throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper No. 63
`Filed: September 6, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and
`KERRY BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`GOOGLE INC. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SUMMIT 6 LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-008061
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`1 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., who filed a Petition in IPR2016-00029, has
`been joined as a petitioner in the instant proceeding.
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`We have jurisdiction to hear this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 6(c), and this Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons that follow, we determine
`that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 12,
`13, 16, 18, 19, 21–25, 35–38, 40–42, 44–46, and 49 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,765,482 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’482 patent”) are unpatentable.
`A. Procedural History
`Google Inc., HTC Corporation, and HTC America, Inc.2 (collectively
`“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes
`review of claims 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21–25, 35–38, 40–42, 44–46, and 49 of
`the ’482 patent. Summit 6 LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response (Paper 12, “PO Resp.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we
`instituted an inter partes review of claims 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21–25, 35–38,
`40–42, 44–46, and 49 as (1) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of
`Creamer3 and Aihara4 and (2) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of
`Mayle5 and Narayen6. See Paper 19 (“Dec. to Inst.”), 33.
`
`
`2 Subsequent to filing the Petition, HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
`settled with Patent Owner and sought to terminate their participation in this
`proceeding. See Paper 9. The request was granted, and HTC Corporation
`and HTC America, Inc. are no longer a party. See Paper 11.
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,930,709 B1 (issued Aug. 16, 2005, filed Dec. 3, 1998)
`(“Creamer,” Ex. 1004).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 6,223,190 B1 (issued April 24, 2001, filed Apr. 13, 1998)
`(“Aihara,” Ex. 1005).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 6,018,774 (issued Jan. 25, 2000, filed July 3, 1997)
`(“Mayle,” Ex. 1006).
`6 U.S. Patent No. 6,035,323 (issued Mar. 7, 2000, filed Oct. 24, 1997)
`(“Narayen,” Ex. 1007).
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
`(Paper 28, “PO Resp.”), to which Petitioner filed a Corrected Reply
`(Paper 46, “Reply”). In addition, Patent Owner filed Observations on the
`Cross-Examination of Petitioner’s declarant (Paper 52), to which Petitioner
`filed a response (Paper 58). Petitioner filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence
`(Paper 51), to which Patent Owner filed an Opposition (Paper 57), and
`Petitioner filed a Reply in support of its motion (Paper 61).
`An oral argument was held on May 18, 2016. A transcript of the oral
`argument is included in the record. Paper 62 (“Tr.”).
`B. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner informs us that the ’482 patent and related U.S. Patent No.
`8,612,515 B2 (“’515 patent”) are the subject of district court case Summit 6
`LLC v. HTC Corp., Case No. 7:14-cv-00014-O (N.D. Tex.). Pet. 3. In
`addition, Petitioner informs us that the ’482 patent was the subject of a
`district court case, resulting in a verdict of infringement and validity, that
`was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Summit 6
`LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2013-1648 (Fed. Cir.). See id. The
`Federal Circuit affirmed the final judgment entered on the jury verdict on
`September 21, 2015. See Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co. Ltd., Nos.
`2013-1648, -1651 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2015). Petitioner also informs us that
`the ’482 patent is the subject of ex parte reexamination no. 90/012,987, and
`four other petitions for inter partes review (IPR2015-00685, IPR2015-
`00686, IPR2015-00687, and IPR2015-00688). Pet. 3–4.
`C. The ’482 Patent
`According to the ’482 patent, at the time of the disclosed invention,
`sharing digital images over the Internet was complex and required “a level
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`of sophistication . . . beyond that of the ordinary user.” Ex. 1001, 1:20–34.
`The patent purports to solve this problem with a “web-based media
`submission tool,” which “allows submission of media objects in a
`convenient, intuitive manner” that does not require the user to make any
`modifications to media objects before sending or uploading them. Id. at
`1:45–48, 2:60–67.
`The tool disclosed in the ’482 patent allows a user to select media
`objects stored at a first location (e.g., a client). Id. at [57], 2:3–6, 2:44–47,
`4:46–47. The media objects may be “pictures (images), movies, videos,
`graphics, sound clips.” Id. at 2:47–48. The user selects the media objects
`through either a “drag and drop” or a file browsing functionality. Id. at
`3:20–48. The tool then may allow the user to confirm the selected media
`objects with a visual representation, such as a thumbnail image. Id. at [57],
`2:9–11, 3:65–4:3.
`Next, the tool pre-processes the selected media objects, “automatically
`prepar[ing]” the objects “to meet the requirements of [a] second location”
`(e.g., a server or web site). Id. at [57], 2:14–17, 2:44–3:12, 5:1–4, 5:26–33.
`The media objects may be pre-processed in “any number of ways,” such as
`changing the file format or quality setting, cropping, adding text or
`annotations, and resizing, which includes “compression.” Id. at [57], 4:52–
`4:67. After this pre-processing is complete, the tool transmits or uploads the
`media objects to the second location. Id. at [57], 3:17–19.
`D. Illustrative Claims
`As noted above, an inter partes review was instituted as to claims 12,
`13, 16, 18, 19, 21–25, 35–38, 40–42, 44–46, and 49 of the ’482 patent, of
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`which claims 12, 13, 24, 25, and 35–38 are independent claims. Claim 12 is
`illustrative of the challenged claims and is reproduced below.
`12. A computer implemented method of pre-processing media objects
`in a local device for subsequent transmission to a remote device,
`comprising:
`a. receiving pre-processing parameters from a remote device, said
`pre-processing parameters including a specification of an
`amount of media data;
`b. receiving an identification of a group of one or more media
`objects for transmission, a collective media data of said group
`of one or more media objects being limited by said received
`pre-processing parameters;
`c. pre-processing said identified group of one or more media
`objects using said received pre-processing parameters, wherein
`said pre-processing comprises encoding or otherwise
`converting said media object; and
`d. transmitting said pre-processed group of one or more media
`objects to the remote device.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:40–55.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (“We
`conclude that the regulation represents a reasonable exercise of the
`rulemaking authority that Congress delegated to the Patent Office.”). Under
`that standard, and absent any special definitions, we give claim terms their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`Petitioner proposes construction for the claim terms “an amount of
`media data/an amount of digital content,” “publication/publishing,”
`“distributing/distribution,” and “said identification” which are recited in
`certain dependent claims. Pet. 17–20. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s
`proposed constructions for the above terms. PO Resp. 7–9. Patent Owner
`also proposes a construction for the term “pre-processing” recited in all the
`challenged independent claims. Id. at 9.
`In the Decision to Institute, we determined that the only term that
`required construction was “said identification” as recited in dependent
`claim 18. See Dec. to Inst. 5–8. During the course of the trial, neither party
`challenged our construction of this claim term. PO Resp. 8; see generally
`Reply. We see no reason to alter the construction of this claim term as set
`forth in the Decision to Institute, and we incorporate our previous analysis
`for purposes of this Decision. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the
`Decision to Institute, we interpret that “said identification” as recited in
`dependent claim 18 refers to the “identification of digital content” recited in
`claim 13 of the ’482 patent. See Dec. to Inst. 8.
`After analyzing the claims and supporting specification of the
`’482 patent, we determine that we need not provide express constructions for
`any other claim terms.
`B. Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness,
`i.e., secondary considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`17–18 (1966).
`“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
`onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is
`unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review
`petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the
`grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden never shifts to
`Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800
`F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek,
`Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of
`proof in inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner cannot satisfy its
`burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.”
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., No. 2015-1300, slip op. at 25 (Fed. Cir.
`July 25, 2016).
`Thus, to prevail in an inter partes review, Petitioner must explain how
`the proposed combinations of prior art would have rendered the challenged
`claims unpatentable. At this final stage, we determine whether the evidence
`of record shows secondary considerations of non-obviousness, shows by a
`preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims would have been
`obvious over the proposed combinations of prior art.
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`We analyze the instituted grounds of unpatentability in accordance
`with the above-stated principles.
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`According to Petitioner’s declarant, Paul Clark, D.Sc. (“Dr. Clark”), a
`person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’482 patent would have
`been “someone with either an undergraduate, graduate, or doctoral degree in
`computer science (or similar field, e.g., electrical engineering, etc.), or three
`to five years’ industry experience in the general field of software
`engineering and web implementation.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 8.
`Patent Owner disputes Dr. Clark’s opinion regarding the level of skill
`in the art at the time of the ’482 patent, arguing that “requiring 3 to 5 years
`of industry experience in ‘web implementation’ by July 1999 is
`unreasonable” and “[i]t is unreasonable to suggest that a [person of ordinary
`skill in the art] would have an advanced degree in computer science.” PO
`Resp. 6–7. Patent Owner’s declarant, Martin Kaliski, Ph.D. (“Dr. Kaliski”),
`testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’482 patent
`would have been a person with “at least a Bachelor of Science degree in
`computer science or electrical engineering or with 2–3 years of experience in
`software engineering.” Ex. 2058 ¶ 15.
`Based on our review of the ’482 patent, the types of problems and
`solutions described in the ’482 patent and cited prior art, the testimony of
`Petitioner’s declarant, and the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant, we
`find that a person of skill in the art relevant to the ’482 patent would have
`had (i) at least a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science or
`Electrical Engineering or a closely related field, or (ii) at least three years of
`experience in software engineering. We note that the applied prior art
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention.
`See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`D. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21–25, 35–38,
`40–42, 44–46, and 49 in View of Creamer and Aihara
`Petitioner contends claims 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21–25, 35–38, 40–42,
`44–46, and 49 of the ’482 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
`view of Creamer and Aihara. Pet. 23–41. Patent Owner disputes
`Petitioner’s contentions. PO Resp. 27–36. We have reviewed the Petition,
`Patent Owner’s Response, and Petitioner’s Reply, as well as the relevant
`evidence discussed in those papers. For the reasons that follow, we
`determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
`the challenged claims of the ’482 patent would have been obvious in view of
`Creamer and Aihara. Additionally, as discussed below, we determine that
`Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary considerations of non-obviousness do
`not overcome Petitioner’s showing that the claims would have been obvious
`to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`1. Overview of Creamer
`Creamer discloses a camera that can transmit real-time and stored
`digital images over a wireless network to a server without requiring the use
`of a personal computer. Ex. 1004, Title, 2:48–65; 10:24–26. One
`embodiment in Creamer discloses an integrated camera connected to the
`internet and is illustrated in Figure 4A, reproduced below.
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 4A shows camera 1 connected to ISP 304. Id. at 11:56. Once a user
`ID and password are supplied by camera 1, camera 1 is given access to shell
`account 306, where a user may store compressed image files. Id. at 11:56–
`67. Camera 1 may upload and store image files into local shell account 306
`according to controlling file attributes and destination information to the
`local user directory via a provided file transfer application. Id. at 12:9–25.
`Creamer discloses that once camera 1 is connected locally to the internet at a
`first location, it may store images at a second location anywhere in the
`world. Id. at 12:30–32. According to Creamer, camera 1 can store
`numerous variables and parameters that control the operation of the camera,
`and which may be adjusted by the user via a menu structure or via direct
`commands. Id. at 12:48–60. A “user may place a setup or configuration file
`in [a] destination directory . . . and the camera may download a new or
`modified full or partial set of operational parameters.” Id. at 24:10–14.
`Another embodiment in Creamer discloses a capture routine for
`capturing, compressing, and storing one or more images. Id. at 18:18–20.
`The capture routine disclosed by Creamer is illustrated in Figure 8,
`reproduced below.
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 8 shows a capture routine where: (i) the camera checks if the capture
`is based on an event (e.g., a trigger) or a timer at step S26, (ii) an empty
`image slot is identified in step S30, (iii) an image capture is initiated at
`step S32, (iv) the image is stored into image memory (at this point without
`compression) at step S34, (v) the image is adjusted at step S36 according to
`stored parameters and settings, and (vi) the image is compressed at step S38.
`Id. at 18:20–19:13, Fig. 8. Image slots may be designated for batch
`operations where all images in the identified slots are transmitted as a group
`(id. at 19:23–37) or an image slot may be designated for immediate upload
`so that the single image is uploaded to a designated shell account (id. at
`19:38–46, Fig. 9).
`2. Overview of Aihara
`Aihara discloses a method and system for capturing images using a
`digital camera with an internet connection and generating a formatted
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`electronic document that includes the images. Ex. 1005, 2:59–61. The
`camera preferably includes a LCD screen that provides for various modes,
`including a “play mode.” Id. at 6:39–59, Fig. 5A. In play mode, the user
`can review previously captured images on the LCD screen. Id. at 1:34–36,
`6:65–7:10. Aihara further discloses using a script to provide configuration
`and setup information to the camera. Id. at 3:4–15. The script also can
`provide instructions to a user to capture specific images (id. at 8:10–18) or
`can prompt a user to select pictures from a set stored in the memory of the
`camera or elsewhere (id. at 8:25–28). The camera can be 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.” Id. at 3:16–25.
`3. Analysis
`a. Independent Claim 12
`Claim 12 generally requires (i) receiving pre-processing parameters
`from a remote device, (ii) receiving an identification of a group of one or
`more media objects for transmission, (iii) pre-processing the identified group
`of one or more media objects, and (v) transmitting the pre-processed group
`of media objects. Ex. 1001, 10:40–55.
`(1) “receiving pre-processing parameters from a remote
`device, said pre-processing parameters including a
`specification of an amount of media data”
`Petitioner contends Creamer and Aihara teach “receiving
`pre-processing parameters from a remote device, said pre-processing
`parameters including a specification of an amount of media data,” as recited
`by challenged claim 12. Pet. 24–25 (citing Exhibit 1003 ¶¶ 34, 35, 37, 39).
`According to Petitioner, Creamer discloses camera downloading parameters,
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`such as compression level, that a user places in a setup or configuration file
`in the user’s destination directory. Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1004, 24:10–15,
`Fig. 5). Petitioner explains that the setup/configuration file may specify an
`amount of media data through “settings for (e.g., JPEG) compression level,
`resolution, whether an image is stored as a greyscale or a color image, as
`well as any cropping of the image specified, e.g., coordinates of opposite
`corners of the region to be cropped.” Id. at 24–25 (citing Ex. 1004, 13:36–
`44). Petitioner then cites to Aihara for the disclosure of a “set of predefined
`instructions and formatting commands.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:10–
`12).
`
`Petitioner relies on the testimony of Dr. Clark to support its position.
`Id. at 24 (citing Exhibit 1003 ¶¶ 34, 35, 37, 39). Dr. Clark testifies that the
`combination of Creamer and Aihara renders a specification of an amount of
`digital content because Creamer discloses settings that specify how the
`camera will compress images, the desired resolution of images, whether an
`image will be cropped, and whether an image is stored in greyscale or in
`color. Exhibit 1003 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1004, 13:36–44). Dr. Clark further
`testified that “[o]ne of skill in the art would understand those settings to
`determine the size or quantity of digital content, as defined by the physical
`dimensions, pixel count, or kilobytes of the digital content.” Id.
`Patent Owner contests Petitioner’s position, contending Creamer and
`Aihara fail to teach the limitation “receiving pre-processing parameters from
`a remote device, pre-processing parameters including a specification of an
`amount of media data.” PO Resp. 29–31. According to Patent Owner,
`Creamer never specifies an amount of digital content; instead, it discusses
`the use of an optional parameter that changes the compression level of a
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`captured image based on the rate of data transmission. PO Resp. 30 (citing
`Ex. 1004, 19:9–22). Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner’s citations
`to parameters relating to JPEG are irrelevant because rather than specifying
`an amount of data, modifying the compression level merely changes the
`amount of data. Id. (citing Ex. 2058 ¶ 113). Patent Owner cites to
`testimony from Petitioner’s Declarant, Dr. Clark, who testified that JPEG
`compression does not specify an amount of data. Id. (citing Ex. 2057,
`66:20–67:4).
`We do not agree with Patent Owner. To the contrary, we agree with
`Petitioner’s position and we find that Creamer teaches or suggests “receiving
`pre-processing parameters from a remote device.” In Creamer, a user “may
`place a setup or configuration file,” with parameters specifying the desired
`resolution and compression level of images, in a destination directory on the
`Internet. Ex. 1004, [57], 3:50–56, 13:36–48, 24:1–15, Fig. 5. Creamer’s
`camera may “download” these operational parameters from the “defined
`directory.” Id. at 24:1–15.
`As to whether these “pre-processing parameters includ[e] a
`specification of an amount of media data,” Petitioner has shown sufficiently
`that setting a compression level—which is used to adjust images—specifies
`the amount of media data. We are satisfied that specifying a compression
`level constitutes a specification of an amount of media data, because
`compressing an image to meet a certain compression standard alters the
`amount of stored data. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 38 (opining that compression
`“reduces the overall size of a file of digital content, to limit the digital
`content”); Ex. 3001 (MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY (5th ed. 2002)),
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`142 (defining “data compression” as “[a] means of reducing the amount of
`space or bandwidth needed to store or transmit a block of data”).
`(2) “receiving an identification of a group of one or more
`media objects for transmission, a collective media
`data of said group of one or more media objects being
`limited by said received preprocessing parameters”
`Petitioner contends Creamer and Aihara teach “receiving an
`identification of a group of one or more media objects for transmission, a
`collective media data of said group of one or more media objects being
`limited by said received preprocessing parameters” as recited by challenged
`claim 12. Pet. 25–26. Petitioner explains that Creamer discloses a means to
`identify media objects for transmission through an “image pickup . . . to
`store an image,” whereupon the image is converted into digital format and
`stored in “the image memory (at this point, without compression).” Id. at 25
`(citing Ex. 1004, 18:46–56). According to Petitioner, when “settings stored
`in the IMAGE FILES: UPLOAD variable group indicate that the image . . .
`is to be uploaded immediately (e.g., following capture),” the camera’s
`compression engine will limit the designated media data (i.e. the captured
`images), “according to settings stored in the IMAGE FILES: IMAGE
`ADJUST, . . . [and] compress the image in the image memory.” Id. (citing
`Ex. 1004, 19:9–15). Petitioner argues that the captured images (e.g. media
`objects) are limited by the received pre-processing parameters in that the
`parameters define a level of compression that will limit (e.g. reduce) the file
`sizes of those images when the preprocessing occurs. Id. at 25–26 (citing
`Ex.1003 ¶ 38). Petitioner then cites to Aihara for the disclosure of
`“select[ing] pictures from a set stored in the memory of the camera.” Id. at
`26 (citing Ex. 1005, 8:26–28).
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`Contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, Patent Owner contends that
`Creamer and Aihara fail to teach “receiving an identification of a group of
`one or more media objects for transmission.” PO Resp. 27–29. Patent
`Owner argues that Creamer does not teach this limitation because its system
`automatically transfers every picture taken either immediately or in a batch
`operation at a future time. Id. at 28. Moreover, according to Patent Owner,
`Creamer merely collects and then processes the collected raw image data in
`image memory to create and store an image in general purpose memory but
`does not identify an image for transmission. Id. (citing Ex. 2058 ¶ 110).
`Patent Owner argues that before the image data is stored as an addressable
`file in general purpose memory, the data is merely raw data indicative of
`photons captured by the CCD sensor, i.e., no digital image files exists until
`after the image pickup unit captures light photons and the raw data is
`processed and stored as an image file in S38 of the capture routine. Id.
`Therefore, Patent Owner concludes that the functions performed by the
`image pickup unit and the resultant storage of the digital image as a file
`cannot meet this claim limitation. Id. at 28–29. Patent Owner also argues
`that Aihara does not teach this limitation because selecting images for an
`HTML pages does not evidence “receiving an identification” of “media
`objects for transmission.” Id. at 29.
`We do not agree with Patent Owner. To the contrary, we agree with
`Petitioner’s position that Creamer’s teaching of identifying images in image
`files for transmission meets the disputed claim limitation. Additionally, we
`find that a user being prompted to select pictures from a set stored in the
`memory of the camera, as disclosed in Aihara, constitutes receiving an
`identification of a group of one or more media objects for transmission. See
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`Ex. 1005, 8:26–28. Aihara explains that this selection of pictures is made
`for purposes of incorporating the selected pictures into a HTML file, or web
`site. Id. Such “user selection” confirms the identification of an image for
`transmission.
`
`(3) “pre-processing said identified group of one or more
`media objects using said received pre-processing
`parameters”
`Petitioner contends the combination of Creamer and Aihara teaches or
`at least suggests “pre-processing said identified group of one or more media
`objects using said received pre-processing parameters,” as recited in
`challenged claim 12. Pet. 26–27. Petitioner explains that Creamer discloses
`a camera comprising a “compression engine” to pre-process media objects
`(i.e. images) through “image compression under a JPEG standard, but [the
`camera] may be alternatively arranged to output other image formats (e.g.,
`TIFF, GIF) and/or other compression schemes (e.g., Huffman, wavelet,
`fractal). Id. at 26. Petitioner specifically argues that in Creamer, captured
`images are stored in “image slots,” and when “settings stored in the IMAGE
`FILES: UPLOAD variable group indicate that the image in the image slot is
`to be uploaded immediately (e.g., following capture),” the camera’s
`compression engine will, “according to settings stored in the IMAGE
`FILES: IMAGE ADJUST, . . . [and] compress the image in the image
`memory to the appropriate slot.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 19:9–32; Fig. 5).
`Petitioner further argues that a person of skill in the art would have
`understood “encoding or otherwise converting a media object” to encompass
`the rendering of analog information into digital form and compressing
`digital information of Creamer, since compression changes the way in which
`a file is coded in the memory of a device. Id. at 27 (Ex. 1003 ¶ 41).
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`Petitioner also relies on Aihara for this claim element, because Aihara
`discloses “[a] script, comprised of computer readable instructions, is
`provided to the digital camera” and “images [that] are located and scaled . . .
`in accordance with the script’s predefined model.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 3:4–
`6, 13:19–23).
`Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s position and contends Creamer and
`Aihara fail to teach “pre-processing said identified group of one or more
`media objects using said received pre-processing parameters,” as recited in
`challenged claim 12. PO Resp. 31–32. According to Patent Owner, the
`parameters in Creamer identified by Petitioner do not control processing of
`image files before transmission as required by the claim language, because
`Creamer’s parameters define how raw image data is manipulated before
`initially being saved in general purpose memory. Id. at 31 (citing Pet. 26–
`27; Ex. 2058 ¶ 116). Patent Owner argues that Figure 8 of Creamer defines
`the image capture routine as including the image adjustment (S36) and
`JPEG compression steps (S38), but Creamer does not teach further
`modifying these image files after they are created. Id (citing Ex. 1004,
`Fig. 8; Ex. 2058 ¶ 116). Patent Owner concludes that because the
`compression and adjustment steps are performed on raw image data, not on
`identified image files, Creamer does not teach or disclose the disputed claim
`limitation. Id. at 32.
`Patent Owner supports its position with the testimony of Dr. Kaliski.
`Dr. Kaliski testifies that Creamer’s parameters define how raw image data is
`manipulated before initially being saved in general purpose memory—the
`parameters tell the camera how to package the raw pixel data collected by a
`camera’s lens and sensor into a digital image file saved in general purpose
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`memory, but not how to process an existing image file prior to or in
`preparation for transfer. Ex. 2058 ¶ 116. Dr. Kaliski further testifies that
`Figure 8 of Creamer defines the image adjustment step (S36) and JPEG
`compression step (S38) as part of the image capture routine and the
`parameters are applicable only to a particular image slot, which does not
`identify any unique image. Id.
`Patent Owner further argues Aihara does not disclose this element
`because reference to how an image is placed in a web page does not describe
`how the image is pre-processed in accordance with received pre-processing
`parameters as recited by the claim language. PO Resp. 32.
`We do not agree with Patent Owner’s position. Specifically, we do
`not agree with Patent Owner that Creamer’s processing is performed only
`during an image capture process and merely controls how a digital image is
`saved (see PO Resp. 29–31), because Creamer teaches adjusting a saved
`image file, including compressing the image (see Ex. 1004, 18:61–19:13,
`Fig. 8). Creamer teaches that in step S34, the YCrCb (i.e., a luminance and
`two color difference signals) are converted to a digital image signal, which is
`passed by compression engine 224 and memory controller 226 to the image
`memory (at this point, without compression). Id. at 18:46–56. At that point,
`according to Creamer, microcontroller 200 controls compression engine 226
`to adjust the image per parameters and setting stored in the camera. Id. at
`18:61–19:13. Creamer goes on to teach that in step S38, compression
`engine 226 compresses the image in image memory 22 to the appropriate
`slot in general purpose (GP) memory. Id. at 19:9–13. Additionally,
`Creamer discloses changing the size of a stored image via cropping. Id. at
`8:43–48 (“a scaling module for interpolating or resampling the stored image
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00806
`Patent 7,765,482 B2
`
`to increase or decrease the size of the stored image, including adjustment of
`an aspect ratio of the image and cropping

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket