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 RESPONSE TO 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.
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`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 RESPONSE TO 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.
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00219, Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,477,284
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
` Pursuant to the Board’s Scheduling Order, see Paper No. 17, Petitioner Sony
`
`Corporation responds to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation, Paper No. 43
`
`(“Observations”).
`
`III. Response to Kawakita Observations
`1. Response to Paragraph 1: Regarding YRD-2007 (Lion Statue Anaglyph)
`
`Prof. Darrell did not testify that he was unable to fuse parts of YRD-2007 solely
`
`because of “printing artifacts and other normal reproduction issues.” Observations at
`
`¶ 1. He merely said that he had “less problem fusing the example on the web than . . .
`
`this particular printing because of the printing artifacts and other reproduction
`
`issues.” YRD-2014 at 17:9-16 (emphasis added). He further testified that he viewed
`
`YRD-2007 both at his prior deposition and on the Internet, and he would be unable
`
`to fuse elements of YRD-2007 “for any viewing of this image in any display.” YRD-
`
`2014 (Darrell Tr.) at 14:24 – 15:10. Although he testified that his “perception of
`
`stereo has never been a strong one,” his observations are entitled to greater weight
`
`than Prof. Essa’s, who testified that was unable to stereoscopically view YRD-2007 at
`
`all. Sony-1043 at 106:3 – 107:7. Moreover, Prof. Darrell’s conclusion that an image is
`
`stereoscopic “even if stereo fusion is not possible as to all objects” is supported by
`
`the well-known principle that disparity depends on object distance as well as the
`
`baseline, and, therefore, “a stereoscopic image pair can provide a perception of depth
`
`for objects that are within a given range of distances from the image recording
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00219, Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,477,284
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`position, but not for objects that are closer or farther away.” Sony-1044 at ¶ 21 (see
`
`also ¶ ¶ 10, 13).
`
`2. Response to Paragraph 2: Regarding YRD-2013, Kawakita Translation
`Produced to Patent Owner in I.T.C. Investigation.
`
`The questioning on YRD-2013 was irrelevant because Patent Owner waived any
`
`objection or argument about the accuracy of the Kawakita translation (Sony-1004)
`
`submitted with the Petition (and Patent Owner still has not contended that Sony-1004
`
`is inaccurate).2 Nevertheless, YRD-2013 is consistent with Sony-1004 in all relevant
`
`aspects. In particular YRD-2013 is consistent with Sony-1004 in stating that
`
`adjustment of the pair of panoramic images for viewing is only required in two
`
`exceptional circumstances (“when positioned at relatively close distances, or when the
`
`distance from the camera to the subject changes greatly”). Moreover, although YRD-
`
`2013 does not use the term “faithful” stereoscopic viewing, it uses other equivalent
`
`terms. Specifically, YRD-2013 characterizes the adjustment as being necessary for
`
`“normal stereo vision” and so that “the sense of depth could be properly reproduced.
`
`YRD-2013 at pp. 6, 8. Prof. Darrell testified that the terms “normal” and “proper”
`
`express the same concept as “faithful.” YRD-2014 at 139:19 – 140:3; 140:22 –
`
`141:11; 142:5-21.
`
`
`2 Petitioner more fully discusses the lack of relevancy of YRD-2013 in its Motion to
`
`Exclude Evidence, Paper No. 44.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00219, Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,477,284
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`IV. Asahi Observations
`3. Response to Paragraph 3: Regarding “99 percent overlap.”
`
`Patent Owner’s argument that Asahi teaches extracting a single forward, middle,
`
`rearward line from “frames” (more properly, field images) that overlap by 60% is not
`
`based on any testimony of Prof. Darrell, or even of Prof. Essa. And, the argument is
`
`incorrect. Asahi describes selecting entire field images that overlap by 60% in order to
`
`determine “exterior orientation elements,” which is part of the orientation calculation
`
`process of step S2 of Asahi’s method. Sony-1010 at [0029-0030]. Patent Owner
`
`conflates that process with the “continuous mosaic creation process” of step S3.
`
`Sony-1010 at [0034-0035]. In creating the mosaic images, “the leading line, the
`
`middle line, and the final line of each field” (not just fields that overlap 60%) is used,
`
`respectively, to create the forward view image, nadir view image and rearward view
`
`image. Sony-1010 at [0035]. Asahi explains that video is captured at 30 frames per
`
`second and each frame consists of an odd and even field. Sony-1010 at [0034]. Prof.
`
`Darrell testified that the “frame rate would be high enough so that you didn’t miss
`
`parts of the scene as you extracted those lines.” YRD-2014 at 108:9-16.
`
`4. Response to Paragraph 4: Regarding YRD-2012 Asahi Translation
`produced to Patent Owner in I.T.C. Investigation.
`
`The questioning on YRD-2012 is irrelevant because Patent Owner waived any
`
`objection or argument about the accuracy of the Asahi translation (Sony-1010)
`
`submitted with the Petition (and Patent Owner still has not contended that Sony-1010
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00219, Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,477,284
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`is inaccurate).3 Moreover, YRD-2012 actually refutes Patent Owner’s principal
`
`argument that Asahi describes creation of the mosaic images only for calculating
`
`height. The sentence in YRD-2012 that Patent Owner cites states that “a 3D image
`
`can be shown to the viewer.” YRD-2012 at [0035] (emphasis added). Prof. Darrell
`
`testified that this sentence expresses the same concept as the sentence in Sony-1010
`
`that states that “stereoscopic viewing is possible.” YRD-2014 at 125:8-15.
`
`5. Response to Paragraph 5: Regarding YRD-2012.
`
`The questioning on YRD-2012 is irrelevant because Patent Owner waived any
`
`objection or argument about the accuracy of the Asahi translation (Sony-1010)
`
`submitted with the Petition (and Patent Owner still has not contended that Sony-1010
`
`is inaccurate).4 Moreover, Prof. Darrell testified that the term “3D image” could
`
`“mean a lot of different things,” including a stereoscopic display of an image.” YRD-
`
`2014 at 126:12-18. Prof. Darrell further testified that he believed that in the sentence
`
`Patent Owner cites, the 3D image is a “stereoscopic 3D image” and that his opinion
`
`was not changed based on the different wording from Sony-1010. YRD-2014 at
`
`128:16 – 129:2.
`
`
`
`3 See supra fn. 2.
`
`4 See supra fn. 2.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00219, Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,477,284
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`6. Response to Paragraph 6: Regarding Horizontal Alignment.
`
`Prof. Darrell testified on cross-examination that horizontal adjustment for human
`
`viewing was “implicit” in Asahi’s disclosure. YRD-2014 at 103:21 – 104:4.
`
`Therefore, his testimony was consistent with his direct testimony that “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.” Sony-
`
`1044 at ¶ 26. The question to Prof. Darrell regarding whether horizontal adjustment
`
`was a necessary component for creating a digital elevation map was irrelevant because
`
`Prof. Darrell’s direct testimony was based on Asahi’s disclosure of stereoscopic
`
`viewing using the mosaic images, not on Asahi’s disclosure of the further processing
`
`done to calculate height in order to generate a digital elevation map. See Sony-1044 at
`
`¶ 26.
`
`7. Response to Paragraph 7: Regarding Vertical Parallax Adjustment.
`
`Patent Owner’s observation is beside the point. Prof. Darrell testified that the
`
`images for which Asahi states “stereoscopic viewing is possible” do not require
`
`vertical parallax adjustment. Sony-1044 at ¶ 26.
`
`V. Conclusion
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits that Patent Owner’s Observations are without
`
`merit.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00219, Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,477,284
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation
`
`
`Dated: May 28, 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
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: _ May 28, 2014___
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_/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
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
