PTAB

IPR2025-01039

Intel Corp v. General Video LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Transmission of Encoded Data Over a Serial Link
  • Brief Description: The ’437 patent relates to a system for transmitting encoded video and auxiliary data (e.g., audio) over a serial link. The system encodes auxiliary data using a "robust subset" of a full set of code words to reduce inter-symbol interference (ISI) and transmits these bursts of auxiliary data during video blanking intervals.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kim, Shin, and Myers - Claims 1-6, 8, 10-17, 19-23, 26-31, 33, 37, and 39-40 are obvious over [Kim](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01039/doc/1005) in view of [Shin](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01039/doc/1007) and [Myers](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01039/doc/1006).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kim (Patent 5,835,498), Myers (Patent 5,625,644), and Shin (Patent 5,974,464).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the primary references collectively disclose every limitation of the challenged claims. Kim taught the foundational system of transmitting primary video data and auxiliary multimedia data (such as audio) over a single serial link by embedding the auxiliary data into the unused bandwidth of horizontal and vertical blanking periods. Kim disclosed using conventional 8b/10b encoding for both video and audio data streams, processed by separate encoders. To provide an example of such encoding, Kim expressly incorporated by reference the application that issued as Shin, which detailed a specific DC-balanced, transition-controlled 8b/10b encoding scheme. Petitioner argued that Myers taught the key inventive concept of the ’437 patent: selecting a "robust subset" of code words from a full code word set to improve transmission reliability. Myers disclosed criteria for selecting this subset, including ensuring DC balance (an equal number of ones and zeros) and limiting run-length (no more than two consecutive identical bits), to reduce signal distortion and data loss, which is analogous to reducing the ISI claimed in the ’437 patent.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine these references for clear and compelling reasons. The motivation to implement Kim's encoders using the specific scheme taught by Shin was explicit, as Kim incorporated Shin by reference for this exact purpose. The motivation to further combine the teachings of Myers with the Kim/Shin system stemmed from the well-known problem that audio data is more susceptible to perceived errors than video data. A POSITA seeking to improve the reliability of audio transmission in Kim's system would have looked to known techniques for reducing data loss. Myers provided just such a technique—a method for selecting a robust subset of codes to ensure more reliable transmission. Applying Myers's known technique to improve Kim's known system for its intended purpose of transmitting audio data more reliably provided a strong motivation to combine.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. The proposed combination involved applying a known technique (Myers's subset selection) to a known serial data transmission system (Kim) to achieve a predictable improvement in reliability. Myers provided a clear, step-by-step methodology for selecting the code word subset, making the results predictable. Since all references operated in the same field of digital serial data transmission, a POSITA would expect Myers's technique to work effectively within Kim's system.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) would be inappropriate. The petition noted a co-pending district court case, General Video, LLC v. Dell Inc. et al., but asserted that considerations strongly favor institution. To that end, Petitioner stipulated that if the Patent Trial and Appeal Board institutes this IPR, it will not pursue in the litigation the specific grounds raised in the petition or any other grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the IPR based on prior art patents or printed publications.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-6, 8, 10-17, 19-23, 26-31, 33, 37, and 39-40 of the ’437 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.