A key dispute in the Kodak ITC investigation is over the meaning of "at least three different colors" in element "b" of claim 15:

(b) a motion processor for generating from the captured images, a second number of color pixel values provided in a second color pattern having at least three different colors and representative of a series of motion images to be previewed, the second number of color pixel values being less than the first number of color pixel values, and the second color pattern being different from the first color pattern;

In essence, the claim describes capturing images with a high resolution pixel mosaic, a Bayer pattern with four sensors per pixel, half being green, for instance, and producing a motion stream of lower resolution images where each pixel is represented by three color values, such as red, green, and blue intensities ("RGB").

The filings imply strongly that Apple captures high resolution images with an RGB sensor, then produces lower resolution JPEG images for preview display.  A common first step in converting uncompressed RGB images to compressed JPEG images is to convert the color space of the image to YCbCr (or "YCC" as used in the filings).  This allows a lower compression ratio to be used on the very important luminance channel, and higher compression ratios to be used on the two chroma channels.

Do pixels represented in YCC color space have "three different colors"?  That's a key issue in this case.

From a imaging or color science perspective, the replacement of the claim phrase "having at least three different colors" with "each represented by at least three color coordinates" or "said pixels represented using at least three color channels," would have better encompassed the use of YCC or other luminance-chrominance color coordinate spaces.

With the use of the phrase "at least three different colors," the administrative law judge understandably gravitated toward an interpretation where each of the three "colors" is a "color" in layman's terms, namely "red," "green," or "blue."  It is this interpretation that Kodak is now trying to change when the case is reviewed.


Sources:

• Final Initial and Recommended Determinations, ITC 337-703, Official Receive Date 3/08/2011
• US ITC Filing, COMPLAINANT EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY'S PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE FINAL INITIAL AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATIONS, Filed February 17, 2011 by Eric C. Rusnak of K&L Gates, representing Eastman Kodak.
• US Patent 6,292,218

 

As mentioned in the previous post, inconsistencies in Administrative Law Judge rulings regarding the same patent in different cases likely contributed to today's grant of full commission review of Kodak's case against Apple.

In a nutshell, in a previous ITC investigation, 337-TA-663, claim 15 of Kodak's US6,292,218 patent was found valid and infringed by certain Samsung phones.  In the 337-TA-703 investigation involving Apple, claim 15 was found invalid under 35 USC 103 and none of the accused products was found to infringe.

Kodak argues, among other points, that the same body reviewing the same patent again within a very short timeframe should have a consistent view of the validity of that patent.  In particular, Kodak took issue with the Markman ruling regarding claim 15, and purportedly erroneous construction of the phrase "at least three different colors" in element "b."  Kodak argues that Apple does not contest that elements "a," "c," or "f," are satisfied under any construction, that "b" and "e" would not be contested under a "proper" construction, and that Apple phones initiate capture of a still image while previewing motion images, as required by element "d".

The claim is reproduced below:

15. An electronic still camera for initiating capture of a still image while previewing motion images on a display, comprising:

(a) an image sensor having a two-dimensional array of photosites covered by a mosaic pattern of color filters including at least three different colors for capturing images of a scene, each captured image having a first number of color pixel values provided in a first color pattern;

(b) a motion processor for generating from the captured images, a second number of color pixel values provided in a second color pattern having at least three different colors and representative of a series of motion images to be previewed, the second number of color pixel values being less than the first number of color pixel values, and the second color pattern being different from the first color pattern;

(c) a color display for presenting at least some of the motion images of the series of motion images corresponding to the captured images of the scene, the color display having an arrangement of color display pixels including at least three different colors in a pattern different from the first color pattern;

(d) a capture button for initiating capture of a still image while previewing the motion images presented on the color display;

(e) a still processor for generating a third number of color pixel values including at least three different colors representative of a captured still image; and

(f) a digital memory for storing the processed captured still image.

Sources:

• US ITC Filing, COMPLAINANT EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY'S PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE FINAL INITIAL AND RECOMMENDED DETERMINATIONS, Filed February 17, 2011 by Eric C. Rusnak of K&L Gates, representing Eastman Kodak.
• US Patent 6,292,218

 

In the early 1990s, Kodak's vision of their role in the high-tech home of the future was as a provider of a digital version of the 35mm slide carousel.  The Jobs-less Apple strangely bought into this vision for a short while.  The 1993 Apple Power CD played Kodak's PhotoCD discs.

Apple and Kodak also partnered on the mid-1990s Quicktake camera line.