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
`
`_______________
`
`DECLARATION OF FRÉDO DURAND, PH.D.
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`APPL-1040 / Page 1 of 82
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`

`

`Declaration of Frédo Durand, Ph.D. in Support of
` Petitioner’s Reply IPR2020-00861
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’898 PATENT ............................................................ 3
`
`III.
`
`PRIOR ART..................................................................................................... 8
`
`A. Golan ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`IV. MOTIVATION TO COMBINE GOLAN, MARTIN, AND TOGO ............ 13
`
`A. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Golan and Martin.
` .............................................................................................................14
`
`B.
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Togo with Golan
`and Martin. ..........................................................................................26
`
`V. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1, 4, 8, 12, AND 15 ARE UNPATENTABLE
`OVER GOLAN IN VIEW OF MARTIN AND TOGO ................................ 31
`
`A.
`
`Claim 1, limitation [1.4] ......................................................................31
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments misrepresent Petitioner’s
`combination, relying on its expert’s incorrect assertion that
`Petitioner relies on Golan “alone” and Togo “alone” to disclose
`this limitation. ...........................................................................31
`
`Patent Owner’s Golan arguments mischaracterize Golan’s
`teachings of digital zoom. .........................................................31
`
`Patent Owner’s Togo arguments are based on extraneous
`requirements of element [1.4] and mischaracterization of Togo.
` ...................................................................................................36
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claim 1, limitation [1.5] ......................................................................41
`
`Claim 4 ................................................................................................42
`
`VI. GROUND 2: CLAIM 9 IS UNPATENTABLE OVER GOLAN IN VIEW
`OF MARTIN, TOGO AND LEVEY ............................................................ 45
`
`A. A POSITA would have combined Levey with Golan, Martin, and
`Togo. ....................................................................................................45
`
`B.
`
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................47
`
`VII. GROUND 3: CLAIMS 11 AND 19 ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER
`GOLAN IN VIEW OF MARTIN, TOGO, AND BORDER ........................ 50
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`APPL-1040 / Page 2 of 82
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`

`

`Declaration of Frédo Durand, Ph.D. in Support of
` Petitioner’s Reply IPR2020-00861
`
`A.
`
`A POSITA would have combined Border with Golan, Martin, and
`Togo .....................................................................................................50
`
`B.
`
`Claims 11 and 19 .................................................................................50
`
`VIII. GROUND 4: CLAIMS 10 AND 20 ARE UNPATENTABLE OVER
`GOLAN IN VIEW OF MARTIN, TOGO, AND PARULSKI ..................... 52
`
`A.
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Parulski with
`Golan, Martin, and Togo. ....................................................................52
`
`B.
`
`Claim 20 ..............................................................................................54
`
`IX.
`
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................... 56
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Patent Owner’s secondary considerations of non-obviousness are not
`relevant because there is no nexus. .....................................................56
`
`The industry praise/licensing has no nexus and much of the alleged is
`from biased sources. ............................................................................60
`
`Patent Owner did not show commercial success. ...............................72
`
`There was no failure of others, and Petitioner did not copy. ..............72
`
`X.
`
`DECLARATION ........................................................................................... 79
`
`- ii -
`
`APPL-1040 / Page 3 of 82
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`

`

` Declaration of Frédo Durand, Ph.D. in Support of
` Petitioner’s Reply IPR2020-00861
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I, Frédo Durand, who previously submitted a declaration as APPL-
`
`1003 in this proceeding. The terms of my engagement, my background,
`
`qualifications and prior testimony, and the legal standards and claim constructions
`
`I am applying are set forth in my previous CV and declaration. See APPL-1003;
`
`APPL-1004. I offer this declaration in reply to the Response the Patent Owner
`
`filed in this proceeding. In forming my opinion, I have considered the materials
`
`noted in my previous declaration, as well as the following additional materials:
`
`(1) Dr. Hart’s Declaration, Ex.2001;
`
`(2)
`
`the Declaration of Eran Kali (Ex.2013);
`
`(3)
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Paper No. 13 (POR);
`
`(4) U.S. Patent No. 8,896,697 to Golan et al. (“Golan 697 Patent) (APPL-
`
`1022);
`
`(5) NextVision Product Specs (APPL-1025);
`
`(6) NextVision MicroCam-D (APPL-1028);
`
`(7) Kodak EasyShare V610 dual lens digital camera (“Kodak Easy
`
`Share”), APPL-1029;
`
`(8) UAS VISION, “Lightweight UAS Demand Accelerates Development
`
`of Lightweight Payloads,” February 13, 2013 (“UAS VISION”), APPL-1030;
`
`(9) U.S. Patent No. 8,462,209 to Sun (“Sun”), APPL-1031;
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`APPL-1040 / Page 4 of 82
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`

`

` Declaration of Frédo Durand, Ph.D. in Support of
` Petitioner’s Reply IPR2020-00861
`
`(10) U.S. Patent No. 7,974,460 to Elgersma (“Elgersma”), APPL-1032;
`
`(11) U.S. Patent No. 5,880,892 to Ohtake (“Ohtake”), APPL-1033;
`
`(12) NextVision-Sys.com 2012 Website Video Capture, September 2, 2012
`
`(“NextVision 2012 Website Video Capture”), APPL-1034;
`
`(13) NextVision Stabilized Systems Ltd. Company Profile, September 02,
`
`2012 (“NextVision Company Profile”), APPL-1035;
`
`(14) John D. Hart deposition transcript, May 21, 2021 (“Hart Deposition”),
`
`APPL-1041;
`
`(15) U.S. Patent App. 20060023083 to Yoo (“Yoo”), (APPL-1042);
`
`(16) U.S. Patent No. 4,303,316 to McElveen (“McElveen”), APPL-1044;
`
`(17) U.S. Patent No. 4,429,328 to Jones et al. (“Jones”), APPL-1045;
`
`(18) Christopher A. Mayhew, Texture and Depth Enhancement for Motion
`
`Pictures and Television, 1990 (“Mayhew”), APPL-1046;
`
`(19) Corephotonics, “iPhone 7 Plus switches between cameras when
`
`zooming in and out,” August 2, 2017, (“Corephotonics iPhone 7 Plus Video”),
`
`APPL-10471;
`
`
`
`1 I captured the video from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iJorjnz0JM
`
`(“iPhone 7 Plus switches between cameras when zooming in and out”) on April 20,
`
`2021.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`APPL-1040 / Page 5 of 82
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`

`

` Declaration of Frédo Durand, Ph.D. in Support of
` Petitioner’s Reply IPR2020-00861
`
`(20) Corephotonics, “Corephotonics Dual Camera Zoom in & out - No
`
`jump,” August 2, 2017, (“Corephotonics No Jump Video”), APPL-10482;
`
`(21) Colibri2 – NextVision, APPL-1050;
`
`(22) Nighthawk2-UZ – NextVision, APPL-1051;
`
`(23) Vision III Imaging, Inc., “v3 Tea Party Digital Cinema Demo,” Feb
`
`22, 2013, (APPL-1052)3; and
`
`(24) Any additional documents discussed below.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’898 PATENT
`
`2.
`
`Dr. Hart at ¶11 states that the ’898 Patent describes an issue related to
`
`optical zoom, which “required mechanically moving lens elements together, which
`
`were ‘typically more expensive, larger and less reliable than fixed focal length
`
`lenses,” compared to digital zoom using multiple fixed focal length lenses. (citing
`
`(APPL-1001), ’898 Patent, 1:44-46). Dr. Hart then states that this issue with
`
`optical zoom “is a particular problem for cameras that can go in mobile devices,
`
`
`
`2 I captured the video from
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKvNv3VfcPs (“Corephotonics Dual Camera
`
`Zoom in & out - No jump”) on April 20, 2021.
`
`3 I captured the video from
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpozOoMey1Q on April 21, 2021.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`APPL-1040 / Page 6 of 82
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`

`

` Declaration of Frédo Durand, Ph.D. in Support of
` Petitioner’s Reply IPR2020-00861
`
`like smartphones.”
`
`3. While I agree that optical zoom requires more complex, mechanically
`
`moving lenses which are typically larger and more expensive than those needed
`
`when using digital zoom with fixed focal length lenses, a POSITA would have
`
`understood that such an issue with optical zoom is not a problem particular for
`
`cameras for mobile devices. In fact, a POSITA would have understood this is a
`
`problem for cameras in various applications, including for example, digital still
`
`cameras and cameras for drones. See, e.g., (APPL-1010), Togo, Abstract, [0002]
`
`(addressing the issue of “optical zoom lens” in both “[d]igital cameras and imaging
`
`devices (cameras) of mobile terminal devices”); (APPL-1009), Border, Abstract,
`
`FIGS. 2A-4B (describing digital zoom with multiple lenses for digital still cameras
`
`in FIGS. 2A-2B and for cellphone cameras in FIGS. 3A-4B); (APPL-1008),
`
`Parulski, FIGS. 2A-2B and FIGS. 15A-16B (describing digital zoom with multiple
`
`lenses for digital still cameras in FIGS. 2A-2B and for cellphone cameras in FIGS.
`
`15A-16B).
`
`4.
`
`Furthermore, similar to Border and Parulski, Golan describes
`
`addressing the issue of optical zoom using digital zoom and multiple fixed focal
`
`length lenses, without any limitation for cameras of mobile devices. (APPL-1005),
`
`Golan, [0007]-[0009]. Golan does not mention mobile devices, and does not have
`
`any dimension limitation on either its imaging system or image sensors, and as
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`APPL-1040 / Page 7 of 82
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`

`

` Declaration of Frédo Durand, Ph.D. in Support of
` Petitioner’s Reply IPR2020-00861
`
`such, a POSITA would have understood that Golan’s teachings apply to imaging
`
`systems of various sizes. A POSITA would have understood that different
`
`applications may use cameras having corresponding suitable sizes. For example, a
`
`POSITA would have understood that in some drone applications, cameras larger
`
`than mobile device cameras may be used, because larger cameras may use larger
`
`image sensors having a higher resolution to achieve better image quality (e.g.,
`
`better quality in low-light, greater dynamic range, reduced diffraction, more
`
`background blur, etc.)
`
`5.
`
` A POSITA’s understanding of the applicability of Golan’s teachings
`
`to applications beyond the mobile device realm is confirmed by other disclosures
`
`from Golan’s inventors and assignee, NextVision Stabilized Systems Ltd.
`
`(“NextVision”). For example, another patent by the same inventors with the same
`
`assignee, the ’697 patent, describes “an imaging system, operatively mounted on
`
`an air-born vehicle,” also known as unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”). (APPL-
`
`1022), ’697 Patent, 1:14-18. See also APPL-1034 (approximately 4:04 minutes of
`
`video capture including (0:00-0:50min) authenticating flash content as retrieved
`
`from an archive.org crawl of the nextvision-sys.com website of September 2, 2012,
`
`(0:50-1:22min) depicting Nextvision and MicroCam-D (e.g., with 8.8X zoom),
`
`(1:22min) video feed from MicroCam-D on a flying UAV including examples of
`
`digital zoom at 2:42min and 3:21min); APPL-1035 (captured from APPL-1034 at
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`APPL-1040 / Page 8 of 82
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`

`

` Declaration of Frédo Durand, Ph.D. in Support of
` Petitioner’s Reply IPR2020-00861
`
`0:52min and reproduced below illustrating dimensions of MicroCam-D); (APPL-
`
`1025), Eshel, 2 (describing a 145cm long (4.76 ft) UAV using “stabilized daylight
`
`MicroCam D from NextVision”); (APPL-1028), NextVision MicroCam-D
`
`(describing MicroCam-D at 130 grams (4.6 oz) with a dimension of 70mm x
`
`80mm); (APPL-1030), UAS VISION, 2 (describing NextVision products as an
`
`example of lightweight payloads for lightweight UAV); (APPL-1050-1051),
`
`NextVision Colibri2 and Nighthawk2-UZ (showing dual lens cameras from
`
`NextVision ranging from 180-350 grams).
`
`6.
`
`Dr. Hart at ¶¶11-12, merely repeats the teachings of the prior art
`
`already laid out in the ’898 patent, but this summary of the prior art ignores other
`
`dual and multi-lens camera teachings in the prior art, which would have been
`
`within the knowledge of a POSITA. The prior art he fails to describe include the
`
`teachings of Golan and Martin, as described in my previous declaration.
`
`7.
`
`Dr. Hart at ¶13 states that “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
`
`miniature telephoto lens with higher resolution in a narrower field of view.”
`
`However, Dr. Hart admitted in his declaration and deposition that other prior art
`
`discloses using both a wide-angle lens and a telephoto lens. See, e.g., (APPL-
`
`1041), Hart Deposition, 161-162 (admitting at deposition that Golan discloses two
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`APPL-1040 / Page 9 of 82
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`

`

` Declaration of Frédo Durand, Ph.D. in Support of
` Petitioner’s Reply IPR2020-00861
`
`fixed focal length lenses, a wide lens and a tele lens).
`
`8.
`
`Furthermore, the ’898 patent does not require a miniature telephoto
`
`lens, and there are no limitations on size in the challenged claims. In other patents,
`
`Corephotonics has claimed a size (e.g., total track length of the lens), but no such
`
`limitations here.
`
`9.
`
`Dr. Hart at ¶13 alleges that petitioner Apple “adopted this technology
`
`in its iPhone models with dual rear cameras. …” However, Dr. Hart admitted he is
`
`just making an assumption. (APPL-1041), Hart Deposition, 150. In fact, Dr. Hart
`
`has not analyzed Apple’s products, nor has he analyzed what was provided to
`
`Apple by Corephotonics. (APPL-1041), Hart Deposition, 150. To the extent
`
`Apple has used dual aperture cameras, Dr. Hart has not shown that Apple even
`
`used what was known in the prior art – a wide and a tele lens, much less any other
`
`alleged technology as recited in the challenged claims. The ’898 patent also does
`
`not have any claim limitations requiring a “higher resolution” telephoto lens.
`
`10. Dr. Hart at ¶13 also alleges that the technology of the ’898 Patent is
`
`used by Samsung and Huawei, he provides no evidence or analysis that Samsung
`
`and Huawei use Corephotonics’ alleged “innovative dual-aperture camera
`
`technology.” Moreover, Dr. Hart does not show that any of Apple, Samsung, or
`
`Huawei use the claimed technology in the ’898 patent.
`
`11. Regarding level of ordinary skill, Dr. Hart at ¶¶31-32 opines that a
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`APPL-1040 / Page 10 of 82
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`

`

` Declaration of Frédo Durand, Ph.D. in Support of
` Petitioner’s Reply IPR2020-00861
`
`POSITA “does not require knowledge, skills or experience in the specific field of
`
`photography.” He appears to be saying that a POSITA in imaging systems are
`
`unrelated to photography. This seems nonsensical to me.
`
`12.
`
`It should be clear to Dr. Hart that the term “imaging systems” in my
`
`definition of a POSITA would include photographic and video-taking devices.
`
`These are both types of imaging systems.
`
`13.
`
`Indeed, later in his declaration, he contradicts this by admitting that a
`
`POSITA would have “additional knowledge, skill and experience in photography.”
`
`See, e.g., Ex.2001, ¶101.
`
`III. PRIOR ART
`
`A. Golan
`
`14.
`
`In ¶ 38, Dr. Hart describes Golan’s electronic calibration in a manner
`
`that indicates he does not understand Golan’s teaching. Golan’s electronic
`
`calibration “is performed to determine the alignment offsets between wide image
`
`sensor array 110 and tele image sensor array 112.” (APPL-1005), Golan, [0038].
`
`The spatial offsets between the sensors are usually fixed, meaning that the two
`
`cameras themselves are not meant to move with respect to each other after
`
`manufacturing, as would be well understood by a POSITA. (APPL-1005), Golan,
`
`[0038]. Therefore, a POSITA would have understood that the electronic
`
`calibration step can be performed, after manufacturing and/or at subsequent times,
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`APPL-1040 / Page 11 of 82
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`

`

` Declaration of Frédo Durand, Ph.D. in Support of
` Petitioner’s Reply IPR2020-00861
`
`producing the X,Y, and Z rotational offsets. Id.; see also id., [0045].
`
`15. Dr. Hart also cites selectively from claim 1 of Golan. Golan states
`
`that “calibrating of said alignment between said first image sensor array and said
`
`second image sensor array, facilitates continuous electronic zoom with
`
`uninterrupted imaging, when switching back and forth between said first image
`
`sensor array and said second image sensor array.” Id., claim 1 and [0040]. Thus,
`
`a POSITA would have understood that the alignment offsets, which may be
`
`determined after manufacturing (which Dr. Hart refers to as “pre-processing” at
`
`¶56) or at subsequent times, are applied to align the two images after they are
`
`captured “when switching back and forth” between the first and second image
`
`sensor arrays when zooming. As such, a POSITA would have understood that
`
`Golan teaches that the alignment offsets (determined during “pre-processing) are
`
`used to align images after they are captured, which Dr. Hart refers to as “post-
`
`processing.” See, e.g., Ex2001, ¶56.
`
`16. Next, Dr. Hart at ¶38 argues that a typo in Golan, [0009], would
`
`somehow render the entire reference incomprehensible to a POSITA. I disagree.
`
`Specifically, a POSITA would have immediately recognized that “a second image
`
`sensor has a 60° angle of view” in the statement “a first image sensor has a 60°
`
`angle of view and a second image sensor has a 60° angle of view” is a typo and
`
`would have understood the appropriate correction. The preceding statement
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`APPL-1040 / Page 12 of 82
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`

`

` Declaration of Frédo Durand, Ph.D. in Support of
` Petitioner’s Reply IPR2020-00861
`
`describes “[u]sing two ( or more) image sensors, having different fixed FOV,” and
`
`the following sentences explain that the two fields-of-view are related by the
`
`formula: “Wide_FOV=Narrow_FOV*6” and that “switching between the image
`
`sensors provide a lossless electronic zoom of 62=36.” Thus, a POSITA would have
`
`understood that in this example of Golan, Wide_FOV and Narrow_FOV cannot be
`
`both equal to 60°, but rather, have a relationship of a magnification (zoom) ratio of
`
`6, such that the first imaging device can be zoomed by a factor of 6x while
`
`maintaining lossless electronic zoom, and the second imaging device could zoom
`
`from that point by another 6x of further lossless electronic zoom.
`
`17. This is confirmed by the following paragraphs [0010]-[0013] of
`
`Golan, which also explains that in the particular example of an output resolution of
`
`400x300 pixels, 36x optical zoom would require a 155 Megapixel image sensor
`
`array, while using two fixed FOV imaging devices each providing 6x zoom, one
`
`could use a much simpler and less expensive 5 Megapixel sensor. See (APPL-
`
`1005), Golan, [0004].
`
`18. Contrary to Dr. Hart’s opinion that the typo makes Golan
`
`incomprehensible, a POSITA would have understood Golan’s example
`
`NARROW_FOV to be about 10°. See, e.g., Ex2001, ¶41 (Dr. Hart admitting that a
`
`POSITA would have understood that Golan teaches a full angle narrow field of
`
`view of 10°). Such a correction is also confirmed by the following more precise
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`APPL-1040 / Page 13 of 82
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`

`

` Declaration of Frédo Durand, Ph.D. in Support of
` Petitioner’s Reply IPR2020-00861
`
`computation of a full angle NARROW_FOV as 10.98°, corresponding to a
`
`Wide_FOV of 60° satisfying “Wide_FOV=Narrow_FOV*6.” A POSITA would
`
`have understood that in the example of [0009] of Golan,
`
`“Wide_FOV=Narrow_FOV*6” indicates tan(Wide_FOV/2) =
`
`tan(Narrow_FOV/2)*6. As such, in that example, a full angle Narrow_FOV may
`
`be calculated as follows:
`
`Narrow_FOV = 2 * tan-1(tan(Wide_FOV/2)/6) = 2 * tan-1(tan(60°/2)/6)
`
`= 2 * tan-1(0.096)
`
`= 10.98°.
`
`19. As such, Golan’s typo of an example “60° angle of view” for
`
`Narrow_FOV would have been recognized and corrected to about 10° by a
`
`POSITA.
`
`20. My opinions in my original declaration regarding Golan and the
`
`combination with Golan remain the same, because they do not rely on an example
`
`“60° angle of view” for Narrow_FOV. Because a POSITA would have both
`
`recognized and corrected this minor typo, as Dr. Hart acknowledges (Ex2001,
`
`¶41), it would not have affected a POSITA’s understanding of the teachings of
`
`Golan.
`
`21. Patent Owner argues that “Golan also erroneously refers to the
`
`‘zoom’ of this example as ‘62 = 36’ also referring to this quantity as the ‘lossless
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`APPL-1040 / Page 14 of 82
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`

`

` Declaration of Frédo Durand, Ph.D. in Support of
` Petitioner’s Reply IPR2020-00861
`
`electronic zoom.’,” that Golan instead only provides a lossless electronic zoom of
`
`6 by switching from the wide sensor to the tele sensor, and that Golan’s “155
`
`Megapixel” image sensor array based on the x36 optical zoom factor is therefore
`
`also incorrect. POR, 11-13. I disagree, and a POSITA would have understood
`
`Golan’s example 36 zoom factor (36x) and the example 155MP image sensor array
`
`size for 36x optical zoom factor are correct. Patent Owner’s argument is incorrect
`
`because it completely disregards the electronic zoom performed on the Tele image
`
`(e.g., for zoom factor between 6x and 36x). Indeed, the goal of Golan is to
`
`combine dual aperture lenses with fixed focal length, with digital zoom to achieve
`
`a large zoom range. If the tele sensor digital zoom is ignored, as Patent Owner and
`
`Dr. Hart do (which would achieve a zoom range of 6x), much of the benefit of
`
`Golan (e.g., achieving a zoom range of 36x) would not be realized.
`
`22. As shown in the figure below, and as explained in my original
`
`declaration, a POSITA would have understood that Golan’s example lossless
`
`zooming range of 36 is provided by switching between Wide and Tele sensors at a
`
`switch zoom factor ZFT (e.g., having a value of
`
`tan(Wide_FOV/2)/tan(Narrow_FOV/2) = 6) that is the relative magnification ratio
`
`of Tele image to Wide image, e.g., by switching at a switch zoom factor equal to 6,
`
`performing digital zoom to Wide image for a requested zoom factor between 1 and
`
`6, and performing digital zoom to Tele image for a requested zoom factor between
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`APPL-1040 / Page 15 of 82
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`

`

` Declaration of Frédo Durand, Ph.D. in Support of
` Petitioner’s Reply IPR2020-00861
`
`6 and 36. APPL-1003, ¶¶97-108. In other words, Golan’s example achieves a
`
`zoom range of 36x by performing a digital zoom 6x to Tele image, which is
`
`already 6x of the Wide image (1x).
`
`
`
`Golan’s Example Lossless Zooming Range of 36x,
`see (APPL-1005), Golan, [0007]-[0009]
`
`IV. MOTIVATION TO COMBINE GOLAN, MARTIN, AND TOGO
`
`23. Throughout his declaration, Dr. Hart appears to apply an improper
`
`teaching away standard when references merely include different disclosures or
`
`preferences. See, e.g., Ex2001, ¶¶61, 62, 69, 70, 78, 84, 89, 111. I understand that
`
`a reference teaches away “when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
`
`reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference,
`
`or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken” in the claim.
`
`I understand that a reference that “merely expresses a general preference for an
`
`alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage
`
`investigation into” the claimed invention does not teach away. Therefore, Dr.
`
`Hart’s teaching away arguments in his declaration should be rejected as he applies
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`APPL-1040 / Page 16 of 82
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`

`

` Declaration of Frédo Durand, Ph.D. in Support of
` Petitioner’s Reply IPR2020-00861
`
`the wrong standard. Dr. Hart does not show or argue that the references “criticize,
`
`discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into” the claimed invention. In
`
`many cases, he appears to merely assume that because a reference discloses one
`
`thing, it teaches away from using anything else.
`
`A. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Golan and
`Martin.
`
`24. At the time of the ’898 Patent, it was obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill to combine Golan’s imaging system with image registration as taught by
`
`Martin’s critical alignment. For an imaging system designer starting with Golan,
`
`the question was how to achieve/improve seamless transition (uninterrupted
`
`imaging) when switching between Wide image and Tele image in continuous zoom
`
`output images. As shown by prior art, where calibration between two cameras
`
`(e.g., the electronic calibration of Golan) alone is insufficient (e.g., because of
`
`shocking, vibration, thermal variation, etc.) to align two images of a scene from
`
`different points of view, a POSITA starting with Golan would have found it
`
`obvious to use Martin’s critical alignment teachings including image registration.
`
`See e.g., (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,
`
`¶¶130-131; (APPL-1006), Martin, 5:6-21. Patent Owner has not shown anything
`
`in the prior art that taught away from the use of Golan with the improvement of
`
`image registration as taught in Martin’s critical alignment. Here, far from a “sea of
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`APPL-1040 / Page 17 of 82
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`

`

` Declaration of Frédo Durand, Ph.D. in Support of
` Petitioner’s Reply IPR2020-00861
`
`prior art” as asserted by Patent Owner, a POSITA was looking at a finite and
`
`known pool of references (e.g., Martin and Ahiska) regarding aligning images of a
`
`scene from different points of view to achieve seamless transition when switching
`
`in video output.
`
`25. Regarding Martin, Dr. Hart at ¶56 asserts, “Martin discloses an image
`
`flipping display designed for autostereoscopic visual perception. Neither Dr.
`
`Durand nor I nor any POSITA are aware of any camera that utilizes this mode for
`
`image display.” Dr. Hart appears to be opining that if Martin does not use its
`
`teaching in an enclosed camera, a POSITA would not have been motivated to use
`
`the teaching in a camera. However, whether or not these processes are
`
`implemented within the processor in an enclosed camera or in external processor in
`
`an imaging system is irrelevant, because a POSITA would have understood that
`
`processes such as the critical alignment that I rely on in Martin could be performed
`
`in either location depending on the implementation.
`
`26. Moreover, a POSITA would have recognized that Martin’s assignee,
`
`“Vision III Imaging, Inc.” and co-inventor Mayhew (see (APPL-1006), Martin,
`
`(73), (75)) had a long history of applying autostereoscopic techniques to generate
`
`depth-enhanced video. See. e.g., (APPL-1046), Mayhew (paper titled “Texture
`
`and Depth Enhancement for Motion Pictures and Television” describing depth
`
`enhancement in video); (APPL-1052), “v3 Tea Party Digital Cinema Demo” from
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`APPL-1040 / Page 18 of 82
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`

`

` Declaration of Frédo Durand, Ph.D. in Support of
` Petitioner’s Reply IPR2020-00861
`
`Vision III Imaging.
`
`27. Further, multiple references cited in Martin explain that
`
`autostereoscopy generates videos with time consecutive images enhanced for 3D
`
`perception. See, e.g., (APPL-1045), Jones, FIGS. 10a-10e, 7:61-8:15; (APPL-
`
`1044), McElveen, FIG. 2, 6:60-64, 8:68-9:11.
`
`28. Patent Owner asserts, supported by Dr. Hart at ¶56, that “Martin
`
`doesn’t disclose any specific algorithm or method for aligning images,” and cast
`
`Martin as “a display system patent intended for post-processing images for
`
`display.” POR, 24-25. Dr. Hart is mistaken, and Martin does not limit critical
`
`alignment as a step of display. (APPL-1006), Martin, 6:6-9 (under heading
`
`“Display,” describing that “[t]he parallax images, and alternating views thereof,
`
`may be displayed before, during, or after critical alignment of the parallax
`
`images”); (APPL-1006), Martin, 4:25-6:5 (under heading “Critical Alignment,”
`
`provides detailed algorithm/method for using “critical alignment” to align
`
`images”). In addition, a POSITA would also understand that Martin’s inclusion of
`
`scale discloses that it can handle images from dual cameras with different FOVs or
`
`zoom capabilities. Accordingly, A POSITA would have considered Martin’s
`
`critical alignment and its additional features like “the ability to zoom in/out”
`
`((APPL-1006), Martin, 4:47-50) to have obvious uses in generating any video
`
`outputs for which it is desirable to have a transition as seamless as possible when
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`APPL-1040 / Page 19 of 82
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`

`

` Declaration of Frédo Durand, Ph.D. in Support of
` Petitioner’s Reply IPR2020-00861
`
`switching between images of a scene, for example, in the digital zoom camera of
`
`Golan.
`
`29. Patent Owner’s attempt to cast Golan as “an image acquisition patent
`
`intended for pre-processing images in preparation for photographic image capture”
`
`(POR, 25) also fails. As explained previously at ¶15, a POSITA would have
`
`understood that Golan teaches that the alignment offsets (determined during “pre-
`
`processing) are used to align images after they are captured, which Dr. Hart refers
`
`to as “post-processing,” to achieve “continuous electronic zoom with uninterrupted
`
`imaging, when switching back and forth between said first image sensor array
`
`and said second image sensor array.” See, e.g., Ex2001,