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 No. 10,230,898
`_______________
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................ 1 
`A. 
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2 
`C. 
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ........................... 2 
`III.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................................................. 2 
`IV.  THE ’898 PATENT ................................................................................... 3 
`A. 
`Summary of the ’898 Patent .................................................................. 3 
`B. 
`Prosecution History of the ’898 Patent ................................................. 5 
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 7 
`V. 
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................... 8 
`VII.  REQUESTED RELIEF ............................................................................. 8 
`VIII.  OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGES ............................................................. 8 
`A. 
`Challenged Claims ................................................................................ 8 
`B. 
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges ......................................................... 9 
`C. 
`Discretionary Denial is Not Warranted ................................................. 9 
`1. 
`Becton-Dickinson factors weigh in favor of institution. ............ 9 
`2. 
`Advanced Bionics weighs in favor of institution ..................... 13 
`3. 
`None of the General Plastic factors apply. ............................... 13 
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .. 13 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1, 4, 8, 12, and 15 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Golan in view of Martin and Togo. .................. 13 
`1. 
`Summary of Golan .................................................................... 13 
`2. 
`Summary of Martin ................................................................... 15 
`3. 
`Reasons to Combine Golan and Martin .................................... 18 
`4. 
`Summary of Togo ..................................................................... 22 
`5. 
`Reasons to Combine Togo with Golan and Martin .................. 29 
`
`IX.  
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 33 
`6. 
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 55 
`7. 
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 57 
`8. 
`Claim 12 .................................................................................... 58 
`9. 
`10.  Claim 15 .................................................................................... 59 
`Ground 2: Claim 9 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`Golan in view of Martin, Togo, and Levey. ........................................ 59 
`1. 
`Summary of Levey .................................................................... 59 
`2. 
`Reasons to Combine Levey, Golan, and Martin, and Togo...... 60 
`3. 
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 61 
`Ground 3: Claims 11 and 19 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Golan in view of Martin, Togo, and Border. .............................. 63 
`1. 
`Summary of Border ................................................................... 63 
`2. 
`Reasons to Combine Border with Golan, Martin, and Togo .... 64 
`3. 
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 66 
`4. 
`Claim 19 .................................................................................... 70 
`D.  Ground 4: Claims 10 and 20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 over Golan in view of Martin, Togo, and Parulski. .................. 71 
`1. 
`Summary of Parulski ................................................................. 71 
`2. 
`Reasons to Combine Parulski, Golan, Martin, and Togo ......... 73 
`3. 
`Claim 10 .................................................................................... 76 
`4. 
`Claim 20 .................................................................................... 77 
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 81 
`X. 
`XI.  CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ...................................................... 82 
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...................................................................... 83 
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`APPL-1001
`APPL-1002
`APPL-1003
`APPL-1004
`APPL-1005
`
`APPL-1006
`APPL-1007
`APPL-1008
`APPL-1009
`
`APPL-1010
`
`APPL-1011
`APPL-1012
`APPL-1013
`
`APPL-1014
`APPL-1015
`
`APPL-1016
`
`May 6, 2020
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898 to Cohen et al. (the “’898 Patent”)
`Prosecution File History of the ’898 Patent (the “’720 App”)
`Declaration of Dr. Fredo Durand
`CV of Dr. Fredo Durand
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0026366 to Golan
`et al. (“Golan”)
`U.S. Patent 8,081,206 to Martin et al. (“Martin”)
`U.S. Patent 7,990,422 to Ahiska et al. (“Ahiska”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,588 to Parulski et al. (“Parulski”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0030592 to
`Border et al. (“Border”)
`J.P. Patent Application Publication No. JP 2011-55246 to
`Togo, Certified English Translation and Original (“Togo”)
`RESERVED
`U.S. Patent No. 8,553,106 to Scarff (“Scarff”)
`Richard Szeliski, Computer Vision: Algorithms and
`Applications, 2011 (“Szeliski”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,854,432 to Orimoto (“Orimoto”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0019704 to Levey
`et al. (“Levey”)
`Xiong, et al., “A critical review of image registration
`methods,” International Journal of Image and Data Fusion,
`June 2010 (“Xiong”)
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`APPL-1017
`
`APPL-1018
`APPL-1019
`
`APPL-1020
`APPL-1021
`
`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`Ralph E. Jacobson et al., The Manual of Photography:
`photographic and digital imaging, 9th Edition, 2000
`(“Jacobson”)
`RESERVED
`Hansen, et al., “Online continuous stereo extrinsic parameter
`estimation,” 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and
`Pattern Recognition, June 2012 (“Hansen”)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,571,731 to Shabtay, et al. (“’731 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0362274 to
`Christie, et al. (“Christie”)
`RESERVED
`APPL-1022
`APPL-1023 Warren J. Smith, MODERN LENS DESIGN (1992) (“Smith”)
`APPL-1024
`U.S. Patent No. 7,777,972 to Chen et al. (“Chen”)
`APPL-1025
`RESERVED
`APPL-1026
`Jacobs et al., “Focal Stack Compositing for Depth of Field
`Control,” Stanford Computer Graphics Laboratory Technical
`Report 2012-1 (“Jacobs”)
`Email authorizing electronic service
`
`APPL-1027
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`INTRODUCTION
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898 (the “’898 Patent,” APPL-1001) is generally
`
`directed to a “dual aperture zoom digital camera with video support and
`
`switching/non-switching dynamic control.” (APPL-1001), Title. Challenged
`
`claims 1, 4, 8-12, 15, 19, and 20 of the ’898 Patent are directed to a multiple
`
`aperture zoom digital camera including 1) two imaging sections having respective
`
`image sensors and fixed focal length lenses with different fields of view (FOVs) to
`
`provide two images and 2) a camera controller configured to output a zoom video
`
`output image that includes only Wide image data or only Tele image data,
`
`depending on whether a no-switching criterion is fulfilled or not. As shown in this
`
`Petition, these concepts in a digital camera that uses multiple lenses and image
`
`sensors were known in the art before the priority date of the ’898 patent.
`
`This Petition, along with the cited evidence, demonstrates that claims 1, 4, 8-
`
`12, 15, 19, and 20 of the ’898 Patent were obvious under (post-AIA) 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103. Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) therefore respectfully requests that these claims be
`
`held unpatentable and cancelled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`The real party-in-interest is Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`B. Related Matters
`As of the filing date of this Petition and to the best knowledge of Petitioner,
`
`the ’898 Patent has been asserted in the following matters:
`
` Corephotonics Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5-19-cv-04809 (N.D. Cal.
`
`filed August 14, 2019).
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`Lead Counsel
`
`512-867-8457
`David W. O’Brien
`Phone:
`512-867-8644
`Fax:
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`david.obrien.ipr@haynesboone.com
`600 Congress Ave. Suite 1300
`USPTO Reg. No. 40,107
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`
`
`Back-up Counsel
`214-651-5116
`Phone:
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`214-200-0853
`Fax:
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`USPTO Reg. No. 50,271
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`512-867-8440
`Phone:
`Hong Shi
`512-867-8644
`Fax:
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`hong.shi.ipr@haynesboone.com
`600 Congress Ave. Suite 1300
`USPTO Reg. No. 69,009
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioner
`
`consents to electronic service.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’332 Patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`
`requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the grounds
`
`identified in this Petition.
`
`IV. THE ’898 PATENT
`A. Summary of the ’898 Patent
`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.” (APPL-
`
`1001), Abstract; (APPL-1003), ¶¶24-31.
`
`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 up-
`
`transfer ZF), with “[processing] applied to eliminate the changes in the image
`
`during crossover from one camera to the other.” (APPL-1001), 7:57-8:31, 8:18-34.
`
`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.” (APPL-1001), 10:1-7.
`
`FIG. 1A of the ’898 Patent 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
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`
`provide image data of an object or scene, and FIG. 2 of the ’898 Patent illustrates
`
`Wide and Tele sensors and their respective FOVs.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`(APPL-1001), FIGS. 1A and 2
`
`FIG. 2 illustrates by way of exemplary images, a larger FOV for the Wide
`
`image provided by the Wide sensor 202 and a smaller FOV for the corresponding
`
`Tele image provided by the Tele sensor.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’898 Patent
`B.
`U.S. Patent Application No. 15/324,720 (“’720 App”), which ultimately
`
`issued as the ’898 Patent, was filed on January 8, 2017. (APPL-1002), 37-40;
`
`(APPL-1003), ¶¶32-38.
`
`On June 19, 2018, a non-final Office Action was issued. Claims 1, 2, 8-14,
`
`20, and 21 were rejected under 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2014/199338
`
`to Shabtay et al. (eventually issued as US Patent 9,185,291). Id., 198-205.
`
`Remaining claims were objected to as dependent on a rejected base claim, but
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`
`allowable if rewritten. According to the Examiner, Shabtay and the art then of
`
`record did not provide disclosure of the no-switching criterion setting defined in
`
`dependent claims 3-7 and 15-19.
`
`On September 23, 2018, Applicant filed an Information Disclosure
`
`Statement disclosing 103 US Patent references (including Golan), 16 foreign patent
`
`references, and 16 non-patent literature documents. Id., 151-175.
`
`On October 10, 2018, Applicant filed an Response amending the
`
`specification to recite “in other embodiments, for higher ZF than the up-transfer
`
`ZF, there will be no switching from the Wide to the Tele camera output” and
`
`amending independent claims 1 and 13 to recite “if the no-switching criterion is
`
`fulfilled, configuring the camera controller to output at a zoom factor (ZF) higher
`
`than an up-transfer ZF a zoom video output image that includes only Wide image
`
`data” and “if the no-switching criterion is not fulfilled, configuring the camera
`
`controller to output a zoom video output image that includes only transformed,
`
`digitally zoomed Tele image data.” Id., 141-145. Claim 11 was canceled. Id.,
`
`293. Applicant’s argument against the Shabtay anticipation rejection was based
`
`on the amendment and, more specifically, that Shabtay did not itself teach “a
`
`camera controller configured to output, at a ZF higher than an up-transfer ZF, a
`
`zoom video output image that includes only Wide image data in a zoom-in
`
`operation between a lower ZF value and a higher ZF value,” but instead taught
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`
`“that any ZF higher than the up-transfer ZF a camera outputs a Tele image.” Id.,
`
`147-148.
`
`On November 16, 2018, a Notice of Allowance issued. Id., 301. Shortly
`
`after allowance, on November 25, 2018, Applicant filed an additional Information
`
`Disclosure Statement disclosing 16 US Patent references and 3 additional foreign
`
`patent references. Id., 38-42. Thereafter, on December 10, 2018, the Office issued
`
`a notice of Non-Compliant IDS, indicating that the November 25, 2018 IDS would
`
`be placed in the file, but had not been considered. Id., 37.
`
`The ’898 Patent issued on March 12, 2019. Id., 435. The allowed claims 1-
`
`10 and 12-21 of the ’720 Application were issued as claims 1-20 of the ’898
`
`Patent, respectively.
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`The level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected by the prior art of
`
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, a
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) at the time of the claimed
`
`invention would have a bachelor’s 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. (APPL-1003), ¶17. 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. Id.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`
`However, Petitioner does not imply that a person having an extraordinary level of
`
`skill should be regarded as a POSITA.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`During IPR, claims are construed according to the standard as set forth in
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.100(b) (Nov. 13, 2018). Petitioner believes that, for the purposes of this
`
`proceeding and the analysis presented herein, no claim term requires express
`
`construction. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1999). Accordingly, this Petition analyzes the claims consistent with ordinary
`
`and customary meaning as would be understood by a POSITA in light of the
`
`specification. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314-17; (APPL-1003), ¶35.
`
`VII. REQUESTED RELIEF
`Petitioner requests that the Board institute inter partes review of claims 1, 4,
`
`8-12, 15, 19, and 20 of the ’898 Patent and cancel each of those claims as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGES
`A. Challenged Claims
`Claims 1, 4, 8-12, 15, 19, and 20 of the ’898 Patent are challenged.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10 230 898
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`
`N- 1,4,8, 12,and
`
`15
`
`§103overGolan,Martin,andTogo
`
`
`
`-_ §103 over Golan, Martin, Togo, and Levey
`11 and 19
`§103 over Golan, Martin, Togo, and Border
`
`10 and 20
`
`§103 over Golan, Martin, Togo and Parulski
`
`Golan was published February 2, 2012. Martin was published September
`
`14, 2006. Togo was published March 17, 2011. Levey was published Jan. 26,
`
`2012. Border was published February 7, 2008. Parulski was published September
`
`11, 2008. Golan, Martin, Togo, Levey, Border, and Parulski are prior art to the
`
`’332 Patent under at least §102(a)(1) and are not subject to an exception under
`
`§102(b)(1)-
`
`C.
`
`Discretionary Denial is Not Warranted
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits that the Board should not exercise its
`
`discretion under 35 U.S.C. §§314(a) or 325(d) to deny this Petition.
`
`1- Becton-Dickinson factors weigh in favor ofinstitution-
`
`In determining whether to institute an IPR, the Board may consider whether
`
`“the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were
`
`presented to the Office.” §325(d). In Becfon, Dickinson and Company v. B. Braun
`
`Melsungen AG, the Board collected “common non-exclusive factors” (“Becton-
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`
`Dickinson factors” (a)-(f)) to guide the §325(d) analysis. IPR2017-01586 (PTAB
`
`Dec. 15, 2017) (Paper 8) (precedential). In Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El
`
`Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, the Board advanced a two-part framework for
`
`Becton-Dickinson factors analysis wherein if, after review of factors (a), (b), and
`
`(d), it is determined that the same or substantially the same art or arguments
`
`previously were presented to the Office, then factors (c), (e), and (f), which relate
`
`to whether petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office, are
`
`evaluated. IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential).
`
`Petitioner submits that because the Becton-Dickinson factors weigh in favor of
`
`institution, the Board should decline to exercise its discretion under §325(d).
`
`i. Factor (a) – “similarities and material differences between the
`asserted art and the prior art involved during examination”
`This petition presents new grounds and new art that have not previously
`
`been presented to the Office. Although Golan, Border and Parulski were each
`
`cited in an IDS, the only prior art involved during examination was Shabtay (WO
`
`2014/199338), which was overcome by amendment during examination. APPL-
`
`1002, 296-98.
`
`Petitioner’s grounds 1-4 rely on Togo in the combination with Golan and
`
`Martin for teachings related to the “no-switching criterion” as claimed and on
`
`Martin in the combination with Golan and Togo for the “transformed” character of
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`
`digitally zoomed Tele image data as claimed. Ground 2 relies further on Levy for
`
`teachings related to “user inputs include[ing] … camera mode” as claimed.
`
`None of Togo, Martin and Levey were before the Examiner, and none of
`
`Golan, Togo, Martin, Levey, Border and Parulski were involved during
`
`examination. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of institution. See MCP IP, LLC, v.
`
`Yehle, IPR2019-01013, 43 (PTAB Nov. 13, 2019) (Paper 7) (declining to exercise
`
`discretion under §325(d) when references not before the Examiner during
`
`prosecution are an important basis for Petitioner’s challenges).
`
`ii. Factor (b) – “cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior
`art evaluated during examination”
`None of the asserted art is cumulative to Shabtay, the only prior art
`
`evaluated during examination. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of
`
`institution.
`
`iii. Factor (d) – “extent of the overlap between arguments made
`during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on
`the prior art”
`No arguments were made during examination other than to distinguish
`
`Shabtay. The ’898 Patent acknowledged Border as Background art for teachings
`
`unrelated to the asserted grounds. There is no overlap in the manner in which
`
`Petitioner relies on the prior art. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of institution.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`iv. Factor (c) – “extent to which asserted art was evaluated during
`examination, including whether prior art was basis for rejection”
`There is no record evidence that the Examiner evaluated Golan, Martin,
`
`Togo, Levey, Border and/or Parulski in any manner, let alone as applied in
`
`Petitioner’s grounds 1-4. None formed the basis of a rejection. Thus, this factor
`
`weighs in favor of institution.
`
`v. Factor (e) – “whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how
`the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art”
`As there is no record evidence that the Examiner evaluated any of Golan,
`
`Martin, Togo, Levey, Border and/or Parulski, the Examiner arguably erred in
`
`failing to evaluate and apply at least the subset of references that were cited in an
`
`IDS, i.e., Golan, Border and Parulski. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of
`
`institution.
`
`vi. Factor (f) – “extent to which additional evidence and facts
`presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art
`or arguments”
`Petitioner presents expert testimony, which provides evidence regarding how
`
`a POSITA would understand the teachings of Golan, Border and Parulski,
`
`themselves and in combination with prior art teachings of Togo, Martin and/or
`
`Levey that has not been considered by the Office. Accordingly, this factor weighs
`
`in favor of institution.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`2. Advanced Bionics weighs in favor of institution
`Advanced Bionics’ two-part framework for a Becton-Dickinson factors
`
`analysis also weighs in favor of institution. In view of factors (a), (b), and (d), the
`
`same or substantially the same art or arguments previously was not presented to the
`
`Office. As such, the Advanced Bionics commitment to, at bottom, defer to
`
`previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is
`
`shown is not implicated.
`
`3. None of the General Plastic factors apply.
`The ’898 Patent has not been challenged in any prior IPR petition. As such,
`
`none of discretionary factors 1-5 set forth in General Plastic apply to this Petition.
`
`See General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357,
`
`Paper 19 at 16 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2016) (Section II.B.4.i. precedential). Accordingly,
`
`discretionary denial under §314(a) is not warranted.
`
`IX. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 4, 8, 12, and 15 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over Golan in view of Martin and Togo.
`1.
`Summary of Golan
`Golan discloses providing video output with “a continuous electronic zoom for
`
`an image acquisition system, the system including multiple imaging devices having
`
`different fixed FOV.” (APPL-1005), FIG. 1, Title, [0002]; (APPL-1003), ¶¶40-43.
`
`Golan teaches use of wide and tele lenses and employs wide and tele images
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`
`during digital zooming, which “facilitates a light weight electronic zoom with a large
`
`lossless zooming range.” (APPL-1005), [0009]; (APPL-1003), ¶41. Specifically, as
`
`illustrated in FIG. 1 below, Golan discloses zoom control sub-system 100 for an
`
`image acquisition system including “multiple image sensors” (e.g., tele image sensor
`
`110 and wide image sensor 112), “each with a fixed and preferably different FOV”
`
`(e.g. with tele FOV 140 and wide FOV 142 respectively). (APPL-1005), [0036]-
`
`[0037].
`
`(APPL-1005), FIG. 1
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`Golan teaches that, in embodiments of FIGS. 1 and 2, each image frame of
`
`video output is generated based on an acquired image frame from “the relevant image
`
`sensor” of an image acquisition device selected based on the user input zoom factor.
`
`(APPL-1005), FIGS. 1-2, [0039]; (APPL-1003), ¶42. Specifically, Golan teaches that
`
`zoom control circuit 130 receives a required zoom from an operator of the image
`
`acquisition system, and selects the relevant image sensor (110 and 112) by activating
`
`image sensor selector 150 position. (APPL-1005), [0039].
`
`Golan teaches that “an electronically calibrating is performed to determine the
`
`alignment offsets between wide image sensor array 110 and tele image sensor array
`
`112,” ((APPL-1005), [0038]) and that the “calibration of the alignment, between the
`
`first image sensor array and the second image sensor array, facilitates continuous
`
`electronic zoom with uninterrupted imaging, when switching back and forth
`
`between the first image sensor array and the second image sensor array.” (APPL-
`
`1005), [0015]. The electronic calibration is performed preferably with sub-pixel
`
`accuracy. Id.
`
`2.
`Summary of Martin
`Martin is directed to “critical alignment of parallax images for
`
`autostereoscopic display.” (APPL-1006), Title; (APPL-1003), ¶¶44-48.
`
`Specifically, Martin describes a method to “manipulate[ing] parallax
`
`images to create a resultant moving image” that “can be perceived to be three-
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`
`dimensional without the use of special viewing aids.” (APPL-1006), 1:18-20,
`
`3:32-41; (APPL-1003), ¶45. As shown in FIG. 1 below, Martin describes that
`
`cameras 10 and 12 are “displaced from each other” and capture respective parallax
`
`images “of a common scene 14.” (APPL-1006), 3:39-46.
`
`
`
`(APPL-1006), FIG. 1
`
`Martin describes using the parallax images to generate an autostereoscopic
`
`display “for producing two-dimensional images that, upon display, can be
`
`perceived to be three-dimensional without the use of special viewing aids.”
`
`(APPL-1006), 1:16-20. Martin describes generating the autostereoscopic display is
`
`by “alternately displaying” two parallax images on a display “to create a resultant
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`
`moving image.” (APPL-1006), 3:6-13, 3:32-35, 7:38-45. Critical alignment is
`
`used to “achieve a stable autostereoscopic display” during the alternating display
`
`of parallax images. (APPL-1006), 5:53-55; (APPL-1003), ¶46.
`
`As shown in annotated FIGS. 3a-3d1 of Martin below, Martin describes that
`
`critical alignment is used to “achieve a stable autostereoscopic display” during the
`
`alternating display of parallax images, and explains that “[s]tability of the whole
`
`image may not be required, as long as at least a particular region of interest in the
`
`autostereoscopic display is stable.” (APPL-1006), 5:53-58; (APPL-1003), ¶47.
`
`
`
`1 A POSITA would have understood that in FIG. 3b of Martin, element 34’
`
`referring to a circle is a clerical error and that the annotation 34’ instead
`
`corresponds to the rectangle, which corresponds to region of interest 34 in
`
`reference image 30 of FIG. 3a. (APPL-1003), ¶47, n.1.
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`
`
`(APPL-1006), FIGS. 3a-3d, annotated
`
`As shown in FIG. 3c of Martin above, unaligned image 32 is manipulated
`
`until its “same region of interest 34’, albeit as viewed from a different point of
`
`view” matches alignment with region of interest 34 in reference image 30, as
`
`shown in FIG. 3d of Martin. (APPL-1006), 4:51-56. Martin’s manipulation
`
`process “may be represented by an affine transformation including translation,
`
`rotation, scaling, and/or any other desired transformation,” which provides a
`
`transformed image for position matching. (APPL-1006), 4:56-59, 7:36-51;
`
`(APPL-1003), ¶48.
`
`Reasons to Combine Golan and Martin
`3.
`A POSITA would have been motivated to apply Martin’s teachings of
`
`executing registration using critical alignment between successive images from
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`
`different points of view to generate a transformed succeeding image in video
`
`output images when switching between the two images in the digital camera of
`
`Golan to produce the obvious, beneficial, and predictable results of a stable
`
`transition in continuous zoom video output images when switching between the
`
`two images as taught by Martin. (APPL-1003), ¶¶49-54.
`
`First, the references are analogous prior art and are in the same field of
`
`endeavor pertaining to imaging systems generating video output images using
`
`images from two imaging sections having different points of view. (APPL-1003),
`
`¶50. Golan discloses providing continuous video output images using an image
`
`acquisition system “having multiple imaging devices” having different points of
`
`view. (APPL-1005), FIG. 1, [0009], [0036]; see also id., Abstract, [0015].
`
`Similarly, Martin discusses “display [of] alternating views of two or more parallax
`
`images” from cameras having different points of view to “create a resultant
`
`moving image.” (APPL-1006), FIG. 1, 3:6-13, 3:32-35.
`
`Second, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings
`
`of Golan and Martin because they share a need to provide continuous video output
`
`images when switching between images from two imaging sections having
`
`different points of view, for example, by using alignments having sub-pixel
`
`accuracy. (APPL-1003), ¶51. Golan provides that “electronic calibration is
`
`performed with sub-pixel accuracy,” between the first image sensor array and the
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`
`second image sensor array, which “facilitates continuous electronic zoom with
`
`uninterrupted imaging, when switching back and forth between the first
`
`image sensor array and the second image sensor array.” (APPL-1005), [0015].
`
`Like Golan, an objective of Martin is to perform critical alignment of two images
`
`such that “the degree of alignment is sufficient to achieve a stable
`
`autostereoscopic display,” i.e., to achieve stable display in video/moving image
`
`when switching between alternating views of two parallax images. (APPL-1006),
`
`5:51-55; (APPL-1003), ¶51. Similarly, Martin describes an objective “to achieve
`
`sub-pixel alignment.” (APPL-1006), 5:59-6:5.
`
`Third, Golan’s expressed desire to achieve “continuous electronic zoom
`
`with uninterrupted imaging, when switching back and forth between the first image
`
`sensor array and the second image sensor array” would have motivated a POSITA
`
`to incorporate Martin’s teaching of critical alignment of an ROI in two images
`
`having different points of view to calculate “transformation parameters of sub-
`
`pixel resolution” for position matching of the ROI to achieve a stable transition in
`
`the continuous zoom video output images of the digital camera of Golan. (APPL-
`
`1005), [0036]; (APPL-1006), 5:51-58; (APPL-1003), ¶52. It was well known to a
`
`POSITA that, for seamless transition between two images (e.g., from imaging
`
`sections having different points of views and/or wider and narrower FOVs) in
`
`zoom video, when a fixed calibration between two imaging sections (e.g.,
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00861 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,230,898
`
`
`electronic calibration of Golan) is not sufficient alone (