PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,365,871
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,365,871
`Trial No.: Not Yet Assigned
`Issued: April 29, 2008
`Filed: January 3, 2003
`Inventors: David A. Monroe
`Assignee: e-Watch, Inc.
`Title: APPARATUS FOR CAPTURING, CONVERTING AND
`
` TRANSMITTING A VISUAL IMAGE SIGNAL VIA A DIGITAL
`
` TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
`
`
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`On behalf of Kyocera Communications, Inc. (“Kyocera” or “petitioner”) and
`
`in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, inter partes review is
`
`respectfully requested for claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,365,871 (“the ’871
`
`patent”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1001.
`
`The undersigned representative of Petitioner authorizes the Patent Office to
`
`charge the $23,000 Request and Post-Institution Fees, along with any additional fees,
`
`to Deposit Account 501432, ref: 713303-610023. Fifteen claims are being reviewed,
`
`so the required Request and Post-Institution Fees are $23,000.
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .......... 2
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’871 PATENT ..................................................................... 2
`
`IV.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b) ...................................................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which Inter Partes Review Is
`Requested ............................................................................................................ 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds on
`Which the Challenge to the Claims Is Based ................................................. 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction .............................................. 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are
`Unpatentable ....................................................................................................... 8
`
`E.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence ........................................... 8
`
`V.
`
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE ’871 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ..................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1-15 Are Anticipated by the PCT Publication ................................. 8
`
`Claims 1-8 and 12-15 Are Obvious Based on Toshiba (Japanese
`Application Publication No. JP H8-65647A) in View of Hitachi
`(Japanese Patent No. Hei8(1996)-315106) ................................................... 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................... 12
`
`Claim 2 ................................................................................................... 27
`
`Claim 3 ................................................................................................... 28
`
`Claims 4, 8 and 13 ................................................................................ 29
`
`Claims 5 and 14 .................................................................................... 30
`
`Claim 6 ................................................................................................... 30
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim 7 ................................................................................................... 31
`
`Claim 12 ................................................................................................. 33
`
`Claim 15 ................................................................................................. 34
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`C.
`
`Claims 1-4 and 6-8 Are Obvious Based on Kyocera ’081 (Japanese
`Application Publication No. H06-133081A) in View of Hitachi
`(Japanese Patent No. Hei8(1996)-315106) ................................................... 35
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................... 35
`
`Claim 2 ................................................................................................... 44
`
`Claim 3 ................................................................................................... 45
`
`Claims 4 and 8 ...................................................................................... 45
`
`Claim 6 ................................................................................................... 46
`
`Claim 7 ................................................................................................... 46
`
`D.
`
`Claims 5 and 12-15 Are Obvious Based on Kyocera ’081 (Japanese
`Application Publication No. H06-133081A) in View of Hitachi
`(Japanese Patent No. Hei8(1996)-315106) in View of Toshiba
`(Japanese Application Publication No. JP H8-65647A) ............................ 47
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 5 ................................................................................................... 47
`
`Claim 12 ................................................................................................. 49
`
`Claim 13 ................................................................................................. 50
`
`Claim 14 ................................................................................................. 50
`
`Claim 15 ................................................................................................. 51
`
`E.
`
`Claims 9-11 Are Obvious Based on Toshiba (Japanese Application
`Publication No. JP H8-65647A) in View of Hitachi (Japanese Patent
`No. Hei8(1996)-315106) in View of Kurashige (U.S. Patent No.
`6,414,714) .......................................................................................................... 52
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................... 52
`
`Claim 10 ................................................................................................. 55
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim 11 ................................................................................................. 55
`
`3.
`
`F.
`
`Claims 9-11 Are Obvious Based on Kyocera ’081 (Japanese
`Application Publication No. H06-133081A) in View of Hitachi
`(Japanese Patent No. Hei8(1996)-315106) in View of Toshiba
`(Japanese Application Publication No. JP H8-65647A) in View of
`Kurashige (U.S. Patent No. 6,414,714) ......................................................... 56
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................... 56
`
`Claim 10 ................................................................................................. 58
`
`Claim 11 ................................................................................................. 58
`
`VI. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ............... 59
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Party-In-Interest .................................................. 59
`
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ............................................................. 59
`
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service
`Information ....................................................................................................... 60
`
`VII. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 60
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,365,871
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’871 patent is currently being asserted by the patent owner, e-Watch, Inc.
`
`(“e-Watch” or “patent owner”), against various models of camera phones produced
`
`by petitioner Kyocera.1 The camera phone, however, was invented by Kyocera at
`
`least five years before the priority date of the ’871 patent. Japanese Patent
`
`Application No. H04-302935 was filed on October 15, 1992, and published on May
`
`13, 1994, as Publication No. H06-133081 (“Kyocera ’081,” Ex. 1003).
`
`
`
`That application, entitled “Electronic Still Camera with Portable Telephone
`
`Function,” discloses camera phone systems which capture, store, process, and
`
`wirelessly transmit pictures. (Ex. 1003 at Abstract.) Figures 2a and 2b of Kyocera
`
`
`1 Patent owner accuses Kyocera’s Amp’D Jet, Amp’D Angel, Dura XT, Duramax,
`
`Dura Pro, E2500, E3500, E4600, Echo, Event, G2GO, Hydro, Incognito, Innuento,
`
`Katana, and other models of infringing the claims of the ’871 patent. (Petitioner
`
`Infringement Contentions, Ex. 1002.)
`
`1
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,365,871
`
`
`’081 depict an exterior view of the camera phone, including a user taking a camera
`
`phone picture via lens 1.
`
`
`
`The Office was not presented with, nor did it apply, the best prior art during
`
`examination of the ’871 patent,2 and patent owner was able to gain allowance in error.
`
`The claims of the ’871 patent recite no innovations beyond those disclosed in
`
`Kyocera ’081 and other references submitted herewith. The following petition
`
`provides anticipation and obviousness grounds that necessitate the cancellation of all
`
`claims of the ’871 patent.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’871 patent is available for inter partes review and that
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review challenging the
`
`patent claims on the grounds identified herein.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’871 PATENT
`
`
`
`The application for the ’871 patent was filed on January 3, 2003, as a divisional
`
`of Appl. No. 09/006,073 (“the ’073 application”) filed January 12, 1998, which was
`
`abandoned in 2001 and improperly revived nearly two years later via petition. The
`
`
`2 This was in part based on a declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 that the Examiner
`
`accepted at the time, but the Office subsequently rejected as deficient based on an
`
`insufficient showing of diligence in reduction to practice. See p. 4 infra.
`
`2
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,365,871
`
`
`priority date of the claims of the ’871 patent is no earlier than January 12, 1998, but
`
`should be later.3
`
`
`
`The ’871 patent describes an image capture, conversion, compression, storage
`
`and transmission system. (Ex. 1001 at Abstract.) The system includes a camera and a
`
`transmission interface, where the camera captures an image that can be transmitted to
`
`another device using cellular transmission, radio signal, satellite transmission, or hard
`
`line telephonic transmission. (Id. 4:58-5:2.) Captured images can be from a digital
`
`camera, an analog camera, or a video camera (e.g., a camcorder). (Id. 1:37-39; Ex. 1009
`
`at ¶ 24.)
`
`Figure 4 of the ’871 patent illustrates the data path after an image is captured by
`
`the camera 10 and conditioned by the gray scale bit map 16. (Ex. 1001 at 7:3-48.)
`
`That data path includes a memory 46, an optional viewer 48, and a format select
`
`interface switch 60 that permits either automated or manual selection of the
`
`
`3 The evidence shows, in the ’073 application, that the applicant had received the Final
`
`Office Action to which no reply was submitted, was sent a Notice of Abandonment
`
`reminding the applicant of the abandonment, and then waited over 600 days to file a
`
`petition to revive the ’073 application. This evidence points to a deliberate
`
`abandonment of the ’073 application and a later reevaluation of the value of the
`
`application, with a petition to revive then being filed.
`
`3
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,365,871
`
`
`transmitting protocol, such as a Group-III facsimile format, a PC modem protocol, or
`
`a wavelet compressor. (Id.) Depending on the selected protocol, the signal output is
`
`generated and provided to a communications interface module 83 for transmission.
`
`(Id; Ex. 1009 at ¶ 25.)
`
`The original examination of the ’871 patent spanned over five years and
`
`included five Office Actions and corresponding responses. Notably, in response to
`
`the Sep. 27, 2004, Office Action, patent owner filed a declaration under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 1.131 alleging an earlier invention date of March 18, 1993, nearly five years before its
`
`earliest priority date of January 12, 1998. The Office subsequently found this
`
`declaration to be deficient in a proceeding where it disregarded that declaration and
`
`instituted trial on one of the § 102(e) references that was erroneously disqualified
`
`during original prosecution. Iron Dome LLC v. e-Watch, Inc., IPR2014-00439, Paper 16
`
`at 5-8 (Aug. 4, 2014). As a result of this deficient declaration, the Examiner declined
`
`to consider a number of quality prior art references during prosecution of the ’871
`
`patent, including several which are listed on the face of the ’871 patent.
`
`The Office rejected the claims multiple times based on prior art, with the
`
`patent owner countering with successive claim amendments. The application was
`
`allowed on December 27, 2007, with the examiner citing the integral image capture
`
`device, the display, and the memory as being the key features for patentability. (See
`
`Ex. 1004.)
`
`4
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,365,871
`
`
`
`None of the cited references in this petition was before the Office during the
`
`original examination.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)
`A.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which Inter Partes Review
`
`Is Requested
`
`Inter partes review is requested for claims 1-15 of the ’871 patent.
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds on
`
`Which the Challenge to the Claims Is Based
`
`Inter Partes review is requested in view of the following prior art references:
`
` PCT Publication No. WO/1999/35818 (“the PCT Publication”) (Ex. 1013).
`
`The PCT Publication was filed on January 12, 1998, and published on July
`
`15, 1999, and is prior art to the ’871 patent based on a January 3, 2003,
`
`priority date, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b);
`
` Japanese Application Publication No.
`
`JP H8-65647A
`
`(“Toshiba”)
`
`(Ex. 1005). Toshiba was filed on August 22, 1994, and published on March
`
`8, 1996, and is prior art to the ’871 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b);
`
` Japanese Patent No. Hei8(1996)-315106 (“Hitachi”) (Ex. 1006). Hitachi
`
`was filed on May 12, 1995, and published on November 29, 1996, and is
`
`prior art to the ’871 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b);
`
` Japanese Application Publication No. JP H06-133081A (“Kyocera ’081”)
`
`(Ex. 1003). Kyocera ’081 was filed on October 15, 1992, and published on
`
`5
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,365,871
`
`
`
`May 13, 1994, and is prior art to the ’871 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b);
`
`and
`
` U.S. Patent No. 6,414,714 (“Kurashige”) (Ex. 1007). Kurashige was filed as
`
`a PCT Application on October 9, 1995, has a § 371(c)(1), (2), (4) date of
`
`August 6, 1996, and issued as a patent on July 2, 2002, and is prior art to
`
`the ’871 patent under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (e). A version of the
`
`Kurashige PCT application was published in Japanese on April 18, 1996
`
`(Ex. 1011).
`
`The specific statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 on which the
`
`challenge to the claims is based and the patents and publications relied upon for each
`
`ground are:
`
`a) Claims 1-15 are anticipated by the PCT Publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b);
`
`b) Claims 1-8 and 12-15 are obvious based on Toshiba in view of Hitachi under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a);
`
`c) Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are obvious based on Kyocera ’081 in view of Hitachi
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a);
`
`d) Claims 5 and 9-15 are obvious based on Kyocera ’081 in view of Hitachi in
`
`view of Toshiba under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a);
`
`e) Claims 9-11 are obvious based on Toshiba in view of Hitachi in view of
`
`Kurashige under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); and
`
`6
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,365,871
`
`
`
`f) Claims 9-11 are obvious based on Kyocera ’081 in view of Hitachi in view of
`
`Toshiba in view of Kurashige under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`
`C.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), and solely for the purposes of this review,
`
`Petitioner construes the claim language such that the claims are given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation (BRI) in light of the specification of the ’871 patent. The
`
`proposed BRI claim constructions do not necessarily reflect appropriate claim
`
`constructions to be used in litigation or other proceedings where a different claim
`
`construction standard applies.
`
`Framing an image: This term appears in different variations: “an image
`
`framed by the camera” (claim 1); “framing the image to be captured” (claims 2, 9, 12);
`
`“visually framing a visual image to be captured” (claim 6); “framing the visual image”
`
`(claim 7). The ’871 patent does not explicitly describe these terms in the context of
`
`the claimed language. Further, some references to a “frame” in the ’871 patent
`
`specification appear unrelated to the use of this term in the claims, e.g., the description
`
`of frames of a received analog video signal from what appears to be an analog input
`
`connector of the device. (Ex. 1001 at 7:49 to 8:23.)
`
`The specification provides the following references that describe a frame: “an
`
`image capture and transmission system captures either one or more single frame analog
`
`images or digital images or image data or visual data or visual images.” (Id. at 4:58-62.)
`
`“The display unit 96 … provides … a visual read-out of the status of the collection
`
`7
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,365,871
`
`
`and transmission of a selected frame.” (Id. at 8:39-47.) “[T]he processor accesses the
`
`RAM and manipulates the data representing each frame image … the processor
`
`executes a code for performing a bi-level compression of the data and the signal
`
`representing the frame data is output.” (Id. at 10:9-21.)
`
`Based on the above, the proposed BRI construction for this term includes
`
`“obtaining an image of an object using a viewfinder and making that image available,
`
`such as for display to a user.”
`
`Petitioner submits that, for the purposes of this review, other claim terms
`
`should be construed in accordance with their plain and ordinary meaning under the
`
`required broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are
`
`Unpatentable
`
`
`
`An explanation of how claims 1-15 are unpatentable, including identification of
`
`how each claim feature is found in the prior art, is set forth below in Section V.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence
`
`E.
`An Appendix of Exhibits supporting this Petition is attached. Included at
`
`Exhibit 1009 is a Declaration of R. Michael Guidash, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68.
`
`V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE ’871 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`A.
`
`Claims 1-15 Are Anticipated by the PCT Publication
`
`
`
`The ’871 patent was filed as a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`09/006,073 (“the ’073 application”). The ’073 application was abandoned for over
`
`8
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,365,871
`
`
`one year and ten months (673 days) for failing to respond to a final Office Action.
`
`(Ex. 1012, File History of the ’073 Application, at 147 (Final Office Action); 173
`
`(Notice of Abandonment); and 176 (Petition for Revival).) Following those 673 days,
`
`a petition to revive the ’073 application under 37 C.F.R. § 1.137(b) was filed on
`
`January 3, 2003, asserting that the abandonment of the ’073 application was
`
`unintentional. (Id. at 176.) The petition included no details of the circumstances
`
`explaining the purported abandonment beyond a pre-printed statement printed on a
`
`form stating that the entire delay was unintentional. (Id. at 177.)
`
`
`
`The petition was granted on March 11, 2003, creating copendency, without
`
`requiring further explanation from the applicant. (Id. at 178.) 37 C.F.R. § 1.137(b)
`
`requires that the entire period of abandonment be unintentional. Based on the length
`
`of the time of abandonment of the ’073 application, it is more likely than not that the
`
`entire period of abandonment was not unintentional. Indeed, it is clear that the
`
`applicant received the Final Office Action to which they failed to reply because
`
`applicant filed a request for an extension of time before the date of abandonment.
`
`(Id. at 171.) Applicant then failed to act during the extension period it requested.
`
`Moreover, a Notice of Abandonment was sent to the applicant on April 10, 2001,
`
`little over a month after the ’073 application went abandoned. (Id. at 173.) Having
`
`9
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,365,871
`
`
`been reminded of the abandonment, the applicant then waited 633 days to file a
`
`petition for revival of the ’073 application4
`
`
`
`It is more likely than not that the abandonment was intentional at the time. It
`
`appears that nearly two years after abandoning its application, applicant reassessed the
`
`value of the ‘073 application, realized its intervening PCT Publication (see p. 11 infra)
`
`was prior art that would invalidate the claims of the continuation ’871 patent if the
`
`’073 application remained abandoned. Applicant subsequently attempted to revive
`
`that application. Submitted herewith as Exhibit 1015 is Petitioner Kyocera’s amended
`
`answer and counterclaims in one of the related litigations, further describing the
`
`necessity of revival of the ’073 application for any downstream applications to survive.
`
`(See Ex. 1015 at 6-11 “Seventh Defense (Unenforceability).”)
`
`
`
`Where, as here, the applicant deliberately permits an application (e.g., due to a
`
`conclusion that the claims are unpatentable, that a rejection in an Office Action
`
`cannot be overcome, or that the invention lacks sufficient commercial value to justify
`
`continued prosecution), the abandonment of such application is considered to be a
`
`
`4 37 C.F.R. 1.181(f) states that “[a]ny petition under this part not filed within two
`
`months of the mailing date of the action or notice [(i.e., the Notice of Abandonment)]
`
`from which relief is requested may be dismissed as untimely, except as otherwise
`
`provided. This two-month period is not extendable.”
`
`10
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,365,871
`
`
`deliberately chosen course of action, and the resulting delay cannot be considered
`
`unintentional within the meaning of 37 C.F.R. § 1.137(b). See In re Application of G, 11
`
`USPQ2d 1378, 1380 (Comm’r Pat. 1989). An intentional course of action is not
`
`rendered unintentional when, upon reconsideration, the applicant changes his or her
`
`mind as to the course of action that should have been taken. See In re Maldague, 10
`
`USPQ2d 1477, 1478 (Comm’r Pat. 1988).
`
`
`
`Because it is more likely than not that the entire 673 day period of
`
`abandonment was not unintentional when the applicant acknowledged receipt of the
`
`Office Action and was issued a Notice of Abandonment reminder, the Office should
`
`find the petition ineffective. As such, the proper priority date of the ’871 patent
`
`should be its filing date, January 3, 2003.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1013 is a PCT Application Publication No. WO/1999/35818 (“the
`
`PCT Publication”), published on July 15, 1999. The PCT Publication is prior art to
`
`the ’871 patent, based on its proper priority date of January 3, 2003, under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b). The PCT Publication includes 73 pages of drawings that are identical to
`
`those of the ’871 patent. Additionally, the specification of the PCT Publication and
`
`the as-filed specification of the ’871 patent are nearly identical. Exhibit 1014 provides
`
`an indication of changes from the as-filed ’871 patent specification to the PCT
`
`Publication, with the differences being the removal of the priority claim and
`
`paragraph numbers from the PCT Publication and different claims being present in
`
`the PCT Publication. Other indicated differences are based on Optical Character
`
`11
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,365,871
`
`
`Recognition (OCR) errors of the PCT Publication and the as-filed ’871 patent
`
`specification .pdfs.
`
`
`
`With the specification and drawings that support the claims of the ’871 patent
`
`being wholly disclosed in the prior art PCT Publication, all of the claims of the ’871
`
`patent that rely on that specification and drawings are anticipated. As such, claims 1-
`
`15 of the ’871 patent must be cancelled as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`B.
`
`Claims 1-8 and 12-15 Are Obvious Based on Toshiba (Japanese
`Application Publication No. JP H8-65647A) in View of Hitachi
`(Japanese Patent No. Hei8(1996)-315106)5
`1.
`Claim 1
`Toshiba
`Toshiba discloses a series of mobile videophone devices that embody different
`
`ergonomic improvements on the traditional cell phone video conferencing experience.
`
`For example, an embodiment of Figure 14 provides a mobile videophone device
`
`where a camera 302 captures an image of a user’s face and displays that image in a
`
`user display area 301b at the lower right corner of the display screen 301. (Ex. 1005 at
`
`¶ 0069.) An image of the other party as decoded from an image signal received by
`
`antenna 308 is displayed in display area 301a. (Id.) The embodiment of Figure 14
`
`includes magnification/adjustment dials 303, 304 on either side of the device for
`
`
`5 The remainder of the proposed grounds of rejection assume a January 12, 1998,
`
`priority date solely for the sake of argument.
`
`12
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,365,871
`
`
`zooming the user’s image at 301b in or out. The two dials 303, 304 provide easy
`
`zooming by a right- or left-handed person. (Id. at ¶ 0070; Ex. 1009 at ¶ 34.)
`
`
`
`Figure 19 is a block diagram depicting certain components of a mobile
`
`videophone. Camera 315 takes an image of a user’s face. (Ex. 1005 at ¶ 0078.) A
`
`pickup image signal output from camera 315 is converted into a digital signal by A/D
`
`converter 316 with preprocessing being performed at 317 and encoding at 318. (Id. at
`
`¶ 0079; Ex. 1009 at ¶ 35.)
`
`The encoded signal of a face image is transmitted to a videophone of the other
`
`party through multiplexer 319. (Ex. 1005 at ¶ 0079.) The encoded face image signal
`
`also is sent to decoder 323, post processing is performed at 322, and the image signal
`
`is converted to an analog signal by D/A converter 321 prior to display at 320 for
`
`viewing in display area 301b. (Id. at ¶ 0080; Ex. 1009 at ¶ 36.)
`
`
`
`An encoded face image sent from the other party also is decoded by decoder
`
`323, processed at 322, converted to an analog format at 321, and sent to display 320
`
`for viewing in display area 301a. (Ex. 1005 at ¶ 0081.) A voice produced by a user is
`
`13
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,365,871
`
`
`picked up by microphone 319, encoded by voice codec 326, and transmitted to the
`
`other party via multiplexer 319. (Id. at ¶ 0082.) An encoded voice from the other
`
`party is received at 319, decoded at 326, and output through speaker 328. (Id.) The
`
`videophone further includes a battery 324 and an out of battery detector 325. (Id. at
`
`¶ 0083; Ex. 1009 at ¶ 37.)
`
`Figure 44 discloses components of a video encoder, such as encoder 318 of
`
`Figure 19. One frame of a pickup image signal from a camera is written to and read
`
`from frame memory 501. (Ex. 1005 at ¶ 0121.) The image signal from the frame
`
`memory 501 is input to encoder 504 through spatiotemporal filter 503. (Id. at ¶ 0123.)
`
`The encoder 504 uses a predictive error technique, informed by a spatiotemporal filter
`
`503 to generate an encoded signal 505. (Id. at ¶ 0122; Ex. 1009 at ¶ 38.)
`
`In one embodiment, an area designation signal input by a user identifies an
`
`important area of an image being transmitted that is identified in important area
`
`address memory 509. The important area of the image is adjusted to be of higher
`
`quality than the remainder of the image. A control signal is generated based on the
`
`important area address memory 509 data that decreases quantization width at the area
`
`of interest (and increases resolution accordingly) and/or decreases filtering in that area
`
`of interest, such that the improved image selected by the user is generated and
`
`transmitted via frame memory 501. (Ex. 1005 at ¶ 121; Ex. 1009 at ¶ 41.)
`
`14
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,365,871
`
`
`
`Hitachi
`Hitachi discloses a cell phone enabled digital camera that attaches attribution
`
`metadata to a user’s photographs. Figure 1 depicts a front, side, and rear view of a
`
`digital camera. The front panel includes a power switch 11, a photographing unit 12
`
`consisting of a photographing element (e.g., a CCD) and a lens, and a microphone 13.
`
`(Ex. 1006 at ¶ 0018.) The rear panel includes a stylus 18 enabled display device 14.
`
`(Id.) The side panel includes a headphone terminal 15, a wired communication
`
`connection terminal 16, and a portable memory connection terminal 17. (Id; Ex. 1009
`
`at ¶ 44.)
`
`
`
`Figure 7 depicts a finder screen 72 displayed on back panel display device 14.
`
`In finder mode, finder screen 72 constantly displays the image input by the
`
`photographing unit 12. (Ex. 1006 at ¶ 0035.) Motion picture button 73 starts and
`
`stops motion picture capturing. (Id; Ex. 1009 at ¶ 45.)
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,365,871
`
`
`When the stationary picture button 74 is pressed, one frame of the displayed image at
`
`72 is captured. (Ex. 1006 at ¶ 0035.) Various pieces of information, such as the
`
`photographer’s ID,
`
`location, date, and time, are stored together with the
`
`corresponding image data. (Id.) When the registration screen button 71 is selected,
`
`the screen shifts to the registration screen shown in Figure 8. (Id; Ex. 1009 at ¶ 46.)
`
`The registration screen includes an image display 86 and photograph data
`
`selecting buttons 80. (Ex. 1006 at ¶ 0036.) When the photograph data selecting
`
`buttons 80 are selected, a next set of photograph data 31 is accessed and displayed.
`
`(Id. at ¶ 0037.) Photograph data includes image data and associated metadata such as
`
`the photographer’s ID, a photograph location, a photograph date and time, and a
`
`memo. (Id. at ¶ 0028.)
`
`
`
`The registration screen enables editing of certain metadata associated with a displayed
`
`image. (Id. at ¶ 0039.) When a photograph data transmitting button 81 is selected,
`
`the photograph data 31 which is currently displayed is encrypted and transmitted to
`
`the network through wireless communication interface 27, such as a cellular phone
`
`handset. (Id. at ¶¶ 0022, 0041; Ex. 1009 at ¶¶ 47-48.)
`
`16
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,365,871
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is a block view explaining the circuit structure of the digital camera.
`
`(Ex. 1006 at ¶ 0020.) A first CODEC at 6 encodes image signals in the
`
`photographing unit (CCD) 12 to render them into image data, and a second CODEC
`
`at 7 operates on sound signals. Microprocessor (CPU) 20 controls operation of the
`
`camera. (Id.) A data memory (hard disk) that stores the image data is depicted at 21.
`
`(Id.) A program memory 22 stores programs executed by CPU 20. (Id.) A work
`
`memory (RAM) 23 is utilized by CPU 20 for its operations. (Id.) A wireless
`
`communication interface is represented at 27, where the wireless communication
`
`interface 27 may be a cellular phone handset. (Id. at ¶¶ 0020, 22; Ex. 1009 at
`
`¶¶ 49-50.)
`
`
`
`Responding to commands sent from CPU 20, the display device 14 displays
`
`three screens. (Ex. 1006 at ¶ 0024.) The first screen, shown in Figure 6, accepts a
`
`photographer’s ID and authentication information via a soft keyboard 62. (Id.) The
`
`sec