PTAB

IPR2018-01629

Sony Corp v. Visual Effect Innovations LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: CONTINUOUS ADJUSTABLE 3DEEPS FILTER SPECTACLES FOR OPTIMIZED 3DEEPS STEREOSCOPIC VIEWING, CONTROL METHOD AND MEANS THEREFOR, AND SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING AND DISPLAYING A MODIFIED VIDEO
Brief Description: The ’874 patent relates to a method and system for generating a modified video for stereoscopic viewing. The technology involves processing a source video to create altered image frames, where each altered frame includes a portion of a modified source frame and a non-overlapping portion, intended to be viewed sequentially to create a 3D effect.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Hori (Japanese Publication No. H11-202285) and MacInnis (Patent 6,853,385).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hori disclosed a liquid crystal display system that reduces motion blur by successively lighting different portions (light emission regions) of its backlight during a single frame scan. This sequential illumination of distinct screen areas inherently generated altered image frames with non-overlapping portions (one portion lit, the others dark). Petitioner asserted MacInnis taught a video display system with a "video scaler" for upscaling or downscaling video images to fit a display's resolution, which directly corresponded to the '874 patent's limitation of "expanding the first image frame."
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine MacInnis’s video scaling with Hori’s display system to ensure that input video from various sources (e.g., TV, DVD) with different resolutions could be properly fitted to the screen of Hori’s LCD device, a common and predictable design choice.
- Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known video processing technique (scaling) to a known display type, which would yield the predictable result of a properly sized image on the display.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Hori (Japanese Publication No. H11-202285), MacInnis (Patent 6,853,385), and Lazzaro (Patent 5,821,989).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Hori and MacInnis combination to address the "spectacles" limitations of dependent claims 2 and 3. Petitioner argued Lazzaro disclosed a 3-D viewing system that explicitly used spectacles with electro-optical shutters (left and right lenses) that could be independently controlled to be in a transparent ("light state") or opaque ("darkened state"). Lazzaro also disclosed the necessary components for the spectacles, including a battery, control unit, and signal receiver, which mapped to the limitations of claim 3.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to use the video generation method taught by the combination of Hori and MacInnis with the 3-D viewing spectacles of Lazzaro. Since Hori taught displaying video from sources known to include 3-D content, it would have been a natural and obvious step to use established 3-D shutter glasses like Lazzaro’s to view such content on Hori's improved display.
- Expectation of Success: Combining a known video display method with known 3-D viewing hardware was a well-understood practice in the art and would have been expected to function as intended.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Seong (Application # 2011/0279450).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Seong disclosed every element of claims 1 and 2. Seong described a 3D image display apparatus that receives a video signal, performs "video scaling" to fit the screen size (meeting the "expanding" limitation), and generates images for stereoscopic viewing. Specifically, Seong taught displaying a first altered frame (e.g., the top half of an image for one eye, with the bottom half black) followed by a second altered frame (e.g., the bottom half of the image for the other eye, with the top half black). Petitioner argued this directly mapped to the claimed steps of generating first and second altered frames with distinct, non-overlapping portions. Seong also explicitly disclosed the use of "3D glasses" for viewing the resulting image, anticipating claim 2.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges, including that claims 1, 2, and 4 are obvious over Okamura (Patent 6,061,103); claims 1 and 4 are obvious over Premiere Guide in view of Bolante; and claim 4 is obvious over Seong. These grounds relied on similar theories of combining video scaling with methods of generating frames with non-overlapping or blacked-out portions.

Petitioner argued that based on the specification and Patent Owner's litigation assertions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term "expanding the first image frame" should be construed as "computer graphics cut-and-paste techniques to enlarge the image frame, or increasing the resolution of an image frame such as by upscaling." This construction was critical for mapping prior art references that teach "upscaling" to this claim limitation. Petitioner also proposed constructions for "darkened state" and "light state" based on relative light transmission.

Petitioner argued that the challenged claims were not entitled to their asserted 2001 priority date. The petition contended that the core method steps of generating first and second altered frames with specific non-overlapping portions, as recited in claim 1, constituted new matter first introduced in a 2014 application in the priority chain. Consequently, Petitioner argued the claims' effective priority date should be no earlier than July 16, 2014, which impacts the set of available prior art under both pre-AIA and AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. §102.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4 of the ’874 patent as unpatentable.