`Paper No.
`Filed: January 7, 2015
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`
`
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`By:
`Steven L. Park (stevenpark@paulhastings.com)
`Naveen Modi (naveenmodi@paulhastings.com)
`Elizabeth L. Brann (elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com)
`Paul Hastings LLP
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`HTC CORPORATION
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and HTC
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`E-WATCH, INC. and E WATCH CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`CASE: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 77
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1010
`SAMSUNG v. E-WATCH INC.
`Trial IPR2015-00541
`
`

`

`
`Paper No.
`Filed: January 7, 2015
`
`Patent No. 7,365,871 B2
`____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,365,871 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 77
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. 7,365,871
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`EXHIBIT LIST OF EXHIBITS ............................................................................. ivii
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B) ........................... 21
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`REAL PARTY IN INTEREST ........................................................... 21
`
`RELATED MATTERS ....................................................................... 21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Litigations. .................................................................................. 2
`
`Inter Partes Reviews. .................................................................. 3
`
`C. NOTICE OF COUNSEL AND SERVICE INFORMATION ............ 42
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) .................................... 4
`
`IVII. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW .................................... 42
`
`A. GROUND FOR STANDING .............................................................. 52
`
`B.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE .............................................. 53
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Claims Challenged .................................................................... 53
`
`The Prior Art ............................................................................. 53
`
`Supporting Evidence Relied Upon For The Challenge ............ 53
`
`Statutory Ground(s) Of Challenge And Legal Principles ......... 53
`
`Claim Construction ................................................................... 63
`
`How Claims Are Unpatentable Under Statutory Grounds
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(2) ...................................... 64
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE 871 ’871 PATENT ................................................... 64
`
`A.
`
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE CLAIMS OF THE 871 ’871
`PATENT .............................................................................................. 64
`
`B.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE 871 ’871 PATENT.......................................... 64
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 3 of 77
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. 7,365,871
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION FILE HISTORY.......................... 85
`
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................... 86
`
`VI. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE 871 ’871 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ...........107
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE REFERENCES AS PRIOR ART ......107
`
`SUMMARY OF INVALIDITY POSITIONS ..................................132
`
`C. DIFFERENT INVALIDITY POSITIONS AGAINST EACH
`CLAIM ARE INDEPENDENT, DISTINCTIVE AND NOT
`REDUNDANT .................................................................................... 13
`
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS FOR
`UNPATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS 1 8 AND 12 15 OF 871
`PATENT ........................................................................................................ 14
`
`CA. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1-8 AND 12-15 ARE OBVIOUS
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) OVER WILSKA AND
`YAMAGISHI-114 .............................................................................134
`
`B. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 1 8 AND 12 15 ARE OBVIOUS
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) OVER MCNELLEY AND
`YAMAGISHI 992 ............................................................................... 37
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 3762
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 4 of 77
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. 7,365,871
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 10, 13
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................... 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................. 10, 13
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.131 ................................................................................................. 8, 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4) ........................................................................................ 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(2) ........................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Page 5 of 77
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review – Patent No. 7,365,871
`
`EXHIBIT LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,365,871 B2 to David A. Monroe (“the 871
`Patent”), as filed in IPR2014-00987
`
`U.K. Patent Application GB 2,289,555 A to Wilska et al.
`(“Wilska”)., as filed in IPR2014-00987
`
`Certified Translation of the Japanese Patent Publication No. H06-
`176114 to Yamagishi (“Yamagishi 114”),, Certification of English
`Translation, and the Original Japanese Document, as filed in
`IPR2014-00987
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,550,754 B2 to McNelley et al.
`(“McNelley”)Reserved
`
`European Patent Application Publication No. 0594992 A1 to
`Yamagishi (“Yamagishi 992”)Reserved
`
`Declaration of Kenneth Parulski including Attachments A-D, as filed
`in IPR2014-00987
`
`Selected Portions of the 871’871 Patent Prosecution File History, as
`filed in IPR2014-00987
`
`HTC Corp. v. e-Watch, Inc., IPR2014-00987, Petition, Paper No. 1
`(June 19, 2014)
`
`HTC Corp. v. e-Watch, Inc., IPR2014-00987, Institution Decision,
`Paper No. 6 (Dec. 9, 2014)
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Ex.
`1001
`
`Ex.
`1002
`
`Ex.
`1003
`
`Ex.
`1004
`
`Ex.
`1005
`
`Ex.
`1006
`
`Ex.
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 77
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review –of U.S. Patent. No. 7,365,871 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100, Samsung ElectronicsHTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc. (collectively
`
`“Petitioners”) petition for, “Petitioner”) request inter partes review of claims 1-8
`
`and 12-15 of U.S. Pat.Patent No. 7,365,871 B2 (“the 871 Patent,” Ex. 1001). E
`
`Watch, Inc. and E Watch Corporation are collectively referred to as’871 Patent
`
`Owner because the 871 Patent”) (Ex. 1001), which is assigned to E Watch, Inc.
`
`e-Watch, Inc. (“Patent Owner”). On December 9, 2014, the Board instituted an
`
`inter partes review of the same claims based on USPTO records and E Watch
`
`Corporation claims to be the exclusive licensee of the 871 Patent in their complaint
`
`a petition filed under Case No. 2:13 cv 01063by HTC Corporation and HTC
`
`America, Inc. (“HTC”) in IPR2014-00987 (“HTC IPR”) (see Ex. 1009 at 9-11; Ex.
`
`1008 at 14-36). This Petition proposes the same ground of rejection proposed in
`
`the Eastern District of TexasHTC IPR that was adopted by the Board, and relies on
`
`the same analysis, evidence, and expert testimony. Therefore, Petitioner submits
`
`concurrently herewith a request for joinder with the HTC IPR. In the event joinder
`
`is not granted, Petitioner respectfully requests that a proceeding be instituted based
`
`on this petition alone.
`
`This Petition shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that PetitionersPetitioner will prevail with respect to at least
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 7 of 77
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review –of U.S. Patent. No. 7,365,871 B2
`
`one of the on claims 1-8 and 12-15. These claims are unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. §103. The of the ’871 Patent based on prior art that the U.S. Patent Office
`
`is respectfully requested to institute a trial for inter partes review (“the Office”) did
`
`not have before it or did not fully consider during prosecution, and to cancelthat
`
`renders these claims obvious. Accordingly, claims 1-8 and 12-15 of the ’871 Patent
`
`should be found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)
`A. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
`HTC CorporationPursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner identifies
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and HTCSamsung Electronics America, Inc. areas
`
`the real parties -in -interest.
`
`B. RELATED MATTERS
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner identifies the following
`
`related matters.
`
`Litigations
`
`1.
`Patent Owner is assertinghas asserted the 871’871 Patent and U.S. Pat.Patent
`
`No. 7,643,168 B2 (“the 168’168 Patent”)”), which claims priority to the ’871
`
`Patent, against PetitionersSamsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`
`Telecommunications America, Inc. in an on goinga patent infringement lawsuit in
`
`E WATCH, INC. and E WATCH CORPORATION et allitigation. v. HTC
`
`CORPORATION and HTC AMERICA, INC. et al, 2:13 cv 01063 filed in on
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 8 of 77
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review –of U.S. Patent. No. 7,365,871 B2
`
`December 9, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on
`
`Dec. 9, 2013, and is(case no. 2:13-cv-01062). 1 Patent Owner has also asserting
`
`these patentsasserted the ’871 Patent and ’168 Patent against other entities in 9nine
`
`other lawsuits. A petition in the Eastern District of Texas (case nos. 2:13-cv-
`
`01061, -01063, -01064, -01069,
`
`-01070, -01071, -01072, -01073, -01074, -01075, -01076, -01077, and -01078).
`
`These litigations have been consolidated and case no. 2:13-cv-01061 has been
`
`designated as the lead case.
`
`2.
`Inter Partes Reviews
`Several petitions for inter partes review under Case have been filed
`
`challenging the ’871 and ’168 Patents.
`
`Regarding the ’871 Patent, as noted above, the Board instituted an inter
`
`partes review of the ’871 Patent on December 9, 2014, based on a petition filed by
`
`HTC on June 19, 2014 (IPR2014-00987) (“HTC IPR”) (see Ex. 1009 at 9-11; Ex.
`
`1008 at 14-36). This Petition copies the ground of rejection proposed in the HTC
`
`IPR that was adopted by the Board. The Board also instituted an inter partes
`
`
`1 Effective January 1, 2015, Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“STA”)
`
`merged into Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and STA ceased to exist as a
`
`separate corporate entity.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 9 of 77
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review –of U.S. Patent. No. 7,365,871 B2
`
`review of the ’871 Patent on August 4, 2014, based on a petition filed by Iron
`
`Dome LLC on February 18, 2014 (IPR2014-00439 was filed by IRON DOME
`
`LLC on Feb. 18, 2014 and is pending. ). In addition, Petitioners are pursuing a
`
`separate petition other entities have filed petitions for inter partes review of the
`
`168’871 Patent (IPR2015-00402, IPR2015-00404, IPR2015-00406, IPR2015-
`
`00411, IPR2015-00412, and IPR2015-00413). These matters remain pending.
`
`As for the ’168 Patent, the Board instituted an inter partes review of the
`
`’168 Patent on December 9, 2014, based on a petition filed by HTC on June 19,
`
`2014 (IPR2014-00989). Petitioner is filing concurrently herewith a petition for
`
`inter partes review that copies the grounds of rejection proposed by HTC in
`
`IPR2014-00989 that was adopted by the Board. Other entities have also filed
`
`petitions for inter partes review of the ’168 Patent (IPR2015-00401, IPR2015-
`
`00407, IPR2015-00408, and IPR2015-00414). These matters remain pending.
`
`C. NOTICE OF COUNSEL AND SERVICE INFORMATION
`Pursuant to In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3) )-(4), Petitioner
`
`identifies the following lead and 42.10(a), Petitioners appoint Bing Aiback-up
`
`counsel and service information.
`
`Lead counsel is Steven L. Park (Reg. No. 43,312) as lead counsel, and
`
`Cheng C. (Jack) Ko47,842), Paul Hastings LLP, 1170 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite
`
`100, Atlanta, GA 30309, Telephone: (404) 815-2223, Fax: (404) 685-5223, E-mail:
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 10 of 77
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review –of U.S. Patent. No. 7,365,871 B2
`
`stevenpark@paulhastings.com; and back-up counsel is Naveen Modi (Reg. No.
`
`54,227), Kevin Patariu46,224), Paul Hastings LLP, 875 15th St. N.W.,
`
`Washington, D.C., 20005, Telephone: 202.551.1700, Fax: 202.551.1705, Email:
`
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com; and Elizabeth L. Brann (Reg. No. 63,210) and
`
`Babak Tehranchi (Reg. No. 55,937) as back up counsel, all at the mailing address:
`
`Perkins Coie LLP, 11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350987), Paul Hastings LLP,
`
`4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor, San Diego, CA 92130; contact numbers: 92121,
`
`Telephone: (858 720 5700 (phone), ) 458-3014, Fax: (858 720 5799 (fax); and the
`
`following email for service and all communications: HTC EWATCH IPR
`
`Service@perkinscoie) 458-3114, E-mail: elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com.
`
`III. Pursuant to PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), 15(a
`Power of Attorney executed by Petitioners for appointing the above
`designated counsel)
`
`The required fees are submitted herewith. The Office is concurrently
`
`filedauthorized to charge any additional fees due at any time during this
`
`proceeding to Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`III.IV.
`This Petition complies with all requirements under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104.
`
`A. GROUND FOR STANDING
`Pursuant toPetitioner certifies that, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioners
`
`hereby certify that the 871’871 Patent is available for inter partes review, and that
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 11 of 77
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review –of U.S. Patent. No. 7,365,871 B2
`
`Petitioners arePetitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes
`
`review challenging claims of the 871’871 Patent on the grounds identified.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`
`B.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), theThe precise relief requested is that the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOffice cancel claimsthe Challenged Claims.
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`1.
`Claims 1-8 and 12-15 of the 871 ’871 Patent are challenged in this Petition.
`
`The Prior Art
`
`2.
`The prior art references relied upon are Wilska (Ex. 1002), Yamagishi 114
`
`(Ex. 1003), McNelley (Ex. 1004) and Yamagishi-992114 (Ex. 1005) (see Exhibit
`
`List1003).
`
`Supporting Evidence Relied Upon For The Challenge
`
`3.
`The Declaration by Kenneth Parulski (Ex. 1006) and other supporting
`
`evidence in the Exhibit List of Exhibits above are filed herewith.
`
`Statutory Ground(s) Of Challenge And Legal Principles
`
`4.
`The review of the 871’871 Patent is governed by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102
`
`and 103 that were in effect before Mar. 16, 2013. Further, 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 to 319
`
`that took effect on Sep. 16, 2012 govern this inter partes review.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 12 of 77
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review –of U.S. Patent. No. 7,365,871 B2
`
`5.
`Claim Construction
`The 871’871 Patent is an unexpired patent. In inter partes review, a claim in
`
`the 871’871 Patent shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of
`
`the specification of the patent in which it appears. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`6. How Claims Are Unpatentable Under Statutory Grounds
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (b)(2)
`
`Section VI provides an explanation of how claims 1-8 and 12-15 of the
`
`871’871 Patent are unpatentable, including the identification of where each
`
`element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications...
`
`IV.V. OVERVIEW OF THE 871’871 PATENT
`A.
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE CLAIMS OF THE 871’871 PATENT
`The application for the 871’871 Patent was filed on Jan.January 3, 2003, as a
`
`purported divisional of Appl. No. 09/006,073, filed Jan.January 12, 1998
`
`(abandoned). Therefore,Although Petitioner disagrees that the ’871 Patent is
`
`entitled to a priority date of the claims of the 871 Patent is no earlier than
`
`Jan.January 12, 1998, Petitioner has assumed January 12, 1998, as the priority date
`
`for purposes of this Petition.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE 871’871 PATENT
`
`B.
`The 871’871 Patent describes an image capture, conversion, compression,
`
`storage and transmission system (Ex. 1001, Abstract). The system includes a
`
`camera and a transmission interface; the camera captures an image that can be
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 13 of 77
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review –of U.S. Patent. No. 7,365,871 B2
`
`transmitted to another device using, e.g., cellular transmission, radio signal,
`
`satellite transmission and 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).
`
`Fig. 4 of the 871’871 Patent illustrates the data path after an image is
`
`captured by the camera 10 and conditioned by the gray scale bit map 16 (id., 7:3-
`
`48). The device includes a memory 46, an optional viewer 48, and a format select
`
`interface switch 60 that permits either automated or manual selection of the
`
`transmitting protocol, such as a Group-III facsimile format, a PC modem protocol,
`
`a wavelet compressor or others (Id.). id.). Depending on the selected protocol, the
`
`signal output is generated and provided to a communications interface module 83
`
`for transmission (Idid.).
`
`The claims recite handheld self-contained cellular telephone and integrated
`
`image processing systems (id., claims 1-5), handheld cellular telephones having an
`
`integrated electronic camera (id., claims 6-8), and combinations of handheld
`
`wireless telephone and digital camera (id., claims 12-15). Claim 1 recites a
`
`housing, an image capture device, a display, a processor, a memory, alphanumeric
`
`input keys, a user interface, a telephone system, a wireless communication device,
`
`and a power supply.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 14 of 77
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review –of U.S. Patent. No. 7,365,871 B2
`
`SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION FILE HISTORY
`
`C.
`The original examination of the 871’871 Patent included seven Office
`
`Actions, several examiner interviews and an examiner amendment. Notably, in
`
`response to the Sep.September 27, 2004 Office Action, Patent Owner filed an
`
`affidavit under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 to contend an earlier invention date of
`
`Mar.March 18, 1993, nearly five (5) years before its earliest priority date of
`
`Jan.January 12, 1998.
`
`The Office rejected the claims multiple times based on prior art and Patent
`
`Owner countered with multiple claim amendments. In the response of
`
`Sep.September 7, 2007, Patent Owner amended claims and deleted certain
`
`paragraphs from the specification (see Ex. 1007) that describe prior art teachings,
`
`and constitute admitted prior art (“APA”) by Patent Owner.
`
`None of the cited references in this Petition was before the Office during the
`
`original examination. Therefore, the 871’871 Patent was granted based on an
`
`incomplete record of relevant prior art.
`
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`D.
`Petitioners proposePetitioner proposes construction of claim terms below
`
`pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard for inter partes
`
`review and to comply with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b) and 42.104(b)(3) and for the
`
`sole purpose of this Petition. Thus, the proposed BRI claim constructions do not
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 15 of 77
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review –of U.S. Patent. No. 7,365,871 B2
`
`necessarily reflect appropriate claim constructions to be used in litigation and other
`
`proceedings where a different claim construction standard applies.2
`
`Framing an image: This term appears in the claims in different variations:
`
`“an image framed by the camera” (claim 1); “framing the [an] 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 (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” (4:58 62). “The display unit 96 ...provides ... a visual read out of the
`
`status of the collection and transmission of a selected _ frame” (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.” (10:9 21).
`
`2 Petitioner reserves all other arguments, such as § 112 arguments, for litigation.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 16 of 77
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review –of U.S. Patent. No. 7,365,871 B2
`
`Based on the above, the In IPR2014-00987, HTC proposed BRI construction
`
`for this termthat the broadest reasonable interpretation of these phrases is
`
`“obtaining an image of an object using a viewfinder, or providing data representing
`
`an image of an object on a display.”” (Ex. 1008 at 6-7). The Board in IPR2014-
`
`00987 did not adopt this exact construction, but instead adopted a similar
`
`interpretation. For “image framed by the camera,” the Board interpreted it as “an
`
`image having boundaries established by the camera,” and for all other “framing”
`
`terms, the Board interpreted them as “establishing the boundaries of the image to
`
`be captured” (Ex. 1009 at 6-7).
`
`As explained by the Board in IPR2014-00987, “[t]he term ‘frame’ is used in
`
`the Specification, but it is used as a noun, not as a verb, and only in an image-
`
`processing context,” and “[t]he terms ‘framed’ and ‘framing’ are not used in the
`
`Specification” (id. at 6). But, “[a]s used in the claims, ‘framed’ and ‘framing’
`
`appear to refer to composing an image by positioning the subject of the image
`
`within the boundaries of the camera’s field of view” (id.).
`
`For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner proposes that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of “image framed by the camera” is “an image having
`
`boundaries established by the camera,” and of all other “framing” terms is
`
`“establishing the boundaries of the image to be captured,” as adopted by the Board
`
`in IPR2014-00987 (see id. at 6-7). Petitioner notes, however, that the prior art
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 17 of 77
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review –of U.S. Patent. No. 7,365,871 B2
`
`analysis provided by HTC meets both HTC’s interpretation and the Board’s
`
`interpretation, as evidenced by the Board’s institution of trial in IPR2014-00987.
`
`Other Claim Terms: Petitioners proposePetitioner proposes the ordinary
`
`and customary meaning for each of the remaining terms in claims 1-8 and 12-15 of
`
`the 871’871 Patent.
`
`V.VI. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE 871’871 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`Claims 1-8 and 12-15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for merely
`
`reciting predictable and obvious combinations of elements that were well known
`
`many years prior to the 1998earliest possible priority date of the 871’871 Patent
`
`(see also Ex. 1006, Pars. 29-70) and were taught or suggested by the cited prior art
`
`in this Petition. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE REFERENCES AS PRIOR ART
`
`A.
`As detailed below, the cited prior art references are within the same specific
`
`technical field, and relate to the claimed subject matter, of the 871’871 Patent. All
`
`cited references were published more than one year prior to the Jan.January 12,
`
`1998, the earliest possible priority date of the 871’871 Patent, and, therefore, are
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The cited references cannot be sworn behind
`
`by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §1.131. In addition, none of the cited references
`
`were before the Office in the original examination and are presented to the Office
`
`for the first time.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 18 of 77
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review –of U.S. Patent. No. 7,365,871 B2
`
`Wilska (U.K. Appl. No. GB 2,289,555, published Nov. 22, 1995) describes
`
`a portable, hand-held device for personal communication, data collection, picture
`
`taking and data processing (Ex. 1002, Abstract). Figs. 1-3 illustrate internal and
`
`external components, including a data processing unit (2), a display (9), user
`
`interface (10, 11), a cellular mobile telephone and modem (17), memory unit(s)
`
`(13), power source (e.g., a battery) (3) and application software (Id).
`
`id.). The device includes a camera unit (14) that is fixedly integrated into the
`
`device, or implemented as a removable component (e.g., a PCMCIA card) (id.,
`
`Abstract; 4:28-30; 5:9-10; 7:21-23). The camera unit (14) includes a camera (14a),
`
`e.g., a CCD or a semiconductor image sensor, and optics (14b) connected thereto
`
`(id., Abstract; 7:9-10). Fig. 5 of Wilska provides further details of the camera unit.
`
` Wilska’s device allows the use of cellular phone services, data and/or
`
`speech transmission, facsimile services for transmission of images, electronic mail,
`
`short message service, camera functions to record images, and other functions (id.,
`
`6:4-12).
`
`Yamagishi-114 (JP Publication No. H06-176114, published Jun. 24, 1994)
`
`describes a device that includes a camera and an image processing system and can
`
`be implemented in a portable wireless phone (Ex. 1003, Abstract, 18:23-24; Fig.
`
`14). Fig. 1 shows the device components: lens (10), shutter (12), A/D converter
`
`(16), display (64), control units (20, 40, 60), image memory (24), recording media
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 19 of 77
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review –of U.S. Patent. No. 7,365,871 B2
`
`(90) (e.g., hard disk, removable memory card), program memory (62),
`
`compression unit (22), battery (70), communication unit (100), keyboard
`
`(Abstract), operating means (66) (e.g., a mouse, a touch-sensitive panel, switches,
`
`keys) to operate the camera (id., 18:17-19), allow selection of items (id., 7:16-18)
`
`and entry of commands (id., 5:10-11).
`
` Some components (e.g., memory, communication units) can be designed as
`
`removable modules or as fixed sections of the device (id., 10:9-13; 19:5-29). In a
`
`“through-mode” of operation, the display (or a section of it) operates as a
`
`viewfinder to continuously show images that are picked up by the camera (id.,
`
`7:18-19; 8:18-23). The device can also operate in a “monitor-mode,” where a
`
`stored image is selected, read from memory and viewed on the display (id., 7:18-
`
`21).
`
`Fig. 14 illustrates a device which combines a digital camera and a mobile
`
`phone. The telephone may operate normally as a wireless phone for sending and
`
`receiving telephone calls (id., 18:36-45), and as an electronic camera for taking,
`
`storing and viewing images (Id.). id.). The device’s communication module can
`
`communicate bi-directionally with external devices to transfer data and control
`
`signals based on appropriate communication protocols (id., 5:38-47).
`
`Yamagishi 992 (EP Appl. No. 0594992, published May 4, 1994) describes
`
`an information signal processing apparatus with an electronic camera that allows
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 20 of 77
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review –of U.S. Patent. No. 7,365,871 B2
`
`capture, storage and transmission of images and sound (Abstract; 7:35 41). The
`
`device in Fig. 43 includes a lens, a shutter, two A/D converters, a microphone,
`
`image/sound memory (3024), recording media (3100), power supply, system
`
`controlling circuit, display devices, compressing expanding circuit, audio output
`
`device, modem and switches (3056) for command entry, selection of operational
`
`modes and executing camera operations (121:21 58). The device has three modes
`
`of operation: recording, reproduction and transmission, that respectively allow
`
`selective capture, viewing and transmission of images/sound by the device (122:23
`
`to 126:3; Figs. 44 46). Image/sound data is transmitted to an external device by a
`
`modem, controlled by the system controlling circuit (118:58 to 119:6). The device
`
`can be part of a portable telephone set, and can use a wireless line for
`
`transmission/reception of control and data signals (120:15 25; 147:3 13).
`
`McNelley (Pat. No. 5,550,754, issued Aug. 27, 1996) describes a handheld
`
`telecamcorder: a combination portable camcorder and video conferencing device
`
`that operates over a telephone network (Abstract; 2:43 49). The device includes a
`
`display that can function as a viewfinder in video graphing objects (Abstract). The
`
`communication electronics can establish a connection over a wireless telephone
`
`network to transmit video/audio signals from the device while presenting video
`
`signals and audio signals that arrive over the network (Abstract; 14:16 37).
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 21 of 77
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review –of U.S. Patent. No. 7,365,871 B2
`
`Figs. 8 and 9 show a telecamcorder that includes a camera (102), a
`
`microphone (114), a light (152), a display (100), a viewfinder (166), controls (164)
`
`for zoom and record/playback functions, a handgrip (160) (housing the batteries), a
`
`speaker (112) and an antenna (196) for transmission and reception of images and
`
`sound (6:35 to 7:24). Fig. 9 depicts the integrated handset (of Fig. 8) that includes
`
`dialing control (186) and telecamcorder controls (188) (8:10 18). Fig. 12 shows
`
`one implementation where the main housing (148) can move vertically along the
`
`rods (216), and the camera (102) can rotate via the handle (226) (8:64 to 9:13).
`
`Fig. 30 shows some of the telecamcorder’s components. A controller (or
`
`mode selector) mediates the data flow (21:7 40). Video images captured by a
`
`video camera are provided to video camera electronics that provide the video
`
`camera with proper supply voltages and control signals and process the output of
`
`the camera (Id.). If the device is used to make a recording, the controller can
`
`condition the audio/video signals, and route them to recording/playback
`
`electronics, which process the signals for storage in memory (Id). In a
`
`teleconferencing mode, the controller routes the signal to a network access (or
`
`“communication electronics package”), which establishes contact with a network,
`
`sends properly processed audio/video signals to the network and receives
`
`audio/video (Id.). The controller routes the received signals to speaker electronics
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 22 of 77
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review –of U.S. Patent. No. 7,365,871 B2
`
`and a speaker for audio reproduction, and to display electronics and a display for
`
`display of video (Id.).
`
`SUMMARY OF INVALIDITY POSITIONS
`
`B.
`The cited prior art references disclose all the limitations of claims 1-8 and
`
`12-15 of the 871’871 Patent and render each claim as a whole obvious and
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The combination of Wilska and
`
`Yamagishi-114 illustrates that claims 1-8 and 12-15 recite features in combinations
`
`that were known or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art and are thus
`
`unpatentable. Additionally,