PTAB

IPR2024-00691

Amazon.com Inc v. Nokia Technologies Oy

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Grouping of Image Frames in Video Coding
  • Brief Description: The ’321 patent describes a method for encoding and decoding video sequences that are grouped into independent sequences (or Groups of Pictures). The purported invention addresses issues in image frame numbering that arise when a user begins browsing a video file from a random point in the middle of the sequence by resetting an identifier for the first frame of an independent sequence.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over MPEG-1 - Claims 8, 10, and 11 are obvious over MPEG-1.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: MPEG-1 (ISO/IEC 11172-2 (1st ed.), published Aug. 1, 1993).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the foundational MPEG-1 video compression standard discloses every limitation of method claim 8 and the corresponding system and computer-readable medium claims 10 and 11. MPEG-1’s concept of a "closed Group of Pictures" (closed GOP) directly corresponds to the claimed "independent sequence," as it is designed to be decoded without reference to pictures in any other GOP. The claimed "indication" of the first frame of this sequence is taught by MPEG-1 in two ways: either through the closed_gop flag contained in the GOP header, which precedes the first frame, or through the "Temporal Reference" identifier value, which is explicitly set to zero for the first picture of each GOP. MPEG-1 further teaches starting decoding from this first frame (an I-picture) without prediction from any prior frames, decoding "Temporal Reference" values according to a defined numbering scheme, and resetting this identifier value to zero for the indicated first frame of each independent sequence (GOP). Claims 10 and 11 were argued to be obvious implementations of the MPEG-1 decoding method on standard processor/memory hardware and non-transitory media, respectively, which was common practice at the time.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single reference ground).
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single reference ground).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kim - Claims 8, 10, and 11 are obvious over Kim.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kim (Patent 6,912,351).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Kim, which discloses a method for reproducing video from an optical disk, teaches a data structure and decoding method that meet all limitations of claims 8, 10, and 11. Kim’s logical structure, comprising an I-picture followed by a series of P-pictures that depend only on that initial I-picture for motion compensation, was asserted to be the claimed "independent sequence." The "indication" of the first frame of this sequence is disclosed as the "I-picture reference address" (IAD), which is set to zero for each I-picture. Kim’s decoding method starts with the I-picture, which does not require prediction from prior frames. Kim’s "logical addresses," which combine a current address (CAD) and the IAD, function as the claimed "identifier values" and are decoded according to a predictable numbering scheme. The limitation of "resetting the identifier value" is met because the IAD component of the logical address is reset to zero for each I-picture, which marks the start of a new independent sequence.

Ground 3: Obviousness over MPEG-1 and Yagasaki - Claim 9 is obvious over MPEG-1 in view of Yagasaki.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: MPEG-1 (ISO/IEC 11172-2) and Yagasaki (Patent 5,786,858).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that while MPEG-1 provides the base method of claim 8, Yagasaki teaches the specific additional limitation of dependent claim 9. Claim 9 requires the "indication" to be a "separate flag included in the header of a slice." Yagasaki, which describes methods for improving high-speed playback in MPEG-compliant systems, explicitly discloses adding a "structure flag" to the slice header. This flag indicates whether a slice consists entirely of intra-coded macroblocks, a condition that allows the slice (and its frame) to function as the beginning of an independently decodable sequence.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Yagasaki’s slice header flag with the MPEG-1 standard to achieve more efficient decoding and random access, a well-known objective in the field. Yagasaki expressly states that its coding process is the same as in MPEG and that its decoding methods can be performed by a "normal MPEG decoding process."
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as Yagasaki confirms its teachings are compatible with MPEG systems. Placing an indication flag in a slice header is one of a finite, predictable number of design choices for implementing such a feature.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate under both Fintiv and 35 U.S.C. §325(d).
  • Regarding Fintiv, Petitioner asserted that the co-pending district court proceedings are in their earliest stages, with no trial schedule entered. Therefore, a trial is not expected to occur before the Final Written Decision (FWD) deadline for this IPR.
  • Regarding §325(d), Petitioner argued that the core prior art references, MPEG-1 and Kim, were not before the Examiner during the original prosecution. Furthermore, while the Examiner considered Yagasaki, it was in a materially different combination with a different base reference, and the Applicant distinguished that combination on grounds unrelated to Yagasaki’s teachings.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 8-11 of the ’321 patent as unpatentable.