throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`Jean-Claude Artonne et al.
`In re Patent of:
`6,844,990 B2 Attorney Docket No.: 50095-0114IP1
`U.S. Patent No.:
`January 18, 2005
`
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 10/706,513
`
`Filing Date:
`November 12, 2003
`
`Title:
`METHOD FOR CAPTURING AND DISPLAYING A VARIABLE
`RESOLUTION DIGITAL PANORAMIC IMAGE
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 6,844,990 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`IPR REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................... 1 
`A.  Standing .................................................................................................... 1 
`B.  Challenge and Relief Requested ............................................................... 1 
`C.  Claim Construction ................................................................................... 2 
`’990 PATENT .................................................................................................. 5 
`A.  Overview ................................................................................................... 5 
`B.  Relevant Prosecution History ................................................................. 12 
`C.  Panasonic IPR and Subsequent Reexamination ..................................... 13 
`D.  LG IPRs .................................................................................................. 14 
`IV.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 15 
`V.  APPLYING PRIOR ART TO CHALLENGED CLAIMS ........................... 15 
`A.  Ground 1: Baker in view of Shiota Renders Obvious Claims 2, 4, 27,
`and 29 ...................................................................................................... 15 
`1. 
`Baker (APPLE-1006) .................................................................... 15 
`2. 
`Shiota (APPLE-1012) ................................................................... 20 
`3. 
`Combination of Baker and Shiota ................................................. 22 
`4.  Analysis ......................................................................................... 27 
`B.  Ground 2: Baker in view of Shiota and Fisher Renders Obvious Claims
`29 and 30 ................................................................................................. 62 
`1. 
`Fisher (APPLE-1009) .................................................................... 62 
`2. 
`Combination of Baker, Shiota, and Fisher .................................... 65 
`3.  Analysis ......................................................................................... 69 
`VI.  DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NEITHER APPROPRIATE NOR
`EQUITABLE ................................................................................................. 70 
`A.  §314(a): The Fintiv Factors Favor Institution ........................................ 70 
`1. 
`Factor 1: Institution Will Increase Likelihood of Stay ................. 71 
`2. 
`Factor 2: The Final Written Decision will Issue Before Any
`Foreseeable Trial ........................................................................... 72 
`Factor 3: Early Stage of Parallel Proceedings ............................... 72 
`Factor 4: Under the Current Trial Schedule, No Overlap is
`Possible .......................................................................................... 72 
`Factor 5: Apple’s involvement in Parallel Proceedings ................ 73 
`Factor 6: Other Circumstances Support Institution ....................... 73 
`
`3. 
`4. 
`
`5. 
`6. 
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`B.  §325(d): This Petition Applies New Arguments Not Previously
`Considered or Relied Upon by the Office .............................................. 73 
`VII.  CONCLUSION AND FEES ......................................................................... 79 
`VIII.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ......................... 79 
`A.  Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .............................. 79 
`B.  Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ....................................... 79 
`C.  Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................... 80 
`D.  Service Information ................................................................................ 81 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`APPLE-1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990 to Artonne et al. (“the ’990 patent”)
`
`APPLE-1002
`
`Prosecution History of the ’990 Patent (“Original Prosecution
`History”)
`
`APPLE-1003
`
`Declaration of Dr. David Kessler, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE-1004
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. David Kessler, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE-1005
`
`Service of complaint in ImmerVision, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., D.Del.
`1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB (January 18, 2022)
`
`APPLE-1006
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,686,957 to Baker (“Baker”)
`
`APPLE-1007
`
`“Fish Eye Lens” by K. Miyamoto (Feb. 19, 1964) (“Miyamoto”)
`
`APPLE-1008
`
`Service of complaint in ImmerVision, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., D.Del.
`1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB (January 18, 2022)
`
`APPLE-1009
`
`U.S. Patent No. 3,953,111 to Fisher et al. (“Fisher”)
`
`APPLE-1010
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,128,145 to Nagaoka (“Nagaoka”)
`
`APPLE-1011
`
`Reexamination File History for the ’990 Patent (“Reexam
`History”)
`
`APPLE-1012
`
`EP 1028389 A2 to Shiota et al. (“Shiota”)
`
`APPLE-1013
`
`APPLE-1014
`
`Rebiai et al., “Image Distortion from Zoom Lenses: Modeling
`and Digital Correction,” 1992 IBC International Broadcasting
`Convention (July 1992) (“Rebiai”)
`
`JP 2000-242773 to Matsui et al. (“Matsui”) (original and
`translated documents also provided in APPLE-1011, 43-51, 180-
`198, as provided by Patent Owner during reexamination)
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`APPLE-1015
`
`APPLE-1016
`
`APPLE-1017
`
`APPLE-1018
`
`
`APPLE-1019
`
`
`APPLE-1020
`
`
`APPLE-1021
`
`
`APPLE-1022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,861,999 to Tada (“Tada”)
`
`Zeljko Andreic, “Simple 180o field-of-view F-theta all-sky
`camera,” SPIE Proc. 1500 (Oct. 1, 1991) (“Andreic”)
`
`Abed Kassim et al., “Optical Performance of axial gradient and
`aspheric surface lenses: study and analysis,” SPIE’s 1994
`International
`Symposium
`on Optics,
`Imaging,
`and
`Instrumentation, Vol. 2263 (Sept. 30, 1994) (“Kassim”)
`
`Susan Houde-Walter, “Recent Progress In Gradient-Index
`Optics,” SPIE Proc. 0935 (Apr. 8, 1988) (“Houde-Walter”)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990,
`filed by Panasonic System Networks Co., Ltd. (IPR2014-01438)
`
`Paul K. Manhart et al., “Fundamentals of macro axial gradient
`index optical design and engineering,” SPIE Opt. Eng. 36(6),
`1607-1621 (June 1997) (“Manhart”)
`
`Vidal, “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post
`Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation”
`(USPTO, June 2021)
`
`Scheduling Order entered in ImmerVision, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`D.Del. 1:21-cv-01733-MN-CJB and ImmerVision, Inc. v. Apple,
`Inc., D.Del. 1:21-cv-01484-MN-CJB (entered on June 21, 2022)
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`LISTING OF CLAIMS
`
`Claim 1
`
`[1pre] A method for capturing a digital panoramic image
`
`[1a]
`
`[1b]
`
`[1c]
`
`by projecting a panorama onto an image sensor by means of a
`panoramic objective lens,
`
`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,
`
`the distribution function having a maximum divergence of at least
`±10% compared to a linear distribution function,
`
`[1d]
`
`such that the panoramic image obtained has at least one substantially
`expanded zone and at least one substantially compressed zone.
`Claim 27
`
`[27pre] A method for displaying a digital panoramic image, the method
`comprising:
`
`[27a]
`
`[27b]
`
`[27c]
`
`[27d]
`
`[27e]
`
`obtaining a digital panoramic image by projecting a panorama onto an
`image sensor using a panoramic objective lens,
`
`the panoramic objective lens having an image point distribution
`function that is not linear relative to a 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 one substantially compressed zone, and
`
`displaying the obtained panoramic image by correcting the non-
`linearity of the initial image,
`
`v
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`correcting the non-linearity … performed by retrieving image points on
`the obtained image in a coordinate system of center O’ using at least the
`non-linear distribution function and a size L of the obtained image
`
`[27f]
`
`Claim 2
`
`[2pre] The method according to claim 27,
`
`[2a]
`
`wherein the objective lens has a non-linear distribution function that is
`symmetrical relative to the optical axis of the objective lens, the
`position of an image point relative to the center of the image varying
`according to the field angle of the corresponding object point
`
`Claim 4
`
`[4pre] The method according to claim 27,
`
`[4a]
`
`wherein the objective lens expands the edges of the image and
`compresses the center of the image.
`Claim 29
`
`[29pre] The method according to claim 27,
`
`[29a] wherein the objective lens comprises a set of lenses forming an
`apodizer.
`Claim 30
`
`[30pre] The method according to claim 29,
`
`[30a] wherein the set of lenses forming an apodizer comprises at least one
`aspherical lens.
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple, Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”) petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”)
`
`of claims 2, 4, 27, 29, and 30 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent 6,844,990 (“’990
`
`Patent”).
`
`II.
`
`IPR REQUIREMENTS
`A.
`
`Standing
`
`Apple certifies that the ’990 Patent is available for IPR. Apple is not barred
`
`or estopped from requesting this review on the grounds identified below. APPLE-
`
`1005; APPLE-1008.
`
`B. Challenge and Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests an IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds set forth
`
`below. Additional explanation/support for each ground is set forth in Dr. Kessler’s
`
`declaration (APPLE-1003, ¶¶43-259).
`
`Ground
`1
`
`’990 Patent Claims
`2, 4, 27, 29
`
`Basis
`§103: Baker in view of Shiota
`
`2
`
`29, 30
`
`§103: Baker in view of Shiota and
`
`Fisher
`
`
`
`The application that resulted in the ’990 Patent was filed on November 12,
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`2003, and is identified as a continuation of PCT Application No. PCT/FR02/01588,
`
`filed on May 10, 2002. APPLE-1001, Face. The ’990 Patent claims foreign priority
`
`to FR Application 01 06261, filed on May 11, 2001. APPLE-1001, Face. Thus, the
`
`earliest priority date of the ’990 Patent is May 11, 20011 (“Critical Date”)2.
`
`Each of the prior art references applied in Grounds 1-2 qualifies as prior art to
`
`the ’990 Patent on at least the bases shown below:
`
`Reference
`Baker
`(APPLE-1006)
`
`Shiota
`(APPLE-1012)
`
`Fisher
`(APPLE-1009)
`
`Date
`Filed: June 30, 1995
`Issued: November 11, 1997
`
`Filed: January 7, 2000
`Published: August 16, 2000
`
`Filed: November 4, 1974
`Issued: April 27, 1976
`
`
`
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`Prior Art Status
`102(b)
`
`102(a)
`
`102(b)
`
`For the analysis presented herein, Petitioner is applying the constructions
`
`adopted in IPR2020-00195 for certain applicable claim terms in the Challenged
`
`
`In reexamination, Patent Owner contended that May 10, 2002 is the earliest
`
`1
`
`priority date for the ’990 Patent. APPLE-1011, 227-228.
`
`2
`
`Petitioner does not concede that the ’990 Patent is entitled to this priority date.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Claims, as reflected below:
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Construction
`
`“panoramic objective lens”
`
`“a super-wide or ultra-wide objective
`
`lens”
`
`“object points of the panorama”
`
`“points of the object in the panorama
`
`being viewed by the lens”
`
`“image point”
`
`“a point of light projected by the lens
`
`onto an image plane, said light coming
`
`from the corresponding object point of a
`
`viewed object in the panorama”
`
`“field angle of object points”
`
`“the angles of incident light rays passing
`
`through the object points and through
`
`the
`
`center
`
`of
`
`the
`
`panorama
`
`photographed, relative to the optical
`
`axis of the objective lens”
`
`“maximum divergence”
`
`“Defined by
`
`the formula DIVmax
`
`%=[[dr(Pd)-dr(Pdl)]/[dr(Pdl)]]*100,
`
`where dr(Pd) is the relative distance
`
`from the center of the image to the point
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`of maximum divergence Pd, and dr(Pdl)
`
`is the relative distance in relation to the
`
`center of the corresponding point on the
`
`linear image distribution line”
`
`“expanded zone”
`
`“the portion of
`
`the
`
`image point
`
`distribution function where the gradient
`
`is higher than the gradient of the linear
`
`distribution function”
`
`“compressed zone”
`
`“the portion of
`
`the
`
`image point
`
`distribution function where the gradient
`
`is lower than the gradient of the linear
`
`distribution function”
`
`
`
`For the other claims terms of the Challenged Claims, because the evidence
`
`below and the prior art’s description of the claimed elements are similar to that of
`
`the ’990 specification, Petitioner believes that no claim constructions are necessary
`
`“to resolve [a] controversy” as to such claim terms. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem.
`
`Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Petitioner is pursuing prior art-based
`
`invalidity grounds in this IPR and is not waiving arguments concerning invalidity
`
`grounds (e.g., §112) that cannot be raised in this proceeding.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`III.
`
`’990 PATENT
`A. Overview
`
` The ’990 Patent is directed to “a method for capturing a digital panoramic
`
`image” using “a panoramic objective lens.” APPLE-1001, Abstract; APPLE-1003,
`
`¶¶75-94.
`
`The ’990 Patent’s Figure 5 (reproduced and annotated below) represents a
`
`conventional system “for taking panoramic shots,” and includes a panoramic
`
`objective lens 15 (yellow) having an optical axis OZ (orange) and a digital image
`
`sensor 17 (green) arranged in the image plane of the objective lens 15. APPLE-
`
`1001, 6:66-7:2.
`
`
`As shown, object points (e.g., a, b, c, d – red above) are projected through the
`
`panoramic objective lens and captured as respective image points (e.g., a’, b’, c’, and
`
`d’ – blue above) at the image sensor 17. APPLE-1001, 7:2-14. The field angle of
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`each of the object points is identified above as α1, α2, -α2, -α13 , and represents the
`
`“angle that an incident light ray passing through the object point considered and
`
`through the center of the panorama PM, marked by a point ‘p’ on FIG. 5, has relative
`
`to the optical axis OZ of the objective lens.” APPLE-1001, 7:2-10. On the image
`
`sensor 17, image points a’, b, c’, and d’ are located at distances from the center of
`
`the image, respectively, equal to d1, d2, -d2, -d1. APPLE-1001, 7:11-14.
`
`Per the ’990 Patent, the distribution of image points according to the field
`
`angle of the object points is linear in prior art panoramic objective lenses. APPLE-
`
`1001, 7:14-19. “Linearity” as used in the ’990 specification refers to a ratio of
`
`proportionality between the distance of an image point measured relative to the
`
`center of the image and the field angle of the corresponding object point. APPLE-
`
`1001, 7:24-28. Thus, the distances d1 and d2 are linked by the following relation:
`
`d1/α1=d2/α2. APPLE-1001, 7:20-22. Because the angle α1 for object point a is twice
`
`angle α2 for object point b (i.e., α1 = 2α2), distance d1 of the corresponding image
`
`point a’ will be twice the distance d2 of the corresponding image point b’ (i.e.,
`
`
`In Figure 5, angles α1 and - α1 should have been shown as being between “a”
`
`3
`
`and the axis OZ, and the angle between “d” and the axis OZ, respectively. APPLE-
`
`1003, ¶77 n. 1.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`

`

`d1=2d2). Id.
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`Because of such linearity in prior art panoramic objective lenses and the axial
`
`symmetry of panoramic objective lenses, the ’990 Patent states that image points
`
`corresponding to object points having an identical field angle form equally spaced
`
`concentric circles C10, C20 through C90 on an image disk 10, as shown in Figure
`
`4A (below). APPLE-1001, 1:30-32, 2:14-29, 18:17-23.
`
`
`Additionally, because of axial symmetry, the field angle of an object point is between
`
`0° and 90° for an objective lens having an aperture of 180°, e.g., as shown by the
`
`green semicircle below. APPLE-1001, 1:30-32, 2:22-23, 18:17-23, FIG. 4
`
`(annotated).
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`
`The purported invention of the ’990 Patent is a panoramic objective lens
`
`having an image point distribution function that is not linear relative to the field
`
`angle of object points, which creates at least one zone of the image that is expanded
`
`and at least another zone that is compressed. APPLE-1001, Abstract. Per the ’990
`
`Patent, the expanded zones of the image cover more pixels of the image sensor than
`
`if they were not expanded. APPLE-1001, 4:3-6.
`
`The ’990 Patent states that the portions of the image to expand and compress
`
`can be chosen according to the intended application. APPLE-1001, 7:66-8:5, 4:6-
`
`10. Figure 7A (below) illustrates one such application by providing an image
`
`distribution function of a panoramic objective lens that expands the center of the
`
`image:
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`
`APPLE-1001, Fig. 7A, 8:12-14. As seen by comparing Fig. 7A and 4A (the latter is
`
`obtained using a linear panoramic objective lens), the circles C10 and C20 are further
`
`from the center of the image and further from each other in FIG. 7A, while the circles
`
`C30 to C90 are closer to each other. APPLE-1001, 8:21-26. This panoramic image
`
`(shown in FIG. 7A) thus has an expanded zone in the center and a compressed zone
`
`towards the edge of the image disk. APPLE-1001, 8:26-28.
`
`Another way the ’990 Patent illustrates the expanded and compressed zones
`
`is by using a curve of a corresponding image point distribution function as shown in
`
`FIG. 7B (below), where the X-axis represents the field angle of the object point (in
`
`degrees) and the Y-axis represents the relative distance of an image point in relation
`
`to the center of the image. APPLE-1001, 8:29-38; APPLE-1003, ¶86.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`
`APPLE-1001, Fig. 7B (annotated). As shown, the curve of the function Fd1 has a
`
`higher gradient than the straight or linear line Fdc for angles α between 0° and 20°,
`
`and a lesser gradient between 20° and 90°. APPLE-1001, 8:38-41. A higher
`
`gradient relative to the linear/straight line represents an expansion of the image and
`
`a lower gradient means a compression of the image. APPLE-1001, 8:41-43;
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶¶86-87; see also APPLE-1001, 9:58-64, Fig. 9, APPLE-1003, ¶¶90-
`
`91 (describing and showing an image distribution for an image with compressed,
`
`expanded, and compressed zones).
`
`The ’990 Patent describes using this curve to calculate a point of maximum
`
`divergence “Pd,” which is the point with the greatest gap in relative distance dr in
`
`relation to the corresponding point on the linear distribution straight line (Fdc).
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`APPLE-1001, 8:44-49.
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`Per the ’990 Patent, the maximum divergence DIVmax of the distribution
`
`function Fd1
`
`is calculated using
`
`the
`
`formula: DIVmax %=[[dr(Pd)-
`
`dr(Pdl)]/[dr(Pdl)]]*100, where dr(Pd) is the relative distance from the center of the
`
`image to the point of maximum divergence Pd, and dr(Pdl) is the relative distance
`
`from the center of the image to the linear distribution straight line, at the same field
`
`angle (here 20°). APPLE-1001, 8:49-65. Applying this formula, the maximum
`
`divergence at the field angle of 20° in Figure 7B is +125% (i.e., [[0.5-
`
`0.222]/[0.222]]*100). APPLE-1001, 9:1-2.
`
`The ’990 Patent states that the non-linearity in the image can be corrected,
`
`e.g., using the non-linear distribution function of the objective lens, to display an
`
`image that is “free from the optical distortion.” APPLE-1001, Abstract, 10:6-17. In
`
`one embodiment, the ’990 Patent’s correction method involves a two-step technique:
`
`(1) projecting the image points of an image sector corresponding to a display
`
`window (referred to as E(i, j), onto a sphere portion of a hemisphere of center O and
`
`of axes OX, OY, OZ, to obtain image points P(px, py, pz); and (2) projecting the
`
`determined image points P (i.e., P(px, py, pz)) onto an image disk (ID1) using the
`
`lens’s non-linear distribution function. APPLE-1001, 12:59-14:35, FIG. 13.
`
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`
`As shown above, the projection of the image points P onto the image disk ID1 allows
`
`image points p(pu, pv) to be obtained on the image disk, in a coordinate system of
`
`center O’ (corresponding to the center of the image disk) and of axes O’U and
`
`O’V. APPLE-1001, 12:59-14:35, FIG. 13 (annotated above to show image disk and
`
`its center O’); APPLE-1003, ¶¶92-94.
`
`B. Relevant Prosecution History
`
`During original prosecution, Applicant cited Fisher (APPLE-1009), and
`
`foreign counterparts of Baker (APPLE-1006) and Nagaoka (APPLE-1010) (i.e., EP
`
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`0 695 085 and EP 1 004 915, respectively). The Examiner issued a first-action
`
`allowance and noted in the reasons for allowance that the “prior art fails to teach …
`
`the claimed features … which include” the features recited in limitations [1b]-[1d]
`
`(which are similar in some respects to [27b]-[27d]). APPLE-1002, 232-233.
`
`C.
`
`Panasonic IPR and Subsequent Reexamination
`
`In September 2014, Panasonic System Networks Co., Ltd. (“Panasonic”) filed
`
`a petition for inter partes review of the ’990 Patent (“Panasonic IPR”), challenging
`
`claims 1-4, 6-7, 10, 11, 15-20, 22-23, and 25. APPLE-1019. Before an institution
`
`decision was entered, the parties in that proceeding sought—and the Board
`
`ordered—termination of that proceeding due to settlement. IPR2014-01438, Papers
`
`9 and 11.
`
`Patent Owner then requested ex parte reexamination of claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-
`
`11, 15-20, 22-23, and 25 of the ’990 Patent using the same art from the Panasonic
`
`IPR. APPLE-1011, 227-237. With the reexamination request, Patent Owner filed a
`
`preliminary amendment, in which it cancelled claims 1, 6-7, and 22, added new
`
`claims 27-48, and amended claims 2-4 and 15 (where claims 2-4 were amended to
`
`now depend from claim 27). APPLE-1011, 247.
`
`The Office granted the request for ex parte reexamination of the ’990 Patent,
`
`finding that the request raised substantial new questions (SNQ) of patentability with
`
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`respect to claims for which reexamination was requested. APPLE-1011, 283-291.
`
`Baker, Fisher, and Shiota were among the references that were applied during
`
`reexamination and which formed, at least in part, the basis for the SNQ finding. Id.
`
`The Office subsequently issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Certification (NIRC), finding, in part, that claims 2-4 (as amended to depend from
`
`new claim 27) and new claims 27-47 were allowable. APPLE-1011, 343-344.
`
`In its reasons for patentability, the Office stated that the “prior art of record,
`
`including … Baker, Fisher, Shiota ... , does not specifically disclose or fairly teach
`
`a method for capturing a digital panoramic image” including the features recited in
`
`limitations [27e]-[27f]. Id. The reexamination certificate then issued. APPLE-
`
`1011, 355-356; APPLE-1001, Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate; see APPLE-
`
`1003, ¶¶96-100.
`
`D. LG IPRs
`
`Petitioner LG Electronics Inc. filed two petitions (in IPR2020-00195 and
`
`IPR2020-00179) challenging the patentability of claims 5 and 21 in view of Tada
`
`(APPLE-1015) alone or in view of either Nagaoka or Baker. APPLE-1002, 342-
`
`420, 348, 387. In the FWDs, the Board found that LG’s petitioned grounds did not
`
`render claims 5 and 21 unpatentable. APPLE-1002, 380, 419. Neither of the LG
`
`IPRs addressed claim 27 or any claim depending therefrom (which are at issue here).
`
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`APPLE-1002, 374-379, 413-419.
`
`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A POSITA as of the ’990 Patent’s Critical Date would have had at least a
`
`Bachelor’s degree in Physics, Optical Engineering, and/or Electrical Engineering
`
`and at least five years’ experience in developing and designing optical imaging
`
`systems and have familiarity with image processing algorithms and optical design
`
`software. APPLE-1003, ¶¶24-25. Superior education could compensate for a
`
`deficiency in work experience, and vice-versa. Id.
`
`V. APPLYING PRIOR ART TO CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`A. Ground 1: Baker in view of Shiota Renders Obvious Claims 2, 4,
`27, and 29
`1.
`
`Baker (APPLE-1006)
`
`Baker discloses a “video conferencing, voice-directional video imaging
`
`system for automatic electronic video image manipulation of a selected, directional
`
`signal of a hemispheric conference scene ….” APPLE-1006, 5:16-24; APPLE-1003,
`
`¶¶106-115.
`
`Baker’s system includes an “imaging system” that includes a “camera having
`
`a capture lens” that captures a hemispherical or panoramic scene. Id., 5:37-47. The
`
`capture lens in Baker’s system “emphasizes the peripheral content of a
`
`hemispherical field of view” (id., 5:48-54) by “imaging the field of view to the image
`
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`plane such that the ratio of the size of the smallest detail contained within the
`
`periphery of the scene to the size of the smallest resolving pixel of an image device
`
`is increased.” Id., 5:57-62. Specifically, Baker explains that the “panoramic image”
`
`provided by its imager “is ideally suited for teleconferencing” where the “important
`
`image information” is located “along a 10 to 30 degree … segment of the horizon,”
`
`which represents a 60° to 80° segment of the field. APPLE-1006, 5:37-47, 1:52-58;
`
`see id., 3-12-16 (“To obtain sufficient detail on the critical objects in the scene, the
`
`technique should differentiate between the relevant visual information along the
`
`horizon and the remaining visual information in the scene in order to provide greater
`
`resolution in areas of higher importance”); APPLE-1003, ¶¶107-113.
`
`An example of Baker’s capture lens as deployed in its imaging system is
`
`shown below:
`
`
`16
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`
`APPLE-1006, FIGS. 3BA-3BB. As shown, Baker’s lens includes a “multi-element
`
`refractive lens that is designed to capture a wide field of view” and a “hemispherical
`
`lens” (annotated above in red) that “is made of gradient index material” such that
`
`“points impinging the image plane incur different factors of magnification
`
`depending on what index of refraction and what portion of the hemispherical curve
`
`or lenselets they pass through.” APPLE-1006, 11:52-65; see id., 12:5-14 (explaining
`
`that, with the gradient index hemispherical element, index values decrease from the
`
`center such that n1<n2<n3<n4).
`
`Using Baker’s above lens, the peripheral portion of the scene is “map[ped] to
`
`
`17
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`a larger percentage of a given image detector area and, simultaneously, the mapped
`
`image of the central area of the scene … [is] minimized by the lens so that it does
`
`not interfere with the peripheral content now covering a wider annulus in the image
`
`plane.” Id., 5:55-6:1.
`
`Baker explains that its lens increases resolution in the peripheral portion of an
`
`image compared to a typical fisheye lens: “if an ordinary fisheye lens focuses the
`
`lowest 15 degrees up from the horizon on ten percent of the imager at the imaging
`
`plane and the peripheral-enhancing lens focuses that same 15 degrees on fifty
`
`percent of the imager, there is a five-fold increase in resolution using the same
`
`imaging device” and “[d]epending on the application and exact formulation of the
`
`lens equations, there will be at least a five times increase in resolving power by this
`
`lens/imager combination.” Id., 6:43-56; see id., 11:48-51, 12:33-55, 8:32-40, 5:37-
`
`47, 1:52-58.
`
`Baker’s lens projects an image on an image sensor (e.g., a CCD) of the camera
`
`and this image can be stored in memory or another storage device. APPLE-1006,
`
`13:9-18, 14:9-17. Subsequently, “[w]hen a portion of the scene is to be displayed,”
`
`Baker’s system retrieves the image information relating to the relevant portion of the
`
`scene from memory or another storage device. Id., 6:5-24. Baker explains that the
`
`image captured using its lens is in a “warped form” in which the image “warp[ing]”
`
`
`18
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`is caused in part by the selective magnification along the peripheral field of view.
`
`APPLE-1006, 14:18-26. Baker’s system compensates for this warping and displays
`
`a “corrected” version of the captured image with the “proper aspect of ratio for the
`
`human visual system (i.e., as a perspective corrected view)”:
`
`The transform processor subsystem compensates for the distortion or
`
`difference in magnification between the central and peripheral areas of
`
`the scene caused by the lens by applying appropriate correction criteria
`
`to bring the selected portion of the scene into standard viewing format.
`
`The transform processor subsystem can also more fully compensate for
`
`any aberrations of the enhanced peripheral image because of the
`
`image's improved resolution as it covers a larger portion of the image
`
`device (increased number of pixels used to detect and measure the
`
`smallest detail in the periphery image).
`
`Id., 6:5-24, 14:42-15:59, 14:23-26 (recreating a “proper display of the scene in two
`
`dimensions
`
`for perspective-correct viewing).
`
` Thus,
`
`to perform
`
`this
`
`correction/transformation—i.e., “compensate[] for the distortion or difference in
`
`magnification between the central and peripheral areas of the scene caused by the
`
`lens”—Baker’s transform processor applies “appropriate correction criteria to bring
`
`
`19
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 50095-0114IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`the selected portion of the scene into standard viewing format.” APPLE-1006, 6:12-
`
`16; see id., 6:16-24.
`
`2.
`
`Shiota (APPLE-1012)
`
`Like Baker, Shiota discloses an
`
`image
`
`transformation system for
`
`“transforming a fisheye image obtained by using a fisheye lens” into a “plane image
`
`for display.” APPLE-1012, Abstract
`
`Shiota explains that an “image produced by [a] fisheye lens is … distorted
`
`compared to … an image obtained by using [a] standard lens and is very hard for the
`
`operator to watch it.” Id., [0003]. Thus, Shiota’s system provides a two-step
`
`transformation process that transforms a “circular image obtained by using a fisheye
`
`lens into … a plan[ar] image” (id., [0004]), where the planar image is obtained by
`
`projecting points from the hemispherical objective lens surface onto a plane
`
`intersecting the lens surface at a point identifying the viewing direction from the
`
`origin of the camera. APPLE-1012, [0028]-[0032]; AP

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket