`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AVER INFORMATION INC. AND IPEVO, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PATHWAY INNOVATIONS AND TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2017-02108
`United States Patent No. 8,508,751 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REPLY TO PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`1.5X LINE SPACING IS EXCUSABLE AND DOES NOT PREJUDICE
`PETITIONER .................................................................................................. 1
`III. PATENT OWNER’S CLAIM AMENDMENTS ARE ACCEPTABLE AND
`DO NOT BROADEN THE SCOPE OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS .... 3
`A.
`THE SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS ARE NOT BROADER ....................... 5
`IV. PETITIONER’S OBVIOUSNESS ARGUMENTS ARE FLAWED ............. 7
`V. DR. MADISETTI’S TESTIMONY IS NOT CREDIBLE ............................11
`VI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................13
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 9
`Blackberry Corp. v. Mobilemedia Ideas, LLC,
`IPR2013-00036, Paper No. 65 (PTAB March 7, 2014) .......................................11
`Chicago Mercantile Exchange v 5th Market,
`CBM2013-00027 (PTAB March 23, 2015) ........................................................... 6
`FPUSA, LLC v. M-I LLC,
`IPR2016-00213, Paper 23 (PTAB 2016) ............................................................... 3
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .................................................................................................10
`In re NuVasive,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................10
`Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Company,
`848 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 9
`St. Jude Medical, LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLC,
`IPR2018-00105, Paper 12 (PTAB 2018) ............................................................... 3
`Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. v. Parsons Extreme Golf, LLC,
`IPR2018-00675, Paper 19 (PTAB 2018) ............................................................... 3
`Western Digital Corp v. SPEX Tech,
`IPR2018-00082, Paper 13 (PTAB Apr. 25, 2018) ...........................................6, 11
`ZTE Corp. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp., I
`PR2014-00275, Paper No. 11 (PTAB July 7, 2014) ............................................11
`
`
`RULES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23, Patent Owner hereby replies to Petitioner’s
`
`Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (“Opp’n,” Paper No. 17).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner has failed to establish that the proposed substitute claims are more
`
`likely obvious than not. Particularly, Petitioner’s purported obvious combination of
`
`Morichika, Liang, and Rosenberg (“if needed”) does not follow a proper Graham
`
`analysis, is not specifically anchored to actual claim language, and fails to reach the
`
`claimed invention. Moreover, Petitioner has failed to provide any reason why a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have made the combination. This type of
`
`piecemeal analysis is precisely the kind of hindsight that the Board must not accept.
`
`II.
`
`1.5X LINE SPACING IS EXCUSABLE AND DOES NOT PREJUDICE
`
`PETITIONER
`
`Patent Owner inadvertently submitted its Motion to Amend (“MTA,” Paper
`
`No. 12) with 1.5X line spacing instead of double line spacing as required by 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(2)(ii). This innocent oversight was not intended to circumvent the
`
`twenty-five (25) page limit. In fact, even with 1.5X line spacing, the MTA totaled
`
`only twenty-two (22) pages of which eight (8) pages set forth non-argumentative
`
`claim charts repeating claim language and citing respective support found in the ‘751
`
`patent. The claim charts could have been submitted via an appendix, which would
`
`not count against the page limit. See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 41.121 (“…claim listing may
`
`1
`
`
`
`be contained in an appendix to the motion … and set forth: (1) the support in the
`
`original disclosure of the patent for each claim that is added or amended….”).
`
`Alternatively, these claim charts could have easily been distilled down into four (4)
`
`double-spaced pages or less via paragraph/sentence formatting while removing
`
`repetitive chart headers. Accordingly, Petitioner’s assertion that Patent Owner was
`
`afforded two pages of briefing over the limit is incorrect.
`
`Petitioner has not been prejudiced by 1.5X line spacing. In fact, Petitioner has
`
`not argued any prejudice whatsoever and cannot do so because the last two pages of
`
`Patent Owner’s MTA address prior art raised in the Petition, i.e., Ishii, Krisbergh,
`
`Hara, and Mitsui, which were not even addressed in Petitioner’s Opposition.
`
`Moreover, if Petitioner felt that it would suffer prejudice, the Board’s practice
`
`guidelines direct the Petitioner to promptly raise such an issue with the Board. See,
`
`e.g., Trial Practice Guide Update (August 2018) at 8 (“If a party feels that it would
`
`suffer undue prejudice from an opposing party’s alleged word count limit violation
`
`or abuse, that party should raise the issue with the Board promptly after discovering
`
`the issue.”). To the contrary, Petitioner obtained a six day extension just days before
`
`its Opposition was due without even raising the issue of line spacing. As noted
`
`above, Patent Owner could have easily double spaced its MTA after submission. See
`
`id. (“The Board expects the parties to take reasonable steps to remedy any such
`
`2
`
`
`
`issues before approaching the Board.”). Petitioner’s argument for denial in this
`
`respect is gamesmanship.
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that its line spacing oversight may be
`
`excused. See, e.g., Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. v. Parsons Extreme Golf, LLC,
`
`IPR2018-00675, Paper 19, 2-4 (PTAB 2018) (considering patent owner’s tardy
`
`preliminary response even though it failed to meet formatting and page limits
`
`because petitioner was not prejudiced); FPUSA, LLC v. M-I LLC, IPR2016-00213,
`
`Paper 23, 2-3 (PTAB 2016) (considering petitioner’s motion even though it failed to
`
`meet formatting and page requirements); St. Jude Medical, LLC v. Snyders Heart
`
`Valve LLC, IPR2018-00105, Paper 12, 4-6 (PTAB 2018) (redressing petitioner’s
`
`intentional circumvention of the word count limit by allowing patent owner a
`
`commensurate word count increase).
`
`III. PATENT OWNER’S CLAIM AMENDMENTS ARE ACCEPTABLE
`
`AND DO NOT BROADEN THE SCOPE OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`Patent Owner did not propose substitute claims for the challenged claims it
`
`did not intend to amend. For example, Patent Owner proposed substitute claims 21,
`
`22, 23, and 24, for originally patented claims 1, 2, 3, and 5, respectively, Originally
`
`patented claim 4 was not to be amended and is to remain. Therefore, if the substitute
`
`claims were accepted, it was Patent Owner’s intent that substitute claim 22 would
`
`become claim 1, substitute claim 22 would become claim 2, substitute claim 23
`
`3
`
`
`
`would become claim 3, originally patented claim 4 would stay the same, and
`
`substitute claim 24 would become claim 5, and so on. This intent is clearly evident
`
`from the substitute claims’ use of the original patent claim numbers. For example,
`
`substitute claim 22 refers to the “method of claim 1” as opposed to the method of
`
`substitute claim 21. Substitute claim 24 refers to the “method of claim 4.” In other
`
`words, the formatting of Patent Owner’s proposed substitute claims only accounted
`
`for the claims being substantively amended.
`
`If such a claim drafting practice is improper, it is easily corrected without
`
`prejudice to Petitioner by including the claims that were not intended to be amended,
`
`e.g., claim 4, in the substitute claims and renumbering the claims and parent claim
`
`dependencies as set forth in Appendix A hereto.1 Substitute claims 21-36 take the
`
`place of original claims 1-16. Patent Owner respectfully requests the Board to enter
`
`and accept this corrected formatting as it does not involve any substantive change.
`
`Petitioner is not prejudiced by this corrected claim listing because only claim
`
`numbering has been reformatted. Appendix B presents a side-by-side comparison
`
`between the substitute claims presented in the MTA and those corrected here;
`
`evidencing that no material changes have been made. Patent Owner apologizes for
`
`
`1 The remainder of this brief will use numbering format found in Appendix A
`hereto.
`
`4
`
`
`
`any confusion this has caused. Yet, to otherwise deny Patent Owner’s MTA on form
`
`over substance would be manifestly unjust.
`
`A. THE SUBSTITUTE CLAIMS ARE NOT BROADER
`
`Petitioner asserts that substituting “display resolution” for “reference
`
`resolution” broadens original claim 8. Petitioner hypothesizes that a system using
`
`only a reference resolution based on something independent of its display to make
`
`decisions could not meet a claim limitation requiring a decision to be made based on
`
`a display resolution. Opp’n at 15. This is not true. As recited in the ‘751 patent, the
`
`“reference resolution” can be any resolution. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at col. 3:61
`
`(“identifying a second resolution for the reference resolution”); see also Ex. 1025
`
`(Second Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti) (reference resolution can also be storage
`
`resolution). Thus, the “reference resolution” could be a storage resolution, a display
`
`resolution, or any other resolution. Simple logic dictates that going from a “reference
`
`resolution” covering multiple possibilities (e.g., storage, display, or second) to a
`
`“display resolution” with only one possibility (i.e., just display) necessarily narrows
`
`the scope of the substitute claims vis-à-vis the challenged claims. “Display
`
`resolution” is just that: a resolution of a display (not a storage resolution).
`
`Petitioner’s argument that “display resolution” captures scope not previously within
`
`“reference resolution” is illogical. If the original term can be construed as display
`
`resolution, storage resolution, etc. and it is replaced with a term specifying just one
`
`5
`
`
`
`of those resolutions, the proposed new claim is necessarily narrower, not greater in
`
`scope.
`
`Petitioner’s assertions with respect to “in one instantaneous snapshot of” are
`
`equally untenable. The Board found that it is not possible for an entire series of
`
`frames of indeterminate number, occurring successively over a period of time to be
`
`captured simultaneously. See Paper No. 8 at 14-16. Petitioner misconstrues and
`
`attempts to rewrite the Board’s finding from “not possible” to “extremely narrow (if
`
`not nonexistent).” Opp’n at 16. Nowhere did the Board refer to “in one instantaneous
`
`snapshot of” as “extremely narrow.” Patent Owner submits Proposed Substitute
`
`Claim 25 to define the metes and bounds of original claim 8. See, e.g., MTA at 20-
`
`21. Going from an indefinite scope (where the Board was “unable to determine the
`
`proper scope of claim 8 without speculation”) to a definite scope (without
`
`speculation) is a narrowing amendment, not a broadening one. Moreover,
`
`amendments to correct indefiniteness are permissible. See Chicago Mercantile
`
`Exchange v 5th Market, CBM2013-00027 (PTAB March 23, 2015) (permitting
`
`amendment to correct indefiniteness); Western Digital Corp v. SPEX Tech,
`
`IPR2018-00082, Paper 13 at 6 (PTAB Apr. 25, 2018) (“[O]nce a proposed claim
`
`includes amendments to address a prior art ground in the trial, a patent owner also
`
`may include additional limitations to address potential § 101 or § 112 issues, if
`
`necessary.”). Again, logic dictates that amending claims to reflect a smaller subset,
`
`6
`
`
`
`i.e., something definite, than that which was originally claimed, i.e., something
`
`indefinite, cannot possibly enlarge the scope of the claims.
`
`IV. PETITIONER’S OBVIOUSNESS ARGUMENTS ARE FLAWED
`
`Petitioner’s obviousness arguments are flawed for several reasons. First,
`
`Petitioner improperly introduces new arguments with respect to the same limitations
`
`found in the original ‘751 patent claims in an apparent attempt to correct weaknesses
`
`in its Petition. These arguments, however, are not addressing new patentability
`
`issues arising from the substitute claims and thus, should not be considered in the
`
`Board’s decision. For example, Petitioner now argues (for the first time) that (1)
`
`“Gann also confirms the Petition’s position that it would have been obvious to have
`
`used a video image capture device as the camera 4c of Morichika,” (2) the ‘751
`
`patent’s “discussion of Slatter also constitutes an admission that it was well known
`
`to interchange video cameras for still cameras in document scanners,” and (3) “the
`
`processing of Morichika can be done quickly enough that a user sees the processing
`
`occur in real-time meaning that Morichika contemplated its system could be used in
`
`a video context.” Opp’n at 4-8. “Video” and “real-time” appears in original claims
`
`1-16. Yet, Petitioner did not make the above-noted arguments in its Petition. In the
`
`Petition, Gann was discussed with respect to digital zoom verses optical zoom.
`
`Petition at 4. Slatter was not addressed whatsoever. Petitioner did not equate
`
`Morichika’s “real-time” to the interchangeability of video cameras for still cameras.
`
`7
`
`
`
`See id. at 29. Petitioner is attempting to unfairly back-fill holes in its original
`
`arguments. Petitioner’s section of “using video cameras as document cameras was
`
`known” should be disregarded because these belated arguments are prejudicial to
`
`Patent Owner and should have and could have been raised in the Petition.
`
`Second, Petitioner’s “using a mouse scroll for zooming was known”
`
`arguments are faulty because Liang merely teaches selecting zoom for the display.
`
`See Opp’n at 9; Ex. 1023 at ¶ 68 (“A zoom button 483 may enlarge a displayed
`
`image ….”). It is not clear from Liang whether this “zoom,” i.e., enlargement,
`
`changes resolution of the images. In contrast, the claims of the ‘751 patent (whether
`
`original or substitute) require at both the manipulation stage and display stage,
`
`“without changing the resolution” “of the … frame images” (at manipulation stage
`
`– step (b) of claim 1 or 3) and “of the manipulated series of frame images” (at display
`
`stage – step (d) of claim 1 or step (g) of claim 3). Patent Owner’s substitute claims
`
`do not eliminate these requirements. Petitioner has not addressed this “without
`
`changing the resolution” language. Thus, it is not clear whether Petitioner’s
`
`proposed combination of Morichika and Liang actually reaches the claimed
`
`invention. In fact, it does not because Liang’s physical zoom button 483 is not a “a
`
`button displayed in user interface software” as claimed. At the very least, Petitioner
`
`has failed to meet its burden that it is more likely than not Morichika taken in view
`
`of Liang satisfies these respective claim limitations.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Third, the reliance on Rosenberg to teach a mouse wheel for zoom is
`
`misplaced because Petitioner never addresses Rosenberg with any specific cross-
`
`reference to the language of the claims, much less how or why Rosenberg would be
`
`combined with Morichika and Liang. See Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro
`
`Company, 848 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[I]t is insufficient to simply
`
`conclude the [prior art] combination would have been obvious without identifying
`
`any reason why a person of skill in the art would have made the combination.”); see
`
`also Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(“obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but
`
`would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art
`
`to arrive at the claimed invention”). And Petitioner’s “if needed” argument does not
`
`establish a proper basis for obviousness. See Opp’n at 17 (“…and, if needed,
`
`Rosenberg for the explicit recitation of the well-known idea of using a scroll wheel
`
`to zoom…”). Instead, Petitioner appears to inject Rosenberg’s teachings into Liang
`
`(in a conclusory manner no less). See id. at 11 (“Particularly, because Liang
`
`describes using a mouse to interface with a computer controlling a document camera
`
`…, a POSA would understand that Rosenberg’s teachings apply to Liang.”). Yet,
`
`Petitioner fails to explain why this injection is necessary or why Liang is inadequate
`
`in the first place. Conclusory statements alone, even those provided by a declarant,
`
`are inadequate to demonstrate a rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`9
`
`
`
`art would combine the teachings from prior art references. In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d
`
`1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In other words, Petitioner rests its case on a summary
`
`conclusion that Morichika, Liang, and Rosenberg reach the invention claimed in the
`
`substitute claims without actually addressing the precise language of those claims or
`
`applying a proper framework for determining obviousness as required by Graham.
`
`See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966).
`
`Fourth, Rosenberg teaches “zooming functions on views in windows”
`
`generally and without any specifics. Ex. 1024 at col. 6: 23-24. Like Liang, there is
`
`no way to tell (and Dr. Madisetti has not addressed such) whether this window view
`
`zooming changes resolution of the images, which may or may not violate the claims.
`
`This point is not an improper argument that attacks obviousness references
`
`individually. Rather, it illustrates that if Morichika was “to include the camera and
`
`related capabilities from Liang” (Opp’n at 18) and “Liang [was modified] to include
`
`the well-known mouse operation to zoom [from Rosenberg]” (Opp’n at 19), the
`
`combination does not reach the claimed invention.
`
`Lastly, it is unclear what teachings from Liang or Rosenberg are actually
`
`being introduced into Morichika and why those teaching would be introduced in the
`
`first place. As noted above, Petitioner merely refers to the “camera and related
`
`capabilities” from Liang. Which ones? All? Many of Liang’s capabilities are
`
`redundant to Morichika. Moreover, Liang could introduce changes in resolution
`
`10
`
`
`
`which would violate the claims. With respect to Rosenberg, Petitioner merely relies
`
`on such “if needed.” Is it needed and if so, why? These outstanding questions
`
`illustrate that Petitioner has not shown obviousness by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence. The burden of persuasion lies with the petitioner to show that any proposed
`
`substitute claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. See Western
`
`Digital Corp., IPR2018-00082, Paper 13.
`
`V. DR. MADISETTI’S TESTIMONY IS NOT CREDIBLE
`
`With all due respect, Petitioner’s expert declarations submitted by Dr.
`
`Madisetti are not credible and should be given no weight. Dr. Madisetti is a paid
`
`oath taker appearing in over thirty (30) cases. Ex. 2006 at 22:22-23. On at least two
`
`separate occasions, the Board has found his opinions to be unsubstantiated. See, e.g.,
`
`ZTE Corp. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp., IPR2014-00275, Paper No. 11 at 13 (PTAB
`
`July 7, 2014) (“Likewise, Dr. Madisetti, does not provide sufficient and persuasive
`
`evidence demonstrating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood ….”); Blackberry Corp. v. Mobilemedia Ideas, LLC, IPR2013-00036,
`
`Paper No. 65 at 18 (PTAB March 7, 2014) (“We do not credit the testimony of Dr.
`
`Madisetti, that one skilled in the art at the time of the invention of the ‘048 patent
`
`would understand ….”). Yet, when recently asked if the Board has ever found his
`
`testimony to not be credible, Dr. Madisetti evasively replied: “I don’t recall.” Ex.
`
`2006 at 24:1-15.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that Petitioner’s attorneys wrote Dr.
`
`Madisetti’s declarations in this proceeding. As noted in Patent Owner’s response,
`
`Dr. Madisetti’s first declaration parrots back, word-for-word, the positions raised
`
`by Petitioner in its Petition, creating “expertized” attorney arguments. Ex. 2001
`
`shows that the arguments in the Petition and testimony of Dr. Madisetti repeat the
`
`same exact language over tens of pages, without any additional context or factual
`
`support. Such a finding can lead to only one conclusion: Petitioner’s attorneys
`
`created Dr. Madisetti’s opinions.2 This conclusion is further supported by the fact
`
`that Dr. Madisetti is unable to answer questions without reading back his report or
`
`the patent. See Ex. 2006 at 15:22, 29:18-20, 30:6-7; 33:14-16, and 42:8-12.
`
`Dr. Madisetti is also prone to taking contradictory positions. In his ITC
`
`deposition, Dr. Madisetti stated that Morichika’s camera 4c “provides a video
`
`image.” Ex. 2005 at 81:19-23 (“the camera outputs frame images, and it provides an
`
`– a set of – it provides a video image comprising a plurality of frame images.”). Yet,
`
`in his first declaration, Dr. Madisetti avoided addressing whether Morichika’s
`
`camera 4c was a video or still camera. See generally Ex. 1020. Now Dr. Madisetti
`
`takes the position that Morichika “is not explicit one way or the other as to whether
`
`the camera is a digital video camera or a digital still camera.” Ex 1025 at ¶ 50.
`
`
`2 Dr. Madisetti testified that he followed a similar process in creating his second
`declaration. Ex. 2006 at 26:21 (“Again, it’s largely similar.”).
`
`12
`
`
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`For these reasons, Patent Owner’s MTA should be granted.
`
`Dated: November 13, 2018
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`/s/Trevor Q. Coddington, Ph.D.
`TREVOR Q. CODDINGTON, PH.D.
`PTO REG. NO. 46,633
`DONNY K. SAMPORNA
`PTO REG. NO. 76,604
`SAN DIEGO IP LAW GROUP LLP
`12526 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
`San Diego, California 92130
`Telephone: (858) 792-3446
`Facsimile: (858) 408-4422
`Email: uspto@sandiegoiplaw.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner,
`PATHWAY INNOVATIONS AND
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A (CLAIM LISTING)
`(Originally Patented – Substitute Claim 21 Proposed) A method of acquiring
`1.
`an image of a target to provide an output video image comprising a plurality of
`frame images, the method comprising:
`
`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;
`
`using the master personal processor to manipulate the series of frame
`images, including zooming in or out without changing resolution of the frame
`images;
`
`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;
`
`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,
`
`wherein the slave digital image sensing unit is removably connected to the
`master personal processor via a master personal processor port.
`The method of
`2.
`(Originally Patented – Substitute Claim 22 Proposed)
`claim 1, further comprising executing the manipulation in response to a user
`request in real time.
`A method of
`3.
`(Originally Patented – Substitute Claim 23 Proposed)
`acquiring an image of a target to provide an output video image comprising a
`plurality of frame images, the method comprising:
`
`14
`
`
`
`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;
`
`using the master personal processor to manipulate the series of frame
`images, including zooming in or out without changing resolution of the frame
`images, wherein the manipulation of the series of frame images is executed in
`response to a user request in real time;
`
`identifying a first resolution for the received plurality of frame images;
`
`identifying a second resolution for the reference resolution;
`
`in the case of a manipulated frame image having a higher resolution, as
`manipulated, than the second resolution, reducing the resolution of the frame
`image to that of the second resolution;
`
`in the case of the manipulated frame image having a lower resolution, as
`manipulated, than the second resolution, using the processor to further manipulate
`the frame image to reduce pixilation;
`
`displaying and/or storing the manipulated series of frame images as an
`output video image without changing the resolution of the manipulated series of
`frame images,
`
`wherein the slave digital image sensing unit is removably connected to the
`master personal processor via a master personal processor port.
`The method of
`4.
`(Originally Patented – Substitute Claim 24 Proposed)
`claim 3, wherein the personal processor is housed in an external personal
`computer, further comprising using an external personal computer to provide the
`processor used to manipulate the series of frame images.
`The method of
`5.
`(Originally Patented – Substitute Claim 25 Proposed)
`claim 4 wherein the manipulation further comprises at least one of the operations
`selected from the group consisting of:
`
`15
`
`
`
`A method of
`
`re-sizing the image;
`
`panning the image in a selected direction;
`
`rotating the image in a selected direction; and
`
`annotating the image.
`
`The method of
`(Originally Patented – Substitute Claim 26 Proposed)
`6.
`claim 5 wherein annotating an image is conducted during re-sizing the image.
`7.
`(Originally Patented – Substitute Claim 27 Proposed)
`The method of
`claim 5 wherein the at least one operation is conducted without changing a
`resolution of the output frame images.
`8.
`(Originally Patented – Substitute Claim 28 Proposed)
`acquiring an image of a target comprising:
`
`determining a reference resolution at which each frame image of a series of
`frame images will be maintained and storing the reference resolution in a non-
`transitory medium;
`
`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 and 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; and
`
`after comparing the resolution of each frame image, storing and/or
`displaying in real-time each frame image on a display.
`The method of
`9.
`(Originally Patented – Substitute Claim 29 Proposed)
`claim 8 wherein the external processor is housed in a personal computer.
`10.
`(Originally Patented – Substitute Claim 30 Proposed)
`The method of
`claim 8 further comprising when displaying each frame image on a display re-
`sizing the image without changing a resolution of the output frame images.
`
`16
`
`
`
`The method of
`(Originally Patented – Substitute Claim 31 Proposed)
`11.
`claim 10 further comprising re-sizing a selected portion of the frame to provide a
`visual effect of rotating the image in three dimensions.
`The method of
`12.
`(Originally Patented – Substitute Claim 32 Proposed)
`claim 8 further comprising when displaying each frame image on a display
`panning the image in a selected direction without changing a resolution of the
`output frame images.
`The method of
`13.
`(Originally Patented – Substitute Claim 33 Proposed)
`claim 8 further comprising when displaying each frame image on a display rotating
`the image in a selected direction without changing a resolution of the output frame
`images.
`The method of
`14.
`(Originally Patented – Substitute Claim 34 Proposed)
`claim 8 further comprising when displaying each frame image on a display
`annotating the image without changing a resolution of the output frame images.
`15.
`(Originally Patented – Substitute Claim 35 Proposed)
`The method of
`claim 14 wherein annotating an image is conducted during a step of re-sizing the
`image.
`The method of
`16.
`(Originally Patented – Substitute Claim 36 Proposed)
`claim 8 further comprising when displaying each frame image on a display,
`performing an image manipulation selected from the group consisting of:
`
`re-sizing the image,
`
`re-sizing a selected portion of the frame to provide a visual effect of rotating
`the image in three dimensions,
`
`panning the image in a selected direction,
`
`rotating the image in a selected direction, and
`
`annotating the image.
`
`17
`
`
`
`The method of
`(Originally Patented – Substitute Claim 37 Proposed)
`17.
`claim 16 wherein annotating an image is conducted during a step of re-sizing the
`image.
`A document imaging apparatus comprising
`18.
`(Originally Patented)
`
`a personal computer containing a software programming unit;
`
`a miniaturized digital image sensing unit externally coupled to the personal
`computer comprising optics having an infinite focal length;
`
`wherein the personal computer is configured to control all actions of the
`miniaturized digital image sensing unit and cause the digital imaging unit to zoom
`in or zoom out in real-time while maintaining a resolution of a series of real-time
`images;
`
`in the case of the resolution of the series of real-time images having a higher
`resolution than a reference resolution, reducing the resolution of each of the series
`of real-time images to that of the reference resolution;
`
`a display for displaying the images; and
`
`a suspension arm for supporting the digital imaging unit at a distance from a
`target to be imaged.
`The document imaging apparatus as recited in
`19.
`(Originally Patented)
`claim 18 wherein the processor is housed in a folding suspension arm.
`20.
`(Originally Patented)
`The document imaging apparatus as recited in
`claim 18 wherein the processor is housed in an external personal computing
`system.
`(Proposed Substitute for Claim 1) A method of acquiring an image of a
`21.
`target to provide an output video image comprising a plurality of frame images, the
`method comprising:
`
`18
`
`
`
`connecting a slave digital image sensing unit to a master personal processor,
`
`the master personal processor receiving a video stream comprising a series of
`frame images from the slave digital image sensing unit;
`
`using the master personal processor to manipulate the video stream
`comprising a series of frame images, including zooming in or out without changing
`resolution of the video stream comprising a series of frame images;
`
`in the case of the manipulated series of frame images having a higher
`resolution than a display reference resolution, reducing the resolution of each of
`the manipulated series of frame images to that of the display reference resolution;
`
`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,
`
`wherein the slave digital image sensing unit is removably connected to the
`master personal processor via a master personal processor port; and
`
`at the same time as receiving the video stream comprising a series of frame
`images, capturing a still image from the manipulated series of frame images in
`response to a user click of a button displayed in user interface software.
`(Proposed Substitute for Claim 2) The method of claim 21, further
`22.
`comprising executing the manipulation in response to a user request in real time,
`wherein the manipulation is controlled by the user through a mouse wheel.
`(Proposed Substitute for Claim 3) A method of acquiring an image of a
`23.
`target to provide an output video image comprising a plurality of frame images, the
`method comprising:
`
`connecting a slave digital image sensing unit to a master personal processor,
`the master personal processor receiving a video stream comprising a series of
`frame images from the slave digital image sensing unit;
`
`19
`
`
`
`using the master personal processor to manipulate the series of frame
`
`images, including zoom
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
