UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`QOMO HITEVISION, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PATHWAY INNOVATIONS AND TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2016-00661
`Patent 8,508,751
`____________
`
`Filed: February 26, 2016
`On behalf of Petitioner Qomo Hitevision, LLC.
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,508,751
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... ..1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ............................................. 2
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ........................................... ..2
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................. 2
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ............................... ..2
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ............................................... 2
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ............................................. ..2
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ......................... 2
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ....................... ..2
`D. Service Information ........................................................................................... 2
`D.
`Service Information ......................................................................................... ..2
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ................................................. 3
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ............................................... ..3
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .................................... 3
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .................................. ..3
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ..................................... 3
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................... ..3
`B. Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested ................... 3
`B.
`Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested ................. ..3
`V. SUMMARY OF THE ’751 PATENT ........................................................................... 4
`V. SUMMARY OF THE ’751 PATENT ......................................................................... ..4
`A. Overview ............................................................................................................. 4
`A. Overview ........................................................................................................... ..4
`B. Summary of the Original Prosecution ............................................................ 6
`B.
`Summary of the Original Prosecution .......................................................... ..6
`VI. SUMMARIES OF THE RELIED-UPON REFERENCES ................................... 8
`VI. SUMMARIES OF THE RELIED-UPON REFERENCES ................................. ..8
`A. Morichika ............................................................................................................ 8
`A. Morichika .......................................................................................................... .. 8
`B. Hara ...................................................................................................................... 9
`B. Hara .................................................................................................................... ..9
`C. LeGall .................................................................................................................. 9
`C.
`LeGall ................................................................................................................ ..9
`D. Phillips ...............................................................................................................10
`D.
`Phillips ............................................................................................................. ..10
`E. Novak ................................................................................................................10
`E. Novak .............................................................................................................. ..10
`F. Howell ................................................................................................................11
`F. Howell .............................................................................................................. ..11
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ..........................11
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ........................ ..11
`VIII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE OF
`VIII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE OF
`THE CLAIMS OF THE ’751 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE .......................15
`THE CLAIMS OF THE ’751 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE ..................... ..15
`A. Ground 1 Sets Forth a Reasonable Likelihood to Prevail on Claims 1, 2,
`A. Ground 1 Sets Forth a Reasonable Likelihood to Prevail on Claims 1, 2,
`18, and 20. .........................................................................................................15
`18, and 20. ....................................................................................................... ..15
`B. Ground 2 Sets Forth a Reasonable Likelihood to Prevail on Claims 1, 2,
`B. Ground 2 Sets Forth a Reasonable Likelihood to Prevail on Claims 1, 2,
`8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 20. .............................................................................20
`8, 9,12,13,16,18, and 20. ........................................................................... ..20
`C. Ground 3 Sets Forth a Reasonable Likelihood to Prevail on Claims 1-5,
`C. Ground 3 Sets Forth a Reasonable Likelihood to Prevail on Claims 1-5,
`7-9, 12, 13, and 16. ...........................................................................................24
`7-9,12,13, and 16 .......................................................................................... ..24
`D. Ground 4 Sets Forth a Reasonable Likelihood to Prevail on Claims 1-5,
`D. Ground 4 Sets Forth a Reasonable Likelihood to Prevail on Claims 1-5,
`8, 9, 16, 18, and 20. ..........................................................................................30
`8, 9,16,18, and 20. ........................................................................................ ..30
`E. Ground 5 Sets Forth a Reasonable Likelihood to Prevail on Claims 1-5
`E. Ground 5 Sets Forth a Reasonable Likelihood to Prevail on Claims 1-5
`and 7 ...................................................................................................................40
`and 7 ................................................................................................................. ..40
`F. Ground 6 Sets Forth a Reasonable Likelihood to Prevail on Claims 18
`F. Ground 6 Sets Forth a Reasonable Likelihood to Prevail on Claims 18
`and 20 ................................................................................................................47
`and 20 .............................................................................................................. ..47
`G. Ground 7 Sets Forth a Reasonable Likelihood to Prevail on Claims 10,
`G. Ground 7 Sets Forth a Reasonable Likelihood to Prevail on Claims 10,
`14, 15, and 17. ...................................................................................................50
`14,15,and17.................................................................................................. ..50
`H. Ground 8 Sets Forth a Reasonable Likelihood to Prevail on Claims 6, 7,
`H. Ground 8 Sets Forth a Reasonable Likelihood to Prevail on Claims 6, 7,
`10, 14, 15 and 17. .............................................................................................54
`10, 14, 15 and 17. ........................................................................................... ..54
`
` i
`
`

`
`I. Ground 9 Sets Forth a Reasonable Likelihood to Prevail on Claims 6, 7,
`1.
`Ground 9 Sets Forth a Reasonable Likelihood to Prevail on Claims 6, 7,
`10, 14, 15, and 17. ............................................................................................55
`10,14,15, and 17. .......................................................................................... ..55
`J. Ground 10 Sets Forth a Reasonable Likelihood to Prevail on Claims 6
`Ground 10 Sets Forth a Reasonable Likelihood to Prevail on Claims 6
`J.
`and 7. ..................................................................................................................58
`and 7 ................................................................................................................. ..58
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................60
`IX. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... ..60
`
` ii
`
`

`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,508,751 (“the ’751 patent”)
`
`Excerpts of the Prosecution History of the ’751 Patent
`
`Declaration of Eli S. Saber, Ph.D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,243,171 to LeGall et al. (“LeGall”)
`
`Manual for Philips USB PC Camera PCVK750 (“Philips”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,071,968 to Novak (“Novak”)
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2001/0012051 to Hara et al. (“Hara”)
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2005/0078052 to Morichika (“Morichika”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,767,897 to Howell (“Howell”)
`
`Excerpts of the Prosecution History of corresponding European Patent
`Application No. 11737562.6
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,894,529 to Ting (“Ting”)
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`
`1011
`
`
`
` iii
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Qomo Hitevision, LLC (“Petitioner”) hereby petitions for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42 of claims 1-10, 12-18, and 20
`
`(“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,508,751 (“the ’751 patent”). As
`
`explained below, there is a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in the challenge of at
`
`least one claim identified as not patentable in this petition.
`
`The ’751 patent primarily focuses on capturing, manipulating, changing the
`
`resolution of, and providing an output of digital images. Ex. 1001 at Abstract; Figs. 4,
`
`5; 6:55-7:15. It discloses a document imaging apparatus with a camera that connects to
`
`a personal computer with a processor that controls the camera and processes the
`
`received frame images. Id. at Fig. 3a; 4:66-5:9. The specification provides no
`
`substantive technical disclosure of any new technique for image capture, manipulation,
`
`or display; rather, it merely applied well know imaging technology in purportedly new
`
`combinations. Yet, at the time of filing the ’751 patent, these imaging methods and
`
`apparatuses were generally well known. For example, the imaging technique relied
`
`upon to secure patent allowance—reducing the resolution of a video image to a
`
`reference resolution—was taught in both Hara and Philips nearly a decade before
`
`the ’751 Patent’s earliest priority date.
`
`The challenged claims are anticipated by Morichika; rendered obvious in view of
`
`Morichika alone, Morichika and Hara, LeGall and Philips, Novak and Hara, and Novak
`
`and Philips, and/or rendered obvious by the foregoing references in further view of
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Howell. For these reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board institute inter
`
`partes review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth below.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`The real parties-in-interest are Qomo Hitevision, LLC and Hitevision Asia
`
`Pacific Co., LTD.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following related matters: (1) Certain Document Cameras
`
`and Software for Use Therewith, Inv. No. 337-TA-967 (U.S.I.T.C. instituted Sept. 18,
`
`2015), which is currently pending, and (2) Pathway Innovations and Technologies, Inc. v.
`
`Qomo Hitevision, LLC. & Recordex USA, Inc., Nos. 3:15-cv-01536, 3:15-cv-01540 (S.D.
`
`Cal. filed July 13, 2015), which are stayed pending the resolution of the ITC
`
`investigation.
`
`C.
`
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Lei Mei, Reg. No. 56,913 (lead counsel) & Laurence Sandell, Reg. No. 62,774
`
`(back-up counsel), MEI & MARK LLP, P.O. Box 65981, Washington, DC 20035,
`
`Telephone: 888-860-5678, Facsimile: 888-706-1173.
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`Please address all correspondence and service to the address of both counsel
`
`listed above. Petitioner also consents
`
`to service by electronic mail at
`
`mei@meimark.com and lsandell@meimark.com.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`
`Petitioner authorizes the USPTO to charge Deposit Account No. 50-4840 for
`
`the petition fee set in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) and for any other required fees.
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`A. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’751 patent is eligible for IPR and that Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR.
`
`B.
`
`Challenge Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Relief Requested
`
`Petitioner requests IPR of claims 1-10, 12-18 and 20 of the ’751 patent on the
`
`grounds listed in the table below. In support, this Petition includes claim charts for
`
`each ground and a supporting evidentiary declaration of Dr. Saber (Ex. 1003).
`
`Ground Claims
`1
`1, 2, 18, 20
`
`
`Basis
`Anticipated by Morichika under § 102(b)
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`
`
`1, 2, 8, 9, 12, 13,
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Morichika alone
`
`16, 18, 20
`
`1- 5, 7-9, 12, 13, 16 Obvious under § 103(a) by Morichika in view of Hara
`
`1-5, 8, 9, 16, 18, 20 Obvious under § 103(a) by LeGall in view of Philips
`
`1-5, 7
`
`18, 20
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Novak in view of Hara
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Novak in view of Philips
`
`10, 14, 15, 17
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Morichika in view of
`
`3
`
`

`
`Howell
`
`8
`
`9
`
`6, 7, 10, 14, 15, 17 Obvious under § 103(a) by Morichika in view of Hara
`
`and further in view of Howell.
`
`6, 7, 10, 14, 15, 17 Obvious under § 103(a) by LeGall in view of Philips
`
`and further in view of Howell.
`
`10
`
`6, 7
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Novak in view of Hara
`
`and further in view of Howell.
`
`
`Because the ’751 patent has an effective filing date before March 16, 2013, pre-
`
`AIA §§ 102 and 103 apply to this petition. Howell was issued on June 16, 1998; Hara
`
`was published on August 9, 2001; Philips was published in 2001; Novak was issued on
`
`July 4, 2006; and Morichika was published on April 14, 2005. Therefore, they
`
`constitute prior art to the ’751 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). LeGall is
`
`prior art to the ’751 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because it was filed on
`
`November 30, 2010 and has an effective filing date of Dec. 10, 2004.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’751 PATENT
`
`A. Overview
`
`One of the objectives of the ’751 patent is to provide a document imaging
`
`system that is cost efficient, compact, portable, and capable of producing real time,
`
`high resolution still and video images. Ex. 1001 at 3:18-42. The patent teaches using a
`
`high-definition CMOS or CCD camera to acquire an image suitable for digital
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`zooming without mechanical line-by-line scanning, thereby avoiding the need for
`
`optical zoom lens assembly or mechanical components. Id. at 2:21-30, 5:35-43, 6:11-
`
`20, 6:34-38, 7:56:59. It also teaches using a personal computer with a processor
`
`running imaging software to process and display the images, thereby removing cost
`
`and size from the camera. Id. at 4:66-5:21, 7:56-8:1, 8:12-31; Fig. 1. Additionally, the
`
`patent discloses reducing the resolution of an image such that it can fit on a display,
`
`which may be of lower resolution than the captured and/or manipulated images. Id. at
`
`6:20-26; 7:6-15; Fig. 5. Further, where higher magnification zooming is desired, the
`
`patent suggests using known interpolation methods to increase resolution while
`
`reducing pixelation effects. Id. at 6:30-41.
`
`Independent Claim 1 essentially describes a method of removably connecting a
`
`digital camera to a processor via a port, having the processor zoom in on the captured
`
`images without changing their resolution, reducing the resolution of the manipulated
`
`images if the image resolution is larger than a reference resolution, and displaying the
`
`processed images without further resolution change. Independent Claim 3 is
`
`substantially similar to Claim 1, but additionally requires increasing the resolution of
`
`the manipulated image if the image resolution is smaller than a reference resolution.
`
`Independent Claim 8 is similar to Claim 1, but does not require zooming; instead it
`
`requires that a video image be taken “without line-by-line scanning” and further
`
`defines the “reference resolution.” Independent Claim 18 is directed to an imaging
`
`apparatus that includes a personal computer (PC), a “digital image sensing unit” with
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`an “infinite focal length,” a display, and a suspension arm for the sensing unit; the
`
`personal computer is configured to control the sensing unit, and perform zooming
`
`and resolution reduction as recited in Claim 1.
`
`Dependent Claim 2 requires real-time image manipulation, and dependent
`
`Claims 4, 9, and 20 require that processing occur in an external personal computer.
`
`Dependent Claims 5-7, 10, and 12-17 recite additional manipulation limitations—
`
`including resizing, panning, rotating and/or annotating an image—which, in some
`
`claims, must be performed simultaneously or without changing resolution.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Original Prosecution
`
`The
`
`’751 patent was filed on April 4, 2012 as a continuation of
`
`PCT/US2011/022549, filed on January 26, 2011, which claims priority to provisional
`
`application No. 61/298,912, filed on January 28, 2010. Ex. 1002 at 1-5. Concurrently,
`
`Applicant submitted six references. Id. at 6-9. Subsequently, the Examiner initialed
`
`these references as considered on October 31, 2012. Id. at 27-28. On November 6,
`
`2012, with the exception of claim 3, the Examiner rejected all of the original claims as
`
`rendered obvious by various combinations of the Applicant’s cited prior art and two
`
`additional references found by the Examiner. Id. at 11-23. With respect to claim 18,
`
`the Examiner found that “a miniaturized digital image sensing unit externally coupled
`
`to a computer comprising optics having an infinite focal length” was disclosed by Fig.
`
`3 of Ting, a picture of a document/object scanner with a small camera. Id. at 19.
`
`Although objected to, Claim 3 was found to comprise allowable subject matter. Id. at
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`21, 29.
`
`In a responsive communication of February 5, 2013, dependent Claim 3 was
`
`amended into an independent claim by incorporating the limitations of original Claim
`
`1 to support Applicant’s argument for allowance of Claims 3 and its dependent
`
`Claims 4-7, 16. Id. at 31-32, 35. Independent Claim 1 was amended to include the
`
`following limitation (element 1[C] in the charts below) from Claim 3:
`
`in the case of the manipulated series of frame images
`having a higher resolution than a reference resolution,
`reducing the resolution of each of the manipulated series of
`frame images to that of the reference resolution
`Id. at 31. Claim 18 was modified in a substantially identical manner (element 18[D] in
`
`the charts below). Id. at 34. Based upon only this limitation, Applicant argued for
`
`allowability of Claims 1 and 18, and their respective dependent Claims 2-3 and 19-20.
`
`Id. at 35-38. Similarly, Applicant argued for allowance of independent Claim 8 and its
`
`dependent Claims 9-17, alleging only that the following limitation of Claim 8 (element
`
`8[C] in the charts below) was not present in the prior art:
`
`using an external processor to compare a resolution of each
`frame image of the video image with the reference
`resolution and adjusting the resolution of each frame image
`to correspond to the reference resolution
`Id. at 39-40. In short, all of Applicant’s arguments for allowance—as well as the
`
`Examiner’s prior reasoning that Claim 3 had allowable subject matter—focused on a
`
`limitation requiring comparing the resolution of an image to a reference resolution
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`and reducing or otherwise altering the resolution of the image to the reference
`
`resolution. Id. at 21, 35-40. The Examiner’s characterization of Ting’s disclosures was
`
`not disputed. Cf. id. at 37 (Applicant arguing that Ting does not disclose the alleged
`
`“missing” limitation). On April 18, 2013, the Examiner allowed all pending claims
`
`without further comment on the claimed subject matter. Id. at 41-47.
`
`None of Morichika, LeGall, Philips, and Hara—all of which clearly teach the
`
`resolution comparison and alteration limitation that was the basis for the initial
`
`patentability determination—were cited or mentioned during prosecution. The
`
`challenged claims should not have been allowed over these prior art references and
`
`the other references discussed herein.
`
`VI. SUMMARIES OF THE RELIED-UPON REFERENCES
`
`A. Morichika
`
`Morichika teaches a “display image generating device” that uses a small camera
`
`supported by a suspension arm to capture images of, for example, documents, and
`
`modifying those images to accomplish “real-time” display on a PC and/or a projector
`
`in response to user input. E.g., Ex. 1008 at Title; [0030], [0031] ,[0036], [0038], [0065];
`
`Figs. 1, 2. The reference discloses manipulating captured images, including zooming
`
`without modifying resolution; reducing resolution of the images to fit the resolution
`
`of a display; and displaying the modified images. E.g., Id. at [0051]-[0064]; Figs. 7, 9A-
`
`11C. The PC may be coupled to the camera via a USB port. E.g., Id. at [0028], [0038].
`
`Additionally, Morichika teaches panning and rotating captured images. E.g., Id. at
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`[0049], [0063]; Fig. 5.
`
`B. Hara
`
`Hara teaches a communication system that includes a communication terminal
`
`comprising a PC coupled to a video camera. E.g., Ex. 1007 at [0006, [0045], [0052];
`
`Fig. 1. To facilitate efficient data transmission between, for example, the PC/video
`
`camera terminal and a a portable terminal, Hara teaches adjusting the resolution of the
`
`captured video frames—including increasing the resolution via advanced interpolation
`
`methods—to a (reference) resolution of the display of the portable terminal prior to
`
`data transmission. E.g., Id. at [0086], [0062], [0065], [0086], [1200]; Claims 1, 9, 10.
`
`Additionally, Hara teaches zooming. E.g., Id. at [0075].
`
`C.
`
`LeGall
`
`LeGall is directed to a system and method for “digital zoom for [a] digital video
`
`camera,” which “may be implemented using a conventional general purpose digital
`
`computer.” E.g., Ex. 1004 at Title; Abstract; 13:6-8. The method, which discloses
`
`zooming in response to user input and outputting adjusted video frames in a “video
`
`bitstream,” may be controlled by a “controller circuit.” Id. at 5:37-49, 4:13-27, 7:51-55;
`
`Fig. 4. LeGall’s claimed teachings relating to zooming and modifying or maintaining
`
`resolution are strikingly similar to the claim language of the ’751 patent: For example,
`
`LeGall teaches: “changing a zoom factor of said final image continuously over a
`
`range” while “maintaining said final resolution of said final image substantially
`
`constant throughout said changing of said zoom factor,” e.g., id. at Claim 1(C);
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`“generating a final image in an output signal … where (i) said final image has a final
`
`resolution and (ii) said final resolution is smaller than said initial resolution,” e.g., id. at
`
`Claim 2(B); and “generating said final image by interpolating said electronic image to
`
`said final resolution instead of decimating said electronic image while said window
`
`size is said smaller than said final resolution,” e.g., id. at Claim 7. Additionally, LeGall
`
`teaches using “interpolation” to increase resolution and “picture quality digital
`
`processing.” Id. at Fig. 5; 4: 10-12, 7:51-69.
`
`D.
`
`Phillips
`
`Philllips discloses a small digital video camera on a suspension arm configured
`
`to function as a webcam and a document camera. E.g., Ex. 1005 at 2, 4. The camera
`
`may be controlled by a processor of a PC connected to the camera through a USB
`
`port. Id. 5, 9, 20-22. The reference teaches manipulating the received images with the
`
`PC, id. 5, 13-14; converting the resolution of captured images to a reference resolution
`
`based on selection of a user, id. at 18, 22; and displaying a “moving video picture,” id.
`
`at 17.
`
`E. Novak
`
`Novak is directed to a system and method that uses a small wide-angle webcam
`
`connected to a processor-based Set Top Box to digitally zoom into and otherwise
`
`manipulate video images and transmit the manipulated images to a non-local device.
`
`E.g. Ex. 1006 at Figs. 1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 19A-20. The manipulation may be user-
`
`controlled in real time, and may further include panning. E.g., id. at 1:24-38, 5:40-45,
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`6:44-47. And, the resulting video images are displayed and/or transmitted “to a
`
`destination device for simultaneous display.” E.g. id. at 7:21-23; Claim 1. Additionally,
`
`the Set Top Box may be coupled to the camera via a removable connection, such as a
`
`USB port. E.g., Id. at 5:36-40.
`
`F. Howell
`
`Howell is generally directed to a “video conferencing system” that permits a user
`
`at a podium display to manipulate and present “video information,” including data
`
`from a document camera, a VCR, and/or slides, to both local and non-local audience
`
`members. E.g., Ex. 1009 at Abstract; Figs. 1-3; 1:45-50, 5:65-6:2, 16:38-41. Howell
`
`teaches two operating modes with different display configurations, “main-screen” and
`
`“mark-up,” and that a user/presenter has the option to switch between the two
`
`modes. E.g., id. at Figs. 3, 4; 1:35-36, 5:56-63. A “‘presentation’ display area 60” is
`
`resized within the presenter’s display when the mode is changed. E.g., id. at Abstract;
`
`Figs. 3, 4; 1:59-62, 2:57-63, 6:6-11, 16:32-34. In “mark up” mode, the user may
`
`annotate and/or edit on top of any video image in the “presentation’ display area” of
`
`the podium display. E.g., id. at Fig. 4; 5:56-63, 7:38-40. Further, in “mark up” mode,
`
`the “presentation” display area” occupies approximately 2/3 of the total podium
`
`display region, which typically is simultaneously viewed by the audience/participants
`
`at the remote and local sites. E.g. id at 5:56-63, Fig. 4, 6:41-46, 16:33-35, 16:54-62.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)
`
`Claims are to be given their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The constructions below are intended to aid this
`
`proceeding and shall not be understood as waivers or admissions of any issues that
`
`may be raised in any litigation, which requires different construction standards.1
`
`“manipulate the series of frame images, including zooming in or out
`
`without changing resolution of the frame images” (Claims 1, 3): Clarification:
`
`“manipulate the series of frame images into a manipulated series of frame images,
`
`including zooming in or out without changing resolution of the series of frame
`
`images.”
`
`“displaying and/or storing the manipulated series of frame images as an
`
`output video image without changing resolution of the manipulated series of frame
`
`images” (Claim 1, 3): “displaying and/or storing the manipulated series of frame
`
`images as an output video image without further changing resolution of the
`
`manipulated series of frame images.” If this claim element is read to prohibit any
`
`resolution change of the manipulated series of frame images (or in a manner
`
`substantially different than the proposed construction), it would be impossible to
`
`“reduc[e] the resolution” as recited in Claims 1 and 3 or “manipulate the frame image
`
`to reduce pixilation” as recited in Claim 3.
`
`“reduce pixilation” (Claim 3) Typographical error: should read “reduce
`
`
` Petitioner reserves the right to later assert (in a different forum) that the ’751
`
` 1
`
`patent’s claims are invalid under § 112 and/or other applicable sections.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`pixelation.”
`
`“panning the image” (Claims 5, 12, 16): Plain and ordinary meaning:
`
`scrolling the image. Ex. 1001 at 7:21.
`
`“re-sizing the image” (Claims 5, 6, 10, 15, 16, 17): Plain and ordinary
`
`meaning: scaling the image. Ex. 1001 at 7:17, 6:26-30.
`
`“without changing a resolution of the output frame images” (Claim 7):
`
`Typo/Clarification: “without changing a resolution of the output video image.”
`
`“capturing a video image comprising the series of frame images in one
`
`instantaneous snapshot of a subject’s entire surface area without line-by-line
`
`scanning” (Claim 8): Clarification: capturing a video image comprising the series of
`
`frame images wherein each frame image is captured in
`
`one instantaneous snapshot (for example by using
`
`non-linear CCD or CMOS sensors) without a
`
`mechanical raster line scanning process. Ex. 1001 at
`
`Fig. 2; 1:56-61, 2:14-30, 2:23-55, 6:16-20.
`
`“software programming unit” (claim 18). A
`
`processor running software that manipulates images
`
`from a connected camera and communicates with the
`
`camera. Ex. 1001 at 5:2-7.
`
`“miniaturized digital image sensing unit … comprising optics having an
`
`infinite focal length” (claim 18): As implicitly construed by the PTO: “a small
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`camera.” During prosecution, the PTO Examiner exclusively cited to a picture of a
`
`document/object scanner in Ting as meeting this limitation. Ex. 1002 at 19; Ex. 1011
`
`at Fig. 3 (show right). The Applicant declined to contest the Examiner’s assessment of
`
`this claim element, apparently acquiescing to its implicit construction. Ex. 1002 at 30-
`
`40. For the purposes of this petition, Petitioner adopts the PTO Examiner’s approach,
`
`treating any small camera as meeting this limitation.2
`
`“digital imaging unit” (Claim 18): Lacks antecedent basis, but for the
`
`purposes of this petition, Petitioner interprets this term to mean “digital image
`
`sensing unit,” which has antecedent basis within the claim.
`
`“the processor” (as used in Claim 20): Lacks antecedent basis, but for the
`
`purposes of this petition, Petitioner interprets this term “processor” according to its
`
`plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`
`
` 2
`
` As with all other claim elements, Petitioner reserves the right to assert invalidity
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 in another forum. For example, with respect to a
`
`similar claim element in EPO Patent Application No 11737562.6 (which also claims
`
`priority to PCT/US2011/022549), the EPO found that “the only optical system
`
`[having ‘infinite focal length’] is a transparent glass” or “a telecentric lens, which is
`
`definitely not suited for document imaging.” Ex. 1010 at 1, 3, 12-13.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`VIII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT AT LEAST ONE
`OF THE CLAIMS OF THE ’751 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE
`
`Petitioner explains in detail below why each of the grounds described in
`
`Section IV.B sets forth a reasonable likelihood to prevail on at least one of the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`A. Ground 1 Sets Forth a Reasonable Likelihood to Prevail on Claims
`1, 2, 18, and 20.
`
`Claims 1, 2, 18, and 20 are anticipated by Morichika under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as
`
`
`
`described and illustrated in the claim chart below.
`
`Claims
`1. [Preamble] A method of
`acquiring an image of a target
`to provide an output video
`image comprising a plurality of
`frame images, the method
`comprising:
`
`[A] connecting a slave digital
`image sensing unit to a master
`personal processor, the master
`personal processor receiving a
`series of frame images from
`the slave digital image sensing
`unit;
`
`Anticipated by Morichika under § 102(b)
`The preamble is not limiting. Even if the preamble
`were treated as limiting, however, Morichika discloses
`acquiring an image of a target. Ex. 1008 at Abstract
`Morichika teaches displaying output on a