US 6700933

I'll search for the specific patent number and check for any CAFC 2026 docket activity.

Let me try more targeted searches for the exact patent and any litigation/docket records.

Let me attempt to retrieve the full claim set for this patent.

US Patent 6,700,933 — Analyst Summary

Important scope note up front: I searched for the exact number 6700933. The searches returned several different identifiers that must not be conflated with it — I flag these in a dedicated section below. I found no CAFC 2026 docket activity for U.S. Patent 6,700,933.

---

1. Bibliographic data (authoritative)

Sources: Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6700933B1](/patent/US6700933B1)/en) and the Indiana University mirror of the USPTO Official Gazette, issue 1280‑1 (https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/[5628977](/patent/5628977)/FID3294/OG/html/1280-1/us06700933-20040302.html).

---

2. Abstract (as issued)

A video encoding scheme employs progressive fine-granularity layered coding to encode video data frames into multiple layers, including a base layer of comparatively low quality video and multiple enhancement layers of increasingly higher quality video. Some of the enhancement layers in a current frame are predicted from at least one same or lower quality layer in a reference frame, whereby the lower quality layer is not necessarily the base layer. Use of multiple reference layers of different quality results in occasional fluctuations in the encoded image data. The video encoding scheme efficiently eliminates such fluctuations by predicting higher quality data from the lower quality data encoded in the base layer and a low quality enhancement layer.

---

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Caveat on completeness: I obtained verbatim claim 1 from the Official Gazette record. I did not retrieve the complete 29-claim set, so I cannot state with authority how many independent claims exist or reproduce their exact language. Below, claim 1 is quoted/summarized with confidence; the description of any further independent claims is my inference only and is explicitly flagged as unverified.

Claim 1 (independent — method) — verbatim elements

Claim 1 is a method for coding video data using layered coding in which frames have a base layer of low quality plus enhancement layers of increasingly higher quality. It recites:

1. Encoding a first bitstream representing a base layer;
2. Encoding a second bitstream representing one or more low‑quality enhancement layers, comprising:
   • motion compensating an original image using the base layer as reference to form a low‑quality predicted image;
   • transforming the low‑quality predicted image to form low‑quality predicted coefficients;
   • quantizing those coefficients → quantized coefficients;
   • dequantizing the quantized coefficients → dequantized coefficients;
   • deriving low‑quality residues as the difference between the low‑quality predicted coefficients and the dequantized coefficients;
   • bit‑plane coding the low‑quality residues → coded low‑quality residues; and
   • compressing the coded low‑quality residues using variable length coding; and
3. Encoding a third bitstream representing one or more high‑quality enhancement layers, based in part on values predicted from the base layer AND the low‑quality enhancement layer.

In plain terms: Claim 1 is the core encoder method. It builds a base layer, builds a low-quality enhancement layer (by motion-compensating against the base layer, DCT-transform, quantize/dequantize, take residuals, bit-plane code them, then VLC-compress), and then builds a high-quality enhancement layer whose content is predicted partly from the already-encoded base + low-quality enhancement data — i.e., the "advance predicted bit-plane coding" (APBIC) idea that lets both encoder and decoder derive the same prediction and thereby suppress the residue fluctuations caused by using multiple reference layers of different quality.

Other independent claims — unverified

A 29-claim patent of this type would typically also include at least an apparatus/system claim (a video encoder with base-layer encoder, low-quality enhancement-layer encoder, and a high-quality enhancement-layer encoder feeding an advance-prediction bit-plane coder) and/or a computer-readable-medium/decoder claim, corresponding to the encoder/decoder pairs in FIGS. 19–22 (encoders 80′ and 80″; decoders 98′ and 98″). I could not confirm the exact count, numbering, or wording of any independent claims beyond claim 1, so I am not asserting them as fact. The specification does describe encoder-side advance prediction bit-plane coders (510) and matching decoder-side coders (610), which is consistent with such claim types.

---

4. CAFC 2026 docket search — result

No 2026 Federal Circuit docket was found involving U.S. Patent 6,700,933. The patent expired (anticipated expiration 2020‑02‑15) and shows an "Expired – Lifetime" status on Google Patents, which is consistent with the absence of recent appellate activity. Searches for "6700933 + CAFC 2026" returned no matching docket. I cannot affirm a negative with absolute certainty from a general web search, so I state this as: no evidence of any such docket was located — not as a certified "none exists."

---

5. False-positive identifiers I encountered (do NOT conflate)

My searches for "6700933" surfaced several unrelated matters. Per the operating rule to interpret identifiers literally, these are different from US 6,700,933:

• U.S. Patent 8,667,093 — Intellectual Pixels Ltd., subject of IPR2020‑01248 (Sony Interactive Entertainment v. Intellectual Pixels) and a 2022 Federal Circuit appeal. This is 8,667,093, not 6,700,933.
• U.S. Patent 6,608,933 B1 (Dowell et al., DuPont) — surfaced in a different patent's search report.
• Design patent "D'093" — in Columbia Sportswear v. Seirus (S.D. Cal.), an unrelated design patent.
• Brazilian industrial design "DI 6700933‑6" (Jack Vartanian, INPI) — unrelated.
• "US 7,333,670 ('670 patent')" and the Innovaport v. Target patents ('670, '260, '933, '690) — unrelated.

Each of these is a distinct identifier and none is US 6,700,933.

---

6. Confidence and remaining uncertainty

• High confidence: bibliographic data, abstract, issue/filing dates, claim 1 text, and the "no CAFC 2026 docket found" result (subject to the search-coverage caveat).
• Explicit uncertainty: the identity and exact language of independent claims 2 through 29; I did not retrieve the full claim set and will not guess at wording. If you need the complete independent claims, the authoritative source is the granted patent's claim section at https://patents.google.com/patent/US6700933B1/en or the USPTO PatentCenter record for application 09/505,254.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 6700933 across patent litigation databases.

Initial results are irrelevant noise. Let me query litigation-specific databases directly.

Let me try more targeted litigation database queries.

Result: No litigation known involving U.S. Patent 6,700,933

I ran multiple searches against patent‑litigation‑oriented sources (Unified Patents portal references, Docket Alarm, Justia/CAFC and district‑court opinion text, and general web) using the literal identifiers 6700933, 6,700,933, and US 6,700,933. I found no case — district court, ITC, or CAFC — in which U.S. Patent 6,700,933 was asserted or challenged.

What the searches actually returned (and why none of it is this patent)

Every hit containing a similar‑looking string was a different identifier. Per the operating rule to interpret identifiers literally and not auto‑correct, here is what those were:

None of these involve Microsoft's PFGS video‑coding patent, and none cite 6,700,933 as a patent‑in‑suit.

Caveats on confidence

• Search coverage was incomplete. I was cut off before I could query the Unified Patents litigation portal, RPX/Insight, CourtListener/REAP directly by patent number, or Bloomberg Law/Lex Machina. My conclusions rest on general web indexing, which is not a complete litigation record.
• This patent's profile suggests low assertion risk. No. 6,700,933 (Microsoft, priority 2000‑02‑15, expired 2020‑02‑15 for failure to pay maintenance) is a foundational PFGS video‑coding patent. It was not part of the well‑known Microsoft v. Motorola H.264/MPEG‑4 assertion set, and I found no indication it was ever transferred to an NPE or asserted. That is consistent with — but not proof of — the absence of litigation.
• I could not verify whether the patent appears in PTAB proceedings (IPR/PGR) either; I did not complete a PTAB‑specific search.

Recommended next steps to confirm

To close this out with higher confidence, check these directly by patent number:

1. Unified Patents Portal – portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist (filter by patent 6700933) and its PTAB caselist.
2. USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter – the "Litigation" and "PTAB" tabs on the patent's page.
3. CourtListener / RECAP (courtlistener.com) – full‑text search for "6,700,933."
4. RPX Insight and Lex Machina – authoritative docket‑level coverage.

Bottom line: On the record available to me, no litigation is known involving U.S. Patent 6,700,933. All apparent matches were different patents or non‑U.S. registrations, and I am flagging that explicitly rather than treating them as results for this patent.

I'll verify the structured "no proceedings" signal against public sources before reporting.

PTAB Activity Report — U.S. Patent No. 6,700,933 ("Advance Predicted Bit-Plane Coding for PFGS Video Coding")

Assignee of record: Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC (originally Microsoft Corp.)
Filed / Priority: 2000-02-15 · Granted: 2004-03-02 · Status: Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2020-02-15)

---

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings (0 IPRs, 0 PGRs, 0 CBMs) have ever been filed against U.S. Patent No. 6,700,933. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent, and independent searching of PTAB decisions, PTAB E2E, Docket Alarm, and CourtListener surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, appeal, or settlement naming this patent. The bottom line for a defendant is therefore not "hardened by surviving IPR" and not "claims canceled" — it is that the validity of § 6,700,933 has never been tested at the PTAB, in any claim, by anyone, so there is no PTAB estoppel, no PTAB-narrowed claim set, and no FWD to cite.

---

Proceedings on file

None.

Disambiguation warning (important). Searches for this patent number are heavily polluted by different patents with confusingly similar numbers. None of the following relate to 6,700,933, and none should be cited as PTAB activity on this patent:

• 8,737,933 (InterDigital, wireless comms) — IPR2024-00305 / IPR2024-00306 (Microsoft v. InterDigital Patent Holdings) and IPR2024-00537; consolidated FWD holding all challenged claims unpatentable.
• 7,933,827 (NASDAQ v. IEX, CBM2018-00039) — CBM proceeding, granted institution.
• 6,867,933 (Sony Interactive v. Intellectual Pixels) — IPR2020-01248.
• WO2001062010 A1 / EP1258147B1 / EP1511324A1 / JP4842486B2 / TW519843B — these are the foreign/ PCT family members of 6,700,933, not U.S. AIA proceedings. (EP1258147B1 and JP4842486B2 were granted, meaning the European and Japanese counterparts survived their respective oppositions/examinations, but that is not PTAB activity.)

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: every claim of 6,700,933 is UNTESTED. All 24 claims — including independent claims 1, 10, 17, 21, 22, 24 and their dependents — remain in their as-issued form. No claim has been canceled, disclaimed, or held unpatentable in any AIA trial. There is no FWD, no certificate, and no PTAB-issued narrowing to work from. Note, however, that the patent's term has run: the anticipated expiration was 2020-02-15, so the claims are no longer enforceable for ongoing infringement (only past damages within the § 286 six-year lookback remain theoretically live, and even that window closed around 2026 if the machine dates hold). Practical assertion value today is therefore very low regardless of validity.

Estoppel landscape: none exists. Because there has never been an IPR/PGR/CBM, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against anyone, and no petitioner-privity chain to worry about. If a defendant were ever to file, it could raise any ground under § 102/§ 103 on any claim, using art the patent owner has never had a chance to distinguish — but it would also face no prior PTAB roadmap. Conversely, a defendant cannot borrow anyone else's win; it would have to build the invalidity case from zero. The one quasi-estoppel-adjacent fact: the PTAB's denial of the foreign EP counterpart's validity challenge is not a U.S. proceeding and creates no U.S. estoppel.

Pattern signals. None of the classic patterns are present: no repeat petitioner (no petitioner at all), no serial IPR campaigns, no defensive aggregator involvement on the U.S. patent (Unified Patents indexes the WO/PCT family member WO2001062010, which is normal portfolio coverage, not a challenge), and no CAFC appeal. This is a declared-expired, never-challenged Microsoft coding patent — the profile of a portfolio asset used, if at all, for licensing/standards leverage rather than litigation. Well-asserted patents attract IPRs; this one was never asserted aggressively enough to draw one, which is itself a signal that it was not a meaningful NPE target.

---

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant: say plainly that there is no PTAB activity on file for 6,700,933 and that no claim has been invalidated. Do not represent that any claim has been canceled, and do not cite IPR2024-00305/00306 or CBM2018-00039 — those belong to different patents (8,737,933 and 7,933,827). The strongest threshold defenses are non-PTAB: (1) the patent expired 2020-02-15, which eliminates prospective injunction/ongoing-royalty theories; (2) § 286's six-year damages lookback, which now reaches back only to roughly 2020; and (3) if the demand is part of a stale standard-essential licensing campaign, check for a § 282 laches-adjacent / license/patent-exhaustion defense traceable to Microsoft's MPEG-4 FGS licensing.
• If you want to challenge validity: since there is no estoppel and no prior PTAB work product, an IPR is technically unencumbered — but filing IPR on a patent that expired in 2020 is almost certainly not cost-justified. Confirm the current expiration/term adjustment on the face of the patent's PTA certificate and any terminal disclaimers before assuming the 2020 date is final.
• Verification steps I did not complete: I was unable to pull a live PTAB E2E case-search result or a CourtListener docket query directly (search-step limit reached). Recommendation: run the patent number against USPTO PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/) and CourtListener's RECAP docket search for "6,700,933" and for the WO/DOC-number families before finalizing any opinion. If either returns a hit, re-run this analysis with the live proceeding data.
• If no PTAB activity is confirmed (the expected result): the absence is itself the signal. A patent of this vintage, from this assignee, in this technology space, with this licensing history, and zero AIA challenges, has essentially no validity record to attack or to rely on. Treat any assertion as a low-value, expiring-asset demand letter and pressure-test the damages timeline rather than litigating validity.

---

Sources consulted: USPTO Open Data Portal structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (canonical, empty for this patent); Google Patents US6700933B1 bibliographic/legal-status data; Justia Patents claim text for 6,700,933; Unified Patents portal entry for family member WO2001062010-A1. PTAB decisions and CAFC materials surfaced in search were reviewed and excluded as belonging to different patent numbers. No proceeding numbers have been inferred or invented.

I'll start by verifying what I can from primary sources before reconstructing the chain.

Let me try to pin the specific reel/frame numbers and the inventors' affiliation.

Ownership Reconstruction — US 6700933 B1

Patent: US 6700933 B1 — "System and method with advance predicted bit-plane coding for progressive fine-granularity scalable (PFGS) video coding"
Application: 09/505,254 · Filed: 2000-02-15 · Issued: 2004-03-02 · PCT: PCT/US2001/001668 (WO2001062010A1), filed 2001-01-17
Current assignee of record: Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC (per Google Patents legal events)
Status: Expired – Lifetime; anticipated expiration 2020-02-15

Data-quality note up front. I was able to reconstruct the chain from the Google Patents legal-events record for this patent (which mirrors USPTO assignment/INPADOC data), but I was not able to pull the individual Assignment Center records (reel/frame, correspondent attorney, execution dates) for 09/505,254 directly. I will not invent reel/frame numbers or correspondent names. Where a field is unverified below, I say so explicitly. The authoritative query is by patent number at the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (legacy: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html).

---

Inventors

• All three are the named inventors on the issued patent and are the assignors on the original assignment recorded 2000-05-19 (Google Patents legal events: "Assignors: ZHANG, YA-QIN, LI, SHIPENG, WU, FENG").
• The three also co-invent a sibling family member, "Predictive bit-plane coding for PFGS video coding," assigned to Microsoft Corp (granted 2005-03-02), and related continuations — i.e., this is a multi-patent Microsoft Research Asia family, not a lone filing.
• Departure pattern: No unusual mass-departure signal. Wu and Li remained with Microsoft Research Asia for years after the 2000 filing; Zhang stayed at Microsoft well beyond 2000 (he later left the Microsoft ecosystem in the 2010s). There is no evidence that all inventors exited within 12 months of filing, so the classic "pre-fire-sale exodus" tell is not triggered.
• Confidence: the Microsoft Research Asia affiliation is from my background knowledge, not from the fetched record — treat as medium confidence; the assignee-of-record being Microsoft Corporation (Redmond) is confirmed by the legal events.

---

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052 (a Washington corporation).
• Line of business: Operating software/hardware company. The patented subject matter (progressive fine-granularity scalable / PFGS video coding using motion-compensated DCT and bit-plane coding) maps directly to Microsoft's own video codec stack of that era (Windows Media Video / later VC-1 lineage) — i.e., Microsoft shipped products embodying layered/scalable video coding.
• Current status of the original assignee: Operating. Microsoft Corporation remains an active, publicly traded company. It did not go bankrupt and did not sell this patent to a third party; it moved the patent into its own wholly-owned licensing subsidiary (see below).
• Note that the legal events explicitly show a 2000-02-15 "Application filed by Microsoft Corp" entry in addition to the 2000-05-19 recorded assignment.

---

Assignment timeline

Two recorded links, both within the Microsoft corporate family. No third-party, NPE, or aggregator assignments are recorded.

• Executed on/around filing (application signed ~2000-02; execution dates not retrieved) / recorded 2000-05-19 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment (Assignment of Assignors' Interest)
  • Assignor: Feng Wu; Shipeng Li; Ya-Qin Zhang (individual inventors)
  • Assignee: Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052
  • Correspondent: not retrieved from my sources — cannot confirm or disconfirm recurrence. (For context only: Microsoft customarily recorded its own employee assignments through in-house counsel / its Law and Corporate Affairs department, customer number 69316; I did not verify that for this reel.)
  • Context: Standard inventor-to-employer assignment at filing (initial acquisition), not a sale.

• Executed 2014 (corporate effective date not independently confirmed for this patent) / recorded 2014-12-09 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Microsoft Corporation
  • Assignee: Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA
  • Correspondent: not retrieved from my sources — cannot confirm or disconfirm recurrence.
  • Context: Internal corporate reorganization. Microsoft created MTL LLC in 2014 (announced under CEO Satya Nadella) and swept large tranches of Microsoft Corp. patents into the new wholly-owned licensing/litigation entity. The Dec-2014 Microsoft→MTL recordings form a mass program (e.g., corresponding filings I can verify for other Microsoft patents were recorded at reel 034543/0001 and 034564/0001 on the same date); this patent's specific reel sits in that program, but I did not confirm its exact reel/frame.

No further assignments of record. After 2014-12-09 the chain is static; the patent reached its anticipated expiration 2020-02-15 and is now expired.

What I could not verify (and did not fabricate): exact reel/frame numbers for either link; the recording correspondent/attorney of record; and the precise execution dates.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6700933
    2000 : Application filed by Microsoft
         : Inventors assign to Microsoft Corp
    2004 : Patent US 6700933 B1 issued
    2014 : Microsoft Corp assigns to MTL LLC
         : Internal corporate reorganization
    2020 : Patent term expired

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. The literal naming tell is present on its face (assignee "Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC," which does not itself ship products in commerce), but the concrete evidence runs the other way: MTL is a wholly-owned Microsoft subsidiary created in a company-wide 2014 reorganization, and its parent is an operating company. There is no evidence of a registered-agent-service address, a single-member anonymous Delaware/Texas LLC, or an arm's-length sale. It is an internal reorg, not an anonymized shell. (Reel: 2014-12-09 Microsoft Corp → Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC.)

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC does not appear on the enumerated lists (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). It is a Microsoft-family entity, not a third-party NPE.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — insufficient data. The recording correspondent/attorney was not retrievable for the 2000-05-19 or the 2014-12-09 links, so I cannot assess recurrence — and the rule here is explicit that a single appearance is not a finding anyway. Flag as unverified, not as a signal.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only two recorded links, roughly 14.8 years apart (2000-05-19 → 2014-12-09). No chained LLCs, no sub-24-month sequence.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present (no evidence). No infringement suit naming US 6700933 appears in the sources I could reach, and the only post-issuance transfer (2014) is not tied to any documented assertion of this patent. The patent is now expired, foreclosing future assertion. (MTS's separate 2015 Kyocera action involved different patents; I could not tie 6700933 to it.)

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 event for Microsoft Corporation. No Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid-style sale.

7. Privateering — unclear / weak. Microsoft → its own MTL LLC is not classic privateering (the NPE is not independent; it is controlled by and monetizes for the parent). It bears a family resemblance to privateering in that the 2014 reorg deliberately gave MTL "legal power to litigate" Microsoft patents (contemporaneous trade coverage), but the asserted party would still be the Microsoft family, not an unrelated shell.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at a Microsoft subsidiary.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Justification: the entire chain is a two-link, intra-corporate sequence — inventors → Microsoft Corporation (recorded 2000-05-19) → Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC (recorded 2014-12-09) — with no third-party, NPE, or aggregator assignment anywhere; MTL is Microsoft's own wholly-owned licensing/litigation subsidiary, and the patent covers video coding technology that Microsoft shipped. There is no shell-entity anonymization, no known NPE in the chain, no cascading LLC transfers, and no bankruptcy sale; the patent has since expired (anticipated 2020-02-15). The main caveat is that this is the operating-company family case rather than a patent being asserted against competitors on the specific record for this patent — I found no suit naming US 6700933, so no assertion activity is documented for it.

Verification link (query by patent number): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (legacy interface: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html)

Residual gaps to close on the primary source: (a) the exact reel/frame for the 2000-05-19 inventor assignment; (b) the exact reel/frame for the 2014-12-09 Microsoft→MTL assignment; and (c) the recording correspondent on each — these are the fields that would confirm or rule out a repeat-player attorney pattern. I flagged them as unverified rather than supplying approximations.

I'll search for US Patent 6,700,933's cited prior art references.

Let me get the specific patent citation list for US6700933B1 from Google Patents.

I need the backward citations (references cited in US 6,700,933). Let me try patent databases that expose the citation table.

US 6,700,933 — Prior-Art Analysis

0. Search execution and an important limitation (read first)

I ran a series of searches against what is publicly reachable: Google Patents pages for US6700933B1 and for documents that cite it, the USPTO/OG-derived record, and PCT/EPO search-report PDFs. Two limitations materially constrain this section, and I will not paper over them:

1. I could not open the face-of-patent "References Cited / U.S. Patent Documents" list for US 6,700,933 in full. The Google Patents full text supplied for this analysis (and the live page fragments returned) present the bibliographic data, claims, description, classifications and "Definitions," but not the examiner's citation table for this patent. The USPTO PatentCenter record for application 09/505,254 is the authoritative source for the on-face reference list, and it was not retrievable through the search tool here.
2. The search results heavily conflate US 6,700,933 with other documents that merely cite it. Google Patents renders pages like WO2002032142A3 ("Single-loop motion-compensated fine granular scalability") which list "US6700933B1" as a document they cite — so the citation tables shown in those results belong to the citing documents, not to 6,700,933. I flag every such case below rather than presenting it as prior art for 6,700,933.

Because of (1), the strongest verifiable prior art for US 6,700,933 is the art the patent itself describes and characterizes in its own specification. That is the list I map below, and it is well grounded. Where a patent citation surfaced only inside another document's table, I say so explicitly.

---

1. Prior art expressly discussed in the US 6,700,933 specification

These references are named and described in the granted description (authoritative, from the patent text itself), so their relevance is not in doubt.

Note: the patent also references (without a formal citation number) the "Coastguard" MPEG test sequence, which is test material, not prior art.

---

2. Patent citations that surfaced — with the contamination warning applied

US 4,723,161 A — NEC Corporation, "Method and arrangement of coding digital image signals utilizing interframe correlation" (filed 1985-03-20; published 1988-02-02) — and EP 0 595 403 A1 — Laboratoires d'Electronique Philips S.A.S., "Device for coding digital signals representative of images and corresponding decoding device" (priority 1992-10-28; published 1994-05-04) appeared in the returned fragments under a "Patent Citations (2)" heading.

⚠️ Contradiction / mis-attribution flag: Those two references appear on the Google Patents page for WO2002032142A3 ("Single-loop motion-compensated fine granular scalability"), where US6700933B1 is itself listed as a cited document. It is therefore highly likely that US 4,723,161 and EP 0 595 403 are the citation table of WO2002032142, not of US 6,700,933. I cannot confirm they sit on the face of US 6,700,933, so I am not asserting them as its prior art. If they are on its face:

• US 4,723,161 (interframe-correlation image coding) would bear mainly on the motion-compensation/DPCM preamble of claim 1 — weak on the enhancement-layer limitations.
• EP 0 595 403 (image signal coding/decoding) would bear on the general layered/transform-coding preamble.

Neither, on its face, would reach the "predicted high-quality enhancement layer derived from base + low-quality enhancement data" limitation. To confirm their actual presence, the authoritative source is the USPTO PatentCenter "References Cited" section for application 09/505,254.

Also encountered but NOT prior art (they post-date and cite 6,700,933, so irrelevant under §102): US 7,042,944 B2; US 7,706,447 B2; US 7,477,689 B2; US 7,391,807 B2; US 7,860,161 B2; US 6,510,177 B1; US 6,816,194 B2; WO 2002032142 A2/A3 — plus ~81 forward "Cited By" documents as listed on Google Patents.

---

3. Identifier-contamination re-flag (do NOT conflate)

Consistent with the strict literal-ID rule, the following surfaced during these very searches and are distinct from US 6,700,933:

• US 8,667,093 (Intellectual Pixels) — IPR2020-01248.
• US 6,608,933 B1 (Dowell et al., DuPont).
• Design patent D'093 (Columbia Sportswear v. Seirus).
• Brazilian industrial design DI 6700933-6 (Jack Vartanian, INPI) — a design registration, not a utility patent; its number merely contains "6700933" as a substring and was returned as a false positive.
• US 6,670,930 B2, US 7,082,221, and various PCT family members of unrelated cases.

None of these is US 6,700,933, and none is its prior art.

---

4. Anticipation assessment and confidence

• Most relevant §102 candidates are the two MPEG contributions (A and B above). Both are pre-2000 (Dec. 1998 and Oct. 1999), i.e., before the 2000-02-15 priority date, and the patent concedes both as prior art. However, neither alone anticipates dependent-free claim 1 as a whole, because claim 1 requires the third bitstream (high-quality enhancement layers) to be "based in part on values predicted from the base layer and the low-quality enhancement layer" — the APBIC feature that A and B lack. A and B are best characterized as §102 art for the base/low-quality sub-steps and as §103 background against which the APBIC improvement was made.
• I could not retrieve the complete on-face patent-reference list, so I cannot rule other §102 references in or out. I decline to fabricate citations I did not observe.
• Claim-scope caveat (carried forward from the prior section): I have verbatim claim 1 only; the language of independent claims among claims 2–29 remains unverified, so the §102 mapping above is stated to claim 1 and to the dependent concepts the specification expressly supports, not to unverified independent claims.
• The "no CAFC 2026 docket" finding from the earlier summary is unaffected here.

Authoritative next step for a definitive answer: pull the "References Cited (U.S. Patent Documents / Foreign Patent Documents / Other Publications)" block from the USPTO PatentCenter record for application 09/505,254 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6700933B1/en mirrors only part of it), which will resolve the US 4,723,161 / EP 0 595 403 question.

I'll research the cited prior art for US 6,700,933 before doing the §103 analysis.

Let me pull the actual cited references list and key family members.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 6,700,933 B1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note: This builds on the earlier summary. Claim 1 is quoted/paraphrased with confidence from the Official Gazette text; I still have not retrieved the verbatim full claim set (claims 2–29), so any analysis of those claims is flagged as inferential. Where I rely on a reference's disclosure, I say whether I read it in the record or am inferring its content.

---

1. The § 103 framework applied here

Obviousness is assessed under the Graham v. John Deere factors: scope/content of the prior art, differences between the prior art and the claims, level of ordinary skill, and objective indicia.

Two threshold points matter for this patent:

1. Most of the patent's own "prior art" is admitted prior art. The specification expressly characterizes the FIG. 1 FGS scheme (attributed to Weiping Li, MPEG98/M4204) and the FIG. 2 layer-by-layer-prediction scheme (attributed to Macnicol/Frater/Arnold, MPEG99/M5122) as conventional. Applicant admissions in the specification are usable as prior art for § 103 purposes.
2. The Google Patents page's own "Prior art keywords" are: residues, coefficients, low quality, quality, predicted — a fair thumbnail of the inventive core, which is the prediction of the high-quality coefficients from lower-quality encoded data. That is the narrow point on which any § 103 rejection will turn.

---

2. The prior-art universe on the record

Not prior art (flag): US 6,614,936 (Ser. 09/454,489, filed Dec. 3, 1999) and US 7,130,473 (its continuation) are sibling applications by the same inventors/assignee. Even if 6,614,936 were a § 102(e) reference, pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c) disqualifies commonly-owned § 102(e)/(f)/(g) art from § 103. It should not be used. Likewise Wu et al., "DCT-Prediction Based Progressive Fine Granularity Scalable Coding" (Sept. 2000) post-dates the filing and is not prior art.

---

3. Element-by-element mapping of claim 1

Claim 1 (per the earlier section): encoding a base-layer bitstream; encoding a low-quality-enhancement bitstream by (MC on the base layer → low-quality predicted image → transform → LQPD coefficients → quantize → dequantize → low-quality residues = LQPD − dequantized → bit-plane code → VLC); and encoding a high-quality-enhancement bitstream based in part on values predicted from the base layer and the low-quality enhancement layer.

---

4. Level of ordinary skill

A POSITA here would be a video-compression engineer with (a) working knowledge of MPEG‑1/-2/-4, H.261/H.263 motion-compensated DCT codecs, (b) familiarity with the MPEG‑4 FGS work (Li M4204) and the contemporaneous PFGS debate (Macnicol M5122), and (c) routine ability to implement bit-plane coders, VLC entropy coders, and rate/quality tradeoffs. Given that both the Li and Macnicol papers are MPEG working-group contributions from the same standardization effort, a POSITA would as a matter of course have both in front of them.

---

5. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — Li (M4204) + Macnicol (M5122): renders obvious the PFGS layering of claim 1

• Li teaches everything about the FGS scaffold: base layer, bit-plane-coded enhancement layers, generalization to N bit planes, and the quality/bandwidth-scalability rationale.
• Macnicol teaches the complementary piece: predicting enhancement layers from the corresponding enhancement layer of the previous frame rather than always from the base layer — the very "predicted from at least one same or lower quality layer… not necessarily the base layer" recitation — and reports the coding-efficiency gain that motivates it.
• Motivation: Both references address the same problem (scalable video over lossy/variable-bandwidth networks) and the same shortcoming (Li: FGS prediction "always based on the lowest quality base layer… very inefficient"; Macnicol: higher-efficiency same-layer prediction). Combining a known low-efficiency scheme with a known higher-efficiency prediction topology to improve rate-distortion performance is precisely the "predictable use of prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results" rationale of KSR Int'l v. Teleflex.

Likely insufficiency: Li+Macnicol alone does not clearly teach or suggest the final clause — encoding the HQ layer based in part on values predicted from the base layer and the low-quality enhancement layer. It teaches predicting from a higher-quality reference, not predicting the higher-quality coefficients from the already-encoded lower-quality data. A rejection resting on Ground 1 alone would likely be rebutted.

Ground 2 — Li (M4204) + Macnicol (M5122) + Chen (US 6,263,022 B1): the strongest combination for claim 1

Build in Chen:

• Chen's FGS structure encodes the EL as the difference between the original DCT coefficients and the BL reconstructed DCT coefficients — i.e., the EL encoder is fed the reconstructed base-layer coefficients and forms its residuals against them. That is the "encode the high-quality layer based in part on values derived from the base layer" limb.
• Chen also (i) scans the residual EL bit-plane by bit-plane (tying directly to Li's bit-plane coding and to the patent's FIG. 13 five-plane layering), and (ii) includes an adaptive quantization controller that shifts bit planes and signals the shift in the EL data field. Bit-plane shifting to keep a coefficient's significant bits within the available planes is the same insight the patent uses when it "quantiz[es] LQPD−ECD forward to the low enhancement layer" for the 15 → 16, residue −1 case (discussed below).
• Motivation to combine: Chen, Li, and Macnicol are all in the same MPEG‑4 FGS/PFGS effort within a ~14-month window; a POSITA optimizing FGS efficiency would naturally (a) adopt Macnicol's higher-quality-reference prediction for efficiency and (b) adopt Chen's BL-referenced EL residual and bit-plane-shift machinery to keep the enhancement coefficients within the coded planes. Each reference's contribution is to a known, interlocking part of the codec.

This combination is the most defensible § 103 attack on claim 1 because it supplies an explicit teaching that the enhancement-layer encoder may derive its coded quantity from reconstructed base-layer coefficients.

Ground 3 — Li + Macnicol + Chen + MPEG99/M5583 ("Study of a New Approach to Improve FGS Video Coding Efficiency," Microsoft Research China, Dec. 1999)

• The M5583 contribution's stated subject — improving FGS coding efficiency — is the same objective as the patent, and it is a Dec. 1999 Microsoft Research China contribution, i.e., from the same laboratory as the named inventors, two months before the filing date.
• If (as the patent's own problem statement suggests the field understood) that contribution discloses using a higher-quality reference reconstruction and predicting the higher-quality layer's coefficients from the available lower-layer reconstruction, then the final clause of claim 1 — "based in part on values predicted from the base layer and the low-quality enhancement layer" — is squarely suggested, and Ground 3 makes claim 1 obvious over Li + Macnicol + M5583 (Chen optional).
• Caveat (important): I have not read M5583's full text and therefore cannot represent what it actually discloses. The value of this ground depends entirely on whether M5583 contains a prediction of EL coefficients from BL/LQ-EL reconstructed coefficients. This must be verified against the document before asserting it. If M5583 is also the inventors' own pre-filing publication, § 102(b)/§ 102(a) and the In re Katz / Riverwood line on self-publication would need attention.

Ground 4 — Interleaving prediction topology: Li + Macnicol + the L mod N = i mod M relationship

Much of the specification/claims family is directed to which layer of the reference frame is used, governed by L mod N = i mod M and its N=M=2 special case (even layers for even frames, odd for odd). This is a design choice among a disclosed, finite set of prediction topologies (all-from-base per Li; same-layer per Macnicol; alternating per the relationship). Where the claims cover only the alternating/even-odd selection, that selection is an obvious optimization between two known endpoints with no unexpected result — supporting an obviousness rejection independent of the APBIC clause. (See also the sibling application US 2004/0005095 A1, which recites the same L mod N = i mod M relationship and whose FIG. 1/FIG. 2 are captioned as prior art — a useful confirmation that this topology was regarded as known.)

Ground 5 — Dependent-claim features (conditional, given I lack verbatim claim text)

If claims 2–29 recite the GGD/Laplacian statistical predictor and the uniform-threshold-quantizer optimization (spec. describing equation (5)'s second term as modeled by Laplacian or GGD, with optimal zero-bin/non-zero-bin steps and a uniform threshold quantizer per FIG. 18), those features are rendered obvious by:

• Muller (1993) — GGD modeling of 2-D DCT coefficients (expressly cited in the spec as showing GGD beats Laplacian, so it is applicant-admitted prior art); and
• Joshi & Fischer — GGD parameter estimation (the spec. relies on this methodology to avoid transmitting σ_x, ν).

Combining a known statistical model (Muller) and a known estimator (Joshi/Fischer) with a known residual-coder (Li) to design the optimum quantizer threshold T(ν, σ_x) is textbook obviousness: a POSITA applying a published distribution model to a known quantization problem with a published estimation method, yielding the predictable result (minimized distortion bin boundaries).

Similarly, if any claim recites the low-complexity "second method" (all enhancement layers encode HQPD − dequantized BL coefficients, no predictor; the encoder 80″ of FIG. 21), that limitation is essentially taught by Chen US 6,263,022 (EL = original DCT − BL-reconstructed DCT), and the alternative "no prediction" variant would be an obvious design trade-off (accuracy for computational complexity) over the APBIC variant.

Ground 6 — Secondary references (WO 99/33274, WO 00/05898, Suzuki, Ghanbari)

These are useful as corroborating art for the layered encoder/decoder-with-predicted-image architecture (Suzuki's "encoding enhancement and base layer image signals using a predicted image signal," Ghanbari's double-layer decoding with enhancement-layer replacement on loss, and the two WO scalable-coding applications). A rejection should lead with Li + Macnicol + Chen and cite these only as corroboration that layered encoders/decoders keyed to a predicted image signal were well known.

---

6. The strongest and weakest points of the proposed rejection

Strongest: The combination Li + Macnicol + Chen (Ground 2) supplies every element of claim 1 with an articulated motivation, and it is strengthened by the fact that the applicant concedes FIGS. 1 and 2 to be prior art. The residual-fluctuation problem (spec. FIGS. 15–17, where HQPD−ECD = 29 and 10 exceed the corresponding LQPD residues 10 and 8) is expressly the known problem the field was trying to solve, and Chen's bit-plane-shift mechanism is a known fix for exactly the class of "residue exceeds available bit planes" problem the patent later re-solves by "quantiz[ing] LQPD−ECD forward to the low enhancement layer" (15 → 16, with a second, usually-redundant sign bit).

Weakest / where the applicant would fight: If the only art that supplies the predictor derived from the low-quality enhancement layer's encoded DCT (ECD) coefficients is MPEG99/M5583 — or nothing on the record — the final clause of claim 1 may survive, because a distinction exists between:

• (i) using an EL as a reference for prediction (Macnicol), and
• (ii) predicting the EL's own coefficient values from the already-transmitted BL + LQ-EL coefficients so that encoder and decoder derive the same predictor without extra bits (the patent's stated advantage: "These predicted HQPD coefficients… can be calculated both in encoder and in decoder").

Under KSR, that distinction is not necessarily fatal — the "derivable at both encoder and decoder without transmitted side information" advantage is the kind of predictable, expected benefit motivating use of an already-decoded quantity as a predictor. But it is the point at which the § 103 case is won or lost, and it cannot be closed without the M5583 text (or an equivalent teaching).

Also flag (procedural): Because US 6,614,936 / US 7,130,473 are commonly owned siblings, do not cite them as § 102(e) art against these claims — § 103(c) (pre‑AIA) disqualifies commonly-owned § 102(e) references from the § 103 combination.

---

7. Bottom line

• Claim 1 and its method/apparatus counterparts will most likely be obvious over Li (MPEG98/M4204) + Macnicol (MPEG99/m5122) + Chen (US 6,263,022 B1), with the KSR/known-problem (rate-distortion efficiency of FGS vs. drift resilience) rationale supplying the motivation; the two MPEG contributions are both admitted prior art in the specification itself.
• The APBIC clause is the pivotal limitation, and the cleanest single piece of art for it would be the Dec. 1999 Microsoft Research China FGS-efficiency contribution (MPEG99/M5583) if its content supports EL-coefficient prediction from lower-layer reconstruction — but I have not verified that text and will not assert it.
• The GGD/threshold-quantizer dependent claims are obvious over Muller (1993) + Joshi & Fischer + Li, each being an applicant-cited, admitted prior-art publication combined in a predictable manner.

---

8. Confidence and explicit gaps

• High confidence: dates/status of Li M4204, Macnicol M5122, Muller 1993, Nakamura 1995 (all pre-filing printed publications); the content of the patent's own admitted prior art (FIGS. 1–2, spec. text at the Google Patents page); the Chen US 6,263,022 disclosure as summarized on Google Patents.
• Explicit uncertainty:
  1. I did not retrieve the verbatim text of claims 2–29, so my treatment of dependent claims is conditional and must be re-verified against the grant. Authoritative source: the claim section at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6700933B1](/patent/US6700933B1)/en or USPTO PatentCenter for application 09/505,254.
  2. I did not read MPEG99/M5583, MPEG99/M5122, or MPEG98/M4204 in full; I relied on the patent's own characterizations plus search snippets. A formal § 103 rejection must cite the passages actually relied on.
  3. The "References Cited"/"Other References" list I used is drawn from the sibling US 7,130,473 record (same specification/background), not verified as the identical list on the 6,700,933 face. Confirm against the 6,700,933 front page before citing formally.

I'll research the term-adjustment and family details for US 6,700,933. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig for the PTA figure and the continuation family specifically.

Term, Adjustment, Extension, and Family Analysis — US 6,700,933 B1

Verification-status note (read first). I ran four parallel searches (Google Patents for US6700933B1; the USPTO/PTAB document corpus; PCT/EPO search-report PDFs; and PTA-recalculation material). I hit the tool step-limit before I could open the USPTO PatentCenter "Application Data" / "Patent Term Adjustment" tab for application 09/505,254 directly, and before I could pull the OPS/INPADOC family view. So the analysis below separates (a) facts grounded in the fetched record, (b) reasoned conclusions from the statute and the dates, and (c) items I explicitly could not verify. I have not invented any PTA day counts, reel numbers, or application serial numbers.

---

1. Anchor dates (unchanged from prior sections; reconfirmed)

Note that 2000‑02‑15 is the earliest priority date; there is no earlier domestic benefit claim on the face of the record supplied.

---

2. Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)

Conclusion: No PTA — the application was filed before the AIPA PTA effective date.

Statutory reason. The patent-term-adjustment regime enacted by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) applies only to applications filed on or after May 29, 2000. The USPTO states this on its own notice forms, which are captioned verbatim: "Determination of Patent Term Adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154 (b) (application filed on or after May 29, 2000)." That caption appeared in the USPTO document corpus returned during this research (see the ptacts.uspto.gov petition documents, e.g. ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1529228/..., which reproduce the standard PTA determination form). Application 09/505,254 was filed on 2000‑02‑15 — 104 days before the May 29, 2000 cut-off — and is therefore outside the AIPA PTA window.

Corroborating record evidence.

1. Zero AIPA adjustment is reflected in the expiration date. Google Patents computes the anticipated expiration as 2020‑02‑15, which is exactly filing date + 20 years (2000‑02‑15 → 2020‑02‑15 = 7,305 days, including the five leap days of 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016). Any positive PTA or PTE would push the computed date later; it does not.
2. No PTA event appears in the Google Patents legal-events block for US6700933B1 — the events list is limited to the original filing, the 2000‑05‑19 inventor→Microsoft assignment, the 2004‑03‑02 grant, the 2014‑12‑09 Microsoft→MTL reassignment, and the 2020‑02‑15 anticipated-expiration entry. There is no PTA determination, no PTA petition, no PTA recalculation, and no certificate of correction.
3. No PTA-related prosecution activity surfaced in any of the searches (contrast the several unrelated Wyeth/Novartis PTA-recalculation decisions that the searches did return for other patents — e.g. 7,587,319 at 1,137 days; 7,627,044 at 1,001 days; 8,639,331 at 913 days). Those are different patents and are not adjustments to 6,700,933.

Pre-AIPA § 154(b) (interference / secrecy order / appellate review). The version of § 154(b) in force for pre‑May‑2000 filings provided term extension only for delay caused by (i) an interference proceeding under § 135(a), (ii) a secrecy order under § 181, or (iii) appellate review. I found no evidence of any interference, secrecy order, or appeal for 09/505,254 — no PTAB/Board appeal, no CAFC appeal (consistent with the earlier "no CAFC 2026 docket" finding), and no interference record. Because the § 154(b) pre-AIPA path also carried a terminal-disclaimer requirement and is unavailable where the only delay is ordinary examination delay, I conclude no pre-AIPA adjustment either. Confidence: medium-high; the negative is inferred from absence of record, not from a directly fetched § 154(b) determination.

Bottom line on PTA: 0 days. Confidence: high (statutory bar from the filing date + the 20‑year computed expiration), but flagged because I could not fetch the literal margin notation from the printed front page.

---

3. Patent Term Extension (PTE) under 35 U.S.C. § 156

Conclusion: Not eligible; none granted.

§ 156 PTE (the Hatch‑Waxman / regulatory-review extension) is available only for patents claiming a drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive whose commercial marketing was delayed by a required federal regulatory review period. US 6,700,933 claims a video-coding method/system (H.26x/MPEG‑family motion-compensated DCT with bit-plane coded enhancement layers) in IPC H04N 19/—. It claims no regulated product and was never subject to FDA review.

• No PTE certificate appears for this patent in the record or in any search.
• The maximum PTE (5 years, capped so total post-approval term ≤ 14 years) is irrelevant here.

Bottom line on PTE: not applicable; 0 days. Confidence: high.

---

4. Other term-affecting events

---

5. Continuations, divisionals, and CIPs of 09/505,254

Conclusion: No U.S. continuation, divisional, or CIP of application 09/505,254 was found.

• The Google Patents legal-events block for US6700933B1 lists priority links only to foreign/PCT members — AT01953046T, AU2001229595A, EP04025577A, EP01953046A, JP2001560143A, PCT/US2001/001668, DE60109423T, TW090103400A. No U.S. continuation / divisional / CIP serial number appears.
• PatentCenter's "Continuity Data" tab was not reachable within my step budget, so I state this as "no U.S. continuation/divisional found," not as a certified negative. The authoritative check is the PatentCenter/Patent Public Search "Continuity" tab for 09/505,254.
• Pre-AIA practice note: because this application was filed in Feb 2000, any continuation would have been filed under 37 C.F.R. 1.53(b) or as a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 1.53(d) (the CPA option was available pre‑2003). No CPA is indicated in any record I reached.

5a. ⚠️ Important correction to an earlier inference — the other Microsoft PFGS family is NOT a continuation of this patent

The research surfaced US 6,956,972 B2 (Microsoft, "System and method for robust video coding using progressive fine-granularity scalable (PFGS) coding", via FreePatentsOnline freepatentsonline.com/6956972.html), whose specification states verbatim:

"This is a continuation of U.S. Ser. No. 09/454,489, filed on Dec. 3, 1999, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,614,936 on Sep. 2, 2003."

That is a different family with a different priority application:

The two families share inventors (Wu, Li, Zhang), assignee (Microsoft), specification substance, and even the same admitted prior art (Li MPEG98/M4204; Macnicol MPEG99/m5122), which is exactly why they are easy to conflate. They do not share a continuity chain. This corrects any reading that treats 6,614,936 / 6,956,972 / 7,130,473 as continuations of 6,700,933; they are merely same-laboratory cousins.

Cross-section flag (contradiction in the previously generated material). The earlier "Obviousness" section correctly identified 6,614,936 / 7,130,473 as "sibling applications… commonly owned" and applied the pre-AIA § 103(c) common-ownership disqualification. That analysis stands — § 103(c) reaches commonly-owned § 102(e) art regardless of whether the cases are in a parent/child continuity chain. But the prior section should not be read to imply a continuity relationship; there is none. Also note that a Dec. 1999 root filing (09/454,489) and a Feb. 2000 root filing (09/505,254) are two independent families, so neither can be prior art against the other on a § 102(e) "same invention / obviousness-type double patenting" theory without the § 103(c) analysis.

---

6. Related family members (non‑U.S. and PCT)

The PCT was filed 2001‑01‑17 as PCT/US2001/001668, claiming priority to 09/505,254, and published as WO2001062010A1 on 2001‑08‑23 (the publication date is confirmed by the EP search report excerpt returned in this research, which lists "WO 01/62010 A1 (MICROSOFT CORP [US]) 23 August 2001" and cites it as a "Y" reference at page 12, line 1 – page 17, line 25).

Key point on the task: the EP divisional (EP1511324A1) is a European divisional, arising from the EP regional phase. It is not a U.S. divisional and has no effect on the U.S. term of 6,700,933.

No U.S. pre-grant publication (A1) exists. Application 09/505,254 was filed 2000‑02‑15, before the 18‑month publication provision (which applies to applications filed on or after 2000‑11‑29), so it was not published as a U.S. A1 — consistent with Google Patents showing only the B1 grant.

---

7. Projected expiration date

February 15, 2020 — and it has already expired.

Calculation: 20‑year term under 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2), measured from the earliest effective U.S. filing date of 2000‑02‑15, with no PTA and no PTE added.

2000-02-15  +  20 years  =  2020-02-15
7,300 days (20 × 365)  +  5 leap days (2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016)  =  7,305 days

Term measured from grant: 2004‑03‑02 → 2020‑02‑15 ≈ 5,829 days of enforceable term (~15.96 years), the shortening being the 4‑year prosecution pendency that PTA would have offset had the application been filed after May 29, 2000.

Maintenance-fee corroboration. The 3.5-, 7.5-, and 11.5‑year maintenance fees for a 2004‑03‑02 grant fell due on approximately 2007‑09‑02, 2011‑09‑02, and 2015‑09‑02. The patent reached its natural term in 2020, which is consistent with all three having been paid.

⚠️ Contradiction flag for the prior sections. The earlier "Litigation summary" section stated the patent "expired 2020‑02‑15 for failure to pay maintenance." That is not supported by the record. Google Patents reports the status as "Expired – Lifetime" (a term-expiry status), as distinct from its "Expired – Fee Related" status used when maintenance fees lapse. The correct statement is: the patent ran its full 20‑year term and expired naturally on 2020‑02‑15. This matters, because a fee-lapse characterization would imply the patent was abandoned years before 2020, which would change any damages-lookback analysis. The "full-term" reading should be used.

---

8. Summary table

---

9. What I could not verify, and the exact sources to close it

These are the specific gaps, stated rather than papered over:

1. Literal front-page § 154(b) notation. Whether the printed patent carries the line "Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by __ days" — expected to be absent for a pre‑May‑2000 filing. Source: the patent PDF at patentimages.storage.googleapis.com (via patents.google.com/patent/US6700933B1/en) or the USPTO PatentCenter "Front Page" image for 09/505,254.
2. The USPTO's own PTA determination for 09/505,254. Source: PatentCenter "Application Data" → "Patent Term Adjustment" tab; expected to show no AIPA determination (application filed pre‑May‑29‑2000).
3. Continuity data. Source: PatentCenter / Patent Public Search "Continuity" tab for 09/505,254 — will conclusively confirm or refute the existence of any U.S. continuation, divisional, or CIP.
4. Terminal disclaimer. Source: PatentCenter "Fees" / "Patent Term" tabs, plus EPO's Register and INPADOC for any terminal-disclaimer family linkage.
5. The full family (INPADOC/OPS). Source: worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search?q=US6700933 "Patent family" view — should give the canonical member list and confirm there are no further U.S. members.
6. The sibling patent number for "Predictive bit-plane coding for PFGS video coding." The earlier "Assignment history" section asserted a sibling Microsoft patent with that title granted 2005‑03‑02, but did not provide a patent number. I could not confirm the number, and I will not guess it. Source: assignee/inventor search on Patent Public Search for Wu/Li/Zhang + "bit-plane coding," Micrsoft Corp., issued early 2005.

---

10. Inheritance note on a claim-count contradiction

While compiling this, a claim-count inconsistency between the prior sections should be reconciled: the bibliographic section reported 29 claims (per the Official Gazette entry), whereas the PTAB section stated "All 24 claims — including independent claims 1, 10, 17, 21, 22, 24." Both figures cannot be right, and the discrepancy bears on any validity analysis (which claims exist, which are independent). The Official Gazette count should be treated as the working figure pending a check of the granted claim set at patents.google.com/patent/US6700933B1/en or PatentCenter for 09/505,254. This does not affect the term analysis above, which is driven solely by the Feb 15, 2000 filing date, the Mar 2, 2004 issue date, and the absence of PTA/PTE.