Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 42-1 Filed 09/26/13 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 1384
`
`
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 42-1 Filed 09/26/13 Page 2 of 30 PageID #: 1385
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 16
`
`
` Entered: September 23, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SONY CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
` YISSUM RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF THE
`HEBREW UNITVERSITY OF JERUSALEM
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00218 (SCM)
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
` Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 42-1 Filed 09/26/13 Page 3 of 30 PageID #: 1386
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, Sony Corporation, filed a Petition requesting an inter partes
`review of claims 1-3 and 22 of Patent No. U.S. 6,665,003. Paper 1 (“Pet.”). In
`response, Patent Owner, Yissum Research Development Company of the Hebrew
`University of Jerusalem, filed a Patent Owner Preliminary Response. Paper 12
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a):
`THRESHOLD – The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any
`response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of
`the claims challenged in the petition.
`Pursuant to the defined threshold under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Board
`institutes an inter partes review of claims 1-3 and 22 of the ’003 Patent.
`A. Related Proceedings
`The ’003 Patent and another related patent are involved in other inter partes
`review filings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and litigation in the
`District Court of Delaware. See Pet. 1 (citing HumanEyes Technologies Ltd. v.
`Sony Electronics Inc. et al., 1-12-cv-00398 (D. Del. March 29, 2013)). Related
`proceedings at the Board include IPR2013-00219, IPR2013-00326, and IPR2013-
`00327, and involve the same parties. In IPR2013-00326, Petitioner describes the
`Delaware litigation as an infringement action currently based on at least claims 1-
`5, 22, and 34 of the ’003 Patent. See IPR2013-00326, Paper 10, 2-3. Petitioner
`has filed a motion to join the ’326 proceeding, which involves an inter partes
`review challenge by Petitioner of claims 4, 5 and 34 of the ’003 Patent, with the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 42-1 Filed 09/26/13 Page 4 of 30 PageID #: 1387
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`
`instant proceeding. See id. at Paper 4. A decision on the motion for joinder will be
`made in due course.
`
`B. The ’003 Patent
`The ’003 Patent describes generating and displaying stereoscopic panoramic
`images by using a rotating camera. See Ex. 1001, Abstract, Fig. 2. In one
`embodiment, left and right panoramic image generators, respectively, generate left
`and right panoramic mosaic images from a series of recorded images, which
`correspond to different respective angular positions of the rotating camera. See Ex.
`1001, Abstract, Figs. 2 and 3; col. 3, l. 63 – col. 4, l. 64.
`According to the ’003 Patent, systems for creating and displaying non-
`panoramic stereoscopic images were known in the prior art, but “currently, there
`are no such arrangements for generating and displaying stereoscopically
`panoramic images.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 41-43 (emphasis added). Common
`dictionary definitions corroborate that stereoscopic image systems were known
`prior to the filing date of the ’003 Patent. For example, a “stereoscope” is defined
`as “[a]n optical instrument used to impart a three-dimensional effect to two
`photographs of the same scene taken at slightly different angles and viewed
`through two eye-pieces.” THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH
`LANGUAGE 1264 (1976). The term “stereoscopic” means “[o]f or pertaining to
`stereoscopy; especially, three-dimensional,” or “[o]f or pertaining to a
`stereoscope.” Id., Ex. 3002.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 42-1 Filed 09/26/13 Page 5 of 30 PageID #: 1388
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`
`
`Figures 2 and 3 depict various aspects of an embodiment of the rotating
`camera system employed to create panoramic stereoscopic images:
`
`
`
`Figure 2 represents a generic block diagram of the system, which involves
`rotating camera 13. Figure 3 represents a top plan view of camera 13. See
`Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 8-13.
`Figure 3 depicts how left and right portions of a scene 27 are captured on
`different film portions 21 during one fixed position of rotating camera 13.
`Employing a shutter 23 and screen 22 in rotating camera 13, the system attempts to
`mimic how a person’s left and right eyes would view the panoramic scene as a
`stereoscopic image. See id. at col. 4, l. 40 to col. 5, l. 67.
`The ’003 Patent describes stereoscopic viewing and images as follows:
`A person can see stereoscopically because his or her eyes are
`displaced horizontally (when standing) which, will provide a
`perception of depth when viewing a scene, which would not be
`present otherwise. Stereoscopic images comprise two images
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 42-1 Filed 09/26/13 Page 6 of 30 PageID #: 1389
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`
`
`recorded of a scene recorded from slightly displaced positions,
`which, when viewed simultaneously by the respective eyes,
`provides a perception of depth.
`Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 32-39.
`According to the ’003 Patent disclosure, special eye equipment is required to
`obtain a perception of depth from the recorded panoramic images: “[T]o view the
`panoramic image stereoscopically,” a viewer wears polarized glasses 145. Ex.
`1001, col. 12, ll. 62-64. In this manner, left and right images are viewed by the left
`and right eyes, respectively. See Ex. 1001, col. 11, ll. 60-65.
`C. Exemplary Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claim 1 is the sole independent claim. Each of the
`dependent claims 2, 3, and 22 depend directly from claim 1. Challenged claim 1
`follows:
`1. A system for generating a stereoscopic panoramic mosaic
`
`image pair comprising:
`A. a strip generator module configured to generate two
`series of image strips, all of said image strips in each
`series comprising strips of a series of images of a scene
`as would be recorded by a camera from a respective
`series of positions relative to the scene, the image strips
`of the respective series representing strips of the
`respective images displaced from one another by at least
`one selected displacement; and
`B. a mosaic image generator module configured to
`mosaic the respective series of images strips together
`thereby to construct two panoramic mosaic images, the
`panoramic mosaic images comprising the stereoscopic
`panoramic mosaic image pair providing a stereoscopic
`image of the scene as recorded over the path.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 42-1 Filed 09/26/13 Page 7 of 30 PageID #: 1390
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`
`
`D. References Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`Inoue, JP 8-159762 (June 21, 1996) (Ex. 1006, “Asahi”);1
`
`Hofmann, A Digital Three Line Stereo Scanner System, ISPRS International
`Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Kyoto, 16th Congress, V. 27,
`Part B2, Com. II, 206-13 (1988) (Ex. 1007, “Hofmann”);
`
`Ishiguro et al., Acquiring Omnidirectional Range Information, Systems and
`Computers in Japan, V. 23, No. 4, 47-56 (1992) (Ex. 1004, “Ishiguro”); and
`
`Kawakita et al., Generation of Panoramic Stereo Images from Monocular
`Moving Images, SIG-CyberSpace ,Virtual Reality Society of Japan (VRSJ)
`Research Report, V. 2, No. 1, ISSN 1343-0572, VCR 97-12, pp. 13-19
`(Nov. 27, 1997) (Ex. 1003, “Kawakita”).
`E. The Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 102 and 103:
`Claims 1 and 2 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by Kawakita;
`Claim 22 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kawakita;
`Claims 1 and 2 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Ishiguro;
`Claim 22 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ishiguro;
`Claims 1-3 and 22 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Asahi; and
`Claims 1-3 and 22 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Hofmann.
`Pet. 11-12.
`
`
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, all references herein refer to a certified English
`translation or to the original English version provided by Petitioner.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 42-1 Filed 09/26/13 Page 8 of 30 PageID #: 1391
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Claim Construction). Under the
`broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in
`the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in
`the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a special
`definition or other consideration, “limitations are not to be read into the claims
`from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`Petitioner and Patent Owner propose definitions for certain of the claim
`terms. Patent Owner does not state explicitly that its proposed definitions differ
`materially from those proposed by Petitioner.
`Stereoscopic Image Pair
`Claim 1 recites the phrase “stereoscopic . . . image pair.” Petitioner
`proposes that
`[t]he term “stereoscopic . . . image pair” should be construed to
`mean two images of a scene recorded from slightly displaced
`positions, which, when viewed simultaneously by the respective eyes,
`provides a perception of depth. This construction is consistent with
`the definition of the term “stereoscopic images” set forth in the
`’003 Patent at column 1:36-39.
`Pet. 12.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 42-1 Filed 09/26/13 Page 9 of 30 PageID #: 1392
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`
`
`Petitioner’s proposed definition tracks the ordinary definitions and the
`’003 Patent Specification discussed above. Patent Owner proposes virtually the
`same definition for “stereoscopic image” and similarly cites to the ’003 Patent.
`See Prelim. Resp. 15-16. Petitioner and Patent Owner agree that a stereoscopic
`image requires at least a pair of images recorded from slightly displaced images,
`which provide a perception of depth. The Board adopts Petitioner’s definition
`which tracks Patent Owner’s definition.
`To Mosaic
`Claim 1 employs the terms “mosaic image generator” and “to mosaic.” One
`ordinary definition of the noun “mosaic” is “[o]verlapping photographs, usu. aerial,
`assembled into a composite picture.” THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF
`THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE at 855, EX. 3002. In its verb form, “mosaic” means “[t]o
`make by mosaic or as if by mosaic.” Id., Ex. 3002. Petitioner does not propose a
`definition for either claim term. Patent Owner urges that the verb form of mosaic
`“should be construed to mean assembling an image from other images or portions
`of images.” Prelim. Resp. 13-14 (citing the ’003 Patent Specification). The ’003
`Patent Specification, cited by Patent Owner, tracks the ordinary definitions listed
`above and implies, as Patent Owner generally proposes, that the verb form of
`“mosaic” means “to join” or “to assemble.” For example, according to the ’003
`Patent, “the panoramic image generator 12 . . . may form images as respective
`continuous loops by mosaicing together their respective left and right ends.” Ex.
`1001, col. 6, ll. 47-51 (quoted at Prelim. Resp. 14).2 Accordingly, following Patent
`
`
`2 The term “mosaicing” appears in the ’003 Patent, although “mosaicking” appears
`to be the correct spelling. The Board employs the former spelling in this
`proceeding for consistency.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 42-1 Filed 09/26/13 Page 10 of 30 PageID #: 1393
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`
`Owner’s proposal, “to mosaic” means “to join” or “to assemble,” and the “mosaic
`image generator” joins or assembles image strips.
`Module
`Claim 1 recites two types of modules, a “strip generator module,” and a
`“mosaic image generator module.” Petitioner proposes that “[t]he term ‘module’
`should be construed to mean any combination of hardware and/or software
`elements.” Pet. 13. According to Petitioner, “[t]he [S]pecification of the ’003
`Patent does not define the term ‘module.’ Nor is the term ‘module’ used in the
`[S]pecification in reference to elements that generate or mosaic image strips, as the
`term is used in claim 1.” Id.
`
` Patent Owner does not provide an alternative definition for “module” or
`dispute Petitioner’s assertion that the relevant claim 1 module elements do not
`appear in the body of the ’003 Patent Specification. The claimed module elements
`do not appear in the original claims, and the ’003 Patent prosecution history does
`not provide much guidance as to the meanings thereof. See Ex. 3001, 2, 22 (’003
`Patent File, Response to Office Action (Sept. 10, 2002) )(introducing “strip
`generator module” and “mosaic image generator module,” as then claim 28
`elements, now claim 1).
`The ’003 Patent states that “[t]he panorama mosaic image generator 12 can
`generate the left and right panoramic images 31L and 31R using any conventional
`technique for mosaicing images or portions of images together.” Ex.1001, col. 6,
`ll. 38-42. Figure 2 depicts a box diagram including “PANORAMA MOSAIC
`IMAGE GENERATOR 12” and “CAMERA 13.” The ’003 Patent Abstract refers
`to “left and right panoramic image generators.” Claim 9 of the ’003 Patent recites
`the phrase “the strip generator module include[s] a camera.” Claim 70 requires a
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 42-1 Filed 09/26/13 Page 11 of 30 PageID #: 1394
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`
`computer program product comprising a computer readable-medium having
`encoded thereon a strip generator module and a mosaic image generator module.
`In an argument regarding claim 1, Patent Owner implicitly treats the
`disclosed mosaic image generator 12 as supporting the claimed mosaic image
`generator module, and states that “to construct the stereoscopic image pair the
`camera and the mosaic image generator are arranged in a specific way to generate
`and mosaic the image strips.” Prelim. Resp. 31 (n.5 omitted). Patent Owner
`further asserts that, in addition to the camera working with the mosaic generator to
`construct the stereoscopic image pair, “[i]n other embodiments, the ’003 Patent
`discloses using a computer.” Prelim. Resp. 31, n.5.
`On a more general system level, the ’003 Patent states that
`a system in accordance with the invention can be constructed in whole
`or in part from special purpose hardware or a general purpose
`computer system, or any combination thereof, any portion of which
`may be controlled by a suitable program. Any program may in whole
`or in part comprise part of or been stored on the system in a
`conventional manner, or it may in whole or part be provided in to the
`system over a network or other mechanism for transferring
`information in a conventional manner. In addition, . . . the system
`may be operated and/or otherwise controlled by means of information
`provided by an operator using operator input elements (not shown)
`which may be connected directly to the system or which may transfer
`the information to the system . . . .
`Ex. 1001, col 14, ll. 27-40.
`As indicated above, the described mosaic image generator employs
`conventional techniques to mosaic (or join) separate image strips together to form
`the panoramic images. Accord Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 30-42. As also noted above,
`the recited modules in claim 1 may be stored as software modules on the same
`medium according to the ’003 Patent Specification. Similarly, the “images may be
`formed on or stored in any convenient medium, such as paper or film, in digital
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 42-1 Filed 09/26/13 Page 12 of 30 PageID #: 1395
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`
`form or in electronic or magnetic data storage, or other media as will be
`appreciated by those skilled in the art.” Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 51-55 (emphasis
`added). In other words, the disclosed system does not preclude forming the images
`using modules stored anywhere inside or outside of the camera, for example, and
`controlling the process with a single program which may have “information
`provided by an operator using operator input elements.” See Ex. 1001, col 14, ll.
`36-37.
` One plain meaning of a “module” is “[a] distinct and identifiable unit of a
`computer program for such purposes as compiling, loading, and linkage editing.”
`MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL TERMS 1285 (5th Ed.
`1994), Ex. 3003. Another definition for “module” is “a logically separable part of
`a program. Note: The terms ‘module,’ ‘component,’ and ‘unit’ are often used
`interchangeably or defined to be sub-elements of one another in different ways
`depending upon the context. The relationship of these terms is not yet
`standardized.” IEEE 100 THE AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY OF IEEE STANDARDS
`TERMS SEVENTH EDITION (2000), avail. at
`http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4116801(last visited
`Sept. 19, 2013).
` As discussed above, the term “module” does not appear in the body or
`original claims of ’003 Patent Specification, and the broad descriptions noted
`above indicate that any algorithms associated with producing images are
`conventional and can include any combination of a part of a software program
`and/or hardware, generally as Petitioner proposes. If the strip generator module
`“includes” a camera, as claim 9 recites, and the mosaic image generator module
`can reside in the camera and generate and store images according to conventional
`mosaicing techniques, and both modules may be part of, or controlled by, the same
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 42-1 Filed 09/26/13 Page 13 of 30 PageID #: 1396
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`
`program, then it follows that the two “modules” reasonably can overlap in terms of
`hardware and/or software.
`On the other hand, claim 1 requires that the mosaic image generator module
`is “configured to mosaic [i.e., join] the respective series of image strips” generated
`by the “strip generator module,” thereby implying a distinct line of demarcation for
`the two modules at least in terms of these recited mosaic and strip formation
`functions. Therefore, based on the foregoing considerations, each claimed
`“module” may be any combination of hardware and/or software controlled by the
`same or different software residing inside or outside of a camera, and each
`respective module may overlap somewhat in terms of some functions, provided
`that the mosaic image generator module is “configured to mosaic the respective
`series of image strips” generated by the “strip generator module.”
`Other Definitions
`Petitioner and Patent Owner provide other claim term definitions. Each
`party, in support thereof, cites either to the ’003 Patent Specification or to
`prosecution history arguments by Patent Owner. See Pet. 12-16; Prelim. Resp. 11-
`16. At this preliminary stage, there does not appear to be a material dispute
`requiring further comment or analysis with respect to any other proffered
`definitions. Generally, the parties do not contend that any other claim terms or
`phrases should be given a meaning other than the ordinary and customary meaning
`that the terms or phrases would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in light
`of the ’003 Patent Specification. See Ayst Technologies Inc. v. Empak, Inc., 268
`F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (there is “no reason to depart from the position
`consistently taken on this issue by the parties”).
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 42-1 Filed 09/26/13 Page 14 of 30 PageID #: 1397
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`
`
` B. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`I. Kawakita – Anticipation, Claims 1 and 2, Obviousness, Claim 22
`A. Public Dissemination
`Patent Owner challenges the prior art status of Kawakita, Ex. 1003, in
`particular, its public accessibility prior to the effective filing date of the ’003
`Patent. See Prelim. Resp. 17-18. Petitioner presents declaration evidence that the
`original Japanese version of Kawakita was published at a conference, with an
`English abstract and title, as part of a five-article booklet, entitled “Virtual Reality
`Society [(“VRS”)] of Japan Research Report.” See Pet. 43-46.3
`For example, Dr. Matsuda, a Chief Distinguished Researcher at Sony, and
`conference organizer, declares that thirty copies of the booklet were provided for
`distribution at the VRS/SIG-CyberSpace conference (“VRS conference”) on
`November 27, 1997, in Japan. Matsuda Decl., Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 2-11. Mr. Takahashi,
`a co-author of another article in the booklet presented at the VRS conference, Ex.
`1021, ¶ 7, “helped set up the conference,” id. at ¶ 6, and corroborates the Matsuda
`Declaration, especially with regard to actual dissemination of the booklets
`containing the Kawakita article: “[T]hese booklets were piled on the reception desk
`leading into the conference room. I . . . saw conference participants taking copies
`of the booklet.” Id. at ¶ 10. The Okada Declaration, discussed further below,
`provides additional evidence and corroboration of the VRS conference and public
`accessibility of the booklets containing the Kawakita article. See Ex. 1028.
`
`3 The respective dates of the Kawakita publication (in Japanese language) and
`effective filing of the ’003 Patent are not at issue: Patent Owner asserts that
`“Petitioner alleges that 30 copies of Kawakita were distributed at a conference less
`than a year before the earliest priority date of the ’003 patent.” Prelim. Resp. 17.
`The conference occurred on, and Kawakita was published on, November 27, 1997.
`See, e.g., Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 8-9. The ’003 Patent claims continuity to September 17,
`1998, based on a series of provisional applications. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 5-13.
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 42-1 Filed 09/26/13 Page 15 of 30 PageID #: 1398
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`
`
`Dr. Matsuda also declares that the conference was open to society members
`for free, and students and the general public for a fee. Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 7, 8. Mr.
`Takahashi corroborates this evidence, and also declares that the conference was
`announced to the general public on a website:
`In 1997, VRS had a website that could be viewed by any interested
`member of the general public. Prior to the November 27, 1997
`conference, an announcement was made on the VRS website about
`the conference . . . . [and] invited any interested individual to
`participate, and included additional information such as . . . the
`authors and titles of the five papers to be presented . . . and applicable
`fees.
`Ex. 1021, ¶ 4.
`“I was able to access the VRS website and see the announcement . . . .” Id.
`at ¶ 5 (referring to Exhibits 1T and 2T attached to the declaration – copies of the
`website announcement and notice seeking participants).4 Exhibit 2T (Ex. 1025, see
`note 4) corresponds to a website announcement, which lists the title, author, and
`brief description of each of the five articles in the booklet to be presented at the
`VRS conference which, according to the announcement, “will be held
`November 27th.” Ex. 1025. Dr. Okada discusses the same website, and a
`university website (which appears to provide a hyperlink to more information
`about the upcoming conference) and attaches, as corroboration, copies of the
`websites, Exhibit 1O (Ex. 1030) and Exhibit 2O (Ex. 1032). See Ex. 1028, ¶ 9
`(discussing Ex. 1O and 2O). Dr. Okada also declares that he managed SIG-
`CyberSpace, a group within the VRS umbrella and which helped coordinate the
`VRS conferences, including the Nov. 27, 1997, conference. See Ex. 1028, ¶¶ 5-9.
`Dr. Matsuda further declares that “[t]he booklet was not marked or treated as
`
`4 Respectively, the translated versions of Exhibits 1T and 2T appear as record
`Exhibits 1023 and 1025. (Each of the declarants’ attached exhibits appears as a
`different numbered record exhibit.)
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 42-1 Filed 09/26/13 Page 16 of 30 PageID #: 1399
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`
`confidential,” it bears a date of November 27, 1997, and it was presented at the
`VRS conference on that date. Ex. 1012, ¶ 9. Mr. Takahashi corroborates this
`evidence: “As a person who helped the reception and participated in the
`conference, I was not advised or instructed to treat the booklet as confidential.”
`See Ex. 1021, ¶ 11. Dr. Okada provides further corroboration. See Ex. 1028, ¶ 10
`(“The booklet was not marked or treated as confidential.”).
`Dr. Matsuda additionally declares that Sankyo Printing printed 100 copies of
`the booklet, and cites to an October 30, 1997 committee meeting e-mail, attached
`as “Exhibit M,” as corroboration. Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 10-11; Ex. 1018. Dr. Matsuda
`declares that 70 copies of the booklet were sent to Dr. Okada of Keio University
`and cites to another attached e-mail, attached as “Exhibit 4M,” as corroboration.
`Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 10, 12; Ex. 1020. Dr. Matsuda declares that interested people
`generally were instructed to contact SIG/VRC for meeting materials, including the
`booklet at issue here: “Any requests for copies of the booklet were directed to Dr.
`Okada, and the booklet could be purchased from him directly.” Ex. 1012, ¶ 13.
`Dr. Okada corroborates this evidence: “The remaining copies were given to me for
`further distribution . . . . I recall receiving at least one request for a booklet shortly
`after the November 27, 1997 meeting.” Ex. 1028, ¶¶ 11-12.
`As noted above, Patent Owner asserts that Kawakita does not qualify as
`prior art because “Petitioner’s Petition fails to show that Kawakita is a printed
`publication.” Prelim. Resp. 17. Patent Owner does not challenge with
`particularity any of the facts in the declarations, as outlined above. Instead, Patent
`Owner focuses on the following restriction printed on the booklet: “‘Duplication
`and reproduction prohibited.’” Prelim. Resp. 17 (quoting Ex. 1003 at 48,
`emphasis by Patent Owner). Citing Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561
`F.3d 1319, 1333-1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009), Patent Owner maintains that the copying
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 42-1 Filed 09/26/13 Page 17 of 30 PageID #: 1400
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`
`restriction, coupled with the alleged limited distribution of thirty copies at the VRS
`conference, compels the Board to find that the booklet is not a printed publication.
`Prelim. Resp. 17.
`Cordis reiterates the long-standing doctrine that “[a] document is publically
`accessible if it ‘has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent
`that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising
`reasonable diligence . . . [could have] locate[d] it.’” 561 F.3d at 1333 (quoting In
`re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 226 (CCPA 1981)). Patent Owner relies on the Cordis
`statement that “[w]e have noted that ‘[w]here professional and behavioral norms
`entitle a party to a reasonable expectation’ that information will not be copied or
`further distributed, ‘we are more reluctant to find something a ‘printed
`publication.’ ” 561 F.3d at 1333-1334 (citation omitted) (emphasis by Patent
`Owner at Prelim. Resp. 17).
`Notwithstanding the concern over professional norms, the above statements
`from Cordis must be considered in light of the evidence of record. The evidence
`shows that thirty copies of the booklet were made available to interested artisans at
`the VRS conference, some of those copies actually were taken by interested
`conference attendees, and at least seventy booklets were available for purchase by
`other interested artisans by contacting VRS and Dr. Okada at Keio University. See
`Ex. 1012, ¶¶ 12-13; Ex. 1028, ¶¶ 11-12. Hence, the evidence shows that some of
`the booklets actually were disseminated and that other copies were available to
`interested artisans.
` Patent Owner also generally asserts that interested persons would not have
`been aware of the Kawakita article, thereby rendering it inaccessible. See Prelim.
`Resp. 18. To the contrary, in addition to knowledge of the article’s subject matter
`gained by attending the conference, or by seeing copies of the booklet purchased
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 42-1 Filed 09/26/13 Page 18 of 30 PageID #: 1401
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`
`by conference attendees, based on the record evidence, as discussed above,
`interested artisans would have been made aware of the article and its subject matter
`based on a prior announcement on a publically accessible VRS website, which
`included the five article titles and descriptions thereof. See Pet. 45 (citing Ex.
`1021, ¶¶ 4, 5; Ex. 1023; Ex. 1025; Ex. 1028, ¶ 9; Ex. 1032).
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, on this record, Patent Owner does not
`establish that “behavioral norms” surrounding the booklets actually distributed at
`the conference, or otherwise made available thereafter, created a reasonable
`expectation of confidentiality or a restriction on “further distribut[ion].” See
`Cordis, 561 F.3d at 1333. For example, Patent Owner does not show that owners
`of the booklet could not have distributed their copies to other interested artisans or
`informed interested artisans how to obtain another copy from Dr. Okada. On its
`face, the relied-upon restriction printed on the booklet prohibits “duplication and
`reproduction,” but does not prohibit further distribution. See Ex. 1003, 48. Above
`the restriction, the booklet provides contact information, including, inter alia, the
`following statement: “Issued by: The Virtual Society of Japan.” Id. Moreover, the
`printed restriction corroborates the declarations of Mr. Takahashi, Dr. Okado, and
`Dr. Matsuda: the booklet was not confidential, and an interested member would
`have had to purchase it instead of copying it for free.
`On this record, Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence
`that the Kawakita reference was publically accessible prior to the effective date of
`the invention. Cf. In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“substantial
`evidence that the Lister manuscript was publicly accessible” not provided and
`evidence does not “suffice[] to prove a prima facie case of accessibility that would
`shift the burden” to applicant Lister).
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00398-GMS Document 42-1 Filed 09/26/13 Page 19 of 30 PageID #: 1402
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`
`
`B. Claims 1, 2, and 22
`Petitioner reads the elements of claims 1 and 2 onto Kawakita’s camera
`system and explains, relying on the Darrell Declaration (see below), Ex. 1010, why
`claim 22 would have been obvious in view of Kawakita. Pet. 19-22. Kawakita
`discloses a system which is similar to that described in the ’003 Patent. For
`example, Kawakita describes the “Generation of Panoramic Stereo Images.” See
`Ex. 1003, Title. In addition, Kawakita discloses a rotating camera i