1 Administrative Patent Judge Kristina M. Kalan filed a dissenting opinion finding that “the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” Dec. on Inst.

The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the

More specifically, Petitioner argues that “Baker’s objective lens (including its series of multiple optical elements) ... is ‘designed to capture and enhance the peripheral content of a hemispheric scene.’” Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:60–62).

In particular, Petitioner argues that “‘[t]o maximize data collection and resolution for analysis and/or display of the relevant visual information located in this portion of the hemispheric scene,’ Baker contemplates ‘maximiz[ing] the dedication of the available image detection area to this peripheral field portion.’” Id. at 36–37 (quoting Ex. 1006, 8:32–36) (second alteration in original).

According to Petitioner, “[t]o perform this correction/transformation and ‘recreate a proper display of the [captured] scene in two dimensions for perspective-correct viewing,’ Baker’s system includes ‘processor logic in transform processor engine 22.’” Id. (second alteration in original) (citing Ex. 1006, 14:42–54).

Nonetheless, if we go back to slide 7, we see that this straightforward feature that gets very little attention in the '990 Patent itself becomes the focus of Immervision's arguments about why new Independent Claim 27 distinguishes the Baker and Shiota combination.

And this is what I'm talking about when I say if it was so well-known to be true, and it was a person of ordinary skill in the art would absolutely know that you need to always reverse the normalization using the actual image size, you think the Petitioner would find something similar to what Smith has here to show it.

And this is -- Shiota is a reference that Patent Owner addressed in the previous re-examination, and Petitioner, in our opinion, has not demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood using the size L of the obtained image feature to be in this

Point being, when you interpret paragraph 23, it's not only natural, we believe it's necessary in light of what you've just heard from their expert, that you conclude with a circumstance where the data is normalized, and you expect to use it for real world applications which showed is not shy about saying and you put it into

So, ultimately without a document showing that it was known to be using the size of the image to back out a normalization, I think what it comes down to is the testimony of two experts, one who says a person of ordinary skill in the art will understand magnification adjustment in Shiota to mean this, and the other saying that's not how I would read it.

In accordance with the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide2 (“CTPG”), issued in November 2019, Patent Owner may request to reserve time for a brief sur-rebuttal.

Finally, the parties are reminded that each presenter should identify clearly and specifically each paper (e.g., by slide or screen number for a demonstrative) referenced during the hearing to ensure the clarity and

During the hearing, the parties are reminded to identify clearly and specifically each paper referenced (e.g., by slide or screen number for a demonstrative) to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the court reporter’s transcript and for the benefit of all participants appearing electronically.

The Board will grant up to fifteen (15) minutes of additional argument time to that party, depending on the length of the proceeding and the PTAB’s hearing schedule.

All practitioners are expected to have a command of the factual record, the applicable law, and Board procedures, as well as the authority to commit the party they represent.

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, Acting Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge.

The parties are notified that the panel has changed in the above- referenced proceeding.

Due to unavailability, Administrative Patent Judge Steven M. Amundson replaces Administrative Patent Judge Kristina M. Kalan on the panel.

Thus, Administrative Patent Judges John D. Hamann, Steven M. Amundson, and Stephen E. Belisle now constitute the panel for consideration of all matters in this proceeding.

All prior decisions and orders remain in effect.