Sony Corporationv.Yissum Research Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 22, 2014

09861859 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 60 Paper XX
Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: September 22, 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
SONY CORPORATION,
Petitioner,

v.
YISSUM RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF THE HEBREW
UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM,
Patent Owner.
_______________

Case IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2
1

_______________

Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

1
Sony Corp. v. Yissum Research Co., Case IPR2013-00327 (“IPR2013-00327”)
has been joined with the instant Case IPR2013-00219. IPR2013-00327, Paper 15
(PTAB Sept. 24, 2013). This Final Written Decision is entered in both cases.

IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

2

I. INTRODUCTION
Sony Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed Petitions requesting inter partes
review of claims 1–3, 10, 20, 27–29, 36, and 37 (IPR2013-00219, Paper 3,
“Petition” or “Pet.”), and claims 4, 7, and 38 (IPR2013-00327, Paper 10)
2
of U.S.
Patent No. 7,477,284 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’284 Patent”).
3
In response, Yissum
Research Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (“Patent
Owner”) filed Preliminary Responses. Paper 13 (“Prelim. Resp.”); IPR2013-
00327, Paper 13.
We joined Case IPR2013-00327 to Case IPR2013-00219 (see IPR2013-
00327, Paper 15) and instituted inter partes review of claims 1–4, 7, 10, 20, 27–29,
and 36–38 of the ’284 Patent on several grounds of unpatentability, as identified
below. See Paper 16 (“Dec. on Inst.”); IPR2013-00327, Paper 14. Pursuant to the
Joinder Decision, the parties filed all further papers and exhibits in Case IPR2013-
00219. Subsequent to institution and joinder, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
Response (Paper 35, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 37, “Pet.
Reply”) thereto.
In addition, Patent Owner filed a Motion for Observation (Paper 43) on the
cross-examination testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Trevor Darrell, and a
Motion to Exclude certain evidence (Paper 44). Petitioner filed a Response to the
Motion for Observation (Paper 52) and an Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to
Exclude (Paper 51). Patent Owner filed a Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition. Paper
53.

2
Unless otherwise indicated, reference hereinafter is to papers and exhibits filed in
IPR2013-00219.
3
The ’284 Patent is a child of U.S. Patent No. 6,665,003 B1 (Ex. 1002, “the ’003
Patent”), which is at issue in related Cases IPR2013-00218 and IPR2013-00326.
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

3

Petitioner also filed a Motion to Exclude certain evidence. Paper 47. Patent
Owner filed an Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 50), and
Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Opposition (Paper 54).
The parties requested and appeared at an oral hearing before the panel on
June 18, 2014. The record includes a transcript of the hearing. Paper 59 (“Tr.”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written Decision,
issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73, addresses issues and
arguments raised during trial. For the reasons that follow, we determine that
Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–4,
7, 10, 20, 27–29, and 36–38 of the ’284 Patent are unpatentable.
A. The ’284 Patent
The ’284 Patent describes methods and apparatus for generating mosaics of
a scene from image data of the scene and displaying the mosaics to provide a sense
of depth. See Ex. 1001, Abstract. In particular, the ’284 Patent relates generally to
the field of recording and generating images and, more particularly, to the
generation and display of panoramic images stereoscopically. Id. at col. 1, ll. 44–
47. The ’284 Patent specifically describes generating and displaying a
stereoscopic, panoramic image set, comprising respectively at least two panoramic
images of a scene, each having a different viewing direction or line, for
contemporaneous viewing by respective left and right eyes of a viewer to provide
an apparent stereoscopic image of the scene to the viewer. Id. at col. 1, ll. 47–53.
According to the ’003 Patent,
4
creating and displaying non-panoramic,
stereoscopic images was known in the art, but “currently, there are no such
arrangements for generating and displaying stereoscopically panoramic images.”

4
The ‘284 Patent claims the benefit of and incorporates by reference the disclosure
of the application from which the ‘003 Patent issued. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 7–13,
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

4

Ex. 1002, col. 1, ll. 41–43(emphasis added); see Ex. 1001, col. 1, l. 66–col. 2, l. 1.
Figure 3 of the ’284 Patent is reproduced below:

Figure 3 schematically depicts a functional block diagram of the
stereoscopic data source according to the ’284 Patent.

In Figure 3, a functional block diagram of the stereoscopic data source, such
as data source 11n of Figure 2 (not reproduced), is depicted. Stereoscopic data
source 11n of Figure 2 “includes an image capture unit 30, a local memory unit 31,
a processing unit 32, one or more local displays 33A, 33B, . . . and a
communication unit 34, as well as [an] operator control panel 22.” Ex. 1001,

27–33.
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

5

col. 6, ll. 58–61. Image capture unit 30, local memory unit 31, processing unit 32,
and local displays 33A and 33B may be housed together and form a video camera
21, such as that described in connection with Figure 2. See id. at col. 6, ll. 61–64,
Fig. 2. Capture unit 30 may include, for example, an image sensor, aperture,
lenses, and/or the like to facilitate capturing or acquiring of images. Id. at col. 6,
ll. 64–67. A suitable image sensor may be any of a number of “conventional”
image sensors, including, for example, charge coupled devices, film, and the like.
Id. at col. 6, l. 67–col. 7, l. 3.
The ’003 Patent describes stereoscopic viewing and images as follows:
A person can see stereoscopically because his or her eyes are
displaced horizontally (when standing) which, will provide a
perception of depth when viewing a scene, which would not be
present otherwise. Stereoscopic images comprise two images
recorded of a scene recorded from slightly displaced positions, which,
when viewed simultaneously by the respective eyes, provides a
perception of depth.

Ex. 1002, col. 1, ll. 32–39 (emphasis added).

Figure 5 of the ’284 Patent, which depicts the generation of a stereoscopic,
panoramic set of images that may be used to display a scene or portions of a scene
to provide a sense of depth of the scene to a viewing person, is reproduced below:
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

6

Figure 5 presents the operations performed by the stereoscopic panoramic image
arrangement in connection with generating a stereoscopic panoramic set according
to the ’284 Patent.

Figure 5 depicts a stereoscopic, panoramic image set which comprises a plurality
of panoramic images. When the panoramic images are viewed in sets, a
stereoscopic image is perceived. In particular, Figure 5 represents a series of
successive images 50(1), 50(2), . . . 50(i), that are recorded by the stereoscopic data
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

7

source 11n as stereoscopic data source 11n is translated and/or rotated with respect
to a scene or a portion of a scene. Ex. 1001, col. 8, ll. 25–33.
As the Specification of the ’284 Patent explains,
[a] plurality of panoramic images 51a, 51b . . . comprising a
stereoscopic panoramic image set are generated using respective strips
a1, a2, . . . a3, b1, b2, . . . b3, . . . from the respective images 50(i).
Strips a1, a2, . . . a3 that are used in image 51a all from the same
horizontal displacement from the center of the respective images
50(i), strips b1, b2,. . . b3 that are used in image 51b are all from [sic]
same horizontal displacement from the center of the respective images
50(i), and so forth. It will be appreciated that, if the images 51(i) are
viewed in pairs, they will provide stereoscopic depth since they will
effectively have different viewing directions.

Id. at col. 8, ll. 34–44 (emphasis added).
B. Illustrative Claim
Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 27, and 38 are independent claims.
Independent claims 1 and 27 are directed to imaging apparatus (id. at col. 13, l. 62,
col. 16, l. 5), and independent claim 38 is directed to methods for processing image
data (id. at col. 17, ll. 3–7). Each of dependent claims 2–4, 7, 10, and 20 depends
directly from claim 1. Each of dependent claims 28, 29, 36, and 37 depends
directly from claim 27. Challenged claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below,
with some additional indentation and line spacing, solely for the sake of clarity:
1. Imaging apparatus comprising:

at least one imager that moves relative to a scene so as to
acquire a plurality of optical images of at least portions of the scene,
each of at least two of said optical images being viewed from a
different respective viewing position;

a processor that receives image data representative of said at
least two of the optical images and processes the data to divide each
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

8

image into a plurality of segments and to generate a plurality of
mosaics of the scene, such that:

each mosaic contains segments taken from different ones of
said optical images;

segments relating to at least one part of the scene are derived
from at least two optical images and appear in at least two mosaics;

the different segments of the two optical images in a given
mosaic represent different parts of the scene; and

a display that receives a plurality of the mosaics and displays
them so as to provide a sense of depth of the scene.
C. References, Declarations, and Depositions
Petitioner and Patent Owner primarily rely upon the following references,
declarations, and depositions:
5

Exhibit References, Declarations, and Depositions
1004 Kawakita et al., Generation of Panoramic Stereo Images from
Monocular Moving Images, SIG-CyberSpace ,Virtual Reality Society of
Japan (VRSJ) Research Report, VCR 97-12 (Nov. 27, 1997)
(“Kawakita”)
6

1006 US 2001/0010546 A1 (published Aug. 2, 2001/filed Sep. 26, 1997)
(“Chen”)
1007 Eastman Kodak Company, Kodak Digital Science™ DC50 Zoom
Camera User’s Guide (Jan. 1996) (“Kodak”).
1010 Inoue, JP H08-159762 (June 21, 1996) (“Asahi”)
1013 First Declaration of Dr. Trevor Darrell (“first declaration”)
1039 US 5,737,491 (issued Apr. 7, 1998) (“Allen”)
1040 Joined Declaration of Dr. Darrell
7

5
Unless otherwise noted, each of “Kawakita” (Ex. 1004) and “Asahi” (Ex. 1010)
refers to a respective certified English language translation of a Japanese language
document (Exs. 1003 and 1009, respectively) provided by Petitioner.
6
Petitioner has added page numbers 13–19 to Kawakita.
7
This declaration is from joined Case IPR2013-00327.
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

9

1042 Wikipedia article entitled “Stereoscopy”
1043 Deposition of Dr. Irfan Essa
1044 Second Declaration of Dr. Darrell (“second declaration”)
2008 First Deposition of Dr. Darrell
2010 Declaration of Dr. Essa
2014 Second Deposition of Dr. Darrell
2019 Declaration of Mr. Barton
2020 Deposition of Mr. Barton

D. Grounds of Unpatentability
This inter partes review involves the following grounds of unpatentability:
References Basis Claims
Kawakita 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) 1, 10, 27, 36, and 38
Kawakita 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 1, 10, 27, and 36
Kawakita and Chen 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 1, 2, 10, 27, 28, and 36
Kawakita, Chen, and Kodak 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 3 and 29
Asahi 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) 1, 3, 20, 27, 29, and 37
Kawakita, Chen, and Allen 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 4 and 7

II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its
broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Claim Construction). Under the
broadest reasonable construction standard, a claim term is presumed to have an
ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

10

in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A patentee may act as his or her own
lexicographer by providing a special definition for a claim term in the specification
with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Generally, in the absence of such a special definition
or other considerations, “limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In our Decision on Institution, we provided constructions for various terms
of the challenged claims. Dec. on Inst. 10–19. Neither party expressly challenges
our constructions of these terms or suggests that other terms require express
construction in order to render our final decision in this review. Nevertheless, as
discussed below, Patent Owner contends that neither Kawakita nor Asahi discloses
or suggests “a processor [to] generate a plurality of mosaics . . . . [that] provide a
sense of depth of the scene” or “a display that receives a plurality of the mosaics
and displays them so as to provide a sense of depth of the scene.” PO Resp. 3.
Therefore, for purposes of this final decision, we expressly construe each of these
terms.
1. “a processor [to] generate a plurality of mosaics . . . [that] provide a
sense of depth of the scene”
In our Decision on Institution, we construed the term “processor that
processes the data to divide each image [of the scene] into a plurality of segments”
to mean a processor that divides, e.g., separates, each image into a plurality of
segments or strips. Dec. on Inst. 14. Referring to claim 1, reproduced above in
Section I.B., we note that Patent Owner combines the language of the “processor”
element, namely, “a processor [to] generate a plurality of mosaics . . .” with that
of the “display” element, namely, “[that] provide a sense of depth of the scene,” to
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

11

create the term “processor [to] generate a plurality of mosaics . . . [that] provide a
sense of depth of the scene.” PO Resp. 3, 8, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, 30, 32. Petitioner
contends that Patent Owner’s argument
relies on a non-existent claim limitation. None of the claims call for a
processor that generates mosaics that provide a sense of depth of the
scene. [Patent Owner] rewrites the claims to incorporate a function of
the display (“displays them so as to provide a sense of depth of the
scene”) into the processor element.
Pet. Reply 1; see id. at 4, 10. We agree with Petitioner and determine that this term
language is not recited in claim 1.
As discussed in greater detail below, Patent Owner argues that the “plurality
of mosaics of the scene” generated by the processor must “provide a sense of depth
of the scene,” without further adjustment. See PO Resp. 16–17 (referring to
Kawakita); 31–32 (referring to Asahi). Further, Patent Owner argues that the
processor must provide a sense of depth for the entire scene, rather than a partial
scene. Id. at 17 (referring to Kawakita). Initially, we are not persuaded based on
the language of claim 1 that the function recited with respect to the “display” may
be attributed necessarily to the “processor.” See Tr. 62:20–63:4 (Petitioner arguing
that the display and processor may function together).
In addition, Patent Owner does not identify any language recited in claim 1,
or, for that matter, in the Specification of the ’284 Patent, that requires or prohibits
the adjustment of the generated mosaics, either by the processor or by the display,
before viewing. See PO Resp. 5–7. Finally, we note that claim 1 recites an
“[i]maging apparatus comprising” elements, including the processor and the
display. Ex. 1001, col. 13, l. 62 (emphasis added). “‘Comprising’ is a term of art
used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but
other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

12

claim.” Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(emphasis added).
Moreover, claim 1 recites that at least one imager acquires “a plurality of
optical images of at least portions of the scene.” Ex. 1001, col. 13, ll. 64–65
(emphasis added). Thus, we construe the “scene” to refer to all or a portion of an
imaged scene. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 53–55 (“The display, if provided, will
display at least a portion of one or more of the images comprising a stereoscopic
panoramic image set.”); col. 5, ll. 19–23 (“the respective viewing device 12m can
include a control to facilitate selection of a stereoscopic panoramic image set for
display, selection of display mode, and selection of a portion of the stereoscopic
panoramic image set to be displayed.”).
Therefore, we construe the recited processor as functioning to generate the
plurality of mosaics of the scene or a portion of a scene, but the processor is neither
required to perform, nor prohibited from performing, adjustments to the generated
mosaics, and the generated mosaics are not required themselves to “provide a sense
of depth of the scene.”
2. “a display that receives a plurality of the mosaics and displays them so
as to provide a sense of depth of the scene”
In our Decision on Institution, we construed the term “display” to mean
one or more elements that receive a plurality of the mosaics and
display the plurality of the mosaics so as to provide, in conjunction
with an “appliance” or a “binocular device,” a sense of depth of the
scene from which the mosaics were generated for viewing by a
person. In other words, the Specification makes clear that a display
does not preclude, and some embodiments may utilize, a further
viewing appliance or device to help provide a sense of depth to the
viewer.
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

13

Dec. on Inst. 16–17 (emphasis added). We similarly construed the term “sense of
depth of the scene” to mean the visual perception of differential distances among
objects, where “the sense of depth must be perceived by a person viewing the
display, albeit with appliances or other devices,” as noted above with respect to our
construction of the term “display.” Id. at 17–18; see Tr. 60:21–61:2.
In addition, as we noted in our Decision on Institution (Dec. on Inst. 24),
challenged claim 10 depends directly from claim 1, and claim 10 recites an
imaging apparatus “wherein the display displays the at least two mosaics so that
each eye sees a different one of the mosaics.” Ex. 1001, col. 14, ll. 42–44. Other
claims of the ’284 Patent can be valuable sources of enlightenment as to the
meaning of a term of a challenged claim. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90
F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Because claim terms generally are used
consistently throughout a patent, the usage of a term, e.g., display, in one claim
may illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims. See Rexnord Corp.
v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Given that claim 10
narrows the scope of the display of claim 1 (see 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 4), the meaning
of the term “display,” as used in claim 1, encompasses the stereoscopic
8
display
described in claim 10.
Although, as discussed in greater detail below, Patent Owner argues that
Asahi does not disclose or suggest this limitation because Asahi does not disclose
displaying mosaic images to a person to provide a perception of depth (PO Resp.
25), Patent Owner again does not identify any language recited in claim 1 or in the

8
A relevant definition of the term “stereoscopic” is “[o]f or pertaining to
stereoscopy; especially, three dimensional,” or “[o]f or pertaining to a
stereoscope.” THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
1264 (1976) (Ex. 3001). The ’284 Patent relates specifically to “human stereo
panoramic perception.” See Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 10–11.
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

14

Specification of the ’284 Patent, that requires or prohibits the adjustment of the
generated mosaics, by the display before viewing (see id. at 5–7). See Tr. 62:20–
63:4. Petitioner does not contest our previous construction of these terms. Pet.
Reply 3–4. For reasons similar to those set forth above with respect to the
“processor” element of claim 1, we also are persuaded that the “display” of claim 1
is neither required to perform, nor prohibited from performing, adjustments to the
received mosaics and that the received mosaics are not required themselves to
“provide a sense of depth of the scene.”
For this decision, we adopt and apply the foregoing constructions, as well as
our constructions of other claim terms, as set forth in our Decision on Institution.
Dec. on Inst. 10–19. All remaining claim terms and phrases recited in the
challenged claims are given their ordinary and customary meanings, consistent
with the Specification, as would be understood by one with ordinary skill in the art,
and need not be construed expressly here.
B. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
1. Introduction
Petitioner asserts that that claims 1–4, 7, 10, 20, 27–29, and 36–38 of the
’284 Patent are unpatentable, and, in particular, that a) claims 1, 10, 27, 36, and 38
are anticipated by Kawakita; b) claims 1, 10, 27, and 36 are rendered obvious over
Kawakita; c) claims 1, 2, 10, 27, 28, and 36 are rendered obvious over Kawakita
and Chen; d) claims 3 and 29 are rendered obvious over Kawakita, Chen, and
Kodak; e) claims 1, 3, 20, 27, 29, and 37 are anticipated by Asahi; and f) claims 4
and 7 are rendered obvious over Kawakita, Chen, and Allen. To support these
asserted grounds of unpatentability in its Petitions, Petitioner provides detailed
explanations, and the declaration of Dr. Darrell, to show how each reference
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

15

discloses each claim limitation.
9
See Pet. 16–33, 45–50; IPR2013-00327, Paper
10, 17–26, 38–40; Ex. 1013.
Relying partially on the declaration of Dr. Irfan Essa, Patent Owner counters
that neither Kawakita nor Asahi discloses or suggests each and every element of
claim 1 and that “[c]laim 1 is representative” of the challenged claims in this trial.
See PO Resp. 9, 20, 32; Ex. 2010. Claims 2–4, 7, 10, and 20 depend from claim 1.
Independent claims 27 and 38 are similar in scope to claim 1, and claims 28, 29,
36, and 37 depend from claim 27. Patent Owner only raises substantive arguments
with respect to claim 1 of the ’284 Patent, and does not argue any of the other
independent claims or any of the dependent claims, separately from claim 1. Other
arguments, not presented in the Patent Owner Response, are deemed waived.
Paper 17, 2 (“The patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability
not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”)
Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments and contentions and their
supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a
preponderance of evidence that claims 1–4, 7, 10, 20, 27–29, and 36–38 of the
’284 Patent are unpatentable based on the foregoing grounds. In our analysis
below, we focus on Patent Owner’s arguments presented in the Patent Owner
Response, which dispute whether the applied references disclose or suggest certain
elements allegedly recited in claim 1. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
Fed. Reg. at 48,766 (“The [Patent Owner] [R]esponse should identify all the
involved claims that are believed to be patentable and state the basis for that

9
Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Darrell, and Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Essa, each
provide a description of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. Ex. 1013 ¶ 8;
Ex. 2010 ¶ 13. These descriptions are substantially similar. For purposes of this
decision, we adopt Dr. Essa’s description which encompasses the qualifications of
each declarant.
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

16

belief.”).
2. Kawakita
Anticipation––Claims 1, 10, 27, 36, and 38
Obviousness––Claim 2–4, 7, 28, and 29
1. Processor
Petitioner reads the elements of independent claim 1 of the ’284 Patent on
the disclosure of Kawakita. Pet. 16–20. In particular, claim 1 recites “a processor
that receives image data representative of said at least two of the optical images
and processes the data to divide each image into a plurality of segments and to
generate a plurality of mosaics of the scene” (emphasis added).
Petitioner contends that Kawakita discloses excising, e.g., dividing, vertical
slit images from the video frame images, and these vertical slit images are used to
derive left eye and right eye slit images. Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1004, 15). Thus,
Petitioner contends that Kawakita discloses receiving “image data representative of
said at least two of the optical images” and processing “the data to divide each
image into a plurality of segments.” Id. Although Petitioner acknowledges that
Kawakita does not disclose expressly the use of a processor, Petitioner contends
that
Kawakita’s system necessarily uses, and, therefore, inherently
discloses, a processor to generate the mosaics, because, among other
things, digital image data corresponding to each video frame is
captured by a 320x240 pixel imager and digital processing steps
including “template matching” is performed on the image data as part
of the procedure for determining slit widths.

Pet. 17 (emphases added). “It is well settled that a prior art reference may
anticipate when the claim limitations not expressly found in that reference are
nonetheless inherent in it. ‘Under the principles of inherency, if the prior art
necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed limitations, it
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

17

anticipates.’” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (emphasis added; citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In support
of Petitioner’s contention of inherency, Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Darrell (Ex.
1013 ¶¶ 1–4), states that “[i]t would have been necessary and obvious to employ a
processor to perform these steps, especially in light of the number of pixels being
processed, which would be unfeasible to perform by hand.” Ex. 1013 ¶ 10.b.
(emphasis added); see Pet. 17. In view of this evidence, we are persuaded here that
Kawakita inherently discloses the use of a processor.
Nevertheless, Patent Owner argues that Kawakita fails to disclose or suggest
“a processor [to] generate a plurality of mosaics … [that] provide a sense of depth
of the scene,” as allegedly recited in claim 1. PO Resp. 13–21. Specifically,
Patent Owner argues that Kawakita describes two different situations that may
occur, based on the relative distances of the objects in the scene, namely:
When the left and right panoramic images obtained using the
foregoing procedure are viewed binocular stereoscopically, a
stereoscopic view is possible that faithfully reproduces the positional
relationships. However, if the camera was placed at a comparatively
close distance, or if the distance from the camera to the objects varies
greatly, the positions representing the left and the right panoramic
images must be adjusted.

PO Resp. 10 (quoting Ex. 1004, 16–17). Thus, Patent Owner contends that
Kawakita teaches that the objects viewed stereoscopically either (1) are at roughly
the same distance from each other or (2) are at different distances from each other.
PO Resp. 10–11. In the first situation, Patent Owner contends that perception of,
or sensing depth by, a person viewing displayed images is not possible because
objects are roughly the same distance from the camera. Id. at 13–15. In the second
situation, Patent Owner contends that, although perception of, or sensing depth by,
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

18

a person viewing displayed images is possible, Kawakita’s display must be
subjected to a parallax adjustment process to align the images. Id. at 15–17.
First, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Darrell,
acknowledges that there must be “differential distance of objects in the scene to
provide a perception of depth” (PO Resp. 14 (quoting Ex. 2008, 32:16–23)) and
that, if there is no such “differential distance,” no perception of depth of viewed
mosaicked images is possible (PO Resp. 14–15 (quoting Ex. 2008, 47:9–19)).
Thus, in Patent Owner’s alleged first situation of Kawakita, no perception of depth
is possible, with or without adjustment. PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 35).
Second, Patent Owner argues that that Dr. Darrell acknowledges that
“Kawakita performs multiple alignment adjustments to the images, one for each
sight line direction that an observer looks” (PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2008, 72:2–9))
and that, “if no subsequent adjustment is made when a viewer shifts to a different
line of direction[,] faithful stereoscopic viewing is that portion of the scene is not
possible” (PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2008, 84:15–24). Thus, in the Patent Owner’s
alleged second situation of Kawakita, no perception of depth is possible, without
adjustment, and then a perception of depth is provided for only a portion of the
displayed image. PO Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 41–42).
Initially, we note that, given our construction of the language of claim 1,
even if a parallax adjustment process to align the images or a similar adjustment
process is performed, so that the mosaics displayed to a person provide a “sense of
depth,” such adjustments to the generated mosaics are neither required nor
prohibited to “provide a sense of depth of the scene.” See supra 10–14 (Sections
II.A.1. and II.A.2.). Nevertheless, Petitioner contends that Patent Owner
misunderstands Kawakita’s disclosure as requiring adjustment in order to display
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

19

(or view) any mosaics “to provide a sense of depth to the scene.” Pet. Reply 5–6.
We agree with Petitioner.
Contrary to Patent Owner’s interpretation of Kawakita, Petitioner contends
that Kawakita discloses at least three situations by the text quoted above. Id. at 5
(quoting Ex. 1004, 16–17). In particular, Kawakita states that “[w]hen the left and
right panoramic images obtained using the foregoing procedure are viewed
binocular stereoscopically, a stereoscopic view is possible that faithfully
reproduces the positional relationships, if the image was captured from a sufficient
distance.” Ex. 1004, 16 (emphasis added). Petitioner contends that, by this first
sentence, Kawakita indicates that unadjusted mosaic pairs may “faithfully
reproduce[] the positional relationships [of objects in the imaged scene], if the
image was captured from a sufficient distance.” Pet. Reply 5. Petitioner further
contends that the second sentence of this quoted passage describes two situations
in which adjustments may be necessary. Id. First, adjustments may be necessary
when “the camera was placed at a comparatively close distance,” and, second,
adjustments may be necessary when “the distance from the camera to the objects
varies greatly.” Ex. 1004, 16–17 (emphases added). Petitioner contends that
Kawakita’s use of the adverb “greatly” makes clear that Kawakita was not
requiring adjustment in every situation, but, instead, only in those situations in
which the distances between the camera and the objects vary “greatly.” Pet. Reply
5–6.
Further, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner contends that Dr.
Darrell did not make statements inconsistent with Petitioner’s reading of Kawakita
during his cross-examination. Pet. Reply 6; see PO Resp. 17–21. “Kawakita
equates ‘faithful stereoscopic viewing’ with no noticeable double images at all, i.e.,
near perfect stereoscopic viewing.” Pet. Reply 7 (citing Ex. 2008, 59:8–16).
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

20

Petitioner contends, however, that Dr. Darrell’s testimony supports the conclusion
that “an image pair that produces an imperfect perception of depth is still a
stereoscopic image pair.” Id. (citing Ex. 2008, 59:17–60:5). At the oral hearing,
however, Patent Owner argued that the recited display “provide[s] a sense of depth
of the scene,” but Kawakita only teaches “providing . . . a sense of depth of a
partial scene.” Tr. 82:24–83:2. Thus, Patent Owner argues that Kawakita does not
“provide a sense of depth of the scene” (emphasis added).
Nevertheless, Petitioner notes that the testimony of Dr. Essa, Patent Owner’s
declarant, supports the conclusion that, despite disparities along different lines of
sight, a pair of images still may be considered a stereoscopic pair. Id. at 7–8
(citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 25); see also Ex. 2008, 34:19–35:8 (discussing appearance of
flagpole in the background of Ex. 2007). Further, Dr. Essa states that “the term
‘stereoscopic image’ is a broad term, which generally refers to a pair of images that
view a scene from two different viewpoints.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 48. Dr. Darrell agreed
with this interpretation during his deposition, as follows: “‘Stereoscopic image’ is
a broad term but most naturally would be defined as a pair of images that view a
scene from [at least] . . . two different viewpoints.” Ex. 2008, 26:11–14.
Therefore, based on testimony of both declarants, we are persuaded that, although
a viewer may not perceive a sense of depth of every portion of a scene from every
sight line, the viewer still may perceive a “sense of depth of the scene” despite the
presence of disparities in portions of the scene.
Petitioner contends that
Kawakita discloses excising (i.e., dividing) “vertical slit images” (i.e.,
segments) from the frame images (i.e., optical images). [Kawakita,]
Secs. 1, 3, 4 (“The slit image that is ultimate[ly] excised is a slit image
of width sw from the position w/2+x for the left eye and w/2-x-sw for
the right eye.”), 5. “All of the slit images excised from the frame
images are continuously composited [(i.e., mosaicked)] in sequence.”
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

21

Id., Sec. 5; Sec. 6; see also id. English Abstract (“this technique cuts
and connects vertical slit images”). Mosaicing the slit images results
in two mosaics of the scene, as depicted in Fig. 5 (the elevator
hallway).

Pet. 16–17. Thus, Petitioner contends that the “mosaicing” of Kawakita’s slit
images results in two mosaics of the scene, as depicted in Kawakita’s Figure 5, and
discloses the generation of “a plurality of mosaics of the scene,” as recited in claim
1. Id. at 17.
Given our claim construction of the processor element (see supra 10–12
(Section II.A.1.)), we conclude that the recited claims encompass the generation of
mosaics with respect to all or a portion of a scene. Consequently, we are
persuaded that Petitioner’s reading of Kawakita disclosure is accurate and that
Kawakita discloses or suggests the processor element, as recited in claim 1.
2. Display
Finally, claim 1 recites that the imaging apparatus comprises “a display that
receives a plurality of the mosaics and displays them so as to provide a sense of
depth of the scene.” As noted above, we construe a display to mean one or more
elements that receive a plurality of the mosaics and display the plurality of the
mosaics so as to provide a sense of depth of the scene from which the mosaics
were generated for viewing by a person. See supra 12–14 (Section II.A.2.).
Kawakita discloses that a field test was conducted based on the mosaics generated
by Kawakita’s apparatus. Ex. 1004, 18. Kawakita further discloses that “[a]s a
result of stereoscopic viewing with alignment control of the panoramic images
using the calculated depth parallax angles with [ten] research personnel, there were
no noticeable double images in the objects attended to, and the sense of depth was
faithfully reproduced.” Id. (emphasis added). In view of this field test, Petitioner
contends that “‘a display’ that displays the mosaics to provide a sense of depth was
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

22

necessarily used, and, therefore, is inherently disclosed.” Pet. 20 (emphases
added). Patent Owner argues that the display of Kawakita’s mosaics does not
“provide a sense of depth of the scene.” PO Resp. 13–17. For the reasons
discussed above, we are persuaded that Kawakita discloses or suggests this
limitation.
Kawakita discloses generating stereoscopic images in the manner disclosed
in the ’284 Patent. See Ex. 1004, 14–18. In support of Petitioner’s contention, Dr.
Darrell declares that “Kawakita discloses a technique to generate stereoscopic
panoramic images by excising slit images from images captured by a rotating
camera and mosaicing the respective slit images together.” Ex. 1013 ¶ 10.a.
(emphasis added). In particular, Kawakita discloses that “it is possible to generate
panoramic images with a sense of realism and view them stereoscopically with few
limitations during image capture and without using special equipment.” Ex. 1004,
18–19. In addition, Kawakita discloses a rotating camera in which “the left and
right camera positions correspond to the left and right eye positions when viewing
a panoramic image stereoscopically.” Ex. 1004, 15.
In Kawakita’s field test, the left eye and right eye panoramic images of
Kawakita’s Figure 5 allegedly were displayed to ten researchers to determine
whether “the sense of depth was faithfully reproduced” by these images. See
Ex. 1004, 18. Patent Owner argues that the two images of Kawakita’s Figure 5
cannot provide a sense of depth without further adjustment. PO Resp. 12.
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

23

Figure 5 of Kawakita is reproduced below:

Figure 5 of Kawakita depicts “left and right panoramic images created from
images taken of an elevator hallway,” with the upper and lower rows of mosaic
slits respectively representing the left and right eye panoramic images. Ex. 1004,
16. Kawakita states that, “[a]s a result of stereoscopic viewing with alignment
control of the panoramic images using the calculated depth parallax angles with
[ten] research personnel, there were no noticeable double images in the objects
attended to, and the sense of depth was faithfully reproduced.” Id. at 18.
It is sufficient to demonstrate anticipation, that Kawakita discloses each and
every element of the claimed invention, in some situations. In particular, Kawakita
discloses that its mosaicked images may reproduce faithfully the positional
relationships between objects in a scene. Ex. 1004, 18. Thus, we are persuaded
that Petitioner has demonstrated, contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, that the
two images of Kawakita’s Figure 5 provide a sense of depth, without further
adjustment, and that the ten researchers could detect a sense of depth by viewing
the two images of Kawakita’s Figure 5. See id. at 17–18. Therefore, pursuant to
the foregoing discussion, we conclude that Petitioner demonstrates by a
preponderance of the evidence that Kawakita discloses or suggests the display
element, as recited in claim 1.
As noted above, Patent Owner only argues that certain elements of claim 1,
i.e., the processor and display elements, are not disclosed or suggested by
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

24

Kawakita. Patent Owner does not argue that other elements of claim 1 are not
disclosed or suggested by Kawakita and does not argue that independent claim 27
or 38, or any of the dependent claims, are separately distinguishable over Kawakita
or the other references combined with Kawakita. PO Resp. 21. Because we are
not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments regarding alleged deficiencies in the
disclosure or suggestions of Kawakita with respect to the challenged elements of
claim 1, and because we conclude based on our review of the parties’ arguments
and contentions and the record evidence that the other elements of claim 1 are
disclosed by Kawakita, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is anticipated by Kawakita. As noted
in our Decision on Institution, a disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102
also renders the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for anticipation is the
epitome of obviousness. Dec. on Inst. 24–25 (citing In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399,
1402 (CCPA 1974); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 (CCPA 1982)).
Consequently, we also conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is rendered obvious over Kawakita.
Further, because Patent Owner does not argue separately any of claims 2–4, 7, 10,
27–29, 36, and 38, we conclude that, based on our review of the parties’ arguments
and contentions and the record evidence, Petitioner has demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that claims 10, 27, 36, and 38 of the ’284 Patent
also are anticipated by Kawakita and that claims 2–4, 7, 10, 27–29, and 36 are
rendered obvious over Kawakita, alone or in combination with other references.
Pet. 20–23, 29–33; IPR3013-00327, Paper 10, 17–26; 38–40; see Dec. on Inst. 20–
29.
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

25

3. Asahi
Anticipation––Claims 1, 3, 20, 27, 29, and 37
The Petition in IPR2013-00219 details how Asahi anticipates claims 1, 3,
20, 27, 29, and 37. Dec. on Inst. 29–34. In response, Patent Owner asserts that
“[c]laim 1 is representative” of the claims challenged based on Asahi. PO Resp.
21. In other words, in the Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner does not contend
that the challenged claims are patentably distinct from claim 1. Id..
Asahi’s method “relates to a method and a device for three-dimensional data
extraction, and to a stereo image formation device; more specifically, it relates to a
method and a device for extracting three-dimensional data from video images, and
to a stereo image formation device that forms stereo images from video images.”
Ex. 1010 ¶ 1. The method takes video images of a target region using an aircraft.
Id. ¶¶ 1, 35, 36. The method creates continuous “mosaic images” from forward,
middle, and rear lines of fields in video frames, which respectively form “the
forward view image,” “the nadir view image,” and “the rearward view image.” Id.
¶ 35. Changes in variable factors, such as flying speed, flight path deviations,
altitude, pitch, roll, and yaw, require a vertical parallax removal process to
calculate a parallax difference, create the mosaic images, calculate height, and
create 3D topographical maps by using the stereo mosaic images. See id. ¶¶ 1, 3,
7, 11, 29, 36, 55–57, 61, 63, 70, claims 1, 11. In other words, to create 3D maps,
Asahi creates “stereo images” to calculate heights as an intermediate step in the
process. See id. ¶ 29; see also Ex. 2014, 87:3–21, 92–100:8 (Dr. Darrell describing
Asahi’s system and testifying that Asahi’s system uses “two stereo images” to
calculate three-dimensional height data to form maps). Asahi also states that
“stereoscopic viewing is possible using this forward view image, this nadir view
image, and this rearward view image.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 35.
Regarding operation of the processor, claim 1 recites that “each mosaic
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

26

contains segments taken from different ones of said optical images [and] segments
relating to at least one part of the scene are derived from at least two optical
images and appear in at least two mosaics.” Petitioner contends that Asahi
discloses each of these features. Pet. 47–49 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 34, 35; Figs. 8, 9,
12, 19).
As with the grounds of unpatentability based on Kawakita, Patent Owner
argues that “[c]laim 1 is representative” (PO Resp. 21) and focuses solely on
distinguishing claim 1 over Asahi (id. at 21–32). In particular, Patent Owner
argues that Asahi fails to disclose two elements of claim 1 of the ’284 Patent.
First, Patent Owner argues that Asahi fails to disclose “a display that receives a
plurality of the mosaics and displays them so as to provide a sense of depth of the
scene.” PO Resp. 24–30. Second, Patent Owner argues that Asahi fails to disclose
“a processor [to] generate a plurality of mosaics … [that] provide a sense of depth
of the scene.” Id. at 30–32. For the reasons set forth below, we are not persuaded
that, to the extent that both these elements actually are recited in claim 1 of the
’284 Patent, Asahi fails to disclose them. Consequently, we conclude that
Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that Asahi anticipates
claims 1, 3, 20, 27, 29, and 37 of the ’284 Patent.
1. a display that receives a plurality of the mosaics and displays them so as
to provide a sense of depth of the scene
Claim 1 recites that the imaging apparatus comprises “a display that receives
a plurality of the mosaics and displays them so as to provide a sense of depth of the
scene.” Ex. 1001, col. 14, ll. 12–13. As noted above, we construe a display to
mean one or more elements that receive a plurality of the mosaics and display the
plurality of the mosaics so as to provide a sense of depth of the scene, from which
the mosaics were generated, for viewing by a person. See supra 12–14 (Section
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

27

II.A.2.). Petitioner contends that Asahi discloses a “stereo image formation
device” (Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1010, claim 24 (emphasis added))) and discloses that
“stereoscopic viewing is possible using [the] forward view image, [the] nadir view
image, and [the] rearward view image” (id. (quoting Ex. 1010 ¶ 35 (emphasis
added))). See PO Resp. 25. In our Decision on Institution, we were persuaded that
“[i]n view of the quoted disclosure from Asahi (Ex. 1010 ¶ 35; claim 11) and the
known definition of ‘stereoscopic,’
10
. . . Asahi’s ‘stereoscopic viewing’ discloses
displaying mosaic images to a person so as to provide a sense of depth of a scene.”
Dec. on Inst. 32 (emphasis added).
Patent Owner argues that “the term ‘stereoscopic’ [in Asahi] does not, by
itself, teach the claimed mosaic images that provide a sense of depth of the scene
to a person.” PO Resp. 25. Moreover, Patent Owner argues that Asahi’s use of the
term “stereoscopic image” is not limited to images that, when viewed, provide a
perception of depth to a person. Id. at 25–26. Instead, Patent Owner argues that
Asahi’s use of the term “stereoscopic viewing” (as well as the terms
“stereo images,” “stereoscopic images,” and “stereo matching”) is
referring to calculating height of a terrain and not to generating and
displaying images to a person to thereby provide a perception of depth
of the scene. Asahi states:

“stereo images needed for stereo matching are obtained from
images resulting from video imaging, and by which heights are
calculated.”

Id. at 26 (quoting Ex. 1010 ¶ 10 (emphases added)). Thus, Patent Owner argues
that each of these terms, when properly read together, discloses only its reference
to the calculation of heights, and not to the display of mosaics “to provide a sense
of depth of the scene.” PO Resp. 30.

10
See supra 13 n.8.
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

28

In particular, Patent Owner argues that the reliance on the disclosure of
Asahi’s claims 11 and 24 in our Decision on Institution is misplaced. Id. at 26–27.
Patent Owner further argues that Asahi’s claims 11 and 24 describe “a data
extraction device” and “extraction means,” respectively, and that these descriptions
relate to height calculations, rather than the display of mosaicked images. Id.
Further, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Darrell, acknowledges
that stereoscopic images may include both images that involve human vision, but
also images that are viewed by algorithms or machine vision. Id. at 26–27 (citing
Ex. 2008, 26:9–16, 29:7–15). Moreover, with respect to a specific academic
subfield, Dr. Darrell stated that “one can have stereoscopic images that are
computed solely for robotic vision.” PO Resp. 28 (quoting Ex. 2008, 30:23–31:5).
In addition, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Essa, states that the meaning of
“stereoscopic image” depends upon the context within which the term is used. PO
Resp. 28–29. Dr. Essa explains that
For example, when speaking with a colleague that is working on
images generated to be suitable for human viewing, I would
understand the term as referring to human perception of depth and
when speaking with a colleague that is performing depth calculation
of objects, I would understand that the term “stereoscopic image”
solely refers to an image for computer vision which is used to
calculate the depth of the objects in the scene.

Id. at 29 (quoting Ex. 2010 ¶ 48 (emphasis added)). Consequently, Patent Owner
argues that the term “stereoscopic viewing” alone does not disclose that there is a
display, as recited in claim 1, and that, within the context of Asahi’s disclosure,
Asahi’s use of the term “stereoscopic viewing” refers to a machine calculation of
height, rather than the display of mosaics “to provide a sense of depth of the
scene.” PO Resp. 29–30.
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

29

Petitioner disagrees and contests each of Patent Owner’s arguments as
applying a limited scope to Asahi’s disclosure regarding the term “stereoscopic
viewing.” Pet. Reply 8–10. Petitioner contends that “height calculation is
specifically addressed extensively in Asahi, and where addressed, the language is
clear.” Id. at 9. In particular, Petitioner cites to several portions of Asahi’s
disclosure, including claim 11, in which Asahi addresses the calculation of height.
Id. (citing Ex. 1010, Abstract (“height is calculated”), Claim 1 (“height calculation
step”), Claim 11 (“height calculation means”), ¶ 8 (“Heights are calculated”), ¶ 10
(“heights are calculated”), ¶ 56 (“calculating height”), ¶ 63 (“height can be
calculated”), ¶ 70 (“height data can be computed”)).
Moreover, we conclude that Patent Owner misunderstands our citations to
Asahi’s claims 11 and 24 in our Decision on Institution. Dec. on Inst. 31–32. The
three-dimensional data extraction device of Asahi’s claim 11 comprises both a
continuous mosaic image generation means and a height calculation means. In
particular, we noted that Asahi discloses “a continuous mosaic image generation
means that extracts image data of prescribed lines in prescribed screens in
consecutive screens of captured images, and generates at least two continuous
mosaic images from among a forward view image, a nadir view image, and a
rearward view image.” Id. at 32 (quoting Ex. 1010, claim 11 (emphases added)).
Thus, as applied to claim 1 of the ’284 Patent, our citation to Asahi’s claim 11 was
due to its recitation of the “continuous mosaic image generation means,” rather
than of the “height calculation means.”
Similarly, Asahi’s claim 24 describes a stereo image formation device, and
Asahi’s claim 25, which depends from claim 24, recites that the stereo image
formation device further comprises “a vertical parallax removal means that
removes vertical parallax from the images combined by said combining means,
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

30

based on exterior orientation elements of each of the line image data on which [the
images] are based” (emphasis added). Thus, claim 24 also is directed to an
embodiment for the display of images, rather than solely to the calculation of
height. See PO Resp. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 50–52, 58; Figs. 10, 11, 14, 15).
Petitioner contends that the term “stereoscopic viewing” refers to human
viewing of stereoscopic images. In particular, Petitioner argues that the ordinary
meaning of “viewing” is not “calculating.” Pet. Reply 9. Initially, we note that a
relevant definition of the word “viewing” is “the act of looking at or watching, as
of watching television.” WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY 1488 (3
rd
College
ed. 1988) (Ex. 3004).
11
Moreover, as Petitioner notes, the term “stereoscopic
viewing” is used in contexts distinct from the calculation of height. See Ex. 1010
¶ 35 (“If the travel speed when imaging is constant, and the orientation of the
camera is also constant, stereoscopic viewing is possible using this forward view
image, this nadir view image, and this rearward view image. Note that lenses of
short focal length may be used to emphasize height, which is to say, to increase the
resolution.” (emphases added)). Neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Essa identifies a
definition of the term “stereoscopic viewing” in Asahi’s disclosure — or elsewhere
— that is limited to the calculation of height.
Petitioner also points out that
the term “stereoscopic viewing” appears only once in Asahi’s
disclosure, in reference to mosaics of images recorded under special
conditions: where the “travel speed when imaging is constant, and the
orientation of the camera is also constant.” [Ex. 1010 ¶ 35.] Asahi
then addresses the need for vertical parallax removal as part of the

11
Petitioner cites to other dictionaries for definitions of the word “viewing.” See
Pet. Reply 9 (citing Exs. 1045 and 1046). We note, however, that those definitions
may not predate the earliest application from which the ’284 Patent claims benefit.
Ex. 1001, Cover Page (item (60)).
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

31

process of calculating height under the variables of flying speed, flight
path deviations, and altitude changes, among other things, that typify
video imaging from aircraft. [Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 36–71; see also id. Fig. 4.]

Pet. Reply 9. Dr. Essa opines that stereoscopic viewing “does not refer to
displaying images to a person,” but bases this opinion on citations to other terms in
Asahi, specifically, “stereoscopic image,” “stereo images,” and “stereo matching.”
Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 48, 49. Further, referring to Figure 11 of Asahi, Dr. Essa indicates
that the defects (i.e., waves) in the letter “F” “result[] from flight
turbulence/deviation, imaging limitations, and instrumentation inaccuracy, etc.”
Ex. 2010 ¶ 52.
Nevertheless, as noted above, Asahi’s stereoscopic viewing is of mosaics of
images captured “if the travel speed when imaging is constant, and the orientation
of the camera is also constant.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 35. Although Dr. Essa relies on the
alleged defects in the reproduction of letter “F” to show that Asahi’s unadjusted
images do not provide depth perception (Ex. 2010 ¶ 61), according to Dr. Darrell,
those defects typically do not occur in stereoscopic images produced for viewing
(Ex. 1044 ¶ 30). See also Ex. 1043, 174:21–176:8 (acknowledging that “three-
dimensional topographical maps” produced according to Asahi may be suitable for
human viewing). Even if some defects were produced (when speed or camera
orientation was not constant), the defects would “not be so severe in every case as
to preclude depth from being perceived upon viewing an appropriate display of a
pair of the mosaics.” Ex. 1044 ¶ 25. Consequently, we are not persuaded that
defects, such as those depicted in Asahi’s Figure 11, would be present in all such
images displayed for “stereoscopic viewing,” within the context of that term’s use
in Asahi.
Finally, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner that Dr. Darrell’s testimony
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

32

shows that Asahi’s use of the term “stereoscopic viewing” applies solely to robotic
vision and the calculation of height. See PO Resp. 27–28. Patent Owner fails to
persuade us that Dr. Darrell’s testimony regarding how the term “stereoscopic
viewing” might be understood by colleagues in different contexts, explains how
that term should be understood in view of Asahi’s disclosure. Id. Dr. Darrell
opines that, “although a person of ordinary skill in the art as of 1998 might
understand terms such as ‘stereo images’ and ‘stereoscopic images’ to refer to
images for calculating distance, depending on the context, the word ‘viewing’
would have been understood to refer to human observation.” Pet. Reply 10 (citing
Ex.1044 ¶ 24). Consequently, Dr. Darrell concludes that “Asahi’s [images] . . .
could be viewed using an appropriate display and provide a perception of depth.”
Ex. 1044 ¶ 23. In particular, we note that, during cross-examination, Dr. Darrell
responded “yes” when asked: “Is it your opinion . . . that the stereo images . . . in
Asahi are capable of being viewed so as to produce a depth - - or perception of
depth in a human.” Ex. 2014, 100:5–9.
After considering Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence that
Asahi discloses “a display that receives a plurality of the mosaics and displays
them so as to provide a sense of depth of the scene,” as recited in claim 1, and
Patent Owner’s arguments and supporting evidence to the contrary, we conclude
that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Asahi discloses
this element, as recited in claim 1.
2. a processor [to] generate a plurality of mosaics … [that] provide a sense
of depth of the scene
Patent Owner argues that, “to construct images capable of providing a
perception of depth to a person, the images must be generated in accordance with
the separation and from the perspective of human eyes.” PO Resp. 30 (citing Ex.
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

33

1001, 2:55–59, 3:8–31). Patent Owner further argues that Asahi fails to disclose
this requirement in constructing its images because Asahi only calculates the
height of objects — and does not generate images that can be viewed by a person
“to provide a sense of depth of the scene.” Id. at 30–31; see Ex. 2010 ¶ 47.
Initially, we note that this element is not recited in claim 1. See supra 10–12
(Section II.A.1.). Consequently, in order to anticipate, Asahi need only disclose “a
processor [to] generate a plurality of mosaics.” Neither party contests that Asahi
discloses this element.
Nevertheless, Petitioner also contends that Patent Owner’s assertion that the
pair of images must be generated in accordance with the separation and from the
perspective of human eyes is incorrect. Pet. Reply 11. In particular, Petitioner
notes that “[n]either of [the passages cited by Patent Owner] supports the
proposition that only images ‘generated in accordance with the separation and from
the perspective of human eyes’ can provide a perception of depth to a person.” Id.
Moreover, Petitioner contends that the ’003 Patent, which is incorporated by
reference into the ’284 Patent, explicitly discloses “that images recorded from
viewpoints separated by distances (called the ‘baseline’) that are larger or smaller
than the distance between human eyes will provide a sense of depth when viewed
by a person.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1002, 7:17–26); see Ex. 1044 ¶ 9. Further, referring
to the example taught in the Wikipedia article (Ex. 1042, 13), Petitioner notes that
stereoscopic images may be generated from cameras disposed 100 feet apart. Pet.
Reply 12–13; see Ex. 1044 ¶ 16. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Essa,
acknowledged that images that provide a sense of depth to a human viewer may be
generated with a baseline greater than the separation between human eyes. Ex.
1043, 168:2–25.
Patent Owner argues that, although Asahi discloses performing a vertical
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

34

parallax adjustment to the generated images (Ex. 1010, Figs. 14, 15), such vertical
parallax adjustment alone does not remedy the wavy image defects. PO Resp. 31–
32; see Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 52–53. Patent Owner argues that such vertical parallax
adjustment adjusts the forward and rearward images vertically relative to each
other. PO Resp. 32. Although such adjustments “would result in the letter ‘F’
having a more upright orientation,” other image defects would remain. Id. In
particular, Patent Owner argues that “the vertical parallax adjustment of the mosaic
images does not generate horizontal aligned images suitable for human viewing.”
PO Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner argues that those defects
would prevent a person from viewing the images so as to perceive “a sense of
depth of the scene.” Id. (citing Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 52–53.)
As discussed above, Petitioner contends that the presence of some defects in
the image does not prevent the images from being viewed stereoscopically. Pet.
Reply 13. In particular, according to Dr. Darrell, “if some defects were introduced
in the mosaic images recorded under that circumstance, . . . the defects would not
be so severe in every case as to preclude depth from being perceived upon viewing
an appropriate display of a pair of the mosaics.” Id. at 13–14 (quoting Ex. 1044 ¶
30). Further, according to Dr. Darrell, “a person of ordinary skill in the art as of
1998 ‘would understand that the left and right eye images must be horizontally
aligned and would understand how to align the images,’ as evidenced by ‘the
numerous anaglyph images that were available at the time.’” Pet. Reply 14
(quoting Ex. 1044 ¶ 26). On the other hand, Dr. Essa could not be sure whether a
person skilled in the art as of 1998 would know how to perform the kind of
horizontal alignment required to address further any defects in Asahi’s images.
Pet. Reply 14; see Ex. 1043, 170:9–171:16.
As Petitioner notes, prior art references “must be ‘considered together with
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

35

the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art’.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)). In
view of the unrebutted testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Darrell, we are
persuaded that such horizontal adjustments, in addition to the vertical adjustments
disclosed by Asahi, were within the abilities of a person of ordinary skill in the
relevant art in 1998. Given our construction of the language of claim 1, neither
vertical nor horizontal adjustments are required to be, or prohibited from being,
performed on the generated mosaics adjustments to “provide a sense of depth of
the scene.” See supra 10-14 (Sections II.A.1. and II.A.2.). Therefore, after
considering Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence that Asahi discloses
“a processor [to] generate a plurality of mosaics . . . [that] provide a sense of depth
of the scene,” as recited in claim 1, and Patent Owner’s arguments and supporting
evidence that Asahi does not disclose generating such images, we conclude that
Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Asahi discloses this
element, as recited in claim 1.
As noted above, Patent Owner only argues that certain elements of claim 1
are not disclosed by Asahi. Patent Owner does not argue that other elements of
claim 1 are not disclosed by Asahi and does not argue that independent claim 27 or
any of the dependent claims are separately distinguishable over Asahi. PO Resp.
21. Because we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments regarding alleged
deficiencies in the disclosure of Asahi with respect to claim 1, and considering the
record evidence and the contentions and arguments by the parties, we also
conclude that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 3, 20, 27, 29, and 37 of the ’284 Patent are anticipated by Asahi. Pet. 45–
50; see Dec. on Inst. 29–34.
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

36

C. Motions to Exclude Evidence
1. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
Petitioner moves to exclude Exhibits 2012 and 2013 filed by Patent Owner.
Paper 47. As discussed below, Exhibits 2012 and 2013 respectively correspond to
“other translations” of Asahi, Exhibit 1010, and Kawakita, Exhibit 1004, which,
according to Petitioner, were submitted to Patent Owner’s exclusive licensee, a real
party-in-interest in these proceedings, during an ITC Investigation. Paper 47, 2–
3.
12
Petitioner challenges these translations for lack of relevancy and as beyond the
scope of Dr. Darrell’s testimony. Id. at 4–7. As to the former, Petitioner asserts
that Exhibits 2012 and 2013 are not relevant to show the accuracy of the
translations filed by Petitioner in this proceeding, Exhibits 1004 and 1010, because
Patent Owner did not challenge the accuracy of those translations or seek to cross-
examine the translators. Id. at 5. As to the latter, Petitioner asserts that Dr. Darrell
did not did not testify regarding the accuracy of the translations in Exhibits 1004
and 1010. Id. at 6.
Patent Owner provided Exhibits 2012 and 2013 to show inconsistencies in
Exhibits 1010 and 1004, asserting relevancy, and asserting that they are within the
scope of Dr. Darrell’s testimony, because Dr. Darrell relies on Exhibits 1004 and
1010. See Paper 50, 2, 7–9. Patent Owner also argues that another translation of
Asahi, Exhibit 2012, submitted by Patent Owner, contradicts paragraph 35 of
Asahi, Exhibit 1010. See Paper 50, 8–9. Patent Owner reasons that Exhibit 2012

12
Petitioner explains that, in this proceeding, it provided a certified translation of
Asahi (Ex. 1010), rather than relying on the uncertified translation (Ex. 2012). See
Paper 47, 5. Petitioner also explains that it provided a certified translation of the
entire conference booklet that contains Kawakita (Ex. 1004), rather than relying on
Exhibit 2013, because whether the former constitutes a “printed publication” was a
potential issue in this proceeding. See id. at 2 n.3.
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

37

uses the term “3D image” and does not use the term “stereoscopic viewing,” which
Asahi uses in paragraph 35, Exhibit 1010. See id. Petitioner maintains that Exhibit
2012 does not materially differ or contradict the thrust of Asahi, Exhibit 1010. See
Paper 54, 1–2. The record supports Petitioner. For example, Patent Owner does
not challenge a related statement in paragraph one, wherein Asahi states that “[t]he
present invention relates to . . . extracting three-dimensional data from video
images, and to a stereo image formation device that forms stereo images from
video images.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 1 (emphasis added). Paragraph 1 of Exhibit 2012
(emphasis added) similarly refers to “an apparatus for extracting 3D data from a
video image and a stereo-image creation apparatus for creating a stereo image
from a video image.”
The record also shows that, even if paragraph 35 of Exhibit 1010 refers to a
3D image as a map, instead of a stereoscopic mosaic image, that map image
derives from two stereoscopic images, which provide computer vision, and at the
least, are capable of being viewed by a human if horizontally aligned. See, e.g.,
Ex. 2014, 87:3–16 (describing Asahi). Moreover, Dr. Darrell testified, during
cross-examination about Exhibit 2012, that, in context, “this is a stereoscopic 3D
image. So it wouldn’t change my opinion.” Id. at 128:1–2); see also Tr. 21:5–19
(Referring to Dr. Darrell’s testimony, “[i]n the context of Asahi, where he’s talking
about a 3D image can be shown to a viewer using mosaics, that a person skilled in
the art would understand that means stereoscopic viewing.”). Finally, Patent
Owner did not move to dismiss as unreliable, Exhibit 1010, which is certified as
“an accurate and faithful rendition of the original text” under penalty of perjury.
Ex. 1010, 1 (signed by Martin Cross, Patent Translations Inc.). Patent Owner also
did not seek to cross-examine Mr. Cross.
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

38

Patent Owner also argues that another translation of Kawakita, Exhibit 2013,
contradicts Kawakita, Exhibit 1004. See Paper 43, 2–3. Patent Owner reasons that
Exhibit 2013 does not use the term “faithful” to describe the image reproduction
and Dr. Darrell relies on that term. See id. Petitioner and Dr. Darrell maintain
persuasively that Exhibit 2013 does not materially differ from or contradict the
thrust of Exhibit 1004. The latter employs similar words such as “normal” and
“proper[]” image reproduction to describe the same “faithful” effect in terms of
adjustment or otherwise. See Paper 54, 4 (citing Ex. 2013, 5, 6, 8; Ex. 2014,
139:19–140:3, 140:22–141:11, 142:5–21). Patent Owner does not move to exclude
Exhibit 1004 as unreliable, which is certified “under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing [translation of Kawakita] is true and correct.” Ex. 1004, 1 (cover page
signed by Christopher Girsch, Park IP Translations). Patent Owner also did not
seek to cross-examine Mr. Girsch.
As discussed, the alleged inconsistencies respond to Dr. Darrell’s testimony
about the references. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s motion is denied.
2. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
Patent Owner moves to exclude a Wikipedia article entitled “Stereoscopy”
(Ex. 1042), certain passages of Dr. Essa’s deposition (Ex. 1043, 52:8–72:11),
certain paragraphs of Dr. Darrell’s second declaration (Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 15–16, 23–24),
and certain passages of Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 37, 12–15). See Paper 44, 3–11
(Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude). Patent Owner moves to exclude the
Wikipedia article (Ex. 1042) based on the assertion that it lacks authentication,
constitutes hearsay (Paper 44, 3–5), presents evidence that “is not responsive to
arguments raised for the first time in Patent Owner’s Response,” and is untimely
(id. at 6 (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.23(b), 42.123)).
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

39

Patent Owner moves to exclude paragraphs 15 and 16 of Dr. Darrell’s
second declaration and pages 12–13 of Petitioner’s Reply because “relying on the
untimely [Wikipedia evidence] should be stricken from the record” (Paper 44, 7),
and also, any reliance on “the unauthenticated hearsay [Wikipedia] evidence
should be stricken from the record” (id. at 5). Similarly, Patent Owner challenges
the identified passages of Dr. Essa’s deposition based on the assertion that the
cross-examination relies on the inadmissible Wikipedia article, which is “beyond
the scope [of direct] and lacking authentication.” Id. at 7.
Patent Owner also moves to exclude paragraphs 23 and 24 of Dr. Darrell’s
second declaration, which refer to aspects of Asahi, and pages 12–15 of
Petitioner’s Reply, which allegedly rely on that testimony, based on the assertion
that the testimony “is not responsive to issues raised for the first time by Patent
Owner.” See Paper 44, 7–8.
i) Cross-Examination, Exhibit 1043 (Dr. Essa’s Deposition), and Exhibit
1042 (the Wikipedia Article).
The challenged Wikipedia article, “Stereoscopy,” (Ex. 1042), contains 19
web pages of information about stereoscopy. The Wikipedia article pages relevant
to this proceeding––those upon which Petitioner primarily relies for cross-
examination of Dr. Essa (and relies upon as direct testimony as discussed below)––
involve pages 11–13. See Ex. 1044 ¶ 16 (citing Ex. 1042, 11–13); Ex. 1043, 52:8–
72:11 (passages related to the Wikipedia article, Ex. 1042).
13

13
Before Petitioner filed the Wikipedia article as Exhibit 1042 or used it during
cross-examination of Dr. Essa, Patent Owner and Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr.
Essa, cited it, albeit not directly, but as a link that appears in another directly
relied-upon web-based citation. See Ex. 2010 ¶ 27 (Dr. Essa’s declaration citing
Ex. 2003, a webpage entitled “stereoscopy (stereoscopic imaging),” which, in turn,
provides a link to the challenged “Stereoscopy” Wikipedia article cited by
Petitioner, Ex. 1042).
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

40

Patent Owner seeks to exclude Dr. Essa’s deposition passages spanning from
page 52, line 8, to page 72, line 11, on the assertion that Dr. Essa’s cross-
examination improperly refers to contents in the challenged Wikipedia article.
Paper 44, 7. Patent Owner asserts that the lack of authentication of the Wikipedia
article renders cross-examination about it inadmissible, and also, that, because the
passages “relate to the Wikipedia entry[, Ex. 1042, they] . . . fall outside the scope
of [Dr. Essa’s] direct testimony.” Id.
Although a large portion of the challenged deposition pages (Ex. 1043,
52:8–72:11) pertains to cross-examination based on certain portions of the
Wikipedia article, several of the pages pertain to cross-examination based on
passages in the ’003 Patent, from which the ’284 Patent claims benefit, or other
evidence. For example, the section from page 65, line 2, to page 69, line 17, of the
deposition (Ex. 1043), pertains to cross-examination about “exaggerated” and
“normal” stereo images as described in the ’003 Patent, and related evidence. The
thrust of the cross-examination concerns the “exaggerated” stereo concept as
described in the ’003 Patent––baselines larger than the human inter-ocular
baseline. See Ex. 1043, 52:8–72:11. Also, without using the Wikipedia article in
particular, but using general questioning, Dr. Essa affirmed the underlying thrust of
Petitioner’s question, by answering “[w]hen presented properly” to Petitioner’s
question: “[D]o I understand correctly that - - that one can use a imaging system
like two stereo cameras or a single stereo camera that has a baseline wider than the
approximate distance between human eyes” to “provide a perception of depth?”
See Ex. 1043, 59:23–60:8; accord id. at 60:9–17 (similar colloquy).
Therefore, based on Patent Owner’s contentions in its motion, we deny the
motion to the extent that it pertains to excluding the portions of Dr. Essa’s

IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

41

deposition that do not involve, specifically, the Wikipedia article as a basis for
impeachment. Patent Owner has not carried the burden on its motion, at least as to
the challenged deposition pages that do not involve the Wikipedia article. On the
other hand, to simplify issues, and based on Patent Owner’s arguments, which rely
on the Wikipedia article, we do not rely upon the portions of the deposition that
relate to cross-examination of Dr. Essa based on that article: Exhibit 1043, 52:8–
59:22, 60:18–65:1, 69:18–72:11.
Similar questioning, which Patent Owner does not challenge, elicited similar
and related testimony about baseline distances. See Ex. 1043, 59:23–60:17; id. at
30:1–33:1 (passages discussed briefly in next paragraph). The questioning shows
that Dr. Essa did not dispute clearly Petitioner’s contention that a stereoscopic
perception of depth may be provided using relative baselines––i.e., when images
are recorded at distances that are wider than the distance between human eyes. In
contrast, prior to cross-examination, Dr. Essa’s direct testimony indicates that two
conditions must be met for proper depth perception: 1) recording images at the
human inter-ocular distance and 2) horizontally aligning them. See Ex. 2010 ¶ 26.
Dr. Essa does not testify clearly whether or not the latter alignment can cure the
former recording distance.
Accordingly, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument challenging the
deposition as non-responsive, the cross-examination in the challenged section falls
within the scope of Dr. Essa’s declaration testimony.
14
It was proper for Petitioner
to clarify or challenge Dr. Essa’s position regarding the human inter-ocular
baseline. Compare Ex. 2010 ¶ 26 (testifying that “if the red/cyan images are not

14
As outlined above, Patent Owner’s non-responsiveness argument also appears to
be directed to cross-examination based on the Wikipedia article. Nevertheless, the
non-responsiveness argument is intertwined with the related (unchallenged)
evidence employed for cross-examination.
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

42

generated from the perspective of human eyes and properly aligned horizontally”
that “double (overlap) images would appear and make stereoscopic fusion
impossible”) (emphasis added), with Ex. 1043, 59:23–60:8 (quoted above,
answering “[w]hen presented properly,” to a question about whether an image
“provide[s] a perception of depth” when “a single stereo camera . . . has a baseline
wider than the approximate distance between human eyes”); see also id. at 30:1–
33:1 (agreeing that the amount of disparity (i.e., depth perception) generally varies
with baseline distance) (deposition section not challenged), 69:2–17 (agreeing,
based on the ’003 Patent, that “enlarging the viewing circle means increasing the
baseline to something larger than the approximate distance between human eyes”).
Based on the foregoing discussion, Patent Owner has not satisfied its burden
on its Motion to Exclude the particular cross-examination testimony of Dr. Essa at
the following passages of the deposition: Exhibit 1043: 59:23–60:17; 65:2–69:17.
We do not rely on the following passages that relate to cross-examination of Dr.
Essa based on the Wikipedia article: Exhibit 1043, 52:8–59:22, 60:18–65:1, and
69:18–72:11. Similarly, we do not rely on any portion of the Wikipedia article,
Exhibit 1042, for purposes of the cross-examination (Ex. 1043). We do, however,
consider, to a minor extent, one section of the Wikipedia article (Ex. 1042, 13,
section titled “A practical example”), as direct evidence, as discussed below.
Therefore, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibit 1043 at the
following passages: 59:23–60:17; 65:2–69:17. We dismiss as moot Patent
Owner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibit 1043 at the following passages: 52:8–59:22;
60:18–65:1; 69:18–72:11. We dismiss as moot Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
Exhibit 1042 for purposes of cross-examination.
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

43

ii) Direct Evidence, Exhibits 1042 and 1044, and Petitioner’s Reply
As discussed at the outset of this section, in addition to moving to exclude
the entirety of the Wikipedia article, Exhibit 1042, Patent Owner seeks to exclude
paragraphs 15, 16, 23, and 24 of Dr. Darrell’s second declaration (Ex. 1044), and
pages 12–15 of Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 37). See Paper 44, 3–11.
15
In addition to
the authentication challenge to Exhibit 1042, Patent Owner challenges it as hearsay
and as non-responsive to Patent Owner’s Response. See Paper 44, 3–5. Patent
Owner challenges pages 12–13 of Petitioner’s Reply and paragraphs 15 and 16 of
Dr. Darrell’s second declaration (Ex. 1044), because they rely on the allegedly
non-responsive, unauthenticated, hearsay in the Wikipedia article (Ex. 1042). See
id.
Although Petitioner first served the Wikipedia article at Dr. Essa’s
deposition (see note 14), Petitioner also filed it with the Reply, as Exhibit 1042,
along with Dr. Darrell’s second declaration (Ex. 1044), which relies on it, and Mr.
Barton’s declaration (Ex. 2019), which supports it. See Paper 51, 6–7 (noting that
Exhibit 1042 is “reproduced with Sony’s Reply” and arguing that Mr. Barton’s
declaration is timely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) as supplemental evidence and
cures hearsay objections to Exhibit 1042). Two challenged paragraphs of Dr.
Darrell’s second declaration (Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 15, 16) refer to pages 11–13 of Exhibit
1042, the Wikipedia article. Patent Owner objects to Exhibit 1042 as constituting
untimely supplemental evidence and unauthenticated hearsay. See Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 2–
4. For reasons explained below, Mr. Barton’s declaration (Ex. 2019) and other
authenticating evidence, cures Patent Owner’s hearsay and authentication

15
We note that Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 37) does not contain argument on page
15. Moreover, Petitioner does not cite to paragraphs 23 and 24 of Exhibit 1044 on
pages 12-14 of Paper 37.
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

44

objections to a specific section of page 13, to paragraph 15 and to a portion of
paragraph 16 of Exhibit 1044, and to the Reply. See Paper 51, 7.
16

Page 13 of the Wikipedia article (Ex. 1042), specifically a section titled “A
practical example,” and Mr. Barton (Ex. 2019, Ex. 2020), primarily corroborate
and bolster, with a specific example of a mountain scene recorded at large baseline
distances, Dr. Darrell’s testimony (relative and large baseline distances possible),
Asahi’s disclosure (stereoscopic images obtained from a large baseline), and the
’003 Patent disclosure (exaggerated stereographic baselines). Patent Owner does
not seek to exclude Dr. Darrell’s testimony in paragraphs 6–14, 18, and 29 of
Exhibit 1044 that discuss the concept of wide and relative recording baselines.
Essentially, in the unchallenged paragraphs of his second declaration, Dr. Darrell
describes, in sufficient detail, how skilled artisans would have understood that the
baseline distance between recording positions for stereographic images is relative
and not limited to the human inter-ocular distance, and that horizontal alignment
techniques were known for accommodating different recording distances. See Ex.
1044 ¶¶ 6–14, 29.
Patent Owner does not specify the portions of paragraphs 15 and 16 that
constitute unauthenticated evidence and hearsay. Apart from the aspect of
authentication that involves personal knowledge of the truth of the matter asserted
(see note 15), paragraph 15 of Exhibit 1044 helps to authenticate the Wikipedia
article, referenced as a link within Patent Owner’s Exhibit 2003, as the same

16
Based on the arguments presented, we deem a portion of the authentication
challenge by Patent Owner and response by Petitioner to be part and parcel of the
hearsay challenge and response. See U.S. v. Jackson, 208 F.3d 633, 638 (7th Cir.
2000) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 901, implying that authentication may require that the
proponent shows who posted website information if “offered to prove the truth of
the matter asserted”).
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

45

disclosure as Petitioner’s Exhibit 1042. Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Michael
Sander, (Ex. 2018) further helps to authenticate this document, by testifying that
Dr. Essa discussed the Wikipedia article at his deposition, and testifying that it is
substantively the same as Exhibit 1042. Ex. 2018; see also Paper 51, 3–4
(discussing Exs. 1043, 1044, 2003, 2018). Patent Owner has not carried the
burden on its motion to exclude the references to the Wikipedia article in
paragraph 15. That paragraph does not contain substantive matter and merely
introduces the later substantive discussion about baseline distances and the
Wikipedia mountain scene (“A practical example”) that occurs in paragraph 16.
Challenged paragraph 16 of Dr. Darrell’s second declaration also includes
passages that cite pages 11 and 12 of the Wikipedia article (Ex. 1042). We exclude
those passages and pages as hearsay because Mr. Barton does not address them––
he does not cure the hearsay and authentication objections of those pages.
On the other hand, Mr. Barton’s declaration and other evidence overcomes
Patent Owner’s objection to the remaining portions of paragraph 16. Mr. Barton
testifies that, in 2004, he captured a pair of images to create the stereographic
mountain scene image in the section titled “A practical example” in the Wikipedia
article (Ex. 1042)––the subject of the hearsay objection and the primary subject of
paragraph 16 of Dr. Darrell’s second declaration. See Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 3–8; Ex. 1044
¶ 16; see also Paper 51, 6–8 (discussing Exs. 2019 and 1042). Patent Owner cross-
examined Mr. Barton and does not challenge his declaration. See Ex. 2020, 15:9–
23, 19:15–18. Mr. Barton also declares that he edited hundreds of Wikipedia
articles and contributed over 200 photographs to Wikipedia, including several
stereoscopic images. Ex. 2019 ¶ 3. Mr. Barton testifies that he created the
“red/cyan stereoscopic anaglyph image,” a mountain scene from Dinosaur Hill
Park, which is displayed and discussed in the Wikipedia article (Ex. 1042), by
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

46

recording images at separated camera positions of 100 feet, and then uploading the
image into the Wikipedia “Stereoscopy” article. See Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 4–8. He
essentially confirms his declaration testimony during his deposition. See Ex. 2020,
13:3–18:16, 1915–18; Paper 51, 6–7 (discussing Ex. 2019 ¶ 5; Ex. 2020, 5:9–23,
19:15–18; Pet. Reply 2).
The record shows that the mountain scene captured by Mr. Barton appears in
the “A practical example” section of Exhibit 1042, which also includes text about
the mountain scene. Compare Ex. 1042, 13 with Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 4–8, Ex. 1044 ¶ 16,
and Pet. Reply 2. Patent Owner acknowledges that Mr. Barton testified during his
cross-examination about that specific section of the Wikipedia article, including
the text. See Paper 44, 5 (stating that Mr. Barton did not write the Wikipedia
article “not including the text of the ‘Practical Example’ section on page 13”).
Patent Owner’s hearsay objection focuses on statements in the Wikipedia
article and Petitioner’s Reply at page 2 that the images used to create the mountain
scene from Dinosaur Hill Park were captured at distances of “100 feet” to produce
a stereoscopic image. See Ex. 2017 ¶ 3 (asserting Wikipedia has been held to be
unreliable (citation omitted)). According to Patent Owner, that statement (about
the distance of 100 feet) constitutes “the out-of-court statement offered to prove
the truth of the mater asserted.” See id.; Paper 51, 6–7 (Petitioner’s Opposition
discussing the objection to Ex. 2017 ¶ 3). Patent Owner correctly characterizes the
statement in Exhibit 1042 as hearsay. Nonetheless, based on the foregoing
discussion, we find that Mr. Barton’s declaration, availability for cross-
examination, and the cross-examination testimony, cured the objections. Mr.
Barton specifically testified about the 100 feet distance in his declaration and
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

47

during cross-examination, as noted above.
17
Mr. Barton’s declaration testimony is
not hearsay in this proceeding, and is reliable. In any event, Mr. Barton’s
testimony, Dr. Darrell’s testimony, and Mr. Sander’s testimony, responsively cure
the authentication and hearsay objections related to the direct evidence of “A
practical example” as part of Petitioner’s Reply.
18

Despite curing the “A practical example” section of Exhibit 1042 and related
portions of paragraph 16, Exhibit 1044, the first two sentences of that paragraph
discuss other material in Exhibit 1042 (i.e., pages 11 and 12), which constitutes
hearsay that Mr. Barton does not address, as indicated above. Although Petitioner
asserts that Patent Owner’s specific hearsay objection focused on one statement

17
Mr. Barton’s unchallenged declaration testimony proves the truth of the matter
asserted about the “100ft” baseline recordings and other matters regarding the
mountain scene in “A practical example.” See Ex. 2019 ¶ 5. Mr. Barton’s
declaration, Dr. Essa’s declaration (relying on Exhibit 2003, which provides a link
to the Wikipedia article), and Dr. Darrell’s declaration, show that the “A practical
example” section of Exhibit 1042 constitutes an exception to hearsay in this
proceeding under Fed. R. Evid. 803 (18) Statements in Learned Treatises,
Periodicals, or Pamphlets:

A statement contained in a treatise, periodical, or pamphlet if:
(A) the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness on
cross-examination or relied on by the expert on direct examination
[Dr. Darrell and Mr. Barton]; and
(B) the publication is established as a reliable authority by the
expert’s admission or testimony, by another expert’s testimony [Dr,
Darrell adopts it, Mr. Barton verifies it, and Dr. Essa indirectly cites
it], or by judicial notice. If admitted, the statement may be read into
evidence but not received as an exhibit.

18
Patent Owner does not dispute that Mr. Barton, Mr. Sander, and Dr. Darrell
authenticated Exhibit 1042 to the extent of showing that Exhibit 2003 cites a
hyperlink to the Wikipedia article. See Paper 53, 3 (challenging the authentication
based on a lack of a showing of “a person with knowledge”); see also supra note
17 (discussing related aspects of authentication and hearsay).
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

48

(100 feet), Patent Owner also generally asserts in its Reply to Petitioner’s
Opposition that “Mr. Barton admitted on cross-examination that he did not write a
majority of the text relied upon by Petitioner and Dr. Darrell” (Paper 53, 2), and
that Dr. Darrell and Mr. Sanders did not have personal knowledge of the material
in the Wikipedia article, and, therefore, could not have authenticated it (id. at 3).
On the other hand, as noted above, Patent Owner acknowledges that Mr. Barton
testified that he wrote the portions of the Wikipedia article that relate to the
mountain scene viewed from Dinosaur Hill Park, which is the subject of the
section titled “A practical example.” See also Ex. 2020, 20:16–24; 22:10–19 (Mr.
Barton testifying about portions he wrote). Therefore, the sentences in paragraph
16 in Exhibit 1044 that refer to the portions of the Wikipedia article that do not
include “A practical example,” and all portions of Exhibit 1042 except “A practical
example,” are excluded as unreliable hearsay or lacking authentication. The “A
practical example” section of Exhibit 1042 and sentences in paragraph 16 of
Exhibit 1044 that rely on it are not excluded.
Accordingly, we consider paragraph 16 of Exhibit 1044 with the first two
sentences excluded, as follows:
An anaglyph in the article (see below), depicts a mountain
scene, the left and right images of which were captured by “a single
camera [that] was walked about one hundred feet (30 m) between
pictures.” (Id. at 13). The method of using wider than human inter-
ocular baselines to record scenes with distant objects was well-known
to those of ordinary skill in the art as of 1998.

IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

49

The passage above represents a version of paragraph 16 of Exhibit 1044 that
remains under consideration after we exclude unreliable portions thereof.
In summary, by providing Mr. Sander’s and Mr. Barton’s declarations, and
by providing both declarants for cross-examination, Petitioner cured the
authentication and hearsay objections to the above-specified portions of the
Wikipedia article, Dr. Darrell’s second declaration, and the Petitioner’s Reply.
Patent Owner does not object to Mr. Barton’s declaration or to portions of Dr.
Darrell’s second declaration that establish the substance of the sought-after
evidence to be excluded: the evidence of record that recording baseline distances
are relative to the distance to the objects to be recorded, and may be larger than the
human inter-ocular distance. The thrust of the authentication and hearsay
objections relates to the truth about making stereographic images using the specific
base-line image capturing distance of 100 feet. This particular testimony bolsters
other evidence of record, and while not necessary to the ultimate conclusion of
anticipation or obviousness, serves as a suitable example to facilitate the discussion
of relative baselines.
Patent Owner’s contentions that the relied-upon portions of the Wikipedia
article, and the corresponding portions of Dr. Darrell’s second declaration and the
Petitioner’s Reply, are not responsive to arguments raised by Patent Owner’s
Response, and are beyond the scope of Dr. Essa’s declaration, are improper, and in
any event, not persuasive. See Paper 44, 6. A motion to exclude is not a
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

50

mechanism to argue that a reply contains new arguments or relies on evidence
necessary to make out a prima facie case. A motion to exclude, for instance, must
state why the evidence is inadmissible (e.g., based on relevance or hearsay),
identify the corresponding objection in the record, and explain the objection. See
37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,767.
Whether a reply contains arguments or evidence that are outside the scope of a
proper reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) is left to our determination. Therefore,
Patent Owner’s argument that certain evidence and arguments in the Petitioner’s
Reply are not responsive to arguments raised by Patent Owner in the Patent Owner
Response is improper. In any event, we are not persuaded by the arguments for the
following reasons.
In opposition, Petitioner maintains that the proffered evidence responds to
Dr. Essa’s testimony (Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 28, 59) and similar contentions by Patent Owner
that depth perception requires images to be generated at human inter-ocular
baselines. See Paper 51, 9–12; see also Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 63–66 (similar testimony by
Dr. Essa related to Asahi). Petitioner particularly explains that “Petitioner could
not have reasonably expected [Dr.] Essa to testify that only stereoscopic images
recorded from positions separated by a single distance, the human inter-ocular
baseline could provide a sense of depth.” Paper 51, 9. Despite Patent Owner’s
argument to the contrary, as discussed in connection with Dr. Essa’s deposition
testimony and otherwise, the record shows that Petitioner properly replied to the
Patent Owner Response and Dr. Essa’s declaration. The Petitioner’s Reply,
Exhibit 1042 at page 13 (“A practical example”), and Exhibit 1044, also respond
properly and similarly to Patent Owner’s argument that “slightly displaced”
precludes relative displacement, including large relative baselines and the
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

51

displacement discussed above in connection with Asahi. See PO Resp. 23–24
(citing Dr. Essa’s declaration, Ex. 2010).
Under these circumstances, Petitioner’s rationale for relying on “A practical
example” at page 13 of Exhibit 1042 is proper and falls within the ambit of 37
C.F.R. § 42.23 (b) (“reply may only respond to arguments raised in the
corresponding opposition or patent owner response”). In summary, Patent Owner
argued about the human inter-ocular distance, relative baseline widths, slightly
displaced recording positions, and calculating height in Asahi. Petitioner
responded in its Reply with rebuttal evidence by Dr. Darrell and Mr. Barton.
Patent Owner’s similar arguments concerning Asahi, alleging that Dr.
Darrell’s testimony (Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 23–24) about “stereoscopic viewing,” and the
allegedly related portions of Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 37, 12–15) that rely upon it,
do not properly respond to Patent Owner’s Response, are not persuasive to carry
the burden of exclusion in its motion. See Paper 44, 9–11. For similar reasons
discussed above, the record shows that Patent Owner submitted evidence and
argued in its Patent Owner Response that “stereoscopic viewing,” as the term is
used in Asahi, only means calculating height or depth, and does not mean
providing a stereoscopic image, according to the ’284 Patent, partly because the
aircraft recording system does not record images at inter-ocular baseline distances.
See PO Resp. 22–24; Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 55, 64; Paper 51, 10–12 (explaining how the
evidence responds to Patent Owner’s arguments about Asahi). Therefore,
Petitioner’s Reply and corresponding evidence properly fall within the scope of,
and respond properly to, Patent Owner’s Response (including Dr. Essa’s
declaration).
Based on the foregoing discussion, Patent Owner has carried the burden in
its motion to exclude, as hearsay, the above-described portions of paragraph 16 of
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

52

Exhibit 1044. Patent Owner has not carried the burden in its motion to exclude the
portion of Exhibit 1042 titled “A practical example” at page 13, paragraphs 15 and
16 of Exhibit 1044 (except for portions of paragraph 16), or the pages challenged
in Petitioner’s Reply.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we deny the Motion to Exclude
the following: paragraph 15 and the latter portions of paragraph 16 of Exhibit
1044, the portion of Exhibit 1042 titled “A practical example” at page 13, and any
portion of Petitioner’s Reply. See also supra 43 n.16 (discussing identification of
challenged pages).
We grant the Motion to Exclude with respect to the use of Exhibit 1042 as
direct evidence, except for the portion titled “A practical example” at page 13, and
the first two sentences of paragraph 16 of Exhibit 1044.

III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing discussion, we conclude that Petitioner has
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–4, 7, 10, 20, 27–
29, and 36–38 are unpatentable as follows: a) anticipation of claims 1, 10, 27, 36,
and 38 by Kawakita; b) obviousness of claims 1, 10, 27, and 36 over Kawakita;
c) obviousness of claims 1, 2, 10, 27, 28, and 36 over Kawakita and Chen;
d) obviousness of claims 3 and 29 over Kawakita, Chen, and Kodak;
e) anticipation of claims 1, 3, 20, 27, 29, and 37 by Asahi; and f) obviousness of
claims 4 and 7 over Kawakita, Chen, and Allen.

IV. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

53

that claims 1–4, 7, 10, 20, 27–29, and 36–38 of the ’284 Patent are unpatentable on
the grounds set forth in Section III;
FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence is
granted-in-part with respect to the use of Exhibit 1042 as direct evidence, except
for the portion titled “A practical example” at page 13, and granted-in part as to
the first two sentences of paragraph 16 of Exhibit 1044, and otherwise is
dismissed-in-part as moot or denied-in-part, as specified supra in Section II.C.2.;
FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence is
denied, as specified supra in Section II.C.1.; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a final decision, parties to the
proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must comply with the notice
and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

54

FOR PETITIONER:

Walter Hanley
Michelle Carniaux
Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP
whanley@kenyon.com
mccarniaux@kenyon.com

FOR PATENT OWNER:

David L. McCombs
David O’Dell
Gregory P. Huh
Haynes and Boone, LLP
David.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
David.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
Gregory.huh.ipr@haynesboone.com

Robert Gerrity
William Nelson
Tensegrity Law Group, LLP
HumanEyes@tensegritylawgroup.com
William.nelson@tensegritylawgroup.com