US 10250877

US patent 10250877, titled "Method and device for coding an image block, corresponding decoding method and decoding device," was filed on January 10, 2013, and issued on April 2, 2019. The current assignee is InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS. The inventors are Philippe Bordes, Pierre Andrivon, and Philippe Salmon.

Abstract:
The patent describes a method for reconstructing a current block of an image from a reference block of a reconstructed reference image, where the reference image is of a different size than the current image. The method involves: motion compensating the reference block using an interpolation filter that depends on the sizes of both the reference and current images; decoding a residue block for the current block; and reconstructing the current block from the residue block and the motion-compensated reference block.

Plain-language overview of independent claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (Decoding Method): This claim describes a method for decoding a binary stream to reconstruct a current image block from a reference image block. The key features are that the reference image has been reconstructed at a different size than the current image and is stored in a decoded picture buffer. The method involves motion compensating the reference block using a single horizontal filter (GFH) and a single vertical filter (GFv) applied successively. These single filters are compositions of a motion compensation interpolation filter (MCIF) and a resampling filter (SCF) (e.g., GFv(s) = MCIFv(SCFv(s)) and GFH(u) = MCIFH(SCFH(u))). Crucially, no resampled version of the reconstructed reference image is stored in the decoded picture buffer.

• Independent Claim 4 (Coding Method): This claim outlines a method for coding a current image block from a reference image block, where the reference image is reconstructed at a different size and stored in a decoded picture buffer. Similar to the decoding method, it involves motion compensating the reference block by applying a single horizontal filter (GFH) and a single vertical filter (GFv) successively. These filters are also defined as compositions of a motion compensation interpolation filter (MCIF) and a resampling filter (SCF). The method then calculates a residue block from the current block and the motion-compensated reference block, and codes this residue block into a binary stream. This method also specifies that no resampled version of the reconstructed reference image is stored in the decoded picture buffer.

• Independent Claim 7 (Decoding Device): This claim describes a decoding device equipped with at least one circuit. This circuit is configured to access a reconstructed reference image (at a different size than the current image) from a decoded picture buffer. It motion compensates a reference block from this image using a single horizontal filter (GFH) and a single vertical filter (GFv) successively. The GFv is defined as MCIFv(SCFv(s)) and GFH as MCIFH(SCFH(u)). The device further decodes a residue block from a binary stream and reconstructs the current block using the residue block and the motion-compensated reference block. A key element is that no resampled version of the reconstructed reference image is stored in the decoded picture buffer.

• Independent Claim 8 (Coding Device): This claim details a coding device with at least one circuit. This circuit is designed to access a reconstructed reference image (at a different size than the current image) from a decoded picture buffer. It performs motion compensation on a reference block using a single horizontal filter (GFH) and a single vertical filter (GFv) successively. The GFv is defined as MCIFv(SCFv(s)) and GFH as MCIFH(SCFH(u)). The device then calculates a residue block from the current block and the motion-compensated reference block and codes this residue block into a binary stream. Similar to the methods and decoding device, no resampled version of the reconstructed reference image is stored in the decoded picture buffer.

Regarding CAFC 2026 dockets for patent number 10250877, no direct litigation cases specifically mentioning this patent number were found in the provided search results for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for 2026. While the search provided general information on how to search CAFC dockets and a schedule for May 2026, it did not list US10250877. Therefore, there is no authoritative information about specific CAFC litigation for this patent in 2026 based on the provided search results.

Known litigation involving US patent 10250877 includes:

• International Trade Commission Case

  • Jurisdiction: International Trade Commission
  • Case Number: 337-TA-3889
  • Status: Critical
  • Further details on plaintiff(s), defendant(s), and filing date are not explicitly provided in the available snippet.

• North Carolina Eastern District Court Case

  • Jurisdiction: North Carolina Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 5:23-cv-00493
  • Status: Active
  • Further details on plaintiff(s), defendant(s), and filing date are not explicitly provided in the available snippet.

• PTAB Case

  • Jurisdiction: PTAB
  • Case Number: IPR2026-00195
  • Status: Pending
  • Further details on petitioner(s), defendant(s), and filing date are not explicitly provided in the available snippet.

• Texas Eastern District Court Case

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:26-cv-00101
  • Status: Active
  • Further details on plaintiff(s), defendant(s), and filing date are not explicitly provided in the available snippet.

• First Worldwide Family Litigation

  • Status: Active
  • Further details on plaintiff(s), defendant(s), jurisdiction, case number, and filing date are not explicitly provided in the available snippet, though a link to Darts-ip is provided for more information.

• International Trade Commission Case

  • Jurisdiction: International Trade Commission
  • Case Number: 337-TA-3692
  • Status: Active
  • Further details on plaintiff(s), defendant(s), and filing date are not explicitly provided in the available snippet.

• Georgia Northern District Court Case

  • Jurisdiction: Georgia Northern District Court
  • Case Number: 1:26-cv-00754
  • Status: Active
  • Further details on plaintiff(s), defendant(s), and filing date are not explicitly provided in the available snippet.

• International Trade Commission Case

  • Jurisdiction: International Trade Commission
  • Case Number: 337-TA-1373
  • Status: Active
  • Further details on plaintiff(s), defendant(s), and filing date are not explicitly provided in the available snippet.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 10250877, which is currently active. The sole Inter Partes Review (IPR) was denied institution, indicating that the claims challenged by the petitioner were not found to have a reasonable likelihood of being unpatentable. This posture means the patent's claims remain untested by an IPR Final Written Decision and are therefore hardened against the specific grounds raised in the petition.

IPR2026-00195 — Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v. InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-01-09
• Status: Pending - Institution Denied. The PTAB denied institution of this IPR on May 6, 2026.
• Judge panel: The institution decision was made by John A. Squires, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. While specific panel judges for the review itself are not detailed given the denial, IPR panels typically consist of at least three Administrative Patent Judges (APJs).
• Petition grounds: The available information indicates that the petition for IPR2026-00195 was denied institution because "the petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition." The specific claims challenged and prior art asserted are not publicly detailed in the denial notice but were evaluated on their merits.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-05-06. The Director of the USPTO, John A. Squires, denied institution of inter partes review after a review of the merits, determining that the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied and such denials are generally unappealable. The Federal Circuit has affirmed that challenges to institution decisions, including those based on real-party-in-interest requirements, are typically not reviewable.
• Defensive value: The denial of institution means that the claims challenged in this IPR remain patentable as far as this specific petition and its asserted grounds are concerned. For a defendant, this indicates that the specific prior art and arguments presented by Amazon.com, Inc. et al. were not sufficient to convince the PTAB to proceed with a full review. Any future IPR petition challenging the same claims would need to present substantially different and more compelling arguments and prior art to overcome this initial hurdle, especially given the Director's discretion in institution decisions.

Strategic summary

All claims of US10250877 remain SUSTAINED (or rather, UNTESTED by a Final Written Decision) as the single IPR filed, IPR2026-00195, was denied institution. This means no claims were invalidated, nor were any explicitly held patentable in a Final Written Decision. The patent has not been narrowed through IPR.

The estoppel landscape for Amazon.com, Inc. et al. (and their privies) means they are barred from raising any ground that they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2026-00195. This significantly restricts future challenges by Amazon.com, Inc. et al. against this patent using the same or similar prior art. For other potential defendants, however, the specific prior art grounds that were insufficient for institution in IPR2026-00195 would not create estoppel against them, allowing them to potentially bring new petitions with different art or arguments.

There is no evident pattern signal of multiple IPRs by the same petitioner, as only one petition has been filed and it was denied institution. The involvement of Amazon.com, Inc. et al. as a petitioner indicates that the patent owner, InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS, is asserting this patent against significant market players.

Recommended next steps

For any defendant currently facing assertion of US10250877, it is crucial to understand the specific prior art and arguments presented by Amazon.com, Inc. et al. in IPR2026-00195 that led to the denial of institution. While the denial strengthens the patent against those specific grounds, it does not preclude new challenges with different prior art or legal theories.

Given the denial of institution for IPR2026-00195 on 2026-05-06, the proceeding has effectively concluded without a trial. There are no further trial-stage milestones to monitor for this specific IPR. However, a defendant should monitor for any potential new petitions against this patent by other parties or by Amazon.com, Inc. et al. if they discover significantly different prior art.

Inventors

• Philippe Bordes (Employer at filing: Thomson Licensing, based on initial assignment record)
• Pierre Andrivon (Employer at filing: Thomson Licensing, based on initial assignment record)
• Philippe Salmon (Employer at filing: Thomson Licensing, based on initial assignment record)

The patent text indicates the application was filed by "InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS" and also lists them as the "Original Assignee". However, the first recorded assignment on the USPTO Assignment Center is from the inventors to "THOMSON LICENSING". This suggests the inventors were employed by Thomson Licensing or an affiliated entity, or assigned their rights to Thomson Licensing as part of their employment, which then became part of the broader InterDigital portfolio through subsequent transfers. There is no information to suggest inventors departed within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

According to Google Patents, the original assignee is InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS. InterDigital is a publicly traded company (NASDAQ: IDCC) that primarily engages in research, development, and licensing of wireless and video technologies. Their business model heavily relies on patent licensing rather than shipping products embodying the claims themselves. InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS is a subsidiary acting as a patent holding and licensing entity for InterDigital, Inc. InterDigital, Inc. is an operating company, but its Madison Patent Holdings subsidiary acts in a licensing/asserting capacity for patents. Its current status is operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2013-01-16 to 2013-02-06 (executed) / recorded 2014-09-22 — Reel 033785/0049

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: BORDES, PHILIPPE; ANDRIVON, PIERRE; SALMON, PHILIPPE (Inventors)
  • Assignee: THOMSON LICENSING, FRANCE
  • Correspondent: BLANK ROME LLP, 1800 I STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20006. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Initial assignment from inventors to corporate entity.

• 2017-01-13 (executed) / recorded 2017-01-13 — Reel 041370/0433

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: THOMSON LICENSING
  • Assignee: THOMSON LICENSING DTV, FRANCE
  • Correspondent: BLANK ROME LLP, 1800 I STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20006. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization within Thomson entities.

• 2017-01-13 (executed) / recorded 2017-01-17 — Reel 041378/0630

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: THOMSON LICENSING
  • Assignee: THOMSON LICENSING DTV, FRANCE
  • Correspondent: BLANK ROME LLP, 1800 I STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20006. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization within Thomson entities (appears to be a re-recording or duplicate of the prior assignment with a slightly different recording date).

• 2018-07-23 (executed) / recorded 2018-08-10 — Reel 046763/0001

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: THOMSON LICENSING DTV
  • Assignee: INTERDIGITAL MADISON PATENT HOLDINGS, FRANCE
  • Correspondent: BLANK ROME LLP, 1800 I STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20006. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer of patent rights to an InterDigital patent holding entity.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10250877
    2013 : Application filed by InterDigital Madison
    2014 : Inventors assign to Thomson Licensing
    2017 : Assigned to Thomson Licensing DTV
         : (Re-recorded)
    2018 : Assigned to InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings
    2019 : Patent granted
    2023 : First recorded litigation

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The final assignee, "InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, FRANCE" is a patent holding company for InterDigital, Inc. which is primarily a patent licensing entity, rather than a direct product manufacturer embodying the claims. InterDigital is widely recognized as a patent licensing company that generates substantial revenue from patent assertion.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings (and its parent InterDigital, Inc.) is a well-known patent licensing and assertion entity, often categorized as an NPE. They are a frequent plaintiff in patent infringement lawsuits. The patent explicitly lists multiple active litigations associated with this patent.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present. The law firm BLANK ROME LLP, with the address 1800 I STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20006, is listed as the correspondent on all four recorded assignments (Reel 033785/0049, 041370/0433, 041378/0630, 046763/0001). This consistency suggests a coordinated strategy in managing the patent portfolio, common for active patent licensors.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. While there are two consecutive transfers between Thomson entities in 2017, and then to InterDigital in 2018, these appear to be internal corporate restructurings or portfolio consolidations rather than rapid, consecutive transfers between unrelated shell LLCs to obscure ownership.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The last recorded assignment to InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings occurred on 2018-08-10. The patent was granted on 2019-04-02. The earliest identified litigation from the Google Patents legal events section dates to 2023 (e.g., 5:23-cv-00493) or 2026 (e.g., IPR2026-00195), which is well after the 2018 assignment and patent grant.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No information suggests the original assignees or any entities in the chain filed for bankruptcy leading to a sale of this patent.
7. Privateering — Unclear. While InterDigital engages in patent assertion, the specific details of whether this patent is being asserted on behalf of a specific operating company against its competitors (privateering) are not ascertainable from the provided patent data. InterDigital often asserts patents it acquires or licenses more broadly.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain terminates with InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, a known patent licensing and assertion entity, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The confidence is high due to the presence of multiple strong signals. The ultimate assignee, InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, is a known patent licensing entity frequently identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). This is reinforced by the active litigation listed for this patent. The consistent use of the same correspondent, BLANK ROME LLP, across all recorded assignments further indicates a centrally managed and potentially assertion-focused patent strategy.
For verification, please consult the USPTO Patent Assignment Search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and search for patent number 10250877.

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 10250877, I will examine the "Cited By" and "Citations" sections of the patent document itself. The patent lists both "Patent Citations" and "Non-Patent Citations," which are typically considered by the patent examiner during prosecution and represent the most relevant prior art known at the time of examination.

Based on the provided full patent text, here is an analysis of the patent citations:

Patent Citations for US10250877:

1. US6748018B2

   • Full Citation: US6748018B2, "Picture decoding method and apparatus," Sony Corporation.
   • Publication Date: June 8, 2004 (Priority date: August 7, 1998).
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a picture decoding method and apparatus. While the specific details of its method for decoding are not fully elaborated in the provided text, its general scope as a "picture decoding method and apparatus" suggests relevance to the decoding aspects of US10250877.
   • Potential Anticipation: It potentially anticipates aspects of Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, and 10 of US10250877, which relate to decoding methods and devices for reconstructing image blocks. Its broad description of a decoding method and apparatus could overlap with the general concept of decoding an image, although the specific novel features of applying combined filters in US10250877 would need to be considered.

2. US20090175336A1

   • Full Citation: US20090175336A1, "Video coding of filter coefficients based on horizontal and vertical symmetry," Qualcomm Incorporation.
   • Publication Date: July 9, 2009 (Priority date: January 8, 2008).
   • Brief Description: This publication discusses video coding of filter coefficients, specifically mentioning horizontal and vertical symmetry. This is highly relevant as US10250877's claims emphasize separable horizontal and vertical filters (GFH and GFv) and the decoding/coding of filtering coefficients.
   • Potential Anticipation: It potentially anticipates aspects of Claims 2, 5, 9, and 11 of US10250877, which explicitly mention the decoding/coding of filtering coefficients for the horizontal and vertical filters. It also has relevance to the filter separability mentioned in the invention's summary.

3. US20100226437A1

   • Full Citation: US20100226437A1, "Reduced-resolution decoding of AVC bit streams for transcoding or display at lower resolution," Sony Corporation, A Japanese Corporation.
   • Publication Date: September 9, 2010 (Priority date: March 6, 2009).
   • Brief Description: This patent application focuses on reduced-resolution decoding of AVC bitstreams for transcoding or display at lower resolution. This is directly relevant to the adaptive resolution aspect of US10250877, where reference images can be of a different size from the current image.
   • Potential Anticipation: It potentially anticipates aspects of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12 of US10250877, particularly concerning methods and devices for handling different image sizes and scalable streams (e.g., base layer coding low resolution images and enhancement layer coding high resolution images). The core concept of adaptive resolution is addressed here.

4. US20120082241A1

   • Full Citation: US20120082241A1, "Method and Apparatus of Adaptive Loop Filtering," Mediatek Inc.
   • Publication Date: April 5, 2012 (Priority date: October 5, 2010).
   • Brief Description: This patent discusses a "Method and Apparatus of Adaptive Loop Filtering." While the exact details of the filtering are not provided, adaptive filtering is a broad concept that could encompass elements of the adaptive interpolation filter disclosed in US10250877.
   • Potential Anticipation: It potentially anticipates the general concept of "adaptive filtering" as it pertains to video coding, which broadly relates to the "interpolation filter that depends on the size of the reference image and the size of the current image" in US10250877. Its relevance would depend on the specific adaptivity taught in the Mediatek patent and how it compares to the joint motion compensation and resampling filtering of US10250877.

5. US8199812B2

   • Full Citation: US8199812B2, "Adaptive upsampling for scalable video coding," Qualcomm Incorporated.
   • Publication Date: June 12, 2012 (Priority date: January 9, 2007).
   • Brief Description: This patent specifically addresses "adaptive upsampling for scalable video coding." This is highly relevant to US10250877, which deals with reconstructing blocks from reference images of different sizes, including cases where the reference image needs to be upsampled or subsampled. The concept of scalable video coding is also directly addressed in claims 3, 6, 10, and 12 of US10250877.
   • Potential Anticipation: It potentially anticipates aspects of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12 of US10250877 due to its focus on adaptive upsampling and scalable video coding, which are central themes in US10250877 regarding different image resolutions and handling scalable streams.

6. US20130003847A1

   • Full Citation: US20130003847A1, "Motion Prediction in Scalable Video Coding," Danny Hong.
   • Publication Date: January 3, 2013 (Priority date: June 30, 2011).
   • Brief Description: This publication relates to "Motion Prediction in Scalable Video Coding." Motion compensation is a fundamental step in US10250877, and its application within scalable video coding contexts makes this reference highly relevant.
   • Potential Anticipation: It potentially anticipates aspects of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12 of US10250877, particularly those related to motion compensating a reference block within a scalable video coding framework.

7. EP1209916A2

   • Full Citation: EP1209916A2, "Digital video decoder for decoding digital high definition and/or digital standard definition television signals," Hitachi Ltd.
   • Publication Date: May 29, 2002 (Priority date: October 11, 1994).
   • Brief Description: This European patent application describes a digital video decoder for decoding digital high-definition and/or digital standard-definition television signals. The general concept of a video decoder is foundational to US10250877.
   • Potential Anticipation: It potentially anticipates the broad concept of a "decoding device" and "decoding method" as described in Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, and 10 of US10250877. Its age suggests it may not disclose the specific combined filtering and non-storage of resampled images, but the overall decoding environment could be anticipated.

8. US8638852B2

   • Full Citation: US8638852B2, "Video coding of filter coefficients based on horizontal and vertical symmetry," Qualcomm Incorporated.
   • Publication Date: January 28, 2014 (Priority date: January 8, 2008).
   • Brief Description: This patent is a granted version (or related application) of US20090175336A1, also from Qualcomm and also concerning "Video coding of filter coefficients based on horizontal and vertical symmetry." Its relevance is identical to US20090175336A1.
   • Potential Anticipation: Similar to US20090175336A1, it potentially anticipates aspects of Claims 2, 5, 9, and 11 of US10250877, specifically regarding the coding/decoding of filtering coefficients and the use of separable horizontal and vertical filters.

9. US9813738B2

   • Full Citation: US9813738B2, "Method and apparatus of adaptive loop filtering," Hfi Innovation Inc.
   • Publication Date: November 7, 2017 (Priority date: October 5, 2010).
   • Brief Description: This patent is a granted version (or related application) of US20120082241A1, also concerning "Method and apparatus of adaptive loop filtering." Its relevance is identical to US20120082241A1.
   • Potential Anticipation: Similar to US20120082241A1, it potentially anticipates the general concept of "adaptive filtering" as it pertains to video coding, which broadly relates to the "interpolation filter that depends on the size of the reference image and the size of the current image" in US10250877.

Non-Patent Citations for US10250877:

The non-patent citations include several papers from the "Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding" (JCT-VC), which is responsible for the High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) standard. These papers often discuss proposed features and developments in video coding that precede patent applications and are highly relevant as prior art.

1. Bordes et al., "AHG18 resolution adaptation coding using single resolution in DPB"

   • Full Citation: Bordes et al., "AHG18 resolution adaptation coding using single resolution in DPB", Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding, 8th Meeting, San José, California, USA, Feb. 1, 2012, pp. 1-11.
   • Publication/Filing Date: February 1, 2012.
   • Brief Description: This paper directly addresses "resolution adaptation coding using single resolution in DPB" (Decoded Picture Buffer). This is exceptionally relevant as a core inventive concept of US10250877 is not storing resampled versions of reference images in the DPB, but rather performing the resampling and motion compensation jointly. The authors of this paper (Bordes) are also inventors of US10250877, suggesting this paper describes an early version or related work to the patented invention.
   • Potential Anticipation: This paper is highly likely to anticipate or disclose aspects of almost all claims, especially the central inventive feature of "no resampled version of said reconstructed reference image is stored in the decoded picture buffer" (explicitly stated in Claims 1, 4, 7, 8) and the methods for handling resolution adaptation.

2. Bross et al., "WD4 Working draft 4 of high efficiency video coding"

   • Full Citation: Bross et al., "WD4 Working draft 4 of high efficiency video coding", Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding, 6th Meeting: Torino, Italy, Jul. 14, 2011, pp. 1-231.
   • Publication/Filing Date: July 14, 2011.
   • Brief Description: As a "Working draft 4 of high efficiency video coding," this document would provide a comprehensive overview of the HEVC standard as it stood in mid-2011. It would include details on motion compensation, various filtering techniques, and potentially early discussions on scalable or adaptive resolution coding.
   • Potential Anticipation: This is a broad foundational document. It likely anticipates general concepts of motion compensation, separable filters, and residue coding as found in various parts of US10250877. Specific anticipation would depend on whether it details the joint filtering for motion compensation and resampling, and the DPB storage specifics.

3. Davies et al., "AHG18 adaptive resolution coding (ARC)"

   • Full Citation: Davies et al., "AHG18 adaptive resolution coding (ARC)", Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding, 7th Meeting, Geneva, Switzerland, Nov. 21, 2011, pp. 1-12.
   • Publication/Filing Date: November 21, 2011.
   • Brief Description: This paper specifically discusses "adaptive resolution coding (ARC)," making it highly pertinent to US10250877's focus on handling reference images of different sizes.
   • Potential Anticipation: This document likely anticipates or discloses methods for adaptive resolution coding that are relevant to the scope of US10250877, particularly concerning the interaction between different image sizes in coding and decoding.

4. Davies et al., "JCTVC AHG report resolution adaptation"

   • Full Citation: Davies et al., "JCTVC AHG report resolution adaptation", Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding, 7th Meeting, Geneva, Switzerland, Nov. 21, 2011, pp. 1-2.
   • Publication/Filing Date: November 21, 2011.
   • Brief Description: This is an "AHG report resolution adaptation," which would summarize the state of research and proposals related to resolution adaptation within the JCT-VC.
   • Potential Anticipation: Similar to the other Davies et al. paper, this report is likely to anticipate aspects of resolution adaptation and handling different image sizes in video coding and decoding, relevant to many claims of US10250877.

5. Davies et al.: "Resolution switching for coding efficiency and error resilience"

   • Full Citation: Davies et al: "Resolution switching for coding efficiency and error reslilience ", (Joint collaborative team on video coding of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 and ITU-T SG16); Jul. 15, 2011.
   • Publication/Filing Date: July 15, 2011.
   • Brief Description: This paper concerns "Resolution switching for coding efficiency and error resilience." This topic directly relates to the adaptive resolution and efficient coding objectives of US10250877.
   • Potential Anticipation: This paper likely anticipates concepts related to dynamically changing image resolution for coding efficiency, which forms a basis for US10250877's approach.

6. Han et al: "Joint optimization of the motion estimation module and the Up/Down scaler in transcoders"

   • Full Citation: Han et al: "Joint optimization of the motion estimation module and the Up/Down scaler in transcoders ", IEEE transactions on circuits and systems for video technology. vol. 15, No. 10, Oct. 1, 2005, pp. 1303-1313.
   • Publication/Filing Date: October 1, 2005.
   • Brief Description: This paper describes the "Joint optimization of the motion estimation module and the Up/Down scaler in transcoders." The concept of joint operations on motion estimation and scaling is very close to the core inventive concept of US10250877, where motion compensation and upsampling/subsampling are performed jointly using a single filter.
   • Potential Anticipation: This paper is highly relevant and potentially anticipates the inventive step of US10250877, particularly the aspect of performing resampling and motion compensation conjointly using a single filter, as described in Claims 1, 4, 7, and 8. Its earlier date (2005) makes it strong prior art.

7. Lee et al: "Hybrid resolution switching method for low bit rate video coding"

   • Full Citation: Lee et al: "Hybrid resolution switching method for low bit rate video coding ", Image Processing, 2007, ICIP 2007, IEEE Intl Conf on IEEE, Sep. 1, 2007. pp. VI-73.
   • Publication/Filing Date: September 1, 2007.
   • Brief Description: This paper presents a "Hybrid resolution switching method for low bit rate video coding." This directly relates to adaptive resolution and bitrate control, which are mentioned as background and motivation for US10250877.
   • Potential Anticipation: This document likely anticipates methods for adaptive resolution and handling different image sizes, particularly for low bitrate scenarios, relevant to the context and problem addressed by US10250877.

8. Li et al: "AHG18: Comments on the implementations of resolution adaption on HEVC"

   • Full Citation: Li et al: "AHG18: Comments on the implementations of resolution adaption on HEVC ", 7 JCT-VC Meeting (Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding of ISO/IEC . . . ), Nov. 8, 2011.
   • Publication/Filing Date: November 8, 2011.
   • Brief Description: This paper provides "Comments on the implementations of resolution adaption on HEVC." As part of the HEVC development, it would detail various approaches and considerations for adaptive resolution.
   • Potential Anticipation: This document likely anticipates implementation details and challenges related to resolution adaptation within the HEVC framework, providing context and potentially disclosing techniques relevant to US10250877.

9. MPEG 4 ITU-T H264 Standard, "Advanced video coding for generic audiovisual"

   • Full Citation: MPEG 4 ITU-T H264 Standard, "Advanced video coding for generic audiovisual", International Telecommunication Union, May 2003, pp. 1-282.
   • Publication/Filing Date: May 2003.
   • Brief Description: This is the foundational H.264/AVC video coding standard. It details various aspects of video compression, including motion compensation and interpolation filtering.
   • Potential Anticipation: This standard anticipates many general video coding techniques, including motion compensation interpolation filters (MCIF) and basic principles of video block coding, which are components within the broader claims of US10250877.

10. Schwarz et al: "Overview of the scalable video coding extension of the H.264/AVC standard"

    • Full Citation: Schwarz et al: "Overview of the scalable video coding extension of the H.264/AVC standard ", IEEE transactions on circuits and systems for video technology. vol. 17, No. 9, Sep. 1, 2007, pp. 1103-1120.
    • Publication/Filing Date: September 1, 2007.
    • Brief Description: This paper provides an "Overview of the scalable video coding extension of the H.264/AVC standard." Scalable video coding (SVC) is a key area of relevance to US10250877, especially regarding the use of reference images at different resolutions.
    • Potential Anticipation: This document anticipates aspects of scalable video coding and the use of different resolution layers for prediction, which are relevant to Claims 3, 6, 10, and 12 of US10250877.

11. Wiegand et al: "WD3: Working draft 3 of high-efficiency video coding"

    • Full Citation: Wiegand et al: "WD3: Working draft 3 of high-efficiency video coding ", No. JCTVC-E603, Mar. 29, 2011, pp. 1-160.
    • Publication/Filing Date: March 29, 2011.
    • Brief Description: This is "Working draft 3 of high-efficiency video coding," another key document in the development of the HEVC standard. Similar to WD4, it would detail various coding tools and techniques.
    • Potential Anticipation: This is another broad foundational document for HEVC, likely anticipating general aspects of video coding, including filtering and motion compensation, relevant to the context of US10250877.

12. Wittmann et al.: "Separable adaptive interpolation filter for video coding"

    • Full Citation: Wittmann et al.: "Separable adaptive interpolation filter for video coding ", Image processing, 2008. 15th IEEE Intl Conf, IEEE, Oct. 12, 2008, pp. 2500-2503.
    • Publication/Filing Date: October 12, 2008.
    • Brief Description: This paper describes a "Separable adaptive interpolation filter for video coding." The concept of separable adaptive interpolation filters is explicitly mentioned in the summary and claims of US10250877.
    • Potential Anticipation: This paper is highly relevant, potentially anticipating the use of "separable adaptive interpolation filters" as described in the summary and potentially Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 11 of US10250877. The specific adaptivity and how it relates to joint motion compensation and resampling would be key to determining full anticipation.

Among these, the non-patent citations by Bordes et al. ("AHG18 resolution adaptation coding using single resolution in DPB", Feb. 1, 2012) and Han et al. ("Joint optimization of the motion estimation module and the Up/Down scaler in transcoders", Oct. 1, 2005) appear to be the most relevant as they directly address core aspects of the inventive concept in US10250877: resolution adaptation without storing multiple reference image versions, and the joint optimization/application of motion compensation and scaling filters.

US patent 10250877 covers methods and devices for coding and decoding image blocks, particularly focusing on handling reference images of different sizes in adaptive resolution video coding. The core inventive concept across its independent claims (Claims 1, 4, 7, and 8) is the joint application of motion compensation interpolation filters (MCIF) and resampling filters (SCF) into single horizontal (GFH) and vertical (GFv) filters (e.g., GFv(s) = MCIFv(SCFv(s)) and GFH(u) = MCIFH(SCFH(u))), thereby eliminating the need to store resampled versions of reference images in a decoded picture buffer (DPB). This addresses the problem of excessive memory consumption in prior art adaptive resolution systems.

An analysis of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 indicates that the claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) by combining existing prior art references. The critical date for prior art assessment is the earliest priority date of January 13, 2012.

Prior Art References and their Teachings:

1. US20100226437A1 (Sony Corporation), published September 9, 2010: This patent application discloses "Reduced-resolution decoding of AVC bit streams for transcoding or display at lower resolution". This reference demonstrates the known challenge of handling different resolutions in video decoding and the necessity for resolution adjustment.
2. Davies et al., "AHG18 adaptive resolution coding (ARC)," published November 21, 2011: This non-patent literature explicitly discusses adaptive resolution coding in the context of advanced video coding, indicating that the general problem of varying image sizes was well-recognized in the field. Other Davies et al. papers, "JCTVC AHG report resolution adaptation" (Nov 21, 2011) and "Resolution switching for coding efficiency and error resilience" (Jul 15, 2011), further reinforce the awareness of resolution adaptation and switching.
3. Han et al., "Joint optimization of the motion estimation module and the Up/Down scaler in transcoders," published October 1, 2005: This article teaches the "Joint optimization of the motion estimation module and the Up/Down scaler". Although presented in the context of transcoders, the principle of combining or jointly processing motion estimation (which involves interpolation) and scaling (up/down sampling) operations was established. This directly suggests a technical approach to integrate these two functions.
4. Wittmann et al., "Separable adaptive interpolation filter for video coding," published October 12, 2008: This paper describes "Separable adaptive interpolation filter for video coding," confirming that the use of adaptive and separable (horizontal and vertical) interpolation filters was known in the art for video coding applications. The patent itself acknowledges that "The 2D interpolation filters used for the motion compensation and the 2D upsampling and subsampling filters are generally separable filters."

Obviousness Argument:

The independent claims of US10250877 address the problem of excessive memory usage in the DPB due to storing multiple resampled versions of reference images when adaptive resolution coding is employed. The patent explicitly articulates this problem in its "Prior Art" section, stating that "The adaptive resolution method thus requires more memory space as several versions (reconstructed image and upsampled and/or subsampled versions) of a same reference image are stored. Increasing the memory size is a problem notably in the hardware implementations for which the surface of the component is notably critical."

A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the aforementioned prior art references to overcome this known memory limitation.

• Understanding the Problem (from 1, 2, and the patent's own "Prior Art" section): A PHOSITA would be aware of adaptive resolution video coding (US20100226437A1, Davies et al.) and the associated need to either resample reference images to match the current image's size or store multiple resampled versions in the DPB, leading to increased memory requirements. The patent itself states that "More generally, each reference image is stored in the DPB memory with N different sizes" in the prior art.
• Motivation for Joint Processing (from 3): Faced with the memory problem, a PHOSITA seeking to reduce DPB size would naturally look for ways to eliminate intermediate storage. Han et al.'s teaching of "joint optimization of the motion estimation module and the Up/Down scaler" would provide a strong motivation and conceptual basis for combining the resampling and motion compensation interpolation steps. The idea of performing these operations together, rather than sequentially with intermediate storage, would be an obvious engineering choice when memory reduction is a key objective.
• Implementing the Combination (from 4 and general knowledge): Knowing that both motion compensation interpolation and resampling filters are commonly implemented as separable (horizontal and vertical) filters (Wittmann et al.), a PHOSITA would readily understand that these two types of filters could be composed into a single, combined filter. The mathematical operation of filter composition (e.g., GFv(s)=MCIFv(SCFv(s))) is a standard technique in signal processing. This combined filter could then be applied directly to the original-resolution reference image to generate the motion-compensated prediction block, thereby obviating the need for storing resampled versions in the DPB, as claimed in US10250877.

Therefore, the combination of a reference teaching adaptive resolution and the associated memory burden (e.g., US20100226437A1 or Davies et al., coupled with the patent's own description of prior art), with a reference teaching joint processing of motion estimation and scaling (Han et al.), and the general knowledge of separable interpolation filters (Wittmann et al.), would render the claimed invention obvious. A PHOSITA would be motivated to make this combination to achieve the known desire of reducing memory footprint in adaptive resolution video coding systems.