PTAB

IPR2021-01143

Axis Communications Ab v. Compression Vectors LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition Intelligence

Title: Self Adapting Frame Intervals
Brief Description: The ’813 patent describes a method for automatically adjusting a "frame interval" during the compression of a video signal. The method involves determining a "video motion value" from the signal and then adjusting the frame interval based on that value to improve compression quality.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Sugiyama (Patent 5,103,307)
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Sugiyama, which discloses an interframe predictive coding system, teaches every limitation of claims 1-3. Sugiyama's "frame difference detection circuit" detects the difference between frames (a "video motion value") by comparing frame samples on a pixel-by-pixel basis. Its "N-judgement circuit" then determines a new reset interval "N" (a "frame interval") based on this difference value. Finally, Sugiyama automatically adjusts the frame interval by using the new interval "N" to control changeover switches in the coding system. Petitioner asserted this maps directly to all steps of independent claim 1 and that Sugiyama's disclosure of repeating the process for subsequent frames anticipates dependent claims 2 and 3.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Sugiyama (Patent 5,103,307) and Wang (Patent 5,903,673)
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that to the extent Sugiyama does not teach every element, combining it with Wang would render claims 1-10 obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. Sugiyama provided the foundational system for dynamically adjusting a frame interval based on frame difference. Wang taught detecting rapid changes in motion or scene changes by comparing the amount of change between consecutive frames to a threshold. Wang also taught implementing video encoders using computer program products and MPEG compression standards, which correspond to the limitations of dependent claims 4, 5, 7-10.
- Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Sugiyama and Wang because they address the same problem of efficient video compression. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Wang’s teachings on detecting rapid motion and scene changes into Sugiyama’s system to enhance its ability to adjust the I-frame interval, thereby improving coding efficiency and picture quality, particularly during sudden changes in video content.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references, as it involved applying known techniques for motion analysis (Wang) to a known adaptive compression system (Sugiyama) without requiring significant modification.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Kuwata (Japanese Patent Publication No. JPH05344492A)
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kuwata, which is directed to efficiently encoding video, anticipates the challenged claims. Kuwata's system uses a "differentiator" to determine a "difference value" or "prediction error" (the claimed "video motion value") between frames. This value is compared to a prescribed threshold to determine if the "I-frame interval" should be altered. If the threshold is exceeded, a new independent frame is set, thereby automatically adjusting the frame interval. Petitioner asserted this process meets all limitations of claim 1. Kuwata's disclosure of repeating the process for subsequent frames, its inherent implementation via computer processors, and its explicit description of using MPEG-1 technology were argued to anticipate the dependent claims.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 4) for claims 1-10 over Kuwata, alone or in view of Wang and/or Mihashi (Japanese Patent Publication No. JPH08102965A), relying on similar theories of combining systems for adaptive frame intervals with known methods for detecting scene changes and rapid motion.

"video motion value": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "a value representing the error or difference between compared frame samples." This construction is based on the claim language and specification, which describes determining a "value of change in video motion" from the comparison of frame samples, and is not limited to any specific metric like an MPEG error term.
"frame interval": Petitioner proposed this term means "an interval between frames of a frame type (such as an I-frame)." This is based on the specification's consistent use of "I-frame interval" as the sole example and distinguishes it from the overall video frame rate, which the patent does not teach adjusting.

Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §314(a) and the Fintiv factors. It contended that institution was favored because the parallel district court case was in its earliest stages, with no trial date set and no significant investment by the parties. Petitioner also argued against denial under §325(d), stating that the prior art references asserted in the petition (Sugiyama, Wang, Kuwata, and Mihashi) are materially different from the art considered by the Examiner during prosecution and were not cumulative.

Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-10 of the ’813 patent as unpatentable.