`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________
`
`IPR2020-00905
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479 B2
`_____________________
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`
`
`via E2E
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`via Hand Delivery
`Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`c/o Office of the General Counsel, 10B20
`Madison Building East
`600 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`via CM/ECF
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905
`Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Notice of Appeal
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479 B2
`Attorney Docket No. 52959.54R479
`
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A), 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c), 142, and 319,
`
`and 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.2(a), 90.3, and Federal Circuit Rule 15(a)(1), Petitioner Apple
`
`Inc. (“Petitioner”) provides notice that it appeals to the United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the Final Written Decision of the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board (“Board”) entered November 8, 2021 (Paper 51), and from all
`
`underlying and related orders, decisions, rulings, and opinions regarding U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,225,479 B2 (“the ʼ479 patent”) in Inter Partes Review IPR2020-
`
`00905.
`
`
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a)(3)(ii), the expected issues on appeal
`
`include, but are not limited to: the Board’s error(s) in determining that challenged
`
`claims 1–16, 18, 23–38, and 40 of the ʼ479 patent are not unpatentable, the Board’s
`
`construction of the term “fused image with a point of view (POV) of the Wide
`
`camera,” and all other issues decided adversely to Petitioner in any orders,
`
`decisions, rulings, or opinions.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 142 and 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a), a copy of this Notice is
`
`being filed with the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and
`
`with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In addition, a copy of this Notice and the
`
`required docketing fees are being filed with the Clerk’s Office for the United States
`
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit via CM/ECF.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Notice of Appeal
`Attorney Docket No. 52959.54R479
`
`
`Dated: January 10, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue
`Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Telephone: (972) 739-8611
`Facsimile: (214) 200-0853
`michael.parsons.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`IPR2020-00905
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479 B2
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Michael S. Parsons/
`Michael S. Parsons
`Reg. No. 58,767
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905
`Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Notice of Appeal
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479 B2
`Attorney Docket No. 52959.54R479
`
`CERTIFICATE OF FILING
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, in addition to being electronically
`
`filed through PTAB E2E, a true and correct copy of the above-captioned
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF APPEAL is being filed by hand with
`
`the Director on January 10, 2022, at the following address:
`
`Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`c/o Office of the General Counsel, 10B20
`Madison Building East
`600 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`The undersigned also hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the
`
`above-captioned PETITIONER APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF APPEAL and the
`
`filing fee is being filed via CM/ECF with the Clerk’s Office of the United States
`
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on January 10, 2022.
`
`Dated: January 10, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Michael S. Parsons/
`Michael S. Parsons
`Reg. No. 58,767
`Attorney for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905
`Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Notice of Appeal
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479 B2
`Attorney Docket No. 52959.54R479
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, this is to certify that a true and correct copy of
`
`
`
`the foregoing “Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Notice of Appeal” was served on the Patent
`
`Owner Corephotonics, Ltd. as detailed below:
`
`Date of service
`
`January 10, 2022
`
`Manner of service Electronic Service by E-mail:
`− nrubin@raklaw.com
`− jchung@raklaw.com
`− mfenster@raklaw.com
`− jtsuei@raklaw.com
`− jlink@raklaw.com
`
`Persons served
`
`
`Documents served Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Notice of Appeal
`
`Neil A. Rubin (nrubin@raklaw.com)
`C. Jay Chung (jchung@raklaw.com)
`Marc A. Fenster (mfenster@raklaw.com)
`James S. Tsuei (jtsuei@raklaw.com)
`Russ August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`
`Jonathan Link (jlink@raklaw.com)
`Russ August & Kabat
`800 Maine Ave SW, Suite 200
`Washington, DC 20024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Notice of Appeal
`Attorney Docket No. 52959.54R479
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479 B2
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Michael S. Parsons/
`Michael S. Parsons
`Reg. No. 58,767
`Attorney for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 51
`Entered: November 8, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`COREPHOTONICS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,225,479 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
`MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,225,479 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`A. Background and Summary
`Apple, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes
`review of claims 1–16, 18, 23–38, and 40 (“the challenged claims”) of
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’479 patent”). Paper 3
`(“Pet.”), 9. Corephotonics Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Upon consideration of the Petition
`and Preliminary Response, we instituted inter partes review of all
`challenged claims on all grounds raised. Paper 10 (“Dec. Inst.”).
`Patent Owner filed confidential (Paper 15) and public (Paper 39)
`versions of its Response to the Petition. See Paper 39 (“PO Resp.”).1
`Petitioner filed confidential (Paper 24) and public (Paper 40) versions of a
`Reply. See Paper 40 (“Pet. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply. See
`Paper 32 (“PO Sur-Reply”). An oral hearing was held on August 12, 2021,
`and the hearing transcript is included in the record. See Paper 49 (“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). This is a Final Written
`Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons
`set forth below, we find Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of
`evidence that claims 1–16, 18, 23–38, and 40 of the ’479 patent are
`unpatentable on the grounds raised in the Petition.
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, we cite to the public versions of the papers in this
`proceeding. Earlier public versions of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 16)
`and Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 23) were rejected for redacting more
`information than needed to protect Patent Owner’s confidentiality interest.
`See Paper 30, 7–8; Paper 31, 3–4.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,225,479 B2
`B. Real Parties-in-Interest
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identify themselves, respectively, as the
`real parties-in-interest. Pet. 1; Paper 5, 1.
`C. Related Matters
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identify Corephotonics Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`5:19-cv-04809 (N.D. Cal.), as a district court proceeding that can affect or
`be affected by this proceeding, and Petitioner also identifies IPR2020-00906
`as an inter partes review that can affect or be affected by this proceeding.
`Pet. 1; Paper 5, 1. In addition, we note that the ’479 patent is part of a
`family of patents and patent applications that include at least U.S. Patent
`Nos. 10,326,942; 10,015,408; 9,661,233; and 9,185,291. Ex. 1001, code
`(63). Many of these patents were or currently are involved in inter partes
`review proceedings that could affect or be affected by a decision in this
`proceeding.
`D. Evidence Relied Upon2
`Reference
`US 7,859,588 B2
`Parulski
`Richard Szeliski, Computer Vision
`Algorithms and Applications, 468–503
`(2011) (“Szeliski”)
`JP 2013/106289 A
`Konno3
`US 8,908,041 B2
`Stein
`
`2 Petitioner also relies upon the Declarations of Fredo Durand, Ph.D. (Exs.
`1003, 1038) and José Sasián, Ph.D. (Ex. 1021).
`3 Konno is a certified translation of a Japanese Patent Application originally
`published in Japanese. See Ex. 1015, 34–59.
`4 Petitioner identifies Stein as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) based on
`the February 7, 2013 filing date of a provisional application to which Stein
`claims priority. See Pet. 9. Patent Owner does not dispute this. See PO
`Resp. 1–47.
`
`May 30, 2013
`Feb. 7, 20134
`
`Effective Date
`Dec. 28, 2010
`
`Exhibit
`1005
`
`2011
`
`1013
`
`1015
`1023
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,225,479 B2
`Effective Date
`Reference
`Mar. 26, 2013
`US 8,406,569 B2
`Segall
`E. Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
`We instituted review on the following grounds:
`Ground
`Claims
`35 U.S.C. §
`References
`1
`1, 10–14, 16,
`18, 23, 32–36,
`38, 40
`2–4, 24–26
`5–9, 27–31
`15, 37
`
`Exhibit
`1024
`
`103(a)
`
`Parulski, Konno
`
`2
`3
`4
`
`Parulski, Konno, Szeliski
`103(a)
`Parulski, Konno, Szeliski, Segall
`103(a)
`Parulski, Konno, Stein
`103(a)
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. The ’479 Patent
`The ’479 patent is directed to “a thin (e.g., fitting in a cell-phone)
`dual-aperture zoom digital camera with fixed focal length lenses” that is
`configured to use “partial or full fusion to provide a fused image in still
`mode.” Ex. 1001, 3:18–23. Figure 1A, reproduced below, illustrates a dual-
`aperture zoom digital camera 100.
`
`
`Figure 1A is a “block diagram illustrating a dual-aperture zoom” digital
`camera 100. Id. at 5:64–65. Camera 100 includes a wide imaging
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,225,479 B2
`subsystem consisting of wide lens 102, wide sensor 104, and wide image
`signal processor (“ISP”) 106, and a tele imaging subsystem consisting of tele
`lens 108, tele sensor 110, and tele ISP 112. Id. at 6:24–29.
`Camera 100 also includes controller 114, which includes sensor
`control 116, user control 118, video processing module 126 and still
`processing module 128. Id. at 6:33–37. User control 118 controls various
`camera functions, including, operational mode 120, region of interest
`(“ROI”) 122, and zoom factor (“ZF”) 124. Id. at 6:38–40. Zoom factor 124
`allows a user “to choose a zoom factor.” Id. at 6:50–51. Sensor control 116
`chooses “which of the sensors is operational” based on the selected zoom
`factor. Id. at 6:41–45. ROI function 122 allows a user to “choose a region
`of interest,” i.e., a sub-region “on which both sub-cameras are focused.” Id.
`at 6:46–50.
`The dual lenses allow camera 100 to take an image having a shallow
`depth-of-field (“DOF”) “by taking advantage of the longer focal length of
`the Tele lens.” Id. at 4:23–27. The image taken with the Tele lens can be
`enhanced “by fusing data from an image captured simultaneously with the
`Wide lens.” Id. at 4:27–30. For example, the Tele lens can focus “on a
`subject of the photo” and the Wide lens can focus on “a closer distance than
`the subject so that objects behind the subject appear very blurry.” Id. at
`4:30–34. Then, a shallow depth-of-field image can be formed when
`“information from the out-of-focus blurred background in the Wide image is
`fused with the original Tele image background information, providing a
`blurrier background and even shallower DOF.” Id. at 4:34–38.
`The process for fusing images taken with the Wide and Tele lenses is
`shown in Figure 5 of the ’479 patent, which is reproduced below.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,225,479 B2
`Patent 10,225,479 B2
`
`ISP: Perform image signal
`processing on data received form
`each sensor to obtain processed
`Wide and Tele images
`502
`
`Rectification: Align processed
`Wide and Tele images to be on an
`epipolar line to obtain aligned
`(rectified) images
`504
`
`Registration: Map the aligned
`Wide and Tele images to obtain a
`registration map
`506
`
`Resampling: Process registration
`map and processed Tele image to
`obtain a re-sampled Tele image
`S08
`
`Decision: Use re-sampled Tele
`image and Wide image to detect
`errors in the registration and to
`provide a decision output
`S10
`
`Fusion: Fuse the decision output,
`re-sampled Tele image and Wide
`image into a fused zoom image
`512
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,225,479 B2
`Figure 5 is a flow chart depicting a method for acquiring a zoom image in a
`dual lens camera. Id. at 9:39–40. At step 502, separate images are captured
`by each of the Wide and Tele lenses. Id. at 9:40–44. At step 504, these
`images are aligned on an epipolar line. Id. at 9:46–47. At step 506, a
`registration map is generated. Id. at 9:47–49. At step 508, the registration
`map is used to resample the Tele image. Id. at 9:50–51. At step 510, Tele
`image pixel values are compared to Wide image pixel values, and if a
`significant difference is detected, the Wide image pixel values are chosen for
`the output image. Id. at 9:51–58. Finally, at step 512, a fused image is
`generated from the re-sampled Tele image and the Wide image. Id. at 9:58–
`60. The ’906 patent discloses that by “register[ing] Tele image pixels to a
`matching pixel set within the Wide image pixels, . . . the output image will
`retain the Wide POV” or point-of-view. Id. at 5:23–26.
`B. Illustrative Claims
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 23 are independent and
`substantially similar in scope. Claim 1 recites a dual-aperture digital camera
`configured to generate a fused image from images taken with wide angle and
`telephoto lenses, and claim 23 recites a method for generating such a fused
`image using a dual-aperture digital camera. Compare Ex. 1001, 13:22–50,
`with id. at 15:49–67. The remaining challenged claims depend directly or
`indirectly from claims 1 or 23. Claim 1 is illustrative of the challenged
`claims and is reproduced below.
`1. A dual-aperture digital camera for imaging an object or
`scene, comprising:
`a) a Wide camera comprising a Wide lens and a Wide image
`sensor, the Wide camera having a respective field of view
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,225,479 B2
`FOVW and being operative to provide a Wide image of the
`object or scene;
`b) a Tele camera comprising a Tele lens and a Tele image
`sensor, the Tele camera having a respective field of view
`FOVT narrower than FOVW and being operative to provide a
`Tele image of the object or scene, wherein the Tele lens has
`a respective effective focal length EFLT and total track
`length TTLT fulfilling the condition EFLT / TTLT > 1;
`c) a first autofocus (AF) mechanism coupled mechanically to,
`and used to perform an AF action on the Wide lens;
`d) a second AF mechanism coupled mechanically to, and used
`to perform an AF action on the Tele lens; and
`e) a camera controller operatively coupled to the first and
`second AF mechanisms and to the Wide and Tele image
`sensors and configured to control the AF mechanisms and to
`process the Wide and Tele images to create a fused image,
`wherein areas in the Tele image that are not focused are not
`combined with the Wide image to create the fused image
`and
`wherein the camera controller is further operative to output
`the fused image with a point of view (POV) of the Wide
`camera by mapping Tele image pixels to matching pixels
`within the Wide image.
`Id. at 13:22–50.
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner identifies a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at
`the time of the invention as someone that would have had “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 image
`processing and lens design.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 13). In our Institution
`Decision, we adopted this description as our own. See Dec. Inst. 11–12.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,225,479 B2
`Neither party disputes that preliminary finding, which we maintain for
`purposes of this decision. See PO Resp. 3–4; Pet. Reply 1–27.
`D. Claim Construction
`In inter partes reviews, we interpret a claim “using the same claim
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil
`action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Under this
`standard, a claim is construed “in accordance with 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. Only claim
`terms which are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent
`necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan
`Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`In the Institution phase of this proceeding, Petitioner proposed a
`construction for a “fused image with a point of view (POV) of the Wide
`camera,” which Patent Owner did not dispute. See Dec. Inst. 12. Therefore,
`we declined to expressly construe that or any other claim term. Id. In the
`current phase of this proceeding, Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s
`proposed construction for this term and argues Petitioner has failed to
`demonstrate how this limitation is met when it is properly construed. See
`PO Resp. 8–13, 29–31. Accordingly, we construe this term.
`1. Fused Image with a Point of View (POV) of the Wide Camera
`Petitioner contends this term means “a fused image that maintains the
`Wide camera’s field of view or the Wide camera’s position.” Pet. 8
`(emphasis omitted). Patent Owner contends it means a “fused image in
`which the positions and shapes of objects reflect the POV of the Wide
`camera.” PO Resp. 13. Petitioner responds that Patent Owner’s
`construction is unhelpful because it “fails to provide any meaning to the
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,225,479 B2
`construed term ‘point of view (POV).’” Pet. Reply 1. Petitioner also
`provides an alternative construction that the term means a “fused image in
`which the positions or shapes of objects reflect those of the Wide camera.”
`Id. at 6 (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner replies that this latter construction
`is new and improper and also incorrect because it “ignores that the [step of]
`registering pixels to matching pixels will necessarily address both position
`(shift) and perspective (shape).” PO Sur-Reply 2–3.
`To resolve the parties’ dispute, we turn to the Specification. See
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
`(“[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction
`analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning
`of a disputed term.”). In relevant part, the Specification discloses:
`In a dual-aperture camera image plane, as seen by each sub-
`camera (and respective image sensor), a given object will be
`shifted and have different perspective (shape). This is referred
`to as point-of-view (POV). The system output image can have
`the shape and position of either sub-camera image or the shape
`or position of a combination thereof. If the output image retains
`the Wide image shape then it has the Wide perspective POV. If
`it retains the Wide camera position then it has the Wide position
`POV. The same applies for Tele images position and
`perspective. As used in this description, the perspective POV
`may be of the Wide or Tele sub-cameras, while the position
`POV may shift continuously between the Wide and Tele sub-
`cameras. In fused images, it is possible to register Tele image
`pixels to a matching pixel set within the Wide image pixels, in
`which case the output image will retain the Wide POV ("Wide
`fusion").
`Ex. 1001, 5:10–26.
`Petitioner argues this disclosure supports its construction because it
`means “‘a point of view of the Wide camera’ . . . can mean one of two
`things—either ‘Wide perspective POV’ (i.e., wide camera FOV) or ‘Wide
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,225,479 B2
`position POV’ (i.e., wide camera position).” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31).
`Patent Owner argues this disclosure teaches a camera’s point-of-view
`“depends on the position and orientation of the camera” and “using a camera
`with a different POV can both shift an object (change its position in the
`image) and change the perspective of an object (change[] its apparent shape
`in the image).” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 43). Thus, when the ’479
`patent refers to “Wide POV” it “is referring to the complete Wide POV, both
`perspective and position.” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 45).
`We agree with Patent Owner. Although it is not a model of clarity,
`the Specification equates a camera’s POV with how an object will appear in
`that camera’s image plane, e.g., in an image taken from that camera. For
`example, it discloses that “a given object will be shifted and have different
`perspective (shape). This is referred to as point-of-view (POV).” Ex. 1001,
`5:10–12. Thus, the position and perspective (shape) of an object in an image
`depends on the POV of the camera that took the image.
`The Specification further discloses that a fused image5 that “retains
`the Wide image shape . . . has the Wide perspective POV” and a fused image
`that “retains the Wide camera position . . . has the Wide position POV.” Id.
`at 5:15–18. Moreover, a fused image’s “perspective POV may be of the
`Wide . . . sub-camera[], while the position POV may shift . . . between the
`Wide and Tele sub-cameras.” Id. at 5:20–23. Thus, a fused image may have
`the Wide perspective POV and either (a) the Wide position POV, (b) the
`Tele position POV, or (c) an intermediate position POV. This suggests that
`a fused image has a Wide POV when it has both a Wide perspective POV
`
`
`5 A “fused” image is one that “combine[s] in still mode at least some of the
`Wide and Tele image data.” Ex. 1001, 4:49–51.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,225,479 B2
`and a Wide position POV. If the fused image did not have a Wide position
`POV it could only be described as having a Wide perspective POV, not a
`Wide POV.
`Figure 5 of the ’479 patent, which is the only Figure that describes a
`method for generating a fused image, further suggests that a fused image has
`a Wide POV when it has both a Wide perspective POV and a Wide position
`POV. The method begins by aligning Wide and Tele images on an epipolar
`line and “mapping between the Wide and Tele aligned images . . . to produce
`a registration map.” Id. at 9:46–49. Next, after a re-sampling step, “the re-
`sampled Tele image and the Wide image are processed to detect errors in the
`registration.” Id. at 9:49–54. When an error is detected—i.e., when the
`“Tele image data is compared with the Wide image data and . . . the
`comparison detects significant dissimilarities”—the “Wide pixel values are
`chosen to be used in the output image.” Id. at 9:54–58. Thus, the fused
`image contains only information from (a) the Wide image and (b) the Tele
`image that matches information from the Wide image. The fused image
`contains no information from the Tele image that differs from information
`from the Wide image, e.g., information representing the different “shape” of
`an object when photographed from the POV of the Tele camera. As stated
`in the Specification, the process of “register[ing] Tele image pixels to a
`matching pixel set within the Wide image pixels . . . will retain the Wide
`POV.” Id. at 5:23–26 (emphasis added).
`For the reasons discussed above, we agree with Patent Owner that a
`fused image having a Wide POV means a fused image in which the positions
`and shapes of objects reflect the POV of the Wide camera. Accordingly, we
`construe a fused image having a Wide POV to mean “a fused image having
`a Wide perspective POV and a Wide position POV.”
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,225,479 B2
`E. Ground 1
`Petitioner argues claims 1, 10–14, 16, 18, 23, 32–36, 38, and 40 are
`unpatentable as obvious over Parulski and Konno. See Pet. 10–41. Patent
`Owner disputes this. See PO Resp. 26–31, 35–47. For the reasons discussed
`below, Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence that
`claims 1, 10–14, 16, 18, 23, 32–36, 38, and 40 are unpatentable as obvious
`over Parulski and Konno.
`1. Parulski
`Parulski discloses “a digital camera that uses multiple lenses and
`image sensors to provide an improved imaging capability.” Ex. 1005, 1:8–
`10. A schematic illustration of Parulski’s camera is shown in Figure 1,
`which is reproduced below.
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,225,479 B2
`with a first image sensor, and a second zoom lens with a second image
`sensor.” Id. at 8:28–30.
`The camera includes “two imaging stages 1 and 2, both with zoom
`lenses 3 and 4.” Id. at 12:42–43. “[Z]oom lens 3 is controlled by a first lens
`focus adjuster, e.g., zoom and focus motors 5a, and provides an image to a
`first image sensor 12.” Id. at 12:47–49. “[Z]oom lens 4 is controlled by a
`second lens focus adjuster, e.g., zoom and focus motors 5b, and provides an
`image to a second image sensor 14.” Id. at 12:49–52. Each of zoom lenses
`3 and 4 could be “replaced with a fixed focal length lens.” Id. at 13:3–6.
`Image sensors 12 and 14 can “have a variety of aspect ratios” and “do not
`have to have the same specifications.” Id. at 13:26–32. “[C]ontrol processor
`and timing generator 40 [CPT 40] controls the first image sensor 12 . . . the
`second image sensor 14” and “the zoom and focus motors 5a and 5b.” Id. at
`13:37–42. Analog data from image sensors 12 and 14 are digitized by
`analog signal processors 22 and 24, respectively, and the digitized data is
`supplied to each of multiplexers 34 and 36. Id. at 13:48–59. CPT 40
`controls multiplexer 34 to select digitized data from either sensor 12 or 14 as
`an image signal and controls multiplexer 36 to select digitized data from the
`other of sensors 12 or 14 as an autofocus image signal. Id. at 14:1–5. Image
`processor 50 processes the digitized data from multiplexer 34 to produce a
`digital image and processes the digitized data from multiplexer 36 to
`calculate “focus detection signals that drive the first and second focus
`adjusters, that is, the zoom and focus motors 5a and 5b.” Id. at 14:15–16.
`Parulski’s dual-lens camera can be used to generate a distance or
`range map as illustrated in Figure 11, which is reproduced below.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,225,479 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 11 is a flow chart showing a method for processing images captured
`with a two-lens camera to generate a distance or range map. Id. at 19:49–51.
`At step 440, “a first autofocus image is captured with the lower focal length
`image capture stage,” e.g., lens 3 and image sensor 12. Id. at 20:1–3. At
`step 442, this image is “cropped and upsampled so that corresponding
`features in the two autofocus images span the same number of pixels.” Id. at
`20:3–6. At step 448, “a second autofocus image is captured with the higher
`focal length image capture stage,” e.g., lens 4 and image sensor 14. Id. at
`20:6–8. At step 480, “the second autofocus image is correlated with the
`cropped and upsampled image to determine the pixel offset between the
`images for different portions of the images.” Id. at 20:8–11. At step 482,
`these pixel offsets are “converted . . . to distances from the image capture
`device using the autofocus rangefinder calibration curve.” Id. at 20:11–14.
`Finally, at step 484, a distance or range map is produced “showing the
`distances to different portions of the images.” Id. at 20:14–15.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,225,479 B2
`Parulski’s range map can be “used to modify the captured image
`signal or the output image for a variety of purposes,” including “to enable
`dynamic depth of field images by blurring of portions of the image that
`correspond to areas of the scene that lie outside of the desired depth of
`field.” Id. at 20:51–53, 20:63–65. For example, the range map can be used
`to modify a picture having a dog in the foreground, a field of flowers in the
`mid-ground, and a mountain range in the background. Id. at 21:7–17. “[I]f
`the user really wants to emphasize the dog more than the beautiful scenery,
`the range data can be used to isolate the mountains and the flowers, which
`can then be blurred.” Id. at 21:27–30.
`2. Konno
`Konno discloses “an imaging apparatus . . . [that] includes single-
`focus first and second imaging optical systems that face the same direction.”
`Ex. 1015 ¶ 7. Such a system is shown, for example, in Figure 21 of Konno,
`which is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 21 of Konna is “a schematic view . . . of digital equipment [e.g., a
`digital camera] including first and second imaging optical units.” Id. ¶ 18.
`The digital camera includes optical units LU1 and LU2, which include
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,225,479 B2
`“single-focus first and second imaging optical systems [i.e., lenses] LN1 and
`LN2 . . . for forming optical images” and “first and second imaging devices
`[i.e., sensors] SR1 and SR2 for converting the optical images . . . into
`electrical signals.” Id. ¶ 48. The camera also includes “a signal processing
`unit 1, a control unit 2, a memory 3, an operation unit 4, and a display unit
`5.” Id. ¶ 54. Control unit 2 “controls various functions including . . . a lens
`moving mechanism.” Id. “[T]he first and second imaging optical systems
`[i.e., lenses] LN1 and LN2 have different focus movements in the case of
`whole feeding.” Id. ¶ 50. Various characteristics of lenses LN1 and LN2
`(e.g., focal length, lens length, field of view) are disclosed in Table 1 of
`Konno. Id. ¶ 76.
`3. Reasons to Combine
`Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to combine the
`teachings of Parulski and Konno because “Parulski does not provide lens
`prescription data for either the first [wide] or second [tele] fixed-focus lenses
`in its cell phone” camera. Pet. 16. Thus, Petitioner argues, a skilled artisan
`“would have looked to Konno which provides a fixed-focal length, dual-lens
`system designed for digital equipment like cell phones.” Id. at 16–17 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 57). Petitioner argues a person skilled in the art would have
`looked to Konno for lens prescription data because “Konno’s system offers
`fixed-focal length wide and telephoto lenses in a thin format for
`incorporation in a mobile device,” and “Parulski teaches the importance of
`keeping the ‘z’ dimension (i.e., thickness) of its cell phone embodiment
`small.” Id. at 17; Ex. 1005, 24:20–27; Ex. 1015 ¶ 46. Patent Owner does
`not dispute these contentions. See PO Resp. 26–35.
`We find Petitioner sets forth sufficient reasoning with rational
`underpinning to combine the teachings of Parulski and Konno. Parulski
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,225,479 B2
`teaches a cell phone having a dual-lens camera and the need to have thin
`lenses, but fails to give lens prescription data for the two camera lenses.
`Konno discloses lens prescription data for a dual-lens camera utilizing two
`thin lenses. The combination, therefore, is one of familiar elements
`according to known methods to obtain predictable results or a substitution of
`one element for another known in the field to obtain a predictable result. See
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
`4. Claims 1 and 23
`Claim 1 recites a dual-aperture digital camera having a Wide camera
`for providing a Wide image, a Tele camera for providing a Tele image, and a
`camera controller configured to process the Wide and Tele images to create
`a fused image. Ex. 1001, 13:22–34, 13:40–46. Claim 23 recites a method
`for acquiring a Wide image with a Wide sensor and a Tele image with a Tele
`sensor, and processing the Wide and Tele images to create a fused image.
`Id. at 15:49–64.
`Figure 16A of Parulski discloses a dual-aperture camera having an
`assembly 610 that includes “a first fixed focal length lens 612 and a first
`image sensor 614, and a second fixed focal length lens 616 and a second
`image sensor 618,” where “[t]he first lens 612 [is] preferably a fixed focal
`length wide angle lens . . . and the second lens 616 [is] preferably a fixed
`focal length telephoto lens.” Ex. 1005, 23:28-40. Figure 14 of Parulski
`discloses “a method for enhancing the