PTAB

IPR2020-00905

Apple Inc v. CorePhoTonics Ltd

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Dual Aperture Zoom Digital Camera
  • Brief Description: The ’479 Patent describes a dual-aperture digital camera system, operable in still and video modes, that includes separate wide-angle and telephoto imaging sections. The system is configured to process images from both lenses, fusing in-focus portions of the telephoto image with the wide-angle image to produce a single output image with an enhanced depth of field.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Parulski and Konno - Claims 1, 10-14, 16, 18, 23, 32-36, 38, and 40

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Parulski (Patent 7,859,588) and Konno (JP Publication No. 2013-106289).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Parulski and Konno renders the base claims obvious. Parulski taught a dual-lens cell phone camera using wide and telephoto lenses to create a fused image with enhanced depth of field. Konno taught a specific, compact, high-performance dual-lens system for mobile devices, including a telephoto lens fulfilling the claimed EFL/TTL > 1 ratio. The combination disclosed a dual-aperture camera (claim 1) with separate autofocus mechanisms (claims 1.3-1.4) controlled by a processor that fuses images by combining focused portions from the telephoto image with the wide image (claim 1.5). Dependent claims related to identical pixel counts (claim 10), specific pixel counts (claim 11), pixel sizes (claims 12-13), different F-numbers (claim 14), and synchronized exposure (claim 16) were also allegedly disclosed or made obvious by Konno’s specific examples and general knowledge.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references because Parulski described the general method of image fusion but did not provide a specific lens prescription. A POSITA implementing Parulski's system would have looked to references like Konno, which explicitly provided a compact, low-cost, fixed-focal-length dual-lens design suitable for the cell phone embodiment described in Parulski.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references described dual-lens systems for mobile devices, and Konno’s lens assembly was compatible with Parulski’s system requirements for generating stereo images for processing.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Parulski, Konno, and Szeliski - Claims 2-4 and 24-26

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Parulski (Patent 7,859,588), Konno (JP Publication No. 2013-106289), and Szeliski (a 2011 computer vision textbook).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1, adding Szeliski to address claims requiring image rectification. Szeliski, a standard textbook, taught that rectifying stereo images along an epipolar line is a well-known technique to make the process of finding corresponding pixels (i.e., registration) more efficient. Petitioner asserted that adding Szeliski’s rectification teaching (claim 2) to Parulski’s range mapping process would have been an obvious improvement. This improved process would then involve creating a registration map from the rectified images (claim 3) and resampling the telephoto image based on that map (claim 4).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the image processing of Parulski/Konno would be motivated to improve the efficiency of the range mapping algorithm. Szeliski explicitly taught that epipolar rectification provides such an efficiency gain.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because both Parulski and Szeliski described software-based image processing, and applying a known efficiency-improving algorithm like rectification to Parulski’s range mapping process would be a predictable modification.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Parulski, Konno, Szeliski, and Segall - Claims 5-9 and 27-31

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Parulski, Konno, Szeliski, and Segall (Patent 8,406,569).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Segall to address claims requiring error detection during image fusion. Segall taught an image fusion process that included a "mismatch detector" to identify registration errors and exclude those misaligned areas from the final fused image (claim 5). When an error is detected, Segall’s method effectively defaults to using the reference image pixels (claim 6).
    • Motivation to Combine: Parulski described image fusion but did not detail a specific method for handling registration errors that inevitably occur. A POSITA would be motivated to consult a reference like Segall, which taught a known method for detecting and handling such errors, to improve the robustness of Parulski’s fusion process.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success in combining these teachings, as it would simply involve adding known software-based error-handling functionality to Parulski’s image processing pipeline.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 4) against claims 15 and 37 based on the combination of Parulski, Konno, and Stein (Patent 8,908,041). Stein was used to teach a method for synchronizing the scanning of dual CMOS sensors with rolling shutters to overcome known image distortion issues in stereo imaging, which Petitioner argued would be an obvious improvement to Parulski’s system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "fused image with a point of view (POV) of the Wide camera" (claims 1 and 23): Petitioner argued this term should be construed based on its explicit definition in the specification. The patent described two types of POV: "perspective POV" (related to Field of View, or FOV) and "position POV" (related to the camera's physical position). Because the patent stated the fused image could have the "shape" (perspective) or "position" of a sub-camera, Petitioner contended a POSITA would understand the term to mean "a fused image that maintains the Wide camera's field of view or the Wide camera's position."

5. Key Technical Contentions

  • Correction of Konno Lens Design: Petitioner's expert, Dr. Sasián, asserted that the lens prescription data in Konno's Example 2 contained a minor, physically impossible overlap between two lens elements. However, Dr. Sasián argued that a POSITA would have easily recognized and corrected this by adjusting one element's position by 0.5 microns, which would be a natural result of the manufacturing assembly process. This correction would resolve the overlap while maintaining comparable lens performance, ensuring a POSITA would not be discouraged from using Konno's design.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested that the Board institute an inter partes review of claims 1-16, 18, 23-38, and 40 of the ’479 Patent and cancel each of those claims as unpatentable.