bit patterns within the data stream to distinguish between stereoscopic and monoscopic video, allowing a decoder to process both formats.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claim 1 is obvious over Chen ’838, Furuhata, and Chen ’736.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chen ’838 (Patent 6,043,838), Furuhata (Patent 5,907,364), and Chen ’736 (Patent 5,886,736).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that this combination represents the rejection the USPTO Examiner intended to make during prosecution but failed to complete due to a "typographical mistake" where Furuhata was omitted. Chen ’838 was asserted to teach a base system for stereoscopic video coding and decoding. Furuhata was asserted to teach a display system capable of handling both stereoscopic and monoscopic video by using "identification information" to discriminate between the two modes. Chen ’736, from the same inventor as Chen ’838, was presented to teach the use of time codes (decode time stamp and presentation time stamp) to synchronize left-eye and right-eye video streams, a limitation not explicitly taught by the primary combination.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Furuhata with the Chen ’838 system to gain the benefit of a more versatile display capable of handling both stereoscopic and standard video streams. A POSITA would further incorporate the time-stamping synchronization method of Chen ’736, a well-known technique for solving the known problem of synchronizing video streams, into the combined system. The petition noted that Chen ’838 and Chen ’736 share a common inventor and similar architecture, simplifying the integration.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved integrating features from MPEG-2 compatible systems, which would have yielded predictable results without undue experimentation. The Examiner's own reasoning during prosecution, which the Board affirmed regarding the Chen ’838 and Furuhata combination, supported this expectation.

Ground 2: Claim 1 is obvious over Oshima and Penain.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Oshima (Patent 7,747,145) and Penain (Patent 6,831,950).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted this alternative ground uses newer prior art not considered during prosecution. Oshima was argued to disclose a versatile display system capable of reproducing both stereoscopic and monoscopic videos from an optical disk. It achieves this by using an "identifier" or bit pattern in the video stream header to signal the video type and uses time codes for synchronization. However, Oshima allegedly does not disclose a specific compression method. Penain was asserted to supply this missing element by teaching a specific and efficient method of interframe predictive coding, where right-eye video frames are predictively encoded (as B-images) with respect to the corresponding left-eye video frames.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to implement Penain’s specific interframe predictive coding method into Oshima’s versatile system. Oshima itself expressed a desire to reduce the quantity of recording information, and Penain provided a known technique to achieve this goal. Combining Penain's specific encoding scheme with Oshima's system was presented as a logical step to create a more efficient and complete system.
    • Expectation of Success: The petition argued that applying a known, specific compression technique (Penain) to a compatible system (Oshima) to achieve the predictable benefit of data reduction would have been a straightforward modification for a POSITA with a reasonable expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the claim terms "a first bit pattern stored in the receiver" and "a second bit pattern stored in the receiver" should be construed under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard to encompass "identification information encoded in digital format." This construction was asserted to be critical because the prior art (e.g., Furuhata, Oshima) teaches using such identifiers to distinguish between video modes, thereby satisfying the claim limitation even if a specific, rigid bit-for-bit pattern is not disclosed. The petition noted that the Board had previously agreed with this construction during prosecution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review of claim 1 of Patent 9,503,742 and cancellation of the claim as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.