Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 84
`Entered: July 31, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOPRO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CONTOUR IP HOLDING LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01078
`Patent 8,896,694 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION ON REMAND
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 84
`Entered: July 31, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOPRO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CONTOUR IP HOLDING LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01078
`Patent 8,896,694 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION ON REMAND
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01078
`Patent 8,896,694 B2
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`We address this case on remand after a decision by the United States
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP
`Holding LLC, 908 F.3d 690 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`Petitioner, GoPro, Inc., filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) seeking inter
`partes review of claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,896,694 B2 (Ex. 1002,
`“the ’694 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. On October 28, 2015,
`we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–20 on two grounds of
`unpatentability (Paper 8, “Dec. on Inst.”). Patent Owner, Contour IP
`Holding LLC, filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 30, “PO Resp.”), and
`Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 38, “Reply”). Petitioner filed a Motion to
`Exclude (Paper 42, “Pet. Mot.”) certain evidence submitted by Patent
`Owner. Patent Owner filed an Opposition (Paper 47, “PO Mot. Opp.”) and
`Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 50, “Pet. Mot. Reply”). Patent Owner filed a
`Motion to Exclude (Paper 44, “PO Mot.”) certain evidence submitted by
`Petitioner. Petitioner filed an Opposition (Paper 48) and Patent Owner filed
`a Reply (Paper 49). A combined oral hearing with Case IPR2015-010801
`was held on June 22, 2016, and a transcript of the hearing is included in the
`record (Paper 53, “Tr.”).
`The panel issued a Final Written Decision on October 26, 2016,
`concluding that Petitioner had not established that a reference applied in
`each of the asserted grounds of unpatentability, the GoPro Catalog
`(Ex. 1011), is a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
`
`
`1 The ’694 patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 8,890,954 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’954 patent”), which is being challenged in
`Case IPR2015-01080.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01078
`Patent 8,896,694 B2
`
`and thus had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the
`challenged claims are unpatentable. See Paper 54, 30–31 (“Final Dec.”).
`The Federal Circuit subsequently vacated the decision and remanded to the
`Board. GoPro, 908 F.3d at 696; see Paper 68 (mandate issued on January
`17, 2019). The Federal Circuit held that “[Petitioner] met its burden to show
`that its catalog is a printed publication under § 102(b),” and stated: “Because
`the Board refused to accept the GoPro Catalog as a printed publication, it did
`not consider the merits of [Petitioner’s] obviousness claims. On remand, the
`Board shall consider the GoPro Catalog as prior art and evaluate the merits
`of [Petitioner’s] unpatentability claims.” GoPro, 908 F.3d at 695–96
`(citations omitted).
`Also, while the instant proceeding was on appeal, the district court in
`the related litigation between the parties, Contour IP Holding, LLC v.
`GoPro, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-04738-WHO (N.D. Cal.), rendered a decision
`on claim construction of the ’694 patent. Ex. 2016. Following the remand,
`Patent Owner requested authorization for the parties each to file a
`supplemental paper of no more than 350 words directed to claim
`interpretation and the district court decision, which we granted. See
`Papers 72, 74 (“PO Supp. Br.”), 75 (“Pet. Supp. Br.”). Patent Owner also
`filed a motion for additional discovery, which we denied. See Papers 76, 83.
`We have reconsidered the record developed during trial anew, as well
`as the parties’ supplemental briefing on claim interpretation (Papers 74, 75)
`and the district court decision (Ex. 2016), and evaluated the merits of
`Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability, considering the GoPro
`Catalog to be prior art. For the reasons that follow, we determine that
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01078
`Patent 8,896,694 B2
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
`claims 1–20 of the ’694 patent are unpatentable.
`
`
`A. The ’694 Patent
`The ’694 patent describes an “integrated hands-free, [point-of-view
`(POV)] action sports video camera or camcorder that is configured for
`remote image acquisition control and viewing.” Ex. 1002, col. 1, ll. 16–19.
`According to the ’694 patent, “integrated hands-free, POV action sports
`video cameras” available at the time of the invention were “still in their
`infancy and may be difficult to use.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 46–51, Figs. 2A, 2B.
`The disclosed device uses global positioning system (GPS) technology to
`track its location during recording and a wireless connection protocol, such
`as Bluetooth, to “provide control signals or stream data to [the] wearable
`video camera and to access image content stored on or streaming from [the]
`wearable video camera.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 55–64, col. 16, ll. 52–62.
`Figure 3A of the ’694 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`As shown in Figure 3A, digital video camera 10 comprises camera
`housing 22, rotatable lens 26, image sensor 18 (not shown), such as a
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01078
`Patent 8,896,694 B2
`
`complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) image capture card,
`microphone 90, and slidable switch activator 80, which can be moved to on
`and off positions to control recording and the storage of video. Id. at col. 5,
`ll. 41–64, col. 8, l. 66–col. 9, l. 52. “When recording video or taking
`photographs in a sports application, digital video camera 10 is often
`mounted in a location that does not permit the user to easily see the camera.”
`Id. at col. 19, ll. 37–39. Digital video camera 10, therefore, includes
`wireless communication capability to allow another device, such as a
`smartphone or tablet computer executing application software, to control
`camera settings in real time, access video stored on the camera, and act as a
`“viewfinder” to “preview what digital video camera 10 sees” and allow the
`user to check alignment, light level, etc. Id. at col. 19, l. 40–col. 20, l. 49.
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1 of the ’694 patent recites:
`1. A point of view digital video camera system,
`comprising:
`an integrated hands-free portable viewfinderless video
`camera, the video camera including a lens and an image sensor,
`the image sensor capturing light propagating through the lens
`and representing a scene to be recorded, and the image sensor
`producing real time video image data of the scene without
`displaying the scene to a user of the video camera, wherein the
`real time video image data of the scene relates to an activity in
`which the user of the video camera is about to engage, the video
`camera comprising:
`a camera processor for receiving the video image data
`directly or indirectly from the image sensor, and
`a wireless connection protocol device operatively
`connected to the camera processor to send real time video
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01078
`Patent 8,896,694 B2
`
`
`image content by wireless transmission directly to and receive
`control signals or data signals by wireless transmission directly
`from a wireless connection-enabled controller, wherein
`the camera processor is configured to:
`generate the video image content simultaneously at
`a first resolution and at a second resolution, the video
`image content at the first resolution and the second
`resolution corresponding
`to
`the video
`image data
`representing the scene to be recorded, wherein the first
`resolution is lower than the second resolution,
`stream the real time video image content at the
`first resolution using the wireless connection protocol
`device to the wireless connection-enabled controller
`without displaying the video image content at the video
`camera,
`receive the control signals for adjusting image
`capture settings of the video camera,
`adjust the image capture settings of the video
`camera prior to recording the scene, and
`in response to a record command, cause the video
`image content at the second resolution to be stored at the
`video camera;
`a mounting interface coupled to the video camera;
`a mount configured to be mounted to the body, a
`garment, or a vehicle of the user of the video camera, the mount
`configured to receive the mounting interface for rotatably
`mounting the camera on the body, the garment, or the vehicle of
`the user of the video camera, the mounting interface and the
`mount further configured for manual adjustment of the video
`camera with respect to the user of the video camera; and
`the wireless connection-enabled controller for controlling
`the video camera,
`the controller comprising executable
`instructions for execution on a personal portable computing
`device operable by a user of the personal portable computing
`device, wherein when executed, the executable instructions
`cause the personal portable computing device to:
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01078
`Patent 8,896,694 B2
`
`
`receive video image content at the first resolution
`directly from the video camera,
`display the video image content at the first
`resolution on a display of the portable computing device
`for adjustment of the image capture settings prior to the
`user of the video camera recording the activity, the video
`image content at the first resolution comprising a preview
`image of the scene which is not recorded on the camera
`or the personal portable computing device, the preview
`image allowing the user of the video camera to manually
`adjust an angle of the video camera with respect to the
`user of the video camera, and
`the wireless
`to
`generate
`the control signals
`connection protocol device on the video camera to allow
`the user of the personal portable computing device to
`remotely adjust the image capture settings prior to the
`video camera recording the activity, wherein the control
`signals comprise at least one of frame alignment,
`multi-camera synchronization, remote file access, data
`acquisition, and resolution setting adjustment and at least
`one of
`lighting setting adjustment, audio setting
`adjustment, and color setting adjustment.
`
`C. Prior Art
`The pending grounds of unpatentability in the instant inter partes
`review are based on the following prior art:
`U.S. Patent No. 7,362,352 B2, issued Apr. 22, 2008
`(Ex. 1013, “Ueyama”);
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0118158
`A1, published May 13, 2010 (Ex. 1010, “Boland”); and
`GoPro Sales Catalog (Ex. 1011, “GoPro Catalog”).2
`
`
`2 When citing the GoPro Catalog, we refer to the page numbers at the
`bottom-right corner of each page. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(2).
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01078
`Patent 8,896,694 B2
`
`
`D. Pending Grounds of Unpatentability
`The instant inter partes review involves the following grounds of
`unpatentability:
`References
`Boland and GoPro
`Catalog
`Boland, GoPro Catalog,
`and Ueyama
`
`Claims
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)3 1–13, 15, 16, and
`18–20
`14 and 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Motions to Exclude
`In the original Final Written Decision in this proceeding, the panel
`denied the parties’ motions to exclude as to certain exhibits and dismissed
`the motions as to other exhibits as moot because Petitioner had not shown
`the GoPro Catalog to be a prior art printed publication. Given the Federal
`Circuit’s reversal of that determination, we revisit certain aspects of the
`motions to exclude. The party moving to exclude evidence bears the burden
`of proof to establish that it is entitled to the relief requested—namely, that
`the material sought to be excluded is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of
`Evidence. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.62(a).
`
`
`
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the
`challenged claims of the ’694 patent have an effective filing date before the
`effective date of the applicable AIA amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA
`versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01078
`Patent 8,896,694 B2
`
`
`1. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`a. Exhibits 2001, 2002, and 2005–2011
`Petitioner moves to exclude printouts of two web pages
`(Exhibits 2001 and 2002). Pet. Mot. 2–4. The exhibits pertain to whether
`the GoPro Catalog is a prior art printed publication. We consider the GoPro
`Catalog to be prior art, see GoPro, 908 F.3d at 695–96, and maintain the
`panel’s original determination denying Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude as to
`Exhibits 2001 and 2002, see Final Dec. 7–9.
`Petitioner also moves to exclude certain materials (Exhibits
`2005–2011) pertaining to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness. Pet. Mot. 2–12. As explained below,
`we need not reach these arguments because Petitioner has not proven that
`the relied upon references teach all limitations of the challenged claims.
`See infra Sections II.E, II.F. Therefore, we maintain the panel’s original
`determination dismissing Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude as to
`Exhibits 2005–2011 as moot. See Final Dec. 9.
`
`
`b. Exhibits 1036 and 2004
`Petitioner also moves to exclude the testimony of Patent Owner’s
`declarant, Brent E. Nelson, Ph.D. (Exhibits 1036 and 2004), regarding
`whether the asserted references render obvious the challenged claims, under
`Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Pet. Mot. 12–15. Federal Rule of
`Evidence 702 provides:
`A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge,
`skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form
`of an opinion or otherwise if:
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01078
`Patent 8,896,694 B2
`
`
`(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized
`knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence
`or to determine a fact in issue;
`(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
`(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and
`methods; and
`(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and
`methods to the facts of the case.
`Petitioner argues that Dr. Nelson is not qualified to offer expert testimony in
`this proceeding and is not a person of ordinary skill in the art because “he
`has no experience programming or writing code for video compression or
`decompression algorithms for digital cameras” and “has never built an
`image video communication system that communicates video content
`between a point-of-view camera and a handheld mobile device, which is the
`subject of the claimed invention in this case.” Pet. Mot. 13 (citing Ex. 1036,
`62:2–21); Pet. Mot. Reply 5. Rather, “the bulk of his experience is with
`[computer-aided design (CAD)] and other arts, not digital video cameras.”
`Pet. Mot. 14. Petitioner also points to various portions of Dr. Nelson’s
`cross-examination in which he allegedly read from his declaration, exhibited
`“discomfort with the subject matter of the claimed invention,” and “relied on
`apparent coaching from his counsel.” Id. at 14–15 (citing Ex. 1036,
`41:9–43:12, 73:2–80:6).
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner waived its objection to
`Exhibits 1036 and 2004 by failing to object timely. PO Mot. Opp. 12–13.
`We agree with Patent Owner. A party challenging the admissibility of
`evidence “must object timely to the evidence.” Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012). “Once a trial has been
`instituted, any objection must be filed within five business days of service of
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01078
`Patent 8,896,694 B2
`
`evidence to which the objection is directed. The objection must identify the
`grounds for the objection with sufficient particularity to allow correction in
`the form of supplemental evidence.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). Doing so
`allows the party that originally submitted the evidence to attempt to cure the
`objection by serving supplemental evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2). If the
`submitting party does not serve supplemental evidence, or if the
`supplemental evidence does not cure the objection, “[a] motion to exclude
`evidence must be filed to preserve [the] objection. The motion must identify
`the objections in the record in order and must explain the objections.”
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c).
`Patent Owner filed Dr. Nelson’s declaration as Exhibit 2004 on
`January 19, 2016. Petitioner cross-examined Dr. Nelson on March 3, 2016,
`and filed a copy of the transcript as Exhibit 1036 on April 4, 2016.
`Petitioner does not identify anywhere in the record where it objected to
`either exhibit. Instead, Petitioner argues that “[b]ecause the grounds for
`Petitioner’s objections to Dr. Nelson’s testimony were not evident until his
`deposition, an earlier objection was not available prior to [Petitioner’s
`Motion to Exclude].” Pet. Mot. 1. Petitioner, however, had access to
`Dr. Nelson’s declaration, which included a summary of his technical
`background and curriculum vitae, well in advance of his deposition. See id.
`at 14 (arguing that none of Dr. Nelson’s listed publications “expressly
`concern digital video cameras”); Ex. 2004, 54–63, ¶¶ 3–8. Moreover, even
`if Petitioner were correct that Dr. Nelson’s background was not fully evident
`until his deposition, Petitioner does not contend that it objected to
`Dr. Nelson’s testimony at any point prior to filing its Motion to Exclude
`(thus depriving Patent Owner of its ability to cure an objection with
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01078
`Patent 8,896,694 B2
`
`supplemental evidence). Petitioner waived any objection to Exhibits 1036
`and 2004 by failing to object timely to the evidence under the Board’s rules.
`Regardless, though, we have reviewed Dr. Nelson’s testimony,
`including the portions of his cross-examination identified by Petitioner, and
`are not persuaded that it would warrant the remedy of exclusion. We
`disagree with Petitioner’s contention that a declarant must actually be a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in order to present testimony as to what a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the time of the
`invention. See Pet. Mot. 12–13; SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co.,
`594 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (stating there is no requirement of a
`perfect match between an expert’s experience and the field of the art in
`question, provided the expert has “sufficient relevant technical expertise” to
`testify). The Federal Circuit has explained that a person of ordinary skill in
`the art is a “hypothetical person postulated by § 103” that is “presumed to
`have . . . knowledge of all material prior art.” Kimberly-Clark Corp. v.
`Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1452–53 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (emphasis
`omitted); see also id. at 1454 (“It should be clear that that hypothetical
`person [of ordinary skill in the art] is not the inventor, but an imaginary
`being possessing ‘ordinary skill in the art’ created by Congress to provide a
`standard of patentability . . . .” (emphasis omitted)). Thus, the proper
`question to ask is not whether the testifying witness is in fact such a
`“hypothetical person,” but rather whether the testifying witness possesses
`sufficient qualifications to be able to testify as to what the hypothetical
`person of ordinary skill in the art postulated by § 103 would have known and
`understood at the time of the invention.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01078
`Patent 8,896,694 B2
`
`
`We determine that Dr. Nelson possesses sufficient education, training,
`and experience to provide testimony as to what a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have understood at the time of the invention. As explained
`below, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’694 patent
`would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical
`engineering, or a similar discipline, and some experience creating,
`programming, or working with digital video cameras, such as POV action
`sports video cameras. See infra Section II.D. Dr. Nelson has B.S., M.S.,
`and Ph.D. degrees in computer science, teaches courses at Brigham Young
`University “at both the undergraduate and graduate levels in the areas of
`circuit design, hardware/software systems, software development, and
`design verification,” including system design for image and video
`processing applications, has published numerous publications on such
`topics, and has supervised student research on interfaces to digital video
`cameras and processing the output of such cameras. See Ex. 2004, 54–63,
`¶¶ 5–6; Ex. 1036, 64:6–23, 113:17–115:20. We determine that Dr. Nelson
`has the requisite education and experience, including “some experience . . .
`programming . . . or working with digital video cameras,” to testify as to the
`understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art during the relevant
`timeframe. See PO Mot. Opp. 14; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 6 (“In my professional work
`and in my personal experiences, I have worked with digital video
`cameras.”), 11–12.
`Therefore, at minimum, there exists “an adequate relationship
`between [Dr. Nelson’s] experience and the claimed invention” of the
`’694 patent. See SEB S.A., 594 F.3d at 1372–73 (upholding admission of the
`testimony of an expert who had “sufficient relevant technical expertise,”
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01078
`Patent 8,896,694 B2
`
`despite lacking expertise in the design of the patented invention); Mytee
`Prods., Inc. v. Harris Research, Inc., 439 F. App’x 882, 886–87 (Fed. Cir.
`2011) (upholding admission of the testimony of an expert who “had
`experience relevant to the field of the invention,” despite concession that he
`was not a person of ordinary skill in the art). We are able to determine what
`weight to give Dr. Nelson’s testimony and see no basis for excluding it
`under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is
`denied as to Exhibits 1036 and 2004.
`
`
`2. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`Patent Owner moves to exclude the GoPro Catalog (Exhibit 1011).
`PO Mot. 3–8. We maintain the panel’s original determination denying
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as to Exhibit 1011. See Final Dec.
`10–13.
`Patent Owner also moves to exclude a declaration from Damon Jones,
`an employee of Petitioner (Exhibit 1022), and a 2009 email to Mr. Jones
`(Exhibit 1023). PO Mot. 8–11. The exhibits pertain to whether the GoPro
`Catalog is a prior art printed publication. We consider the GoPro Catalog to
`be prior art, see GoPro, 908 F.3d at 695–96, and maintain the panel’s
`original determination denying Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude as to Exhibits
`1022 and 1023, see Final Dec. 13–15.
`Patent Owner moves to exclude the cross-examination testimony
`(Exhibit 1037) of its declarant, Richard Mander, Ph.D., regarding secondary
`considerations of non-obviousness. PO Mot. 11–15. We need not reach the
`issue of secondary considerations of non-obviousness, see infra Sections
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01078
`Patent 8,896,694 B2
`
`II.E, II.F, and maintain the panel’s original determination dismissing Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude as to Exhibit 1037 as moot, see Final Dec. 15.
`
`
`B. Claim Interpretation
`According to the rules applicable to this proceeding, we interpret
`claims in an unexpired patent using the “broadest reasonable construction in
`light of the specification of the patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b) (2014).4 Under this standard, we interpret claim terms using
`“the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as
`they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
`account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may
`be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s
`specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Under
`a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their
`plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification
`and prosecution history.” TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062
`(Fed. Cir. 2016).
`In the Decision on Institution, based on the record at the time, the
`panel preliminarily interpreted “scene to be recorded” in claims 1 and 11 to
`mean “a scene viewed by the camera prior to recording” and “record” in
`claims 1, 3, and 11 to mean “store.” Dec. on Inst. 7–9. Patent Owner agrees
`
`4 The Petition in this proceeding was filed on April 20, 2015, prior to the
`effective date of the rule change that replaces the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard with the federal court claim interpretation standard.
`See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in
`Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg.
`51,340, 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective
`November 13, 2018).
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01078
`Patent 8,896,694 B2
`
`with these interpretations in its Response and argues that no other claim
`terms require interpretation. PO Resp. 17–18. Petitioner does not dispute
`the interpretations in its Reply. We do not perceive any reason or evidence
`that compels any deviation from the preliminary interpretations of “scene to
`be recorded” and “record,” and adopt the previous analysis for purposes of
`this Decision.
`While the instant proceeding was on appeal, the district court
`construed a number of terms of the ’694 patent claims. Ex. 2016. The
`district court construed “scene to be recorded” as a “scene viewed by the
`camera prior to recording.” Id. at 14–16, 22. The district court also
`construed the following phrases:
`Phrase
`“generate the video image
`content simultaneously at a first
`resolution and at a second
`resolution, the video image
`content at the first resolution
`and the second resolution
`corresponding to the video
`image data representing the
`scene to be recorded, wherein
`the first resolution is lower than
`the second resolution” (claim 1)
`
`Construction
`record in parallel the video
`image content simultaneously at
`a first resolution and at a second
`resolution, the video image
`content at the first resolution
`and the second resolution
`corresponding to the video
`image data representing the
`scene to be recorded, wherein
`the first resolution is lower than
`the second resolution
`
`“generate first video image
`content and second video image
`content corresponding to the
`video image data representing
`the scene, wherein the second
`video image content is a higher
`quality than the first video
`image content” (claim 3)
`
`record in parallel first video
`image content and second video
`image content corresponding to
`the video image data
`representing the scene, wherein
`the second video image content
`is a higher quality than the first
`video image content
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01078
`Patent 8,896,694 B2
`
`
`Phrase
`“generating video image content
`corresponding to the scene to be
`recorded at a first quality and at
`a second quality, wherein the
`first quality is lower than the
`second quality” (claim 11)
`
`Construction
`recording video image content
`corresponding to the scene to be
`recorded at a first quality and at
`a second quality, in parallel,
`wherein the first quality is lower
`than the second quality
`
`Id. at 9–13, 21–22 (emphases added). Neither party proposed interpretations
`for these phrases in their papers filed prior to the appeal in this proceeding.
`Both parties, however, made extensive arguments at the oral hearing
`regarding whether the claims require such generation “in parallel.” See, e.g.,
`Tr. 15:4–10, 23:4–24:19, 26:23–28:2, 77:1–81:17.
`Patent Owner, in its supplemental paper following the remand,
`contends that Petitioner was inconsistent in arguing during the oral hearing
`in this proceeding that generation “in parallel” is not required, then later
`advocating in favor of the “in parallel” language above to the district court.
`PO Supp. Br. 2–3; see Tr. 15:4–10 (Petitioner arguing that “[t]here is
`nothing [in the claims] that says it has to be . . . parallel”), 23:20–22,
`24:17–19, 27:24–28:2; Ex. 2016, 12 (district court decision noting that
`Petitioner proposed construing the claims to require generation “at the same
`time or in parallel” based in part on Patent Owner’s statements during the
`oral hearing in this proceeding). Patent Owner’s position on remand is that
`“[w]ith the exception of claim 1, which requires ‘simultaneously,’ the claims
`require generation ‘in parallel from the same source.’” PO Supp. Br. 2.
`Petitioner argues that there is no inconsistency because Petitioner
`argued in its Petition that the cited prior art (Boland) teaches generating
`“multiple, parallel video streams.” Pet. Supp. Br. 1–2 (quoting Pet. 35–36).
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01078
`Patent 8,896,694 B2
`
`Petitioner further argues that the district court’s constructions do not
`undermine Petitioner’s arguments in this proceeding because “[w]hile the
`district court construed the claims to require generation of two video streams
`in parallel, . . . no requirement for the high resolution and low resolution
`video streams to be generated solely or directly from the image sensor using
`parallel processors was added.” Id. (citing Ex. 2016, 9–11).
`We have reviewed the district court decision and the parties’
`corresponding briefing and conclude that no express interpretation of the
`three limitations above, or any other term, is necessary to determine whether
`Petitioner has met its burden to prove unpatentability of the challenged
`claims by a preponderance of the evidence, as explained further below.
`See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d
`1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are
`in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’
`we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is
`not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citations omitted)).
`We note the following, however. Claims 1, 3, and 11 specify to what
`the generated video image content “correspond[s].” Claim 1 recites
`generating video image content at a first resolution and at a second
`resolution “corresponding to the video image data representing the scene to
`be recorded.” Claim 3 recites generating first video image content and
`second video image content “corresponding to the video image data
`representing the scene.” Claim 11 recites generating video image content at
`a first quality and at a second quality “corresponding to the scene to be
`recorded.” By contrast, claims 1, 11, and 27 of the ’954 patent at issue in
`Case IPR2015-01080 recite “from” what source the video image content or
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01078
`Patent 8,896,694 B2
`
`image data streams are generated. For example, claim 1 of the ’954 patent
`recites “generat[ing], from the video image data, first video image content at
`a first resolution and second video image content at a second resolution,
`wherein the first resolution is lower than the second resolution” (emphasis
`added). In a concurrently entered Decision on Remand, we interpret “from
`the video image data” recited in claims 1, 11, and 27 of the ’954 patent to
`require generation in parallel from the same source, i.e., “the video image
`data.” Although the parties appear to now agree (at least as to claims 3 and
`11 of the ’694 patent) that generation of video image content must be “in
`parallel,” we see no basis on the record presented to read in a source-related
`limitation to these claims. Again, the claims of the ’954 patent recite “from”
`what source the video image content or image data streams are generated,
`whereas the claims of the ’694 patent only recite to what the generated video
`image content “correspond[s].”
`
`
`C. Principles of Law
`To prevail in challenging claims 1–20 of the ’694 patent, Petitioner
`must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are
`unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d).
`A claim is unpatentable for obviousness if, to one of ordinary skill in
`the pertinent art, “the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
`have been obvious at the time the invention was made.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.
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
