IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`Carl Zeiss Microscopy, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Advanced Microscopy Inc.,
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,313,452 to Paragano et al.
`Issue Date: November 6, 2001
`Title: Microscopy System Utilizing a Plurality of Images for Enhanced Image
`Processing Capabilities
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: Unassigned
`_____________________
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,313,452
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`C:\Users\sxd100\Desktop\Y2846-97 IPR Petition based on Bacus, Ott, Irani Paper (v18 FINAL).docx
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,313,452
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`OVERVIEW .................................................................................................... 1 
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III.  MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)) ...................................... 3 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Real parties-in-interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................................... 3 
`
`Related matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .............................................. 3 
`
`Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. §
`42.8(b)(3)) ............................................................................................. 4 
`
`D.  Notice of Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ....................... 4 
`
`IV.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ................................. 4 
`
`V. 
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1)) .......................................... 4 
`
`VI.  REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.22(a)(1)) ................................................................................................... 5 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`Summary of the ’452 Patent .................................................................. 5 
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 7 
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 9 
`
`1. 
`
`“Mosaic” ..................................................................................... 9 
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art and the Scope and Content
`of the Prior Art .................................................................................... 10 
`
`E. 
`
`State of the Art .................................................................................... 10 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Computer Controlled Microscopes ........................................... 11 
`
`Image Processing ...................................................................... 14 
`
`3.  Motion Detection Based on Imaging ........................................ 16 
`
`i
`
`C:\Users\sxd100\Desktop\Y2846-97 IPR Petition based on Bacus, Ott, Irani Paper (v18 FINAL).docx
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,313,452
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`Use of Mosaics in Microscopy ................................................. 17 
`
`Use of Overlapping Individual Images for Mosaic Images ...... 19 
`
`VII. 
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES ...................................................... 22 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Challenged Claims .............................................................................. 22 
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges ....................................................... 23 
`
`VIII.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT PATENTABLE ...................... 23 
`
`A. 
`
`Challenge 1: Claims 1-8, 14-15, and 18-19 are obvious over
`Bacus in view of Ott ............................................................................ 23 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Bacus ......................................................................................... 23 
`
`Ott .............................................................................................. 29 
`
`3.  Motivation to Combine Bacus and Ott ..................................... 30 
`
`4. 
`
`Detailed Analysis of Claims 1-8, 14-15, and 18-19 ................. 31 
`
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................................................... 31 
`
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................................................... 35 
`
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................................................... 36 
`
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................................................... 37 
`
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................................................... 38 
`
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................................................... 40 
`
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................................................... 41 
`
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................................................... 41 
`
`Claim 14 ................................................................................................................... 43 
`
`Claim 15 ................................................................................................................... 44 
`
`Claim 18 ................................................................................................................... 45 
`
`ii
`
`C:\Users\sxd100\Desktop\Y2846-97 IPR Petition based on Bacus, Ott, Irani Paper (v18 FINAL).docx
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,313,452
`
`
`Claim 19 ................................................................................................................... 46 
`
`B. 
`
`Challenge 2: Claims 9-13 are Unpatentable over Bacus in View
`of Irani Paper ....................................................................................... 46 
`
`1. 
`
`Irani Paper ................................................................................. 47 
`
`2.  Motivation to Combine Bacus and Irani Paper ......................... 51 
`
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................................................... 52 
`
`Claim 10 ................................................................................................................... 54 
`
`Claim 11 ................................................................................................................... 55 
`
`Claim 12 ................................................................................................................... 56 
`
`Claim 13 ................................................................................................................... 57 
`
`C. 
`
`Challenge 3: Claims 16-17 and 20 are obvious over Bacus in
`view of Ott and Irani Paper. ................................................................ 57 
`
`1.  Motivation to Combine Bacus, Ott, and Irani Paper ................ 58 
`
`Claim 16 ................................................................................................................... 59 
`
`Claim 17 ................................................................................................................... 59 
`
`Claim 20 ................................................................................................................... 59 
`
`IX.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 60 
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`C:\Users\sxd100\Desktop\Y2846-97 IPR Petition based on Bacus, Ott, Irani Paper (v18 FINAL).docx
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,313,452
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Advanced Microscopy Inc. v. Carl Zeiss Microscopy, LLC,
`D. Del. Case No. 1:15-cv-00516-LPS-CJB .......................................................... 3
`
`Advanced Microscopy Inc. v. Leica Microsystems Inc.,
`D. Del. Case No. 1:15-cv-00517-LPS-CJB .......................................................... 3
`
`Advanced Microscopy Inc. v. Nikon Instruments, Inc.,
`D. Del. Case No. 1:15-cv-00518-LPS-CJB .......................................................... 3
`
`Advanced Microscopy Inc. v. Olympus Scientific Solutions Americas
`Inc., D. Del. Case No. 1:15-cv-00519-LPS-CJB .................................................. 3
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ..............................................................................4, 8, 17, 23, 29, 47
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................... 1, 4, 23, 46, 57
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq. ............................................................................................... 1
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq. .............................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1) .............................................................................................. 4
`
`iv
`
`C:\Users\sxd100\Desktop\Y2846-97 IPR Petition based on Bacus, Ott, Irani Paper (v18 FINAL).docx
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,313,452
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ................................................................................................. 1, 5
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`C:\Users\sxd100\Desktop\Y2846-97 IPR Petition based on Bacus, Ott, Irani Paper (v18 FINAL).docx
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,313,452
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,313,452 (“the ’452 Patent”)
`
`File History of the ’452 Patent
`
`U.S. Prov. Pat. App. No. 60/088,779
`
`Declaration of Petitioner’s Expert, Dr. Lloyd Douglas Clark
`(“Clark”)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Clark
`
`U.S. Patent. No. 6,101,265 (“Bacus”)
`
`Ott, S. R., “Acquisition of High-Resolution Digital Images in
`Video Microscopy: Automated Image Mosaicking on a Desktop
`Microcomputer,” Microscopy Research and Technique 38,
`pp.335-339, Aug. 1, 1997 (“Ott”)
`
`Irani, M., et al., “Mosaic Based Representations of Video
`Sequences and Their Applications,” presented at Fifth
`International Conference on Computer Vision, Cambridge,
`Massachusetts June 20-23, 1995, published in Proceedings of
`Fifth International Conference on Computer Vision, pp.605-
`611, 1995 (“Irani Paper”)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,768,447 (“Irani Patent”)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,649,032 (“Burt”)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,627,442 (“Engelse”)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 4,673,988 (“Jansson”)
`
`Gonalez, R. C. et al., Digital Image Processing, Addison-
`Wesley Publishing Company, chapter 1, pp.1-12, 1977
`(“Gonzalez”)
`
`vi
`
`C:\Users\sxd100\Desktop\Y2846-97 IPR Petition based on Bacus, Ott, Irani Paper (v18 FINAL).docx
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,313,452
`
`Becker, D. E. et al., “Fast Automated Mosaic Synthesis Method
`for 2-D/3-D Image Analysis of Specimens Much Wider than
`the Field of View,” Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of
`the Microscopy Society of America, G. W. Bailey and A. J.
`Garratt-Reid (eds.), pp.224-225, August 1994 (“Becker-94”)
`
`Becker, D. E. et al., “Automated 3-D Montage Synthesis From
`Laser-Scanning Confocal Images: Application to Quantitative
`Tissue-Level Cytological Analysis,” Cytometry 25, pp.235-245,
`1996 (“Becker-96”)
`
`Henderson, E. et al., “Image acquisition of microscopic slides,”
`Proc. SPIE 2173, Image Acquisition and Scientific Imaging
`Systems, pp.21-27, May 1994 (“Henderson”)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,287,272 (“Rutenberg”)
`
`Oldmixon, E. H. et al., “Methods for large data volumes from
`confocal scanning laser microscopy of lung,” J. of Microscopy,
`Vol. 170, Pt. 3, pp.221-228, 1993 (“Oldmixon”)
`
`Silage, D. A. et al., “Digital image tiles: a method for the
`processing of large sections,” J. of Microscopy, Vol. 138, Pt. 2,
`pp.221-227, 1985 (“Silage”)
`
`Jay, P. Y. et al., “A mechanical function of myosin II in cell
`motility,” J. of Cell Science 108, pp.387-393, 1995 (“Jay”)
`
`Complaint in Advanced Microscopy Inc. v. Carl Zeiss
`Microscopy, LLC, D. Del. Case No. 1:15-cv-00516-LPS-CJB
`
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`
`
`vii
`
`C:\Users\sxd100\Desktop\Y2846-97 IPR Petition based on Bacus, Ott, Irani Paper (v18 FINAL).docx
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,313,452
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`I.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq. and 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq., Carl Zeiss
`
`Microscopy, LLC (“Zeiss” or “Petitioner”) files this Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,313,452 (“the ’452 Patent”). Petitioner respectfully
`
`submits that all 20 claims of the ’452 Patent (“the Challenged Claims”) are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the prior art and that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Accordingly,
`
`it is respectfully requested that the Board institute inter partes review.
`
`II. OVERVIEW
`
`The Challenged Claims of the ‘452 Patent are unpatentable as obvious over
`
`the prior art. The claims are directed to a compilation of conventional features that
`
`were well-known in the areas of microscopy and imaging, as set forth in detail in
`
`§§ VI and VIII of this Petition.
`
`The Specification of the ‘452 Patent describes in the Background
`
`Information section aspects of conventional microscopes. The ‘452 Patent
`
`describes two alleged problems or shortcomings of prior art microscope systems:
`
`limited field of view and lack of image enhancement capabilities. To address the
`
`first problem, the ‘452 Patent mentions the generation of a mosaic image by
`
`combining multiple images from a microscope to thereby create an image having a
`
`larger field of view than can be seen in a single image. The ‘452 Patent does not
`
`1
`
`C:\Users\sxd100\Desktop\Y2846-97 IPR Petition based on Bacus, Ott, Irani Paper (v18 FINAL).docx
`
`

`
`
`
`itself describe how to generate mosaic images, instead relying on a prior art patent
`
`(incorporated by reference into the ‘452 Patent) for such disclosure. Similarly,
`
`other prior art patents were incorporated by reference into the ‘452 Patent
`
`regarding the functionality of extracting a moving object from an image. To
`
`address the second problem of image enhancement, the ‘452 Patent discloses that
`
`overlapping images can be used to increase the amount of detail in an image.
`
`The prosecution history of the application corresponding to the ‘452 Patent
`
`was short. The Examiner issued a first Office Action rejecting some claims and
`
`objecting to other claims, citing only a single reference—U.S. Pat. 4,673,988 to
`
`Jansson. The Applicant then amended three independent claims to add a limitation
`
`pertaining to overlapping images, rewrote a dependent claim in independent format
`
`and argued it was distinguishable from Jansson because of a limitation pertaining
`
`to sequential mosaics, and rewrote an objected-to claim in independent format
`
`including creating a mosaic. The Examiner then allowed the application.
`
`But, techniques related to generation and processing of mosaics in the field
`
`of image processing as used in microscopy were well known at the time of the
`
`invention of the ‘452 Patent. In addition to the patents incorporated by reference
`
`into the '452 Patent, numerous other prior art references described the same field of
`
`view problem as in the ‘452 Patent and described the use of mosaics in microscopy
`
`2
`
`C:\Users\sxd100\Desktop\Y2846-97 IPR Petition based on Bacus, Ott, Irani Paper (v18 FINAL).docx
`
`

`
`
`
`for addressing that problem. Similarly, several prior art references disclose
`
`overlapping images in the field of microscopy.
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1))
`
`A. Real parties-in-interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real parties-in-interest in this Petition are Carl Zeiss Microscopy, LLC,
`
`Carl Zeiss, Inc., Carl Zeiss Beteiligungs-GmbH, Carl Zeiss Microscopy, GmbH,
`
`Carl Zeiss AG, Leica Microsystems, Inc., and Danaher Corporation.
`
`B. Related matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`Petitioner identifies the following judicial and administrative matters that
`
`could affect, or be affected by, a decision pertaining to this petition: The ‘452
`
`Patent has been asserted by Advanced Microscopy Inc. (“Patent Owner”) in
`
`Advanced Microscopy Inc. v. Carl Zeiss Microscopy, LLC, D. Del. Case No. 1:15-
`
`cv-00516-LPS-CJB, in which Zeiss was served with a complaint (Ex. 1021) on
`
`June 18, 2015; in Advanced Microscopy Inc. v. Leica Microsystems Inc., D. Del.
`
`Case No. 1:15-cv-00517-LPS-CJB, in which Leica was served with a complaint on
`
`June 19, 2015; in Advanced Microscopy Inc. v. Nikon Instruments, Inc., D. Del.
`
`Case No. 1:15-cv-00518-LPS-CJB; and in Advanced Microscopy Inc. v. Olympus
`
`Scientific Solutions Americas Inc., D. Del. Case No. 1:15-cv-00519-LPS-CJB.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`C:\Users\sxd100\Desktop\Y2846-97 IPR Petition based on Bacus, Ott, Irani Paper (v18 FINAL).docx
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`C. Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Lead Counsel: Arthur Dresner, USPTO Reg. No. 24,403
`DUANE MORRIS LLP, 1540 Broadway, New York, NY 10036-4086
`P: (212) 692-1014; F: (212) 202-4904; ADresner@duanemorris.com
`
`Back-Up Counsel: (1) Patrick D. McPherson, USPTO Reg. No. 46,255
`DUANE MORRIS LLP, 505 9th St. NW, Ste. 1000, Washington, D.C. 20004
`P: (202) 776-5214; F: (202) 776-7801; PDMcPherson@duanemorris.com
`(2) Arvind Jairam., USPTO Reg. No. 62,759
`DUANE MORRIS LLP, 505 9th St. NW, Ste. 1000, Washington, D.C. 20004
`P: (202) 776-5252; F: (202) 776-7801; ajairam@duanemorris.com
`
`D. Notice of Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`Please direct all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel at the above
`
`addresses. Petitioner consents to electronic service at the email addresses above.
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’452 Patent is available for inter partes review
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review
`
`challenging the claims on the grounds herein. Based on the filing date of the ‘452
`
`Patent (December 21, 1998), pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 and 112
`
`govern and are cited herein.
`
`V. RELIEF REQUESTED (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1))
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests institution of an inter partes review pursuant
`
`4
`
`C:\Users\sxd100\Desktop\Y2846-97 IPR Petition based on Bacus, Ott, Irani Paper (v18 FINAL).docx
`
`

`
`
`
`to 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 and cancellation of all claims of the ’452 Patent.
`
`VI. REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF (37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(1))
`As explained below and in the attached Declaration of Petitioner’s Expert,
`
`Dr. Clark (Ex. 1004), the microcopy systems and methods described and claimed
`
`in the ’452 Patent are obvious over the prior art. §§ VII-VIII of this Petition
`
`explain where each element of the Challenged Claims is taught or rendered
`
`obvious in the prior art and why each of the Challenged Claims would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) of image processing as
`
`used in microscopy at the time of the invention
`
`Summary of the ’452 Patent
`
`A.
`The ’452 Patent is generally directed to a “microscope coupled to a
`
`computer to provide enhanced image processing capabilities.” Ex. 1001, 1:11-13;
`
`Ex. 1004, ¶ 28. The ’452 Patent acknowledges that computer-controlled
`
`microscopes coupled to image display systems were known in the prior art. Ex.
`
`1001, 1:34-45. The ‘452 Patent also describes a prior art microscope system in
`
`which a camera coupled to a microscope and computer workstation provides an
`
`image of an object being viewed on the microscope to the workstation so that a
`
`user can use the workstation to move a platform on the microscope in order to
`
`change the view of the object being displayed on the monitor of the workstation.
`
`Id. at 1:34-45; Ex. 1011, 7:40-41; Ex. 1004, ¶ 28.
`
`5
`
`C:\Users\sxd100\Desktop\Y2846-97 IPR Petition based on Bacus, Ott, Irani Paper (v18 FINAL).docx
`
`

`
`
`
`The ‘452 Patent describes two alleged shortcomings of prior art microscope
`
`systems: limited field of view capabilities and lack of image enhancement
`
`capabilities. Ex. 1001, 1:45-2:2; Ex. 1004, ¶ 29. Specifically, the ‘452 Patent
`
`states that existing microscope systems limited the field of view to what could be
`
`seen through the microscope at any specific instant in time. Ex. 1001, 1:50-52.
`
`Regarding the alleged lack of image enhancement shortcoming, the ‘452 Patent
`
`does not elaborate, merely stating that “conventional microscope systems are
`
`generally limited to capturing a magnified image of an object and providing the
`
`captured magnified image to an image display system for display.” Id. at 1:66-2:2.
`
`The Summary of the Invention section of the ‘452 Patent section describes
`
`embodiments for addressing the two above-mentioned alleged shortcomings of
`
`existing systems and thus for achieving the two goals of the alleged invention. Id.
`
`at 2:5-39; Ex. 1004, ¶ 30. For example, regarding the first goal of increasing the
`
`field of view, the ‘452 Patent describes an embodiment of creating a mosaic image
`
`by combining a plurality of images from a microscope to thereby create an image
`
`having a larger field of view than can be seen in a single image. Ex. 1001, 2:19-
`
`26. The ‘452 Patent does not include a detailed description of creating a mosaic
`
`image, but instead incorporates by reference exemplary techniques and algorithms
`
`described in a prior art patent, U.S. Pat. No. 5,649,032 (“Burt”). Id. at 5:24-28. In
`
`another embodiment, the first goal is achieved by the creation of a submosaic
`
`6
`
`C:\Users\sxd100\Desktop\Y2846-97 IPR Petition based on Bacus, Ott, Irani Paper (v18 FINAL).docx
`
`

`
`
`
`image from the mosaic image. Id. at 2:27-30.
`
`With respect to the second stated goal of image enhancement, the ‘452
`
`Patent describes an embodiment that allows a user to select an area of interest in
`
`the image mosaic and then present an enhanced image of the area of interest at a
`
`resolution greater than a current resolution setting of the microscope. Id. at 2:31-
`
`40; Ex. 1004, ¶ 31. The Specification describes that the enhanced image is
`
`generated by creating a plurality of images that overlap each other because with
`
`higher overlap, there are a greater number of images that may be used to generate
`
`any pixel in the image. Ex. 1001, 7:41-43; Ex. 1004, ¶ 31.
`
`The ‘452 Patent as filed included 20 claims. All claims as filed included a
`
`limitation directed to the first goal of an increased field of view by requiring the
`
`generation of a mosaic or otherwise creating a resultant image as a function of the
`
`plurality of images. None of the independent claims as filed included a limitation
`
`directed to the second goal of image enhancement requiring that the plurality of
`
`images from which the mosaic is made overlap each other. Ex. 1004, ¶ 32.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`B.
`On June 10, 1998, the Applicant filed provisional application number
`
`60/088,779 (“the ’779 Provisional,” Ex. 1003). Ex. 1001, 1:5-7. Ex. 1004, ¶ 33.
`
`On December 21, 1998, the Applicant filed non-provisional application
`
`number 09/217,315 claiming priority to the June 10, 1998 filing date of the ‘779
`
`7
`
`C:\Users\sxd100\Desktop\Y2846-97 IPR Petition based on Bacus, Ott, Irani Paper (v18 FINAL).docx
`
`

`
`
`
`Provisional. Ex. 1001, p.1. The first Office Action included rejections of claims
`
`1-4 and 7-20 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by U.S. Pat. No.
`
`4,673,988 to Jansson. Ex. 1002, p.49. In response, the Applicant filed an
`
`amendment with arguments distinguishing Jansson. Id. at 54-62; Ex. 1004, ¶ 34.
`
`The Applicant amended independent claims 1, 14, and 18 to add the
`
`limitation “wherein sets of captured images overlap adjacent sets of captured
`
`images” to each of those claims corresponding to the second goal of image
`
`enhancement. Ex. 1002, pp.56-59. The Applicant argued that the added limitation
`
`distinguished claims 1, 14, and 18 over Jansson, stating “[t]his feature is beneficial
`
`because, as explained in the specification, the overlap provides more information
`
`that can be combined for each pixel, so that a more accurate value of each pixel
`
`can be computed, and a higher resolution of the image is possible without requiring
`
`a higher magnification lens.” Id. at 61. Thus, the Applicant amended claims 1, 14,
`
`and 18 to distinguish the claims over Jansson for the purpose of achieving the
`
`second goal of image enhancement. Ex. 1004, ¶ 35.
`
`The Applicant also rewrote dependent claim 9 in independent form and
`
`argued that the claim was distinguishable from Jansson because of the limitation
`
`“plurality of sequential mosaics.” Ex. 1002, pp.57-58. Thus, claim 9 corresponds
`
`to the first stated goal of increased field of view of the alleged invention. The
`
`dependent claims are all directed to conventional microscopy techniques, none of
`
`8
`
`C:\Users\sxd100\Desktop\Y2846-97 IPR Petition based on Bacus, Ott, Irani Paper (v18 FINAL).docx
`
`

`
`
`
`which were identified in the Specification as having any patentability independent
`
`of limitations recited in the independent claims. Ex. 1004, ¶ 36.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), the patent claims are to be given their broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Consistent with this
`
`standard, a proposed interpretation for the term “mosaic” is provided below. Any
`
`claim term not described below is entitled to its broadest reasonable interpretation,
`
`which Petitioner does not believe impacts the invalidity analysis described herein.
`
`Ex. 1004, ¶ 37. It is noted that this interpretation is applicable only to the Inter
`
`Partes Review sought herein and should not be construed as constituting, in whole
`
`or in part, Petitioner’s own interpretation of any claims for any other purposes,
`
`including any litigation. Accordingly, Petitioner expressly reserves the right to
`
`present an interpretation of a claim term in other proceedings which is different, in
`
`whole or in part, from that presented in this Petition.
`
`1.
`
`“Mosaic”
`
`The term “mosaic” is expressly recited in claims 2-20. The ’452 Patent
`
`specification defines the term “mosaic” as follows: “An image mosaic is an image
`
`with a larger field-of-view than can be seen in a single image.” Ex. 1001, 2:24-26.
`
`The Specification also describes that “Mosaics ar[e] formed by combining a
`
`plurality of images from a specific video capture device to provide a combination
`
`9
`
`C:\Users\sxd100\Desktop\Y2846-97 IPR Petition based on Bacus, Ott, Irani Paper (v18 FINAL).docx
`
`

`
`
`
`image having a larger field-of-view than would be possible in any single image
`
`from the specific video capture device.” Id. at 4:41-44. Therefore, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “mosaic” to mean a
`
`“combination of a plurality of images having a larger field-of-view than any of the
`
`individual images forming part of the combination image.” Ex. 1004, ¶ 38.
`
`D.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art and the Scope and Content of
`the Prior Art
`
`A POSA is a hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of all
`
`pertinent prior art, thinks along conventional wisdom in the art, and is a person of
`
`ordinary creativity. With respect to the ’452 Patent, a POSA in the field of image
`
`processing as used in microscopy in the June 10, 1998 timeframe would have had a
`
`computer science, electrical engineering, or physics education and experience in
`
`the fields of optics and imaging, and knowledge of the scientific literature
`
`concerning the same. The education and experience levels may vary between
`
`persons of ordinary skill, with some persons holding a basic Bachelor’s degree
`
`with three years of relevant work experience, and others holding a Masters or
`
`Ph.D. but having one to two years of experience. Ex. 1004, ¶ 41.
`
`State of the Art
`
`E.
`The following section describes the state of the art in imaging as used in
`
`microscopy as of the effective filing date, June 1998. See § VI.D, supra; Ex.
`
`1004, ¶ 42. The prior art references discussed in this section are not relied on by
`
`10
`
`C:\Users\sxd100\Desktop\Y2846-97 IPR Petition based on Bacus, Ott, Irani Paper (v18 FINAL).docx
`
`

`
`
`
`Petitioner as grounds for invalidity. Instead, these prior art references and
`
`discussions of what was known to a POSA provide a general description of the
`
`state of the art at the time of the invention, provide additional motivation to modify
`
`or combine the references cited in the invalidity grounds, and provide support for
`
`why a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying or
`
`combining the teachings of the references. These additional prior art references are
`
`exemplary in nature, relied upon by Dr. Clark, and are properly included to provide
`
`factual support for his opinions and can be properly considered by the Board to
`
`show the general state of the art, to identify motivation to modify or combine the
`
`teachings of the primary references, to support reasonable expectation of success,
`
`to rebut any claims of unpredictability in the art, and to rebut any claims of
`
`unexpected results. Ex. 1004, ¶ 42.
`
`1.
`
`Computer Controlled Microscopes
`
`As of June 1998, the state of the art pertinent to the ’452 Patent included
`
`microscopes that enable an operator to view a magnified specimen on a support
`
`such as a glass slide. Ex. 1011, 2:1-2; Ex. 1004, ¶ 43. It was well known to
`
`support the slide by a stage that functions like a platform and that could be
`
`displaced in a plane (e.g., in x and y directions) in order to select the field of view
`
`of the microscope. Ex. 1011, 1:14-30; Ex. 1004, ¶ 43. The ’452 Patent recognizes
`
`the prior existence of microscopes having “an eyepiece . . . , lenses that provided
`
`11
`
`C:\Users\sxd100\Desktop\Y2846-97 IPR Petition based on Bacus, Ott, Irani Paper (v18 FINAL).docx
`
`

`
`
`
`varying levels of magnification, a stage for holding a slide . . . , a first mechanical
`
`means for moving the stage, and a second mechanical means for adjusting the
`
`magnification level.” Ex. 1001, 1:22-26; Ex. 1004, ¶ 43. As described in the ‘452
`
`Patent, one of the limitations of these prior art microscopes was that the selected
`
`magnification lens controlled the field of view of the specimen being examined.
`
`It was also known at the time of the invention to couple a microscope to a
`
`camera and to a computer, so that the camera provides to the computer an image of
`
`the specimen being viewed on the microscope. Ex. 1001, 1:34-45 (describing the
`
`conventional system of Engelse); Ex. 1011, 7:39-41; Ex. 1017, 8:17-20; Ex. 1004,
`
`¶ 44. For example, Engelse’s prior art microscope stage system is shown below:
`
`motors
`Ex. 1011, FIG. 3 (annotations added). The user could manipulate a controller at
`
`
`
`Engelse’s computer 28 to move platform 39 in order to change the view of the
`
`specimen displayed on monitor 30. Ex. 1011, FIG. 3; Ex. 1001, 1:42-45; Ex. 1004,
`
`¶ 45. Platform 39 was movable by sending drive signals from computer 28 to
`
`motors 34 and 36 that effected displacement of the stage in the x and y directions,
`
`12
`
`C:\Users\sxd100\Desk