nosoftwarepatents-award

English

Deutsch

Home

Software Patent
of the year 2006

April– Patent 4

EP1455536 – Video coding apparatus and decoding apparatus

EU-Patent on software (algorithm)
Application to European Patent Office by Fujitsu (Japan)
Granted on 12/28/2005
Patent specification provided by FFII/Gauss
Patent specification provided by EPO/espacenet

Advice on the reading of patent specifications:

The decisive element are the claims, as they specify which actions are forbidden within the framework of the patent.
Violating one single claim is sufficient to be considered a patent violation. Generally, claim number 1 is the decisive main claim which covers all other claims relating to special cases.
The description is intended to help the reader interpret the claim. At the same time, it is supposed to document and disclose the details of the invention. This disclosure is the original purpose of the entire patent system.
In practice, a patent specification contains no detailed information on how the patented procedure could be implemented (even if the patent owner allowed the implementation). In particular, a software patent contains no program code (reference implementation), but merely describes the idea of a software.

Patented idea: If different parts of a video image are compressed, avoidance of the mistake of interference at the boundary.

Description: In video compression are applied among other things the following two standard methods:

The last noted image is moved is relocated in order to predict the next image and stores solely the difference (interframe-coding, "P-Frame)
In case of sudden modifications (e.g. change of scene) this method is inefficient. In this instance the next image is compressed like a freezed image (intraframe-coding, "I-Frame").

Instead of compressing the complete image with one of the two methods. one can also break it up into areas being compressed separately by usage of different methods.

One could have the idea to use image elements of other areas for the prediction of a particular area. However in some situations this may cause problems, e.g. in case of a change of the resolution.

The "invention" claimed through the patent is not to use any image elements from other areas for predicting another particular area.

Main claim: Predicted decompression of an image area from lower to higher resolution regardless of the pixel outside this area.

Further claims:

Special case: The data of low resolution which are to be decompressed have emerged through compression and reduction of the resolution.
Utilization of the previous combined with further standard methods for the decompression of images: movement vectors, (de-)quantization
The method as such without implementation on a computer

Everyday parallel: Somebody describes ("decompresses") a movie he is watching for somebody else who is on the phone: "You glance through a fixed window of a moving train at a moving landscape." The other person asks: "So the landscape moves out of the image detail and becomes blurred with the inside part of the train?" Reply: "No. The moving landscape stays in its image detail and the inside part of the train stays in its own image detail.

If he had lied and answered "Yes exactly.", he would not have infringed the patent but instead would have accepted an error in the image transmission.

Examples for patent infringements: If several standard-methods for compression are combined it is something obvious to deal consistently with both areas separately. Whoever does this, is infringing the patent. Whoever does research in the field of video compression runs a high risk to infringe this patent unknowingly - simply as a result of avoiding particular mistakes that are foreseen.

Previous Patent