PTAB

IPR2019-00647

Polycom Inc v. FullView Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Panoramic Viewer
  • Brief Description: The ’143 patent discloses a panoramic viewing apparatus that uses multiple cameras facing the reflective facets of a polyhedral mirror. The system is configured so that the cameras share a common virtual optical center, allowing their individual fields of view to be combined into a continuous 360° image from a single viewpoint.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 by Yamazawa

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Yamazawa (a 1997 publication titled “High-resolution Omnidirectional Stereo Imaging Using Pyramidal Mirrors”).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Yamazawa, which discloses a high-resolution omnidirectional stereo image sensor, taught every limitation of the challenged claims. Yamazawa’s sensor uses two sets of six cameras each aimed at a hexagonal pyramidal mirror to create a panoramic image from a single viewpoint. Petitioner contended that Figure 1 of Yamazawa explicitly shows a central vertical support member that intersects the inner volume of the hollow pyramidal mirrors, with the mirrors and cameras secured to this support. This structure was argued to meet the key limitation of "a support member intersecting an inner volume of the reflective element" that was used to overcome prior art during the original prosecution of the ’143 patent. The cameras are also shown secured to portions of the support member that extend "out" from the reflective element, anticipating the dependent claims.
    • Key Aspects: The core of this argument relied on the visual disclosure in Yamazawa’s figures to teach the structural relationship between the support member, mirrors, and cameras, which Petitioner asserted was the sole basis for the patent’s allowance.

Ground 2: Anticipation of Claims 1-3 and 10-12 by Iwerks

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Iwerks (Patent 3,118,340).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Iwerks, which discloses a panoramic motion picture camera assembly from 1964, anticipated all challenged claims. The Iwerks device comprises multiple cameras mounted on a hollow, cylindrical support, each pointing upwards at an array of mirrors mounted on an inverted frusto-conical support. Petitioner argued that the combination of the cylindrical support and the frusto-conical support constituted the claimed "support member." This support member intersects the inner volume of the reflective element (the mirror array) and has both the cameras and mirrors secured to it. Because the figures in Iwerks clearly depict the cylindrical support as hollow, Petitioner argued that Iwerks also anticipated the claims requiring a "hollow" support member.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 1-3 and 10-12 over Nalwa in view of Horn

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nalwa (European Application # 740177) and Horn (Patent 5,065,249).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Nalwa, an earlier European application filed by the same inventor as the ’143 patent, disclosed every element of the challenged claims except for the support member. The figures in Nalwa are identical to those in the ’143 patent, showing the same arrangement of cameras and a polyhedral mirror to create a common virtual optical center. Horn was introduced as teaching the missing element: a portable, hollow support boom for a video camera, with cables optionally routed inside the hollow shaft.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to add a support stand, as taught by Horn, to the device in Nalwa for the basic and necessary purpose of holding the mirrors and cameras in their required fixed positions. The absence of a support would render Nalwa’s system inoperable.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination, as it involved applying a known support structure (Horn) for its intended purpose of supporting a camera system (Nalwa). Using a hollow support would predictably reduce weight and provide a known solution for managing the cables of Nalwa’s multiple cameras, preventing them from tangling or obstructing the field of view.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 3 and 12 over Yamazawa in view of Horn, arguing Horn’s hollow support shaft was an obvious modification to Yamazawa. Petitioner also presented an alternative obviousness challenge against claims 2 and 11 over Iwerks in view of Yamazawa, arguing Yamazawa taught an alternative way to mount the cameras extending "out" from the reflective element.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the term “Pyramid shaped element” (recited in claims 10 and 11) should be construed to mean "an element with three or more sides, excluding the base." This construction was based on the specification of the ’143 patent, which explicitly states that pyramids may have more or less than four sides and that the base and vertex do not need to be physically present, but can be "conceptual aids." This construction supports the argument that the frusto-conical mirror support in Iwerks meets the "pyramid shaped" limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3 and 10-12 of the ’143 patent as unpatentable.