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

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 6, 2014

09861859 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 17 Paper XX
Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: November 6, 2014

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

v.
YISSUM RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT CO. 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.

DECISION
Request for Rehearing
37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)

1
Sony Corp. v. Yissum Research Co., Case IPR2013-00327 (“IPR2013-
00327”) has been joined with instant Case IPR2013-00219. IPR2013-
00327, Paper 15 (PTAB Sept. 24, 2013). This Rehearing Decision is entered
in both cases.
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

2

I. BACKGROUND
Patent Owner, Yissum Research Development Co. of the Hebrew University
of Jerusalem, in its Rehearing Request, seeks withdrawal of our conclusion that
Asahi (Ex. 1010) anticipates claims 1, 3, 20, 27, 29, and 37 of U.S. Patent No.
7,477,284 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’284 Patent”) because “the Board’s conclusion that
Asahi anticipates claims 1, 3, 20, 27, 29, and 37 was incorrect as being based on a
misapprehension of the evidence presented.” See Paper 61(“Req. Reh’g”), 1–2.
The applicable standard for a request for rehearing is set forth in 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.71(d), which provides, in relevant part, the following:
A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing,
without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a
decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the
decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party
believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place
where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition,
or a reply.

For the reasons that follow, we deny the requested relief.

II. DISCUSSION
After reviewing Patent Owner’s Rehearing Request, we determine that
Patent Owner has not shown that we misapprehended or overlooked any matter
previously presented. See Req. Reh’g 2. Patent Owner contends that we
misapprehended or overlooked Dr. [Trevor] Darrell’s testimony that
to generate images that provide a perception of depth there needs to be
almost 99 percent overlap between the images from which the lines
are taken and Asahi’s [Ex. 1009] express teaching that it only utilizes
60 percent overlap in creating its images, which was argued in Patent
Owner’s Motion for Observation at ¶ 3. (Paper 43).

Req. Reh’g 3 (emphasis added).
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

3

Specifically, Patent Owner argues that independent claims 1 and 27 of the
’284 Patent recite mosaic images that “provide a sense of depth of the scene.” Id.
Further, in our Institution Decision, we determined that “the perception of depth is
provided to a person and [our] Final Decision confirmed this understanding noting
that ‘the sense of depth must be perceived by a person viewing the display.’” Paper
16 (“Inst. Dec.”), 16–17; Paper 60 (“Fin. Dec.”), 13. In addition, claim 1 recites
that “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.” Ex.
1001, col. 13, ll. 63–65 (emphasis added); see also id. at col. 16, ll. 6–8 (claim 27).
Based on the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Darrell, Patent Owner argues
that, “for a sense of depth to be perceived by a person, there must be a 99% overlap
in the images where a single line is taken.” Req. Reh’g 3 (emphasis added).
Patent Owner argues, however, that “Asahi, which is directed to computer vision
and not human vision, explicitly and unequivocally states that it takes a single line
from images with only 60% overlap.” Id. (emphasis added). Although Asahi
discloses a working example in which 60% overlap is described, we did not
determine that Asahi’s disclosure was limited to that example. See Fin. Dec. 26–
32. Moreover, on what appears to be a significant point, Dr. Darrell and Patent
Owner’s counsel appear to acknowledge that they disagree about whether a line
used to create images in Asahi is limited to a using “a single vertical line of an
image frame.” See Ex. 2014, 107:7–25.
Initially, we note that independent claims 1 and 27 recite “a display that
receives a plurality of the mosaics and displays [the plurality of the mosaics] so as
to provide a sense of depth of the scene” (emphases added). Consequently, it is the
displayed mosaics that “provide a sense of depth of the scene.” Moreover,
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

4

Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Darrell, testified that, “if some defects were introduced
in the mosaic images recorded [without proper vertical and horizontal alignment],
. . . 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.”
Fin. Dec. 34–35 (citing Pet. Reply 13–14 (quoting Ex. 1044 ¶ 30)); see also Fin.
Dec. 20 (Based on testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Darrell, and Patent
Owner’s declarant, Dr. Irfan Essa, with respect to Kawakita, we were 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.”; emphasis
added).
Patent Owner relies on Asahi’s discussion of a 60% scene-to-scene overlap,
drawn from captured images, whereas Patent Owner cross-examined Dr. Darrell
concerning overlap of “99 percent from frame to frame.” Paper 43 ¶ 3 (emphasis
added). As Patent Owner acknowledges, according to Asahi, a frame may include
two fields, and each field may be a scene. Paper 43, ¶ 3; see Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 34–35;
Paper 59 (“Tr.”), 8:16–23. As noted above, however, claim 1 only requires that the
at least one imager acquires a plurality of optical images of at least portions of the
scene, each from a different respective viewing position, e.g., sight line. See Ex.
1001, col. 13, ll. 63–65; see also Tr. 70:1 (“And by the way, just to clarify, the
images are portions of the scene.”).
We neither misapprehended nor overlooked the argument and supporting
evidence presented in Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation. However, Patent
Owner did not provide sufficient evidence or explanation to persuade us that the
frame-to-frame overlap allegedly required to provide a sense of depth of a scene is
not disclosed broadly by Asahi’s scene-to-scene overlap. Asahi’s working
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

5

example describes a 60% overlap (Ex. 1010 ¶ 30; see id., Fig. 5 (depicting a single
example of a two scene overlap of 60%)), but we do not limit the disclosure of
Asahi to that one example. Asahi more broadly discloses “at least three images
that overlap in a prescribed proportion” (Ex. 1010 ¶ 9), and Asahi explicitly
describes “[a] pair consisting of two images that make up a stereoscopic image”
(id. ¶ 32). See Fin. Dec. 25.
Patent Owner does not identify where it cross-examined Dr. Darrell
explicitly about the 60% scene-to-scene overlap that Asahi discloses with respect
to the working example. Instead, Patent Owner focuses on Dr. Darrell’s cross-
examination testimony regarding the 99% overlap. See Req. Reh’g 10–11 (citing
Ex. 2014, 31, 108–109). Nevertheless, in the deposition testimony cited by Patent
Owner, Dr. Darrell responds “I think so” to a question about “substantial overlap”
between scenes, which in the context of the following question, implies “almost 99
percent overlap” in Asahi. See Ex. 2014, 108:20–24 (Patent Owner’s following
question was: “Similar to what we described earlier in the Kawakita discussion
about needing almost 99 percent overlap; correct?,” to which Dr. Darrell responded
“Correct.”). The cited pages of Dr. Darrell’s testimony, however, do not support
Patent Owner’s characterization of that testimony.
Specifically, after being questioned generally about Asahi’s disclosure and
the need for overlap for “a complete depiction of that scene,” Dr. Darrell testified
that “the frame rate would be high enough,” (see Ex. 2014, 108:1–14), and the
specific colloquy (as summarized above) ensued:
Q. And the result of that [frame rate] would be that the overlap
between one frame and the next would be substantial?
A. I think so.
Q. Similar to what we described earlier in the Kawakita
discussion about needing almost 99 percent overlap; correct?
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

6

A. Correct. If I understand the scenario, that would be true for
any scenario that was extracting a line from a two-dimensional
camera.

Req. Reh’g 4 (quoting Ex. 2014, 108:17–109:1).
Therefore, Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation did not undermine the findings
discussed in the Final Decision and reviewed above, including that Dr. Darrell
testified that Asahi’s system is capable of producing stereographic images. See
Fin. Dec. 25 (citing 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)), 31 (citing Ex. 1043, 174:21–176:8
(acknowledging that “three dimensional topographical maps” produced according
to Asahi may be suitable for human viewing)), 32 (citing Ex. 2014, 100:5–9 (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.”)); see also Ex. 1010 ¶ 35 (“stereoscopic viewing is possible
using this forward view image, this nadir view image, and this rearward view
image”).
Patent Owner argues that the teaching of a 60% overlap in Asahi’s working
example is “determinative and confirms Patent Owner’s argument – repeatedly
made during the present proceeding – that images must be specifically generated to
provide a person a perception of depth and that Asahi’s images are incapable of
doing so.” Req. Reh’g 5. We disagree. Patent Owner first raised the alleged
discrepancy between the overlap required (i.e., 99%) for a perception of depth and
the overlap taught by Asahi (i.e., 60%) in its Motion for Observation (Paper 43
¶ 3); however, Patent Owner did not mention this alleged discrepancy during the
Oral Hearing. For the reasons set forth above, we did not find Patent Owner’s
IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

7

argument and supporting evidence, as presented in the Motion for Observation,
determinative. In the Final Decision, we concluded that Petitioner had shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that Asahi discloses each and every element recited
in claim 1 “[a]fter considering Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence . . .
and Patent Owner’s arguments and supporting evidence to the contrary.” Fin. Dec.
32; see Req. Reh’g 6.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing discussion, we deny Patent Owner’s requested relief
to modify the prior Final Written Decision with respect to Asahi. Patent Owner
has not shown that we misapprehended or overlooked a matter previously
presented.
IV. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that the Patent Owner’s Rehearing
Request is denied.

IPR2013-00219
Patent 7,477,284 B2

8

FOR PETITIONER:

Walter Hanley
Michelle Carniaux
Michael E. Sander
Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP
Sony-HumanEyes@kenyon.com
whanley@kenyon.com
mccarniaux@kenyon.com
msander@kenyon.com

FOR PATENT OWNER:

David L. McCombs
David O’Dell
Gregory 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
robert.gerrity@tensegritylawgroup.com
william.nelson@tensegritylawgroup.com