Trials@uspto.gov Paper 62
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Entered: November 6, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`YISSUM RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT CO. 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.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`1 Sony Corp. v. Yissum Research Co., Case IPR2013-00327 (“IPR2013-
`00327”) has been joined with instant Case IPR2013-00219. IPR2013-
`00327, Paper 15 (PTAB Sept. 24, 2013). This Rehearing Decision is entered
`in both cases.
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Patent Owner, Yissum Research Development Co. of the Hebrew University
`
`of Jerusalem, in its Rehearing Request, seeks withdrawal of our conclusion that
`
`Asahi (Ex. 1010) anticipates claims 1, 3, 20, 27, 29, and 37 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,477,284 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’284 Patent”) because “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 presented.” See Paper 61(“Req. Reh’g”), 1–2.
`
`The applicable standard for a request for rehearing is set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71(d), which provides, in relevant part, the following:
`
`A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing,
`without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a
`decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the
`decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party
`believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place
`where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition,
`or a reply.
`
`
`For the reasons that follow, we deny the requested relief.
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`After reviewing Patent Owner’s Rehearing Request, we determine that
`
`Patent Owner has not shown that we misapprehended or overlooked any matter
`
`previously presented. See Req. Reh’g 2. Patent Owner contends that we
`
`misapprehended or overlooked Dr. [Trevor] 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 [Ex. 1009] 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).
`
`Req. Reh’g 3 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`Specifically, Patent Owner argues that independent claims 1 and 27 of the
`
`’284 Patent recite mosaic images that “provide a sense of depth of the scene.” Id.
`
`Further, in our Institution Decision, we determined that “the perception of depth is
`
`provided to a person and [our] Final Decision confirmed this understanding noting
`
`that ‘the sense of depth must be perceived by a person viewing the display.’” Paper
`
`16 (“Inst. Dec.”), 16–17; Paper 60 (“Fin. Dec.”), 13. In addition, claim 1 recites
`
`that “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.” Ex.
`
`1001, col. 13, ll. 63–65 (emphasis added); see also id. at col. 16, ll. 6–8 (claim 27).
`
`Based on the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Darrell, Patent Owner argues
`
`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.” Req. Reh’g 3 (emphasis added).
`
`Patent Owner argues, however, that “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.” Id. (emphasis added). Although Asahi
`
`discloses a working example in which 60% overlap is described, we did not
`
`determine that Asahi’s disclosure was limited to that example. See Fin. Dec. 26–
`
`32. Moreover, on what appears to be a significant point, Dr. Darrell and Patent
`
`Owner’s counsel appear to acknowledge that they disagree about whether a line
`
`used to create images in Asahi is limited to a using “a single vertical line of an
`
`image frame.” See Ex. 2014, 107:7–25.
`
`Initially, we note that independent claims 1 and 27 recite “a display that
`
`receives a plurality of the mosaics and displays [the plurality of the mosaics] so as
`
`to provide a sense of depth of the scene” (emphases added). Consequently, it is the
`
`displayed mosaics that “provide a sense of depth of the scene.” Moreover,
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Darrell, testified that, “if some defects were introduced
`
`in the mosaic images recorded [without proper vertical and horizontal alignment],
`
`. . . the defects would not be so severe in every case as to preclude depth from
`
`being perceived upon viewing an appropriate display of a pair of the mosaics.”
`
`Fin. Dec. 34–35 (citing Pet. Reply 13–14 (quoting Ex. 1044 ¶ 30)); see also Fin.
`
`Dec. 20 (Based on testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Darrell, and Patent
`
`Owner’s declarant, Dr. Irfan Essa, with respect to Kawakita, we were persuaded
`
`that, “although a viewer may not perceive a sense of depth of every portion of a
`
`scene from every sight line, the viewer still may perceive a ‘sense of depth of the
`
`scene’ despite the presence of disparities in portions of the scene.”; emphasis
`
`added).
`
`Patent Owner relies on Asahi’s discussion of a 60% scene-to-scene overlap,
`
`drawn from captured images, whereas Patent Owner cross-examined Dr. Darrell
`
`concerning overlap of “99 percent from frame to frame.” Paper 43 ¶ 3 (emphasis
`
`added). As Patent Owner acknowledges, according to Asahi, a frame may include
`
`two fields, and each field may be a scene. Paper 43, ¶ 3; see Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 34–35;
`
`Paper 59 (“Tr.”), 8:16–23. As noted above, however, claim 1 only requires that the
`
`at least one imager acquires a plurality of optical images of at least portions of the
`
`scene, each from a different respective viewing position, e.g., sight line. See Ex.
`
`1001, col. 13, ll. 63–65; see also Tr. 70:1 (“And by the way, just to clarify, the
`
`images are portions of the scene.”).
`
`We neither misapprehended nor overlooked the argument and supporting
`
`evidence presented in Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation. However, Patent
`
`Owner did not provide sufficient evidence or explanation to persuade us that the
`
`frame-to-frame overlap allegedly required to provide a sense of depth of a scene is
`
`not disclosed broadly by Asahi’s scene-to-scene overlap. Asahi’s working
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`example describes a 60% overlap (Ex. 1010 ¶ 30; see id., Fig. 5 (depicting a single
`
`example of a two scene overlap of 60%)), but we do not limit the disclosure of
`
`Asahi to that one example. Asahi more broadly discloses “at least three images
`
`that overlap in a prescribed proportion” (Ex. 1010 ¶ 9), and Asahi explicitly
`
`describes “[a] pair consisting of two images that make up a stereoscopic image”
`
`(id. ¶ 32). See Fin. Dec. 25.
`
`Patent Owner does not identify where it cross-examined Dr. Darrell
`
`explicitly about the 60% scene-to-scene overlap that Asahi discloses with respect
`
`to the working example. Instead, Patent Owner focuses on Dr. Darrell’s cross-
`
`examination testimony regarding the 99% overlap. See Req. Reh’g 10–11 (citing
`
`Ex. 2014, 31, 108–109). Nevertheless, in the deposition testimony cited by Patent
`
`Owner, Dr. Darrell responds “I think so” to a question about “substantial overlap”
`
`between scenes, which in the context of the following question, implies “almost 99
`
`percent overlap” in Asahi. See Ex. 2014, 108:20–24 (Patent Owner’s following
`
`question was: “Similar to what we described earlier in the Kawakita discussion
`
`about needing almost 99 percent overlap; correct?,” to which Dr. Darrell responded
`
`“Correct.”). The cited pages of Dr. Darrell’s testimony, however, do not support
`
`Patent Owner’s characterization of that testimony.
`
`Specifically, after being questioned generally about Asahi’s disclosure and
`
`the need for overlap for “a complete depiction of that scene,” Dr. Darrell testified
`
`that “the frame rate would be high enough,” (see Ex. 2014, 108:1–14), and the
`
`specific colloquy (as summarized above) ensued:
`
`Q. And the result of that [frame rate] 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?
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`
`A. Correct. If I understand the scenario, that would be true for
`
`any scenario that was extracting a line from a two-dimensional
`camera.
`
`Req. Reh’g 4 (quoting Ex. 2014, 108:17–109:1).
`
`Therefore, Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation did not undermine the findings
`
`discussed in the Final Decision and reviewed above, including that Dr. Darrell
`
`testified that Asahi’s system is capable of producing stereographic images. See
`
`Fin. Dec. 25 (citing Ex. 2014, 87:3–21, 92–100:8 (Dr. Darrell describing Asahi’s
`
`system and testifying that Asahi’s system uses “two stereo images” to calculate
`
`three-dimensional height data to form maps)), 31 (citing Ex. 1043, 174:21–176:8
`
`(acknowledging that “three dimensional topographical maps” produced according
`
`to Asahi may be suitable for human viewing)), 32 (citing Ex. 2014, 100:5–9 (Dr.
`
`Darrell responded “yes” when asked: “Is it your opinion . . . that the stereo images
`
`. . . in Asahi are capable of being viewed so as to produce a depth - - or perception
`
`of depth in a human.”)); see also Ex. 1010 ¶ 35 (“stereoscopic viewing is possible
`
`using this forward view image, this nadir view image, and this rearward view
`
`image”).
`
`Patent Owner argues that the teaching of a 60% overlap in Asahi’s working
`
`example 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.” Req. Reh’g 5. We disagree. Patent Owner first raised the alleged
`
`discrepancy between the overlap required (i.e., 99%) for a perception of depth and
`
`the overlap taught by Asahi (i.e., 60%) in its Motion for Observation (Paper 43
`
`¶ 3); however, Patent Owner did not mention this alleged discrepancy during the
`
`Oral Hearing. For the reasons set forth above, we did not find Patent Owner’s
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`argument and supporting evidence, as presented in the Motion for Observation,
`
`determinative. In the Final Decision, we concluded that Petitioner had shown by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that Asahi discloses each and every element recited
`
`in claim 1 “[a]fter considering Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence . . .
`
`and Patent Owner’s arguments and supporting evidence to the contrary.” Fin. Dec.
`
`32; see Req. Reh’g 6.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the foregoing discussion, we deny Patent Owner’s requested relief
`
`to modify the prior Final Written Decision with respect to Asahi. Patent Owner
`
`has not shown that we misapprehended or overlooked a matter previously
`
`presented.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that the Patent Owner’s Rehearing
`
`Request is denied.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2013-00219
`Patent 7,477,284 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Walter Hanley
`Michelle Carniaux
`Michael E. Sander
`Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP
`Sony-HumanEyes@kenyon.com
`whanley@kenyon.com
`mccarniaux@kenyon.com
`msander@kenyon.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`David L. McCombs
`David O’Dell
`Gregory Huh
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`gregory.huh.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Robert Gerrity
`William Nelson
`Tensegrity Law Group, LLP
`robert.gerrity@tensegritylawgroup.com
`william.nelson@tensegritylawgroup.com
`
`
`
`
`8