`
`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
`
`IPR2016-01243
`___________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`IN OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ....................................................... 2
`
`PRIORITY DATE OF THE ‘793 PATENT .......................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Legend admitted during prosecution that the ‘793 Patent
`cannot claim priority to the ‘670 or ‘081 Patents. ....................... 5
`
`Legend’s claim construction is so broad that the
`‘081/’670 Patents do not contain sufficient written
`description to support the claims of the ‘793 Patent. ................... 7
`
`A proper claim construction of “depth parameter”
`confirms that the ‘793 Patent represents a break in the
`chain of priority. ......................................................................... 10
`
`III. CLAIMS 4-6 AND 16-18 ..................................................................... 21
`
`IV.
`
`INEQUITABLE CONDUCT ............................................................... 24
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Legend knew about the Passmore application but did not
`tell the USPTO about it. ............................................................. 24
`
`Legend intentionally deceived the USPTO so that Legend
`could steal ownership of disputed patent rights. ........................ 25
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Other Authorities
`
`MPEP § 1122 III ...................................................................................................................7, 8
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`CORRECTED DECLARATION of David Forsyth, Ph.D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,577,312
`Article: “How do 3D firms work?” available at
`http//www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=56
`
`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
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Jonathan Kagan in Support of Prime Focus Creative
`Services Canada Inc.'s Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,488,868
`
`Liang Zhang & Wa James Tam, Stereoscopic Image Generation Based
`on Depth Images for 3D TV, 51 IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting 191
`(2005)
`
`Color Figures for U.S. Patent No. 9,286,941 (previously filed by Patent
`Owner as Exhibit 2003 in IPR2016-01491)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,897,596
`
`File History for Ex. 1005, U.S. Patent Application No. 12/241,992
`(“Passmore”)
`
`Georgia Superior Court Complaint by N4D, LLC against Charles
`Gregory Passmore a/k/a Greg Passmore, et al. (filed as Docket No. 28-5
`in N4D, LLC v. Legend3D, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-02656-BEN-NLS
`(S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2014))
`
`Declaration Authenticating Exs. 1022, 1027, and 1028 (filed as Docket
`No. 28-3 in N4D, LLC v. Legend3D, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-02656-
`BEN-NLS (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2014))
`
`Complaint by N4D, LLC against Legend3D, Inc., et al. (Docket No. 9,
`Case No. 3:13-cv-02656-BEN-NLS (S.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2013))
`
`Article: “Master of conversions: Legend3D’s Barry Sandrew goes
`deep,” Film Journal International, available at
`http://www.filmjournal.com/content/master-conversions-
`legend3d%E2%80%99s-barry-sandrew-goes-deep, including
`authenticating declaration
`
`Docket No. 20-1, N4D, LLC v. Legend3D, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-
`02656-BEN-NLS (S.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2014)
`
`Docket No. 28-6, N4D, LLC v. Legend3D, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-
`02656-BEN-NLS (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2014)
`
`Docket No. 28-4, N4D, LLC v. Legend3D, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-
`02656-BEN-NLS (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2014)
`
`iv
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Docket No. 42, N4D, LLC v. Legend3D, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-02656-
`BEN-NLS (S.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2014)
`
`Deposition Transcript of Carlos Vazquez (4/6/2017) in IPR2016-00806
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,286,941
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,984,072 (“Sandrew”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,649,032 (“Burt”)
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034 Michal Irani et al., “Efficient Representations of Video Sequences and
`Their Applications,” 8 Signal Processing: Image Communication 327
`(1996), attaching purchase receipt (“Irani ‘96”)
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`Higher resolution figures taken from:
`http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.53.4382&rep=rep1&type=pdf
`
`7/6/2016 Non-Final Rejection of U.S. Patent No. 9,286,941 (Ex. 1031)
`
`Francesca Odone et al., “Robust Motion Segmentation for Content-
`based Video Coding,” 1 RIAO2000 Content-based Multimedia
`Information Access 594 (2000), attaching purchase receipt (“Odone”)
`
`Higher resolution figures taken from:
`http://www.diegm.uniud.it/fusiello/papers/riao00.pdf
`
`1037
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,157,747 (“Szeliski”)
`
`1038 Michael Irani & P. Anandan, “Video Indexing Based on Mosaic
`Representations,” 86 Proceedings of the IEEE 905 (1998), attaching
`purchase receipt (“Irani ’98)
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`
`
`
`
`Frank Nielsen, “Randomized Adaptive Algorithms for Mosaicing
`Systems,” 83 IEICE Transactions on Information Systems 1386 (2000)
`(“Nielsen”)
`
`Deposition Transcript of Carlos Vazquez (5/22-5/23)
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner (“Prime Focus”) respectfully submits this Reply in opposition to
`
`Patent Owner’s (“Legend”) Response (Paper 36). Prime Focus certifies that this
`
`Reply contains 5,487 words as counted by Microsoft Word, excluding the title
`
`page, tables of contents and authorities, exhibit list, signature block, this word
`
`count, and certificate of service. Unless noted, all emphasis is added.
`
`I.
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`In order to create a 3D viewing experience based on 2D images, a viewer
`
`simultaneously looks at a pair of two slightly different 2D images: one image seen
`
`only by the left eye and one image seen only by the right eye. Ex. 2005 at 1:39-43.
`
`The disparity between these images (i.e., the relative difference in position of an
`
`object when viewed from two different perspectives) creates a perception of 3D
`
`depth. Ex. 2005 at 1:22-30 and 11:16-18. The following graphic illustrates the
`
`common method of using polarized glasses to provide such a 3D viewing
`
`experience:
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The two complementary 2D images (a “stereoscopic” pair) may be captured
`
`simultaneously by two cameras placed right next to each other, similar to how two
`
`human eyes are arranged. Ex. 2005 at 2:13-21. However, older movies were
`
`originally shot by only one camera, so for those movies, a second, complementary
`
`image must be generated from scratch because there is no second camera image
`
`available. See id. at 2:22-25.
`
`To create complementary images from scratch, pixels in the original image
`
`are carefully shifted left or right. The closer an object is to the viewer, the more
`
`the pixels representing that object appear 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. Ex. 2005 at 15:19-35.
`
`The prior art teaches a two-step process to determine exactly how much to
`
`shift the pixels in order to create the 3D scene. First, “each pixel is assigned a
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`depth vaalue repressenting disstance to thhe viewer, eeither relattive or abs
`
`
`
`olute” (Exx.
`
`
`
`away, 10 ffeet
`
`
`
`1017 at 1:56-57); in other wwords, objeccts are deteermined too be 5 feet
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`away, etc. Secondd, those deepth valuess are plugg
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ed into a foformula thaat determinnes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`how muuch pixels mmust be shhifted in orrder to makke it appearr as if the oobject is thhat
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`distancee away. Exx. 1017 at 1:48-53. EExhibit 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18 teachess standard ppixel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`image (xl)
`displaceement formmulas for thhe left eye
`) and right
`
`e (xr):
`eye image
`
`
`
`
`
`of the objeect
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`is xc, the de
`where thhe pixel’s location inn the originnal image i
`epth value
`
`
`
`is Z, andd the otherr variables are relatedd to the virtrtual camerra setup. EExhibit 10118 at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`p. 193.
`
`
`
`PRIORITYY DATE OOF THE ‘7793 PATEENT
`
`
`
`allenged ‘7793
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P T
`
`
`
`The validityy of (at leaast) Claims 1-3, 7-15,, and 19-200 of the ch
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent aall hinge onn a single ddispute bettween the pparties aboout priorityy date. Thee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`challengged ‘793 PPatent is a ccontinuatioon-in-part oof U.S. Pattent No. 7,,333,670 (EEx.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1004, “tthe ‘670 Paatent”), whhich is a diivisional off U.S. Pateent No. 7,1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`81,081 (Exx.
`
`
`
`1003, “tthe ‘081 Paatent”). Thhe Petitionn asserts thhat there is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`priority between thhe ‘670/‘0081 Patentss and the chhallenged
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a break in
`
`the chain
`
`of
`
`
`
`‘793 Patennt. If priorrity
`
`
`
`
`
`does noot attach, thhen these CClaims are invalid beccause Legeend has offffered no otther
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`argumennt to overccome the coombinationns of refereences set oout in the PPetition. SeSee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 36 (“Responnse”) at p. 19-21.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Legeend admittted duringg prosecuution that
`Patents.
`
`
`claimm priority to the ‘67
`0 or ‘081 P
`
`
`
`the ‘793 PPatent cannnot
`
`
`
`
`
` When the ‘793 Patennt applicatiion was filled, Josephh Mayo—fformer leadd
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a non-pubcounsell for Legennd in this IPPR—filed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`lication reqquest certi
`
`fying that
`
`the
`
`
`in an appl
`inventioon was not disclosed
`
`
`
`
`
`ication fileed under a
`
`
`
`multilateraal
`
`
`
`internattional agreeement thatt requires ppublicationn at eighteeen months
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 10002, ‘793 Paatent File HHistory at pp. 1. But thhe ‘081 Paatent was thhe subject
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`after filingg:
`
`
`
`of a
`
`. See, e.g.
`
`,
`
`
`
`PCT application requiring puublication at eighteenn months aafter filing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 10003, ‘081 Paatent at Titlle Page. TThe non-puublication rrequest therrefore
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`certifiedd that the ‘793 Patentt cannot cl
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`aim prioritty to the ‘0081 Patent
`
`
`
`or its
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`effectivvely identiccal divisionnal, the ‘6770 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OOddly, the ‘793 Patennt applicantt still tried d to claim ppriority to tthe ‘081
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1002
`Patent.
`at p. 2. In
`
`the initial
`
`
`
`Filing Recceipt, the UUSPTO waarned abouut
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the incoonsistency between thhe certificaation in thee non-publ
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claim too priority oof a PCT appplication:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ication reqquest and thhe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 10002 at p. 1299-30. Legeend did nott, howeverr, rescind thhe non-pubblication
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`request when it filled additional materiaals. Ex. 10002 at p. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`34-77. In
`
`the Filing
`
`
`
`Receiptt directed too those addditional maaterials, th
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e USPTO
`
`
`
`again warnned Legen
`
`d to
`
`
`
`rescind its non-puublication rrequest if LLegend inteended to cllaim prioriity. Ex. 10002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at p. 1800-81. Legend still diid not resciind its nonn-publicatioon request,, and the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Examinner proceedded to cite prior art reeferences thhat have a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`priority daate well aftfter
`
`
`
`
`
`the ‘0811 Patent—iin recognittion of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`certified bbreak in priiority. Seee Ex. 1002
`
`
`
`
`
`at
`
`
`
`p. 189. Legend neever rescinnded its non-publicatiion requesst, and the aapplicationn
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`was in ffact not published unntil it issuedd. See gennerally Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1002 (filee history
`
`
`
`containiing no resccission).
`
`
`
`
`
`LLegend’s ceertificationn that the ‘7793 Patentt cannot claaim prioritty to its alleeged
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`parents make sensse in contexxt. As bacckground, tthe ‘793 Paatent was ffiled as a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`continuation-in-part that added a huge amount of new material that Legend admits
`
`is “related to 2D to 3D conversion [and which] the ‘793 Parent Patents do not
`
`include.” Paper 12 at p. 20. And the issued claims are effectively verbatim
`
`identical to those claims that were originally applied for, since the patent issued
`
`without rejection. Compare Ex. 1002 at 56-58 (original claims in application),
`
`with Ex. 1001 at 34:57-36:51 (substantially identical issued claims). Why would
`
`anyone add all this new matter but not claim any of it even from the start? Of
`
`course the new claims were directed to the newly added matter, otherwise there
`
`would be no reason to add it.
`
`In short, Legend certified that the ‘793 Patent could not claim priority to the
`
`‘081/’670 Patents. Legend must be held to its unequivocal representation to the
`
`USPTO that Legend maintained despite multiple warnings and which Legend
`
`never withdrew as required by MPEP § 1122 III if indeed it were erroneous
`
`(“While applicant cannot undo the fact that an improper certification was made,
`
`any applicant who has made such a mistake should promptly file a rescission of the
`
`nonpublication request and note that the original certification was improper.”).
`
`B.
`
`Legend’s claim construction is so broad that the ‘081/’670 Patents
`do not contain sufficient written description to support the claims
`of the ‘793 Patent.
`
`Legend’s current construction of the term “depth parameter” is a “parameter
`
`that provides a perceived depth.” Response at p. 3. Legend’s Response discusses
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at lengthh how satuuration andd luminance can be ussed to creaate haze annd shadowss
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that purrportedly create the pperception oof depth; ththerefore, LLegend arggues,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`saturatioon and lumminance quualify as “ddepth parammeters.” SSee generallly Responnse
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at Sectioons III-IV.. Legend tthen goes oon to arguee that the ‘0081/’670 PPatents disccuss
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`creatingg shadows and lightinng by modiifying satuuration andd luminanc
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`e, so the
`
`
`
`purporteed parents provide suupport for tthe claime
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`d “depth pparameter”
`
`
`
`found in tthe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘793 Paatent. See iid. at Section VI.
`
`
`
`TThe gaping hole in thiis argumennt, howeveer, is that, uunder Legeend’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`construcction of thee term “depth parameeter,” saturration and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`luminancee are not thhe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`only deppth parameeters:
`
`
`
`There are
`Response at p. 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`admittedlyy “parametters” otherr than saturration and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`luminannce that woould qualiffy as “depthh parameteers” under
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Legend’s
`
`
`
`constructioon
`
`
`
`of the teerm, and saaturation aand luminannce are on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ly “exampple[s].” Seee id.; see aalso,
`
`
`
`e.g., Exx. 1040 at 1134:9-11 (LLegend’s eexpert admmitting that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`exhausttive list of everythingg that couldd be a paraameter usedd to create
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`he “cannoot make an
`
`
`
`a perceiveed
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`depth”)
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`One example of something other than saturation and luminance that qualifies
`
`as a “depth parameter” under Legend’s construction of the term is disparity, as
`
`Legend’s expert Mr. Vazquez admitted. Ex. 1040 at 119:23-24 (“Disparity could
`
`be seen as a depth parameter.”). Disparity is by definition the result of comparing
`
`two complementary, stereoscopic images. Ex. 2005 at 1:22-30 and 11:16-18
`
`(definition of “disparity”). Nowhere in the ‘081/’670 Patents is there any
`
`discussion about disparity or stereoscopic image pairs—those terms are never ever
`
`even used. Neither the Response nor Mr. Vazquez ever suggest otherwise. In fact,
`
`Legend admitted that the ‘081/’670 Patents do not include any information about
`
`the stereoscopic image pairs required to produce disparity:
`
`[T]he ‘793 Patent specification includes subject matter related
`to 2D to 3D conversion that the ‘793 Parent Patents do not
`include, this subject matter . . . .
`
` . . Rather, the filing date for this subject matter of creating
`stereoscopic views . . . .”
`
` .
`
`Paper 12 at p. 20.
`
`Moreover, disparity is not the only “depth parameter” beyond saturation and
`
`luminance under Legend’s claim construction. According to Legend’s expert Mr.
`
`Vazquez, the “size of known objects” and hue are also potential depth parameters,
`
`and there “could be” other depth parameters as well. Ex. 1040 at 133:22-134:11.
`
`But again, neither the Response nor Mr. Vazquez ever point to any teachings in the
`
`‘081/’670 Patents to support the argument that there is any description by which a
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`POSITA could recognize that the inventor of those patents had possession of the
`
`broad “depth parameter”-related invention of the ‘793 Patent.
`
`In short, Legend’s construction of a “depth parameter” is broad enough to
`
`include parameters other than saturation and luminance, but Legend’s Response
`
`and Mr. Vazquez only argue that the ‘081/’670 Patents suggest how saturation and
`
`luminance can be used as depth parameters. Legend has failed to make any
`
`showing at all regarding sufficient written description to justify priority for claims
`
`directed to such broad “depth parameters.”
`
`C. A proper claim construction of “depth parameter” confirms that
`the ‘793 Patent represents a break in the chain of priority.
`
`Legend’s construction of the term “depth parameter,” discussed in the
`
`previous section, is completely untethered to the facts. The specification of the
`
`‘793 Patent unequivocally leads to a different construction of the term than that
`
`proposed by Legend.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FFigures 42-70 (all of wwhich were newly addded in thee ‘793 Pateent) detail tthe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3D convversion of a 2D imagge of a mann holding aa floating oorb. See, ee.g., Figuree 42:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In Figurre 56,1 we can see froom a bird’ss eye vieww that the viisual effec
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ts artist haas
`
`
`
`placed tthe orb outt in front inn virtual sppace, behinnd that is thhe man’s aarm, behindd
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that is thhe man’s hhead, and bbehind thatt is the bacckground:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 All color figuress are taken from the ccorrespondding figuress filed by LLegend as
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`
`
`
`2003 in thhe related IIPR2016-01491. Seee Ex. 1019
`
`
`
`
`
`at p. 49.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The speecification contains sccreenshotss of the sofftware interrface used
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by a visuaal
`
`
`
`effects aartist to arrrange thesee objects inn 3D spacee, and withhin a groupp of controlls
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`called ““Layer Deppth” there iis an optionn to translaate objectss like the spphere in thhe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“Z” direection:
`
`
`
`Ex. 10001 at Fig. 54 (croppedd; red circles added).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` In describbing these
`
`
`
`Figures annd
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the settiing of the ZZ location of the spheere, the ‘7993 Patent sstates that tthe proces
`
`
`
`
`
`s
`
`
`
`shows tthe “depth assigned too the crysttal ball.” EEx. 1001 att 33:13; seee also id. aat
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8 (similar
`33:15-1
`
`
`disclosuree).
`
`
`
`AAs these Figgures illustrate, the ‘‘793 Patennt uniformlly and rep
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`eatedly
`
`
`
`describees “depth”” as correspsponding too a three-ddimensionaal positionn coordinaate of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`objects. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at:
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` “
`
`
`
`
`Key M-Obbject 18a mmay be assiigned a deppth of 32 ffeet from thhe camera
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`apture poinnt while KKey M-Objeect 18c maay be assiggned a deptth of 28 feeet
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`c f
`
`
`
`rrom the caamera captuure point.” (16:6-8);
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` “
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`n assigned a[T]he jackket and persson’s face have been
`
`
`
`thhat is in frront of the backgrounnd.” (32:5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and
`
`a Z-dimen
`
`
`
`sion or depepth
`
`6-58).
`
`
`
`As expllained in thhe Technollogy Backgground aboove, the puurpose of arrranging
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`objects in virtual sspace by asssigning a depth (Z) tto them is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to determiine how muuch
`
`
`
`
`
`the pixeels represennting the oobjects in thhe originall image neeed to be diisplaced in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`order too create 3DD stereoscopic image pairs that mmake it loook like thee objects arre at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the speccified distaance:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DDr. Forsythh testified thhat a “deptth parametter” in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`context of f the ‘793
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent is “the deptth of the rooot coordinnate systemm of a shappe.” Ex. 20012 at 169
`
`
`
`
`
`:9-
`
`
`
`12 (see errata on pp. 272). As he statedd in his decclaration, “
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`if an artist
`
`
`
`determinees
`
`that the
`
`
`center of aa sphere is
`
` three feet
`
`away, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[location oof the] cennter (a deptth
`
`
`
`parametter) can bee used to deetermine thhe precise ddepth valuues associatted with alll
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the poinnts on that sphere.” EEx. 1009 att ¶ 57. Us
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ing the samme Figure
`
`54 of the ‘
`
`793
`
`
`
`Patent aas an exammple, the Z coordinatee corresponnds to the llocation off the centerr of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the spheere (i.e. thee depth parrameter), aand the deppth value oof each speccific point
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on
`
`
`
`the spheere is simpply calculatted based ooff the locaation of thee center:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 10001 at Fig. 54 (croppedd; red circles added).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` There is nno ability iin the conttrol
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`panel too set the deepth value oof each inddividual pooint on the
`
`
`
`
`
`need to be since thhat would bbe inefficieent; the arttist simplyy positions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sphere, noor does theere
`
`
`
`the center
`
`of
`
`
`
`the spheere. The bottom line is that, in the ‘793 PPatent, “deppth” meanns the distaance
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of an obbject (see,
`e.g., Ex. 1
`
`
`
`
`001 at 16:66-8 (“a deppth of 32 ffeet”)), andd a “depth
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`parametter” is just a parametter that conntains distaance informmation for t
`the object.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NNot once dooes the ‘7993 Patent taalk about aa “depth paarameter,”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“depth
`
`
`
`value,” or “depth”” as the maanipulationn of saturattion or lumminance vallues. Nor ddoes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`broad as aanything thhat
`
`
`
`
`
`end nor itss expert pooint
`
`
`
`
`
`the ‘7933 Patent evver suggestt that a “deepth parammeter” is as
`
`
`
`
`
`merely creates a pperceived ddepth. Thaat is why ne
`either Leg
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`to any disclosure in the ‘793 Patent specification to support their claim
`
`construction. See Response at p. 3 (pointing only to its expert declaration at Ex.
`
`2024 to support claim construction); Ex. 2024 at ¶¶ 43-44 (Mr. Vazquez providing
`
`a claim construction without citation to any specific portion of the ‘793 Patent
`
`specification).
`
`Interestingly, in the related IPR of a continuation-in-part of the ‘793 Patent,
`
`Legend demanded that claim terms used “across the family of related patents in the
`
`genealogy . . . be construed uniformly across the family so that the same claim
`
`term in the same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning.”
`
`IPR2016-01491, Paper No. 16 at p. 15. Mr. Vazquez admitted that he did not
`
`review any continuations or CIPs of the ‘793 Patent in arriving at his claim
`
`construction. Ex. 1040 at 178:4-14. Had Mr. Vazquez reviewed other patents in
`
`the family, he would have noticed that at least one of the continuations-in-part of
`
`the ‘793 Patent expressly disclaims the construction of “depth parameter” that he
`
`has proposed, where it states: “smoke, haze or fog, etc., with no depth
`
`information.” Ex. 1020 at 45:21-23. Remember, Legend argues that saturation is
`
`a “depth parameter” because it can create haze, which purportedly provides a
`
`perceived depth (see, e.g., Response at p. 4-5); how can saturation be a “depth
`
`parameter” when a member of the ‘793 Patent family states that haze has no depth
`
`information?
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LLegend’s cllaim constrruction maakes no sennse and, as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` a result, LLegend cannnot
`
`
`
`
`
`keep itss story straiight. In itss Preliminaary Responnse, Legendd proposedd a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`construcction of thee term “depth parameeter” as simmply “a paarameter thhat affects
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`depth”:
`
`
`
`
`Paper 1
`
`
`
`2 at p. 29. But “deptth” in the ‘
`
`
`
`793 Patentt is, withouut questionn, a measurre of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` e.g., ‘793
`the distaance of objjects. See,
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Patent, Exx. 1001 at
`
`16:6-8 (“a
`
`
`
`depth of 332
`
`
`
`feet”) annd 32:56-558 (“Z-dimmension or depth”); seee also Ex
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. 1040 at 772:24-73:2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Legendd’s expert aadmitting tthat “depthh is referriing to the ddistance, aa hypothetiical
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`distancee between the camerra and an oobject in thhe scene”)). So Legeend changeed its
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`proposeed claim coonstructionn in its formmal Responnse to incluude the woord
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“perceivved”:
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 36 at p. 3. TThat materrial changee in propossed claim cconstructioon is indicaative
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the faact that Legend’s claim construuction is noot tethered
`
`
`
`
`
`to the actuual
`
`
`
`specificcation, as aa patent owwner shouldd not need
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to change
`
`
`
`its own deefinition off a
`
`
`
`term.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Legend’s shifting story with respect to the related claim term “depth value”
`
`
`
`is another example of how baseless Legend’s construction is. Claim 14 of the ‘793
`
`Patent states that “setting said at least one depth parameter comprises selecting a
`
`numeric depth value.” Legend’s expert, Mr. Carlos Vazquez, is a co-inventor of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,488,868, which was filed around the same time as the ‘793
`
`Patent. See Ex. 1017 at Title Page. Mr. Vazquez’s patent defined “depth value” as
`
`follows:
`
`a depth value represent[s] distance to the viewer,
`either relative or absolute. Alternatively, the depth value
`of a pixel may be understood as the distance of the point
`of the three-dimensional scene … from a reference plane
`…
`
`Ex. 1017 at 1:56-62. Mr. Vazquez reaffirmed his understanding that a “depth
`
`value” is a distance in his deposition in the related matter IPR2016-00806:
`
`Q: Are you aware of any other definitions of depth value
`[other than as provided in the ‘868 Patent that Mr.
`Vazquez co-invented, quoted above]?
`
`A: I cannot say now a definition, but to me, the value is
`anything that is providing an information of position in
`the depth dimension.
`
`…
`
`Q. Is the depth dimension a third dimension?
`
`A. . . . [T]he depth dimension is a third dimension in
`opposition to X and Y, which is two dimensional space.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1030 at 24:12-25:9 (objeections ommitted); see
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`generally
`
`
`
`id. at 22:112-24:9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(similarr admissionn regardingg “depth vaalue”). Buut of coursee, nowheree in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘081/’6770 Patents is there anny discussiion of a “deepth valuee” or distannce of obje
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cts,
`
`
`
`and neitther Mr. VVazquez norr Legend ccan point too any suchh disclosuree. See, e.gg.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 10440 at 80:14-81:10 (In his “compplete” answwer to the qquestion “wwhere in thhe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘081 Paatent does iit discuss thhe virtual pposition off the objectts in the sccene?” Mr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Vazquez did not ccite a singlee teaching..). So in o
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`rder to maaintain a claaim of
`
`
`
`
`
`priority, Mr. Vazqquez had too change h
`
`
`
`
`
`is story in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this IPR, wwhere he cclaimed in hhis
`
`
`
`declarattion that a “depth vallue” in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`context off the ‘793 PPatent actuually includdes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“values for saturattion and/orr luminancce”:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 20224 at ¶ 51. When connfronted wiith this appparent disccrepancy att his
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`depositiion, Mr. Vazquez chaanged his sstory back::
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A: ……[S]ince thhe ‘793 Paatent is conncerned witth
`
`
`enhanncing the ddepth perceeption or thhe converssion2 of 2DD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to 3DD video, I wwould undeerstand, orr a person oof general
`
`
`
`would undderstand deepth valuee to mean
`
`skillss in the art
`
`
`
`
`
`the reelative possition betwween objectts in the deepth
`
`
`
`
`
`dimeension in thhe scene, aas perceiveed by the vviewer.
`
`…
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 See errata.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Q: And is that depth value in Claim 2 of the ‘793 Patent
`the same depth value as found in the Patent on which you
`are a co-inventor?
`
`A: I think that that depth value is not necessarily – is not
`inconsistent with that definition.
`
`…
`
`Q: … In both of those cases, is a depth value some
`reference to distance?
`
`A: I would say, both cases make reference to a given
`distance, yes.
`
`Ex. 1040 at 68:16-21, 145:22-146:2, and 148:17-20. Mr. Vazquez cannot be
`
`trusted, and his declaration is just another example of how Legend’s claim
`
`construction is built on nothing.
`
`
`
`The term “depth parameter” is only used once outside of the claims of the
`
`‘793 Patent, and the context makes clear that Legend’s construction is
`
`unreasonably overbroad. The ‘793 Patent states:
`
`FIG. 69 shows an anaglyph of the final depth enhanced
`second and last image frame viewable with Red/Blue 3-
`D glasses, note rotation of person's head, movement of
`person's hand and movement of crystal ball. The original
`two-dimensional image is now shown in three-
`dimensions as the masks have been moved/reshaped
`using the mask tracking/reshaping as described above
`and applying depth information to the masks in this
`subsequent frame from an image sequence. As described
`above, the operations for applying the depth parameter
`to a subsequent frame is performed using a general
`purpose computer having a central processing unit
`(CPU), memory, bus situated between the CPU and
`memory for example.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at 34:36-48. The only time the ‘793 Patent actually uses the term “depth
`
`parameter,” it does so in explaining the process of creating 3D stereoscopic image
`
`pairs, which are created by arranging objects at various depths in 3D space.
`
`Legend seeks a construction that would allow a “depth parameter” to apply to
`
`anything that can potentially be used to create a perceived depth, even changes in
`
`color within a single 2D image, despite the fact that the terms “depth parameter,”
`
`“depth value,” or “depth” are never offered in any such context. Legend’s
`
`construction is simply not grounded in the facts. A “depth parameter” in the
`
`context of the ‘793 Patent corresponds to three-dimensional positioning of objects
`
`in the scene, which is simply not taught by the ‘081/’670 Patents.
`
`III. CLAIMS 4-6 AND 16-18
`With respect to only Claims 4-6 and 16-18, Legend argues that the asserted
`
`references do not teach the claim limitations. But the asserted references,
`
`including Sullivan, do indeed teach the claim limitations. As background, the ‘793
`
`Patent teaches the use of various “three-dimensional geometric depth shapes,” such
`
`as generic heads, to recreate a 2D scene in virtual 3D, as shown, for example, in
`
`Figure 59:
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ze of thesee
`
`
`
`ging the si, and changg, rotating,translating6-18 recite Claims 4-6 and 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`three-diimensionall geometricc depth shaapes so thaat they actuually align with the 22D
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`image thhey are tryying to recrreate.
`
`
`
`PPrior art Suullivan doess the exactt same thinng. Sullivaan teaches
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that “Imagge
`
`
`
`operatioons can incclude imagge rotation, image scaaling, and iimage repoositioning.””
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 10006 at 4:66-667. As Dr.. Forsyth teestified at hhis deposittion, whenn the imagee is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`rotated, scaled, or repositionned, the corrrespondinng three-dimmensional
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`geometricc
`
`
`
`depth shhapes are nnecessarilyy rotated, sccaled, or reepositionedd (respectiively) withh
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`respect to the imagge. Ex. 20021 at