`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 16
`
`
`
` Entered: September 23, 2013
`
`
`
`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 (SCM)
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
` Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, Sony Corporation, filed a petition requesting an inter partes
`review of claims 1-3, 10, 20, 27-29, 36, and 37 of Patent No. US 7,477,284 B2 (the
`“’284 Patent” or Ex. 1001). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). In response, Patent Owner, Yissum
`Research Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, filed a
`patent owner preliminary response. Paper 13 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a):
`THRESHOLD – The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any
`response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of
`the claims challenged in the petition.
`Pursuant to the defined threshold under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Board
`institutes an inter partes review of claims 1-3, 10, 20, 27-29, 36 and 37 of the ’284
`Patent.1
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`The ’284 Patent and another related patent, Patent No. US 6,665,003 B2 (the
`“’003 Patent” or Ex. 1002), are involved in other inter partes review proceedings
`before the Board and litigation in the U.S. District Court of Delaware. See Pet. 1,
`citing HumanEyes Technologies Ltd. v. Sony Electronics Inc. et al., 1-12-cv-00398
`(D. Del. March 29, 2013). Related proceedings before the Board include IPR2013-
`00218, IPR2013-00326, and IPR2013-00327, and involve the same parties. In
`
`1 Petitioner filed a separate petition challenging claims 4, 7, and 38 of the ‘284
`Patent and a motion to join that proceeding with this one. See IPR2013-00327
`(Papers 4 and 10). A decision on that petition and on the motion for joinder will be
`made in due course.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`related IPR 2013-00327(the “’327 proceeding”), Petitioner describes the Delaware
`litigation as an infringement action currently based on at least claims 1-4, 7, 5, 10,
`20, 27-29, and 36-38 of the ’284 Patent. See IPR2013-00327 (Paper 10, 2-3; Paper
`11, 11). As noted above, Petitioner has moved to join the ’327 proceeding with
`this proceeding. See note 1, supra.
`B. 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 respective at least two panoramic
`images of a scene, each having a different viewing direction, 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 ll. 47-53.
`According to the ’003 Patent,2 creating and displaying non-panoramic,
`stereoscopic images was known in the prior art, but “currently, there are no such
`arrangements for generating and displaying stereoscopically panoramic images.”
`Ex. 1002, col. 1, ll. 40-43(emphasis added); see also Ex. 1001, col. 1, l. 66-col. 2, l.
`1. Common dictionary definitions corroborate that stereoscopic image systems
`were known prior to the filing date of the ’284 Patent. For example, a 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
`
`
`2 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. 27-33.
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 1264 (1976) (Ex. 3001).3 The ’284
`Patent relates specifically to “human stereo panoramic perception.” See Ex. 1001,
`col. 2, ll. 9-11.
`Figure 3 of the ’284 Patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`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
`
`
`3 A definition of the term “stereoscopy” is “[t]he phenomenon of simultaneous
`vision with two eyes in which there is a vivid perception of the distances of objects
`from the viewer; it is present because the two eyes view objects in space from two
`points, so that the retinal image patterns of the same object are slightly different in
`the two eyes. Also known as stereopsis; stereoscopic vision.” MCGRAW-HILL
`DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL TERMS, 1920 (5th ed. 1994) (Ex.
`3002).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`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.” Id. at col. 6, ll.
`55-61. 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 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 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
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`
`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
`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 explains,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`[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).
`C. Exemplary Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 27 are independent claims. Each of
`dependent claims 2, 3, 10, and 20 depend directly from claim 1. Each of
`dependent claims 28, 29, 36, and 37 depend directly from claim 27. Challenged
`claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below, with some additional indentation
`and line spacing for 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 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
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`a display that receives a plurality of the mosaics and displays them so as
`to provide a sense of depth of the scene.
`
`
`D. References Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following references:
`
`
`
`Berger
`Chen
`
`
`July 11, 1922
`
`US 1,422,527
`
`US 2001/0010546 A1 Aug. 2, 2001
`(filed Sep. 26, 1997)
`
`JP H08-159762 A
`
`June 21, 1996
`
`
`
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`
`Asahi4
`
`U.V. Heleva, State of the Art in Digital Photogrammetric Workstations, THE
`PHOTOGRAMMETRIC JOURNAL OF FINLAND, Vol. 2, No. 2, 65-76 (1991)5 (Ex. 1011,
`hereinafter “Heleva”);
`
`Ishiguro et al., Acquiring Omnidirectional Range Information, SYSTEMS AND
`COMPUTERS IN JAPAN, Vol. 23, No. 4, 47-56 (1992) (Ex. 1005, hereinafter
`“Ishiguro”);
`
`Kawakita et al.,6 Generation of Panoramic Stereo Images from Monocular
`Moving Images, SIG-CYBERSPACE ,VIRTUAL REALITY SOCIETY OF JAPAN (VRSJ)
`RESEARCH REPORT, 2(1) VP GAKU KENPO , ISSN 1343-0572, VCR 97-11 (Nov.
`27, 1997) (Ex. 1104, hereinafter “Kawakita”); and
`
`Eastman Kodak Company, Kodak Digital Science™ DC50 Zoom Camera
`User’s Guide (Jan. 1996) (Ex. 1007, hereinafter “Kodak”).
`
`
`
`
`4 Aero Asahi Corporation is the named applicant of this Japanese patent
`application, and we refer to this reference hereinafter as “Asahi.” Unless otherwise
`noted, all citations to this reference are to the certified English translation (Ex.
`1010).
`5 Cited copy date stamped March 24, 1992.
`6 Unless otherwise noted, all citations to this reference refer to a certified English
`translation (Ex. 1105).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 102 and 103:
`Claims 1, 10, 27, and 36 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) by
`Kawakita (Pet. 16-20);
`Claims 1, 10, 20, 27, 36, and 37 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Kawakita (id. at 20-23);
`Claims 1, 2, 10, 27, 28, and 36 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by
`Chen (id. at 23-27);
`Claims 3 and 29 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen and
`Kodak (id. at 27-29);
`Claims 1, 2, 10, 20, 27, 28, 36, and 37 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Kawakita and Chen (id. at 29-32);
`Claims 3 and 29 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kawakita,
`Chen, and Kodak (id. at 32-33);
`Claims 1, 3, 20, 27, 29, and 37 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Ishiguro (id. at 33-41);
`Claims 1-3, 10, 20, 27-29, 36, and 37 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over Ishiguro and Chen (id. at 41-42);
`Claims 3 and 29 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ishiguro,
`Chen, and Kodak (id. at 43);
`Claims 1, 3, 10, 20, 27, 29, 36, and 37 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 over Ishiguro and Berger (id. at 43-45);
`Claims 1, 3, 20, 27, 29, and 36 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by
`Asahi (id. at 45-50); and
`Claims 1, 3, 10, 20, 27, 29, 36, and 37 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`§ 103(a) over Asahi and Heleva (id. at 50-52).
`
`
`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. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Claim Construction). Under the
`broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and
`customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in
`the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in
`the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a special
`definition or other consideration, “limitations are not to be read into the claims
`from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`Petitioner and Patent Owner propose particular constructions for several
`claim terms. Patent Owner states that some of its proposed constructions differ
`materially from those proposed by Petitioner. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 15. We
`consider the claim terms, at issue, in substantially the order presented by the
`parties.
`1. Imager
`Claim 1 recites that the imaging apparatus comprises “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” (emphasis added). See also Claim
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`27. The term “imager” does not appear in the Specification, nor does either party
`identify an accepted definition for the term “imager.”
`Petitioner contends that the imager of claim 1 is “an image recording device
`that includes image recording elements in at least a portion of an image plane.”
`Pet. 13 (emphasis added). Petitioner notes that the Specification describes
`embodiments of the claimed imaging apparatus which include still and moving
`cameras that may include “image recording elements … provided only in portions
`of the respective image planes from which strips will be obtained.” Pet. 14
`(emphasis added; citing Ex. 1001, col. 13, ll. 12-17); see also Ex. 1001, Figs. 7-14.
`Although the claims are interpreted in light of the Specification, limitations
`from the Specification are not read into the claims. See Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at
`1184. Therefore, we adopt Patent Owner’s broader construction of the term
`“imager” as describing an image recording device that is capable of acquiring
`optical images that may be divided into segments. Prelim. Resp. 12-13. This
`construction is consistent with the requirements of the claims and encompasses,
`but is not limited to, the cameras described in the Specification at Figures 7-14.
`2. Optical Image, Segments, and Image Strips
`Consistent with its proposed construction of the term “imager” with respect
`to independent claims 1 and 27, Patent Owner proposes constructions of the terms
`“optical image,” “segments,” and “image strips.” Id. at 13-15. Petitioner does not
`propose alternative constructions for these terms.
`Specifically, Patent Owner contends that the term “optical image” should be
`construed as an image acquired by an image recording device, which is capable of
`being divided into segments. Id. at 13. We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s
`proposed construction. This construction is consistent with the Specification
`which, with respect to Figure 5, describes at least three discrete images 50(1),
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`50(2), and 50(3) of a scene recorded by an “imager,” e.g., a stereoscopic data
`source. Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 30-44. Moreover, Patent Owner contends that 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.”
`Prelim. Resp. 13 (emphasis added).
`Patent Owner equates the terms “strips” and “segments,” proposing to
`construe each term as describing a portion of an acquired image. Id. at 14; but see
`id. at col. 8, ll. 19-44 (describing “strips” with respect to Fig. 5); col. 8, l. 45-col. 9,
`l. 15 (describing “segments” with respect to Fig. 6). Petitioner does not contend
`that “strips” and “segments” have different meanings and appears to equate the
`meanings of these terms, as well. See Pet. 2-3. Based on the record before us, the
`parties’ proposed construction is reasonable and not inconsistent with the
`Specification of the ’284 Patent. Consequently, we construe “strips” as a portion
`of an acquired image and “segments” as a portion of an acquired image. Compare
`Claims 1 and 27 (reciting “segments”) with Claims 20 and 37 (reciting “strips”).
`3. Plurality of Segments and Series of Image Strips
`Patent Owner proposes constructions of the terms “plurality of segments” in
`independent claims 1 and 27 and “series of image strips” in claims 20 and 37.
`Prelim. Resp. 16. In particular, Patent Owner proposes that the term “plurality of
`segments” is construed to mean two or more portions of acquired images and that
`term “series of image strips” is construed to mean a series of portions of acquired
`images. Id. Petitioner does not propose a construction for either term.
`For the reasons discussed above, we agree with Patent Owner’s proposed
`construction of the term “plurality of segments,” and we construe this term as
`meaning two or more portions of an image. A definition of the term “series” is
`“[a] group of events, or objects corresponding to such events, related by order of
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`occurrence, especially by succession: a series of accidents; a series of wrecks.”
`THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE at 1183 (Ex.
`3001). Thus, we construe the term “series of image strips” to mean a group or
`number of image strips occurring or arranged in a temporal or other order. See Ex.
`1001, Fig. 5.
`4. Strips of a Series of Images
`Referring to claims 20 and 37, Petitioner proposes that the term “strips of a
`series of images” is construed to encompass strips that are themselves the images.
`Pet. 14. In particular, Petitioner contends that “although the term embraces strips
`that are extracted from a larger recorded image, the term does not require that the
`strips be extracted from a larger recorded image.” Id. Further, Petitioner contends
`that the strips may themselves be the image recorded by the imager. Id. at 15.
`Patent Owner does not propose an alternative construction, but objects to
`Petitioner’s proposed construction. Prelim. Resp. 15. Nevertheless, in doing so,
`Patent Owner again maintains that strips, like segments, are divided from the
`acquired image. Id.
`The Specification does not define this term expressly, nor does either party
`propose an accepted definition of its meaning. We are not persuaded by
`Petitioner’s construction that the strips may themselves be the image, as opposed to
`portions of the image, recorded by the imager. See Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 48-63; Fig.
`7. Instead, we construe the term “strips of a series of images” consistently with our
`foregoing construction of the term “image strips” to mean pluralities of strips, each
`plurality taken from one of a group or number of images related to each other and
`occurring or arranged in a temporal or other order. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 5 (images
`50(1), 50(2), 50(3)); col. 9, ll. 61-63 (“Strips including respective regions can be
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`used in generating respective images for a[] stereoscopic panoramic image set as
`described above.”).
`Referring to Figure 7, the Specification describes that rays 104A, 104B, and
`104C represent different viewing directions of the scene, and that strips including
`the respective regions may be used to generate the images of a stereoscopic
`panoramic image set. Id. at col. 9, ll. 59-63; see also id. at Figs. 5, 6 (describing
`stereoscopic panoramic image sets). Thus, in view of the Specification’s
`description with respect to Figure 7 of the generation of strips from regions 106A-
`C of an image sensor 105 of a camera 101, we conclude that a division of segments
`from an acquired image does not proscribe that strips of a series of images may
`include portions of a scene captured on different regions of an image sensor.
`Therefore, strips may be extracted from a larger, acquired image, or may together
`form the acquired image, and Petitioner’s proposed construction is subsumed by
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction.
`5. Processor That Processes the Data to Divide Each Image [of the Scene]
`into a Plurality of Segments
`Referring to independent claims 1 and 27, Patent Owner contends that this
`term should be construed to mean that the processor divides or separates each
`image of a scene into at least two portions. Prelim. Resp. 16. Petitioner contends
`that the imager may divide each image. See Pet. 24. Based on the plain language
`of the claim, we are persuaded by Patent Owner. Claims 1 and 27 recite that the
`processor divides, e.g., separates,7 each image into a plurality of segments or strips.
`6. Said Strips Being Displaced From One Another
`Referring to claims 20 and 37, Petitioner and Patent Owner disagree on the
`construction of this term. Pet. 15; Prelim. Resp. 17. Petitioner contends that the
`
`7 ROGET’S INTERNATIONAL THESAURUS ¶ 49.9 (4th ed. 1979) (Ex. 3003).
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`term “encompasses image strips that are displaced relative to one another within an
`image plane.” Pet. 15 (emphasis added; citing Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 37-41; Fig. 5).
`In particular, Petitioner contends that “[t]he image ‘strips’ need not be portions of
`the recorded images, but can themselves be what is recorded.” Id. We are not
`persuaded by Petitioner’s proposed construction.
`Petitioner relies on the same reasoning relied upon in support of its proposed
`construction of the term “strips of a series of images.” Id. To the contrary, Patent
`Owner contends that 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.” Prelim. Resp. 17 (emphasis added). As
`noted above, we conclude that strips are portions of an acquired image and may be
`recorded on different regions of an image sensor, such as image sensor 105 of
`camera 101, as depicted in Figure 7 of the ʼ284 Patent. Thus, we conclude that
`strips indeed must be portions of an acquired, e.g., recorded, image, but that
`different portions of the image, e.g., strips, may be recorded on different regions of
`an image sensor. See Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 48-63 (describing Fig. 7); col. 13, ll. 11-
`17 (video cameras of Figs. 7-14 “may comprise cameras in which image recording
`elements are provided only in portions of the respective image planes from which
`strips will be obtained” (emphasis added)). Thus, combining elements of Patent
`Owner’s and Petitioner’s proposed constructions, we construe this term to require
`that the strips are displaced from one another in an acquired image, but that the
`image may be acquired on different regions of an image sensor, such that each
`region defines a strip.8
`
`
`8 Although not affecting our decision here, it is not entirely clear from the language
`of claims 20 and 37 whether the “displaced” strips are the “image strips” or the
`represented “strips of the respective images.” We invite Patent Owner to explain in
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`7. Display
`Referring to independent claims 1 and 27, Petitioner proposes to construe
`the term “display” to mean “one or more elements that present an image for
`viewing.” Pet. 14. Claim 1 recites that “a display that receives a plurality of the
`mosaics and displays them so as to provide a sense of depth of the scene”
`(emphases added). See also Claim 27. Thus, the display must be capable of both
`receiving and displaying a plurality of mosaics. The Specification describes that
`“[g]enerally, the viewing device will include [] a communication arrangement, an
`image storage arrangement and a display, printer, or other device for generating
`images for viewing by a viewer.” Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 29-32 (emphases added).
`Further, the Specification describes various embodiments of a display.
`Referring to Figure 4, the Specification describes that
`[t]he display unit 42 preferably displays the stereoscopic panoramic
`image set in a stereoscopic manner. In that case, the display unit 42
`may display respective images of the stereoscopic panoramic image
`set in separate left and right displays, each of which can be viewed by
`a respective one of the viewer’s eyes. A binocular device may be
`provided having respective ocular devices to that displays a respective
`image, or portion thereof, to a respective one of the eyes of the
`viewer. Alternatively, the display unit 42 may display the panoramic
`images such that, when viewed using any of a number of kinds of
`appliances used facilitate stereoscopic viewing, including, for
`example, a lenticular lens, glasses with polarized lenses or lenses of
`different color, or other appliances as will be appreciated by those
`skilled in the art, the images will be viewed stereoscopically.
`
`
`Id. at col. 8, ll. 6-20 (emphasis added); see Pet. 14. Thus, we construe a display to
`mean one or more elements that receive a plurality of the mosaics and display the
`
`
`the patent owner’s response why these claims are not indefinite in view of the
`seeming ambiguity regarding the antecedent basis for the “displaced” strips.
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`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.
`Petitioner notes that claim 21, which is not challenged in this petition, recites
`that a display may be “a lenticular print,” and further contends that a display may
`be a “print.” Pet. 14. The use of a term in one claim may illuminate the meaning
`of the same term in other claims, because claim terms normally are used
`consistently throughout the patent. See Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d
`1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Nevertheless, Petitioner here proposes too broad a
`construction of the term “display” based on the language of claim 21; not all prints
`are lenticular prints or displays. A lenticular print is a print that is generated using
`a lenticular lens and, when viewed through a lenticular lens, may provide a sense
`of depth of the scene. See Ex. 1001, col. 8, l. 45-col. 9, l. 15; Fig. 6. Thus,
`consistent with our construction of the term “display,” the recitation of claim 21,
`and the description of the embodiment of Figure 6; a lenticular print may be a
`display.
`8. Sense of Depth of the Scene
`Referring to independent claims 1 and 27, Patent Owner proposes to
`construe the term “sense of depth of the scene” to mean “the visual perception of
`differential distances among object in a person’s line of sight.” Prelim. Resp. 17
`(citing Ex. 2003, http://whatis.techtarget.com/definitions/stereoscopy-steroscopic-
`imagining; emphases added). The Specification does not define this term, but
`generally describes displaying panoramic images stereoscopically. E.g., Ex. 1001,
`col. 1, ll. 44-47. Petitioner does not propose an alternative construction of this
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`term. But see Pet. 37 (“Ishiguro does not explicitly state that the two mosaics were
`displayed to human viewers to ‘provide a sense of depth of the scene,’ but it would
`have been obvious to do so.” (emphasis added)). A definition of the term “visual”
`is “[s]erving, resulting from, or pertaining to the sense of sight” or “[c]apable of
`being seen by the eye, visible.” THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE
`ENGLISH LANGUAGE at 1433 (Ex. 3001). Consistent with the foregoing
`construction of the term “display,” we are persuaded that the sense of depth must
`be perceived by a person viewing the display, albeit with appliances or other
`devices, as noted above. Therefore, for purposes of this decision to institute, we
`adopt Patent Owner’s construction of this term.
`9. Communication Apparatus
`Claim 3 recites that the imaging apparatus of claim 1 comprises
`“communication apparatus that transmits image data from the imaging apparatus.”
`Petitioner proposes to construe the term “communication apparatus” to mean “any
`arrangement that facilitates transfer of digital data between two devices, which
`may be at the same location or different locations.” Pet. 15 (emphasis added;
`quoting Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 14-16). As noted above, although the claims are
`interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not
`read into the claims. See Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184.
`The Specification describes that information defining the stereoscopic
`panoramic image set generally is in digital form, but the information transferred is
`not limited to digital information; and we do not limit the construction of this term
`to “digital data.” Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 14-16. The Specification further describes “a
`direct connection, such as a wire, cable or optical fiber connection, a wireless
`connection, any other arrangement for facilitating the transfer of information in
`digital form, or any combination thereof,” as examples of communication
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`arrangements, i.e., communication apparatus. Id. at ll. 16-21. Moreover, we note
`that claim 3 recites that the communication apparatus transmits image data from
`the imaging apparatus. Therefore, we construe the term “communication
`apparatus” to mean apparatus that transmits or facilitates transmission of image
`data, in digital or other form, from the imaging apparatus.
` B. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`1. Kawakita – Anticipation, Claims 1, 10, 27, and 36; Obviousness,
`Claims 1, 10, 20, 27, 36, and 37
`Public Dissemination
`a.
`Patent Owner challenges the prior art status of Kawakita, in particular, its
`public accessibility prior to the effective filing date of the ’284 Patent. See Prelim.
`Resp. 18-19. The ’284 Patent is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application
`No. 09/396,248, filed September 16, 1999, that issued as the ’003 Patent.9 Prelim.
`Resp. 8. Patent Owner argues that “the interested members of the public would not
`be able to locate [Kawakita] prior to the priority date of the ’003 patent.” Id. at 19.
`For purposes of this decision, we adopt, and incorporate by reference, the
`analysis of t