`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 35
`Entered: December 7, 2021
`
`NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`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
`____________
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to institute an inter partes
`review of claims 1, 4, 8–12, 15, 19, and 20 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S.
`Patent No. 10,230,898 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’898 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”).
`Corephotonics, Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6
`(“Prelim. Resp.”).
`We instituted an inter partes review. Paper 7 (“Institution Decision”
`or “Inst. Dec.”); see 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Patent
`Owner filed a Response (Paper 13, “Patent Owner Response” or “PO
`Resp.”).1 Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 21, “Petitioner’s Reply” or “Pet.
`Reply”).2 Thereafter, Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 25, “Patent
`Owner Sur-Reply” or “PO Sur-Reply”).3
`An oral hearing was held on September 9, 2021 and a transcript
`(Paper 33, “Tr.”) was entered in the record.
`We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6. This is a Final
`Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 as to the
`patentability of the claims on which we instituted trial. Having reviewed the
`arguments and the supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has
`shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 4, 8–12, 15, 19,
`and 20 of the ’898 patent are unpatentable.
`
`
`1 We cite to the sealed version of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 13). The
`public version is Paper 14.
`2 We cite to the sealed version of Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 21). The public
`version is Paper 22.
`3 We cite to the sealed version of Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply (Paper 25). The
`public version is Paper 26.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`II.
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identify the following corresponding
`district court proceeding: Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:19-
`cv-04809 (N.D. Cal.). Pet. 2; Paper 4, 1.4
`We identify the following related administrative matters, including
`applications and patents claiming the benefit of the priority of the filing date
`of patents in the priority chain of the ’898 patent. See Office Consolidated
`Trial Practice Guide5 at 18; see also 84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019)
`(explaining what is considered an “administrative matter”). U.S. Patent No.
`10,356,332 (’332 patent) is a continuation of Application No. 15/324,720
`(now U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898, “the ’898 patent”). The following co-
`pending proceeding challenges a patent in the priority chain of the ’898
`patent: IPR2020-00862 (claims 1, 2, 5, 9–14, 17, 21, and 22 of the ’332
`patent).
`
`The ’898 Patent
`B.
`The ’898 patent is titled “Dual Aperture Zoom Camera with Video
`Support and Switching / Non-Switching Dynamic Control,” and is directed
`to a “dual aperture zoom digital camera operable in both still and video
`modes.” Ex. 1001, code (57).
`
`
`4 Patent Owner cites Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-
`04809-LHK (N.D. Cal.) (Paper 5, 1), but this case number appears to reflect
`a typographical error. A PACER search of Case No. 5:19-cv-04809 reveals
`that Patent Owner’s complaint in that case was erroneously identified as
`“Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-4809” on its cover page.
`5 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`
`
`The ’898 patent describes video mode zoom operation from low zoom
`factor (ZF) to higher ZF above a switch point (described variously as
`Zswitch or ZFT or uptransfer ZF), with “[processing] applied to eliminate the
`changes in the image during crossover from one camera to the other.” Id. at
`7:57–8:29.
`The ’898 patent describes that “[s]witching from the Wide camera
`output to the transformed Tele camera output will be performed unless some
`special condition (criterion), determined based on inputs obtained from the
`two camera images, occurs. In other words, switching will not be performed
`only if [a] no switching criteria is fulfilled.” Id. at 10:2–9.
`Figure 1A of the ’898 patent, reproduced below, illustrates a dual-
`aperture Zoom imaging system 100 including a Wide imaging section and a
`Tele imaging section, each having a respective lens with respect field of
`view (FOV) and respective image sensor to provide image data of an object
`or scene.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1A shows a dual-aperture zoom imaging system. Id.
`
`
`
`Challenged Claims
`C.
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 4, 8–12, 15, 19, and 20 of the ’898
`patent. Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
`1. A zoom digital camera comprising:
`a) a Wide imaging section that includes a fixed focal length
`Wide lens with a Wide field of view FOVW and a Wide
`sensor, the Wide imaging section operative to provide
`Wide image data of an object or scene;
`b) a Tele imaging section that includes a fixed focal length
`Tele lens with a Tele field of view FOVT that is narrower
`than FOVW and a Tele sensor, the Tele imaging section
`operative to provide Tele image data of the object or scene;
`and
`c) a camera controller operatively coupled to the Wide and
`Tele imaging sections and configured to evaluate if a no-
`switching criterion is fulfilled or not fulfilled, wherein if
`the no-switching criterion is fulfilled in a zoom-in
`operation between a lower zoom factor (ZF) value and a
`higher ZF value at a zoom factor (ZF) higher than an up-
`transfer ZF, the camera controller is further configured to
`output a zoom video output image that includes only Wide
`image data, and wherein if the no-switching criterion is not
`fulfilled, the camera controller is further configured to
`output a zoom video output image that includes only
`transformed, digitally zoomed Tele image data.
`Ex. 1001, 12:32–54.
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`D.
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 4, 8–12, 15, 19, and 20 as follows. See
`Pet. 7.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`1, 4, 8, 12, 15
`9
`11, 19
`10, 20
`
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`
`
`
`103
`103
`103
`103
`
`Golan6, Martin7, Togo8
`Golan, Martin, Togo, Levey9
`Golan, Martin, Togo, Border10
`Golan, Martin, Togo, Parulski11
`
`In support, Petitioner relies on the declaration of Dr. Frédo Durand
`(Ex. 1003).
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`Principles of Law
`A.
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences
`between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed
`invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing
`date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
`which the claimed invention pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
`U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis
`of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`
`
`6 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0026366 A1, published Feb.
`2, 2012 (Ex. 1005, “Golan”).
`7 U.S. Patent No. 8,081,206 B2, issued Dec. 20, 2011 (Ex. 1006, “Martin”).
`8 Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP 2011/055246 (P2011-
`55246A), published Mar. 17, 2011 (Ex. 1010, “Togo”); we refer to the
`English translation.
`9 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0019704 A1, published Jan.
`26, 2012 (Ex. 1015, “Levey”).
`10 US Patent Application Pub. No. 2008/0030592 A1, filed Aug. 1, 2006,
`published Feb. 7, 2008 (Ex. 1009, “Border”).
`11 U.S. Patent No. 7,859,588 B2, issued Dec. 28, 2010 (Ex. 1008,
`“Parulski”).
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of non-
`obviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
`onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is
`unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (2012) (requiring inter partes
`review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports
`the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). The burden of persuasion
`never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l
`Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing
`Corp. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing
`the burden of proof in an inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner
`cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere
`conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364,
`1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`B.
`Petitioner contends
`[A] Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) at the time
`of the claimed invention would have a bachelor’s degree or the
`equivalent degree in electrical and/or computer engineering, or a
`related field and 2–3 years of experience in imaging systems
`including optics and image processing. Furthermore, a person
`with less formal education but more experience, or more formal
`education but less experience, could have also met the relevant
`standard for a POSITA.
`Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 17). Patent Owner argues Petitioner’s definition of
`a person of ordinary skill in the art improperly fails to require knowledge,
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`skills or experience in the specific field of photography. PO Resp. 8.
`According to Patent Owner, 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. Id. Additionally, Patent Owner argues that neither an engineering
`education nor experience in imaging systems, even if they were focused on
`optics and image processing, require any knowledge, skills or experience in
`the field of photography. Id. at 8–9 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32–33 (Hart
`declaration)).
`“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies
`in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko
`Mfg. Co. v. Nu–Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “A less
`sophisticated level of skill generally favors a determination of [non-
`obviousness] . . . while a higher level of skill favors the reverse.”
`Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir.
`2011).
`Here, as explained below in Section III.E.2., under either articulation
`of the level of skill in the art Petitioner has shown the claims would have
`been obvious. Therefore, we do not need to determine whether knowledge
`of photography is required for the level of skill in this case. Okajima v.
`Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Where a determination of
`level of skill would not change the result, “we find no harm under the
`circumstances of this case in the Board’s failure to set forth express findings
`as to the level of skill.”).
`For the reasons above, we determine, on the full record before us, that
`the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner is consistent with
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`the ’898 patent and the asserted prior art. We adopt that level for the
`purpose of this Decision.
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`C.
`For inter partes reviews filed on or after November 13, 2018, we
`apply the same claim construction standard used by Article III federal courts
`and the ITC, both of which follow Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`Accordingly, we construe each challenged claim of the ’898 patent to
`generally have “the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history
`pertaining to the patent.” Id.
`Petitioner asserts “for the purposes of this proceeding and the analysis
`presented herein, no claim term requires express construction [and that it]
`analyzes the claims consistent with ordinary and customary meaning as
`would be understood by a POSITA in light of the specification.” Pet. 8.
`Patent Owner does not request construction of any claim term. See
`generally PO Resp.12
`
`
`12 Patent Owner proposed a construction for the limitation “no-switching
`criterion,” as recited in each of the challenged claims, in its Preliminary
`Response. Prelim. Resp. 7–9. Patent Owner asserted “no-switching
`criterion” should be construed as “one more criteria determined based on
`inputs obtained from the two camera images.” Id. at 7. In the Institution
`Decision, we did not limit “no-switching criterion” to “one more criteria
`determined based on inputs obtained from the two camera images.” Patent
`Owner did not address claim construction in its Patent Owner Response. See
`generally PO Resp. Our Scheduling Order states that “Patent Owner is
`cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be
`deemed waived.” Paper 8, 8. Thus, Patent Owner’s proposed construction
`for the limitation “no-switching criterion” is waived, and we do not
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`
`We do not discern a dispute between the parties regarding any
`limitation and we need not expressly construe any limitation to resolve the
`controversy before us. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad
`Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only
`construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to
`resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g,
`Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`
`
`D. Obviousness over Golan, Martin, and Togo
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 4, 8, 12, and 15 are unpatentable as
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Golan, Martin, and Togo. Pet. 13–59.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that the evidence sufficiently
`supports Petitioner’s contentions, Patent Owner’s contentions regarding
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness do not weigh in favor of non-
`obviousness, and thus Petitioner’s contentions establish by a preponderance
`of evidence that claims 1, 4, 8, 12, and 15 would have been obvious over
`Golan, Martin, and Togo.
`
`Overview of Golan (Ex. 1005)
`1.
`Golan concerns a “method for continuous electronic zoom in a
`computerized image acquisition system,” in which the system has “a wide
`image acquisition device and a tele image acquisition device.” Ex. 1005,
`code (57). By providing “multiple imaging devices each with a different
`fixed field of view (FOV),” Golan’s system “facilitates a light weight
`electronic zoom with a large lossless zooming range.” Id. ¶ 9. Golan’s
`
`
`explicitly construe the term for the purpose of this Decision. In re NuVasive,
`Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`Figure 1, reproduced below, illustrates a zoom control sub-system for an
`image acquisition system. Id. ¶ 26.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Golan illustrates a zoom control sub-system for an image
`acquisition system. Id.
`
`According to Golan, “[z]oom control sub-system 100 includes a tele
`image sensor 110 coupled with a narrow lens 120 having a predesigned FOV
`140, a wide image sensor 112 coupled with a wide lens 122 having a
`predesigned FOV 142, a zoom control module 130 and an image sensor
`selector 150.” Id. ¶ 37. Zoom control circuit 130 selects an appropriate
`image sensor through image sensor selector 150 and calculates a camera
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`zoom factor when it receives a required zoom from an operator. Id. ¶ 39.
`Golan’s system facilitates “continuous electronic zoom capabilities with
`uninterrupted imaging,” which “is also maintained when switching back and
`forth between adjacently disposed image sensors.” Id. ¶ 40.
`
`
`
`Overview of Martin (Ex. 1006)
`2.
`Martin concerns a method for generating an autostereoscopic display
`by aligning a first parallax image and at least one other parallax image. Ex.
`1006, code (57). By manipulating parallax images––two or more images
`with overlapping visual fields but different points of view––Martin’s method
`creates a moving three-dimensional image without the use of special
`viewing aids, i.e., an autostereoscopic display. Id. at 1:16–20; 3:32–41.
`Martin’s Figure 1, reproduced below, illustrates a method of capturing
`parallax images. Id. at 3:41–51.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Martin illustrates exemplary camera positions for
`generating parallax images. Id. at 3:17–18.
`According to Martin, “a camera 10 may capture a first set of images
`and a camera 12 may capture a second set of images of a common scene 14
`while being displaced from one another. The resulting sets of images from
`cameras 10 and 12 will be parallax images.” Id. at 3:42–46. Martin
`discloses generating a set of aligned parallax images by displaying
`alternating views of two or more parallax images at a desired view rate and
`manipulating the images such that at least a portion of the images are aligned
`with each other. Id. at 3:6–13. Figures 3a–3d, reproduced below, illustrate
`an alignment process.
`
`
`Figures 3a–3d of Martin illustrate a transformation process for
`aligning parallax images. Id. at 3:20–22.13
`In Martin, “[t]he alignment matching process begins by selecting a
`reference image 30, as shown in FIG. 3a, from a set of parallax images.
`
`13 According to Petitioner, “[a] POSITA would have understood that element
`34′ in FIG. 3b referring to a circle is a clerical error, and instead corresponds
`to the rectangle corresponding to region 34.” Pet. 17 n.1.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`Once reference image 30 has been selected, other images 32, as shown in
`FIG. 3b, from the parallax image set can be aligned to reference image 30.”
`Id. at 4:39–43. “Reference image 30 may include region of interest 34.” Id.
`at 4:51. “Unaligned image 32 may be manipulated, as shown in FIG. 3c, for
`example, until region 34′ matches alignment with region 34, as illustrated in
`FIG. 3d.” Id. at 4:54–56. “The manipulation process may be represented by
`an affine transformation including translation, rotation, scaling, and/or any
`other desired transformation.” Id. at 4:56–59.
`Martin discloses that a computer may align the images using
`convergence points in the images. Id. at 5:6–11. “The computer may
`further perform pattern matching or feature extraction algorithms . . . to
`match alignment of regions of interest in the selected images at or near the
`selected convergence points.” Id. at 5:11–28. The computer may
`continuously adjust the transformation parameters to achieve “critical
`alignment,” corresponding “to a condition where the degree of alignment is
`sufficient to achieve a stable auto-stereoscopic display. Stability of the
`whole image may not be required, as long as at least a particular region of
`interest in the auto stereoscopic display is stable.” Id. at 5:53–58. Martin
`further discloses that the process may include “parallax image manipulations
`of sub-pixel resolution to achieve critical alignment . . . where one image is
`moved with respect to another image by an amount less than an integral
`number of pixels.” Id. at 5:59–65.
`
`Overview of Togo (Ex. 1010)
`3.
`Togo is titled “Telephoto Imaging Device,” and discloses
`improvements for “[d]igital cameras and imaging devices (cameras) of
`mobile terminal devices such as mobile phones” that “realize a zoom
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`function by using a plurality of imaging modules made of a plurality of
`lenses with different focal lengths— that is, lenses of different fixed
`magnifications.” Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 2, 7, code (54).
`Togo describes switching between the respective imaging modules
`according to a magnification (zoom factor) set by a user. Id. ¶ 7. “For
`example, in a configuration . . . with a wide-angle lens and . . . a telephoto
`lens, when a subject is at a short distance, an image . . . [from] the wide-
`angle lens, which has a short focal length, is switched to, and when the
`subject is at a long distance, an image . . . [from] the telephoto lens is
`switched to.” Id. ¶ 8. “Small changes in magnification are realized by
`electronic zooming, which changes [to] a cutout region” of the switched-to
`image. Id.
`Togo teaches a zoom digital camera with “[a] first imaging
`module . . . for a wide-angle image” including a “wide angle lens system 7”
`and “a first imaging element 8 such as a CCD camera . . .” (a Wide imaging
`section). Id. ¶ 23. Togo’s zoom digital camera also includes “[a] second
`imaging module 2 . . . for a telephoto image” including a “telephoto lens
`system 10” and “a second imaging element 11 such as a CCD camera” (a
`Tele imaging section). Id. ¶ 26.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`4.
`Patent Owner explicitly contests Petitioner’s showing as to motivation
`to combine, and the last limitation of claim 1, which recites “a camera
`controller . . . ,” and presents secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
`We discuss Petitioner’s contentions as to each limitation and Patent Owner’s
`arguments below.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`“A zoom digital camera comprising:
`a) a Wide imaging section that includes a fixed focal
`length Wide lens with a Wide field of view FOVW
`and a Wide sensor, the Wide imaging section
`operative to provide Wide image data of an object
`or scene;
`b) a Tele imaging section that includes a fixed focal
`length Tele lens with a Tele field of view FOVT that
`is narrower than FOVW and a Tele sensor, the Tele
`imaging section operative to provide Tele image
`data of the object or scene”
`Petitioner contends that the embodiment depicted in Figure 1 of Golan
`
`teaches “a zoom digital imaging system with multiple imaging devices each
`defining an aperture for capturing a digital image.” Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1005
`¶¶ 3, 9, code (54); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70–74). Petitioner explains that Golan’s
`image acquisition system includes, “tele image sensor 110 coupled with a
`narrow lens 120 having a predesigned FOV 140, a wide image sensor 112
`coupled with a wide lens 122 having a predesigned FOV 142, a zoom
`control module 130 and an image sensor selector 150.” Id. at 30–33 (citing
`Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 37, 39, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 72; Ex. 1001, 3:26–28).
`
`Petitioner further contends that Golan teaches the claimed Wide
`imaging section and Tele imaging section. Id. at 35–39. Specifically,
`Petitioner argues Golan discloses “a Wide imaging section that includes a
`wide lens 122 (fixed focal length Wide lens) with FOV [Field of View] 142
`(Wide field of view FOVw) and a wide image sensor 112 (Wide sensor).”
`Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 36–37, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 76); see id. at 36
`(citing Ex. 1001, 7:3–5; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77–82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 9, 36, 37, 43; Ex.
`1017, Fig. 4.13, 48 (Jacobson photography textbook)). Petitioner also
`contends that Golan’s zoom control sub-system 100 includes “a Tele
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`imaging section that includes a tele image sensor 110 (Tele sensor) coupled
`with narrow lens 120 (a fixed focal length Tele lens) having fixed FOV 140
`(Tele FOV).” Id. at 37–38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 86; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 36, 37, code
`(57), Fig. 1); see id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 87; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 9, 36, 37, 39,
`43). Petitioner further asserts that Golan discloses that “wide FOV 142 is
`substantially wider than narrow FOV 140.” Id. at 38 (quoting Ex. 1005
`¶ 43) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 9, 37, Fig. 1) (emphasis omitted).
`Patent Owner does not specifically address the preamble and the Wide
`and Tele imaging sections of claim 1. Having reviewed the cited evidence
`and Petitioner’s contentions, we determine that Petitioner’s contentions are
`sufficiently supported.14
`“c) a camera controller operatively coupled to the
`Wide and Tele imaging sections and configured to
`evaluate if a no-switching criterion is fulfilled or
`not fulfilled, wherein if the no-switching criterion
`is fulfilled in a zoom-in operation between a lower
`zoom factor (ZF) value and a higher ZF value at a
`zoom factor (ZF) higher than an up-transfer ZF,
`the camera controller is further configured to
`output a zoom video output image that includes
`only Wide image data, and wherein if the no-
`switching criterion is not fulfilled, the camera
`controller is further configured to output a zoom
`video output image that includes only transformed,
`digitally zoomed Tele image data.”
`Petitioner contends that “Golan’s zoom control sub-system 100
`includes a camera controller including zoom control circuit 130 coupled to
`the Wide and Tele imaging sections for receiving a requested zoom and
`
`
`14 We need not determine whether the preamble is limiting because
`Petitioner shows sufficiently that it is satisfied by the prior art.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`provides an acquired image frame with the requested zoom.” Pet. 40–41
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 91–95); see id. at 39–40 (citing Ex. 1005, Figs. 1 and 2,
`claim 1, ¶¶ 48, 49; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 92, 93).
`Petitioner relies on the combination of Golan, Martin, and Togo to
`teach the claimed configuration of the camera controller. Id. at 39–55.
`Specifically, Petitioner contends that “Golan teaches a zoom switching
`setting that depends on the Wide and Tele fields of view, including a
`predetermined switch zoom factor ZFT=tangent(FOVWide)/tangent(FOVTele).”
`Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 97).
`Petitioner contends that “Golan describes that in an example, such a
`large lossless zooming range has a value of (Wide_FOV/Narrow_FOV)2,
`which is provided by ‘switching between the image sensors’ and performing
`digital zoom to both Wide and Tele images.” Id. at 41–42 (citing Ex. 1005
`¶ 9). Petitioner asserts “that [a] POSITA would have understood . . . the
`underlying geometric relationships and as such, would have understood that
`Golan’s informal terminology, ‘Wide_FOV/Narrow_FOV,’ corresponds
`to . . . ‘tangent(FOVWide)/tangent(FOVTele)’ as claimed.” Id. at 42. Petitioner
`further contends that
`Golan teaches selecting Wide image sensor and providing a
`zoom video output image including only Wide image data when
`a requested zoom factor value is less than the predetermined
`switch zoom factor ZFT, and selecting Tele image sensor and
`providing a zoom video output image including only Tele image
`data when the requested zoom factor value is greater than the up-
`transfer ZF (e.g., the predetermined switch zoom factor ZFT).
`
`Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 108 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39)).
`Petitioner contends that “Togo recognizes that ‘by switching between
`or compositing images of a plurality of optical systems and a plurality of
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`imaging elements joined to these optical systems, a wide dynamic range of
`enlargement magnification from wide-angle to telephoto can be realized.’”
`Id. at 44–45 (quoting Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 2, 8; citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 111). Petitioner
`further contends that “Togo recognized that ‘a telephoto imaging module
`with a long focal length is less sharp at close distances compared to a wide-
`angle imaging module whose focal length is short.’” Id. at 45 (quoting Ex.
`1010 ¶ 12). Further, Petitioner contends that Togo recognizes “[d]uring a
`zoom in operation, ‘a switch is made from the wide-angle imaging module
`to the telephoto imaging module. However, at this time, if the subject is
`close, the image quality degrades due to the image being from the
`telephoto imaging module.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1010 ¶ 13; citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 112).
`Petitioner contends that “Togo’s solution is for image control means 4
`(a camera controller) to employ a no-telephoto criterion based on image
`quality.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 113). For example, according to Petitioner
`“as shown in annotated FIG. 7 . . . one switching criterion is based on when
`‘the image quality of the cutout image 22 of the wide-angle image becomes
`poorer than the image quality of the telephoto image 23.’” Id. at 45 (citing
`Ex. 1010 ¶ 66).
`Petitioner also contends that “Togo describes an example image
`quality no-switching criterion to include that ‘setting magnification X < A”
`or “setting magnification X ≥ A and the imaging distance Y ≤ B.” Id.
`(quoting Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 61, 62).
`Petitioner contends that Golan combined with Martin and Togo teach
`the limitation of “if the no-switching criterion is not fulfilled, the camera
`controller is further configured to output a zoom video output image that
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`includes only transformed, digitally zoomed Tele image data.” Id. at 50.
`Specifically, Petitioner contends that in addition to the disclosure discussed
`above, “[a] POSITA would have understood that in the combination, if the
`no-switching criterion is not fulfilled, switching from Wide image to Tele
`image as taught in Golan is performed, and the zoom video output image
`includes only digitally-zoomed Tele image data.” Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1005
`¶¶ 9, 36, Fig. 1; Ex. 1010, Fig. 5(4); Ex. 1003 ¶ 123).
`As to “transformed, digitally zoomed Tele image data,” Petitioner
`contends further that “Martin teaches when switching between two
`successive images having different points of view, executing registration
`using critical alignment to register a succeeding image to a preceding image
`to generate a transformed succeeding image in video output images for a
`stable video display.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 124).
`Martin’s Figure 3, reproduced as annotated by Petitioner below,
`illustrates registration between two images as part of Martin’s critical
`alignment. Id. at 52–53 (citing e.g. Ex. 1006, 4:51–56).
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s annotated version of Martin’s
`Figures 3A–3D.15
`According to Petitioner, with respect to the annotated version of Martin’s
`Figures 3A through 3D:
`A POSITA would have understood that Martin’s critical
`alignment teaches determining correspondences between the
`coordinate systems of the two images from different points of
`view, which represent the registration between the two images
`(e.g., “represented by affine transformation . . . and/or any other
`desired transformation”), and therefore teaches executing
`registration of successive images for position matching in the
`ROI [Region of Interest] and generating a transformed
`succeeding image (e.g., transformed and shifted succeeding
`image 32 as in FIG. 3d above).
`Id. at 53–54 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 128; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 41, 42; Ex. 1013, Figs. 2.4,
`6.2, Tables 2.1, 6.1, 33–35, 273–77; Ex. 1016, 137 (Xiong article on image
`
`
`15 Petitioner apparently takes the position that element number 34′ should
`reference the rectangle, not the circle, in Martin’s Figure 3b.
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`registration methods)). Petitioner further argues that “Martin teaches in
`critical alignment, the transformed succeeding image is used to achieve
`position matching of ROI between the preceding image and transformed
`succeeding image to the video output images when switching between the
`two images for providing stable video output images” and the critical
`alignment “changes with object distance of the ROI in a specific image, and
`is performed when switching between each pair of parallax images.” Id. at
`54 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 129; Ex. 1006,