Paper No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`SONY CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent of YISSUM 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
`_____________________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`_____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION
`REGARDING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY WITNESS DR. TREVOR DARRELL
`
`
`1 The IPR2013-00327 proceeding has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`SONY CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent of YISSUM 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
`_____________________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`_____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION
`REGARDING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY WITNESS DR. TREVOR DARRELL
`
`
`1 The IPR2013-00327 proceeding has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
` Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`Yissum Research Development Company of the Hebrew University of
`
`Jerusalem (“Patent Owner”) submits the following observations regarding the
`
`cross-examination of Sony (“Petitioner”) reply declarant Dr. Trevor Darrell,
`
`pursuant to the teleconference with the Board on April 23, 2014, and the Order of
`
`April 25, 2014, (Paper 42).
`
`Patent Owner requests that the Board enter the instant Motion and consider
`
`the observations. Observations 1-7 below pertain to the cross-examination
`
`deposition testimony of Dr. Trevor Darrell, obtained on April 15, 2014, after
`
`Patent Owner had filed its Response. In addition, and in accordance with the Trial
`
`Guide, each of the observations provide in a single paragraph a concise statement
`
`of the relevance of the precisely identified testimony to a precisely identified
`
`argument.
`
`II. KAWAKITA OBSERVATIONS
`1.
`
`In YRD-2014 on page 17 lines 13-16, Dr. Darrell testified that he was
`
`unable to fuse the printed image of YRD-2007 “because of the printing artifacts
`
`and other normal reproduction issues” and at page 18 lines 3-5 Dr. Darrell
`
`admitted that his “perception of stereo has never been a strong one.” This
`
`testimony is relevant to the testimony at ¶ 22 of SONY-1044, where Dr. Darrell
`
`stated the he was “unable to fuse many elements of the image [of YRD-2007]. . .
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`
`these parts of the image appear as overlapping or double images” and based on this
`
`apparent fusion failure, Dr. Darrell’s concluded that an image pair is stereoscopic
`
`“even if stereo fusion is not possible as to all objects along all lines of sight in the
`
`image.” The testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that the image of YRD-
`
`2007 does not actually have overlapping objects, but rather that the combination of
`
`Dr. Darrell’s poor sense of stereovision and printing artifacts/reproduction issues
`
`lead him to see overlapping images. This testimony is further relevant because it
`
`demonstrates that Dr. Darrell’s conclusion that an image is stereoscopic “even if
`
`stereo fusion is not possible as to all objects” is not based on any fact or data, and
`
`consequently “is entitled to little or no weight,” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).
`
`2.
`
`In YRD-2014 on page 63 lines 4-10, Dr. Darrell testified that he puts
`
`“significant weight” on the relative terms “faithful” and “faithfully” in the
`
`Kawakita translation of SONY-1004 because “it was clearly used in the
`
`disclosure,” at page 139 lines 19-22 and at page 141 lines 4-5, Dr. Darrell later
`
`admitted that in YRD-2013, the original certified Kawakita translation produced by
`
`Sony in previous litigation, the relative terms “faithfully” and “faithful” are not
`
`used. (See YRD-2013 at 5-8 “a normal panorama image can be viewed,” “normal
`
`stereo vision is not possible,” “in order to achieve proper stereo vision while
`
`viewing the actual panoramic image,” and “the results showed that the object in
`
`focus was not seen in double vision, and the sense of depth could be properly
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`
`reproduced.”) This testimony is relevant to ¶¶ 21-22 of SONY-1044, where Dr.
`
`Darrell’s relies heavily on the relative terms “faithful” and “faithfully” in
`
`concluding that Kawakita used these terms to refer to accurate depth perception
`
`and that a perception of depth is possible when stereo fusion is not possible as to
`
`all objects. The testimony is relevant because it undermines Dr. Darrell’s
`
`conclusion since the original Kawakita translation produced by Sony did not use
`
`the relied upon relative terms “faithful” and “faithfully.” (Compare YRD-2013 at
`
`sections 5-7 to SONY-1004 at sections 5-7)
`
`III. ASAHI OBSERVATIONS
`3.
`
`In YRD-2014 on page 31 lines 10-16, Dr. Darrell testified that if an image
`
`has 100 vertical lines, “there needs to be at least 99 percent overlap from frame to
`
`frame where a single line is being taken” and on page 108 lines 1-24 Dr. Darrell
`
`admitted that in Asahi “the photographing position therefore need[s] to advance
`
`from frame to frame no more than one line . . . similar to what we described earlier.
`
`. . needing almost 99 percent overlap.” This testimony is relevant to ¶ 23 of
`
`SONY-1044, where Dr. Darrell concludes that the images of Asahi “could be
`
`viewed . . . and provide a perception of depth.” The testimony is relevant because
`
`the Asahi reference, SONY-1010 at ¶¶ [0030]- [0035], expressly teaches extracting
`
`a single forward, middle, rearward line from each frame, where “the overlap
`
`percentage is 60%” from scene to scene (in Asahi a frame consists of two fields
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`
`and a field is a scene). Accordingly, Dr. Darrell’s testimony that 99% overlap is
`
`required contradicts his conclusion at ¶ 23 of SONY-1044, because the images of
`
`Asahi cannot be viewed to provide a perception of depth since they are created
`
`from scenes that only have 60% overlap.
`
`4.
`
`In YRD-2014 on page 124 lines 14-19, Dr. Darrell noted that the original
`
`Asahi translation, produced by Sony in previous litigation and identified as YRD-
`
`2012, at ¶ [0035] does not use the term “stereoscopic viewing.” (See YRD-2012 at
`
`¶ [0035] discussing a “3D image.”) This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s Reply
`
`(Paper 37 at page 9) where Petitioner asserts that “[t]he fact that [in ¶ 0035]
`
`‘stereoscopic viewing’ is used in a particular unique context in Asahi underscores
`
`that its meaning is distinct.” The testimony is relevant because it contradicts
`
`Petitioner’s assertion by demonstrating that the original Asahi translation produced
`
`by Sony (YRD-2012) actually did not use the term “stereoscopic viewing.” This
`
`testimony is also relevant because the Board in its Decision to Institute IPR (Paper
`
`16 at 32) relied on this term as allegedly used in Asahi (SONY-1010).
`
`5.
`
`In YRD-2014 on page 83 lines 3-6, Dr. Darrell testified that Asahi’s “digital
`
`elevation map [is] a 3D image of the scene;” on page 84 line 16 to page 85 line l20
`
`Dr. Darrell testified that image No. 2 illustrated in YRD-2011 is a typical 3D
`
`image that would result from Asahi’s method; on page 95 lines 19-25 Dr. Darrell
`
`testified that the 3D image map of Asahi is different than a stereoscopic image;
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`
`and on page 124 lines 14-19, Dr. Darrell admitted that the original Asahi
`
`translation produced by Sony in previous litigation (YRD-2012 at ¶ [0035]),
`
`discusses viewing a “3D image” not “stereoscopic viewing.” This testimony is
`
`relevant to Dr. Darrell’s reply declaration testimony at ¶¶ 23-24 of SONY-1044, in
`
`which he relies heavily on the phrase “stereoscopic viewing” as allegedly used at ¶
`
`[0035] of SONY-1010. The testimony is relevant because it undermines Dr.
`
`Darrell’s conclusion that “the usages of the term ‘stereoscopic viewing’ . . . refer
`
`to human viewing stereoscopic images.” The testimony is also relevant because it
`
`supports Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 35 at 25-32) that Asahi is actually
`
`directed to creating a 3D image map and does not disclose stereoscopic images that
`
`provide a perception of depth to a person.
`
`6.
`
`In YRD-2014 on page 104 line 24 to page 105 line 11, Dr. Darrell testified
`
`that he could not recall in Asahi an “express disclosure of horizontal adjustment
`
`for human viewing,” and that “horizontal adjustment of images specifically for
`
`human viewing” is not a necessary component of Asahi’s disclosed process of
`
`creating digital elevation maps. The testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s assertion
`
`(Paper 3 at 45) that Asahi renders the claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102. This
`
`testimony is relevant because it contradicts Petitioner’s assertion since Asahi fails
`
`to expressly or inherently disclose (as required by 35 U.S.C. § 102) that the images
`
`are specifically aligned horizontally for human viewing, and such alignment is
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`
`necessary of stereoscopic images that provide a perception of depth to a person.
`
`As such, Petitioner has not demonstrated that Asahi anticipates the claims under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102.
`
`7.
`
`In YRD-2014 on page 149 lines 1-8, Dr. Darrell, in connection with Asahi,
`
`noted that images with parallax in the vertical direction can be viewed by rotating
`
`the images sideways. The testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s assertion (Paper 3 at
`
`45) that Asahi anticipates the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102. This testimony is
`
`relevant because it contradicts Petitioner’s assertion since Asahi fails to expressly
`
`or inherently disclose (as required by 35 U.S.C. § 102) that the images are rotated
`
`sideways to account for vertical parallax to allow for human viewing. As such,
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated that Asahi anticipates the claims under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Patent Owner requests that the instant Motion for Observation be entered
`
`and considered by the Board.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 13, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Registration No. 32,271
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`IPR2013-00219
`
`Sony Corp.
`
`v.
`
`Yissum Research Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
`
`
`
`Yissum Research Development Company’s Exhibit List
`
`May 13, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`YRD-2001
`
`Affidavit of Mr. William P. Nelson in Support of Motion for Pro
`
`Hac Vice Admission.
`
`YRD-2002
`
`Affidavit of Mr. Robert L. Gerrity in Support of Motion for Pro
`
`Hac Vice Admission.
`
`YRD-2003
`
`Depth Perception Defined,
`
`http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/stereoscopy-stereoscopic-
`
`imaging
`
`YRD-2004
`
`Declaration of Robert Gerrity In Support of Opposition to
`
`Joinder.
`
`YRD-2005
`
`Declaration of Vered Levy-Ron In Support of Opposition to
`
`Joinder.
`
`YRD-2006
`
`Photogrammetry Defined, Webster’s II New College Dictionary,
`
`Third Edition, 2005, page 849.
`
`YRD-2007
`
`Exemplary Stereoscopic Image.
`
`YRD-2008
`
`Deposition of Dr. Trevor Darrell, November 6, 2013.
`
`YRD-2009
`
`CV of Irfan Essa Ph.D.
`
`YRD-2010
`
`Declaration of Irfan Essa Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Currently Filed
`
` Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`YRD-2011
`
`3D Images of Digital Elevation Maps.
`
`YRD-2012
`
`Sony’s Original Translation of Asahi.
`
`YRD-2013
`
`Sony’s Original Translation of Kawakita.
`
`YRD-2014
`
`Deposition of Dr. Trevor Darrell, April 15, 2014.
`
`YRD-2015
`
`Hand Drawing of Optical Flow Calculation with Camera
`
`Rotating in the Center of an Axis.
`
`YRD-2016
`
`Hand Drawing of Optical Flow Calculation with Camera
`
`Rotating on an Arm About an Axis.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`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)2
`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.
`
`Date of service May 13, 2014
`Manner of service Electronic Mail: (Sony-HumanEyes@kenyon.com);
`Walter Hanley (whanley@kenyon.com); and
`Michelle Carniaux (mcarniaux@kenyon.com)
`
`Documents served PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION;
`UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST; AND
`EXHIBITS YRD-2011 through YRD-2016
`
`Persons served Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/David L. McCombs /
`David L. McCombs
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 The IPR2013-00327 proceeding has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
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
