trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00631, Paper No. 49
`IRP2014-00632, Paper No. 15
`June 4, 2015
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`- - - - - -
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`- - - - - -
`
`
`
`CANON, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`- - - - - - -
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00631 and IPR2014-00632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,817,914
`Technology Center 2800
`Oral Hearing Held on Thursday, May 14, 2015
`
`
`
`Before: RICHARD E. RICE, JAMES B. ARPIN (via video link) and
`
`PETER P. CHEN (via video link), Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, May 14,
`
`
`
`2015, at 1:06 p.m., in Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00631, Paper No. 49
`IRP2014-00632, Paper No. 15
`June 4, 2015
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`- - - - - -
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`- - - - - -
`
`
`
`CANON, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`- - - - - - -
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00631 and IPR2014-00632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,817,914
`Technology Center 2800
`Oral Hearing Held on Thursday, May 14, 2015
`
`
`
`Before: RICHARD E. RICE, JAMES B. ARPIN (via video link) and
`
`PETER P. CHEN (via video link), Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, May 14,
`
`
`
`2015, at 1:06 p.m., in Hearing Room A, taken at the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUSTIN J. OLIVER, ESQ.
`
`STEPHEN YAM, ESQ.
`
`Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto
`
`975 F Street, N.W.
`
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1462
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HERBERT D. HART, III, ESQ.
`
`STEPHEN J. HAMPTON, Ph.D., ESQ.
`
`DAVID Z. PETTY, ESQ.
`
`McAndrews Held & Malloy Ltd.
`
`500 West Madison Street
`
`34th Floor
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`
`312-775-8000
`
`JAMES R. HIETALA
`
`Director, Post Grant Proceedings
`
`Intellectual Ventures LLC
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00631 and IPR2014-00632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,817,914
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`JUDGE R IC E: Pl ease be seated. Good afternoon.
`
`(1:06 p. m.)
`
`This is the h e aring in IPR2014 -00631. It has be en
`
`consolidated with IPR2014 -00632.
`
`I a m Judge Rice . I a m the onl y jud ge in this Panel
`
`, who is in Alexa ndria toda y. Two of the other judges on the
`
`Panel ar e appea ri ng re motel y: Jud ge Arpin fro m De nver and
`
`Judge Chen fro m Menlo Park, Calif ornia .
`
`You must, becaus e of the re mote p articipation of
`
`the other two judges, speak into th e microphone at the podiu m
`
`for the m to hear you. Please re me mber that.
`
`With that caution, will counsel for Petitioner
`
`introduce the msel ves.
`
`MR. OLI VER: Your Honor, Justin Oliver of
`
`Fitzpatrick, Cella , counsel for P etitioner, Canon.
`
`JUDGE R IC E: And who is with yo u?
`
`MR. OLI VER: St ephen Ya m, also with Fitzpatrick,
`
`Cella.
`
`JUDGE R IC E: Thank you. I f you would please be
`
`seated. Welco me to the P TAB . We're happ y to have you .
`
`Would counsel fo r Patent Owner please introduce
`
`the mselves?
`
`MR. HAR T: Goo d afternoon, Your Honors. I' m
`
`Herbert Hart he re on behalf of Pat e nt Owner as lead counsel.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00631 and IPR2014-00632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,817,914
`
`
`With me toda y is Steven Ha mpt on, who will be
`
`presenting our ar gu ment. And als o with me toda y a re backup
`
`counsel Ja mes Hi etala and David P ett y.
`
`JUDGE R IC E: Welco me . We' re gl ad to have you.
`
`MR. HAR T: You r Honor, we have a printed cop y
`
`of our de monstrat ives. Would it be helpful f or you t o have
`
`that in front of yo u?
`
`JUDGE R IC E: Wh y don't you prov ide the m a fter
`
`the hearing.
`
`MR. HAR T: Ver y well . Thank yo u ver y much.
`
`JUDGE R IC E: Just a f ew preli min aries before we
`
`start. As set forth in the hearing o rder, each part y will have
`
`45 minutes for ar gu ment.
`
`Please keep in mi nd that whatever you project on
`
`the screen will no t be viewable b y Judges Arpin and Chen. So
`
`it is i mportant wh en you refe r to an exhibit fro m the record to
`
`state the re cord e xhibit number an d the page nu mbe r. An d, for
`
`de monstratives , p lease re fer to the slide or screen number
`
`Petitioner ma y re serve ti me for reb uttal of Patent
`
`Owne r's argu ment, and Patent Owner ma y also r eser ve ti me ,
`
`but only in case P etitioner refers to the motion t o ex clude.
`
`Just one further r e minder , no interruptions. Under
`
`no circu mstanc es is a part y to inter rupt the other par t y while
`
`that part y is pres enting its argu me nts. And if a pa rt y believes
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00631 and IPR2014-00632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,817,914
`
`that a de monstrat ive, for exa mple , is objectionable, that
`
`objection ma y be raised onl y durin g the part y's argument ti me.
`
`So with that , let 's hear fro m counsel for Petitioner.
`
`First, do you wish to reserve so me rebuttal ti me?
`
`MR. OLI VER: Yes, Your Honor. 12 minutes,
`
`please.
`
`JUDGE R IC E: Pl ease begin.
`
`MR. OLI V ER: Good afternoon. M a y it please the
`
`Board. I a m Justin Oliver , counsel for Petitioner, Ca non.
`
`The patent at issue toda y in this IP R is the '914
`
`patent. It is dire c ted to a method of auto maticall y ca pturing
`
`an i mage. It has one independent clai m, a method c lai m for
`
`that auto matic ca pture.
`
`The cl ai m r ecites steps including selecting an
`
`auto matic trigger condition. A trigger condition ma y be , for
`
`instance, a sound or i mage content , such as a s mile . It also
`
`includes a step of entering a threshold l evel corresponding to
`
`that trigger condition. For instance, when the trigger
`
`condition is a sound, the threshold level ma y be a de cibel
`
`level.
`
`In addition, the method also recites the step of
`
`auto maticall y ope rating the device to capture an i ma ge upon
`
`detection of meet ing the threshold level. Ho wever , t hese
`
`features wer e all known in the prio r art as established b y the
`
`three pri mar y re f erences applied a gainst independent clai m 1
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00631 and IPR2014-00632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,817,914
`
`and three diff eren t grounds of unpatentability. In f a ct,
`
`ca meras that use auto matic i mage capture were well known
`
`throughout the field.
`
`In response to this fact , I V, the Pat ent Owner , also
`
`known as Intellec tual Ventures, pr oposes a narrow c lai m
`
`construction for both the ter ms , “en tering a threshold level ”
`
`and for “auto mati call y oper ating. ”
`
`IV argued for the se constructions in its preli mina r y
`
`Patent Owner res ponse. This Boar d's decision on institution
`
`denied both constructions. Yet IV' s argu ments ar e s till
`
`predicated on both constructions being adopted. If either
`
`constructi on is not adopted, I V's unpatentability arguments do
`
`not work.
`
`Even still, i f both constructions are adopted, there
`
`are man y issues with the a rgu ments that relate to th e
`
`mischar acterizati on of the a ctual d isclosure of the r eferences .
`
`For instance, I V a cknowledges that the Halpern
`
`referenc e te aches all of the features of independent c lai m 1 ,
`
`but argues that these fe atures appe ar in diff erent e mbodiments
`
`and cannot be use d together.
`
`To find in IV's f a vor would require not onl y
`
`overturning the initial de cision on both ter ms fo r cl ai m
`
`construction, but then buying the c haracterizations o f prior art.
`
`For the reasons we will discuss here toda y, that will not work.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00631 and IPR2014-00632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,817,914
`
`
`Now, I would like to discuss clai m construction
`
`first. Be fore I do there are two pri ma r y co ncepts I would like
`
`to introduce fro m a te chnological point of view, the first of
`
`which is the t rigger conditions.
`
`As I mentioned with respect to the independent
`
`clai ms , trigger co nditions are cond itions that cause auto matic
`
`i mage capture in a ca me ra .
`
`For instance, the ' 914 patent describes ele ments
`
`such as sounds or changes in sound levels as t rigger
`
`conditions. The ' 914 patent also re fers to i mag e con tent as
`
`being trigger conditions, such as the nu mbe r of fac e s, a
`
`particular fa ce or a s mile appearin g in the field o f v iew of the
`
`ca mera .
`
`Now, coupled wit h the trigger conditions are what
`
`are called threshold levels. Those are levels that indicate that
`
`the trigger condition has actuall y been met . For instance, as
`
`shown in Figure 5 of the '914 paten t, for the exa mpl e trigger
`
`condition of a ch ange in a sound level, the docu me nt refers to
`
`a decibel level be ing entered.
`
`Now, the '914 pat ent does not discuss what
`
`threshold levels are used or how the threshold levels would be
`
`entered when you have mor e co mpl ex trigger conditions, for
`
`instance, a partic ular person's f ace or a s mile .
`
`JUDGE ARP IN: Counselor, turning to Figure 5 of
`
`the '914 patent, it sa ys "set pre fer r ed change threshold."
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00631 and IPR2014-00632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,817,914
`
`
`Are you construing or ar e you equa ting “set ” with
`
`“ente r”?
`
`MR. OLI VER: No, Your Honor, n ot necessaril y. I
`
`think as required b y the clai m construction set forth -- well,
`
`setting could be entering. The clai m construction set forth b y
`
`IV is that a user s pecificall y enters a threshold level . And as
`
`argued b y that side , entering would be entering a spe cific level
`
`itself.
`
`Howeve r, the clai ms do not see m t o be so li mited.
`
`For instance, a ca me ra could auto maticall y put in a t hreshold
`
`level or could be set otherwise. And in that context the clai ms
`
`would be invalidated b y prior art th at actuall y descri bes
`
`selection of a threshold level or en tr y b y the ca mera or even ,
`
`as described in th e '914 patent, the threshold level ca n be
`
`learned b y a ca me ra , so that all a u ser does is a ctuall y set a
`
`mode in which the ca me ra itself de ter mines the thres hold
`
`level.
`
`JUDGE R IC E: Is n't Patent Owner' s position a bit
`
`broader? In the Response on page 12, I understand the Patent
`
`Owne r to argue th at the user enters the threshold level b y
`
`placing the ca me r a in the sel f -learn ing mode with r esp ect to
`
`the self -learning e mbodi ment and, in addition, providing
`
`training that can i nclude the preset threshold levels.
`
`Do you agre e with that?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00631 and IPR2014-00632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,817,914
`
`
`MR. OLI VER: Well, if that is the case, then
`
`docu ments such a s Mishi ma , which I will talk about, would
`
`also b e entering a threshold level.
`
`JUDGE R IC E: Let's focus on the clai m
`
`construction issue.
`
`MR. OLI VER: C ertainl y, Your Honor. Patent
`
`Owne r in its Response actuall y goe s back and forth a s to
`
`whether that self - learning mode is part or not part of the
`
`clai ms . I believe Your Honor refe r red to page 12, was it?
`
`JUDGE R IC E: Yes.
`
`MR. OLI VER: On page 10, which is actuall y
`
`shown in our de monstrative, IV a rgues, or Patent Owner
`
`argues, with resp ect to the s econd or third or other
`
`e mbodi ments do not require a u ser to enter a thr eshold value
`
`corresponding to an auto matic trig ger condition. The y are
`
`outside the scope of clai m 1 . The t hird e mbodi ment being
`
`refer red to the Pa tent Owner being the learning mode .
`
`So in one c ase th e Patent Owner sa ys, well, i f that
`
`doesn't require us er entr y, si mpl y e xclude it fro m the clai ms.
`
`You are cor rect, on page 12, the P atent Owner see ms to
`
`indicate that the l earning mode is p art of the user entr y.
`
`But then if you lo ok again at page 13 of the
`
`Response, about midwa y down be f ore the par agraph above
`
`Section B, it sa ys : Therefor e, this e mbodi ment is no t within
`
`the scope of clai m 1.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00631 and IPR2014-00632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,817,914
`
`
`So I don't think Patent Owner has q uite decided
`
`whether or not the self -le arning mode is or is not p art of the
`
`scope of clai m 1. What it see ms t o be a rguing is it would like
`
`a clai m construction where onl y user entr y is per mit ted for
`
`entr y of the thr eshold level and, to the extent that the
`
`self-learning mode is part of that , t hen it would be in the
`
`scope of clai m 1.
`
`To the extent this Board does n't find that wa y, that
`
`or an y other e mb odi ment in the specification would si mpl y be
`
`excluded fro m th e clai ms , which it self is a rather te nuous
`
`argu ment for clai m construction.
`
`JUDGE ARP IN: Counselor, just for clarit y, it is
`
`your position that all the e mbodi me nts should be covered b y
`
`the clai m. Is that corre ct?
`
`MR. OLI VER: That's corre ct, You r Honor.
`
`Actuall y turning specificall y to the definition of en tering a
`
`threshold level, starting at page 2 of our de monstrat ives, there
`
`were three constr uctions set forth, one b y Canon at t he outset
`
`of this Petition, which said that th e entr y of a thres hold level
`
`didn't need to be perfor med b y a us er. It could also be set at
`
`the manufacturin g stage.
`
`IV argued for its preli minar y Paten t Owner
`
`response, it has t o be li mited to a user entr y of the t hreshold
`
`level.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00631 and IPR2014-00632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,817,914
`
`
`As noted on page 2 of the de monstr atives on the
`
`far le ft, the Boa r d denied that construction , sa ying that the
`
`ter m “ente ring ” c arries its ordinar y and custo mar y meaning
`
`and is not li mited to acts of e ntr y p erfor med b y a use r.
`
`We would cert ainl y agr ee that beca use the
`
`specification describes nu me rous e mbodi ments that don't
`
`require user entr y, that li miting the clai ms to user en tr y would
`
`be i mp roper fo r a t least the reason that the specificat ion
`
`includ es e mbodiments wher e a user does not enter the
`
`threshold level.
`
`But it is even mo re co mplicated than that.
`
`Specificall y, during deposition , Dr . Bovik indicated that there
`
`are certain thresh old levels not only desc ribed in the
`
`specification, but actuall y clai med that could not possibly be
`
`entered b y a user.
`
`Again, looking at page 2 of the de monstratives, Dr .
`
`Bovik during cross -exa mination wa s asked about var ious
`
`trigger conditions, including at a fa ce detection.
`
`And as he stated here: "Face detec tion is used in
`
`the '914 patent. But there's no tea ching of a user pl acing a
`
`threshold on the face dete ction process. I believe th at in ter ms
`
`of fac e detection, a user would not be able to plac e a threshold
`
`upon face detecti on."
`
`So I V's ve r y own -- the Pat ent Owner's ve r y own
`
`declarant has indi cated that for ce rt ain things in the
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00631 and IPR2014-00632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,817,914
`
`specification user entr y is not possible, yet at the s a me ti me
`
`arguing for the cl ai m as being li mi ted to user entr y.
`
`And it actuall y ge ts worse . If you t urn to page 3
`
`of the de monstrat ives, even things recited in the clai ms the
`
`Patent Owner 's de clarant indicated could not be perf or med b y
`
`a user with r espect to user entr y.
`
`As shown on pag e 3 of the de mons tratives we have
`
`an exa mple fro m clai m 5, which de pends fro m independent
`
`clai m 1 through c lai ms 3 and 2 . There with respect to possible
`
`trigger conditions there is a group listed that includes an
`
`object, an ani mal and a person.
`
`The Patent Owne r 's declar ant was a sked about the
`
`ani mal , and the fi rst -- Dr. Bovik i ndicated: "I d on't believe
`
`that the writer of the '914 patent ha s explained an an i mal to be
`
`so mething that is an auto matic trig ger condition."
`
`He went on to sta te: "In fact , I do n't believe that a
`
`user would be able to enter a thres hold level on that."
`
`Thus, in ord e r to adopt the Patent Owne r's
`
`proposed clai m c onstruction of threshold levels only being
`
`entered b y users, that construction would be so nar row that it
`
`would exclude cl ai m 5 as ad mitted to b y Dr. Bovik, which
`
`obviously would be a nonsensical clai m constru ction,
`
`particularl y under the broadest r eas onable interpretation to be
`
`applied b y this B oard.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00631 and IPR2014-00632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,817,914
`
`
`A si milar problem happened with respect to clai m
`
`13, which is shown on page 4 of th e de monstratives. There the
`
`auto matic trigger condition claimed is a prefe rr ed su bject.
`
`Wh en asked abou t that, Dr . Bovik testified:
`
`"Prefe rred sub jec t, to me , would b e a fac e that is re cognized."
`
`And then he went on to sa y: "It would be too co mpl ex for a
`
`person to understand a - - a level of -- to be entered a s a
`
`threshold on that."
`
`So to adopt Paten t Owner's clai m c onstruction on
`
`threshold levels entr y being li mite d to a user , that would be so
`
`narrow that it would exclude dependent clai ms including 5 and
`
`13.
`
`And obviously un der a clai m construction standard
`
`not only would so mething that incl udes e mbodi ment s in the
`
`specification be i mproper , but it would be even furt her
`
`i mproper to introduce a clai m cons truction that actuall y
`
`excludes the depe ndent clai ms .
`
`For these reasons at le ast that clai m construction is
`
`i mproper .
`
`JUDGE C HEN: Counsel, I have a couple questions
`
`for you on the te r m autono mous which appears in the title of
`
`the patent, " Ca me ra Configurable f or Autono mous Operation."
`
`And you cite in your Repl y at page 2 that the '914 p atent
`
`describes a ca mer a auto matic all y e ntering an auto ma tic
`
`response mode an d citing to the De cision to Institute which, in
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00631 and IPR2014-00632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,817,914
`
`turn, re ferenced a spects of colu mn 12 -- I ' m so rr y, c olu mn 9
`
`and colu mn 10 .
`
`Do you think we need to construe t he ter m
`
`autonomous give n its usage in col u mns 9 or 10? And, for
`
`instance, looking at colu mn 9 in th e learning mode
`
`e mbodi ment, column 9, line 29, " af ter so me l earning ti me
`
`period, digital i mage capture device 10 is then read y for an
`
`autonomous oper ation step 220."
`
`Does that suggest that there is so me us er
`
`involvement even in that mode bef ore autono mous o peration
`
`occurs?
`
`MR. OLI VER: Well, the user does certainl y place
`
`the ca me ra -- wel l, there ar e t wo o ptions, one that the user c an
`
`place the c a mer a in an autono mous operation mode where it
`
`learns a thre shold level, but the use r in that case is still not
`
`actuall y entering the threshold level. It's ulti matel y learned
`
`b y the ca me ra.
`
`Further mo re, ther e is the option of actuall y just
`
`turning the ca mer a on and it auto maticall y going into the
`
`auto matic captu re mode.
`
`Our position is simpl y that under t he e mbodi ments
`
`described in the s pecification and under the fe atures recited in
`
`the clai ms, entr y does not have to be b y a use r and, therefore,
`
`with respect to the learning mode , a learning mode is not an
`
`entr y of the thr eshold level b y a us er. The user si mply sets up
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00631 and IPR2014-00632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,817,914
`
`the ca me ra so tha t the ca me ra can deter mine the thr eshold
`
`itself.
`
`Si mpl y, the thres hold level does not exist when the
`
`ca mera -- when th e user sets that mode. The ca me ra must
`
`learn that level be fore it can be us ed and, the refore , the user is
`
`not entering it in that situation.
`
`JUDGE C HEN: I s autono mous s yn onymous with
`
`auto matic?
`
`MR. OLI VER: I think autonomous and auto matic
`
`are the sa me , but we' re talking abo ut two diffe rent c lai m ter ms
`
`here. We have en tr y of a threshold level, which is not
`
`required to be auto matic or user en tered, but we sep aratel y
`
`have the clai m ter m auto maticall y o perating, which t alks about
`
`the actual i mage capture.
`
`So there is first b efore i mag e c apture an entr y of a
`
`threshold level, whether that entr y is perfor med b y the ca me ra
`
`itself or b y a user . After that, once the threshold level is set,
`
`the ca me ra works auto maticall y or autonomousl y to deter mine
`
`the precise ti min g of i mage captur e.
`
`And that actuall y brings me t o the s econd clai m
`
`ter m that would b e construed b y I V to make its argu ment , and
`
`that is the definition of auto matica lly operating. Th is is
`
`shown on page 1 of our de monstrat ives.
`
`Now, auto matical l y operating, unlike entering a
`
`threshold level, C anon did not provide a construction in the
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00631 and IPR2014-00632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,817,914
`
`Petition inas much as we understand that the plain and
`
`ordinar y - - or cus to mar y and ordinar y meaning would be used.
`
`Howeve r, in the p reli minar y Patent Owner response
`
`and, again, during -- after institution of the trial , Pa tent
`
`Owne r, I V, argue d that the auto ma ticall y operating, which,
`
`again, could be a utonomous operat ion, should be construed to
`
`me an "auto matica lly operating the i mage capture de vice" --
`
`and this is on page 1 of the de mons tratives -- "without
`
`requiri ng further direct operation o f the i mag e c apture device
`
`b y a user ," with t he italicized lang uage being the la nguage
`
`fro m the speci fic ation the Patent Owne r proposes t o read into
`
`the clai ms.
`
`Now, first and for e most under the b roadest
`
`reasonable interpreta tion, it is not appropriate to rea d in
`
`language fro m th e specification to the clai ms .
`
`Second of all , of note, it is interest ing that the
`
`language proposed to be r ead in fr o m the specificati on actuall y
`
`appears in the fie ld of the invention, not the discus sion of the
`
`su mmar y of the al leged invention, but the field in which the
`
`invention lies.
`
`Neither of those a re appropriate things to read in
`
`the clai m, specifi cation alone, let a lone the general f ield of the
`
`invention.
`
`Further mo re --
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00631 and IPR2014-00632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,817,914
`
`
`JUDGE ARP IN: Coun selor, even t hough we ma y
`
`not read the lang uage directl y into the clai ms , don't we have to
`
`consider the language of the clai ms in view of the
`
`specification?
`
`MR. OLI VER: C ertainl y. And I t hink you should
`
`consider both the specification and the prosecuti on history,
`
`exa mples of whic h are also provided on page 1 of our
`
`de monstratives.
`
`For instance, the prosecution histor y, what's shown
`
`in the middle sect ion of page 1 of t he de monstrative , is the
`
`basis that the applicant argued for patentability be fore
`
`allowance of the application, and specificall y argue d: "In
`
`contrast, a mende d clai m 1 provides a method for th e auto matic
`
`capture of i mages wher e the ti ming of i mage capture is
`
`deter mined auto maticall y b y the i mage capture device without
`
`the involve ment o f th e user ."
`
`In that context all that is r equired t o be auto matic
`
`is the precise triggering of i mage c apture, which is n ot done
`
`b y the user but b y the ca me ra whe n it detects that t he trigger
`
`condition is present.
`
`That is sepa rate f ro m sa ying the us er c an't directl y
`
`be involved with the operation of t he ca me ra at all . First, it is
`
`not even clear what direct oper ation would mean an d what the
`
`metes and bounds of that would be.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00631 and IPR2014-00632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,817,914
`
`
`Also, if you look at the quote f ro m the
`
`specification that I provided on pa ge 1 o f the de mon strative,
`
`the '914 patent ac counts for a user operating or mani pulating
`
`the ca me ra during the auto matic i mage capture mode .
`
`Specificall y the s pecification sa ys: " Digital i mage
`
`capture device 10 could be hand -he ld or attached to t he bod y
`
`or ot her method wherein the digital i mage capture device 10 is
`
`vaguely pointed in the direction where an i mage cap ture is
`
`desired."
`
`Thus, the '914 ac counts for the use r might be using
`
`the ca me ra, holding the ca me ra, ai ming the ca me ra, but when
`
`it co mes to the ac tual precise ti min g of the triggerin g of i mage
`
`capture, that is d one auto maticall y. And that is actu all y the
`
`true scope of the clai ms .
`
`Reading in without an y further dir ect operation of
`
`the i mage c apture device goes be yo nd that, particula rl y when
`
`it is onl y read in for the purpose of tr ying to distinguish prior
`
`art which clea rl y shows that the ti ming of i mage ca pture is
`
`done auto maticall y.
`
`JUDGE ARP IN: Counselor, turning to the clai ms
`
`for a mo ment and these issues of a uto matic oper ation and the
`
`threshold level.
`
`If we look at clai m 1, the fi rst step is selecting an
`
`auto matic i mage t rigger condition. And the second s tep is
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00631 and IPR2014-00632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,817,914
`
`entering a threshold level corresponding to the auto matic
`
`i mage trigger condition.
`
`Clai m 22 depends fro m clai m 1 and sa ys that
`
`"wherein sele cting the auto matic i mage trigger condition
`
`further co mprises selecting more than one auto matic i mage
`
`trigger condition, with corresponding thresholds."
`
`How do we r ead t he two steps of cl ai m 1, selecting
`
`and entering, and the single des cription of the selecti ng step in
`
`clai m 22 together , what is a corres ponding threshold level or a
`
`corresponding threshold as used in clai m 22?
`
`MR. OLI VER: Well, I think the an swer to that is
`
`both in clai ms 1 a nd clai ms 22. Th ere is going to be a
`
`select ion of a trigger condition. Fo r instance, it coul d be a
`
`s mile .
`
`Now, obviously t he ca me ra doesn't know to look
`
`for a s mile. It ha s to be defined in so me algorith mi c wa y or, if
`
`it is a change in s ound, it has to be defined in so me level of,
`
`for instance, deci bels. So the thr e sholds are the cor responding
`
`me asure ments or values b y which whether a s mile a ppears or
`
`whether a sound c hange appears a re measured .
`
`So if it is, for ins tance, a sound ch ange, that's the
`
`trigger condition. The associated t hreshold ma y be a change
`
`of five decibels . For instance, as d escribed in so me of the
`
`prior art refe renc es, when the trigger condition is a s mile , the
`
`actual threshold level ma y be the width of the use r' s -- the
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00631 and IPR2014-00632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,817,914
`
`width of the t arge t's mouth. As a person s miles the ir mouth
`
`gets wider .
`
`Now, with respec t to using multiple trigger
`
`conditions, I beli eve all that mean s is that when mu ltiple
`
`conditions are ch osen, for instance, I ' m not looking for just a
`
`s mile , but a s mile plus a non -blinking status, there h as to be a
`
`corresponding threshold for each .
`
`That doesn't nec e ssaril y r equire th at a use r enters
`
`those threshold levels of what it means to be a s mile or what it
`
`me ans to be not blinking. In fa ct, as Dr. Bovik testified, those
`
`would have to be deter mined in the fac tor y o r in the laborator y
`
`and then provided as cor responding.
`
`So for that reason I think - - sorr y, go ahead. I
`
`think you we re go ing to ask so meth ing else, Your Ho nor?
`
`JUDGE ARP IN: I was just going to ask, with
`
`respect to colu mn 12 of the '914 pa tent, lines 23 thro ugh 30,
`
`here we are discussing the auto mat ic response mode, and we'r e
`
`talking about a corresponding threshold.
`
`Is the cor responding threshold, wit h respect to the
`
`auto matic response mode in colu mn 12, the corresponding
`
`threshold referred to in clai m 22?
`
`MR. OLI VER: And I' m sor r y, You r Honor, which
`
`specific lines aga in wer e the y?
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00631 and IPR2014-00632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,817,914
`
`
`JUDGE ARP IN: The lines are column 12 of the
`
`'914 patent, lines 23 to 30, and , in particular , in line 30 whe re
`
`it sa ys " and a cor responding threshold has been sat isfied."
`
`MR. OLI VER: And the question is what is that
`
`corresponding threshold?
`
`JUDGE ARP IN: M y question is do es that
`
`corresponding threshold correspond to the language of clai m
`
`22, or is it the en tered corr esponding threshold, or t he
`
`corresponding thr eshold described in the entering st ep of clai m
`
`1, and is the re a d ifference?
`
`MR. OLI VER: I don't think there's a diff erence . I
`
`think certainl y th at clai m 22 was p erhaps awk wardl y drafted .
`
`But I think in both cases cor responding thresholds refer to the
`
`threshold levels for the associated triggers. And I b elieve
`
`what clai m 22 is t r ying to a chieve i s that instead of u sing a
`
`single trigger wit h a single corr esponding threshold, you have
`
`multiple triggers with multiple cor responding.
`
`But my understanding , although the language of
`
`clai m 22 could be clear er, that we are si mpl y r eciting -- or
`
`what is being reci ted there is si mpl y that there is an entr y of
`
`multiple threshold levels, still not necessaril y b y a u ser, but
`
`you would have t o have corr esponding thr esholds for the
`
`different trigger c onditions, if I understand the question
`
`correctl y.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2014-00631 and IPR2014-00632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,817,914
`
`
`JUDGE ARP IN: So you read clai m 22 as
`
`enco mpassing the entering step eve n though it doesn't
`
`specificall y sa y e ntering?
`
`MR. OLI VER: Well, I think it is a wkwa rdl y
`
`writ ten because it sa ys selecting tri gger conditions with
`
`corresponding thresholds. I think, in the wa y these c a meras
`
`actuall y oper ate, you select a t rigger condition , and there is a
`
`corresponding threshold that is entered.
`
`The cl ai m 1 is cer tainly more pre ci se, that the re is
`
`a selection and an entr y. Cl ai m 22 certainl y melds t hat
`
`language and mak es it see m like it is part of the sa me first
`
`step, but I think that is just awk wa rd drafting and th at the
`
`threshold levels of clai m 22 would be entered in the sa me wa y
`
`as clai m
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
