throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01133
`Patent No. 9,538,152
`
`_____________________
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC.’S
`ORAL HEARING DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Oral Hearing Demonstrative Exhibits
`IPR2018-01133 (Patent No. 9,538,152)
`
`
`
`
`In accordance with the Order – Oral Hearing (Paper 29), Petitioner Apple
`
`Inc. hereby files its oral hearing demonstrative exhibits.
`
`October 3, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David W. OBrien/
`David W. O’Brien
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 40,107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Oral Hearing Demonstrative Exhibits
`IPR2018-01133 (Patent No. 9,538,152)
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`Petitioner
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`IPR2018-01133
`U.S. Patent No. 9,538,152
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, that service
`was made on Patent Owner as detailed below.
`Date of service October 3, 2019
`
`Manner of service Electronic Service by E-Mail
`
`Documents served Petitioner’s Oral Hearing Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Persons served Neil A. Rubin (nrubin@raklaw.com)
`C. Jay Chung (jchung@raklaw.com)
`Reza Mirzaie (rmirzaie@raklaw.com)
`Marc A. Fenster (mfenster@raklaw.com)
`
`/David W. OBrien/
`David W. O’Brien
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 40,107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`David O’Brien, Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`Apple Inc. v. CorePhotonics, Ltd., Case IPR2018-01133
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,538,152
`Inter Partes Review
`
`

`

`2
`
`2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(‘152 Patent, claim 1) Ex. 1001, 12:60‐13:13.
`
`Claims 1-4 Obvious over Border in view of Parulski
`
`

`

`3
`
`3
`
`see also Reply at 10; (Cossairt) Ex. 1004 at 55.
`(Parulski) Ex. 1007, Fig. 26 (annotated); Petition at 51; 
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Border) Ex.1006, Fig. 1B, annotated; Petition at 22
`
`(Border) Ex. 1006, Fig. 5, annotated; Petition at 41.
`
`Petition at 45.
`(Border) Ex. 1006, Fig. 6, annotated; 
`
`Claims 1-4 Obvious over Border in view of Parulski
`
`

`

`4
`
`4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`point of view of the second camera if FOV2≥FOVZF
`•Border and Parulski teach an output image from a
`
`•Border and Parulski teach primary/non-primary images
`
`limitations
`
`•Border and Parulski teach point of view limitations
`
`•Border and Parulski would have been combined
`
`•Claim Construction
`
`Discussion Summary
`
`

`

`5
`
`5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`point of view of the second camera if FOV2≥FOVZF
`•Border and Parulski teach an output image from a
`
`•Border and Parulski teach primary/non-primary images
`
`limitations
`
`•Border and Parulski teach point of view limitations
`
`•Border and Parulski would have been combined
`
`•Claim Construction
`
`Discussion Summary
`
`

`

`6
`
`6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(‘152 Patent, claim 1) Ex. 1001, 12:60‐13:13.
`
`elements (a) and (b)
`No need to construe: undisputed that Border teaches claim 1 
`
`Claim construction –“standard color filter array (CFA)”
`
`

`

`7
`
`7
`
`Response at 13.
`
`Petition at 47; (Cossairt) Ex. 1004, ¶114.
`Ex. 1010, Fig. 2.12 (annotated); 
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`...
`
`…
`
`Petition at 54; see also (Cossairt) Ex. 1004, ¶114.
`
`No construction/”camera angle”
`
`Patent Owner
`
`no construction/“viewpoint”
`
`Petitioner 
`
`Claim construction –“point of view”
`
`

`

`8
`
`8
`
`Reply at 16.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Kosmach Depo) Ex. 1011 at 147
`
`contradict
`
`Sur‐Reply at 6.
`
`occlusion.
`The ’152 Patent does not mention 
`
`contradicts its own expert’s testimony.
`PO’s importation of “occlusion” 
`
`No construction (“viewpoint” or “camera angle”)
`
`requires absence of occlusions
`
`

`

`9
`
`9
`
`Reply at 2.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`...
`
`Petitioner’s analysis.
`PO’s proposed construction “camera angle” does not materially change 
`
`Response at 13.
`
`...
`
`PO believes that the term requires no construction.  
`
`No need to construe “point of view”
`
`

`

`10
`
`10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Response at 22‐24.
`
`(Kosmach Depo) Ex. 1011 at 40‐41; Reply at 2.
`
`PO and its expert use “point of view” and “viewpoint”
`
`interchangeably
`
`

`

`11
`
`11
`
`Sur‐reply at 2.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Response at 13.
`
`PO’s shifted construction on “point of view” in sur-reply
`
`should not be considered
`
`

`

`12
`
`12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`point of view of the second camera if FOV2≥FOVZF
`•Border and Parulski teach an output image from a
`
`•Border and Parulski teach primary/non-primary images
`
`limitations
`
`•Border and Parulski teach point of view limitations
`
`•Border and Parulski would have been combined
`
`•Claim Construction
`
`Discussion Summary
`
`

`

`13
`
`13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Parulski) Ex. 1007, 29:51‐67, cited in Petition at 20.
`
`Why
`
`How
`
`Parulski explains why and how to combine Border and Parulski
`
`

`

`14
`
`14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition at 53‐54; see also Reply at 11‐14.
`
`Why
`
`How
`
`Petitioner explains why and how to apply Parulski’s image
`
`augmentation in Border
`
`

`

`15
`
`15
`
`Petition at 54; see also Reply at 9‐10 .
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner explains why and how to apply Parulski’s image
`
`augmentation in Border
`
`

`

`16
`
`16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`cited in Reply at 3, 5.
`(Kosmach) Ex. 1011, 164:9‐13,
`
`Reply at 3; see also (CossairtReply Depo) Ex. 2010 at 15‐16.
`
`Response at 30; see also Response, 2, 9, 20‐22, 29‐30.
`
`Response at 32.
`
`PO fails to rebut Reply:
`
`PO’s no-combination argument mischaracterizes Border’s image
`
`stitching as quilt-block style
`
`

`

`17
`
`17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`point of view of the second camera if FOV2≥FOVZF
`•Border and Parulski teach an output image from a
`
`•Border and Parulski teach primary/non-primary images
`
`limitations
`
`•Border and Parulski teach point of view limitations
`
`•Border and Parulski would have been combined
`
`•Claim Construction
`
`Discussion Summary
`
`

`

`18
`
`18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(‘152 Patent, claim 1) Ex. 1001, 12:60‐13:13.
`
`Claim 1 -point of view limitations [1.8] and [1.10]
`
`

`

`19
`
`19
`
`Petition at 46; see alsoReply at 17.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`annotated; Petition at 41.
`(Border) Ex. 1006, Fig. 5, 
`
`Border teaches point of view limitations [1.8] and [1.10]
`
`

`

`20
`
`20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition at 47; (Cossairt) Ex. 1004, ¶114.
`Ex. 1010, Fig. 2.12 (annotated); 
`
`Petition at 46‐47; see also Reply at 3‐4, 17.
`
`Border teaches using registration (e.g., in the form of
`
`homography) to transform the telephoto image
`
`to the point of view of the wide image
`
`

`

`21
`
`21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`‐Feature‐based techniques: (Border) Ex. 1006 at [0042], cited at Petition at 46.
`‐Correction for tilt: (Border) Ex. 1006 at [0041], cited in Reply at 6‐7.
`‐Use of depth maps:  (Border) Ex. 1006 at [0048], cited at Petition at 46.
`
`Reply at 19; see also (Cossairt) Ex. 1013, ¶¶36, 37.
`
`Border’s various registrations teach “point of view” limitations for
`
`all images, even those with occlusions
`
`

`

`22
`
`22
`
`Sur‐reply at 7.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Kosmach Depo) Ex. 1011 at 117.
`
`Reply at 18‐19; see also (Cossairt) Ex. 1013, ¶¶35‐37.
`
`teaches an output image without occlusion for planar scenes
`PO and its expert do not dispute that Border’s homography
`
`

`

`23
`
`23
`
`(Border) Ex. 1006 at [0048]
`
`Petition at 46.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Border) Ex. 1006 at [0042]
`
`True depth map:
`
`Feature‐based techniques:
`
`Sur‐reply at 12.
`
`PO’s allegation is incorrect. 
`
`untimely.
`Instead, PO alleges that Petitioner’s reliance on Border’s various registrations are improper and 
`
`PO chose not to dispute that Border teaches resolving occlusion
`
`

`

`24
`
`24
`
`Petition at 54; see also Reply at 20‐22.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Cossairt) Ex. 1004 at 55.
`Petition at 51; see also Reply at 10;
`(Parulski) Ex. 1007, Fig. 26 (annotated); 
`
`Petition at 48; see also (Cossairt) Ex. 1004, ¶¶116‐123.
`
`from a point of view of the first camera: 
`Not disputed that Parulski teaches output image 
`
`Border and Parulski teach an output image
`
`from a point of view of the first camera
`
`

`

`25
`
`25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`point of view of the second camera if FOV2≥FOVZF
`•Border and Parulski teach an output image from a
`
`•Border and Parulski teach primary/non-primary images
`
`limitations
`
`•Border and Parulski teach point of view limitations
`
`•Border and Parulski would have been combined
`
`•Claim Construction
`
`Discussion Summary
`
`

`

`26
`
`26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(‘152 Patent, claim 1) Ex. 1001, 12:60‐13:13.
`
`Claim 1 –primary/non-primary images limitations [1.9] and [1.11]
`
`

`

`27
`
`27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Parulski) Ex. 1007, Fig. 26, annotated; Petition at 51; Reply at 10.
`
`output image using primary/non-primary images
`Undisputed that Parulski teaches obtaining the
`
`

`

`28
`
`28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition at 57‐58; see also Reply at 23‐25.
`
`Border teaches “register the overlap area”
`
`

`

`29
`
`29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply at 23.
`No Explanation
`
`Response at 27‐28.
`
`Reply at 22‐23.
`Extraneous Predicates
`Unsupported and 
`
`and extraneous “predicates” into the term “register”
`
`PO seeks to import two unsupported
`
`

`

`30
`
`30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply at 22‐23.
`
`in District Court
`express construction 
`Inconsistent with PO’s 
`rebuts
`Petitioner’s expert 
`
`credible
`PO’s evidence not 
`
`occlusion)
`imported requirements (no 
`Premised on improperly 
`
`PO’s unsupported and extraneous predicates
`
`of “register” should be rejected
`
`

`

`31
`
`31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`point of view of the second camera if FOV2≥FOVZF
`•Border and Parulski teach an output image from a
`
`•Border and Parulski teach primary/non-primary images
`
`limitations
`
`•Border and Parulski teach point of view limitations
`
`•Border and Parulski would have been combined
`
`•Claim Construction
`
`Discussion Summary
`
`

`

`32
`
`32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Claim 2: an output image from a point of view of the second
`
`camera if FOV2≥FOVZF
`
`

`

`33
`
`33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Cossairt) Ex.1004 at 70.
`(Border) Ex.1006, Fig. 5, annotated; Petition at 65; 
`
`Undisputed that Border teaches an output image from a point of
`
`view of the second camera when FOV2=FOVZF
`
`

`

`34
`
`34
`
`Reply at 27.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Patent Owner’s understanding of FOV2≥FOVZF is mathematically incorrect.
`
`Response at 35‐36.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments that FOV2≥FOVZFrequires
`
`FOV2=FOVZF andFOV2>FOVZFare incorrect
`
`

`

`35
`
`35
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply at 29.
`(Parulski) Ex. 1007, FIG. 14; Petition, 17‐18, 51‐53; 
`
`Reply at 28‐29.
`
`…
`
`FOV2>FOVZF
`
`Border and Parulski teach “FOV2≥FOVZF”
`
`even under PO’s construction
`
`

`

`36
`
`36
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Further Questions?
`
`

`

`37
`
`37
`
`Km
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`APPENDIX
`
`X_DZm_n_n_<
`
`

`

`38
`
`38
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(’152 Patent) Ex.1001, FIGS. 1A and 1B
`
`Overview: ’152 Patent
`
`

`

`39
`
`39
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(’152 Patent) Ex.1001, 12:60‐13:13.
`
`Overview: ’152 Patent
`
`

`

`40
`
`40
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(‘152 Patent) Ex.1001, 2:43‐49, cited in Petition at 10‐11.
`
`Response at 11.
`
`Claim construction –“standard color filter array (CFA)”
`
`

`

`41
`
`41
`
`Ex. 2009 at 1.
`
`Sur‐reply at 2.
`
`Sur‐reply at 5.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`of the ’152 patent:
`’291 Patent was filed afterthe priority date 
`
`Sur‐Reply’s reliance on ’291 Patent is misleading:
`
`Claim construction –“point of view”
`
`

`

`42
`
`42
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Border) Ex.1006, Fig. 1B, annotated; Petition at 22.
`
`(Border) Ex.1006, [0059]; Petition at 22.
`
`Undisputed that Border teaches claim 1 preamble: a multi-
`
`aperture imaging system
`
`

`

`43
`
`43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(‘152 Patent, claim 1) Ex. 1001, 12:60‐13:4.
`
`Undisputed that Border teaches claim 1 elements (a) and (b)
`
`

`

`44
`
`44
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Border) Ex.1006, Fig. 6, annotated; Petition at 35.
`
`(Border) Ex.1006, Fig. 5, annotated; Petition at 30.
`
`Undisputed that Border teaches claim 1 elements (a) and (b)
`
`

`

`45
`
`45
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Border) Ex. 1006 at [0041], cited in Reply at 6‐7.
`
`(Border) Ex. 1006 at [0042], cited at Petition at 46.
`
`(Border) Ex. 1006 at [0048], cited at Petition at 46.
`
`cited in Petition at 46.
`(Cossairt) Ex. 1004, ¶112, 
`
`Record explains that Border teaches various registration models
`
`

`

`46
`
`46
`
`Petition at 48.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition at 39‐40.
`
`The Petition’s Border in view of Parulski
`
`Analysis of [1.9] includes [1.8]
`
`

`

`47
`
`47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT —NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2007 at 16, cited in Reply at 23.
`
`PO construction in district court belies its unsupported
`
`and extraneous “predicates”
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket