Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Date: November 12, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`COREPHOTONICS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,255,479 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
`MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Date: November 12, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`COREPHOTONICS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,255,479 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
`MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,255,479 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Background and Summary
`A.
`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. 10,255,479 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’479 patent”). Paper 3
`(“Pet.”), 9. Corephotonics Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have authority and jurisdiction
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6, 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4.
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we are
`persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it
`would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim
`of the ’479 patent. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review of all
`challenged claims on all grounds raised.
`B. Real Parties-in-Interest
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identifies 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 in inter partes review that affect or be affected by this proceeding. Pet. 1;
`Paper 5, 1.
`Our rules require both Petitioner and Patent Owner to identify “any
`other judicial or administrative matter that would affect, or be affected by, a
`decision in the proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(a), 42.8(b)(2). The ’479
`patent is part of a family of patents and patent applications that include at
`least U.S. Patent Nos. 10,326,942 (“the ’942 patent”), 10,015,408 (“the ’408
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,255,479 B2
`patent”), 9,661,233 (“the ’233 patent”), and 9,185, 291 (“the ’291 patent”).
`Ex. 1001, code (63). Many of these patents either were or currently are
`involved in inter partes review proceedings between Petitioner and Patent
`Owner and, therefore, could affect or be affected by a decision in this
`proceeding. For example, claims of the ’291 patent were challenged in
`IPR2018-01348; claims of the ’233 patent were challenged in IPR2020-
`00487; and claims of the ’408 patent were challenged in IPR2020-00488 and
`are currently challenged in IPR2020-00489.
`As noted above, our rules require both Petitioner and Patent Owner to
`identify these, and any other related proceedings, that could affect or be
`affected by a decision in this matter. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(a), 42.8(b)(2).
`The parties are reminded of this duty. Failure to comply with our rules may
`result in sanctions. Id. § 42.12 (a)(1).
`D. 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.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,255,479 B2
`
`
`
`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
`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
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,255,479 B2
`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 10,255,479 B2
`Patent 10,255,479 B2
`
`‘
`
`|
`
`15 P: Ferl'um: image signal
`processing m1 data recaivcii form
`
`each sense-r to obtain prficasmd
`
`Wide and Tale imager‘.
`592
`
`Rectificatian: Align pmcessefl
`Wiée and Teie image-5 m be an an
`
`cpipnlar Hm: t0-crbtain aligned
`
`[rammed] images
`5114
`
`Ragistratimi: Map thc alignad
`
`‘ Wide and Teie imagea m ablain 3
`
`registratinn map
`SHE'-
`
`
`
`‘
`|
`
`‘
`
`Reaampi ing: Pmmsa ragi stratiun
`map and pracenseszl Teie image In
`
`nhtain a rc‘sumplcd Talc image
`5118
`
`flacisinn: Us: rc-samp1ed Tclt:
`
`errors in [has regiatratinn ami m
`
`image and Wifin image In detect
`pmvidc a dccisiun nutpui
`
`Slfl
`
`Fusim}: F115: the decisifln output,
`m—sampifid Tale image and Wifie
`
`image into :1 fused 3mm image
`
`512
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,255,479 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 by mapping either “Tele image pixels to a
`matching pixel set within the Wide image pixels” or “Wide image pixels to a
`matching pixel set within the Tele image pixels.” Id. at 5:23–30, 9:47–49.
`The process of generating the registration map allows a transform coefficient
`to be determined that represents “the translation between matching points in
`the two images,” and that is “measured in a number of pixels.” Id. at 12:3–
`9. The transform coefficient or pixel shift can then be “translated into depth
`and the depth can be translated into an AF (auto-focus) position.” Id. at
`12:9–13. At step 508, the registration map is used to resample the Tele
`image. Id. at 9:50–51. At step 510, registration errors are determined, and
`the choice of outputting either Tele pixel values or Wide pixel values is
`made. 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.
`E. 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.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,255,479 B2
`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
`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.
`F. Evidence1
`Reference
`Parulski
`
`US 7,859,588 B2
`
`Effective Date
`Dec. 28, 2010
`
`Exhibit
`1005
`
`
`1 Petitioner also relies upon the Declarations of Fredo Durand, Ph.D.
`(Ex.1003) and José Sasián, Ph.D. (Ex. 1021).
`
`8
`
`
`
`Effective Date
`
`Exhibit
`
`2011
`
`May 30, 2013
`Feb. 7, 20133
`Mar. 26, 2013
`
`1013
`
`1015
`1023
`1024
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,255,479 B2
`Reference
`Richard Szeliski, Computer Vision
`Algorithms and Applications, 468–503
`(2011) (“Szeliski”)
`JP 2013/106289 A
`Konno2
`US 8,908,041 B2
`Stein
`US 8,406,569 B2
`Segall
`G. Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts the challenged claims would have been unpatentable
`on the following grounds:
`Ground
`Claims
`1
`1, 10–14, 16,
`18, 23, 32–36,
`38, 40
`2–4, 24–26
`5–9, 27–31
`15, 37
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`References
`
`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. Discretionary Denial Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`As noted above, claims 1–16, 18, 23–38, and 40 of the ’479 patent (34
`claims) are challenged in this Petition. See Pet. 9. Petitioner also challenges
`claims 19–22 of the ’479 patent (4 claims) in a petition filed in IPR2020-
`00906. See Paper 2, 1. Petitioner argues we should consider both petitions
`because they challenge different claim sets reciting “different image
`
`
`2 Konno is a certified translation of a Japanese Patent Application originally
`published in Japanese. See Ex. 1015, 34–59.
`3 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. Petitioner maps claim 1 of Stein to disclosures
`in the provisional application to validate the claimed priority date. Id. at
`62–65. Patent Owner does not dispute this. See Prelim. Resp. 1–14.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,255,479 B2
`processing techniques performed by different camera systems.” Id.
`Although both claim sets recite a dual-lens camera having autofocus features
`for wide angle and telephoto lenses, Petitioner argues the first claim set
`(claims 19–22) uses autofocus to create a fused image having a bokeh effect4
`and the second claim set (claims 1–16, 18, 23–38, and 40) uses autofocus to
`create a fused image that combines the wide angle image with in-focus
`objects in the telephoto image. Id. at 1–2.
`Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny the Petition because the circumstances here are not
`the “rare” circumstances that would justify filing two petitions. Prelim.
`Resp. 11. For example, Patent Owner argues, “[t]his is not a case involving
`‘a large number of claims [asserted] in litigation’ or ‘a dispute about priority
`date’” that might justify filing two petitions. Id. at 11–12. Patent Owner
`argues Petitioner unfairly “burden[s] the Board and patent owner with . . .
`double the number of decisions that would ordinary be required to resolve
`the challenges to a single patent,” and fails to show why different “image
`processing elements alone require[s]” filing two petitions. Id. at 12, 13.
`“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to
`the Patent Office’s discretion.” Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct.
`2131, 2140 (2016). As noted above, Petitioner challenges a total of 38
`claims of the ’905 patent in two petitions. There is no claim overlap in the
`two petitions, i.e., none of the claims challenged in IPR2020-00905 are
`challenged in IPR2020-00906, and none of the claims challenged in
`IPR2020-00906 are challenged in IPR2020-00905. A single independent
`
`
`4 An image has a bokeh effect when the principle subject is in focus and
`subjects in the background are blurred.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,255,479 B2
`claim and three dependent claims are challenged in IPR2020-00906. Two
`independent claims and thirty-two dependent claims are challenged in
`IPR2020-00905, however, half the claims are directed to an image
`processing method and the other half to a dual-aperture camera configured to
`perform that method. We appreciate Patent Owner’s argument that
`Petitioner may have been able to challenge all 38 claims in a single petition.
`However, because Petitioner is challenging 38 total claims, it was not
`objectively unreasonable for Petitioner to spread its challenges over two
`petitions. Nor was it objectively unreasonable for Petitioner to split up its
`challenges in the manner it has, i.e., challenging the two independent claims
`and their respective dependent claims directed to an image processing
`method and a dual-aperture camera for performing that method in IPR2020-
`00905, and challenging the remaining independent claim and its dependent
`claims in IPR2020-00906.
`Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we decline to exercise
`our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`B. 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). Patent Owner
`does not dispute this description or provide an alternative. See Prelim. Resp.
`1–14.
`
`“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge,
`jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.” Okajima v.
`Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). At this stage of the
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,255,479 B2
`proceeding, we find Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art to
`be reasonable, and commensurate with the problems and solutions disclosed
`in the prior art. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
`Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description
`as our own. Id.
`C. 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).
`Petitioner contends the only term requiring construction is the term
`“fused image with a point of view (POV) of the Wide camera,” and argues
`that term should be construed to mean “a fused image that maintains the
`Wide camera’s field of view or the Wide camera’s position.” Pet. 7–8.
`Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed construction or provide an
`alternative, and does not argue that any other term requires express
`construction. Prelim. Resp. 1–14.
`At this stage of the proceeding, the parties do not disagree on the
`meaning of any claim term and no claim term requires express construction
`to determine the merits of the Petition. See Pet. 6–8; Prelim. Resp. 1–14.
`Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, we decline to expressly
`construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor, 868 F.3d at 1017.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,255,479 B2
`D. Ground 1
`Petitioner argues claims 1, 10–14, 16, 18, 23, 32–36, 38, and 40 are
`unpatentable as obvious over Parulski and Konno. Pet. 10–41. Patent
`Owner disagrees. Prelim. Resp. 6–11. For the reasons discussed below, at
`this stage of the proceeding and notwithstanding Patent Owner’s contentions
`to the contrary, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of showing
`at least claim 1 is 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.
`
`Figure 1 is “a block diagram . . . of a digital camera using a first zoom lens
`with a first image sensor, and a second zoom lens with a second image
`sensor.” Id. at 8:28–30.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,255,479 B2
`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 30”] 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 14:5–16.
`Parulski’s dual-lens camera can be used to generate a distance or
`range map. Parulski states that generating a distance or range map is “well
`known to those skilled in the art,” and can be done by determining “pixel
`offset information for a set of images captured by multiple cameras with
`similar fields of view.” Id. at 19:53–58. A particular method for producing
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,255,479 B2
`a range map is illustrated in Figure 11 of Parulski, which is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`
`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.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,255,479 B2
`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.
`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
`midground, and a mountain range in the background. “[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.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,255,479 B2
`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
`“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
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,255,479 B2
`small.” Ex. 1005, 24:20–27; Ex. 1015 ¶46. Patent Owner does dispute these
`contentions. See Prelim. Resp. 6–11.
`At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner sets forth sufficient
`reasoning with rational underpinning to combine the teachings of Parulski
`and Konno. Parulski 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.
`4. Claims 1 and 23
`Claim 1 recites a dual-aperture digital camera. Ex. 1001, 13:22–23.
`At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner reasonably demonstrates its
`proposed combination discloses such a camera. See Pet. 19–22 (citing
`Ex. 1005, Figs. 15A/B, 16A/B; Ex. 1015, Fig. 21). For example, Parulski
`discloses a digital camera embedded in a cell phone having “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.” Ex. 1005, 23:33–36, Figs.
`15A/B, 16A/B. Lens 612 is preferably a “wide angle lens” and lens 616 is
`preferably a “telephoto lens” having a different field of view. Id. at 23:40–
`43. Similarly, Konno teaches a dual-aperture camera having optical units
`LU1 and LU2, where optical unit LU1 includes lens LN1 and imaging
`sensor SR1 and optical unit LU2 includes lens LN2 and imaging sensor
`SR2. Ex. 1015 ¶ 48. Lens LN2 has a “focal length fm . . . [that] is longer
`than the focal length of . . . [lens] LN1.” Id. ¶ 49. Patent Owner does not
`dispute these contentions. See Prelim. Resp. 6–11.
` Claim 1 requires a Wide camera for providing a Wide image,
`comprising a Wide lens having a field of view FOVW and a Wide image
`sensor. Ex. 1001, 13:24–27. At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,255,479 B2
`reasonably demonstrates its proposed combination discloses this limitation.
`See Pet. 22. For example, Parulski’s camera includes fixed focal length
`wide angle lens 612 and image sensor 614. See Ex. 1005, 23:36–38.
`Similarly, Konna’s camera includes imaging sensor SR1 and lens LN1
`having a field of view FOVW of 76.18 degrees. See Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 48, 76.
`According to Dr. Durand, a person skilled in the art would consider such a
`lens to be a “wide” lens. Ex. 1003, 41. Patent Owner does not dispute these
`contentions. See Prelim. Resp. 6–11.
`Claim 1 further requires a Tele camera for providing a Tele image,
`comprising a Tele lens having a respective field of view FOVT narrower than
`FOVW, an effective focal length EFLT to total track length TTLT ratio that is
`greater than 1, and a Tele image sensor. Ex. 1001, 13:28–34. At this stage
`of the proceeding, Petitioner reasonably demonstrates its proposed
`combination meets this limitation. See Pet. 22–23. For example, Parulski’s
`camera includes fixed focal length telephoto lens 616 and image sensor 618.
`See Ex. 1005, 23:38–40. Similarly, Konno’s camera includes imaging
`sensor SR2 and lens LN2. See Ex. 1015 ¶ 48. Lens LN2 has an EFLT to
`TTLT ratio (5.51 mm / 4.91 mm) that is greater than 1, and a field of view
`FOVT of 55.52 degrees that is narrower than the 76.18 degree FOVW of wide
`lens LN1. Id. ¶ 76. According to Dr. Durand, a person skilled in the art
`would consider such a lens to be a “tele” lens. See Ex. 1003, 41. Patent
`Owner does not dispute these contentions. See Prelim. Resp. 6–11.
`Claim 1 further requires a first autofocus (AF) mechanism
`mechanically coupled to the Wide lens and a second AF mechanism
`mechanically coupled to the Tele lens. Ex. 1001, 13:35–39. At this stage of
`the proceeding, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary,
`Petitioner reasonably demonstrates its proposed combination meets these
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,255,479 B2
`limitations. See Pet. 23–25. For example, Parulski teaches a camera
`embodiment where:
`both lenses 612 and 616 are adjustable focus lenses, [and] the
`image processor 50 either (a) selects the sensor output from the
`wide angle lens 612 as the captured image signal and uses the
`sensor output from the telephoto lens 616 to generate a focus
`detection signal for the wide angle lens 612 or (b) selects the
`sensor output from the telephoto lens 616 as the captured image
`signal and uses the sensor output from the wide angle lens 612 to
`generate the focus detection signal for the telephoto lens 616.
`Ex. 1005, 23:62–24:4. Petitioner argues a person skilled in the art “would
`have understood” from this passage that “each lens system includes a
`mechanically coupled autofocus mechanism automatically controlled by the
`autofocus subsystem using a respective focus detection signal.” Pet. 24
`(citing Ex. 1003, 44–45). Konno similarly teaches lenses “LN1 and LN2
`have different focus movements” and a control unit 2 that controls “a lens
`moving mechanism.” Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 50, 54.
`Patent Owner argues “Parulski discloses autofocus subsystem 628 . . .
`is connected to telephoto lens 616, not wide angle lens 612,” and “Petitioner
`cites no evidence for its argument” that wide lens 612 includes an autofocus
`mechanism. Prelim. Resp. 9. Patent Owner further argues that Parulski
`“teaches away from using a second focusing subsystem” by disclosing using
`“a single focusing subsystem . . . to reduce ‘cost and size.’” Id. at 10 (citing
`Ex. 1005, 24:17–19). Patent Owner also argues “Konno only teaches the use
`of a single AF mechanism as opposed to the two mechanisms required by
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,255,479 B2
`claim 1” because Konno discloses “a lens moving mechanism for focusing.”
`Id. at 10 (quoting Ex. 1015 ¶ 54).5
`At this stage of the proceeding, we are not persuaded by Patent
`Owner’s arguments. Parulski teaches two embodiments for image capture
`assembly 610. In the first embodiment, which Petitioner relies upon, image
`processor 50 either (a) uses the sensor output from telephoto lens 616 to
`generate a focus detection signal for wide lens 612, or (b) uses the sensor
`output from wide lens 612 to generate a focus detection signal for telephoto
`lens 616. See Pet. 23–24; see also Ex. 1005, 23:16–20, 23:62–24:4. In this
`embodiment, image processor 50 applies “the focus detection signal . . . to
`the zoom and focus motors 5a and 5b of the selected imaging stage in order
`to adjust the focus of the image providing the sensor output for the captured
`image signal.” Id. at 14:26–29, Fig. 1 (emphasis added). Motor 5a is part of
`a “first lens focus adjuster” and motor 5b is part of a “second lens focus
`adjuster.” Id. at 12:47–52.
`“In another embodiment,” Parulski discloses “wide angle lens 612 is
`set to its hyperfocal distance, which means it is in focus from a few feet to
`infinity without need for any focus adjustment.” Ex. 1005, 24:10–12. It is
`with respect to this “other” embodiment that Parulski teaches “using only
`one focusing subsystem 628 for the telephoto lens 616” to reduce cost and
`size.” Id. at 24:13–19. Parulski’s second embodiment neither teaches away
`from nor negates Parulski’s first embodiment, which Petitioner relies upon.
`See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“mere disclosure of
`alternative designs does not teach away”).
`
`5 Petitioner cites paragraph 15 of Konno for the quoted language, i.e., “a lens
`moving mechanism for focusing.” We find the quoted language in
`paragraph 54 of Konno, and correct the citation here.
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905
`Patent 10,255,479 B2
`Konno discloses its “lens moving mechanism for focusing” is one of
`“various functions” performed by control unit 2. Ex. 1015 ¶ 54. Control
`unit 2 “controls the first and second imaging optical units LU1 and LU2.”
`Id. Imaging optical units LU1 and LU2 include “first and second imaging
`optical systems [i.e., lenses] LN1 and LN2,” and “the first and second
`imaging optical systems
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
