Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 16
`Date Entered: February 5, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GRANDEYE LTD.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00548
`Patent 7,542,035 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, DAVID C. McKONE, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 16
`Date Entered: February 5, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GRANDEYE LTD.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00548
`Patent 7,542,035 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, DAVID C. McKONE, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00548
`Patent 7,542,035 B2
`
`
`
`On August 30, 2013, Google Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a petition to
`institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 7, 13, 22, 33, 44, 53, 54, 69, 73,
`78, 80, 82–84, 86, 89, 98, 102, 105, 113, 115, 118–121, and 123 of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,542,035 B2 (“the ’035 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 et
`seq. Grandeye Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a preliminary response to the
`petition on November 7, 2013. For the reasons that follow, the Board has
`determined to institute an inter partes review.
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a):
`THRESHOLD—The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311
`and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 22, 53, 54, 69, 73, 78, 80, 82–84, 89,
`98, 102, 105, 113, 115, and 118–121 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 102(a) and 102(b) and challenges claims 1, 7, 13, 22, 33, 44, 53, 54, 69,
`73, 78, 80, 82–84, 86, 89, 98, 102, 105, 113, 115, 118–121, and 123 as
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Pet. 4–6.1 We institute review as to
`claims 1, 22, 53, 54, 69, 73, 78, 80, 82–84, 86, 89, 98, 102, 105, 113, 115,
`
`
`1 Petitioner’s original petition asserted several additional grounds that
`subsequently were withdrawn voluntarily (Papers 11, 13).
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00548
`Patent 7,542,035 B2
`
`
`118–121, and 123 on certain grounds of unpatentability as discussed below.
`We do not institute review as to claims 7, 13, 33, or 44.
`
`
`A. The ’035 Patent (Ex. 1003)
`The ’035 patent, titled “Method for Interactively Viewing Full-
`Surround Image Data and Apparatus Therefor,” issued on June 2, 2009,
`based on Application 10/602,666, filed June 25, 2003. The ’035 patent is a
`continuation of Application 09/871,903 (“the ’903 application”), which is a
`continuation of U.S. Patent No. 6,243,099 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’099 patent”).
`The ’099 patent claims the benefit of the filing date of Provisional
`Application No. 60/071,148, filed January 12, 1998 (Ex. 1018, “the ’148
`application”). The ’099 patent is also a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent
`No. 5,903,782, filed November 14, 1996 (Ex. 1019, “the ’782 patent”),
`which claims the benefit of the filing date of Provisional Application
`No. 60/006,800, filed November 15, 1995 (Ex. 1024, “the ’800
`application”).
`The ’035 patent “relates generally to a method and corresponding
`apparatus for viewing images.” Ex. 1003, col. 1, ll. 49–50. For instance, a
`virtual pictosphere may be created using a conventional three-dimensional
`graphics system that results from “texture mapping” the visible world onto a
`sphere. Id. at col. 6, ll. 21–24. Different viewpoints enable different types
`of perspective views when rendered with the primitives of a conventional
`three-dimensional graphics system. For example, a linear perspective view
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR22013-005448
`
`
`Patennt 7,542,0335 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`is acchieved witth a viewpooint at the center of tthe sphere,, while a ciircular
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`persppective vieew is achieeved with aa viewpoinnt on the suurface of thhe sphere
`
`
`withh a view dirrection towwards the ccenter. Id.,, col. 6, ll.
`
`gures 5 annd
`
`
`
`24–33. Fi
`
`
`lustrative:6 of the ’035 ppatent, reprroduced below, are ill
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`onto a ble world oof the visibf a portion oojection of 6 show proFiguures 5 and 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`plane with a linnear perspeective vieww and a cirrcular persppective vieew,
`
`respeectively.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In an illuustrative exxample, thhe ’035 pateent describbes the mappping of
`
`
`
`
`two fisheye immages to adjdjoining hemmispheres
`
`
`to generatte sphericaal image
`
`. Id. at coll. 9, ll. 3–1
`data
`
`
`8. A user interactiveely may m
`
`ove the vieewpoint to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`diffeerent positiions that innclude the ccenter of thhe sphere aand to poinnts very
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`near the inside of the sphhere, therebby achievinng the diffeferent persppective
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Id. at col
`
`
`
`
`to simmulate loooking arounnd within tthe sphere.
`
`. 9, ll. 16––18.
`
`
`
`Althhough this iillustrationn is provideed with twoo adjoiningg hemisphheres, the
`
`
`
`
`respect to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’0355 patent moore generallly contempplates mappping with
`
`viewws. Id. at col. 9, ll. 111–16. The surface off the spheree also mayy be rotatedd
`
`
`
`polyhedraal
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00548
`Patent 7,542,035 B2
`
`
`approximations of spheres described in the ’035 patent as “p-spheres.” See
`id. at col. 7, ll. 11– 23.
`
`
`B. Exemplary Claim
`Claim 1 of the ’035 patent is exemplary of the claims at issue:
`1. A method of modeling of the visible world using full-
`surround image data, said method comprising:
`selecting a view point within a p-surface, wherein the p-
`surface comprises polygons approximating a partial sphere;
`selecting a direction of view within the p-surface;
`texture mapping full-surround image data onto said p-
`surface such that the resultant texture map is substantially
`equivalent to projecting full-surround image data onto the p-
`surface from said view point to thereby generate a texture
`mapped p-surface; and
`displaying a predetermined portion of said texture
`mapped p-surface.
`
`
`
`
`C. Related Proceedings
`In addition to filing a petition for inter partes review of the ’035
`patent, Petitioner concurrently filed petitions for inter partes reviews of the
`’099 patent (IPR2013-00547) and of U.S. Patent No. 8,077,176 (“the ’176
`patent”) (IPR2013-00546), which is a continuation of the ’035 patent.
`Pet. 2. The ’035 patent is also the subject of ex parte Reexamination
`No. 90/012,689, filed September 15, 2012. Id at 1.
`View 360 Solutions LLC (“View 360”), a purported licensee of the
`’035, ’099, and ’176 patents, sued Petitioner for infringement of the ’035,
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00548
`Patent 7,542,035 B2
`
`
`’099, and ’176 patents in Case No. 1:12-cv-1352 (N.D.N.Y.) (“the View 360
`litigation”). Pet. 1–2. Patent Owner has asserted the ’035 and ’099 patents
`against others in Grandeye Ltd. v. Sentry 360 Security, Inc., Case No. 1:11-
`cv-2188 (N.D. Ill). Pet. 2.
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`1. References Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art:2
`Gullichsen
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,796,426, filed May 27, 1994, issued
`
`
`
`August 18, 1998 (Ex. 1010);
`
`Photo VR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Wen-kae Tsao et al., Photo VR: A System of Rendering
`High Quality Images for Virtual Environments Using
`Sphere-like Polyhedral Environment Maps, THE SECOND
`WORKSHOP ON REAL-TIME AND MEDIA SYSTEMS (RAMS
`’96) 397–403 (July 30–31, 1996) (Ex. 1007);
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`QuickTime® VR Shenchang Eric Chen, QuickTime® VR — An Image-
`
`
`
`Based Approach to Virtual Environment Navigation,
`
`
`
`published 1995 (Ex. 1012).
`
`
`Haeberli
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paul Haeberli and Mark Segal, Texture Mapping as a
`Fundamental Drawing Primitive, PROC. FOURTH
`EUROGRAPHICS WORKSHOP ON RENDERING 259–266
`(June 1993) (Ex. 1013); and
`
`
`2 The petition identifies additional prior art. Because that additional prior art
`is relevant only to grounds that have been voluntarily withdrawn (see Papers
`11, 13), it is not identified herein.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00548
`Patent 7,542,035 B2
`
`
`
`2. Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 7, 13, 22, 33, 44, 53, 54, 69, 73, 78, 80,
`82–84, 89, 98, 102, 105, 113, 115, 118–121, and 123 of the ’035 patent on
`the following grounds:
`
`Reference(s)
`Photo VR
`
`Claims Challenged
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b) 1, 22, 53, 54, 69, 73, 78, 80,
`82–84, 89, 98, 102, 105, 113,
`115, and 118–121
`84, 86, 120, 121, and 123
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Photo VR and
`QuickTime® VR
`Gullichsen and
`Haeberli
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`1, 7, 13, 22, 33, 44, 53, 54, 69,
`73, 78, 80, 82, 83, 89, 98, 102,
`105, 113, 115, 118, and 119
`
`E. Claim Interpretation
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the America
`Invents Act (AIA), the Board interprets claims using the broadest reasonable
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under that construction, claim terms
`are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclosure.
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`For purposes of this decision, we construe certain claim limitations as
`follows.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00548
`Patent 7,542,035 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`1. “full-surround data” and “full-surround image data”
`(Claims 1, 7, 13, 22, 33, 44, 53, 54, 69, 78, 80,
`82–84, 102, 113, 115, and 118–120)
`
`Independent claims 1 and 22 each recite a method of “modeling of the
`visible world using full-surround image data.” The term “full-surround
`image data” also is used in independent claims 33, 44, and 53, and in
`dependent claims 54, 69, 78, 80, 82–84, 102, 113, 115, and 118–120
`(sometimes without the hyphen). Independent claims 7 and 13 use the term
`“full-surround data.”
`The specification does not use the term “full-surround data,” but
`instead refers consistently to “full-surround image data.” For the purposes
`of this decision, we construe “full-surround data” and “full-surround image
`data” in the same way.
`Petitioner argues that “full-surround data” and “full-surround image
`data” should be interpreted to include “sampling the environment
`completely,” a “panoramic scene including information associated with
`elements of a top image and/or bottom image of the panoramic scene,” and
`taking images “of the whole view” of a room from a camera position.
`Pet. 14. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. John R. Grindon, suggests a construction
`in which full-surround image data “includes omnidirectional coverage of an
`environment, from the real world or the visual world, that could allow a user
`to view the entire scene when displayed.” Declaration of John R. Grindon,
`Ex. 1005, p. 14. Consistent with Dr. Grindon’s construction that “full-
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00548
`Patent 7,542,035 B2
`
`
`surround image data” include “omnidirectional coverage,” the specification
`identifies “spherical” data as examples of “full-surround” image data. See,
`e.g., Ex. 1003, col. 1, ll. 52–53; col. 2, ll. 47–57; col. 8, l. 20 – col. 9, l. 6.
`Patent Owner does not propose a construction of this term.
`Petitioner’s proposed construction through examples is insufficiently
`precise as it does not specify the boundaries of “full-surround image data.”
`Moreover, the specification of the ’035 patent includes an explicit definition
`of “full-surround image data”: “data which samples the points P [defined as
`‘[t]he visible world.’” Ex. 1003, col. 6, l. 58. This data encodes, explicitly
`or implicitly, the association of a color value with a given direction from a
`given point of projection.” Ex. 1003, col. 7, ll. 3–6.
`We adopt that explicit definition provided by the specification as our
`construction of “full-surround data” and “full-surround image data.”
`
`
`2. “p-surface”
`(Claims 1, 7, 13, 22, 33, 44, 53, 78, 80, 82–84,
`86, 89, 98, 113, 115, 118–121, and 123)
`
`Each of claims 1, 7, 13, 22, 33, 44, 53, 78, 80, 82–84, 86, 89, 98, 113,
`115, 118–121, and 123 includes reference to a “p-surface” or to “p-
`surfaces.” Petitioner argues that “p-surface” should be interpreted to include
`a “sphere-like polyhedron,” a “sphere,” a “cube,” a “polyhedral environment
`map,” or “textured spheres and spherical environment maps.” Pet. 14.
`Patent Owner does not propose a construction of this term.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00548
`Patent 7,542,035 B2
`
`
`
`The specification provides the following definition of a “p-surface”:
`a computer graphics representation of any surface with a well-
`defined inside and outside, where there exists at least one point
`x inside (neither intersecting, nor lying outside) the surface
`which may be connected to every point of the surface with a
`distinct line segment, no portion of which said line segment lies
`outside the surface or intersects the surface at a point not an
`endpoint.
`
`
`Ex. 1003, col. 7, ll. 24–31.
`
`We adopt the explicit definitions provided by the specification. We
`note that the specification further provides examples of computer-graphics
`objects that may be modeled as p-surfaces as including a tetrahedron, a cube,
`a sphere, an ellipsoid, a cylinder, an apple torus, a lemon torus, a b-spline
`surface closed or periodic in u and v, and a p-sphere as further defined
`therein. Ex. 1003, col. 7, ll. 34–38.
`
`
`3. “texture mapping” and “texture-mapped p-surface”
`(Claims 1, 7, 13, 22, 33, 44, 53, 80, 82, 83, 86, 98, 115, 118, 119, and 123)
`
`
`
`Each of independent claims 1, 7, 13, 22, 33, 44, and 53 includes a
`limitation requiring “texture mapping” of data recited as “full-surround
`image data,” as “full-surround data,” or as “image data” onto a p-surface.
`Dependent claims 80, 82, 83, 86, 98, 115, 118, 119, and 123 recite a
`resulting “texture-mapped p-surface.” Petitioner argues that “texture
`mapping” should be interpreted to mean “to apply color data to a virtual
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00548
`Patent 7,542,035 B2
`
`
`shape or polygon.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner does not propose a construction
`of this term.
`We disagree with Petitioner’s proposed construction because it
`requires application of color data. The term “texture mapping” is not
`defined explicitly in the specification of the ’035 patent, which instead refers
`broadly to the term as a function implemented with a “standard computer
`graphics system” and/or known techniques such as OpenGLTM. Ex. 1003,
`col. 8, ll. 6–29.
`Petitioner refers us to Haeberli (Ex. 1013) for a “further description of
`texture mapping full-surround data.” Pet. 18. Haeberli includes an
`extensive discussion of texture mapping and, contrary to the construction
`proposed by Petitioner, identifies a number of ways of transforming an array
`of pixels onto another array of pixels in addition to color assignment.
`Specifically, Haeberli provides the following summary of texture mapping:
`In basic texture mapping, an image is applied to a polygon (or
`some other surface facet) by assigning texture coordinates to
`the polygon’s vertices. These coordinates index a texture
`image, and are interpolated across the polygon to determine, at
`each of the polygon’s pixels, a texture image value. The result
`is that some portion of the texture image is mapped onto the
`polygon when the polygon is viewed on the screen.
`
`
`Ex. 1013, p. 2, col. 1.3
`
`
`
`3 Citations to Exhibits 1007 and 1013 are in the form of page number of the
`article and column number of the page (p. x, col. y).
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00548
`Patent 7,542,035 B2
`
`
`
`In addition to identifying color assignment, Ex. 1013, p. 1, col. 2,
`Haeberli identifies projective textures, image warping, transparency
`mapping, surface trimming, anti-aliasing, volume rendering, contouring,
`phong shading, half-toning, and other techniques as within the scope of
`“texture mapping” as understood by those of skill in the art. See generally
`Ex. 1013. Neither party has identified any portion of the specification that
`would limit a construction of “texture mapping” as excluding any of these
`different techniques. In accordance with the broadest reasonable
`construction in light of the specification, we accordingly construe “texture
`mapping” as “applying image data to a surface.” We similarly construe a
`“texture-mapped p-surface” as a “p-surface onto which image data have
`been applied.”
`
`
`4. “projecting . . . data onto the p-surface”
`(Claims 1, 7, 22, 33, and 53)
`
`Independent claim 1 recites “texture mapping full-surround image
`data onto said p-surface such that the resultant texture map is substantially
`equivalent to projecting full-surround image data onto the p-surface from
`said view point to thereby generate a texture mapped p-surface” (emphasis
`added). Independent claims 7, 22, 33, and 53 each recite a similar
`limitation, with claim 7 referring to projecting “full-surround data” and
`claim 53 referring to projecting “image data.” Neither party proposes a
`construction of “projecting . . . data onto the p-surface.”
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00548
`Patent 7,542,035 B2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner should have construed this
`limitation. Prelim. Resp. 15. Patent Owner contends that this term
`materially limits the claims and that, during prosecution of the ’099 patent,
`the Examiner emphasized this limitation in allowing the claims of that
`patent. Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 2001, Notice of Allowability). While the
`Examiner stated that the prior art failed to teach “the step to texture mapping
`full-surround image data onto the p-surface such that the resultant texture
`map is substantially equivalent to projecting full-surround image data onto
`the p-surface from the view point to thereby generate a texture mapped p-
`surface,” he did not emphasize the recitation of “projecting full-surround
`image data onto the p-surface” in particular. Ex. 2001, p. 2. Rather, the
`Examiner emphasized the ’099 patent specification’s disclosure of a p-
`surface. Id. at 2–3. In any case, Patent Owner also does not propose a
`construction of “projecting . . . data onto the p-surface.”
`The specification of the ’035 patent includes the following definition
`of a “PROJECTION OF P”:
`A subset of points P. Any number of points Pn contained
`in P may be slid closer to or further from point VP [the view
`point] along their corresponding rays. The resultant new
`configuration of points P is called a projection of P.
`
`
`Ex. 1003, col. 6, ll. 59–63. Thus, applying the broadest reasonable
`interpretation in light of the specification, we interpret “projecting . . .
`data onto the p-surface” as “generating a new image by moving image
`pixels along rays from the view point to the p-surface.”
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00548
`Patent 7,542,035 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`5. Other Terms
`All other terms in claims 1, 7, 13, 22, 33, 44, 53, 54, 69, 73, 78, 80,
`82–84, 86, 89, 98, 102, 105, 113, 115, 118–121, and 123 are given their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one with
`ordinary skill in the art and need not be further construed at this time.
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`We turn now to Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability and
`Patent Owner’s arguments in its preliminary response to determine whether
`Petitioner has met the threshold standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`A. Asserted Grounds Based on Photo VR
`Petitioner contends that (1) claims 1, 22, 53, 54, 69, 73, 78, 80, 82–84,
`89, 98, 102, 105, 113, 115, and 118–121 are anticipated by Photo VR under
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b); and that (2) claims 84, 86, 120, and 123 are
`unpatentable over Photo VR and QuickTime® VR under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`Pet. 15–17, 33–60. To support its assertions, Petitioner relies on the analysis
`of Dr. John R. Grindon (Ex. 1005). We are persuaded that the Petition has
`established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims
`1, 22, 53, 54, 69, 73, 78, 80, 82–84, 86, 89, 98, 102, 105, 113, 115, 118–121,
`and 123 are unpatentable, for the reasons explained below.
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00548
`Patent 7,542,035 B2
`
`
`
`1. Effective Filing Date
`When a petition for inter partes review identifies specific features and
`claims allegedly lacking written-description and enablement support in
`earlier-filed applications, we consider whether the patent owner makes a
`sufficient showing of entitlement to an earlier filing date, in a manner
`commensurate in scope with the specific contentions made by the petitioner.
`See Polaris Wireless, Inc. v. TruePosition, Inc., IPR2013-00323, slip op. at
`29 (PTAB December 12, 2013), Paper 16.
`Although the ’035 patent claims the benefit of the earlier filing dates
`of the ’782 patent and of the ’800 application respectively under 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 120 and 119, Petitioner contends that none of claims 1, 22, 53, 54, 69, 73,
`78, 80, 82–84, 86, 89, 98, 102, 105, 113, 115, 118–121, and 123 is entitled
`to an effective filing date earlier than the January 12, 1998, filing date of the
`’148 application. Specifically, Petitioner contends that none of the claims is
`entitled to the effective filing date of either the ’782 patent or the ’800
`application. Pet. 11–13. If Patent Owner establishes entitlement to the filing
`date of the ’782 patent, Photo VR is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`because its July 30–31, 1996, publication date does not precede the
`November 14, 1996 filing date of the ’782 patent by more than one year. If
`Patent Owner further establishes entitlement to the filing date of the ’800
`application, Photo VR is also not prior art under § 102(a) because its July
`30–31, 1996, publication date does not precede the November 15, 1995
`filing date of the ’800 application. According to Petitioner, Patent Owner’s
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00548
`Patent 7,542,035 B2
`
`
`purported licensee, View 360, argued for an effective filing date as early as
`May 21, 1996, in the View 360 litigation. Pet. 13, n. 8.
`If any application in the priority chain fails to make the requisite
`disclosure of the claimed subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
`paragraph, the later-filed application is not entitled to the benefit of the filing
`date preceding the break in the disclosure within the priority chain. Hollmer
`v. Harari, 681 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2012). To gain the benefit of the
`filing date of an earlier-filed application under 35 U.S.C. § 120, each
`application in the chain leading back to the earlier application must comply
`with the written-description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
`Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`2007); Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir.
`1997); In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595, 609 (CCPA 1977); In re Schneider, 481
`F.2d 1350, 1356 (CCPA 1973).
`The ’782 patent is “directed to an apparatus and method for producing
`a three-hundred and sixty degree spherical visual data set using a camera
`fitted with a lens having a particular field of view.” Ex. 1019, col. 2, ll. 53–
`56. The visual data set is produced by taking a first picture with a camera
`while maintaining the plumbness of a vertical axis with respect to a
`predetermined plane of reference, followed by pivoting the camera 180° to
`take a second picture while similarly maintaining the plumbness of the
`vertical axis. Id. at col. 5, ll. 10–58.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00548
`Patent 7,542,035 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner argues that the ’782 patent discloses capturing a three-
`hundred-and-sixty-degree spherical visual data set but does not disclose
`methods for interacting with the data after they are captured. See Pet. 12. In
`particular, Petitioner argues that the ’782 patent does not disclose texture
`mapping data onto a p-surface as required in some form by each of
`independent claims 1, 22, and 53 of the ’035 patent because there is no
`disclosure of applying image data to a surface.
`Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s effective-filing-date
`argument and, therefore, has not shown that the subject claims of the ’035
`patent are entitled to the filing date of the ’782 patent. Because the subject
`claims are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the ’782 patent, they
`also are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the ’800 application.
`Therefore, we conclude, for purposes of this Decision, that the effective
`filing date for each of the subject claims is no earlier than the January 12,
`1998, filing date of the ’148 application.
`
`
`2. Photo VR (Ex. 1007)
`Photo VR is prior art to each of the subject claims under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) because its publication date of July 30–31, 1996 precedes the
`earliest effective filing date for those claims by more than one year. Photo
`VR is also prior art to those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because Patent
`Owner does not allege an invention date earlier than the publication date of
`Photo VR.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR22013-005448
`
`
`Patennt 7,542,0335 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Photo VVR is directted to panooramic vieww renderinng “by geneerating a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`spheere-like pollyhedral ennvironmentt map fromm photo-reaalistic ima
`ges and
`
`
`
`
`usingg the generrated mapss to render the scene
`
`
`by techniqques of commputer
`od in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`grapphics.” Ex.. 1007, p. 3397, col. 1.. Photo VRR illustratees its meth
`a “proper
`camera in
`
`
`
`
`
`context of renddering a scene in a rooom by possitioning a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`posittion, such as the centter of the rooom,” fromm which immages of thhe entire
`
`vieww are taken
`
`
`
`
`
`and arrangged as “a ssphere-likee polyhedroon consistiing of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`textuured trapezzoids.” Id. at p. 397, col. 2. Thhe figure frrom page 3398 of
`
`
`
`
`Photto VR is reeproduced bbelow:
`
`
`
`
`of a eneration orates the geVR illustr8 of Photo m page 398The figure from
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“textture mappeed sphere-llike polyheedron” by rray-castingg of originnal images
`
`
`ontoo polygons arranged iin the spacee by their rregistrationns. Id. at pp. 398,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`col. 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A drawinng from paage 400 of f Photo VRR is reproduuced beloww:
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR22013-005448
`
`
`Patennt 7,542,0335 B2
`
`
`
`
`The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`drawing frrom page 4400 illustraates that a uuser is affoorded interractive
`
`
`
`
`
`abiliity to obserrve an objeect from diifferent vieews in real
`
`time. Thaat is,
`
`
`
`
`
`imagges “A,” “BB,” and “CC” in the drrawing shoow images
`
`
`
`
`
`“object” from ddifferent vviews.
`
`
`taken fromm the samee
`
`78, 80, 82––84,
`
`4, 69, 73,
`, 22, 53, 5
`
`
`3. Antiicipation ofof Claims 1
`
`
`and 118–1121
` 113, 115,
`
`89, 98,, 102, 105,
`
`
`
`Petitioneer contends that Photto VR disc
`
`
`mitations oof claims 11,
`
`loses all li
`
`
`73, 78, 800, 82–84, 8
`
`
`9, 98, 102,, 105, 113,, 115, and
`22, 553, 54, 69,
`118–121.
`
`
`
`Pet. 33–41, 49––51, 53–600.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioneer has showwn sufficieently that PPhoto VR ddiscloses mmodeling o
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the vvisible worrld using “ffull-surrouund image ddata” becaause it teac
`hes data
`
`
`
`
`that include ommnidirectioonal coveraage of an e
`
`
`nvironmennt, a conseqquence of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`takinng images of “the whhole view ffrom the caamera posiition.” Ex.. 1007, p.
` col. 2.
`397,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The spheere-like poolyhedron ddisclosed bby Photo VVR is also aa “p-
`
`
`
`
`
`surfaace” as reccited in the subject claaims becauuse it prov
`
`ides a commputer-
`
`
`well-definned inside aand
`
`
`
`
`grapphics repressentation oof a surfacee having a
`19
`
`f
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00548
`Patent 7,542,035 B2
`
`
`outside, with at least one point inside the surface capable of connection to
`every point of the surface with a distinct line segment, wherein no portion of
`the line segment lies outside the surface or intersects the surface at a point
`that is not an endpoint. Specifically, Photo VR’s sphere-like polyhedron is a
`“p-sphere” as defined by the ’035 patent, Ex. 1003, col. 7, ll. 11–17, which
`further identifies a p-sphere as an example of a p-surface, id., col. 7, ll. 37–
`38.
`
`In addition, Photo VR teaches “texture mapping” of image data onto
`the p-surface because the mapping it describes applying image data
`generated by taking images from the camera positioned, e.g., at the center of
`a room (a view point) onto polygons defined on the p-surface. Similar to the
`’035 patent, see, e.g., Ex. 1003, col. 8, ll. 6–18, Photo VR describes such
`texture mapping by reference to software rendering packages, Ex. 1007, p.
`397, col. 2.
`Patent Owner responds that Petitioner “ignores the actual words of the
`claims,” Prelim. Resp. 1, by presenting an inadequate showing that the
`texture mapping disclosed by Photo VR “is substantially equivalent to
`projecting full-surround image data onto the p-surface from said view
`point,” as recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in
`independent claims 22 and 53. Prelim. Resp. 5, 7, 8; see also id. at 9–10.
`Patent Owner presents several exhibits it contends show that Petitioner has
`omitted this limitation from its analysis. Prelim. Resp. 17–19 (citing Exs.
`2001–2027. Because Petitioner has not addressed this limitation, Patent
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00548
`Patent 7,542,035 B2
`
`
`Owner argues, Petitioner has presented an inadequate showing that the
`limitation is disclosed by Photo VR. Prelim. Resp. 4–9. Patent Owner
`further argues that Dr. Grindon’s declaration also fails to address whether
`Photo VR discloses texture mapping that is “substantially equivalent to
`projecting full-surround image data onto the p-surface from said view
`point.” Prelim. Resp. 14–15.
`Petitioner expressly identifies the description at page 397 of Photo VR
`as disclosing this limitation. Pet. 38, 49–50, 53. We also note that Patent
`Owner does not argue that Photo VR lacks this limitation. Photo VR
`describes texture mapping in a manner substantially the same as the ’035
`patent’s examples of texture mapping “substantially equivalent to projecting
`the full-surround image data onto the p-surface from said view point.”
`As discussed above, texture mapping is an application of image data
`onto a surface. For example, the ’035 patent makes reference to a “standard
`computer graphics system” that “supports . . . the texture mapping of image
`data onto objects within the class of p-surface,” Ex. 1003, col. 8, ll. 7–12,
`without otherwise describing the specific nature of such texture mapping.
`Similarly, as Petitioner points out, Pet. 38, Photo VR describes texture
`mapping that “is usually contained in rendering packages, libraries or
`graphic hardware accelerators.” Ex. 1007, p. 397, col. 2.
`The ’035 patent describes taking two photographs in opposite
`directions from a view point using a fisheye lens, building texture maps from
`the two pictures to create a “pictosphere,” creating two adjoining
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00548
`Patent 7,542,035 B2
`
`
`hemispheres, and mapping the two images to the two adjoining hemispheres
`to generate full-surround image data. Ex. 1003, col. 8, l. 52 – col. 9, l. 6.
`Petitioner identifies Photo VR’s discussion of taking camera images of a
`whole (spherical) view, generating a sphere-like polyhedron, and “ray-
`casting” the original images acquired by the camera onto the sphere-like
`polyhedron, arranged as textured polygons in the space by their registrations,
`as disclosing “texture mapping . . . onto a p-surface. Pet. 17 (citing Ex.
`1007, pp. 397–399). Such ray-casting techniques are similar to the example
`projection of the ’035 patent in that they generate a new image by moving
`image pixels along rays from the view point to the p-surface. Petitioner
`identifies this polygonal texture mapping as generating a model of the
`visible world substantially equivalent to projecting the image data onto the
`sphere-like polyhedron, which Petitioner identifies as a p-surface. Pet. 38.
`Petitioner further notes that the sphere-like polyhedron shown on page
`328 of Photo VR is texture-mapped with real-world images taken from a
`camera. Pet. 16. Moreover, Photo VR states that “ the image presented to
`the user will approximate the one rendered by traditional method [sic] used
`in computer graphics or even the one seen in the real world if all objects in
`the room are a certain distance away from the center.” Ex. 1007, p. 397,
`col. 2. Accordingly, Petitioner has persuaded us that the texture mapping
`taught by Photo VR is “substantially equivalent” to projecting full-surround
`image data onto the p-surface from a view point.
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00548
`Patent 7,542,035 B2
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the foregoing discussion and Petitioner’s claim charts, Pet.
`33–59, Petitioner establishes a reas
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
