Filed on behalf of: Unified Patents Inc.

By:
James D. Stein
P. Andrew Riley
Ryan H. Ellis
David C. Seastrunk
Finnegan, Henderson,
Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.
901 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 200014413
Telephone: 202-408-4266
Facsimile: 202-408-4400

Jonathan Stroud
Unified Patents Inc.
1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
Washington, D.C., 20009
Telephone: 202-805-8931
Email: HybridAudioIPR@finnegan.com

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

_________________________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_________________________
UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
Petitioner
v.
HYBRID AUDIO, LLC.
Patent Owner
_________________________
Patent RE40,281
IPR2016-01265
SIGNAL PROCESSING UTILIZING A TREE-STRUCTURED ARRAY
_________________________
PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW

-1-

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.

Introduction......................................................................................................1

II.

Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. 42.8 ....................................................1

A.

Real Parties-in-Interest ..........................................................................1

B.

Related Matters......................................................................................2

C.

Lead and Backup Counsel Information.................................................3

III.

Fee Payment.....................................................................................................3

IV.

Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim Challenged ...............3

V.

VI.

A.

Claims for Which Review Is Requested ...............................................3

B.

Statutory Grounds of Challenge ............................................................4

The 281 Patent ................................................................................................4

A.

Overview of the Disclosure ...................................................................4

B.

Prosecution History ...............................................................................6

C.

Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .........................................................9

Claim Construction ..........................................................................................9

A.

Filter Bank (All Challenged Claims) ...............................................10

B.

Root Node (Challenged Claims 5, 18, 34, 48, 66, 76, 90, 100,
and 114) ...............................................................................................12

C.

Leaf Node (Challenged Claims 5, 18, 34, 48, 66, 76, 90, 100,
and 114) ...............................................................................................13

D.

Means for Splitting (Challenged Claims 66 and 71) and

Means for Synthesizing (Challenged Claims 76 and 83) ................14

VII. Statement of Relief Requested: 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b) (Grounds 15) ........16

-i-

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
A.

B.

Ground 1: Jones in View of Adelson Renders Obvious

Challenged Claims 5, 18, 26, 34, 48, 57, 66, 76, 83, 118, and
120 .......................................................................................................16
1.

Overview of Jones ....................................................................16

2.

Jones in View of Adelson Renders Obvious the Subject

Matter of Claim 5 ......................................................................21

3.

Jones in view of Adelson Renders Obvious the Subject

Matter of Independent Claims 18, 48, 76, and 118 ..................40

4.

Jones in view of Adelson Renders Obvious the Subject

Matter of Independent Claim 34 and 66 ...................................42

5.

Jones in view of Adelson Renders Obvious the Subject

Matter of Independent Claims 26, 57, 83, and 120 ..................43

6.

Jones in view of Adelson Renders Obvious the Subject

Matter of Independent Claims 57, 83, and 120 ........................49

Ground 2: Jones Anticipates Claims 12, 41, and 71 ...........................50

1.

Jones Discloses the Features of Claim 12 ................................50

2.

Jones Discloses the Features of Independent Claims 41

and 71 ........................................................................................57

C.

Ground 3: Jones in View of Adelson, and Further in View of

Veldhuis, Render Obvious Independent Claims 90, 100, 107,
and 114. ...............................................................................................58

D.

Ground 4: Jones in View of Veldhuis Render Obvious

Independent Claim 95 .........................................................................61

E.

Ground 5: Jones in Veldhuis Render Obvious Independent

Claim 116 ............................................................................................61

VIII. Conclusion .....................................................................................................62

- ii -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Federal Cases
Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
15-446 (2016)........................................................................................................ 9
In re GPAC,
57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .............................................................................. 9
In re Lowry,
32 F.3d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 60
Ex parte Mewherter,
Appeal No. 2012-007692 (May 8, 2013)............................................................ 59
In re Ngai,
367 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 60
In re Nuijten,
500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................... 59, 60
Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ......................................................8, 10
Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
814 F.2d 628, 2 USPQ2d 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ................................................ 50
Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC792
F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................14, 15
Federal Statutes
35 U.S.C. 102(b) ............................................................................................passim
35 U.S.C. 103 .......................................................................................................... 7
35 U.S.C. 103(a) ...............................................................................................4, 50
35 U.S.C. 112, 6th/f .............................................................................................. 14
- iv -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
35 U.S.C. 311 .......................................................................................................... 3
35 U.S.C. 311-319 ................................................................................................ 1
Regulations
37 C.F.R. 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 1
37 C.F.R. 42.15(a)................................................................................................... 3
37 C.F.R. 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 9
37 C.F.R. 42.100 et seq. ........................................................................................ 1
37 C.F.R. 42.103(a)................................................................................................. 3
Other Authorities
M.P.E.P. 2141.03 .................................................................................................... 9

-v-

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
I.

Introduction
Petitioner Unified Patents Inc. (Unified or Petitioner) requests inter

partes review of independent claims 5, 12, 18, 26, 34, 41, 48, 57, 66, 71, 76, 83,
90, 95, 100, 107, 114, 116, 118, and 120 of U.S. Patent No. RE40,281 (the 281
patent, EX1001), assigned to Hybrid Audio, LLC, under 35 U.S.C. 311319
and 37 C.F.R. 42.100 et seq. The 281 patent broadly claims systems and
methods for filtering signals with an exceedingly common filter structurea twolevel filter bank made up of a root filter and more than two leaf filters. But filtering
systems having this simple structure were known before the earliest-claimed
priority date of the 281 patent. The patent owner argued that having multiple
filters with a common input distinguished its claims over the prior art, but this was
known and obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention, as
demonstrated by Jones. This Petition establishes that the challenged claims are
unpatentable.
II.

Mandatory Notices Under 37 C.F.R. 42.8

A.

Real Parties-in-Interest

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies that Unified is the real

party-in-interest, and further certifies that no other party exercised control or could
exercise control over Unifieds participation in this proceeding, the filing of this
petition, or the conduct of any ensuing trial. In this regard, Unified has submitted
voluntary discovery. See EX1007, Petitioners Voluntary Interrogatory Responses.
-1-

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
B.

Related Matters

Upon information and belief, the 281 was asserted in the following cases:
1. Hybrid Audio, LLC v. ASUS Computer International, Inc. and
ASUSTEK Computer Inc., No. 1-16-cv-10643 (D. Mass);
2. Hybrid Audio, LLC v. Harman International Industries, Inc., No. 116-cv-10646 (D. Mass);
3. Hybrid Audio, LLC v. Panasonic Corp. and Panasonic Corporation of
North America, No. 1-16-cv-10647 (D. Mass);
4. Hybrid Audio, LLC v. Pioneer Corp., Pioneer North America, Inc.,
and Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc., No. 1-16-cv-10648 (D. Mass);
5. Hybrid Audio, LLC v. High Tech Computer Corp aka HTC Corp.,
HTC (B.V.I.) Corp., HTC America, Inc., Exedea, Inc., Apple, Inc.,
Dell, Inc., Motorola Mobility, Inc., Nokia Corp., Nokia Inc., Research
In Motion, Ltd., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics
America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, No.
6-11-cv-00195 (E.D. Tex.);
6. Hybrid Audio, LLC v. High Tech Computer Corp aka HTC Corp.,
HTC (B.V.I.) Corp., HTC America, Inc., Exedea, Inc., Apple, Inc., and
Dell, Inc., No. 6-10-cv-00677 (E.D. Tex.).
The 281 patent was also the subject of reexam control no. 90/012,364,
-2-

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
which was appealed to the Federal Circuit, In re Hybrid Audio, LLC, No. 15-1002,
where the challenged claims were confirmed.
C.

Lead and Backup Counsel Information

The signature block of this petition designates lead counsel, backup counsel,
and service information Petition. Petitioner designates James D. Stein (Reg. No.
63,782) as lead counsel and designates P. Andrew Riley (Reg. No. 66,290), Ryan
H. Ellis (Reg. No. 73,924), and David C. Seastrunk (Reg. No. 73,723) as backup
counsel. All can be reached at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner,
LLP, 901 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001-4413 (phone:
202.408.4000; fax: 202.408.4400). Unified also designates as backup counsel
Jonathan Stroud (Reg. No. 72,518). Petitioner consents to e-mail service at
HybridAudio-IPR@finnegan.com.
III.

Fee Payment
The required fees are submitted under 37 C.F.R. 42.103(a) and 42.15(a).

If any additional fees are due during this proceeding, the Office may charge such
fees to Deposit Account No. 06-0916.
IV.

Statement of Precise Relief Requested for Each Claim Challenged

A.

Claims for Which Review Is Requested

Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. 311 of

independent claims 5, 12, 18, 26, 34, 41, 48, 57, 66, 71, 76, 83, 90, 95, 100, 107,
-3-

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
signal into frequency sub-bands by a tree structured filter 30. EX1001 at 9:13.

EX1001, FIG. 2. Filter 30 includes two levels of filter banks. EX1001 at 9:5.
[T]he decomposition is carried out in two levels of filters where the first level
of filter 30 consists of a filter bank 31 which divides the input signal into eight subbands of equal size and [t]he second level subdivides the lowest three frequency
bands from filter bank 31 into finer subdivisions. EX1001 at 9:813; EX1003
20-21.
While the first level has one filter bank, the second level has more than two
filter banks 3234. EX1001 at 9:1314. Filter bank 32 divides the lowest subband from filter bank 31 into 8 equal sub-bands, while [f]ilter bank 33 and filter
bank 34 divide the second and third sub-bands created by filter bank 31 into five
-5-

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
and four sub-bands respectively, that is, less sub-bands than filter bank 32.
EX1001 at 9:1417. As a result, [t]he lower frequencies, bands 18, have the
finest frequency resolution, but the poorest temporal resolution. The highest
frequencies, bands 1721, have the poorest frequency resolution, but the finest
time resolution. EX1001 at 11:4448. According to the 281 patent [t]his
arrangement more nearly approximates the ear's sensitivity than systems utilizing
filter banks in which all bands have the same temporal resolution, while avoiding
the aliasing problems inherent in tree-structured filters having many levels of
filters. EX1001 at 11:4853; EX1003 22.
Jones teaches a form of subband coding as applied to images for a specific
function: namely to make reduced resolution versions of the original image
available for quick display on video monitors while providing access to the full
resolution image for making photographic quality hardcopies. EX1001, Abstract.
The field of subband coding was understood at the time of the priority date of the
281 patent and was applied to audio signals (e.g., speech) as well as visual signals
(e.g. images). EX1003 23-24.
B.

Prosecution History

Reissue Application No. 10/994,925 that lead to the 281 patent was filed on
November 23, 2004 to reissue U.S. Patent No. 6,252,909 issued on June 26, 2001.
EX1001 at 1. The reissue application added subject matter, including all of the
-6-

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
challenged claims, from U.S. Patent No. 5,408,580, which issued almost a decade
earlier on April 18, 1995. In the first Office Action, the Examiner raised an
improper broadening reissue rejection. See EX1003 at 44-47 (2006-01-18 Office
Action at 25). The Examiner also rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 based
on Veldhuis. See EX1003 at 51-52 (2006-01-18 Office Action at 910). The
applicant then had an Examiner interview where proposed claim language was
discussed. See EX1003 at 39-41 (2006-03-13 Interview Summary). Following the
interview, the applicant canceled the pending claims and added new claims, but did
not explain in particular how the new claims overcame the issues in the Office
Action. The response only referenced the statement in the Examiners Interview
Summary that the proposed language is acceptable to distinguish over the prior
art . . . . See EX1003 at 30 (2006-4-28 Response). The Examiners Notice of
Allowance also did not provide detailed reasons for allowance but instead
referenced the general statement from the earlier Interview Summary. See EX1003
at 5 (2007-07-10 Notice of Allowance).
A third-party requester petitioned for ex parte reexamination (Control No.
90/012,364) of the 281 patent, including the challenged claims, on June 18, 2012.
The petition did not rely on any of the prior art references applied in this Petition.
Of the references relied on in this Petition, only Veldhuis was cited in in the
reexamination.
-7-

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
The challenged claims were reexamined and confirmed, after appeal to the
Federal Circuit. The applicant argued that the Patent Office should have applied
the Phillips claim construction standard (not the broadest reasonable interpretation
standard) because the 281 patent was expired, and that the 281 patent claims
distinguished over the cited art under the Phillips standard. The Federal Circuit
remanded the case to the Patent Office to determine what effect, if any, the
application of the Phillips standard would have on the patentability of the claims.
EX1003 at 84-87 (Order Remanding to Examiner).
Following an interview summary where the applicant proposed its
constructions for certain 281 patent terms under the Phillips standard, EX1003 at
75-82 Interview Discussion (with claim term chart), the Examiner allowed the
application EX1003 at 64, (2015-11-3 Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination
Certificate). In the Examiners reasons for confirming the claims, the Examiner
stated that the applied prior art references did not disclose the type of filter bank
found in the 281 patent. EX1003 at 72, (2015-11-3 Notice of Intent to Issue
Reexamination Certificate at 8). According to the Examiner, the [t]he claimed
filter bank, when viewed in the context of the specification, is a plurality of FIR
filters that have a common input. Id. The Examiner distinguished this from the
alleged filter banks of the asserted prior art that do not have a common input for
multiple filters. Id.
-8-

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
Jones, which forms the basis of the Grounds presented in this Petition,
directly addresses the Examiners reasons for allowance. In particular, as discussed
below, the filter banks of Jones contain multiple filters that use a common input.
C.

Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art

Several factors define the level of ordinary skill in the art. They include
(1) the types of problems encountered in the art; (2) the prior art solutions to those
problems; (3) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (4) the sophistication
of the technology; and (5) the educational level of active workers in the field. See
M.P.E.P. 2141.03 (citing In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). The
281 patent claims priority to the application that resulted in U.S. Patent No.
5,408,580, which was filed on September 21, 1992. At that time, a person having
ordinary skill in the art (hereafter, POSA) of signal processing would have had
(i) a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science,
or equivalent training, and (ii) approximately two years of experience or research
related to signal processing. See EX1002 25-29.
VI.

Claim Construction
A claim in an unexpired patent subject to inter partes review shall be given

its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in

which it appears. 37 C.F.R. 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, No.
15-446 (U.S. 2016). Here, however, the 281 patent is expired, and claims of an
-9-

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
expired patent are given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
person of ordinary skill in the art. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 131213
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Unified suggests the following constructions.
A.

Filter Bank (All Challenged Claims)

The challenged claims recite a filter bank. For purposes of this proceeding,
Petitioner accepts a construction consistent with the Examiners and Patent
Owners construction in the reexamination that led the Examiner to allow the
application: a plurality of filters that share a common input or output. This
construction is consistent with the specification of the 281 patent. For example,
FIG. 2 of the 281 patent shows a first level filter bank 31 and second level filter
banks 3234:

- 10 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281

EX1001, FIG. 2. Although the specification does not expressly teach that each
filter bank has a plurality of filters, the figure shows that the filter banks receive a
common input signal and output multiple frequency sub-bands. Additionally, the
claims themselves specify that a filter bank has multiple filters. See, e.g., EX1001
at claim 5 (one filter bank having greater than two filters; see also EX1009
(defining filter bank as an array of band-pass filters that separates the input
signal into multiple components, each one carrying a single frequency sub-band of
the original signal.); EX1002 30.
The 281 patent also discusses an embodiment, shown in FIG. 3, where the
filter bank operates in the reverse direction to receive multiple sub-band inputs
- 11 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
and generate a combined output signal:
The reverse transformation can [be] performed by an
analogous filter bank such as shown in FIG. 3 at 60.
Filter 60 provides the frequency-domain to time-domain
transformation

shown

in

FIG. 1.

The

reverse

transformation also utilizes a two level tree structure. The

symbols to be sent on the finer sub-bands are first
combined using a first set of synthesis filters shown
at 62-64 to provide signals representing three larger subbands of the same width as bands 18-22. These
symbols together with those from bands 18-22 are then
combined by synthesis filter 61 to provide the timedomain output signal that is sent on the communication
link.
EX1001 at 9:2536; EX1002 31.
For these reasons, filter bank should be construed to mean a plurality of
filters that share a common input or output.
B.

Root Node (Challenged Claims 5, 18, 34, 48, 66, 76, 90, 100, and
114)

The above-identified challenged claims recite a root node. This term

should be construed to mean the filter bank at the input to a tree-structured array.
The specification does not expressly define root node, but in one of two
mentions of the term, the specification refers to the audio signal forming the input

- 12 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
of the root node of the tree-structured array. EX1001 at 5:666:2 (emphasis
added). This description suggests that the root node serves as the input to the treestructured array. EX1002 33. Figure 2 of the 281 patent confirms this, as it
shows the first level node 31 of the tree receiving the time-domain input signal.
C.

Leaf Node (Challenged Claims 5, 18, 34, 48, 66, 76, 90, 100, and
114)

The above-identified challenged claims also recite leaf node[s]. Leaf

node should be construed to mean a filter bank below the root node providing an
output of a tree-structured array. The specification does not expressly define leaf
node and only mentions it a few times. In one discussion of a tree-structured
array, the specification provides context about a leaf node:
That is, each of the outputs of the first level filter
becomes the input to another filter bank at least one of
whose two outputs is fed to yet another level, and so on.
The leaf nodes of this tree provide an approximation to a
critical band analysis of the input audio track.
EX1001 at 4:2126. This passage suggests two characteristics about a leaf node:
(1) it falls below the first level (i.e., the root node); and (2) it provides a desired
output of the tree-structured array. This interpretation is consistent with FIG. 2 of
the 281 patent, which shows leaf nodes 32-34 in the second level below the root
node 31 and providing the desired sub-band outputs S1S16. See EX1001 at 11:32

- 13 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281

71

76

83

and at least one of the leaf nodes having a number of filters that differs
from the number of filters in a second leaf node.
using a plurality of filter banks that can connect to form a treestructured array having a first and a second level; the first level
comprising one first level filter bank having more than two filters; and
the second level comprising at least two second level filter banks, each
second level filter bank having as input an output from a different filter
in the first level, wherein one second level filter bank has a different
number of filters than another second level filter bank.
using a plurality of synthesis filter banks that can connect to form a
tree structured array having greater than two leaf nodes and a root
node, wherein each of the nodes comprises one synthesis filter bank
having greater than two filters, with at least one of the leaf nodes
having a number of filters that differs from the number of filters in a
second leaf node.
using a plurality of synthesis filter banks that can connect to form a
tree-structured array having a first and a second level,
wherein the first level comprises more than two first level synthesis
filter banks, and one first level synthesis filter bank has a different
number of filters than another first level synthesis filter bank, and
the second level comprises one synthesis filter bank having more than
two filters, the second level having as inputs the outputs of the first
level synthesis filter banks.
Even if these terms were construed as means-plus-function limitations, the

result would be the same. Construing a means-plus function claim term is a twostep process. The court must first identify the claimed function. . . . Then, the court
must determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to
the claimed function. Williamson, 792 F.3d 1339, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims themselves identify the claimed functions: splitting a signal into
subbands or synthesizing a signal. And the 281 patent identifies the relevant
structure in FIGS. 2 and 3, which is the same plurality of filter banks connected in
- 15 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
tree-structured array already described in the claims. EX1001 at 9:1-36; FIGS 2, 3.
VII. Statement of Relief Requested: 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b) (Grounds 15)
Ground 1: Jones in View of Adelson Renders Obvious Challenged
Claims 5, 18, 26, 34, 48, 57, 66, 76, 83, 118, and 120

A.

As discussed below, Jones in view of Adelson renders obvious claims 5, 18,

26, 34, 48, 57, 66, 76, 83, 118, and 120 of the 281 patent.
1.

Overview of Jones

Jones is a U.S. Patent issued on September 10, 1991, so it is prior art to the
281 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) regardless of whether the 281
patent is entitled to its earliest claimed priority date of September 21, 1992.
Jones describes systems and methods for the hierarchical storage and
display of high resolution digital images in a multiuse environment. EX1004,
Abstract.) discloses that video signals can be hierarchically decomposed and
stored. EX1004 at 5:516:11. For example, the signal can be a HDTV signal that
is composed of 2048 x 3072 pixels . . . adequate [resolution] to produce
photographic quality originals on an appropriate digital output device. EX1004 at
5:5164. This resolution level is referred to as 2K. EX1004 at 5:64. EX1002 36.
Figure 10 of Jones shows one embodiment of an encoder system using
subband coding with progressive partitioning. EX1004 at 5:1316.

- 16 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281

EX1004, FIG. 10. Similar to the 281 patent, the Joness figure 10 encoder
receives a 2K image signal and the 2K image is decomposed using a full twolevel subband tree structure to generate sixteen 512 subband images. To further
decompose the lowest frequency 512 image, a separate technique is used, namely,
progressive partitioning, where the lowest frequency 512 image is partitioned into
four 256 images by subsampling the 512 image in a staggered fashion . . . .
EX1004 at 6:1422. As shown in FIG. 10 of Jones, the encoder has three filter
banks, labeled Figure 3 Apparatus Without 301 and 302 (first filter bank),
Figure 3 Apparatus Without 301 (second filter bank), and 401 (third filter
bank). The first filter bank splits the 2K image signal into four sub-band signals:
- 17 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
1K image sub-band (LL), 1K image sub-band (LH), 1K image sub-band (HL), and
1K image sub-band (HH). EX1004, FIG. 10. The second filter bank then splits the
1K image sub-band (LL) into four further sub-bands: LL-LL, LL-LH, LL-HL, and
LL-HH. EX1004, FIG. 10. And the third filter bank, 401, splits the 1K image subband (LH), 1K image sub-band (HL), and 1K image sub-band (HH) signals
respectively into three further sub-bands: (1) LH-LL, LH-LH, LH-HL, and LHHH; (2), HL-LL, HL-LH, HL-HL, and HL-HH; (3) HH-LL, HH-LH, HH-HL, and
HH-HH. EX1004, FIG. 10. EX1002 37.
Then, [t]his information is then used to reconstruct the 1K images and the
2K images, the reconstruction process is illustrated in FIG. 12. EX1004 at 5:26
28.

- 18 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281

EX1004, FIG. 12. As shown in the figure above, the decoder portion reconstructs
the 2K image from the sixteen individual sub-band signals. EX1002 38.
a.

Overview of Adelson (FIG. 7 of Jones)

Jones also describes an embodiment from Adelson where only the subband
corresponding to the lowpass filtered image at each level (YLL, YLL-LL, etc.) is
further decomposed into additional subbands. EX1004 at 3:5961. FIG. 7 of
Jones shows Adelsons embodiment:

- 19 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281

EX1004, FIG. 7. As shown in the figure, this embodiment has another filter bank
(Figure 3 Apparatus) that receives the lowest-frequency signal YLL output by the
second filter bank of FIG. 10 of Jones and separates it into four additional subbands. EX1002 39.
When discussing FIG. 7, Jones explains that it is advantageous to further
decompose[] into additional subbands only the subband corresponding to the
lowpass filtered image at each level (YLL, YLL-LL, etc.). EX1004 at 3:5861.
Further dividing the lowest-frequency signal into additional sub-bands is
motivated by the observation that further decomposition of the lowpass filtered
- 20 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
subband results in the largest increase in coding efficiency and that it is
computationally simpler to decompose only the lowpass subband rather than all the
subbands. EX1004 at 3:6267. Moreover, Adelson teaches that these benefits of
further decomposition of the lowest-frequency signal can be increased by using up
to five stages of decomposition:
Modifications of this apparatus having a multiplicity of
stages for performing more than two iterated analysis
procedures are possible and indeed desirable up to three
or four stages. There is seldom much advantage of five or
more stages, since usually most of the entropy reduction
for image data takes place in the higher spatial-frequency
bands.
EX1004 at 2:3743. EX1002 40.
2.

Jones in View of Adelson Renders Obvious the Subject Matter

of Claim 5
a.

Jones Discloses [a] signal processing method

Jones discloses [a] signal processing method, as claimed. EX1001 at

24:23. In particular, FIG. 10 of Jones shows an encoder, EX1004 at 5:1316,
where [a] 2K image is decomposed using a full two-level sub-band tree structure
to generate sixteen 512 sub-band images and a separate technique is used,
namely, progressive partitioning, where the lowest frequency 512 image is
partitioned into four 256 images by subsampling the 512 image in a staggered
- 21 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
fashion . . . . EX1004 at 6:1422. EX1002 41.
As shown in FIG. 10 of Jones, the encoder receives the 2K image signal as
input:

EX1004, FIG. 10 (annotations added). The 2K image signal is a High Definition

Television (HDTV) signal with a resolution of 2048 x 3072 pixels. EX1004 at
5:5164. In Jones, the encoding process applied by the FIG. 10 encoder to the 2K
image signal is the claimed signal processing method. EX1002 42. While
Jones deals with image processing, this is also a form of signal processing, as
determined by the fact that images comprise signals, just as speech or music is
- 22 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
comprised of signals. EX1002 43.
b.

Jones Discloses [s]plitting a signal into sub-bands using a

plurality of filter banks

Figure 10 of Jones illustrates that the encoder has three filter banks, labeled
Figure 3 Apparatus Without 301 and 302 (first filter bank), Figure 3
Apparatus Without 301 (second filter bank), and 401 (third filter bank):

EX1004, FIG. 10 (annotations added). As shown, the first filter bank splits the 2K
image signal into four sub-band signals: 1K image sub-band (LL), 1K image subband (LH), 1K image sub-band (HL), and 1K image sub-band (HH). EX1004, FIG.
10. The second filter bank then splits the 1K image sub-band (LL) into four further
sub-bands: LL-LL, LL-LH, LL-HL, and LL-HH. EX1004, FIG. 10. And the third
- 23 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
filter bank, 401, splits the 1K image sub-band (LH), 1K image sub-band (HL), and
1K image sub-band (HH) signals respectively into three further sub-bands: (1) LHLL, LH-LH, LH-HL, and LH-HH; (2), HL-LL, HL-LH, HL-HL, and HL-HH; (3)
HH-LL, HH-LH, HH-HL, and HH-HH. EX1004, FIG. 10. EX1002 44.
Thus, Jones discloses splitting a signal into sub-bands using a plurality of
filter banks, as claimed.
c.

Jones discloses that each of the filter banks comprises a

plurality of filters that share a common input

As explained above in Section VI.A, filter bank refers to a plurality of

filters that share a common input. Jones discloses that each of the three filter banks
identified in figure 10 above contains multiple filters and shares a common input.
EX1002 46.
As Jones describes in figure 10, the first filter bank contains the Figure 3
apparatus without 301 and 302. (EX1004, FIG. 10.) Referring to Figure 3, Jones
shows that this structure contains six filters: LPF (horizontal), HPF (horizontal),
each connected to a further LPF (vertical) and HPF (vertical):

- 24 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281

EX1004, FIG. 3 (annotations added showing six filters in FIG. 10s first filter
bank, as well as the structure not present in the first filter bank). As explained by
Jones in regard to FIG. 3, this structure receives the common input X, and
X is decomposed into a number of overlapping frequency
bands, generally by using a set of 1-D lowpass (LPF) and
highpass (HPF) quadrature mirror filters (QMFs). The
filtered images representing these frequency sub-bands
have a reduced bandwidth compared to the original
image and can thus be subsampled, generally by a factor
of two in each dimension. The formation of four subbands is illustrated in FIG. 3, and the sub-bands are
denoted as YLL, YLH, YHL, and YHH where the subscripts
- 25 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
indicate which filters (L for lowpass and H for highpass)
were used in the x- and y-directions, respectively, to
generate the sub-band.
EX1004 at 3:922. In the case of the first filter bank, the input X corresponds to
the input 2K image signal, and each of the six filters shares this common input
signal and splits to the four 1K image sub-bands LL, LH, HL, and HH signals.
Compare EX1004, FIG. 3. with EX1004, FIG 10. Thus, the first filter bank
contains a plurality of filters (six) that share a common input, as required by the
claims. EX1002 47.
The second filter bank also contains a plurality of filters that share a
common input. As stated in FIG. 10 of Jones, the second filter bank also contains
the Figure 3 apparatus, except without 301. EX1004, FIG. 10. Thus, the
second filter bank has the following structure:

- 26 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281

EX1004, FIG. 3 (annotations added showing six filters in FIG. 10s second filter
bank, as well as the structure not present in the second filter bank). Like the first
filter bank in FIG. 10 of Jones, the second filter bank has a plurality of filters (six).
Additionally, in the case of the second filter bank, the input X corresponds to the
1K image sub-band (LL) signal which is shared as a common input to the six filters
Compare EX1004, FIG. 3 with EX1004, FIG. 10. And the six filters split the
common input 1K image sub-band (LL) signal into the four LH-LL, LH-LH, LHHL sub-band signals. So, the second filter bank also comprises a plurality of filters
(six) which share a common input. EX1002 48.
Jones does not expressly teach what structure makes up the third filter bank,
- 27 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
401. But Jones teaches that the 2K image is decomposed using a full two-level
sub-band tree structure to generate sixteen 512 sub-band images. EX1004 at
6:1417. As shown in FIG. 10, the second filter bank outputs four of the 16 subbands while the third filter bank outputs the remaining 12 sub-bands. See EX1004,
FIG. 10. And, as explained above with reference to FIG. 3, the second filter bank
requires six filters to split the single input 1K image sub-band (LL) signal into the
four LH-LL, LH-LH, LH-HL sub-band signals. EX1004, FIG. 10. But the third
filter bank receives three input signals (the 1K image LH, HL, and HH signals) and
likewise splits them into three sets of four output sub-band signals ((1) LH-LL,
LH-LH, LH-HL, and LH-HH; (2), HL-LL, HL-LH, HL-HL, and HL-HH; (3) HHLL, HH-LH, HH-HL, and HH-HH.) EX1004, FIG. 10. EX1002 49.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the third filter
bank contains three of the structures shown in FIG. 3. This means that the third
filter bank has 18 individual filtersthree FIG. 3 structures (one for each input
signal) times six filters in each structure. Additionally, the first-through-third sets
of six filters respectively receives the 1K (LH) image signal, the 1K (HL) image
signal, and the 1K (HH) signal as its input X. Compare EX1006, FIG. 10 with id.
FIG. 3. Accordingly, the third filter bank comprises a plurality of filters that share
a common input signal. EX1002 50.
Claim 5 recites that the filter banks are connected to form a tree-structured
- 28 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
array. EX1001 at 24:2425. In figure 10, Jones shows that the three filter banks
are connected to form a tree-structured array:

EX1004, FIG. 10 (annotations added showing three-structured array of the three

filter banks). In particular, the 2K image signal corresponds to the trunk of the
tree. The first filter bank splits the trunk into four initial branches: the 1K image
sub-band signals LL, LH, HL, and HH. EX1004, FIG. 10. The second filter bank
splits the 1K image sub-band (LL) signal branch into four additional branches: the
LL-LH, LL-LH, LL-HL, and LL-HH sub-band signals. EX1004, FIG. 10. And the
third filter bank, 401, splits three branchesthe 1K image sub-band signals LH,
HL, and HH signalsinto 12 additional branches: the (LH-LL, LH-LH, LH-HL,
- 29 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
and LH-HH; HL-LL, HL-LH, HL-HL, and HL-HH; and HH-LL, HH-LH, HH-HL,
and HH-HH sub-band signals. EX1004, FIG. 10. This relationship of trunks and
branches comprises a tree-structured array as claimed. EX1002 51.
Accordingly, Jones discloses that the three filter banks are connected to
form a tree-structured array, as claimed.
d.

Jones renders obvious a tree-structured array having a

root node and greater than two leaf nodes

Jones discloses that the tree-structured array in figure 10 has a root node and
two leaf nodes. Jones does not expressly disclose that the tree-structured array of
figure 10 has greater than two leaf nodes, as recited by claim 5. EX1001 at
24:26 (emphasis added).) But Jones describes other embodiments that would have
led one of ordinary skill in the art to add one or more further leaf nodes to the treestructured array of FIG. 10 to further filter the lowest-frequency signalYLL-LL
output by the second filterinto additional sub-bands. EX1002 53.
i.

Joness tree-structured array of FIG. 10 has a root node

and two leaf nodes

As explained above in Section VI.B, root node means the filter bank at
the input to a tree-structured array. Figure 10 of Jones shows that the first filter
bank is the filter bank at the input to a tree-structured array. In particular, the
first filter bank receives the 2K image input signal to the tree structure array:

- 30 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281

EX1004, FIG. 10 (annotations added identifying root node and two leaf nodes).
EX1002 54.
Also as explained above in Section VI.C, leaf node refers to a filter bank
below the root node providing an output of a tree-structured array. In figure 10s
tree-structure array, the second and third filter banks correspond to two leaf
nodes. This is because the second and third filter banks are in a level below the
root filter node and they provide outputs of the tree-structure array. In particular,
the outputs are the four LL-LL, LL-LH, LL-HL, and LL-HH sub-band signals
output by the second filter node and the twelve LH-LL, LH-LH, LH-HL, and LH-

- 31 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
HH; HL-LL, HL-LH, HL-HL, and HL-HH; and HH-LL, HH-LH, HH-HL, and
HH-HH sub-band signals output by the third filter bank. EX1004, FIG. 10. These
signals are outputs of the tree-structured array because they are used by the
structure in figure 12 to reconstruct the original 2K image signal for display. In
particular, after the sub-band signals are output:
Th[is] information to be stored is then composed of the
four 256 images (which can be used to reconstruct the
lowest frequency 512 image) and the remaining 512
subbands. This information is then used to reconstruct the
1K images and the 2K images, the reconstruction process
is illustrated in FIG. 12.
EX1004 at 6:2127; see also id. FIG. 12. Figure 12 of Jones illustrates how the
decoder apparatus reconstructs the signal for display from the individual
encoded 512 subbands output by the leaf nodes:

- 32 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281

EX1004, FIG. 12 (annotations added showing output of leaf nodes for regenerating
2K image signal from constituent sub-bands). EX1002 55.
Accordingly, Jones discloses a root node and two leaf nodes.
ii.

FIG. 7 of Jones (describing Adelson), shows a structure

with an additional leaf node filter bank for further
filtering the lowest-frequency signal

Jones does not expressly disclose that the tree-structure array of FIG. 10 has
greater than two leaf nodes, as recited in claim 5. EX1001 at 24:26 (emphasis
added). But Jones describes an embodiment from Adelson where only the
subband corresponding to the lowpass filtered image at each level (YLL, YLL-LL,
etc.) is further decomposed into additional subbands. EX1004 at 3:5961. FIG. 7
- 33 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
of Jones shows Adelsons embodiment:

EX1004, FIG. 7 (annotations added). As shown in the figure, this embodiment has
another filter bank (Figure 3 Apparatus) that receives the lowest-frequency
signal YLL output by the second filter bank of FIG. 10 of Jones and separates it into
four additional sub-bands outputs of the tree-structured array. In both FIGS. 7 and
10, it is described as Figure 3 Apparatus without 301. Compare EX1004, FIG. 7
with id., FIG. 10. Thus, Figure Apparatus without 301 corresponds to the same
second filter bank in both FIGS. 7 and 10:

- 34 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281

EX1004, FIGS. 7, 10 (annotations added showing correspondence of the third

filter bank). EX1002 57.
iii.

Combining FIG. 7 of Jones (describing Adelson) results

in a tree-structured array having greater than two leaf
nodes

When the structure of FIG. 7 of Jones is inserted into the structure of FIG.
10 to replace the second filter bank, it results in the following:

- 35 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281

Excerpts of EX1004, FIGS. 7 and 10 (annotations added to show root node and
three leaf nodes). As shown above, the combined JonesAdelson structure is a treestructured array having a root node (annotated in red) and three leaf nodes
(annotated in blue). That is, the first filter bank is the root node and the second and
third filter banks are two leaf nodes. And the additional filter bank Figure 3
Apparatus added from FIG. 7 of Jones (fourth filter bank) is a third leaf node.
The second through fourth filters are leaf nodes because they are below the root
node and because they provide sub-band signal outputs of the tree-structure array.
EX1002 58.
As explained by Jones, the further filter bank comprises the Figure 3
Apparatus. EX1004, FIG. 7. So this filter bank has six filters like the first and
second filter banks of FIG. 10 of Jones: three low-pass filters and three high-pass
- 36 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
filters. See EX1004, FIG. 3. EX1002 59.
Accordingly, FIG. 10 of Jones combined with FIG. 7 of Jones (Adelson)
results in a tree-structured array having greater than two leaf nodes, as claimed.
iv.

Jones and Adelson provide motivation for combining

FIG. 7 (Adelson) with FIG. 10

Jones and Adelson provide good reason to combine Adelsons structure

shown in FIG. 7 of Jones (describing Adelson) with FIG. 10 of Jones (describing
Jones). In particular, Jones teaches that it is advantageous to further decompose[]
into additional subbands only the subband corresponding to the lowpass filtered
image at each level (YLL, YLL-LL, etc.). EX1004 at 3:5861. As explained by
Jones, further dividing the lowest-frequency signal into additional sub-bands is
motivated by the observation that further decomposition of the lowpass filtered
subband results in the largest increase in coding efficiency and that it is
computationally simpler to decompose only the lowpass subband rather than all the
subbands. EX1004 at 3:6267. It would be advantageous to use different amounts
of subband coding for different regions of the frequency spectrum, either for
perceptual reasons or for coding efficiency. EX1002 61.
Moreover, Adelson teaches that these benefits of further decomposition of
the lowest-frequency signal can be increased by using up to five stages of
decomposition:

- 37 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
Modifications of this apparatus having a multiplicity of
stages for performing more than two iterated analysis
procedures are possible and indeed desirable up to three
or four stages. There is seldom much advantage of five or
more stages, since usually most of the entropy reduction
for image data takes place in the higher spatial-frequency
bands.
EX1004 at 2:3743. Joness FIG. 10 structure, however, only has two stages. (See
EX1004, FIG. 10. So one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
Joness figure 10 structure could be improved by adding further stages of
decomposition of the lowest-frequency sub-bandYLL output by the second filter
bankusing Adelsons structure in figure 7 of Jones. EX1002 62.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have wanted to increase coding
efficiency as much as possible while also decreasing the amount of computational
resources needed for the overall decomposition of the image signal. These
improvements would result in a better, cheaper encoder, given that Joness figure
10 encoder only has two stages of decomposition and could benefit by having up to
five. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to further decompose
the lowest-frequency signal of the second filter bank, YLL. And Adelsons
structure, shown in FIG. 7 of Jones, enables one of ordinary skill in the art to do
just that. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined FIGS.
- 38 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
7 and 10 of Jones as described above. EX1002 63.
e.

In the JonesAdelson combination, each node compris[es]

one filter bank having greater than two filters

Claim 5 recites that each node compris[es] one filter bank having greater
than two filters. EX1001 at 24:2628. As explained above, the root node
corresponds to the first filter bank, and the three leaf nodes correspond to second
through fourth filter banks identified above. Moreover, as explained, the first,
second, and fourth filter banks each have six filters (three HPFs and three LPFs)
while the third filter bank has 18 filters See EX1004, FIG. 3. Thus, in the JonesAdelson combination, each node compris[es] one filter bank having greater than
two filters, as recited in claim 5. EX1002 64.
f.

In the JonesAdelson combination, at least one of the leaf

nodes ha[s] a number of filters that differs from the number
of filters in a second leaf node

Finally, independent claim 5 recites at least one of the leaf nodes having a
number of filters that differs from the number of filters in a second leaf node.
EX1004 at 24:2830. As discussed above, the second filter bank and the third filter
bank of the combined JonesAdelson encoder are leaf nodes. Moreover, as
discussed, the second filter bank has six filters (structure of FIG. 3) while the third
filter bank has eighteen filters (three of the structures of FIG. 3). Thus, in the
JonesAdelson encoder, at least one of the leaf nodes ha[s] a number of filters that

- 39 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
differs from the number of filters in a second leaf node, as recited in claim 5.
EX1002 65.
3.

Jones in view of Adelson Renders Obvious the Subject Matter

of Independent Claims 18, 48, 76, and 118

Independent claims 18, 48, 76, and 118 are substantively and virtually
identical to independent claim 5. Whereas claim 5 is directed to a signal
processing method that includes splitting a signal into subbands, independent
claims 18 and 118 are respectively directed to methods of synthesizing and
regenerating a signal using a plurality of synthesis filter banks. Compare
EX1001 at 24:2331 with id. at 25:312, 31:18. Similarly, independent claim 48
recites a corresponding signal processing system that includes a plurality
synthesis filter banks. EX1004 at 26:2335. And independent claim 76 recites
another corresponding signal processing system that includes means for
synthesizing a signal but is identical in substance. EX1004 at 28:2735. As
discussed above in Section VI.D, this language should not be treated as a meansplus-function term because the claim already recites the structure that performs the
claimed synthesizing, which the same structure recited in 5, 18, 48, and 118. And
even if it was treated as a means-plus-function term, the meaning of the claim
would not change. See Section VI.D (construction of means for splitting and
means for synthesizing). Accordingly, the analysis above for claim 5 applies

- 40 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
equally to independent claims 18, 48, 76, and 118. EX1002 66.
The first through fourth filter banks of the combined JonesAdelson encoder
system correspond to the plurality of synthesis filter banks in independent claims
18, 48, and 118 and the means for synthesizing a signal of claim 76.
EX1002 67.
Moreover, Jones teaches that the first through third filter banks are used to
reconstruct (i.e., synthesize or regenerate) the original 2K image signal for
display from the plurality of sub-band signals. In particular, after the sub-band
images are separated as discussed above for claim 5,
Th[is] information to be stored is then composed of the
four 256 images (which can be used to reconstruct the
lowest frequency 512 image) and the remaining 512
subbands. This information is then used to reconstruct the
1K images and the 2K images, the reconstruction process
is illustrated in FIG. 12.
EX1004 at 6:2127; see also id. FIG. 12. Figure 12 of Jones illustrates how the
decoder apparatus from FIG. 5 reconstructs the signal for display from the
individually encoded 512 subbands:

- 41 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281

EX1004, FIG. 12 (annotations added showing regenerating 2K image signal from

constituent

sub-bands).

EX1002 68.

Accordingly,

the

JonesAdelson

combination renders obvious the systems and methods of synthesizing or

regenerating a signal using a plurality of synthesis filter banks recited in
independent claims 18, 48, 76, and 118.
4.

Jones in view of Adelson Renders Obvious the Subject Matter

of Independent Claim 34 and 66

Independent claim 34 is substantively identical to independent claim 5.

However, whereas claim 5 is directed to a signal processing method, claim 34 is
directed to a corresponding signal processing system containing the same
features used in the signal processing method. Compare EX1001 at 24:2331 with
- 42 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
id. at 25:6326:5. Independent claim 66 is another corresponding signal
processing system with subject matter substantially identical to claims 5 and 34,
but claim 66 recites means for splitting a signal into sub-bands. EX1004 at
27:5663. As discussed above in Section VI.D, this language should not be treated
as a means-plus-function term because the claim already recites the structure that
performs the claimed splitting, which the same structure recited in claims 5 and 34.
And even if it was treated as a means-plus-function term, the meaning of the claim
would not change. See Section VI.D (construction of means for splitting and
means for synthesizing). Accordingly, the analysis above for claim 5 applies
equally to independent claims 34 and 66. EX1002 69.
The combined Jones-Adelson system is an encoder that encodes a 2K HDTV
signal, which meets a signal processing system. See, e.g., EX1004 at 5:1316.
Thus, Jones in view of Adelson renders obvious independent claims 34 and 66 for
the same reasons provided above for claim 5.
5.

Jones in view of Adelson Renders Obvious the Subject Matter

of Independent Claims 26, 57, 83, and 120
a.

Jones discloses [a] signal processing method

Figure 12 of Jones shows a decoding structure that reconstructs the signal

for display from the individual encoded 512 subbands. EX1004 at 6:2127; see
also id. FIG. 12. Thus, the figure 12 decoder performs a signal processing method.

- 43 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
EX1002 71.
b.

Jones discloses synthesizing a signal using a plurality of

synthesis filter banks connected in a tree-structured array
having a first and a second level

As shown below, FIG. 12 of Jones contains a plurality of synthesis filter

banks connected in a tree-structured array having a first and a second level, as
claimed:

EX1004, FIG. 12 (annotations added showing tree structure of first and second
level filter banks). EX1002 72.
As explained above in the claim construction section, filter bank refers to
a plurality of filters that share a common input or output. See Section VI.A. Joness
first level filter banks in figure 12 have these characteristics. Figure 12 states that
each the first level filter banks comprises the Figure 5 Apparatus. EX1004, FIG.
- 44 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
12. And figure 5 of Jones shows that this apparatus includes six filters: three LPFs
and three HPFs:

EX1004, FIG. 5 (annotations added showing filters). Notably, Joness FIG. 5

structure is the complement of the FIG. 3 structure discussed above, since FIG. 5 is
part of the decoder while FIG. 3 is part of the encoder. As shown in FIG. 5, each
first level filter bank receives four respective encoded sub-band signals YLL-YHH,
and outputs a single common signal X. In the case of the first filter bank in the first
level (i.e., the left-most filter bank), for example, the input signals correspond to
the reconstructed image 512 (LL-LL), LL-LH, LL-HL, and LL-HH sub-band
signals, while the shared output signal X corresponds to the reconstructed 1K
- 45 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
image (LL-LL) signal. Compare EX1004, FIG. 3 with id. FIG. 5. EX1002 73.
Thus, each of Joness first level filter banks comprises a plurality of filters
that share a common input or output, as required by the claim.
c.

Jones discloses that the first level comprises more than two
first level synthesis filter banks and that the second level
comprises one synthesis filter bank

As shown in the annotated version of Joness FIG. 12 above, the first level
(blue) contains four synthesis filter banks and the second level (red) contains one
synthesis filter bank. See EX1004, FIG. 12. Thus, Jones discloses that the first
level comprises more than two first level synthesis filter banks and that the
second level comprises one synthesis filter bank, as recited by claim 26. EX1001
at 25:3738, 41. EX1002 75.
d.

Jones discloses that the second level synthesis filter bank

ha[s] more than two filters

As explained above, the second level filter bank (red) has the Figure 5
Apparatus, EX1004, FIG. 12, and the Figure 5 decoder has six filters. See
EX1004, FIG 5. Thus, Jones discloses that the second level synthesis filter bank
has more than two filters, as recited in claim 24. EX1002 76.
e.

Jones in view of Adelson render obvious one first level

synthesis filter bank ha[ving] a different number of filters
than another first level synthesis filter bank

In figure 12 of Jones, all four of the first filter banks have the Figure 5
Apparatus. See EX1004, FIG. 12. Thus, all four of these filter banks have six
- 46 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
filters, as shown in FIG. 5 of Jones. See EX1004, FIG. 5. So Jones does not
expressly disclose that in FIG. 12, one first level synthesis filter bank ha[s] a
different number of filters than another first level synthesis filter bank, as recited
in claim 26. EX1001 25:3840. EX1002 77.
However, as explained above in Section VII.A.2, it would have been
obvious to add another filter bank to Joness encoder (FIG. 10) to further refine the
lowest frequency sub-bands to improve coding efficiency. And this change on the
encoder side would have required a corresponding change on the decoder side
(FIG. 12) to enable the further-refined sub-bands to be decoded and the 2K image
to be reconstructed. EX1002, 78. One of ordinary skill in the art would have
made this change by adding further filters to the left-most filter bank in the first
level of Joness FIG. 12 (reproduced above). EX1002, 78. This is because that
filter bank is already tuned to combine the lowest-frequency sub-bands
neighboring the new sub-band that now needs to be decoded. Of the four first level
filter banks in FIG. 12, one of ordinary skill in the art could have most easily
modified the left-most filter bank to address the new, neighboring sub-band
frequency. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen to modify that
filter bank over the others. And once modified, this filter bank would have more
than six filters while the remaining first level filter banks would only have six
filters. EX1002 78.
- 47 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
Accordingly, the Jones-Adelson combination renders obvious, one first
level synthesis filter bank ha[ving] a different number of filters than another first
level synthesis filter bank, as recited in claim 26.
f.

Jones discloses that the second level ha[s] as inputs the

outputs of the first level synthesis filter banks

Finally, claim 26 recites that the second level has as inputs the outputs of
the first level synthesis filter banks. As shown below, FIG. 12 of Jones, the output
signals of the first level filter banks1K image LL, LH, HL, and HHare
provided as inputs to the second level filter bank:

EX1004, FIG. 12 (annotations added showing outputs of first level to input of

second level). EX1002 80.
Accordingly, Jones in view of Adelson renders obvious claim 26.
- 48 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
6.

Jones in view of Adelson Renders Obvious the Subject Matter

of Independent Claims 57, 83, and 120

Independent claim 57 is substantively identical to independent claim 26.

However, whereas claim 26 is directed to a signal processing method, claim 57
is directed to a corresponding signal processing system containing the same
features used in the signal processing method. Compare EX1001 at 25:3344 with
id. at 27:1830. Independent claim 83 is another corresponding signal processing
system with subject matter substantially identical to claims 26 and 57, but claim 87
recites means for synthesizing a signal. EX1001 at 28:5363. As discussed
above in Section VI.D, this language should not be treated as a means-plusfunction term because the claim already recites the structure that performs the
claimed synthesizing, which is also the same structure recited in claims 26 and 57.
And even if it was treated as a means-plus-function term, the meaning of the claim
would not change. See Section VI.D. Finally, independent claim 120 is directed to
a method of reconstructing a signal that is substantially identical to claim 26s
signal processing method including synthesizing a signal. Compare EX1001 at
31:18 with id. at 25:3243. Accordingly, the analysis above for claim 26 applies
equally to independent claims 57, 83. and 120 and shows that these claims are
unpatentable. EX1002 82.
For the reasons discussed above, Jones in view of Adelson renders obvious

- 49 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
claims 5, 18, 26, 34, 48, 57, 66, 76, 83, 118, and 120 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), and
these claims should be canceled. EX1002 8384.
Ground 2: Jones Anticipates Claims 12, 41, and 71

B.

A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference. Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). As explained below, Jones anticipates
claims 12, 41, 71 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) because Jones discloses each and every
element of as set forth in the claims.
1.

Jones Discloses the Features of Claim 12

a.

Jones Discloses [a] signal processing method

As explained above in Section VII.A.2.a, Jones discloses a signal processing

method. EX1002 85.
b.

Jones Discloses splitting a signal into sub-bands using a

plurality of filter banks

As explained above in Sections VII.A.2.b and VII.A.2.c for claim 5, Jones

discloses splitting a signal into sub-bands using a plurality of filter banks
connected in a tree-structured array. EX1002 86.
c.

Jones discloses that the filter banks comprise a plurality of

filters sharing a common input

As explained above in Section VI.A, filter bank refers to a plurality of

- 50 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
filters that share a common input. Moreover, as discussed above in Section
VII.A.2.c, Jones discloses that each of the three filter banks identified in FIG. 10
above contains a plurality of filters sharing a common input. Accordingly, Jones
discloses splitting a signal into sub-bands using a plurality of filter banks where the
filter banks contain multiple filters. EX1002 87.
d.

Jones discloses the plurality of filter banks connected in a

tree-structured array having a first and a second level

Claim 12 recites that the filter banks are connected in a tree-structured

array having a first level and a second level. EX1001 at 24:5152. As explained
above in Section VII.A.2.d, Jones discloses the three filter banks connected in a
tree-structured array. Moreover, FIG. 10 of Jones shows that the array has a first
and a second level, as claimed:

- 51 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281

EX1004, FIG. 10 (annotations added). In the first level, the first filter bank splits
the 2K image signal into four sub-band signals: 1K image sub-band (LL), 1K
image sub-band (LH), 1K image sub-band (HL), and 1K image sub-band (HH).
EX1004, FIG. 10. In the second level, the second filter bank then splits the 1K
image sub-band (LL) into four further sub-bands: LL-LH, LL-LH, LL-HL, and
LL-HH. EX1004, FIG. 10. Also in the second level, the third filter bank, 401, splits
the 1K image sub-band (LH), 1K image sub-band (HL), and 1K image sub-band
(HH) signals respectively into three further sub-bands: (1) LH-LL, LH-LH, LHHL, and LH-HH; (2), HL-LL, HL-LH, HL-HL, and HL-HH; (3) HH-LL, HH-LH,
HH-HL, and HH-HH. EX1004, FIG. 10. EX1002 88.
- 52 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
Accordingly, Jones discloses that the filter banks are connected in a treestructured array having a first and a second level. as claimed.
e.

Jones discloses the first level comprising one first level

filter bank having more than two filters, the second level
comprising at least two second level filter banks, and
wherein one second level filter bank has a different
number of filters than another second level filter bank

Claim 12 recites the first level comprising one first level filter bank having
more than two filters and the second level comprising at least two second level
filter banks. EX1001 at 24:5354. Jones discloses this feature because FIG. 10 of
Jones shows that the first level has one first level filter bank (the first filter bank)
and that the second level has at least two filter banks (the first and second filter
banks):

- 53 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
EX1004, FIG. 10 (annotations added showing filter banks in first and second
levels). EX1002 90.
As explained above in Section VII.A.2.c, the first filter bank in Jonesthe
claimed one first level filter bankhas six filters (three HPFs and three LPFs).
See EX1004, FIG. 3. It therefore ha[s] more than two filters as recited in claim
12. Additionally, the second filter bankthe claimed one second level filter
bankhas six filters (three HPFs and three LFPs). See Section VII.A.2.c. And the
third filter, which corresponds to the claimed another second level filter bank,
has eighteen filters (three sets of three HPFs and three LPFs). See Section
VII.A.2.c. EX1002 91. Thus, Jones discloses that one second level filter bank
has a different number of filters than another second level filter bank, as claimed.
f.

Jones discloses that each second level filter bank ha[s] as

input an output from a different filter in the first level

Finally, claim 12 recites that each second level filter bank ha[s] as input an
output from a different filter in the first level. EX1001 at 24:5657. As explained
in the previous subsection, Joness first filter bank corresponds to the claimed first
level filter bank.

- 54 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281

EX1004, FIG. 10 (annotations added). As shown above, the first filter bank in the
first level outputs a 1K sub-band image (LL) signal. That output is provided as
input to the second filter bank in the second level. The first filter bank also outputs
three additional signals1K sub-band image LH, HL, and HH signals. Those three
signals are provided as input to the third filter bank, which is also in the second
level. EX1002 92.
FIG. 10 explains that the first filter bank has the structure of Figure 3
apparatus without 301 and 302. EX1004, FIG. 10. This structure is shown below.

- 55 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281

EX1004, FIG. 3 (annotations added). As shown above, the second filter bank,
which is in the second level, receives as input the signal YLL output from a first
filter (LPF (vertical)). The third filter bank, which is also in the second level,
receives as input the three signals YLL, YLH, YHL, and YHH. These three signals are
output from three different filters: a first HPF (vertical), a second LPF (vertical),
and a second HPF (vertical). The signal YLL is not output to the third filter bank,
and the signals YLL, YLH, YHL, and YHH are not output to the second filter bank.
EX1002 93. Thus, Jones discloses that each second level filter bank ha[s] as
input an output from a different filter in the first level, as recited in claim 12.

- 56 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
2.

Jones Discloses the Features of Independent Claims 41 and 71

Independent claims 41 are 71 are substantively virtually identical to

independent claim 12. However, whereas claim 12 is directed to a signal
processing method, claim 41 is directed to a corresponding signal processing
system involving the same aspects as the signal processing method. Compare
EX1001 at 24:4858 with id. at 26:2333. And independent claim 76 recites
another corresponding signal processing system that includes means for
synthesizing a signal but is identical in substance. EX1004 at 28:617. As
discussed above in Section VI.D, this language should not be treated as a meansplus-function term because the claim already recites the structure that performs the
claimed synthesizing, which the same structure recited in 12 and 41. And even if it
was treated as a means-plus-function term, the meaning of the claim would not
change. See Section VI.D. Accordingly, the analysis above for claim 12 applies
equally to independent claims 41 and 71. The configuration in FIG. 10 of Jones is
an encoder that encodes a 2K HDTV signal, which is a signal processing system
as recited in these claims. See, e.g., EX1004 at 5:1316. EX1002 94.
Additionally, claim 41 specifies that the system has a plurality of filter
banks designed that can connect to form a tree-structured array to split a signal into
subbands. As discussed above for claim 5, however, the first through third filter
banks in FIG. 10 of Jones are arranged in this way. See Sections VII.A.2.c,
- 57 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
VII.A.2.d. EX1002 95. Accordingly, Jones discloses the features of claim 41 and
71.
For the reasons discussed above, Jones anticipates claims 12, 41, 71 under
35 U.S.C. 102(b), and these claims should be canceled. EX1002 9697.
C.

Ground 3: Jones in View of Adelson, and Further in View of

Veldhuis, Render Obvious Independent Claims 90, 100, 107, and
114.

Jones in view of Adelson, and further in view of Veldhuis, renders obvious

90, 100, 107, and 114 of the 281 patent. Independent claim 90 is directed to an
information storage media having stored thereon information that when executed
performs the method step recited claim 5. Compare EX1001 at 29:1623 with id. at
24:2330. Likewise, claim 100 is directed to an information storage media having
stored thereon information that when executed performs the method claim 18.
Compare EX1001 at 29:5361 with id. at 25:313, and Claim 107 is directed to an
information storage media having stored thereon information that when executed
performs the method claim 26. Compare EX1001 at 30:3343 with id. at 25:28
44. EX1002 98.
The methods of claims 5, 18, and 26 were shown to be obvious above in
Ground 1. See Section VII.A. Moreover, the notion of storing the method in
computer-executable form on a storage medium does not render the subject matter
patentable. EX1002 99.
- 58 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
Jones does not explain whether the filtering techniques are performed by
hardware components or software. Indeed, either would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art as a way to implement signal filtering. EX1002, 100.
For example, Veldhuis discloses a similar digital system including a coder and a
decoder for subband coding of a digital audio signal. EX1006 at 1:69. In Figure
2A, Veldhuis shows a diagram of a series of band splittings and band mergings
which can be used in the filter banks of Fig. 1. Veldhuis teaches that the filtering
technique is applicable for subband coding of a digital audio signal. EX1006 at
4:5860. Veldhuis also teaches that aspects of the filtering technique could be
implemented by program routine for a module of the signal processor. EX1006
at 5:1719. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modules
executed by processors are necessarily stored in memory or other storage media.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the subject matter of claims
90, 100, and 107 to be obvious. EX1002 100.
Independent claim 114 is directed to [a]n information storage media having
stored thereon audio information having been split into subbands according to the
method of claim 5. Compare EX1001 at 30:4452 with EX1001 at 24:2330. As
an initial matter, a storage medium that simply stores data and does not perform
any function is not patent-eligible subject matter. Ex parte Mewherter, Appeal No.
2012-007692 (May 8, 2013); In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir.
- 59 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
2007). While Petitioner recognizes that the Board does not make section 101
determinations in IPR, the language of claim 114 should not be given patentable
weight in this proceeding because it is just a non-functional description of how
data was processed before it was stored on the medium. In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579,
158384 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Even if the language of claim 114 is given patentable weight, the claim is
still unpatentable. Besides the information storage media preamble, the only
other difference from unpatentable claim 5 is that claim 114 specifically states that
audio information was split according to the method, whereas claim 5 does not
specify the type of information in the signal. Jones teaches filtering image data
with the described techniques, but does not teach to apply them to audio data.
However, Veldhuis explains that subband filtering, such as that which is described
in Jones with respect to images, is beneficial for audio data because it allows for
higher quality coding and less quantizing noise in audio signals without increasing
the average number of bits per sample at the output. EX1006 at 2:5-20. Thus, it
would have been obvious to use Joness techniques on audio data as recited in
claim 114. EX1002 101.
Accordingly, Jones in view of Adelson, and further in view of Veldhuis,
render obvious 90, 100, 107, and 114 of the 281 patent. Petitioner requests
cancelation of these claims as unpatentable. EX1002 102103.
- 60 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
D.

Ground 4: Jones in View of Veldhuis Render Obvious

Independent Claim 95

Jones in view of Veldhuis renders obvious claim 95 of the 281 patent.

Claim 95 recites an information storage medium having stored thereon
information that when executed performs the splitting method of claim 12.
Claim 12 was shown to be unpatentable above in Ground 2. See Section VII.B.
Moreover, as discussed in the previous section, the notion of storing the method in
computer-executable form on a storage medium does not render the subject matter
patentable. Petitioner requests the cancelation of claim 95 as unpatentable.
EX1002 104105.
E.

Ground 5: Jones in Veldhuis Render Obvious Independent Claim

116

Jones in view of Veldhuis renders obvious claim 116 of the 281 patent.
Independent claim 116 is directed to [a]n information storage media having stored
thereon audio information having been split into subbands according to the
method of claim 12. Compare EX1001 at 30:5465 with EX1001 at 24:4959. For
the reason discussed above for Ground 4, Jones in view of Veldhuis render obvious
claim 116. Petitioner requests cancelation of this claim as unpatentable.
EX1002 106107.

- 61 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
VIII. Conclusion
For these reasons, the challenged claims are unpatentable and Petitioner
respectfully requests that the Board grant this Petition and institute trial.

- 62 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
Date: June 27, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
/James D. Stein/
James D. Stein
Reg. No. 63,782
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
Garrett & Dunner, LLP
271 17th Street NW
Suite 1400
Atlanta, GA
Telephone: 404-653-6439
Facsimile: 404-653-6444
E-mail: HybridAudio-IPR@finnegan.com
P. Andrew Riley
Reg. No. 66,290
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
Garrett & Dunner, LLP
901 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-4413
Telephone: 202-408-4266
Facsimile: 202-408-4400
E-mail: HybridAudio-IPR@finnegan.com
Ryan H. Ellis
Reg. No. 73,924
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
Garrett & Dunner, LLP
901 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-4413
Telephone: 202-408-4266
Facsimile: 202-408-4400
E-mail: HybridAudio-IPR@finnegan.com

- 63 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
David C. Seastrunk
Reg. No. 73,723
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
Garrett & Dunner, LLP
901 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-4413
Telephone: 202-408-4225
Facsimile: 202-408-4400
E-mail: HybridAudio-IPR@finnegan.com
Jonathan Stroud
Reg. No. 72,518
Unified Patents Inc.
1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
Telephone: 202-805-8931
Facsimile: 650-887-0349
E-mail: jonathan@unifiedpatents.com

- 64 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Petition for Inter Partes
Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,281 contains 10,993 words, excluding those
portions identified in 37 C.F.R. 42.24(a), as measured by the word-processing
system used to prepare this paper.
/James D. Stein/
James D. Stein
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.

- 65 -

IPR2016-01265
Patent RE40,281
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.6(e) and 42.105(a), this is to certify that on June
27, 2016, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW and the associated Exhibits 1001
through 1009 by overnight mail on the Patent Owner at the correspondence
address of record for the U.S. Patent No. RE40,281, as follows:
Jason H. Vick
Sheridan Ross, PC
Suite #1200
1560 Broadway
Denver CO 80202
(303) 863-9700
Hybrid Audio
4041 University Drive
Suite #102
Fairfax VA 22030
Dated: June 27, 2016

By: /Lauren K. Young/

Lauren K. Young
Legal Assistant
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,
FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER,
LLP

- 66 -