Here is what Canon's ACTUAL patent, from the US Patent office, actually states:
Oh my goodness! You haven't read the patent past the summary section.
Because if you had, you would have come across section .
Here's it is on Page-13 of the patent's PDF file (which you can get from here):
 FIG. 2A is a view for explaining the pixel arrangement
of the image sensor... FIG. 2B is an enlarged view of
the pixel 210G which includes a plurality of photoelectric
conversion units (to be referred to as “sub-pixels 201a and
201b” hereinafter) for pupil division. Each of the pixels 210R
and 210B also includes two sub-pixels 201a and 201b. Each
pixel can output an image signal obtained by receiving light
independently from each of the sub-pixels 201a and 201b.
The independently obtained image signals can be used for
focus detection, or added for each pixel and used for image
So, you quoted this patent in support of your TWO PHOTODIODES claims - but the patent says otherwise.
Dude, you have to work not only on your technical skills but on your comprehension skills in general.
When arguing about something, it's plain retarded to argue with yourself.
Canon themselves are talking about sub-pixels.
Not only that. Here's the last part of Section :
The pixel group 210 having the above-described
structure is repetitively arranged. Note that in the arrange-
ment shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B, all pixels include the sub
pixels 201a and 201b. Instead, the pixels including the sub
pixels may be discretely arranged in the image sensor 107.
This is (maybe deliberately?) vague but one way to interpret it is that Canon is saying that the
arrangement illustrated in Fig. 2A doesn't need to be strictly followed.
That is, they are opening themselves to a different implementations of the same concept - without
actually specifying the implementation.
Anyway, I don't know what you are arguing about.
This patent is about a methid of focus detection on a sensor.
That is, they are patenting the method itself; nothing is mentioned about how exactly
they are going to etch the pixels and sub-pixels on the wafer.
They say that each pixel has two sub-pixels - but at the same time they are also leaving the door
open for alternative implementations as well.
That would be very clear to a technical person (or someone with a legal background as well - because of
how the last part of Section  is worded).
But since you are not a technical person these things are escaping you.
(You could have at least read the patent in its entirety, btw - but you haven't done even that.)