UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`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
`___________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,907,793
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1 
`
`STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ........................................................ 1 
`
`A.  Notice of Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ........... 1 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`H. 
`
`Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .................... 1 
`
`Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8(b)(3)) ................................................................................. 2 
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) .............................. 2 
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ......................................... 3 
`
`Certification of Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(a)) .................................................................................. 3 
`
`Certification of Word Count ........................................................ 3 
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ................... 3 
`
`III.  OVERVIEW OF THE ‘793 PATENT ................................................... 4 
`
`IV.  THE PRIOR ART ................................................................................... 9 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`The ‘670 and ‘081 Patents ........................................................... 9 
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,573,475 (“Sullivan”) and U.S. Patent
`Application No. 12/341,992 (“Passmore”) ................................ 12 
`
`C. 
`
`Combining/Modifying References ............................................. 15 
`
`V. 
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................. 18 
`
`VI.  GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1, 2, AND 7 THROUGH 12 ARE
`OBVIOUS OVER THE ‘081 PATENT IN VIEW OF
`PASSMORE. ........................................................................................ 19 
`
`A. 
`
`Claim 1 ....................................................................................... 19 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`B. 
`
`B.
`
`C. 
`
`C.
`
`D. 
`
`D.
`
`E. 
`
`E.
`
`F. 
`
`F.
`
`G. 
`
`G.
`
`H. 
`
`H.
`
`Claim 2 ....................................................................................... 21 
`
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... .. 21
`
`Claim 7 ....................................................................................... 25 
`
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... .. 25
`
`Claim 8 ....................................................................................... 26 
`
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... .. 26
`
`Claim 9 ....................................................................................... 27 
`
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... .. 27
`
`Claim 10 ..................................................................................... 27 
`
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... .. 27
`
`Claim 11 ..................................................................................... 28 
`
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... .. 28
`
`Claim 12 ..................................................................................... 28 
`
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... .. 28
`
`VII.
`
`GROUND 2: CLAIMS 3 THROUGH 6 ARE OBVIOUS
`
`VII.  GROUND 2: CLAIMS 3 THROUGH 6 ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER THE ‘081 PATENT IN VIEW OF SULLIVAN. ..................... 29 
`
`OVER THE ‘081 PATENT IN VIEW OF SULLIVAN .................... .. 29
`
`A. 
`
`A.
`
`B. 
`
`B.
`
`C. 
`
`C.
`
`D. 
`
`D.
`
`Claim 3 ....................................................................................... 29 
`
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... .. 29
`
`Claim 4 ....................................................................................... 32 
`
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... .. 32
`
`Claim 5 ....................................................................................... 33 
`
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... .. 33
`
`Claim 6 ....................................................................................... 33 
`
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... .. 33
`
`VIII.
`
`VIII.  GROUND 3: CLAIMS 13, 14, AND 19 ARE OBVIOUS
`GROUND 3: CLAIMS 13, 14, AND 19 ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER THE ‘670 PATENT IN VIEW OF PASSMORE. .................... 34 
`OVER THE ‘670 PATENT IN VIEW OF PASSMORE ................... .. 34
`
`A. 
`
`A.
`
`B. 
`
`B.
`
`C. 
`
`C.
`
`Claim 13 ..................................................................................... 34 
`
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... .. 34
`
`Claim 14 ..................................................................................... 36 
`
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... .. 36
`
`Claim 19 ..................................................................................... 37 
`
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... .. 37
`
`GROUND 4: CLAIMS 15 THROUGH 18 ARE OBVIOUS
`
`IX.  GROUND 4: CLAIMS 15 THROUGH 18 ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER THE ‘670 PATENT IN VIEW OF SULLIVAN. ..................... 37 
`
`OVER THE ‘670 PATENT IN VIEW OF SULLIVAN .................... .. 37
`
`A. 
`
`A.
`
`B. 
`
`B.
`
`C. 
`
`C.
`
`Claim 15 ..................................................................................... 37 
`
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... .. 37
`
`Claim 16 ..................................................................................... 38 
`
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... .. 38
`
`Claim 17 ..................................................................................... 38 
`
`Claim 17 ................................................................................... .. 38
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`D. 
`
`D.
`
`Claim 18 ..................................................................................... 39 
`
`Claim 18 ................................................................................... .. 39
`
`X.
`
`GROUND 5: CLAIM 20 IS OBVIOUS OVER THE ‘O81
`
`PATENT IN VIEW OF THE ‘67O PATENT AND FURTHER
`
`X.  GROUND 5: CLAIM 20 IS OBVIOUS OVER THE ‘081
`PATENT IN VIEW OF THE ‘670 PATENT AND FURTHER
`IN VIEW OF PASSMORE. ................................................................. 39 
`
`IN VIEW OF PASSMORE. ............................................................... .. 39
`
`XI.  GROUND 6: CLAIMS 1, 2, AND 7 THROUGH 12 ARE
`XI. GROUND 6: CLAIMS 1, 2, AND 7 THROUGH 12 ARE
`OBVIOUS OVER THE ‘081 PATENT IN VIEW OF
`OBVIOUS OVER THE ‘O81 PATENT IN VIEW OF
`SULLIVAN. ......................................................................................... 42 
`
`SULLIVAN. ....................................................................................... .. 42
`
`A. 
`
`A.
`
`B. 
`
`B.
`
`C. 
`
`C.
`
`D. 
`D.
`
`E. 
`
`E.
`
`Claim 1 ....................................................................................... 42 
`
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... .. 42
`
`Claim 2 ....................................................................................... 43 
`
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... .. 43
`
`Claim 7 ....................................................................................... 44 
`
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... .. 44
`
`Claims 8 through 12 ................................................................... 45 
`Claims 8 through 12 ................................................................. .. 45
`
`Ground 6 and Ground 1 are not redundant. ............................... 46 
`
`Ground 6 and Ground 1 are not redundant. ............................. .. 46
`
`XII.  GROUND 7: CLAIMS 13, 14, AND 19 ARE OBVIOUS
`XII. GROUND 7: CLAIMS 13, 14, AND 19 ARE OBVIOUS
`OVER THE ‘670 PATENT IN VIEW OF SULLIVAN. ..................... 46 
`
`OVER THE ‘670 PATENT IN VIEW OF SULLIVAN .................... .. 46
`
`A. 
`
`A.
`
`B. 
`
`B.
`
`C. 
`
`C.
`
`Claim 13 ..................................................................................... 46 
`
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... .. 46
`
`Claim 14 ..................................................................................... 48 
`
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... .. 48
`
`Claim 19 ..................................................................................... 48 
`
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... .. 48
`
`D.  Ground 7 and Ground 3 are not redundant. ............................... 49 
`
`Ground 7 and Ground 3 are not redundant. ............................. .. 49
`
`D.
`
`XIII. GROUND 8: CLAIM 20 IS OBVIOUS OVER THE ‘O81
`
`PATENT IN VIEW OF THE ‘67O PATENT AND FURTHER
`
`XIII.  GROUND 8: CLAIM 20 IS OBVIOUS OVER THE ‘081
`PATENT IN VIEW OF THE ‘670 PATENT AND FURTHER
`IN VIEW OF SULLIVAN. .................................................................. 49 
`
`IN VIEW OF SULLIVAN. ................................................................ .. 49
`
`XIV.  CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 53 
`
`XIV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................. .. 53
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`iii
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................... 15
`
`In re Chu,
`66 F.3d 292 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ................................................................... 12
`
`KSR Intern. Col. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ......................................................................... 16, 17
`
`Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................... 12
`
`National Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Ry., Ltd.,
`357 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................... 18
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ............................................................................................. 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 .......................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) ..........................................................................................1, 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ............................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ............................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ............................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .......................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,907,793 (“the ‘793 Patent”)
`
`File History for the ‘793 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,181,081 (“the ‘081 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,333,670 (“the ‘670 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/241,992 (“Passmore”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,573,475 (“Sullivan”)
`
`Declaration of Rob S. Schmitt from Business Wire, Inc. attaching:
`
` Exhibit 1: “Legend Films Successfully Raise $5 Million in
`Venture Capital Funding” (press release)
`
` Exhibit 2: “‘Night of the Living Dead’ to Be Released in Color
`and 3D” (press release)
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. David Forsyth
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. David Forsyth
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,577,312
`
`Article: “How do 3D films work?”, available at
`
`Book excerpt: Rendering Techniques 2001, edited by Steven J. Gortler
`and Karol Myszkowski (2001)
`
`Article: Matt Sullivan, Trick and Treat: Behind the Scenes of the New
`Nightmare Before Christmas and the 3D Movie Revolution, Popular
`Mechanics, available at
`http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/a3607/4200796/.
`
`Redline of specification from ‘081 Patent to ‘793 Patent
`
`Redline of specification from ‘670 Patent to ‘793 Patent
`
`v
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq. and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.,
`
`Petitioner Prime Focus Creative Services Canada Inc. (“Prime Focus” or
`
`“Petitioner”) respectfully requests that the Board institute inter partes review and
`
`cancel claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,907,793 (“the 793 Patent,” Ex. 1001). The
`
`‘793 Patent is owned by Legend3D, Inc. (“Legend” or “Patent Owner”). The ‘793
`
`Patent is in the field of image analysis and image enhancement. This petition
`
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is
`
`not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of prior art patents, patent
`
`applications, and printed publications. Prime Focus therefore respectfully requests
`
`that the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (the “Board”) institute inter partes review
`
`of the ‘793 Patent.
`
`II.
`
`STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
`A. Notice of Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`Petitioner Prime Focus Creative Services Canada Inc. is a wholly owned
`
`subsidiary of Prime Focus World N.V. which is ultimately in turn majority owned
`
`by Indian public company Prime Focus Limited.
`
`B. Notice of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ‘793 Patent was originally asserted against Petitioner by Patent Owner
`
`as Counterclaim Two in Prime Focus Creative Services Canada Inc. v. Legend3D,
`
`Inc., No. 2:15-cv-2340-MWF-PLA (C.D. Cal.) (Docket No. 61) (Apr. 21, 2016).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`That counterclaim is still outstanding but is currently subject to a motion to
`
`dismiss. See id. at Docket No. 66 (May 2, 2016). Related to that District Court
`
`litigation, Legend3D filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate
`
`the patent asserted by Prime Focus against Legend3D in that case, U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,922,628; that petition is outstanding. Legend3D, Inc. v. Prime Focus Creative
`
`Services Canada Inc., No. IPR2016-00806 (PTAB Mar. 28, 2016). There are no
`
`other judicial or administrative matters that would affect or be affected by a
`
`decision in this proceeding.
`
`C. Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Lead Counsel: Joshua Glucoft, Reg. No. 67,696 (CA Bar No. 301249)
`
`Backup Counsel: Jonathan Kagan, Pro Hac Vice motion forthcoming (CA Bar No.
`
`166039)
`
`Contact information for both Lead and Backup Counsel is as follows:
`
`Irell & Manella LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Fax: (310) 203-7199
`
`D.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead counsel at the address above.
`
`Petitioner also consents to email service at: PrimeFocusIPR@irell.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`E.
`
`Payment of Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`The Office is authorized to charge Deposit Account No. 09-0946 for any
`
`fees required for this Petition or any other required fees, including the fee set forth
`
`in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a). Please reference Docket No. 163190-0002.
`
`F. Certification of Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘793 patent is eligible for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review of
`
`the challenged claims of the ‘793 patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`G. Certification of Word Count
`
`Petitioner certifies that the word count in this Petition is 11,608 words, as
`
`counted by the word-processing program used to generate this Petition, where such
`
`word count excludes the table of contents, table of authorities, grounds for standing
`
`under § 42.104, mandatory notices, certificate of service, exhibit list, and this word
`
`count.
`
`H.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests institution of inter partes review and
`
`cancellation of all claims (1-20) of the ‘793 patent based on the following grounds:
`
` Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, and 7 through 12 are obvious over the ‘081
`
`Patent in view of Passmore.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
` Ground 2: Claims 3 through 6 are obvious over the ‘081 Patent in
`
`view of Sullivan.
`
` Ground 3: Claims 13, 14, and 19 are obvious over the ‘670 patent in
`
`view of Passmore.
`
` Ground 4: Claims 15 through 18 are obvious over the ‘670 patent in
`
`view of Sullivan.
`
` Ground 5: Claim 20 is obvious over the ‘081 patent in view of the
`
`‘670 patent and further in view of Passmore.
`
` Ground 6: Claims 1, 2, and 7 through 12 are obvious over the ‘081
`
`Patent in view of Sullivan.
`
` Ground 7: Claims 13, 14, and 19 are obvious over the ‘670 Patent in
`
`view of Sullivan.
`
` Ground 8: Claim 20 is obvious over the ‘081 Patent in view of the
`
`‘670 Patent and further in view of Sullivan.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘793 PATENT
`Adding visual effects to a single image may be relatively straightforward,
`
`but the challenge is magnified greatly when trying to add effects to a sequence of
`
`images. Specifically, it can be difficult to ensure consistency across a large
`
`number of frames within an image sequence. For example, when adding color to a
`
`black-and-white movie, a red ball in a first frame must be the same red in all
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`subsequent frames, which can be both difficult and laborious. As such, a number
`
`of techniques in the field of image enhancement are directed to processes that can
`
`help quickly add visual effects to images en masse in a consistent manner
`
`throughout. An example of one such technique is the ‘793 Patent, the subject of
`
`this petition.
`
`The ‘793 Patent is directed to converting movies from 2D to 3D more
`
`efficiently. There are a number of methods to convert movies into 3D discussed in
`
`more detail below, but a visual effects artist often begins the conversion process by
`
`determining the depth of each object in the image relative to the camera; for
`
`example, in the following image of a horse jumping, the visual artist could begin
`
`by deciding that the horse is 10 feet away and that the barn in the background is
`
`100 feet away:
`
`A computer can then use that information to manipulate the image to appear three-
`
`dimensional. 3D conversion processes are discussed in more detail below, but for
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`now it is sufficient to understand that the purpose of the ‘793 Patent is to help with
`
`that initial determination of the depth of objects in an image sequence. See Ex.
`
`1001, ‘793 Patent at col. 1 l. 21-25.
`
`To illustrate the process of the ‘793 Patent by way of example, consider the
`
`complete image sequence of the horse jumping:
`
`
`
`In one embodiment of the ‘793 Patent, the process begins by recognizing that all of
`
`these images are a single sequence and contain common background elements,
`
`such as the barn in the background. See Ex. 1001, ‘793 Patent at col. 34 l. 60-61.
`
`As the horse moves relative to these common background elements, 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, namely the jumping horse:
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`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; for example, the barn in the
`
`background might be said to be 100 feet away. See id. at col. 34 l. 66-67. The
`
`artist then returns to the original set of images and can apply that same depth to the
`
`barn in all of the images (or at least one of the images in the original sequence, as
`
`claimed). 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.
`
`
`
`The other main embodiment of the ‘793 Patent has a similar purpose but
`
`focuses on the motion object in the foreground (the jumping horse in this example)
`
`rather than the background elements (e.g., the barn in this example). This
`
`embodiment begins by creating a “mask” of the motion object in the foreground, as
`
`illustrated by the red mask layered on the horse in the first frame here:
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`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, as
`
`illustrated here:
`
`
`
`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 frame. See id. at col. 36 l. 3-6. With
`
`this method, the horse consistently appears to be 10 feet away throughout the
`
`8
`
`scene.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IV. THE PRIOR ART
`A. The ‘670 and ‘081 Patents
`
`The ‘793 Patent is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent No. 7,577,312,
`
`which is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 7,333,670 (Ex. 1004, “the ‘670 Patent”),
`
`which is a divisional of U.S. Patent No. 7,181,081 (Ex. 1003, “the ‘081 Patent”).
`
`The following table compares Claim 1 of the oldest patent in the family, the ‘081
`
`Patent, to Claim 1 of the challenged ‘793 Patent, with the only differences
`
`highlighted in yellow and magenta below:
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘081 Patent
`(Ex. 1003)
`A method for modifying a set of time
`ordered digital images comprising:
`
`Claim 1 of the Challenged ‘793 Patent
`(Ex. 1001)
`A method for modifying a set of time
`ordered digital images comprising:
`
`associating a plurality of images
`comprising common background
`elements;
`
`associating a plurality of images
`comprising common background
`elements;
`
`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;
`
`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 color parameter
`associated with a region within said
`composite background
`
`setting at least one depth parameter
`associated with a region within said
`composite background;
`
`applying said at least one color
`parameter to at least one image selected
`from said plurality of images.
`
`applying said at least one depth
`parameter to at least one image selected
`from said plurality of images using a
`computer.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`There are two differences between the claims. First, the ‘793 Patent is expressly
`
`limited to a computer (highlighted in magenta). And second, the ‘081 Patent
`
`claims a “color” parameter while the ‘793 Patent claims a “depth” parameter. A
`
`“color” parameter and a “depth” parameter are, of course, very different. See Ex.
`
`1009, Dr. Forsyth Decl. at ¶ 39. A “color” parameter relates to the visible hue of
`
`an object while a “depth” parameter relates to the perceived distance of an object
`
`from the camera—entirely distinct, non-overlapping concepts. See Ex. 1009, Dr.
`
`Forsyth Decl. at ¶ 39. This difference is what made the claims patentably distinct
`
`in the first place.
`
`Notably, all of the patents in the ‘793 Patent’s family history relate to color;
`
`nowhere in any of those patents is there any discussion about depth or even 2D-to-
`
`3D conversion more broadly. In fact, the only instance of the word “depth” in any
`
`of the family history is with respect to “bit depth,” which deals with image
`
`resolution and data storage rather than depth in the sense of 3D conversion. See
`
`Ex. 1010, U.S. Patent No. 7,577,312 at col. 3 l. 56 (only instance of the word
`
`“depth” in the context of “bit depth”); Ex. 1004, ‘670 Patent at col. 3 l. 65 (same);
`
`Ex. 1003, ‘081 Patent at col. 6 l. 54 (same). Given this complete lack of disclosure
`
`of depth anywhere in the family history and the material difference between
`
`“color” parameters and “depth” parameters, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`could not possibly have recognized that the inventor of the ‘081 Patent or ‘670
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent had possession of the depth-related invention of the ‘793 Patent when those
`
`earlier patents were filed. See Ex. 1009, Dr. Forsyth Decl. at ¶¶ 40-41.
`
`By contrast to the older ‘081 and ‘670 Patents that relate to colorization, the
`
`‘793 Patent relates only to 3D conversion. See Ex. 1001, col. 34 l. 66 (independent
`
`Claim 1), col. 36 l. 3 (independent Claim 13), and col 36. l. 33 (independent Claim
`
`20) (all independent claims reciting the step of “setting at least one depth
`
`parameter” (emphasis added)). In order to arrive at the 3D-related invention of the
`
`‘793 Patent, a substantial amount of new matter dealing only with the 3D
`
`conversion process was added to the ‘081 Patent’s specification, including almost
`
`30 new drawings. See Exhibit 1014 (redline of specification from ‘081 Patent to
`
`‘793 Patent) and Exhibit 1015 (redline of specification from ‘670 Patent to ‘793
`
`Patent). 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. See Ex. 1009, Dr.
`
`Forsyth Decl. at ¶¶ 40-41. The impact of this new matter was clear even to the
`
`applicant: The patent was filed as a continuation-in-part, not a continuation. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1002 at p. 3.
`
`The result is that the ‘793 Patent cannot actually claim priority to any of the
`
`patents in its family history and none of the claims of the challenged ‘793 Patent
`
`are entitled to a priority date earlier than its filing of August 17, 2009. See
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
`
`(“Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not
`
`disclosed . . . . It extends only to that which is disclosed. . . . [A]ll the limitations
`
`must appear in the specification. The question is not whether a claimed invention is
`
`an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification. Rather, a prior
`
`application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one
`
`skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed
`
`invention as of the filing date sought.”). Therefore, the ‘670 Patent (published
`
`August 3, 2006) and the ‘081 Patent (published November 14, 2002) are both prior
`
`art to the challenged ‘793 Patent, which was not filed until August 17, 2009. See
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b); In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 296-97 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`
`(relying on older patent family members as prior art to a continuation-in-part). As
`
`previewed above and discussed in more detail below, the ‘670 and ‘081 Patents are
`
`very similar to the challenged ‘793 Patent and serve as highly targeted primary
`
`references.
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 7,573,475 (“Sullivan”) and U.S. Patent
`Application No. 12/341,992 (“Passmore”)
`
`In order to create the illusion of depth from 2D pictures, a person
`
`simultaneously looks at a pair of two slightly different 2D images: one image seen
`
`only by the left eye and one slightly different, complementary image seen only by
`
`the right eye. Ex. 1011 at p. 1-2 (showing how glasses may be used to present a
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`unique image to each eye). The two images are nearly identical except that, as an
`
`object moves closer to the viewer, the object increasingly appears to shift towards
`
`the midline of the viewer relative to the background; that is, a closer object appears
`
`to move to the right of the left eye’s view and to the left of the right eye’s view.
`
`These two different images may be captured simultaneously by two cameras
`
`placed right next to each other, similar to how two human eyes are arranged.
`
`However, it can be very difficult to physically coordinate two cameras in such a
`
`precise manner, and therefore sometimes it is easier to capture only a single 2D
`
`photo of a scene and manipulate it to create the complementary image. Similarly,
`
`most older movies were originally captured only in 2D, and for those movies,
`
`therefore, the complementary image must necessarily be generated from scratch
`
`because there is no second camera image available.
`
`There are several approaches to creating that second, complementary image
`
`in order to convert movies from 2D into 3D. One such method is to actually
`
`rebuild the 3D geometry of a scene with a computer, project the original image
`
`onto it, and render the two different points of view—essentially the digital analogy
`
`to the way that Disney creates the famous singing busts in its Haunted Mansion.
`
`See Ex. 1012 at p. 91.1 This approach has been well known in the art for many
`
`1 Some videos that are helpful to understanding the analogy drawn herein
`
`can be found at http://projection-mapping.org/the-history-of-projection-mapping/.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`years; for example, back in 2006, George Lucas’s company Industrial Light and
`
`Magic (ILM) used this approach to convert Tim Burton’s “The Nightmare Before
`
`Christmas.” See Ex. 1013 at p. 1. The process was aptly described by Popular
`
`Mechanics: “[ILM] had to create computer-generated proxies of every character
`
`and set. ILM . . . was able to project the digitized original version directly onto
`
`these new CG ‘mannequins,’ then swing the digital camera over a few inches for
`
`the right eye’s brand-new perspective.” Id. ILM was the assignee of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,573,475 to Sullivan et al. (“Sullivan,” Exhibit 1006), which embodies such a
`
`technique and claims a method that comprises “projecting at least a portion of a
`
`first 2D image comprising image information onto computer-generated geometry .
`
`. . .” Ex. 1006, Sullivan, at col. 17 l. 14-15.
`
`Another method of 3D conversion involves directly shifting individual
`
`pixels horizontally. As discussed above, objects appear to increasingly shift
`
`towards the midline of the viewer relative to the background as they get closer.
`
`Accordingly, 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,”
`
`Exhibit 1005) embodies one such approach. Ex. 1005, Passmore at Abstract.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`C. Combining/Modifying References
`
`There is an overwhelming motivation to combine/modify either, or both, the
`
`‘670 and ‘081 Patents with either Passmore or Sullivan. See Ex. 1009, Dr. Forsyth
`
`Decl. at ¶¶ 45-49. To begin, the ‘793 Patent admits that it is in the same field of
`
`endeavor as the ‘081 and ‘670 Patents. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004) (prior art is analogous if it “is from the same field of endeavor”); see
`
`also Ex. 1009, Dr. Forsyth Decl. at ¶ 46. The ‘793 Patent states that its invention
`
`is “related to the field of image analysis and image enhancement, (suggested class
`
`of 382, subclass 254),” which is the exact same primary classification for the ‘081
`
`and ‘670 Patents. Compare Ex. 1001, ‘793 Patent at col. 1 l. 19-21, with Ex. 1004,
`
`‘670 Patent at title page l. 52 and Ex. 1003, ‘081 Patent at title page l. 52. The
`
`‘793 Patent therefore admits that