Corephotonics, Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 7, 2021

IPR2020-00862 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 35
571-272-7822 Entered: December 7, 2021

NON-PUBLIC VERSION – PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

APPLE INC.,
Petitioner,

v.

COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
Patent Owner.
____________

IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2
____________

Before BRYAN F. MOORE, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
Final Written Decision
Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
35 U.S.C. § 318(a)

IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition to institute an inter partes
review of claims 1, 2, 5, 9–14, 17, 21, and 22 (“the challenged claims”) of
U.S. Patent No. 10,356,332 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’332 patent”). Paper 2
(“Pet.”). Corephotonics, Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
We instituted an inter partes review. Paper 7 (“Institution Decision”
or “Inst. Dec.”); see 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Patent
Owner filed a Response (Paper 13, “Patent Owner Response” or “PO.
Resp.”).1 Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 21, “Petitioner’s Reply” or “Pet.
Reply”).2 Thereafter, Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 25, “Patent
Owner Sur-Reply” or “PO Sur-Reply”). 3
An oral hearing was held on September 9, 2021 and a transcript
(Paper 34, “Tr.”) was entered in the record.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6. This is a Final
Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 as to the
patentability of the claims on which we instituted trial. Having reviewed the
arguments and the supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has
shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 2, 5, 9–14, 17, 21,
and 22 of the ’332 patent are unpatentable.

1 We cite to the sealed version of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 13). The
public version is Paper 14.
2 We cite to the sealed version of Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 21). The public
version is Paper 22.
3 We cite to the sealed version of Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply (Paper 25). The
public version is Paper 26.
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

3
II. BACKGROUND
A. Related Proceedings
Petitioner and Patent Owner identify the following corresponding
district court proceeding: Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:19-
cv-04809 (N.D. Cal.). Pet. 2; Paper 4, 1.4
We identify the following related administrative matters, including
applications and patents claiming the benefit of the priority of the filing date
of patents in the priority chain of the ’332 patent. See Office Consolidated
Trial Practice Guide5 at 18; see also 84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019)
(explaining what is considered an “administrative matter”). The ’332 patent
is a continuation of Application No. 15/324,720 (now U.S. Patent No.
10,230,898, “the ’898 patent”). Ex. 1001, code (63). The following co-
pending proceeding challenges a patent in the priority chain of the ’942
patent: IPR2020-00861 (claims 1, 4, 8-12, 15, 19, and 20 of the ’898
patent).
B. The ’332 Patent
The ’332 patent is titled “Dual Aperture Zoom Camera with Video
Support and Switching / Non-Switching Dynamic Control,” and is directed
to a “dual aperture zoom digital camera operable in both still and video
modes.” Ex. 1001, code (57).

4 Patent Owner cites Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-
04809-LHK (N.D. Cal.) (Paper 4, 1), but this case number appears to reflect
a typographical error. A PACER search of Case No. 5:19-cv-04809 reveals
that Patent Owner’s complaint in that case was erroneously identified as
“Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-4809” on its cover page.
5 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

4
The ’332 patent describes video mode zoom operation from low zoom
factor (ZF) to higher ZF above a switch point (described variously as
Zswitch or ZFT or uptransfer ZF), with “[processing] applied to eliminate the
changes in the image during crossover from one camera to the other.” Id. at
7:61–8:34.
The ’332 patent describes that “[s]witching from the Wide camera
output to the transformed Tele camera output will be performed unless some
special condition (criterion), determined based on inputs obtained from the
two camera images, occurs. In other words, switching will not be performed
only if [a] no switching criteria is fulfilled.” Id. at 10:7–12.
FIG. 1A of the ’332 patent, reproduced below, illustrates a dual-
aperture Zoom imaging system 100 including a Wide imaging section and a
Tele imaging section, each having a respective lens with respect field of
view (FOV) and respective image sensor to provide image data of an object
or scene.
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

5

Figure 1A shows a dual-aperture zoom imaging system. Id.
C. Challenged Claims
Petitioner challenges claims 1, 2, 5, 9–14, 17, 21, and 22 of the ’332
patent. Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A dual-aperture zoom digital camera comprising:
a) a Wide imaging section that includes a fixed focal length
Wide lens with a Wide field of view FOVW and a Wide
sensor, the Wide imaging section operative to provide
Wide image data of an object or scene;
b) a Tele imaging section that includes a fixed focal length
Tele lens with a Tele field of view FOVT that is narrower
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

6
than FOVW and a Tele sensor, the Tele imaging section
operative to provide Tele image data of the object or scene;
and
c) a camera controller operatively coupled to the Wide and
Tele imaging sections and configured to evaluate if a no-
switching criterion is fulfilled or not fulfilled, wherein at a
zoom factor (ZF) value greater than a zoom factor
ZFT=tangent (FOVWide)/tangent (FOVTele), if the no-
switching criterion is fulfilled the camera controller is
further configured to output a zoom video output image
that includes only digitally-zoomed Wide image data, and
if the no-switching criterion is not fulfilled, the camera
controller is further configured to output a zoom video
output image that includes only transformed, digitally
zoomed Tele image data.
Ex. 1001, 12:32–54.
D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
Petitioner challenges claims 1, 2, 5, 9–14, 17, 21, and 22 as follows.
See Pet. 7.
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

7
Claim(s)
Challenged
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 2, 5, 9, 13, 14, 17 103 Golan6, Martin7, Togo8
10 103 Golan, Martin, Togo, Levey9
12, 21 103 Golan, Martin, Togo, Border10
11, 22 103 Golan, Martin, Togo, Parulski11
In support, Petitioner relies on the declaration of Dr. Frédo Durand
(Ex. 1003).
III. ANALYSIS
A. Principles of Law
A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences
between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed
invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
which the claimed invention pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis
of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of
the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the

6 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0026366 A1, published Feb.
2, 2012 (Ex. 1005, “Golan”).
7 U.S. Patent No. 8,081,206 B2, issued Dec. 20, 2011 (Ex. 1006, “Martin”).
8 Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP 2011/055246 (P2011-
55246A), published Mar. 17, 2011 (Ex. 1010, “Togo”); we refer to the
English translation.
9 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0019704 A1, published Jan.
26, 2012 (Ex. 1015, “Levey”).
10 US Patent Application Pub. No. 2008/0030592 A1, filed Aug. 1, 2006,
published Feb. 7, 2008 (Ex. 1009, “Border”).
11 U.S. Patent No. 7,859,588 B2, issued Dec. 28, 2010 (Ex. 1008,
“Parulski”).
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

8
prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of non-
obviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is
unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (2012) (requiring inter partes
review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports
the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). The burden of persuasion
never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l
Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing
Corp. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing
the burden of proof in an inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner
cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere
conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364,
1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
Petitioner contends
[A] Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) at the time
of the claimed invention would have a bachelor’s degree or the
equivalent degree in electrical and/or computer engineering, or a
related field and 2–3 years of experience in imaging systems
including optics and image processing. Furthermore, a person
with less formal education but more experience, or more formal
education but less experience, could have also met the relevant
standard for a POSITA.
Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 17). Patent Owner argues Petitioner’s definition of
a person of ordinary skill in the art improperly fails to require knowledge,
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

9
skills or experience in the specific field of photography. PO Resp. 8.
According to Patent Owner, the field of photography would represent
knowledge, skills and experience that include, e.g., the choice of lens,
exposure, aperture and other settings appropriate for the aesthetics of a given
shot. Id. Additionally, Patent Owner argues that neither an engineering
education nor experience in imaging systems, even if they were focused on
optics and image processing, require any knowledge, skills or experience in
the field of photography. Id. at 8–9 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 30–32 (Hart
declaration)). “The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the
art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness
inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu–Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir.
1991). “A less sophisticated level of skill generally favors a determination of
[non-obviousness] . . . while a higher level of skill favors the
reverse.” Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323
(Fed. Cir. 2011).
Here, as explained below in Section III.E.2., under either articulation
of the level of skill in the art Petitioner has shown the claims would have
been obvious. Therefore, we do not need to determine whether knowledge
of photography is required for the level of skill in this case. Okajima v.
Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Where a determination of
level of skill would not change the result “we find no harm under the
circumstances of this case in the Board’s failure to set forth express findings
as to the level of skill.”).
For the reasons above, we determine, on the full record before us, that
the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner is consistent with
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

10
the ’332 patent and the asserted prior art. We adopt that level for the
purpose of this Decision.
C. Claim Construction
For inter partes reviews filed on or after November 13, 2018, we
apply the same claim construction standard used by Article III federal courts
and the ITC, both of which follow Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
Accordingly, we construe each challenged claim of the ’332 patent to
generally have “the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history
pertaining to the patent.”
Petitioner asserts “for the purposes of this proceeding and the analysis
presented herein, no claim term requires express construction [and that it]
analyzes the claims consistent with ordinary and customary meaning as
would be understood by a POSITA in light of the specification.” Pet. 8.
Patent Owner does not request construction of any claim term. See
generally PO Resp. 12

12 Patent Owner proposed a construction for the limitation “no-switching
criterion,” as recited in each of the challenged claims in its Preliminary
Response. Prelim. Resp. 7–8. Patent Owner asserted “no-switching
criterion” should be construed as “one more criteria determined based on
inputs obtained from the two camera images.” Id. at 7. In the Institution
Decision, we did not limit “no-switching criterion” to “one more criteria
determined based on inputs obtained from the two camera images.” Patent
Owner did not address claim construction in its Patent Owner Response. See
generally PO Resp. Our Scheduling Order states that “Patent Owner is
cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be
deemed waived.” Paper 8, 8. Thus, Patent Owner’s proposed construction
for the limitation “no-switching criterion” is waived and we do not explicitly
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

11
We do not discern a dispute between the parties regarding any
limitation and we need not expressly construe any limitation to resolve the
controversy before us. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad
Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only
construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to
resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g,
Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
D. Obviousness over Golan, Martin, and Togo
Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 13, 14, and 17 are
unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Golan, Martin, and
Togo. Pet. 11–58. For the reasons that follow, we determine that the
evidence sufficiently supports Petitioner’s arguments and thus establishes by
a preponderance of evidence that claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 13, 14, and 17 would
have been obvious over Golan, Martin, and Togo.
1. Overview of Golan (Ex. 1005)
Golan concerns a “method for continuous electronic zoom in a
computerized image acquisition system,” in which the system has “a wide
image acquisition device and a tele image acquisition device.” Ex. 1005,
code (57). By providing “multiple imaging devices each with a different
fixed field of view (FOV),” Golan’s system “facilitates a light weight
electronic zoom with a large lossless zooming range.” Id. ¶ 9. Golan’s
Figure 1, reproduced below, illustrates a zoom control sub-system for an
image acquisition system. Id. ¶ 26.

construe the term for the purpose of this Decision. In re NuVasive, Inc., 842
F.3d 1376, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

12

Figure 1 of Golan illustrates a zoom control sub-system for an image
acquisition system. Id.

According to Golan, “[z]oom control sub-system 100 includes a tele
image sensor 110 coupled with a narrow lens 120 having a predesigned FOV
140, a wide image sensor 112 coupled with a wide lens 122 having a
predesigned FOV 142, a zoom control module 130 and an image sensor
selector 150.” Id. ¶ 37. Zoom control circuit 130 selects an appropriate
image sensor through image sensor selector 150 and calculates a camera
zoom factor when it receives a required zoom from an operator. Id. ¶ 39.
Golan’s system facilitates “continuous electronic zoom capabilities with
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

13
uninterrupted imaging,” which “is also maintained when switching back and
forth between adjacently disposed image sensors.” Id. ¶ 40.
2. Overview of Martin (Ex. 1006)
Martin concerns a method for generating an autostereoscopic display
by aligning a first parallax image and at least one other parallax image. Ex.
1006, code (57). By manipulating parallax images––two or more images
with overlapping visual fields but different points of view––Martin’s method
creates a moving three-dimensional image without the use of special
viewing aids, i.e., an autostereoscopic display. Id. at 1:16–20; 3:32–41.
Martin’s Figure 1, reproduced below, illustrates a method of capturing
parallax images. Id. at 3:41–51.

Figure 1 of Martin illustrates exemplary camera positions for
generating parallax images. Id. at 3:17–18.
According to Martin, “a camera 10 may capture a first set of images
and a camera 12 may capture a second set of images of a common scene 14
while being displaced from one another. The resulting sets of images from
cameras 10 and 12 will be parallax images.” Id. at 3:42–46. Martin
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

14
discloses generating a set of aligned parallax images by displaying
alternating views of two or more parallax images at a desired view rate and
manipulating the images such that at least a portion of the images are aligned
with each other. Id. at 3:6–13. Figures 3a–3d, reproduced below, illustrate
an alignment process.

Figures 3a–3d of Martin illustrate a transformation process for
aligning parallax images. Id. at 3:20–22.13
In Martin, “[t]he alignment matching process begins by selecting a
reference image 30, as shown in FIG. 3a, from a set of parallax images.
Once reference image 30 has been selected, other images 32, as shown in
FIG. 3b, from the parallax image set can be aligned to reference image 30.”
Id. at 4:39–43. “Reference image 30 may include region of interest 34.” Id.
at 4:51. “Unaligned image 32 may be manipulated, as shown in FIG. 3c, for
example, until region 34′ matches alignment with region 34, as illustrated in

13 According to Petitioner, “[a] POSITA would have understood that element
34′ in FIG. 3b referring to a circle is a clerical error, and instead
corresponds to the rectangle [corresponding to region 34].” Pet. 16 n.1.
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

15
FIG. 3d.” Id. at 4:54–56. “The manipulation process may be represented by
an affine transformation including translation, rotation, scaling, and/or any
other desired transformation.” Id. at 4:56–59.
Martin discloses that a computer may align the images using
convergence points in the images. Id. at 5:6–11. “The computer may
further perform pattern matching or feature extraction algorithms . . . to
match alignment of regions of interest in the selected images at or near the
selected convergence points.” Id. at 5:11–28. The computer may
continuously adjust the transformation parameters to achieve “critical
alignment,” corresponding “to a condition where the degree of alignment is
sufficient to achieve a stable auto-stereoscopic display. Stability of the
whole image may not be required, as long as at least a particular region of
interest in the auto stereoscopic display is stable.” Id. at 5:53–58. Martin
further discloses that the process may include “parallax image manipulations
of sub-pixel resolution to achieve critical alignment . . . where one image is
moved with respect to another image by an amount less than an integral
number of pixels.” Id. at 5:59–65.
3. Overview of Togo (Ex. 1010)
Togo is titled “Telephoto Imaging Device,” and discloses
improvements for “[d]igital cameras and imaging devices (cameras) of
mobile terminal devices such as mobile phones” that “realize a zoom
function by using a plurality of imaging modules made of a plurality of
lenses with different focal lengths— that is, lenses of different fixed
magnifications.” Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 2, 7, code (54).
Togo describes switching between the respective imaging modules
according to a magnification (zoom factor) set by a user. Id. ¶ 7. “For
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

16
example, in a configuration . . . with a wide-angle lens and . . . a telephoto
lens, when a subject is at a short distance, an image . . . [from] the wide-
angle lens, which has a short focal length, is switched to, and when the
subject is at a long distance, an image . . . [from] the telephoto lens is
switched to.” Id. ¶ 8. “Small changes in magnification are realized by
electronic zooming, which changes [to] a cutout region” of the switched-to
image. Id.
Togo teaches a zoom digital camera with “[a] first imaging module
1 . . . for a wide-angle image” including a “wide angle lens system 7” and “a
first imaging element 8 such as a CCD camera . . .” (a Wide imaging
section). Id. ¶ 23. Togo’s zoom digital camera also includes “[a] second
imaging module 2 . . . for a telephoto image” including a “telephoto lens
system 10” and “a second imaging element 11 such as a CCD camera” (a
Tele imaging section). Id. ¶ 26.
4. Independent Claim 1
Patent Owner explicitly contests Petitioner’s showing as to motivation
to combine, and the last limitation of claim 1 which recites “a camera
controller . . . ,” and presents secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
We discuss Petitioner’s contentions as to each limitation and Patent Owner’s
arguments below.
“A zoom digital camera comprising:
a) a Wide imaging section that includes a fixed focal
length Wide lens with a Wide field of view FOVW
and a Wide sensor, the Wide imaging section
operative to provide Wide image data of an object
or scene;
b) a Tele imaging section that includes a fixed focal
length Tele lens with a Tele field of view FOVT that
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

17
is narrower than FOVW and a Tele sensor, the Tele
imaging section operative to provide Tele image
data of the object or scene”
Petitioner contends that the embodiment depicted in Figure 1 of Golan
teaches “a zoom digital imaging system with multiple imaging devices each
defining an aperture for capturing a digital image.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1005
¶¶ 3, 9, code (54); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66–70). Petitioner explains that Golan’s
image acquisition system includes, “tele image sensor 110 coupled with a
narrow lens 120 having a predesigned FOV 140, a wide image sensor 112
coupled with a wide lens 122 having a predesigned FOV 142, a zoom
control module 130 and an image sensor selector 150.” Id. at 33 (citing Ex.
1005, 37, 39, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 63; Ex. 1001, 3:29).
Petitioner further contends that Golan teaches the claimed Wide
imaging section and Tele imaging section. Id. at 34–38. Specifically,
Petitioner argues Golan discloses “a Wide imaging section that includes a
wide lens 122 (fixed focal length Wide lens) with FOV [Field of View] 142
(Wide field of view FOV) and a wide image sensor 112 (Wide sensor).” Id.
at 34 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 36–37, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 72); see id. at 35 (citing
Ex. 1001, 7:3–5; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73–78; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 9, 36, 37, 43; Ex. 1017,
Fig. 4.13, 48 (Jacobson photography textbook)). Petitioner also contends
that Golan’s zoom control sub-system 100 includes “a Tele imaging section
that includes a tele image sensor 110 (Tele sensor) coupled with narrow lens
120 (a fixed focal length Tele lens) having fixed FOV 140 (Tele FOV).” Id.
at 36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 36, 37, code (57), Fig. 1); see id. at
37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 83; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 9, 36, 37, 39, 43). Petitioner further
asserts that Golan discloses that “wide FOV 142 is substantially wider than
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

18
narrow FOV 140.” Id. at 37 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 43) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 78;
Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 9, 37, Fig. 1) (emphasis omitted).
Patent Owner does not specifically address the preamble and the Wide
and Tele imaging sections of claim 1. Having reviewed the cited evidence
and Petitioner’s contentions, we determine that Petitioner’s contentions are
sufficiently supported.14
“c) a camera controller operatively coupled to the
Wide and Tele imaging sections and configured to
evaluate if a no-switching criterion is fulfilled or
not fulfilled, wherein at a zoom factor (ZF) value
greater than a zoom factor ZFT=tangent
(FOVWide)/tangent (FOVTele), if the no-switching
criterion is fulfilled the camera controller is
further configured to output a zoom video output
image that includes only digitally-zoomed Wide
image data, and if the no-switching criterion is not
fulfilled, the camera controller is further
configured to output a zoom video output image
that includes only transformed, digitally zoomed
Tele image data.”
Petitioner contends that “Golan’s zoom control sub-system 100
includes a camera controller including zoom control circuit 130 coupled to
the Wide and Tele imaging sections for receiving a requested zoom and
provides an acquired image frame with the requested zoom.” Pet. 38–39
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 87–91); see id. at 39–40 (citing Ex. 1005, Figs. 1 and 2,
claim 1, ¶¶ 48, 49; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88, 89).
Petitioner relies on the combination of Golan, Martin, and Togo to
teach the claimed configuration of the camera controller. Id. at 39–54.

14 We need not determine whether the preamble is limiting because
Petitioner shows sufficiently that it is satisfied by the prior art.
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

19
Specifically, Petitioner contends that “Golan teaches a zoom switching
setting that depends on the Wide and Tele fields of view, including a
predetermined switch zoom factor ZFT=tangent(FOVWide)/tangent(FOVTele).”
Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 93).
Petitioner contends that “Golan describes that in an example, such a
large lossless zooming range has a value of (Wide_FOV/Narrow_FOV)2,
which is provided by ‘switching between the image sensors’ and performing
digital zoom to both Wide and Tele images.” Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 9).
Petitioner asserts “that [a] POSITA would have understood that the
underlying geometric relationships and as such, would have understood that
Golan’s informal terminology, ‘Wide_FOV/Narrow_FOV,’ corresponds to .
. . ‘tangent(FOVWide)/tangent(FOVTele)’ as claimed.” Id. 41. Petitioner
further contends that
Golan teaches selecting Wide image sensor and providing a
zoom video output image including only Wide image data when
a requested zoom factor value is less than the predetermined
switch zoom factor ZFT, and selecting Tele image sensor and
providing a zoom video output image including only Tele image
data when the requested zoom factor value is greater than the
predetermined switch zoom factor ZFT.

Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 104).
Petitioner contends that “Togo recognizes that ‘by switching between
or compositing images of a plurality of optical systems and a plurality of
imaging elements joined to these optical systems, a wide dynamic range of
enlargement magnification from wide-angle to telephoto can be realized.’”
Id. at 43–44 (quoting Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 2, 8; citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 107). Petitioner
further contends that “Togo recognized that ‘a telephoto imaging module
with a long focal length is less sharp at close distances compared to a wide-
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

20
angle imaging module whose focal length is short.’” Id. at 44 (quoting Ex.
1010 ¶ 12). Further, Petitioner contends that Togo recognizes “[d]uring a
zoom in operation, ‘a switch is made from the wide-angle imaging module
to the telephoto imaging module. However, at this time, if the subject is
close, the image quality degrades due to the image being from the
telephoto imaging module.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1010 ¶ 13; citing Ex. 1003 ¶
108).
Petitioner contends that “Togo’s solution is for image control means 4
(a camera controller) to employ a no-telephoto criterion based on image
quality.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 109). For example, according to Petitioner
“as shown in annotated FIG. 7 . . . one switching criterion is based on when
‘the image quality of the cutout image 22 of the wide-angle image becomes
poorer than the image quality of the telephoto image 23.’” Id. at 44 (citing
Ex. 1010 ¶ 66).
Petitioner also contends that “Togo describes an example image
quality no-switching criterion to include that ‘setting magnification X < A”
or “setting magnification X ≥ A and the imaging distance Y ≤ B.” Id.
(quoting Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 61, 62).
Petitioner contends that Golan combined with Martin and Togo teach
the limitation of “if the no-switching criterion is not fulfilled, the camera
controller is further configured to output a zoom video output image that
includes only transformed, digitally zoomed Tele image data.” Id. at 49.
Specifically, Petitioner contends that in addition to the disclosure discussed
above, “[a] POSITA would have understood that in the combination, if the
no-switching criterion is not fulfilled, switching from Wide image to Tele
image as taught in Golan is performed, and the zoom video output image
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

21
includes only digitally-zoomed Tele image data.” Id. at 49 (citing Ex. 1005
¶¶ 9, 36, Fig. 1; Ex. 1010 Fig. 5(4); Ex. 1003 ¶ 119).
As to “transformed, digitally zoomed Tele image data,” Petitioner
contends further that “Martin teaches when switching between two
successive images having different points of view, executing registration
using critical alignment to register a succeeding image to a preceding image
to generate a transformed succeeding image in video output images for a
stable video display.” Id. at 50 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 120).
Martin’s Figure 3, reproduced as annotated by Petitioner below,
illustrates registration between two images as part of Martin’s critical
alignment. Id. at 51 (citing e.g., Ex. 1006, 4:51–56).

Petitioner’s annotated version of Martin’s
Figures 3A–3D.15

15 Petitioner apparently takes the position that element number 34′ should
reference the rectangle, not the circle, in Martin’s Figure 3b.
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

22
According to Petitioner, with respect to the annotated version of
Martin’s Figures 3A through 3D:
A POSITA would have understood that Martin’s critical
alignment teaches determining correspondences between the
coordinate systems of the two images from different points of
view, which represent the registration between the two images
(e.g., “represented by affine transformation . . . and/or any other
desired transformation”), and therefore teaches executing
registration of successive images for position matching in the
ROI and generating a transformed succeeding image (e.g.,
transformed and shifted succeeding image 32 as in FIG. 3d
above).

Id. at 52 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 124; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 41, 42; Ex. 1013, Figs.
2.4, 6.2, Tables 2.1, 6.1, 33–35, 273–77; Ex. 1016, 137 (Xiong article on
image registration methods)). Petitioner further argues that “Martin teaches
in critical alignment, the transformed succeeding image is used to achieve
position matching of ROI between the preceding image and transformed
succeeding image to the video output images when switching between the
two images for providing stable video output images” and the critical
alignment “changes with object distance of the ROI in a specific image, and
is performed when switching between each pair of parallax images.” Id. at
52 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 125; Ex. 1006, 7:36–51, 5:6–21).
Petitioner takes the position
that in the digital camera of Golan, Togo, and Martin, after the
no-switching criterion is not fulfilled, when switching from the
Wide image (preceding image) to Tele image (succeeding
image), a transformed digitally zoomed Tele image (transformed
succeeding image as taught by Martin) is provided for smooth
transition in the video output image, which renders obvious” the
limitation of “if the no-switching criterion is not fulfilled, the
camera controller is further configured to output a zoom video
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

23
output image that includes only transformed, digitally zoomed
Tele image data.

Id. at 53–54 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 128).
Below we address Patent Owner’s arguments regarding this claim
limitation, the motivation to combine Golan and Martin, the motivation to
combine Golan, Martin, and Togo, and secondary considerations of non-
obviousness, respectively.
Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Claim Limitation of:
“[the camera controller …] configured to evaluate if a no-switching criterion
is fulfilled or not fulfilled, wherein at a zoom factor (ZF) value greater than a
zoom factor ZFT=tangent (FOVWide)/tangent (FOVTele), if the no-switching
criterion is fulfilled the camera controller is further configured to output a
zoom video output image that includes only digitally-zoomed Wide image
data, and if the no-switching criterion is not fulfilled, the camera controller is
further configured to output a zoom video output image that includes only
transformed, digitally zoomed Tele image data”
Patent Owner criticizes Petitioner’s presentation as to claim 1,
suggesting Dr. Durand spends too many pages explaining errors in Golan’s
paragraph 9 and does not explain how those errors would have affected a
person of ordinary skill’s motivation to utilize Golan. PO Resp. 36. Patent
Owner appears to suggest, without explicitly arguing, that Golan’s errors
would have discouraged one of ordinary skill from looking to Golan to
address the subject matter of the claims. Id. Because Patent Owner’s
argument is unclear and poorly supported, we are unable to determine the
extent to which Patent Owner’s argument undermines Petitioner’s showing.
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

24
Patent Owner argues that Golan’s teaching that “[t]he zoom control
130 selects an image acquisition device with the having a zoom more
proximal to the requested zoom (Ex. 1005, ¶47)” is insufficient to support
Petitioner’s contentions as to claim 1. Id. at 37 (alteration in original).
According to Patent Owner, “[a] POSITA would find the term ‘proximal’ far
too nebulous and indeterminate to prescribe the specific threshold selection
provided by the ’332.” Id.
Petitioner responds that “POSITA would have understood both
Golan’s teachings of up-transfer ZF with a switch zoom factor (e.g., at 6x in
the 36x zoom range example) when zooming in, and that, in the context of
Golan, the term ‘proximal’ in Golan [0047] is far from nebulous.” Pet.
Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 63–65 (Durand reply declaration)). Golan
explicitly discloses such thresholds. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 7–9. Thus, Patent Owner’s
argument does not undermine Petitioner’s showing.
Patent Owner also argues that “Petitioner provides not [sic] evidence
of Golan disclosing any non-switching criteria that would cause Golan to not
‘select an image acquisition device . . . having a zoom more proximal to the
requested zoom.’” PO Resp. 37 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 75) (second alteration in
original). Nevertheless, Petitioner relies on Togo to teach this limitation of
the claim.16 Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking the
references individually when a challenge is predicated upon a combination
of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097

16 Petitioner asserts “Petitioner details why and how to combine Togo’[s]
no-switching criterion based on image quality in the combination of Golan
and Martin, and POSITA reading Golan would not have been discouraged
from the combination.” Pet. Reply 12.
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

25
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, Patent Owner’s argument does not undermine
Petitioner’s showing.
Patent Owner also argues that Togo’s switching criteria is not
“fulfilled in a zoom-in operation between a lower zoom factor (ZF) value
and a higher ZF value,” as required by claim 1. PO Resp. 37–38 (quoting
Ex. 2001 ¶ 77). Rather, according to Patent Owner, “Togo’s switching
criteria are evaluated for a zoom setting regardless of whether the zoom
factor was set in a continuously increasing, continuously decreasing or
discretely specified manner.” Id. Nevertheless, Petitioner relies on Golan to
teach the continuous zoom aspect of this limitation of the claim.17 Non-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually
when a challenge is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at 1097. Thus, Patent Owner’s
argument does not undermine Petitioner’s showing.
Patent Owner also argues that Togo’s alleged no switching criteria is
not based on image quality. PO Resp. 38. Patent Owner relies on the
following statement in Togo, that “in the mobile terminal device of the
present invention, the photography distance Y between the photography
subject and the mobile terminal device is estimated from an output signal of
the autofocusing means or a control signal controlling the autofocusing
means.” Id. at 38 (quoting Ex. 1010 ¶ 19). Although Togo may use
autofocus to estimate the distance, Petitioner contends Togo also “describes

17 Petitioner asserts “Petitioner details why and how to combine Togo’[s]
no-switching criterion based on image quality in the combination of Golan
and Martin, and POSITA reading Golan would not have been discouraged
from the combination.” Pet. Reply 12.
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

26
switching/no-switching based on comparing ‘image qualities of the
enlarged image 22 of the wide-angle image 20 and the telephoto image 21.’”
Pet. Reply 15 (citing Pet 45–46; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 66–67, Fig. 7 (“image qualities
of the enlarged image 22 of the wide-angle image 20 and the telephoto
image 21 at the long distance (B) in FIG. 7 are compared.”). Thus, Patent
Owner’s argument does not undermine Petitioner’s showing.
Patent Owner also argues that Togo does not “perform image analysis
using the disparity of corresponding wide-angle and telephoto pixels to
estimate distance.” PO Resp. 38–39. We find the claims do not recite
“image analysis;” rather, the claims recite “image quality” which, as
explained above, is used by Togo. Therefore, this argument does not
undermine Petitioner’s showing.
Finally, at to the limitation of “wherein if the no-switching criterion is
not fulfilled, the camera controller is further configured to output a zoom
video output image that includes only transformed, digitally zoomed Tele
image data,” Patent Owner argues that the ’332 patent “teaches away” from
Maqrtin’s us of parallax to create its autostereoscopic effect. Id. at 39–40
(citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 83; Ex. 1001, 7:46–48, 7:50–53; Pet. 50). We discuss this
issue below in association with the arguments regarding the motivation to
combine Golan and Martin.
Having reviewed the whole record including the cited evidence,
Petitioner’s contentions, and Patent Owner’s arguments, we determine that
Petitioner’s contentions are sufficiently supported.
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

27
Petitioner’s Contentions Regarding the Rationale for Combining
Golan and Martin

Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to apply Martin’s teachings to Golan “to produce the
obvious, beneficial, and predictable results of a stable transition between
images from different points of view for providing continuous zoom video
output images.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 45–50). Petitioner supports its
contention with the following reasons.
First, “the references are analogous prior art and are in the same field
of endeavor pertaining to imaging systems generating video output images
using two imaging sections having different points of view.” Id. at 18
(quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 46).
Second, “they share a need to provide continuous video output images
when switching between images from imaging sections having different
points of view, for example, by using alignments having sub-pixel
accuracy.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 54); see id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 15;
Ex. 1006, 5:51–55, 5:59–6:5).
Third, Martin addresses these needs identified in Golan by providing
“critical alignment of an ROI [Region of Interest] in two images having
different points of view to calculate ‘transformation parameters of subpixel
resolution’ for position matching of the ROI to achieve a stable transition in
the continuous zoom video output images of the digital camera of Golan.”
Id. at 19–20 (quoting Ex. 1006, 5:51–58) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 55; Ex. 1005
¶ 36).
Fourth, applying Martin to the teachings of Golan would have
required no more than combining “known elements according to known
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

28
methods (such as performing critical alignment of an ROI in Wide and Tele
images for position matching when switching between Wide and Tele
images in zoom control subsystem of Golan) to achieve the benefits of a
stable transition in video output images described by Martin.” Id. at 20.
According to Petitioner, the combined teachings of Golan and Martin would
have “produced operable results that are predictable.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶
49).
Fifth, Golan and Martin have a “shared goal to provide continuous
video output images with seamless transition when switching between
images from two imaging sections.” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 58).
According to Petitioner,
A POSITA would have sought to improve the efficacy of Golan’s
image sensor alignments (e.g., determined at the time of
manufacture without consideration of different parallax shifts for
objects of different distances) with image registration-based
critical alignment as taught by Martin (e.g., determined after the
images are captured and dependent on object distances) to
improve robustness of the seamless transition when switching for
continuous zoom output images.
Id. at 20–21.
Discussion of Petitioner’s Reasons to Combine Martin and Golan
With respect to Petitioner’s third and fourth reasons, we find that
these reasons are sufficiently supported by the cited evidence. Golan
teaches “a first image acquisition device having a first image sensor array
coupled with a first lens having a first FOV, typically a wide FOV, and a
first electronic zoom and “a second image acquisition device having a
second image sensor array coupled with a second lens having a second FOV,
typically a narrow FOV, and a second electronic zoom,” and that the
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

29
“calibration the alignment, between the first image sensor array and the
second image sensor array, facilitates continuous electronic zoom with
uninterrupted imaging, when switching back and forth between the first
image sensor array and the second image sensor array.” Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 14, 15
(emphasis added). Petitioner argues that the ordinarily skilled artisan would
have been motivated “to incorporate Martin’s teaching of executing
registration using critical alignment of ROI in two images having different
points of view to calculate ‘transformation parameters of sub-pixel
resolution’ for position matching to achieve a stable transition in the
continuous zoom video output images of the digital camera of Golan.” Pet.
19 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 36; Ex. 1006, 5:51–58; Ex. 1003 ¶ 57) (emphasis
added). Petitioner presents evidence, Ahiska (Ex. 1007), that tends to show
a relation between electronic calibration and registration for position
matching. Id. (citing-in-part Ex. 1007, 4:58–62, 10:2–5).
Martin teaches aligning images:
Reference image 30 may include a region of interest 34.
The same region of interest 34′, albeit as viewed from a different
point of view, may appear in unaligned image 32. Unaligned
image 32 may be manipulated, as shown in FIG. 3c, for example,
until region 34′ matches alignment with region 34, as illustrated
in FIG. 3d. The manipulation process may be represented by an
affine transformation including translation, rotation, scaling,
and/or any other desired transformation.
Ex. 1006, 4:51–59. Martin discloses that critical alignment “corresponds to
a condition where the degree of alignment is sufficient to achieve a stable
auto stereoscopic display,” and that “[s]tability of the whole image may not
be required, as long as at least a particular region of interest in the auto
stereoscopic display is stable.” Id. at 5:53–58. According to Martin, the
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

30
“alignment process is the use of parallax image manipulations of sub-pixel
resolution to achieve critical alignment” and “the transformations for
achieving critical alignment may proceed to a sub-pixel level where one
image is moved with respect to another image by an amount less than an
integral number of pixels.” Id. at 5:59–65.
We determine that Martin’s teaching of critical alignment that reduces
positional differences in a region of interest does not conflict with Martin’s
teaching of producing or maintaining parallax artifacts in other portions of
the image, based on the entirety of the record developed at trial. See Ex.
1006, 7:46–51 (“while displaying the images, aligning a user-selected region
of interest associated with the first image with a corresponding region of
interest of the second image such that said region of interest of the first
image occupies in the display the same location as the region of interest in
the second image”).
Dr. Durand testifies that “a POSITA would have understood that
Martin’s teachings of critical alignment for stable transition between images
of different points of view apply to electronic camera systems providing
continuous zoom video output [i]mages as taught in Golan, regardless of
whether a three dimensional illusion is provided.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 54. Citing
Ahiska (Ex. 1007), Border (Ex. 1009), Orimoto (Ex. 1014), and Hansen (Ex.
1019) to support his testimony, Durand further testifies that
It was well known in the art that for seamless transition between
two images of different points of views in continuous zoom video
applications, when calibration between two cameras (e.g., the
electronic calibration of Golan) is not sufficient alone (e.g.,
because of shocking, vibration, thermal variation, etc.), image
registration of two images from two imaging sections for
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

31
position matching (e.g., critical alignment of Martin) may be
used.
Id. ¶ 52 (citing Ex. 1007, 4:58–62, 10:2–5; Ex. 1014, 1:63–2:1; Ex. 1019,
1059; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 41, 42). The portion of Hansen (Ex. 1019) cited by Dr.
Durand addresses how extrinsic calibration errors occur and “a method to
recalibrate extrinsic parameters online to correct drift or bias.” Ex. 1019,
1059 (emphasis omitted). Orimoto discloses how misalignment occurs,
irrespective of “how exactly the dual lens camera has been conditioned and
adjusted by the manufacturer.” Ex. 1014, 1:63–2:1. Border addresses image
registration as an alternative to correspondence (i.e., calibration). Ex. 1009
¶¶ 41, 42. And Ahiska discloses image registration or matching, when
calibration is insufficient, to provide a seamless transition between master
and slave cameras and “create the quality of a continuous zoom function.”
Ex. 1007, 4:58–62, 10:2–5 (“[i]f calibration between the [wide-angle] master
and slave cameras is insufficient alone, image registration or matching can
be carried out,” “transition[ing] between the master view and the slave view
as seamlessly as possible to create the quality of a continuous zoom
function”).
Petitioner’s third and fourth reasons for combining Golan and Martin
are supported by Dr. Durand’s testimony quoted above, which is in turn
supported by Ahiska and Border. The portions of Border cited by Dr.
Durand address image registration as an alternative to correspondence (i.e.,
calibration). Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 41, 42. The portions of Ahiska cited by Dr.
Durand address the additional step of image registration or matching, when
calibration is insufficient, to provide a seamless transition between master
and slave cameras and “create the quality of a continuous zoom function.”
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

32
Ex. 1007, 4:58–62, 10:2–5. Thus, each of Border and Ahiska show a
relation between electronic calibration and registration.
Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Petitioner’s Rationale for Combining
Golan and Martin

As to Petitioner’s proffered rationale for combining Golan and Martin,
Patent Owner contends that the “Golan and Martin references are
fundamentally dissimilar, address different problems, and prescribe different
techniques to address those different problems.” PO Resp. 30 (citing Nichia
Corp. v. Everlight Americas, Inc., 855 F.3d 1328, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(district court conclusion of no motivation to combine where the
combination of references relating to LED packages “describe[d] different
structures” and “address[ed] different problems”)); see id. at 31–32 (citing
Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Ex. 2015 ¶
66). Patent Owner argues that “Golan teaches a preference that camera
calibration occur before zooming resulting in ‘alignment offsets’” and
teaches that “[t]ypically, since the spatial offsets between wide image sensor
array 110 and tele image sensor array 112 are fixed, the electronic
calibration step is performed one time, after the manufacturing of the image
acquisition system and before the first use.” Id. at 28 (Ex. 1005 ¶ 44).
Patent Owner argues that “Martin, on the other hand, teaches away from
Golan with an ‘exemplary embodiment’ that uses ‘convergence points’ in
the two camera images to determine alignment that would continue to work
even if the position and orientation of the two cameras varied.” Id. (quoting
Ex. 1006, 5:6–21).
Patent Owner further argues that “[s]ince both Golan and Martin rely
on careful ‘sub-pixel’ alignment, these differences in alignment processing
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

33
would be critical, and it would not be obvious to a POSITA which choice to
use for a hypothetical combined embodiment.” Id. at 28. Patent Owner also
argues “[a] POSITA would understand from Golan that its approach works
better if the cameras can be as close as possible to minimize the differences
in their points of view.” Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 22). Patent Owner
further argues “Martin on the other hand requires ‘parallax images’ that a
POSITA would understand as images captured from necessarily different
points-of-view.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 3:56–60; Ex. 2001 ¶ 60).
Petitioner responds by distinguishing Nichia, arguing that “the
relevant teachings of Golan and Martin address the same problem, and a
relation between solutions of Golan and Martin was well-known and no
alleged difference between the relevant teachings would require the
alteration of Golan’s principles of operation or render Golan inoperable.”
Pet. Reply 7 (citing Nichia Corp., 855 F.3d at 1339; Adidas AG, 963 F.3d at
1358–159; Pet. 18–20; Ex. 1006, 2:49–50, 5:51–58). According to
Petitioner, “for seamless transition between two images in continuous zoom
video applications, when calibration between two cameras . . . is not
sufficient alone . . . , image registration of two images from two imaging
sections (e.g., critical alignment of Martin) may be used for position
matching.” Pet. 54–55 (citing Ex. 1007, 4:58–62; 10:2–5; Ex. 1014, 1:58–
62; Ex. 1019, 1059; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 41–42). Petitioner further contends that a
“POSITA starting with Golan would have found it obvious to use Martin’s
critical alignment including registration to provide improved seamless
transition.” Pet. Reply 6 (citing Pet. 20–21).
We are not persuaded that Golan and Martin are “fundamentally
dissimilar,” because Golan and Martin both involve parallax effects caused
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

34
by two cameras with different fields of view and they both address a
common problem––a discontinuity in images that are misaligned due to
parallax from two different cameras––albeit in different contexts and with
different techniques. See PO Resp. 21–31.
Martin also does not need to share a goal, objective, problem, or
purpose in order to be combined with Golan. Golan and Martin are not
incompatible with each other for having different objectives. Intelligent Bio-
Systems v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Even assuming, arguendo, that Golan discloses reducing a parallax and
Martin discloses the opposite (i.e., creating or maintaining a parallax)––this
is not necessarily fatal to the combination of these references. Nonetheless,
one of the problems noted by each of the references is shared in common
between Golan and Martin, as discussed in the preceding paragraph. Thus,
Patent Owner’s “fundamentally dissimilar” argument does not undermine
Petitioner’s contentions.
Patent Owner also argues that “these differences in camera
configurations [between Martin and Golan] teach away from each other.”
PO Resp. 28. Patent Owner also argues that the ’332 patent “teaches away”
from parallax, which Martin depends on. Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 84; Ex.
1001, 7:50–53). “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of
ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v.
Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

35
We are not persuaded that the invention claimed in the ’332 patent or
Golan teaches away from Martin because they do not discourage or lead one
in a direction divergent from Martin’s teachings relevant to “evaluat[ing] if a
no-switching criterion is fulfilled or not fulfilled . . .” as recited in claim 1.
In addition to providing an autostereoscopic display of 3D images using
parallax images, Martin also discloses aligning these same parallax images
using transformation parameters. See Ex. 1006, 5:38–42. Thus, Martin’s
teaching of critical alignment does not appear to be divergent from or
incompatible with the scope of independent claim 1 or the objectives of the
’332 patent. Nor is Martin incompatible with Golan for having a different
objective. Petitioner need not show that Martin shares a common objective
with Golan or the patent at issue. Intelligent Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d at 1367.
Thus, Patent Owner’s teaching away argument does not undermine
Petitioner’s contentions.
Patent Owner also argues that although Martin is for autostereoscopic
display, there is no evidence in the record of a camera utilizing
autostereoscopic visual perception. PO Resp. 24–25. Patent Owner
contends “a POSITA would recognize Martin as a display system patent
intended for post-processing images for display, whereas Golan is an image
acquisition patent intended for pre-processing images in preparation for
photographic image capture.” Id. Nevertheless, we determine that Patent
Owner does not explain sufficiently in its Patent Owner Response why
Martin’s critical alignment could not be used in Golan during image
acquisition.
As discussed above, Petitioner, by contrast, presents evidence, i.e.
Ahiska (Ex. 1007), that tends to show a relation between electronic
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

36
calibration and registration for position matching. See Pet. 20–21 (citing-in-
part Ex. 1007, 4:58–62, 10:2–5 (“If calibration between the master and slave
cameras is insufficient alone, image registration or matching can be carried
out . . .” and “transition[ing] between the master view and the slave view as
seamlessly as possible to create the quality of a continuous zoom
function.”)). Dr. Durand also cites Ahiska, in addition to other references, to
support his testimony. Ex. 1003 ¶ 52 (citing Ex. 1007, 4:58–62, 10:2–5; Ex.
1014, 1:58–62 (Orimoto patent) (describing “image registration on the side
of the manufacturer . . . to obtain the three dimensional image without
noticing misalignment of the plural images”); Ex. 1019, 1059 (Hansen
article) (describing how extrinsic calibration errors occur due to shock,
vibration, thermal variation and cycling); Ex. 1009 ¶ 52 (explaining that
registration between wide image 204 and telephoto image 206 is an
alternative to correspondences preferably determined at the time of
manufacturing)).
Dr. Durand testifies that
It was well known in the art that for seamless transition between
two images of different points of views in continuous zoom video
applications, when calibration between two cameras (e.g., the
electronic calibration of Golan) is not sufficient alone (e.g.,
because of shocking, vibration, thermal variation, etc.), image
registration of two images from two imaging sections for
position matching (e.g., critical alignment of Martin) may be
used.
Id. Dr. Durand’s testimony quoted above is supported by some of the cited
references. The cited portion of Hansen (Ex. 1019) addresses how extrinsic
calibration errors occur and “a method to recalibrate extrinsic parameters
online to correct drift or bias.” Ex. 1019, 1059 (emphasis omitted). The
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

37
cited portion of Orimoto (Ex. 1014) concerns image registration, at the
manufacturer’s end, to address misalignment of images. The quoted portion
of Orimoto discloses how misalignment occurs, irrespective of “how exactly
the dual lens camera has been conditioned and adjusted by the
manufacturer.” Ex. 1014, 1:63–2:1. The cited portions of Border (Ex. 1009)
address image registration as an alternative to correspondence (i.e.,
calibration). Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 41, 42. And the cited portions of Ahiska disclose
image registration or matching, when calibration is insufficient, to provide a
seamless transition between master and slave cameras and “create the
quality of a continuous zoom function.” Ex. 1007, 4:58–62, 10:2–5.
Thus, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that one or ordinary skill
would have chosen to use registration such as occurs in Martin, in the
system of Golan during acquisition.18 Thus, Patent Owner’s pre-processing
versus post-processing argument does not undermine Petitioner’s
contentions.
Patent Owner further argues that “the core problem with Petitioner’s
argument for combining Golan and Martin involves a more basic question:
‘whether [a] skilled artisan would have plucked one reference out of the sea
of prior art . . . and combined it with conventional [] elements to address

18 Patent Owner asserts in its Sur-Reply that Petitioner’s statement that
Patent Owner’s argument at pages 27–28 of the Patent Owner Response
“would not have discouraged POSITA from applying Martin’s critical
alignment teachings in Golan” incorporates a nine-paragraph, 1163 word
discussion from Dr. Durand into the Petitioner’s Reply in violation of 37
C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)’s prohibition on incorporation by reference of arguments
from expert declarations. PO Sur-Reply 6. We have reviewed the
referenced section of the Reply and declaration and do not find that
Petitioner violated the page limits or any other rules.
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

38
some need present in the field.’” PO Resp. 24, 29 (quoting WBIP, LLC v.
Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) (alterations in original).
Petitioner responds that the evidence of record does not indicate that
there was a “sea” of other image registration or position matching patents or
literature to choose from; rather it was a finite pool including Martin and
Ahiska. See Pet. Reply 6. Petitioner further argues that it is not required to
show why it chose one reference, in this case, Martin, over another. Id.
(citing Infineum USA L.P. v. Chevron Oronite Co. LLC, 2021 WL 210722,
at *4 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). We are persuaded that the evidence of record does
not indicate that there were several alternatives that a POSITA could have
chosen instead of Martin so as to establish a “sea” or “ocean” as Patent
Owner contends, nor has Patent Owner shown Petitioner is relying on the
concept of “combining known element to yield predictable results” under
which a finite number of alternatives may be required.19 See Fanduel, Inc.
v. Interactive Games LLC, 966 F.3d 1334, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“when the
record shows a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to a design
need that existed at the relevant time, which a person of ordinary skill in the

19 We do not suggest that this is required. WBIP was not concerned with
showing that a particular reference could be found in the “sea.” Rather,
WBIP pointed out that one must show a rationale to combine instead of
assuming that “a person of skill, [has] two (and only two) references sitting
on the table in front of him.” WBIP, 829 F.3d at 1337. In other words, one
does not need to show that there is something about the references relied on
that is different than all other references in the sea nor does one need to
show the sea is so small that the two references would be easily found
(unless one is relying on combining known elements to yield predictable
results). See Yeda Rsch. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 906 F.3d 1031, 1044–45
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (associating “sea” of prior art argument with concept of “a
finite number of identified, predictable solutions”).
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

39
art ha[d] a good reason to pursue, common sense can supply a motivation to
combine”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted, alteration in
original).
We are further persuaded that Petitioner need not explain why it chose
Martin over another reference with similar teachings, or why its combination
is superior. See Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. W.-Ward Pharms. Int’l Ltd., 923
F.3d 1051, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“It is thus improper to require West-Ward
to prove that a person of ordinary skill would have selected everolimus over
other prior art treatment methods.”); see also In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[O]ur case law does not require that a particular
combination must be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination
described in the prior art in order to provide motivation for the current
invention.”). Thus, Patent Owner’s “sea” of references argument does not
undermine Petitioner’s contentions.
Patent Owner also argues that Durand’s “analogous art” analysis is
deficient because it fails to address whether Golan and Martin, separately,
are “analogous” to the invention of the ’332 patent, because it instead “only
asserted that Golan and Martin were ‘analogous’ because they are both in
‘the same field of endeavor.’” PO Sur-Reply 2.
Art is analogous when it is: (1) from the same field of endeavor as the
claimed invention; and (2) if the art is not from the same field of endeavor,
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor. In re
Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In its Petition, Petitioner
compares Golan and Martin to each other instead of the claimed invention.
See Pet. 17–18. In its Reply, Petitioner rectifies the improper comparison
and asserts that Golan and Martin are in the same field of endeavor as the
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

40
claimed invention: “pertaining to imaging systems including digital cameras
generating video output images of the same scene from two imaging sections
having different points of view.” Pet. Reply 3 (citing Pet. 18; Ex. 1005, Fig.
1, code (57), ¶¶ 9, 15, 36; Ex. 1006, Fig. 1, 3:6–13, 3:32–35; 5:51–55).20
Also as discussed above, Petitioner asserts that Golan and Martin “are each
pertinent to the problem addressed in the ’332 Patent, namely, achieving ‘a
continuous, smooth zoom in video mode.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1040 ¶32; Ex.
1001, 3:16–17; Pet. 18–19; Ex. 1005 ¶ 15; Ex. 1006, 5:51–55).
We are persuaded that Golan is in the same field of endeavor as the
claimed invention because Golan describes performing digital zoom using a
wide image sensor array and lens and a tele image sensor array and lens with
the goal of providing “continuous electronic zoom with uninterrupted
imaging.” See Ex. 1005 ¶ 15. We are persuaded that Martin is reasonably
pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor: reducing an image jump
effect seen in video output images when switching between cameras that
have different fields of view. Both Golan and Martin have multiple cameras
with differing fields of view. Martin describes the problem in terms of its

20 Petitioner properly replied to Patent Owner’s criticism of its showing
regarding analogous art. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC, 800 F.3d at 1379
(finding an inter partes review petitioner has both the “burden of persuasion
to prove unpatentability” and also “the initial burden of production,” which
“is a shifting burden, ‘the allocation of which depends on where in the
process of trial the issue arises.’ The burden of production may entail
‘producing additional evidence and presenting persuasive argument based on
new evidence or evidence already of record.’”); see also Apple Inc. v.
Qualcomm Inc., IPR2018-01245, Paper 39, 16 (PTAB Jan. 15, 2020) (citing
Drinkware and finding a petitioner properly established a reference was
analogous art for the first time in its Petitioner Reply).

IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

41
solution: “[c]ritical alignment corresponds to a condition where the degree
of alignment is sufficient to achieve a stable auto stereoscopic display” and
“[s]tability of the whole image may not be required, as long as at least a
particular region of interest in the auto stereoscopic display is stable.” Ex.
1006, 5:53–58. Thus, Patent Owner’s analogous argument does not
undermine Petitioner’s contentions.
As such, and for the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that
Petitioner’s rationale for combining Golan and Martin is supported by
sufficient rational underpinning, based on the entirety of the record
developed at trial. See KSR, 550 at 418.
Petitioner’s Rationale for Combining Golan, Martin, and Togo
Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to apply Togo’s teachings to Golan to “produce the
obvious, beneficial, and predictable results of avoiding output image
degradation when the quality of the telephoto image data would be degraded
based on closeness of the subject as taught by Togo.” Pet. 28–29 (citing Ex.
1003 ¶¶ 49–54). Petitioner supports its contention with the following
reasons.
First, “the references are analogous prior art and are in the same field
of endeavor pertaining to digital zoom camera systems including a camera
controller operatively connected to wide and tele lens systems.” Id. at 29–30
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 62).
Second, “the references share a need to provide output images of
objects at various ranges with a compact imaging system.” Id. at 30–31
(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 63).
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

42
Third, “Golan’s expressed desire to achieve ‘continuous electronic
zoom with uninterrupted imaging, when switching back and forth between
the first image sensor array and the second image sensor array’ would have
motivated a POSITA to incorporate Togo’s teachings of a no-switching
criterion based on a specific ‘setting magnification X’ and ‘photography
distance Y’ of an object to be imaged.” Id. at 31 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 15; Ex.
1010 ¶¶ 2, 37, 49; Ex. 1003 ¶ 64).
Fourth, combining the teachings of Togo with the system of Golan
“would have produced operable results that are predictable.” Id. at 20.
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions that Golan’s expressed
desire to achieve continuous electronic zoom with uninterrupted imaging,
when switching back and forth between the first image sensor array and the
second image sensor array would have motivated a person of ordinary skill
in the art to incorporate Togo’s teachings of a no-switching criterion based
on a specific ‘setting magnification X’ and ‘photography distance Y’ of an
object to be imaged.
Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Petitioner’s Rationale for
Combining Golan, Martin, and Togo

Patent Owner argues “a POSITA reading Golan would not be
motivated to combine it with Togo because the POSITA would not be aware
from Golan of any issues regarding focus and subject depth. Ex. 2001 ¶67.”
PO Resp. 32. Patent Owner asserts that Golan “assumes both images are
always in perfect focus.” Id. Petitioner contends that a “POSITA would
have understood the tele image degradation would be an issue for Golan,
e.g., when capturing images of a subject at close distance in zoom-in
operation using both Tele and Wide imaging system.” Pet. Reply 8 (citing
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

43
Ex. 1040 ¶ 48). Further, Petitioner contends that a “POSITA would have
understood that Golan includes embodiments that focus subjects at various
distances, including at close distance and the infinite, and would be
motivated to resolve any associated issues using teachings in the art.” Id. at
8–9 (Ex. 1040 ¶ 49; Ex. 1005 ¶ 17, claims 3, 17). We agree and thus, Patent
Owner’s argument does not undermine Petitioner’s showing.
Patent Owner also argues that because Togo requires parallel optical
axes “when the imaging distance (Y) to the subject is long (several tens of
m), center positions of the wide-angle image 17 and the telephoto image are
substantially equal” and “a function of correcting the center positions of the
wide-angle image and the telephoto image as in patent literature 3 is
unnecessary. Ex. 1010, [0052].” PO Resp. 34 (citing Ex. 2001, ¶ 69; Ex.
1010 ¶¶ 18, 38) (internal quotations omitted). Patent Owner also argues
“Martin teaches away from this requirement by specifying that
‘[a]dditionally, cameras 10 and 12 need not be in any special alignment
configuration to produce suitable parallax images for use with the present
invention.’ Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 3:64–67 . . . ; Ex. 2001 ¶70).” Id. Patent
Owner also points to Martin’s teaching that “[previous] methods require the
use of at least two carefully aligned cameras to capture images” and that
alignment can be “cumbersome” and “difficult.” Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex.
1006, 2:19–59) (alteration in original).
We do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments, which are premised
on a “physical” or “bodily” incorporation of limitations of one reference into
the other. This is not the standard. See In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550
(Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references
be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”).
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

44
The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined
teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981). “Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability
to combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968
(CCPA 1973). Rather than express obviousness as the physical
incorporation of a structure from one reference into the structure of another
reference, the prior art should be viewed as a combination of teachings from
different sources, and the use of those teachings by one of ordinary skill in
the art. See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418(the conclusion of obviousness
can be based on the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of
demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and
the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in
the art).
Petitioner contends “Togo’s image-quality-based no-switching
criterion teachings apply to the combination regardless of whether a distance
between cameras is close or whether optical axes are parallel.” Pet. Reply
10 (citing Ex. 1040 ¶ 52). Petitioner seeks only “to incorporate Togo’s
teachings of a no-switching criterion based on a specific ‘setting
magnification X’ and ‘photography distance Y’ of an object to be imaged.”
Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 15; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 2, 37, 49; Ex. 1003 ¶ 68). Thus,
Patent Owner’s argument does not undermine Petitioners showing
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s rationale
for combining Golan, Martin, and Togo is supported by sufficient rational
underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. We are further persuaded that the
cited evidence sufficiently supports Dr. Durand’s testimony.
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

45
Evidence of Secondary Considerations
Patent Owner presents evidence of secondary considerations of non-
obviousness. PO Resp. 57–69. As to licensing, Patent Owner presents
evidence in the form of emails and its litigation complaint to show that “the
licensing discussions between Petitioner and Patent Owner lasted over many
years.” PO Resp. 62. “Petitioner specifically asked Patent Owner for an
‘option to license all of Corephotonics IP’ in August 2016.” Id. Patent
Owner further notes that Petitioner “specifically asked for information about
smooth transition technology.” Id. (citing Ex. 2007; Ex. 2011; Ex. 2012).
“The licensing discussions specifically would have encompassed the smooth
transition technology,” and a license to ’332 patent. Id. These discussions,
Patent Owner contends, establish “that there is a ‘nexus’ between the
licensing negotiations between Patent Owner and Petitioner as [to] the
claims of the ’322 patent challenged by Petitioner in this proceeding.” Id. at
62–63. Patent Owner also lists several companies that licensed Patent
Owner’s technology, and contends that this is “evidence of industry-wide
respect for the patented technology.” Id. at 63–64 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 141).
As to industry praise, Patent Owner cites several articles that show it
is an “industry leader in developing dual-camera designs and software
technologies to power them.” PO Resp. 65–66.
Patent Owner asserts that the failure of others and “Petitioner’s
copying of Patent Owner’s technologies, including the smooth transition
techniques that Patent Owner demonstrated to Petitioner, is evidence of non-
obviousness.” Id. at 68 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 150). Patent Owner presents
arguments with respect to the failure of Golan and Border inventors to
achieve what is disclosed by the ’322 patent. Id. at 66–69. Patent Owner
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

46
also asserts: “[t]hat Petitioner copied the invention of the ’322 patent (among
other Corephotonics technologies, which Petitioner also appears to have
copied) is strongly implied by the course of conduct between the parties and
the timing of Petitioner’s announcement of their own version of ‘smooth
transition’ in their iPhone 7 series in Fall of 2016.” Id. at 68–69 (citing Ex.
2001 ¶ 150).
Analysis of Patent Owner’s Evidence of Secondary Considerations
Objective indicia of non-obviousness (also referred to as secondary
considerations) may include long-felt but unsolved need, failure of others,
unexpected results, commercial success, copying, licensing, industry praise,
and expert skepticism. Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2012). Objective indicia are “only relevant to the obviousness
inquiry ‘if there is a nexus between the claimed invention and the [objective
indicia of non-obviousness].’” In re Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC, 856 F.3d
883, 901 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463
F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); see also ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 838
F.3d 1214, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As the Federal Circuit explained, “a
patentee is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of nexus between the
asserted evidence of secondary considerations and a patent claim if the
patentee shows that the asserted evidence is tied to a specific product and
that the product ‘is the invention disclosed and claimed.’” Fox Factory, Inc.
v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 141 S.
Ct. 373 (2020) (quoting Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd.,
851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). That is, presuming nexus is
appropriate “when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is
tied to a specific product and that product ‘embodies the claimed features,
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

47
and is coextensive with them.’” Id. (quoting Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic
Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). On the other hand, the
patentee is not entitled to a presumption of nexus if the patented invention is
only a component of a commercially successful machine or process. Id.
(reaffirming the importance of the “coextensiveness” requirement).
Applying Fox Factory, the Board uses a two-step analysis in
evaluating nexus between the claimed invention and the evidence of
secondary considerations. Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-
01129, Paper 33 at 33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) (precedential). We first
consider whether a patent owner has demonstrated “that its products are
coextensive (or nearly coextensive) with the challenged claims,” resulting in
a rebuttable presumption of nexus. Id. If not, that “does not end the inquiry
into secondary considerations;” “the patent owner is still afforded an
opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary
considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the
claimed invention.’” Id. (quoting Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373–75). Once
a patent owner has presented a prima facie case of nexus, the burden of
coming forward with evidence in rebuttal shifts to the challenger to adduce
evidence showing that the objective indicia were due to extraneous factors
other than the patented invention. Demaco, 851 F.2d at 1392–93.
With regard to the first step of an analysis under Fox Factory, Patent
Owner’s evidence of secondary considerations is not tied to a specific
product or technology that is disclosed and claimed in the ’332 patent, for
the reasons discussed below. See Pet. Reply 24–25 (citing Fox Factory, 944
F.3d at 1374).
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

48
Patent Owner presents evidence of secondary considerations
purporting to address at least: industry praise and licensing; commercial
success; and failure of others and copying. See PO Resp. 56–69.
According to one of the emails submitted by Patent Owner, licensing
negotiations with Petitioner involved not only the ’332 patent, but all patents
in Patent Owner’s intellectual property portfolio. Id. at 62; Ex. 2010 (email
chain between Corephotonics and Apple discussing an “option to license all
of Corephotonics IP”). In the licensing context, the relevant inquiry is
whether there is a nexus between the patent and the licensing activity itself,
such that the factfinder can infer that the licensing “arose out of recognition
and acceptance of the subject matter claimed” in the patent. In re GPAC
Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995). To the extent that negotiations
with Petitioner or any other licensee (see PO Resp. 63–64 (listing entities
that have taken a license from Patent Owner)) were specific to the smooth
transition technology Patent Owner mentions, Petitioner argues that
“‘smooth transition’ [relied on by Patent Owner] refers to techniques used
when switching, in order to provide for a more seamless transition between
the camera images” but, the “’332 claims recite evaluating a ‘non-switching
criterion,’ to determine whether to switch between cameras, and depending
on the evaluation, outputting the Wide image data or the Tele image data.”
Pet. Reply 26 (citing PO Resp. 57–58; Ex. 1001, 5:27–34, 7:41–56, claims
1, 12). Petitioner further argues that “Patent Owner fails to even discuss, let
alone prove, whether any usage of ‘smooth transition’ is actually a reference
to the claimed technique or merely unclaimed techniques described as
‘smooth transition’ in the ’332 patent.” Id. (citing Ex. 1040 ¶ 107). For the
reasons that follow, we find that Petitioner has the better position.
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

49
In the ’332 patent,
[a] “smooth transition” (ST) is a transition between cameras or
POVs that minimizes the jump effect. This may include
matching the position, scale, brightness and color of the output
image before and after the transition. However, an entire image
position matching between the sub-camera outputs is in many
cases impossible, because parallax causes the position shift to be
dependent on the object distance. Therefore, in a smooth
transition as disclosed herein, the position matching is achieved
only in the ROI region while scale brightness and color are
matched for the entire output image area.
Ex. 1001, 7:50–60. At its broadest, “[a] ‘smooth transition’ . . . minimizes
the jump effect,” and as disclosed in the ’332 patent, this encompasses
position matching “only in the ROI region” and matching “scale brightness
and color . . . for the entire output image area.” See id. In other patents in
the continuity chain of the ’332 patent, “smooth transition” is similarly
defined. See U.S. Patent No. 10,326,942 (“the ’942 patent,” 10:41–51). But
this disclosure does not appear to address “evaluat[ing] if a no-switching
criterion is fulfilled or not fulfilled, wherein at a zoom factor (ZF) value
greater than a zoom factor ZFT=tangent (FOVWide)/tangent (FOVTele), if the
no-switching criterion is fulfilled the camera controller is further configured
to output a zoom video output image that includes only digitally-zoomed
Wide image data, and if the no-switching criterion is not fulfilled, the
camera controller is further configured to output a zoom video output image
that includes only transformed, digitally zoomed Tele image data,” as
required by independent claim 1 and similarly required by independent
claim 13 of the ’332 patent. That is, independent claim 1 recites a more
specific invention than “smooth transition” as it is broadly defined in the
’332 patent.
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

50
As Patent Owner discloses “smooth transition” in multiple patents, it
is not clear what inventions the term encompasses. See, e.g., Ex. 1001,
7:46–56; ’942 patent, 10:41–51. Patent Owner’s arguments, too, appear to
imply that the inventions disclosed in more than one patent are encompassed
by smooth transition technology. See generally PO Resp. 58–65. The ’332
patent defines a smooth transition as a transition between cameras or POVs
that minimizes the jump effect and teaches methods for achieving a smooth
transition in video zoom mode, including position matching, to address the
different spatial perspectives and viewing angles of each camera, as well as
matching scale, brightness, and color. Ex. 1001, 7:50–60. With respect to
the ’332 patent specifically, Dr. Hart testifies that its “central innovation” is
the “reduction of the image discontinuity in video output seen when a multi-
aperture camera switches from one sensor to another during the zooming
process using registration and position matching.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 147
(emphasis added). Both Dr. Hart’s characterization of the ’332 patent’s
“central innovation” and the recitations of claim 1 are more particular than
the broad definition of “smooth transition” in the ’332 patent. Patent
Owner’s evidence of industry-wide praise and licensing, commercial
success, as well as failure of others and copying is tied to, at its most
specific, Patent Owner’s smooth transition technology, which is defined
more broadly than the invention recited in claim 1 of the ’332 patent.
For example, as evidence of licensing negotiations, Patent Owner
submits Exhibits 2011 and 2012, which discuss “Corephotonic’s
technologies and intellectual property, including ‘software that fuses wide
angle and telephoto video together,’ ‘sensor synchronization,’ ‘MIPI
signaling and image processing requirements,’ and ‘image registration in
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

51
GPU . . . .’” Not only are these areas of technology not limited to the
invention recited in claim 1, it is not entirely clear how, aside from image
registration, they even relate to it. Exhibit 2007 is an email chain discussing
“a number of eleven ‘top level deliverables’.” Those top level deliverables
are not limited to the invention recited in claim 1. Exhibit 2008 concerns
smooth transitions and technical discussions between Petitioner and Patent
Owner. For the reasons discussed above, evidence tied to Patent Owner’s
smooth transition technology is not coextensive with the invention recited in
claim 1 of the ’332 patent.
As industry praise, Patent Owner cites several articles describing it as
a “leader in multi-camera technology,” “world-renowned leader in the
mobile imaging space,” a “leading supplie[r]” and a “‘key player’ in the
computational photography market.” PO Resp. 64. The praise is for Patent
Owner, Corephotonics, as a company, not the specific invention recited in
claim 1 of the ’332 patent. Similarly, Patent Owner’s evidence of
commercial success, which includes articles in Forbes.com, Globes.co.il,
and Engadget.com concerning Samsung’s purchase of Corephotonics, does
not specifically address the invention recited in claim 1. Id. at 65–66.
As evidence of failure of others, Patent Owner points to Golan’s
failure to “recognize the problem of discontinuities due to parallax which are
present in such switching or the use of the position matching techniques and
image registration techniques discussed in the ’332 patent.” Id. at 67 (citing
Ex. 2001 ¶ 148). Patent Owner also points to Border’s purported failure to
“recognize the need for a ‘continuous’ zoom or ‘smooth transition’ between
sensors or,” “the need to provide a ‘continuous zoom video output.’” Id. at
67–68 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 149). We do not consider Golan’s and Border’s
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

52
lack of disclosure on this specific problem, even if it is a failure to recognize
the problem, sufficient evidence of failure of others to solve the problem.
Failure of other requires “that, notwithstanding knowledge of the references,
the art tried and failed to solve the problem.” Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812
F.3d 1326, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016), overruled on other grounds by Aqua
Prod., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (emphasis added).
Nevertheless, even if Patent Owner’s argument about Golan and Border is
relevant, neither reference has been shown to support failure of others.
For the reasons discussed above, the evidence presented is not
sufficiently tied to, or coextensive with the invention of claim 1 in the ’332
patent in particular. We further determine that, presenting evidence that is
tied to “smooth transition” instead of the invention recited in claim 1 as
Patent Owner does, does not establish that any of the evidence is coextensive
with the invention recited in claim 1 of the ’332 patent.
In view of step 1 of the analysis under Fox Factory, we move to step 2
and determine whether Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary considerations
is “the direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.”
Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373–75. Patent Owner is not entitled to a
presumption of nexus where the relevant product embodies at least two
patented inventions, and the burden remains on Patent Owner to show that
the claimed secondary considerations were due to the invention claimed in
the patent at issue here. See Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.,
593 F.3d. 1289, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Applying Therasense, the Federal Circuit explained that allowing a
presumption in such a situation would not be “consistent with Demaco’s
explanation that nexus cannot be presumed where, for example, ‘the
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

53
patented invention is only a component of a commercially successful
machine or process.’” See Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1377 (citing Demaco,
851 F.2d at 1392) (rejecting a patent owner’s “attempt to reduce the
coextensiveness requirement to an inquiry into whether the patent claims
broadly cover the product that is the subject of the evidence of secondary
considerations”).
For reasons substantially similar to those discussed above, we
determine that none of the evidence presented is “the direct result of the
unique characteristics of the claimed invention,” because Patent Owner’s
evidence is only as particular as discussing smooth transition technology,
which we determine above is broader than and thus, not coextensive with the
invention recited in claim 1 of the ’332 patent. See Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at
1373–75. It is further unclear that any of the industry-wide praise and
articles resulted from the preeminence of the invention recited in claim 1 of
the ’332 patent.
Because the same evidence of secondary considerations cannot be
presumed to be attributable to two or more different features, Patent Owner
retains the burden of proving the degree to which the evidence tied to
“smooth transition” technology is attributable to the invention recited in the
challenged claims. Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1378 (citing Therasense, 593
F.3d at 1299; WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l. Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359
(Fed. Cir. 1999)); see also Lectrosonics, Paper 33 at 34–35.
Some of the exact same evidence and arguments submitted in the
present proceeding has also been submitted in IPR2020-00905––Petitioner
contends that “Patent Owner’s reliance on the same underlying allegations in
other PTAB proceedings involving different patents of different scope casts
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

54
considerable doubt on [Patent Owner’s] argument.” Pet. Reply 25 (citing
IPR2020-00905, Paper 15, 41, (contending that licensing discussions
“specifically would have encompassed lens design and image fusion
technology” in addition to smooth transition technology)). This is despite
the fact that independent claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479 (“the ’479
patent) in IPR2020-00905 recites a different invention from that of the
inventions recited in independent claims 1 and 12 of the ’332 patent.
Independent claim 1 of the ’479 patent recites, inter alia, “a camera
controller operatively coupled to the first and second AF mechanisms and to
the Wide and Tele image sensors and configured to control the AF
mechanisms and to process the Wide and Tele images to create a fused
image.” Independent claim 23 of the ’479 patent recites substantially similar
features. Neither claim includes “evaluat[ing] if a no switching criterion is
fulfilled or not fulfilled” as in the inventions of claims 1 and 12 of the ’332
patent. The ’479 and the ’332 patents do not claim the same inventions. See
generally Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1377 (rejecting the argument that a
presumption should exist where the two patents at issue are related). In this
case, the ’479 and ’332 patents have claims that address different aspects of
smooth transition technology.
We are not persuaded that Patent Owner has met its burden to
establish a nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the
submitted evidence relating to industry-wide praise and licensing,
commercial success, as well as failure of others and copying. Absent a
nexus, we determine that Patent Owner’s evidence of objective indicia does
not weigh in favor of non-obviousness.
Summary – Claim 1
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

55
We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments, the supporting testimony
provided by Dr. Durand, the cited portions of Golan, Martin, and Togo and
the other cited evidence and we are persuaded that the proposed combination
teaches the limitations recited in independent claim 1 as set forth above.
Petitioner’s rationales for combining Golan and Martin and Golan, Martin,
and Togo are set forth earlier in this Section, and is determined to be
supported by sufficient rational underpinning for at least the reasons set forth
above. Patent Owner’s contentions regarding secondary considerations of
non-obviousness are set forth above and, as discussed, do not weigh in favor
of non-obviousness because Patent Owner has not established a nexus
between the claimed invention and the cited evidence. For the foregoing
reasons, we conclude Petitioner establishes unpatentability of independent
claim 1 over Golan and Martin by a preponderance of the evidence.
Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates the
unpatentability of claim 1 over the combination of Golan, Martin, and Togo
by a preponderance of the evidence.
5. Independent Claim 13
Independent claim 13 recites a method for providing a digital video
output in a multiple aperture zoom digital camera similar to that recited in
independent claim 1. Ex. 1001, 13:28–40.
Petitioner’s arguments for independent claim 13 refer, in large part, to
its arguments for independent claim 1. See Pet. 57–58.
Patent Owner does not present separate arguments for independent
claim 13. See generally Prelim. Resp. For substantially the same reasons
discussed in section III.D.4, we are persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

56
demonstrates the unpatentability of claim 13 over the combination of Golan,
Martin, and Togo by a preponderance of the evidence.
6. Dependent Claims 2, 9, 14, and 21–22
Patent Owner does not present separate arguments for claims 2, and 9.
See generally PO Resp. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and
evidence concerning claims 2, 9, 14, and 21–22 and are persuaded that
Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence the
unpatentability of these claims over the combination of Golan, Martin, and
Togo. See Pet. 54, 56–57.
7. Dependent Claims 5 and 17
Claims 5 and 17, which depend from claims 1 and 13 respectively,
further recite “wherein the no-switching criterion includes an effective
resolution of the Tele image being lower than an effective resolution of the
Wide image.” Ex. 1001, 12:65–67, 14:12–14.
Patent Owner asserts that “a POSITA would understand the plain and
ordinary meaning of ‘effective resolution,’ as illuminated by the ‘332 and its
description of an ‘effective resolution score’ utilizing image analysis of
image sensor data. PO Resp. 41 (citing Ex. 2001, ¶ 88; Ex. 1001 at 6:4–24).
Patent Owner essentially asks us to construe “effective resolution” as
requiring calculation of an “effective resolution score” as defined in the
Specification of the ’332 patent. Limitations in the specification must not be
read into the claims absent lexicography or disclaimer/disavowal. Hill-Rom
Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We
find neither lexicography nor disavowal here.
Petitioner responds to this implicit construction by contending that
“the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘effective resolution’ means the degree
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

57
of detail, which may be measured by image quality including blurriness and
sharpness—a meaning supported by undisputed evidence.” Pet. Reply 17
(citing Pet. 56; Ex. 1017, 80–81; Ex. 1020, 7:15–17; Ex. 1003 ¶ 135).
Petitioner relies on Jacobson (Ex. 1017), which determines resolution by
calculating “resolving power,” and Shabatay (Ex. 1020) which defines
resolution using “spatial frequencies.”
Neither party proposed a construction in its initial briefing for
“effective resolution.” Petitioner has not explained how its construction of
“effective resolution” as image quality including blurriness and sharpness is
supported by resolving power and determining spatial frequencies as recited
in Jacobson and Shabtay.
We decline to agree with Patent Owner’s implicit request to limit
effective resolution to calculating an effective resolution score nor with
Petitioner’s implicit definition as resolving power involving spatial
frequencies. There is no indication that the patentee intended to limit the
claim in that way or redefine effective resolution to be something that can
only be determined by an effective resolution score.
The effective resolution score in the ’332 patent does include a
measure of sharpness which tends to support Petitioner’s construction that
sharpness and blurriness, are a part of “effective resolution.” Ex. 1001,
6:20–23 (“The effective resolution score can be derived from a combination
of the sharpness scores and edge scores.”). We construe “effective
resolution” as image quality including but not limited to blurriness and
sharpness.
Petitioner relies on Togo’s disclosure doing a comparison based on
blurriness and sharpness but does not explain how the comparison would be
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

58
done or on what calculations (or strict derivation) it would be based. Pet. 56
(citing Ex. 1010, code (57) ¶¶ 11, 12 (“[t]elephoto imaging module with a
long focal length is less sharp at close distances compared to a wide-angle
imaging module whose focal length is short”), 57 (“a telephoto image 23 is
blurry”), 50 (“Note that because image quality depends on a performance of
a lens system that is used and the like, theoretically strict derivation is
difficult.”)). Nevertheless, the patentee drafted the claim broadly to require
only an “effective resolution” of one image to be lower than the effective
resolution of another rather than an effective resolution score lower than
another image’s effective resolution score. Thus, we determine that Togo
teaches the limitation to “an effective resolution of the Tele image being
lower than an effective resolution of the Wide image.” See id. at 55–56.
We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence concerning
claims 5 and 17 and are persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates
by a preponderance of the evidence the unpatentability of these claims over
the combination of Golan, Martin, and Togo. See id. at 55–57.
E. Obviousness over Golan, Martin, Togo, and Levey
1. Overview of Levey (Ex. 1015)
Levey concerns digital cameras and automatically selecting a
photography mode. Ex. 1015 ¶ 2. In Levey, a user can select between
different photography modes by “single button activation,” instead of
interacting with a multi-step menu selection process––this reduces the
amount of user input required to select the photography mode. Id. ¶ 18.
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

59
2. Dependent Claim 10
Claim 10, which depends from claim 1, recites “wherein the user
inputs include a zoom factor, a camera mode and a region of interest.” Ex.
1001, 13:18–19.
According to Petitioner,
First, as discussed at [8.1], Golan teaches that the camera
controller includes a user control module for receiving user
inputs and a sensor control module for configuring each sensor
to acquire the Wide and Tele image data based on the user
inputs, where in the user inputs include a zoom factor. (APPL-
1003), ¶157.
Second, Levey describes “a photography mode user
interface for selecting between a plurality of photography
modes,” and configuring its image sensor using associated
image capture settings. (APPL-1015), Abstract, [0045], [0057],
[0070][, ][0039], [0041], [0070]-[0071]; (APPL-1003), ¶158.

Pet. 60–61 (emphases omitted). As one reason for combining Golan,
Martin, and Levey, Petitioner contends that
a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Levey’s
teachings in the dual-aperture zoom digital camera of Golan
combined with Martin to produce the obvious, beneficial, and
predictable results of providing a plurality of camera modes “that
can be selected by the user to control various elements of the
image capture process and the image processing chain.
Id. at 59 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 153).
A portion of Martin cited by the Petition describes that “while
displaying the images, aligning a user-selected region of interest
associated with the first image with a corresponding region of interest of the
second image such that said region of interest of the first image occupies in
the display the same location as the region of interest in the second image.”
Ex. 1006, 7:36–51 (emphasis added); Ex. 1003 ¶ 157. A portion of Levey
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

60
cited by the Petition discloses that “[m]ost digital cameras have a variety of
photography modes that can be selected by the user to control various
elements of the image capture process and the image processing chain.”
Ex. 1015 ¶ 4. Levey further discloses determining “image capture settings
such as the exposure index, the lens F/# [F number], the exposure time and
the electronic flash setting, as well as other user settings 175, such as those
discussed with reference to FIG. 2,” with respect to an automatic mode. Id.
¶ 70. As an example, Levey discloses, in a portion cited by the Petition, that
“if a user is capturing images at a soccer game, they would typically set the
camera to operate in a sport photography mode” which “would generally
choose appropriate image capture settings to minimize the motion blur
associated with moving subjects.” Id. ¶ 71.
Patent Owner argues because Levey uses a preview setting that is of
lower quality “a POSITA would thus not be motivated to apply Levey’s
teaching to the task of selecting an appropriate lens based on a zoom setting
for use in the preview window.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 98. However, a portion of
Levey cited in the Petition recites that the image sensor is actuated by a
timing generator “when capturing video images and also when previewing a
still image.” Ex. 1015 ¶ 39 (emphasis added). Patent Owner has not
explained sufficiently why Levey is limited to a preview mode.
Patent Owner also argues Levey’s preview mode is not appropriate for
“the task of selecting an appropriate lens based on a zoom setting. Claim 9
is not limited to the task of selecting an appropriate lens based on a zoom
setting and Patent Owner has not explained sufficiently why claim 9 would
be limited to such a task.
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

61
Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in that art would
be familiar with photography. We analyze this claim under that level of skill
and, below, without Patent Owner’s proposed familiarity with photography.
Under that level of skill Patent Owner argues
a POSITA that had additional knowledge, skill and experience in
photography would understand that for each and every individual
example of a photography mode enumerated by Levey, the
photographer may want to access multiple settings of the preview
display for framing a shot. For example, each photography mode
enumerated by Levey may be executed using a wide-angle or
telephoto zoom setting, as the choice of photography mode is
independent of the choice of framing.

PO Resp. 44–45 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 100; Ex. 2003). Patent Owner has not
explained sufficiently why the distinction between framing and photography
mode would mean that one of ordinary skill would not have wanted both
options available on a dual lens camera. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s
contention that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have both
features. Pet. 59–61 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 4; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 151–156).
Patent Owner also argues “Petitioner seeks to intermix Levey’s
‘photography mode’ with Levey’s ‘camera mode’ since Levey’s user input
innovation is used to control photography mode, not camera mode as
required by Claim 9.” PO Resp. 47. To the extent Patent Owner is correct
that photography mode is different than camera mode, Patent Owner has not
explained sufficiently how that difference would have prevented the use of
Levey’s user input with camera modes. Thus, Patent Owner’s argument
does not undermine Petitioner’s showing.
Patent Owner also argues “A POSITA would not necessarily be
familiar with photography and would therefore not necessarily understand
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

62
how settings involving the preview display used for framing shots would be
related to the settings used for a ‘photography mode.’” Id. at 44. Again,
regardless of one of ordinary skill’s knowledge of a preview display used for
framing shots, he or she would either have recognized the photography
modes as camera modes as claimed or recognized that Levey’s user input for
adjusting photography modes could be combined with Golan’s and Martin’s
user controls.
Patent Owner also repeats its argument that Martin involves post-
acquisition activity and the ’332 patent involves pre-processing activity.
Specifically, Patent Owner argues “the ‘332 [patent] discloses the selection
of a region of interest before the still image is acquired whereas Martin
discloses the selection of a region of interest after the images used for
autostereoscopic display have been acquired.” Id. at 48. We rejected this
argument above at Section III.D.4. Nevertheless, the claims do not
distinguish pre-acquisition and post-acquisition and Patent Owner has not
explained sufficiently why pre-acquisition and post-acquisition are
incompatible such that they cannot be combined or undermine the reasons
for combining presented by Petitioner. Thus, Patent Owner’s argument does
not undermine Petitioner’s showing. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s
contention that Martin describes that “aligning a user-selected region of
interest associated with the first image with a corresponding region of
interest of the second image.” Pet. 61 (quoting Ex. 1006, 7:36–51; citing
Ex. 1003 ¶ 157).
We are persuaded that Golan discloses the user control module and
the sensor control module in the claimed camera controller, Martin discloses
“a user-selected region of interest,” and Levey discloses “wherein the user
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

63
inputs include a zoom factor, a camera mode and a region of interest” based
on the cited portions of Golan and Levey. We are persuaded also that
Petitioner’s rationale for combining Golan, Martin, Togo, and Levey is
supported by sufficient rational underpinning, based on the entirety of the
record developed at trial. See KSR, 550 at 418. Accordingly, we are
persuaded the combination of Golan, Martin, and Levey teaches the
limitations recited in claims 10. Thus, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, the unpatentability of these
claims over the combination of Golan, Martin, Togo and Levey.
F. Obviousness over Golan, Martin, Togo, and Border
1. Overview of Border (Ex. 1009)
Border describes providing a digital camera with an extended zoom
range without unduly increasing the size or cost of the digital camera “while
providing good perceived image quality throughout the zoom range.” Ex.
1009 ¶ 10. As shown in Figure 5 of Border, reproduced below, the
processor of a digital camera includes an image compositor 202 to form a
composite image 208 using the two images, wide image 204 and telephoto
image 206 of the same scene, that are captured using lenses having different
focal lengths. Id. ¶ 70.
IPR2020-00862
Patent 10,356,332 B2

64

As seen in Figure 5, above, the image registration determiner 212
determines the registration between the wide image 204 and the telephoto
image 206, so that the two images are matched to “locate the high-resolution
image accurately into the low-resolution image and then stitched into place
so the edge between the two images in the composite image is not
discernible.” Id. ¶ 29, Fig. 5. Border goes on to explain that in the context
of Figure 5, telephoto image 206 captures a smaller portion of the scene, but
with greater resolution than wide image 204. Id. ¶ 36.
Border also describes that an image resampler 214 of the processor
produces the composite image 208 based on a zoom amount Z specifying the
desired relative zoom amount of the produced composite image 208.
Id. ¶ 43. Specifically, Border explains that the composite image 208 is
generated from the two images and that the resulting composite image is
produced differently for different zoom amount values, such as Z=1,
1