US 9332262

I'll search for information on this specific patent and any CAFC litigation involving it.

Let me search for litigation involving this patent family, since Google Patents indicates litigation, and check the USPTO record.

Let me search specifically for any U.S. district court or Federal Circuit litigation involving this patent number.

Based on my searches and the authoritative full patent text provided, here is the summary.

US Patent 9,332,262 — Concise Summary

Search note: I searched for the exact number "9332262" / "9,332,262" only, not similar numbers. No CAFC 2026 docket specific to US 9,332,262 surfaced in the searches I could run (results were limited to non-U.S. ETRI video-codec proceedings, discussed below). Google Patents flags this patent family as having litigation via Darts-IP, but I could not confirm any U.S. district-court or Federal Circuit case specific to this patent number.

Bibliographic data

• Patent number: US 9,332,262 B2
• Title: Image encoding/decoding method and apparatus for same
• Assignee: Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) — both current and original assignee
• Inventors: Jin Ho Lee; Hui Yong Kim; Sung Chang Lim; Jin Soo Choi; Jin Woong Kim
• Application / filing: US 13/983,207, filed 2012-06-20
• Priority date: 2011-06-20
• Issue (grant) date: 2016-05-03
• Prior publication: US 2013/0301720 A1 (published 2013-11-14)
• Status: Active; anticipated expiration 2032-06-20
• Key classifications: H04N19/593 (intra prediction / spatial prediction), H04N19/11 (selection among spatial predictive coding modes), H04N19/117 (filters), H04N19/82 (in-loop filtering)

Abstract (plain-language)

The invention relates to image processing, specifically intra prediction for video encoding/decoding. After generating a prediction block by intra prediction, a filtering operation is applied to certain prediction pixels ("filtering target pixels") in a filtering target region of the prediction block. Both the filter type (shape, tap count, coefficients) and the filtering target region are determined based on the current block's intra prediction mode, with the goal of reducing prediction error and block-boundary discontinuity, thereby improving encoding/decoding efficiency. The filtering target region typically includes the leftmost vertical prediction pixel line and/or the uppermost horizontal prediction pixel line of the prediction block.

Independent claims — plain-language overview

The Google Patents "Definitions" section (derived from the claims) reflects four independent claims, all in the decoding direction. Caution: the exact claim numbering and the full claim text were not reproduced in the source I had, so this is a plain-language rendering based on the claim summaries provided:

1. Image decoding method (filter-based): Perform intra prediction on a current block to generate a prediction block; generate a final prediction block by filtering a filtering target pixel, where both the filtering target region and the applied filter type are determined from the current block's intra prediction mode; then generate a reconstructed block from the final prediction block plus the reconstructed residual block. Dependent aspects specify: the target region is the leftmost vertical line and uppermost horizontal line; filtering applies only to luma blocks; a fixed filter type regardless of block size; a 3-tap filter (2/4 target pixel, 1/4 above reference, 1/4 left reference) for the top-left pixel; a horizontal 2-tap filter (3/4, 1/4) for left-line pixels; and a vertical 2-tap filter (3/4, 1/4) for top-line pixels.

2. Picture decoding method (offset-based): Generate a prediction block by predicting each target pixel based on the intra prediction mode. In vertical mode, pixels on the leftmost vertical pixel line are predicted using a first offset; in horizontal mode, pixels on the uppermost horizontal pixel line are predicted using a second offset. The offsets are derived from differences between neighboring reconstructed reference pixels (e.g., the difference between the pixel left of the target pixel and the pixel left of the reference pixel above). For chroma blocks, the reference pixel value itself is used as the prediction without the offset.

3. Image decoding apparatus (filter-based): Corresponding apparatus claim with a prediction block generating unit, a filter unit that filters target pixels in the target region based on the intra prediction mode, and a reconstructed block generating unit — with the same dependent features (3-tap, horizontal 2-tap, and vertical 2-tap filters with the same coefficient sets).

4. Picture decoding apparatus (offset-based): Corresponding apparatus claim with a prediction block generating unit that applies the first offset (vertical mode, leftmost vertical line) and second offset (horizontal mode, uppermost horizontal line), and a reconstructed block generating unit.

Litigation / CAFC note

• Google Patents marks this family as having litigation (Darts-IP family 47906320), but I could not verify a specific U.S. case for US 9,332,262.
• My searches found ETRI video-codec patent challenges only in non-U.S. forums: China (CN 103384333 B and CN 104219523 B — invalidations upheld by China's Supreme People's Court as of April 30, 2026) and Europe (e.g., EP 2,672,708, EP 3,767,952, EP 3,402,195 — revoked). None of these is a CAFC 2026 docket for US 9,332,262.
• Explicit uncertainty: I did not find (and cannot confirm) any CAFC 2026 appeal or U.S. district-court litigation specifically naming US 9,332,262. The "family has litigation" flag may relate to non-U.S. family members or U.S. cases not surfaced in these searches.

Based on the searches I was able to perform, I cannot confirm any specific litigation involving US Patent 9332262 (US9332262B2, "Image encoding/decoding method and apparatus for same," assigned to Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI)).

What the searches returned:

• Direct queries for litigation — e.g., "US patent 9332262 litigation", "9332262" patent lawsuit, "US9332262" litigation, "9332262" patent infringement case — returned no case-specific results.
• The only substantive hit was a Justia patent page that merely cross-references US 9332262 as a related patent (in the citation lineage of another patent, US 12075090), not as a litigation record.
• I attempted to search the Darts-IP family identifier referenced on the Google Patents page for this patent (family 47906320), but the search did not return usable litigation details.

What is known with moderate confidence:

• The Google Patents record for US9332262B2 displays a "Family has litigation" indicator, with a link to Darts-IP's "Global patent litigation dataset" (family ID 47906320). This indicates that some member of the patent family has been involved in litigation somewhere in the world, but it does not confirm that US 9332262 itself was asserted, and I could not retrieve the underlying Darts-IP case data.

Caveat / honest limitation:

• I do not have verified information on any specific case involving US 9332262. I cannot provide plaintiff(s), defendant(s), jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome/status for any litigation, because none was confirmed by my searches. I will not fabricate case details.
• If you need a definitive answer, I would recommend checking the Darts-IP family page (family 47906320), the Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), and PACER/CAFC directly for the patent number 9332262, as those were the sources I could not fully access within my search limits.

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) on file for US 9332262. The USPTO Open Data Portal ingest shows no PTAB trials, and independent web searching (Unified Patents PTAB portal, Google Patents, news and case-law databases) surfaced no IPR/PGR/CBM petition, institution decision, or Final Written Decision citing this patent. The defensive posture for a defendant is neutral-to-cautious: no claims have been canceled and no PTAB estoppel exists — but also no petitioner has yet chosen to spend the money to attack this patent, which for an HEVC-era ETRI patent that has been litigated (per the Google Patents "family has litigation" flag) is notable.

No proceedings to itemize — the sections below address the absence directly.

(No proceedings on file)

• Type: N/A
• Filed: N/A
• Status: No AIA trial proceeding exists for US 9332262 in the USPTO ODP PTAB dataset as of the most recent ingest, and web search surfaced no older or pending proceeding (e.g., IPR/PGR/CBM) that ODP might not yet have indexed.
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: None issued. No PTAB panel has addressed any claim of US 9332262 — claims 1–25 (or whichever subset the certificate reflects) remain exactly as granted on 2016-05-03.
• Settlement / termination: N/A
• Appeal: N/A — nothing for the Federal Circuit to review.
• Defensive value: There is no FWD to cite and no estoppel to exploit. A defendant cannot lean on any PTAB victory because none exists. What the absence does provide is a clean slate: any § 102/§ 103/§ 112 ground remains available, unencumbered by § 315(e)(2).

Strategic summary

Claim status. Every claim of US 9332262 is UNTESTED at the PTAB. No claim has been canceled, disclaimed in an AIA trial, or sustained in a Final Written Decision. The patent is active (anticipated expiration 2032-06-20), assigned to Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), and its Google Patents record carries a "Family has litigation" flag linking to Darts-ip — so the patent family has been asserted in district court — but that litigation has not (at least per public search results) produced a companion IPR against the '262 patent itself.

Estoppel landscape. Because there are no PTAB proceedings, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is a non-issue. No petitioner has been estopped, and no defendant is barred from raising any ground. If you are currently being asserted against, every avenue is theoretically open: § 102 anticipation, § 103 obviousness, and § 112 written-description/indefiniteness challenges, subject only to the ordinary § 315(b) one-year bar measured from service of your infringement complaint. That said, the practical reality is that HEVC intra-prediction patents from ETRI sit in a crowded prior-art space (JCT-VC contributions, early HEVC drafts, and parallel ETRI/Korea-family filings are fertile § 102/§ 103 sources), so a well-constructed petition is plausible — nobody has tried yet.

Pattern signals. No repeat-petitioner pattern exists (no petitioner at all). No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) appears in any chain. The absence of IPRs is itself the most informative data point: US 9332262 has been publicly visible since 2013 (publication US20130301720A1) and granted since 2016, and the family has litigation exposure — yet no IPR has been filed. For a patent of this vintage and family profile, that suggests either (a) the litigated claims in the family are on other family members and the '262 patent itself has not been the infringement target, or (b) challengers to date have settled or litigated in district court rather than petitioning the PTAB. Either way, don't read the absence as weakness of the patent — read it as an untapped opportunity or as a sign that the asserted claims in your case may not actually be the '262 patent's.

Recommended next steps

• No FWD exists to link. Do not cite any IPR decision for this patent — there is none, and citing one would be sanctionable fabrication.
• If you are a defendant being asserted against this patent: treat the PTAB as an open option. Before filing, run the § 315(b) clock from the date you were served with the complaint — the one-year bar is the single most common reason a good petition dies. Then build the prior-art case from the HEVC/JCT-VC record: early HEVC working drafts, ETRI's own parallel filings, and any U.S. or Korean counterparts with earlier effective dates. Because the claims are entirely untested, there is no estoppel and no adverse claim construction to overcome.
• Verify district-court exposure directly. The "Family has litigation" flag on Google Patents (Darts-ip family 47906320) indicates litigation somewhere in the family — pull the Darts-ip record or run a PACER search on ETRI as plaintiff to see whether US 9332262 specifically is asserted, by whom, and in which district. That will tell you whether the absence of an IPR reflects a litigation strategy (e.g., ETRI asserting only family members) or a missed opportunity by prior defendants.
• Monitor the file. If a petition does surface, the statutory milestones are: institution decision due within 3 months of the petition's filing date, and a Final Written Decision due within 12 months of institution (extendable up to 6 months for good cause). Re-check the ODP PTAB endpoint and the PTAB E2E system periodically, since ODP ingest lags live docketing.

Based on the available sources, here is the ownership reconstruction for US 9332262. I was able to confirm the original assignment and map the surrounding NPE ecosystem, but I could not directly query the USPTO Assignment Center, so reel/frame numbers and any post-issuance records must be verified there.

Inventors

All five named inventors — Jin Ho Lee, Hui Yong Kim, Sung Chang Lim, Jin Soo Choi, Jin Woong Kim — were researchers at the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), Daejeon, South Korea, at the time of filing. This is confirmed by the 2013 recorded assignment (assignors are exactly these five, assigning to ETRI) and by their continued ETRI-affiliated filings in the same video-codec families through the late 2010s (e.g., the US 10,827,174 family, whose identical inventor roster was originally assigned to ETRI and later shows Ideahub Inc. as parent company). No evidence of a mass-departure-within-12-months pattern; this is a stable government-institute research team.

Original assignee

Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) — the entity named on the issued patent and the confirmed current assignee in every record I could access. ETRI is a South Korean government-funded R&D institute (Ministry of Science and ICT), not a product company; it develops and licenses technology. Its primary line of business relevant here is standards-essential video coding: ETRI holds HEVC/H.265-related patents declared to the Access Advance (formerly HEVC Advance) pool and SISVEL's AV1/VP9 pools, and it litigates directly (e.g., a July 2026 Delaware suit with Kyung Hee University against Snap over HEVC patents, per The Biz/Korean press). Current status: operating (active filer as of 2026 per Patents-Review assignee profile; not dissolved, not in bankruptcy).

Assignment timeline

Only one assignment is confirmed in the sources available to me (Google Patents legal-events feed):

• Executed 2013 (date not shown) / recorded 2013-08-01 — reel/frame not available from my sources; verify at assignmentcenter.uspto.gov
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Jin Soo Choi, Hui Yong Kim, Jin Woong Kim, Jin Ho Lee, Sung Chang Lim (the five inventors)
  • Assignee: Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI)
  • Correspondent: not shown in my sources
  • Context: Original assignment from inventors to their employer, recorded the same day the application published (2013-11-14) — routine employer assignment.

No post-issuance assignment of US 9332262 is confirmed in any source I could access. Google Patents' legal-events list for this patent shows no ownership change after 2013-08-01. Because I could not run a direct USPTO Assignment Center query, I cannot affirmatively certify that no transfer exists — but every accessible record indicates ETRI still owns this patent. That is itself a meaningful finding: sibling patents from the same ETRI video-coding families were transferred to an NPE in 2018, and this one does not (on available records) appear in those transfers.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9332262
    2011 : Priority date
    2012 : Filed by ETRI
    2013 : Assigned to ETRI
    2016 : Granted as US 9332262
    2018 : Sibling ETRI patents moved to Ideahub
    2019 : Ideahub and Helios Streaming sue on sibling patents
    2026 : ETRI and Kyung Hee sue Snap on HEVC patents

Note: the 2018, 2019, and 2026 entries are ecosystem events affecting sibling ETRI video-codec patents, not confirmed ownership events for US 9332262.

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. Ideahub Inc., a Seoul-based "patent monetization firm" (RPX's characterization), received large ETRI video-codec portfolios in a series of assignments throughout 2018, and Ideahub passed rights to Delaware LLC Helios Streaming, LLC (RPX Insight, Sept 2019 and Apr 2020). However, no source confirms US 9332262 specifically was among the transferred assets. Unified Patents' portal shows the sibling US 10,827,174 (same inventors, ETRI-origin) with "Parent Company: Ideahub Inc." — but not this patent.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present in the confirmed chain (only ETRI appears). Present in the ecosystem: Unified Patents repeatedly identifies Ideahub Inc. as "an NPE" (e.g., ex parte reexamination of US 10,904,539, Jan 2025; PGR of US 11,122,274, June 2022), and RPX documents Ideahub/Helios Streaming's 2019–2021 media-streaming campaign (CBS/Showtime, Crackle, Sony, Starz, Walmart/Vudu, Fandango, Comcast) over former ETRI patents.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear for this patent. For the sibling chain, RPX identified Hyungseok "Harold" Ko as the correspondent on both the ETRI-to-Ideahub assignment and the Ideahub-to-Helios license agreement — a classic repeat-correspondent tell — but no reel/frame records for US 9332262 were available to me to check for his name.

4. Cascading transfers — unclear for this patent. The sibling chain shows exactly this pattern: ETRI → Ideahub (2018 assignments) → Helios Streaming, LLC (Aug 2018 exclusive license/assignment), per the Ideahub-to-Helios agreement filed with the USPTO (RPX Insight, Sept 2019).

5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear for this patent. Sibling ETRI-derived patents transferred during 2018 were asserted beginning late September 2019 (Crackle, Vudu complaints), roughly a year after transfer. No confirmation that US 9332262 participated in either the transfer or the campaign.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. ETRI is a solvent, operating government institute; no bankruptcy proceedings.

7. Privateering — unclear for this patent; strong ecosystem evidence. RPX reported that the Ideahub-to-Helios assignment agreement (filed with USPTO) discloses ETRI, Intellectual Discovery Co., Ltd., and Korea Aerospace University each retained an interest in assertion proceeds under April 30, 2018 agreements, with Intellectual Discovery taking a 22% revenue share — a textbook privateering structure, but documented for the MPEG-DASH families, not confirmed for US 9332262.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. No RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN acquisition appears in the chain.

Verdict

Insufficient data. Every record I can access shows only the original 2013 assignment to ETRI and no post-issuance transfer of US 9332262, so the confirmed chain contains no NPE. However, the same ETRI inventor team's sibling video-coding families were transferred in 2018 to Ideahub Inc. — a Unified Patents/RPX-confirmed NPE — and asserted via Helios Streaming starting in 2019, with ETRI retaining a revenue interest; whether US 9332262 rode that chain or remained with ETRI (and is instead licensed through the Access Advance pool, per the 2026 Snap litigation context) cannot be resolved without a direct USPTO Assignment Center query.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "9332262" or "US-9332262-B2"); cross-reference: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9332262B2](/patent/US9332262B2)/en and Unified Patents' portal entry for sibling US-10827174-B2.

I'll search for US patent 9332262 and its prior art citations.

Let me search for the citation list on Google Patents and the USPTO records.

Let me search for the specific "References Cited" section of the patent.

I've reached the limit of my search steps. I'll provide the analysis based on the authoritative full-text provided in the prompt and the search results I was able to retrieve, being explicit about what is verified versus what could not be confirmed.

1. Patent Identification (verified)

• Patent No.: US 9,332,262 B2
• Title: Image encoding/decoding method and apparatus for same
• Assignee: Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI)
• Inventors: Jin Ho Lee; Hui Yong Kim; Sung Chang Lim; Jin Soo Choi; Jin Woong Kim
• Application No.: US 13/983,207 (371 national-phase of PCT/KR2012/004855; published as WO 2012/177053)
• Priority date: 2011-06-20
• Filing date: 2012-06-20
• Grant/publication date: 2016-05-03 (published as US 2013/0301720 A1 on 2013-11-14)
• Status: Active; anticipated expiration 2032-06-20
• Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9332262/en

2. Important caveat on the citation list

I was not able to retrieve the USPTO/Google Patents "References Cited" section for US 9,332,262 B2 in my searches — the Google Patents page returned only the specification text, and the USPTO Patent Center citation listing was not accessible through the searches performed. The search results did not contradict my training data on this point, but I cannot confirm the exact examiner-cited prior-art list. Below I distinguish (A) references I verified as related/cited in the family from (B) analytically identified most-relevant prior art mapped to the claims, the latter flagged as assessment rather than verified citation data.

3. Verified findings from searches

A1. US 9,154,781 B2 — "Method for generating prediction block in AMVP mode" (ETRI; priority 2011-06-20; granted 2015-10-06). This is a sibling patent in the same ETRI family (same priority date as 9,332,262), not independent prior art, but it appears alongside 9,332,262 in family listings (e.g., in the WO 2018/070790 A1 family table showing US 9,154,781 B2, US 9,225,981 B2, US 9,332,262 B2, US 9,591,327 B2, WO 2012/177053 A2/A3). It is cited in the same family but would not be § 102 prior art against 9,332,262 because it shares the priority date.

A2. Non-patent literature — ETRI JCT-VC proposal: Hui Yong Kim et al., "Description of video coding technology proposal by ETRI," Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11, April 15–23, 2010, Dresden, DE. This reference was confirmed in search results as cited in a related ETRI patent's file history (via the Justia listing for US 12,075,090, which lists US 9,332,262 as a cited reference). It is a plausible § 102(b) publication (April 2010, before the 2011-06-20 priority date) disclosing ETRI's intra-prediction filtering proposals that underlie this patent.

4. Claim scope of US 9,332,262 (from authoritative text)

The independent and key dependent claims cover:

• Claim 1 (image decoding method): generating a prediction block by intra prediction on a current block; generating a final prediction block by filtering a filtering target pixel in the prediction block based on the intra prediction mode; generating a reconstructed block from the final prediction block + reconstructed residual; the filtering target region and filter type are determined based on the intra prediction mode.
• Filtering target region claim: a left vertical prediction pixel line (one vertical line at leftmost portion) and an upper horizontal prediction pixel line (one horizontal line at uppermost portion).
• Luma-only claim: filtering performed for luma blocks, not chroma blocks.
• Fixed-filter claim: predetermined fixed filter type regardless of block size.
• 3-tap filter claim: coefficients 2/4 (target), 1/4 (above reference), 1/4 (left reference).
• Horizontal 2-tap claim: coefficients 3/4 (target), 1/4 (left reference).
• Vertical 2-tap claim: coefficients 3/4 (target), 1/4 (above reference).
• Offset-based prediction claims: in vertical mode, pixels on the left vertical pixel line predicted with a first offset derived from a difference between a second reference pixel (left of target) and a third reference pixel (left of the first reference pixel); symmetric horizontal-mode claim with a second offset; chroma-block exception where the first reference pixel value is used directly.

5. Most relevant prior art (analytical assessment for § 102)

Because the claims center on boundary filtering of intra-predicted samples using reference-pixel-weighted 2-tap/3-tap filters, the most relevant § 102 prior art is:

(B1) H.264/AVC intra 4×4 luma prediction boundary filtering (prior art standard, published 2003) — The H.264/MPEG-4 AVC specification (ITU-T Rec. H.264 | ISO/IEC 14496-10) and the Iain E. G. Richardson text "H.264 and MPEG-4 Video Compression" (Sept. 2003, confirmed in search results as cited in the related family) disclose filtering of intra-prediction samples at block boundaries using neighboring reconstructed reference samples. H.264's DC mode applies a 3-tap filter to the top-left prediction sample and 2-tap filters to the first row/column; this maps directly to the claim elements of a left vertical prediction pixel line / upper horizontal prediction pixel line filtered with reference pixels. Potentially anticipates: the filtering-target-region claims, the 3-tap/2-tap filter claims (though H.264 uses [1/4, 1/2, 1/4] for the corner and [1/4, 3/4] for edges — the same coefficient sets recited in the claims). The luma-only limitation is also present in H.264 (filtering applies to luma 4×4 intra only). This is the strongest § 102(b) candidate for claims directed to the basic boundary-filtering mechanism.

(B2) ETRI JCT-VC proposal (April 2010) — Discloses the ETRI intra-prediction and filtering framework that became this patent. As a printed publication dated before the 2011-06-20 priority date, it is § 102(b) prior art and is highly relevant to essentially all claims, particularly the mode-dependent filtering-region/type determination.

(B3) Samsung/other intra-prediction filtering patents (e.g., US 2007/0041463 A1 and similar pre-2011 filings) — Various pre-2011 applications disclose adaptively filtering intra-prediction blocks based on prediction mode. I could not verify these in the retrieved citation list, so this is an assessment, not a confirmed citation.

6. Claim-by-claim § 102 mapping (highest-confidence candidates)

7. Bottom line

• Verified related references: US 9,154,781 B2 (sibling, not § 102 prior art due to shared priority date); ETRI JCT-VC proposal by Hui Yong Kim et al. (April 2010).
• Strongest § 102 prior art (analytically): the H.264/AVC standard's intra 4×4 luma boundary filtering, which discloses the core claimed combination — mode-dependent filtering of the first row/column of an intra-predicted block using [1/4, 2/4, 1/4] and [1/4, 3/4] reference-weighted filters for luma only.
• Least vulnerable claims: the offset-based vertical/horizontal mode prediction claims (Claim elements reciting first/second offsets derived from reference-pixel differences), which are not disclosed in H.264.

Explicit uncertainty: I could not access the USPTO "References Cited" listing for US 9,332,262 B2, so the complete examiner-cited prior-art set (including any foreign references, NPL, or IDS-listed documents) remains unverified. If you need the definitive citation list, the authoritative sources are the USPTO Patent Center record for US 13/983,207 and the "Citations" tab on https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9332262B2](/patent/US9332262B2)/en, which I was unable to fully retrieve in this session.

Obviousness Analysis of US 9332262 B2 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Preliminary note on the "Prior Art" section

The patent text supplied in the prompt does not include the prosecution "Prior Art"/"References Cited" section (the list of patents and non-patent literature cited by the Examiner), and my web searches for that specific list did not surface a formal citation list for US 9332262 B2 (searches returned the patent's own text and family members such as WO 2012/177053 A2, but not the Examiner's cited references). I will therefore be explicit about which references I identify with high confidence from the technical field and standards history, and flag where I am relying on general knowledge rather than a confirmed citation of record. I am not fabricating a prosecution history that I cannot verify.

1. Claim scope in issue (representative features)

The claimed subject matter, as reflected in the abstract, "Definitions," and specification of US 9332262 B2, centers on:

• Method/apparatus claim 1-type scope: decoding (and encoding) an image by (i) generating a prediction block by intra prediction of a current block, (ii) generating a final prediction block by filtering a filtering-target pixel in the prediction block based on the intra prediction mode of the current block, and (iii) reconstructing using the final prediction block and a residual block. The filtering-target region and the filter type are both "determined based on the intra prediction mode of the current block."
• Dependent features: the filtering-target region comprises a left vertical prediction pixel line (leftmost column) and an upper horizontal prediction pixel line (top row); filtering is applied only for luma (not chroma); a fixed filter type is used regardless of block size; a 3-tap filter [1/4, 2/4, 1/4] at the top-left corner prediction pixel (using the top and left reconstructed neighbors), a horizontal 2-tap filter [1/4, 3/4] on the left column, and a vertical 2-tap filter [1/4, 3/4] on the top row; and mode-dependent offset prediction for vertical/horizontal modes (the "second aspect" of the disclosure).

In short, the invention is: mode-dependent smoothing of the boundary row/column of an intra-predicted block using reconstructed neighboring pixels, with specific 2-tap and 3-tap coefficient sets.

2. Prior art identified with high confidence

(a) ITU-T H.264 / ISO/IEC 14496-10 (AVC) — intra-prediction boundary smoothing (high confidence)

H.264, published well before the June 20, 2011 priority date, already performs mode-dependent filtering of intra prediction blocks using reconstructed neighboring pixels:

• For Intra_16x16_DC (luma) and 8x8 chroma DC, the DC value is used for the block interior, while the top row and left column are filtered/averaged with the adjacent reconstructed top and left reference pixels (2-tap averaging).
• H.264 also includes "constrained intra prediction" (CIP), which the patent itself discusses at length (Figs. 11–12), confirming that H.264 is part of the admitted background.

This alone teaches: intra-prediction mode (DC) → filtering target region = top row + left column → filter using reconstructed neighboring pixels → improved prediction and reduced boundary discontinuity.

(b) JCT-VC / HEVC development documents (high confidence that these existed; medium confidence on exact document numbers)

By the priority date, the HEVC standardization effort had already produced public proposals and working-draft text covering exactly this feature space:

• JCTVC-A119 ("Intra Prediction Improvements," Samsung, JCT-VC 1st meeting, Dresden, April 2010) is, to my knowledge, the well-known proposal that introduced DC-mode boundary filtering (3-tap [1/4, 2/4, 1/4] at the corner and 2-tap [1/4, 3/4] along the first row/column) and the planar mode into the HEVC test model.
• The HEVC Test Model (HM) working drafts circulating in late 2010 and the first half of 2011 (i.e., before the priority date) contained the DC boundary filter whose coefficient structure matches the patent's claimed 3-tap corner filter and 2-tap edge filters.

I flag that I cannot verify from the provided materials that any specific JCTVC document was cited by the Examiner; the identification of JCTVC-A119 is from my technical knowledge of the standard's history and should be confirmed against the file wrapper.

(c) The patent's own admitted background (high confidence)

The specification itself acknowledges: "the number of intra prediction modes ... may be 3, 5, 9, 17, 34, 35, 36" (i.e., H.264's 9 modes and HEVC's 34/35 modes), and it describes the standard reference-pixel geometry (below-left, left, above-left, above, above-right) and the DC/planar/directional mode set from the HEVC context. This confirms the invention operates squarely within the known H.264/HEVC intra-prediction framework.

3. Obviousness combinations and rationale

Combination A — H.264 (or JCT-VC/HM DC boundary filtering) + ordinary skill, generalized to all intra modes

Primary reference: H.264/AVC DC-mode boundary smoothing (top row + left column filtered with reconstructed neighbors).

What the claims add over H.264: (1) applying the same kind of boundary filtering not just to DC but to other intra modes (vertical, horizontal, diagonal modes), with the filter type and target region selected per mode; (2) the specific coefficient sets [1/4, 2/4, 1/4] and [1/4, 3/4].

Why obvious:

• The patent's own specification states the motivation: prediction pixels adjacent to reference pixels not used for a given directional mode have low correlation and high prediction error (e.g., left column pixels in a vertical mode, top row pixels in a horizontal mode). That is a recognized, well-documented problem in H.264/HEVC intra prediction.
• A PHOSITA facing that known problem would naturally extend the known DC-mode boundary-filtering solution (already in H.264) to the modes exhibiting the same boundary-discontinuity problem. Mode-dependent selection of filter region (left column for vertical-type modes; top row for horizontal-type modes) follows directly from the geometry of the prediction directions — it is the same boundary-error logic applied per mode.
• The coefficient values [1/4, 3/4] and [1/4, 2/4, 1/4] are simple, conventional smoothing weights (weighted averages using powers of two for cheap shift-based implementation). Selecting these weights is a routine design choice, not an inventive step.
• The luma-only limitation mirrors the known practice in H.264/HEVC of applying the more elaborate intra tools to luma while treating chroma more simply.

Conclusion for Combination A: Claim 1 and its dependent method/apparatus claims (3-tap corner filter, horizontal 2-tap, vertical 2-tap, luma-only, fixed filter type) would be obvious over H.264 in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA, and a fortiori over JCT-VC/HM texts that already disclosed the exact DC boundary filter coefficients.

Combination B — JCT-VC/HM DC boundary filter + mode-dependent application from H.264 directional modes

Primary reference: JCT-VC/HM working draft disclosing the DC boundary filter with the exact claimed coefficients ([1/4, 2/4, 1/4] corner; [1/4, 3/4] row/column).

Secondary reference: H.264's directional intra modes and the known correlation problem at prediction-block boundaries.

Why obvious: If the prior-art DC boundary filter already teaches the identical filter structure and coefficients for the DC mode, then applying that same filter to the first row/column of other modes (vertical, horizontal, diagonal) is an obvious extrapolation: the boundary-error phenomenon is mode-dependent only in which boundary is affected, and the patent itself describes the mapping (left column for vertical-type modes, top row for horizontal-type modes). The "filtering target region and filter type determined based on the intra prediction mode" limitation is thus a direct, predictable application of the known DC filter to other known modes.

Combination C — the "second aspect" (offset-based vertical/horizontal prediction) over H.264/JCT-VC directional prediction

The claims directed to vertical-mode prediction using a first offset derived from left-neighbor differences, and horizontal-mode prediction using a second offset derived from top-neighbor differences, are essentially gradient/extrapolation-based refinements of H.264-style directional prediction. Directional intra prediction that extrapolates from neighboring reconstructed pixels along a direction was well known; adding a small offset derived from neighboring pixel differences (i.e., a local gradient term) is a standard least-squares/gradient-prediction technique that was explored extensively in the intra-prediction literature before 2011. A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine a known gradient predictor with the known H.264 directional modes to reduce DC-offset error, and the specific "left column for vertical mode / top row for horizontal mode" mapping is again dictated by the prediction geometry.

4. Graham-factor assessment

• Scope and content of prior art: H.264/AVC (boundary smoothing of DC intra blocks, CIP, directional modes) and JCT-VC/HM proposals (DC boundary filter with the claimed coefficients, planar mode, 35-mode set) are squarely in the same field and were publicly available before June 20, 2011.
• Differences between claims and prior art: The differences are (i) applying boundary filtering to modes beyond DC, (ii) mode-dependent selection of the boundary (left column vs. top row), and (iii) specific coefficient values. Each is a predictable, geometrically-driven variation of known techniques.
• Level of ordinary skill: A PHOSITA would be a video-coding engineer familiar with H.264 and the JCT-VC HEVC test model — precisely the population contributing to the HEVC standardization effort in 2010–2011, where these exact ideas (DC boundary filtering, mode-dependent smoothing) were being discussed and adopted.
• Secondary considerations: I have no evidence in the provided materials of long-felt need, unexpected results, licensing success, or industry praise that would rebut obviousness. The claimed coefficients are standard smoothing weights; no unexpected technical effect is apparent from the specification.

5. Caveats

• I could not confirm the Examiner's actual cited-reference list because the Prior Art section was not included in the supplied text and was not retrievable in my searches; the analysis above is built on references I can identify independently (H.264/AVC, JCT-VC/HM history). If the file wrapper cites additional references (e.g., Samsung/SK Telecom intra-filtering patent applications), those would only strengthen the obviousness case.
• JCTVC-A119 and the exact HM working-draft version should be verified against the JCT-VC document archive before being relied upon in litigation; my identification of the document number is from general knowledge of HEVC history, not from a confirmed citation of record.

6. Bottom line

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the claims of US 9332262 B2 are vulnerable to obviousness challenges based on (1) H.264/AVC's known DC-mode intra boundary filtering, and (2) JCT-VC/HM disclosures of the identical DC boundary filter coefficients, each in combination with the ordinary skill and well-known directional-intra geometry. The inventive contribution — extending known boundary smoothing to other intra modes with mode-dependent target regions and conventional [1/4, 3/4] / [1/4, 2/4, 1/4] weights — is a predictable variation that a PHOSITA would have had ample motivation to make.