PTAB

IPR2014-01249

HTC Corp v. Flashpoint Technology Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Interactive Movie Creation by Panning Across Still Images
  • Brief Description: The ’850 patent describes methods and devices for interactively creating a movie from a digital still image. The process involves a user identifying at least two "key frames" within the image, which define a path for panning and zooming, and the device then calculates and generates intermediate image frames along that path to create a motion picture effect.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Foster and Ditzik - Claims 1-21, 26-27, 30, and 32-35 are obvious over Foster in view of Ditzik.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Foster (Patent 6,256,048) and Ditzik (Patent 5,983,073).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Foster taught the core software method for creating a movie from a still image. Foster disclosed producing a "frame sequence file" from a two-dimensional virtual canvas by having a user specify key frames that determine a panning path for a virtual camera. Ditzik disclosed a small, lightweight, handheld computing device with an integrated camera and the processing power to run desktop-level applications. Petitioner asserted that Foster taught every element of the claimed method, while Ditzik provided the claimed handheld device environment.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a POSITA would combine Foster and Ditzik because Ditzik disclosed a handheld imaging device with desktop functionality, and Foster taught a computer application for image processing executable on a desktop computer. Implementing Foster's software on Ditzik's capable handheld device would be a predictable step to provide users with more flexibility and the ability to create movies on-the-go using captured images, consistent with Ditzik's stated goal of providing a device successful for graphic and video applications.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would have been expected, as Foster's invention could be implemented in software, and Ditzik provided a handheld device with a powerful processor (Pentium or PowerPC class) fully capable of running such software.

Ground 2: Obviousness over QTVR Book, Chen, Girard, and Karube - Claims 1-21, 26-27, 30, and 32-35 are obvious over the combination of these references.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: QTVR Book (Apple’s QuickTime VR 2.0 Authoring Tools Suite, 1997), Chen (a 1995 SIGGRAPH paper on QuickTime VR), Girard (a 1997 article describing a Fujitsu pen tablet), and Karube (European Application # EP 0705037).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued the QTVR Book and Chen together described Apple's QuickTime VR software, which generated panoramic movies from still images by stitching them together and allowing a user to define a path (e.g., by setting pan angles). This combination taught the claimed method of defining key frames and generating a movie. Girard described a handheld Windows-based tablet with a powerful processor and PC card slots, and Karube disclosed a PC card-based camera. Together, Girard and Karube described a handheld image capture device.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to implement the well-known QuickTime VR software on a portable, handheld device. It was common practice to adapt software for different operating systems (like Mac OS to Windows) to expand the market. Placing this functionality on a portable device like Girard's tablet, equipped with a camera via Karube's PC card, would increase the utility of both the software and the device by allowing users to create panoramic movies directly on the device using newly captured images.
    • Expectation of Success: This combination was argued to be a straightforward implementation of known software on a known type of portable hardware, with a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Martin, Allard, and Wilska - Claims 1-21, 26-27, 30, and 32-35 are obvious over the combination of these references.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Martin (Patent 5,764,276), Allard (Patent 5,615,384), and Wilska (U.K. Application # GB 2,289,555).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted Martin taught an apparatus and method for providing the perception of a video sequence by panning and zooming through a digital still photograph, either via user control or a command script. This was specifically designed to avoid high bandwidth consumption. Allard and Wilska both disclosed handheld personal communicators that operated in low-bandwidth environments and allowed users to pan and zoom on stored images (like faxes or captured photos).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to implement the teachings of Martin on the smaller, handheld devices of Allard and Wilska. Doing so would allow for enhanced viewing of image data in the low-bandwidth environments for which the handhelds were designed. Martin's method of creating a "moving tour" would improve the user interface of the Allard and Wilska devices by allowing automated, movie-like panning through images, which was superior to simple manual panning.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because the combination involved implementing a known software algorithm (Martin) on devices (Allard/Wilska) with sufficient processing capabilities ("PC on a chip") for such tasks.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional obviousness challenges, primarily by adding a single reference to the core combinations above to teach a specific feature. These included adding Astle (Patent 4,698,682) or Amano (Patent 5,287,093) for cross-fading techniques, Morris (a 1937 geometry book) for the mathematical formulas for linear interpolation between points, and Newby (a 1996 article) for its explicit suggestion to use QuickTime VR software on handheld cameras.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Movie": Petitioner proposed construing this term as "a set of digital image frames stored as a set for presentation at a predetermined frame rate." This construction was important to establish that the claimed invention involves calculating and storing the frames before the step of displaying them, which aligned with the teachings of the prior art.
  • "Key frame" / "Key image frame": Petitioner proposed construing these interchangeable terms as "a user-defined area of pixels within a digital still image that is used to determine the path of panning." This construction was central to mapping the claims onto prior art systems that used start/end points, path animators, or user-defined pan angles to control the generation of a moving image sequence.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-22, 24-30, and 32-35 of the ’850 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.