`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 matching pixel
`offsets between Wide
`and Tele images.
`
`The range map is then
`used to identify and
`extract objects.
`
`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.
`
`• 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 the Wide image.
`
`•
`
`The result is more of the Wide image being in focus (i.e.,
`broadening its 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 was clearly not
`used in Parulski’s example for Fig. 11 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.
`
`