UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OLYMPUS CORPORATION, OLYMPUS CORPORATION OF THE
`AMERICAS, and OLYMPUS AMERICA INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`MAXELL LTD., formerly known as HITACHI MAXELL, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE: IPR2018-00904
`Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,339,493
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`June 20, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B) ............................ 2 
`A.
`Real Party in Interest ............................................................................ 2 
`B.
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... 2 
`1.
`The ’493 Patent .......................................................................... 2 
`a.
`Lawsuits ........................................................................... 2 
`b.
`Patent Office Proceedings ............................................... 2 
`Related Patents and Applications............................................... 3 
`a.
`Lawsuits ........................................................................... 3 
`b.
`Patent Office Proceedings ............................................... 5 
`C. Notice of Counsel and Service Information ......................................... 5 
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR ......................................................................... 6 
`A.
`Standing ................................................................................................ 6 
`B.
`Identification of Challenge ................................................................... 6 
`1.
`Claims Challenged ..................................................................... 6 
`2.
`The Prior Art .............................................................................. 7 
`3.
`Fee for IPR (§ 42.15(a)) ............................................................. 8 
`4.
`Supporting Evidence .................................................................. 8 
`5.
`Statutory Grounds ...................................................................... 8 
`6.
`How Claims Are Unpatentable .................................................. 9 
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’493 PATENT ........................................................... 9 
`A.
`Priority Date ......................................................................................... 9 
`B.
`State of the Art Before the ’493 Patent ................................................ 9 
`C.
`Summary of the ’493 Patent ............................................................... 10 
`D.
`’493 Patent File History ..................................................................... 13 
`E.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 13 
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS .................................................. 14 
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`“signal processing unit” ..................................................................... 15 
`A.
`VI. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE ’493 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ................... 18 
`A.
`Identification and Overview of Prior Art References ........................ 18 
`1. Misawa ’482 (Ex.1005) ........................................................... 18 
`2. Misawa ’607 (Ex.1006) ........................................................... 21 
`3.
`Parulski ’218 (Ex.1007) ........................................................... 25 
`4. Watanabe ’236 (Ex.1008) ........................................................ 26 
`B. Motivation to Combine References ................................................... 28 
`C. Ground 1: Claims 1–9 Are Each Rendered Obvious by Misawa
`’482 and Misawa ’607. ....................................................................... 31 
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 31 
`2.
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 42 
`3.
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 42 
`4.
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 43 
`5.
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 46 
`6.
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 48 
`7.
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 48 
`8.
`Claims 8 and 9 .......................................................................... 49 
`D. Ground 2: Claims 10-14 Are Each Rendered Obvious by
`Misawa ’482, Misawa ’607, and Parulski ’218. ................................ 49 
`1.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 50 
`2.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 55 
`3.
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 55 
`4.
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 55 
`5.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 55 
`Ground 3: Claims 1–9 Are Each Rendered Obvious by Misawa
`’482 and Watanabe ’236. ................................................................... 56 
`
`E.
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 56 
`1.
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 66 
`2.
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 66 
`3.
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 67 
`4.
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 69 
`5.
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 70 
`6.
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 70 
`7.
`Claims 8 and 9 .......................................................................... 70 
`8.
`Ground 4: Claims 10-14 Are Each Rendered Obvious by
`Misawa ’482, Watanabe ’236, and Parulski ’218. ............................ 71 
`1.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 71 
`2.
`Claims 11–13 ........................................................................... 74 
`3.
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 74 
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 74 
`
`F.
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex.1001
`
`Ex.1002
`
`Ex.1003
`
`Ex.1004
`
`Ex.1005
`
`Ex.1006
`
`Ex.1007
`
`Ex.1008
`
`Ex.1009
`
`Ex.1010
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,339,493
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493 entitled Electric Camera, issued to
`Takahiro Nakano, Ryuji Nishimura, and Toshiro Kinugasa
`(“the ’493 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,059,177 entitled Electric Camera, issued to
`Takahiro Nakano, Ryuji Nishimura, and Toshiro Kinugasa
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,100,604 entitled Electric Camera, issued to
`Takahiro Nakano, Ryuji Nishimura, and Toshiro Kinugasa
`
`Declaration of Kenneth Parulski and Appendices
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,444,482 entitled Digital electronic camera for
`selectively recording a frame of still image and movie fields of
`image in a recording medium, issued to Takeshi Misawa and
`Takeshi Ohta (“Misawa ’482”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,700,607 entitled Image sensor driving method and
`electronic camera, issued to Takeshi Misawa (“Misawa ’607”)
`
`U.S. Patent No 6,292,218 entitled Electronic camera for initiating
`capture of still images while previewing motion images, issued to
`Kenneth A. Parulski and Timothy J. Tredwell (“Parulski ’218”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,529,236 entitled Digital camera for outputting
`digital image signals and image reproducing device connectable
`thereto, issued to Mikio Watanabe (“Watanabe ’236”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,990,947 entitled Photographing apparatus and
`lens position control device, issued to Tadashi Okino and Harunobu
`Ichinose (“Okino ’947”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,757,013 entitled Image Pickup Apparatus with
`Electronic and Optical Zoom, issued to Kazuhiro Matsuzaka
`(“Matsuzaka ’013”)
`
`Ex.1011
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication H3-117985
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex.1012
`
`Ex.1013
`
`Ex.1014
`
`Ex.1015
`
`Ex.1016
`
`Ex.1017
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,339,493
`
`entitled Method for Driving a Solid-State Image Pickup Element,
`filed by Yoshida Egawa and Yukio Endo (“Egawa ’985”), in
`Japanese with certified English translation
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,059,177
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,604
`
`Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Techs. Co., 5:16-cv-178, D.I. 175 (Claim
`Construction Order dated January 31, 2018)
`
`Excerpt of File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,765,616 (Office Action
`of November 26, 2003)
`
`As-filed specification for U.S. Patent Application No. 07/997,862
`(earliest U.S. benefit application to Okino ’947)
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,339,493
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`In re Translogic Tech. Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 14
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 29
`Microsoft Corp. v. IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd.,
`IPR2017-00898, 2017 WL 4012054 (PTAB Sept. 11, 2017) .............................. 3
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 29
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................... 14, 15
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................. 8, 18, 21, 25, 26
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................ 7, 8, 28
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...................................................................................... 13, 17, 37, 61
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ...................................................................................................... 1, 8
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .......................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .......................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .......................................................................................................... 6
`35 U.S.C. § 325 .......................................................................................................... 8
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................................................................... 2, 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 ....................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ................................................................................................... 6, 8
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,339,493
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73 ....................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ............................................................................................... 1, 14
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ..................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.102 ..................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ....................................................................................... 6, 8, 9, 17
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105 ..................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106 ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,339,493
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Olympus Corporation,
`
`Olympus Corporation of the Americas and Olympus America Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Petitioners” or “Olympus”) petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of Claims 1–
`
`5
`
`14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493 (“the ’493 Patent,” Ex.1001).
`
`The ’493 Patent claims a camera with a number of familiar features: video
`
`recording, still image capture, and a display for monitoring images when preparing
`
`a shot. To enable these features, the ’493 Patent uses an image sensor that can be
`
`controlled in different readout modes depending on whether a high-resolution
`
`10
`
`image is needed for still photography or a high frame rate is needed (with a lower
`
`resolution) for video recording or for composing still images using a display prior
`
`to capture. As set forth below, such image sensors and drive modes were well-
`
`known in the art as of the ’493 Patent’s January 2000 priority date, and others had
`
`already filed patents using similar sensors in still photography, video recording,
`
`15
`
`and viewfinder monitoring. Their combination in a single camera was simple,
`
`straightforward, and uninventive—in a word, obvious.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,339,493
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)
`A. Real Party in Interest
`Olympus Corporation, Olympus Corporation of the Americas and Olympus
`
`America Inc. are the only real parties in interest in filing this petition. No other
`
`5
`
`party has financed or controlled this petition (or had the opportunity to exercise
`
`control over this petition) or otherwise meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`312(a)(2).
`
`10
`
`15
`
`B. Related Matters
`1.
`The ’493 Patent
`a.
`Lawsuits
`The ’493 Patent is presently asserted against ZTE Corp. and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`in Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE Corp., 5:16-cv-179 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`There are no other pending litigations in which the ’493 Patent is asserted.
`
`b.
`Patent Office Proceedings
`ZTE Corp. petitioned for IPR of Claims 5 and 6 the ’493 Patent (IPR2018-
`
`00236). The petition was denied institution on June 1, 2018.
`
`Olympus has had no contact with ZTE Corp. in the preparation of either
`
`IPR2018-00236 or the instant petition. In contrast to IPR2018-00236, the instant
`
`petition challenges all claims of the ’493 Patent, and uses art and grounds that were
`
`20
`
`not presented by ZTE Corp. Moreover, the instant petition suffers from none of
`
`the deficiencies for which institution of IPR2018-00236 was denied. For these
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`reasons, Petitioners maintain that the Board should not deny institution based on 35
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,339,493
`
`U.S.C. §§ 314(a) or 315(d) because the same or substantially same prior art or
`
`arguments were not previously before the PTAB. See Microsoft Corp. v. IXI
`
`Mobile (R&D) Ltd., IPR2017-00898, 2017 WL 4012054, at *3, Paper 13 at 6-7
`
`5
`
`(PTAB Sept. 11, 2017) (refusing to exercise discretion under §§ 314(a) or 325(d)
`
`because petitioner was not party to previous proceeding for IPR of patent and
`
`because petition asserted obviousness in view of at least one reference not at issue
`
`in the previous proceeding).
`
`There are no other pending patent office proceedings involving the ’493
`
`10
`
`Patent.
`
`2.
`Related Patents and Applications
`The ’493 Patent claims the benefit of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,765,616 and
`
`8,059,177. In turn, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,736,729; 9,100,604; and 9,544,517; and U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 15/386,656 all claim the benefit of the ’493 Patent.
`
`15
`
`The ’493 Patent also purports by cross-reference to be related to U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,403,226. (Ex.1001 1:6-13.)
`
`a.
`Lawsuits
`Olympus Corp. and Olympus America, Inc. have filed for a declaratory
`
`judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,765,616 in Olympus Corp. v.
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Maxell, Ltd., C.A. No. 18-216 (D. Del.). The defendant in that action has
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,339,493
`
`counterclaimed for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,765,616.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,765,616; 8,059,177; and 9,100,604 are presently asserted
`
`against Olympus Corporation and Olympus America, Inc. in Maxell, Ltd. v.
`
`5
`
`Olympus Corp., C.A. No. 18-310 (D. Del.).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,736,729 is presently asserted against ZTE Corp. and ZTE
`
`(USA) Inc. in Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE Corp., 5:16-cv-179 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,403,226 and 9,544,517 are presently asserted against
`
`ASUS Computer Int’l, Inc. and ASUS Computer Inc. in Maxell, Ltd. v. ASUSTek
`
`10
`
`Computer Inc., 2:17-cv-7528 (C.D. Cal.).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,544,517 is also presently asserted against ZTE Corp. and
`
`ZTE (USA) Inc. in Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE Corp., 5:18-cv-34 (E.D. Tex.), and against
`
`Huawei Device Co., Ltd. and Huawei Device USA, Inc. in Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei
`
`Device Co., 5:18-cv-33 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`15
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,765,616 and 9,100,604 are presently asserted against
`
`BlackBerry Corp. and BlackBerry Ltd. in Maxell, Ltd. v. BlackBerry Corp., C.A.
`
`No. 17-1446 (D. Del.).
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,059,177 and 9,100,604 are presently asserted against
`
`BLU Products, Inc. in Maxell, Ltd. v. BLU Prods., Inc., 1:18-cv-21231 (S.D. Fla.).
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,339,493
`
`There are no other pending litigations in which a relative of the ’493 Patent
`
`is asserted.
`
`b. Patent Office Proceedings
`ZTE Corp. petitioned for IPR of Claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 8,736,729
`
`5
`
`(IPR2018-00238). The petition was denied institution on June 1, 2018.
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 15/386,656 is presently undergoing examination.
`
`Petitioners are contemporaneously filing petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 8,059,177 and 9,100,604.
`
`There are no other pending patent office proceedings involving a relative of
`
`10
`
`the ’493 Patent.
`
`C. Notice of Counsel and Service Information
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.8(b)(4) and 42.10(a), Petitioners
`
`appoint WILLIAM JAMES MCCABE (Reg. No. 33,536) as their lead counsel
`
`and MATTHEW J. MOFFA (Reg. No. 58,860) as their back-up counsel. Both
`
`15
`
`can be reached by mail at Perkins Coie LLP, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 22nd Floor,
`
`New York, NY, 10112; by phone at (212) 262-6900; by fax at (212) 977-1649; and
`
`at the following email for service and all communications:
`
`Olympus-Hitachi-Maxell-IPR@perkinscoie.com.
`
`Petitioners consent to electronic service. Petitioners have executed and are
`
`20
`
`concurrently filing a Power of Attorney appointing the above designated counsel.
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,339,493
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR
`This Petition complies with all statutory requirements and requirements
`
`under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104, 42.105 and 42.15 and thus should be accorded a filing
`
`date as the date of filing of this Petition pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.106.
`
`5
`
`A.
`Standing
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioners certify that the ’493 Patent is
`
`available for IPR and the Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting
`
`IPR of the ’493 Patent. Petitioners have standing, or meet all requirements, to file
`
`this Petition under 35 U.S.C. §§ 315(a)(1), 315(b), and 315(e)(1), and 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`10
`
`42.73(d)(1), 42.101, and 42.102.
`
`B.
`Identification of Challenge
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b) and 42.22, the precise relief requested by
`
`Petitioners is that the Board institute an IPR trial on Claims 1–14 of the ’493 Patent
`
`on all grounds presented herein and cancel those claims because they are invalid.
`
`15
`
`1.
`Claims Challenged
`Claims 1–14 of the ’493 Patent are challenged in this Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,339,493
`
`2.
`
`The Prior Art
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Grounds
`
`References
`
`Claims 1–9
`
`Claims 10–14
`
`Claims 1–9
`
`Pre-AIA
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`Pre-AIA
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Misawa ’482 and
`Misawa ’607
`Misawa ’482, Misawa ’607,
`and Parulski ’218
`
`Pre-AIA
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Misawa ’482 and
`Watanabe ’236
`
`Claims 10–14
`
`Pre-AIA
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Misawa ’482,
`Watanabe ’236, and
`Parulski ’218
`
`
`
`Full names of these prior art U.S. patent references are identified in the
`
`Exhibit List. None were on record during examination of the ’493 Patent. Notably,
`
`5
`
`on November 26, 2003 the examiner of parent U.S. Patent No. 6,765,616 identified
`
`Watanabe ’236 as “pertinent to applicant’s disclosure” during examination. (See
`
`Ex.1014 12.) Inexplicably, the applicant never identified Watanabe ’236 in an
`
`Information Disclosure Statement during examination of the ’493 Patent, even
`
`after the ’493 Patent was subjected to a double-patenting rejection over U.S. Patent
`
`10
`
`No. 6,765,616 in 2012. (See Ex 1012 128-135.)
`
`During examination of the ’493 Patent the applicant provided an Information
`
`Disclosure Statement citing inter alia a Japanese-language copy of Japanese Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Application JP-A-11-355665, to which Misawa ’607 claims priority. No
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,339,493
`
`translation was provided, although a translation of the application’s abstract (only)
`
`was provided during prosecution of related U.S. Patent No. 7,403,226. JP-A-11-
`
`355665 was never cited or relied upon during examination of the ’493 Patent or
`
`5
`
`any related patent.
`
`3.
`Fee for IPR (§ 42.15(a))
`Petitioners authorize the Director to charge any fees required by 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.15(a) and not submitted with the Petition to Deposit Account No. 50-0665,
`
`charge number 123955-0003.0002.
`
`10
`
`4.
`Supporting Evidence
`The Declaration of Kenneth Parulski (with appendices) and other evidence
`
`supporting the Petition are identified in the Exhibit List.
`
`5.
`Statutory Grounds
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2), the review of patentability of Claims
`
`15
`
`1–14 of the ’493 Patent is governed by 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 in effect before
`
`March 16, 2013. Statutory provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 325 that took
`
`effect on September 16, 2012 govern this IPR.
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,339,493
`6. How Claims Are Unpatentable
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4), Section VI of this Petition provides an
`
`explanation of how Claims 1–14 of the ’493 Patent are unpatentable, including the
`
`identification of where each element of each claim is found in the cited prior art.
`
`5
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’493 PATENT
`A.
`Priority Date
`The ’493 Patent purports to claim the benefit of Japanese Patent Application
`
`No. 2000-006064, filed January 11, 2000. For purposes of this Petition only it is
`
`assumed that the ’493 Patent is entitled to that date. All references herein are
`
`10
`
`effective before that date.
`
`B.
`State of the Art Before the ’493 Patent
`As set forth in the Declaration of Kenneth Parulski, well before 1999,
`
`electronic cameras having “megapixel” image sensors (e.g. image sensors with
`
`approximately 1280x960 pixels) and signal processing which generated image
`
`15
`
`signals having many fewer pixel lines than the image sensor, to match the
`
`requirements of an integrated image display on the camera, were very well known
`
`and widely sold in the market. (Ex.1004 ¶¶101-106, 111, 117-119, 130-131, 159-
`
`160.) Electronic cameras which included monitoring in a still image mode,
`
`recording in a still mode, and recording in a moving mode were also well known.
`
`20
`
`(Ex.1001 1:23-29, 2:5-9; Ex.1004 ¶¶83-84, 98-100, 119.) Various techniques for
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`mixing and culling pixel lines, to reduce the number of pixel lines extracted from
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,339,493
`
`the sensor and permit corresponding images to be displayed on lower resolution
`
`camera displays, or to be recorded as lower resolution still images or lower
`
`resolution (e.g. NTSC resolution) video signals, were also well known. (Ex.1004
`
`5
`
`¶¶52-56, 60-61, 70, 98-101, 105-106, 111-119, 130-139, 152-154, 159-167.)
`
`Finally, detecting image-instability and changing the pixel lines used and the
`
`portion of the pixel lines used to correct the image-instability were well known.
`
`(Ex.1001 1:51-2:11; Ex.1004 ¶¶84-86, 93-97, 119, 126-128.)
`
`C.
`Summary of the ’493 Patent
`The ’493 Patent describes a camera capable of capturing “highly detailed
`
`10
`
`still images” and “moving video” and providing an “image stabilizing function.”
`
`(Ex.1001 3:8-15.) The camera utilizes an image sensor containing N rows of
`
`pixels, where N is at least three times the number of effective scanning lines of a
`
`display screen. (Id. 3:16-22.)
`
`15
`
`According to the ’493 Patent, capturing satisfactory quality moving and
`
`static images from a single camera is difficult to achieve because typical image
`
`sensors in video cameras have an insufficient number of pixels for detailed still
`
`images, while typical image sensors in still cameras have an abundance of pixels
`
`which requires large circuits and provides reduced dynamic image quality. (Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`2:62-3:7.) The ’493 Patent purports to solve this problem by teaching an image
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,339,493
`
`sensor which can be controlled to produce different output signals.
`
`In a video capture mode, the image sensor can be controlled to mix or cull
`
`signal charges “accumulated in individual pixels of every K pixels” to produce an
`
`5
`
`output signal with a reduced number of lines, corresponding to the effective scan
`
`lines of a display. (Id. 3:22-31.) In a still capture mode, the image sensor can
`
`produce signals for all pixels in all rows. (Id. 8:51-58.) When monitoring the
`
`image composition to prepare for still image capture, the sensor can be driven to
`
`mix or cull signal charges to produce a reduced number of lines for display. (Id.
`
`10
`
`7:31-8:7.) To perform image stabilization, the camera can extract a reduced area
`
`from the sensor, the position of which is shifted to compensate for the amount and
`
`direction of any detected instability. (Id. 7:9-26.)
`
`Independent Claim 1 recites an “electric camera” having an image sensor, a
`
`signal processing unit, and a display unit. (Id. 15:57-16:16.) When preparing to
`
`15
`
`record a static (i.e. still) image, the signal processing unit controls the sensor to
`
`mix or cull signal charges and provide pixel lines at an interval K1 to facilitate
`
`monitoring of the composition of the static image to be recorded. (Id. 16:1-5.)
`
`When recording the static image, the signal processing unit controls the sensor to
`
`provide the signal charge from every image sensor row. (Id. 16:12-16.) When
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`recording a moving image, the signal processing unit controls the sensor to mix or
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,339,493
`
`cull signal charges and provide pixel lines at an interval K2. (Id. 16:6-11.)
`
`Independent Claim 5 describes this mixing or culling of signal charges in
`
`terms of pixel lines (rows) “separated from one another” by intervals of a specified
`
`5
`
`“distance.” (Id. 16:47-60.) Pixel rows are mixed or culled to produce image
`
`signals from pixel lines separated “by intervals of a first distance” when
`
`monitoring a static image to be captured. (Id. 16:47-52.) Rows are mixed or
`
`culled to produce image signals from pixel lines separated by intervals of a
`
`“second distance” when recording a moving video. (Id. 16:53-60.)
`
`10
`
`Independent Claim 10 recites a method for operating an electric camera and
`
`parallels the language of claim 5, and further specifies that, in a static image mode,
`
`“recording” and “monitoring” operations are selected “from a list.” (Id. 17:24-28.)
`
`While all independent claims include the limitation “a display unit with a
`
`display screen,” a display is not depicted in any of the figures nor described in the
`
`15
`
`specification.
`
`Dependent claims 4, 6, and 11 specify that, in the moving video mode,
`
`image signals are generated from only “part” of the mixed or culled signal charges,
`
`where the location of the “part” is changed based on the output of an image
`
`instability detector. (Id. 16:26-31; 16:65-17:3; 18:16-23.)
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,339,493
`
`D.
`’493 Patent File History
`Application serial no. 12/845,266, which became the ’493 Patent, was filed
`
`on July 28, 2010, as a continuation of a divisional of application serial no.
`
`09/520,836, filed March 8, 2000. (Ex.1012 (File History of ’493 Patent) 73.)
`
`5
`
`On March 14, 2012, original claims 6 and 12 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, first paragraph for lack of enablement, and as invalid for double patenting
`
`over parent U.S. Patent No. 6,765,616 in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,746 to
`
`Hijishiri et al. (Id. 128-135.)
`
`On July 16, 2012, the applicant amended the claims to correct informalities
`
`10
`
`and to cancel claims 6 and 12. (Id. 144-150.) The applicant also filed a terminal
`
`disclaimer over U.S. Patent No. 6,765,616. (Id. 175.) The application was allowed
`
`with an examiner’s amendment to correct antecedent basis in the claims. (Id. 179-
`
`188.)
`
`E.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the earliest effective filing
`
`15
`
`date of the ’493 Patent (assumed for purposes of this petition to be January 11,
`
`2000) (“POSITA”) would possess at least a working knowledge of digital image
`
`acquisition devices, such as digital still or video cameras, and would understand
`
`how to specify the image sensor design (including control and readout) required
`
`20
`
`for a particular device. (Ex.1004 ¶41.) The person would have an undergraduate
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Bachelor degree in Electrical or Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or an
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,339,493
`
`equivalent degree, and at least two years of professional experience working in the
`
`field of digital image acquisition devices. (Ex.1004 ¶41.) Furthermore, the person
`
`would be familiar with the structure and operating principles of common image
`
`5
`
`sensors (including e.g. CCD image sensors), contemporary television and video
`
`standards (including e.g. NTSC) and specifications of consumer digital cameras of
`
`the time. (Ex.1004 ¶41.)
`
`V.
`
`PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`The Board presently gives a claim in an unexpired patent “its broadest
`
`10
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears” to a POSITA. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation (“BRI”) standard, claim terms are given their “ordinary and
`
`customary meaning” as would be understood by a POSITA in the context of the
`
`entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`15
`
`2007). However, Petitioners anticipate that a regulatory change may require the
`
`PTAB to instead construe terms even in an unexpired patent under the standard in
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 8,339,493
`
`Whether under the BRI or Phillips standard, the term “signal processing unit”
`
`should be construed as follows within the claims of the ’493 Patent1, and all other
`
`claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.2