`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`v.
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`IPR2021-00922
`U.S. Patent No. 8,553,079
`__________________
`DECLARATION OF BENEDICT OCCHIOGROSSO, IN SUPPORT OF
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC’s PATENT OWNER
`RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00922
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`I, Benedict Occhiogrosso, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I make this declaration based upon my own personal knowledge and, if
`
`called upon to testify, would testify competently to the matters contained herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to render opinions in inter partes review proceeding
`
`IPR2021-00922, regarding claims 1-30 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,553,079 (Ex. 1001, the “’079 Patent”).
`
`3.
`
`This declaration is a statement of my opinions on issues related to the
`
`patentability of the Challenged Claims.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual rate. My compensation is in no
`
`way related to the outcome of this case.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`5.
`I, Benedict Occhiogrosso, have been retained by counsel for Gesture
`
`Technology Partners, LLC (“Patent Owner”) as an expert in Apple, Inc. v. Gesture
`
`Technology Partners, LLC, IPR2021-00922.
`
`6.
`
`As shown in my curriculum vitae (attached as Exhibit A), I hold a
`
`Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering as well as a Master of Science
`
`Degree in Electrical Engineering, both from the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn
`
`(now part of New York University).
`
`7.
`
`I have authored or co-authored nearly three dozen articles in peer-
`
`reviewed journals, conference proceedings, texts, industry trade publications, and
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00922
`Patent 8,553,079
`monographs. These publications span a range of topics including Integrated Voice–
`
`Data Communications/Switching, Integrated Packet-Circuit Switching, Voice
`
`Digitization, Packet Voice, Indoor Wireless distribution, Disaster Recovery and
`
`Business Continuity, Data Center Engineering, Switching Processor Architecture,
`
`Telephone and Voice Mail Systems, PBX & LAN switching premises-based systems
`
`and related technologies and Internet of Things (IoT).
`
`8.
`
`I have more than 40 years of telecommunications and information
`
`technology experience. I am the co-founder and President of DVI Communications
`
`Inc., a telecommunications and information technology and business consulting
`
`firm. Since the establishment of DVI in 1979, I have planned, designed,
`
`implemented, and managed large-scale projects involving wired and wireless
`
`communications systems, which included transmission of voice and data. Prior to
`
`founding DVI and for several years thereafter, I held a Department of Defense
`
`security clearance and worked on several classified programs within the defense
`
`industry, where I supported the development of several pioneering technologies that
`
`have served as the prototypes for many telecommunications and IT systems later
`
`utilized in commercial practice. I have also supported the analysis of many video-
`
`based products and designed and deployed such technologies into numerous
`
`applications as discussed below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00922
`Patent 8,553,079
`I have extensive expertise in voice-data-video switching, and
`
`9.
`
`transmission systems deployed in networks, including both circuit switching and
`
`packet switching using wireline and wireless distribution methods (including Land
`
`Mobile radio, Satellite, microwave, cellular and Wi-Fi). In addition, I have
`
`developed various applications systems including voicemail, e-mail, unified
`
`messaging, and audio/video recording for a variety of facility types including call-
`
`contact centers, data centers, trading floors, and mission-critical communications
`
`centers. At present, my primary responsibilities encompass strategic planning and
`
`systems design of client IT Infrastructures and program management for major
`
`projects undertaken by DVI.
`
`10. With respect to wireless communications, I am knowledgeable in
`
`transceiver architecture and design (including RF and baseband systems), operating
`
`over various channels subject to different types of performance degradation
`
`(including noise, multipath, rainfall, etc.). I have designed and deployed numerous
`
`wireless communications systems over the course of my career operating at UHF,
`
`microwave and millimeter wave frequencies supporting several applications
`
`including voice/data/video telecommunications, Automatic Vehicle Location
`
`(AVL), SCADA and telemetry in both outdoor and indoor settings. I am
`
`knowledgeable in modulation techniques, error correction /error detection coding
`
`and related signal processing used in transmission and reception supporting Land
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00922
`Patent 8,553,079
`Mobile Radio, Cellular (from AMPS through 5G) and Wi-Fi (different vintages), as
`
`well as satellites and microwave. Among the clients I have supported over the years
`
`included DARPA Packet Radio network (PRNET) technology for survivable
`
`networks, Xerox’s pioneering XTEN Network (Microwave bypass (10.5 GHz) used
`
`as an alternative to Telco local loops), United Nations (multi-location C-band earth
`
`stations in a voice–data–fax network), TVRO applications for Bertelsmann BMG,
`
`Citicorp’s Ku-band CitiSATCOM network for data and video distribution, a major
`
`Financial Exchange’s low latency network for high frequency trading using
`
`cascaded microwave links, and NYC Transit’s 700/800 MHZ regional Bus radio
`
`System comprising 36 base stations supporting a fleet of 6000+ revenue producing
`
`vehicles
`
`for CAD/AVL, Fleet management
`
`and Dispatch-to-Operator
`
`communications. I have served as both a consulting and/or testifying expert in
`
`several cases enumerated in my CV. I have extensive experience in cellular
`
`voice/data communications technology and have supported multiple sides of the
`
`industry including Service Providers such as Sprint/Nextel Wireless, AT&T
`
`Wireless, Vonage, Rebtel; Equipment Manufacturers including Kyocera, Apple,
`
`Ademco, Nokia, M/A-com, Partech and Licensing. entities such as ASCAP (in their
`
`critical review of cellular technology).
`
`11. With respect to electronic security including video surveillance systems
`
`and access control systems I have analyzed, designed and deployed several physical
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00922
`Patent 8,553,079
`security systems which employ a variety of technologies relevant to the matter at
`
`hand. Specifically, video analytics using image processing were deployed on both a
`
`retrofit as well as greenfield basis to provide force multiplier and enhanced alerting
`
`capabilities. The algorithms deployed vary in complexity from simple motion
`
`detection and perimeter detection / tripwire to more advanced capabilities using
`
`multiple sequence of frames for object detection, aberrant behavior, and other
`
`abnormal conditions specific to the application/ business use case. Many of these
`
`systems (typically using exterior cameras) for traditional facility protection, were
`
`designed to operate under differing viewing and illumination conditions (night,
`
`inclement weather etc.). For the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA),
`
`applications included people/passenger counting (bus and platform), camera tamper,
`
`fare evasion, track intrusion, “wrong-way” and object leave – behind detection. For
`
`the NYC School Construction Authority (SCA) applications included loitering,
`
`occupancy and crowd formation in stairwells and other common areas. For several
`
`corporate and institutional clients, I have examined use of license plate recognition
`
`and vehicle detection (tailgating, stopped vehicle, zone alerts).
`
`12. For access control applications, in addition to traditional swipe and
`
`smart card methods, I have investigated various biometric and contactless methods
`
`for identification and authorization technologies including facial recognition, hand
`
`swipe/ hand geometry scanners that do not require the user to touch any surfaces.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00922
`Patent 8,553,079
`Many of the video-based systems are combined with multi-sensor inputs to provide
`
`a composite profile for viewer evaluation to facilitate risk assessment, identification
`
`and authorization. Recently, for commercial real estate clients, I have also
`
`investigated the use of thermographic cameras to detect individuals with elevated
`
`temperatures or fever as part of an overall access control strategy in the post-
`
`pandemic environment. In conjunction with our smart building and Internet of
`
`Things (IoT) practice, I maintain ongoing familiarity with various every day
`
`applications which employ a variety of sensors to engage users with respect to
`
`speech, touch, gaze and gesture control (for access control, smart home and smart
`
`office).
`
`13. Lastly, in conjunction with work I had performed for a captioned
`
`telephony project and the use of video relay services for users who are profoundly
`
`deaf as opposed to being merely hearing impaired, I have investigated the use of
`
`image processing and hand gesture recognition technology to support interpretation
`
`of users employing American Sign Language (ASL).
`
`14. As such, I am qualified to provide opinions regarding the state of the
`
`art at the effective filing date of the ’079 Patent (which I understand to be November
`
`9, 1998) and how a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at that time would
`
`have interpreted and understood the ’079 Patent.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00922
`Patent 8,553,079
`I am being compensated for my work and any travel expenses in
`
`15.
`
`connection with this proceeding at my standard consulting rates. My compensation
`
`is in no way dependent on or contingent on the outcome of my analysis or opinions
`
`rendered in this proceeding and is in no way dependent on or contingent on the
`
`results of these or any other proceedings relating to the above-captioned patent.
`
`16. Although I am not rendering an opinion about the level of skill of a
`
`POSITA proffered by Petitioner, based on my professional experience, I have an
`
`understanding of the capabilities of a POSITA (as such a POSITA is defined by
`
`Petitioner). Over the course of my career, I have supervised and directed many such
`
`persons. Additionally, I myself, at the time the ’079 Patent was filed and at its
`
`priority date, qualified as at least a POSITA.
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`17.
`In preparing this declaration, I reviewed the ’079 Patent, including its
`
`claims in view of its specification, the prosecution history of the ’079 Patent, various
`
`prior art and technical references from the time of the invention, and the IPR2021-
`
`00922 and its exhibits.
`
`18.
`
`In addition, I have reviewed all of the papers and exhibits in the record
`
`for inter partes review proceeding IPR2021-00922.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`19.
`I have worked with counsel for Patent Owner in the preparation of this
`
`IPR2021-00922
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`Declaration. Nevertheless, the opinions, statements, and conclusions offered in this
`
`Declaration are purely my own and were neither suggested nor indicated in any way
`
`by counsel or anyone other than myself. I confirmed with counsel my understanding
`
`that the term “obvious,” as used in the Petitions addressed herein and as a general
`
`matter under United States law, refers to subject matter that would have occurred to
`
`a POSITA to which the ’079 Patent is directed without inventive or creative thought.
`
`That which is obvious, it is my understanding, flows naturally from the art and the
`
`education one of skill practicing in that art would have had in the relevant time
`
`frame, which for the ’079 Patent is 1998.
`
`A. Obviousness
`20.
`I understand that a patent claim can be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if
`
`the claimed subject matter would have been “obvious” to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art as of the priority date of the patent based upon one or more prior art
`
`references. I understand that an obviousness analysis should consider each of the
`
`following so-called “Graham factors”: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2)
`
`the differences between the claims and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the pertinent art; and (4) secondary considerations, if any (such as unexpected
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00922
`Patent 8,553,079
`results, commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, copying
`
`by others, licensing, and skepticism of experts).
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a conclusion of obviousness may be based upon either
`
`a single prior art reference or a combination of prior art references. However, I
`
`understand that merely demonstrating that each of the claim elements was,
`
`independently, known in the prior art does not prove that a claim composed of
`
`several known elements is obvious. In other words, I have been informed that
`
`obviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate
`
`references covering each limitation in a claim. Rather, obviousness requires the
`
`additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would
`
`have selected and combined those elements in the normal course of research and
`
`development to yield the claimed invention.
`
`22. Moreover, I understand that it can be important to identify a reason that
`
`would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the
`
`elements in a way the claimed new invention does.
`
`23.
`
`I further understand that, to determine obviousness, courts look to the
`
`interrelated teachings of multiple patents or other prior art references, the effects of
`
`demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and the
`
`background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00922
`Patent 8,553,079
`I also understand that, in determining whether a combination of prior
`
`24.
`
`art references renders a claim obvious, it may be helpful to consider whether there
`
`is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references and a
`
`reasonable expectation of success in doing so. I understand, however, that the
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine inquiry is not required and may not
`
`be relied upon in lieu of the obviousness analysis outlined above.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that the following exemplary rationales may lead to a
`
`conclusion of obviousness: the combination of prior art elements according to
`
`known methods to yield predictable results; the substitution of one known element
`
`for another to obtain predictable results; and the use of known techniques to improve
`
`similar devices in the same way.
`
`26. However, a claim is not obvious if the improvement is more than the
`
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
`
`Similarly, a claim is not obvious if the application of a known technique is beyond
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`27. Further, when the prior art teaches away from combining certain known
`
`elements, discovery of successful means of combining them is not obvious. I
`
`understand that similar subject matter may not be sufficient motivation for a person
`
`of skill in the art to combine references if the references have conflicting elements.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00922
`Patent 8,553,079
`I understand that, in order to be used in an obviousness combination, a
`
`28.
`
`prior art reference must be “analogous.” I understand that two separate tests define
`
`the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of
`
`endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed; and (2) if the reference is not within
`
`the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably
`
`pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In regard to
`
`test (2), the problems to which both the reference and the claimed invention relate
`
`must be identified and compared. I also understand that Petitioner has the burden of
`
`showing a cited reference is analogous art.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that obviousness of a patent claim cannot properly be
`
`established through hindsight, and that elements from different prior art references,
`
`or different embodiments of a single prior art reference, cannot be selected to create
`
`the claimed invention using the invention itself as a roadmap. I understand that the
`
`claimed invention as a whole must be compared to the prior art as a whole, and courts
`
`must avoid aggregating pieces of prior art through hindsight that would not have
`
`been combined absent the inventors’ insight.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that obviousness is not established by simply combining
`
`previously known elements from the prior art. A patent composed of several
`
`elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements
`
`was, independently, known in the prior art. An invention is unpatentable as obvious
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00922
`Patent 8,553,079
`if the differences between the patented subject matter and the prior art would have
`
`been obvious at the time of invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that obviousness of a patent cannot properly be established
`
`by mere conclusory statements. Instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
`
`with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
`
`When an expert opines that all the elements of a claim disparately exist in the prior
`
`art, the expert should provide the rationale to combine the disparate references. A
`
`reason for combining disparate prior art references is a critical component of an
`
`obviousness analysis. The obviousness analysis should be made explicit and needs
`
`to provide an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to identify the
`
`reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to
`
`combine the elements in the way the claimed invention does.
`
`32.
`
`I also understand that inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon
`
`building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity
`
`will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known. This is another
`
`reason why merely pointing to the elements being known in the art in separate
`
`locations is not the end of the obviousness inquiry.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that technical experts may testify to matters like the level
`
`of skill in the art at the time of the invention and what a POSITA might find obvious
`
`in light of the prior art without addressing objective indicia of non-obviousness.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00922
`Patent 8,553,079
`However, where an expert purports to testify not just to certain factual components
`
`underlying the obviousness inquiry, but to the ultimate question of obviousness, the
`
`expert must consider all factors relevant to that ultimate question, including all
`
`objective evidence of non-obviousness. Accordingly, I have undertaken such
`
`considerations here.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that, to render obvious a patent claim the prior art
`
`references must be enabling. That is, the references must provide sufficient
`
`information to allow one skilled in the art to practice what is disclosed without undue
`
`experimentation. I understand that, while a prior art reference may support any
`
`finding apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior art references that
`
`address different problems may not, depending on the art and circumstances, support
`
`an inference that the POSITA would consult both of them simultaneously.
`
`B.
`35.
`
`Secondary Considerations
`I understand that one of the so-called Graham factors that must be
`
`considered in determining obviousness is the existence of any secondary
`
`considerations, which tend to show that a patent claim is not obvious. Such
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness of a patent include (1) long-felt and
`
`unmet need in the art that was satisfied by the claimed invention of the patent; (2)
`
`failure of others to achieve the results of the claimed invention; (3) commercial
`
`success or lack thereof of the products and processes covered by the claimed
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00922
`Patent 8,553,079
`invention; (4) deliberate copying of the claimed invention by others in the field; (5)
`
`taking of licenses under the patent by others; (6) whether the claimed invention was
`
`contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art; (7) expression of disbelief or
`
`skepticism by those skilled in the art upon learning of the claimed invention; (8)
`
`unexpected results achieved by the claimed invention; (9) praise of the claimed
`
`invention by others skilled in the art; and (10) lack of contemporaneous and
`
`independent invention by others.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that each of these considerations may form an independent
`
`basis for non-obviousness of a patent. I also understand that the fact that another
`
`person simultaneously and independently created the same invention claimed in an
`
`asserted patent can serve as an indication that the invention was obvious.
`
`37.
`
`I also have been informed by counsel that there must be a nexus
`
`between any such secondary considerations and the claimed invention.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`38.
`I reviewed the comments in the Petition, and Petitioner’s expert’s
`
`declaration (Ex. 1010) pertaining to “construction of the claims” of the ’079 Patent.
`
`My understanding is simply that, in the absence of a specific controversy, one arrives
`
`at the appropriate “construction” or definition of what is embraced by the claims of
`
`the ’079 Patent and what is excluded by those claims by a reading of the ’079 Patent
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00922
`Patent 8,553,079
`and arriving at what, based on that reading, the inventor of the claimed subject matter
`
`intended to protect as her or his invention.
`
`39.
`
`I have been asked to provide opinions related to construction of the
`
`following terms:
`
`A.
`“wherein the light source includes a plurality of light emitting
`diodes.”
`40. Claim 3 recites “wherein the light source includes a plurality of light
`
`emitting diodes.” Claim 3 depends from independent claim 1, which recites
`
`“determining . . . the gesture . . . illuminated by the light source.” It is my opinion
`
`that a POSITA would understand claim 3, when read in light of the specification, as
`
`meaning the light source illuminates the gesture by having two or more (i.e., a
`
`plurality) LEDs of the light source emit light at the same time. Claim 1 requires that
`
`the gesture performed in the work volume be illuminated by the light source, not a
`
`portion of the light source. As a result, the “plurality of light emitting diodes” recited
`
`in claim 3 must illuminate the work volume, not a subset of the light emitting diodes.
`
`41. Further, the specification describes the purpose of the light source as
`
`increasing the amount of light incident to the object (e.g., finger) performing the
`
`gesture. Ex. 1001, 3:1-3 (“Light from below, such as provided by [the light source]
`
`can be used to illuminate the finger that typically looks bright under such
`
`illumination”). By having two or more LEDs emitting light at the same time (as
`
`opposed to only one), the object (e.g., finger) performing the gesture will appear
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00922
`Patent 8,553,079
`brighter, which increases the accuracy of the gesture recognition. That is a why a
`
`POSITA would understand that this claim requires two or more LEDs of the light
`
`source emit light at the same time. Interpreting this claim to require that only one
`
`light emitting diode of the plurality be used to illuminate would be contrary to the
`
`specification. Moreover, a POSITA would understand that including extra light
`
`emitting diodes that are not used for illumination is nonsensical because doing so
`
`would only increase the circuit complexity of the light source with no additional
`
`benefit.
`
`42. Accordingly, a POSITA would understand claim 3 to mean the light
`
`source illuminates the gesture by having multiple LEDs of the light source emit light
`
`at the same time. Claims 15 and 23 recite limitations that are similar to claim 3.
`
`Accordingly, a POSITA would construe claims 15 and 23 in the same way as claim
`
`3.
`
`V. OPINIONS
`43. Petitioner challenges independent claims 1, 11, and 21, and dependent
`
`claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 of the ’079 Patent (the “Challenged Claims”).
`
`44.
`
`In my opinion, as described below, Petitioner has not established by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00922
`Patent 8,553,079
`A. Ground 1 – Numazaki Does Not Render Claims 1, 2, 4-14, 17, 19,
`21, 22, 24-28, and 30 Obvious
`In my opinion, Numazaki (the “Ground 1 Reference”) does not render
`
`45.
`
`obvious any of claims 1, 2, 4-14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24-28, and 30.
`
`1.
`46.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`In my opinion, the Ground 1 Reference does not render obvious
`
`independent claim 1 at least because it does not teach or suggest the following
`
`elements of independent claim 1.
`
`a. Claim element [1(b)]1
`47. Claim element [1(b)] recites “providing a camera oriented to observe a
`
`gesture performed in the work volume, the camera being fixed relative to the light
`
`source; and determining, using the camera, the gesture performed in the work
`
`volume and illuminated by the light source.” Numazaki does not teach or suggest
`
`this limitation for several reasons.
`
`48.
`
`I understand that the Petition argues that Numazaki’s “photo-detection
`
`sensor unit” in Fig. 74 teaches “a camera,” as required by claim element [1(b)]. See
`
`Pet., pp. 12-14. I disagree. I reviewed Numazaki in its entirety and it contains no
`
`disclosure stating that the “photo-detection sensor unit” is a camera. Numazaki’s
`
`
`1 For convenience of reference only, this Declaration adopts the claim element
`
`numbering presented in the Petition.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00922
`Patent 8,553,079
`“photo-detection sensor unit” appears for the first time in Numazaki’s eighth
`
`embodiment. Numazaki generically discloses the “eighth embodiment is directed to
`
`a system configuration incorporating the information input generation apparatus of
`
`the present invention as described in [embodiments 1-7].” Ex. 1004, 50:21-24.
`
`Embodiments 1-7 in Numazaki do not disclose a “photo-detection sensor unit.” That
`
`is why it is my opinion that a POSITA would understand that none of embodiments
`
`1-7 disclose the “photo-detection sensor unit” in Fig. 74 as being or including a
`
`camera, as required by claim element [1(b)].
`
`49. For example, an information input generation apparatus of Numazaki’s
`
`first embodiment is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00922
`Patent 8,553,079
`Ex. 1004, 5:5-11, Fig. 2. As shown, Fig. 2 does not contain a “photo-detection
`
`sensor unit” and Numazaki does not identify any component (or grouping of
`
`components) in Fig. 2 as being the “photo-detection sensor unit.”
`
`50.
`
`It is my understanding that the Petition argues that each of Numazaki’s
`
`“photo-detection units” in Fig. 2 (e.g., photo-detection unit 109, photo-detection unit
`
`110) is a camera. Pet., pp. 6, 7, 12-14; Benderson Declaration (Ex. 1010), ¶¶ 35-36.
`
`Even if this is true, Numazaki does not disclose that the “photo-detection sensor
`
`unit” in Fig. 74 is a “photo-detection unit” from Fig. 2.
`
`51. Numazaki’s incorporation statement that its eighth embodiment may
`
`“incorporate the information input generation apparatus” of Numazaki’s first
`
`embodiment, Ex. 1004, 50:21-24, does not mean that the “photo-detection sensor
`
`unit” in Fig. 74 is a “photo-detection unit” (i.e., camera) from Fig. 2. It is my
`
`understanding that the Petition extensively relies on this teaching in Numazaki to
`
`meet claim element [1(b)]. However, a POSITA would not understand this
`
`incorporation statement in Numazaki to mean the “photo-detection sensor unit” in
`
`Fig. 74 is a “photo-detection unit” from Fig. 2. Considering embodiments 1-7 in
`
`Numazaki all require at least two “photo-detection units,” but Fig. 74 only has one
`
`“photo-detection sensor unit,” a POSITA would not equate the “photo-detection
`
`sensor unit” in Fig. 74 with the “photo-detection unit” from Fig. 2. To the contrary,
`
`this would lead a POSITA to understand that the “photo-detection units” and “photo-
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00922
`Patent 8,553,079
`detection sensor unit” are different because the inventors of Numazaki chose
`
`different terms.
`
`52. Further, even if Numazaki’s “photo-detection sensor unit” in Fig. 74
`
`includes a “photo-detection unit” from Fig. 2, and if Numazaki’s “photo-detection
`
`unit” in Fig. 2 is a camera, Numazaki still does not teach or suggest “determining,
`
`using the camera, the gesture performed in the work volume and illuminated by the
`
`light source,” as recited by claim element [1(b)]. A POSITA would interpret claim
`
`element [1(b)] as requiring the gesture be illuminated by the light source while the
`
`camera is capturing one or more images of the gesture. Specifically, the
`
`specification of the ’079 Patent discloses that the gesture is performed while being
`
`illuminated by the light source. E.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract (“A method for determining
`
`a gesture illuminated by a light source utilizes the light source to provide
`
`illumination through a work volume above the light source.”) (emphasis added), 3:1-
`
`8 (“Light from below, such as provided by single central light 122 can be used to
`
`illuminate the finger [performing a gesture] that typically looks bright under such
`
`illumination. It is also noted that the illumination is directed or concentrated in an
`
`area where the finger [performing a gesture] is typically located such as in work
`
`volume 170. If the light [from the light source] is of sufficient spectral content, the
`
`natural flesh tone of the finger [performing a gesture] can be observed—and
`
`recognized by use of the [] cameras 100/101.”) (emphasis added). A POSITA would
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00922
`Patent 8,553,079
`understand this disclosure to mean that the light source illuminates the gesture while
`
`the gesture is performed. Thus, any image of the gesture is captured by the camera
`
`while the gesture is illuminated by the light source. Numazaki does not teach or
`
`suggest at least this requirement.
`
`53. Numazaki discloses specific hardware that must be operated in a
`
`specific fashion. The “reflected light extraction unit 102” contains a “first photo-
`
`detection unit 109,” a “second photo-detection unit 110,” and a “difference
`
`calculation unit 111.” Ex. 1004, 10:57-66, 11:20-51, Fig. 2. Each “photo-detection
`
`unit” is necessary. The first photo-detection unit 109 is active when lighting unit
`
`101 emits light. Ex. 1004 at 11:26-30, Fig. 2. The second photo-detection unit 110
`
`detects while lighting unit 101 is not active. Ex. 1004, 11:30-32, Fig. 2. Numazaki
`
`states that those two images—the image from first photo-detection unit 109 (with
`
`lighting unit 101 active) and the image from second photo-detection unit 110 (with
`
`lighting unit 101 not active)—are subtracted from each other before the information
`
`is used in the remainder of the system. Ex. 1004, 11:43-56. Embodiments 1-8 in
`
`Numazaki require this two photo-detection unit configuration (i.e., two camera
`
`configuration), this specialized operation of the lighting unit (i.e., on for one image,
`
`off for the other image), and other hardware that Numazaki identifies as being
`
`necessary, such as the image-subtraction circuitry and associated timing circuitry.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00922
`Patent 8,553,079
`It is my understanding that “a camera” in claim element [1(b)] may be
`
`54.
`
`interpreted to mean “only one camera.” Under this interpretation, Numazaki fails to
`
`teach or suggest claim element [1(b)] because, as discussed above, Numazaki always
`
`requires two photo-detection units (i.e., two cameras). Further, it would not have
`
`been obvious to modify Numazaki such that it meets this claim element.
`
`55.
`
`It is my understanding that “a camera” in claim element [1(b)] may be
`
`interpreted to mean “multiple cameras” (e.g., two cameras). Under this
`
`interpretation, Numazaki still fails to teach or suggest claim element [1(b)]. As I
`
`discuss above, a POSITA would interpret claim element [1(b)] as requiring the
`
`gesture be illuminated by the light source when any camera of the multiple cameras
`
`is capturing an image of the gesture. B