Paper No. 31
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 9,538,152
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S ORAL HEARING DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 9,538,152
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S ORAL HEARING DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 9,538,152
`
`
`
`In accordance with the Order - Oral Hearing (Paper 29), Patent Owner
`
`Corephotonics, Ltd. hereby files its oral hearing demonstrative exhibits.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` / Neil A. Rubin /
`
`Reza Mirzaie
`Reg. No. 69,138
`Neil A. Rubin
`Reg. No. 67,030
`Marc A. Fenster
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`Russ August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Fl.
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`Fax: (310) 826-6991
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`nrubin@raklaw.com
`mfenster@raklaw.com
`corephotonics@raklaw.com
`
`Dated: October 3, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 9,538,152
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(1))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above document was served on
`
`October 3, 2019, by filing this document through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`End to End System as well as delivering a copy via electronic mail upon the
`
`following attorneys of record for the Petitioner:
`
`David W. O’Brien
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Hong Shi
`Michael Parsons
`Philip W. Woo
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`david.obrien.ipr@haynesboone.com
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`hong.shi.ipr@haynesboone.com
`michael.parsons.ipr@haynesboone.com
`philip.woo.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`Date: October 3, 2019
`
` / Neil A. Rubin /
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Fl.
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`(310) 826-7474
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reza Mirzaie
`Reg. No. 69,138
`Neil A. Rubin
`Reg. No. 67,030
`Marc A. Fenster
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01133
`Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,538,152
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE 1
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`• Claims 1, 2, 3, 4:
`Obviousness under Border in view of Parulski
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Claim 1, Element [1.10]
`
`Ex. 1001, 13:5-13
`
`•
`
`Claim 3 contains identical highlighted language.
`Ex. 1001, 14:14-16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`
`3
`
`
`
`Claims 2 and 4 of the ’152 Patent
`
`Ex. 1001, 13:14-18
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:21-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`
`4
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE 5
`
`
`
`“Point of view”
`Corephotonics’s Construction
`“camera angle” (POR, at 13; Sur-reply, at 2)
`
`Apple’s Construction
`“viewpoint” (Reply, at 2)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`
`6
`
`
`
`“Above all, the broadest reasonable interpretation must be reasonable in
`light of the claims and specification.”
`
`TF3 Ltd. v. Tre Milano, LLC,
`894 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted)
`
`“Claims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a
`part.’ We have explained that the specification is ‘the single best guide
`to the meaning of a disputed term and that the specification acts as a
`dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it
`defines terms by implication.’ Thus ‘a claim term may be clearly
`redefined without an explicit statement of redefinition.’”
`SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.
`809 F.3d 1307, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citations omitted)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`
`7
`
`
`
`“Point of view” Means Camera Angle
`
`’152 patent, Ex. 1001, 9:26-28
`POR, at 9, 10, 13, 20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`
`8
`
`
`
`“Point of view” Means Camera Angle
`
`POR, at 14, quoting
`‘291 patent, Ex. 2009, 4:60-5:2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`
`9
`
`
`
`Apple’s Definitions of Viewpoint
`Definition 1 (Apple’s Petition):
`
`“‘viewpoint is the centre of the pupil of
`the eye of the observer,’ and when a
`scene is captured by an imaging system,
`‘the camera lens takes the place of the
`eye’”
`
`Petition, at 64
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE 10
`
`
`
`Apple’s Definitions of Viewpoint
`
`Definition 2 (Apple’s Expert Testimony):
`
`Cossairt Deposition, Ex. 2004, at 39:11-22 (objections omitted);
`Cited in POR at 15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE 11
`
`
`
`Apple’s Definitions of Viewpoint
`
`Definition 2 (Apple’s Expert Testimony):
`
`Q. So where is the center of projection of a
`camera lens?
`
`A. The center of projection for a camera lens can
`generally be, any number of places, including in
`front of the lens assembly,
`inside of the lens
`assembly and on the back side of
`the lens
`assembly.
`
`Cossairt Deposition, Ex. 2004, at 40:1-6;
`Cited in POR at 15-16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE 12
`
`
`
`Apple’s Definitions of Viewpoint
`
`Definition 2 (Apple’s Expert Testimony):
`
`The center of projection, there [are] many
`different definitions. One definition is
`actually
`probably
`the most
`intuitive
`definition would be the position in space
`where if you put a replacement lens with a
`pinhole, you would capture the image with
`the same, or near identical, perspective.
`
`Cossairt Deposition, Ex. 2004, at 40:11-16;
`Cited in POR at 16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE 13
`
`
`
`Corephotonics Defines “Viewpoint”
`
`Dr. James Kosmach
`Corephotonics’ Technical Expert
`
`Kosmach Deposition, Ex. 1011, at 44:5-8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`14
`
`
`
`The Parties’ Constructions May Not Materially Differ
`Corephotonics’s Construction
`Apple’s Construction
`“camera angle” (POR, at 13; Sur-reply, at 2)
`“viewpoint” (Reply, at 2)
`
`(i.e., the perspective of an image
`captured from a certain camera
`angle) (POR, at 13, 20)
`
`(“center of projection” where “if you
`put a replacement lens with a pinhole,
`you would capture the image with the
`same, or near identical, perspective”)
`(Cossairt Deposition, Ex. 2004, at 40:11-16; Cited in POR at 16)
`
`• But to the extent they are different, Corephotonics’ construction is more appropriate.
`(POR, at 13, 16)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`15
`
`
`
`“Claim terms are generally given their ordinary and
`customary meaning as understood by a person of
`ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of
`the specification and prosecution history.”
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc., 829 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(POR at 16)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE 16
`
`
`
`Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 3, 4
`over Border in view of Parulski
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE 17
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’152 Patent
`
`(Ex. 1001)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`18
`
`
`
`Instituted Ground:
`Obviousness of Claims 1-4, by Border in view of Parulski
`US 2008/0030592
`US Patent No. 7,859,588
`(“Border”) (Ex. 1006)
`(“Parulski”) (Ex. 1007)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`19
`
`
`
`Border Does Not Teach:
`A Composite Image with One Point of View
`Border teaches stitching two Images, with two points
`of view, together (POR, at 3, 29):
`
`Border, Ex. 1006, Fig. 1B
`(as annotated Petition at 24)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`
`20
`
`
`
`Border Does Not Teach:
`A Composite Image with One Point of View
`Border teaches stitching two images, with two points
`of view, together:
`
`“The composite image can be formed during image processing
`on the camera or later during post processing when the
`images have been offloaded from the camera. In either case,
`the two images must be matched to locate the high-resolution
`image accurately into the low-resolution image and then
`stitched into place so the edge between the two images in
`the composite image is not discernible.”
`
`Border, Ex. 1006, at para. 29;
`POR, at 20, 29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`
`21
`
`
`
`Different Points of View Produce Differences In Images
`
`Occluded
`
`Visible
`
`Jacobson, Ex. 1008, p. 59 (Figure 4.24) (red annotations added);
`POR at 22-23; Cossairt Deposition, Ex. 2004, at 51:1-13, 52:9-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`
`22
`
`
`
`Border Teaches Registration
`By “Translation and Scale” Homography
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`
`23
`
`Border, Ex. 1006, at paras. 38-40;
`POR, at 2; Sur-reply, at 8-10
`
`
`
`The Petition Relies Border’s Registration
`By “Translation and Scale” Homography
`
`“[S]imple homography HTW that provides
`translation and scale may be used to map pixels
`of the telephoto image 206 to the wide image
`204 . . .”
`
`Petition, at 59-60
`
`Border, Ex. 1006, para. 38
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`
`24
`
`
`
`Border Does Not Teach:
`A Composite Image with One Point of View
`
`Petition, at 38 (Apple’s annotations of Fig. 6 of Border)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`
`25
`
`
`
`Border Does Not Teach:
`A Composite Image with One Point of View
`• Apple’s annotations of Fig. 6 of Border is
`instructive. (POR, at 21)
`• The composite image taught in Border
`(object 208) has an “overlap area with
`the first image”, where the first image is
`object 204. (POR, at 2-3)
`• The composite image has two points of
`view: (1) that of the first image, and (2)
`that of the second image. (POR, at 3, 20-22)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`
`26
`
`
`
`Border Does Not Teach:
`A Composite Image with One Point of View
`
`Wide
`POV
`
`“[Q.] So in the system described in Border with the separate
`wide and telephoto cameras, even if they are coplanar, the
`objects that are occluded in the wide image may or may not be
`occluded to the same degree in the telephoto image, correct?
`The existence or degree of occlusion may differ between the
`two images, correct?
`A.
`I believe it is possible, yes.
`Q. So suppose that a portion of Object A is occluded by Object
`B in the wide image, but that it is not occluded in the tele
`image.
`A. Okay.
`Q.
`If that object, if those objects were outside of the dashed
`line 220 in the output image in Figure 6, then in the output
`image the Object A would be occluded by Object B, correct?
`A.
`I believe that’s right.”
`
`Cossairt Deposition, Ex. 2004, at 93:6-94:1 (objections omitted); POR, at 25; Sur-reply at 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE 27
`
`
`
`Border Does Not Teach:
`A Composite Image with One Point of View
`
`Wide
`POV
`
`Tele
`POV
`
`Q. And focusing on Border's discussion of Figure 6 in
`paragraph 47, let's, let me ask the same question for objects
`inside the dashed line.
`For objects inside the dashed line 220, whether or not an object
`is occluded in the output image depends only on whether it's
`occluded from the point of view of the telephoto camera,
`correct?
`A. In general for any image that's captured from a given point
`of view, the objects will always be occluded from that point of
`view regardless of any image transformation that's applied to
`the image that's captured from that point of view.
`
`Cossairt Deposition, Ex. 2004, at 94:18-95:5 (objections omitted);
`POR, at 25; Sur-reply at 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE 28
`
`
`
`More Complicated Homographies or
`Transformations Do Not Change Point of View
`
`≠
`
`POR, at 22-24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`
`29
`
`
`
`Standard Image Transformations Cannot
`Change Relative Positions or Fix Occlusions
`Dr. Oliver Cossairt
`Apple’s Technical Expert
`
`Cossairt Deposition, Ex. 2004, at 95:15-23;
`POR, at 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE 30
`
`
`
`Homography Does Not Change Point of View
`Dr. James Kosmach
`Corephotonics’ Technical Expert
`
`Kosmach Deposition, Ex. 1011, at 174:10-15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`31
`
`
`
`Border Does Not Teach:
`A Composite Image with One Point of View
`
`Wide
`POV
`
`Tele
`POV
`
`‘152 Patent, claim element [1.10]:
`an “output image” with a “point of view” of “the first camera”
`
`≠
`
`‘152 Patent, Ex. 1001, cl. 1
`
`POR, at 2, 20-22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE 32
`
`
`
`Border Teaches Solving For Boundary Discontinuities…
`
`“[I]t is possible that objects very close to
`the
`camera will
`appear
`to have
`a
`discontinuity at the transition. In this case,
`it
`is possible to use standard image
`processing techniques to find objects that
`are close to the camera and to process
`these regions in a fashion that does not
`produce a discontinuity artifact.”
`
`Border, Ex. 1006, para. 48
`
`POR, at 30-32
`
`Border, Ex. 1006, partial Fig. 6 (annotated)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE 33
`
`
`
`…But Not For Occlusions Across The Entire Image
`Dr. Oliver Cossairt
`Apple’s Technical Expert
`
`Cossairt Deposition, Ex. 2004, 103:25-104:4 (objection omitted);
`POR, at 31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE 34
`
`
`
`Border Paragraph 48 Disclosure Is Brief and Unclear
`Q. So this paragraph 48 says, for example, you can determine
`pixel values by interpolating the wide image. And then the next
`sentence it says you can also use a depth map.
`Would you agree those are two different examples he's
`providing, or you think those are just a single example?
`A. I'm actually not sure. I would state that that was my original
`interpretation, but now that we're looking at this sentence a
`little bit more closely, I realize that I'm not entirely sure what is
`being described — if it is true, I'll say this.
`If it is true that they are describing two different examples, then
`the first example which is describing only interpolating
`information from the wide image, I'm unclear exactly what that
`process they are describing is.
`Cossairt Deposition, Ex. 2004, 102:15-103:7 (objection omitted); POR, at 31
`
`Dr. Oliver Cossairt
`Apple’s Technical Expert
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE 35
`
`
`
`No Opinion on Element [1.10] Based on Parulski
`
`Dr. Oliver Cossairt
`Apple’s Technical Expert
`
`Q. Okay. The next element that you identify in Claim 1 is element 1.10
`is "wherein, if FOV2 is less than FOV ZF which is less than FOV 1, then
`the point of view of the output image is that of the first camera." Do
`you see that?
`A. I do.
`Q. And your opinions concerning that element of Claim 1 are in
`paragraphs 124 through 130 of your Declaration, correct?
`A. That's correct.
`Q. And your opinions concerning element 1.10 refer just to the Border
`prior art reference, correct?
`A. The Border reference is the only one that is discussed in paragraphs
`124 through 130.
`
`Cossairt Deposition, Ex. 2004, at 65:24-66:13 (objection omitted); POR, at 26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`
`36
`
`
`
`Apple’s Reliance on Parulski
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE 37
`
`
`
`Apple Relies on Parulski for “Primary/Non-Primary” Elements
`
`Petition, at 48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`38
`
`
`
`Apple Relies on Parulski for “Primary/Non-Primary” Elements
`
`“Although Border does not expressly
`use ‘primary
`image’
`and ‘non-
`primary image’ labels, Parulski, in an
`analogous context, uses the labels
`‘primary
`image’
`and ‘secondary
`image’ to describe the respective
`images used in forming a composite
`image.”
`
`Petition, at 49 (discussing element [1.9])
`
`“However, Parulski, in an analogous
`context, uses the labels ‘primary
`image’ and ‘secondary image” to
`describe the roles of respective images
`used in forming a composite image.”
`
`Petition, at 58 (discussing [1.11])
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`39
`
`
`
`Parulski Teaches A “Simple Comparison”
`
`Patent Owner’s incorrect arguments
`that Border’s image registration is
`limited to “a homography that scales
`and translates the image,” and that
`Parulski’s primary/non-primary image
`determination is “computationally
`complex,” are irrelevant. Parulski’s
`determination is a simple comparison[.]
`
`Apple’s Reply, at 12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`40
`
`
`
`But There Is No Motivation to Combine Parulski with Border
`Dr. James Kosmach
`Corephotonics Technical Expert
`
`“[T]he simple homography registration technique at the heart
`of Border’s image stitching system has no use for the
`Parulski’s teaching of ‘determining the primary image and
`secondary image from two capture units’
`(Pet., at 17).
`Border’s simple-homography based system is unsuitable for
`modification in the manner suggested by the Petition, since
`the addition of a computationally complex primary/non-
`primary image designation step produces no benefit without a
`further modification of Border’s image registration technique
`to be something other than a homography that scales and
`translates the image (and optionally corrects for tilt).”
`
`Kosmach Declaration, Ex. 2005, at para. 46; POR, at 33-34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`41
`
`
`
`Apple’s Asserted Reasoning is Conclusory
`
`Apple Contends:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`42
`
`Reply, at 9
`
`
`
`Apple’s Asserted Reasoning is Conclusory
`But Apple offers no explanation for how Parulski’s primary / non-primary
`“simple comparison” results in:
`• “broadened depth of field”
`• “broadened dynamic range”
`• “relatively low noise and good
`sharpness”
`
`(Petition, at 20; POR, at 33-34)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`43
`
`
`
`And, On Reply, Apple No Longer Relies on Parulski At All
`
`Dr. Oliver Cossairt
`Apple’s Technical Expert
`
`Cossairt Deposition, Ex. 2010, 41:20-25; POR, at 22-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`44
`
`
`
`And, On Reply, Apple No Longer Relies on Parulski At All
`
`Dr. Oliver Cossairt
`Apple’s Technical Expert
`
`Cossairt Deposition, Ex. 2010, 42:11-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`45
`
`
`
`Apple’s New Arguments on
`Reply Should Be Rejected
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE 46
`
`
`
`New Arguments Are Not Permitted On Reply
`
`“Rather than explaining how its original petition was correct, Continental’s
`subsequent arguments amount to an entirely new theory of prima facie
`obviousness absent from the petition. Shifting arguments in this fashion is
`foreclosed by statute, our precedent, and Board guidelines.”
`Wasica v. Con’t Auto Sys., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`“Thus, although ‘the introduction of new evidence in the course of the trial is
`to be expected in inter partes review trial proceedings,’ [] the shifting of
`arguments is not.”
`
`Pfizer Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical, IPR2017-01357,
`Paper 56, at 19 (Nov. 28, 2018) (citations omitted)
`
`(Sur-reply, at 3)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`47
`
`
`
`New Arguments Are Not Permitted On Reply
`
`litigation—where parties have greater
`court
`“[U]nlike district
`freedom to revise and develop their arguments over time and in
`response to newly discovered material—the expedited nature of IPRs
`bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their
`petition to institute.”
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`(Sur-reply, at 4)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`48
`
`
`
`PTAB Trial Practice Guide (August 2018 revision), at 15
`
`(Sur-reply, at 11-12)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`
`SLIDE 49
`
`
`
`Apple’s New Arguments Should Be Rejected As Improper
`The Reply :
`• Attaches and materially uses a 211-page excerpt of the
`Szeliski textbook (Ex. 1012) (“Szeliski II”)
`• Argues that Border teaches “various registration models”
`such as “feature-based registration, registration with true
`depth map, and registration correcting tilt.”
`• Argues that a “POSITA would have understood how to modify
`the image registration algorithm [of Border] with any other
`suitable registration method known in the art.”
`• Contends that the Border/Parulski combination is asserted
`against claim elements [1.8] and [1.10], though the Petition
`contained no such analysis in support.
`(Sur-reply, at 12-21)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`50
`
`
`
`Apple Uses Szeliski II To Make New Arguments
`Apple materially relies on Szeliski II:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Reply, at 6 (Szeliski II “describ[es] feature-based registration”)
`
`Reply, at 7 (Szeliski II “explain[s] using true depth map
`including depth coordinates for mapping ‘two images of 3D
`scene from different camera positions or orientations’”)
`
`Reply, at 19 (quoting Szeliski II to argue “features [] can also
`be good indicator of [] occlusion events”)
`
`Reply, at 19-20 (excerpting images from Szeliski II “illustrating
`feature-based registration used to match two images taken
`from dramatically different viewpoints”)
`
`Patent Owner Counsel’s Printed Copy of Ex. 1012 / Szeliski II
`
`(Sur-reply, at 13)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`51
`
`
`
`“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in
`reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out
`a prima facie case of unpatentability.”
`
`PTAB Revised Trial Practice Guide, at 14 (August 2018)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`52
`
`
`
`Apple’s “Feature Based Registration” Argument Fails
`
`Szeliski II’s Stitching for Rotational Panoramas
`
`• The Reply’s only substantive discussion
`of “feature based registration” is based
`on Szeliski II.
`• But Dr. Cossairt’s Reply declaration cites
`portions of Szeliski which are not
`relevant to the challenged claims, such
`as stitching for rotational panoramas
`(which generates composite images with
`multiple points of view).
`
`(Sur-reply, at 15-17)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`53
`
`
`
`Szeliski II’s Figure 4.13
`
`Apple’s “Feature Based Registration” Argument Fails
`•
`In discussing “feature based registration,”
`Dr. Cossairt’s Reply declaration also uses
`Szeliski II’s Figure 4.13.
`• Figure 4.13 shows two images having
`different occlusions, and the “matching” is
`for only features that are visible in both
`images.
`• Figure 4.13 and Szeliski II is silent about
`how features visible from only one point of
`view would be used to create a composite
`image with only one point of view.
`(Sur-reply, at 17-18)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`54
`
`
`
`Apple’s “Tilt” / “True Depth Map” Arguments are Unsupported
`
`• The only disclosures cited by Apple for
`“tilt” is to Border, paragraph 41.
`• But Paragraph 41 of Border is an
`acknowledgement that errors due to
`tilt are a known problem with pure
`translation and scale homography.
`• There is no teaching in Border of what
`“tilt-correcting registration” would be.
`
`Border, Ex. 1006, para. 41
`
`(Sur-reply, at 13-14)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`55
`
`
`
`Apple Is Not Permitted to Expand the Scope of the Challenge
`On Reply, Apple states:
`
`Reply, at 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`56
`
`
`
`Apple Is Not Permitted to Expand the Scope of the Challenge
`
`But the Petition provided no analysis of (or even a
`reference to) Parulski for elements [1.8] and [1.10]
`
`The Reply thus introduces “an entirely new theory of
`prima facie obviousness absent from the petition.”
`
`Wasica v. Con’t Auto Sys., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`(Sur-reply, at 19-20)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`
`SLIDE 57
`
`
`
`Apple Fails to Show Obviousness
`of Claims 2 and 4
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE 58
`
`
`
`Claims 2 and 4 of the ’152 Patent
`
`(Ex. 1001)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`59
`
`
`
`Claims 2 and 4 of the ’152 Patent
`• Apple’s initial challenge to claims 2 and 4 fails because the Petition argues
`only that Border shows “output image from a point of view of a second
`camera” only where “FOV2=FOVZF”. (POR, at 35-37)
`
`• Border does not disclose “structure for performing the functions should the
`conditions occur.” Decision on Appeal, Ex Parte Conti, Appeal No. 2016-
`001320, at 6 (PTAB Feb. 10, 2017). The condition in claims 2 and 4 is:
`
`“FOV2≧FOVZF”. (POR, at 35-37)
`
`• The Reply’s new combination (of Border and Parulski) against claims 2 and 4
`is untimely and improper. (Sur-reply, at 2-4)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`60
`
`
`
`Claims 2 and 4 of the ’152 Patent
`• What claims 2 and 4 of the ’152 patent require:
`
`First Camera POV
`FOV2
`FOV1
`• What Apple’s petition purports to show:
`
`First Camera POV
`
`First Camera POV
`FOV2
`
`First Camera POV
`
`FOV1
`
`(POR, at 35-37)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2018-01133 | SLIDE
`61
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
