UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`SUMMIT 6 LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case:
`Patent 7,765,482
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`6395661V.1
`
`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................... .. 1
`
`Formalities ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`Formalities ..................................................................................................... .. 1
`
`A.
`A.
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party in Interest ............................................................................. 1
`Real Party in Interest ........................................................................... ..1
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 3
`
`Related Matters .................................................................................... ..3
`
`Fee ......................................................................................................... 4
`
`Fee ....................................................................................................... ..4
`
`D. Designation of Lead Counsel and Back-up Counsel ............................ 4
`D.
`Designation of Lead Counsel and Back-up Counsel .......................... ..4
`
`E.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`F.
`
`G.
`G.
`
`Service Information ............................................................................... 4
`
`Service Information ............................................................................. ..4
`
`Power of Attorney ................................................................................. 4
`Power of Attorney ............................................................................... ..4
`
`Standing ................................................................................................. 5
`Standing ............................................................................................... ..5
`
`III. Statement of Relief Requested ........................................................................ 5
`III.
`Statement of Relief Requested ...................................................................... ..5
`
`IV. Summary of the Prior Art ................................................................................ 6
`IV.
`Summary of the Prior Art .............................................................................. ..6
`
`A.
`A.
`
`B.
`B.
`
`C.
`C.
`
`D.
`D.
`
`E.
`E.
`
`Background of Relevant Technology .................................................... 6
`Background of Relevant Technology .................................................. ..6
`
`Summary of Creamer ............................................................................ 6
`Summary of Creamer .......................................................................... ..6
`
`Summary of Aihara ............................................................................... 8
`Summary of Aihara ............................................................................. ..8
`
`Summary of Mayle ................................................................................ 9
`Summary of Mayle .............................................................................. ..9
`
`Summary of Narayen........................................................................... 10
`Summary of Narayen ......................................................................... .. 10
`
`V. Motivations to Combine ................................................................................ 10
`
`V. Motivations to Combine .............................................................................. ..1O
`
`A. Motivation to Combine Creamer with Aihara .................................... 11
`
`A. Motivation to Combine Creamer with Aihara .................................. ..11
`
`B. Motivation to Combine Mayle with Narayen ..................................... 14
`B. Motivation to Combine Mayle with Narayen ................................... .. 14
`
`C.
`C.
`
`Summary of the ’482 Patent ................................................................ 16
`Summary of the ’482 Patent .............................................................. ..16
`
`VI. Factual Background ....................................................................................... 17
`VI.
`Factual Background ..................................................................................... ..17
`
`A. Declaration Evidence .......................................................................... 17
`
`Declaration Evidence ........................................................................ .. 17
`
`A.
`
`6395661V.1
`
`6395661V.1
`
`i
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 17
`
`VII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 17
`
`A.
`
`Proposed Constructions ....................................................................... 18
`
`1. The broadest reasonable construction of the terms “an amount of
`media data” and “an amount of digital content” is at least
`“quantity or size of digital content, as defined by one or more of
`physical dimensions, pixel count, or kilobytes” .......................... 18
`2. The broadest reasonable construction of the terms “publication,”
`“distribution,” “distributing,” and “publishing” is at least
`“making available to at least one person other than the user” .... 19
`3. The broadest reasonable construction of the term “said
`identification” is at least “said identification of digital content” 20
`Similar / Related Claim Terms ............................................................ 21
`
`B.
`
`VIII. Full Statement of the Reasons for the Relief Requested ............................... 23
`
`A.
`
`Claims 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 35, 36, 37,
`38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, and 49 should be cancelled as
`obvious under 35 U.S.C § 103 in view of Creamer and
`Aihara .................................................................................................. 23
`
`1. Claim 12 should be cancelled as obvious in view of Creamer and
`Aihara .......................................................................................... 23
`2. Claims 13, 24, and 25 should be cancelled as obvious in view of
`Creamer and Aihara ..................................................................... 28
`3. Claims 35 and 38 should be cancelled as obvious in view of
`Creamer and Aihara ..................................................................... 31
`4. Claims 36 and 37 should be cancelled as obvious in view of
`Creamer and Aihara ..................................................................... 35
`5. Dependent claims 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46,
`and 49 should be cancelled in view of Creamer and Aihara ....... 36
`Claims 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 35, 36, 37,
`38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, and 49 should be cancelled as
`obvious under 35 U.S.C § 103 in view of Mayle and
`Narayen................................................................................................ 40
`
`ii
`
`B.
`
`6395661V.1
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Claim 12 should be cancelled as obvious in view of Mayle and
`Narayen ........................................................................................ 41
`2. Claims 13, 24, and 25 should be cancelled as obvious in view of
`Mayle and Narayen ...................................................................... 47
`3. Claims 35 and 38 should be cancelled as obvious in view of
`Mayle and Narayen ...................................................................... 50
`4. Claims 36 and 37 should be cancelled as obvious in view of
`Mayle and Narayen ...................................................................... 53
`5. Dependent claims 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46,
`and 49 should be cancelled in view of Mayle and Narayen ........ 54
`IX. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 59
`
`
`
`
`
`6395661V.1
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`No. 2014-1301, 2015
`WL 448667 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015) ....................................................................17
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .......................................................................... 11, 12, 14, 16
`
`Summit 6 LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`Case No. 7:14-cv-00106 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 18, 2014) .............................................. 3
`
`Summit 6 LLC v. HTC Corp., et al.,
`No. 7:14-cv-00014 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 18, 2014) ....................................................... 3
`
`Summit 6 LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., et al.,
`No. 2013-1648 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2013) .............................................................. 3
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................. 5, 6, 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................. 5, 23, 40
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.42.104 ................................................................................................17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 ......................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ...................................................................................................17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ....................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48699 (2012) ......................................................................................17
`
`6395661V.1
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit 1001
`
`U.S. 7,765,482 (“the ’482 patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1002
`
`Exhibit 1003
`
`Complaint in Summit 6 LLC v. HTC Corp., et al., No. 7:14-cv-
`00014-O (N.D. Tex. Feb. 18, 2014) (ECF No. 1), served on
`Real Parties in Interest on February 25 & 26, 2014.
`Declaration of Dr. Paul Clark
`
`Exhibit 1004
`
`U.S. 6,930,709 to Creamer et al. (“Creamer”)
`
`Exhibit 1005
`
`U.S. 6,223,190 to Aihara et al. (“Aihara”)
`
`Exhibit 1006
`
`U.S. 6,018,774 to Mayle et al. (“Mayle”)
`
`Exhibit 1007
`
`U.S. 6,035,323 to Narayen et al. (“Narayen”)
`
`Exhibit 1008
`
`Exhibit 1009
`
`Exhibit 1010
`
`Exhibit 1011
`
`Exhibit 1012
`
`Exhibit 1013
`
`Exhibit 1014
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/085,585, filed on May 15, 1998
`(“Creamer ’98”)
`Provisional Application No. 60/067,310, filed Dec. 4, 1997
`(“Creamer ’97”)
`Ex-parte Re-Examination No. 90/012,987, Applicant
`Arguments & Remarks Made in an Amendment, March 31,
`2014
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in Summit 6 LLC
`v. HTC Corp., et al., No. 7:14-cv-00014-O (N.D. Tex. Feb. 18,
`2014) (ECF No. 217)
`Civil Summons and Proof of Service for Real Parties in Interest
`in Summit 6 LLC v. HTC Corp., et al., No. 7:14-cv-00014-O
`(N.D. Tex. Feb. 18, 2014) (ECF Nos. 11, 13, 14)
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement in Summit
`6 LLC v. HTC Corp., et al., No. 7:14-cv-00014-O (N.D. Tex.
`Feb. 18, 2014) (ECF No. 149)
`Joint Notice of Settlement in Summit 6 LLC v. HTC Corp., et
`al., No. 7:14-cv-00014-O (N.D. Tex. Feb. 18, 2014) (ECF No.
`238)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6395661V.1
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Through counsel, Petitioner1 hereby petitions for institution of inter partes
`
`
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 7,765,482 (“the ’482 patent”) (attached as Exhibit 1001),
`
`for which an assignment was recorded to Summit 6 LLC on December 19, 2008.
`
`The ’482 patent issued on July 27, 2010, more than nine months prior to the filing
`
`of this petition. This petition is being filed within one year of real parties in interest
`
`identified below being served with a complaint for infringement of the ’482 patent,
`
`which occurred on February 25 and 26, 2014. See Exhibits 1002, 1012. Thus, the
`
`’482 patent is eligible for inter partes review.
`
`II.
`
`Formalities
`A. Real Party in Interest. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), the real
`
`parties in interest are Motorola Mobility LLC; Google Inc.; HTC Corporation and
`
`HTC America, Inc. (“HTC); LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc., and
`
`LG Electronics MobileComm USA, Inc. (“LG”).
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC is a limited liability company organized in the state
`
`of Delaware with its headquarters and principal business address at 222 W.
`
`Merchandise Mart Plaza, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL. Motorola Mobility LLC is a
`
`wholly owned subsidiary of Motorola Mobility Holdings, Inc., which is a
`
`
`1 Google Inc., HTC Corporation, and HTC America, Inc. are collectively referred
`
`to as “Petitioner.”
`
`6395661V.1
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`Delaware corporation. Motorola Mobility LLC is, indirectly, a wholly-owned
`
`
`
`subsidiary of Lenovo Group Limited, which has more than a ten percent ownership
`
`of Motorola Mobility LLC. Google Inc. trades on NASDAQ under the ticker
`
`symbols GOOG and GOOGL, and is a corporation incorporated in the state of
`
`Delaware with its headquarters and principal place of business at 1600
`
`Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043.
`
`HTC Corporation is a foreign corporation organized in Taiwan with its
`
`headquarters and principal place of business at No. 88, Section 3, Zhongxing Road,
`
`Xindian District, New Taipei City, 231, Taiwan. HTC America, Inc. is a
`
`corporation organized in the state of Washington with its headquarters and
`
`principal place of business at 13920 S.E. Eastgate Way, Suite 200, Bellevue,
`
`Washington 98005. HTC America, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of HTC
`
`Corporation.
`
`While LG made non-monetary contributions to the preparation of this
`
`petition through its separate outside counsel, LG is not and has not been
`
`represented by any counsel in this proceeding. Further, LG recently filed a joint
`
`notice of settlement in the related litigation. See Exhibit 1014. LG Electronics, Inc.
`
`is a publicly held foreign corporation organized in Korea with its headquarters and
`
`principal place of business at LG Twin Tower 128, Yeoui-daero, Yengdeungpo-gu,
`
`Seoul 150-721, Korea. LG Corporation owns 10% or more of LG Electronics,
`
`6395661V.1
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`Inc.’s stock. LG Electronics USA, Inc. is a corporation organized in the state of
`
`
`
`Delaware with its headquarters and principal place of business at 920 Sylvan
`
`Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632. LG Electronics USA, Inc. is a
`
`wholly-owned subsidiary of LG Electronics, Inc. LG MobileComm, Inc. is a
`
`corporation organized in the state of California with its headquarters and principal
`
`place of business at 10101 Old Grove Road, San Diego, California 92131. LG
`
`MobileComm, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of LG Electronics USA, Inc.
`
`Counsel for Petitioner does not and has not represented LG.
`
`B. Related Matters. The ’482 patent and U.S. Patent No. 8,612,515
`
`(“the ’515 patent”), which overlaps in subject matter and claim language with the
`
`’482 patent, are both asserted in Summit 6 LLC v. HTC Corp., et al., No. 7:14-cv-
`
`00014 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 18, 2014), and both are asserted in a related litigation,
`
`Summit 6 LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 7:14-cv-00106 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 18, 2014).
`
`An appeal of an award of infringement and validity of the ’482 patent is pending
`
`before the Federal Circuit. See Summit 6 LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., et al., No.
`
`2013-1648 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2013). The ’482 patent is also the subject of ex
`
`parte re-examination no. 90/012,987, which is on appeal before the Board. The
`
`’515 patent has been challenged in two pending petitions for inter partes review,
`
`filed February 4, 2015 (IPR2015-00683 and -00684). The ’482 patent has been
`
`challenged in four pending petitions for inter partes review, also filed on February
`
`6395661V.1
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`4, 2015. (IPR2015-00685, -00686, -00687, -00688). Petitioner is submitting a
`
`
`
`petition for inter partes review of the ’515 patent concurrently with this petition.
`
`The ’482 and ’515 patents are continuations of application No. 09/357,836 which
`
`issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,895,557 (“the ’557 patent”). The ’557 patent is the
`
`subject of two petitions for inter partes review filed on February 4, 2015.
`
`(IPR2015-00680, -00681).
`
`C.
`
`Fee. This petition is accompanied by a payment of $25,600 and
`
`requests review of 21 claims of the ’482 patent. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.15. Thus, this
`
`petition meets the fee requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1). The Board is
`
`hereby authorized to charge any additional fees required by this action to Deposit
`
`Account No. 20-1430.
`
`D. Designation of Lead Counsel and Back-up Counsel. Lead Counsel
`
`for Petitioner is John Alemanni, Registration No. 47,384. Back-up counsel for
`
`Petitioner is Michael Morlock, Registration No. 62,245, of Kilpatrick Townsend &
`
`Stockton LLP.
`
`E.
`
`Service Information. As shown in the Certificate of Service, a copy
`
`of the present petition and exhibits is being served to the address of the attorney of
`
`record. Petitioner may be served via email to its lead and backup counsel.
`
`F.
`
`Power of Attorney. A power of attorney is being filed with the
`
`designation of counsel in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`6395661V.1
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`G.
`
`Standing. Petitioner certifies that the ’482 patent is available for inter
`
`partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter
`
`partes review on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`III. Statement of Relief Requested
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311, this petition requests cancellation of claims 12,
`
`13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, and 49 as
`
`rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by the following combinations:
`
`• Exhibit 1004, U.S. 6,930,709 to Creamer et al. (“Creamer”)2 in view
`
`of Exhibit 1005, U.S. 6,223,190 to Aihara et al. (“Aihara”);3 and
`
`• Exhibit 1006, U.S. 6,018,774 to Mayle et al. (“Mayle”)4 in view of
`
`Exhibit 1007, U.S. 6,035,323 to Narayen et al. (“Narayen”).5
`
`The ’482 patent claims priority to Application No. 09/357,386, filed on July
`
`21, 1999. Creamer and Aihara are publications that disclose Internet-integrated
`
`digital cameras capable of transmitting preprocessed images to remote devices.
`
`
`2 Claims priority to Provisional App. Nos. 60/085,585 filed May 15, 1998 and
`
`60/067,310 filed Dec. 4, 1997, and is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`3 Filed on April 13, 1998 and thus is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`4 Filed on Jul. 3, 1997 and thus is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`5 Filed on Oct. 24, 1997 and thus is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`6395661V.1
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Mayle and Narayen are publications that disclose client-based digital image
`
`
`
`processing and distribution systems that operate on a personal computer.
`
`IV. Summary of the Prior Art
`A. Background of Relevant Technology
`
`The field of art generally relates to client devices capable of selecting,
`
`modifying, and transmitting digital multimedia content, such as images, videos,
`
`and audio files, via the Internet. (Exhibit 1003 ¶¶ 11, 12.) The alleged invention
`
`described
`
`in
`
`the ’482 patent
`
`is a “web-based media submission
`
`tool.”
`
`Representative claim 12 of the ’482 patent recites a method for “pre-processing
`
`media objects in a local device” consisting of well-known actions such as receiving
`
`parameters from a remote device, preprocessing digital content according to those
`
`parameters, and transmitting the digital content. As further described below, client
`
`devices practicing these steps, alone and in combination, were well-known in the
`
`art before the priority date of the ’482 patent.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of Creamer
`
`Creamer claims priority to provisional application nos. 60/085,585, filed on
`
`May 15, 1998 (Exhibit 1008), and 60/067,310, filed on December 4, 1997
`
`(“Creamer ’97,” Exhibit 1009). Creamer ’97 contains sufficient disclosure to
`
`render obvious Claims 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41,
`
`42, 44, 45, 46, and 49 in view of Aihara. (Exhibit 1003 ¶¶ 32-35.) Creamer ’97
`
`6395661V.1
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`discloses “an integrated Internet camera for transmitting digital images to an
`
`
`
`Internet address” having a network interface “for transmission of the digital image
`
`files to the Internet.” (Creamer ’97, 3:28-32; compare Creamer, 2:60-66.) The
`
`transmitted images are sent to a “destination shell account at a predetermined
`
`Internet address.” (Creamer ’97, 3:33 – 4:1; compare Creamer, 2:67 – 3:4.) In
`
`addition, the camera has a “configuration device” which “retrieves configuration
`
`information from the destination shell account” and “sets operational parameters”
`
`of
`
`the components of
`
`the camera “according
`
`to
`
`the configuration
`
`information.”(Creamer ’97, 6:14-20; compare Creamer, 4:32-42.) A component of
`
`the camera is a “compression circuit that generates compressed digital image files
`
`from the captured digital images, so that the file transfer device transfers the
`
`compressed digital image files to the destination shell account and the transport
`
`control device packetizes the compressed digital image files according to the
`
`predetermined Internet transport control protocol.” (Creamer ’97, 7:3-7; compare
`
`Creamer, 4:54-60.) The relevant substance of this disclosure was carried over to
`
`the non-provisional application that eventually issued as Creamer. (Exhibit 1003 ¶
`
`32.) Therefore, Creamer is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). In the related
`
`ex-parte reexamination of the ’482 patent, Patent Owner did not challenge
`
`Creamer as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). (Exhibit 1010, at 4.)
`
`6395661V.1
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Creamer discloses an “integrated Internet camera for transmitting digital
`
`images” over a wireless network to a server. (Creamer, Title, 2:60-66; 10:24-26.6)
`
`The images are then stored on a server, which has a “local shell account [that]
`
`provides access to a user directory, in which the user may store … the compressed
`
`image files.” (Creamer, 11:61-67; 12:5-25) The “user may place a setup or
`
`configuration file in his destination directory [on the server] … and the camera
`
`may download a new or modified full or partial set of operational parameters.”
`
`(Creamer, 24:10-14.) One operational parameter, “AUTOCONFIGURE,”
`
`configures the camera “retrieve a setup/configuration file via the file transfer
`
`application.” (Creamer, 23:67 – 24:2.) A user may operate the camera to capture an
`
`image, and the camera will “adjust the image (increase, decrease, or maintain a
`
`property) according to the parameters and settings stored” in the setup file.
`
`(Creamer, 18:64-67.) For example, the parameters may specify the scale,
`
`resolution, and/or compression of stored images. (Creamer, Figure 5; 8:19-51.)
`
`C.
`
`Summary of Aihara
`
`Aihara discloses a digital camera with an Internet connection. (Aihara,
`
`13:42-60.) The camera comprises an LCD screen that allows the “user to review
`
`previously captured images either individually or in arrays of four, nine, or sixteen
`
`images.” (Aihara, 1:34-36.) Aihara further discloses using a script to provide
`
`
`6 For brevity, citations are made only to Creamer.
`8
`
`6395661V.1
`
`

`
`
`
`configuration and setup information to the camera. (Aihara, 3:4-15.) The camera is
`
`
`
`further configured to process images and convert them into a single HTML file that
`
`may be uploaded to the Internet, “wherein the HTML file is formatted in
`
`accordance with the script’s predefined model.” (Aihara, 3:16-25.)
`
`D.
`
`Summary of Mayle
`
`Mayle discloses a “system for processing electronic image data.” (Mayle,
`
`2:48-49.) “The system comprises at least one server computer connected to a
`
`network … adapted to receive electronic image data from a second computer
`
`connected to the network.” (Mayle, 2:49-52.) The user is able to create an
`
`“electronic postcard composed of the user’s digital photograph.” (Mayle, 2:33-34.)
`
`The digital photograph undergoes processing that includes “formatting, storing,
`
`transmitting, centering, cropping, flipping, anti-aliasing, scaling, compressing,
`
`[and] filtering,” which may be performed on the client device. (Mayle, 2:65 – 3:4.)
`
`“When a photo, sender, recipient and message have been specified the card is
`
`complete and can be sent. When the user clicks on the ‘Send’ button the server
`
`creates a card key, saves the card into the Permanent Database and sends an email
`
`message to the recipient.” (Mayle, 12:37-41.) The recipient consequently receives
`
`an “email message that is automatically sent to the recipient [which] states that
`
`there is a card available on the web site for the recipient and that it can be viewed
`
`by opening the specified URL.” (Mayle, 12:51-54.)
`
`6395661V.1
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Summary of Narayen
`
`
`
`Narayen discloses a system for “publishing a collection of digital media on a
`
`network.” (Narayen, Abstract.) “[T]he user of the computer system may create a
`
`picture album or another type of media container using a media authoring
`
`program.” (Narayen, 6:67 – 7:2.) Narayen thus allows “a user on a client computer
`
`system to create a media container which contains digital media and publish this
`
`media container with its digital media onto the Internet for other client computer
`
`systems to be able to view the media container with its digital media.” (Narayen,
`
`7:29-34.) Prior to uploading images to the Internet, the client device creates “a
`
`lower resolution version of a digital image, such as a ‘thumbnail’ version [that] is
`
`stored in the database along with a link to the original image stored on the file
`
`storage device.” (Narayen, 6:56-59.) In addition, “the album authoring software
`
`scales each picture if necessary to cause it to fit into the corresponding slot on the
`
`album page.” (Narayen, 9:45-47.) “After the user has created a picture album with
`
`associated pictures, the user may then decide to publish or otherwise distribute the
`
`picture album by making it available for viewing to web browsers over the
`
`Internet.” (Narayen, 9:65 – 10:1.)
`
`V. Motivations to Combine
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
`
`Creamer and Aihara, and Mayle and Narayen. (Exhibit 1003 ¶¶ 30-31, 51-52.) A
`
`6395661V.1
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`combination of familiar elements according to known methods which yields no
`
`
`
`more than predictable results is likely obvious to one of skill in the art. KSR Int’l
`
`Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). One rationale to support a
`
`conclusion of obviousness is the use of a known technique to improve similar
`
`devices (methods, or products) in the same way. See KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at 417-18;
`
`see also MPEP 2143(C). To establish that a modification is the use of a known
`
`technique to improve similar devices and methods in the same way, it is necessary
`
`to establish (1) that the prior art contained a “base” device/method upon which the
`
`claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement,” (2) a finding that the prior art
`
`contained a “comparable” device/method that is not the same as the base
`
`device/method and that has been improved in the same way as the claimed
`
`invention, and (3) that the skilled artisan could have applied the known
`
`“improvement” technique in the same way to the base device/method with
`
`predictable results. See MPEP 2143(C); KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at 415-421.
`
`A. Motivation to Combine Creamer with Aihara
`
`It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine the teachings
`
`of Creamer with those of Aihara. (Exhibit 1003 ¶ 30.) Such a combination is
`
`nothing more than the use of a known technique to improve similar devices and
`
`methods in the same way. (Exhibit 1003 ¶ 31.) The combination provides an
`
`Internet-integrated camera comprising a display capable of showing an array of
`
`6395661V.1
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`preview images prior to transmission because it would have been nothing more
`
`
`
`than the use of a known technique to improve similar devices and methods in the
`
`same way. See MPEP § 2143(C); (Exhibit 1003 ¶ 31.)
`
`Here, Creamer discloses the “base” system. Aihara is the “comparable”
`
`system because Aihara discloses a digital camera with a LCD screen that could be
`
`used with the Internet-integrated digital camera described in Creamer. (Aihara,
`
`1:28-36.) For example, Creamer describes a camera comprising a “full video
`
`(LCD) display” which allows for “more accurate preview of the image that will be
`
`captured.” (Creamer, 29:43-53.) The LCD allows the user to cycle between stored
`
`images and review information about the images in the graphical interface.
`
`(Creamer, 26:43-57; 27:1-54.)
`
`Aihara provides a means to display stored images on a digital camera
`
`through a setting called “play mode.” (Aihara, 1:28-36.) In this particular mode,
`
`the camera display can present previously captured images in arrays of four, nine,
`
`or sixteen smaller preview images. (Aihara, 1:28-36.)
`
`The skilled artisan could have applied the improvement of Aihara to the
`
`camera system in Creamer to achieve the predictable result of displaying an array
`
`of preview images representing the digital images stored on the camera. (Exhibit
`
`1003 ¶¶ 30-31.) Both references describe Internet-connected digital cameras that
`
`process captured images prior to transmitting those images over a network
`
`6395661V.1
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`connection. (Exhibit 1003 ¶ 30.) Both references describe the benefits associated
`
`
`
`with processing digital images on a network connected camera, including, faster
`
`transmission speeds for compressed digital images and the ease of uploading
`
`images onto a server so they may be viewed by other users. (Exhibit 1003 ¶ 30.)
`
`Both references describe digital cameras having display screens for previewing and
`
`reviewing images captured by the camera. (Exhibit 1003 ¶ 30.) Creamer discloses
`
`the use of an LCD display that is capable of displaying a “preview of the image.”
`
`(Creamer, 29:43-53.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an
`
`LCD display on a handheld camera is likely to be relatively small. (Exhibit 1003 ¶¶
`
`30-31.) A person of skill in the art would therefore look to Aihara’s use of
`
`thumbnail images to improve the ability of a relatively small LCD display to
`
`display multiple images. (Exhibit 1003 ¶¶ 30-31.) For example, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification to provide
`
`the user with the benefit of faster and more accurate review of captured images.
`
`(Exhibit 1003 ¶ 31.) One of skill in the art would know how to combine Creamer
`
`and Aihara by, for example, writing code executed by the microcontroller
`
`disclosed in Creamer to enable it to display arrays of preview images on the
`
`display screen like the processor and LCD screen disclosed in Aihara. (Exhibit
`
`1003 ¶ 31.) Thus, based on the rationale set forth in MPEP § 2143(C), it would
`
`have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine the teachings of Creamer
`
`6395661V.1
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`with those of Aihara to modify Creamer according to the teachings of Aihara to
`
`
`
`display thumbnail preview images on the camera LCD screen. (Exhibit 1003 ¶¶ 30-
`
`31.) See MPEP § 2143 (C), KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. at 415-21.
`
`B. Motivation to Combine Mayle with Narayen
`
`It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine the teachings
`
`of Mayle with those of Narayen. (Exhibit 1003 ¶ 51.) Mayle expressly teaches that
`
`its “invention can be modified to create…an album…holding a variety of images
`
`in a structured album.” (Mayle, 13:6-43) Narayen discloses a system that produces
`
`digital photo albums. (Narayen