UNITED STATES TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before The Honorable David P. Shaw
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-842
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN CAMERAS AND MOBILE
`DEVICES, RELATED SOFTWARE AND
`FIRMWARE, AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF AND PRODUCTS
`CONTAINING THE SAME
`
`
`
`COMPLAINANT HUMANEYES TECHNOLOGIES, LTD.’S OBJECTIONS AND
`RESPONSES TO THE SONY RESPONDENTS’ FIFTH SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 140-143)
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.27 and 210.29 of the International Trade
`
`Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. §§ 210.27 and 210.29, 19
`
`U.S.C. § 1333 and 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., the Ground Rules and the Protective Order
`
`(Order No. 1), Complainant HumanEyes Technologies, Ltd. (“HumanEyes”) hereby
`
`submits the following objections and responses to the Sony Respondents’ Fifth Set of
`
`Interrogatories (“the Interrogatories”).
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`As a preface to each and every response herein, HumanEyes qualifies its response
`
`by stating that it has not yet completed its investigation of the facts relating to this matter,
`
`has only recently initiated discovery, and has not completed its preparation for trial.
`
`Consequently, the responses set forth below are based on information known to
`
`HumanEyes at the time of the responses. HumanEyes may discover additional
`
`information, documents or facts that will add to the facts already known, or establish
`
`new or different factual contentions or legal positions. As a result, HumanEyes
`
`expressly reserves its right to rely on all facts, information and documents developed in
`
` 1
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Pat. No. 7,477,284
`IPR2013‐00219
`EXHIBIT
`Sony‐
`
`

`

`discovery or otherwise to supplement, amend and/or correct any or all of its
`
`responses.
`
`By making these responses, HumanEyes does not concede that the information
`
`given is properly discoverable or admissible, and HumanEyes reserves its right to
`
`object to the introduction of these responses into evidence for any purpose.
`
`GENERAL STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS
`
`HumanEyes makes the following General Objections to each and every one of
`
`Sony’s Interrogatories, and expressly incorporates them into the specific responses set
`
`forth below. The failure to refer specifically to a General Objection should not be
`
`construed as a waiver of that General Objection.
`
`HumanEyes’ responses to Sony’s Interrogatories are made without in any way
`
`waiving or intending to waive, but rather, to the contrary, preserving and intending to
`
`preserve:
`
`All questions as to the competence, relevance, materiality, and
`(a)
`admissibility as evidence for any purpose of the information or the subject matter thereof,
`in any aspect of this or any other administrative proceeding or investigation, court action
`
`or other judicial proceeding or investigation;
`
`(b)
`
`The right to object on any ground to the use of any such information, or
`
`the subject matter thereof, in any aspect of this or any other administrative proceeding
`
`or investigation, court action or other judicial proceeding or investigation;
`
`The right to object at any time for any further purpose to this or any
`(c)
`other Interrogatory; and
`(d)
`The right at any time to supplement this response.
`1.
`HumanEyes objects to Sony’s “Definitions” and “Instructions” to the
`
`extent they are inconsistent with the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure or
`
`the Ground Rules issued in this investigation. HumanEyes will respond to the
`
` 2
`
`

`

`Interrogatories only to the extent required by the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
`
`Procedure and said Ground Rules.
`
`2.
`
`HumanEyes objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks
`
`information or documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-
`
`product doctrine, the common interest and/or joint defense privilege, or any other
`
`applicable privilege, protection, or immunity. HumanEyes will provide information
`
`concerning documents withheld on the basis of privilege or protection by supplying a
`
`Privileged Document List, in a manner consistent with the Ground Rules and
`
`Commission Rules governing this Investigation.
`
`3.
`
`HumanEyes objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek
`
`disclosure of information protected by the rights of third party non-litigants and/or the
`
`disclosure of information subject to confidentiality agreements or protective orders.
`
`4.
`
`HumanEyes objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek
`
`information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses at issue in this investigation or
`
`not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, or are
`
`otherwise outside the proper scope of discovery.
`
`5.
`
`HumanEyes objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it uses terms
`
`that are not defined, understood, or are otherwise vague and ambiguous.
`
`6.
`
`HumanEyes objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal
`
`opinion or conclusion.
`
`7.
`
`HumanEyes objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks
`
`documents not within HumanEyes’ possession, custody, or control or which cannot be
`
`located after a reasonable search.
`
` 3
`
`

`

`8.
`
`HumanEyes objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks
`
`identification of “all” information or documents that relate to a particular subject on the
`
`grounds of overbreadth and undue burden and expense.
`
`9.
`
`HumanEyes objects to each Interrogatory to the extent the discovery
`
`sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other
`
`source, including but not limited to the Sony Respondents themselves, that is more
`
`convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. HumanEyes also objects to each
`
`Interrogatory to the extent Sony has had ample opportunity to obtain the information
`
`sought through other less-intrusive means. HumanEyes further objects to the
`
`Interrogatories to the extent the burden or expense of discovery sought outweighs its
`
`likely benefit.
`
`10.
`
`HumanEyes objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it sets no
`
`temporal limits on the scope of discovery sought. HumanEyes will meet and confer with
`
`Respondents to agree on a mutually acceptable time frame for which all parties shall
`
`produce documents.
`
`11.
`
`HumanEyes objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks
`
`information and/or documents that have not been generated by or provided to
`
`HumanEyes at the time of the response.
`
`12.
`
`HumanEyes objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
`
`and/or documents that HumanEyes has not had a full and/or fair opportunity to collect
`
`and review prior to responding.
`
`13.
`
`HumanEyes objects to the definitions of “HumanEyes,” “You,” and
`
`“Your” to the extent they purport to require HumanEyes to provide information that is
`
` 4
`
`

`

`not in HumanEyes’ possession, custody, or control and/or not known or reasonably
`
`available to HumanEyes. HumanEyes will respond with information that is within
`
`HumanEyes’ possession, custody, or control and can be located after a reasonable search
`
`of documents and facilities that are known or reasonably available to HumanEyes.
`
`14.
`
`HumanEyes objects to Sony’s definition of the term “Product” as vague,
`
`ambiguous, duplicative, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and calling for information
`
`not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and not reasonably calculated to lead
`
`to the discovery of admissible evidence. For example, this definition is overbroad in its
`
`temporal scope.
`
`15.
`
`HumanEyes objects to Sony’s definition of the term “Describe” to the
`
`extent it imposes any obligation to do anything other than produce documents responsive
`
`to the request as required by 19 C.F.R. §§ 210.29 and 210.30.
`
`16.
`
`HumanEyes objects to Sony’s definition of the term “Document” as
`
`overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive, calling for information outside the scope
`
`of discovery, and as seeking information and documents outside of HumanEyes’
`
`possession, custody, or control.
`
`17.
`
`HumanEyes objects to Sony’s definition of the term “Identify” as being
`
`overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive, calling for information outside the proper
`
`scope of discovery, and inconsistent with the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
`
`Procedure and the Ground Rules issued in this investigation.
`
`18.
`
`HumanEyes objects to Sony’s definition of the term “Person” as vague,
`
`ambiguous, unduly burdensome and oppressive, calling for information outside the
`
`proper scope of discovery, and inconsistent with the Commission’s Rules of Practice and
`
` 5
`
`

`

`Procedure and the Ground Rules issued in this investigation to the extent it expects
`
`HumanEyes to have knowledge of all directors, officers, owners, members, employees,
`
`agents, attorneys or other representatives acting on behalf of the “Person” that is the
`
`subject matter of any given Sony Request.
`
`19.
`
`HumanEyes objects to Sony’s definition of the terms “Refer to,”
`
`“Referring to,” “Relate to,” “Related to,” “Relating to,” “Regarding,” or “Concerning” as
`
`being overbroad, unduly burdensome and oppressive, calling for information outside the
`
`proper scope of discovery, and inconsistent with the Commission’s Rules of Practice
`
`and Procedure and the Ground Rules issued in this investigation.
`
`20.
`
`HumanEyes objects to the definition of “Software” as vague, ambiguous,
`
`duplicative, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and calling for information not relevant
`
`to the claims or defenses of any party and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence. HumanEyes will meet and confer with Sony to arrive
`
`at a mutually acceptable definition of the term “Software” that will guide the scope of
`
`discovery produced by both HumanEyes and Sony in this Investigation.
`
`21.
`
`HumanEyes objects to the definition of “Source Code” as vague,
`
`ambiguous, duplicative, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and calling for information
`
`not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and not reasonably calculated to lead
`
`to the discovery of admissible evidence. HumanEyes will meet and confer with Sony to
`
`arrive at a mutually acceptable definition of the term “Source Code” that will guide the
`
`scope of discovery produced by both HumanEyes and Sony in this Investigation.
`
`22.
`
`HumanEyes’ agreement to provide information or produce any documents
`
`is not a representation that any such information or documents actually exist, or that
`
` 6
`
`

`

`HumanEyes will produce documents in the category that are subject to immunity or
`
`privilege, or that HumanEyes will produce documents that are outside of its possession,
`
`custody, or control.
`
`Discovery is ongoing in this case. HumanEyes reserves the right to amend any
`
`and all responses and the right to produce additional relevant documents or
`
`information that may arise from further discovery, investigation and research
`
`regarding the issues raised in this investigation.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 140:
`
`INTERROGATORIES
`
`Separately, for each claim of the Patents-in-Suit and on an element by element
`
`basis, state all the bases for HumanEyes’ contention(s) that each claim is not invalid
`
`pursuant to any provision of 35 U.S.C. § 101, setting forth all facts upon which you base
`
`your contention and identifying all documents and other evidence that support your
`
`contention.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 140:
`
`HumanEyes incorporates the entirety of its Preliminary Statement and General
`
`objections as though fully set forth herein. HumanEyes also objects to this Interrogatory
`
`as vague and ambiguous, unduly broad and overly burdensome, to the extent it purports
`
`to require HumanEyes to “state all the bases for HumanEyes’ contention(s) that each
`
`claim is not invalid pursuant to any provision of 35 U.S.C. § 101”, given that Sony has
`
`not contended, e.g., in response to HumanEyes’ Interrogatory No. 78, that any claim is
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Sony has the burden of proof concerning invalidity, not
`
`HumanEyes; Sony having come forward with no contentions, and no proof, no further
`
`response by HumaEyes is necessary.
`
` 7
`
`

`

`INTERROGATORY NO. 141:
`
`Separately, for each claim of the Patents-in-Suit and on an element by element
`
`basis, state all the bases for HumanEyes’ contention(s) that the claims of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit are not invalid pursuant to any provision of 35 U.S.C. § 102, for each and every
`
`piece of prior art relevant to each of the Patents-in-Suit or related applications, including,
`
`without limitation, any reference identified by Sony in response to HumanEyes’
`
`Interrogatory Nos. 79 and 80 and identified by HumanEyes in response to Sony’s
`
`Interrogatory Nos. 20, 23, 26, and 40, including at least an identification of the particular
`
`claim limitations that you contend are missing from the prior art, setting forth all facts
`
`upon which you base your contention and identifying all documents and other evidence
`
`that support your contention(s).
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 141:
`
`HumanEyes incorporates the entirety of its Preliminary Statement and General
`
`objections as though fully set forth herein. In addition to its General Objections,
`
`HumanEyes objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks expert opinions or legal
`
`conclusions. HumanEyes further objects to this interrogatory because Sony’s invalidity
`
`contentions are deficient. For example, Sony has not provided claim charts of any kind
`
`for numerous references included in its response to HumanEyes’s Interrogatory No. 79 &
`
`89, or identified in its Notice of Prior Art served on August 29, 2012. If Sony
`
`supplements its claim charts to provide contentions for additional references, HumanEyes
`
`reserves the right to supplement its response to this interrogatory. Sony’s contentions
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are also deficient for failing to sufficiently identify which
`
`combinations of references it asserts invalidate the asserted claims. For example, there
`
`are combinations mentioned in Sony’s invalidity charts that are not described in its listing
`
`of obviousness combinations in its interrogatory response. Likewise, Sony includes
`
`combinations in its listing of obviousness combinations in its interrogatory response that
`
`are not described or mentioned in its invalidity charts. HumanEyes reserves the right to
`
` 8
`
`

`

`supplement its response to this interrogatory when and if Sony clarifies its interrogatory
`
`response or invalidity charts to provide specific contentions about which combinations it
`
`intends to rely upon. Additionally, the claim charts Sony provided in Exhibits A-M are
`
`deficient, and do not provide detailed contentions concerning how each limitation of the
`
`claims is met under each proposed construction, do not describe how each reference
`
`would enable the claims, and do not provide any motivation to combine references or any
`
`reason for one of skill in the art to modify the references to find the claims obvious under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103. To the extent Sony supplements its response to this interrogatory,
`
`HumanEyes reserves the right to respond by supplementing this response. Further,
`
`HumanEyes reserves the right to supplement its response based on final contentions,
`
`expert reports, documents referred to in expert reports, changes in proposed claim
`
`constructions, rulings of the ALJ, and ongoing discovery.
`
`As discussed below, the asserted claims are not anticipated or rendered obvious
`
`under any theory advanced by Sony.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,665,003
`
`The U.S. Patent No. 6,665,003 (“’003 patent”) describes, enables and claims an
`
`innovative combination of elements not found in the prior art. As discussed in
`
`HumanEyes’ response to Sony’s Interrogatories Nos. 3, 41, 44, and 46 concerning
`
`HumanEyes’ domestic industry for the ’003 patent, the invention claimed in the ’003
`
`patent is embodied in numerous HumanEyes products, and is the basis for substantial
`
`commercial activity in the United States aimed at practicing and exploiting the results of
`
`the invention. This is confirmed by the secondary considerations of non-obviousness
`
`discussed in HumanEyes’s response to Sony’s Interrogatory No. 15. The novelty and
`
`innovation in the asserted claims of the ’003 patent is reflected in the Patent Office’s
`
`confirmation of the patentability of the asserted claims over the cited prior art.
`
`Additionally, each of Sony’s theories for how the ’003 patent is anticipated or rendered
`
`obvious fails because Sony has not met and cannot meet its burden of proof. The prior
`
` 9
`
`

`

`art discussed by Sony’s answer to HumanEyes’ Interrogatory Nos. 79 & 80, which is no
`
`closer to the asserted claims than the prior art cited during prosecution by the Patent
`
`Office and the applicant, further confirms the novelty and innovation in the asserted
`
`claims.
`
`Ishiguro 1990 (Sony’s Exhibit A)
`
`Sony contends that Ishiguro, Yamamoto, Tsuji, “Omni-Directional Stereo for
`
`Making Global Map,” Third International Conference on Computer Vision, p.540-47
`
`(1990) (“Ishiguro 1990 article”) anticipates or renders obvious the asserted claims. The
`
`Ishiguro 1990 article describes a system for robot navigation that produces a panoramic
`
`image of a scene from a center slit in a camera, plus a depth map for each point in the
`
`image derived from left and right slits. The camera is mounted on a vertical tripod and
`
`moved across a deterministic and unchanging path in a purely horizontal motion, not a
`
`sweeping camera as would be held in the hand. Both the location and width of slits in the
`
`camera are fixed. Full images are neither created nor stored; only the slit portion is
`
`captured. As such, no identification and generation of strips or segments from captured
`
`images occurs, and no such strips or segments are mosaicked together to form panoramic
`
`mosaic images that can be viewed for stereo perception. No suggestion is made that the
`
`distance between slits should be appropriate for binocular parallax for human perception.
`
`No attempt is made to provide for human viewing of the slit images that are captured,
`
`either singly, or for stereo perception.
`
`The Ishiguro 1990 article, as interpreted by Sony in its claim chart, fails to
`
`disclose or render obvious at least the following claim elements of claims 1 and 70 of the
`
`’003 patent: “[a] system for generating a stereoscopic panoramic mosaic image pair”
`
`(claim 1); “computer program product for use in connection with a computer to provide
`
`a system for generating a stereoscopic panoramic mosaic image pair, the computer
`
`program product comprising a computer-readable medium having encoded thereon”
`
`(claim 70); “a strip generator module configured to generate two series of image strips,
`
` 10
`
`

`

`all of said image strips in each series comprising strips of a series of images of a scene as
`
`would be recorded by a camera from a respective series of positions relative to the
`
`scene”; “the image strips of the respective series representing strips of the respective
`
`images displaced from one another by at least one selected displacement”; “a mosaic
`
`image generator module configured to mosaic the respective series of images strips
`
`together thereby to construct two panoramic mosaic images, the panoramic mosaic
`
`images comprising the stereoscopic panoramic mosaic image pair providing a
`
`stereoscopic image of the scene as recorded over the path.”
`
`The Ishiguro 1990 article, as interpreted by Sony in its claim chart, fails to
`
`disclose or render obvious at least the following claim elements of claim 2 of the ’003
`
`patent: the claim elements identified above with respect to claim 1, and “the series of
`
`positions define a path at least a portion of which corresponds to a curved arc.”
`
`The Ishiguro 1990 article, as interpreted by Sony in its claim chart, fails to
`
`disclose or render obvious at least the following claim elements of claim 3 of the ’003
`
`patent: the claim elements identified above with respect to claim 1, and “the series of
`
`positions define a path at least a portion of which corresponds to a straight line.”
`
`The Ishiguro 1990 article, as interpreted by Sony in its claim chart, fails to
`
`disclose or render obvious at least the following claim elements of claim 22 of the ’003
`
`patent: the claim elements identified above with respect to claim 1; “the strip generator
`
`module is further configured to generate a third series of image strips, all of said image
`
`strips in said third series comprising strips of a series of images of a scene as would be
`
`recorded by a camera”; “the image strips of the third series being displaced from the
`
`image strips of the other two series by another selected displacement”; and “the mosaic
`
`image generator module is further configured to mosaic the third series of images strips
`
`together thereby to construct a third panoramic mosaic image, a selected two of the
`
`panoramic mosaic images comprising the stereoscopic panoramic mosaic image pair.”
`
` 11
`
`

`

`Sony has not identified how the Ishiguro 1990 article alone, or in any combination
`
`of the identified references would render the claims of the ’003 obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103. Sony has not identified any motivation to combine the Ishiguro 1990 article with
`
`any other identified reference, nor has it identified or provided any reason for one of skill
`
`in the art to modify the disclosure of the Ishiguro 1990 article. It would not be obvious to
`
`one of skill in the art to combine the Ishiguro 1990 article with any other reference, and
`
`there was no motivation to combine the Ishiguro 1990 article with any other identified
`
`reference, or to modify the disclosure of the Ishiguro 1990 article. These facts are
`
`demonstrated at least by: the fact that no such combination or modification occurred; the
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness discussed in HumanEyes’ response to
`
`Sony’s Interrogatory No. 15; and the Patent Office’s confirmation of the patentability of
`
`the asserted claims over the cited prior art. Moreover, the identified references do not
`
`disclose or teach those limitations that are missing from Ishigruo (1990), as can be seen
`
`in the discussions of those references.
`
`For at least these reasons, the Ishiguro 1990 article does not invalidate the
`
`asserted claims of the ’003 patent.
`
`Ishiguro 1991 (Sony’s Exhibit B)
`
`Sony contends that Ishiguro, Yamamoto, Tsuji, “Acquiring Omnidirectional
`
`Range Information” p.47-56 (1992) (“Ishiguro 1991 article”) anticipates or renders
`
`obvious the asserted claims. The Ishiguro 1991 article describes a system for robot
`
`navigation that produces a panoramic image of a scene from a center slit in a camera,
`
`plus a depth map for each point in the image derived from left and right slits. The camera
`
`is mounted on a vertical tripod and moved across a deterministic and unchanging path in
`
`a purely horizontal motion, not a sweeping camera as would be held in the hand. Both
`
`the location and width of slits in the camera are fixed. Full images are neither created nor
`
`stored; only the slit portion is captured. As such, no identification and generation of
`
`strips or segments from captured images occurs, and no such strips or segments are
`
` 12
`
`

`

`mosaicked together to form panoramic mosaic images that can be viewed for stereo
`
`perception. No suggestion is made that the distance between slits should be appropriate
`
`for binocular parallax for human perception. No attempt is made to provide for human
`
`viewing of the slit images that are captured, either singly, or for stereo perception.
`
`The Ishiguro 1991 article, as interpreted by Sony in its claim chart, fails to
`
`disclose or render obvious at least the following claim elements of claims 1 and 70 of the
`
`’003 patent: “[a] system for generating a stereoscopic panoramic mosaic image pair”
`
`(claim 1); “computer program product for use in connection with a computer to provide
`
`a system for generating a stereoscopic panoramic mosaic image pair, the computer
`
`program product comprising a computer-readable medium having encoded thereon”
`
`(claim 70); “a strip generator module configured to generate two series of image strips,
`
`all of said image strips in each series comprising strips of a series of images of a scene as
`
`would be recorded by a camera from a respective series of positions relative to the
`
`scene”; “the image strips of the respective series representing strips of the respective
`
`images displaced from one another by at least one selected displacement”; “a mosaic
`
`image generator module configured to mosaic the respective series of images strips
`
`together thereby to construct two panoramic mosaic images, the panoramic mosaic
`
`images comprising the stereoscopic panoramic mosaic image pair providing a
`
`stereoscopic image of the scene as recorded over the path.”
`
`The Ishiguro 1991 article, as interpreted by Sony in its claim chart, fails to
`
`disclose or render obvious at least the following claim elements of claim 2 of the ’003
`
`patent: the claim elements identified above with respect to claim 1, and “the series of
`
`positions define a path at least a portion of which corresponds to a curved arc.”
`
`The Ishiguro 1991 article, as interpreted by Sony in its claim chart, fails to
`
`disclose or render obvious at least the following claim elements of claim 3 of the ’003
`
`patent: the claim elements identified above with respect to claim 1, and “the series of
`
`positions define a path at least a portion of which corresponds to a straight line.”
`
` 13
`
`

`

`The Ishiguro 1991 article, as interpreted by Sony in its claim chart, fails to
`
`disclose or render obvious at least the following claim elements of claim 22 of the ’003
`
`patent: the claim elements identified above with respect to claim 1; “the strip generator
`
`module is further configured to generate a third series of image strips, all of said image
`
`strips in said third series comprising strips of a series of images of a scene as would be
`
`recorded by a camera”; “the image strips of the third series being displaced from the
`
`image strips of the other two series by another selected displacement”; and “the mosaic
`
`image generator module is further configured to mosaic the third series of images strips
`
`together thereby to construct a third panoramic mosaic image, a selected two of the
`
`panoramic mosaic images comprising the stereoscopic panoramic mosaic image pair.”
`
`Sony has not identified how the Ishiguro 1991 article alone, or any combination
`
`of the Ishiguro 1991 article with any other identified reference, would render the claims
`
`of the ’003 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Sony has not identified any motivation to
`
`combine the Ishiguro 1991 article with any other identified reference, nor has it identified
`
`or any reason for one of skill in the art to modify the disclosure of the Ishiguro 1991
`
`article. It would not be obvious to one of skill in the art to combine the Ishiguro 1991
`
`article with any other reference, and there was no motivation to combine the Ishiguro
`
`1991 article with any other identified reference, or to modify the disclosure of the
`
`Ishiguro 1991 article. These facts are demonstrated at least by: the fact that no such
`
`combination or modification occurred; the secondary considerations of non-obviousness
`
`discussed in HumanEyes’ response to Sony’s Interrogatory No. 15; and the Patent
`
`Office’s confirmation of the patentability of the asserted claims over the cited prior art.
`
`Moreover, the identified references do not disclose or teach those limitations that are
`
`missing from the Ishiguro 1991 article, as can be seen in the discussions of those
`
`references.
`
` For at least these reasons, the Ishiguro 1991 article does not invalidate the
`
`asserted claims of the ’003 patent.
`
` 14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ishiguro 1992 (Sony’s Exhibit C)
`
`Sony contends that Ishiguro, Yamamoto, Tsuji, “Omni-Directional Stereo” p.257-
`
`62 (1992) ("Ishiguro 1992") anticipates or renders obvious the asserted claims. The
`
`Ishiguro 1992 article describes a system for robot navigation that produces a panoramic
`
`image of a scene from a center slit in a camera, plus a depth map for each point in the
`
`image derived from left and right slits. The camera is mounted on a vertical tripod and
`
`moved across a deterministic and unchanging path in a purely horizontal motion, not a
`
`sweeping camera as would be held in the hand. Both the location and width of slits in the
`
`camera are fixed. Full images are neither created nor stored; only the slit portion is
`
`captured. As such, no identification and generation of strips or segments from captured
`
`images occurs, and no such strips or segments are mosaicked together to form panoramic
`
`mosaic images that can be viewed for stereo perception. No suggestion is made that the
`
`distance between slits should be appropriate for binocular parallax for human perception.
`
`No attempt is made to provide for human viewing of the slit images that are captured,
`
`either singly, or for stereo perception.
`
`The Ishiguro 1992 article, as interpreted by Sony in its claim chart, fails to
`
`disclose or render obvious at least the following claim elements of claims 1 and 70 of the
`
`’003 patent: “[a] system for generating a stereoscopic panoramic mosaic image pair”
`
`(claim 1); “computer program product for use in connection with a computer to provide
`
`a system for generating a stereoscopic panoramic mosaic image pair, the computer
`
`program product comprising a computer-readable medium having encoded thereon”
`
`(claim 70); “a strip generator module configured to generate two series of image strips,
`
`all of said image strips in each series comprising strips of a series of images of a scene as
`
`would be recorded by a camera from a respective series of positions relative to the
`
`scene”; “the image strips of the respective series representing strips of the respective
`
` 15
`
`

`

`images displaced from one another by at least one selected displacement”; “a mosaic
`
`image generator module configured to mosaic the respective series of images strips
`
`together thereby to construct two panoramic mosaic images, the panoramic mosaic
`
`images comprising the stereoscopic panoramic mosaic image pair providing a
`
`stereoscopic image of the scene as recorded over the path.”
`
`The Ishiguro 1992 article, as interpreted by Sony in its claim chart, fails to
`
`disclose or render obvious at least the following claim elements of claim 2 of the ’003
`
`patent: the claim elements identified above with respect to claim 1, and “the series of
`
`positions define a path at least a portion of which corresponds to a curved arc.”
`
`The Ishiguro 1992 article, as interpreted by Sony in its claim chart, fails to
`
`disclose or render obvious at least the following claim elements of claim 3 of the ’003
`
`patent: the claim elements identified above with respect to claim 1, and “the series of
`
`positions define a path at least a portion of which corresponds to a straight line.”
`
`The Ishiguro 1992 article, as interpreted by Sony in its claim chart, fails to
`
`disclose or render obvious at least the following claim elements of claim 22 of the ’003
`
`patent: the claim elements identified above with respect to claim 1; “the strip generator
`
`module is further configured to generate a third series of image strips, all of said image
`
`strips in said third series comprising strips of a series of images of a scene as would be
`
`recorded by a camera”; “the image strips of the third series being displaced from the
`
`image strips of the other two series by another selected displacement”; and “the mosaic
`
`image generator module is further configured to mosaic the third series of images strips
`
`together thereby to construct a third panoramic mosaic image, a selected two of the
`
`panoramic mosaic images comprising the stereoscopic panoramic mosaic image pair.”
`
`Sony has not identified how the Ishiguro 1992 article alone, or any combination
`
`of the Ishiguro 1992 article with any other identified reference, would render the claims
`
`of the ’003 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Sony has not identified any motivation to
`
`combine the Ishiguro 1992 article with any other identified reference, nor has it identified
`
` 16
`
`

`

`or any reason for one of skill in the art to modify the disclosure of the Ishiguro 1992
`
`article. It would not be obvious to one of skill in the art to combine the Ishiguro 1992
`
`article with any other reference, and there was no motivation