`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR 2018-01277
`Case IPR 2018-01278
`Patent 8,497,928 B21
`____________
`
`RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
`Held: October 9, 2019
`____________
`
`
`Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
` AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01277 & IPR 2018-01278
`Patent 8,497,928 B21
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
`W. KARL RENNER, Esquire
`Fish & Richardson, P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue, S.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`KENNETH DARBY, Esquire
`Fish & Richardson, P.C.
`One Congress Plaza
`1 Congress Avenue, Suite 810
`Austin, TX 78701
`THOMAS A. ROZYLOWICZ, Esquire
`The McPherson Building
`901 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`BRIAN W. OAKS, Esquire
`MEGAN V. LADRIERE, Esquire
`Baker Botts, LLP
`1500 San Jacinto, Boulevard, Suite 1500
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing Wednesday, October 9,
`
`2019, commencing at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany
`Street, Alexandria,
`Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01277 & IPR 2018-01278
`Patent 8,497,928 B21
`
`
`P R O C E D I N G S
`JUDGE MOORE: Please, be seated. Good afternoon. Welcome to
`
`the Board. We will hear argument now in cases IPR 2018-1277 and IPR
`2018-1278. The Petitioner is Apple, Inc. The Patent Owner is Qualcomm,
`Inc. The patent at issue here is U.S. 8,497,928. I’m Judge Moore. On my
`left is Judge Wormmeester. Excuse me. On the video, we have Judge
`Fishman.
`
`Will counsel for the parties please introduce yourselves starting with
`Petitioner?
`
`MR. DARBY: Petitioner Apple, Your Honor. Kenneth Darby along
`with Karl Renner and Thomas Rozylowicz.
`
`MR. OAKS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. My name is Brian Oaks
`from Baker Botts for Patent Owner, Qualcomm. And also with me is Megan
`LaDriere also from Baker Botts, and we also have a number of
`representatives from Qualcomm who are here for several IPR hearings
`involving Qualcomm.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Thank you. Pursuant to our hearing order, each
`side has 90 minutes of argument time.
`
`Petitioner, are you ready to begin?
`
`MR. DARBY: Your Honor, may we approach to distribute
`paperwork --
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Sure.
`
`MR. DARBY: -- and the demonstratives? Thank you.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Like to reserve any time for rebuttal?
`
`MR. DARBY: Yes, Your Honor. We’ll be taking 45 minutes for the
`direct and reserving 45 minutes for the rebuttal. Good afternoon, Your
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01277 & IPR 2018-01278
`Patent 8,497,928 B21
`
`Honors, and may it please the Board. My name is -- again, is Kenneth
`Darby for Petitioner, Apple. We’re very excited to speak with you today
`about the ‘928 Patent and the two proceedings that Your Honors have
`listened to against the challenged claims, a ‘1277 proceeding based on the
`primary reference Hyodo and the ‘1278 proceeding based on the primary
`reference, Konicek.
`
`Can I have Slide 4, please?
`
`I’d like to start by saying just a few words about the ‘928 Patent. As
`noted here in the first bullet point, it is generally directed to techniques to
`automatically focus a digital camera. In the background section of the ‘928
`Patent, it describes the problem that the inventor set out to solve. They were
`looking to solve the convoluted user interactions required to focus a camera.
`Specifically mentioned is the half button press problem where the user
`would take their device, they would frame a scene, press the shutter button
`down halfway and initiate and lock focus. And once the focus was locked,
`they would move the camera to adjust the scene as they see fit without
`disturbing the focusing.
`
`Now, the ‘928 articulates a solution to this problem, but that solution
`was several years too late. The Hyodo reference, for example, at issue in the
`‘1277 proceeding a full eight years before the ‘928 Patent was filed
`disclosed a very similar solution as the ‘928, touch-based focal point
`selection. Focal point selection on a touch screen. And in the ‘1277
`proceeding, the Suh reference similarly described a year earlier in 1998,
`touch-based focal point selection.
`
`Indeed, Your Honors, by the time the ‘928 Patent was filed in 2007,
`commercial products already included the touch-based focal point selection.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01277 & IPR 2018-01278
`Patent 8,497,928 B21
`
`It had emerged from the patent literature into commercial products. For
`example, Qualcomm’s Exhibit 2019 page 34 describes the Sony Cyber-shot
`camera with touch-based focal point selection.
`
`The ‘928 Patent has 16 claims, four of which are independent and two
`of those independent claims are challenged in Apple’s petitions; Independent
`Claim 7 and Independent Claim 10 along with dependent Claims 8, 11, and
`13.
`Slide 5, please?
`
`So here is Independent Claim 7. It’s a representative claim for
`
`purposes of our discussion here today and it recites a method for operating a
`mobile device. The method has five steps listed here. Three of those which
`we’ve highlighted here on the demonstrative exhibit, Slide 5, are the issues
`that have been disputed by the parties, the elements in dispute.
`
`The first of those is Element 7B in the petition. It’s selecting a second
`focal point for the image in response to receiving a first type of user input.
`The second is Element 7C, focusing the lens component while the image is
`being displayed, and the third is Element 7E, capturing the image in
`response to a second type of user input.
`
`Slide 7, please?
`
`This is a quick snapshot of the instituted grounds. We’ll be speaking
`to the first and lead ground in each of the two petitions, the Hyodo ground in
`the ‘1277 proceedings and the Konicek ground of the ‘1278 proceeding.
`
`Slide 11, please?
`
`So with that introduction, I’ll dive into the substantive issues of the
`case starting with the focal point selection feature, Element 7B. This is a
`summary of the parties’ respective interpretations of the claim term.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01277 & IPR 2018-01278
`Patent 8,497,928 B21
`
`Apple’s petitions opened the proceedings with the plain meaning
`interpretation of the term “focal point” and all claims terms in the ‘928
`Patent.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: So are we construing “focal point” or “selecting a
`second focal point for the image”?
`
`MR. DARBY: I believe the term at issue is “focal point,” but the
`phrase, I’m not sure that it’s -- there’s a change in --
`
`JUDGE MOORE: So we’re just --
`
`MR. DARBY: -- (indiscernible) difference.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: We’re just construing “focal point”?
`
`MR. DARBY: Sure, yes. I think so, Your Honor, for today’s
`discussion and as far as I understand the parties’ respective positions.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: And that’s “focal point” everywhere it appears in
`the claim? For example, where it appears in the displaying limitation?
`
`MR. DARBY: Yes, Your Honor. The term “focal point” should have
`the same meaning throughout the claim. So Qualcomm offered the
`construction listed here, “An intended center of interest of a photograph that
`is not a predetermined area.” Apple then, in reply, offered a construction
`that reads, “A portion of the image that relates to the process of focusing.”
`To be clear, Your Honors, despite the alternative construction offered in
`reply, the correction approach and Apple’s primary interpretation is the plain
`meaning of the metes and bounds of term “focal point” don’t need to be
`defined in order to perform the prior art and that was just --
`
`JUDGE MOORE: What is the plain meaning of “focal point”?
`
`MR. DARBY: The plain meaning of focal point is demonstrated
`through the main examples of the ‘928 Patent. There are several examples
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01277 & IPR 2018-01278
`Patent 8,497,928 B21
`
`therein, including the intended center of interest which is one of the many
`examples, the point of clearest focus is yet another example. Also, there’s
`an example of the focal point being an object or an area such as the face of
`the friend in the waterfall, example, at Column 12 or the waterfall itself
`that’s selected by default as a focal point in that same example.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: So you’re saying it’s the area of the image that’s
`of interest to the user?
`
`MR. DARBY: Next slide, please? Your Honor, I’ll answer that
`question here with an excerpt from the institution decision. We believe that
`this is the correct approach. The plain meaning of the term should be
`viewed -- in view of the specification as it reads here from the institution
`decision, “In the ‘928 Patent, the focal point is the area of interest to the
`user. For example, the face of the friend in the ‘928 patent.” This is the
`correct approach, Your Honors, as articulated in the institution decisions and
`Apple would invite Your Honors to articulate the same in your final written
`decision.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Well, how does that work then for focal point
`where it appears in the displaying limitation before the user has done
`anything?
`
`MR. DARBY: I think before the selecting step occurs when the
`camera is displaying a first focal point, it could be the default, for example,
`in the waterfall example which is just a portion of the image that the camera
`decides to focus on. So we would brief that in the petitions and I believe
`also in the alternative, we briefed an alternative interpretation of this
`language where the focal point displayed in the first step is actually the first
`time around. So the user touches the screen to establish one point and then
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01277 & IPR 2018-01278
`Patent 8,497,928 B21
`
`the second time around when they want to change the focal point, another
`selection is made. So it could be either a default selected by the camera or it
`could be the user selected ones.
`
`Slide 13, please?
`
`So we’ve talked about the plain meaning approach which Apple urges
`as the correct approach here, but I will take a minute here to discuss
`Qualcomm’s construction, the intended center of interest and why that
`construction cannot be adopted and can’t be supported on this record. We’ll
`start with the specifications. So the (inaudible) mentioned in the
`specification of an intended center of interest is this excerpt here from
`Column 9, lines 4 through 6 of the ‘928 Patent. And it reads, “In some
`embodiments, the focal point refers to the intended center of interest of a
`photograph and is typically the point where the image will be in clearest
`focus.”
`
`Next slide, please, 14?
`
`Looking at Slide 14, the summary of the arguments that have been set
`forth in Apple’s briefing, Your Honor, is that these -- there are three specific
`points of area that we’ve articulated in terms of Qualcomm’s analysis
`relating to the specification and its focal point selection -- or, excuse me, its
`focal point construction. We’ll concentrate here on the first aspect here
`which we gleaned as well from the institution decisions that the sentence we
`just discussed, the lone support, or the only possibility of support in the
`specifications starts and opens within some embodiment and that language
`makes clear that a focal point is not limited to the following description, the
`intended center of interest. It’s not definitional. That’s exemplary language
`that could be other embodiments, of course, where the focal point is not the
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01277 & IPR 2018-01278
`Patent 8,497,928 B21
`
`user’s intended center of interest. I discussed earlier the default focal point
`in the waterfall example (indiscernible).
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Well, is it possible that “focal point” sort of has
`different meanings depending on the perspective? So the user might want
`the focal point of their photo to be their friend, or their dog, or whatever.
`
`MR. DARBY: Sure.
`
`JUDGE FISHMAN: But then if you look at the claim, at the method
`for operating a mobile device, it’s performed by a processor and it displays
`an image having a first focal point. That leads me to believe that “focal
`point” as it’s used in the claims is the area in which the camera mechanism
`is focused. Does that make sense?
`
`MR. DARBY: It does, Your Honors. And, in fact, let me take a
`quick leap forward here. Well, actually, can we go back to Slide 11, please?
`Okay. So Apple offered an alternative construction that would account for
`the interpretation or the understanding that you just recited, “A portion of the
`image that relates to the process of focusing.” We believe that that
`interpretation would account for whether it’s the camera that’s selected by
`default, whether it’s a person that selects a focal point perhaps multiple
`times in an iterative type of approach.
`
`JUDGE FISHMAN: What does “relates to” mean?
`
`MR. DARBY: “Relates to” --
`
`JUDGE FISHMAN: It seems pretty wishy-washy to me.
`
`MR. DARBY: Agreed. I will -- we put in some record evidence in
`terms of the word “focal”.
`
`Could I go to Slide 22, please?
`
`So there’s some record evidence here, Apple ‘1042 and Apple ‘1043
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01277 & IPR 2018-01278
`Patent 8,497,928 B21
`
`that provide or that help, you know, understand. And so the (indiscernible)
`is understanding of the term “focal” as relating to focus. So I understand the
`concern, Your Honors. It is -- it does -- “relates to” is a broad term, but,
`again, the many examples of the ‘928 specification and, as Your Honor
`pointed out, the way the claim is worded, a broad interpretation, if the claim
`term is to be construed, is necessary to account for all of those examples and
`the way the claim is set forth.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Well, would it be wrong to construe “focal point”
`to be the portion of the image on which the camera is focused?
`
`MR. DARBY: “Portion of the image” -- tough to me -- for me to say
`if that would be wrong. It has not been briefed by either of the parties, but I
`do think that that’s closest to Apple’s alternative proposed construction.
`And I would say that I believe that the prior art would meet all of the ‘928
`Patent’s claim limitations that are challenged even under such construction.
`Is that helpful, Your Honor?
`
`Can you (indiscernible) Slide 15?
`
`Okay. So we’ve talked about the plain meaning of the term “focal
`point,” we’ve talked about Apple’s alternative construction concerning the
`term “focal point,” and we know that Qualcomm’s construction, the
`intended center of interest, is not supported by the specification, but I expect
`you’ve gathered from the briefing, Your Honors, that there is a prosecution
`history disclaimer argument that’s on the table.
`
`To summarize the argument -- this is on page 20 of the ‘1277 and
`‘1278 Patent Owner responses. “The articulation of an argument that the
`Applicant disavowed Hyodo’s disclosure of focal point selection because the
`Applicant overcame a ‘102 rejection based on Hyodo.” Your Honors, we
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01277 & IPR 2018-01278
`Patent 8,497,928 B21
`
`disagree with the disclaimer argument. It’s either not based on a proper
`understanding of the law or it is based on a mischaracterization of the
`prosecution history. So in Apple’s petitions, the excerpt is here.
`
`We pointed out in our review of the prosecution history that the two
`elements argued to overcome Hyodo were Element 7C, focusing while the
`image is being displayed and Element 7D, selecting a flash level value. The
`Applicant did not argue of Hyodo based on selecting of a focal point.
`
`Slide 18, please?
`
`So this is an excerpt from the prosecution history. This is an
`argument made by the Applicant in response to an office action and here, the
`Applicant was arguing that the prior art lacked selection of a focal point, but
`the primary reference -- or excuse me, the prior art reference asserted against
`the Claims was not Hyodo. It was a reference called Boies and it was cited
`two years before the Examiner identified and applied Hyodo.
`
`And as you can see here, the Examiner had taken a very broad
`interpretation of the term “focal point” in able to apply this Boies reference
`which is really just a pivotally mounted video camera. The Examiner said
`that, “Focal point is merely a point or state different than the current point or
`state.” And I think all parties here would agree that that is far too broad a
`construction interpretation of the term “focal point,” and the Applicant
`rightfully pushed back citing examples of the ‘928 specification, “The
`intended center of interest and the point in clearest focus,” and -- in addition
`to the example of the waterfall embodiment example that we’ve been
`discussing at Column 12 of the ‘928 Patent. So to the extent there’s any
`disclaimer or any disavowal, it should be cabined and limited to the overly
`broad construction brought forth by the Examiner and the Boies reference,
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01277 & IPR 2018-01278
`Patent 8,497,928 B21
`
`the point, pivot, zoom, type of video camera.
`
`Slide 23, please?
`
`Okay. So we’ve talked a lot about focal points and its construction.
`I’d like to now spend a few minutes speaking to the Hyodo reference at issue
`in the ‘1277 proceedings and I direct Your Honors’ attention to the excerpt
`at the bottom right here of the slide. This is a very succinct and very on-
`point summary of Hyodo’s disclosure as it pertains to focal point selection.
`Hyodo here says, “According to the camera, the present invention, the
`focusing and exposure is adjusted to the principal subject by touching the
`principal subject that is displayed on the image display.” So the user
`touches the display at the principal subject and the camera focuses to the
`principal subject.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Well, it focuses to some predetermined focal point
`nearest that.
`
`MR. DARBY: Your Honors, I would love to discuss that disclosure
`with you. Absolutely.
`
`Can you go to Slide 24?
`
`So here is an excerpt from Apple’s ‘1277 petition and it’s an excerpt -
`- or, excuse me, it highlights an example from Hyodo. Here on the left-hand
`side of Slide 24 is annotated version of Hyodo’s Figure 5 where the user
`touches the principal subject, the child here on the rocking horse, and the
`camera recognizes that as the principal subject and places that portion of the
`image in clear focus.
`
`Actually, right after the highlighted text here on the slide, Hyodo
`explains that, “The area inside a circle in the predetermined size which has
`the position of the touch portion at its center is recognized to be the principal
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01277 & IPR 2018-01278
`Patent 8,497,928 B21
`
`subject.” So the principal subject is the area touched and a circle of
`predetermined size surrounding that area. The touched portion of the image
`is the center of the principal subject or the center of the focal point.
`
`Slide 25, please?
`
`So Apple’s petition mapped Hyodo’s principal subject disclosure to
`the teachings and the specification of the ‘928 pattern in order to
`demonstrate obviousness. As stated here, “The user’s designation of a
`principal subject signals intent to establish a point of interest for the image.”
`Again, this is consistent with the examples in the ‘928 Patent specification,
`both the example of the area of the face of the friend and example of
`intended center of interest. In Hyodo, the user touches the touch screen to
`locate a portion of the image that is of interest. It’s the principal subject or
`the focal point.
`
`Slide 26, please?
`
`This is another excerpt from Your Honor’s institution decision
`articulating a very similar analysis. In the ‘928 Patent and in Hyodo, the
`“focal point” is the area of interest to the user. For example, the face of the
`friend in the ‘928 Patent or the child on the rocking horse in Hyodo. Again,
`Your Honors, Apple’s position is that this is the correct approach and -- but,
`again, invite Your Honors to rearticulate the same in your final written
`decision.
`
`Slide 27, please?
`
`So turning to Qualcomm’s construction, the intended center of
`interest, this was addressed in the petition as well. As Your Honors pointed
`out in your institution decision, there’s no meaningful difference between
`Hyodo’s principal subject disclosure and the ‘928 Patent’s disclosure of an
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01277 & IPR 2018-01278
`Patent 8,497,928 B21
`
`intended center of interest. So even if Your Honors were to adopt
`Qualcomm’s construction, Hyodo, nonetheless, would demonstrate
`obviousness.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: And just to be clear though, we weren’t construing
`any terms in the DI, right, because nobody had asked for a construction?
`
`MR. DARBY: I am not 100 percent certain --
`
`JUDGE MOORE: In other words, what --
`
`MR. DARBY: -- but I believe -- I know that Apple -- I know that
`Apple’s position was plain meaning. I don’t immediately recall whether or
`not Qualcomm offered a construction, but I do know that the Board adopted
`the plain meaning and so, again, that’s the same approach that we would say
`is appropriate for the final written decision, specifically recognize that
`Hyodo is consistent with the ‘928 Patent.
`
`All right. Slide 29, please?
`
`So a quick note here that should Your Honors see fit to adopt a
`construction at all, it’s Apple’s construction the application of Hyodo hasn’t
`been contested in this proceeding, so that adoption of Apple’s construction
`would be dispositive on the issue.
`I’ll pause here, Your Honors, to know that we’ve said a lot about focal point,
`mainly through the lens of Hyodo and as to Konicek. We’re happy to rest
`on the briefing there unless there are specific questions that we could
`answer.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: No.
`
`MR. DARBY: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`Slide 35, please?
`
`With that, we can pivot to Element 7C, focusing the lens component
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01277 & IPR 2018-01278
`Patent 8,497,928 B21
`
`while the image is displaying. Here is another summary of the parties’
`constructions. Apple, again, opened the proceedings with the plain meaning
`interpretation. Qualcomm responded with the following construction, “The
`image that is being provided by the lens component is displayed on the touch
`screen display during the process of focusing the lens component.” Your
`Honors, you’ll note a slight discrepancy here between the two proceedings.
`The ‘1277 says that the image is displayed during focus. The ‘1278 says the
`image is updated during focusing.
`
`Slide 36, please?
`
`JUDGE MOORE: So -- could you go back --
`
`MR. DARBY: Absolutely.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: -- one slide? Why aren’t we just construing the
`image?
`
`MR. DARBY: I don’t believe either parties offered a construction of
`the image. Did your -- did you have something in particular?
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Well isn’t that really the issue here? I mean, in the
`first step of the claim you display an image and then later you focus on lens
`component while the image is displaying and then --
`
`MR. DARBY: Sure.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: -- at the end, you capture the image.
`
`MR. DARBY: Uh-huh.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Right? It seems to me the arguments here really
`sort of dance around the question which is, “Well, what is the image?”
`
`MR. DARBY: As in --
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Is it --
`
`MR. DARBY: -- is it a still image or --
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01277 & IPR 2018-01278
`Patent 8,497,928 B21
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Is it a static image?
`
`MR. DARBY: Sure.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Is it -- do you capture an image when you do the --
`
`or had you captured an image when you do the display and then that one
`image carries through because that’s sort of what the claim says when it
`refers to “an image” or is that image, you know, a frame that you’re
`receiving, you know, updates on, real time --
`
`MR. DARBY: Certainly.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: -- sort of a real time image, a moving image?
`
`MR. DARBY: Yes, I --
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Do you understand the issue?
`
`MR. DARBY: I do understand the issue, Your Honor. Thanks for the
`explanation.
`
`Slide 37, quickly?
`
`So we can turn to the ‘928 Patent specification here and there is some
`limited disclosure of a substantially real-time preview which would be an
`updating image during the focusing process. The issue here, of course, is
`that the specification says that, “The image may comprise a substantial real-
`time preview.” So the claim -- here “may” is permissive. It could be other
`embodiment similar to the focal point discussion that do not involve a real-
`time preview of the image.
`
`Another problem I would note here are the specification terms of
`adopting a construction that confines this claim term to a moving or
`updating image is that the specification doesn’t tell us that the real time
`preview occurs during focusing. It tells us that it occurs sometime before
`capturing a photograph, but isn’t explicit in terms of one that is occurring.
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01277 & IPR 2018-01278
`Patent 8,497,928 B21
`
`And so I think that the way the specification, to the extent that the
`
`feature is described, doesn’t cabin, or limit, the term “the image” to being --
`whether it be a still image that’s displayed during the focusing or a moving
`image that’s displayed during the focusing.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Well, so is it your position that the image in this
`claim is just one static image?
`
`MR. DARBY: Apple’s position was that it could be an updating
`moving image or it could be a still image. As long as an image is on the
`display during the time that the focusing is happening, that that would meet
`the claim limitation precisely because the specification doesn’t tell us
`otherwise and nothing in the claim specifically tells us otherwise. I would --
`
`Move to Slide 38, please.
`
`Another excerpt from the institution decision here where Your Honors
`really hit on the key here, that the claim doesn’t require an updating of the
`image. And so we’ve now looked at the specification and it doesn’t clearly
`tell us that it’s got to be a real-time updating image and now we look at the
`claim and nothing in the claim says that it’s got to be an updating image.
`
` Now, I expect you’ve read in the briefing that there may be some
`secondary antecedent basis principles of claim construction that may perhaps
`support a different construction, Qualcomm’s construction of an updating
`image, Your Honors, but the claim and the specification are quite clear and
`those secondary principles should not override the specification certainly
`and also the facially clear claim language.
`
`Slide 39, please?
`
`So note here that all of Qualcomm’s arguments as to the Okawa
`reference which is used to supplement Hyodo on this issue of displaying an
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01277 & IPR 2018-01278
`Patent 8,497,928 B21
`
`image during the focusing step rely on the construction, specifically the
`updating construction, even in the ‘1277 proceeding where the construction
`says, “Displaying during focusing.” In fact, I’ll just pop back to, just briefly
`here, to Slide 36, please.
`
`So the excerpt in the center here is from the (indiscernible) -- the POR
`in the ‘1277 noting that Okawa arguably does not disclose focusing while
`the image is updating and then here, at the bottom excerpt of Slide 36,
`there’s an excerpt from Dr. Aliaga, Qualcomm’s expert, saying that the
`broadest reasoanble interpretation would mean “an image displayed on the
`touch screen is being updated during the focusing.”
`
`So, again, if the Board would see fit to reject Qualcomm’s
`construction, again, in the final written decision, that would be dispositive of
`the issue. And for that reason, Your Honors, and for the limited time that we
`have together today, I would suggest that we rest on the briefing in terms of
`Okawa’s disclosure under Qualcomm’s interpretation and move on to the
`final aspect of the --
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Does Okawa update the image?
`
`MR. DARBY: Your Honors, we’ve briefed that issue and in our
`petition, the first instance did assert that Okawa does update the image, but
`there is a dispute between the parties on that number. But again, that only
`comes into play if Your Honors would see fit to adopt Qualcomm’s
`construction that requires an updating image.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Well, so that’s in Figure 5 of Okawa, the one with
`the six images of the two people and the OK sign; is that right?
`
`MR. DARBY: Sure.
`
`Slide 40?
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01277 & IPR 2018-01278
`Patent 8,497,928 B21
`
`Here. Yes, exactly, Your Honors. This is the -- this is the sort of
`
`demonstrative annotated figure from the petition.
`
`Slide 41, please?
`
`This is an excerpt from the analogy analysis set forth in the petition
`where Apple advances the theory that Okawa accomplishes display of the
`updated focal mark concurrently with changes to the “frame rate of the
`display.”
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Well, could you go back to the Figure 5 then?
`
`MR. DARBY: Absolutely. This is Slide 40.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: What is the image here?
`
`MR. DARBY: The image would be the couple standing, I think,
`giving the peace sign or countdown sign.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Does the image include the focal mark?
`
`MR. DARBY: The focal mark is overlaid atop the image. So the
`critical aspect of Okawa is that the image, the people that have been framed
`in the view finder remain on the screen. The focal mark continues the
`update during the auto-focus time period to keep the user apprised of what’s
`going on. Some of these digital cameras of the time, the resolution on the
`LCD -- you know, the LCDs were quite small and the resolution wasn’t
`perfect. You couldn’t necessarily see what was happening on the screen
`during the focusing process and so users would have trouble not
`understanding, you know, is the camera done focusing, when can I go ahead
`and take the picture, and that was the problem that Okawa was looking to
`solve.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: Yeah. So just so I’m clear, the image does not
`include the focal mark or it does?
`
`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
`26
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR 2018-01277 & IPR 2018-01278
`Patent 8,497,928 B21
`
`MR. DARBY: I would say the image does not include the focal mark.
`
`The focal mark is overlaid on -- atop the image. But the image, the people --
`and the people in it are on the display and Apple’s -- what Apple put forth in
`its petition is that the image itself is updated at a display rate and that the
`changes to the focal mark are synchronized with it.
`
`JUDGE MOORE: How do we know that the image is updated?
`
`MR. DARBY: So, let’s see.
`
`Slide 42, please?
`
`So this is an excerpt from Apple’s expert, Dr. Wright, and it’s
`basically a reading of the Okawa reference as a whole taken by Dr. Wright
`here in his approach and his conclusions which are set forth in the petition in
`which we discussed were based on, for exam
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
