PTAB

IPR2025-01036

Intel Corp v. General Video LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Digital Display Interface and Method for 2D/3D Image Transmission
  • Brief Description: The ’010 patent describes a digital display interface, such as HDMI, for transmitting both 2D and stereoscopic 3D video data. The purported invention utilizes the 48-bit per pixel data capacity introduced in the HDMI 1.3 standard to transmit separate 24-bit left-eye and 24-bit right-eye images for 3D viewing.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Tu, Suzuki, and Yun - Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 16, 17 are obvious over Tu, Suzuki, and Yun.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tu (Application # 2008/0134237), Suzuki (Application # 2007/0296859), and Yun (Application # 2004/0027452).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Tu, Suzuki, and Yun teaches all limitations of independent claims 1 and 16. Tu disclosed a general system for transmitting audio-video data from a source device to a display device over a standard HDMI interface. Suzuki addressed the same problem as the ’010 patent by teaching the use of the HDMI 1.3 standard's 48-bit capacity to transmit stereoscopic 3D video, comprising separate 24-bit left-eye and 24-bit right-eye data streams. Suzuki explicitly disclosed a first mode for transmitting typical 2D video (at 24 or 48 bits per pixel) and a second mode for transmitting stereoscopic 3D video. Yun supplemented this by teaching the use of "back-channel information" from the display to control whether a source device operates in a 2D or 3D mode.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Tu's general HDMI framework with Suzuki’s specific method for 3D transmission to achieve the predictable benefit of enabling stereoscopic 3D viewing over a standard, unmodified HDMI interface. This combination would avoid the complex connection configurations of older systems. A POSITA would further incorporate Yun’s teachings to allow user control over the viewing mode via back-channel communication (e.g., remote control signals sent from the TV to the source device), simplifying operation.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success because Tu and Suzuki both utilized the standard HDMI interface, making Suzuki's techniques easily applicable to Tu's system. The modifications would be within the skill of a POSITA and could be implemented with off-the-shelf hardware.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Tu, Suzuki, Yun, and Lida - Claims 3-5, 8 are obvious over Tu, Suzuki, Yun, and Lida.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tu (Application # 2008/0134237), Suzuki (Application # 2007/0296859), Yun (Application # 2004/0027452), and Lida (Application # 2008/0187028).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1 to address dependent claims requiring signaling information to be carried in a blanking period. While Suzuki suggested using the HDMI DDC line for signaling, Lida taught an alternative, well-known method of transmitting such signaling information (characterizing the video stream) within "InfoFrames" located in data island packets during horizontal or vertical blanking periods.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have found it obvious to substitute one known method of transmitting signaling data (via DDC line) with another known and standardized method (via InfoFrames in blanking periods), as taught by Lida. This would be a simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve the same predictable result of transmitting necessary control and configuration data from the source to the display.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was predictable because InfoFrames were a standardized part of the HDMI specification specifically designed to carry such auxiliary data, ensuring interoperability.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Tu and Suzuki - Claims 12, 13, 15, 18 are obvious over Tu and Suzuki.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tu (Application # 2008/0134237) and Suzuki (Application # 2007/0296859).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted claims directed to the receiving audio-visual device (the "sink" or display). Tu disclosed a display device (TV) with an HDMI interface for receiving audio-video data. Suzuki complemented Tu by teaching how a television receiver processes incoming 2D and 3D data transmitted according to the HDMI standard. Suzuki’s sink device included a demultiplexer and decoder to extract the left- and right-eye image data from the incoming stream, corresponding to the "processor arranged to extract said image data" recited in claim 12.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was the same as for the transmitting device claims: to create a complete, interoperable system for transmitting and receiving 2D and 3D video. A POSITA implementing Tu's display device would look to Suzuki for the necessary details on how to process the specific 2D/3D signal formats that Suzuki taught for transmission.
    • Expectation of Success: The expectation of success was high, as this combination merely implemented the receiving-end counterpart to the transmitting system, using standardized HDMI protocols taught by both references.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claim 14 over Tu, Suzuki, and Lida, which relied on the same combination and substitution logic presented in Ground 2.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • To preempt discretionary denial under Fintiv, Petitioner provided a Sotera stipulation. Petitioner stipulated that if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue in the parallel district court case any grounds for invalidating the ’010 patent that were raised or could have reasonably been raised in the IPR.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-8 and 12-18 of the ’010 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.