Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 60
` Entered: September 22, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B21
`_______________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Sony Corp. v. Yissum Research Co., Case IPR2013-00327 (“IPR2013-00327”)
`has been joined with the instant Case IPR2013-00219. IPR2013-00327, Paper 15
`(PTAB Sept. 24, 2013). This Final Written Decision is entered in both cases.
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Sony Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed Petitions requesting inter partes
`
`review of claims 1–3, 10, 20, 27–29, 36, and 37 (IPR2013-00219, Paper 3,
`
`“Petition” or “Pet.”), and claims 4, 7, and 38 (IPR2013-00327, Paper 10)2 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,477,284 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’284 Patent”).3 In response, Yissum
`
`Research Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (“Patent
`
`Owner”) filed Preliminary Responses. Paper 13 (“Prelim. Resp.”); IPR2013-
`
`00327, Paper 13.
`
`We joined Case IPR2013-00327 to Case IPR2013-00219 (see IPR2013-
`
`00327, Paper 15) and instituted inter partes review of claims 1–4, 7, 10, 20, 27–29,
`
`and 36–38 of the ’284 Patent on several grounds of unpatentability, as identified
`
`below. See Paper 16 (“Dec. on Inst.”); IPR2013-00327, Paper 14. Pursuant to the
`
`Joinder Decision, the parties filed all further papers and exhibits in Case IPR2013-
`
`00219. Subsequent to institution and joinder, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`
`Response (Paper 35, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 37, “Pet.
`
`Reply”) thereto.
`
`In addition, Patent Owner filed a Motion for Observation (Paper 43) on the
`
`cross-examination testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Trevor Darrell, and a
`
`Motion to Exclude certain evidence (Paper 44). Petitioner filed a Response to the
`
`Motion for Observation (Paper 52) and an Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Exclude (Paper 51). Patent Owner filed a Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition. Paper
`
`53.
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise indicated, reference hereinafter is to papers and exhibits filed in
`IPR2013-00219.
`3 The ’284 Patent is a child of U.S. Patent No. 6,665,003 B1 (Ex. 1002, “the ’003
`Patent”), which is at issue in related Cases IPR2013-00218 and IPR2013-00326.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`Petitioner also filed a Motion to Exclude certain evidence. Paper 47. Patent
`
`Owner filed an Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 50), and
`
`Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Opposition (Paper 54).
`
`The parties requested and appeared at an oral hearing before the panel on
`
`June 18, 2014. The record includes a transcript of the hearing. Paper 59 (“Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written Decision,
`
`issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73, addresses issues and
`
`arguments raised during trial. For the reasons that follow, we determine that
`
`Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–4,
`
`7, 10, 20, 27–29, and 36–38 of the ’284 Patent are unpatentable.
`
`A. The ’284 Patent
`
`The ’284 Patent describes methods and apparatus for generating mosaics of
`
`a scene from image data of the scene and displaying the mosaics to provide a sense
`
`of depth. See Ex. 1001, Abstract. In particular, the ’284 Patent relates generally to
`
`the field of recording and generating images and, more particularly, to the
`
`generation and display of panoramic images stereoscopically. Id. at col. 1, ll. 44–
`
`47. The ’284 Patent specifically describes generating and displaying a
`
`stereoscopic, panoramic image set, comprising respectively at least two panoramic
`
`images of a scene, each having a different viewing direction or line, for
`
`contemporaneous viewing by respective left and right eyes of a viewer to provide
`
`an apparent stereoscopic image of the scene to the viewer. Id. at col. 1, ll. 47–53.
`
`According to the ’003 Patent,4 creating and displaying non-panoramic,
`
`stereoscopic images was known in the art, but “currently, there are no such
`
`arrangements for generating and displaying stereoscopically panoramic images.”
`
`
`4 The ‘284 Patent claims the benefit of and incorporates by reference the disclosure
`of the application from which the ‘003 Patent issued. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 7–13,
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`Ex. 1002, col. 1, ll. 41–43(emphasis added); see Ex. 1001, col. 1, l. 66–col. 2, l. 1.
`
`Figure 3 of the ’284 Patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 schematically depicts a functional block diagram of the
`stereoscopic data source according to the ’284 Patent.
`
`In Figure 3, a functional block diagram of the stereoscopic data source, such
`
`as data source 11n of Figure 2 (not reproduced), is depicted. Stereoscopic data
`
`source 11n of Figure 2 “includes an image capture unit 30, a local memory unit 31,
`
`a processing unit 32, one or more local displays 33A, 33B, . . . and a
`
`communication unit 34, as well as [an] operator control panel 22.” Ex. 1001,
`
`27–33.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`col. 6, ll. 58–61. Image capture unit 30, local memory unit 31, processing unit 32,
`
`and local displays 33A and 33B may be housed together and form a video camera
`
`21, such as that described in connection with Figure 2. See id. at col. 6, ll. 61–64,
`
`Fig. 2. Capture unit 30 may include, for example, an image sensor, aperture,
`
`lenses, and/or the like to facilitate capturing or acquiring of images. Id. at col. 6,
`
`ll. 64–67. A suitable image sensor may be any of a number of “conventional”
`
`image sensors, including, for example, charge coupled devices, film, and the like.
`
`Id. at col. 6, l. 67–col. 7, l. 3.
`
`The ’003 Patent describes stereoscopic viewing and images as follows:
`
`A person can see stereoscopically because his or her eyes are
`displaced horizontally (when standing) which, will provide a
`perception of depth when viewing a scene, which would not be
`present otherwise. Stereoscopic images comprise two images
`recorded of a scene recorded from slightly displaced positions, which,
`when viewed simultaneously by the respective eyes, provides a
`perception of depth.
`
`Ex. 1002, col. 1, ll. 32–39 (emphasis added).
`
`
`Figure 5 of the ’284 Patent, which depicts the generation of a stereoscopic,
`
`panoramic set of images that may be used to display a scene or portions of a scene
`
`to provide a sense of depth of the scene to a viewing person, is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 5 presents the operations performed by the stereoscopic panoramic image
`arrangement in connection with generating a stereoscopic panoramic set according
`to the ’284 Patent.
`
`
`
`Figure 5 depicts a stereoscopic, panoramic image set which comprises a plurality
`
`of panoramic images. When the panoramic images are viewed in sets, a
`
`stereoscopic image is perceived. In particular, Figure 5 represents a series of
`
`successive images 50(1), 50(2), . . . 50(i), that are recorded by the stereoscopic data
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`source 11n as stereoscopic data source 11n is translated and/or rotated with respect
`
`to a scene or a portion of a scene. Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 25–33.
`
`As the Specification of the ’284 Patent explains,
`
`[a] plurality of panoramic images 51a, 51b . . . comprising a
`stereoscopic panoramic image set are generated using respective strips
`a1, a2, . . . a3, b1, b2, . . . b3, . . . from the respective images 50(i).
`Strips a1, a2, . . . a3 that are used in image 51a all from the same
`horizontal displacement from the center of the respective images
`50(i), strips b1, b2,. . . b3 that are used in image 51b are all from [sic]
`same horizontal displacement from the center of the respective images
`50(i), and so forth. It will be appreciated that, if the images 51(i) are
`viewed in pairs, they will provide stereoscopic depth since they will
`effectively have different viewing directions.
`
`
`Id. at col. 8, ll. 34–44 (emphasis added).
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 27, and 38 are independent claims.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 27 are directed to imaging apparatus (id. at col. 13, l. 62,
`
`col. 16, l. 5), and independent claim 38 is directed to methods for processing image
`
`data (id. at col. 17, ll. 3–7). Each of dependent claims 2–4, 7, 10, and 20 depends
`
`directly from claim 1. Each of dependent claims 28, 29, 36, and 37 depends
`
`directly from claim 27. Challenged claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below,
`
`with some additional indentation and line spacing, solely for the sake of clarity:
`
`1. Imaging apparatus comprising:
`
`
`at least one imager that moves relative to a scene so as to
`
`acquire a plurality of optical images of at least portions of the scene,
`each of at least two of said optical images being viewed from a
`different respective viewing position;
`
`a processor that receives image data representative of said at
`
`least two of the optical images and processes the data to divide each
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`image into a plurality of segments and to generate a plurality of
`mosaics of the scene, such that:
`
`each mosaic contains segments taken from different ones of
`
`said optical images;
`
`segments relating to at least one part of the scene are derived
`
`from at least two optical images and appear in at least two mosaics;
`
`the different segments of the two optical images in a given
`
`mosaic represent different parts 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.
`
`C. References, Declarations, and Depositions
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner primarily rely upon the following references,
`
`declarations, and depositions:5
`
`1006
`
`Exhibit References, Declarations, and Depositions
`Kawakita et al., Generation of Panoramic Stereo Images from
`1004
`Monocular Moving Images, SIG-CyberSpace ,Virtual Reality Society of
`Japan (VRSJ) Research Report, VCR 97-12 (Nov. 27, 1997)
`(“Kawakita”)6
`US 2001/0010546 A1 (published Aug. 2, 2001/filed Sep. 26, 1997)
`(“Chen”)
`Eastman Kodak Company, Kodak Digital Science™ DC50 Zoom
`Camera User’s Guide (Jan. 1996) (“Kodak”).
`Inoue, JP H08-159762 (June 21, 1996) (“Asahi”)
`First Declaration of Dr. Trevor Darrell (“first declaration”)
`US 5,737,491 (issued Apr. 7, 1998) (“Allen”)
`Joined Declaration of Dr. Darrell7
`
`1007
`
`1010
`1013
`1039
`1040
`
`
`5 Unless otherwise noted, each of “Kawakita” (Ex. 1004) and “Asahi” (Ex. 1010)
`refers to a respective certified English language translation of a Japanese language
`document (Exs. 1003 and 1009, respectively) provided by Petitioner.
`6 Petitioner has added page numbers 13–19 to Kawakita.
`7 This declaration is from joined Case IPR2013-00327.
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`1042
`1043
`1044
`2008
`2010
`2014
`2019
`2020
`
`Wikipedia article entitled “Stereoscopy”
`Deposition of Dr. Irfan Essa
`Second Declaration of Dr. Darrell (“second declaration”)
`First Deposition of Dr. Darrell
`Declaration of Dr. Essa
`Second Deposition of Dr. Darrell
`Declaration of Mr. Barton
`Deposition of Mr. Barton
`
`
`
`D. Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`This inter partes review involves the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`References
`
`Kawakita
`
`Kawakita
`
`Basis
`
`Claims
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) 1, 10, 27, 36, and 38
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 1, 10, 27, and 36
`
`Kawakita and Chen
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 1, 2, 10, 27, 28, and 36
`
`Kawakita, Chen, and Kodak 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 3 and 29
`
`Asahi
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) 1, 3, 20, 27, 29, and 37
`
`Kawakita, Chen, and Allen
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 4 and 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Claim Construction). Under the
`
`broadest reasonable construction standard, a claim term is presumed to have an
`
`ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A patentee may act as his or her own
`
`lexicographer by providing a special definition for a claim term in the specification
`
`with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Generally, in the absence of such a special definition
`
`or other considerations, “limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
`
`specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`In our Decision on Institution, we provided constructions for various terms
`
`of the challenged claims. Dec. on Inst. 10–19. Neither party expressly challenges
`
`our constructions of these terms or suggests that other terms require express
`
`construction in order to render our final decision in this review. Nevertheless, as
`
`discussed below, Patent Owner contends that neither Kawakita nor Asahi discloses
`
`or suggests “a processor [to] generate a plurality of mosaics . . . . [that] provide a
`
`sense of depth of the scene” or “a display that receives a plurality of the mosaics
`
`and displays them so as to provide a sense of depth of the scene.” PO Resp. 3.
`
`Therefore, for purposes of this final decision, we expressly construe each of these
`
`terms.
`
`1. “a processor [to] generate a plurality of mosaics . . . [that] provide a
`sense of depth of the scene”
`
`In our Decision on Institution, we construed the term “processor that
`
`processes the data to divide each image [of the scene] into a plurality of segments”
`
`to mean a processor that divides, e.g., separates, each image into a plurality of
`
`segments or strips. Dec. on Inst. 14. Referring to claim 1, reproduced above in
`
`Section I.B., we note that Patent Owner combines the language of the “processor”
`
`element, namely, “a processor [to] generate a plurality of mosaics . . .” with that
`
`of the “display” element, namely, “[that] provide a sense of depth of the scene,” to
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`create the term “processor [to] generate a plurality of mosaics . . . [that] provide a
`
`sense of depth of the scene.” PO Resp. 3, 8, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, 30, 32. Petitioner
`
`contends that Patent Owner’s argument
`
`relies on a non-existent claim limitation. None of the claims call for a
`processor that generates mosaics that provide a sense of depth of the
`scene. [Patent Owner] rewrites the claims to incorporate a function of
`the display (“displays them so as to provide a sense of depth of the
`scene”) into the processor element.
`
`Pet. Reply 1; see id. at 4, 10. We agree with Petitioner and determine that this term
`
`language is not recited in claim 1.
`
`As discussed in greater detail below, Patent Owner argues that the “plurality
`
`of mosaics of the scene” generated by the processor must “provide a sense of depth
`
`of the scene,” without further adjustment. See PO Resp. 16–17 (referring to
`
`Kawakita); 31–32 (referring to Asahi). Further, Patent Owner argues that the
`
`processor must provide a sense of depth for the entire scene, rather than a partial
`
`scene. Id. at 17 (referring to Kawakita). Initially, we are not persuaded based on
`
`the language of claim 1 that the function recited with respect to the “display” may
`
`be attributed necessarily to the “processor.” See Tr. 62:20–63:4 (Petitioner arguing
`
`that the display and processor may function together).
`
`In addition, Patent Owner does not identify any language recited in claim 1,
`
`or, for that matter, in the Specification of the ’284 Patent, that requires or prohibits
`
`the adjustment of the generated mosaics, either by the processor or by the display,
`
`before viewing. See PO Resp. 5–7. Finally, we note that claim 1 recites an
`
`“[i]maging apparatus comprising” elements, including the processor and the
`
`display. Ex. 1001, col. 13, l. 62 (emphasis added). “‘Comprising’ is a term of art
`
`used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but
`
`other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`claim.” Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`Moreover, claim 1 recites that at least one imager acquires “a plurality of
`
`optical images of at least portions of the scene.” Ex. 1001, col. 13, ll. 64–65
`
`(emphasis added). Thus, we construe the “scene” to refer to all or a portion of an
`
`imaged scene. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 53–55 (“The display, if provided, will
`
`display at least a portion of one or more of the images comprising a stereoscopic
`
`panoramic image set.”); col. 5, ll. 19–23 (“the respective viewing device 12m can
`
`include a control to facilitate selection of a stereoscopic panoramic image set for
`
`display, selection of display mode, and selection of a portion of the stereoscopic
`
`panoramic image set to be displayed.”).
`
`Therefore, we construe the recited processor as functioning to generate the
`
`plurality of mosaics of the scene or a portion of a scene, but the processor is neither
`
`required to perform, nor prohibited from performing, adjustments to the generated
`
`mosaics, and the generated mosaics are not required themselves to “provide a sense
`
`of depth of the scene.”
`
`2. “a display that receives a plurality of the mosaics and displays them so
`as to provide a sense of depth of the scene”
`
`In our Decision on Institution, we construed the term “display” to mean
`
`one or more elements that receive a plurality of the mosaics and
`display the plurality of the mosaics so as to provide, in conjunction
`with an “appliance” or a “binocular device,” a sense of depth of the
`scene from which the mosaics were generated for viewing by a
`person. In other words, the Specification makes clear that a display
`does not preclude, and some embodiments may utilize, a further
`viewing appliance or device to help provide a sense of depth to the
`viewer.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`Dec. on Inst. 16–17 (emphasis added). We similarly construed the term “sense of
`
`depth of the scene” to mean the visual perception of differential distances among
`
`objects, where “the sense of depth must be perceived by a person viewing the
`
`display, albeit with appliances or other devices,” as noted above with respect to our
`
`construction of the term “display.” Id. at 17–18; see Tr. 60:21–61:2.
`
`In addition, as we noted in our Decision on Institution (Dec. on Inst. 24),
`
`challenged claim 10 depends directly from claim 1, and claim 10 recites an
`
`imaging apparatus “wherein the display displays the at least two mosaics so that
`
`each eye sees a different one of the mosaics.” Ex. 1001, col. 14, ll. 42–44. Other
`
`claims of the ’284 Patent can be valuable sources of enlightenment as to the
`
`meaning of a term of a challenged claim. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90
`
`F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Because claim terms generally are used
`
`consistently throughout a patent, the usage of a term, e.g., display, in one claim
`
`may illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims. See Rexnord Corp.
`
`v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Given that claim 10
`
`narrows the scope of the display of claim 1 (see 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 4), the meaning
`
`of the term “display,” as used in claim 1, encompasses the stereoscopic8 display
`
`described in claim 10.
`
`
`
`Although, as discussed in greater detail below, Patent Owner argues that
`
`Asahi does not disclose or suggest this limitation because Asahi does not disclose
`
`displaying mosaic images to a person to provide a perception of depth (PO Resp.
`
`25), Patent Owner again does not identify any language recited in claim 1 or in the
`
`
`8 A relevant definition of the term “stereoscopic” is “[o]f or pertaining to
`stereoscopy; especially, three dimensional,” or “[o]f or pertaining to a
`stereoscope.” THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
`1264 (1976) (Ex. 3001). The ’284 Patent relates specifically to “human stereo
`panoramic perception.” See Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 10–11.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`Specification of the ’284 Patent, that requires or prohibits the adjustment of the
`
`generated mosaics, by the display before viewing (see id. at 5–7). See Tr. 62:20–
`
`63:4. Petitioner does not contest our previous construction of these terms. Pet.
`
`Reply 3–4. For reasons similar to those set forth above with respect to the
`
`“processor” element of claim 1, we also are persuaded that the “display” of claim 1
`
`is neither required to perform, nor prohibited from performing, adjustments to the
`
`received mosaics and that the received mosaics are not required themselves to
`
`“provide a sense of depth of the scene.”
`
`For this decision, we adopt and apply the foregoing constructions, as well as
`
`our constructions of other claim terms, as set forth in our Decision on Institution.
`
`Dec. on Inst. 10–19. All remaining claim terms and phrases recited in the
`
`challenged claims are given their ordinary and customary meanings, consistent
`
`with the Specification, as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art,
`
`and need not be construed expressly here.
`
`B. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`1. Introduction
`
`Petitioner asserts that that claims 1–4, 7, 10, 20, 27–29, and 36–38 of the
`
`’284 Patent are unpatentable, and, in particular, that a) claims 1, 10, 27, 36, and 38
`
`are anticipated by Kawakita; b) claims 1, 10, 27, and 36 are rendered obvious over
`
`Kawakita; c) claims 1, 2, 10, 27, 28, and 36 are rendered obvious over Kawakita
`
`and Chen; d) claims 3 and 29 are rendered obvious over Kawakita, Chen, and
`
`Kodak; e) claims 1, 3, 20, 27, 29, and 37 are anticipated by Asahi; and f) claims 4
`
`and 7 are rendered obvious over Kawakita, Chen, and Allen. To support these
`
`asserted grounds of unpatentability in its Petitions, Petitioner provides detailed
`
`explanations, and the declaration of Dr. Darrell, to show how each reference
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`discloses each claim limitation.9 See Pet. 16–33, 45–50; IPR2013-00327, Paper
`
`10, 17–26, 38–40; Ex. 1013.
`
`Relying partially on the declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa, Patent Owner counters
`
`that neither Kawakita nor Asahi discloses or suggests each and every element of
`
`claim 1 and that “[c]laim 1 is representative” of the challenged claims in this trial.
`
`See PO Resp. 9, 20, 32; Ex. 2010. Claims 2–4, 7, 10, and 20 depend from claim 1.
`
`Independent claims 27 and 38 are similar in scope to claim 1, and claims 28, 29,
`
`36, and 37 depend from claim 27. Patent Owner only raises substantive arguments
`
`with respect to claim 1 of the ’284 Patent, and does not argue any of the other
`
`independent claims or any of the dependent claims, separately from claim 1. Other
`
`arguments, not presented in the Patent Owner Response, are deemed waived.
`
`Paper 17, 2 (“The patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability
`
`not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”)
`
`Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments and contentions and their
`
`supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a
`
`preponderance of evidence that claims 1–4, 7, 10, 20, 27–29, and 36–38 of the
`
`’284 Patent are unpatentable based on the foregoing grounds. In our analysis
`
`below, we focus on Patent Owner’s arguments presented in the Patent Owner
`
`Response, which dispute whether the applied references disclose or suggest certain
`
`elements allegedly recited in claim 1. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`Fed. Reg. at 48,766 (“The [Patent Owner] [R]esponse should identify all the
`
`involved claims that are believed to be patentable and state the basis for that
`
`
`9 Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Darrell, and Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Essa, each
`provide a description of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. Ex. 1013 ¶ 8;
`Ex. 2010 ¶ 13. These descriptions are substantially similar. For purposes of this
`decision, we adopt Dr. Essa’s description which encompasses the qualifications of
`each declarant.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`belief.”).
`
`2. Kawakita
`Anticipation––Claims 1, 10, 27, 36, and 38
`Obviousness––Claim 2–4, 7, 28, and 29
`
`1. Processor
`
`Petitioner reads the elements of independent claim 1 of the ’284 Patent on
`
`the disclosure of Kawakita. Pet. 16–20. In particular, claim 1 recites “a processor
`
`that receives image data representative of said at least two of the optical images
`
`and processes the data to divide each image into a plurality of segments and to
`
`generate a plurality of mosaics of the scene” (emphasis added).
`
`Petitioner contends that Kawakita discloses excising, e.g., dividing, vertical
`
`slit images from the video frame images, and these vertical slit images are used to
`
`derive left eye and right eye slit images. Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1004, 15). Thus,
`
`Petitioner contends that Kawakita discloses receiving “image data representative of
`
`said at least two of the optical images” and processing “the data to divide each
`
`image into a plurality of segments.” Id. Although Petitioner acknowledges that
`
`Kawakita does not disclose expressly the use of a processor, Petitioner contends
`
`that
`
`inherently
`Kawakita’s system necessarily uses, and,
`therefore,
`discloses, a processor to generate the mosaics, because, among other
`things, digital image data corresponding to each video frame is
`captured by a 320x240 pixel imager and digital processing steps
`including “template matching” is performed on the image data as part
`of the procedure for determining slit widths.
`
`Pet. 17 (emphases added). “It is well settled that a prior art reference may
`
`anticipate when the claim limitations not expressly found in that reference are
`
`nonetheless inherent in it. ‘Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art
`
`necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`anticipates.’” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2002) (emphasis added; citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In support
`
`of Petitioner’s contention of inherency, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Darrell (Ex.
`
`1013 ¶¶ 1–4), states that “[i]t would have been necessary and obvious to employ a
`
`processor to perform these steps, especially in light of the number of pixels being
`
`processed, which would be unfeasible to perform by hand.” Ex. 1013 ¶ 10.b.
`
`(emphasis added); see Pet. 17. In view of this evidence, we are persuaded here that
`
`Kawakita inherently discloses the use of a processor.
`
`Nevertheless, Patent Owner argues that Kawakita fails to disclose or suggest
`
`“a processor [to] generate a plurality of mosaics … [that] provide a sense of depth
`
`of the scene,” as allegedly recited in claim 1. PO Resp. 13–21. Specifically,
`
`Patent Owner argues that Kawakita describes two different situations that may
`
`occur, based on the relative distances of the objects in the scene, namely:
`
`When the left and right panoramic images obtained using the
`foregoing procedure are viewed binocular stereoscopically, a
`stereoscopic view is possible that faithfully reproduces the positional
`relationships. 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 the right panoramic
`images must be adjusted.
`
`
`
`PO Resp. 10 (quoting Ex. 1004, 16–17). Thus, Patent Owner contends that
`
`Kawakita teaches that the objects viewed stereoscopically either (1) are at roughly
`
`the same distance from each other or (2) are at different distances from each other.
`
`PO Resp. 10–11. In the first situation, Patent Owner contends that perception of,
`
`or sensing depth by, a person viewing displayed images is not possible because
`
`objects are roughly the same distance from the camera. Id. at 13–15. In the second
`
`situation, Patent Owner contends that, although perception of, or sensing depth by,
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`a person viewing displayed images is possible, Kawakita’s display must be
`
`subjected to a parallax adjustment process to align the images. Id. at 15–17.
`
`
`
`First, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Darrell,
`
`acknowledges that there must be “differential distance of objects in the scene to
`
`provide a perception of depth” (PO Resp. 14 (quoting Ex. 2008, 32:16–23)) and
`
`that, if there is no such “differential distance,” no perception of depth of viewed
`
`mosaicked images is possible (PO Resp. 14–15 (quoting Ex. 2008, 47:9–19)).
`
`Thus, in Patent Owner’s alleged first situation of Kawakita, no perception of depth
`
`is possible, with or without adjustment. PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 35).
`
`
`
`Second, Patent Owner argues that that Dr. Darrell acknowledges that
`
`“Kawakita performs multiple alignment adjustments to the images, one for each
`
`sight line direction that an observer looks” (PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2008, 72:2–9))
`
`and that, “if no subsequent adjustment is made when a viewer shifts to a different
`
`line of direction[,] faithful stereoscopic viewing is that portion of the scene is not
`
`possible” (PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2008, 84:15–24). Thus, in the Patent Owner’s
`
`alleged second situation of Kawakita, no perception of depth is possible, without
`
`adjustment, and then a perception of depth is provided for only a portion of the
`
`displayed image. PO Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 41–42).
`
`Initially, we note that, given our construction of the language of claim 1,
`
`even if a parallax adjustment process to align the images or a similar adjustment
`
`process is performed, so that the mosaics displayed to a person provide a “sense of
`
`depth,” such adjustments to the generated mosaics are neither required nor
`
`prohibited to “provide a sense of depth of the scene.” See supra 10–14 (Sections
`
`II.A.1. and II.A.2.). Nevertheless, Petitioner contends that Patent Owner
`
`misunderstands Kawakita’s disclosure as requiring adjustment in order to display
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`(or view) any mosaics “to provide a sense of depth to the scene.” Pet. Reply 5–6.
`
`We agree with Petitioner.
`
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s interpretation of Kawakita, Petitioner contends
`
`that Kawakita discloses at least three situations by the text quoted above. Id. at 5
`
`(quoting Ex. 1004, 16–17). In particular, Kawakita states that “[w]hen the left and
`
`right panoramic images obtained using the foregoing procedure are viewed
`
`binocular stereoscopically, a stereoscopic view is possible that faithfully
`
`reproduces the positional relationships, if the image was captured from a sufficient
`
`distance.” Ex. 1004, 16 (emphasis added). Petitioner contends that, by this first
`
`sentence, Kawakita indicates that unadjusted mosaic pairs may “faithfully
`
`reproduce[] the positional relationships [of objects in the imaged scene], if the
`
`image was captured from a sufficient distance.” Pet. Reply 5. Petitioner further
`
`contends that the second sentence of this quoted passage describes two situations
`
`in which adjustments may be necessary. Id. First, adjustments may be neces