`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`
`
`Prime Focus Creative Services Canada Inc.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Legend3D, Inc.,
`
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,907,793
`
`Issued: March 15, 2011
`
`Named Inventor: Barry Sandrew
`
`Title: IMAGE SEQUENCE DEPTH ENHANCEMENT SYSTEM AND
`METHOD
`___________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. DAVID FORSYTH
`IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,907,793
`
`
`
`PRIME FOCUS EX 1009-1
`PRIME FOCUS v LEGEND3D
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I have been asked by Prime Focus Creative Services Canada Inc.
`
`(Petitioner) to provide my expert opinion in support of this petition for inter partes
`
`review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 7,907,793 (“the ‘793 Patent,” Ex. 1001).
`
`2.
`
`I am a U.S. citizen over eighteen years of age. I am fully competent
`
`to testify as to the matters addressed in this declaration. I currently hold the
`
`opinions set forth in this declaration. It is my opinion that the prior art references
`
`in the associated petition for IPR render all of the claims of the ‘793 Patent (i.e.,
`
`Claims 1 through 20) obvious. My detailed opinion is set forth below.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my time by Petitioner at my standard rate
`
`of $350 per hour (or $450 per hour of testimony if deposed). If work requires
`
`travel, expenses are defrayed and I am compensated at my standard rate of $1000
`
`for each 24 hours away from home, adjusted pro rata for shorter periods. This
`
`compensation is not contingent upon my performance, the outcome of this matter,
`
`or any issues involved in or related to this matter.
`
`4.
`
`I have no personal, commercial, or financial interest in Petitioner,
`
`Patent Owner, or any other party related to this matter.
`
`5.
`
`I have considered all of the exhibits attached to this IPR petition in
`
`forming my opinions.
`
`
`
`1
`
`PRIME FOCUS EX 1009-2
`PRIME FOCUS v LEGEND3D
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`I have been asked to assume, for my analysis, that the claims of the
`
`challenged ‘793 Patent have a priority date of August 17, 2009 (its filing date). To
`
`the extent that Patent Owner argues for a different priority date, I reserve the right
`
`to supplement my declaration to address those arguments.
`
`7.
`
`I am aware of information generally available to, and relied upon by,
`
`persons of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant times, including technical
`
`dictionaries and technical reference materials (including, for example, textbooks,
`
`manuals, technical papers, articles, and relevant technical standards).
`
`8.
`
`I understand that, due to procedural limitations for IPR proceedings,
`
`the grounds of invalidity discussed herein are based solely on prior art patents and
`
`other printed publications. I understand that Petitioner reserves all rights to assert
`
`at a later time other grounds for invalidity not addressed herein, for instance failure
`
`of the application to claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, failure
`
`to meet requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (e.g., lack of written description in
`
`support of the claims), and anticipation or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and
`
`103 not based solely on patents and printed publications (e.g., evidence of prior
`
`use). Thus, the absence of discussion of such matters here should not be
`
`interpreted as indicating that there are no such additional grounds for invalidity of
`
`the ‘793 Patent. Similarly, absence of discussion of other printed prior art
`
`
`
`2
`
`PRIME FOCUS EX 1009-3
`PRIME FOCUS v LEGEND3D
`
`
`
`
`
`references here should not be interpreted as indicating that there are no other
`
`printed prior art references that either anticipate or render obvious the ‘793 Patent.
`
`9.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement my opinions to address any
`
`information obtained, or positions taken, based on any new information that comes
`
`to light throughout this proceeding.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`10.
`
`I am currently the Fulton-Watson-Copp Professor of Computer
`
`Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. My curriculum vitae is
`
`attached to the associated petition for IPR as Exhibit 1008. I believe that my
`
`background and expertise qualify me as an expert in the technical issues in this
`
`matter.
`
`11. My education began in Cape Town, South Africa. I was an
`
`undergraduate at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, and I hold a
`
`Bachelor of Science (1984) and Master of Science in Electrical Engineering from
`
`that University. I was awarded the Diocesan College Rhodes Scholarship in 1984
`
`to attend Oxford University. I hold a Master of Arts by special election from
`
`Oxford University and a Doctorate of Philosophy in Engineering Science from
`
`Balliol College, Oxford. I was appointed Fellow by Examination of Magdalen
`
`College, Oxford in 1989. I was then appointed Assistant Professor of Computer
`
`Science at the University of Iowa in 1991; in 1994, I was promoted to Associate
`
`
`
`3
`
`PRIME FOCUS EX 1009-4
`PRIME FOCUS v LEGEND3D
`
`
`
`
`
`Professor of Computer Science, and went on leave of absence to take up an
`
`appointment as Assistant Professor of Computer Science at U.C. Berkeley. I was
`
`promoted to Associate Professor of Computer Science at U.C. Berkeley in 1996,
`
`and to Professor of Computer Science in 2002. I went on leave of absence from
`
`U.C. Berkeley to take up an appointment as Professor of Computer Science at the
`
`University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2004. I am currently the Fulton-
`
`Watson-Copp Professor of Computer Science at the University of Illinois at
`
`Urbana-Champaign.
`
`12.
`
`I have studied Computer Vision since my final year as an
`
`undergraduate in 1984, when I engaged in an undergraduate project on the topic.
`
`My Ph.D. thesis treats a traditional problem in computer vision, known as “color
`
`constancy,” and the paper that resulted from this work is still quite regularly cited.
`
`As a Fellow by Examination, I studied illumination and shading effects in vision,
`
`and geometric methods to recognize objects. I have published papers on a wide
`
`range of topics in computer vision, computer graphics, machine learning and
`
`human-computer interfaces. I have published about 160 refereed papers and 10
`
`book chapters. I have published one textbook in two editions and four languages,
`
`and one research monograph. I have edited six volumes of collected papers. A
`
`reasonably complete list of my publications is contained in my curriculum vitae in
`
`Appendix A.
`
`
`
`4
`
`PRIME FOCUS EX 1009-5
`PRIME FOCUS v LEGEND3D
`
`
`
`
`
`13.
`
`In addition, I have occupied various leadership posts within my
`
`discipline. I was program co-chair for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers (“IEEE”) Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
`
`(“CVPR”) in 2000 and 2011, and for the European Conference on Computer
`
`Vision (“ECCV”) in 2008. I was general co-chair for the CVPR in 2006 and again
`
`hold the position for CVPR 2015. I am an Associate Editor of the International
`
`Journal of Computer Vision; of the Association for Computing Machinery
`
`(“ACM”) Transactions on Graphics; and of the Journal of the ACM. I am the
`
`Editor in Chief of the IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine
`
`Intelligence (“TPAMI”), a journal which receives approximately 1000 submissions
`
`per year, and which is usually seen as the leading journal in the discipline. I also
`
`served for three years on a committee of the National Research Council, convened
`
`to study methods to protect children from pornography and other inappropriate
`
`material on the internet.
`
`14. Throughout my career I have received a variety of awards. In 1993,
`
`the Marr prize for Best Paper at the International Conference on Computer Vision
`
`was awarded to “Extracting Projective Structure from Single Perspective Views of
`
`3D Point Sets,” a paper I wrote with Charles A. Rothwell, Andrew Zisserman, and
`
`Joseph L. Mundy. In 2002, the award for Best Paper in Cognitive Computer
`
`Vision at the European Conference in Computer Vision was awarded to “Object
`
`
`
`5
`
`PRIME FOCUS EX 1009-6
`PRIME FOCUS v LEGEND3D
`
`
`
`
`
`recognition as machine translation: Learning a lexicon for a fixed image
`
`vocabulary,” a paper I wrote with P. Duygulu, K. Barnard, and J.F.G. de Freitas. I
`
`was awarded an IEEE Technical Achievement Award in 2005 for my work on
`
`Computer Vision. I became an IEEE Fellow in 2009, and an ACM Fellow in
`
`2014.
`
`15. My work is extensively cited in computer vision literature, with
`
`23,312 citations recorded by Google scholar on June 1, 2016.
`
`16.
`
`I have made extensive contributions to computer vision education. I
`
`am lead co-author of a widely used textbook in the discipline, “Computer Vision -
`
`A Modern Approach”, which has appeared in two editions and four languages. I
`
`have trained 24 Ph.D. students. I have trained people who are very well known
`
`academics in computer vision. Tamara Berg is associate professor of computer
`
`science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Ali Farhadi is assistant
`
`professor of computer science at the University of Washington. Deva Ramanan is
`
`associate professor of computer science at the University of California at Irvine,
`
`and is moving to take up a tenured post at Carnegie Mellon University. Gang
`
`Wang is assistant professor of computer science at Nanyang Technological
`
`University in Singapore. Kobus Barnard is professor of computer science at
`
`University of Arizona. Each is seen as a young leader in the field.
`
`
`
`6
`
`PRIME FOCUS EX 1009-7
`PRIME FOCUS v LEGEND3D
`
`
`
`
`
`17. Based on my above-described 30 years of experience in the field of
`
`computer vision and the acceptance of my publications and professional
`
`recognition by societies in my field, I believe that I am considered to be an expert
`
`in the field of computer vision (including image analysis) and its application to
`
`human-computer interfaces (including image enhancement).
`
`I.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`18.
`
`I am not a patent attorney and my opinions are limited to what I
`
`believe a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood. I use the
`
`principles below, however, as a guide in formulating my opinions.
`
`19. My understanding is that a primary step in determining the validity of
`
`patent claims is to properly construe the claims to determine claim scope and
`
`meaning.
`
`20.
`
`In an IPR proceeding, I understand that claims are to be given their
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the patent’s specification. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b). For the purposes of this IPR, I have construed each claim term in
`
`accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning under the required broadest
`
`reasonable construction. In other forums, such as in federal courts, different
`
`standards of proof and claim interpretation control, which are not applied by the
`
`patent office for IPR. Accordingly, I reserve the right to argue for a different
`
`interpretation or construction of the challenged claims in other proceedings, as
`
`
`
`7
`
`PRIME FOCUS EX 1009-8
`PRIME FOCUS v LEGEND3D
`
`
`
`
`
`appropriate. For the purposes of this IPR, however, my opinions on invalidity
`
`would not change regardless of what standard for claim construction is applied by
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
`
`21.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102 if each and every element and limitation of the claim is found either expressly
`
`or inherently in a single prior art reference. I understand that anticipation is a
`
`question of fact. I further understand that the requirement of strict identity
`
`between the claim and the reference is not met if a single element or limitation
`
`required by the claim is missing from the applied reference.
`
`22.
`
`It is my understanding that a claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 if the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention. I understand that
`
`obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual issues. I also
`
`understand that an obviousness analysis takes into account the scope and content of
`
`the prior art, the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art,
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and the existence
`
`of secondary considerations such as commercial success or long-felt but
`
`unresolved needs.
`
`23.
`
`In determining the scope and content of the prior art, it is my
`
`understanding that a reference is considered appropriate prior art if it falls within
`
`
`
`8
`
`PRIME FOCUS EX 1009-9
`PRIME FOCUS v LEGEND3D
`
`
`
`
`
`the field of the inventor’s endeavor. In addition, I understand that a reference is
`
`prior art if it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
`
`inventor was involved. A reference is reasonably pertinent if it logically would
`
`have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. If a
`
`reference relates to the same problem as the claimed invention, that supports the
`
`use of the reference as prior art in an obviousness analysis.
`
`24. To assess the differences between prior art and the claimed subject
`
`matter, it is my understanding that 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires the claimed invention
`
`to be considered as a whole. This “as a whole” assessment requires showing that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, confronted by the same
`
`problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would
`
`have selected the elements from the prior art and combined them in the claimed
`
`manner.
`
`25.
`
`It is my further understanding that the Supreme Court has recognized
`
`several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show
`
`obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include:
`
`combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results; simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results; use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products)
`
`in the same way; applying a known technique to a known device (method or
`
`
`
`9
`
`PRIME FOCUS EX 1009-10
`PRIME FOCUS v LEGEND3D
`
`
`
`
`
`product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; choosing from a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of
`
`success; known work in one field of endeavor prompting variations of it for use in
`
`either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market
`
`forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and some
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of
`
`ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference
`
`teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`26.
`
`It is further my understanding that a proper obviousness analysis
`
`focuses on what was known or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, not
`
`just the patentee. Accordingly, I understand that any need or problem known in
`
`the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can
`
`provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a claim can be obvious in light of a single reference,
`
`without the need to combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not
`
`found explicitly or inherently in the reference can be supplied by the common
`
`sense of one of skill in the art.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that secondary indicia of non-obviousness may include:
`
`(1) a long felt but unmet need in the prior art that was satisfied by the invention of
`
`the patent; (2) commercial success of processes covered by or products made by
`
`
`
`10
`
`PRIME FOCUS EX 1009-11
`PRIME FOCUS v LEGEND3D
`
`
`
`
`
`the patent; (3) unexpected results achieved by the invention; (4) praise of the
`
`invention by others skilled in the art; (5) licensing of the patent by others; (6)
`
`deliberate copying of the invention; (7) failure of others to find a solution to the
`
`long felt need; and (8) skepticism by experts. I also understand that there must be
`
`a relationship between any such secondary considerations and the invention. I
`
`further understand that contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a
`
`secondary consideration supporting an obviousness determination.
`
`29.
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly
`
`combined where a person of ordinary skill in the art having the understanding and
`
`knowledge reflected in the prior art and motivated by the general problem facing
`
`the inventor would have been led to make the combination of elements recited in
`
`the claims. Under this analysis, the prior art references themselves, or any need or
`
`problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention, can provide a
`
`reason for combining the elements of multiple prior art references in the claimed
`
`manner.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`30.
`
`It is my understanding that the ‘793 Patent should be interpreted based
`
`on how it would be read by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`effective filing date of the application. It is my understanding that factors such as
`
`the education level of those working in the field, the sophistication of the
`
`
`
`11
`
`PRIME FOCUS EX 1009-12
`PRIME FOCUS v LEGEND3D
`
`
`
`
`
`technology, the types of problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to
`
`those problems, and the speed at which innovations are made may help establish
`
`the level of skill in the art.
`
`31.
`
`I am familiar with the technology at issue and the state of the art at the
`
`earliest priority date of the ‘793 Patent, August 17, 2009.
`
`32.
`
`It is my opinion, based upon a review of the ‘793 Patent and my
`
`knowledge of the field of the art, that a person of ordinary skill in the art with
`
`respect to the ‘793 patent at the time of the alleged invention would generally have
`
`had at least a Bachelor’s degree education or equivalent and seven or more years of
`
`relevant work experience in the area of image analysis or image enhancement.
`
`Higher education may substitute for less work experience and vice versa. For
`
`example, if an academic, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention would have had a PhD in a field related to computer image
`
`analysis or image enhancement and several years of relevant research.
`
`33.
`
`I consider myself to have at least such ordinary skill in the art with
`
`respect to the subject matter of the ‘793 Patent at the time of the effective filing
`
`date.
`
`34.
`
`I have considered the issues discussed in the remainder of this
`
`declaration from this perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Although
`
`
`
`12
`
`PRIME FOCUS EX 1009-13
`PRIME FOCUS v LEGEND3D
`
`
`
`
`
`I use this perspective, I do not believe that any of my opinions would change if a
`
`higher or lower level of skill were assumed.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘793 PATENT
`
`35. The ‘793 Patent is directed to making production of stereoscopic
`
`movies more efficient. Stereopsis is an effect where human observers perceive
`
`depth when the image presented to the left eye is slightly different from the image
`
`presented to the right eye. If only one image is available, a second image must be
`
`created. A visual effects artist can begin the conversion process of a single image
`
`into a pair of stereoscopic images by determining the depth of each object in a
`
`frame relative to the camera. For example, in a frame of a horse jumping presented
`
`in the association Petition, the visual artist could begin by deciding that the horse is
`
`10 feet away and that the background is 100 feet away; a computer can then use
`
`that information to compute a second view. The shot will be composed of a
`
`sequence of frames and the artist must ensure that the depths are consistent
`
`throughout the shot. The technologies of the ‘793 Patent reduce the artist’s
`
`workload by helping with the initial determination of the depth of objects in an
`
`image sequence. See Ex. 1001, ‘793 Patent at col. 1 l. 21-25. Furthermore, the
`
`technologies of the ‘793 Patent help to propagate the choices an artist has made to
`
`future frames in the image sequence.
`
`
`
`13
`
`PRIME FOCUS EX 1009-14
`PRIME FOCUS v LEGEND3D
`
`
`
`
`
`36.
`
`In one embodiment of the ‘793 Patent, the process begins by
`
`recognizing that all of these images are a single sequence and contain common
`
`foreground (horse) and background (barn, etc.) elements. See Ex. 1001, ‘793
`
`Patent at col. 34 l. 60-61. As foreground objects move, portions of the background
`
`that were previously occluded become visible. The result is that a composite
`
`background image can be reconstructed that excludes the motion object in the
`
`foreground (the horse). See id. at col. 34 l. 62-65. The process of the ‘793 Patent
`
`then sets the depth for one of the regions in the composite background (say, the
`
`barn in the background might be 100 feet away). See id. at col. 34 l. 66-67.
`
`37. The motion objects in the foreground are managed by creating a
`
`“mask” of the object. See id. at col. 35 l. 48-49. The mask is then copied to the
`
`next frame in the sequence and moved and reshaped so that it fits the same motion
`
`object in the next frame, and so on. See id. at col. 35 l. 50 – col. 36 l. 1-2. The
`
`visual artist then decides the depth of the motion object in the first frame (e.g., the
`
`horse is 10 feet away) and that depth is applied to the motion object in the second
`
`and further frames. See id. at col. 36 l. 3-6.
`
`38. The sequence is then reconstructed from the composite background
`
`and the foreground object or objects. See id. at col. 35 l. 1-3. This approach helps
`
`ensure consistency across the scene so that the barn always appears to be 100 feet
`
`away and the horse always appears to be 10 feet away.
`
`
`
`14
`
`PRIME FOCUS EX 1009-15
`PRIME FOCUS v LEGEND3D
`
`
`
`
`
`V. THE PRIOR ART
`
`A. The ‘670 and ‘081 Patents
`
`39. The ‘081 Patent and ‘670 Patents both claim a “color” parameter,
`
`whereas the ‘793 Patent claims a “depth” parameter. “Color” and “depth”
`
`parameters are very different. A “color” parameter relates to the visible hue,
`
`saturation or lightness of an object while a “depth” parameter relates to the
`
`perceived distance of an object from the camera. These concepts are entirely
`
`distinct and do not really overlap.
`
`40. The ‘081 and ‘670 Patents relate to colorization. Neither the ‘081
`
`Patent nor the ‘670 Patents discuss “depth” (other than to mention the “bit depth”
`
`to which a film is digitized), nor do they discuss 3D conversion more generally.
`
`Without any discussion whatsoever about depth or 3D conversion, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art could not possibly have recognized that the inventor of the
`
`‘081 Patent or ‘670 Patent had possession of the depth-related invention of the
`
`‘793 Patent when those older patents were filed. Since “color” and “depth” are
`
`distinct concepts, as discussed above, nothing in the disclosures of the ‘081 or ‘670
`
`Patents would have indicated to a person of ordinary skill in the art to think about
`
`depth or 3D conversion when reading those patents.
`
`41. Comparing the specifications of the ‘081, ‘670, and ‘793 Patents, it
`
`can be seen that a substantial amount of new information was added going from
`
`
`
`15
`
`PRIME FOCUS EX 1009-16
`PRIME FOCUS v LEGEND3D
`
`
`
`
`
`the older ‘081 and ‘670 Patents to the ‘793 Patent. See Exs. 1014 and 1015. This
`
`new information actually teaches how to use the method of the ‘793 Patent for
`
`purposes of 3D conversion. Only after all of this new matter related to 3D
`
`conversion was added could a person of ordinary skill the art recognize that the
`
`inventor had possession of the depth-related invention claimed in the ‘793 Patent.
`
`42.
`
`I understand that, since the ‘793 Patent cannot claim priority to the
`
`‘081 Patent or the ‘670 Patent, both the ‘081 Patent and the ‘670 Patent qualify at
`
`least as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) prior art against the ‘793 patent.
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 7,573,475
`(“Sullivan”) and U.S. Patent
`Application No. 12/341,992 (“Passmore”)
`
`43. There are several approaches to converting a single 2D image into a
`
`pair of complementary images that appear 3D. One such method is to rebuild the
`
`3D geometry of a scene with a computer, project the original image onto it, and
`
`render the two different points of view. U.S. Patent No. 7,573,475 to Sullivan
`
`(“Sullivan”) embodies such a technique. I understand that Sullivan qualifies at
`
`least as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) prior art against the ‘793 patent.
`
`44. Another method of 3D conversion involves shifting pixels
`
`horizontally. A visual artist can simply slide pixels left and right within an image
`
`so that an object appears as it would to each eye if the object were at a particular
`
`distance from the viewer. U.S. Patent Application No. 12/341,992 (“Passmore”)
`
`
`
`16
`
`PRIME FOCUS EX 1009-17
`PRIME FOCUS v LEGEND3D
`
`
`
`
`
`embodies one such approach. I understand that Passmore qualifies at least as pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) prior art against the ‘793 patent.
`
`C. Combining/Modifying References
`
`45. There is substantial motivation to combine/modify the ‘081 Patent
`
`with Passmore or Sullivan, the ‘670 Patent with Passmore or Sullivan, the ‘081
`
`Patent with the ‘670 Patent and Passmore, and the ‘081 Patent with the ‘670 Patent
`
`and Sullivan.
`
`46. All of these publications are in the same field of endeavor—image
`
`analysis and image enhancement. The ‘793 Patent expressly states as such:
`
`“related to the field of image analysis and image enhancement.” See Ex. 1001,
`
`‘793 Patent at col. 1 l. 19-21. The ‘793 Patent therefore admits that it falls within
`
`the same field of endeavor as the ‘081 and ‘670 Patents based on their patent
`
`classification. The ‘793 Patent is also clearly within the same field of endeavor as
`
`Passmore and Sullivan since they all teach methods of 3D conversion. All of these
`
`references may therefore be considered analogous art because they are all within
`
`the same field of endeavor.
`
`47. The teachings of the ‘081 and ‘670 Patents are extremely pertinent to
`
`the particular problem addressed in the ‘793 Patent. The ‘793 Patent shares the
`
`majority of its disclosure with the ‘081 and ‘670 Patents, acknowledging that the
`
`older patents are pertinent to the ‘793 Patent. Passmore and Sullivan, which teach
`
`
`
`17
`
`PRIME FOCUS EX 1009-18
`PRIME FOCUS v LEGEND3D
`
`
`
`
`
`how to convert images into 3D, are also clearly pertinent to the particular problem
`
`with which the inventor of the ‘793 Patent was involved because they all relate to
`
`the same problem—3D conversion. Again, all of these references may be
`
`considered analogous art because they are all pertinent to the particular problem
`
`addressed by the inventor of the ‘793 Patent.
`
`48. The Passmore and Sullivan prior art references contain teachings,
`
`suggestions, and motivations that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`modify either or both the ‘670 or ‘081 Patents to arrive at the challenged ‘793
`
`Patent. For example, Passmore states:
`
`Embodiments of the [3D-related] invention may use pre-
`existing digital masks that exist for movies. One such
`source of digital masks is movies that have been
`colorized. Colorized movies generally utilize digital
`masks that are either raster or vector based areas that
`define portions of a movie where a palette of color is to
`be applied. As these masks generally define human
`observable objects that also are associated by the human
`mind at a given depth, these masks may be utilized by
`embodiments of the invention to augment the depth of an
`image. The enormous effort of generating masks for an
`entire movie may thus be leveraged.
`
`Ex. 1005, Passmore at ¶ 48. These strong market forces—i.e., the benefit in
`
`leveraging substantial amounts of previous manual labor—would have prompted
`
`the variation of the methods of the ‘670 and ‘081 Patents (which would have
`
`produced a large number of masks during the colorization process) for use in 3D
`
`conversion with predictable results. All that is required is the simple substitution
`
`
`
`18
`
`PRIME FOCUS EX 1009-19
`PRIME FOCUS v LEGEND3D
`
`
`
`
`
`of one known element from Passmore or Sullivan—depth—for another element
`
`from the ‘670 or ‘081 Patents—color—to obtain predictable results.
`
`49.
`
`I am familiar with Business Wire as a periodical that publishes press
`
`releases. Business Wire is a reliable authority with respect to press release news
`
`about individual companies. To the extent that I am interested in learning about a
`
`development at a particular company in my field, the press releases published by
`
`Business Wire are potentially one suitable source for such information. I am
`
`informed that Business Wire published a press release in 2008 wherein Barry
`
`Sandrew, the sole inventor of the ‘081, ‘670, and ‘793 Patents, stated: “The process
`
`of converting existing 2D feature films and television episodes into 3D content is a
`
`logical extension of Legend[3D]’s ground-breaking digital colorization process.”
`
`Ex. 1007 at p. 3. Mr. Sandrew’s statement shows that there was a well-known
`
`motivation to leverage the colorization processes of the ‘081 and ‘670 Patents for
`
`the purposes of 3D conversion. Mr. Sandrew’s statement therefore further
`
`supports my own opinion that the pivot from the colorization methods found in the
`
`‘081 and ‘670 patents to the 3D conversion methods found in the ‘793 Patent
`
`would have been obvious at the time the ‘793 Patent was filed.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`PRIME FOCUS EX 1009-20
`PRIME FOCUS v LEGEND3D
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1, 2, AND 7 THROUGH 12 ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER THE ‘081 PATENT IN VIEW OF PASSMORE.
`
`A. Claim 1
`
`50. Comparing Claim 1 of the ‘081 Patent to Claim 1 of the ‘793 Patent, it
`
`can be seen that there are only two differences. First, Claim 1 of the challenged
`
`‘793 Patent expressly claims “using a computer” to perform the final step of the
`
`process. The process of the ‘081 Patent, however, is described throughout as being
`
`performed using a computer and it would be entirely impractical (if even possible)
`
`to carry out the process otherwise. See, e.g., Ex. 1003, ‘081 Patent at Abstract
`
`(“computer controlled application of masks”). The ‘081 Patent therefore discloses
`
`the limitation of “using a computer” to apply depth parameters.
`
`51. The only other difference between Claims 1 of the ‘081 and ‘670
`
`Patent is that the ‘081 Patent claims setting a “color” parameter instead of a
`
`“depth” parameter.
`
`52. Claim 1 of the ‘081 Patent (and also Claim 1 of ‘793 Patent) recites:
`
`“obtaining a composite background comprising said plurality of images wherein
`
`said composite background excludes a set of motion objects moving in relation to
`
`said common background elements; setting at least one depth parameter associated
`
`with a region within said composite background . . . .” The specification of the
`
`‘081 Patent makes it clear that this composite background is itself an image:
`
`
`
`20
`
`PRIME FOCUS EX 1009-21
`PRIME FOCUS v LEGEND3D
`
`
`
`
`
`“Stationary foreground and background elements in a plurality of sequential
`
`images comprising a camera pan are combined and fitted together using a
`
`series of phase correlation, image fitting and focal length estimation
`
`techniques to create a composite single frame that represents the series of
`
`images used in its construction. During the process of this construction the
`
`motion elements are removed through operator adjusted global placement of
`
`overlapping sequential frames.
`
`The single background image representing the series of camera pan images
`
`is color designed using multiple color transform look up tables limited only
`
`by the number of pixels in the display. This allows the designer to include as
`
`much detail as desired including air brushing of mask information and other
`
`mask application techniques that provide maximum creative expression.
`
`Once the background color design is completed the mask information is
`
`transferred automatically to all the frames that were used to create the single
`
`composited image.” ‘081 Patent at col. 2 l. 40-58.
`
`Similarly, the ‘081 Patent later states:
`
`“All frames in the scene are then processed automatically to create