UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`SONY CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`YISSUM RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF THE
`HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00219 (SCM)1
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,477,284
`Issue Date: Jan. 13, 2009
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CAPTURING AND VIEWING
`STEREOSCOPIC PANORAMIC IMAGES
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.23
`
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2013-00327 has been merged with this case.
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`SONY CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`YISSUM RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF THE
`HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00219 (SCM)1
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,477,284
`Issue Date: Jan. 13, 2009
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CAPTURING AND VIEWING
`STEREOSCOPIC PANORAMIC IMAGES
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.23
`
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2013-00327 has been merged with this case.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Patent Owner (“Yissum”) attempts to distinguish claims 1-4, 7, 10, 20, 27-29
`
`and 36-38 of U.S. Patent No. 7,477,284 (the “’284 Patent”) over the prior art on two
`
`bases: (1) that each of Kawakita and Asahi fails to teach “a processor [to] generate a
`
`plurality of mosaics . . . [that] provide a sense of depth of the scene”; and (2) that
`
`Asahi fails to teach “a display that receives a plurality of the mosaics and displays
`
`them so as to provide a sense of depth of the scene.” (Patent Owner’s Response
`
`(“Resp.”) 13, 24, 30). Yissum’s first argument relies a non-existent claim limitation.
`
`None of the claims call for a processor that generates mosaics that provide a sense of
`
`depth of the scene. Yissum rewrites the claims to incorporate a function of the
`
`display (“displays them so as to provide a sense of depth of the scene”) into the
`
`processor element. Yissum does not dispute that Kawakita discloses such a display.
`
`Yissum’s argument that Asahi does not disclose such a display relies on Prof.
`
`Essa’s opinion that “stereoscopic viewing” is not viewing, but instead is calculating
`
`height. Prof. Essa’s opinion is contradicted by the term itself, by the context in which
`
`the term appears, by the entirety of Asahi’s disclosure, by the usages of the term in
`
`other references, and by Prof. Darrell.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`II. The Board Should Find Claims 1-4, 7, 10, 20, 27-29 and 36-38
`Unpatentable
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1-4, 7, 10, 27-29, 36 and 38 Are Unpatentable Over Kawakita on
`the Grounds Stated in the Decision on Institution
`
`Yissum Relies on a Non-Existent “Processor” Limitation
`
`Yissum argues that claims 1-4, 7, 10, 27-29, 36 and 38 are patentable over
`
`Kawakita because Kawakita fails to teach “a processor [to] generate a plurality of
`
`mosaics . . . [that] provide a sense of depth of the scene.” (Resp. at 13). The claims
`
`contain no such limitation.
`
`Each of independent claims 1 and 27 is directed to an “imaging apparatus” that
`
`comprises “at least one imager,” “a processor” and “a display.” (Sony-1001 at 13:62 –
`
`14:13, 16:5-30). That the “processor” and the “display” are separate elements is clear
`
`from dependent claims 2 and 28, which each recite that “the imaging apparatus is a
`
`portable hand-held device including a housing for accommodating the at least one
`
`imager, the processor and the display.” (Id. at 14:14-17, 16:31-34). Independent claim
`
`38 is directed to a “method for processing image data” and contains no reference “a
`
`processor.” (Id. at 17:3-25). The final step of the method is “displaying a plurality of
`
`the mosaics so as to provide a sense of depth of the scene.” (Id. at 17:24-25).
`
`Yissum rewrites claims 1 and 27 by substituting ellipses for much of the claim
`
`text to obscure the fact that the “display,” not the processor, performs the function of
`
`“displaying [the mosaics] so as to provide a sense of depth of the scene.” Yissum
`
`does not argue that Kawakita fails to disclose such a display. Kawakita clearly does
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`disclose such a display, as the Board has correctly noted. (Decision on Institution
`
`(IPR2013—00219, Paper 16) (“Decision”) at 22-24).
`
`The Board has construed the term “display” to mean “one or more elements
`
`that receive a plurality of the mosaics and display the plurality of mosaics so as to
`
`provide a sense of depth of the scene from which the mosaics were generated for
`
`viewing by a person.” (Decision at 22). Kawakita discloses that a “field test was
`
`conducted applying these techniques to panoramic images of an elevator hallway in
`
`which the distance to objects varies greatly.” (Sony-1004 at 18, § 7). The “panoramic
`
`images” are shown in Fig. 5, and were generated by mosaicking “slit images excised
`
`from frame images,” as described in §§ 2-5. (Sony-1004 at 16, § 5). Kawakita states
`
`that the mosaics were displayed to persons and provided a sense of depth: “As a result
`
`of stereoscopic viewing with alignment control of the panoramic images using the
`
`calculated depth parallax angles with 10 research personnel, there were no noticeable
`
`double images in the objects attended to, and the sense of depth was faithfully
`
`reproduced.” (Sony-1004 at 18, § 7). It is inherent that “one or more elements”
`
`received the mosaics to display them. Therefore, Kawakita does disclose a display, as
`
`defined by the Board. As noted above, Yissum does not argue otherwise.
`
`Instead, Yissum makes irrelevant arguments that all of Kawakita’s mosaic pairs
`
`that are capable of providing a sense of depth require parallax adjustment to align the
`
`images, that the adjustment is performed on one sight line direction at a time, and
`
`that, therefore, the processor does not generate mosaics that provide a sense of depth
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`of the entire scene. (Resp. at 13-17). However, under the Board’s construction, the
`
`display need only “display the plurality of mosaics so as to provide a sense of depth of
`
`the scene from which the mosaics were generated for viewing by a person.” This
`
`construction does not preclude adjustment of the mosaics to align them for display,
`
`nor does it require that the display provide a sense of depth along all sight line
`
`directions in the scene at one time. The Board has construed the term “sense of
`
`depth of the scene” to mean “the visual perception of differential distances among
`
`objects in a person’s line of sight.” (Decision at 17-18). Therefore, the construction
`
`is met if there is a perception of differential distances along a line of sight. Once
`
`adjustment is performed for a line of sight, a “sense of depth of the scene” is
`
`provided.” Therefore, Yissum’s irrelevant arguments should be rejected.
`
`2.
`
`Yissum’s Arguments Concerning the Non-Existent “Processor”
`Limitation Mischaracterize Kawakita’s Disclosure
`
`
`In attempting to distinguish Kawakita on the basis of the non-existent
`
`“processor” limitation, Yissum mischaracterizes Kawakita’s disclosure in two respects.
`
`First, Yissum contends that Kawakita discloses that all mosaic image pairs that are
`
`capable of providing a sense of depth require parallax adjustment. Second, Yissum
`
`contends that Kawakita discloses that the mosaic image pairs that require adjustment
`
`for “faithful stereoscopic viewing” provide no sense of depth without adjustment.
`
`Yissum is incorrect in both respects.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`a)
`
`Kawakita Does Not Disclose That All Mosaic Image Pairs That
`Are Capable of Providing a Sense of Depth Require Adjustment
`
`Yissum’s argument that Kawakita’s mosaic image pairs require parallax
`
`adjustment in order to provide a sense of depth is based on the following passage:
`
`When the left and right panoramic images obtained using the foregoing
`procedure are viewed binocular stereoscopically, a stereoscopic view is
`possible that faithfully reproduces the positional relationships, if the
`image was captured from a sufficient distance. However, if the camera
`was placed at a comparatively close distance, or if the distance from the
`camera to the objects varies greatly, the positions representing the left
`and right panoramic images must be adjusted.
`
`(Sony-1004 at 16-17).
`
`As the Board correctly observed in the Decision on Institution, this passage
`
`states that Kawakita’s unadjusted mosaic pairs “faithfully reproduce the positional
`
`relationships” unless: (1) the camera is too close to the objects, or (2) the distance
`
`from the camera to the objects varies greatly. (Decision at 23; Sony-1004 at 16).
`
`However, Yissum argues that the passage refers to two scenarios: (1) the
`
`objects in the image are at roughly the same distance, and (2) the objects are at
`
`different distances. (Resp. at 13-15). Yissum ignores the word “greatly” in Kawakita’s
`
`second exception. That is, Yissum mischaracterizes the second exception to include
`
`any variation of object distance, not just great variation. (Resp. at 1314). Yissum then
`
`argues adjustment is required in all instances, because depth perception requires
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`objects to be at different distances and Kawakita’s images require adjustment if
`
`objects are at different distances. (Resp. at 14-15).
`
`Yissum relies on Prof. Essa’s testimony, which asserts that adjustment is
`
`required because Kawakita’s use of optical flow results in the left and right image
`
`strips in a given image having different widths. (YRD-2010 (Essa Decl.) at ¶¶ 32-33).
`
`However, on cross examination, Prof. Essa conceded that Kawakita describes
`
`extracting left and right strips of the same width in a given image. (Sony-1043 at
`
`140:16-20; Sony-1003 at 16; Sony-1044 at ¶ 19). Further, Prof. Essa agreed that
`
`where neither of Kawakita’s two exceptions applies, faithful stereoscopic viewing is
`
`possible without adjustment, and Kawakita’s second exception does not include
`
`variations in object distance that are not great variations. (Sony-1043 at 144:6
`
`156:25).
`
`Therefore, Kawakita does in fact disclose the generation of mosaic image pairs
`
`that provide a sense of depth without adjustment.
`
`b) Even Kawakita’s Mosaic Image Pairs that Require Adjustment
`for “Faithful Stereoscopic Viewing” Can Provide a Perception
`of Depth Without Adjustment
`Prof. Darrell did not make inconsistent statements on cross examination, as
`
`Yissum contends, in testifying that unadjusted image pairs recorded under the
`
`Kawakita’s exceptional conditions (object too close; object distance varies greatly) can
`
`nevertheless provide a perception of depth. (Resp. 17-21; YRD-2008 at 58:22 - 60:5).
`
`Kawakita states that adjustment is required only for “faithful stereoscopic viewing,” i.e.,
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`adjustment that results in “no noticeable double images in the objects attended to.”
`
`(Sony-1003 at 18 (emphasis added); Sony-1044 at ¶ 22). Therefore Kawakita equates
`
`“faithful stereoscopic viewing” with no noticeable double images at all, i.e., near
`
`perfect stereoscopic viewing. (YRD-2008 at 59:8-16).
`
`Prof. Darrell explained that an image pair that produces an imperfect
`
`perception of depth is still a stereoscopic image pair. (YRD-2008 at 59:17 – 60:5).
`
`Prof. Darrell also explained that where object distances vary greatly, “it’s difficult to
`
`have a perception of depth that is consistent for all objects.” (Id. at 63:7-23). That is
`
`because disparities along different lines of sight vary with object distance. (Sony-1044
`
`at ¶¶ 22, 23). The disparities with respect to some objects in the scene may permit
`
`stereo fusion but may not with respect to other objects. (Id.).
`
`The fact that a stereoscopic image pair can provide a perception of depth along
`
`one line of sight but not others is confirmed by Prof.’s Essa’s own example, the YRD-
`
`2007 anaglyph. Prof. Essa has testified that “[w]hen viewed with a pair of red/cyan
`
`glasses, the images of exhibit YRD-2007 are a stereoscopic image pair that can be
`
`stereoscopically fused by a person so as to provide a perception of depth where a lion
`
`is perceived in the foreground and a building is perceived in the background.” (YRD-
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`2010 at ¶ 25). 2 Prof. Darrell agrees. (YRD-2008 at 34:19 – 35:8). However, when a
`
`viewer’s line of sight is directed to the flagpole in the background, the viewer sees a
`
`double image. (Sony-1044 at ¶ 23). Other elements of YRD-2007 appear double
`
`when viewed with red/cyan glasses. (Sony-1044 at ¶ 23). Yet, both experts agree that
`
`YRD-2007 is a stereoscopic image pair that provides a perception of depth. (YRD-
`
`2010 at ¶ 25; YRD-2008 at 34:19 – 35:5; Sony-1044 at ¶ 23).
`
`B.
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 20, 27, 29 and 37 Are Unpatentable Over Asahi on the
`Grounds Stated in the Decision on Institution
`
`Asahi Does Disclose the Claimed “Display”
`
`Yissum argues that Asahi does not teach “a display that receives a plurality of
`
`the mosaics and displays them so as to provide a sense of depth of the scene” because
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art as of 1998 would understand “stereoscopic
`
`viewing” in Asahi to mean calculating height. (Resp. at 24-30). Yissum relies on the
`
`opinion of Prof. Essa. (YRD-2010 at ¶ 48-49). Prof. Essa’s opinion is contradicted
`
`by the term itself, by the context in which the term appears, by the entirety of Asahi’s
`
`disclosure, by the usages of the term in other references, and by Prof. Darrell.
`
`
`2 Because of a vision problem, Prof. Essa testified he is unable to stereoscopically
`
`view YRD-2007, but formed his conclusions on “the fact that this is a standard image
`
`from the web known to have these properties.” (Sony-1043 at 106:3 – 107:7).
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`First, the ordinary meaning of “viewing” is not “calculating.” Viewing is
`
`seeing. (Sony-1045; Sony-1046).
`
`Second, the term “stereoscopic viewing” appears only once in Asahi’s
`
`disclosure, in reference to mosaics of images recorded under special conditions: where
`
`the “travel speed when imaging is constant, and the orientation of the camera is also
`
`constant.” (Sony-1006 at ¶ 0035). Asahi then addresses the need for vertical parallax
`
`removal as part of the process of calculating height under the variables of flying
`
`speed, flight path deviations, and altitude changes, among other things, that typify
`
`video imaging from aircraft. (Sony-1006 at ¶ 0036-0071; see also Fig. 4). Prof. Essa
`
`states that “stereoscopic viewing,” “does not refer to displaying images to a person,”
`
`but supports his opinion only by citing uses of other terms in Asahi: “stereoscopic
`
`image,” “stereo images,” and “stereo matching.” (YRD-2010 at ¶ 49). The fact that
`
`“stereoscopic viewing” is used in a particular unique context in Asahi underscores that
`
`its meaning is distinct from the other terms Prof. Essa cites as being associated in
`
`Asahi with calculating height.
`
`Third, height calculation is specifically addressed extensively in Asahi, and
`
`where addressed, the language is clear. (e.g., Sony-1006 at Abstract (“height is
`
`calculated”), Claim 1 (“height calculation step”), Claim 11 (“height calculation
`
`means”), ¶ 0008 (“Heights are calculated”), ¶ 0010 (“heights are calculated”), ¶ 0056
`
`(“calculating height”), ¶ 0063 (“height can be calculated”), ¶ 0070 (“height data can be
`
`computed”)).
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`Fourth, other references use the term “stereoscopic viewing” and “stereo
`
`viewing” to refer to human viewing of stereoscopic images. Kawakita uses the terms
`
`“stereoscopic viewing” and “stereo viewing” to refer to human viewing. (Sony-1003
`
`at 14 (“stereo viewing”), 16, 17, 18, 19 (“stereoscopic viewing”); Sony-1043 at 212:18
`
`– 213:23; Sony-1044 at ¶ 28). Helava (Sony-1042) also uses the term “stereo
`
`viewing,” in the context of stereo images for photogrammetry, to refer to human
`
`viewing of a display of stereoscopic image pair. (Sony-1011 at 70; Sony-1044 at ¶ 28).
`
`Finally, Prof. Darrell opines that although a person of ordinary skill in the art as
`
`of 1998 might understand terms such as “stereo images” and “stereoscopic images” to
`
`refer to images for calculating distance, depending on the context, the word “viewing”
`
`would have been understood to refer to human observation. (Sony-1044 at ¶ 24). In
`
`contrast, as noted above, Prof. Essa supports his opinion that “stereoscopic viewing,”
`
`“does not refer to displaying images to a person,” by avoiding the word “viewing” and
`
`instead citing the usages in Asahi of other terms, e.g., “stereoscopic image.” (YRD-
`
`2010 at 49 (emphasis added)).
`
`2.
`
`Yissum’s Argument Concerning the Non-Existent “Processor”
`Limitation With Respect to Asahi Should Be Rejected
`
`As with Kawakita, Yissum attempts to distinguish the claims over Asahi based
`
`on a “processor” limitation that is not recited in any claim, i.e., that Asahi fails to teach
`
`“a processor [to] generate a plurality of mosaics . . . [that] provide a sense of depth of
`
`the scene.” (Resp. at 30). Yissum’s argument should be rejected on that basis alone.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`However, Yissum’s argument with respect to Asahi is also premised on an
`
`additional error. Yissum states that “to construct images capable of providing a
`
`perception of depth to a person, the images must be generated in accordance with the
`
`separation and from the perspective of human eyes.” (Resp. at 30). Yissum cites two
`
`passages from U.S. Patent No. 6,665,003 (the “’003 Patent”), which is incorporated by
`
`reference into the ’284 Patent. (See Resp. at 30, citing Sony-1001 [sic: Sony-1002] at
`
`2:55-59 and 3:8-31). Neither of these passages supports the proposition that only
`
`images “generated in accordance with the separation and from the perspective of
`
`human eyes” can provide a perception of depth to a person. Moreover, the ’003
`
`Patent explicitly discloses that images recorded from viewpoints separated by
`
`distances (called the “baseline”) that are larger or smaller than the distance between
`
`human eyes will provide a sense of depth when viewed by a person.3 (Sony-1002 at
`
`7:17-26; Sony-1044 at ¶ 9).
`
`3 Another patent that the ’284 Patent incorporates by reference—U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,831,677 (the “’677 Patent”)—explains the concept of “disparity,” which affects
`
`whether stereo fusion will occur on viewing a stereoscopic pair of images. (Sony-1001
`
`at 1:34-40; Sony-1041 at 1:26-57). Disparity in the context of a stereoscopic pair of
`
`images “will depend on the distance of the points in the scene from the position at
`
`which the images were recorded and the distance between the viewpoints at which the
`
`images were recorded.” (Sony-1041 at 1:54-57). By increasing the baseline for distant
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`The ’003 Patent differentiates between “normal stereoscopy”—in which a pair
`
`of images are recorded using a baseline that approximates the distance between
`
`human eyes—and “exaggerated” or “reduced” stereo—in which a pair of images is
`
`recorded using a baseline that is larger or smaller, respectively than the approximate
`
`distance between human eyes. (Sony-1002 at 7:17-26, 11:21-26; Sony-1043 at 82:11-
`
`15, 86:3-11; Sony-1044 at ¶ 9). “Normal stereoscopy” images will reproduce the same
`
`perception of depth that the viewer would have in viewing the scene directly, whereas
`
`“exaggerated” or “reduced” stereo images will provide a perception of depth, but not
`
`the same perception of depth that the viewer would have in viewing the scene
`
`directly. (Sony-1043 at 95:16-96:3; Sony-1044 at ¶ 9). “Exaggerated stereo” images of
`
`distant objects, also referred to as “hyper stereo” by those skilled in the art, can
`
`provide a perception of depth to a human viewer that the viewer would not
`
`experience in viewing the scene directly because the distance is too great to perceive
`
`depth with unaided vision.4 (Sony-1044 at ¶ 16; Sony-1042). For example, the
`
`objects and decreasing the baseline for close objects, an equivalent disparity could be
`
`provided “that would be within the range such that a person could perceive depth in
`
`viewing the images.” (Sony-1044 at ¶ 14).
`
`4 The ’677 Patent explains that the “maximum stereoscopic range, however, can be
`
`extended by use of aids such as binoculars, which, in addition to magnifying, can also
`
`serve to increase the baseline.” (Sony-1041 at 1:38-41; Sony-1044 at ¶ 12).
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`anaglyph below, which appears in the Wikipedia article referenced in the source of
`
`Yissum’s definition of “stereoscopy” (YRD-2003), was made from images recorded
`
`100 feet apart. (Sony-1044 at ¶ 16; Sony-1040 at 13).
`
`
`
`Therefore, the fact that Asahi’s images are not “generated in accordance with
`
`the separation and from the perspective of human eyes” (Resp. at 30) is irrelevant.
`
`Yissum also argues, based on Prof. Essa’s opinion, that Asahi’s images are not
`
`capable of providing a perception of depth because the images have defects. (Resp. at
`
`31-32; YRD-2010 at ¶ 52-53). Prof. Essa’s opinion is based on the fact that image of
`
`the letter “F” in Fig. 11 is warped. (YRD-2010 at ¶ 52). Asahi describes Fig. 11 as
`
`illustrating the assignment of “exterior orientation elements . . . to each line of the
`
`continuous mosaic image.” (Sony-1010 at ¶ 0036; Sony-1044 at ¶ 30). This step is
`
`described in a passage about the vertical parallax removal process, which is not
`
`required in the circumstance in which “stereoscopic viewing” is said to be possible.
`
`(Sony-1010 at ¶ 0035; Sony-1043 at 191:16-25; Sony-1044 at ¶ 30). According to
`
`Prof. Darrell, “if some defects were introduced in the mosaic images recorded under
`
`that circumstance, . . . the defects would not be so severe in every case as to preclude
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`depth from being perceived upon viewing an appropriate display of a pair of the
`
`mosaics.” (Sony-1044 at ¶ 30).
`
`Yissum finally argues that Asahi fails to teach “horizontal aligned images” for
`
`human viewing. (Resp. at 23). However, on cross examination, Prof. Essa could not
`
`say that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of 1998 would not know how to align
`
`stereoscopic image pairs for viewing. (Sony-1043 at 166:20 – 167:9). Prior art
`
`references “must be ‘considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art’.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting In re Samour,
`
`571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)). According to Prof. Darrell, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art as of 1998 “would understand that the left and right eye images must be
`
`horizontally aligned and would understand how to align the images,” as evidenced by
`
`“the numerous anaglyph images that were available at the time.” (Sony-1044 at ¶ 26).
`
`III. Conclusion
`Sony respectfully requests that claims 1-4, 7, 10, 20, 27-29 and 36-38 of the
`
`’284 Patent be cancelled.
`
`
`
`Dated: March 24, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_/s/ Walter Hanley__
`Walter Hanley, Lead Counsel, Reg. No 28,720
`whanley@kenyon.com
`Michelle Carniaux, Backup Counsel, Reg. No. 36,098
`mcarniaux@kenyon.com
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway, New York, NY 10004-1007
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4)
`
`I certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the forgoing to be served via
`
`Electronic Mail on the following:
`
`William Nelson and Robert Gerrity
`Robert.gerrity@tensegritylawgroup.com
`William.nelson@tensegritylawgroup.com
`Tensegrity Law Group LLP
`555 Twin Dolphin Dr., Suite 360
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`
`
`David McCombs and David O’Dell
`David.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`David.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`
`_/s/ Michael E. Sander __
`Michael E. Sander
`Reg. No. 71,667
`msander@kenyon.com
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel: 212-425-7200
`
`
`
`Dated: _ March 24, 2014___
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
