Case: 20-1425 Document: 61 Page: 1 Filed: 05/20/2021
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
Appellant
v.
APPLE INC.,
Appellee
ANDREW HIRSHFELD, PERFORMING THE
FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER
SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF
THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK
OFFICE,
Intervenor
______________________
2020-1425
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-
01133.
______________________
Decided: May 20, 2021
______________________
ROBERT J. GAJARSA, Russ August & Kabat, Washing-
ton, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by MARC
Case: 20-1425 Document: 61 Page: 2 Filed: 05/20/2021
2 COREPHOTONICS, LTD. v. APPLE INC.
AARON FENSTER, NEIL RUBIN, Los Angeles, CA.
ANGELA OLIVER, Haynes & Boone, LLP, Washington,
DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by ANDREW S.
EHMKE, DEBRA JANECE MCCOMAS, Dallas, TX; DAVID W.
O'BRIEN, HONG SHI, Austin, TX.
MAUREEN DONOVAN QUELER, Office of the Solicitor,
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria,
VA, for intervenor. Also represented by MICHAEL S.
FORMAN, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, FARHEENA YASMEEN
RASHEED.
______________________
Before NEWMAN, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
REYNA, Circuit Judge.
Corephotonics, Ltd. appeals a final written decision of
the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes re-
view brought by Apple Inc. Corephotonics argues that the
Board issued its decision in violation of the Appointments
Clause because the Board’s decision came after this court’s
decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d
1320, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2019) but before this court issued its
mandate. On this basis, Corephotonics argues that the
Board’s decision should be vacated and remanded. On the
merits, Corephotonics argues that substantial evidence
does not support the Board’s findings as to patentability.
Because we determine that the Board issued its decision
after this court’s decision in Arthrex we decline to vacate
and remand the Board’s decision underlying this appeal.
Moreover, because substantial evidence supports the
Board’s patentability determination, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On May 22, 2018, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) filed a petition
for inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board (“Board”), asserting that claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent
Case: 20-1425 Document: 61 Page: 3 Filed: 05/20/2021
COREPHOTONICS, LTD. v. APPLE INC. 3
No. 9,538,152 (the “’152 patent”) would have been obvious
over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0030592 to Border
et al. (“Border”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,859,588 to Pa-
rulski et al. (“Parulski”). J.A. 102.
The ’152 patent is directed to a “multi-aperture imag-
ing system comprising a first camera with a first sensor
that captures a first image and a second camera with a sec-
ond sensor that captures a second image.” ’152 patent, Ab-
stract. The ’152 patent discloses a dual-aperture camera
used to capture synchronous images from both a wide-an-
gle lens and a miniature telephoto lens with higher resolu-
tion in a narrower field. Id., col. 2, ll. 30–43; see also id. col.
2 l. 64–col. 3 l. 10. A “different magnification image of the
same scene is grabbed by each subset, resulting in field of
view (FOV) overlap between the two subsets.” ’152 patent
at col. 3 ll. 11–14. The wide-angle and telephoto images
are then fused to output one combined image. Id. at col. 3
ll. 11–24.
The claims of the ’152 patent require a processor con-
figured to “register the overlap area” of a “second image as
non-primary image” to a “first image as primary image to
obtain the output image,” where the output image must be
from either the “point of view of the first camera” or the
“point of the view of the second camera.” Id. at col. 13 ll.
5–17. The image registration enables the “output image
point of view” to be “determined according to the primary
image point of view (camera angle).” Id. at col. 9 ll. 26–29.
As a result of this image registration process, “the point of
view of the output image is that of the first camera,” if the
field of view, or FOV, of the second camera (2) is less than
the FOV of the first camera (1) based on a zoom factor (ZF)
input, or if FOV2