YU v. APPLE INC.
Oral Argument — 03/03/2021 · Case 20-1760 · 33:42
0:00
Judge Prost
The place for argument is 20-1760, you versus Apple.
0:04
Mr. Litz, whenever you're ready.
0:08
Appellant Attorney (Robert G. Litts)
Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the Court.
0:11
Robert Litz on behalf of Appellant Yen Ben-Yu and Zhang Shuanzhang.
0:16
The application for the 289 patent was filed on January 15, 1999, more than 22 years ago.
0:23
At that time, digital cameras were in the infancy.
0:26
Judge Prost
And the patent, I'm sorry, I'm sorry to interrupt.
0:27
This is Judge Prost.
0:28
And the patent expired in 2019, is that correct?
0:31
Yes.
0:32
Okay, thank you.
0:33
Sorry, I did interrupt.
0:35
Appellant Attorney (Robert G. Litts)
At that time, digital cameras were in their infancy, and they simply produced low-quality
0:39
images compared with traditional film cameras.
0:42
And this was because of the technical limitations of image sensors that existed at that time.
0:49
One possible solution was to simply use larger image sensors, but this would have simply
0:54
introduced a whole host of additional problems.
0:57
So simply using larger image sensors was not an optimal solution.
1:02
The inventions of the 289.
1:04
Both of whom have doctorates in electrical engineering or related fields, realized all
1:09
of this, and therefore they set out on a more creative approach to solve these problems
1:13
by developing an entirely new digital camera architecture and a new use of that architecture
1:17
to produce digital images.
1:20
And those efforts led to the development of the claimed invention of the 289 patent.
1:25
The 289 patent discloses and claims an improved digital camera that includes a specific and
1:32
unconventional digital camera architecture.
1:34
And a specific and unconventional use of that digital camera architecture to produce a
1:39
resultant digital image.
1:41
Judge Taranto
This is Judge Tronto.
1:43
Can I just ask this question?
1:44
Is it a matter of dispute whether in the prior art there was a configuration or understood
1:56
to be a possible configuration of two black and white sensors co-planar?
2:03
Appellant Attorney (Robert G. Litts)
I don't believe that.
2:05
I don't believe that issue has been raised.
2:07
There is nothing, there are no references in the record that disclose such configuration.
2:18
Okay.
2:19
So that's all I can really speak to that.
2:22
Judge Taranto
I guess part of what I was interested in, and I think this is in the red brief to some
2:30
extent, quite a lot of the spec here is about a particular embodiment of three, three, three,
2:39
single color sensors, plus one black and white sensor.
2:44
And it's possible that all the language about the key invention here is kind of about that.
2:53
The claim language, did you agree, is broad enough to cover the arrangement I described,
3:02
two sensors, both of them black and white, which I guess everybody agrees is the same as full
3:07
color, oddly enough.
3:08
But, you know, I don't know.
3:10
You know, co-planar, and they're used, you know, one of them is used to enhance in some
3:16
undefined way the image from the other.
3:19
Appellant Attorney (Robert G. Litts)
That's actually a disclosed embodiment in the invention.
3:23
Where's that?
3:24
There is a two sensor embodiment that is exactly like you described, and let me give you the
3:29
location of that.
3:33
That is at appendix 27.
3:36
What's the column and line number?
3:37
At column seven, lines 36 to 46.
3:42
Okay.
3:43
Thanks.
3:45
Okay, so proceeding, the architecture itself includes first and second image sensors, where
3:51
the second image sensor is sensitive to a full region of visible color spectrum, and
3:56
the first and second image sensors are closely positioned with respect to a common plane.
4:02
The architecture is used to produce a resultant digital image by capturing a first digital
4:08
image using the first image sensor, capturing a second digital image using the second image
4:13
sensor, which again is sensitive to a full region of visible color spectrum.
4:15
And enhancing the first digital image with the second digital image.
4:21
With this clean combination of limitations, the improved digital camera, the 289 patent
4:25
was able to produce high-quality and film-like true color digital images.
4:29
And this is something that prior digital cameras simply could not do at that time.
4:35
This presented an improvement over prior multi-sensor cameras because prior multi-sensor cameras
4:41
used prisms to split light into distinct bands.
4:44
Whereas,
4:46
so that the image sensors do not have to be close to one another,
4:49
whereas the invention of the 289 patent uses image sensors that are closely positioned with respect to a common plane.
4:54
Also, prior multi-sensor cameras captured images representing only a distinct region of the visible light spectrum,
5:01
such as a red image, a green image, and a blue image separately,
5:05
and merely combined those images to form a color image,
5:08
whereas the 289 patent captures at least one image representing a full region in the visible light spectrum
5:13
and uses that image to enhance another captured image.
5:16
This was not done with prior multi-sensor digital cameras.
5:22
Now, the architecture is important to the claimed invention
5:25
because using image sensors that are closely positioned with respect to a common plane
5:29
allows separate images of the same target to be captured without using prisms.
5:35
And using an image sensor that's sensitive to a full region of visible color spectrum is important
5:39
because it allows information that may have been missed by the first image sensor
5:43
to be captured by the second image sensor and used to improve the quality
5:47
of the image sensor.
5:47
Now, let's turn to the Alice Mayo test for patent eligibility.
5:56
The district court wrongly found under step one
6:01
that the claims of the 289 patent are merely directed to the abstract idea
6:07
of taking two pictures and using those pictures to enhance each other in some way.
6:13
This is an egregious oversimplification of the claim,
6:17
and it runs afoul of this court's admittance,
6:19
that we must therefore ensure at step one
6:24
that we articulate what the claims are directed to
6:27
with enough specificity to ensure that the step one inquiry is meaningful.
6:33
The district court's characterization completely ignores
6:36
all the structural limitations of the claims,
6:38
and it doesn't consider the structural limitations of the claims
6:41
in combination with the image enhancement limitation.
6:46
It would even cover single-segmental,
6:49
sensor-digital cameras, in fact,
6:52
that performed image enhancement.
6:54
So, this was clearly an overbroad and erroneous characterization of the claims.
6:58
The claims are not merely directed to using one picture to enhance another,
7:02
but rather they're directed to the specific and unconventional
7:05
digital camera architecture recited in the claims,
7:09
and the specific and unconventional use of that architecture
7:12
to produce a resultant digital image.
7:15
Judge Taranto
One of the problems, at least speaking for myself,
7:18
that we often have is,
7:19
in these 101 cases,
7:21
is that in the old pre-Mayo world,
7:25
the patent bar thought that it was enough to simply say,
7:30
the complete combination of all the claim elements,
7:33
and Mayo says, stop doing that.
7:37
Talk in specifics about what's going on in the claim,
7:41
and the traditional way of...
7:46
So, can you do that here?
7:47
Instead of just referring to the...
7:51
The complete arrangement of the configuration in the claims
7:54
indicate what is it about this configuration
7:58
that is a departure from previous ways from the prior art?
8:08
Appellant Attorney (Robert G. Litts)
Sure.
8:09
Well, the most conventional way at that time,
8:12
back in 1999,
8:15
was to simply use a single image sensor.
8:17
So, multi-sensor cameras themselves,
8:20
I don't think could be truly called conventional at that time.
8:23
But...
8:24
But even with regard to multi-sensor cameras,
8:28
they did not use image sensors
8:30
that are closely positioned with respect to a common plane,
8:33
and they did not use image sensors that are...
8:35
Judge Taranto
Just to be clear,
8:36
does that mean that they are, roughly speaking, co-planar?
8:40
Or does it mean something else?
8:42
I didn't see in the brief anybody saying,
8:45
here's what it means to be closely positioned
8:47
with respect to a common plane.
8:49
Appellant Attorney (Robert G. Litts)
Well, the specification does give guidance
8:52
as to what that means.
8:54
So,
8:55
most particularly with regard to figures 4A and 4B,
8:59
where it shows sort of example configurations.
9:04
And the specification also states
9:06
that the close positioning of the image sensors
9:09
allows the images to be registered
9:12
without excessive computational requirements.
9:17
So, another party has alleged
9:21
that claim construction has bearing
9:23
on the outcome of the proceeding.
9:25
No, but if we...
9:26
Judge Taranto
But if we're trying actually to generate in our minds
9:30
a picture of what's going on,
9:32
a little understand explanation would be helpful.
9:35
Appellant Attorney (Robert G. Litts)
Sure.
9:37
The best way, I think,
9:38
to understand the closely positioned limitation
9:41
is that...
9:44
simply that they are close to one another,
9:48
as opposed to not necessarily being close to a common plane,
9:52
but close to one another.
9:55
And as a specification,
9:57
the specification explains so that they can capture images
10:00
of the same target,
10:01
and so that the images can be registered with one another.
10:04
So, to visualize it, I would say looking at the sensors
10:12
from a front-on perspective,
10:14
from the standpoint of the image target,
10:15
they have to be close to another.
10:16
And close enough so that the same target can be captured
10:20
with the multiple sensors.
10:23
Okay.
10:24
And are close enough so that the registration process can be not
10:27
computationally, to a extent,
10:29
to a certain extent.
10:33
I guess, require too many resources.
10:35
Right.
10:35
Computational resources.
10:38
Now, I came into my rebuttal time,
10:40
so I'll just proceed quickly through a couple of issues
10:43
relating to prong one.
10:44
Now, the Clandin invention clearly improves the functionality
10:47
and capabilities of digital cameras.
10:50
It enables them to produce digital images better
10:52
than prior digital cameras,
10:55
and producing digital images is the main function
10:57
of a digital camera.
10:58
So, this is a clear case where the invention improves the
11:02
functionality of digital cameras.
11:03
So, this is a clear case where the invention improves the functionality
11:03
of the claims system.
11:05
Also, the problems described in the 289 patent specifications
11:09
being solved by the invention are clearly technical problems
11:12
relating to the limitations of then-existing image sensors.
11:15
So, those problems included things like limited resolution,
11:18
due to low pixel counts, inability to show vivid colors
11:22
by limited pixel depth, and inability to show details
11:25
of a large .
11:26
Judge Taranto
This is Judge Taranto.
11:27
I'm sorry to eat up more time.
11:30
Does the word, the word, the word, the word,
11:33
enhance or then the limitation of which it is a part have any meaning
11:37
in the claim or are you saying that if you create the configuration,
11:42
the structural, if you have something
11:44
that satisfies the structural elements of the claim,
11:47
it will automatically meet that enhanced limitation
11:50
or does enhance actually mean something additional?
11:55
Appellant Attorney (Robert G. Litts)
Enhanced means using information from the second image
11:59
to improve the first image.
12:01
So, the first image is going
12:03
to be changed or modified in some way using information
12:05
from the second image.
12:07
Judge Newman
Okay.
12:10
Appellant Attorney (Robert G. Litts)
With the idea that the image
12:12
from the second sensor might capture information
12:15
that was missed by the first sensor.
12:19
It might be useful in improving the image from the first sensor.
12:25
Okay. Thank you.
12:27
And briefly under step two, I believe
12:31
that where the district court ran most afoul
12:34
of this court's admonitions is
12:38
failing to consider the claimed combination.
12:41
This court has held that the claim combination of or that an inventive concept can be found not only
12:49
in the individual limitations but on the, but in the claimed combination of limitations.
12:52
The district court not only ignored the claim combination of structural limitations but failed
12:57
to consider that combination along with the enhanced limitation.
13:01
And this court or the Supreme Court made clear in Diamond versus Deer that any abstract idea
13:07
or mathematical.
13:09
Formulas that can be identified in the claim must be considered
13:13
in determining the patent eligibility question.
13:16
And that simply didn't happen at the district court.
13:22
On the issue of preemption, there is clearly no danger of preemption here
13:30
because there are forms of image enhancement using multiple,
13:34
using multiple captured digital images that do not,
13:39
that would not infringe the claims.
13:41
For example, using multiple images captured
13:43
from the same image sensor would not, would not infringe the claim.
13:48
Like for example, if the images were captured in burst mode from the same sensor
13:52
and then one was used to enhance the others, that would not be encompassed within the claims.
13:58
Also, any enhancement using multiple image sensors where none of the image sensors are responsive
14:02
to a full region of visible color spectrum would be encompassed by the claims
14:07
or where the image sensors are not closely,
14:09
positioned with respect to a common plane, that likewise would not be encompassed by the claims.
14:14
So the danger of preemption is vastly overstated by both the district court and by the appellees.
14:20
And finally, the pleadings include numerous plausible factual allegations regarding the inventiveness
14:28
of the claimed invention, improvements to digital camera functionality provided by the invention,
14:34
the technical nature of the problems solved by the invention, unconventional aspects
14:38
of the invention.
14:39
And the lack of preemption, all of these allegations, allegations were improperly ignored
14:45
and discounted by the district court as being merely conclusory.
14:48
And this is not the case.
14:49
They were all supported by extensive citations to and quotations from the intrinsic record,
14:55
particularly the specifications.
14:56
So failing to take into account those allegations was improper
15:02
and those allegations preclude dismissal at the stage of the proceedings.
15:06
Judge Prost
Thank you.
15:08
We'll restore that.
15:09
We're a couple minutes of rebuttal.
15:10
Let's hear from the other side.
15:12
Ms. Keefe.
15:13
Appellee Attorney (Heidi Lyn Keefe)
Thank you, Your Honors.
15:14
May it please the court, Heidi Keefe for Appellees.
15:18
I think what's really critical here, Your Honors, is what we actually just heard during
15:23
the opening oral argument.
15:26
We were told for the first time, it was admitted, that there is no enhancement simply by using
15:35
the structure that is claimed in the claim.
15:38
Instead, you need something more.
15:40
And that's absolutely foundational to our allegation about 101.
15:45
For example, I think one of the best ways to see this is every time that enhancement
15:51
is discussed in the specification, it refers to a whole other step.
15:57
For example, if we look to Appendix 28, Column 10, starting at Line 6, going through Line
16:03
16, it describes Figure 8, which says that in order to do the enhancement, you have to
16:09
first have just normal pictures that come in from the two different sensors.
16:13
And then you have to do a separate step of digital signal processing and then enhancement.
16:20
Figure 8, separate box.
16:23
After you receive the images from these conventional sensors that are just, you know, use the ones
16:29
that are cheap, don't go create a new sensor.
16:32
We also heard that during the opening argument.
16:34
We're not going to build new sensors.
16:36
We're just going to use the ones that already exist and try to do it in some inexpensive way.
16:40
And that's replete at Columns 1 and 2.
16:44
Once we get those images, we then have to perform digital image processing, but we're
16:50
never told how.
16:51
And then we have to enhance the image, and that's at Step 820 in Figure 8.
16:55
But again, we're never told how.
16:57
Judge Taranto
Ms. Keefe, this is Judge Taranto.
16:59
So this is not a – this is, I guess, a little different from some of the other 101 cases
17:06
we have.
17:06
But help me see how your –
17:11
Your focus on the unexplained but nevertheless meaningful term, enhancement, plays into
17:23
the 101 analysis, as opposed to saying either it hasn't been enabled or it's indefinite.
17:31
Fit it into 101 analysis for me.
17:34
Appellee Attorney (Heidi Lyn Keefe)
Absolutely.
17:35
Thank you, Your Honor, for the question.
17:36
What we have to do in 101 is we have to look to what is the claim directly?
17:41
What is the claim directly directed to?
17:43
What is the whole essentially gist of the claim?
17:45
What's the purpose of the claim?
17:47
And what we know here from the claim itself, as well as from the specification, is that
17:52
the entire purpose, the entire invention, is to produce an enhanced image.
17:58
Judge Taranto
We see that first in the abstract.
18:00
But I guess – and maybe I'm confused about this.
18:03
I thought I heard your friend on the other side say, no, it cannot be said that the claim
18:11
that if you take out the enhancement limitation, that the rest of the structure, including
18:19
just the simple fact of two lenses, one of which is responsive to a full range of color,
18:29
that that structural arrangement with whatever it means to say close to the relationship
18:38
to the plane is.
18:39
That that itself is –
18:42
It is.
18:43
It is not conventional.
18:48
And if that's right, then that's part of the gist.
18:58
Appellee Attorney (Heidi Lyn Keefe)
So your Honor, what we heard was them trying to add something to the claim that doesn't
19:03
exist there.
19:03
Your Honor asked the question, could the claim cover two standard black and white sensors?
19:09
And the answer is, not only could it, it must.
19:12
The claim as written simply says that there are two sensors.
19:17
One of which is sensitive.
19:19
It's sensitive to the full range of color.
19:20
And it's silent to the other.
19:22
Judge Taranto
Which everybody understands to mean black and white.
19:25
Appellee Attorney (Heidi Lyn Keefe)
Correct, Your Honor.
19:26
Black and white.
19:27
And it's easier if I just say it that way.
19:28
So that the claim one requires using one black and white sensor and it's silent to the other.
19:34
Claim two says, wherein the other sensor is also black and white.
19:40
So we know that the independent claim has to cover a situation with two black and white
19:45
sensors.
19:46
We also know from the gray brief that the –
19:49
Judge Taranto
So why isn't that an asserted advance as long as those two sensors are properly aligned?
19:56
Appellee Attorney (Heidi Lyn Keefe)
Because Your Honor, we know from the intrinsic record that in fact, closely aligning sensors
20:03
is old.
20:05
It's never been disputed that it was conventional in order to place things on a common plane.
20:11
It's no different, for example, than your eyes being on a common plane and receiving
20:15
two images.
20:16
And that's something we discussed in the briefing down below.
20:19
And the notion – the gray brief actually admits that each of the component parts is
20:26
in fact conventional.
20:28
And so what we know then – and that, by the way, is in the gray brief at page 12.
20:34
We know, therefore, that each of the component parts is just being used in its normal, ordinary,
20:39
conventional fashion to simply produce an image.
20:42
There is nothing here that takes it out of the realm of the abstract, and it doesn't
20:49
do anything.
20:49
There is nothing new or different.
20:51
And I don't mean those words – I apologize to use the word new.
20:54
I don't mean those words in the novelty sense.
20:56
I mean them in the take it out of the realm of the abstract.
20:59
Here, the gist of the patent, the things that the claim is directed to, is not anything
21:06
new about how you place the sensors.
21:09
In fact, again, if we look to the specification itself – and this is replete through columns
21:14
one and two in Appendix 24 – we hear that we don't want to use new sensors.
21:20
We want to use the old sensors so that we can get a better image without costing more
21:27
money.
21:27
And that's at column two, for example, line five.
21:31
It's also at column two, lines 20 through 21, lines 32 through 33, et cetera.
21:38
So the claim is not directed to a new placement or a new combination of how these things are
21:46
used.
21:46
The claim itself just says, make sure you've got two sensors.
21:50
Make sure you've got two sensors.
21:50
They can both be black and white that receive data to create an image.
21:56
And then the magic happens when you combine or enhance those images by using one image
22:02
with another image.
22:04
And so what we heard during the opening argument was that the real thrust of the specification
22:12
was, if you use three sensors that are different from the fourth, you will be able to provide
22:19
the missing data.
22:20
And therefore, come up with an enhancement.
22:23
But that's not how it was claimed.
22:25
It wasn't claimed as one or three sensors that are completely different from the fourth.
22:32
And therefore, there will be a benefit because of providing missing data.
22:37
That simply isn't how it's claimed.
22:39
And in Alice, we have to look to how things are claimed.
22:43
In that sense, this case is exactly like two-way media.
22:47
Where two-way media tried to get information from the fourth.
22:50
from one place to another in multicasting sense, and it said,
22:54
and I'm going to stick another computer in the middle so that that helps get the information
22:59
from the source out to the recipient, and the thing in the middle is going to do the one,
23:05
the thing that figures it all out.
23:08
Here, and in 2A Media, I'm sorry, nowhere was it ever described how that happened
23:14
or how that intervening computer or server was used in an unconventional way.
23:19
Exactly the same thing here.
23:22
Even though there is recitation of using black and white sensors,
23:27
there is absolutely nothing that explains how that enhances an image
23:32
until you use one image to enhance another, and that is nowhere described.
23:39
Instead, that is, go ahead, Your Honor.
23:41
I'm sorry, did I hear a question?
23:46
Judge Prost
No, I don't think so.
23:47
Please keep going.
23:49
Appellee Attorney (Heidi Lyn Keefe)
I apologize, Your Honor.
23:50
I'm trying so hard to make sure.
23:52
I don't talk over you that I probably heard something else.
23:55
Judge Prost
Yeah, thank you.
23:57
Appellee Attorney (Heidi Lyn Keefe)
And so here, as in 2A Media, we are never told how to effectuate the abstraction.
24:05
Instead, we have only the black box of the digital signal processor in Figure 3,
24:11
of the digital signal processing in Figure 8, and the enhance the image of 830 in Figure 8.
24:19
Therefore, the case law tells us that this is...
24:23
This is just an abstract claim claiming the functional benefit of an enhanced image.
24:31
Nothing else.
24:35
Nothing else.
24:39
If Your Honors didn't have any other questions, the only other thing...
24:43
Judge Taranto
Can I just, I think, return to a subject that we were discussing before?
24:48
Can you point with some specificity to...
24:51
I think you referred to the prosecution history,
24:54
but the material that you rely on to say,
24:59
that putting aside the enhancement feature of the claim,
25:03
the rest, just the components, but their arrangement,
25:08
is not plausibly asserted to be an advance.
25:16
Appellee Attorney (Heidi Lyn Keefe)
Yes, Your Honor.
25:17
For example, we cite to the appendix file history
25:23
where Magano was recognized by the examiner
25:29
as having...
25:32
multiple censors that are placed closely with respect to a common plane.
25:38
And that can be seen, for example, at Appendix 123.
25:42
The figure itself shows that.
25:45
This wasn't refuted in any way, shape, or form by the applicant.
25:51
And I understand that it was a first office action allowance,
25:54
but they still, if they disbelieved that,
25:57
could have submitted materials that said,
26:00
and I do not...
26:01
believe that that's true, they did not do so.
26:04
Similarly, they haven't disputed that below
26:08
because Magano actually says it,
26:10
as do the other references that are cited in the file history.
26:13
And that's, again, at Appendix, for example, 118.
26:19
That leads me also to, Your Honor, one other question,
26:21
which I think consistently...
26:24
I'm sorry.
26:25
Judge Taranto
What in light of that do you make of a few passages
26:30
in the specification?
26:31
And since we are at 12B6, that matters.
26:36
That seemed to say, I don't know,
26:39
the key to the advance here is this structural arrangement.
26:47
Appellee Attorney (Heidi Lyn Keefe)
So, Your Honor, I think, for example,
26:49
the specification does talk about
26:52
if you had completely different censors.
26:57
For example, if you had a red, green, blue censor
27:02
in combination with a black and white censor,
27:04
the specification makes hay of the fact that
27:07
then you would be using the black and white censor
27:10
to potentially fill in information that was missed
27:14
by the red, green, or blue censor.
27:16
That's what the specification talks about.
27:18
That's not claimed, Your Honor.
27:21
Just the opposite.
27:22
The claim simply says,
27:24
have one black and white censor,
27:27
and claim two tells us,
27:28
and make sure the other censor is also black and white.
27:31
Therefore, there is no other information
27:34
that's being missed.
27:35
There's no other information
27:36
that you would necessarily come up with
27:40
that could be even used to make the enhancement
27:43
if you practice the claim as is.
27:46
This is one of those cases
27:48
where you have to look very carefully
27:49
to exactly what is claimed,
27:51
not to what the specification describes
27:54
as an embodiment that is not claimed.
27:57
In that sense, Your Honor,
27:58
this case is very similar to Berkheimer.
28:00
In Berkheimer, as Your Honors well know,
28:03
there were two censors,
28:04
there was the independent claims
28:05
and the dependent claims,
28:07
and the independent claims
28:08
simply claimed the memory and storing information.
28:13
That was found to be ineligible,
28:15
even though the specification
28:16
specifically also disclosed embodiments
28:19
that were claimed in the dependent claims
28:22
that said, don't store redundant data.
28:24
Well, if you didn't store the redundant data,
28:27
then it could speed up the system
28:29
and somehow make that, therefore, eligible.
28:32
That shows us that it's not,
28:35
not just what's in the specification,
28:36
it's what's claimed that matters.
28:39
So even though the specification
28:40
may have had something that if claimed,
28:43
and we don't know if they could have
28:44
or what it would have been,
28:46
but it wasn't claimed,
28:48
therefore, it's still ineligible.
28:51
Does that answer Your Honor's question?
28:53
Judge Taranto
I said thank you for that, yes.
28:56
Appellee Attorney (Heidi Lyn Keefe)
Thank you very much, Your Honor.
28:57
And in that sense,
28:58
this case also is not like fails
29:03
where the simple usage of the two censors
29:05
placed in different places,
29:06
inherently produced the benefit,
29:11
nor is it like McGraw,
29:13
where the claim gave the specificity
29:15
of how to achieve the improved image.
29:18
Here, we have no idea how to achieve the improved image,
29:21
and in fact, we have no idea
29:24
what the information even is that's going to be combined.
29:28
And with that, Your Honors,
29:29
unless you have other questions.
29:31
Judge Prost
Well, can I just ask you, Ms. Keefe,
29:34
just another housekeeping question,
29:37
which is,
29:37
there are two IPRs concerning this patent.
29:41
Am I correct?
29:42
That's correct, Your Honor.
29:43
So, and how does that proceeding
29:46
correspond to this one?
29:49
Appellee Attorney (Heidi Lyn Keefe)
So, the PTAB decisions,
29:52
there have been final written decisions
29:54
where most of the claims
29:56
were held to be not patentable.
29:59
Those are in a stage
30:01
for getting ready to come up on appeal.
30:04
So, this case is ahead of those.
30:06
Judge Taranto
But not all of the claims, right?
30:08
I forget, which is it,
30:08
two that would say is dependent.
30:10
That's correct.
30:11
Appellee Attorney (Heidi Lyn Keefe)
That's exactly correct, Your Honor.
30:13
Judge Prost
All right.
30:14
Thank you very much.
30:16
Appellee Attorney (Heidi Lyn Keefe)
Thank you, Your Honors,
30:17
for your attention and time.
30:19
Mr. Lipps?
30:21
Appellant Attorney (Robert G. Litts)
Okay.
30:22
I will just briefly address
30:24
some of Appellee's points.
30:26
The Appellees are, again,
30:27
improperly focusing on individual claim limitations
30:31
and not the claimed combination of limitations.
30:35
What is nonconventional in the claims
30:38
is the claimed combination.
30:40
So, the Appellee's point is
30:40
the claim of the structural components
30:41
and the claimed use of those components
30:45
to produce a resultant digital image.
30:49
That is not something that the Appellee's
30:52
have addressed.
30:54
Also, this is not a process claim.
30:57
This is an apparatus claim
30:58
that discloses details of a specific
31:00
and unconventional digital camera architecture.
31:03
Those details
31:04
are themselves patent eligible.
31:06
The Appellee's are suggesting that
31:09
an apparatus claim is not a process claim.
31:10
A process claim is more susceptible to attack
31:11
under Section 101 than a process claim
31:13
because the apparatus claim is going to include
31:15
the type of process steps that would be included
31:18
in a process claim.
31:19
But the structure itself is patent eligible.
31:21
So, and certainly the combination of the structure
31:24
with the image enhancement
31:26
is patent eligible.
31:29
So, the continued disregard
31:31
for the combination of structural limitations
31:34
in the claim
31:35
is erroneous.
31:39
Also, with regard
31:40
to Burr's claim,
31:41
that case is simply irrelevant
31:43
and also are a number
31:44
of the other cases that
31:47
Appellee's have relied on in their briefing
31:49
because there's no purportedly
31:51
unconventional architecture of components
31:52
in those cases.
31:55
That's a common theme
31:56
throughout those cases as opposed to
31:58
the present case where we have
32:00
a specific architecture.
32:03
Judge Taranto
This is just Toronto.
32:04
Can I just ask you, can you address
32:08
Nagumo
32:08
which was addressed by
32:11
was one basis for a
32:12
for a rejection in the prosecution
32:14
history at 117.
32:17
Putting aside
32:19
the enhancement
32:21
limitation,
32:23
does that not
32:24
show at least one
32:27
arrangement
32:29
that falls within claim one?
32:32
Appellant Attorney (Robert G. Litts)
No, the
32:34
examiner found that that reference
32:35
did not disclose an image sensor
32:38
that senses to a full region of visible
32:39
color spectrum. And actually the reason why the claims
32:42
were found allowable
32:43
was for that reason. It wasn't because of
32:45
image enhancement. It was because
32:47
of the failure of any of the references to
32:49
disclose an image sensor that
32:52
senses to a full region of visible
32:53
color spectrum. With regard to
32:56
closely positioned with respect to a common plane,
32:58
that reference shows
32:59
schematics.
33:02
And appellants believe that
33:04
just showing schematics without any sort of
33:06
description of sensor placement,
33:07
anything more detailed than schematics
33:10
is not sufficient. So we have
33:12
not conceded anything
33:13
with regard to that reference. And
33:17
as counsel
33:18
for appellees pointed out, the claims were
33:20
allowed on the first office action, so there's no need
33:22
to respond to that finding.
33:24
But that has not been conceded.
33:29
Judge Prost
Thank you. We
33:30
thank both parties and the case is
33:32
submitted. That concludes our proceeding
33:34
for this morning. Thank you all.
33:37
The honorable court is adjourned until
33:39
tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.