UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PANASONIC SYSTEM NETWORKS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`6115187 CANADA INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR _____________
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`Issue Date: January 18, 2005
`
`Title: METHOD FOR CAPTURING AND DISPLAYING A
`VARIABLE RESOLUTION DIGITAL PANORAMIC IMAGE
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,844,990 UNDER
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD, PTAB
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`APPLE 1019
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ......................... 1
`
`A.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ........................... 1
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .................................... 1
`
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................. 1
`
`D.
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .............................. 1
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES ................................................................................... 2
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .... 2
`
`A. Grounds For Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ........................... 2
`
`B.
`
`Identification Of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................... 2
`
`1. Claims For Which Inter Partes Review Is Requested Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) ............................................................... 2
`
`2. The Specific Art And Statutory Ground(s) On Which The
`Challenge Is Based Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ..................... 3
`
`3. How The Challenged Claims Are To Be Construed Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................... 5
`
`4. How The Construed Claims Are Unpatentable Under 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .................................................................... 7
`
`5. Supporting Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) .................. 7
`
`6. One Of Ordinary Skill In The Art At The Time Of Invention ....... 8
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ‘990 PATENT ........................................................... 8
`
`A. Description Of The Alleged Invention Of The ‘990 Patent ................. 8
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Summary Of The Prosecution Of The ‘990 Patent .............................. 9
`
`Related European Patent No. 1386480 B1 .......................................... 9
`
`V.
`
`THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST
`ONE CLAIM OF THE ‘990 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE.................... 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Identification Of The References As Prior Art .................................. 10
`
`Summary Of Invalidity Arguments ................................................... 11
`
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) .................. 12
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 17, 18, 20 And 22 Are Anticipated
`By Nagaoka. ..................................................................................... 12
`
`1. Claims 1 And 17 ..........................................................................12
`
`2. Claims 2 And 18 ..........................................................................16
`
`3. Claims 4 And 20 ..........................................................................17
`
`4. Claims 6 And 22 ..........................................................................17
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 17, 18, 20 And 22 Are Obvious
`Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) Over Nagaoka. .......................................... 18
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 17, 18, 20 And 22 Are Anticipated
`By Baker. .......................................................................................... 21
`
`1. Claims 1 And 17 ..........................................................................21
`
`2. Claims 2 And 18 ..........................................................................25
`
`3. Claims 4 And 20 ..........................................................................26
`
`4. Claims 6 And 22 ..........................................................................26
`
`D. Ground 4: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 17, 18, 20 And 22 Are Obvious
`Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) Over Baker. .............................................. 27
`
`E.
`
`Ground 5: Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 17, 18, 19, 22 And 23 Are
`Anticipated By Fisher ....................................................................... 31
`
`ii
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`1. Claims 1 And 17 ..........................................................................31
`
`2. Claims 2 And 18 ..........................................................................34
`
`3. Claims 3 And 19 ..........................................................................35
`
`4. Claims 6 And 22 ..........................................................................35
`
`5. Claims 7 And 23 ..........................................................................35
`
`F.
`
`Ground 6: Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 17, 18, 19, 22 And 23 Are
`Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) Over Fisher ................................. 36
`
`G. Ground 7: Claims 1, 2, 3, 6 And 7Are Obvious Under 35
`U.S.C. §103(a) Over Fisher In View Of Baker .................................. 39
`
`H. Ground 8: Claim 10 Is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`Over Nagaoka In View Of Shiota ..................................................... 40
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Ground 9: Claim 10 Is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`Over Nagaoka In View Of Matsui..................................................... 42
`
`Ground 10: Claim 11 Is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`Over Nagaoka In View Of Shiota ..................................................... 46
`
`K. Ground 11: Claims 15 And 16 Are Obvious Under 35 U.S.C.
`§103(a) Over Nagaoka In View Of Shiota And Further
`In View Of Enami ............................................................................. 47
`
`1. Claim 15 ......................................................................................47
`
`2. Claim 16 ......................................................................................52
`
`L.
`
`Grounds 12 And 13: Claims 10 And 11 Are Obvious Over Baker
`In View Of Shiota And Claims 15 And 16 Are Obvious Over
`Baker In View Of Shiota And Further In View Of Enami ................. 57
`
`M. Ground 14: Claim 25 Is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`Over Baker In View Of Inoue ........................................................... 58
`
`N. Ground 15: Claim 25 Is Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
`Over Nagaoka In View Of Inoue ...................................................... 58
`
`iii
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 59
`
`
`
`iv
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`6115187 Canada Inc. v. CBC Co. Ltd. et al. .......................................................... 1
`
`ImmerVision, Inc. v. Vivotek, Inc. et al. .................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶6 ................................................................................................. 6
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ............................................................................................ 1
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) ........................................................................... 3, 10, 11, 17, 26
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) ........... 3, 11, 12, 18, 21, 27, 31, 36, 39, 40, 42, 46, 47, 51, 57, 59
`
`
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .............................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ................................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................ 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)............................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ....................................................................................... 2, 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) ........................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ........................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ........................................................................................ 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ........................................................................................ 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ........................................................................................ 7
`
`v
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)............................................................................................59
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(1-4) ....................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(a) .............................................................................................. 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ............................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ............................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ............................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit 1001:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990 (“the ‘990 patent”) with Certificate
`of Correction.
`
`Exhibit 1002:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,686,957 (“Baker”).
`
`Exhibit 1003:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,128,145 (“Nagaoka”).
`
`Exhibit 1004:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,953,111 (“Fisher”).
`
`Exhibit 1005:
`
`EP 1386480 B1 (“Artonne et al”).
`
`Exhibit 1006:
`
`EP 1386480 B1 Amendment of May 6, 2010 with English
`translation and verification.
`
`Exhibit 1007:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,031,670 (“Inoue”).
`
`Exhibit 1008:
`
`European Patent Publication EP 1 028 389 A2 (“Shiota”).
`
`Exhibit 1009:
`
`Japanese Patent Publication P2000-242773A (“Matsui”).
`
`Exhibit 1010:
`
`English translation of Matsui with verification.
`
`Exhibit 1011:
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication 11-
`261868 (“Enami”).
`
`Exhibit 1012:
`
`English translation of Enami with certification.
`
`Exhibit 1013:
`
`Declaration of Jack Feinberg, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit 1014:
`
`Declaration of Shishir K. Shah, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`On behalf of Panasonic System Networks Co., Ltd. (“Panasonic” or
`
`“Petitioner”) and in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`et seq., inter partes review is respectfully requested for claims 1-4, 6-7, 10, 11, 15-
`
`20, 22-23 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990 (“the ‘990 patent”).
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Panasonic is the real party-in-interest for the instant Petition.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`(1) ImmerVision, Inc. v. Vivotek, Inc. et al.; USDC NEV 2:13-cv-01117-
`
`APG-CWH; filed on June 25, 2013 and dismissed September 27, 2013; and
`
`(2) 6115187 Canada Inc. v. CBC Co. Ltd. et al.; USDC DEL 1:13-cv-
`
`01139-SLR-SRF; filed on June 25, 2013 and dismissed August 5, 2014.
`
`Petitioner is not a party to either litigation.
`
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Petitioner’s designation of counsel: Lead counsel is Michael J. Fink (Reg.
`
`No. 31,827) and back-up counsel is Arnold Turk (Reg. No. 33,094). Per 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this Petition.
`
`D. Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Papers concerning this matter should be served on the following:
`
`1
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`
`
`Michael J. Fink
`Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`
`Reston, VA 20191
`
`
`Tel: (703) 716-1191
`
`
`Fax: (703) 716-1180
`
`
`Email: MFink@gbpatent.com
`
`
`Arnold Turk
`Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`Reston, VA 20191
`Tel: (703) 716-1191
`Fax: (703) 716-1180
`Email: ATurk@gbpatent.com
`
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at the above email addresses.
`
`
`II.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`Payment of $23,800.00 for the fees set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(1-4) for
`
`this Petition for Inter Partes Review accompanies this request by way of credit
`
`card payment. The undersigned authorizes payment for any additional fees due in
`
`connection with this Petition to be charged to Deposit Account No. 19-0089.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW - 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A. Grounds For Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the ‘990 patent is available for inter partes
`
`review and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes
`
`review challenging the claims of the ‘990 patent.
`
`B. Identification Of Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`
`1. Claims For Which Inter Partes Review Is Requested Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(1)
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1-4, 6-7, 10, 11, 15-20, 22-
`
`23 and 25 of the ‘990 patent (“the challenged claims”).
`
`2
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`2. The Specific Art And Statutory Ground(s) On Which The Challenge
`Is Based Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)
`
`Inter partes review of the ‘990 patent (Ex. 1001) is requested in view of the
`
`following prior art references: (1) U.S. Patent No. 5,686,957 (“Baker”, Ex. 1002);
`
`(2) U.S. Patent No. 6,128,145 (“Nagaoka”, Ex. 1003); (3) U.S. Patent No.
`
`3,953,111 (“Fisher”, Ex. 1004); (4) European Patent Publication EP 1 028 389 A2
`
`(“Shiota”, Ex. 1008); (5) Japanese Patent Publication P2000-242773A (“Matsui”,
`
`Ex. 1009 and English translation with verification attached as Ex. 1010); (6)
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication 11-261868 (“Enami”, Ex.
`
`1011 and English translation with verification attached as Ex. 1012); and (7) U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,031,670 (“Inoue”, Ex. 1007). Each of these references is prior art to
`
`the ‘990 Patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`The challenged claims are unpatentable as anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(b) and/or obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a), and should be cancelled for at
`
`least the following reasons:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 17, 18, 20 and 22 are anticipated by Nagaoka.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 17, 18, 20 and 22 are obvious over Nagaoka.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 17, 18, 20 and 22 are anticipated by Baker.
`
`Ground 4: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 17, 18, 20 and 22 are obvious over Baker.
`
`Ground 5: Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 17, 18, 19, 22 and 23 are anticipated by Fisher.
`
`Ground 6: Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 17, 18, 19, 22 and 23 are obvious over Fisher.
`
`3
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`Ground 7: Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 are obvious over Fisher in view of Baker.
`
`Ground 8: Claim 10 is obvious over Nagaoka in view of Shiota.
`
`Ground 9: Claim 10 is obvious over Nagaoka in view of Matsui.
`
`Ground 10: Claim 11 is obvious over Nagaoka in view of Shiota.
`
`Ground 11: Claims 15 and 16 are obvious over Nagaoka in view of Shiota and in
`
`further view of Enami.
`
`Ground 12: Claims 10 and 11 are obvious over Baker in view of Shiota.
`
`Ground 13: Claims 15 and 16 are obvious over Baker in view of Shiota and
`
`further in view of Enami.
`
`Ground 14: Claim 25 is obvious over Baker in view of Inoue.
`
`Ground 15: Claim 25 is obvious over Nagaoka in view of Inoue.
`
`The above grounds are not duplicative because each prior art reference
`
`provides different teachings. For example, Fisher (Ex. 1004) applies to a different
`
`set of claims than Baker (Ex. 1002) and Nagaoka (Ex. 1003), and discloses the use
`
`of aspherical lenses. Baker differs from Nagaoka in that Baker depicts the claimed
`
`expanded and compressed zones in its figures (see, e.g., Figs. 2b & 3BB) whereas
`
`Nagaoka provides graphed data (see, e.g., Figs. 3A & 3B) establishing the presence
`
`of the claimed expanded and compressed zones. Baker and Nagaoka further differ
`
`in the way that they disclose maximum divergence of at least +/-10%.
`
`4
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`3. How The Challenged Claims Are To Be Construed Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(3)
`
`A claim subject to inter partes review receives the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner asserts the following constructions:
`
`“Panoramic objective lens” should be construed to mean a very wide-angle
`
`lens, e.g., a “fisheye” lens, capable of projecting a panoramic image. Ex. 1001,
`
`1:18-19; Feinberg Dec. (Ex. 1013) ¶ 30.
`
`“Object point” should be construed as a point of the image being viewed by
`
`the lens. Feinberg Dec. (Ex. 1013) ¶ 31.
`
`“Image point” should be construed as a point of light projected by the lens
`
`onto an image plane, said light coming from the corresponding object point of a
`
`viewed object. Feinberg Dec. (Ex. 1013) ¶ 32.
`
`“Field angle of an object point” should be construed as the angle of an
`
`incident light ray passing through the object point considered and through the
`
`center of the panorama photographed, relative to the optical axis of the objective
`
`lens. Ex. 1001, 2:18-22; Feinberg Dec. (Ex. 1013) ¶ 33.
`
`“Maximum divergence” (DIVmax) of a non-linear distribution function
`
`from a linear distribution function is defined as: DIVmax %=[[dr(Pd)-
`
`dr(Pd1)]/[dr(Pd1)]]*100. Ex. 1001, 8:57; Feinberg Dec. (Ex. 1013) ¶ 34.
`
`5
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
` “Substantially,” as recited in claims 1 and 17, should be construed as an
`
`amount of compression or expansion obtained using a lens with a non-linear
`
`“distribution function having a maximum divergence of at least ±10% compared to
`
`a linear distribution function.” Ex. 1001, 4:11-21; Feinberg Dec. (Ex. 1013) ¶ 35.
`
`“Optical means for projecting” should be construed, in accordance with 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 ¶6, as one or more optical elements such as lenses. Feinberg Dec.
`
`(Ex. 1013) ¶ 36. The ‘990 patent does not limit the optical means to a specific
`
`number of optical elements, to specific shaped optical elements, to specific types
`
`of optical elements or to a specific arrangement of optical elements. The optical
`
`means are one or more optical elements that project a panorama onto an image
`
`plane of the objective lens. Ex. 1001, 5:30-31; Feinberg Dec. (Ex. 1013) ¶ 36.
`
`The ‘990 patent discloses “two examples of embodiments of non-linear panoramic
`
`objective lenses according to the present invention will be described, the first being
`
`a direct-type objective lens and the second of indirect type, that is using mirrors.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 14:46-53. The structures corresponding to the optical means are shown
`
`in Figs. 16 and 18. The ‘990 patent broadly discloses optical elements, e.g., lenses
`
`and/or mirrors, which perform the function of projecting a panorama onto an image
`
`plane of the objective lens. Ex. 1001, Feinberg Dec. (Ex. 1013) ¶ 36.
`
`6
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`“Apodizer” should be construed to mean an optical system which provides a
`
`non-linear distribution of image points relative to the field angle of the object
`
`points. Ex. 1001, 16:1-4; Feinberg Dec. (Ex. 1013) ¶¶ 37-38.
`
`“Aspherical lens” is a lens element with a non-spherical surface. Feinberg
`
`Dec. (Ex. 1013) ¶ 39.
`
`All other terms should be afforded their ordinary and customary meanings.
`
`4. How The Construed Claims Are Unpatentable Under 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)(4)
`
`Explanations of how claims 1-4, 6-7, 10, 11, 15-20, 22-23 and 25 are
`
`unpatentable under the grounds identified above are provided in Section VI.
`
`5. Supporting Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5)
`
`The exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied upon to support the
`
`challenge and the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including
`
`identification of specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge, are
`
`provided in Section VI. The Exhibit List is set forth on page vii. Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.63(a), this Petition is supported by the expert declarations of Jack
`
`Feinberg, Ph. D (“Feinberg Dec.”)(Ex. 1013) and Shishir K. Shah, Ph. D (“Shah
`
`Dec.”)(Ex. 1014), attesting to, among other issues, the invalidity of the challenged
`
`claims of the ‘990 Patent and supporting bases for the proposed grounds of
`
`unpatentability.
`
`7
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`6. One Of Ordinary Skill In The Art At The Time Of Invention
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (“POSA”) would have been
`
`aware of panoramic objective lenses, fish-eye lenses and other wide-angle lenses,
`
`and of such lenses having non-linear distribution functions. A POSA would also
`
`have understood the desirability of, and how to, correct an image obtained from a
`
`panoramic objective lens having a non-linear distribution function. A POSA in the
`
`subject matter claimed and disclosed in the ‘990 patent at the time of the invention
`
`would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in Physics and/or Electrical
`
`Engineering and at least five years’ experience working with lenses or related
`
`optical systems. Feinberg Dec. (Ex. 1013) ¶¶11-19; Shah Dec.(Ex. 1014) ¶¶20-26.
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ‘990 PATENT
`
`A. Description Of The Alleged Invention Of The ‘990 Patent
`
`The ‘990 patent discloses panoramic objective lenses having an image point
`
`distribution function that is not linear relative to the field angle of object points.
`
`The disclosed lenses have a maximum divergence of at least +/-10% compared to a
`
`linear distribution function, such that the image obtained has at least one
`
`substantially expanded zone and at least one substantially compressed zone. Ex.
`
`1001, 4:11-21, Feinberg Dec. (Ex. 1013) ¶¶ 20-23. The ‘990 patent discloses
`
`capturing the image points and “correcting the non-linearity of the initial image,
`
`performed by means of a reciprocal function of the non-linear distribution function
`
`8
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`of the objective lens or by means of the non-linear distribution function.” ‘990
`
`patent, 4:51-55 (Ex 1001); Feinberg Dec. (Ex. 1013) ¶¶ 24-26.
`
`B. Summary Of The Prosecution Of The ‘990 Patent
`
`During prosecution of the ‘990 patent, Fisher, and family members of Baker
`
`and Nagaoka, were cited to the examiner by the applicant. The Examiner failed to
`
`appreciate the teachings of such cited prior art, and issued a first-action allowance
`
`on Sept. 14, 2004. The Examiner’s reasons for allowance (pp. 2-3) were:
`
` The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features
`
`as presented, for example, in independent claims 1 and 17, which
`
`include a panoramic objective lens having an image point distribution
`
`function that is not linear relative to the field angle of object points of
`
`the panorama, the distribution function having a maximum divergence
`
`of at least +/-10% compared to a linear distribution function, such that
`
`the panoramic image obtained has at least one substantially expanded
`
`zone and at least on[e] substantially compressed zone.
`
`As shown herein, each of Baker, Nagaoka and Fisher disclose the above
`
`recited features and more.
`
`C. Related European Patent No. 1386480 B1
`
`During the prosecution of the European patent corresponding to the ‘990
`
`patent (EP 1386480 B1)(Ex. 1005), the Applicants were required to limit the scope
`
`of the independent claims. Claim 1 of EP 1386480 B1 was originally filed with
`
`language substantially identical to claim 1 of the ‘990 patent. The European patent
`
`9
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`examiner rejected the independent claims by applying Fisher and a European
`
`family member of Baker. In response, Applicants amended the independent claims
`
`to recite that the zones in the center and at the edge of the image are compressed
`
`and that an intermediate zone between the center and the edge is substantially
`
`expanded [by the panoramic objective lens](Ex. 1006, pp.21, 23). The narrowed
`
`European independent claims (claims 1 and 14) generally correspond to dependent
`
`claims 5 and 21 of the ‘990 patent, which are not challenged in this Petition.
`
`V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`CLAIM OF THE ‘990 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`A. Identification Of The References As Prior Art
`
`All of the following references are prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(b) because each published more than one year prior to the earliest possible
`
`effective date of the ‘990 patent, i.e., May 10, 2002.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,686,957 (“Baker”, Ex. 1002) issued November 11, 1997.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,128,145 (“Nagaoka”, Ex. 1003) issued October 3, 2000.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,953,111 (“Fisher”, Ex. 1004) issued April 27, 1976.
`
`European Patent Publication EP 1 028 389 A2 (“Shiota”, Ex. 1008)
`
`published August 16, 2000.
`
`Japanese Patent Publication P2000-242773A (“Matsui”, Ex. 1009 and
`
`English translation with verification, Ex. 1010) published September 8, 2000.
`
`10
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication 11-261868 (“Enami”,
`
`Ex. 1011 and English translation with certification, Ex. 1012) published September
`
`24, 1999.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,031,670 (“Inoue”, Ex. 1007) issued February 29, 2000.
`
`B. Summary Of Invalidity Arguments
`
`Nagaoka, Baker and Fisher render the claims directed to the panoramic
`
`objective lens and method for capturing an image using such lens, i.e., claims 1-4,
`
`6-7, 17-20, and 22-23, unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§102(b) and/or 103(a).
`
`Similar to the ‘990 patent, Nagaoka, Baker and Fisher disclose panoramic
`
`objective lenses having an image point distribution function that is not linear
`
`relative to the field angle of object points. Nagaoka, Baker and Fisher disclose
`
`lenses having a maximum divergence of at least +/-10% compared to a linear
`
`distribution function, and the panoramic images obtained have at least one
`
`substantially expanded zone and at least one substantially compressed zone.
`
`Nagaoka and Baker disclose obtained images having a substantially expanded
`
`peripheral zone. Fisher discloses an obtained image having a substantially
`
`expanded center zone. Fisher also discloses using aspherical lenses. Nagaoka and
`
`Baker also disclose the desirability of correcting the images obtained.
`
`Shiota, Matsui and Enami disclose correcting a non-linear image obtained
`
`from a panoramic objective lens, and in combination with Nagaoka and/or Baker,
`
`11
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`render the claims directed to correcting the images, i.e., claims 10, 11, 15 and 16,
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). Shiota discloses correction performed by a
`
`non-linear distribution function. Matsui discloses correction performed by either a
`
`reciprocal function of the non-linear distribution function or by the non-linear
`
`distribution function. Shiota additionally discloses the claimed mapping function.
`
`Enami discloses the claimed color allocation and mapping functions.
`
`Inoue discloses making lenses from PMMA and, in combination with either
`
`Nagaoka or Baker, renders claim 25 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
`
`VI. DETAILED EXPLANATION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) an explanation of each proposed
`
`ground of unpatentability is provided.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 17, 18, 20 And 22 Are Anticipated By
`Nagaoka.
`
`Nagaoka discloses each element recited in claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 17, 18, 20 and 22.
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1 And 17
`a. 1. “A method for capturing a digital panoramic image” or 17. “A
`panoramic objective lens comprising:”
`
`Nagaoka discloses a panoramic objective lens and a method for capturing a
`
`digital panoramic image: “…an image processing system utilizing an image pick-
`
`up device comprising a fisheye lens...” Ex. 1003 3:63-65, Feinberg Dec. (Ex. 1013)
`
`¶¶ 30, 103. Nagaoka further discloses a panoramic objective lens: “an image of
`
`half of the sphere is picked up by the fisheye lens.” Ex. 1003 1:23-31, Feinberg
`
`12
`
`20
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`Dec. (Ex. 1013) ¶ 103. Digital image data can be stored, e.g., on a flashcard. Ex.
`
`1003 9:18-21; Feinberg Dec. (Ex. 1013) ¶ 71.
`
`b. 1. “by projecting a panorama onto an image sensor by means of a
`panoramic objective lens,” or 17. “optical means for projecting a
`panorama into an image plane of the objective lens,”
`
`Nagaoka discloses that the panorama is projected onto a CCD image sensor
`
`by a panoramic objective lens. Ex. 1003 4:66-5:2 and Fig. 2; Feinberg Dec. (Ex.
`
`1013) ¶ 104.
`
`c. 1. “the panoramic objective lens having an image point distribution
`function that is not linear relative to the field angle of object points of
`the panorama,” or 17. “the optical means having an image point
`distribution function that is not linear relative to the field angle of
`object points of the panorama,”
`
`Nagaoka discloses several panoramic (fisheye) lenses each having an image
`
`point distribution function that is not linear relative to the field angle of object
`
`points of the panorama. Feinberg Dec. (Ex. 1013) ¶¶ 87, 105. As depicted in
`
`Nagaoka Figs. 3A and 3B, examples of such non-linear lenses have the functions
`
`h=1.2f·tan(θ/1.6), h=1.6f·tan(θ/2), and h=2f·tan(θ/2). Ex. 1003 Figs. 3A and 3B.
`
`Feinberg Dec. (Ex. 1013) ¶¶ 105-106.
`
`d. “the distribution function having a maximum divergence of at least
`±10% compared to a linear distribution function”
`
`Nagaoka (Ex. 1003) Figs. 3A and 3B below show the distribution functions
`
`for lenses with the functions h=1.2f·tan(θ/1.6), h=1.6f·tan(θ/2), and h=2f·tan(θ/2).
`
`13
`
`21
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`Each of these lenses has a maximum divergence of at least ±10% compared to the
`
`linear distribution function. Feinberg Dec. (Ex. 1013) ¶ 88.
`
`
`
`
`
`To confirm what is shown in Nagaoka Figs. 3A and 3B, Dr. Feinberg
`
`computed the actual maximum divergence for each of these lenses using a focal
`
`length of f=1: A lens having the function h=1.2f·tan(θ/1.6) has a maximum
`
`divergence of at least 18%; a lens having the function h=1.6f·tan(θ/2) has a
`
`maximum divergence of at least 16%; and, a lens having the function h=2f·tan(θ/2)
`
`has a maximum divergence of at least 24%. Feinberg Dec. (Ex. 1013) ¶¶ 88, 92-
`
`94, 107, 108.
`
`A POSA would have known how to fit an image projected by a lens onto an
`
`image sensor and how to set the focal length f of a lens so that the size of the
`
`projected image approximately matches the size of the image sensor. It was well
`
`within the knowledge of a POSA to select the focal length of a lens having a non-
`
`14
`
`22
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`linear distribution function so that the size of the projected image was
`
`approximately the same size as the projected image of a lens having the linear
`
`distribution function h=f·θ. Feinberg Dec. (Ex. 1013) ¶¶ 97-98.
`
`A POSA would have understood that, by selecting the focal length of a lens
`
`having the nonlinear distribution function h=2f·tan(θ/2) to make its image size
`
`match that of a linear lens, the values of the gradients of that nonlinear lens would
`
`change. A lens having the nonlinear distribution function h=2f· tan(θ/2) with a
`
`focal leng