PTAB

IPR2025-01070

Apple Inc v. Advanced Coding Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Moving Picture Encoding System, Moving Picture Encoding Method, Moving Picture Encoding Program, Moving Picture Decoding System, Moving Picture Decoding Method, Moving Picture Decoding Program, Moving Picture Reencoding System, Moving Picture Reencoding Method, and Moving Picture Reencoding Program
  • Brief Description: The ’448 patent describes layered video coding systems that use super-resolution techniques. These techniques are applied to enhance both an original, standard-resolution input video stream to create a higher-resolution enhancement layer, and also to enhance decoded reference pictures used for prediction within that enhancement layer.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Phek, Segall, and He - Claims 1-3 are obvious over Phek in view of Segall and He.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Phek (Japanese Patent Publication No. 2007316161), Segall (an IEEE paper, Sep. 2007), and He (Application # 2008/0137753).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Phek disclosed a hierarchical video coding system with a base layer and an enhancement layer that uses super-resolution processing to improve reconstructed base-layer images for use as reference pictures in the enhancement layer. However, Petitioner contended that super-resolution is computationally expensive. Segall was cited for teaching the use of conventional, less complex interpolation-based up-sampling to create reference pictures for inter-layer prediction in scalable video coding. He was cited for disclosing a method to selectively enable or disable reference picture enhancement filters based on video content complexity or power-saving needs, thereby optimizing the trade-off between quality and computational load.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Phek with Segall to introduce a computationally cheaper alternative (conventional up-sampling) for creating higher-resolution reference pictures, providing a beneficial trade-off between processing cost and image quality. Petitioner asserted a POSITA would then incorporate He's teachings to implement a selection mechanism, allowing the system to dynamically switch between Phek's high-cost, high-quality super-resolution process and Segall's low-cost, standard-quality up-sampling process. This would optimize the encoder's performance based on content characteristics or system constraints.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success as the combination involved applying known optimization techniques (selectable processing paths and conventional up-sampling) to a known type of system (layered video coding) to achieve the predictable result of improved efficiency.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Phek, Segall, He, and Takahashi - Claims 1-3 are obvious over Phek in view of Segall, He, and Takahashi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Phek (Japanese Patent Publication No. 2007316161), Segall (an IEEE paper, Sep. 2007), He (Application # 2008/0137753), and Takahashi (Application # 2001/0043751).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Phek, Segall, and He. Petitioner introduced Takahashi, which was argued to disclose a hierarchical coding system that selects between different types of reference pictures based on the frame’s coding mode (e.g., I-frame vs. P- or B-frame). For example, Takahashi taught selecting resolution-converted data from a lower layer for I-frames but using prediction data from the enhancement layer for other frame types to improve efficiency.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that Takahashi provided a complementary and well-known method for optimizing reference picture selection. A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Takahashi's coding-mode-based selection into the Phek-Segall-He system as another predictable way to reduce operational processing and improve overall coding efficiency. This would add another layer of logic to the reference picture selection process, further refining the trade-off between quality and performance.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted success would be expected because implementing reference picture selection based on coding mode was a foundational concept in hierarchical coding systems, and its application to the proposed combination would yield predictable efficiency gains.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations of Phek, Segall, and Takahashi (Ground 1C) and Phek and Takahashi (Ground 1D), arguing similar motivations for optimizing a layered video coding system to achieve greater efficiency.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial is unwarranted and noted its intent to use the USPTO's bifurcated briefing process to rebut any such arguments raised by the Patent Owner.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3 of the ’448 patent as unpatentable.