UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`E-Watch, Inc.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: To Be Assigned
`
`Patent 7,365,871
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF STEVEN J. SASSON
`
`
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`E-Watch, Inc.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: To Be Assigned
`
`Patent 7,365,871
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF STEVEN J. SASSON
`
`
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`1. My name is Steven J. Sasson. I am over the age of 21 and am
`
`competent to make this declaration. I am a resident of the State of New York and
`
`reside at 12 Carefree Lane, Hilton, New York 14468.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`2.
`
`I am currently an independent consultant. I have been retained to
`
`evaluate whether a certain publication discloses to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“POSA”) the subject matter of the claims of United States Patent No.
`
`7,365,871 (“the ’871 patent” or the “Asserted Patent) prior to the time of filing the
`
`‘871 patent. I am being compensated at my standard rate of $550 per hour. My
`
`compensation does not depend on the outcome of this proceeding. In preparing this
`
`Declaration, I considered the following materials:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,365,871 ('871 patent, Ex. 1001) and its file history;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,550,754 (‘754 patent, Ex. 1006); and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,491,507 (‘507 patent, Ex. 1007).
`
`3.
`
`I received a Bachelor’s Degree in electrical engineering from
`
`Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (“RPI”) in Troy, New York in 1972. Subsequently
`
`I received a Master’s Degree from RPI in 1973.
`
`4.
`
`In June of 1973, I joined Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”) as an
`
`electrical engineer working in the applied research laboratory which was referred
`
`to as Kodak Apparatus Division Research Labs (“Applied Labs”). I was a member
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`of the Electronics Research Group within the Applied Labs and worked primarily
`
`on electronics technology from the period of 1973 until 1980. Around 1980 until
`
`approximately 1990, I worked in the advanced development arm of consumer
`
`engineering for Kodak. My primary work during this time focused on the
`
`development of electronic photography and included research and development on
`
`image compression and transmission of compressed image data using wired and
`
`wireless communication channels. From approximately 1990 through
`
`approximately 2004, I took on various management roles at Kodak in which I
`
`supervised numerous engineering and other professionals involved in developing
`
`and commercializing digital imaging products. During this time, from the eighties
`
`through 2004, I was very familiar with the qualifications and levels of skill of
`
`ordinary engineers working on the electronic and mechanical aspects of camera
`
`related products due to my personal experience as an engineer and manager of
`
`engineers in this field of technology.
`
`5.
`
`I am a named inventor on nine (9) United States patents. During my
`
`time working for Kodak, I was primarily responsible for the development of the
`
`first digital camera. My work in developing that digital camera led to the filing and
`
`allowance of United States Patent No. 4,131,919. For my work related to the
`
`development of the digital camera, I was awarded the Eastman Innovation Award,
`
`the Photographic Society of America Innovation Award, the Photographic
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`Manufacturers Association Award for significant contributions to photography, an
`
`honorary doctorate from the University of Rochester, and in 2009, the National
`
`Medal of Technology and Innovation. A copy of my resume is attached here as
`
`Attachment A.
`
`6.
`
`I have been asked to review the Asserted Patent including the
`
`specification and particularly claims 1-8 and 12-14 of the ’871 patent (“Asserted
`
`Claims”), as well as the file history. In this regard, I understand the asserted patent
`
`originates from an originally filed application, application no. 09/006,073, which
`
`has an effective filing date of January 12, 1998.
`
`7.
`
`I have also been asked to review the subject matter disclosed by the
`
`following patents: i) U.S. Patent No. 5,550,754 (“McNelley” or “the ’754 patent”
`
`issued August 27, 1996) and ii) U.S. Patent No. 5,491,507 (“Umezawa” or “the
`
`’507 patent” issued February 13, 1996). I have been further asked to compare the
`
`subject matter disclosed by the prior art patents listed above to the Asserted claims
`
`of the Asserted Patent and determine whether the patents disclosed the claimed
`
`subject matter to a POSA prior to the effective filing date (January 12, 1998) of the
`
`Asserted Patent.
`
`8.
`
`After review of the Asserted Patent and the patents listed above, I
`
`conclude that the subject matter of the Asserted Claims was either known or
`
`obvious to a POSA as of the effective filing date by the listed prior art patents
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`either individually or in combination.
`
`9.
`
`I am an engineer by training and profession. The opinions I am
`
`expressing in this report involve the application of my engineering knowledge and
`
`experience to the evaluation of certain prior art with respect to the ‘871 patent. My
`
`knowledge of patent law is no different than that of any lay person. Therefore, I
`
`have requested the attorneys from Jones Day, who represent Apple, to provide me
`
`with guidance as to the applicable patent law in this matter. The paragraphs below
`
`express my understanding of how I must apply current principles related to patent
`
`validity to my analysis.
`
`10.
`
`It is my understanding that in determining whether a patent claim is
`
`obvious in view of the prior art, the Patent Office must first construe the claim by
`
`giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`
`specification as the claim terms and specification would be understood by a POSA.
`
`It is my understanding that the broadest reasonable interpretation is the plain
`
`meaning, i.e., the ordinary and customary meaning, given to the term by a POSA at
`
`the time of the invention, taking into account whatever guidance, such as through
`
`definitions, may be provided by the written description in the patent, without
`
`importing limitations from the specification. For the purposes of this review, I have
`
`construed each claim term in accordance with its plain meaning, i.e., its ordinary
`
`and customary meaning, under the required broadest reasonable interpretation.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`11.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 if the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a POSA
`
`at the time of the alleged invention. I also understand that an obviousness analysis
`
`takes into account the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between
`
`the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the invention. Finally, I also understand I must consider any known
`
`secondary evidence that might show nonobviousness of the application, such as
`
`long felt but unfulfilled need for the claimed invention, failure by others to come
`
`up with the claimed invention, commercial success of the claimed invention, praise
`
`of the invention by others in the field, unexpected results achieved by the invention,
`
`the taking of licenses under the patent by others, expressions of surprise by experts
`
`and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention, and the patentee
`
`proceeded contrary to the conventional wisdom of the prior art. But the secondary
`
`evidence must be tied specifically to any claim features that are argued to be
`
`patentable, and not already in the public domain.
`
`12.
`
`In determining the scope and content of the prior art, it is my
`
`understanding that a reference is considered appropriate prior art if it falls within
`
`the field of the inventor’s endeavor. In addition, a reference is prior art if it is
`
`reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
`
`involved. A reference is reasonably pertinent if it logically would have
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. If a
`
`reference relates to the same problem as the claimed invention, that supports use of
`
`the reference as prior art in an obviousness analysis.
`
`13. To assess the differences between prior art and the claimed subject
`
`matter, it is my understanding that 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires the claimed invention
`
`to be considered as a whole. This “as a whole” assessment requires showing that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, confronted by the same
`
`problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would
`
`have selected the elements from the prior art and combined them in the claimed
`
`manner.
`
`14.
`
`It is my further understanding that there are several rationales for
`
`combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness of claimed
`
`subject matter. Some of these rationales include: combining prior art elements
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results; simple substitution of one
`
`known element for another to obtain predictable results; a predictable use of prior
`
`art elements according to their established functions; applying a known technique
`
`to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable
`
`results; choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; and some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in
`
`the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`15. As noted above, it is my understanding that when interpreting the
`
`claims of the ‘871 patent I must do so based on the perspective of one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the relevant priority date. My understanding is that the earliest
`
`claimed priority date of the ‘871 patent is January 12, 1998.
`
`16. The ‘871 patent generally relates to an apparatus for capturing,
`
`converting and transmitting a visual image signal via a digital transmission system.
`
`Based on my experience as an engineer and a manager of engineers in the field of
`
`digital cameras and associated electronics, I conclude that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the subject matter of the Asserted Patent as of January 12, 1998, would
`
`have been a person having at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or
`
`electronics (or equivalent) and at least two years of experience working on digital
`
`imaging products. Alternatively, a POSA could have a Master’s Degree in
`
`electrical engineering or electronics (or equivalent) and at least one year of
`
`experience working on digital imaging products.
`
`17. My own training and experience exceeds that of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. My work experience includes more than 35 years at Kodak, and during much
`
`of that time I worked with and supervised numerous engineering and other
`
`professionals involved in developing and commercializing digital imaging
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`products. Moreover, I have taught, hired, supervised, and trained engineers having
`
`ordinary skill in the art within several years prior to the ‘871 patent’s claimed
`
`priority date. From this experience and training, I have evaluated the level of skill
`
`required for a POSA.
`
`18.
`
`In my evaluation of the Asserted Claims, I have adopted the BRI
`
`based on the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim terms or phrases (unless
`
`otherwise specifically identified) for any claim terms or phrases. I then compared
`
`the applicable disclosure of the listed patents or publications to ascertain whether
`
`such disclosure falls within the bounds of the BRI for any claim terms or phrases-
`
`at-issue.
`
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art.
`
`19. McNelley discloses a handheld camcorder (telecamcorder) that
`
`operates as a teleconferencing terminal and includes a cell phone, a camera, a
`
`display, a memory and a power source. ‘754 patent (Ex. 1006) at 6:7-58, 7:66-
`
`8:13, 18:49-57, 21:23-26, Figs. 6-9. Figs. 6-9 reproduced below of McNelley (see
`
`below) show that the handheld camcorder housing 148 includes a display 100 that
`
`serves as a viewfinder for the camera 102. Id. at 6:48-52. A wireless cell phone
`
`using digital transmission can send and receive digital video pictures, and may be
`
`configured as a separate handset 174 as shown in Fig. 8 or integrated with the
`
`camera as shown in Fig. 9. Id. at 7:66-8:13. Fig. 9 also shows the built-in dialing
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`controls for the cell phone device. Id. In Fig. 8, the cell phone handset 174 is
`
`depicted as detachable, and McNelley indicates that the cell phone can be either
`
`built-in or detachable (modular configuration). Id. at 10:59-67. Fig. 7 also
`
`illustrates the operation of the LCD display 100 as a viewfinder, permitting the
`
`image to be recorded by the camera 102 to be viewed on the display 100. Id. at
`
`6:48-52. McNelley’s telecamcorder captures digital audio and video images,
`
`converts those images to a signal that is transmitted over a wireless transmission
`
`system, receives such digital audio and video images and displays them on an
`
`integrated display device.
`
`20. Umezawa also discloses a hand held teleconferencing device. Fig. 7 of
`
`Umezawa (shown below), illustrates a video phone device (video telephone
`
`equipment) 1 that includes signal processing means (e.g., a processor and memory
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`on circuit board 17) that permits vocal communication and visual communication;
`
`a speaker 6; a microphone 16; an LCD display panel 11 which displays picture that
`
`are received for the visual communication; a camera 3 for taking pictures that will
`
`be transmitted for the visual communication; an LCD touch control panel 14 that
`
`permits a user to enter operation commands; and a casing 2 provided with the
`
`display panel 11, the speaker 6 and the microphone 16; a communication device
`
`18; and a battery 90 for power. ‘507 patent (Ex. 1007) at 1:61-2:8, 5:29-6:5.
`
`
`
`21.
`
` In sum, both McNelley and Umezawa disclose hand held devices that
`
`include a camera and a wireless cell phone for recording, transmitting and
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`receiving digital audio and video over a wireless cell phone. The systems described
`
`by McNelley and Umezawa have conventional components with conventional and
`
`predictable functions, such as an LCD display, a user control panel or interface, a
`
`memory, a processor, a wireless transmitter and receiver, and a battery for power.
`
`These are the same components and associated functionality recited in the
`
`limitations of the asserted claims in the ‘871 patent.
`
`22. A POSA would have found it obvious to enhance any claim features
`
`the patent owner may allege are missing from the disclosure of McNelley with the
`
`explicit teaching of those claim features taught in the disclosure of Umezawa. The
`
`references would have been obvious to combine because both patents address the
`
`same technical issues of creating a hand held video conferencing device, i.e.,, an
`
`integrated wireless telephone and image processing device which is handheld and
`
`portable and includes a variety of conventional integrated features permitting
`
`image and audio transmission and reception within a small self-powered structure.
`
`These are routine technical problems about which a POSA would have been
`
`familiar prior to the time the ‘871 patent was filed. Such a POSA would have
`
`found the combination predictable and reasonably likely to work based on the
`
`similarity of the problems taught in McNelley and Umezawa and the suggested
`
`solutions. In fact, numerous companies producing consumer electronics such as
`
`Hitachi, Sony, Kodak, Olympus were combining various features of telephones
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`and cameras to produce handheld devices. As of the effective filing date of the
`
`‘871 patent, a POSA would have found it obvious to combine the disclosures of
`
`McNelley and Umezawa -- they both relate to similar technical issues concerning
`
`the creation of a handheld wireless video conferencing device with conventional
`
`camera and cell phone features, and the combination would have yielded
`
`predictable, desirable results.
`
`23. For example, a POSA would have found it obvious to incorporate
`
`features from Umezawa into the system of McNeely, including inclusion of
`
`Umezawa’s processor functionality and LCD touch control panel (user interface),
`
`at least for the purposes of providing a smaller and more convenient handheld
`
`videoconferencing device that could be held in one hand, for providing a more
`
`convenient means of user control via the LCD touch control panel as a user
`
`interface, and for providing an ability to view alphanumeric messages on the
`
`display, e.g., to confirm the accuracy of the phone number of the other party. See,
`
`e.g., ‘754 patent (Ex. 1006) at FIGS. 8, 10-12; ‘507 patent (Ex. 1007) at 1:36-40,
`
`8:23-29 and 10:3-22, Fig. 7.
`
`Disclosure of the ‘871 patent
`
`24. The ‘871 patent is generally directed to an image capture,
`
`compression and transmission system for sending visual image transmission over
`
`land line or wireless communications. Image capture is accomplished with a
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`camera, which is integrated with a signal converter such that a converted signal can
`
`be transmitted in real time or stored in memory for later recall and sending. The
`
`patent describes a modular configuration that provides maximum flexibility such
`
`that any or all of the camera, converter and telephone or other transmission device
`
`can be configured as integrated or independent units. ‘871 patent (Ex. 1001) at
`
`1:24-36.
`
`25. The configuration illustrated in Fig. 6B, which is shown below for
`
`convenience, is portable system that includes a battery powered portable module
`
`160 with a self-contained power source 162 and integral RAM as well as
`
`removable memory (image card 72). The camera 10 may be integrated into the
`
`portable module 160, or it can be a detachable unit. The cellular telephone 164 is
`
`provided with a data jack 166 and to connect with the output jack 168 of the
`
`module. This permits sending the image data signal via the cellular telephone to a
`
`remote facsimile machine using standard cellular and telephone facilities. Id. at
`
`10:35-48.
`
`26. The components shown in Fig. 6A and 6B (below) of the ‘871 patent
`
`are conventional components that were known to a POSA at the time the ‘871
`
`patent was filed, and these components are arranged in a straightforward,
`
`conventional way. In Figure 6A shown below, the camera and the telephone are
`
`distinct elements that are connected as part of a desktop system. In Figure 6B
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`shown below, the camera 10 is integrated with the portable system 160 along with
`
`the memory 72 and the battery 162, which is connected to a separate cellular phone
`
`164. The ‘871 patent explains that the modular approach is intended to provide
`
`maximum flexibility so that the components can be integrated or separate as
`
`desired. See id. at 1:24-36.
`
`
`
`27.
`
`I have reviewed the prosecution history of the ‘871 patent. During
`
`prosecution of the ‘871 patent, claims directed to a combination camera, memory,
`
`power supply and cell phone were repeatedly rejected over prior art. For instance,
`
`what was independent claim 43 at the time was rejected as anticipated by Collett
`
`(U.S. Patent No. 5,517,683, Ex. 1009). The Examiner explained, for example, that
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`Collett disclosed a “handheld self-contained cellular telephone and integrated
`
`image processing system” that included i) a housing, ii) an image capture device,
`
`iii) a display, iv) a processor in the housing for generating an image data signal, v)
`
`a telephonic system in the housing, vi) alpha numeric input keys in the housing,
`
`vii) a wireless communications device, and viii) a power supply. See Office
`
`Action dated Aug. 9, 2005 (Ex. 1005) for the ‘871 patent, at 12-13. These were
`
`conventional features at the time the ‘871 patent was filed. The McNelley and
`
`Umezawa patents are prior art not cited in prosecution history, and their
`
`disclosures yield the subject matter of the ‘871 claims as explained below.
`
`Claim Construction for “framing an image” – Claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 12
`
`28. The term “framing an image” appears in different variations: “an
`
`image framed by the camera” (claim 1); “framing the image to be captured”
`
`(claims 2 and 12); “visually framing a visual image to be captured (claim 6);
`
`framing the visual image” (claim 7). The ‘871 patent does not explicitly refer to
`
`this language in the written description or figures. Some references to a “frame” in
`
`the ‘871 patent specification use the term to refer to particular images, e.g., the
`
`description of frames of a received analog video signal from what appears to be an
`
`analog input connector of the device. See ‘871 patent (Ex. 1001) at 7:49 to 8:23.
`
`29. The '871 patent makes various statements about a frame including the
`
`following which are informative: “[A]n image capture and transmission system
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`captures either one or more single frame analog images or digital images or image
`
`data or visual data or visual images” Id. at 4:58-61. “The display unit 96 …
`
`provides … a visual read-out of the status of the collection and transmission of a
`
`selected frame.” Id. at 8:39-42. “[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 10:9-19.
`
`30. Based on the above, in my opinion, a POSA would have understood
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of “framing an image” to mean “obtaining
`
`data representing an image as shown on a display.”
`
`Claims 1-8 and 12-14 Are Obvious Over McNelley In View Of Umezawa
`
`31. Claims 1-8 and 12-14 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by the
`
`disclosure of a teleconferencing camcorder in the ‘754 patent (McNelley) in
`
`combination with the disclosure of a video telephone of the ‘507 patent
`
`(Umezawa). McNelley patent was issued on August 27, 1996, from an application
`
`filed May 13, 1994. Umezawa was issued on February 13, 1996, from an
`
`application filed October 22, 1993. Both the McNelley and Umezawa patents are
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) with respect to the ‘871 patent.
`
`32. At the time of the filing of the ‘871 patent, all the claimed components
`
`of the claimed combinations recited in claims 1-8 and 12-14 were well known. The
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`problems of electronics miniaturization, creating hand held devices, and taking
`
`advantage of digital systems to create electronic functionality in a consumer device
`
`were all well-known and actively being pursued at the time of the ‘871 filing date.
`
`Combining the components, and their known features, recited in the asserted
`
`claims posed routine issues for those of ordinary skill in the art. Making
`
`combinations of components from the disclosures in McNelley and Umezawa to
`
`create the combinations of elements recited in the Asserted Claims would have
`
`involved merely the predictable use of the components by a POSA with predictable
`
`results. Moreover, a POSA would have found it obvious to incorporate features
`
`from Umezawa into the system of McNeely, including inclusion of Umezawa’s
`
`processor functionality and LCD touch control panel (user interface), at least for
`
`the purposes of providing a smaller and more convenient handheld
`
`videoconferencing device that could be held in one hand, for providing a more
`
`convenient means of user control via the LCD touch control panel as a user
`
`interface, and for providing an ability to view alphanumeric messages on the
`
`display, e.g., to confirm the accuracy of the phone number of the other party. See,
`
`e.g., ‘754 patent (Ex. 1006) at FIGS. 8, 10-12, ‘507 patent (Ex. 1007) at 1:36-40,
`
`8:23-29, 10:3-22, Fig. 7. As detailed below, a POSA would have found it obvious
`
`to combine the disclosures of McNelley and Umezawa for reasons explained
`
`above, and those combined disclosures yield the subject matter claimed in the
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`Asserted Claims as discussed below. The features identified below are disclosed
`
`explicitly, or at least inherently, in McNelley and Umezawa as indicated. I
`
`understand inherent disclosure to mean that the claim feature necessarily flows
`
`from the disclosure of the reference.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`33. The combination of McNelley (the ‘754 patent) and Umezawa (the
`
`‘507 patent) teaches or suggests to a POSA at the time of the filing of the ‘871
`
`patent each of the limitations for the asserted claims as follows.
`
`a)
`
`(claim 1 preamble) “A handheld self-contained cellular
`telephone and integrated image processing system”
`
`34. As disclosed by the ‘754 patent, “Fig. 8 shows a telecamcorder
`
`configured for use as a self-contained teleconferencing terminal as well as a
`
`camcorder.” ‘754 patent (Ex. 1006) at6:35-37. This device is disclosed as being
`
`handheld because, “In one mode, the operator holds the entire unit in front of
`
`him/her with the display 100, serving as the viewfinder.” Id. at 10:16-18. The ‘754
`
`patent discloses the telecamcorder “where the camera 102 is pointed in the same
`
`direction as the viewing side of the display….” ‘Id. at 6:38-39. “FIG. 9 shows a left
`
`side view of the telecamcorder illustrated in FIG. 8. This figure shows the dialing
`
`controls 186 and the telecamcorder controls 188 built into the main housing 148.
`
`Built-in controls may serve in lieu of controls on the handset 174, or both sets of
`
`controls may be employed on a single telecamcorder.” Id. at 8:10-15. The ‘754
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`patent also discloses a wireless telephone: “In the near future, video-phone
`
`networks will use one or a combination of phone lines, television cables and
`
`wireless networks (i.e., cellular phone systems). The telecamcorder is applicable to
`
`any type of network.” Id. at 14:16-18. A POSA would understand that McNelley
`
`discloses this limitation.
`
`b)
`
`(claim 1 preamble) “for both sending and receiving telephonic
`audio signals”
`
`35. As disclosed by the ‘754 patent, a “camcorder (telecamcorder) of the
`
`present invention contains an integral video-phone capable of receiving and
`
`sending teleconferencing signals.” Id. at 5:1-3. A POSA would understand that the
`
`disclosed camcorder is also capable of sending and receiving audio because “With
`
`a wireless network the telecamcorder can serve as a portable wireless
`
`teleconferencing terminal much like a portable cellular phone.” Id. at 14:28-31
`
`(emphasis added). A POSA would understand that when the McNelley device
`
`operates as a portable cell phone, it requires at least sending and receiving audio
`
`signals. So, a POSA would understand that McNelley discloses this claim
`
`limitation.
`
`c)
`
`(claim 1 preamble) “for capturing a visual image and
`transmitting it to a compatible remote receiving station of a
`wireless telephone network”
`
`36. The ‘754 patent discloses a “camcorder (telecamcorder) of the present
`
`invention contains an integral video-phone capable of receiving and sending
`
`
`
`-20-
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`teleconferencing signals and includes a built in display to view an incoming
`
`teleconferencing signal and a video pickup device that can produce an image of the
`
`operator for transmissions during teleconferencing.” Id. at 5:1-7. The ‘754 patent
`
`discloses that “if the unit is used in the teleconferencing mode, the controller 400
`
`routes the signal to a network access or communication electronics package 402.
`
`This electronics package establishes contact with a network and sends properly
`
`processed audio and video signals to the network through a connection 104 and
`
`received audio and video through the same connection 104.” Id. at 21:30-36
`
`(referring to Fig. 30). The ‘754 patent also discloses use of a wireless network: “In
`
`the near future, video-phone networks will use one or a combination of phone
`
`lines, television cables and wireless networks (i.e., cellular phone systems). The
`
`telecamcorder is applicable to any type of network.” Id. at 14:16-18. A POSA
`
`would understand that teleconferencing refers to both transmission and receipt of
`
`visual signals. For example, in the context of a camcorder, visual images are
`
`captured. In the context of portable cell phone operation, those captured images are
`
`transferred through the wireless telephone network. So McNelley discloses the
`
`subject matter recited in all the limitations of the preamble to a POSA.
`
`(claim 1) “the system comprising: a manually portable housing”
`
`d)
`37. As described above with respect to the preamble, the disclosed
`
`“telecamcorder” structure as shown in Fig. 8 is both handheld and portable. “Fig. 8
`
`
`
`-21-
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`shows a telecamcorder configured for use as a self-contained teleconferencing
`
`terminal as well as a camcorder.” Id. at 6:35-37. This device is disclosed as being
`
`handheld because, “In one mode, the operator holds the entire unit in front of
`
`him/her with the display 100, serving as the viewfinder.” Id. at 10:16-18.
`
`McNelley discloses the subject matter of the recited claim limitation to a POSA.
`
`e)
`
`(claim 1) “an integral image capture device comprising an
`electronic camera contained within the portable housing”
`
`38. The ‘754 patent discloses a telecamcorder “where the camera 102 is
`
`pointed in the same direction as the viewing side of the display….” Id. at 6:37-39.
`
`This embodiment includes “a charge coupled device (CCD) optical pickup. As
`
`electrical values are read from the CCD, the values are immediately converted into
`
`digital values and remain digital through all subsequent processing.” Id. at 13:5-8.
`
`The disclosed camera with a CCD is a device for image capture. McNelley
`
`discloses the subject matter of the recited claim limitation to a POSA.
`
`f)
`
`(claim 1) “a display for displaying an image framed by the
`camera, the display being supported by the housing, the display
`and the electronic camera being commonly movable in the
`housing when the housing is moved by hand”
`
`39. The ‘754 patent discloses that the “display may be of any type, but
`
`thin lightweight displays, such as an active matrix LCD, are preferred Id. at 6:41-
`
`43. As disclosed with respect to the preamble above, the camera is handheld and
`
`portable and the camera is included in that unit. The display is operable as a
`
`
`
`-22-
`
`Apple Ex. 1008
`
`
`
`
`
`“viewfinder.” Id. at 7:14-16. A viewfinder as known by a POSA displays an image
`
`framed by the camera. The display is disclosed as being contained with the
`
`housing. A rotating hand grip 160 and pivots 158 and 160 permit horizontal and
`
`vertical movement for different positioning and framing orientations. Id. at 6:59-
`
`7:3. McNelley discloses the subject matter of the recited claim limitation to a
`
`POSA.
`
`g)
`
`(claim 1) “a processor in the housing for generating an image
`data signal representing the image framed by the camera”
`
`40. The ‘754 patent states, “An enhanced digitally-based telecamcorder
`
`may include microprocessors for operational functions.” Id. at 20:54-55. The ‘754
`
`patent discloses a processor in video camera electronics 404 of Fig. 30 which
`
`“processes the output of the camera 406 into a final video signal to be fed to the
`
`controller 400.” ‘Id. at 21:13-16. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`that the video camera electronics of Fig. 30 are contained within the telecamcorder
`
`housing. See, e.g., id. at 4: 3-4 regarding description of Fig 30. Also, as disclosed
`
`in the reference, “Recent advances in compression technology promise full motion,
`
`real-time teleconferencing using a single phone line, cable or wireless broadcast.
`
`Such advanced digital compression formats use small ASIC chips for compression
`
`and decompression. These chips can readily be built into the telecamcorder.” Id. at
`
`18:43-48. The ‘754 patent also discloses that “digital recording” can be used and
`
`that an “enhanced digitally-based telecamcorder may include microproces
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
