throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RED.COM,
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`Declaration of Cliff Reader, Ph.D.
`under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3
`I.
`QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ...................... 5
`II.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 9
`III.
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ...........................................................11
`A. Anticipation ............................................................................................11
`B. Obviousness ...........................................................................................12
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’314 PATENT ..........................................................13
`A. Summary of the Patent ...........................................................................13
`B. Prosecution History of the ’314 Patent ..................................................16
`C. Priority Date of the ’314 Patent .............................................................17
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................18
`A.
`“Raw Mosaiced Image Data” ................................................................18
`B.
`“Demosaiced Motion Video Data” ........................................................19
`C.
`“Substantially Visually Lossless” ..........................................................20
`D.
`“the memory device is sufficiently large to store image data from the
`compression module corresponding to at least about 30 minutes of
`video at 12 mega pixel resolution, 12-bit color resolution, and at 60
`frames per second.” ................................................................................20
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ....21
`A. Claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-26, and 28-30 are obvious over Presler and
`Molgaard ................................................................................................22
`1.
`Summary of Presler ........................................................................22
`2.
`Summary of Molgaard ...................................................................24
`3. Reasons to Combine Presler and Molgaard ...................................27
`
`VII.
`
`1
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`4. Detailed Analysis ...........................................................................33
`B. Claims 11 and 27 are obvious over Presler in view of Molgaard, further
`in view of Sodini ....................................................................................93
`1. Summary of Sodini ........................................................................93
`2. Reasons to Combine Presler, Molgaard, and Sodini......................93
`3. Detailed Analysis ...........................................................................94
`C. Claims 14 and 30 are obvious over Presler in view of Molgaard, further
`in view of Frost ......................................................................................97
`1. Summary of Frost ...........................................................................97
`2. Reasons to Combine Presler, Molgaard, and Frost ........................97
`3. Detailed Analysis ...........................................................................98
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................101
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Apple Inc. in the matter
`
`of the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 (“the ‘314 Patent”) to
`
`Jannard, et al.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at the rate of
`
`$600/hour. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My compensation is
`
`not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my testimony.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1-
`
`30 of the ’314 Patent are unpatentable, either because they are anticipated or would
`
`have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the
`
`time of the alleged invention, in light of the prior art. After careful analysis it is my
`
`opinion that all of the limitations of claims 1-30 would have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA.
`
`4.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have reviewed:
`
`• The ’314 Patent, Ex. 1001;
`
`• The prosecution history of the ’314 Patent, Ex. 1002;
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 9,565,419 to Presler (“Presler”), Ex. 1005;
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7.656,561 to Molgaard et al. (“Molgaard”), Ex.
`
`1006;
`
`
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`• Ning Zhang et al., “Lossless Compression of Color Mosaic
`
`Images,” IEEE Transactions in Image Processing, vol. 16, no. 6
`
`(June 2006) (“Zhang”), Ex. 1007;
`
`• Ben Long, REAL WORLD APERTURE, 1st ed. (July 21, 2006)
`
`(“Long”), Ex. 1008;
`
`• “Serial ATA Revision 2.6” (“ATA”), Ex. 1009;
`
`• U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/911,196 (“The ’196
`
`Application”), Ex. 1010;
`
`• U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/017,406 (“The ’406
`
`Application”), Ex. 1011;
`
`• U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/923,339 (“The ’339
`
`Application”), Ex. 1012;
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,349,574 to Sodini et al. (“Sodini”), Ex. 1013;
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,170,402 to Frost-Ruebling et al. (“Frost”), Ex.
`
`1014; and
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 3,971,065 to Bayer (“Bayer”), Ex. 1016.
`
`5.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`a)
`
`The documents listed above;
`
`
`
`4
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`b) My own knowledge and experience based upon my work in the
`
`fields of digital camera systems and data decompression, as
`
`described below; and
`
`c) The level of skill of a POSITA at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of the ’314 patent.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`
`6. My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my Curriculum Vitae, a copy of which can be found in Ex. 1004. The following
`
`is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and professional experience.
`
`7.
`
`As shown in my curriculum vitae (Ex. 1004), I have extensive
`
`academic and industry experience with digital video acquisition, processing, and
`
`display semiconductors and systems. Specifically, I have over 45 years’ experience
`
`in the field of realtime digital video systems and video compression.
`
`8.
`
`I received my Bachelor of Engineering degree with honors in 1970
`
`from University of Liverpool, England. In 1974, I received my Doctoral degree
`
`from University of Sussex, England. My thesis was on “Orthogonal Transform
`
`Coding of Still and Moving Pictures.” The research for my thesis was performed in
`
`residence at the Image Processing Institute, University of Southern California, Los
`
`Angeles. From 1970 to 1973, I performed my graduate research in video
`
`compression.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`9.
`
`I was one of the first to perform a type of image compression
`
`(adaptive block transform coding) and the first to apply this type of compression to
`
`video. This is described in my thesis, Clifford Reader, Orthogonal Transform
`
`Coding of Still and Moving Pictures (1973). These techniques underlie the
`
`audiovisual coding standards (MPEG standards) issued by the Moving Picture
`
`Experts Group and virtually all other video compression schemes today.
`
`10. From 1975 to 1989, I developed architectures, system designs, and
`
`signal processing algorithms for real-time image and video data acquisition,
`
`processing, compression, and display. The applications for this work included
`
`military image reconnaissance, military battlefield management, digital medicine,
`
`and earth-resources management. This work involved video acquisition from
`
`diverse imaging sensors, such as spaceborne and airborne still and video cameras,
`
`(including two-dimensional cameras and one-dimensional “push-broom” cameras),
`
`infra-red, multi-spectral, ultrasonic, and synthetic-aperture-radar sensors, and
`
`professional television studio cameras.
`
`11. Beginning in 1989, I developed algorithms and chip designs for
`
`digital consumer electronics. I contributed technically to the nascent MPEG
`
`standards. In 1990, while employed by Cypress Semiconductor, I led the
`
`development of a semiconductor chip to implement a decoder for the emerging
`
`MPEG-1 standard. This work included writing a software implementation of a
`
`
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`complete MPEG-1 encoder and decoder. Subsequently, I worked on a similar
`
`project for the MPEG-2 standard at Samsung Semiconductor.
`
`12.
`
`I was the chairman of the American National Standards Institute’s
`
`subcommittee for the Moving Picture Experts Group, the Head of Delegation to the
`
`Moving Picture Experts Group for the United States in 1991 to 1992, and the
`
`Editor-in-Chief of the MPEG-1 standard. I personally reviewed and edited all three
`
`parts of the MPEG-1 standard in detail and wrote much of the informative annex
`
`for that standard. In March 1992,
`
`13.
`
`In 1993 to 1994, I was hired by Cable Television Laboratories, Inc.
`
`(CableLabs) to be the technical expert for establishing a patent pool for the MPEG-
`
`2 Video and Systems standards. In the course of creating a list of essential
`
`intellectual property to practice the standards, I reviewed approximately 10,000
`
`abstracts and 1,000 patents. J. L. Mitchell et al., MPEG Video Compression
`
`Standard, chapter 16, at 357-362.
`
`14.
`
`I was a co-founder of the MPEG-4 standard and chaired the
`
`subcommittee at the Moving Picture Experts Group from inception for two and a
`
`half years. I led a group that established many of the fundamental principles of the
`
`MPEG-4 standard, including object-based coding, software-based implementation,
`
`and the development of the bitstream as a syntactic language.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`15. At the end of the 1990s, I joined a start-up company that developed a
`
`chip for deinterlacing standard NTSC/PAL video for display on a progressive scan
`
`monitor or TV.
`
`16.
`
`In the early 2000s, I was an invited expert to the joint development of
`
`the Next Generation Digital Video Standard by the International
`
`Telecommunication Union, International Organization for Standardization, and
`
`Moving Picture Experts Group. That standard is known as H.264 and MPEG-4
`
`Part 10, Advanced Video Coding, by the respective bodies. H.264 is widely used
`
`today for HDTV broadcasting over cable and satellite, and for streaming video
`
`over IP networks.
`
`17. Since 2003, I have been an officer of the China AVS standards expert
`
`group, chairing the IPR Subgroup. I led the development of the AVS working
`
`group Member Agreement and IPR Policy, crafted by patent attorneys and
`
`licensing experts from national and international companies. I am a founder and
`
`co-director of the AVS patent pool, established the process of independent
`
`evaluation of essentiality, assisted in the selection of the independent evaluator,
`
`and led the negotiation of the licensor and licensee agreements for the AVS1 patent
`
`pool. Recently, the AVS2 patent pool was established.
`
`18.
`
`In my current role as a video and audio consultant, I provide technical
`
`and business development consulting services in imaging and video/audio,
`
`
`
`8
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`including consumer video, real-time processing and display, image and
`
`video/audio compression, imaging and video systems architecture, and imaging
`
`and video chip architecture. I have worked in this capacity since 2001, serving over
`
`60 clients in the consumer electronics, communications, and computer industries.
`
`19. My curriculum vitae (Ex. 1004), includes a more detailed summary of
`
`my background, experience, and publications.
`
`III.
`
` LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`20.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems.
`
`21.
`
`I am familiar with video camera systems (including those with
`
`compression capabilities). I am also aware of the state of the art at the time the
`
`application resulting in the ’314 patent was filed. I have been informed by counsel
`
`that the earliest possible priority date for the ’314 patent is December 28, 2007, as
`
`discussed below.
`
`22. Based on the technologies disclosed in the ’314 patent, I believe that a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would include someone who
`
`had, at the priority date of the ’314 patent, (i) a Bachelor’s degree in Computer
`
`
`
`9
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`Science, Electrical Engineering, or equivalent training, as well as (ii)
`
`approximately three years of experience in designing and/or manufacturing
`
`video capture, processing, and display systems. Such a person would have also
`
`had experience in data compression.
`
`23. Lack of work experience could have been remedied by additional
`
`education, and vice versa. Such academic and industry experience would be
`
`necessary to appreciate what was obvious and/or anticipated in the industry and
`
`what a POSITA would have thought and understood at the time. Based on these
`
`criteria, as of the relevant time frame for the ’314 patent, I possessed at least
`
`such experience and knowledge of a POSITA, hence am qualified to opine on
`
`the ’314 patent.
`
`24. For purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise
`
`noted, my statements and opinions, such as those regarding my experience and the
`
`understanding of a POSITA generally (and specifically related to the references I
`
`consulted herein), reflect the knowledge that existed in the field as of December
`
`28, 2007. Unless otherwise stated, my understanding and analysis below is
`
`consistent with the level of a POSITA prior to the appropriate priority date of the
`
`’314 patent.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`25.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1-
`
`30 of the ’314 patent are anticipated or would have been obvious to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, in light of the
`
`prior art.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’314 patent includes patents and
`
`printed publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the alleged
`
`invention recited in the ’314 patent. For purposes of this Declaration, I have been
`
`asked to apply December 28, 2007, the earliest appropriate priority date, as the
`
`priority date.
`
`27.
`
`I am not an attorney. In preparing and expressing my opinions and
`
`considering the subject matter of the ’314 patent, I am relying on certain basic
`
`legal principles that counsel have explained to me. These principles are reviewed
`
`below.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable if it is obvious under pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`29.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a patent claim is unpatentable as
`
`anticipated if each element of that claim is present either explicitly or inherently in
`
`a single prior art reference. I have also been informed that, to be an inherent
`
`
`
`11
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`disclosure, the prior art reference must necessarily disclose the limitation, and the
`
`fact that the reference might possibly practice or contain a claimed limitation is
`
`insufficient to establish that the reference inherently teaches the limitation.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed that a claimed invention is unpatentable under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention and the prior art
`
`are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject
`
`matter pertains. I have also been informed by counsel that the obviousness analysis
`
`takes into account factual inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and
`
`the claimed subject matter.
`
`31.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the Supreme Court has
`
`recognized several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to
`
`show obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the
`
`following: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (c) use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`(method, or product) in the same way; (d) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (e)
`
`
`
`12
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; and (f) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’314 PATENT
`Summary of the Patent
`A.
`
`32. The ’314 patent is directed to “a video camera” that is configured to
`
`“capture, compress, and store video image data in a memory of the video camera.”
`
`Ex. 1001, Abstract. The video image data “may remain substantially visually
`
`lossless upon decompression and demosaicing.” Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`
`33. The technology discussed in the ’314 patent is applicable to “digital
`
`cameras, such as those for capturing still or moving pictures” and more
`
`specifically, “digital cameras that compress image data.” Ex. 1001, 1:19-21.
`
`According to the Applicant in the ’314 patent, digital cameras commonly include
`
`high resolution image sensors and output high resolution video. See Ex. 1001,
`
`1:33-35. The ’314 patent states, though, that image processing and compression
`
`techniques of then existing cameras “eliminate too much raw image data to be
`
`acceptable in the high-end portions of the market noted above” (in reference to the
`
`major motion picture and television broadcast market). Ex. 1001, 1:33-45.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`34. According to the Applicant, the video processing system of the ’314
`
`patent allegedly meets the above deficiency by introducing “a video camera [that]
`
`can comprise a portable housing, and a lens assembly supported by the housing
`
`and configured to focus light.” Ex. 1001, 1:46-48. The video camera “can also
`
`include a memory device and an image processing system configured to compress
`
`and store in the memory device the raw image data.” Ex. 1001, 1:51-54.
`
`35. The video camera of the ’314 patent also includes several components
`
`common to prior art video cameras. These include an image sensor with a Bayer
`
`filter (i.e., “comprising first, second, and third pluralities of light sensitive devices
`
`arranged with respect to one another in a plane defined by the image sensor” see
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:51-54, 4:5-9, 15:47-49), an image processing module that “process[es]
`
`the raw mosaiced image data from the image sensor and output[s] processed image
`
`databased on the raw mosaiced image data from the image sensor” (Ex. 1001,
`
`1:51-54, 16:1-4), and a compression module to “compress the processed image
`
`data with a mathematically lossy compression technique into compressed
`
`processed image data” (Ex. 1001, 1:51-54, 16:8-12).
`
`36. An example of the elements of the video camera in the ’314 patent is
`
`provided below:
`
`
`
`14
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 1.
`
`37. As discussed below, none of these techniques or characteristics were
`
`new or non-obvious as of the ’314 patent’s earliest effective filing date. Video
`
`processing systems and methods similar to ’314 patent were known. For example,
`
`Presler (Ex. 1005) teaches a similar video camera system for processing and
`
`transmitting high resolution video data (Ex. 1005, Abstract) and Molgaard (Ex.
`
`1006) teaches similar processing and lossless compression techniques, including
`
`compressing, decompressing, and demosaicing mosaiced image data (Ex. 1006,
`
`Abstract). In my opinion, the disclosures provided in Presler, Molgaard, and other
`
`
`
`15
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`prior art discussed below render obvious the claims that I have been asked to
`
`analyze in the ’314 patent, as discussed below.
`
`B.
`
`38.
`
`Prosecution History of the ’314 Patent
`
`I understand that the ’314 patent issued on January 26, 2016 from U.S
`
`Patent App. No. 14/485,612 (“the ’612 application”) filed on September 12, 2014.
`
`See Ex. 1001. The ’612 application is a continuation of a string of applications that
`
`originate with a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/101,882 (“the ’882
`
`application”). See Ex. 1001. The ’882 application claims priority to Provisional
`
`Application No. 61/017,406 (“the ’406 application”) filed on December 28, 2007
`
`and Provisional Application No. 60/911,196 (“the ’196 application”) filed on April
`
`11, 2007. See Ex. 1001.
`
`39. However, I have been informed that the ’314 patent is not entitled to
`
`the April 11, 2007 filing date because the ’196 provisional application does not
`
`contain § 112 written description support for the patented claims. For example,
`
`independent claim 1 of the ’314 patent recites “the image sensor being configured
`
`to output the raw mosaiced image data at a resolution of at least 2 k and at a frame
`
`rate of at least about 23 frames per second.” This disclosure is not supported by the
`
`’196 specification. Ex. 1010. The ’314 patent is therefore not entitled to the ’196
`
`application’s filing date of April 11, 2007. See Dynamic Drinkware v. National
`
`
`
`16
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`Graphics, 800 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The earliest priority date that can
`
`possibly be claimed by the ’314 patent is December 28, 2007.
`
`40.
`
`I understand that the ’612 application (issuing as the ’314 patent) was
`
`originally filed with 30 claims with claims 1 and 16 being in independent form. Ex.
`
`1002, pp.61-67. A nonfinal Office Action issued on November 17, 2014, where the
`
`Examiner rejected claims 1-30 as obvious over the combination of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,898,575 to Ishii and U.S. Patent No. 8,014,597 to Newman. Id., pp.221-243. In
`
`response, the Applicant filed a response (id., pp.276-292) and a supplemental
`
`response (id., pp.623-633) with arguments regarding the rejections and minor
`
`amendments for antecedent basis.
`
`41. The Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance on December 10, 2015
`
`but simply stated that “reasons for allowance ha[ve] been stated in the Applicant
`
`remarks filed on 05/18/2015 and supplemental amendments filed on 08/03/2015.”
`
`Id., p.843. Notably, the Examiner did not scrutinize the Applicant’s claim of
`
`priority to any previously filed application.
`
`42. As observed from the prosecution history, it appears that the prior art
`
`that I rely on in this declaration was not cited by the Examiner and thus was not
`
`used as a basis for allowing the claims.
`
`C.
`
`Priority Date of the ’314 Patent
`
`
`
`17
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`43. As discussed above, the earliest priority date that can possibly be
`
`claimed by the ’314 patent is December 28, 2007.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`44.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’314
`
`patent, the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that
`
`for the purposes of this inter partes review, the claim terms are given their ordinary
`
`and accustomed meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, unless the inventor has set forth a special meaning for a term. In order to
`
`construe the following claim terms, I have reviewed the ’314 patent, as well as its
`
`prosecution history.
`
`A.
`
` “Raw Mosaiced Image Data”
`
`45. This term is used in independent claims 1 and 16. The specification of
`
`the ’314 patent does not offer an express definition of “mosaiced” image data.
`
`Apart from the claims and Abstract, the ’314 patent does not use the term “mosaic”
`
`or “mosaiced,” and refers only to the terms “demosaic,” “demosaiced,” and
`
`“demosaicing.” See e.g., Ex. 1001, 8:23-26, 10:25-27. The term “mosaiced,”
`
`however, is well known in the art as evidenced by Long (Ex. 1008), which
`
`describes “raw” data as received directly from a camera or similar device:
`
`When you shoot in raw format … no demosaicing is performed by the
`camera. Instead, the raw data that your image sensor captures is written
`
`
`
`18
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`directly to your camera’s storage card. Demosaicing is then the
`performed in your raw conversion software.
`
`Ex. 1008, p.33. Long also describes the process of creating raw “mosaiced” data:
`
`Each pixel on your camera’s sensor has a colored filter over it, usually
`a red, green, or blue filter ... each pixel on the sensor is able to register
`one primary color. To turn this mosaic of primary-color pixels into a
`full-color image, a process called demosaicing is employed.
`
`Ex. 1008, p.32. Zhang (Ex. 1007) also describes this process: “primary color
`
`samples are interleaved in a two-dimensional (2-D) grid, or color mosaic,
`
`resembling a three-color checkerboard.” Ex. 1007, p.1.
`
`46. Accordingly, a POSITA would have understood the term “raw
`
`mosaiced motion video image data” to include “motion video image data directly
`
`from a camera’s image sensor, where each pixel represents one color.”
`
`B.
`
` “Demosaiced Motion Video Data”
`
`47. This term is used in independent claims 1 and 16. The specification of
`
`the ’314 patent does not offer an express definition of “demosaiced” data.
`
`However, the ’314 patent discusses “demosaicing” in the context of adjusting
`
`image values: “a downstream demosaicing/reconstruction component can
`
`selectively add green image values back into the image data of the other colors.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:23-26. Further, the ’314 patent discusses “demosaiced” image data in a
`
`full-color format: “the monitor module 26 can output a demosaiced image data to
`
`
`
`19
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`the display 30 ... the display 30 can be connected to the monitor module through
`
`any type of video cables such as, for example, an RGB or YCC format video
`
`cable.” Ex. 1001, 10:27-39.
`
`48. Accordingly, a POSITA would have understood the term “demosaiced
`
`motion video data” to include “full-color motion video data reconstructed from
`
`mosaiced motion video data.”
`
`C.
`
`“Substantially Visually Lossless”
`
`49. This term is used in independent claims 1 and 16. The term is
`
`generally used in the context of a comparison of sets of image data. For example,
`
`the ’314 patent defines the term “visually lossless”:
`
`As used herein, the term “visually lossless” is intended to include
`output that, when compared side by side with original (never
`compressed) image data on the same display device, one of ordinary
`skill in the art would not be able to determine which image is the
`original with a reasonable degree of accuracy, based only on a visual
`inspection of the images.
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:55-60. Accordingly, a POSITA would have understood the term
`
`“substantially visually lossless” to include “sets of data that are substantially
`
`visually similar from the point of view of one of ordinary skill in the art.”
`
`D.
`
`“the memory device is sufficiently large to store image data from
`the compression module corresponding to at least about 30 minutes
`of video at 12 mega pixel resolution, 12-bit color resolution, and at
`60 frames per second.”
`
`
`
`20
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`50. This term is recited in claims 14 and 30. The specification of the ’314
`
`patent does not indicate the capacity of the memory device sufficient to store
`
`image data according to this term but such requirement can be calculated based on
`
`the minimum compression ratio disclosed in the specification. Specifically, the
`
`specification teaches that its camera system can “compress and store in the
`
`memory device the raw image data at a compression ratio of at least six to one.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:53-55. A POSITA would have thus recognized that 30 minutes of
`
`image data captured at 12 megapixel resolution, at 12-bit color, at 60 fps, and
`
`compressed at a 6:1 ratio requires a total memory capacity of 324 gigabytes.
`
`VII. IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`51.
`
`It is my opinion that claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-26, and 28-30 are obvious
`
`over U.S. Patent No. 9,565,419 to Presler (Ex. 1005) in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,656,561 to Molgaard (Ex. 1006).
`
`52.
`
`It is also my opinion that claims 11 and 27 are obvious over Presler in
`
`view of Molgaard, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,349,574 to Sodini (Ex.
`
`1013).
`
`53.
`
`It is also my opinion that claims 14 and 30 are obvious over Presler in
`
`view of Molgaard, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,170,402 to Frost-
`
`Ruebling (Ex. 1014).
`
`
`
`21
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`A. Claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-26, and 28-30 are obvious over Presler and
`Molgaard
`
`Summary of Presler
`1.
`54. Similar to the video camera described in the ’314 patent, Presler
`
`describes a “portable digital camera and recording system.” Ex. 1005, 4:35-36.
`
`Presler’s portable digital camera and recording system is similarly designed for use
`
`of applications with “high definition raw images at film or video rates for HD, 2K
`
`and 4K, cinema quality production.” Ex. 1005, 6:21-22.
`
`55. Presler’s portable digital camera and recording system includes a
`
`mobile docking camera with a docking camera module, HD/2K/4K sensor unit, a
`
`modular processing subsystem, and removable digital storage, as shown in Figure
`
`8 below.
`
`
`
`22
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, Figure 8.
`
`56. The mobile docking camera of Presler includes an optical assembly 22
`
`which allows light to pass into the portable housing of the camera and onto the
`
`HD/2K/4K sensor unit 30. Ex. 1005, 6:13-16, 17:5-8. The sensor unit 30 of Presler
`
`may include color filters for capturing raw mosaiced image pixel data. See Ex.
`
`1005, 14:37-39, 16:16-21.
`
`57.
`
`Image processing of the raw image data, including compression, is
`
`performed by the frame buffer system 32 and the processing system 134 of
`
`Presler’s camera. See Ex. 1005, 8:23-28, 13:53-57. Compressed image data may be
`
`stored in the removable digital storage 44 within the mobile docking camera of
`
`
`
`23
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`APPLE v. RED.COM
`
`

`

`Reader Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 9,245,314
`
`Presler. Ex. 1005, 12:13-15. The mobile docking camera is also configured to
`
`transmit “2K raw image data at fifty (50) images per second with 10-bit per pixel
`
`data.” Ex. 1005, 10:18-21.
`
`58.
`
`I have been notified that Presler claims and is entitled

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket