throbber

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RED.COM, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`———————
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,245,314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ........................................................................... 1
`
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... 1
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information .......................... 1
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 2
`
`IV. PAGE CITATIONS AND EMPHASIS .......................................................... 2
`
`V.
`
`THE ’314 PATENT ......................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`The ’314 patent is not entitled to its earliest effective filing date. ....... 3
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 6
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`“Raw Mosaiced Image Data” ............................................................... 7
`
`“Demosaiced Motion Video Data” ...................................................... 8
`
`“Substantially Visually Lossless” ........................................................ 9
`
`“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.” ............................................ 9
`
`VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE
`REQUESTED RELIEF .................................................................................10
`
`IX.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ....10
`
`A.
`
`Challenged Claims ............................................................................. 10
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenge........................................................ 10
`
`Claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-26, and 28-29 are obvious over Presler in
`view of Molgaard. .............................................................................. 12
`
`1.
`
`Presler ....................................................................................... 12
`
`2. Molgaard .................................................................................. 16
`
`3.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................ 17
`
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 17
`
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 46
`
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 47
`
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 48
`
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 49
`
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 50
`
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 51
`
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 51
`
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 53
`
`10. Claim 10 ................................................................................... 54
`
`11. Claim 12 ................................................................................... 54
`
`12. Claim 13 ................................................................................... 55
`
`13. Claim 15 ................................................................................... 57
`
`14. Claim 16 ................................................................................... 57
`
`15. Claim 17 ................................................................................... 61
`
`16. Claim 18 ................................................................................... 61
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`17. Claim 19 ................................................................................... 62
`
`18. Claim 20 ................................................................................... 62
`
`19. Claim 21 ................................................................................... 63
`
`20. Claim 22 ................................................................................... 64
`
`21. Claim 23 ................................................................................... 64
`
`22. Claim 24 ................................................................................... 64
`
`23. Claim 25 ................................................................................... 65
`
`24. Claim 26 ................................................................................... 65
`
`25. Claim 28 ................................................................................... 65
`
`26. Claim 29 ................................................................................... 66
`
`D.
`
`Claims 11 and 27 are obvious over Presler in view of Molgaard,
`further in view of Sodini. ................................................................... 67
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Sodini ....................................................................................... 67
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................ 67
`
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 68
`
`Claim 27 ................................................................................... 69
`
`E.
`
`Claims 14 and 30 are obvious over Presler in view of Molgaard,
`further in view of Frost. ...................................................................... 70
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Frost.......................................................................................... 70
`
`Reasons to Combine ................................................................ 70
`
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 71
`
`Claim 30 ................................................................................... 72
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................72
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ......................................................................73
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`May 6, 2019
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`Ex. 1002
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`Ex. 1003 Declaration of Cliff Reader, Ph.D. under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`Ex. 1004 Curriculum Vitae of Cliff Reader, Ph.D.
`Ex. 1005 U.S. Patent No. 9,565,419 to Presler (“Presler”)
`Ex. 1006 U.S. Patent No. 7,656,561 to Molgaard et al. (“Molgaard”)
`Ning Zhang et al., “Lossless Compression of Color Mosaic
`Images,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing Vol. 15, No. 6
`(June 2006) (“Zhang”)
`Ex. 1008 Ben Long, REAL WORLD APERTURE, 1st Ed., ISBN: 0-321-44193-1
`(July 11, 2006) (“Long”)
`Serial ATA International Organization: Serial ATA Revision 2.6
`Ex. 1009
`(Feb. 15, 2007)
`Ex. 1010 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/911,196 (“The ’196
`Application”)
`Ex. 1011 U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/017,406 (“The ’406
`Application”)
`Ex. 1012 U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/923,339 (“the ’339
`Application”)
`Ex. 1013 U.S. Patent No. 7,349,574 to Sodini et al. (“Sodini”)
`Ex. 1014 U.S. Patent No. 8,170,402 to Frost-Ruebling et al. (“Frost”)
`Ex. 1015 Reserved
`Ex. 1016 U.S. Patent No. 3,971,065 to Bayer (“Bayer”)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314 (“the ’314 patent,” Ex. 1001) is directed to “a
`
`video camera” configured to “capture, compress, and store video image data in a
`
`memory of the video camera.” Ex. 1001, Abstract. This Petition demonstrates that
`
`claims are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and Petitioner, Apple
`
`Inc., respectfully requests that these claims be canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`The real party-in-interest is Apple Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`As of the filing date of this Petition and to the best knowledge of the
`
`Petitioner, the ’314 patent has been asserted in Red.com, Inc. v. Sony Corp. of Am.,
`
`Case No. 2:16-cv-00937-RSP (E.D. Tx. Aug. 24, 2016) and Red.com, Inc. v. Nokia
`
`USA Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-00594-MWF-JC (C.D. Ca. Mar. 30, 2016). Both cases
`
`are terminated.
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`Michael S. Parsons
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Back-up Counsel
`
`
`Phone: (972) 739-8611
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`michael.parsons.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 58,767
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Jordan Maucotel
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`Phone: (214) 651-5116
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 50,271
`
`Phone: (972) 739-8621
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`jordan.maucotel.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 69,438
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioner
`
`consents to electronic service via email.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’314 patent is eligible for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. Petitioner has not
`
`been served with a complaint asserting infringement of the ’314 patent and has not
`
`filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim.
`
`IV. PAGE CITATIONS AND EMPHASIS
`
`Petitioner’s citations to Exs. 1002 and 1007-1012 use the page numbers
`
`added for compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(2)(ii). Petitioner’s citations to the
`
`remaining exhibits use the page numbers in their original publication. All bold
`
`underline emphasis in any quoted material has been added.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`V. THE ’314 PATENT
`
`The ’314 patent is directed to “a video camera” configured to “capture,
`
`compress, and store video image data in a memory of the video camera.” Ex. 1001,
`
`Abstract.
`
`A. The ’314 patent is not entitled to its earliest effective filing date.
`
`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”).
`
`Id. 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. Id.
`
`
`
`The ’196 application (the earliest provisional application) does not provide
`
`§112 written description support for at least independent claims 1 and 16. The ’314
`
`patent is therefore not entitled to the ’196 application’s filing date of April 11,
`
`2007. See Dynamic Drinkware v. National Graphics, 800 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015).
`
`
`
`First, there is no presumption that the ’314 patent is entitled to its alleged
`
`earliest filing date “because the PTO does not examine priority claims unless
`
`necessary.” Id. Second, should Patent Owner defend its alleged priority date, such
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`defense fails because the ’196 application lacks written description support for at
`
`least the limitation “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” in claims 1 and 16.
`
`According to 35 U.S.C. § 119(e)(1), a patent claim receives the benefit of a
`
`provisional application’s filing date only if the disclosure of the provisional
`
`application provides §112 written description support for the patent claim. To
`
`satisfy the written description requirement, the disclosure of the earlier-filed
`
`application must “reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor
`
`had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm.,
`
`Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`Here, there is no evidence that the inventors contemplated the specific
`
`disclosure of “output[ting] 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.” Support for this is
`
`completely absent from the ’196 provisional application. See Ex. 1010. Instead, the
`
`’196 application describes decompression and demosaicing algorithms, but does
`
`not disclose image resolution or frame rate parameters, let alone a camera system
`
`capable of meeting such parameters. See id., pp.1-3. The first mention of any such
`
`parameters appeared in the later ’406 provisional application filed about 8 months
`
`later. See Ex. 1011, p.1. Accordingly, claims 1 and 16 (and therefore all claims) of
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`the ’314 patent are not fully supported by and therefor fail to receive the benefit of
`
`the ’196 application’s April 11, 2007 filing date.
`
`Moreover, to the extent that Patent Owner argues that any claimed resolution
`
`and frame rate parameters are an obvious equivalent or variant of the equation
`
`disclosed in the provisional application, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that
`
`a disclosure in a parent application that merely renders obvious the claimed
`
`invention is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g.,
`
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Instead, the
`
`description in a parent application must “actually or inherently disclose the claim
`
`element.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306-07 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008). Here, the claimed resolution and frame rate parameters are not actually
`
`or even inherently disclosed in the ’196 application. And, any evidence of a
`
`POSITA’s knowledge provides no remedy. See Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`
`107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Entitlement to a filing date does not
`
`extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is
`
`expressly disclosed”).
`
`Thus, because the ’196 application lacks adequate written description
`
`support for each limitation of the ’314 patent, the claims do not receive the benefit
`
`of the April 11, 2007 filing date.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected by the prior art of
`
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re
`
`GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Here, a person of 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 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. Ex. 1003,
`
`pp.9-10.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`This Petition presents claim analysis in a manner that is consistent with a
`
`claim term’s plain and ordinary meaning in light of the specification. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b). Accordingly, claim terms are given their ordinary and accustomed
`
`meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the
`
`context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`banc)). For terms not addressed below, Petitioner submits that no specific
`
`construction is necessary for this proceeding.1
`
`A.
`
`“Raw Mosaiced Image Data”
`
`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
`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.
`
`
`1 Petitioner does not concede that any term not construed herein meets the statutory
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`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.
`
`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.” Ex. 1003, p.19.
`
`
`
`B.
`
` “Demosaiced Motion Video Data”
`
`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 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.
`
`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.” Ex. 1003, p.20.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`C.
`
`“Substantially Visually Lossless”
`
`This term is recited in independent claims 1 and 16 and is generally used in
`
`the context of comparing 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.” Ex. 1003,
`
`p.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.”
`
`This term is recited in claims 14 and 30. 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
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`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 would have
`
`required a total memory capacity of 324 gigabytes. Ex. 1003, p.21.
`
`VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE
`REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board review the accompanying prior art and
`
`analysis, institute a trial for inter partes review of claims 1-30 (all claims) of the
`
`’314 patent and cancel these claims. As explained below, the concepts claimed in
`
`the ’314 patent were not new. This Petition explains where each element of the
`
`challenged claims is found in the prior art and why the challenged claims would
`
`have been obvious before the earliest effective priority date of the ’314 patent.
`
`IX.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Challenged Claims
`
`Claims 1-30 of the ’314 patent are challenged in this petition.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenge
`
`Claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-26, and 28-29 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over U.S. Patent No. 9,565,419 to Presler (“Presler,” Ex. 1005) in
`
`view of U.S. Patent No. 7,656,561 to Molgaard et al. (“Molgaard,” Ex. 1006).
`
`Presler claims priority to a provisional application filed on April 13, 2007 and is
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`prior art to the ’314 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).2 Molgaard was filed
`
`on June 14, 2004 and is prior art to the ’314 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(e).3
`
`Claims 11 and 27 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Presler in view of Molgaard, further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,349,574 to Sodini
`
`et al. (“Sodini,” Ex. 1013). Sodini was filed on October 14, 2003 and is prior art to
`
`the ’314 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Claims 14 and 30 are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Presler in view of Molgaard, further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,170,402 to Frost-
`
`Ruebling et al. (“Frost,” Ex. 1014). Frost was filed on June 15, 2006 and is prior
`
`art to the ’314 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`
`2 As discussed above, the ’314 patent is not entitled to its April 11, 2007 priority
`
`date, thus making Presler prior art by at least 8 months.
`
`3 Molgaard also published as US2005/0276496 on December 15, 2005, which is
`
`prior art to the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`C. Claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-26, and 28-29 are obvious over Presler in
`view of Molgaard.
`
`1.
`
`Presler
`
`Presler describes a “portable digital camera and recording system” that
`
`records “high definition raw images at film or video rates for HD, 2K and 4K,
`
`cinema quality production.” Ex. 1005, 4:35-36, 6:21-22.
`
`Presler’s camera is shown in Figure 8 below:
`
`Id., Fig. 8.
`
`Presler claims and is entitled to the filing date of Provisional Application
`
`No. 60/923,339 (“the ’339 Application”) filed on April 13, 2007. See id., 1:8-13;
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`Ex. 1012. In that regard, all elements of Presler’s independent claim 1 are
`
`disclosed by the ’339 application, as shown in the table below:
`
`U.S. 9,565,419
`(Presler) Claims
`Claim 1
`[1.0] A high definition
`digital camera system
`comprising:
`
`[1.1] an optical
`assembly for gathering
`light from a desired
`scene,
`
`[1.2] a modular
`imaging sub-system
`comprising an imager
`including at least one
`array of pixels aligned
`with the optical
`assembly,
`
`Support in Provisional Application (60/923,339)
`
`“The disclosed invention describes a digital camera system
`that captures high definition raw images at film or video
`rates.” Ex. 1012, p.3.
`
`“The camera system uses optics to gather light from a
`desired scene to a pixilated sensor.” Ex. 1012, p.3.
`
`“The modular imaging subsystem consists of an HD/2K or
`4K CMOS imaging module and a frame grabber and
`controller. One CMOS imaging module consists of an
`Altasens 4562 2K and HD CMOS system-on-chip, Xilinx
`FPGA, Microchip PIC micro controller, Linear LT series
`Linear regulators, IDT ICS-307 programmable clock and
`Fox 924 temperature-controlled crystal oscillator.” Ex.
`1012, p.5.
`Figure 2 of the ’339 application as annotated below also
`shows this modular imaging sub-system:
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`[1.3] wherein the array
`produces a minimum
`of 10-bits per pixel of
`color data,
`
`[1.4] and a frame
`grabber capturing raw
`image data output
`from the imager on a
`selective continuous or
`intermittent basis and
`outputting a serial data
`rate of at least 48
`megabytes per second
`of non-interpolated
`color filtered pixel
`data; and
`
`Ex. 1012, Fig. 2 (annotated).
`
`“[T]he data coding method uses a wavelet codec, with a
`minimum 10-bits per pixel precision input.” Ex. 1012, p.7.
`
`
`
`The ’339 application teaches a frame grabber:
`The pixel data is readout of the sensor at
`variable clock speeds or resolutions and is
`captured thru a frame grabber. The images
`output from the sensor may be captured by
`the frame grabber either continuously or
`intermittent basis.
`Ex. 1012, p.3.
`the sensor and frame grabber can transmit
`non-interpolated and uncompressed data.
`Ex. 1012, p.7.
`the plurality of interfaces, between sensors
`and one or more frame grabbers and between
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`[1.5] a modular
`processing sub-system
`receiving output from
`the frame grabber,
`
`the frame grabbers and processors, has a
`bandwidth of at least 48 Megabytes per
`second, between each sensor and frame
`grabber.
`Ex. 1012, p.9.
`
`“The frame grabber may have on board memory to capture
`full frame images or buffer the image data for transfer to
`the processing subsystem with its associated memory.”
`Ex. 1012, p.3.
`The modular processing sub-system is also shown in
`Figure 3 of the ’339 application as annotated below:
`
`
`[1.6] wherein the
`modular processing
`sub-system further
`provides image
`processing and
`communication of the
`output from the frame
`grabber, and executes
`reprogrammable
`software to perform an
`image processing
`function for
`visualization, analysis,
`or storage;
`
`
`
`Ex. 1012, Fig. 3 (annotated).
`
`The ’339 application teaches that the modular processor
`sub-system
`provides
`image
`processing
`and
`communication of the output from the frame grabber:
`The processor executes reprogrammable
`software to perform image processing for
`visualization, analysis, or storage. The
`processor may be either dedicated hardware
`or general purpose CPU, GPU or DSP or
`combination thereof.
`Ex. 1012, p.4. The ’339 application also teaches that the
`modular processing sub-system executes programmable
`hardware to perform image processing:
`The image processing functions may include
`image
`correction,
`interpolation, white
`balance,
`color
`correction,
`color
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`transformation including the use of three
`dimensional
`look-up
`tables, motion
`detection, object detection and classification,
`tracking,
`triangulation, calibration, color
`keying,
`image mixing,
`stereographic
`processing, anaglyph generation, indicator
`overlay, focus detection, exposure metering,
`zooming and scaling, flipping, data packing,
`pattern matching and recognition, face
`recognition, data rate analysis, enhancement,
`stabilization and compression.
`Ex. 1012, p.7.
`
`[1.7] wherein light
`gathered by the optical
`assembly is received
`by the imager for
`generating and
`outputting raw image
`data at film or video
`rates.
`
`“The camera system uses optics to gather light from a
`desired scene to a pixilated sensor. The sensor captures
`high definition raw images at film or video rates. The
`sensor may be based on CMOS, CCD or other pixilated
`detection devices with color filters used to capture a
`representation of the full color images. The pixel data is
`readout of the sensor at variable clock speeds or
`resolutions and is captured thru a frame grabber. The
`images output from the sensor may be captured by the
`frame grabber either continuously or intermittent basis.”
`Ex. 1012, p.3.
`
`Thus, Presler is properly supported and thus entitled to the filing date of
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/923,339 (“the ’339 Application”) filed on April 13,
`
`2007.
`
`2. Molgaard
`
`Molgaard teaches “lossless, near-lossless, and lossy compression and
`
`decompression of digital image data.” Ex. 1006, Abstract. Molgaard’s processing
`
`method “is optimized for raw image data from a sensor with a Bayer filter pattern.”
`
`Id., Abstract.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`3.
`
`Reasons to Combine
`
`Further explanation of the reasons a POSITA would have combined Presler
`
`and Molgaard to achieve the claimed limitations is found below in the element-by-
`
`element analysis.
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`[1.0] A video camera comprising:
`
`Presler discloses this limitation because it teaches “a digital camera system
`
`that captures scalable resolution, bit-depth and frame rate raw or color processed
`
`images … at precise film or video rates.” Ex. 1005, 3:51-55. A POSITA would
`
`have recognized a digital camera system that captures images at “video rates” is a
`
`“video camera.” Ex. 1003, p.34. A representation of Presler’s video camera is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 8. Thus, Presler’s digital camera system satisfies the claimed “video
`
`camera.” limitation. Ex. 1003, p.34.
`
`[1.1] a portable housing having an opening through which light emanating from
`outside the portable housing enters the portable housing;
`
`Presler discloses this limitation because it teaches that its video camera can
`
`be a “a portable digital camera and recording system.” Ex. 1005, 4:35-36. One
`
`such example is shown in Fig. 8 below:
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245,314
`
`Opening where light enters
`
`Portable Housing
`
`
`
`Ex. 1003, p.35; Ex. 1005, Fig. 8 (annotated). Based on this diagram, a POSITA
`
`would have recognized that Presler’s video camera includes a “portable housing”
`
`because the camera is specifically identified as a “mobile docking camera” and the
`
`housing includes a handle. Ex. 1003, p.35. Thus, Presler’s video camera comprises
`
`a portable housing.
`
`Presler also teaches that its video camera includes an opening through which
`
`light enters the portable housing. Specifically, Presler’s video camera “includes an
`
`optical assembly 22 to gather light from a desired scene.” Ex. 1005, 6:13-16. As
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,245

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