PTAB

IPR2025-01310

Samsung Electronics America Inc v. Maxell Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wireless Video Transmission with Capability Information Management
  • Brief Description: The ’681 patent describes a wireless video transmitting apparatus that communicates with a display apparatus. The invention aims to efficiently manage updates to the display's capability information (EDID) by associating a "revision value" or "history number" with the EDID, thereby reducing redundant data transmissions that could interfere with the primary video stream.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 7-13, and 17-20 are anticipated by Funabiki

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Funabiki (Application # 2009/0322948).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Funabiki taught every limitation of the challenged claims. Funabiki’s system includes a source device that wirelessly connects to a sink device (display). Upon establishing a new connection, the source device's controller transmits a first "EDID request signal" containing a "sequence number" (the claimed "first number"). In response, it receives and stores EDID information (capability information) from the sink device and uses it to configure the audio/video stream parameters. The completion of an authentication process for a new connection serves as the "predetermined condition" to transmit a second EDID request with a new, different sequence number (the claimed "second number"), which Funabiki's internal counter increments. Funabiki also disclosed that the display apparatus can change its EDID information based on its transmission capabilities, which is then received and stored by the transmitting apparatus, anticipating the limitations of claims 8, 9, and 18.

Ground 2: Claims 1-3, 7-13, and 17-20 are anticipated by Guo

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Guo (Application # 2007/0242062).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Guo’s wireless multimedia source device (101) and sink device (109) connected via an ASMI link anticipated the claims. Guo’s source device transmits a first "EDID REQUEST packet" which includes a "packet sequence number" or "time stamp" (the "first number"). It then receives, stores, and uses the EDID data from the sink device to adjust its multimedia output. Guo taught that a second EDID request is transmitted when a predetermined condition is met, such as the detection of an error in the initial data transfer or when the sink device is powered on. This second request is also a packet containing a different sequence number or time stamp (the "second number"). For claim 3, Petitioner argued that Guo’s use of a "source address" field in its packets—which the source device must match against a stored address to verify the sender—constitutes the claimed matching of "identification information."

Ground 3: Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 11-12, 14-15, and 17 are obvious over E-DDC Standard and Fastert

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: E-DDC Standard (VESA, Dec. 2007) and Fastert (Application # 2007/0222779).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued the E-DDC Standard, a well-known industry protocol, taught the core functionality of a host device requesting capability information from a display. The Standard specified sending a first read request with a "start address" (the "first number") to retrieve base EDID data. It further taught that when a predetermined condition is met—specifically, the detection of a valid checksum and a non-zero "extension flag" in the base EDID—the host sends a second read request with a different start address (e.g., 80h, the "second number") to read an EDID extension block. Fastert taught a hardware system, including wireless transceivers, explicitly designed to implement this E-DDC protocol over a wireless link.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the E-DDC Standard's protocol with Fastert's hardware because Fastert was expressly created to enable wireless communication using the E-DDC standard. The combination represented a straightforward implementation of a known protocol on hardware designed for that exact purpose to create a complete, functional wireless video system, which was a known goal in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because both references were directed to the same technical field of video data transmission and display capability negotiation. Combining them involved using Fastert's wireless platform in its intended manner to carry out the well-defined and predictable communication steps of the E-DDC Standard.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including claims 3 and 13 as obvious over Funabiki and Guo, and claims 6 and 16 as obvious over Funabiki or Guo in view of Fastert. These grounds relied on theories of adding known security features (sequence numbers from Guo to Funabiki) and implementing periodic capability queries (taught by Fastert) to the base systems of Funabiki and Guo.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent 12,160,681 as unpatentable.