PTAB

IPR2025-01154

ASUSTeK Computer Inc v. Nokia Technologies Oy

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Motion Prediction in Video Coding
  • Brief Description: The ’267 patent describes a method for reducing rounding errors during bi-directional motion prediction in video coding. The claimed invention involves calculating prediction signals at a higher precision than the source pixels and only decreasing the precision (rounding down) after the multiple prediction signals have been combined.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-36 are obvious over [Karczewicz-I](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01154/doc/1005) in view of [Karczewicz-II](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01154/doc/1006).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Karczewicz-I (Application # 2011/0007799), Karczewicz-II (Application # 2009/0257499).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Karczewicz-I teaches the foundational process of block-based, bi-directional prediction in H.264 video coding, where two predictions (based on two motion vectors and reference blocks) are averaged to form a combined prediction. This process inherently involves rounding. Karczewicz-II addresses the known problem of rounding inaccuracies in a related context—pixel interpolation—by teaching the specific technique of maintaining higher precision for intermediate values and delaying the final rounding step until later in the process. Petitioner asserted that combining these references renders all challenged claims obvious by applying Karczewicz-II's precision-preserving method to the bi-directional prediction averaging taught in Karczewicz-I. The petition detailed this application across three specific scenarios covering predictions for integer pixels, half-pixels, and center-pixels, showing how Karczewicz-II’s method of using non-rounded or partially-rounded intermediate values at higher bit-depths directly maps onto the calculations in Karczewicz-I.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been strongly motivated to combine the teachings of these references. Both are patent applications from the same inventors (assigned to Qualcomm), are directed to H.264 video coding, and describe similar encoder/decoder architectures. Karczewicz-II explicitly aims to reduce rounding inaccuracies, a known issue in the field. A POSITA would have recognized that applying Karczewicz-II's technique of delaying rounding would be a complementary and direct improvement to the prediction averaging process in Karczewicz-I, serving the predictable goal of improving prediction accuracy. The petition characterized this as applying a known technique to improve a similar device, which is a well-established rationale for obviousness.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. The combination involves applying straightforward mathematical and logical operations (e.g., bit-shifting, addition) that were fundamental to video codecs. The proposed modification does not change the overall architecture or principle of operation of Karczewicz-I's system; it only alters when rounding occurs in calculations that already involved rounding. The compatibility of the references and the predictable nature of improving accuracy by preserving intermediate precision would ensure a high likelihood of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "precision": For the purposes of the proceeding, Petitioner proposed that "precision" should be understood as being satisfied by, but not necessarily limited to, "a number of bits needed to represent possible values." This construction is central to the obviousness argument, which hinges on Karczewicz-II's teaching of using more bits (a higher precision) for intermediate prediction values than for the source pixel values (the first precision) before rounding down.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial is unwarranted. It noted that the Board had previously instituted inter partes review (IPR) on the same challenged claims of the ’267 patent in IPR2024-00626 and IPR2024-00627 based on the same prior art and obviousness arguments presented in this petition. Those prior proceedings were terminated due to settlement. Petitioner asserted this prior institution demonstrates the merits of its case and weighs heavily against discretionary denial.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-36 of the ’267 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.