Prior art

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 11805267, I will utilize the USPTO's Patent Public Search tool, as it provides access to patents and patent application publications and is designed for enhanced access to prior art. I will search for patent 11805267 directly to access its cited references.

Once I have the list of cited prior art, I will analyze each reference to provide its full citation, publication/filing date, a brief description, and which claim(s) of US11805267 it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Since I cannot directly interact with a live USPTO database and extract a list of citations, I will instead rely on the information present within the provided patent text itself, which lists prior art keywords and often cites relevant patents in its "Description of the Related Art" or "Background" sections, as well as in the "References Cited" section, if available in the parsed text. However, the provided text snippets do not contain a "References Cited" section with a list of patent citations. The "Prior art keywords" section on Google Patents lists "prediction, precision, block, reference block, values," but these are general keywords and not specific patent citations.

Without direct access to the USPTO database or a "References Cited" section in the provided text, I cannot provide a definitive list of the most relevant prior art as typically found in a patent's examination history.

However, based on the abstract and description, the patent aims to reduce rounding errors in bi-directional and multi-directional prediction by maintaining higher precision during intermediate calculations. Any prior art that addresses motion prediction in video coding, particularly bi-directional or multi-directional prediction, and methods for handling precision or rounding errors in such predictions, would be highly relevant.

Given the information that Amazon proved the invalidity of claims 7, 25, and 26 of US11805267 in the ITC case (Investigation No. 337-TA-1380), but not claims 8, 9, or 27, this suggests that the prior art presented by Amazon was effective against claims 7, 25, and 26. To fully understand which prior art was used for this, one would need to review the full public redacted version of the Initial Determination from the ITC case, which is not available in the provided snippets.