Paper No.
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SONY CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`Patent of YIS SUM RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF THE
`
`HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2013-00219 (SCM)1
`Patent 7,477,284
`
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CAPTURING AND VIEWING
`
`STEREOSCOPIC PANORAMIC IMAGES
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`1 The IPR2013-00327 proceeding has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`

`

`(cid:3)
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR. § 42.64(b)(l), Yissum Research Development
`
`Patent Owner’s Objection to Evidence
`1PR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (“Patent Owner”) objects to
`
`evidence submitted by Sony Corporation (“Petitioner”), which accompanies
`
`Petitioner’s Reply for the following reasons.
`
`1. Petitioner’s Exhibit SONY-1044 (Second Declaration of Dr. Trevor
`
`Darrell) is objected to under 37 CFR § 42.23(b) and under 37 CFR §
`
`42.123.2 Exhibit SONY-1044 at paragraphs 23-26, in connection with
`
`the discussion of the Asahi reference, constitutes new evidence that could
`
`have been presented in a prior filing (i. e., with the Petition or within one
`
`month of the date the trial was instituted pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.123).
`
`
`
`In filing its Petition, however, Petitioner made a strategic decision to not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`have its expert declarant, Dr. Darrell, provide any testimony whatsoever
`
`regarding the Asahi reference. 3 Petitioner also failed to file supplemental
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`2 See also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 11.1, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48787
`(Aug. 14, 2012) (“[A]a reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence
`will not be considered and may be returned. The Board will not attempt to sort
`proper from improper portions of the reply. Examples of indications that a new
`issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence necessary to make out a
`prima facie case for the patentability or unpatentability of an original or proposed
`substitute claim, and new evidence that could have been presented in a prior
`filing”) (emphasis added); see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 11.1, 77 Fed.
`Reg. 48707, Comments 91-93.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 See e.g., Exhibit SONY-1013 (Dr. Darrell provided declaration testimony
`regarding Kawakita and Ishiguro but not Asahi.)
`(cid:3)
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Objection to Evidence
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`evidence within one month of the date the trial was instituted pursuant to
`
`37 CFR § 42.123. Moreover, when Patent Owner attempted to cross-
`
`examine Dr. Darrell regarding the Asahi reference, Petitioner objected as
`
`beyond the scope.4 Because Petitioner could have submitted the
`
`declaration evidence of Exhibit SONY-1044 regarding the Asahi
`
`reference in a prior filing, the submission of such evidence is improper
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and contrary to 37 CFR § 42.23(b) and 37 CFR § 42.123.5
`
`. Petitioner’s Exhibit SONY-1042 (Wikipedia entry) is objected to under
`
`37 CFR § 42.23(b) and under 37 CFR § 42.123. Exhibit SONY-1042
`
`constitutes new evidence that could have been presented in a prior filing
`
`instituted pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.123). Because Petitioner could have
`
`(i. e., with the Petition or within one month of the date the trial is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SONY-1042 is contrary to 37 CFR § 42.23(b) and 37 CFR § 42.123.
`
`submitted Exhibit SONY-1042 in a prior filing, the submission of Exhibit
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`4 Exhibit YRD-2008 at 131 (“Q. Are you familiar with an Asahi article in this
`case? MR. HANLEY: Objection, beyond the scope of the direct”)
`
`5 See e.g., Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Evnirotech, Inc, IPR2013-00106 (Paper
`24) (Denying motion to introduce new expert declaration evidence that could have
`been presented with the Petition); See also Blackberry Corp. v. Mobilemedia
`Ideas, LLC, IPR2013-00036 (Paper 40) (Recognizing that the Trial Practice Rules
`state that “a reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence will not be
`considered” and granting leave to Petitioner to re-file its Reply to eliminate such
`new evidence.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`!
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"
`
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`#
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`$
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`%
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`&
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Objection to Evidence
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`3. Further, Petitioner’s Exhibit SONY-1042 is objected to because it is
`
`hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence (“FRE”) 801 and inadmissible
`
`under FRE 802-807. Exhibit SONY-1042 purports to be a printout of a
`
`Wikipedia entry related to stereoscopy. The Reply at 13 relies on
`
`statements of Exhibit SONY-1042 in asserting that the image reproduced
`
`in the Reply was made from images taken from 100 feet apart. Patent
`
`Owner notes that the relied upon statements of Exhibit SONY-1042 are
`
`nothing more than hearsay (i. e., out-of—court statement offered to prove
`
`the truth of the matter asserted). Further, Patent Owner notes the Board
`
`has already found statements in Wikipedia entries to be inherently
`
`'
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`untrustworthy.6 As a result, Exhibit SONY-1042 is inadmissible
`
`hearsay.
`
`4. Further still, Exhibit SONY-1042 is objected to because it has not been
`
`properly authenticated as required by FRE 901. As noted above, Exhibit
`
`SONY-1042 purports to be a Wikipedia entry related to stereoscopy.
`
`Petitioner has not submitted any sworn testimony attesting to the
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`6 See, e.g., Ex parte Bailey, No. 2010-010310, Application No. 11,168,650, 2013
`Pat. App. LEXIS 2470 (Pat. App. Apr. 25, 2013) (“Wikipedia has limited
`probative value in view of its dubious reliability. Among other things, Wikipedia
`is not peer reviewed, the authors are unknown, and apparently anyone can
`contribute”)
`(cid:3)
`
`( (cid:3)
`
`
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`!
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`#
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Objection to Evidence
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`authenticity of the contents of Exhibit SONY-1042.7 In addition, it is
`
`noted that Exhibit SONY-1042 is not a self-authenticating document. As
`
`a result, Exhibit SONY-1042 is inadmissible as lacking authentication
`
`under FRE 901.
`
`*
`
`These objections are timely presented, as they are served and submitted
`
`within five business days of the service of such evidence. 37 CPR. § 42.64(b)(1).
`
`Patent Owner reserves the right to file a motion to exclude the evidence identified
`
`herein as improper.
`
`Patent Owner will request a call with the Board to facilitate discussion
`
`regarding these objections to evidence.
`
`
`Dated: March 27 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`
`David L. McCombs
`
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Customer No. 27683
`
`Telephone: 214/651-5116
`Facsimile: 214/200-0853
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 50519.3
`
`+ (cid:3)
`
`
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`$
`
`
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`7 See, e.g., Novak, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21269, *17-18 (“As Novak proffers
`neither testimony nor sworn statements attesting to the authenticity of the contested
`web page exhibits by any employee of the companies hosting the sites from which
`plaintiff printed the pages, such exhibits cannot be authenticated as required under
`the Rules of Evidence”) (citations omitted, emphasis added).
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`&
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`&
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Objection to Evidence
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`SONY CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`Patent of YISSUM RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF THE
`
`HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2013-00219 (SCM)8
`Patent 7,477,284
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CAPTURING AND VIEWING
`
`STEREOSCOPIC PANORAMIC IMAGES
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.205, that
`
`service was made on the Petitioner as detailed below.
`
`-
`
`Documents served PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE
`
`Date ofservice March 27, 2014
`Manner ofservice Electronic Mail: (Sony-HumanEyes@kenyon.com);
`Walter Hanley (whanley@kenyon.com); and
`Michelle Carniaux (mcarniaux@kenyon.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(l)
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`
`David L. McCombs
`
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Persons served Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`&
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`%
`
`
`
`-
`
`(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`8 The IPR2013-00327 proceeding has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`