Paper No. 34
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00861 (Patent 10,230,898 B2)
`IPR2020-00862 (Patent 10,356,332 B2)1
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Thursday, September 9, 2021
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00861 (Patent 10,230,898 B2)
`IPR2020-00862 (Patent 10,356,332 B2)1
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Thursday, September 9, 2021
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861 (Patent 10,230,898 B2)
`IPR2020-00862 (Patent 10,356,332 B2)1
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`DAVID O'BRIEN, ESQUIRE
`HAYNES & BOONE, LLP
`600 Congress Avenue
`Suite 1300
`Austin, TX 78701
`(512) 867-8400
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`MARC FENSTER, ESQUIRE
`JONATHAN LINK, ESQUIRE
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard
`12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`(310) 826-7474
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, September
`9, 2021, commencing at 9:01 a.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861 (Patent 10,230,898 B2)
`IPR2020-00862 (Patent 10,356,332 B2)1
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE MOORE: Good afternoon. We are here today
`for oral arguments in Inter Partes Review numbers 2020-00861
`and 862. Let's start the hearing by getting appearances by
`the counsel. Who is here on behalf of the petitioner?
` MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Your Honor. This is David
`O'Brien at Haynes & Boone in Austin, Texas for petitioner
`Apple. I'm also here with Hong Shi, my colleague. And I
`believe that Aaron Huang from Apple and Priya Viswanath from
`Cooley are both on the line as well.
` JUDGE MOORE: All right. Thank you. And then for
`patent owner?
` MR. FENSTER: Good morning, Your Honors. This is
`Marc Fenster with Russ August & Kabat on behalf of patent
`owner, Corephotonics. With me on the line are my colleagues
`Neil Rubin, Jonathan Link, and James Tsuei.
` JUDGE MOORE: All right. Thank you. With me this
`morning -- I'm Judge Moore. We have Judge Ullagaddi and Judge
`Dougal. So as you're aware, this hearing is being held
`remotely by video conference. We want to make sure everyone
`is going to be heard. If at any time during the hearing you
`have technical or other difficulties that you feel undermine
`your ability to adequately represent your client please let us
`know immediately by contacting the team member who provided
`you with the connection information. We will address any
`issues that arise. If necessary, we can adjust the time to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00861 (Patent 10,230,898 B2)
`IPR2020-00862 (Patent 10,356,332 B2)1
`account for these technical issues.
` The judges have the parties' demonstratives but
`please remember when referring to the demonstratives to
`identify the slide you're on so that we can follow along.
`Also, if you refer to the record, make sure that you refer to
`where in the record, exhibit number, et cetera, and give the
`judges time to catch up with you and pull up the record that
`you're referring to.
` Please identify yourself when speaking so that the
`reporter can accurately record the transcript. I will also
`remind you that the recording of this proceeding either by
`audio or video is prohibited.
` As set forth in the oral hearing order, each party
`will have 90 minutes total time to argue the two cases.
`Petitioner, who bears the burden to show unpatentability, will
`begin by presenting its case-in-chief and then patent owner
`will respond thereafter the petitioner. You may reserve time
`for rebuttal and the patent owner may reserve time as well.
`You may not reserve more than half your time for rebuttal.
` I would also remind the parties that any objection,
`unless they go to confidentiality or some issue where a
`confidential matter would be revealed, but any other objection
`should be held and not interrupt the other side's
`presentation. Give us those rebuttals during your
`presentation.
` I want to say I think in these cases we do have
`secondary considerations. I believe these parties and this
`4
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00861 (Patent 10,230,898 B2)
`IPR2020-00862 (Patent 10,356,332 B2)1
`counsel have dealt with this before in these cases. Can
`counsel let me know if there are issues of confidentiality or
`if that is going to be something that we will be talking about
`today? And I guess I'll start with petitioner.
` MR. O'BRIEN: Subject to needing to respond to
`something from the patent owner, none of our material will be
`confidential. I believe there are slides identified by the
`petitioner as subject to the protective order.
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. Well, I think what you're
`telling me is that you don't plan on entering into any
`confidential information. If you do, let me know so that we
`can act accordingly. And patent owner?
` MR. FENSTER: This is Marc Fenster. We do not
`anticipate introducing or discussing confidential information
`at today's hearing.
` JUDGE MOORE: All right. Thank you. The other
`thing I saw that patent owner had two sets of slides. My
`sense in these cases are that they overlap very heavily. I
`think it would make sense for these cases -- to discuss them
`together. So if that is going to be a problem for patent
`owner we could certainly give you some time to adjust to that,
`but assuming that that's okay, we will go and do the full 90
`minutes for each party.
` So I want to have petitioner come up. Tell me how
`much time you would like to reserve total for both cases and
`we'll proceed on that basis. Again, I think I may have
`misspoke. I think petitioner also has two sets but that's I
`5
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00861 (Patent 10,230,898 B2)
`IPR2020-00862 (Patent 10,356,332 B2)1
`think the best way to proceed. Again, if the parties need
`some time or that causes any disruption please let me know.
`We'll see that it does not. We'll start with petitioner.
` MR. O'BRIEN: No problem with petitioner, Your
`Honor. In fact, you anticipated two of our questions. So I
`understand that we're going to go the full 90 for the two
`proceedings given the commonality of the subject matter. So
`that answers the consolidated transcript question. That's
`great. Will we be going with the order that we have in some
`of the prior proceedings of patent owner going forward first
`on the issues on which they bear the burden, namely the
`secondary factors?
` JUDGE MOORE: Yes.
` MR. O'BRIEN: Or will this all be a single
`integrated hearing?
` JUDGE MOORE: We can go forward if -- I got the
`sense of what I heard from patent owner that we wouldn't be
`covering that, but I'll turn to them and see if that's
`something we need to deal with. Patent owner are you going to
`give a presentation on secondary considerations?
` MR. FENSTER: Your Honor, this is Marc Fenster. So
`we had anticipated arguing pursuant to the scheduling order.
`That I would be arguing the 861 and my partner, Jonathan Link,
`would be arguing the 862. So we had anticipated two attorneys
`splitting the argument. I think that we can accommodate Your
`Honor's suggestion to have a consolidated argument doing
`everything at once. What I would suggest is that I'll start
`6
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00861 (Patent 10,230,898 B2)
`IPR2020-00862 (Patent 10,356,332 B2)1
`and then turn it over to Mr. Link in our case-in-chief to
`address any issues specific to the 862. And we may split the
`surrebuttal as well. So if that is acceptable to Your Honor
`then we are okay having the -- you know, combining the two.
`And as for the secondary considerations, I think that we'll be
`addressing the merits and leaving the secondary -- you know, I
`think we'll rest on briefs with respect to the secondary
`conditions. We're certainly not waiving those but don't think
`they merit further discussion here.
` JUDGE MOORE: Certainly. Okay. So I think that
`resolves all the preliminary issues. We don't have any issues
`with changing the order regarding secondary considerations.
`So with that, unless there's anything else from the other
`judges, petitioner just let me know how much time you would
`like to reserve once again for -- out of your total 90
`minutes.
` MR. O'BRIEN: I'll reserve 30 minutes. 60 should
`be ample.
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. 30 minutes. All right. Okay.
`So whenever you're ready.
` MR. O'BRIEN: Okay. So thank you Your Honors. May
`it please the board. I am going to speak from my slide deck
`that is for the 861 proceeding, so the 898 patent. You have
`already identified that there is a significant amount of
`commonality between these two and in fact the slide decks are
`virtually identical for both partes. The differences between
`the slide decks in terms of your using them as a reference
`7
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00861 (Patent 10,230,898 B2)
`IPR2020-00862 (Patent 10,356,332 B2)1
`into the record, the citations of course are particular to the
`patent. So I'm going to be speaking to the 861 slides as my
`backbone for the presentation and then I'll jump on points
`that are particular to the 862 which are frankly few and far
`between.
` So starting with slide 2 and sort of reiterating
`that point, you'll see the commonality between the aspects of
`in each case claim 1. Also, the other independent claim in
`each of the (indiscernible). The primary point of variation
`is just in a small switch up in how the -- either the up-
`transfer ZF or the ZFT is expressed. They are essentially the
`same concept with perhaps a little more wiggle room around the
`up-transfer ZF than around the ZFT which is defined as a ratio
`of tangents. But again, I'll be starting with the 898 and the
`terminology in the 898 is the up-transfer ZF.
` Slide 3 identifies the grounds. You're I'm sure
`familiar with those. You're also familiar with the issues and
`what items are undisputed. Let me go first to -- next to
`slide 4 and that is claim 1. First off, let me apologize. We
`have a slight correction on this slide. The yellow and green
`symbology does not precisely track with our identification of
`1.4 and 1.5. The yellow should continue down through the
`phrase "includes wide image data,". So just visually
`understand that the swatch of what we have identified in the
`petition and treat in our papers as 1.4 extends down another
`clause and that the green portion for 1.5 is actually a little
`shorter than the slide is suggesting.
`8
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00861 (Patent 10,230,898 B2)
`IPR2020-00862 (Patent 10,356,332 B2)1
` But at its essence, claim 1, it should be very
`familiar to Your Honors. It recites the very well-known
`technique of using two lenses, each with a fixed field of view
`and digitally zooming through those lenses to provide an
`extended zoom range. This is well known in both digital
`cameras, in mobile devices, at varieties of scale, this
`technique.
` And if you look at the claim, it recites the two
`cameras. It recites, as we've demonstrated before with sort
`of hand visuals, the wide lens or wide field of view lens, and
`a tele lens with a narrower field of view. It speaks to the
`camera controller that provides the zoom-in operation. So we
`zoom from the wide using the wide lens and image sensor. We
`zoom in to a point at or after which we are able to switch to
`the tele. And that switch point, that at or after point, is
`the point at or after which the zoomed in portion of the wide
`is fully subsumed within the field of view of the tele. At
`that point it's very easy to switch and we can continue the
`zooming process with the tele.
` Again, this should be both well known to the board
`and well known in the art. There are many references that
`teach this and we will discuss several of them here. At the
`at or after, at that switch point, and in this claim it said
`it involves the up transfer for ZF. The system switches to
`the tele and it switches to a transformed digitally zoomed
`tele. So switching to that transformed version. The
`transformation has to do with aligning to the other one.
`9
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00861 (Patent 10,230,898 B2)
`IPR2020-00862 (Patent 10,356,332 B2)1
`Again, this is that jump effect that we've spoken to in many
`of the other cases. What this, and frankly each of the pieces
`of prior art that we're going to discuss, the problem that
`they're each trying to solve is when we transition from the
`wide to the tele we don't want -- if I am the subject of the
`motion video, we don't want me to jump to the side because of
`a parallax shift between the images. So that's the
`transformation that it speaks to. Again, all very familiar I
`think to Your Honors, familiar to a person of skill in the
`art.
` The inventive step that this patent, the 898, and
`also the 332 purports to add is the addition of what they call
`a no-switching criterion and that encapsulates really the
`common sense insight of if my scheme is to transition or
`transform to switch from wide to the tele, if there are
`situations in which switching from the wide to the tele would
`not provide a benefit, it might degrade the image in some way,
`maybe I might not want to do that. So the non-switching
`criterion is about saying let's not do that under certain
`circumstances.
` So that's the overlay of this claim and you'll see
`what this claim adds then is two forks. It adds the -- it
`includes what we first discussed which was the normal
`operation which is to go to the transformed tele and that's
`really in limitation 1.5. 1.4 says -- and that's what happens
`when the non-switch or the no-switching criterion is not. And
`I apologize for the double negatives. We didn't write the
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861 (Patent 10,230,898 B2)
`IPR2020-00862 (Patent 10,356,332 B2)1
`claims, but that's how it works.
` And in the other situation where the no-switching
`criterion is fulfilled, so don't switch, that's the portion
`that's in the 1.4 portion and it says stick with the wide. So
`continue doing your zoom in on the wide. Don't do what you
`would normally do which is to switch to the tele. And the
`reason that you would not do that is because it wouldn't be a
`good idea. It might result in a degraded image, blurry image,
`something of that sort. So that's what this claim is about.
`That is also what the 332 claim is about. You know, again,
`it's just a slightly different formulation of the up-transfer
`ZF or the ZFT switch point.
` So moving forward then to slide 5. In this case
`and in both cases quite frankly there is no claim construction
`issue. I will note that patent owner advanced a claim
`construction issue for this no-switching criterion in its
`proffer. Your Honors reviewed that and frankly rejected it as
`an attempt to import limitations into the claim. Since
`institution and in the entirety of this trial there has been
`no discussion of claim construction. That issue has been
`abandoned by the patent owner.
` Turning to 6, there's a little bit of a road map.
`We'll go quickly to 7. I want to speak to the combination of
`Golan with Martin. These are ones that you are of course
`familiar with. We have -- yes, Your Honor? Do you have --
` JUDGE MOORE: Something small flew in front of my
`face.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00861 (Patent 10,230,898 B2)
`IPR2020-00862 (Patent 10,356,332 B2)1
` MR. O'BRIEN: It happens. So speaking to the
`combination of Golan and Martin, we have established that they
`are analogous art. We have established that both in terms of
`their field of endeavor. The first four rows of this table
`tend to correspond to field of endeavor inquiries. I'll get
`back to that in a second. And we've also established in terms
`of the other portion of that board inquiry which is reasonably
`pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors. That being
`the problem of reducing that jump effect, that me jumping to
`the side when we switch effect that is inherent in parallax
`image systems.
` So on the analogous art issue, the proper inquiry
`of the field of invention is really imaging systems. We have
`in this proceeding and other proceedings made that very clear
`that under KSR guidance as the broad field the patent owner
`has said that's way too broad. And without conceding that
`point, because that is the right analysis, we have made the
`further point that even if one took a much narrower view of
`imaging systems, video output images, two imaging sections,
`parallax images, so narrowing it really to all those
`characteristic aspects, these are in the same field of
`endeavor. And as I said, the proper inquiry is imaging
`systems and however you cut it they are in the same field of
`endeavor. It is also undisputed that the 898 patent itself
`and the 332 patent itself are in that field of endeavor.
` So turning -- I do want to comment on two other
`things that relate to the patent owner's treatment of Martin
`12
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00861 (Patent 10,230,898 B2)
`IPR2020-00862 (Patent 10,356,332 B2)1
`and this seems as good a time as any. The patent owner has
`raised for the first time in its slides, Your Honor, two -- at
`least two concepts which were never of record or never argued
`in this proceeding. One is the assertion and you'll see it in
`their slides when they get to them on 12, 13, and several
`others down from there that Martin is only about post-
`processing captured still images. Well, that's wrong. Martin
`is very clearly about both acquisition of video sequences of
`images, sequences of frames, and it's about outputting video
`sequences of images.
` So that's clearly wrong when they try to place that
`in your minds. And I'll just reiterate, that point has never
`been made in this record. They tried to argue it in previous
`proceedings. They argue it for the first time in these
`slides. You'll note that all those slides have no citations
`to the record. There's a reason they don't have citations to
`the record. It isn't in this record. And it's provably
`false.
` Second, patent owner argues that Martin's critical
`alignment only preserves parallax. Judge Moore in a prior
`proceeding and Judge Ullagaddi also in a prior proceeding, you
`asked questions of patent owner's counsel on this point.
`Absolutely Martin eliminates parallax in the region of
`interest. So their rejoinder and their constant rejoinder
`that Martin's critical alignment only preserves parallax,
`again, provably false, and two, not made in this record.
`They're arguing it here in their slides and I presume that
`13
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00861 (Patent 10,230,898 B2)
`IPR2020-00862 (Patent 10,356,332 B2)1
`you'll hear from Mr. Fenster when he stands up on that. But
`not in the record, provably false, and there's a reason they
`don't have citations to the record on that.
` So let me turn now to slide 8. Slide 8 lays out
`the KSR motivation to combine case. This is really quite
`straightforward. We do it primarily to provide you with a
`road map into the petition, into the reply for the need, the
`benefit, and the predictable results of the combination
`inquiry that we're required to make under KSR. So that's
`there for you.
` Turning to slide 9. Let me talk briefly to Golan.
`Golan will be familiar to Your Honors. Judge Dougal, perhaps
`this will be the first time you're seeing Golan, and I'll
`spend a little time on it for everyone's benefit, but Golan
`teaches switching again between a wide captured image and a
`tele image in the course of this zoom in, switch, and continue
`to zoom process. So it is within -- it's in the zoom-in
`operation. The switch is performed at a switch point. As I
`described before, it is a switch point at or after which the
`digitally zoomed into portion of the wide is fully subsumed
`within the tele. At or after that point we would be eligible
`to switch because the entire field of view is represented in
`the tele image and we can go on from there.
` As you'll see in the illustration, rectangles for
`wide and tele image. The open rectangle is meant to be the
`wide. The smaller hashed rectangle is meant to be the tele.
`But you'll see this progression. We start from a wide zoom.
`14
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00861 (Patent 10,230,898 B2)
`IPR2020-00862 (Patent 10,356,332 B2)1
`We continue to zoom in digitally. At some point, and that is
`at the zoom switch factor, we switch to the tele image. At
`that point in Golan the image is transformed to match the
`other one. And in Golan, we can get to in a moment, that
`transformation is based on the fixed calibration. So the
`previously calculated transformation coefficients that
`transform from the coordinate system of the tele lens and
`imaging sensor, one parallax image, to the other. So that
`transformation occurs. And from there we continue to zoom in.
`Straightforward, that's Golan.
` Turning to slide 10. This jump problem, it is
`solved by the transformation. This -- you know, I keep doing
`that stupid jump across the screen but that's what would occur
`if I jumped from one parallax image captured by one sensor and
`one lens to the other. There's that shift. And that's
`parallax. That jump effect that would occur if I simply
`switched without transforming is well known in the art. It's
`fundamental to systems that have two sensors such that there
`is a parallax. There's a geometry issue that results in
`things closer to the camera, closer to the imaging sensors and
`lenses shifting more, and things further and further away
`shifting less. And at infinity it's essentially no shift.
` But that depth-based amount of shift is parallax
`and the amount of shift is either the parallax shift or the
`parallax effect. Parallax always exists. A shift is
`presented in images and in the teachings that we'll get to is
`eliminated by either the use of the calibration to drive a
`15
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00861 (Patent 10,230,898 B2)
`IPR2020-00862 (Patent 10,356,332 B2)1
`transformation in Golan or a proof technique in Martin using
`critical alignment which is an image registration technique to
`do the same thing particularly in the ROI. So point on this
`slide is the jump problems due to parallax images were well
`known regardless of whether it's a zoom system or not a zoom
`system. Your record shows that. Ahiska, Scarff. We pointed
`those out to you here on the slide.
` Turning to slide 11. I'm going to speak to Martin
`I guess for the first time now. Again, this is a reference
`that should be very familiar, maybe too familiar to two of
`you. Martin teaches addressing this very same jump problem
`with a technique that it calls critical alignment. Critical
`alignment effectuates or performs that transformation by
`performing image registration and shifting according to the
`actual images captured.
` So in that sense it's a little different than Golan
`in which a previously captured test target image was using for
`calibration to set those things up. And if the test target
`was a good representation of say me, today's subject of the
`video then it would work pretty well. And if the camera
`hadn't been dropped and we weren't subject to some wild
`temperature swings so that parts tended to move a little bit,
`that would be a pretty good calibration to perform the
`transformation.
` Image registration, the technique that's described
`in Martin and called critical alignment, does have some
`advantages however because it is using the images captured
`16
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00861 (Patent 10,230,898 B2)
`IPR2020-00862 (Patent 10,356,332 B2)1
`right now today of me at, you know, 16.7 feet from the camera
`as opposed to more or less 12 where the test target was shot.
`So it has all of those advantages. And Martin teaches, and
`you'll see the illustration. You know, again, two of you have
`seen this many, many times before the illustration in the
`figure 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D sequence.
` 3A is image captured from one sensor. 3B is the
`image captured from the other imaging system and sensor that
`has this shift. So it has this parallax shift. You know, the
`features or the objects and in particular the region of
`interest image which is defined here in Martin as the square,
`not the circle or the triangle. But that collection and
`certainly the ROI is shifted. It's way over on the right side
`whereas it's over down the lower left on the preceding image
`from the other sensor.
` What Martin's critical alignment does is based on
`the image registration it determines the amount of shift and
`you'll see in figure 3C it's a move to the left, I think that
`works for you, and moved down to align with in particular the
`region of interest marker, the square in 3A. And once it's
`done that you'll notice that the resultant position matched
`image in 3D lines up precisely with 3A.
` Now Martin's teaching is that that elimination of
`the parallax shift is performed for the region of interest.
`If it turns out that there are other aspects of the scene that
`are much further back or much closer in the field of view,
`they will not be shifted correctly or sufficiently to entirely
`17
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00861 (Patent 10,230,898 B2)
`IPR2020-00862 (Patent 10,356,332 B2)1
`eliminate the parallax shift for those features at shallower
`or deeper depth. But for the one in the ROI, and if I am your
`ROI, you would expect that in the 3A version of the image with
`me and the 3B version image of me that the 3B version would be
`moved, shifted, critically aligned so that the image of me or
`the portion of me as the object in the image would critically
`align as it shows in 3D.
` So that's the concept of critical alignment. We're
`dealing with the stability of me as the region of interest so
`that I'm not in the context of shifting back and forth between
`the image streams that I'm not jumping from side to side or up
`and down or any of those things. That would be unstable.
`That would be distracting to you. It wouldn't be a good
`video. So that's Martin.
` Turning to slide 12. In terms of the combination,
`the reasons to combine, we've road mapped those for you but I
`want to hit this point real hard. It was well known at the
`time that Martin's critical alignment, mainly registration-
`based techniques, were beneficial in systems like Golan if
`calibration, that calculated in advanced, pretty good but not
`perfect (indiscernible), turned out to be insufficient to
`address a jump effect. So it was very well known in the art
`that the technique of Martin, namely critical alignment or
`image registration, had a benefit and could be used to improve
`the performance of systems like Golan.
` That is replete in our record. We cite two major
`references for that and Your Honors have picked up that in
`18
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00861 (Patent 10,230,898 B2)
`IPR2020-00862 (Patent 10,356,332 B2)1
`these institutions and other decisions. Ahiska stands
`directly for this proposition. We've provided that
`information for you as well as Border. It's on the slide.
`Both teach the benefit of image registration as an improvement
`when calibration alone is insufficient.
` So our next module I want to go to is Togo. That
`starts on page 13 of the sign post. Again, when I get to 14
`we have again this decomposition again in terms of the
`analogous art inquiry, both in the same field. The first four
`where precedence really should be given to the broad field
`that KSR counsels, the imaging systems field, but even given
`patent owner's protestations, all of these other aspects of
`these systems line up. Imaging systems, they involve the wide
`and the tele sections. They involve the digital zooming. And
`they switch from the wide to the tele during that zoom. So
`Togo has that as does the Golan and Martin combination and of
`course that is what -- that is the field -- the other imaging
`systems where the narrower field I acquiesced, so to speak,
`for the 898. That's also the case for the 332.
` Again, true to form, the problem -- so the
`reasonably pertinent problem that the inventor faced here is
`the effective high-quality imaging of images subject to a
`range of distances. So each of those deals with that problem
`but Togo deals with it in a way that is exactly as the patent
`claims. It introduces a no-switching criterion for them. And
`we discussed that that was an issue.
` So from there I'm going to go to -- on slide 15,
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861 (Patent 10,230,898 B2)
`IPR2020-00862 (Patent 10,356,332 B2)1
`again we do our road map for you in terms of KSR. Again, what
`the need was stated at a high level for effective high-quality
`imaging of objects at range or, more specifically as we sort
`of further detailed in our reply, the question of how to
`achieve high-quality imaging of objects over a range of
`distances and avoid output image degradation when the quality
`of the telephoto image would degrade compared to that of the
`Y. So that's the problem that was well known and I'll get to
`where we know what's well known from. The benefit of the
`solution and the solution here being Togo's use of a no-
`switching criterion and the predictability of the results all
`road mapped for you here on this slide.
` Slide 16 we've already gone through in the context
`of Golan so I'll skip over it. Slide 17, there is no dispute
`that this image quality degradation problem was well known and
`was a well-known issue of telephoto lenses for close subjects.
`Togo addresses this exact problem and it details the problem
`in the Togo reference.
` But we don't need to rely just on Togo. This was
`well known in the art as Dr. Durand explains to you. He
`explains in the quotes that we've provided. He also provides
`you some underlying references to understand how this plays
`out. He provides for you some minimum focus distances for a
`series of Nikon focal lengths for a Nikon zoom lens which
`demonstrate that as the focal length gets longer the minimum
`distance at which that telephoto lens is actually able to
`focus increases.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`IPR2020-00861 (Patent 10,230,898 B2)
`IPR2020-00862 (Patent 10,356,332 B2)1
` So that exemplifies the problem that Togo
`specifically describes and that people understand in the art
`that often or in general a telephoto lens may not be able to
`focus at as close range as a wide-a
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
