Trial@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 16
`
`
`Entered: March 18, 2013
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00016 (JYC)
`Patent 6,441,828
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KEVIN F. TURNER, and JONI Y. CHANG,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 16
`
`
`Entered: March 18, 2013
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00016 (JYC)
`Patent 6,441,828
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KEVIN F. TURNER, and JONI Y. CHANG,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00016
`Patent 6,441,828
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`On October 12, 2012, Research In Motion Corporation and Research
`In Motion Limited (collectively, “RIM”) filed a petition, requesting an inter
`partes review of claims 6, 7, 15, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent 6,441,828 (“the
`’828 patent”). (Paper 1, “Pet.”) MobileMedia Ideas LLC (“MobileMedia”)
`waived the patent owner preliminary response. (Paper 15.) 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) which provides:
`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.
`
`We determine that the information presented in the petition
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that RIM would prevail
`with respect to claims 6, 7, 15, 17, and 18. Accordingly, we authorize an
`inter partes review to be instituted for the ’828 patent.
`RIM identifies the following matters as matters which would affect or
`be affected by a decision in this proceeding: MobileMedia Ideas LLC v.
`Apple, Inc., 10-cv-00258 (D. Del.); MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Research In
`Motion Ltd. et al., 11-cv-02353 (N.D. Tex); and Sandisk Corp. v. Mobile
`MediaIdeas LLC, 11-cv-00597 (N.D. Cal.). (Pet. 1.)
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2013--00016
`
`
`Patennt 6,441,8228
`
`
`
`A. Thee ’828 Pattent
`
`
`(e.g., an eelectronic ppicture
`apparatus
`
`
`The ’8288 patent relates to an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`framme) for dispplaying a ddigital imagge in a normmal directiion regardlless of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`whetther the appparatus is placed witth the shortter or longger side dowwn.
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, 1:6--8, 1:65-677.) Figuress 16A and
`
`
`16B of thee ’828 pateent are
`
`
`reprooduced bellow:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figures
`6B show t
`16A and 1
`
`
`
`he directioon of the diisplayed immage.
`
`
`
`hematic epicts a schd below, dereproduced28 patent, rFigure 66 of the ’82
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`blockk diagram of an imagge display apparatus::
`
`
`ge display nt, the imag’828 patenre 6 of the As showwn in Figur
`apparatus 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00016
`Patent 6,441,828
`
`has a memory card 12, memory card controller 40, control microcomputer
`42, image processing block 43, and a display panel 4 (e.g., a liquid crystal
`display (LCD)). (Ex. 1001, 3:38-41; 5:48-59.) To display an image recorded
`in the memory card 12, the control microcomputer 42 reads the compressed
`image data from the memory card 12 via the memory card controller 40 and
`stores them into a built-in dynamic random-access memory (DRAM). (Ex.
`1001, 5:51-59.) The compressed image data is decompressed in an image
`processing block 43 and then the decompressed image data is stored back
`into the DRAM. (Id.) The image data in the DRAM is processed by the
`image processing block 43 for display on the display panel 4. (Id.)
`
`B. Representative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claim 6 is the only independent claim.
`Claims 7, 15, 17, and 18 depend from claim 6, which is reproduced as
`follows:
`6. An image displaying apparatus for displaying image data
`read from a recording medium, comprising:
`image signal generating means for generating an image
`signal for display based on image information read from the
`recording medium;
`image displaying means for displaying the image signal
`produced by the image signal generating means; and
`means for determining a direction in which an image of
`the image signal is to be displayed on the image displaying
`means according to a posture in which the apparatus is placed
`and information on a direction in which an image of the image
`signal is to be displayed read from the recording medium.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00016
`Patent 6,441,828
`
`
`
`C. Prior Art Relied Upon
`RIM relies upon the following prior art references:
`Helms
`U.S. Patent 5,760,670
`June 2, 1998
`Kagle
`U.S. Patent 6,148,149 Nov. 14, 2000
`Anderson U.S. Patent 6,262,769
`Jul. 17, 2001
`Jacklin
`U.S. Patent 6,396,472 May 28, 2002
`Nagasaki EP 0587 161 A2
`
`Mar. 16, 1994
`
`
`(Ex. 1003)
`(Ex. 1005)
`(Ex. 1002)
`(Ex. 1006)
`(Ex. 1004)
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds
`RIM challenges the patentability of claims 6, 7, 15, 17, and 18 of the
`’828 patent based on the following grounds (Pet. 3):
`1. Claims 6, 7, 17, and 18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
`anticipated by Anderson;
`2. Claims 6 and 7 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Nagasaki and Kagle;
`3. Claims 17 and 18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Nagasaki, Kagle and Jacklin; and
`4. Claim 15 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Anderson in
`view of Helms and, alternatively, over Nagasaki, Kagle, and Helms.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest
`reasonable construction standard, claims are to be given their broadest
`reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00016
`Patent 6,441,828
`
`language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
`ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
`1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`Preamble
`In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential
`structure or steps, or if it is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to
`the claim. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305
`(Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, the preamble of claim 6 merely recites an intended
`use for the claimed apparatus, namely “for displaying image data read from
`a recording medium.” Further, the limitations in the claim body include
`substantially the same language (“image signal generating means for
`generating an image signal for display based on image information read
`from the recording medium” and “image displaying means for displaying the
`image signal produced by the image signal generating means”.) Any prior
`art element that meets the limitations in the claim body also would satisfy
`any requirement in the preamble of claim 6. Therefore, the preamble of
`claim 6 does not add any further limitation that is not already present in the
`body of the claim. Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
`(Where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim
`body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the
`invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation.).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00016
`Patent 6,441,828
`
`Means-Plus-Function Limitations
`When construing a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112, ¶ 61, we first identify the claimed function, and then we look to the
`specification and identify the corresponding structure that actually performs
`the claimed function. Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta
`AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St.
`Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`In this proceeding, RIM identifies several claim terms as means-plus-
`function limitations invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, and their corresponding
`structure for performing the claimed function. (Pet. 22-27, 29-30, 32-36, 38-
`39.) At the outset, we agree that each limitation identified by RIM is a
`means-plus-function limitation because: (1) each limitation uses the term
`“means” or “means for”; (2) the term in each limitation is modified by
`functional language; and (3) the term is not modified by any structure recited
`in the claim to perform the claimed function.
`Because MobileMedia did not file a patent owner preliminary
`response, we do not have the benefit of ascertaining MobileMedia’s position
`on the claim construction of the means-plus-function limitations. For the
`purposes of this decision, we determine the claim construction based on the
`record before us to the extent necessary to determine whether to institute an
`
`
`1 Section 4(c) of the AIA re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, as 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112(f). Because the ’828 patent has a filing date before September 16,
`2012 (effective date), we will refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00016
`Patent 6,441,828
`
`inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`In its Patent Owner Response, MobileMedia has the opportunity to
`inform the Board as to its construction of the means-plus-function
`limitations in this proceeding, or to forego doing so, leaving the Board with
`only the intrinsic record and RIM’s construction. Any claim construction of
`a means-plus-function should set forth the corresponding structure disclosed
`in the specification that performs the claimed function, including any
`computer or microprocessor, computer program, and algorithm. WMS
`Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (In a
`means-plus-function claim “in which the disclosed structure is a computer,
`or microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm, the disclosed
`structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather the special purpose
`computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.”).
`For this decision, the claimed function and corresponding structure for
`each limitation identified by RIM are identified as follows:
`
`1. “Image signal generating means for generating an image signal for
`display” (Claim 6)
`We first identify the claimed function for this limitation to be
`“generating an image signal for display.” In the petition, RIM asserts that
`the corresponding structure for this limitation is the control microcomputer
`42 and image processing blocks 43 and 65 (Pet. 22-23, citing Ex. 1001,
`5:51-59, 9:17-22, Figs. 6, 15). As noted by RIM, the specification of the
`’828 patent contains the following description related to the control
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2013--00016
`
`
`Patennt 6,441,8228
`
`65 shown
`
`in Figure
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`micrrocomputerr 42 and immage proceessing bloccks 43 and
`d infra):
`
`
`
`
`(reprroduced suupra) and FFigure 15 ((reproduce
`
`
`Foor playbackk of an im
`
`
`
`age recordded in the mmemory caard
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12, a conntrol microocomputerr 42 reads tthe compreessed imagge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`data fromm the memmory card 112 via a meemory cardd controlleer 40
`data
`
`
`
`
`
`and storees it into a built-in DDRAM. Thee compresssed image
`
`
`
`
`
`
`is expannded or deccompressedd in an imaage processsing blockk 43
`
`
`
`
`and storeed back intto the DRAAM. The immage data
`
`thus storedd
`
`
`image proocessing bllock
`
`
`back in tthe DRAMM is processsed by the
`
`panel 4.
`
`
`43 for diisplay on tthe display
`
`
`
`1001, 5:51-59, emphhasis addedd.)
`
`
`
`communnication/meedium seleect switch 664, to geneerate imagge
`
`
`(Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The imagge processsing block 65 processses in a preedetermineed
`
`
`manner a digital immage data read from
`
`
`
`the built-iin memoryy 63
`
`
`
`
`
`
`64 and suppplied via thhe communnication/mmedium seleect switch
`
`
`
`
`
`or a one supplied ffrom the soocket 53 annd sent viaa the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`signal foor display oon the dispplay panel
`52.
`
`
`(Ex.
`
`
`Figure 1
`
`
`
`
`1001, 9:177-22, emphhasis addedd.)
`
`
`
`ced as foll
`5 of the ’8828 patent is reproduc
`
`
`
`ows:
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2013--00016
`
`
`Patennt 6,441,8228
`
`
`
`FFigure 15 of the ’8288 patent deepicts a schhematic bloock diagramm of an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`embodimment of thee image dissplay apparratus.
`
`correesponding structure ffor the reciited functioon (“generrating an immage signaal
`
`onsider theherefore cosion, we thof this decisFor the ppurposes o
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for ddisplay”) too be the coontrol microocomputerr and imag
`
`e processinng block.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. ““Image dispplaying meeans for dissplaying thhe image ssignal” (Cllaim 6)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For this limitation,, we determmine the cllaimed funnction to bee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“dispplaying thee image siggnal.” To iidentify thhe correspoonding struucture, we
`. 1001,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`revieew the porttions of thee specificaation cited bby RIM (PPet. 24, Ex
`
`
`
`
`
`3:38-39, reprodduced beloow (with emmphasis addded)):
`an
`
`
`
`
`
`The dispplay panel 4 is a thin,, lightweigght structurre such as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LCD dispsplay or plaasma displlay to displlay an imaage based oon a
`
`
`
`
`
`to-be-dissplayed immage signall supplied ffrom an immage
`later.
`
`
`
`processing block wwhich will further be
`described
`
`
`
`ed as follos reproduce28 patent isFigure 33 of the ’82
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ws:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figuree 3 shows aa front vieww of the immage displaay apparattus.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00016
`Patent 6,441,828
`
`Accordingly, for this decision, we identify the corresponding structure
`for performing the recited function (“displaying the image signal”) to be a
`display panel such as an LCD display or plasma display panel.
`
`
`3. “Means for determining a direction in which an image of the image
`signal is to be displayed on the image displaying means according to a
`posture in which the apparatus is placed and information on a direction
`in which an image of the image signal is to be displayed read from the
`recording medium” (Claim 6)
`For this limitation, we agree with RIM (Pet. 24-25) that the claimed
`function is “determining a direction in which an image of the image signal is
`to be displayed on the image displaying means according to a posture in
`which the apparatus is placed and information on a direction in which an
`image of the image signal is to be displayed read from the recording
`medium.” As indicated by RIM, the specification of the ’828 patent
`provides the following description for determining a display direction:
`[A] position detection switch 41 is provided to detect whether
`the image display apparatus 1 is placed with the longer or
`shorter side down, and send a detection signal to the control
`microcomputer 42 which will read the displaying-direction
`information from the memory card 12 via the memory card
`controller 40. Thus the image can be displayed in the same
`normal direction. The position detection switch 41 may be
`either a type of which a moving element is moved in two
`directions or a type of which a pendulum type element is moved
`in all directions.
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, 6:26-35, emphasis added.)
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00016
`Patent 6,441,828
`
`There is also provided a position detection switch 66 to
`determine a direction in which an image is to be displayed the
`display panel 52 according to the posture of the enclosure 51 of
`the image display apparatus 50. In particular, the position
`detection switch 66 is a direction select switch to allow the user
`to selectively set a direction in which an image is to be
`displayed, an automatic position detector provided with a
`gravity sensor or the like to automatically detect in which
`position the image display apparatus 50 is placed and set a
`position in which an image is to be displayed, or the like. Note
`that to save the user's labor to select such a displaying direction,
`the automatic position detector should desirably be adopted in
`the position detection switch 66. A position detection signal
`from the position detection switch 66 is sent to the image
`processing block 65.
`Therefore, the image processing block 65 determines a
`direction in which an image is to be displayed on the display
`panel 52 according to the position detection signal, and allows
`to display the image on the display panel 52 in the determined
`direction.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 9:27-46, emphasis added.)
`
`For the purposes of this decision, we therefore consider the
`corresponding structure for this limitation to be the control microcomputer,
`the position detection switch, and the image processing block.
`
`
`4. “Means whereby the recording medium is set into the apparatus from
`outside” (Claim 7)
`Although this limitation recites “means whereby” rather than “means
`for,” we note that the phrase “means whereby the recording medium is set
`into the apparatus from outside” has a similar meaning as “means for
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00016
`Patent 6,441,828
`
`receiving the recording medium into the apparatus from outside.”
`Therefore, we determine the claimed function for this limitation to be
`“receiving the recording medium into the apparatus from outside.”
`RIM asserts that the corresponding structure for this limitation is the
`socket 53 of Figure 13. (Pet. 26, citing Ex. 1001, 7:63-8:3; 8:49-54;
`Fig. 13.) To support that assertion, RIM directs attention to the following
`portions of the specification of the ’828 patent:
`As shown in FIG. 13, the image display apparatus 50 comprises
`an enclosure 51 like a photo holder or mount having a
`decorative design. The enclosure 51 has provided on the front
`side thereof a display panel 52, infrared communication
`element 54, light sensor 55, human body recognition sensor 56,
`and operation panel 57, and on the top thereof a socket 53 in
`which a memo card as an external recording medium is to be
`set.
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, 7:63-8:3, emphasis added.)
`
`The socket 53 is provided for connection of an external
`recording medium such as a memory card as having previously
`been described. The image display apparatus 50 can be
`connected to the external recording medium via the socket
`53. The socket 53 for receiving a memory card is designed to
`have a memory card slot.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 8:49-54, emphasis added.)
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2013--00016
`
`
`Patennt 6,441,8228
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 13 of the ’8828 patent
`
`
`is reproducced as foll
`
`ows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`appparatus thaat includess a socket.
`
`FFigure 13 oof the ’8288 patent deppicts an emmbodimentt of image
`
`
`
`
`
`display
`
`RIM that
`
`
`
`
`
`Given thhose discloosures in thhe specificaation, we aagree with
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the ccorrespondding structuure for perfforming thhe recited fufunction (“rreceiving
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the rrecording mmedium intto the appaaratus fromm outside”)) is the soccket 53.
`
`
`
`
`apparatuss”
`
`
`
`5. ““Means forr detecting an amounnt of light aaround the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(CClaim 15)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`We idenntify the claaimed funcction for thhis limitatioon to be “ddetecting aan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`amouunt of lighht around thhe apparatuus.” For thhe purposees of this deecision, wee
`
`
`
`
`
`identify the corrrespondinng structuree for that fufunction to
`
`be the lighht sensor,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`conssistent withh RIM’s interpretation (Pet. 29,, citing Ex.. 1001, Figg. 15;
`
`
`
`10:663-65 (“Thee light senssor 55 is p
`
`
`
`rovided to detect thee brightnesss around
`t to a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the image display apparaatus 50 andd supply a llight detecttion outpu
`
`
`
`displlay brightnness controoller 69.”))
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00016
`Patent 6,441,828
`
`6. “Means for adjusting an operation of the image displaying means based
`on a detection signal from the light detecting means” (Claim 15)
`For this limitation, we determine the claimed function to be “adjusting
`an operation of the image displaying means based on a detection signal from
`the light detecting means.” RIM asserts that the corresponding structure for
`performing that function is the display brightness controller 69 in Figure 15
`(reproduced supra) and directs attention to the following description in the
`specification of the ’828 patent (Pet. 30-31, citing Ex. 1001, 10:66-11:34,
`emphasis added):
`The display brightness controller 69 is provided to adjust the
`brightness of the display panel 52 so that the display on the
`display panel 52 is turned on or off depending upon the light
`detection output from the light sensor 55. That is, when the
`light sensor 55 detects an amount of light around the image
`display apparatus 50, which is larger or smaller than
`predetermined, the display brightness controller 69 will turn on
`the display panel 52. The reason why the display panel 52 is
`turned on when the detected amount of light is larger than
`predetermined is that in the day time or when an intense light of
`illumination exists, namely, while the amount of light is larger
`than predetermined, the human being is normally active and
`someone possibly views an image displayed on the display
`panel 52. Therefore, when a large amount of light is detected
`around the image display apparatus 50, the display panel 52 is
`turned on. On the other hand, it is considered that in the night or
`when the illumination is weak, the display on the display panel
`52 is not easy to see. That is why the display panel 52 is turned
`on when the detected amount of light around the image display
`apparatus 50 is smaller than predetermined.
`
`For the purposes of this decision, we thus consider the corresponding
`structure for the recited function (“adjusting an operation of the image
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00016
`Patent 6,441,828
`
`displaying means based on a detection signal from the light detecting
`means”) to be the display brightness controller.
`
`
`7. “Display mode selecting means for selecting one of a plurality of image
`displaying modes” (Claim 17)
`For this limitation, we identify the claimed function to be “selecting
`one of a plurality of image displaying modes.” RIM asserts that the
`corresponding structure for performing that function is a control panel with
`control push buttons. (Pet. 26-27, citing Ex. 1001, 11:35-45.) As noted by
`RIM, the specification of the ’828 patent contains the following description
`for the control panel (Ex. 1001, 11:35-45, emphasis added):
`The control panel 57 has provided thereon control buttons which
`are used by the user to control the operation of the image display
`apparatus 50. While the image processing block 65 allows
`operation menu items to be displayed on the display panel 52, the
`user selects a desired one of the menu items by using a
`corresponding control button on the operation panel 57 to
`operate the image display apparatus 50 in the selected mode.
`Note that the operation menu items may include a function to
`switch on/off the human body recognition sensor 56 and light
`sensor 55, slide show of a digital image, fade display and the like.
`
`For the purposes of this decision, we therefore determine the
`corresponding structure for the recited function (“selecting one of a plurality
`of image displaying modes”) to be a control panel with control push buttons.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2013--00016
`
`
`Patennt 6,441,8228
`
`Claims 6,
`Anderson
`
`B.
`
`7, 17, andd 18 – Anticcipated by
`
`
`
`RIM alleeges that claims 6, 7,, 17, and 1
`
`
`8 are unpaatentable unnder 35
`
`
`
`
`U.S.C. § 102(ee) as anticippated by AAnderson.
`(Pet. 22-2
`8.)
`digital
`
`
`
`
`
`Andersoon describees an apparratus for viiewing an iimage in a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cameera. (Ex. 11002, 3:55--56.) In paarticular, AAnderson ddiscloses ann apparatuus
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and mmethod forr rotating aa graphicall user interrface autommatically, mmanaging
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`portrrait and lanndscape immages, and displayingg the imagee in the samme
`
`
`orienntation as tthe digital camera. (EEx. 1002,
`
`
`1:20-23; 2
`
`:11-21; figgs. 9 & 12.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 33 of Andersson, reprodduced beloow, is a bloock diagramm of an
`
`
`
`
`
`embodiment off Andersonn in a digittal camera::
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As showwn in Figurre 3, Anderrson’s digiital cameraa has a commputer 118
`
`
`
`
`a useer interfacee 408, and an imaginng device 1
`18
`14. The c
`omputer 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`compprises a ceentral proceessing unitt (CPU) 3444, DRAMM 346, inputt/output
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(I/O)) interface 348, non-vvolatile meemory 3500, buffers/cconnector 3352,
`17
`
`,
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2013--00016
`
`
`Patennt 6,441,8228
`
`
`
`
`
`remoovable memmory 354, an orientaation unit 5
`
`
`60, a LCDD controllerr 390, and
`
`
`
`
`systeem bus 1166 that connnects imagiing device
`
`
`114 to theese computter
`
`
`
`
`compponents. ((Ex. 1002, 3:56-4:4.) The cameera’s user iinterface 4408
`
`
`
`
`
`
`incluudes LCD Screen 4022, Buttons and Dials
`
`
`
`404, and SStatus LCDD 406.
`1002, 4:2
`
`
`
`
`
`1-28.) To display ann image stoored in memmory, the LLCD
`(Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`contrroller 390 accesses DDRAM 3466 and transsfers proce
`
`ssed imagee data to
`
`
`
`
`
`LCDD screen 4002 for display. (Ex. 11002, 4:7-111.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`harddware compponents of f a digital ccamera useer interfacee:
`
`Figures 7A and 7BB of Anderson, reprodduced beloow, illustraate the
`
`
`
`
`of the cammera showinng the
`
`
`
`Figure 77A of Andeerson is a bback view
`erlay
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LCDD screen 4002, a four-wway navigaation contrrol button 4409, an ov
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`buttoon 412, a mmenu buttoon 414, andd a set of pprogrammaable soft keeys 416.
`camera
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1002, 7:266-39.) Figgure 7B of Anderson,, is a top viiew of the
`
`418 and a showwing a shuttter button mode diall 420. (Id.
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2013--00016
`
`
`Patennt 6,441,8228
`
`2 of Ande
`Figure 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`methhod for maanaging thee orientatioon of an immage:
`
`rson, reprooduced bellow, depictts a flow d
`
`iagram of
`
`a
`
`As illusttrated in Fiigure 12 off Andersonn, a new immage is dispplayed viaa
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`step 1000, an image orienntation is ddeterminedd via step 11002, and aa camera
`
`
`
`orienntation is ddeterminedd via step 1
`004. (Ex.
`
`
`1002, 8:455-47.) If thhe image
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`orienntation andd the camerra orientatiion are thee same, theen the imagge is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`decoompressed and resized to fill thee display vvia step 10006. (Ex. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ra orientat53.) If the imaage orientaation is diffferent fromm the camer
`ion,
`how
`
`
`
`ever, the immage is deecompresseed and resi
`
`
`zed to fit tthe displayy via step
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10088 and then the image data are sttored in thee frame buuffer in onee of two
`
`
`
`
`
`direcctions via sstep 1010, dependingg upon howw the imag
`
`e is to be rrotated.
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1002, 8:533-61.) Forr instance, if the imagge is to be
`
`resized froom a
`
`
`
`
`
`portrrait image to a landsccape orientted displayy, then the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`be rootated as thhe image iss being stored in the bbuffer. (EEx. 1002, 8
`:61-64.)
`
`002, 8:51--
`
`image wouuld need too
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2013--00016
`
`
`Patennt 6,441,8228
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Upon reviewing thhe cited porrtions of AAnderson aand RIM’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`explanations ass to how eaach elemennt of the chhallenged cclaims is mmet by
`And
`
`
`
`
`
`
`erson, we are persuaded that RIM has demmonstratedd that theree is a
`
`
`
`
`
`reasoonable likeelihood thaat it would prevail wiith respect
`
`to claims 66, 7, 17,
`s.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and 18 based oon the grouund that Annderson annticipates thhese claim
`
`
`agle aki and Kaver Nagasatentable Ov7 – UnpatC. Claaims 6 and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RIM assserts that cllaims 6 andd 7 are unppatentable
`
`under 35 UU.S.C.
`§ 10
`
`
`
`
`3(a) over NNagasaki aand Kagle. (Pet. 31-335.)
`
`Nagasakki disclosess an electroonic apparaatus (e.g.,
`
`
`
`
`a tablet or
`
`
`
`
`capaable of channging the oorientationn of a displ
`
`
`ayed pictuure based oon the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`deteccted orienttation of thhe apparatuus. (Ex. 10004, Abs.;
`1:30-33.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nagaasaki, reprroduced below, depiccts an electrtronic tableet:
`
`Figure 8 oof
`
`computer))
`
`
`
`FFigure 8 off Nagasakii depicts ann electronicc tablet.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`Casee IPR2013--00016
`
`
`Patennt 6,441,8228
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Nagasaaki, reprodduced beloww, depicts
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`compputer systeem:
`
`a block di
`
`
`
`agram of aa
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Referrinng to Figuree 1 of Naggasaki, Naggasaki’s appparatus haas an outpuut
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sectiion 102, e.gg., a LCD, a detectioon section 1103, a dispplay controoller 104, aa
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CPUU 106, a dissplay RAMM 105, a mmemory RAAM 107, annd a memo
`ry ROM
`
`detects thee
`
`
`
`
`
`108. (Ex. 10044, 3:40-4:115.) The deetection seection 103
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`orienntation of tthe informaation proceessor in usse and sendds a result oof the
`
`
`detecction to thee CPU 1066. (Id.) Thhe CPU 10
`
`
`6 controls
`
`
`
`of thhe informattion processsor. (Id.)
` The displ
`
`
`lay control
`
`ler 104 dissplays
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`inforrmation or images onn the outpuut section 1102 in accoordance wiith the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`are ffor storing display daata and conntrol proceddures. (Id..) Nagasakki’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`appaaratus also has a cardd interface tthat is capaable of recceiving an eexternal
`
`
`
`
`memmory card. (Ex. 10044, 14:27-355.)
`21
`
`content of a dissplay RAMM 105. (Idd.) The meemory RAMM 107 andd ROM 1088
`
`the overalll operationn
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00016
`Patent 6,441,828
`
`However, Nagasaki’s apparatus does not appear to perform the
`function of determining a direction in which an image of the image signal is
`to be displayed on the output section according to information on a direction
`in which an image of the image signal is to be displayed read from the
`recording medium. Nevertheless, RIM relies upon Kagle to describe that
`claimed feature. (Pet. 33-34.)
`Kagle describes a digital camera that has a sensor that indicates
`orientation of the camera at the time an image is captured. (Ex. 1005,
`1:65-67.) In particular, Kagle’s camera creates an image object in a
`predefined image format that indicates correct orientation of the image based
`on the orientation of the camera when the image was captured. (Ex. 1005,
`1:67-2:4.) Kagle’s invention eliminates the time-consuming step of
`previewing each picture as it is downloaded to a personal computer.
`(Ex. 1005, 4:51-53.) In one of Kagle’s embodiments, orientation
`information supplements actual pixel data, allowing the personal computer
`to rotate pictures automatically that were taken with the camera in a
`non-default orientation. (Ex. 1005, 4:53-57.) In another embodiment of
`Kagle, the camera itself automatically rotates the images before saving them
`or transferring them to a personal computer or other storage device.
`(Ex. 1005, 4:57-59.)
`The explanations provided by RIM as to how each element of claims
`6 and 7 is met by the combination of Nagasaki and Kagle have merit and are
`unrebutted. Further, RIM articulates a rationale to combine the cited prior
`art references. (Pet. 34.) Based on this record, RIM has demonstrated that
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00016
`Patent 6,441,828
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail on its assertion that claims
`6 and 7 are unpatentable over Nagasaki and Kagle.
`
`
`D. Claims 17 and 18 – Unpatentable Over Nagasaki, Kagle, and Jacklin
`RIM asserts that claims 17 and 18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Nagasaki, Kagle, and Jacklin. Claim 17 depends from claim 6
`and further adds the limitation “display mode selecting means for selecting
`one of a plurality of image displaying modes.” Claim 18 depends from
`claim 17 and recites the following additional limitations: (1) “wherein the
`image signal generating means generates an image for each of a plurality of
`menu items indicating the plurality of image displaying modes;” and (2)
`“one of the plurality of menu items is selected by the display mode selecting
`means.” RIM relies upon Jacklin to meet the additional limitations recited in
`claims 17 and 18. (Pet. 35-37.)
`Jacklin discloses an electronic picture frame for displaying digital
`images. (Ex. 1006, 1:5-16.) Jacklin’s electronic picture frame provides
`option buttons and setup parameters, which allow the operator to select the
`display modes, such as photograph sizing and shading, and automatic
`rotation of displayed photographs. (Ex. 1006, 6:44-54; 11:66-12:7.)
`The explanations provided by RIM as to how each element of
`claims 17 and 18 is met by Jacklin are persuasive. Further, RIM articulates
`a rationale to combine the cited prior art references. (Pet. 36.) On this
`record, RIM has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00016
`Patent 6,441,828
`
`will prevail on its assertion that claims 17 and 18 are unpatentable over
`Nagasaki, Kagle, and Jacklin.
`
`
`E. Claim 15 – Unpatentable Over Anderson in view of Helms and,
`alternatively, over Nagasaki, Kagle, and Helms
`RIM alleges that claim 15 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Anderson in view of Helms and, alternatively, over Nagasaki, Kagle,
`and Helms. (Pet. 29-31; 37-40.) Claim 15 depends from claim 6 and further
`re
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
