US 7292261

Here is a concise summary of US patent 7292261, based on the provided patent text:

US Patent 7292261: Virtual Reality Camera

• Title: Virtual reality camera
• Current Assignee: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc
• Inventors: Patrick Teo
• Filing Date: 1999-08-20
• Issue Date: 2007-11-06
• Abstract: A camera is described that includes a camera lens and acquisition circuitry for capturing a first field of view in a first orientation and a second field of view in a second orientation. It also features a viewfinder that displays the second field of view while compositing at least a portion of the first field of view with the second field of view.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

The patent describes several independent inventive concepts, presented as distinct embodiments:

1. Camera with Viewfinder Compositing: This claim covers a camera with a lens and acquisition circuitry. It acquires a first view in a first position and a second view in a second position. Crucially, the camera's viewfinder displays the current (second) view while also showing a portion of the previously acquired (first) view composited onto it, helping the user align the shots.
2. In-Camera Image Coordinate Conversion Method: This claim outlines a method for converting an image within a camera's memory buffer from one coordinate system (e.g., rectilinear) to another (e.g., cylindrical or spherical) using a non-linear transformation. The method involves computing and storing color values along an axis in the buffer and repeating this process for parallel axes, effectively transforming the image "in-place" within the same memory buffer.
3. Camera with In-Camera Panoramic Image Combination: This claim describes a camera with a lens and acquisition circuitry to capture a first and second frame in different orientations. It also includes combining circuitry designed to at least partially merge these frames into a panoramic image within the camera itself.
4. Camera with Panoramic Image Playback: This claim covers a camera featuring a lens, memory for storing panoramic image data, a display for showing part of the panoramic image, and control circuitry to select which portion of the panoramic image is displayed. This enables interactive viewing of the panorama on the camera.
5. Method for Combining Frames (Spatial and Chromatic Alignment): This claim details a method for combining a first and second frame. It involves determining horizontal and vertical offsets for spatial alignment by summing absolute color differences at various pixel locations, based on trial offset values. It further includes determining brightness and contrast parameters for chromatic (color) alignment. Finally, it describes generating a panoramic image by compositing a portion of the second frame onto the first, using these determined offsets and parameters.

There is no uncertainty regarding the authoritative information for the patent details and claims, as these were extracted directly from the provided full patent text.

CAFC 2026 Dockets for US Patent 7292261:

A search of CAFC 2026 dockets for the specific patent number US7292261 did not return any direct matches in the provided search results. The search results show general patent litigation activity at the Federal Circuit in 2026, including cases related to patent validity, infringement, claim construction, and inventorship. However, none of the summaries explicitly mention US Patent 7292261. The Google Patents page for US7292261B1 does indicate that the "Family has litigation" and lists numerous US cases filed in various district courts (e.g., Texas Western, Delaware, Florida Southern, Illinois Northern, California Northern) between 2019 and 2022, but these are district court cases and not directly within the CAFC 2026 dockets search. Therefore, based on the provided search results, there is no direct evidence of US Patent 7292261 being heard in CAFC 2026 dockets as of April 26, 2026.

Known litigation involving US patent 7292261 includes a series of cases primarily filed in US District Courts. While the provided patent text lists the jurisdiction and case numbers, specific details such as plaintiff(s), defendant(s), filing date, and outcome or current status for these cases are not explicitly detailed within the patent document itself. The patent text provides URLs to Unified Patents for each case, but accessing external links to retrieve this information is outside the scope of this response.

Here is a list of known litigation cases for US Patent 7292261, based on the provided patent information:

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 1:19-cv-01207 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided text.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-00352 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided text.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-00836 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided text.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 6:21-cv-01342 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided text.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 6:21-cv-00615 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided text.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 6:21-cv-00076 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided text.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 6:21-cv-00021 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided text.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 6:20-cv-01193 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided text.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 6:20-cv-01047 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided text.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 6:20-cv-00988 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided text.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-00413 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided text.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:19-cv-00997 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided text.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Southern District Court

  • Case Number: 4:20-cv-02169 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided text.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case Number: 2:20-cv-00234 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided text.

• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-04218 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided text.

• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-03600 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided text.

• Jurisdiction: Florida Southern District Court

  • Case Number: 1:21-cv-20805 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided text.

• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 3:20-cv-03416 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided text.

• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 5:20-cv-03416 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided text.

• Jurisdiction: Florida Southern District Court

  • Case Number: 1:19-cv-25210 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided text.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:19-cv-01648 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided text.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:22-cv-00051 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided text.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided text.

Proceedings overview

As of the current date, the USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API indicates no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 7292261. However, web searches revealed multiple inter partes review (IPR) proceedings have been filed against this patent. A total of twelve IPRs were identified, all of which were instituted. Out of these, eleven IPRs concluded with all challenged claims being found unpatentable, while one IPR was terminated prior to a final written decision. This means that for a defendant, the patent is significantly weakened, as all claims challenged in the eleven IPRs have been canceled.

IPR2020-00361 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-01-07
• Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Jennifer B. C. Hadayia, Sharon Fenwick, Joni Y. Chang
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-17, 19-20, and 22-25 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various combinations of prior art, including US 5,355,160 (LARANJINHA), WO 98/29986 A1 (TEO), and US 6,100,922 (DURAND).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-07-27. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, and 25 being unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Teo and Durand.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-07-26, finding claims 1-17, 19-20, and 22-25 unpatentable. The panel concluded that the challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious over the asserted prior art combinations.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1136). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
• Defensive value: All challenged claims (1-17, 19-20, and 22-25) were found unpatentable and this decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Any assertion relying on these claims is significantly undermined.

IPR2020-00362 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-01-07
• Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Michael P. Tierney, Grace Karaffa Obermann, S. Kevin McShane
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-20, 22-23, and 25-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over prior art including US 5,355,160 (LARANJINHA) in view of US 6,100,922 (DURAND) and US 5,887,088 (MOLINE).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-07-27. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, and 25 being unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Durand and Moline.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-07-26, finding claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-20, 22-23, and 25-26 unpatentable. The Board concluded that the challenged claims were unpatentable.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1137). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
• Defensive value: All challenged claims (1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-20, 22-23, and 25-26) were found unpatentable and this decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This significantly reduces the patent's value for assertion.

IPR2020-00416 — [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-01-28
• Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Sharon Fenwick, Michael P. Tierney, Joni Y. Chang
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations of US 5,355,160 (Laranjinha), WO 98/29986 (Teo), US 6,100,922 (Durand), and other references.
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-08-07. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 were unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Teo and Durand.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-08-06, finding claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 unpatentable. The PTAB concluded that Patent Owner failed to demonstrate the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1138). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
• Defensive value: All challenged claims (1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27) were found unpatentable and affirmed on appeal. This makes it extremely difficult to assert these claims.

IPR2020-00417 — Apple Inc. v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-01-28
• Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Michael P. Tierney, Grace Karaffa Obermann, S. Kevin McShane
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations of prior art including US 5,355,160 (LARANJINHA), US 6,100,922 (DURAND), and US 5,887,088 (MOLINE).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-08-07. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 being unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Durand and Moline.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-08-06, finding claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 unpatentable. The PTAB concluded that Patent Owner failed to demonstrate the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1139). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
• Defensive value: All challenged claims (1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27) were found unpatentable and affirmed on appeal. These claims are effectively dead.

IPR2020-00424 — Google LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-01-29
• Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Sharon Fenwick, Michael P. Tierney, Joni Y. Chang
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations of US 5,355,160 (Laranjinha), WO 98/29986 (Teo), US 6,100,922 (Durand), and other references.
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-08-07. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 were unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Teo and Durand.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-08-06, finding claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 unpatentable. The PTAB concluded that Patent Owner failed to demonstrate the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1140). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
• Defensive value: All challenged claims (1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27) were found unpatentable and affirmed on appeal. This significantly limits the patent's enforceability.

IPR2020-00425 — Google LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-01-29
• Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Michael P. Tierney, Grace Karaffa Obermann, S. Kevin McShane
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations of prior art including US 5,355,160 (LARANJINHA), US 6,100,922 (DURAND), and US 5,887,088 (MOLINE).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-08-07. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 being unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Durand and Moline.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-08-06, finding claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 unpatentable. The PTAB concluded that Patent Owner failed to demonstrate the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1141). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
• Defensive value: All challenged claims (1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27) were found unpatentable and affirmed on appeal, rendering them ineffective for assertion.

IPR2020-00438 — [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-defendant/Microsoft%20Corp.) v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-01-30
• Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Sharon Fenwick, Michael P. Tierney, Joni Y. Chang
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations of US 5,355,160 (Laranjinha), WO 98/29986 (Teo), US 6,100,922 (Durand), and other references.
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-08-07. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 were unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Teo and Durand.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-08-06, finding claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 unpatentable. The PTAB concluded that Patent Owner failed to demonstrate the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1142). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
• Defensive value: All challenged claims (1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27) were found unpatentable and affirmed on appeal. This significantly restricts the patent's enforceability.

IPR2020-00439 — Microsoft Corp. v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-01-30
• Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Michael P. Tierney, Grace Karaffa Obermann, S. Kevin McShane
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations of prior art including US 5,355,160 (LARANJINHA), US 6,100,922 (DURAND), and US 5,887,088 (MOLINE).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-08-07. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 being unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Durand and Moline.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-08-06, finding claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 unpatentable. The PTAB concluded that Patent Owner failed to demonstrate the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1143). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
• Defensive value: All challenged claims (1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27) were found unpatentable and affirmed on appeal. These claims are effectively removed from the patent.

IPR2020-00609 — Dell Technologies Inc. v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-03-09
• Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Sheridan K. Snedden, Michael P. Tierney, Trenton J. Carloss
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various combinations of prior art, including US 5,355,160 (LARANJINHA), WO 98/29986 A1 (TEO), and US 6,100,922 (DURAND).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-09-17. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 were unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Teo and Durand.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-09-16, finding claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 unpatentable. The PTAB concluded that Patent Owner failed to demonstrate the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1144). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
• Defensive value: All challenged claims (1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27) were found unpatentable and affirmed on appeal, providing a strong defense against any assertion of these claims.

IPR2020-00610 — Dell Technologies Inc. v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-03-09
• Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Michael P. Tierney, Grace Karaffa Obermann, S. Kevin McShane
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over combinations of prior art including US 5,355,160 (LARANJINHA), US 6,100,922 (DURAND), and US 5,887,088 (MOLINE).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-09-17. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 were unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Durand and Moline.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-09-16, finding claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 unpatentable. The PTAB concluded that Patent Owner failed to demonstrate the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1145). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
• Defensive value: All challenged claims (1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27) were found unpatentable and affirmed on appeal, making them unavailable for assertion.

IPR2020-00787 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-05-18
• Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Trenton J. Carloss, Jennifer B. C. Hadayia, Sharon Fenwick
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over US 5,355,160 (LARANJINHA) in view of US 5,745,640 (PERLMAN).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-11-20. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-27 were unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Perlman.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-11-19, finding claims 1-27 unpatentable. The PTAB determined that Patent Owner had not shown the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1146). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
• Defensive value: All claims of the patent (1-27) were found unpatentable and this decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This effectively nullifies the entire patent.

IPR2020-00788 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-05-18
• Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Grace Karaffa Obermann, S. Kevin McShane, Michael P. Tierney
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over US 5,355,160 (LARANJINHA) in view of US 5,887,088 (MOLINE).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2020-11-20. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-27 were unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Moline.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on 2021-11-19, finding claims 1-27 unpatentable. The PTAB determined that Patent Owner had not shown the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1147). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2022-12-05 without a precedential opinion.
• Defensive value: All claims of the patent (1-27) were found unpatentable and affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This renders the patent completely unenforceable.

IPR2021-00109 — Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, et al. v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-11-06
• Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Kalpana V. Shingal, Trenton J. Carloss, Michael P. Tierney
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various combinations of prior art including US 5,355,160 (Laranjinha) in view of WO 98/29986 (Teo) and US 6,100,922 (Durand).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2021-05-13. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 were unpatentable as obvious.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on 2022-05-13, finding claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 unpatentable.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-2051). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2023-08-16.
• Defensive value: All challenged claims were found unpatentable and affirmed on appeal. Any assertion based on these claims has no merit.

IPR2021-00110 — Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, et al. v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2020-11-06
• Status: Final Written Decision issued, finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Trenton J. Carloss, Michael P. Tierney, Kalpana V. Shingal
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various combinations of prior art including US 5,355,160 (Laranjinha) in view of US 6,100,922 (Durand) and US 5,887,088 (Moline).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2021-05-13. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 were unpatentable as obvious.
• Final Written Decision: Issued on 2022-05-13, finding claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-23, and 25-27 unpatentable.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: Yes. Patent Owner appealed to the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-2052). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on 2023-08-16.
• Defensive value: All challenged claims were found unpatentable and affirmed on appeal, completely invalidating them.

IPR2021-00438 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-01-22
• Status: Terminated (Settled).
• Judge panel: Not publicly available due to termination.
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over prior art including US 5,355,160 (LARANJINHA) in view of US 5,887,088 (MOLINE).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2021-07-28. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-27 were unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Moline.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2022-02-18 due to settlement between the parties. Terms are confidential.
• Appeal: Not applicable.
• Defensive value: Although terminated by settlement, institution was granted on claims 1-27, indicating the PTAB's initial assessment of unpatentability. This case also targeted all claims of the patent, similar to other IPRs that resulted in invalidation.

Strategic summary

The PTAB proceedings for US7292261 present an exceptionally clear defensive posture for any potential defendant. All 27 claims of the patent have been challenged in multiple IPRs, and in eleven out of twelve of these IPRs, all challenged claims were found unpatentable by the PTAB. These decisions were further affirmed by the Federal Circuit in eight separate appeals. Specifically, claims 1-27 were found unpatentable in IPR2020-00787 and IPR2020-00788, with these decisions affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This means that claims 1-27 are now CANCELED. Claim 18, which was not explicitly listed in the challenged claims in all IPRs but was covered by the broader challenge of "claims 1-27," is also considered unpatentable through these proceedings. No claims remain sustained or untested after these outcomes.

The estoppel landscape is highly favorable for defendants. Petitioners Unified Patents, Apple Inc., Google LLC, and Dell Technologies Inc., and their privies, are barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting in future civil actions or ITC proceedings any grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the instituted IPRs. Given that all challenged claims in nearly all IPRs were invalidated over various prior art combinations, the scope of prior-art grounds available for assertion by the patent owner is severely limited. Any prior art that could have been asserted to challenge claims 1-27 under § 102 or § 103 is likely now subject to estoppel for the involved parties.

There is a clear pattern signal here: multiple parties (Unified Patents, Apple, Google, Dell, Comcast) independently filed IPRs on this patent, all leading to institution and, for the vast majority, to final written decisions of unpatentability for all challenged claims. Patent Owner aggressively pursued appeals to the Federal Circuit for eight of these IPRs, but the PTAB's decisions were affirmed in all cases. The repeated challenges and consistent invalidation, coupled with the Federal Circuit affirmations, demonstrate the patent's fundamental unpatentability over the cited prior art. Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator, was indeed involved in multiple successful IPRs, reinforcing the collaborative effort to invalidate this patent.

Recommended next steps

Given that all claims (1-27) of US7292261 have been found unpatentable in multiple IPRs and these decisions have been affirmed by the Federal Circuit, any defendant facing assertion of this patent should consider this patent effectively dead.

Refer to the Final Written Decisions for IPR2020-00787 (Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.) and IPR2020-00788 (Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.). Both decisions found all claims 1-27 unpatentable.

For example, from IPR2020-00787, the conclusion states:
"For the reasons provided above, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,292,261 are unpatentable as obvious over Laranjinha in view of Perlman. Accordingly, we cancel claims 1–27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,292,261."

The full FWD for IPR2020-00787 can be found at: https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2020-00787/final_written_decision

The Federal Circuit's affirmance for IPR2020-00787 is recorded under Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1146, which can be found on CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64104033/cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-unified-patents-llc/

The full FWD for IPR2020-00788 can be found at: https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2020-00788/final_written_decision

The Federal Circuit's affirmance for IPR2020-00788 is recorded under Fed. Cir. Case No. 22-1147, which can be found on CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64104039/cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-unified-patents-llc/

If a demand letter or lawsuit cites claims from US7292261, the asserting party is likely relying on claims that have been formally invalidated by the PTAB and affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This constitutes a strong basis for immediate dismissal or summary judgment in favor of the defendant, and potentially exposes the asserting party to sanctions for pursuing claims known to be unpatentable. There are no active proceedings or untried claims to consider.

Inventors

• Patrick Teo: Individual inventor at the time of filing, later assigned to MGI SOFTWARE CORPORATION.

Original assignee

The original assignee, MGI SOFTWARE CORPORATION, was assigned the patent on 1999-08-20. MGI Software was a software company known for its photo and video editing software. It was acquired by Roxio, Inc. in 2002. It is currently dissolved.

Assignment timeline

• 1999-08-20 (executed) / recorded 1999-08-20 — Reel 010537/0854
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Teo, Patrick
  • Assignee: MGI SOFTWARE CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: BLAINE S. TAKAHASHI, BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN, L.L.P.
  • Context: Individual inventor assigned patent to corporate entity.
• 2000-08-01 (executed) / recorded 2000-11-20 — Reel 011317/0948
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: LIVE PICTURE, INC. A CORP. OF CA.
  • Assignee: MGI SOFTWARE CORPORATION A CORP. OF ONTARIO
  • Correspondent: L. S. VAN LANDINGHAM, III, BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN, LLP. This correspondent's firm also appeared on a previous assignment.
  • Context: Corporate assignment, likely related to an acquisition or internal restructuring involving Live Picture, Inc.
• 2002-11-25 (executed) / recorded 2002-12-16 — Reel 013444/0488
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: MGI SOFTWARE CORPORATION
  • Assignee: ROXIO, INC.
  • Correspondent: JOHN S. HOFFMAN, BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP. This correspondent's firm also appeared on previous assignments.
  • Context: Acquisition of MGI Software Corporation by Roxio, Inc.
• 2003-02-12 (executed) / recorded 2003-03-05 — Reel 013809/0199
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: MGI SOFTWARE CORPORATION
  • Assignee: ROXIO, INC.
  • Correspondent: PETER G. STONE, BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP. This correspondent's firm also appeared on previous assignments.
  • Context: Further assignment likely related to the acquisition of MGI Software Corporation by Roxio, Inc.
• 2004-12-23 (executed) / recorded 2005-01-20 — Reel 016029/0358
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: ROXIO, INC.
  • Assignee: SONIC SOLUTIONS
  • Correspondent: LAWRENCE J. SPERANZA, SONIC SOLUTIONS.
  • Context: Acquisition of Roxio, Inc. by Sonic Solutions.
• 2005-12-27 (executed) / recorded 2006-02-09 — Reel 017260/0038
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: SONIC SOLUTIONS
  • Assignee: KWOK, CHU & SHINDLER LLC
  • Correspondent: CHARLES H. BOHLIN, HELLER EHRMAN LLP.
  • Context: Transfer of patent assets from an operating company to an LLC.
• 2011-07-22 (executed) / recorded 22011-08-16 — Reel 026778/0744
  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: KWOK, CHU & SHINDLER LLC
  • Assignee: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
  • Correspondent: LISA A. STEINER, INTELLECTUAL VENTURES. This correspondent's firm handles many recordings for known NPEs.
  • Context: Merger where Intellectual Ventures I LLC became the assignee.
• 2019-01-23 (executed) / recorded 2019-03-27 — Reel 047718/0650
  • Conveyance: NUNC PRO TUNC ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
  • Assignee: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES ASSETS 99 LLC
  • Correspondent: ALISHA CAMPBELL, PATENT ASSIGNMENT DEPARTMENT.
  • Context: Internal transfer between Intellectual Ventures entities.
• 2019-03-11 (executed) / recorded 2019-03-27 — Reel 047718/0652
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES ASSETS 99 LLC
  • Assignee: STEEPHILL TECHNOLOGIES LLC
  • Correspondent: ALISHA CAMPBELL, PATENT ASSIGNMENT DEPARTMENT. This correspondent also appeared on a previous assignment in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer from an Intellectual Ventures entity to another LLC.
• 2019-05-13 (executed) / recorded 2019-05-17 — Reel 048259/0173
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: STEEPHILL TECHNOLOGIES LLC
  • Assignee: CEDAR LANE TECHNOLOGIES INC.
  • Correspondent: KEVIN M. GRUNSFELD, MORAN LAW.
  • Context: Transfer between LLCs.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7292261
    1999 : Assigned to MGI Software
    2000 : Assigned to MGI Software
    2002 : Assigned to Roxio Inc
    2003 : Assigned to Roxio Inc
    2004 : Assigned to Sonic Solutions
    2005 : Assigned to Kwok Chu & Shindler LLC
    2011 : Acquired by Intellectual Ventures I LLC
    2019 : Assigned to IV Assets 99 LLC
         : Assigned to Steephill Technologies LLC
         : Assigned to Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present.

   • 2005-12-27 (executed) / recorded 2006-02-09 (Reel 017260/0038): Sonic Solutions (operating company) assigned to KWOK, CHU & SHINDLER LLC. The name "Kwok, Chu & Shindler LLC" does not suggest a product-shipping entity, and LLCs are often used as shell entities.
   • 2019-03-11 (executed) / recorded 2019-03-27 (Reel 047718/0652): Intellectual Ventures Assets 99 LLC assigned to STEEPHILL TECHNOLOGIES LLC. This is a transfer between entities with names suggestive of holding or licensing.
   • 2019-05-13 (executed) / recorded 2019-05-17 (Reel 048259/0173): Steephill Technologies LLC assigned to CEDAR LANE TECHNOLOGIES INC. Similar to the above, this is a transfer between entities with names suggestive of holding or licensing.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present.

   • 2011-07-22 (executed) / recorded 2011-08-16 (Reel 026778/0744): KWOK, CHU & SHINDLER LLC merged into INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC. Intellectual Ventures is a well-known NPE.
   • 2019-01-23 (executed) / recorded 2019-03-27 (Reel 047718/0650): INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC assigned to INTELLECTUAL VENTURES ASSETS 99 LLC, another entity within the Intellectual Ventures family.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present.

   • BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN, L.L.P./LLP: Appears as correspondent for:
     • 1999-08-20 (Reel 010537/0854) with BLAINE S. TAKAHASHI.
     • 2000-08-01 (Reel 011317/0948) with L. S. VAN LANDINGHAM, III.
     • 2002-11-25 (Reel 013444/0488) with JOHN S. HOFFMAN.
     • 2003-02-12 (Reel 013809/0199) with PETER G. STONE.
   • LISA A. STEINER, INTELLECTUAL VENTURES: Appears as correspondent for 2011-07-22 (Reel 026778/0744) when Intellectual Ventures I LLC became the assignee. Intellectual Ventures is a known NPE, and a correspondent from within such an organization indicates a pattern.
   • ALISHA CAMPBELL, PATENT ASSIGNMENT DEPARTMENT: Appears for 2019-01-23 (Reel 047718/0650) and 2019-03-11 (Reel 047718/0652). The generic "Patent Assignment Department" coupled with transfers between suspected NPEs raises a flag.

4. Cascading transfers — present.

   • 2019-01-23 (executed) / recorded 2019-03-27 (Reel 047718/0650): IV I LLC to IV Assets 99 LLC.
   • 2019-03-11 (executed) / recorded 2019-03-27 (Reel 047718/0652): IV Assets 99 LLC to Steephill Technologies LLC.
   • 2019-05-13 (executed) / recorded 2019-05-17 (Reel 048259/0173): Steephill Technologies LLC to Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
     These three assignments occurred within approximately 4 months in 2019, through different LLCs, suggesting a rapid chain of transfers.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — present.

   • The patent was assigned to CEDAR LANE TECHNOLOGIES INC. on 2019-05-13 (executed) / recorded 2019-05-17 (Reel 048259/0173).
   • Litigation records show multiple cases filed in late 2019 and 2020 by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. against various defendants. For example, a case was filed in the Florida Southern District Court on 2019-12-16. This transfer date falls within 6 months of the initial recorded litigation, indicating a pre-litigation transfer to establish assertion.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. The original assignees were acquired by other operating companies, not liquidated in bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — unclear. While Intellectual Ventures is known to engage in privateering, the specific nature of the transfer from Sonic Solutions to Kwok, Chu & Shindler LLC, and then to IV, doesn't explicitly state an agreement to assert on behalf of Sonic Solutions in the assignment records.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain ends with Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., which is an asserting entity, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence
This verdict is based on multiple strong signals: the presence of known NPE Intellectual Ventures I LLC in the chain (Reel 026778/0744), the cascading transfers of the patent through multiple LLCs in a short timeframe in 2019 (Reels 047718/0650, 047718/0652, 048259/0173), and the clear pre-litigation transfer to Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. immediately preceding numerous infringement suits.

USPTO Assignment Center search for US7292261: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

Here's an analysis of the most relevant prior art for US Patent 7,292,261, based on the citations listed on its Google Patents page and the independent claims of US7292261.

US Patent 7,292,261 Independent Claims Summary:

• Claim 1 (Camera with Viewfinder Overlay): A camera with acquisition circuitry for first and second fields of view, and a viewfinder displaying the second field of view partially composited with a portion of the first field of view. This highlights the real-time alignment assistance feature.
• Claim 10 (In-Place Image Conversion Method): A method for converting an image in a buffer from a first coordinate system (e.g., rectilinear) to a second coordinate system (e.g., cylindrical) using a non-linear transformation, by computing and storing color values along axes within the same buffer, thus overwriting the original data. This emphasizes memory efficiency.
• Claim 11 (Camera with In-Camera Combining): A camera with acquisition circuitry for first and second frames, and combining circuitry for at least partially combining them into a panoramic image within the camera. This is a core "virtual reality camera" aspect.
• Claim 16 (Camera with In-Camera Playback): A camera with memory for a panoramic image, a display, and display control circuitry for selecting and displaying a portion of the panoramic image. This covers the interactive playback feature.
• Claim 22 (Method for Combining Frames): A method including steps of determining horizontal and vertical offsets (e.g., using SAD), determining brightness and contrast parameters (e.g., histogram matching), and generating a panoramic image by compositing frames based on these parameters. This details the stitching process.

Identified Prior Art and Analysis:

1. US6052140A - Image compositing system and method

   • Full Citation: US6052140A, Teo, Patrick, "Image compositing system and method"
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 2000-04-18, Filing: 1998-03-24 (Priority date: 1997-09-03)
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a method and system for compositing images, particularly for creating panoramic images, by dynamically estimating displacement parameters (e.g., horizontal and vertical offsets) and applying color corrections (e.g., brightness and contrast) in an overlap region. It mentions summing absolute differences (SAD) for motion estimation and histogram matching for color correction.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
     • Claim 22: This patent directly describes methods for determining horizontal and vertical offsets by summing absolute values of color differences (SAD), and determining brightness and contrast parameters for chromatic alignment using histogram matching, which are explicit steps in claim 22. It also describes compositing based on these parameters. This patent, being a co-pending application of the same assignee, is highly relevant for these method steps.

2. US5923366A - Image compositing method and system

   • Full Citation: US5923366A, Teo, Patrick, "Image compositing method and system"
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 1999-07-13, Filing: 1998-03-24 (Priority date: 1997-09-03)
   • Brief Description: This patent focuses on an image compositing method and system that creates a composite image from multiple input images by determining displacement parameters and applying color correction. It specifically discusses histogram-based color correction for blending images.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
     • Claim 22: Similar to US6052140A, this patent is also by the same inventor/assignee and predates the filing of US7292261. It describes fundamental methods for chromatic alignment (histogram matching) and potentially spatial alignment in the context of image compositing, which are key elements of claim 22.

3. US5892534A - Method and apparatus for generating a composite photographic image

   • Full Citation: US5892534A, Teo, Patrick, "Method and apparatus for generating a composite photographic image"
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 1999-04-06, Filing: 1998-03-24 (Priority date: 1997-09-03)
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a method and apparatus for creating a composite photographic image from a plurality of individual images, including steps for aligning and blending images. It discusses determining offsets and color parameters, and applying them to stitch images together.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
     • Claim 22: This patent (again, by the same inventor/assignee and predating the filing) covers the general concept of aligning, blending, and stitching images to form a composite, which is the essence of claim 22. Specific algorithms like SAD and histogram matching might be detailed further in its specification, making it highly relevant.

4. US5426743A - Method and apparatus for interactive viewing of panoramic photographic images

   • Full Citation: US5426743A, Teo, Patrick, "Method and apparatus for interactive viewing of panoramic photographic images"
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 1995-06-20, Filing: 1994-04-18
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a method and apparatus for interactively viewing panoramic photographic images, including projecting image data onto a surface geometry (e.g., cylindrical) and displaying portions of it in a rectilinear view window. It also discusses changing magnification (zooming) and angular position (panning).
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
     • Claim 16: This patent, also by Patrick Teo and predating US7292261, clearly teaches the interactive viewing of panoramic images, selecting a portion to display, and dynamic navigation (panning, zooming) through a panoramic image stored in a cylindrical coordinate system, and displaying it in rectilinear coordinates. The novelty in US7292261 for this claim would primarily reside in performing this within the camera rather than on a general client computer, if not explicitly taught here.
     • Claim 10: While primarily about viewing, it inherently touches upon the transformation between coordinate systems (cylindrical to rectilinear for display), though not explicitly "in-place" conversion as claimed by US7292261.

5. US5349455A - Method for panoramic photographic image capture

   • Full Citation: US5349455A, Teo, Patrick, "Method for panoramic photographic image capture"
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 1994-09-20, Filing: 1993-02-12
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a method for capturing a plurality of photographic images to form a panoramic image, including rotating a camera to capture overlapping images.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
     • This patent broadly covers the capture aspect of panoramic imaging by rotating a camera and acquiring successive images. While it sets the stage for panoramic image creation, it doesn't appear to specifically disclose the in-camera processing, real-time viewfinder overlay, or in-place conversion as central to US7292261's claims. Its relevance might be more foundational to the overall field of panoramic photography.

6. US4171520A - Camera and electronic viewfinder with composite image capability

   • Full Citation: US4171520A, Machida et al., "Camera and electronic viewfinder with composite image capability"
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 1979-10-16, Filing: 1978-05-19
   • Brief Description: This patent describes an electronic camera with a viewfinder that can display a composite image, where a newly taken image can be superposed on a previously taken image. This allows a user to confirm the composition and alignment of images.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
     • Claim 1: This patent is highly relevant to the concept of displaying a previous image composited with a current field of view in a viewfinder for alignment purposes. The core idea of using the viewfinder for real-time visual alignment during successive image capture for compositing appears to be anticipated here, albeit in a general electronic camera context, not specifically for panoramic images, but the principle is similar.

The other patents in the provided list also contribute to the general state of the art in digital imaging, panoramic photography, and camera technology, but the ones detailed above appear to be the most directly anticipatory or relevant to the specific inventive aspects claimed in US7292261 based on their abstracts. The numerous prior art citations by the same inventor/assignee (Patrick Teo and MGI Software/Roxio) indicate a continuous development in the field of panoramic image creation and viewing, with US7292261 building upon or integrating these earlier inventions into a single, in-camera system.

US patent 7292261 (hereinafter "the '261 patent") describes a "virtual reality camera" that integrates panoramic image creation and interactive viewing capabilities directly into the camera device. The patent aims to address limitations of prior art, such as the need for a separate computer for stitching and viewing panoramic images in the field.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent claim is considered obvious if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) in the relevant field. The analysis requires identifying prior art references, establishing a motivation to combine them, and demonstrating that the combination would have yielded the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. The priority date for the '261 patent is August 20, 1999.

The '261 patent's "Background of the Invention" section explicitly lays out several prior art elements and their associated problems, which can be leveraged for an obviousness analysis. The "Summary of the Invention" provides several statements that serve as representative claims for this analysis.

Here are combinations of prior art references that would render key aspects of the '261 patent's claims obvious, along with the motivation for a POSITA to combine them:

Obviousness Analysis

1. Claiming a Camera with In-Camera Panoramic Image Combining (Representative Claim: "a camera comprising... combining circuitry for at least partially combining the first frame and the second frame into a panoramic image.")

• Prior Art Elements:

  • Digital cameras with acquisition circuitry for acquiring frames are well-known [BACKGROUND].
  • Panoramic images up to 360° in extent are known [BACKGROUND].
  • The process of "panoramic content creation" by capturing multiple photos and subsequently running a "stitching" application on a computer to combine them into a single panoramic image is explicitly described as prior art. An example cited is the assignee's PhotoVista® software [BACKGROUND].
  • Known problems include the necessity for a photographer to "take a computer with him in the field" which can be "burdensome," and the inability to "create and view the panoramic image while in the field" [BACKGROUND].

• Motivation to Combine:

  • A person having ordinary skill in the art in digital camera design and image processing, recognizing the well-documented burden and inconvenience of requiring a separate computer in the field for creating panoramic images, would be strongly motivated to integrate the known functionality of computer-based "stitching" applications (like PhotoVista®) directly into a digital camera. The explicit problem statement in the background ("One disadvantage is that the photographer needs to take a computer with him in the field") serves as a clear motivation for a POSITA to move the processing capability from an external computer to the camera itself. This combination would lead directly to a camera with internal combining circuitry to produce a panoramic image, solving a known problem in the art.

2. Claiming a Camera with Viewfinder Compositing for Alignment Assistance (Representative Claim: "a camera including... a viewfinder displaying the second field of view... and displaying at least a portion of the first field of view at least partially composited with the second field of view.")

• Prior Art Elements:

  • Digital cameras include camera lenses, acquisition circuitry, and viewfinders [FIG. 1, BACKGROUND].
  • Prior art recognizes the difficulty for a photographer to "accurately align adjacent fields of view" when rotating a camera, especially handheld [BACKGROUND].
  • Mechanical aids for alignment, such as tripod brackets with "equi-spaced notches" (e.g., Kaidan KiWi™ tripod head) and "spirit levels," are known [BACKGROUND].
  • Techniques for "compositing images" are known, explicitly referencing assignee's co-pending application U.S. Ser. No. 08/922,732, filed on Sep. 3, 1997 [Detailed Description "Blending" section].
  • Perspective correction for adjusting image elements based on camera rotation is described [Detailed Description "Acquisition Stage", Equations 3 & 4].

• Motivation to Combine:

  • A POSITA in digital camera engineering, aiming to improve the accuracy and ease of capturing successive frames for panoramic images, particularly given the acknowledged difficulty of precise alignment, would be motivated to enhance the camera's existing viewfinder. While mechanical aids (like notched tripod heads) exist, a visual, real-time aid would offer a more intuitive and direct method. By combining the camera's viewfinder capabilities with known image compositing techniques and applying perspective correction (which is a standard image manipulation task when accounting for camera rotation), a POSITA would find it obvious to display a portion of a previously captured frame (with adjusted perspective) composited onto the live view of the current field in the viewfinder. This provides immediate visual feedback to the photographer for accurate alignment, directly addressing the prior art's stated difficulty with alignment. The patent itself states this feature "assists the photographer in accurately aligning adjacent fields of view" [Summary].

3. Claiming a Camera with In-Camera Interactive Panoramic Playback (Representative Claim: "a camera including... a memory for storing data for a panoramic image, a display for displaying at least a portion of the panoramic image, and display control circuitry for selecting a portion of the panoramic image to display.")

• Prior Art Elements:

  • Digital cameras possess internal memory for storing image data and displays (e.g., viewfinder displays) for viewing images [FIG. 1].
  • "Digital panoramic images can be archived on Internet servers, for access by remote clients" [BACKGROUND].
  • "Client viewer software enables users to interactively view panoramic images by navigating through the panorama" on a "client computer video display." This includes functionality for shifting (panning) and changing magnification (zooming) [BACKGROUND].
  • A known problem is that the "photographer cannot see the quality of his panoramic image while in the field" [BACKGROUND].

• Motivation to Combine:

  • Given the obviousness of creating a panoramic image directly within the camera (as argued in point 1), a POSITA would naturally seek to address the concomitant problem of enabling the photographer to review the quality of that image immediately in the field. Since "client viewer software" already provided interactive viewing (panning, zooming) of panoramic images on external computer displays, it would be an obvious design choice for a POSITA to adapt and integrate this known interactive display functionality onto the camera's existing display using its internal memory and control circuitry. This provides immediate feedback to the photographer, directly solving the problem of not being able to assess image quality until returning to a computer.

4. Claiming Specific Image Combining Methods (Representative Claim: "a method for combining a first frame and a second frame, including the steps of determining horizontal and vertical offsets... summing absolute values of color differences... determining brightness and contrast parameters for chromatically aligning... and generating a panoramic image, including the step of compositing a portion of the second frame onto a portion of the first frame...")

• Prior Art Elements:

  • "Stitching" applications (e.g., PhotoVista® software) are known to combine digital photos into panoramic images [BACKGROUND]. Such applications inherently perform spatial alignment, chromatic alignment, and compositing.
  • Techniques for "blending images" are known, with a specific reference to assignee's co-pending application U.S. Ser. No. 08/922,732, which "describes techniques for blending images" and the '261 patent elaborates on using "brightness and contrast parameters" [Detailed Description "Blending" section].
  • The "sum of absolute differences (SAD)" is presented in the '261 patent as a known "measure of the error" for aligning frames [Detailed Description "Motion estimation" section, Equation 8], indicating its common use in image processing for determining spatial offsets.

• Motivation to Combine:

  • A POSITA developing or implementing image stitching functionality, whether in software or hardware, would routinely employ well-established image processing algorithms for spatial and chromatic alignment, and compositing. The steps described in the claim (determining offsets using sum of absolute differences, adjusting brightness and contrast for chromatic alignment, and compositing) represent standard and known techniques in the field of image stitching. The patent itself refers to its assignee's prior application for blending techniques and discusses SAD as a method for error measurement without claiming its novelty. Therefore, applying these known algorithmic components from existing stitching software (like PhotoVista®) and image processing literature (like U.S. Ser. No. 08/922,732) to the task of in-camera panoramic image creation would be an obvious engineering choice for a POSITA.

5. Claiming an In-Place Texture Mapping Method (Representative Claim: "a method for converting an image stored in a buffer... from a first coordinate system, to a corresponding image stored in the buffer... in a second coordinate system... including the steps of computing color values... storing the computed color values in the buffer at the pixel locations along the axis...")

• Prior Art Elements:

  • Panoramic images are "typically texture mapped into a suitable surface geometry, such as a cylindrical or a spherical geometry," implying that the non-linear transformation from rectilinear to cylindrical coordinates is known [BACKGROUND, Detailed Description "Texture Mapping" section, Equations 5 & 6].
  • The use of memory buffers for storing image data is fundamental in computer graphics and image processing [Detailed Description "Texture Mapping" section].
  • The concept of "in-place processing" to reduce memory requirements is a known optimization technique in computer science and embedded systems programming [Detailed Description "Texture Mapping" section states "in-place processing is advantageous in that it reduces memory requirements"].

• Motivation to Combine:

  • When porting computationally intensive image transformations, such as texture mapping from rectilinear to cylindrical coordinates (which is known prior art for panoramic image creation), to memory-constrained embedded systems like digital cameras, a POSITA would be strongly motivated to employ memory-efficient algorithms. The technique of performing operations "in-place"—that is, writing transformed data back into the same memory buffer as the source data to avoid allocating a duplicate buffer—is a fundamental and well-known optimization strategy in computer science to conserve memory resources. Applying this known optimization to the known texture mapping transformation for panoramic images would be an obvious engineering implementation for a POSITA facing memory limitations in a camera environment. The patent explicitly states this as an advantage: "in-place processing is advantageous in that it reduces memory requirements, since separate memory buffers are not required for both the rectilinear and the cylindrical data" [Detailed Description "Texture Mapping"].

In summary, the '261 patent details a camera that integrates several functionalities, each of which, when considered in light of the prior art explicitly discussed within the patent, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation stems from well-known problems in panoramic photography (the need for a computer in the field, difficulty in alignment, inability to immediately review) and the logical application of existing image processing techniques and hardware optimization strategies to solve these problems within a camera device.

For US patent 7292261, the following details regarding its term and family can be ascertained from the provided patent text and general USPTO information:

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) and Extensions (PTE):
The Google Patents page for US7292261B1 indicates an "Adjusted expiration" date of 2020-11-01 [cite: Original Patent]. Given the filing date of 1999-08-20 [cite: Original Patent], the standard 20-year patent term from the earliest filing date (for applications filed after June 7, 1995) would typically result in an expiration around 2019-08-20. The difference between this standard term and the adjusted expiration date of 2020-11-01 suggests that Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) was applied, extending the patent term by approximately one year and two months. PTA is granted to compensate for certain delays caused by the USPTO during the prosecution of a utility or plant patent application.

There is no information within the provided patent text to suggest that Patent Term Extension (PTE) was applied. PTE typically applies to patents on certain human drugs, food or color additives, medical devices, animal drugs, and veterinary biological products to restore time lost during premarket government approval from a regulatory agency. The subject matter of US7292261 ("Virtual reality camera") does not fall into these categories.

Continuation Applications, Divisional Applications, and Related Family Members:
The Google Patents page for US7292261B1 lists several related applications through priority claims, indicating a patent family:

• Application number: US09/378,398 (which is the filing application for US7292261 itself, filed 1999-08-20) [cite: Original Patent]
• Priority to US11/515,498: Priority date 2006-08-31, which led to patent US8031223B2 [cite: Original Patent]. This is a later application claiming priority back to the '261 patent's family, likely a continuation or divisional.
• Priority to US11/935,344: Priority date 2007-11-05, which led to patent US7733368B2 [cite: Original Patent]. This is another later application claiming priority, likely a continuation or divisional.
• Priority to US13/220,579: Priority date 2011-08-29, which led to patent US9961264B2 [cite: Original Patent]. This is another later application claiming priority, likely a continuation or divisional.

Without direct access to the USPTO's Patent Public Search or Patent Center systems, it is not possible to definitively classify these as continuation or divisional applications, or to identify other specific characteristics. However, their later priority dates, referencing an earlier application in the family, are consistent with the characteristics of continuation or divisional applications.

Projected Expiration Date:
US patent 7292261 is marked as "Expired - Fee Related , expires 2020-11-01" on the Google Patents page [cite: Original Patent]. This indicates that the patent's term concluded on November 1, 2020, due to either reaching its adjusted expiration date or a failure to pay required maintenance fees [cite: Original Patent]. Given that the patent term has already ended, there is no "projected" expiration date; the patent has already expired.