Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: December 9, 2020
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314, 37 C.F.R. § 42.4
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: December 9, 2020
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314, 37 C.F.R. § 42.4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an
`inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in
`the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would
`prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Based on the
`information presented in the Petition and the supporting evidence, we
`determine that there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an
`inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 8–12, 15, 19, and 20 on all grounds set
`forth in the Petition.
`Our factual findings and conclusions at this stage of the proceeding
`are based on the evidentiary record developed thus far. This is not a final
`decision as to patentability of the challenged claims.
`BACKGROUND
`II.
`A.
`Related Proceedings
`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, 1.1
`
`
`1 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
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`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 ’332 patent. See Office Consolidated
`Trial Practice Guide2 at 18; see also 84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019).
`The ’332 patent is a continuation of Application No. 15/324,720 (now U.S.
`Patent No. 10,230,898, “the ’898 patent”). Ex. 1001, code (63). 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
`’898 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).
`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
`
`
`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.
`2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`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.
`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 provide image data of an object or scene.
`
`
`
`
`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;
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`
`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
`
`Golan3, Martin4, Togo5
`Golan, Martin, Togo, Levey6
`Golan, Martin, Togo, Border7
`Golan, Martin, Togo, Parulski8
`
`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 subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter 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 prior art;
`(3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness,
`
`3 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0026366 A1, published Feb.
`2, 2012 (Ex. 1005, “Golan”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 8,081,206 B2, issued Dec. 20, 2011 (Ex. 1006, “Martin”).
`5 Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP 2011/055246 (P2011-
`55246A), published Mar. 17, 2011 (Ex. 1010, “Togo”); we refer to the
`English translation.
`6 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0019704 A1, published Jan.
`26, 2012 (Ex. 1015, “Levey”).
`7 US Patent Application Pub. No. 2008/0030592 A1, filed Aug. 1, 2006,
`published Feb. 7, 2008 (“Border,” Ex. 1009).
`8 U.S. Patent No. 7,859,588 B2, issued Dec. 28, 2010 (Ex. 1008, Parulski”).
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`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. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 17). Patent Owner does not take a position as to the
`level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`
`We determine, on the current record, that the level of ordinary skill in
`the art proposed by Petitioner is consistent with the ’898 patent and the
`asserted prior art. We adopt that level in deciding whether to institute trial.
`
`
`
`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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`Petitioner asserts “for the purposes of this proceeding and the analysis
`presented herein, no claim term requires express construction [and] analyzes
`the claims consistent with ordinary and customary meaning as would be
`understood by a POSITA in light of the specification.” Pet. 8 (citation
`omitted). Patent Owner proposes a construction for one limitation, “no-
`switching criterion,” as recited in each of the challenged claims. Prelim.
`Resp. 7–9.
`Patent Owner asserts “no-switching criterion” should be construed as
`“one more criteria determined based on inputs obtained from the two camera
`images.” Id. at 7. Patent Owner asserts that the dependent claims
`consistently recite criteria determined based on inputs obtained from the two
`camera images such as global registration, comparing effective resolutions,
`or analyzing images from the Wide and Tele lenses. Id. at 7–8.
`Nevertheless, the independent claims do not recite basing the criteria on
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`inputs obtained from the two camera images. Additionally, “[u]nder the
`principles of claim differentiation, the independent claims are presumed to
`be broader” then the claims that depend therefrom. Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v.
`Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Thus, while not
`conclusive, if anything, the inclusion of these limitations in the dependent
`claims tends to suggest an intent for the independent claim to be broader.
` Patent Owner also asserts “the specification consistently refers to the
`“no-switching criterion” as requiring inputs from both the Wide and Tele
`lenses. Prelim Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:37–39, 6:58–61, 10:6–10, 10:13–
`40). Nevertheless, even if “all of the embodiments discussed in the patent
`have a [particular feature], . . . it is not proper to import from the patent’s
`written description limitations that are not found in the claims themselves.”
`FloHealthcare Sols., LLC v. Kappos, 697 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012),
`abrogated on other grounds by Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d
`1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “It is not enough for a patentee to simply
`disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all
`embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the
`term.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, 669 F.3d
`1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom
`Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Although the
`embodiments in the specification indeed have inputs from the Wide and Tele
`lenses, the Specification does not manifest an intent to redefine criterion to
`require such inputs, or even disclose that such inputs are “important” to the
`invention. Cf. Poly-Am., L.P. v. API Indus., Inc., 839 F.3d 1131, 1137 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (Finding no importation when“[e]very embodiment described in
`the specification has inwardly extended short seals and every section of the
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`specification indicates the importance of inwardly extended short seals.
`These two facts provide together a proper reason to limit the claims in this
`way.”).
`Patent Owner argues that limitation of “determined by inputs from
`both Wide and Tele image data” was removed from the independent claims
`via amendment in prosecution. Prelim. Resp. 8 n. 1. In the file history of
`the ’898 patent, original claims 1 and 12 (issued claims 1 and 11) expressly
`required that the no-switching criterion be “determined by inputs from both
`Wide and Tele image data.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 292, 294). This language
`was removed from the claims. Ex. 1002, 296–97. Patent Owner asserts it
`was removed for “clarity.” Id. Nevertheless, the case law precludes a
`reading that restricts a claim to the limitations removed by broadening
`amendment. See United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 783 (Fed.
`Cir. 1988) (“[C]ourts are not permitted to read back into the claims
`limitations which were originally there and were removed during
`prosecution of the application through the Patent Office.”); Kistler
`Instrumente AG. v. United States, 224 Ct. Cl. 370, 628 F.2d 1303, 1308 (Ct.
`Cl. 1980) (“It is significant that none of the claims in the patent which
`ultimately issued contain the narrow limitation of original claim . . . . It
`must be concluded that the Patent Office did not feel that this was a critical
`limitation. Thus, defendant's insistence upon this court's reading back into
`the claims limitations which were originally there and were removed during
`prosecution of the application through the Patent Office cannot be
`permitted.”). Thus, the prosecution also suggests the limitation to
`“determined by inputs from both Wide and Tele image data” should not be
`imported into claims 1 and 12 of the ’898 patent.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`For the reasons above, we do not limit “no-switching criterion” to
`“one more criteria determined based on inputs obtained from the two camera
`images.” Thus, we do not explicitly construe the term “the term “no-
`switching criterion” for the purpose of this Decision.
`At this stage of the proceeding, we do not discern a dispute between
`the parties regarding any other limitation and we need not expressly construe
`any other 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 and Martin
`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 arguments and thus establishes a reasonable likelihood
`of prevailing with respect to the challenge to claims 1, 4, 8, 12, and 15, at
`this stage of the proceeding.
`
`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
`
`11
`
`
`
`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
`
`12
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`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
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`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 3:20–22.9
`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.
`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.
`
`
`9 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. 16, n.1.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`
`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.
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP 2011-055246 (P2011-
`55246A) is titled “Telephoto Imaging Device,” and discloses improvements
`for “digital cameras and imaging devices (cameras) of mobile terminal
`devices such as mobile phones” that “realize a zoom function by using a
`plurality of imaging modules made of a plurality of lenses with different
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`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 1 .
`. . 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.
` “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
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`
`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 32–33 (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. 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
`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,
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`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, at this stage of the proceeding.10
` “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
`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).
`
`
`10 We need not determine whether the preamble is limiting, at this stage of
`the proceeding, because Petitioner shows sufficiently that it is satisfied by
`the prior art.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`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 POSITA would have understood that 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. 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
`imaging elements joined to these optical systems, a wide dynamic range of
`enlargement magnification from wide-angle to telephoto can be realized.’”
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`Id. 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
`includes only transformed, digitally zoomed Tele image data.” Id. at 50.
`Specifically, Petitioner contends that in addition to the disclosure discussed
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`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. at 51 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 124).
`Martin’s Figure 3, reproduced as annotated below, illustrates
`registration between two images as part of Martin’s critical alignment. Id. at
`52–53 (citing-in-part Ex. 1006, 4:51–56).
`
`Petitioner’s annotated version of Martin’s
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00861
`Patent 10,230,898 B2
`
`
`
`Figures 3A–3D.11
`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 ex
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
