`
`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