`
`———————
`
`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