`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Civil Action No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`OPENING EXPERT REPORT OF DR. ALAN C. BOVIK
`REGARDING INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,339,493
`
`Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2008
`
`Page 1 of 9
`
`

`

`Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`QUALIFICATIONS .......................................................................................................... 2
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ............................................................................................. 7
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`Invalidity ................................................................................................................ 7
`B.
`Priority Date and Expiration Date.......................................................................... 8
`C.
`Anticipation............................................................................................................ 9
`D.
`Obviousness ......................................................................................................... 10
`E.
`Claim Construction .............................................................................................. 13
`THE ’493 PATENT ......................................................................................................... 13
`A.
`Overview of the Patent ......................................................................................... 13
`B.
`Prosecution History of the ’493 Patent ................................................................ 17
`C.
`Inter Partes Review of the ’493 Patent................................................................ 19
`D.
`Asserted Claims ................................................................................................... 20
`E.
`Claim Construction .............................................................................................. 21
`1.
`Agreed Terms ........................................................................................... 21
`2.
`The Court’s Construction ......................................................................... 22
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................................ 22
`F.
`BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................... 23
`A.
`Image Sensors ...................................................................................................... 24
`B.
`Image Processing and Scaling ............................................................................. 26
`C.
`Image Display and Preview ................................................................................. 28
`D.
`Image Stabilization .............................................................................................. 30
`E.
`The Digital Cameras Market ................................................................................ 33
`VII. ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS ....................................................................... 37
`A.
`Sony MVC-FD83 and MVC-FD88 ..................................................................... 37
`1.
`Overview MVC-FD83 and MVC-FD88 .................................................. 37
`2.
`U.S. Patent Nos. 5,444,482 (“Misawa”) .................................................. 49
`3.
`Motivations to Combine Misawa with Sony MVD-FD83/FD88 ............ 51
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2008
`
`Page 2 of 9
`
`

`

`Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................................... 53
`4.
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................................... 82
`5.
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,903,162 (“Juen”) and 6,563,535 (“Anderson”) ..................... 88
`1.
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,903,162 (“Juen”) ....................................................... 88
`2.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,563,535 (“Anderson”) ................................................. 90
`3.
`Motivations to Combine Juen and Anderson: .......................................... 92
`4.
`Motivations to Combine Misawa with Juen/Anderson ............................ 95
`5.
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................................... 97
`6.
`Claim 6 ................................................................................................... 110
`VIII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ............................... 115
`A.
`Commercial Success .......................................................................................... 116
`B.
`Copying .............................................................................................................. 120
`C.
`Simultaneous Invention ..................................................................................... 122
`D.
`Long-Standing Problem Or Need ...................................................................... 122
`E.
`Prior Failures ...................................................................................................... 123
`F.
`Skepticism .......................................................................................................... 124
`G.
`Unexpected results ............................................................................................. 124
`H.
`Industry praise .................................................................................................... 124
`OTHER TOPICS ........................................................................................................... 125
`
`IX.
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2008
`
`Page 3 of 9
`
`

`

`Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only
`
`
`
`123. Below are images I took of the Casio QV-8000SX, Apple QuickTake 200, Sony
`
`
`
`MVC-FD83, and Sony MVC-FD88 cameras that I used and tested. See Appendix C.
`
`
`
`
`
`48
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2008
`
`Page 4 of 9
`
`

`

`Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 5,444,482 (“Misawa”)
`
`2.
`
`
`
`124. Misawa, titled “Digital Electronic Camera for Selectively Recording a Frame of
`
`Still Image and Movie Fields of Image in a Recording Medium,” was filed on April 28, 1994,
`
`and it issued on August 22, 1995. Misawa issued over four years before the alleged priority date
`
`for the ’493 patent (i.e., January 11, 2000). See Section V.A. Misawa names Takashi Misawa
`
`and Takeshi Ohta as inventors, and is assigned to Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. See Misawa at
`
`Cover. Misawa was not considered during the original prosecution of the ’493 patent. Misawa
`
`was presented in an IPR petition filed by Olympus (as discussed above in Section V.C), but the
`
`parties settled and dismissed the petition before the PTAB instituted review. I understand that
`
`Misawa qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e). See Section IV.C.
`
`125. Misawa discloses “a digital electronic camera for photographing the image of an
`
`object, and more particularly to a digital electronic camera for capturing the image of an object
`
`49
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2008
`
`Page 5 of 9
`
`

`

`Claim Element
`
`[b] a signal processing
`unit that generates
`image signals by
`processing the output
`signals of the image
`sensing device; and
`
`Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only
`
`
`Sony MVC-FD83/88
`
`The Sony MVC-FD83/FD88 camera includes a signal processing
`unit that generates image signals by processing the output signals of
`the image sensing device.
`
`The existence of a signal processing unit is evident from the
`camera’s capability to produce still images compressed in the JPEG
`format and video images compressed in the MPEG format:
`
`
`See Sony MVC-FD83/FD88 User Manual at 34, 36, 56, 65.
`
`The following is an excerpt of the “Overall Block Diagram” of the
`Sony MVD-FD83/FD88 camera’s service manual, which shows that
`image data from the “CCD Imager” is transmitted to an “IC004”
`chip for “S/H, AGC, A/D CONV” (i.e., sample/hold, automatic gain
`control, and analog/digital conversion”) and then to an “IC201” chip
`that is described as an “Camera DSP.” The “Camera DSP” (camera
`digital signal processor) chip performs functions such as “Memory
`Control,” “Video Encoder,” and “Res Control” (resolution control).
`
`61
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2008
`
`Page 6 of 9
`
`

`

`Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only
`
`
`C.
`Simultaneous Invention
`175. The prior art references and products described above show that others had
`
`independently developed the claimed invention before or around the same time as the filing of
`
`the ’493 patent. For example, many companies independently developed products having both
`
`still and video image capture features, as well as electronic image stabilization features, before
`
`the filing of the ’493 patent. See Sections VI-VII.
`
`176. For example, of the 19 camera models reviewed in the November 11, 1999
`
`edition of PC Magazine, 9 models included both still and video capture capability. See PC
`
`Magazine (Nov. 11, 1999) at 162-190. These cameras were made by many different companies,
`
`including Agfa, Casio, Fujifilm, Minolta, Panasonic, and Sony. See id. And the October 1999
`
`edition of the Popular Photography magazine contained advertisements for many camera models
`
`from companies like Panasonic and Sharp that included features described as “Digital Electronic
`
`Image Stabilization,” “Picture Stabilizer,” or “Digital Image Stabilization.” See Popular
`
`Photography (October 1999) at 132. In addition, the prior art cited in Section VII above from
`
`companies such as Sony, Fuji, Nikon, and FlashPoint (which spun out of Apple’s Imaging
`
`Division) further demonstrate that many companies arrived at the claimed invention within a
`
`relatively short span of time.
`
`D.
`177.
`
`Long-Standing Problem Or Need
`I am not aware of evidence that the patented invention resolved any long-standing
`
`problem or need. For example, I understand that Sony’s digital camera products, such as the
`
`MVC-FD83 and MVC-FD88, were already commercially successful. To the extent that Maxell
`
`contends that claims 5-6 of the ’493 patent include features not found in the MVC-FD83 and
`
`MVC-FD88 products, I am not aware of any evidence that those features addressed any long-
`
`122
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2008
`
`Page 7 of 9
`
`

`

`Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only
`
`praise received by Hitachi or Maxell for the alleged inventions claimed by the ’493 patent, nor
`
`for any commercial product that purports to practice such inventions.
`
`IX. OTHER TOPICS
`185.
`If asked to more fully explain my opinions as expressed in this report, I reserve
`
`the right to rely on various portions of the references that I have discussed in this report that I
`
`have not already explicitly cited to in this report.
`
`186.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement my report in light of any additional fact
`
`discovery, opinions by Plaintiff’s experts, and/or trial testimony. I also reserve the right to
`
`provide rebuttal opinions and testimony in response to Plaintiff’s experts, and rebuttal testimony
`
`in response to any of Plaintiff’s fact witnesses. Further, I reserve the right to use animations,
`
`demonstratives, enlargements of actual exhibits, and other information in order to illustrate my
`
`opinions.
`
`187. When called upon to do so, I will offer testimony at trial or otherwise regarding
`
`these opinions and will offer rebuttal testimony as appropriate throughout the remainder of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`Executed on 7th day of May, 2020,
`
`____________________________________
`Alan C. Bovik
`
`125
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2008
`
`Page 8 of 9
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic
`
`service are being served this 7th day of May, 2020 with a copy of this document via electronic
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kristin Godfrey
`Kristin Godfrey
`
`
`
`
`
`mail.
`
`Dated: May 7, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple v. Maxell
`IPR2020-00597
`Maxell Ex. 2008
`
`Page 9 of 9
`
`