Paper No.
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`SONY CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent of YISSUM RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF THE
`HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2013-00219 (SCM)1
`Patent 7,477,284
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CAPTURING AND VIEWING
`STEREOSCOPIC PANORAMIC IMAGES
`_____________________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`1 The IPR2013-00327 proceeding has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`–1–
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`SONY CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent of YISSUM RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF THE
`HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2013-00219 (SCM)1
`Patent 7,477,284
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CAPTURING AND VIEWING
`STEREOSCOPIC PANORAMIC IMAGES
`_____________________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`1 The IPR2013-00327 proceeding has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`–1–
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Patent Owner Yissum Research
`
`Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (“Patent Owner”)
`
`hereby submits the following Request for Rehearing in response to the Final
`
`Written Decision (Paper 60) (“Final Decision”) dated September 22, 2014.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On September 23, 2013, the Board instituted trial on claims 1-3, 10, 20, 27-
`
`29, 36, and 37 of U.S. Patent No. 7,477,284 (the “’284 Patent”) based on Kawakita
`
`and Asahi in the present proceeding (IPR2013-00219). (Decision Institution of
`
`Inter Partes Review, Paper 16). Also, on September 24, 2013, the Board instituted
`
`trial on claims 4, 7, and 38 of the ’284 Patent based on Kawakita and Asahi in
`
`related proceeding IPR2013-00327, which was subsequently joined with the
`
`present proceeding. (Decision Institution of Inter Partes Review, Papers 14 and
`
`15, IPR2013-00327). On September 22, 2014, the Board issued a Final Decision
`
`finding claims 1-4, 7, 10, 20, 27-29, and 36-38 of the ’284 Patent unpatentable
`
`over the asserted references under 35 U.S.C. § 102. (Final Decision, Paper 60).
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests a rehearing on the Board’s Final
`
`Decision as to one of those challenges, namely, that claims 1, 3, 20, 27, 29, and 37
`
`are unpatentable over Asahi. As set forth below, Patent Owner respectfully
`
`submits that the Board’s conclusion that Asahi anticipates claims 1, 3, 20, 27, 29,
`
`and 37 was incorrect as being based on a misapprehension of the evidence
`
`–1–
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`presented. Patent Owner accordingly respectfully asks the Board to withdraw its
`
`Final Decision finding claims 1, 3, 20, 27, 29, and 37 of the ’284 Patent
`
`unpatentable over Asahi, and issue a Supplemental Final Written Decision finding
`
`claims 1, 3, 20, 27, 29, and 37, patentable over Asahi, and specifically finding
`
`claims 20 and 37 patentable over the asserted references.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing,
`
`without prior authorization from the Board.” (37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)). Rehearing
`
`requests are due within 30 days of the entry of a decision to institute a trial. (Id.)
`
`The party challenging the Board’s decision has the burden of showing that the
`
`decision should be modified and must specifically identify in its request “all
`
`matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place
`
`where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a
`
`reply.” (Id.)
`
`The present Request for Rehearing is timely filed within 30 days of the Final
`
`Decision. For the reasons that follow, Patent Owner respectfully submits that the
`
`Board misapprehended or overlooked evidence in finding claims 1, 3, 20, 27, 29,
`
`and 37 unpatentable over Asahi under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`–2–
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Board erred in reaching its
`
`finding that “[b]ased on the forgoing discussion, we conclude that Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that… claims 1, 3, 20, 27, 29,
`
`and 37 [are anticipated] by Asahi.” (Final Decision at p. 52, Paper 60).
`
`Specifically, the Board misapprehended or overlooked Dr. Darrell’s testimony that
`
`to generate images that provide a perception of depth there needs to be almost 99
`
`percent overlap between the images from which the lines are taken and Asahi’s
`
`express teaching that it only utilizes 60 percent overlap in creating its images,
`
`which was argued in Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation at ¶ 3. (Paper 43).
`
`The claims of the ’284 Patent recite mosaic images that “provide a sense of
`
`depth of the scene.” (’284 Patent at claim 1). The Board in its Decision to Institute
`
`determined that the perception of depth is provided to a person and the Board’s
`
`Final Decision confirmed this understanding noting that “the sense of depth must
`
`be perceived by a person viewing the display.” (Paper 16 at 17-17; Paper 60 at
`
`13). As discussed below, it is unquestioned that for a sense of depth to be
`
`perceived by a person, there must be a 99% overlap in the images where a single
`
`line is taken. In stark contrast, Asahi, which is directed to computer vision and not
`
`human vision, explicitly and unequivocally states that it takes a single line from
`
`images with only 60% overlap.
`
`–3–
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`a)
`
`99% Overlap is Required for Human Vision
`
`In order to generate images that provide a perception of depth to a person,
`
`Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Trevor Darrell, testified that there must be almost 99
`
`percent overlap in the images from which the lines are taken:
`
`Q. …it sounds to me like the answer to my question, in the
`scenario that I asked about and the 100 vertical lines, that you said
`yes, it sounds right that there needs to be at least a 99 percent
`overlap from frame to frame where a single line is being taken?
`Yes.
`A.
`
`….
`So there would need to be an extensive amount of overlap from
`Q.
`– between successive image frames in order for there to be the – in
`order for a complete depiction of that scene to be generated by this
`mosaicing process?
`A.
`The frame rate would be high enough so that you didn’t miss
`parts of the scene as you extracted those lines.
`Q.
`And the result of that would be that the overlap between one
`frame and the next would be substantial?
`A
`I think so.
`Q.
`Similar to what we described earlier in the Kawakita discussion
`about needing almost 99 percent overlap; correct?
`Correct. If I understand the scenario, that would be true
`A.
`for any apparatus that was extracting a line from a two-
`dimensional camera.
`
`–4–
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`(Ex. 2014 at 31 and 108-109 cited in Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation at ¶
`3, Paper 43).
`
`In short, Dr. Darrell’s testimony confirms the understanding that for any
`
`apparatus (including Asahi’s apparatus) that extracts a line from images to generate
`
`mosaics, there needs to be almost 99 percent overlap between the images from
`
`which the lines are taken. Notably, what Dr. Darrell does not testify is that Asahi
`
`actually takes lines from images that have 99 percent overlap.
`
`b)
`
`Asahi Teaches 60% Overlap
`
`Contrary to the 99 percent requirement as confirmed by Dr. Darrell, Asahi
`
`expressly and unequivocally teaches away from human vision by utilizing only 60
`
`percent overlap. Specifically, Asahi teaches extracting scenes “from the captured
`
`images so that the overlap percentage is 60% (or roughly 60%)”. (Ex. - 1010 at
`
`¶ [0030] (emphasis added)). This teaching in Asahi is determinative and confirms
`
`Patent Owner’s argument – repeatedly made during the present proceeding – that
`
`images must be specifically generated to provide a person a perception of depth
`
`and that Asahi’s images are incapable of doing so. Consequently, and in view of
`
`the above noted facts, Patent Owner in its Motion for Observation argued that “the
`
`images of Asahi cannot be viewed to provide a perception of depth since they are
`
`created from scenes that only have 60% overlap.” (Patent Owner’s Motion for
`
`Observation at ¶ 3, Paper 43).
`
`–5–
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`c)
`
`The Board’s Error - Asahi
`
`In the Final Decision, the Board reasoned that “[a]fter considering
`
`Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence…and Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments and supporting evidence to the contrary, we conclude that Petitioner
`
`has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Asahi discloses this element, as
`
`recited in claim 1.” (Paper 60 at 32 (emphasis added); see also Id. at 35; Id. at 52).
`
`But, in its Final Decision, the Board failed to consider Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments on this point, which were previously raised in Patent Owner’s Motion
`
`for Observation at ¶ 3. (Paper 43). Also, the Board failed to consider the evidence
`
`represented by Darrell’s testimony that generating images that provide a perception
`
`of depth to a person using an apparatus that extracts a line from images (like
`
`Asahi’s) need 99 percent overlap between those images. And, the Board
`
`additionally failed to consider Asahi’s express teaching of only using 60 percent
`
`overlap. (Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation at ¶ 3, Paper 43). Indeed, the
`
`Final Decision is completely silent on this issue and does not reconcile how the
`
`images of Asahi, which are created by extracting lines from images that only have
`
`60 percent overlap, can provide a perception of depth to a person, when 99 percent
`
`overlap is necessary.
`
`Therefore, for this reason, it is respectfully submitted that the Board
`
`misapprehended or overlooked contrary evidence in making its decision.
`
`–6–
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Based on the foregoing, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`withdraw its Final Decision and issue a Supplemental Final Written Decision
`
`finding claims 1, 3, 20, 27, 29, and 37 patentable over Asahi.
`
`Dated: October 17, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`–7–
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2013-00219 (Patent 7,477,284)
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`SONY CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`v.
`Patent of YISSUM RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF THE
`HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`Case IPR2013-00219 (SCM)2
`Patent 7,477,284
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CAPTURING AND VIEWING
`STEREOSCOPIC PANORAMIC IMAGES
`_____________________
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.205, that
`service was made on the Petitioner as detailed below.
`
`Date of service October 17, 2014
`Manner of service Electronic Mail: (Sony-HumanEyes@kenyon.com);
`Walter Hanley (whanley@kenyon.com); and
`Michelle Carniaux (mcarniaux@kenyon.com)
`Michael E. Sander (msander@kenyon.com)
`
`Documents served PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`Persons served Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`
`/David L. McCombs/
`David L. McCombs
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Registration No. 32,271
`
`2 The IPR2013-00327 proceeding has been joined with this proceeding.
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
