throbber
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
`Patent 7,477,284
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CAPTURING AND VIEWING
`STEREOSCOPIC PANORAMIC IMAGES
`_____________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) .............................................................. 5
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest .................................................................................... 5
`
`B. Related matters .............................................................................................. 5
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ................................... 5
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................................ 6
`
`III. Overview of U.S. Patent No. 7,477,284 ........................................................... 8
`
`IV. Claim Construction .........................................................................................12
`
`A.
`
`imager ..........................................................................................................12
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`optical image ...............................................................................................13
`
`segments and image strips ...........................................................................14
`
`D.
`
`plurality of segments ...................................................................................16
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`series of image strips ...................................................................................16
`
`divide each image [of the scene] into a plurality of segments ....................16
`
`said strips being displaced from one another .............................................17
`
`sense of depth of the scene ..........................................................................17
`
`V. The Kawakita Reference is Not a “Printed Publication”, and the
`Corresponding Grounds Should Not Be Adopted ...................................................18
`
`In General, Ishiguro and Asahi are not Directed to Displaying Mosaic
`VI.
`Images that Provide a Sense of Depth, and the Corresponding Grounds Should
`Not Be Adopted .......................................................................................................20
`
`VII. Additional, Specific Reasons Why the Prior Art Does Not Invalidate the
`Claims, and Why Inter Partes Review Should Not Be Instituted ...........................22
`
`A. No Trial Should Be Instituted for Grounds A, B, E, and F .........................23
`
`B. No Trial Should Be Instituted for Grounds C and D ..................................29
`
`C. No Trial Should Be Instituted for Grounds G, H, I, and J ..........................35
`
`D. No Trial Should Be Instituted for Grounds K and L ...................................42
`
`VIII. Conclusion ...................................................................................................48
`
`Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................50
`
`
`
`–2–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`In re Bayer,
`568 F.2d 1357 (CCPA 1978) …………………………….……………….19
`
`
`In re Cronyn,
`890 F.2d 1158, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1989) …………………….…….………...19
`
`
`Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp.,
`561 F.3d 1319 (CAFC 2009) ……………………………….……………..18
`
`
`DeSilva v. DiLeonardi,
`181 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 1999)……………………………………………….7
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc)…………………………………12
`
`
`REGULATORY CASES
`
`Scripps Research Institute v. Nemerson,
`72 USPQ2d 1122 (BPAI 2004) ………………………….………….…….11
`
`
`Stampa v. Jackson,
`78 USPQ2d 1567 (BPAI 2005)…………………………………………….7
`
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102…….……………………..…………………………..22, 23, 29, 42
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103……………….……………………………..……23, 24, 29, 35, 42
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ………………………………………………..………………..6
`
`
`
`
`
`–3–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20 (c) ……………………………………………………………..11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ………………………………..………………………...6
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2131 ……………………………………………………………….....22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`–4–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`
`
`I. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`The real parties-in-interest are Yissum Research Development Company of
`
`the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and HumanEyes Technologies Ltd.
`
`B. Related matters
`
`The following are judicial or administrative matters that would affect, or be
`
`affected by a decision in this proceeding:
`
`1. IPR2013-00218, Inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,665,003 (the
`
`“’003 Patent”).
`
`2. HumanEyes Technologies Ltd. V. Sony Electronics Inc. et al., 1-12-
`
`cv-00398 (D. Del.).
`
`
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-up Counsel
`
`David L. McCombs
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`(214) 651-5533
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`USPTO Customer No. 27683
`USPTO Reg. No. 32,271
`
`
`David M. O’Dell
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`(972) 739-8635
`david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`USPTO Customer No. 27683
`USPTO Reg. No. 42,044
`
`
`
`
`–5–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`Patent Owner Yissum Research Development Company of the Hebrew
`
`University of Jerusalem (“YRD”) submits the following preliminary response to
`
`the Petition filed by Sony Corporation (“Sony”) on March 29, 2013, requesting
`
`inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 3, 10, 20, 27, 28, 29, 36, and 37 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,477,284 (the “’294 Patent”). YRD respectfully requests that the Board
`
`decline to institute inter partes review of the ’284 Patent because Sony has not
`
`satisfied Patent Office regulations: “[t]he petition must specify where each element
`
`of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). The Board should not institute a trial because, for each
`
`ground of rejection, at least one claim element is missing. Consequently, Sony has
`
`not met the basic threshold required by statute: it has not shown that there is a
`
`“reasonable likelihood that [it] would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the
`
`claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`As discussed herein, there are claim elements of the pending claims that are
`
`missing from the references, and are not addressed by the Sony Petition. For
`
`example, the Petition fails to address requirements relating to dividing each image
`
`into a plurality of segments and generating a plurality of mosaics of a scene that
`
`can be displayed to a person to provide a sense of depth. Instead, Sony’s
`
`arguments either gloss over these key claim elements or make bare assertions that
`
`
`
`–6–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`the alleged prior art references do not support.1 For example, the challenge based
`
`
`
`on the Kawakita reference present in the petition does not disclose such elements
`
`(See, e.g., Sony-1004 at 17 noting that in the mosaics “objects appear to overlap or
`
`some other fault, making stereoscopic viewing impossible”), while other
`
`challenges rely on references that are not even directed to generating mosaics that
`
`provide a person with a sense of depth and that still fail to disclose such elements.
`
`In accordance with established principles, it is not the job of the Board to fill
`
`in the blanks and correct inadequacies in an inter partes review petition. (See, e.g.,
`
`in the context of interference practice, S.O. ¶ 121.5.2 (which states that “[t]he
`
`Board will not take on the role of advocate for a party, trying to make out a case
`
`the party has not adequately stated”); see also Stampa v. Jackson, 78 USPQ2d
`
`1567, 1571 (BPAI 2005); DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866-67 (7th Cir.
`
`1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask
`
`them to play archeologist with the record.”); Spears v. Holland, Interf. No.
`
`104,681, Paper 30, p. 15 (BPAI 2002) (“It is not the role of this board to help party
`
`1 The present discussion identifies some of the specific claim elements that are
`
`missing from the cited art, and therefore, why the Sony Petition does not show a
`
`likelihood that it would prevail in an inter partes review. The Patent Owner
`
`reserves the right to present additional differences between the cited art and the
`
`claims at a later time in the proceeding.
`
`
`
`–7–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`Spears articulate a difference between [claims]. That is the role of Spears’ counsel
`
`as an advocate, not the role of the board as an unbiased and impartial decision
`
`maker. Taking sides to aid one party to the detriment of the other is not what we
`
`do.”)).
`
`The duty to provide an adequate petition falls squarely on the petitioner
`
`Sony, and Sony has failed to perform its duty in a way that justifies proceeding to
`
`trial. If, nevertheless, a decision is ultimately made to proceed to trial, the Patent
`
`Owner requests as a matter of fundamental fairness that the Board provide detailed
`
`guidance on how the applied references are being relied upon and where in the
`
`references each of the claim elements is alleged to be found.
`
`III. Overview of U.S. Patent No. 7,477,2842
`
`The’284 Patent is a continuation in part and incorporates by reference,
`
`amongst other disclosures, the disclosure of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`09/396,248, filed September 16, 1999, issued as the ’003 Patent.
`
`The ’284 Patent, like its parent the ’003 Patent, generally relates to
`
`recording, generating, and displaying panoramic images stereoscopically to a
`
`
`2 Claim terms will be briefly discussed in the present section, and a more complete
`
`claim construction of the claim terms is provided below in Section IV, Claim
`
`Construction.
`
`
`
`–8–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`person to provide a sense of depth. Sense of depth (i.e., stereopsis), is the visual
`
`perception of differential distances among objects in one’s line of sight. That is,
`
`one object in an image will be perceived as being closer to the person viewing the
`
`image, as compared to another object in the image. A common day example
`
`would be a 3D movie a person would view at a movie theater. (See, e.g., Sony-
`
`1001 at 23-24.)
`
`For the sake of brevity, the ’284 Patent notes that the image recording
`
`arrangement for recording images is similar to the arrangements described in the
`
`’003 Patent. (Sony-1001 at 3:26-60; see also 9:16-19.) In that regard, the ’003
`
`Patent discloses, in connection with Figs 1A-1B (reproduced below), recording
`
`images and segmenting or generating image strips from the recorded images in
`
`accordance with the separation and from the perspective of human eyes:
`
`It will be apparent from FIG. 1A that each the succession of images as
`
`seen by the observer’s two eyes as he or she rotates, can be separated
`
`into separate sets of images, with one set of images being associated
`
`with each eye…
`
`…
`…to facilitate the viewing of a stereoscopic panoramic image of the
`
`scene by a viewer, the images as would be received by each of the
`
`observer’s eyes can be separately recorded and viewed by, or
`
`otherwise displayed to, the respective eyes of the viewer.”
`
`(SONY-1002 at 3:8-31; see also 2:55-59 (emphasis added).)
`
`
`
`–9–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`It will be appreciated that the left and right panoramic images 31L
`
`and 31R conform to what an observer would see through his or her
`
`left and right eyes, respectively, as they revolve through the left and
`
`right viewing circles 5L and 5R described above in connection with
`
`FIG. 1B.
`
`(SONY-1002 at 6:42-47 (emphasis added).)
`
`
`
`Mosaic images conforming to what an observer would see through his or her left
`
`and right eyes, generated from the segments or image strips, can be displayed to or
`
`viewed simultaneously by the left and right eyes of a person to provide a sense of
`
`
`
`depth.
`
`The ’284 Patent, in one illustrative embodiment of Figs. 2-5, describes a
`
`video camera (21) as a stereoscopic data source that includes an image capture unit
`
`(30), local memory unit (31), a processing unit (32), one or more displays 33A and
`
`33B. (Sony-1001 at 6:55-60.) As the video camera is rotated, it records a series of
`
`
`
`–10–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`images from which image segments or strips for left and right eyes are generated.
`
`(Sony-1001 at 3:42-53) The image segments or strips are then mosaiced in
`
`accordance with the separation and from the perspective of human eyes into a set
`
`of panoramic images comprising a stereoscopic image set. Id. (See also, SONY-
`
`1002 at 6:42-47.) The set of panoramic images can be displayed to provide the
`
`person with a sense of depth.
`
`
`
`
`
`As clearly demonstrated below, each of Sony’s challenges (i.e., Grounds A-
`
`L) fails to adequately address at least one feature as claimed in the ’284 Patent. In
`
`other words, Sony has not carried its burden. Cf. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). (“The
`
`moving party has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested
`
`relief.”); Scripps Research Institute v. Nemerson, 72 USPQ2d 1122, 1123 (BPAI
`
`2004) (“The responsibility for developing and explaining the record for an issue
`
`rests with the movant, not with the Board.”)
`
`
`
`–11–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IV. Claim Construction
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” (See, Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).) Extrinsic evidence
`
`concerning relevant scientific principles, meaning of technical terms, and state of
`
`the art may also be relevant. Id. at 1314.
`
`Patent Owner proposes construction of certain claim terms below pursuant
`
`to the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification standard.3
`
`The proposed claim constructions are offered for the sole purpose of this
`
`proceeding, and thus do not necessarily reflect appropriate claim constructions to
`
`be used in litigation and other proceedings where a different claim construction
`
`standard applies.
`
`A.
`
`imager
`
`The claims recite an imager. To the extent that any construction is
`
`necessary, Patent Owner submits that an imager is an image recording device.
`
`This proposed construction is consistent with the specification of the ’284 Patent at
`
`
`3 For the sake of reference, the following paper will present claim language in bold
`
`and italics.
`
`
`
`–12–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`8:30-44, which disclose that an imager, referred to as a stereoscopic data source
`
`acquires an image of a scene.
`
`It is noted that the claims further require that the imager acquire a plurality
`
`of optical images, which are then divided into segments. The terms optical images
`
`and segments are discussed below.
`
`B.
`
`optical image
`
`The claims recite optical image. To the extent that any construction is
`
`necessary, Patent Owner submits that an optical image is an image acquired by an
`
`image recording device and which can be divided. This construction is consistent
`
`with the other claimed features which recite a processor that receives image
`
`data…[and] divide[s] each image into a plurality of segments. Further, this
`
`construction is consistent with the disclosure in the specification of the ’284 Patent.
`
`In more detail, the specification, with respect to Fig. 5 (reproduced below),
`
`illustrates three discrete images of a scene 50(1), 50(2), and 50(3) recorded by an
`
`imager referred to as a stereoscopic data source. (See, SONY-1001 at 8:30-44.)
`
`The three images 50(1), 50(2), and 50(3) are divided into segments or strips a1,
`
`b1,…e1, and a2, b2,…e2, and a3, b3,…e3, to generate mosaic images 51a-51e.
`
`
`
`–13–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`
`
`Accordingly, an optical image should be construed as an image acquired by
`
`an image recording device and which can be divided.
`
`C.
`
`segments and image strips
`
`The claims recite segments and image strips. To the extent that any
`
`construction is necessary, Patent Owner submits that segments and image strips
`
`are portions of acquired images.
`
`This construction is consistent with the patent specification and claims.
`
`Specifically, the claim language of independent claims 1 and 27 expressly requires
`
`that the larger acquired images be divided by a processor into smaller portions (a
`
`
`
`–14–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`processor that receives image data…divide each image), and claims 20 and 37
`
`further describe that the processor which has the image data generates series of
`
`smaller portions (the processor…generate[s] at least three series of image strips).
`
`Additionally, the specification of the ’284 Patent at Fig. 5 (reproduced above)
`
`illustrates that acquired larger images are divided into smaller segments, and more
`
`specifically in the illustrated example as smaller image strips. (See also, SONY-
`
`1001 at 8:30-44.)
`
`In the Petition, Sony argues that “the term [strips of a series of images] does
`
`not require that the strips be extracted from a larger recorded image.” (Petition at
`
`14). This argument fails because it ignores the above disclosure of the ’284 Patent
`
`and the express elements of the claims which require dividing the acquired image.
`
`To divide the acquired image, the acquired image must necessarily be larger than
`
`the image strip. Because Sony’s proposed construction is inconsistent with the
`
`other elements of the claims, Sony’s construction is unreasonably broad. Thus,
`
`Sony’s proposed claim construction will not assist the Board and the parties in
`
`evaluating the claims relative to the prior art in this case.
`
`Therefore, in accordance with the other claim features and the specification,
`
`segments and image strips should be construed as portions of acquired images.
`
`
`
`–15–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`plurality of segments
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`In accordance with Section IV.B, the term plurality of segments should be
`
`construed as two or more portions of acquired images.
`
`E.
`
`series of image strips
`
`In accordance with Section IV.B, the term series of image strips should be
`
`construed as a series of portions of acquired images.
`
`F.
`
`divide each image [of the scene] into a plurality of segments
`
`The claims recite that the processor divide[s] each image[of the scene] into
`
`a plurality of segments. To the extent that any construction is necessary, Patent
`
`Owner submits that this claim term should be construed as dividing each image of
`
`the scene into at least two portions.
`
`Sony’s argument, in the Petition at 24 regarding Chen, seeks to introduce an
`
`unsupported claim construction for this term. Specifically, Sony argues that this
`
`term should be construed as separating two discrete images of the scene from each
`
`other. (See, e.g., Petition at 24.) (“… separates (i.e., divides) the left image and
`
`right image.”) Sony provides no evidentiary support for this construction.
`
`Sony’s proposed construction is inconsistent with other claim limitations
`
`and not supported by the specification of the ’284 Patent. In the context of the
`
`claim, the divided images have been acquired from one different viewing position
`
`
`
`–16–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`(singular), optical image [of the scene] being viewed from a different respective
`
`viewing position. Further, the specification at Fig. 5 (reproduced below) and
`
`corresponding text plainly disclose that the divided images of the scene have been
`
`acquired from one different viewing position. As such, the claim language and the
`
`specification exclude Sony’s proposed construction of “separating” two discrete
`
`images from each other.
`
`Thus, divid[ing] each image into a plurality of segments should be
`
`construed as dividing each image of the scene into at least two portions.
`
`G.
`
`said strips being displaced from one another
`
`In accordance with Section IV.B, the term said strips being displaced from
`
`one another should be construed as portions of acquired images displaced from
`
`one another within the respective acquired image.
`
`H.
`
`sense of depth of the scene
`
`The claims recite that the mosaic images are displayed to provide a sense of
`
`depth of the scene. A sense of depth (i.e., stereopsis), is the visual perception of
`
`differential distances among objects in a person’s line of sight. (YRD - 2003.)
`
`That is, one object appears closer than another object. (See, e.g., SONY-1002 at
`
`2:64-65.) Thus, under the proposed construction, a sense of depth of a scene is the
`
`visual perception of differential distances among objects in a person’s line of sight.
`
`
`
`–17–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`V. The Kawakita Reference is Not a “Printed Publication”, and the
`
`
`
`Corresponding Grounds Should Not Be Adopted
`
`Grounds A, B, E, and F of Sony’s Petition rely on the Kawakita reference.
`
`The Board should decline to institute inter partes review on these Grounds because
`
`Sony’s Petition fails to show that Kawakita is a printed publication. Specifically,
`
`Sony alleges that 30 copies of Kawakita were distributed at a conference less than
`
`one year before the earliest priority date of the ‘284 patent. (SONY-1015 at 5.) An
`
`alleged copy of Kawakita distributed at the conference included the following
`
`restriction: “Duplication and reproduction prohibited.” (SONY-1004 at 48
`
`(emphasis added).) The Federal Circuit has recently ruled that distribution to a
`
`limited number of entities with restrictions from copies or further distribution
`
`prevents a finding that a distribution is a “printed publication.”
`
`We have held that where a distribution is made to a limited number of
`
`entities, a binding agreement of confidentiality may defeat a finding
`
`of public accessibility. But we have also held that such a binding legal
`
`obligation is not essential. We have noted that "[w]here professional
`
`and behavioral norms entitle a party to a reasonable expectation" that
`
`information will not be copied or further distributed, "we are more
`
`reluctant to find something a `printed publication.'"
`
`(Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1333-1334 (CAFC
`
`2009)(citations omitted)(emphasis added).)
`
`
`
`–18–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`Sony’s declarant, Mr. Kouichi Matsuda, alleges that additional copies of
`
`Kawakita were provided to a university, supposedly for eventual distribution.
`
`(SONY-1015). However the ’003 patent’s priority date is only a few months after
`
`the previously-mentioned conference, and Sony provides no evidence that
`
`Kawakita was provided to or actually distributed by the university before the ’003
`
`priority date.
`
`Such a finding is consistent with well-established precedent. When
`
`documents are only potentially available to the public, the question of accessibility
`
`hinges on whether interested members of the public would be aware of and able to
`
`locate the document. (See, e.g., In re Bayer, 568 F.2d 1357 (CCPA 1978); In re
`
`Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1989).) Here, the interested members of
`
`the public would not be able to locate the document prior to the priority date of the
`
`‘003 patent.
`
`Since insufficient evidence has been provided to establish that the Kawakita
`
`reference is a printed publication, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the
`
`Board decline to institute inter partes review on Grounds A, B, E, and F.
`
`Additional reasons why Kawakita does not read on the claims are provided in
`
`Section VII of the present paper.
`
`
`
`–19–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`In General, Ishiguro and Asahi are not Directed to Displaying Mosaic
`
`Images that Provide a Sense of Depth, and the Corresponding Grounds
`
`Should Not Be Adopted
`
`In addition to Kawakita, Sony’s Petition refers to other primary references,
`
`including Ishiguro and Asahi. These references are relied on in the challenges of
`
`Grounds G-L of Sony’s Petition. However, and as will be described below, none
`
`of these references are directed to generating mosaic images that can be displayed
`
`to a person to provide a sense of depth of a scene.
`
`Specifically, Ishiguro is directed to identifying a specific distance, or range,
`
`of objects for directing a robot to move about a room. (SONY-1005 at 55, Section
`
`5 Conclusion; see also Summary and Introduction.) For example, Fig. 13 of
`
`Ishiguro, reproduced below, identifies an “observation point” where the robot is
`
`located. The robot includes two single slit 1-pixel width imagers that rotate about
`
`an axis, and accordingly, can identify the distance to various points of objects in
`
`the room, labeled as points 1-19 in the figure.
`
`
`
`–20–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`
`
`As discussed above, the generated mosaic images of the’284 Patent are
`
`images displayed to a person from which a person can perceive depth. Calculating
`
`the distances to various points in a room for use by a robot, as disclosed by
`
`Ishiguro, is not providing a sense of depth of the scene to a person, under the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of this term, in light of the specification.
`
`Likewise, Asahi is also not directed to providing a sense of depth of the
`
`scene to a person. This reference is directed to flying aircraft for making contour
`
`maps of the terrain. (See, e.g., Fig. 10 from Asahi reproduced below.) Asahi
`
`neither teaches nor discusses generating mosaic images that are displayed to a
`
`person to provide a sense of depth of the scene. (See, SONY-1010 at ¶ 0087.)
`
`
`
`–21–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`
`
`
`
`Grounds G-L of Sony’s Petition rely on Ishiguro and Asahi. Since these
`
`references are not directed to displaying mosaic images to a person to provide a
`
`sense of depth of the scene, the Board should decline to institute inter partes
`
`review on these Grounds. Additional reasons why Ishiguro and Asahi do not
`
`disclose the features recited in the claims are provided in the following section.
`
`VII. Additional, Specific Reasons Why the Prior Art Does Not Invalidate the
`
`Claims, and Why Inter Partes Review Should Not Be Instituted
`
`As legal background to the challenges of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §102
`
`(i.e., Grounds A, C, and K), Patent Owner notes that “[a] claim is anticipated only
`
`if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
`
`inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” (M.P.E.P. § 2131) Further,
`
`“[t]he identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in
`
`the…claim.” Id. In other words, to anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C. §102, a
`
`reference must teach exactly what is recited in the claim. As shown below, with
`
`
`
`–22–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`respect to the 35 U.S.C. §102 challenges, Sony has failed to demonstrate that the
`
`cited references teach exactly what is recited in the claims.
`
`Further, with respect to the challenges under 35 U.S.C. §103 (i.e., Grounds
`
`B, D-J, and L), Patent Owner notes that it is well established that “[a] patent
`
`composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that
`
`each element was, independently, known in the prior art. . . . it can be important to
`
`identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`combine the elements as the new invention does” KSR International Co. v.
`
`Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In other words, after
`
`showing that all of the claim elements are known in the prior art, the challenging
`
`party must do more. As shown below, however, Sony’s 35 U.S.C. §103 challenges
`
`fail to meet even the initial burden of “demonstrating that each element was,
`
`independently, known in the prior art.”
`
`A. No Trial Should Be Instituted for Grounds A, B, E, and F
`
`Ground A of Sony’s Petition asserts that claims 1, 10, 27, and 36 are
`
`anticipated by Kawakita under 35 U.S.C. §102. Ground B asserts that claims 1,
`
`10, 20, 27, 36, and 37 are rendered obvious by Kawakita under 35 U.S.C. §103.
`
`Ground E asserts that claims 1, 2, 10, 20, 27, 28, 36, and 37 are rendered obvious
`
`by Kawakita in view of Chen under 35 U.S.C. §103. Ground F asserts that claims
`
`
`
`–23–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`3 and 29 are rendered obvious by Kawakita in view of Kodak under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103.
`
`In addition to Sony’s failure to show that Kawakita is prior art to the ’284
`
`Patent, as already discussed above in Section V, there is another explicit and
`
`fundamental flaw with Kawakita that prevents it from reading on these claims.
`
`Namely, and as shown below, the mosaic images of Kawakita identified by Sony
`
`cannot provide a sense of depth. As such, Sony’s Petition has not presented a
`
`reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to Grounds A, B, E, and F.
`
`Independent Claims 1 and 27 of the ’284 Patent recite, in part:
`
`
`
`a processor [to] generate a plurality of mosaics of the scene
`
`[and] a display that receives a plurality of the mosaics and displays
`
`them so as to provide a sense of depth of the scene.
`
`
`Claims 2, 3, 10, 27, 28, 28, and 36, depend from claims 1 or 27, and therefore
`
`include the same elements.
`
`Sony’s Petition asserts that Kawakita generates two mosaic images, depicted
`
`in Fig. 5 (reproduced below), and that those images are displayed to 10 research
`
`personal to provide a sense of depth. (Petition at 17-19.) Sony’s arguments are
`
`unsupported and fail for two reasons.
`
`
`
`–24–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`
`
`(i) The two images in Fig. 5 cannot provide a sense of depth – further
`
`processing is required. Contrary to Sony’s contention, the generated images of
`
`Fig. 5 cannot provide a sense of depth. Instead, Kawakita clearly states with
`
`respect to the left (top) and right (bottom) images of Fig. 5 that “the positions
`
`representing the left and right panoramic images must be adjusted…this process is
`
`necessary….” (SONY-1004 at 17 (emphasis added).) If the images are not
`
`adjusted when the panoramic images are viewed simultaneously, “objects appear to
`
`overlap or [have] some other fault, making faithful stereoscopic viewing
`
`impossible.” (SONY-1004 at 17 (emphasis added).) Thus, it is “impossible” to
`
`display the two images of Fig. 5 to provide a sense of depth. Although the
`
`Kawakita presenters recognized and admitted to this fault in their system, Sony’s
`
`petition fails to address it. As discussed below, the images of Fig. 5 are changed to
`
`provide a sense of depth.
`
`
`
`–25–
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`Kawakita goes on to explain that the images of Fig. 5 must be further
`
`adjusted by changing

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket