Trials@uspto.gov Paper 59
` 571-272-7822 Entered: August 18, 2014
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
`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 IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`____________
`
`Oral Hearing Held: June 18, 2014
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL EASTHOM, and JAMES B. ARPIN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` WALTER HANLEY, JR., ESQUIRE
`
`MICHAEL E. SANDLER, ESQUIRE
`
`MICHELLE M. CARNIAUX, ESQUIRE
`
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`
`One Broadway, New York, New York 10004
`
`
`
` 571-272-7822 Entered: August 18, 2014
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
`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 IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`____________
`
`Oral Hearing Held: June 18, 2014
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL EASTHOM, and JAMES B. ARPIN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` WALTER HANLEY, JR., ESQUIRE
`
`MICHAEL E. SANDLER, ESQUIRE
`
`MICHELLE M. CARNIAUX, ESQUIRE
`
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`
`One Broadway, New York, New York 10004
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:
`
` DAVID L. McCOMBS, ESQUIRE
`
`
`DAVID M. O’DELL, ESQUIRE
`
`
`GREGORY P. HUH, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Haynes Boone
`
`
`2505 North Plano Road, Suite 4000
`
`
`Richardson, Texas 75082
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, June
`
`18, 2014, commencing at 2:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Good afternoon. This is the hearing for IPRs
`
`2013- 00218 and Joint Case 00326 involving U.S. Patent Number 6,665,003;
`and IPRs 2013-00219 and Joint Case 00327 involving U.S. Patent 7,477,284
`between Petitioner Sony Corporation and Patent Owner Yissum Research
`Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
`
`At this time, we'd like the parties to please introduce counsel,
`beginning with the Petitioner.
`
`MR. HANLEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor. It's Walter Hanley for
`Sony.
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Thank you, Mr. Hanley. And who do you have
`
`with you?
`
`MR. HANLEY: With me I have my back-up counsel, Michelle
`Carniaux and also Michael Sandler.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Nice to meet you. Thank you. And then for
`Patent Owner?
`
`MR. McCOMBS: Hi, Your Honor. David McCombs, lead counsel
`for the Patent Owner. And with me today are back-up counsel David O'Dell
`and Gregory Huh.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay. Thank you very much.
`
`MR. McCOMBS: And they will be doing the presentations for --
`Mr. O'Dell will do the presentation for the '218 proceeding and Mr. Huh will
`do the '219 proceeding.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Great. Thank you very much. Okay. So per the
`
`May 19th order, we're going to hear the arguments first in the '218 case, then
`we're going to take a 15-minute break, and then we'll hear arguments in the
`'219 case. So for each case, each party you have a total of 45 minutes total
`time to present arguments. Petitioner, you will begin with the presentation
`of your case with regard to the challenged claims on which basis the Board
`instituted trial. And, thereafter, Patent Owner, you will respond to
`Petitioner's presentation, and, Petitioner, you may reserve rebuttal time to
`respond to Patent Owner's presentation.
`
`So are there any questions with regards to logistics or how it's going
`go?
`MR. HANLEY: No, Your Honor.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: And again, you know, to the extent there's
`
`overlap with the motions to exclude, for example, there seems to be, if you
`don't want to discuss, you can use your time in the second portion for '219 to
`elaborate on maybe some other issues. Okay?
`
`All right. So, Petitioner, you can begin with case '218. And would
`you like to reserve rebuttal time?
`
`MR. HANLEY: My intention is to reserve 15 minutes.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay.
`
`MR. HANLEY: We'll see how we go.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: So I go by this clock, so you have approximately
`30 minutes from 4 minutes after.
`
`MR. HANLEY: May it please the Board, first we have a slide
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`presentation that we filed. We have paper copies if Your Honors --
`unfortunately, Judge Arpin's not present here to accept his, but if it's
`convenient for you to have those in front of you, that's fine. We have copies
`available.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: I don't need a copy. We'll just reference what
`you have up there. Do you want one?
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: No, thank you.
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: Okay.
`
`MR. HANLEY: So just going right to it then, the Board has instituted
`trial with respect to the patentability of Claims 1 through 5, 22, and 34 of the
`'003 patent. Slide 2, please.
`
`We have slide 2 here shows the grounds on which the Board has
`instituted trial. I just note that with respect to each of the -- with respect to
`the claims that are at issue, trial's been instituted on the basis of three
`references which I'll refer to in shorthand as Kawakita, Ishiguro, and Asahi.
`Slide 3.
`
`Yissum's response argues that each of these three references fails to
`disclose a stereoscopic panoramic mosaic image pair and doesn't argue with
`respect to any other limitation of the claims. We have here Claim 1 on slide
`-- slide 3. However, it's -- Claim 34 is a method claim which essentially
`recites the same elements in method form. Claim 1 is directed to a system
`for generating a stereoscopic panoramic mosaic image pair and so the
`system is directed to generating the two images that institute the pair. Since
`there's no other argument -- no limitation other than that one being argued
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`by Yissum, we will rest on the written record, in particular our petitions,
`with regard to the showing that the rest of the elements are found in the
`references or are obvious over them as we pointed out in our petition.
`
`I had in mind to going into on overview of the '003 patent. I suspect
`it's probably entirely unnecessary for me to do that, so I think I'll just skip
`right to Kawakita.
`
`Can I have slide 11, please?
`
`Yissum argues again that Kawakita fails to disclose a stereoscopic
`panoramic mosaic image pair. However, the argument doesn't focus on the
`mosaic or the panoramic aspects. It's sort of unclear in the reference that the
`two images that Kawakita generates for panoramic and they are mosaics;
`that doesn't appear to be in dispute. So it comes down to whether or not
`Kawakita discloses a stereoscopic image pair as the Board has construed it.
`
`And just as a reminder, the construction that the Board adopted was
`proposed by Petitioner. Petitioner's construction was essentially a quotation
`from the '003 patent at column 1, lines 36 through 39.
`
`And so what we have here on slide 11 is the construction and a
`passage from Kawakita that we submit basically provides all the evidence
`that we need to show that Kawakita teaches or discloses a stereoscopic
`image pair. What Kawakita says, and this appears on page 16 of Sony's
`Exhibit 1003, is that when the left and right panoramic images obtained
`using the foregoing procedure are viewed by a human viewer
`stereoscopically, a stereoscopic view is possible that faithfully reproduces
`positional relationships if the image is captured from a sufficient distance.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`So I submit to Your Honors that that passage basically says that Kawakita
`creates stereoscopic image pairs if the image was captured from a sufficient
`distance. Slide 12.
`
`So what's Yissum's response to this? Yissum relies on the sentence
`that immediately follows the one that I just read in Kawakita. And there
`Kawakita says, however, if the camera was placed at a comparatively close
`distance or if the distance from the camera to the objects varies greatly, the
`positions representing the left and right images must be adjusted.
`
`So he's outlining two conditions that are exceptions to the rules stated
`in the prior sentence where the positions on the images relative to each other
`for display have to be adjusted for viewing. And the exceptions are the
`camera's too close to the scene and object distances vary greatly. Slide 13.
`
`Professor Essa, Yissum's expert, in his declaration, which is YRD
`2010 in paragraph 35, immediately following his quotation of the two
`sentences that I've just presented from Kawakita, reconstructs what the
`passage says. And he says, said differently, and he certainly is saying it
`differently, said differently, in this scenario stereoscopic viewing is possible
`if, one, images are captured from a sufficient distance and, two, the distance
`from the camera to the object is roughly the same. So what Professor Essa
`does is he essentially equates a lack of great variation of object distances
`with object distances being roughly the same. And I submit to Your Honors
`that's a non sequitur. That does not follow. And I believe in the decision on
`institution that the Board addressed that very point.
`
`In fact -- slide 14, please -- in his deposition on cross-examination,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`Professor Essa, after some tussling, finally agreed. I asked him, you could
`have a variation of distances without having great variations of distances,
`correct? And he said sure. So he allowed finally for the majority of cases
`where you have objects at varying distances, therefore, depth perception is
`possible, but they're just not greatly varying distances.
`
`So at this point, I really don't need to say anything more, I think, to
`make our case that Kawakita discloses the stereoscopic image pair.
`Yissum's arguments are based on the premise that in all instances where --
`where depth perception is possible, Kawakita says that the images must be
`adjusted. That just isn't so. And so I don't think I'm going to go into those,
`my counterarguments, which we presented in our reply on this point, at this
`time. I'll do that on rebuttal if that appears to be necessary. Slide 22.
`
`So now I'd like to go on to Asahi and then I'll take up Ishiguro. And
`again, the only issue is whether Asahi discloses a stereoscopic image pair.
`Can we have slide 24?
`
`Just briefly with regard to Asahi, Asahi discloses a system where the
`camera is mounted in an aircraft and images the ground seen below. The
`camera's an HD TV video camera. And after the images are recorded, then a
`workstation on the ground does processing on the images. Essentially what
`it does is it, among other things, takes from each field and each -- the
`camera, since it uses a standard frame reader of 30 frames per second and a
`center laced video, 2 fields per frame, you have 60 fields -- field images per
`second being captured.
`
`Asahi then discloses having a lead line, a middle line, and a final line
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`from each field extracted and mosaiced respectively to make a fore view
`image and rear view image and a really good image as illustrated in Figure
`9. Slide 25.
`
`And in paragraph 25 of Asahi, and Asahi is Sony Exhibit 1006, Asahi
`states if the travel speed of imaging is constant and the orientation of the
`camera is also constant, stereoscopic viewing is possible using this forward
`view image, the fore view image and this rear view image. So stereoscopic
`viewing is possible, meaning that the images have been presented to a
`reviewer reviewing it. And, therefore, we submit that this passage discloses
`a stereoscopic image pair by itself.
`
`Now, what does Yissum say about Asahi? Well, Yissum actually
`makes several arguments and the first one is basically a claim construction
`argument. It's a construction of the Board's construction. Yissum argumes
`that the '003 patent is limited to stereoscopic image pairs that are recorded
`by viewpoints that are separated by one distance, and that is the approximate
`distance between human eyes. And, therefore, because Asahi's mosaics are
`captured from larger separated distances, they're not covered. Slide 28.
`
`The '003 patent specifically contemplates baselines, if you will,
`separations of viewpoints that are either larger than or smaller than the
`human interocular baseline. Basically, in this passage at column 7, lines 16
`through 25 of the '003 patent, the passage explains that the viewing circle in
`Figure 1A shown here basically -- approximately corresponds to the
`diameter of the distance between a person's eyes and then it goes on and
`says, 'It will be appreciated that the diameter of the viewing circle can be
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`enlarged or reduced for exaggerated stereo." So he's saying don't need to
`have human inter-occular distance. You can have wider or smaller.
`
`Yissum also argues that it is necessary for the images to be captured
`from viewpoints separated by human inter-ocular for a human being --
`human viewer to perceive depth in the images when presented. And, first of
`all, I think this passage rebuts that argument because Peleg, the inventor --
`Professor Peleg, the inventor, says differently. But the reason why that's not
`true also comes through in -- in a related patent, the '677 patent, which is --
`which claims priority to the '003 and which is also incorporated by reference
`in '284 patent that we'll be arguing about later, and also the testimony of
`Professor Darrell, who extensively goes through the point that images can be
`produced using baselines larger or smaller than human interocular and
`would provide the perception of depth. So if I can go to slide 31.
`
`Here we have a passage on slide 31, a passage from the '677 patent.
`And the first thing that's said here is that depth can be perceived if the
`disparity is in a particular angular range. And Professor Darrell in his
`declaration explains what disparity is about.
`
`Basically he says disparity is an angular measure of the difference in
`viewpoints. It is a function of two things: one, the separation of viewpoints
`or the baseline, and the distance of the objects of interest so that those three
`points form a triangle and the apex of the triangle basically is the measure of
`the disparity. The '677 patent goes on and says if an object is too far away
`from a person, the disparity would be too small for depth to be perceived.
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, I'm sorry, the '677 patent, is that after the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`'003 patent?
`
`MR. HANLEY: Yes. It was filed after and takes the priority back to
`'003.
`JUDGE ARPIN: So this material that you're citing occurred after the
`
`filing date of the '003 patent?
`
`MR. HANLEY: Yes. We're not using it for prior art, Judge Arpin.
`We're doing it -- we're using it as an explanation of the concept that the
`inventor himself has explained in a subsequent patent application .
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, my concern is whether or not a person of
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the '003 patent was filed would know
`this.
`MR. HANLEY: Yeah. In Professor Darrell's testimony, Professor
`
`Darrell notes this. He says he agrees with it and he says that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would know about the concept of disparity and
`how disparity varies with -- as a function of baseline in object distance. And
`he essentially is the -- is the link that brings this evidence, if you will, into
`the prior art -- or rather into the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in
`the art, put it that way.
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: But the only evidence is an after-filed document.
`
`MR. HANLEY: Well, the evidence is --
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: Not anticipating it.
`
`MR. HANLEY: It's in Professor Darrell's opinion. It's also -- it's also
`in the '003 patent itself, which is obviously an after-filed document. It's the
`patent itself.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: Please, continue.
`
`MR. HANLEY: Okay. So, in any event, in the instance where the
`
`disparity is too small because the object distances are too great, the '677
`patent explains maximum stereoscopic range, however, can be extended by
`the use of aids, such as binoculars, which in addition to magnifying, also
`serves to increase the baseline. So basically the binoculars increase the
`separation between the eyes so that the disparity then becomes of a distant
`object, becomes within the range where a human can perceive depth. Slide
`32, please.
`
`In Professor Darrell's declaration at paragraph 14, and this is within
`the context of several paragraphs where he discusses this concept, what he
`illustrates is on the left-hand side you have two cameras separated by a
`baseline imaging a distance -- imaging an object of one distance and then he
`shows how as the object's distance increases, if you increase the baseline,
`then the disparity will remain the same. Slide 33.
`
`We offer Sony Exhibit 1040, which is a paragraph from Wikipedia
`that is referred to in -- in a web page that Yissum put forward prior to 2003,
`which in an earlier has set forth a definition of stereoscopy, and says see this
`article for a more detailed explanation. So Wikipedia includes this image
`that we see on slide 33, which Wikipedia reports was taken by
`photographing the scene from two viewpoints separated by 100 feet. Slide
`34.
`
`
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, what's the date on the Wikipedia article?
`MR. HANLEY: The Wikipedia article was -- it was June of 2013.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: Again, after the filing date?
`
`MR. HANLEY: Correct. And again, I think the point, however,
`
`Judge Arpin, is not to show this is -- necessarily to show this is prior art. I
`mean, Professor Darrell testifies that this was within the level of skill in the
`art. But rather it's in response to a technical argument made by Yissum,
`supported Professor Essa, that it's just not possible if -- if the baseline is not
`human interocular, depth perception is not possible, and this basically
`refutes that. This is an image, an image created from two images using a
`baseline much larger than human interocular, so it supports essentially what
`the '003 patent itself says.
`
`We have, if the Board is interested, we have red/cyan glasses if the
`Board, apart from Judge Arpin, wishes to view the screen. We're happy to
`do -- forsake our -- these figures --
`
`JUDGE MEDLEY: That's okay.
`
`MR. HANLEY: -- if you want to look at it later on. Okay. Slide 35,
`please.
`
`Another argument that Yissum makes is that Asahi's images are not
`captures from slightly displacement positions, which is part of the
`construction understood from '003. Again, place the construction into
`perspective, the '003 patent itself talks about larger than human interocular,
`so slightly displaced could not be reasonably understood to be limited to
`human interocular.
`
`And Professor Darrell, in the testimony that's set forth on slide 35,
`says, "Such a person," referring to a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`"would have understood the term 'slightly displaced positions' to encompass
`displacements that are small relative to the distances of objects being
`recorded. In particular, such a person would have understood exaggerated
`stereo and reduced stereo to be within the definition of 'stereoscopic image
`pair.'" He's referring there to the '003 patents in reference to larger baselines
`for exaggerated stereo images or reduced stereo.
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Counsel, assuming for the sake of argument
`that that exaggerated stereo and reduced stereo that's in the background of
`the patent are able to produce stereo images, I thought that part of Patent
`Owner's argument was that you still had to do a little more processing after
`that to necessarily produce these images, which in the claim are providing a
`pair of stereoscopic image -- providing a stereoscopic image, excuse me, of
`the scene as recorded over the path. So that's kind of what my question is
`focusing on, is, what does that mean, "providing a stereoscopic image?"
`
`You know, it seems, on one hand, providing it requires -- you were
`going to offer us glasses or something, so you almost have to have glasses to
`see the image. On the other hand, I think we said when we instituted that
`some of these images may just be stored or in memory. So I'm having a
`little bit of trouble getting from one place to the other, if you could help out,
`please.
`
`MR. HANLEY: Yes. Well, first of all, I think as I said earlier, the
`claims that are involved here don't require any viewing or display. The
`claims are system for generating the two images. So it's two elements: a
`strip generator and a mosaic generator.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`In the mosaic generator element it uses the term "stereoscopic
`
`panoramic mosaic image pair," and the Board has construed it based on our
`proposition and the '003 patent that that stereoscopic image pair has certain
`attributes. And, under the construction, it's two images of a scene recorded
`from slightly displaced positions, which when viewed simultaneously by the
`respective eyes provides a perception of --
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: So the question is how do you view -- you have
`to pull them out of memory. Right now they're just in memory, I suppose.
`
`Go ahead. I'm sorry.
`
`MR. HANLEY: So my point is going to be that the construction
`leaves open how the image pair is presented for viewing. It doesn't rule
`anything in. It doesn't rule anything out. So if, for example, they argue with
`regard to Kawakita the alignment is regarded, the adjustment of issues is
`regarded. The claim doesn't preclude that. It doesn't tell you that you can't
`do it that way. It doesn't -- rather the construction simply doesn't address
`that issue. It just says when viewed simultaneously, they have to be viewed
`simultaneously by the respective eyes. And they have to be -- obviously,
`they have to be presented in some way for viewing. And in terms of how
`they're presented, how they're processed beforehand, how they're positions
`are manipulated, how they're aligned, that's all left open to those, you know,
`of skill in the art.
`
`And so our position is that this whole argument about alignment is
`really not germane. It's not germane to this claim. And --
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: But it might be in the next one? Is that the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`difference or if you're not in the --
`
`MR. HANLEY: Well, I don't think it's particularly germane either
`because the next one we'll talk about that, but --
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: I don't want to skip ahead, but I'm just trying to
`get a handle of where we are here.
`
`MR. HANLEY: So that's our position, that, you know, alignment,
`anything that needs to be done so those of skill know what to do to present
`these for viewing is within the purview of human viewer.
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Do the claims require that Kawakita actually
`have the capability to present them for human perception?
`
`MR. HANLEY: It just requires -- the construction requires the
`outcome that when they're viewed, however that happens, they provide the
`perception of depth.
`
`Sorry, Judge Arpin?
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: Yes, following up on Judge Easthom's question and
`your slide 11, quoting from Kawakita, I think he's saying that a stereoscopic
`view is possible that faithfully reproduces the position or relationships. How
`does that relate to the Judge's questions regarding how this data is to be
`viewed?
`
`MR. HANLEY: Well, what -- all this says is that you take the two
`images -- here he's talking about no adjustment being necessary. You take
`the two images and you present them, they're viewed binocular
`stereoscopically, which means on eye views on, the other eye views the
`other.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: So I would not need any glasses or anything else to
`
`view this as it's produced by Kawakita?
`
`MR. HANLEY: Well, you -- depending on the manner in which it's
`displayed, you may or may not need some other apparatus. So if it's an
`anaglyph, yes, you do, you need to have the right, you know, filters for the
`color configuration of the anaglyph. If it's a display that uses alternating
`left-right with polarization, you need glasses that are appropriately polarized.
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: Is that the difference? Is that the difference then
`between the quote on page 11 -- or slide 11 and the quote on slide 12
`beginning, "However?"
`
`MR. HANLEY: I don't think that has to do anything with which
`devices or which apparatus are needed to view them for display. It depends
`on the display. It really doesn't speak to that. What it speaks to is that
`because of -- under these circumstances, which -- which because of close
`object -- close object distances are a problem because the disparity is too
`great for human viewing. So you can do one of two things: you can move
`the object farther away or you can take the two images and you can basically
`adjust that disparity by aligning them properly, bringing the corresponding
`points of the scene closer together if you want to reduce the disparity. So
`he's just addressing that kind of basic alignment question that one does
`depending on what the -- what the images of capture are.
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, I'm just trying to understand whether the
`adjustment has to do with the data coming in or the adjustment has to do
`with the data being displayed.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`MR. HANLEY: No, the -- what he says is, in slide 12, the positions
`
`representing the left and right panoramic images must be adjusted. So this
`has nothing to do with the processing generating the images. This is images
`are done and now -- now we have to -- we have two images and -- and so,
`obviously, we can't just, you know, lay one on top of the other or put one
`next to each other and view them stereoscopically. Something more needs
`to be done.
`
`So, for example, if one is going anaglyph, first you have to color filter
`them properly and then you have to align them. You have to align them so
`the person looking at them will be able to see them. One can't be on one
`wall and the other on the opposite wall. That's just -- so all he's saying, this
`has to do with adjusting the positions of the two after the fact, after they're
`already generated.
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: Please continue.
`
`MR. HANLEY: So let me go on to what is Yissum's main argument,
`my perception at least about Asahi, and that is that stereoscopic viewing in
`the passage from paragraph 35 that I read a few moments ago, doesn't mean
`viewing. It means calculating height. Slide 37. So it relates to this passage.
`Slide 39.
`
`Now, in presenting Asahi in the petition, Asahi essentially relied on
`the ordinary meaning of the word "viewing." And in response to Yissum's
`argument, you know, we put forth a couple of dictionary definitions, and
`these are Sony Exhibits 1045 and 1046, of viewing. And basically it says
`what one would think: viewing it essentially seeing, watching, and the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`example's given of watching television. Slide 40, please.
`
`Also, the terms "stereo viewing" and "stereoscopic viewing" are use in
`Kawakita and there's really no argument here, as I understand it, that it
`means anything other than viewing images. Slide 40 -- I'm sorry, slide 41.
`
`We also used as an example of the use of stereo viewing the passage
`from the Hellava reference, which was submitted with the petition, and
`Hellava discusses a display system that uses timeshare stereo viewing, so it's
`clear here it's human viewing of images.
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: So just -- I have another question. So this
`stereo viewing, it's not necessarily 3D, is that right? He doesn't have glasses
`on, obviously.
`
`MR. HANLEY: No. In this -- if we have a larger -- a larger excerpt
`it'd become more clear, but in the -- in the third sentence it says, "In this
`system stereo images are alternatingly displayed 512-by-512 pixel black-
`and-white monitor at the rate of 60 image pairs per second." So what he's
`talking about is one scheme for displaying stereo images on a monitor where
`you have -- you alternate the left and right views very quickly and in
`appropriate polarization, so that if you have glasses on for viewing them
`your eye will see one and then the other. And it happens in sequence so
`quickly that it appears to be a still image. Forty-two, please.
`
`I'm sorry. And finally, Professor Darrell testified he simply disagrees
`with Professor Essa that Asahi is referring to calculating height in the
`passage that refers to stereoscopic viewing using the mosaics. And he says,
`"Although such a person," a person of ordinary skill in the art, "might have
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00218
`Patent 6,665,003 B1
`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`understood terms such as 'stereo images' and 'stereoscopic images'
`depending on the context refer to stereo image data from a computer
`calculating the distance or the height of objects, the word 'viewing' would
`have been understood to mean human observation of the displayed images."
`
`JUDGE EASTHOM: Can you touch briefly, Counsel, on the -- the
`other Asahi reference at 2012. Does that have viewing? I know Patent
`Owner's contending that that makes a difference here that there's two
`different translations.
`
`MR. HANLEY: Well, the one is the subject of our motion to exclude.
`I certainly want to get into that. It says the -- the language says, instead of
`stereoscopic viewing is possible, it says a 3D image can be shown to the
`viewer. So with regard to this issue, which is their primary argument that
`the passage means calculating height, it seems to me that that the earlier
`translation is not as good for their argument. It seems it makes it even
`clearer that this is a display of images.
`
`The issue of 3D, which is a new issue they're raising now and
`essentially arguing that a 3D image means a topographical-type map, I can
`go into that
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
