Inter Partes Review of
`Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, LTD., Case No. IPR2020-00905
`
`Michael Parsons
`Jordan Maucotel
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, LTD., Case No. IPR2020-00905
`
`Michael Parsons
`Jordan Maucotel
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`
`Overview of Topics
`
`The specification does not require that Wide perspective POV
`be maintained in a wide POV image
`It is undisputed that Parulski’s image enhancement method
`maintains Wide position POV under Petitioner’s construction
`
`Parulski teaches using a range map for identifying and
`extracting objects in the Fig. 14 method
`Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary consideration
`has no nexus with the claims of the ’479 patent
`
`Patent Owner’s evidence is not credible and no evidence
`demonstrates commercial success, failure of others, or copying
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`2
`
`
`
`Claim Construction in Dispute
`
`• Limitation 1(e)
`
`APPL-1001, Claim 1.
`
`• Petitioner’s Construction
`“fused image in which the positions or
`shapes of objects reflect those of the
`Wide camera”
`Petitioner Reply at 6 (same construction as in Petition but
`using Patent Owner’s terminology).
`
`• Patent Owner’s Construction
`“fused image in which the positions and
`shapes of objects reflect the POV of the
`Wide camera”
`
`Patent Owner Response at 13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`3
`
`
`
`POV in a fused image refers to two distinct concepts —
`maintaining object shape or maintaining object position
`
`Patent Owner Response at 11-12.
`
`APPL-1013 (Szeliski at 468) cited in
`Patent Owner Response at 12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`4
`
`
`
`Maintaining object position means Wide position POV
`Maintaining object shape means Wide perspective POV
`
`Objects in a fused image maintain “shape
`and position” or “shape or position of a
`combination” of either sub-camera.
`This is referred to as:
`
`(i.e., object shape) or
`(i.e., object position)
`
`is maintained in a fused
`image by matching pixels of the Wide and
`Tele images (i.e., registration mapping).
`
`is maintained in a
`fused image only by “shifting” the Tele image
`before registration, a separate step from
`registration mapping.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition at 7-8 citing APPL-1001, 5:10-33; Reply at 1-4.
`
`5
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s construction impermissibly requires
`Wide perspective POV in a fused image with wide POV
`
`•
`
`Figure 5’s fusion method does not include the step of
`“shifting” either image prior to the Registration step 506.
`• Wide perspective POV is not maintained in this
`embodiment because no “shifting” step is performed.
`
`APPL-1001, 9:39-60 cited in Petition at 4-5.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`APPL-1001, Fig. 5.
`
`6
`
`6
`
`
`
`Overview of Topics
`
`The specification does not require that Wide perspective POV
`be maintained in a wide POV fused image
`It is undisputed that Parulski’s image enhancement method
`maintains Wide position POV under Petitioner’s construction
`
`Parulski teaches using a range map for identifying and
`extracting objects in the Fig. 14 method
`Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary consideration
`has no nexus with the claims of the ’479 patent
`
`Patent Owner’s evidence is not credible and no evidence
`demonstrates commercial success, failure of others, or copying
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`7
`
`
`
`Parulski’s Fig. 14 teaches enhancing a Wide image
`using the in-focus portions of a Tele image
`
`• Parulski’s Figure 14 teaches a method for enhancing
`depth of field using the Wide and Tele images.
`
`•
`
`The last step teaches combining in-focus portions of
`the Tele image with the corresponding portions of the
`Wide image to sharpen portions of the Wide image at
`the Tele image’s focus distance.
`
`APPL-1005 (Parulski) at 22:33-42 cited in Petition at 26-27;
`see also Petitioner Reply at 9-10.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`8
`
`
`
`Parulski’s Fig. 14 uses the in-focus portions of the Tele image to
`broaden the depth of field of the Wide image
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`9
`
`Petition at 27 citing APPL-1005 (Parulski), Fig. 14; APPL-1003 at 48;
`see also Petitioner Reply at 13.
`
`
`
`In Figure 14, the in-focus portions of the Tele image are combined
`(i.e., fused) with the Wide image to broaden the depth of field
`
`• Parulski states that Fig. 14’s sharpening of the
`Wide image is performed by “combining” (i.e.,
`fusing) the in-focus portions of the Tele image
`with the Wide image to broaden the depth of field
`of the wide image.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`10
`
`APPL-1005 (Parulski) at 28:47-53 cited in Petition at 26-27;
`see also Petitioner Reply at 9-10.
`
`
`
`Dr. Durand explains that combining in-focus portions of the Tele
`image with the Wide image maintains Wide position POV
`
`[annotated Fig. 14 omitted; see slide 9]
`
`APPL-1038 (Durand Reply Decl.) ¶ 31-32 cited in Petitioner Reply at 13-14;
`see also Petition at 29-30.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`11
`
`
`
`Overview of Topics
`
`The specification does not require that object shapes
`be maintained in a “wide POV” image
`It is undisputed that Parulski’s image enhancement method
`maintains Wide position POV under Petitioner’s construction
`
`Parulski teaches using a range map for identifying and
`extracting objects in the Fig. 14 method
`Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary consideration
`has no nexus with the claims of the ’479 patent
`
`Patent Owner’s evidence is not credible and no evidence
`demonstrates commercial success, failure of others, or copying
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`12
`
`
`
`Parulski’s Figure 11 teaches using a range map built by pixel
`matching to identify and extract objects from images
`
`Parulski’s range map is
`built by determining pixel
`offsets between different
`portions Wide and Tele
`images (i.e., pixel
`matching).
`
`The range map is then
`used to identify and
`extract objects
`appearing in either
`image.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`APPL-1005 (Parulski) at 20:50-59 cited in Petition at 29-30
`see also Petitioner Reply at 10.
`13
`
`13
`
`
`
`Parulski uses an example of mountains, flowers, and a dog to
`show how to use a range map for image enhancement
`
`Parulski’s example scene includes:
`• Mountains in the background,
`•
`Flowers in the middle, and
`•
`a Dog out of focus at 5 ft.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`14
`
`APPL-1005 (Parulski) at 21:7-17 cited in Petition at 11-12, 27-30;
`see also Petitioner Reply at 10.
`
`
`
`One of Parulski’s image enhancement methods uses the range
`map to adjust the depth of field to bring the dog into focus
`
`•
`
`The range map is then used to broaden the depth of field
`in the example image to sharpen the dog that is out of
`focus at 5 ft (e.g., Fig. 14).
`
`• When applied to Fig. 14, the range map can be used to
`sharpen portions of the out-of-focus dog by identifying
`and extracting the in-focus portions of the dog from the
`Tele image and fusing it with out-of-focus dog in the Wide
`image.
`
`•
`
`The result is more of the Wide image being in focus or
`broadening the image’s depth of field.
`
`APPL-1005 (Parulski) at 21:25-34 cited in Petition at 11-12, 27-30
`see also Petitioner Reply at 9-10.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`15
`
`
`
`In the Parulski + Konno combination, the Dog would be out of
`focus at 5 feet (as in Parulski’s example)
`
`•
`
`The combination of Parulski and Konno satisfies Parulski’s example where the dog is out of
`focus at 5 ft when captured by Konno’s Wide lens having a depth of field of 6 ft to infinity.
`
`APPL-1038 ¶ 25 cited in Reply at 11.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`16
`
`
`
`The Sur-Reply raises a new argument that a POSITA would
`not combine Parulski and Konno, but would use a different lens
`
`• Patent Owner raises a new argument that the lens in
`Parulski’s Fig. 12 embodiment obliviates the need for
`using Konno’s lens design. See Sur-Reply at 6-8.
`
`•
`
`This argument is flawed because the ultra-wide lens
`that Patent Owner relies on in Fig. 12 (focusing 4 ft to
`infinity) was clearly not used in Parulski’s example
`using a range map where the dog expressly is “out of
`focus” at 5 ft.
`
`APPL-1005 (Parulski) at 21:45-61.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`in response to Sur-Reply at 6-8.
`
`17
`
`17
`
`
`
`Overview of Topics
`
`The specification does not require that object shapes
`be maintained in a “wide POV” image
`It is undisputed that Parulski’s image enhancement method
`maintains Wide position POV under Petitioner’s construction
`
`Parulski teaches using a range map for identifying and
`extracting objects in the Fig. 14 method
`Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary consideration
`has no nexus with the claims of the ’479 patent
`
`Patent Owner’s evidence is not credible and no evidence
`demonstrates commercial success, failure of others, or copying
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`18
`
`
`
`Alleged secondary considerations: no nexus
`
`Alleged Secondary
`Considerations
`praise/licensing
`
`commercial success
`
`failure of others
`
`copying
`
`Nexus
`
`Petitioner Reply at 18-27.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`19
`
`
`
`No presumption of nexus because Patent Owner does not show
`evidence coextensive with the claims.
`
`• According to the Federal Circuit, nexus
`is only presumed when the product
`tied to the evidence “is the invention
`disclosed and claimed.”
`
`Petitioner Reply at 19.
`
`• None of Corephotonic’s evidence of
`“fusion technology” shows a fusion
`method that is recited in any claims of
`the ’479 patent.
`
`Ex. 2006 at 1;
`see also Ex. 2007 at 1; Ex. 2011; Ex. 2019; Ex. 2020.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`20
`
`
`
`None of Patent Owner’s evidence is coextensive with the fusion
`methods or camera designs recited in the claims
`
`• Claim 1, 23: No evidence is coextensive with the
`recited method that fuses two images to
`broaden the depth of field of the Wide image.
`
`• Claim 19: No evidence is coextensive with the
`method that narrows the depth of field to
`represent a portrait image.
`
`APPL-1001 (’479 patent) at 13:40-50 (claim 1).
`
`APPL-1001 (’479 patent) at 13:40-50 (claim 19).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`21
`
`
`
`Patent Owner conflates any discussion of image fusion algorithms
`to the specific fusion methods in the challenged claims
`
`Ex. 2007 at 1.
`
`Ex. 2011 at 1.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2019 at 1.
`
`22
`
`22
`
`
`
`Patent Owner relies on the same arguments and evidence in
`several other cases involving different claims
`
`Petitioner Reply at 22; see also IPR2020-00861; IPR2020-00862;
`IPR2020-00905/906.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`23
`
`
`
`Overview of Topics
`
`The specification does not require that object shapes
`be maintained in a “wide POV” image
`It is undisputed that Parulski’s image enhancement method
`maintains Wide position POV under Petitioner’s construction
`
`Parulski teaches using a range map for identifying and
`extracting objects in the Fig. 14 method
`Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary consideration
`has no nexus with the claims of the ’479 patent
`
`Patent Owner’s evidence is not credible and no evidence
`demonstrates commercial success, failure of others, or copying
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`24
`
`
`
`Licensing evidence lacks a nexus to any of the claims
`
`Ex. 2010 at 1 cited in Petitioner Reply at 23-24.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`25
`
`
`
`The evidence of industry praise is self-serving and
`lacks a nexus to any of the claims
`
`• No mention of any of the claimed technology.
`
`Patent Owner Response at n8.
`
`• No mention of any of the claimed technology.
`
`• And this statement is from an interested party.
`
`Patent Owner Response at n9.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`APPL-1038 ¶ 78.
`
`26
`
`26
`
`
`
`Patent Owner offered no evidence of
`commercial success related to the claims
`
`Petitioner Reply at 25.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`27
`
`
`
`No evidence of failure of others.
`
`Petitioner Reply at 26.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`28
`
`
`
`No evidence of copying by anyone
`
`Petitioner Reply at 26.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`29
`
`Petitioner Reply at 27;
`see also APPL-1037 (Hart Depo) 191:11-23.
`
`
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
