UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish a Motivation to Combine Golan and
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’898 PATENT ....................................... 1
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................... 6
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL ............................................. 8
`V.
`OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART ...................... 9
`A. Golan (APPL-1005) ........................................................................ 9
`B. Martin (APPL-1006) ..................................................................... 15
`Togo (APPL-1010) ........................................................................ 16
`C.
`D.
`Levey (APPL-1015) ...................................................................... 16
`E.
`Border (APPL-1009) ..................................................................... 17
`F.
`Parulski (APPL-1008) ................................................................... 17
`VI. PATENTABILITY OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS .................. 21
`A.
`Martin ............................................................................................ 21
`1.
`Different Goals ......................................................................... 23
`2.
`with Golan and Martin ............................................................. 31
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Selected Martin to Combine with
`Golan, Which Are Fundamentally Dissimilar and Directed to
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish a Motivation to Combine Togo
`
`i
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`F.
`
`Ground 2: The Petition fails to demonstrate that Claim 9 is
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Golan in view of Martin,
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish a Motivation to Combine Levey
`
`are patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Golan in view of
`
`Ground 1: The Petition fails to demonstrate that Claims 1, 4, 8, 12
`and 15 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Golan in view
`
`of Martin and Togo ........................................................................ 35
`Claim 4 .......................................................................................... 41
`Independent Claim 12 and Dependent Claims 15, 19 and 20. ...... 42
`Claim 15 ........................................................................................ 43
`Togo and Levey ............................................................................. 43
`1.
`with Golan, Martin and Togo ................................................... 43
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 47
`2.
`G. Ground 3: The Petition fails to demonstrate that Claims 11 and 19
`Martin, Togo and Border ............................................................... 49
`1.
`No Motivation to Combine Golan, Martin, Togo and Border .. 49
`2.
`Claim 11 and 19 ....................................................................... 51
`H. Ground 4: The Petition Fails to Demonstrate that Claims 10 and 20
`Martin, Togo and Parulski ............................................................. 53
`1.
`Parulski with Golan, Martin and Togo ..................................... 53
`Claim 20 ................................................................................... 54
`2.
` ....................................................................................................... 56
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Golan in view of
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish a Motivation to Combine
`
`I.
`
`Secondary Considerations/Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness
`
`ii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`Industry Praise / Licensing ....................................................... 58
`1.
`Commercial Success ................................................................ 65
`2.
`Failure of Others / Copying ..................................................... 66
`3.
`VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................... 69
`
`
`
`iii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................. 7
`
`Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc.,
`963 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................................ 31
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`839 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................ 29
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................. 7
`
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir.2016) ................................................................... 7
`
`Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG v. Hantscho Commercial Products, Inc.,
`21 F.3d 1068, 30 U.S.P.Q.2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ................................ 67
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................. 7
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................ 33
`
`Lectronsonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01129 (Jan. 24, 2020) ............................................................... 58
`
`Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Elecs. Co.,
`No. 02:13-CV-702-JRG, 2016 WL 310142 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2016) .... 30
`
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) .............................................................................. 7
`
`iv
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`Wasica Finance GMBH v. Continental Auto. Sys- tems,
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................. 8
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................... 24, 29
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ..................................................................................... 7
`
`v
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`2001
`Declaration of John Hart, Ph.D
`
`Curriculum Vitae of John Hart, Ph.D
`
`“Why You Should Use a Telephoto Lens for Landscape
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`Photos” (https://www.naturettl.com/use-telephoto-lens-
`
`landscape-photos/)
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Dkt. No. 1, Case No.
`19-cv-4809 (United States District Court, Northern District
`of California)
`
`Answer to Complaint for Patent Infringement, Dkt. No. 17,
`Case No. 19-cv-4809 (United States District Court, North-
`ern District of California)
`
`Corephotonics Proposal: “Dual Aperture Image Fusion
`Technology, Proposed Engagement Framework” (June 22,
`2014)
`
`Email chain with emails dating from July and August 2014
`
`Email chain with emails dating from March 2015
`
`Email dated December 21, 2015
`
`Email chain with emails dating from August 2016
`
`Email dated May 23, 2013
`
`Email dated May 23, 2013
`
`Declaration of Eran Kali
`
`i
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`2014
`
`
`
`
`“Lenses for portraiture” excerpted from “Lenses Guide” by
`Margaret Brown, Photo Review Media Publishing, Aug.
`2014. Available at https://www.photore-
`view.com.au/tips/lens-tips/lenses-for-portraiture.
`
`
`ii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner fails to demonstrate that any claim of the ‘898 patent is un-
`
`patentable. No cited prior art reference individually discloses the claimed lim-
`
`itations. Instead, Petitioner assembles increasingly speculative combinations
`
`of prior art in ways no person of ordinary skill would do. The arguments in
`
`the Petition are rooted in hindsight bias and a “jigsaw puzzle” approach to
`
`obviousness, which the Board should reject. Further, the combination demon-
`
`strates a fundamental misunderstanding of the prior art itself.
`
`Petitioner also fails to show that its combination of references discloses
`
`the “no-switching criteria” limitations of the ‘898 patent. A person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”), when combining Golan, Martin and Togo, would
`
`not have created a structure that met these limitations. Once properly under-
`
`stood, the prior art does not disclose any of the challenged claims.
`
`Additional limitations of the dependent claims are also not found in var-
`
`ious combinations Petitioner presents. Further, these combinations not only
`
`do not remedy the underlying deficiencies of Golan, Martin and Togo, but
`
`actually would lead a POSITA away from making such a combination.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should find all challenged claims not un- patent-
`
`able.
`
`1
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’898 PATENT1
`
`The ’898 patent is generally directed to “thin digital cameras with optical
`
`zoom operating in both video and still mode.” Ex. 1001, 3:18–22. It was is-
`
`sued on March 12, 2019 and claims priority to a provisional patent application
`
`filed on August 13, 2015. As the patent describes, in the prior art, optical
`
`zooming required mechanically moving lens elements together, which were
`
`“typically more expensive, larger and less reliable than fixed focal length
`
`lenses.” Id. at 1:44–46. This is a particular problem for cameras that can go in
`
`mobile devices, like smartphones. Another prior art alternative was digital
`
`zoom, i.e., cropping the image and using computational methods to create the
`
`appearance of zoom, but at the cost of resolution. Id. at 1:46–51.
`
`The prior art discloses multi-aperture imaging systems attempting to sim-
`
`ulate the effect of a zoom lens. Id. at 1:52–53. One such system created com-
`
`posite images but the solution requires “very large processing resources in
`
`addition to high frame rate requirements and high power consumption.” Id. at
`
`2:6–33. Another solution used a combination of lens with particular FOV
`
`characteristics to allow simulated zooming, but the solution “leads to parallax
`
`artifacts when moving to the Tele camera in video mode.” Id. at 2:34–50.
`
`
`1 See generally Ex. 2001, Hart Decl. ¶¶11-20.
`
`2
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`Other prior art solutions failed to resolve registration error or were only ap-
`
`plicable to “fused still images.” Id. at 2:51–3:10.
`
`The patent owner, Corephotonics, developed an innovative dual-aperture
`
`camera technology that uses two fixed-focal length lenses, a wide-angle lens
`
`as typically found in smartphones with single-aperture cameras, and a minia-
`
`ture telephoto lens with higher resolution in a narrower field of view. The pe-
`
`titioner, Apple, adopted this technology in its iPhone models with dual rear
`
`cameras, starting with the iPhone 7 Plus in September 2016 and continuing
`
`with its successive generations of new iPhone models. The technology is also
`
`now used in smartphones made by other manufacturers, such as Samsung and
`
`Huawei.
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 1B.
`
`
`
`3
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`To make this technology a reality, Corephotonics developed solutions to
`
`practical issues, some of which are the subject matter of the ’898 patent. For
`
`example, Corephotonics developed technology that transitions between wide-
`
`angle (“Wide”) images and telephoto (“Tele”) images while taking video.
`
`These transitions occur when adjusting the zoom factor in video mode, which
`
`includes the preview mode used for framing in still mode. See id. at 3:47-51.
`
`The ’898 discloses a zooming behavior organized into three zoom factor
`
`intervals. “Zoom from 1 to Zswitch is performed using the Wide sensor only.”
`
`“From Zswitch + ΔZoom to Zmax only the Tele sensor is operational … .” “From
`
`Zswitch to Zswitch + ΔZoom both sensors are operational.” Furthermore, the
`
`ΔZoom term can be set to different values depending on whether the “contin-
`
`uous and smooth zoom experience” is a “zoom-in” (increasing ZF) or a
`
`“zoom-out” (decreasing ZF). Id. at 7:57-8:17.
`
`The ’898 later refers to an “up-transfer ZF” and a “down-transfer ZF.”
`
`Id. at 8:30, 9:60-67, 10:37-46. The up-transfer ZF refers to a zoom factor be-
`
`tween Zswitch and ΔZoomin during a zoom-in. The down-transfer ZF refers to a
`
`zoom factor between Zswitch and ΔZoomout during a zoom-out.
`
`The ’898 defines a threshold zoom factor “ZFT” as
`
`“ZFT = Tan(FOVWide)/Tan(FOVTele)”
`
`4
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`where “the FOV is measured from the center axis to the corner of the sensor
`
`(i.e. half the nagle of the normal definition.” The ’898 states that “[s]witching
`
`cannot take place below ZFT and it can above it” because at zoom factors be-
`
`low ZFT the portion of the image available from the Tele sensor alone would
`
`not be sufficient to span the entire FOV required by that zoom setting. Fur-
`
`thermore, the ’898 teaches that Zswitch should be set to “slightly above ZFT”
`
`meaning that Zswitch should be set to a slightly higher zoom factor than ZFT.
`
`Id. at 8:18-29.
`
`The ’898 discloses the use of a global registration (GR) algorithm used
`
`alter the appearance of the Tele image to match the appearance of the Wide
`
`image at the current zoom factor during a zoom-in. Id. at 8:30-9:49.
`
`The ’898 discloses the determination of an object distance using a cali-
`
`brated disparity between corresponding pixels in registered Wide and Tele im-
`
`ages. See id. at 9:49-59.
`
`The ’898 discloses an innovative and careful analysis of situations where
`
`only a digitally zoomed Wide image would be shown during a zoom-in even
`
`when the zoom factor ZF exceeded Zoomswitch. This is done by using a “no-
`
`switching criterion” that is “determined by inputs from both Wide and Tele
`
`image data.” Id. at 4:37–42 (emphasis added); see also id. at 6:54–57, 10:2–
`
`5
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`5. The preferred embodiment in the specification includes six exemplary
`
`methods for determining the “no-switching criterion”:
`
`1. if the shift calculated by GR is greater than a first threshold,
`for example 50 pixels.
`2. if the disparity range calculated by GR is greater than a second
`threshold, for example 20 pixels, because in this case there is no
`global shift correction that will suppress movement/jump for all
`objects distances (smooth transition is impossible for all objects).
`3. if the effective resolution score of the Tele image is lower than
`that of the Wide image. In this case, there is no point in perform-
`ing the transition because no value (i.e. resolution) is gained.
`Smooth transition is possible but undesirable.
`4. if the GR fails, i.e. if the number of matching pairs found is
`less than a third threshold, for example 20 matching pairs.
`5. if, for example, that are imaged onto the overlap area are cal-
`culated to be closer than a first threshold distance, for example
`30 cm, because this can result in a large image shift to obtain ST.
`6. if some objects (for example two objects) that are imaged in
`the overlap area are calculated to be closer than a second thresh-
`old distance, for example 50 cm, while other objects (for exam-
`ple two objects) are calculated to be farther than a third threshold
`distance for example 10 m. The reason is that the shift between
`an object position in the Wide and Tele cameras is object distance
`dependent, where the closer the objects the larger the shift, so an
`image containing significantly close and far objects cannot be
`matched by simple transformation (shift scale) to be similar and
`thus provide ST between cameras.
`Id. at 10:5–36.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`The petitioner has the burden to clearly set forth the basis for its chal-
`
`lenges in the petition. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363
`
`6
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`(Fed. Cir.2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as “requiring IPR petitions to
`
`identify ‘with particularity ... the evidence that supports the grounds for the
`
`challenge to each claim’”). A petition challenging a claim on grounds of ob-
`
`viousness must sufficiently explain (1) “how specific references could be
`
`combined,” (2) “which combination(s) of elements in specific references
`
`would yield a predictable result,” and (3) “how any specific combination
`
`would operate or read on” the claims. ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon
`
`Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Further, a petitioner may not rely on the Board to substitute its own rea-
`
`soning to remedy the deficiencies in a petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.
`
`Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018) (“Congress chose to structure a process in which it’s
`
`the petitioner, not the Director, who gets to define the contours of the proceed-
`
`ing.”); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (rejecting the Board’s reliance on obviousness arguments that “could
`
`have been included” in the petition but were not, and holding that the Board
`
`may not “raise, address, and decide unpatentability theories never pre- sented
`
`by the petitioner and not supported by the record evidence”); Ariosa Diagnos-
`
`tics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding
`
`that “a challenge can fail even if different evidence and arguments might have
`
`7
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`led to success”); Wasica Finance GMBH v. Continental Auto. Sys- tems, 853
`
`F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that new arguments in a reply brief
`
`are “foreclosed by statute, our precedent, and Board guidelines”).
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`
`Dr. Durand states that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)
`
`“would include someone who had, as of the claimed priority date of the ’898
`
`Patent, a bachelor’s or the equivalent degree in electrical and/or computer en-
`
`gineering or a related field and 2-3 years of experience in imaging systems
`
`including optics and image processing” and recognizes “that someone with
`
`less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less
`
`experience could have also met the relevant standard for a POSITA.” Ex.
`
`1003, ¶17. Patent Owner does not disagree with Dr. Durand’s definition of a
`
`POSITA. Ex. 2001, ¶31.
`
`However, Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA does not require
`
`knowledge, skills or experience in the specific field of photography. The field
`
`of photography would represent knowledge, skills and experience that include
`
`e.g. the choice of lens, exposure, aperture and other settings appropriate for
`
`the aesthetics of a given shot. Neither an engineering education nor experience
`
`in imaging systems, even focusing on optics and image processing, require
`
`8
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`any knowledge, skills or experience in the field of photography. Ex. 2001,
`
`¶¶32-33.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART2
`
`A. Golan (Ex. 1005)
`
`The Golan reference was published as U.S. Patent Application Publica-
`
`tion No. 2012/0026366. (Ex. 1005.) It was filed on April 6, 2010 and claims
`
`priority to a provisional application filed on April 7, 2009. Ex. 1005, ¶1.) Go-
`
`lan explains that typically, “a camera with a large dynamic zoom range re-
`
`quires heavy and expensive lenses, as well as complex design.” Ex. 1005, ¶7.
`
`The goal motivating Golan was “light weight electronic zoom and a large loss-
`
`
`2 See generally Ex. 2001, ¶¶36-53.
`
`9
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`range requires heavy and expensive lenses, as well as complex design.” Go-
`
`lan, ¶ 7. The goal motivating Golan was “light weight electronic zoom and a
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`large lossless zooming range” by providing “multiple imaging devices each
`
`with a different fixed field of view (FOV). Golan, ¶¶ 8–9. Figure 1 of Golan
`less zooming range” by providing “multiple imaging devices each with a dif-
`
`is shown below:
`ferent fixed field of view (FOV). Ex. 1005, ¶¶8–9. Figure 1 of Golan is shown
`
`below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Golan, Fig. 1.
`Golan, Fig. 1.
`The “spatial offsets” between the sensors are “fixed.” Golan, ¶ 38. As a
`The “spatial offsets” between the sensors are “fixed.” Ex. 1005, ¶38. As
`result, Golan teaches determining the alignment offset between the sensors
`a result, Golan teaches determining the alignment offset between the sensors
`
`using a “one time” electronic calibration step. Id. This calibration is per-
`9
`formed “after the manufacturing of the image acquisition system and before
`
`the first use.” Id. This electronic calibration “yields an X-coordinate offset, a
`
`10
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`Y-coordinate offset and optionally, a Z-coordinate rotational offset of the cor-
`
`relation between wide image sensor array 110 and tele image sensor array
`
`112.” Id. The “calibration” is claimed to “facilitate[] continuous electronic
`
`zoom with uninterrupted imaging.” Id. at cl. 1.
`
`Golan summarizes the invention with a paragraph that a POSITA would
`
`understand was erroneous, misleading and outside of the normal conventions
`
`and terminology of imaging and photography. “For example, a first image
`
`sensor has a 60° angle of view and a second image sensor has a 60° angle of
`
`view. Therefore, Wide_FOY=Narrow_FOY*6.” Ex. 1005, ¶9. A POSITA,
`
`which under Dr. Durand’s definition has “a bachelor’s or the equivalent degree
`
`in electrical and/or computer engineering or a related field” would understand
`
`the asterisk “*” in this context to indicate multiplication. Golan’s statement
`
`that “Wide_FOY=Narrow_FOY*6” is mathematically inconsistent with Go-
`
`lan’s statement immediately preceding it that “a first image sensor has a 60°
`
`angle of view and a second image sensor has a 60° angle of view.” A POSITA
`
`would understand in the context of Golan ¶9 that “angle of view” is identical
`
`to “field of view” and the latter is abbreviated “FOV.” Dr. Durand relies on
`
`Golan ¶9 multiple times in his declaration. Dr. Durand does not resolve this
`
`mathematical inconsistency on the field (angle) of view of the two cameras
`
`11
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`premising Golan’s invention. Hence Dr. Durand’s opinions are premised on a
`
`mathematically inconsistent basis in Golan.
`
`Golan also erroneously refers to the “zoom” of this example as “62 = 36”
`
`also referring to this quantity as the “lossless electronic zoom.” Ex. 1005, ¶9.
`
`Golan correctly computes the zoom in a preceding example for a video stream.
`
`“In video streams (such as PAL, NTSC, SECAM, 656, etc.) the image resolu-
`
`tion is known, and by using image sensors having substantially higher resolu-
`
`tion, one can perform lossless electronic zoom. The ratio between the image
`
`sensor resolution and the output resolution dictates the lossless electronic
`
`zoom range. For example, having a 5 Megapixel, 2592x1944, image sensor
`
`array and an output resolution frame of 400x300 yields maximal lossless elec-
`
`tronic zoom of 6.48:
`
`2592/400=6.48,
`
`1944/300=6.48.”
`
`Ex. 1005, ¶¶4-6 (emphasis added). In this example, Golan properly computes
`
`the lossless zoom as the lesser of the horizontal sensor resolution divided by
`
`the horizontal output resolution, and the vertical sensor resolution divided by
`
`the vertical output resolution.
`
`12
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`Using Golan’s preceding definition of zoom (which a POSITA would un-
`
`derstand as the correct definition), then if the “Wide_FOV = Nar-
`
`row_FOV*6,” then switching from the wide sensor to the narrow sensor
`
`would have provided a “lossless electronic zoom” of 6, not “6^2 = 36.” Id. at
`
`¶9. Golan further uses this erroneous “lossless electronic zoom” to justify the
`
`proposed invention. “It should be noted that to obtain similar zoom (x36) by
`
`optical means, for an output resolution frame of 400x300, the needed image
`
`sensor array is:
`
`36*400=14400,
`
`36*300=10800.
`
`14400*10800=155,520,000.
`
`Hence, to obtain a zoom of ×36 by optical means, for an output resolution
`
`frame of 400x300, one needs a 155 Megapixel, 14400x10800, image sensor
`
`array.” Id. at ¶¶10-13. Using the proper “lossless electronic zoom” provided
`
`by Golan in the paragraphs preceding the “Summary of the Invention,” and
`
`also recognized by a POSITA as the proper definition, the proper sensor reso-
`
`lution needed to provide “lossless electronic zoom” by optical means given
`
`only a wide sensor, such that the “Wide_FOV = Narrow_FOV*6” would be
`
`6*400 = 2400 (not “36*400 = 14400”) horizontal by 6*300 = 1800 (not
`
`13
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`“36*300 = 10800”) vertical, which would result in a total of 2400*1800 =
`
`4,320,000 (not “14400*10800 = 155,520,000”) pixels. Hence one would need
`
`a 4.32 Megapixel (not “155 Megapixel”) image sensor array.
`
`When Golan refers to a zoom factor of 6 between the “Wide_FOV” and
`
`the “Narrow_FOV” (both of which a POSITA would understand as referring
`
`to angles), and then uses this zoom factor in reference to image and sensor
`
`resolutions, Golan is implicitly performing what a POSITA would understand
`
`as the “small angle approximation.” The small angle approximation in this
`
`case is tan θ = θ. The angle θ in this approximation is measured in radians, but
`
`since Golan is referring to a ratio between two FOV angles and using that ratio
`
`on image resolutions, the ratio of a pair of angles both measured in degrees is
`
`the same as the ratio of the same pair of angles measured in radians, so the
`
`units of the angles does not matter in this application of the small angle ap-
`
`proximation. Given a POSITA’s knowledge of photography lenses, a typical
`
`wide angle lens would have a FOV of 60° whereas a typical telephoto lens
`
`would have a FOV of 10° (not “60°”). The small angle approximation of the
`
`tangent of 10° is accurate to about 1%, but the small angle approximation of
`
`the tangent of 60° is off by about 40%.
`
`14
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`B. Martin (Ex. 1006)
`
`The Martin reference was published as U.S. Patent No. 8,081,206. Mar-
`
`tin was filed on November 20, 2003, and claims priority to a provisional ap-
`
`plication filed on November 21, 2002. Martin is directed to a system to
`
`“produc[e] two-dimensional images that, upon display, can be perceived to be
`
`three-dimensional” and, specifically, to address “one or more of the problems
`
`associated with the prior art three-dimensional image display systems and
`
`methods.” Ex. 1006, 2:60-62.
`
`Martin teaches that two “parallax” images can be aligned with one an-
`
`other by “affine transformation including translation, rotation, scaling and/or
`
`any other desired transformation. In addition, the point about which unaligned
`
`image 32 is rotated can also be adjusted to a position other than the center of
`
`the image.” Ex. 1006, 4:56-61. Martin teaches the alignment is performed by
`
`“pat- tern matching or feature extraction algorithms” or by “align[ing] the
`
`convergence points in the images based on calculated convergence points in
`
`the images” Id. at 5:8-21. Those images can then be displayed in alternative
`
`views to produce the desired autostereoscopic effect.
`
`15
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`C.
`
`Togo (Ex. 1010)
`
`Togo was published as patent application JP 2011-55246 on March 17,
`
`2011, with a filing date of Sep. 2, 2009. At [0018] it proposes a “mobile …
`
`imaging device” configured with two imaging systems, one with an auto-fo-
`
`cused wide-angle lens and a second with a “telephoto lens … focused in the
`
`distance.” Ex. 1010, [0018]. Togo further requires the two lens systems to be
`
`parallel at [0018] and elsewhere. An additional requirement of Togo is meas-
`
`urement of the distance to the subject, which at [0019] is shown to be e.g.
`
`estimated from an autofocus signal.
`
`D. Levey (Ex. 1015)
`
`Levey was published as U.S. Patent Application Publication
`
`2012/0018704 on January 26, 2012, and claims priority to its filing on July
`
`26, 2010. Levey concerns digital cameras and automatic selection of a pho-
`
`tography mode. Ex. 1015, ¶2. In Levey, a user can select between different
`
`photography modes by “single button activation,” which it says is an improve-
`
`ment over prior art techniques that required multiple steps based on navigating
`
`a menu.
`
`Levey discloses a single power button user interface to select between a
`
`previous mode or a default mode when turning on a camera. Levey discloses
`
`16
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`three alternatives for indicating an alternate power on mode: holding the
`
`power button down for longer than two seconds, pressing the power button
`
`twice in rapid succession, or pressing the power button down with more or
`
`less pressure.
`
`E.
`
` Border (Ex. 1009)
`
`Border was published as U.S Patent Application Publication
`
`2008/0030592 A1 on Feb. 7, 2008, and was filed on Aug. 1, 2006. Border
`
`describes a compositing method for combining a wide-angle image with a tel-
`
`ephoto image to support digital zooming. This method first registers one im-
`
`age to the other, resulting in a scale and translation so that both images can be
`
`accessed in the same coordinate system. This method then constructs a com-
`
`posite image where pixels are preferably resampled from neighboring pixels
`
`in the telephoto image, or when not available, then from the wide-angle image.
`
`F.
`
`Parulski (Ex. 1008)
`
`Parulski was published as U.S. Patent No. 7,859,588 on December 28,
`
`2010. It claimed priority to its filing date of March 9, 2007. Parulski concerns,
`
`in relevant part, a “digital camera that uses multiple lenses and image sensors
`
`to provide an improved imaging capability.” Ex. 1008, 1:8-10. Parulski
`
`teaches the use of two image capture stages, where one image capture stage is
`
`17
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`used to capture image data and the other is used to capture scene information
`
`such as focus information. Id. at 8:9-16.
`
`Parulski discloses a camera system comprising “the use of two (or more)
`
`image capture stages, wherein an image capture stage is composed of a sensor,
`
`a lens and a lens focus adjuster, in a multi-lens digital camera in which the
`
`two (or more) image capture stages can be used to separately capture images
`
`of the same scene so that one image capture stage can be used for autofocus
`
`and other purposes while the other(s) is used for capturing an image.” Id. at
`
`8:6-13. “More specifically, the non-capturing image stage may advanta-
`
`geously be used to provide a secondary image that can be used to modify or
`
`otherwise augment, e.g., the focus or dynamic range of the primary image.”
`
`Id. at 8:16-19.
`
`Parulski uses Figure 1 reproduced below to illustrate an “image capture
`
`assembly” including “two imaging stages 1 and 2.” Id. at 12:42-43. The image
`
`capture stages 1 and 2 comprise the zoom lenses 3 and 4 and the image sensors
`
`12 and 14… .” Id. at 12:66-67. Lenses 3 and 4 “have different focal lengths to
`
`provide and extended optical zoom range for the image capture assembly.” Id.
`
`at 10:15-17.
`
`18
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`
`
`Fig. 14 depicts a flow diagram showing a method for enhancing the depth
`
`of field of an image by using images from both image capture stages according
`
`to an embodiment of the invention.” Id. at 8:34-37, 48-51 and 9:1-4. Parulski
`
`identifies a special, different method for “enhancing the depth of field of an
`
`image” than was disclosed for “performing autofocus and for capturing digital
`
`still images.”
`
`19
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020