`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`———————
`
`IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent 10,230,898
`_______________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`B. 
`
`2. 
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`POSITA would have been motivated to combine Golan, Martin, and
`Togo. ................................................................................................................ 1 
`A. 
`POSITA would have combined Golan and Martin. .............................. 2 
`1. 
`Patent Owner’s rebuttal lacks merit. ........................................... 2 
`2. 
`PO fails to apply the correct motivation to combine analysis
`under KSR. .................................................................................. 5 
`POSITA would have combined Togo, Golan and Martin. ................... 7 
`1. 
`PO’s no-combination arguments regarding Togo and Golan
`are meritless. ............................................................................... 8 
`PO’s no-combination arguments regarding Togo and Martin
`are meritless. ............................................................................... 9 
`III.  Ground 1 ........................................................................................................ 10 
`A. 
`Claim limitation [1.4] .......................................................................... 10 
`1. 
`PO’s arguments misrepresent Petitioner’s combination. .......... 10 
`2. 
`PO’s Golan arguments mischaracterize Golan’s digital zoom. 11 
`3. 
`PO’s Togo arguments introduce extraneous requirements and
`mischaracterize Togo. ............................................................... 13 
`Claim limitation [1.5] .......................................................................... 16 
`B. 
`PO’s Claim 4 arguments should be rejected. ...................................... 17 
`C. 
`IV.  Ground 2 ........................................................................................................ 19 
`A. 
`POSITA would have combined Levey, Golan, Martin, and Togo. .... 19 
`B. 
`PO’s photography mode arguments should be rejected (Claim 9) ..... 19 
`V.  Ground 3 ........................................................................................................ 20 
`A. 
`POSITA would have combined Border, Golan, Martin, and Togo. ... 20 
`B. 
`Claims 11 and 19 ................................................................................. 21 
`VI.  Ground 4 ........................................................................................................ 21 
`A. 
`POSITA would have combined Parulski, Golan, Martin, and Togo. . 21 
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`PO’s no-combination arguments should be rejected ........................... 22 
`B. 
`VII.  Secondary Considerations ............................................................................. 24 
`A.  No nexus. ............................................................................................. 24 
`1. 
`PO is not entitled to a presumption of nexus. ........................... 24 
`2. 
`PO fails to prove nexus. ............................................................ 25 
`Praise/licensing lacks nexus and is self-serving. ................................ 27 
`B. 
`PO did not show commercial success. ................................................ 29 
`C. 
`D.  No failure of others.............................................................................. 29 
`E. 
`No evidence of copying. ...................................................................... 31 
`VIII.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 32 
`IX.  Certificate of Word Count ............................................................................. 33 
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................ 34 
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`Updated: June 11, 2021
`
`APPL-1001
`APPL-1002
`APPL-1003
`APPL-1004
`APPL-1005
`
`APPL-1006
`APPL-1007
`APPL-1008
`APPL-1009
`
`APPL-1010
`
`APPL-1011
`APPL-1012
`APPL-1013
`
`APPL-1014
`APPL-1015
`
`APPL-1016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898 to Cohen et al. (the “’898 Patent”)
`Prosecution File History of the ’898 Patent (the “’720 App”)
`Declaration of Dr. Fredo Durand
`CV of Dr. Fredo Durand
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0026366 to
`Golan et al. (“Golan”)
`U.S. Patent 8,081,206 to Martin et al. (“Martin”)
`U.S. Patent 7,990,422 to Ahiska et al. (“Ahiska”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,588 to Parulski et al. (“Parulski”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0030592 to
`Border et al. (“Border”)
`J.P. Patent Application Publication No. JP 2011-55246 to
`Togo, Certified English Translation and Original (“Togo”)
`RESERVED
`U.S. Patent No. 8,553,106 to Scarff (“Scarff”)
`Richard Szeliski, Computer Vision: Algorithms and
`Applications, 2011 (“Szeliski”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,854,432 to Orimoto (“Orimoto”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0019704 to
`Levey et al. (“Levey”)
`Xiong, et al., “A critical review of image registration
`methods,” International Journal of Image and Data Fusion,
`June 2010 (“Xiong”)
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`APPL-1017
`
`APPL-1018
`APPL-1019
`
`APPL-1020
`APPL-1021
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`Ralph E. Jacobson et al., The Manual of Photography:
`photographic and digital imaging, 9th Edition, 2000
`(“Jacobson”)
`RESERVED
`Hansen, et al., “Online continuous stereo extrinsic parameter
`estimation,” 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and
`Pattern Recognition, June 2012 (“Hansen”)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,571,731 to Shabtay, et al. (“’731 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0362274 to
`Christie, et al. (“Christie”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,896,697 to Golan et al. (“Golan 697 Patent)
`
`(New) APPL-
`1022
`APPL-1023 Warren J. Smith, Modern Lens Design (1992) (“Smith”)
`APPL-1024
`U.S. Patent No. 7,777,972 to Chen et al. (“Chen”)
`(New) APPL-
`Eshel, IAI Unveils the Ghost – a Miniature UAV For Special
`1025
`Operations, Aug. 8, 2011 (“Eshel”)
`APPL-1026
`Jacobs et al., “Focal Stack Compositing for Depth of Field
`Control,” Stanford Computer Graphics Laboratory Technical
`Report 2012-1 (“Jacobs”)
`Email authorizing electronic service
`NextVision MicroCam-D,
`https://www.aeroexpo.online/prod/nextvision-
`stabilizedsystems/product-185740-28436.html (“NextVision
`MicroCam-D”)
`Kodak EasyShare V610 dual lens digital camera manual, 2006
`(“Kodak EasyShare V610”)
`
`APPL-1027
`(New) APPL-
`1028
`
`(New) APPL-
`1029
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`(New) APPL-
`1030
`
`(New) APPL-
`1031
`(New) APPL-
`1032
`(New) APPL-
`1033
`(New) APPL-
`1034
`(New) APPL-
`1035
`APPL-1036
`-
`APPL-1039
`(New) APPL-
`1040
`(New) APPL-
`1041
`(New) APPL-
`1042
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`UAS VISION, “Lightweight UAS Demand Accelerates
`Development of Lightweight Payloads,”
`https://www.uasvision.com/2013/02/13/lightweight-
`uasdemand-
`accelerates-development-of-lightweight-payloads/,
`February 13, 2013 (“UAS VISION”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,462,209 to Sun (“Sun”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,974,460 to Elgersma (“Elgersma”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,880,892 to Ohtake (“Ohtake”)
`
`NextVision-Sys.com 2012 Website Video Capture, September
`2, 2012 (“NextVision 2012 Website Video Capture”)
`NextVision Stabilized Systems Ltd. Company Profile,
`September 02, 2012 (“NextVision Company Profile”)
`RESERVED
`
`Supporting Declaration of Dr. Fredo Durand to the Reply
`(“Supp. Decl.”)
`John C. Hart deposition transcript, May 21, 2021 (“Hart
`Deposition”)
`U.S. Patent App. 2006/0023083 to Yoo (“Yoo”)
`
`- v -
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`APPL-1043
`(New) APPL-
`1044
`(New) APPL-
`1045
`(New) APPL-
`1046
`(New) APPL-
`1047
`
`(New) APPL-
`1048
`
`APPL-1049
`(New) APPL-
`1050
`(New) APPL-
`1051
`(New) APPL-
`1052
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`
`RESERVED
`U.S. Patent No. 4,303,316 to McElveen (“McElveen”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,429,328 to Jones et al. (“Jones”)
`
`Christopher A. Mayhew, Texture and Depth Enhancement for
`Motion Pictures and Television, 1990 (“Mayhew”)
`Corephotonics, “iPhone 7 Plus switches between cameras
`when zooming in and out,” August 2, 2017,
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iJorjnz0JM
`(“Corephotonics iPhone 7 Plus Video”)
`Corephotonics, “Corephotonics Dual Camera Zoom in & out -
`No jump,” August 2, 2017,
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKvNv3VfcPs
`(“Corephotonics No Jump Video”)
`RESERVED
`Colibri2 – NextVision, https://www.nextvision-
`sys.com/colibri-2-2/
`Nighthawk2-UZ – NextVision, https://www.nextvision-
`sys.com/nighthawk2-uz/
`Vision III Imaging, Inc., “v3 Tea Party Digital Cinema
`Demo,” Feb 22, 2013,
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpozOoMey1Q
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`For reasons discussed in the Petition and elaborated below, the challenged
`
`claims of the ’898 Patent are unpatentable.
`
`II.
`
`POSITA WOULD HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO COMBINE
`GOLAN, MARTIN, AND TOGO.
`Patent Owner (PO) argues that a typo in Golan, [0009] would somehow
`
`render the entire reference incomprehensible to a POSITA. POR, 11-12. However,
`
`POSITA would have recognized “60°” to be a typo relative to example
`
`Narrow_FOV. APPL-1040, ¶¶16-20; Ex.2001, ¶41. Such a typo would not have
`
`affected a POSITA’s understanding of Golan, or motivation to combine Golan
`
`with other references. APPL-1040, ¶20.
`
`PO argues that Golan’s lossless electronic zoom range example of 36 is
`
`erroneous and should instead be 6. POR, 11-13. As shown in the figure below,
`
`PO is wrong because it completely disregards the electronic zoom performed on
`
`the Tele image (e.g., for zoom factor between 6x and 36x). APPL-1040, ¶¶21-22.
`
`Golan’s lossless zooming range of 36 is achieved by performing electronic zoom
`
`to Wide image (1x) for zoom factors 1x to 6x, switching to Tele image (6x) and
`
`performing electronic zoom to Tele image for zoom factors 6x to 36x. APPL-
`
`- 1 -
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`1003, ¶¶97-108; APPL-1040, ¶¶21-22.
`
`
`
`
`
`Golan’s Example Lossless Zooming Range of 36x,
`see (APPL-1005), Golan, [0007]-[0009].
`
`POSITA would have combined Golan and Martin.
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner’s rebuttal lacks merit.
`1.
`PO’s no-combination arguments should be rejected, because they apply
`
`incorrect analogous art standards, mischaracterize Golan and Martin, and
`
`improperly apply teaching away. See POR, 23-31.
`
`First, PO alleges that Petitioner erred in the analogous prior art analysis
`
`because Petitioner’s applied field is “simply way to[o] broad and includes far too
`
`many references.” POR, 25. PO’s “far too many references” argument is contrary
`
`to law, and should be rejected. See, e.g., Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841
`
`F.3d 995, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[F]ield of endeavor…is not limited to the
`
`specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or the
`
`particular focus within a given field.”).
`
`- 2 -
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`Petitioner applied the correct standards. Petition, 18-19. Golan and Martin
`
`
`
`are analogous art to the ’898 Patent, because they meet both standards—“the same
`
`field of endeavor” and “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
`
`the inventor was concerned.” See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1992). Golan, Martin, and the ’898 Patent are in the same field of endeavor
`
`pertaining to imaging systems including digital cameras generating video output
`
`images of the same scene from two imaging sections having different points of
`
`view. Petition, 19; (APPL-1003), ¶50; (APPL-1005), FIG. 1, Abstract, [0015];
`
`[0009], [0036]; (APPL-1006), FIG. 1, 3:6-13, 3:32-35; (APPL-1001), 1:17-19,
`
`FIGS. 1A and 1B (illustrating an exemplary dual-aperture zoom imaging system).
`
`Furthermore, Golan and Martin are each pertinent to the problem addressed in the
`
`’898 Patent, namely, achieving “a continuous, smooth zoom in video mode.”
`
`APPL-1040, ¶32; (APPL-1001), 3:16-17; see also Petition, 18-19; (APPL-1005),
`
`[0015]; (APPL-1006), 5:51-55.
`
`Second, PO’s argument that Martin’s critical alignment is not “a good
`
`choice to satisfy Golan’s desire for ‘uninterrupted imaging’” (POR, 26-27) should
`
`be rejected because it mischaracterizes critical alignment as “[i]f only a particular
`
`region need be stable, then the rest of the image need not be.” APPL-1040, ¶¶33-
`
`35. Martin’s critical alignment teaches stability in at least a particular region of
`
`- 3 -
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`interest, and does not limit its teachings to, or require, absence of stability in the
`
`
`
`rest of the image as suggested by PO. (APPL-1006), Martin, 5:53-58; 4:37-38.
`
`Third, PO argues that the combination would lead to unpredictable results
`
`because of alleged differences between Golan and Martin. POR, 27-28. As
`
`explained in detail by Dr. Durand, each of the differences alleged, including
`
`“different dependencies on the configuration of the camera pair” and “approaches
`
`to alignment and the need for camera calibration” (POR, 27-28), is based on
`
`mischaracterization of the references, supported only by Dr. Hart’s conclusory
`
`statements contrary to a POSITA’s knowledge, and would not have discouraged
`
`POSITA from applying Martin’s critical alignment teachings in Golan. APPL-
`
`1040, ¶¶36-44; (APPL-1006), Martin, 3:44-49; (APPL-1044), McElveen, 5:28-34;
`
`(APPL-1007), Ahiska, 4:58-62; 10:2-5; (APPL-1014), Orimoto, 1:58-62; (APPL-
`
`1019), Hansen, 1059; (APPL-1009), Border, [0041]-[0042]; APPL-1003, ¶¶49-54;
`
`(APPL-1005), Golan, ¶28, cl.1; (APPL-1009), Border, [0038]-[0042]; (APPL-
`
`1006), Martin, 5:6-11. PO’s alleged differences are based on mere examples—at
`
`best preferences—of Golan and Martin, which are insufficient to teach away from
`
`the claimed invention. See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`
`567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`- 4 -
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`2.
`PO fails to apply the correct motivation to combine analysis
`under KSR.
`PO argues that “Golan and Martin are so fundamentally different that
`
`POSITA, starting with Golan’s digital camera, would not have selected Martin’s
`
`autostereoscopic system…to explore possible modifications to Golan’s digital
`
`zoom.” POR, 24. PO’s argument has numerous errors, including (i) improperly
`
`requiring bodily incorporation of Martin’s autostereoscopic system, ignoring that
`
`the combination relies on Martin’s critical alignment teachings; (ii) incorrectly
`
`characterizing Golan and Martin as fundamentally different; (iii) failing to support
`
`bald assertions that alleged differences between Golan and Martin would have
`
`prevented POSITA from applying Martin’s teachings to Golan; and (iv) ignoring
`
`that Golan and Martin address the same problem, and the advantages of Martin’s
`
`solution to that problem.
`
`As explained in the Petition, at the time of the ’898 Patent, it would have
`
`been obvious to a POSITA to combine, under the KSR analysis, Golan’s imaging
`
`system with image registration as taught by Martin’s critical alignment. Petition,
`
`18-21. For POSITA starting with Golan, the question would have been how to
`
`achieve/improve seamless transition (uninterrupted imaging) when switching
`
`between imaging sections in zoom video, given a well-known problem that
`
`calibration between two cameras is alone insufficient (e.g., because of shocking,
`
`- 5 -
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`vibration, thermal variation, etc.). See, KSR Inern. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct.
`
`
`
`1727, 1744; see also Petition, 19-20; (APPL-1003), ¶¶49-54, 130-131; (APPL-
`
`1007), Ahiska, 4:58-62; 10:2-5; (APPL-1014), Orimoto, 1:58-62; (APPL-1019),
`
`Hansen, 1059; (APPL-1009), Border, [0041]-[0042]; (APPL-1040), ¶24. As such,
`
`a POSITA starting with Golan would have found it obvious to use Martin’s critical
`
`alignment including registration to provide improved seamless transition. Petition,
`
`20-21. PO has shown nothing in the prior art that teaches away from improving
`
`Golan with image registration as taught in Martin’s critical alignment. Id.
`
`PO argues that POSITA would not have plucked Martin “out of the sea of
`
`prior art” to combine “particularly” with Golan. POR, 24, 29. However, under the
`
`KSR analysis, far from the “sea of prior art” rhetorically alleged by PO, POSITA
`
`would have looked to a finite pool of references (including Martin and Ahiska) that
`
`teach image registration between images of a scene from different points of view to
`
`achieve seamless transition when switching in video output. It is irrelevant
`
`whether POSITA might also have combined Golan with other references—the
`
`record shows that POSITA would have been motivated to combine Golan with
`
`Martin. (APPL-1040), ¶24; Infineum USA L.P. v. Chevron Oronite Co. LLC, 2021
`
`WL 210722, *4 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 21, 2021) (affirming that a patent challenger is not
`
`required to prove that a POSITA would have preferred the asserted combination
`
`over other possible combinations).
`
`- 6 -
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`PO argues, citing Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Americas, Inc., 855 F.3d 1328
`
`
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) and Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2020), that
`
`a POSITA would not have selected Martin to combine with Golan. POR, 30-31.
`
`Nichia Corp. and Adidas AG are inapposite because, here, the relevant teachings of
`
`Golan and Martin address the same problem, a relation between their solutions was
`
`well-known, and no alleged difference between the relevant teachings would
`
`require the alteration of Golan’s principles of operation or render Golan
`
`inoperable. See Nichia Corp., at 1339; Adidas AG, at 1358-159; Pet. 18-20;
`
`(APPL-1006), 2:49-50; 5:51-58.
`
`B.
`
`POSITA would have combined Togo, Golan and Martin.
`
`As explained in the Petition, at the time of the ’898 Patent, it would have
`
`been obvious to POSITA to combine Golan with the image-quality-based no-
`
`switching criterion taught by Togo. Petition, 29-33. Applying the KSR analysis,
`
`for POSITA starting with Golan, the question would have been how to achieve
`
`high-quality imaging of objects at a range of distances and avoid output image
`
`degradation when quality of the telephoto image would degrade (compared to the
`
`wide image) for a close subject. See, e.g., KSR, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1744; APPL-1010,
`
`Togo, [0012]; APPL-1040, ¶¶45-47 (explaining a POSITA would have understood
`
`that telephoto lenses usually have a larger minimum focus distance, causing image
`
`quality degradation compared to wide lenses for close subjects). It is common
`
`- 7 -
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`sense (and Togo’s teaching) that if image quality degrades when switching from
`
`
`
`Wide to Tele in a zoom-in operation, better image quality video output is achieved
`
`by not switching. Id. As such, POSITA starting with Golan would have found it
`
`obvious to use Togo’s image-quality-based, no-switching criterion in Golan’s
`
`system when switching in a zoom-in operation. Id.
`
`PO’s no-combination arguments should be rejected because they
`
`mischaracterize Golan, Martin, and Togo, improperly cast example embodiments
`
`of the references as requirements, improperly apply bodily incorporation in the
`
`combination, and improperly apply teaching away. See POR, 31-35.
`
`1.
`
`PO’s no-combination arguments regarding Togo and Golan
`are meritless.
`First, PO argues that POSITA “would not be aware from Golan of any
`
`issues regarding focus and subject depth” and that Golan “assumes both images are
`
`always in perfect focus,” POR, 32, both mischaracterize Golan. APPL-1040, ¶48.
`
`POSITA would have understood the tele image degradation would be an issue for
`
`Golan, e.g., when capturing images of a subject at close distance in zoom-in
`
`operation using both Tele and Wide imaging system. Id. Further, POSITA would
`
`have understood that Golan includes embodiments that focus subjects at various
`
`distances, including at close distance and the infinite, and would be motivated to
`
`- 8 -
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`resolve any associated issues using teachings in the art. APPL-1040, ¶49; APPL-
`
`
`
`1005, [0017], claims 3, 17.
`
`Second, PO’s no-operable-results argument (POR, 32-34) improperly
`
`requires bodily incorporation of Togo’s specific structure/parts (e.g., “Togo’s
`
`measurement of subject distance Y,” “close distance A,” “Togo’s use of image
`
`composition”) into Golan, and should be rejected. APPL-1040, ¶¶50, 73. POSITA
`
`would have applies Togo’s teachings image quality no-switching criterion, instead
`
`of physical incorporation of Togo’s parts, in the digital camera of Golan. Petition,
`
`32-33; APPL-1040, ¶¶50, 73. Further, POSITA would have understood that
`
`various well-known image quality comparison techniques may be used in the
`
`combination, including for example, based on imaging distance and zoom factor,
`
`comparative pixel density evaluations, performing image analysis to compare
`
`image quality attributes including for example, sharpness, noise, dynamic range,
`
`contrast, color accuracy, distortion, exposure accuracy, etc. APPL-1040, ¶73.
`
`2.
`
`PO’s no-combination arguments regarding Togo and
`Martin are meritless.
`PO’s arguments are based on two incorrect distinctions between Togo and
`
`Martin, namely, (1) the distances between the cameras in Togo and Martin are
`
`different, and (2) Martin teaches away from the use of parallel optical axes, as used
`
`in Togo. POR, 33-35. Neither argument has merit. APPL-1040, ¶¶51-55.
`
`- 9 -
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`First, as explained by Dr. Durand, each of these assertions is incorrect and
`
`
`
`contrary to the evidence. APPL-1040, ¶¶51-55; see, e.g., APPL-1044, 5:28-34
`
`(illustrating a POSITA would have implemented Martin with a distance of
`
`approximately ⅛ to ¾ inch); APPL-1006, 4:19-20 (Martin stating using two
`
`imaging sources have “parallel points of view”).
`
`Second, such alleged distinctions are irrelevant to the combination. Togo’s
`
`image-quality-based no-switching criterion teachings apply to the combination
`
`regardless of whether a distance between cameras is close or whether optical axes
`
`are parallel. APPL-1040, ¶52.
`
`III. GROUND 1
`A. Claim limitation [1.4]
`
`PO’s arguments misrepresent Petitioner’s combination.
`1.
`POSITA would have been motivated to apply Togo’s teachings of an image-
`
`quality-based no-switching criterion in the system of Golan and Martin when
`
`zooming in, with a requested zoom factor greater than the up-transfer ZF (e.g.,
`
`switch zoom position ZFT = tangent (FOVWide)/tangent (FOVTele)) for the benefit of
`
`improved image quality as described in Togo. Petition, 48-50.
`
`PO does not directly dispute the Petition’s combination, but instead attacks
`
`Golan and Togo, each “alone” by itself, as not teaching the entirety of element
`
`[1.4]. POR, 36-39; Ex.2001, ¶¶74-77 (errantly asserting that Petitioner’s expert
`
`- 10 -
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`“appears to opine…that Golan alone discloses [and]…that Togo alone
`
`
`
`discloses…”). PO’s arguments should be rejected for this reason alone. APPL-
`
`1040, ¶¶56-57.
`
`2.
`
`PO’s Golan arguments mischaracterize Golan’s digital
`zoom.
`First, PO alleges that Dr. Durand “does not address how [Golan’s] errors
`
`would have affected a POSITA’s motivation to utilize Golan,” POR, 36-37, but
`
`does not directly dispute Dr. Durand’s explanation that Golan [0009] renders
`
`obvious an “up-transfer ZF” as claimed. Dr. Durand explained that Golan’s
`
`typographic error and informal terminology in paragraph [0009] would not have
`
`affected the invalidity analysis, including the motivation to combine analysis.
`
`APPL-1040, ¶¶58-62; see also (APPL-1008), Parulski, Fig. 8, 18:25-59. PO does
`
`not dispute otherwise.
`
`Second, PO does not directly dispute the Petition’s reliance of any portions
`
`of Golan as teaching up-transfer ZF. See, e.g., Petition, 42; (APPL-1005), [0009],
`
`[0037], [0039]; (APPL-1017), FIGS. 4.13, 4.12a, 48; (APPL-1003), ¶¶96-119.
`
`Instead, PO picks one single statement from [0047] of Golan, namely, “[t]he zoom
`
`control 130 selects an image acquisition device with the having a zoom more
`
`proximal to the requested zoom,” and argues that the term “proximal” is “far too
`
`nebulous” to prescribe a specific threshold ZFT. POR, 37. As Dr. Durand
`
`- 11 -
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`explains, POSITA would have understood both Golan’s teachings of up-transfer
`
`
`
`ZF with a switch zoom factor (e.g., at 6x in the 36x zoom range example) when
`
`zooming in, and that, in the context of Golan, the term “proximal” in Golan [0047]
`
`is far from nebulous. APPL-1040, ¶¶63-65.
`
`
`
`Golan’s Example Lossless Zooming Range of 36x,
`see (APPL-1005), Golan, [0007]-[0009]
`Third, PO’s argument that “Petitioner provides no evidence of Golan
`
`disclosing any non-switching criterion” (POR, 37) should be rejected because it
`
`is based on PO’s incorrect characterization of Petitioner’s combination as relying
`
`upon Golan alone to teach [1.4]. Petitioner details why and how to combine Togo’
`
`no-switching criterion based on image quality in the combination of Golan and
`
`Martin, and POSITA reading Golan would not have been discouraged from the
`
`combination. Petition, 47-48; APPL-1040, ¶66.
`
`- 12 -
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`3.
`PO’s Togo arguments introduce extraneous requirements
`and mischaracterize Togo.
`PO does not directly dispute that Togo teaches a no-switching criterion, and
`
`in fact, admits that “Togo’s switching criteria are evaluated for a zoom setting.”
`
`POR, 38. PO’s Togo theories manufacture extraneous requirements not recited in
`
`element [1.4] and mischaracterize Togo, and therefore should be rejected. APPL-
`
`1040, ¶67.
`
`First, PO argues that Togo’s no-switching criterion does not disclose
`
`“fulfilled in a zoom-in operation.” POR, 38 (misquoting its expert’s declaration
`
`Ex.2001, ¶77). However, PO’s expert merely alleges that Togo does not disclose
`
`“at a zoom factor (ZF) value greater than a zoom factor ZFT = tangent
`
`(FOVWide)/tangent (FOVTele),” relying on his incorrect characterization of
`
`Petitioner’s combination as relying upon Togo alone to teach element [1.4].
`
`Ex.2001, ¶¶76-77; APPL-1040, ¶68.
`
`Second, as shown in annotated FIGS. 5 and 6 below and the Petition, Togo
`
`teaches evaluating a no-switching criterion in zoom-in operation with increasing
`
`levels of zoom (1)-(4). APPL-1040, ¶¶69-70; Petition, 26-28. PO does not dispute
`
`directly the teachings of Togo’s FIGS. 5 and 6.
`
`- 13 -
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`
`
`
`
`
`(APPL-1010), FIGS. 5 and 6, juxtaposed and annotated
`
`Third, PO argues that Togo’s image-quality-based no-switching criterion
`
`(e.g., “setting magnification X < A” or “setting magnification X ≥ A and the
`
`imaging distance Y≤ B”) is not based on image quality because it does not require
`
`“image analysis.” POR, 38. However, “image analysis” is not required by element
`
`[1.4], is not argued by PO in any claim construction, and is contrary to POSITA’s
`
`understanding that image quality comparison could be achieved using techniques
`
`- 14 -
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`other than image analysis. APPL-1040, ¶71 (explaining concept of image quality
`
`
`
`was well known for many years prior to the wide adoption of computers and image
`
`analysis, and even in 2013, would not have been understood by a POSITA to
`
`require image analysis).
`
`As explained in the Petition and shown in annotated Fig. 7 below, Togo
`
`explicitly describes switching/no-switching based on comparing “image qualities
`
`of the enlarged image 22 of the wide-angle image 20 and the telephoto image 21.”
`
`Petition, 45-46; Togo, FIG. 7, [0066]-[0067]. POSITA would have understood
`
`that Togo’s image-quality-based, no-switching criterion may be implemented
`
`based on various factors that affect image quality, e.g., based on imaging distance
`
`and zoom factor, comparative pixel density, or image analysis to compare various
`
`image quality attributes. APPL-1040, ¶¶72-73.
`
`- 15 -
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`
`
`
`
`
`(APPL-1010), FIG. 7, annotated
`
`B. Claim limitation [1.5]
`
`PO’s arguments that the combination of Golan, Martin, and Togo does not
`
`teach limitation [1.5] should be rejected, because they are based on
`
`mischaracterization of Martin’s “critical alignment,” and unsupported teaching
`
`away arguments based on an extraneous “parallax” requirement for [1.5]. POR,
`
`39-40.
`
`- 16 -
`
`PUBLIC, REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
` IPR2020-00861 (Patent No. 10,230,898)
`First, Martin’s critical alignment teachings are not limited to
`
`
`
`autostereoscopic display or stereo perception, much less “sufficient amount of
`
`parallax” as asserted by PO. APPL-1040, ¶74; APPL-1006, 3:44-49, 3:6-14, 5:38–
`
`42, claim 11; see POR, 39.
`
`Second, the challenged claims do not require addressing parallax, as
`
`asserted by PO, and Martin’s critical alignment does not “depend on” parallax. As
`
`such, Martin’s critical alignment does not teach away from claim 1 or the
`
`objectives of the ’898 patent. APPL-1040, ¶75.
`
`C.
`
`PO’s Claim 4 arguments should be rejected.
`
`First, PO’s importation of “an ‘effective resolution score’ utilizing image
`
`analysis of image sensor data” into the claim term “effective resolution” (POR, 41)
`
`should be rejected, because the ’898 Patent specification describes “effective
`
`resolution score” only as an embodiment, and does not clearly express an intent to
`
`redefine the term “effective resolution.” See, e.g., (APPL-1001), 6:16-24; APPL-
`
`1040, ¶¶76-78.
`
`
`
`As Dr. Durand explained, the plain and ordinary meaning of “effective
`
`resolution” means the degree of detail, which may be measured by image quality
`
`including blurriness and sharpness—a meaning supported by undisputed evidence.
`
`Petition, 56; (APPL-10