Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 28
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`APPLE INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`YU ET AL.,
`Patent Owners.
`__________
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`__________
`
`Oral Hearing Held: October 13, 2020
`__________
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, MINN CHUNG, and
`MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 28
`
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`APPLE INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`YU ET AL.,
`Patent Owners.
`__________
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`__________
`
`Oral Hearing Held: October 13, 2020
`__________
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, MINN CHUNG, and
`MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER APPLE:
`
`
`DAVID W. O'BRIEN, ESQ.
`HONG SHI, ESQ.
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`600 Congress Avenue, Suite 1300
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512) 867-8457 (Boone)
`(512) 867-8440 (Shi)
`david.obrien.ipr@haynesboone.com
`hong.shi.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`PRIYA B. VISWANATH, ESQ.
`Cooley LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1130
`(650) 849-7023
`pviswanath@cooley.com
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER SAMSUNG:
`
`
`SCOTT TAYLOR, ESQ.
`SCOTT McKEOWN, ESQ.
`Ropes and Gray LLP
`800 Boylston Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02199-3600
`(617) 951-7013 (Taylor)
`(202) 508-4740 (McKeown)
`scott.mckeown@ropesgray.com
`scott.taylor@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`ROBERT G. LITTS, ESQ.
`DANIEL JOHNSON, ESQ.
`Dan Johnson Law Group LLP
`400 Oyster Point Blvd., Suite 321
`South San Francisco, California 94080
`(415) 937-6222 (Litts)
`(415) 604-4442 (Johnson)
`robert@danjohnsonlawgroup.com
`dan@danjohnsonlawgroup.com
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, October 13,
`2020, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EDT, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
`
`1:01 p.m.
`JUDGE SAINDON: Okay, welcome, everyone. This is a hearing
`
`for IPR 2019-01258. I am Judge Saindon. With me on the lines are Judges
`Chung and McNeill.
`
`Before we actually get started, I'd like to go off the record just for a
`minute or two to go over some administrative matters. So we're off the
`record now.
`
`(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 1:01
`p.m. and resumed at 1:03 p.m.)
`
`JUDGE SAINDON: Okay, welcome. This is on IPR 2019-01258.
`Joined to this proceeding is also IPR 2020-00492. The Petitioners are Apple
`and Samsung. The Patent Owner is Yu, et al.
`
`Before we get started, I'd like to have introductions from each of the
`parties. We'll start with the Patent Owner. Can you please do your
`introductions, please?
`
`MR. LITTS: This is Robert Litts of Dan Johnson Law Group, for
`the patent owners. And with me today is Daniel Johnson, also of Dan
`Johnson Law Group. And he'll be presenting a portion of our argument.
`
`JUDGE SAINDON: Okay, great. Just as you switch off, make sure
`you state your name again for the record. Okay. Petitioner?
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`
`MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Your Honor. For Apple, I am David
`1
`O'Brien from Haynes and Boone, acting as lead counsel. Together with me
`2
`for today's hearing is my colleague Hong Shi, also from Hayne and Boone.
`3
`
`Aaron Huang from Apple is on the phone, as well as Priya
`4
`Viswanath from the Cooley Law Firm, is also on the phone.
`5
`
`During today's hearing, Ms. Shi will be presenting our argument.
`6
`Ms. Shi is an experienced attorney, though slightly outside the LEAP
`7
`Program. This will be her first argument before the Board or any other
`8
`federal tribunal.
`9
`
`Also with us, and I'm sure you'll get -- is the co-counsel for the co-
`10
`petitioner. I'll let them announce themselves. At this point, I'll go on mute
`11
`and let Ms. Shi take it from here.
`12
`
`MR. TAYLOR: Hi, this is Scott Taylor from Ropes and Gray,
`13
`representing Samsung. On the line with me is Scott McKeown, who's lead
`14
`counsel for Samsung.
`15
`
`MR. McKEOWN: That's correct. Sorry, I was on mute.
`16
`
`JUDGE SAINDON: Okay, great. Thank you. Welcome, everyone.
`17
`All right, so we have 45 minutes scheduled per side in total. You can
`18
`reserve some of your time for rebuttal.
`19
`
` We'll have Petitioner go first, then Patent Owner. Then
`20
`Petitioner's reply, and then Patent Owner's reply. It would be useful, if you
`21
`know about how much time you'd like to reserve for rebuttal, if you let me
`22
`know ahead of time.
`23
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`
`And that way I can keep track of that accordingly. I will give you
`1
`about a five-minute warning when your time is almost up.
`2
`
`So with that, Petitioner, is there a set amount of time you'd like to
`3
`reserve for rebuttal?
`4
`
`MS. SHI: Yes, Your Honor. My name's Hong Shi, and I would like
`5
`to reserve 20 minutes for rebuttal.
`6
`
`JUDGE SAINDON: Very good. Okay. You may begin your
`7
`presentation.
`8
`
`MS. SHI: Good afternoon, Your Honors. Please turn to Slide 2 of
`9
`Petitioner's Demonstratives.
`10
`
`The patent in dispute, the '289 patent, is directed at a digital camera
`11
`that includes two image sensors and produces an enhanced image using the
`12
`two images from those two sensors.
`13
`
`Claim 1 is reproduced here. Only two limitations, as highlighted, are
`14
`in dispute.
`15
`
`Turning to Slide 3. Illustrated here are some annotated drawings of
`16
`Yamazaki from the Petition and Reply, related to limitations in dispute.
`17
`
`Yamazaki is a Europe patent from digital camera maker Canon, and
`18
`teaches a compact digital camera with two image sensors. We are likely to
`19
`come back to these figures later in the presentation.
`20
`
`Turning to Slide 4. Illustrated are some annotated drawings of
`21
`Weldy from the Petition and Reply, related to the limitations.
`22
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`
`Weldy is a European patent application publication from digital
`1
`camera maker Kodak. And it's likely we will refer back to these figures later
`2
`in the presentation.
`3
`
`Turning to Slide 8. Patent Owner disputes that two terms require
`4
`explicit construction. The first one is here, including the language, the first
`5
`and the second image sensor, closely positioned with respect to a common
`6
`plane.
`7
`The words of this term should be given their plain and ordinary
`
`8
`meaning. Patent Owner proposed a long construction, and the Board should
`9
`reject Patent Owner's proposed construction for multiple reasons, as detailed
`10
`in the Reply, from Page 1 through Page 5.
`11
`
`Their proposed construction does not overcome the grounds. It
`12
`imports many unsupported limitations, like projections, reference point,
`13
`enable registration, and enable enhancement.
`14
`
`It is not supported by the Spec. or the claim, or its own experts'
`15
`testimony. And it improperly injects a functional requirement that is
`16
`redundant and unnecessary.
`17
`
`Turning to Slide 9. The second term for claim construction dispute
`18
`here is “producing a resultant digital image from the first digital image
`19
`enhanced with second digital image.”
`20
`
`The enhanced-with term appears to be what the Patent Owner
`21
`proposed to construe, although their construction itself still included the
`22
`word enhance in it.
`23
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`
`Again, the plain and ordinary meaning should be applied, and Patent
`1
`Owner's construction should be rejected. It doesn't overcome the grounds,
`2
`and it imports the functional limitation of modifying qualities, which are
`3
`unnecessary and doesn't help to clarify the meaning of the term.
`4
`
`JUDGE McNEILL: Counsel, this is Judge McNeill. Does the '289
`5
`patent provide any examples of what it means to enhance a digital image?
`6
`
`MS. SHI: Yes. The '289 patent does. It includes, for example,
`7
`image resolution enhancement, dynamic range improvement, noise
`8
`reduction, and color balancing.
`9
`
`So next we will turn to Side 11. And Yamazaki discloses the closely
`10
`positioned element. Yamazaki teaches this limitation as detailed in the
`11
`Petition at Page 24 through 25, supported by Dr. Bovik's testimony.
`12
`
`Yamazaki, both in its description of the specification and the figures,
`13
`describes that image sensors 31A and 31B are positioned closely, positioned
`14
`with respect to a common plane.
`15
`
`We can see they're closely positioned with respect to the image
`16
`planes of the sensors, which is indicated at the red dotted line on the figure.
`17
`
`JUDGE McNEILL: Counselor, this is Judge McNeill again. Is it
`18
`your position that Figures 1 and 2 from Yamazaki are shown to scale?
`19
`
`MS. SHI: We do not rely our argument on whether these drawings
`20
`are drawn to scale. The Patent Owner's argument that Yamazaki is not
`21
`drawn to scale, first, that's a new argument in their Sur-Reply, and the Board
`22
`should ignore it.
`23
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`
`But the Petitioner's position is not relying on the scale of Figures 1
`1
`and 2 of Yamazaki.
`2
`
`Instead, as shown in Dr. Bovik's declaration, the Petition and the
`3
`expert relied upon the description of Yamazaki, for example, Column 3,
`4
`Lines 53 through 56, together with the figures of Yamazaki, to show that the
`5
`image sensors -- to show their relative placements, relative to the plane.
`6
`
`The drawings are not reliant upon their scale to show any
`7
`measurements.
`8
`
`JUDGE McNEILL: Thank you. You can continue.
`9
`
`MS. SHI: Turning to Slide -- I would like to bring you back to Slide
`10
`3. Yamazaki, as shown on this slide, Yamazaki also teaches the enhanced-
`11
`by limitation.
`12
`
`The Figures 3 and 4 to the right of the slide shows that Yamazaki
`13
`discloses generating an enhanced resultant image with improved resolution
`14
`from the first digital image.
`15
`
`And such improvement in resolution is achieved by using the second
`16
`digital image. As such, Yamazaki teaches both the closely positioned
`17
`limitation and the enhanced by limitation. Turning to Slide 19.
`18
`
`JUDGE SAINDON: Counselor, I have a question. This is Judge
`19
`Saindon. So looking at your Slide 3 and Figure 3 of Yamazaki, you have
`20
`two images that are identified, then you have a resultant digital image.
`21
`
`And I'm wondering, the claim limitation is producing a resultant
`22
`digital image from the first image, enhanced with the second. Is it really that
`23
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`the first is enhanced with the second, or the two are just used to create an
`1
`enhanced image?
`2
`
`MS. SHI: Both. So Yamazaki does teach combining two images to
`3
`generate the resultant image. But Yamazaki, as shown in our records, also
`4
`teaches generating the resultant image from the first image, enhanced with
`5
`the second image.
`6
`
`JUDGE SAINDON: And does it matter which is the first or second?
`7
`
`MS. SHI: So the first image and second image, as described in the
`8
`claim, they have different limitations.
`9
`
`That's why we highlighted the yellow image as the first image, and
`10
`the red image as the second image, because the second image is from a
`11
`sensor that's sensitive to the full visible spectrum.
`12
`
`So the claim provides a difference between first and second, but the
`13
`enhanced-with requirement is that if the -- here, Yamazaki teaches the
`14
`resultant image is from the first image, enhanced with the second.
`15
`
`But it also teaches generating the resultant image from the second,
`16
`enhanced by the first. The claim does not exclude a reference teaching both
`17
`directions.
`18
`
`JUDGE SAINDON: I understand. Thank you.
`19
`
`MS. SHI: So we will next turn to Slide 19. Before I get to the
`20
`merits of the combination of the Weldy grounds, I would like to first address
`21
`Patent Owner's argument to antedate Weldy.
`22
`
`Patent Owner must show both prior conception and diligence during
`23
`the critical period, which is 157 days, in this case.
`24
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner failed to demonstrate diligence, and for this reason
`1
`alone, it fails to swear behind Weldy, as explained in Reply 24-3, Page 24
`2
`through 25.
`3
`
`Patent Owner's Response only relied on two paragraphs from
`4
`Inventor's Declaration. Those two paragraphs do not provide any specific
`5
`activity during those 157-day critical period. And those paragraphs do not
`6
`cite to any documents.
`7
`
`And so Patent Owner's Response solely relies upon inventor
`8
`testimony to show diligence. The Federal Circuit, in Perfect Surgical, held
`9
`that any inventor testimony for proving diligence must be independently
`10
`corroborated. There's no corroboration at all.
`11
`
`And even under the rule of reason analysis, that one must weigh the
`12
`collection of evidence over the entire critical period, here, Patent Owner's
`13
`records have no evidence at all, regarding the diligence over the entire
`14
`critical period.
`15
`
`And its failure to prove diligence is dispositive to its antedating
`16
`arguments. And for this reason alone, it's failed to antedate Weldy. Turning
`17
`to Slide 23. Now, I turn to the merits of the --
`18
`
`JUDGE McNEILL: Counselor, this is Judge McNeill again. Sorry,
`19
`I have a question, regarding the previous point.
`20
`
`You said that Patent Owner relies on no evidence other than
`21
`testimony, but Patent Owner relies on exhibits, to which Petitioner has
`22
`objected, but relies on exhibits, including an August 1998 draft of the patent
`23
`application that was created by someone other than the inventors.
`24
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`
`Why can't we consider that constructive reduction to practice of the
`1
`invention?
`2
`
`MS. SHI: So, please turn to Slide 32. First, this is a new argument
`3
`in Patent Owner's Sur-Reply, and the Board should not consider it. Second
`4
`is that Patent Owner misrepresents this 1967 CCPA case, Spero.
`5
`
`Patent Owner relies upon Spero for the propositions that the use of
`6
`the draft application can be used to demonstrate constructive reduction to
`7
`practice. But the paragraph that is cited is completely out of context.
`8
`
`We have reproduced the paragraph before and after the cited
`9
`paragraph by Patent Owner. Spero is discussing using the draft application
`10
`to establish conception. It is not to establish constructive reduction to
`11
`practice.
`12
`
`Patent Owner fails to cite any law, and there's none such law to
`13
`support that a draft application on file can show constructive reduction to
`14
`practice. Going back --
`15
`
`JUDGE McNEILL: Sorry, you can go ahead. Thank you.
`16
`
`MS. SHI: Going back to Slide 23. This is the no combination
`17
`argument of Weldy and Denyer from Patent Owner. As detailed in the
`18
`Petition, Weldy itself suggests that image sensors are closely positioned with
`19
`respect to a common plane.
`20
`
`And turning to Slide 24, the Petition, at Page 60 to 61, further
`21
`explained in detail why and how to combine Denyer's express teaching of
`22
`multiple sensors, closely positioned with respect to a common plane, with
`23
`Weldy.
`24
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`
`For example, Denyer expressly teaches the benefit of such placement
`1
`is to produce a resulting picture of very high quality by combining the two
`2
`images from the image sensors.
`3
`
`Turning to Slide 26. So Patent Owner's no combination arguments
`4
`also fail because it incorrectly requires bodily incorporation.
`5
`
`The Petition, with support from Dr. Bovik at Page 56, explains how
`6
`to combine Denyer's teaching with Weldy, including detailed examples of
`7
`known methods to apply such teachings.
`8
`
`Patent Owner completely ignores that evidence and advanced
`9
`arguments that are based on this understanding of the law, by requiring to
`10
`incorporate the specific feature, the single-chip sensor array, with integrated
`11
`lens from Denyer, into the digital camera of Weldy.
`12
`
`This is wrong. The Federal Circuit, in Allied Erecting and
`13
`Dismantling, explained that the test for obviousness is not whether the
`14
`features of the second reference can be bodily incorporated into the structure
`15
`of the primary reference.
`16
`
`And that's exactly what Patent Owner did here, which incorrectly
`17
`required this specific component of Denyer to be incorporated into the
`18
`digital camera of Weldy.
`19
`
`So in conclusion, only two limitations of Claim 1 are in dispute,
`20
`namely the closely-positioned limitation, and the enhanced-with limitation.
`21
`
`Both terms in construction dispute should be construed according to
`22
`their plain and ordinary meanings, and the Board should reject Patent
`23
`Owner's proposed construction.
`24
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`
`And the claims are unpatentable under both the Petitioner's
`1
`Yamazaki-based grounds and the Weldy-based grounds. Unless you have
`2
`further questions, I would like to reserve my time for rebuttal.
`3
`
`JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. Saindon. Thank you for your
`4
`presentation.
`5
`
`MS. SHI: Thank you.
`6
`
`JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. I have 25 minutes remaining. Okay.
`7
`Let's move over to Patent Owner.
`8
`
`MR. LITTS: Thank you, Your Honor. This is Robert Litts. And
`9
`with regard to reserving time, I would say I'd like to reserve about ten
`10
`minutes for rebuttal.
`11
`
`JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. You may begin when ready.
`12
`
`MR. LITTS: Thank you. Just as a preliminary matter, with regard
`13
`to claim construction, there are fundamental differences of opinion among
`14
`the parties as to the scope and meaning of these claim terms that we've just
`15
`heard discussed. And those differences of opinion can have a significant
`16
`impact on the outcome of these proceedings.
`17
`
`So Patent Owner's position is that these terms really have to be
`18
`construed in order to resolve the issues here. And simply relying on a
`19
`purported plain meaning is simply not enough.
`20
`
`Now, discussing the individual limitations in detail, I'd like to draw
`21
`the Board's attention to Slide 10.
`22
`
`Now, here we see that just a general point in the '289 Patent is to use
`23
`multiple digital image sensors to first capture multiple images of the same
`24
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`scene, to then register those captured images with one another, and then to
`1
`use one to enhance the other.
`2
`
`That's the general purpose of the invention of the '289 Patent. Now,
`3
`proceeding on to Slide 11, a person --
`4
`
`JUDGE McNEILL: Counselor?
`5
`
`MR. LITTS: Oh, please go ahead.
`6
`
`JUDGE McNEILL: Sorry to interrupt. This is Judge McNeill. The
`7
`first issue that you have listed here says that image sensors must be close
`8
`enough to enable image registration and image enhancement.
`9
`
`The proposed construction says, projections from the same reference
`10
`point onto the same plane, being positioned sufficiently close. Is it the
`11
`image sensors that need to be closely positioned, or the projections that need
`12
`to be closely positioned?
`13
`
`MR. LITTS: It's the image sensors. And just to clarify there, the
`14
`point of that language in Patent Owner's proposed construction is merely to
`15
`provide a way to visualize the claim.
`16
`
`What does it mean for something to be closely positioned with
`17
`respect to a common plane? This is essentially saying that they're closely
`18
`positioned from the perspective of the image target.
`19
`
`So looking straight on, from the standpoint of the front of the
`20
`camera, from the standpoint of the image target, the image sensors are close
`21
`together from that vantage point.
`22
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`
`So what this is saying is that if you slid the image sensors, from that
`1
`standpoint, onto a common plane, they'd be close. But that's what Patent
`2
`Owner's proposed construction is really trying to convey.
`3
`
`And it's trying to do so in a way that would allow someone to
`4
`visualize what it means for something to be closely positioned with respect
`5
`to a common plane.
`6
`
`JUDGE McNEILL: Okay. Thank you.
`7
`
`MR. LITTS: Sure. And proceeding on to Slide 11, a person skilled
`8
`in the art would read the disclosure of the '289 Patent and understand that it
`9
`would be prohibitively difficult to perform these steps of image registration
`10
`and image enhancement if the image sensors were spaced too far apart,
`11
`because then the images that they captured could be too different to be
`12
`registered, and then the enhancement couldn't work. So that's how a person
`13
`skilled in the art would read the '289 Patent.
`14
`
`And then proceeding on to Slide 12, this is what the '289 Patent
`15
`Specification states, that because the image sensors are closely positioned,
`16
`the image registration process doesn't become so computationally intensive
`17
`that it can't be done.
`18
`
`And so that's what the '289 Patent says. And that's how a person
`19
`skilled in the art would interpret these teachings of the '289 Patent.
`20
`
`JUDGE McNEILL: Counselor --
`21
`
`MR. LITTS: So moving on to -- oh, sorry.
`22
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`
`JUDGE McNEILL: Claim 1 already recites in the producing
`1
`limitation that the first image is enhanced with the second image to produce
`2
`a resultant image.
`3
`
`If there's already a requirement of image enhancement in another
`4
`limitation, why should we read one into the positioning language?
`5
`
`MR. LITTS: Because this is what the '289 Patent teaches closely-
`6
`positioned to mean. But in the context of the '289 Patent, this is the purpose
`7
`of closely-positioned sensors. It's to allow these steps to happen.
`8
`
`It's to allow image registration to happen and to allow image
`9
`enhancement to happen. But image registration itself is not recited in the
`10
`claims. So this is not importing of the requirements of performing image
`11
`registration and image enhancement.
`12
`
`It says that the image sensors have to be close enough that this is
`13
`possible. So it's not saying do this. It's saying they have to be close enough
`14
`that this can be done.
`15
`
`If they're too far apart, everything breaks down. Image registration
`16
`cannot be performed, then image enhancement therefore cannot be
`17
`performed.
`18
`
`JUDGE McNEILL: Okay. Thank you.
`19
`
`MR. LITTS: Sure. And moving on to Slide 13, this is, as I stated,
`20
`this is how a person skilled in the art would interpret the claims.
`21
`
`In view of the above teachings, the image sensors are spaced
`22
`sufficiently close to allow these processes to take place, to enable image
`23
`registration, followed by image enhancement.
`24
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`
`And now moving on to Slide 14, this discusses the issue that Your
`1
`Honor raised, what it means to be closely-positioned.
`2
`
`
`This explains that the image sensors have to be close to one
`3
`another, and not necessarily to a common plane, because you are looking at
`4
`them from a front perspective, and because the purpose of this is to allow the
`5
`images to be registered and enhanced.
`6
`
` Whether or not they are exactly in the same plane isn't pertinent
`7
`there. What matters is that they're closely together from a front perspective,
`8
`so that the images are similar, so that they can thereby be enhanced.
`9
`
`
`So while the image sensors can be in the same plane, they don't
`10
`have to be in the same plane. But they must be close to one another. So it's
`11
`not closeness to a common plane, it's close to one another.
`12
`
`JUDGE SAINDON: Counsel, this is Judge Saindon. So is there an
`13
`issue in this case, factually, as to whether the Yamazaki sensors are
`14
`physically close enough to each other?
`15
`
`MR. LITTS: Patent Owners believe that there is a question, which
`16
`we will address when we get to that reference. But we believe that this is
`17
`not disclosed by Yamazaki.
`18
`
`JUDGE SAINDON: Okay. Well, you can take that up when you're
`19
`ready. Yes.
`20
`
`MR. LITTS: Now proceeding on to Slide 19, we will discuss the
`21
`enhanced-with claim limitation. Now here on 19, we see several excerpts
`22
`from the patent specification, with regard to improving the qualities of the
`23
`digital image, or modifying image qualities.
`24
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`
`And this is what the '289 Patent is referring to with the phrase image
`1
`enhancement. Improving or modifying the qualities of an image.
`2
`
`And if we proceed on to Slide 20, we see an example of that. We see
`3
`the dynamic range expansion example. So this is described in the '289
`4
`Patent at Column 9, Lines 29 to 40, and also with regard to Figure 7.
`5
`
`So this example does involve modifying image qualities, and
`6
`therefore it constitutes image enhancement. Now this includes two sensors.
`7
`
`One is a color sensor, which is of course identified as color sensor in
`8
`Figure 7. And the other is a monochrome sensor, which is identified as the
`9
`W sensor in Figure 7.
`10
`
`Now, the monochrome sensor is capable of detecting dim light that
`11
`cannot be detected by the color sensor. This is referred to as the Y levels in
`12
`that figure.
`13
`
`So basically the reason for that, although it's perhaps not pertinent,
`14
`but the filter in front of the color sensor can block some of the light, so the
`15
`monochrome sensor can --
`16
`
`JUDGE SAINDON: I believe we have lost Patent Owner's counsel,
`17
`here. Just give it a minute, here. You're back.
`18
`
`MR. LITTS: Did I just cut out, there?
`19
`
`JUDGE SAINDON: You did. Yes, you cut out just for about 30
`20
`seconds, there.
`21
`
`MR. LITTS: How far along -- did I describe any aspect of Figure 7
`22
`by the time I got cut out?
`23
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`
`JUDGE SAINDON: Yes, yes. You were going over the W sensor
`1
`and the Y levels.
`2
`
`MR. LITTS: Sure, okay. So just in summary, the monochrome
`3
`sensor can detect certain dim light that's missed by the color sensor. The
`4
`monochrome sensor being the W sensor, and the color sensor being labeled
`5
`as such in the Figure.
`6
`
`So in this example, the dynamic range of the color sensor is
`7
`expanded by first registering the images. In the '289 Patent, the images
`8
`always have to be registered. So first registering the images.
`9
`
`Second, appending the Y levels detected by the monochrome sensor
`10
`to the brighter light that the color sensor was able to detect. So those are
`11
`identified as the X levels in Figure 7.
`12
`
`So in this manner, the digital image detected by the color sensor is
`13
`modified, and thereby improved, by using the information that was detected
`14
`by the monochrome sensor, but the color sensor couldn't see.
`15
`
`The resulting improvement being that the resultant image has X plus
`16
`Y levels. So it has the X levels that the color sensor could see, plus the Y
`17
`levels that it couldn't see, but the monochrome sensor could.
`18
`
`So that's image enhancement. So importantly here, information from
`19
`one image is modified -- or, excuse me, one image is modified by
`20
`incorporating image information from the other sensor, appending
`21
`information from the other sensor to the first sensor.
`22
`
`So that's an example of modifying an image, that constitutes image
`23
`enhancement.
`24
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`
`JUDGE McNEILL: Counselor, this is Judge McNeill. You said
`1
`that's an example of modifying the qualities. What does it mean to modify
`2
`the qualities of an image?
`3
`
`MR. LITTS: Essentially to improve its appearance, or to modify its
`4
`appearance. But to change -- modifying the qualities is always going to
`5
`change the measured light intensity. It's going to change at least some of the
`6
`pixel values.
`7
`
`So you will have, for an image sensor, you will have a number of
`8
`pixels, each one will detect an intensity of light. So modifying the image
`9
`qualities would be changing the light intensity levels for individual pixels,
`10
`changing measured intensity.
`11
`
`So you have an intensity measurement at a pixel. You will change
`12
`that based upon information from the other sensor.
`13
`
`JUDGE McNEILL: Okay, thank you. You can continue.
`14
`
`MR. LITTS: Thank you. Now, moving on to Slide 21, Dr.
`15
`Castleman gave several examples of image enhancement. And these all
`16
`involve modifying image qualities, as the image enhancement always does.
`17
`
`So we have here listed resolution enhancement, dynamic range
`18
`improvement, which is the example we've just looked at with Figure 7, noise
`19
`reduction, and color balance.
`20
`
`One thing that's useful to keep in mind here is resolution
`21
`enhancement, also called sharpening. This involves increasing the apparent
`22
`resolution of an image, not increasing the actual resolution of an image.
`23
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`
`You are not adding pixels. You are changing the apparent resolution
`1
`of the image. You are making it look as if it's a higher-resolution image.
`2
`But that is not the same thing as changing the actual resolution of an image.
`3
`
`And that's important to keep in mind for purposes of Yamazaki,
`4
`because this type of resolution enhancement is generally considered image
`5
`enhancement.
`6
`
`But, like I said, this doesn't increase number of pixels. It doesn't
`7
`increase the actual resolution. It increases the apparent resolution of an
`8
`image.
`9
`And, as Dr. Castleman explains here, that involves modifying the
`
`10
`image qualities, and therefore is image enhancement.
`11
`
`JUDGE SAINDON: Counselor, this is Judge Saindon. Going to the
`12
`resolution enhancement, is there anything in the Spec. that teases out that
`13
`distinction you were just giving us, about the apparent versus actual
`14
`resolution?
`15
`
`MR. LITTS: No. This is something that Dr. Castleman drew upon
`16
`from his expertise in the field and from his digital image processing
`17
`textbook. So these are just to provide examples of image enhancement, all
`18
`of which involve modifying image qualities.
`19
`
`I think it is worth pointing out here that Dr. Castleman provided
`20
`these examples. Petitioner's expert has submitted two lengthy declarations
`21
`in this proceeding, and they have not submitted one example of image
`22
`enhancement that does not involve modifying image qualities.
`23
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`
`They've had two opportunities to do so, and they haven't. So Patent
`1
`Owners believe that's telling, and that the reason why -- the reason for that
`2
`failure, we believe, is because there is no such example.
`3
`
`All forms of image enhancement involve modifying the image
`4
`properties, modifying the image qualities. And, you know, one other note
`5
`there is that image enhancement is a field within image processing.
`6
`
`If there's no image processing being done, then that's not image
`7
`enhancement. For example, putting a photograph in a frame is not image
`8
`enhancement. It might look better, but that is not image enhancement.
`9
`
`Taking a photograph with a better sensor, that's not image
`10
`enhancement. Image enhancement is an image processing technique. This
`11
`is described in Dr. Castleman's textbook, which is entitled Digital Image
`12
`Processing.
`13
`
`So if it doesn't involve image processing, that should alert one to the
`14
`fact that whatever's being discussed is not image enhancement.
`15
`
`All right, now moving on to the specific grounds, if I can point your
`16
`attention to Slide 25. First, Yamazaki captures multiple images that are
`17
`offset from one another by a half-pixel displacement.
`18
`
`And then it combines those images, unmodified, for display in an
`19
`interweaved fashion. Neither one of these images is changed in any way.
`20
`
`All you're doing here is capturing two images displaced from one
`21
`another by half a pixel, and in an unmodified, unchanged manner, storing
`22
`them in the same memory array.
`23
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01258
`Patent 6,611,289 B1
`
`
`So this does not involve modifying im
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
