Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 18
`
`
` Entered: May 29, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VALEO, INC., VALEO S.A., VALEO GMBH, VALEO SCHALTER UND
`SENSOREN GMBH, AND CONNAUGHT ELECTRONICS LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00220
`Patent 7,859,565
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00220
`Patent 7,859,565
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Valeo, Inc., Valeo S.A., Valeo GmbH, Valeo Schalter und Sensoren
`GmbH, and Connaught Electronics Ltd. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a
`Corrected Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1-49 (“the
`challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565 (Ex. 1001, “the ’565
`patent”). Paper 7 (“Pet.”). Magna Electronics, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response. Paper 17 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows:
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines
`that the information presented in the petition filed under section
`311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`Upon consideration of the Corrected Petition and Preliminary
`Response, we determine that the information presented by Petitioner
`establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail
`in showing unpatentability of only claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-20, 25-32, 39-42, 47,
`and 48 of the ’565 patent. Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we
`institute an inter partes review of only claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-20, 25-32, 39-
`42, 47, and 48 of the ’565 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’565 patent is involved
`in Magna Elecs., Inc. v. Valeo, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv-11376 (E.D. Mich.),
`filed March 28, 2013. Pet. 4; Paper 9 at 2. Petitioner also has filed five
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00220
`Patent 7,859,565
`
`petitions for inter partes review of other related patents of Patent Owner:
`IPR2014-00221 (U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522), IPR2014-00222 (U.S. Patent
`No. 8,386,114), IPR2014-00223 (U.S. Patent No. 8,386,114), IPR2014-
`00227 (U.S. Patent No. 7,877,175), and IPR2014-00228 (U.S. Patent No.
`7,877,175).
`
`B. The ’565 Patent
`The ’565 patent relates generally to vision systems for vehicles and,
`more particularly, to rearview vision systems that provide the vehicle
`operator with scenic information in the direction rearward of the vehicle.
`Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 18-21. According to the ’565 patent, a long-felt need in
`the art of vehicle rearview vision systems had been to eliminate exterior
`rearview mirrors by utilizing image capture devices, such as cameras, in
`combination with dashboard displays (id. at ll. 24-27), but prior art camera-
`based rearview vision systems for vehicles had not obtained commercial
`acceptance in part because such systems present a large amount of visual
`information in a manner that is difficult to comprehend (Id. at ll. 41-45).
`According to the ’565 patent, in order to reduce blind spots significantly,
`multiple image capture devices are positioned at various locations on the
`vehicle. Id. at ll. 45-48. As a result, the image of an object behind the
`equipped vehicle may be captured by more than one image capture device
`and displayed in multiple images. Id. at ll. 48-50. This may confuse the
`driver as to whether more than one object is present. Id. at ll. 50-51. Also,
`when multiple image capture devices are positioned at different longitudinal
`locations on the vehicle, objects behind the vehicle are at different distances
`from the image capture devices, and therefore the same object may have a
`different size in each image. Id. at ll. 51-56. Another difficulty can arise
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00220
`Patent 7,859,565
`
`from the use of a wide-angle lens, which increases the field of view, but
`introduces distortion of the scene and further impairs the driver’s ability to
`judge distances of objects displayed. Id. at col. 2, ll. 6-19.
`To address these issues, the ’565 patent discloses a rearview vision
`system having at least two image capture devices positioned on the vehicle
`and directed rearwardly with respect to the direction of travel of the vehicle.
`Id. at ll. 27-31. The system includes a display, which combines the captured
`images into an image that would be achieved by a single rearward-looking
`camera having a view unobstructed by the vehicle. Id. at ll. 31-35.
`Specifically, the ’565 patent discloses techniques for synthesizing images
`captured by individual, spatially separated, image capture devices into an
`ideal image displayed on the display device. Id. at ll. 43-46.
`Figure 3 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3 depicts a display according to the invention. Id. at col. 3, ll. 25-26.
`As shown, image display device 20 displays a composite image 42 made up
`of a left image portion 44, a right image portion 46, and a center image
`portion 48. Id. at col. 5, ll. 48-50. Each image portion 44-48 is reversed
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00220
`Patent 7,859,565
`
`from the image as captured by the respective image capture device 14, 16
`utilizing conventional techniques. Id. at ll. 40-43. As may be best seen in
`Figure 3, the image portions at boundaries 50 and 52 are continuous
`whereby composite image 42 is a seamless panoramic view rearwardly of
`the vehicle. Id. at ll. 59-62. As also is apparent from Figure 3, central image
`portion 48 is narrower than either left image portion 44 or right image
`portion 46. Id. at ll. 62-64. This is a result of reducing horizontal field of
`view 26 of center image capture device 16 sufficiently to move points P, and
`thus overlap zones 32 and 34, a sufficient distance behind vehicle 10 to
`reduce redundant and duplicative images between image portions 44-48. Id.
`at col. 5, l. 64 to col. 6, l. 6. Composite image 42 provides a clear image,
`which avoids confusion and simplifies the task of extracting information
`from the multiple image portions 44-48. Id. at col. 6, ll. 1-4. As may also be
`seen by reference to Figure 3, display 20 may additionally include indicia
`such as the readout of a compass 54, vehicle speed 56, turn signals 58, and
`the like as well as other graphical or video displays, such as a navigation
`display, a map display, and a forward-facing vision system. Id. at ll. 4-9.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 11, 18, 25, 30, 41, 43, 44, 46, and
`47 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
`1.
`A vision system for a vehicle, comprising:
`a vehicle equipped with at least two image capture
`devices, said two image capture devices capturing images
`external of the vehicle, said two image capture devices having
`overlapping fields of view;
`said vehicle equipped with an image processor, wherein
`image data captured by said two image capture devices are
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00220
`Patent 7,859,565
`
`
`processed by said image processor, said image processor
`producing a synthesized image from said image data captured
`by said
`two
`image capture devices, and wherein said
`synthesized image comprises a composite image of said image
`data captured by said two image capture devices without
`duplication of image information;
`said vehicle equipped with a display screen displaying
`said synthesized image, said synthesized image displayed as a
`single image on a single display screen that is viewable by a
`driver of said vehicle when the driver is normally operating said
`vehicle, wherein the displayed image displayed on said single
`display screen includes an image portion from an image
`captured by each of said two image capture devices; and
`said image processor processing said image data by at
`least one technique chosen from luminant blending, chrominant
`blending, dynamic range extending, pixel group compensation,
`anti-blooming, multiple
`exposure,
`image morphing
`compensation and image warping compensation.
`
`D. References Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following references:
`Noso (“Nissan”)1
`JP H3-99952
`Apr. 25, 1991 Ex. 1003
`Nimura (“Aishin”)2 JP A64-14700
`Jan. 18, 1989 Ex. 1005
`Wang, CMOS Video Cameras, EURO ASIC 1991, 100-03, May
`Ex. 1007
`27-31, 1991 (“Wang”)
`Bendell
`U.S. 4,532,550
`Suzuki (“Niles”)3
`JP 59-114139
`
`July 30, 1985 Ex. 1008
`July 2, 1984
`Ex. 1009
`
`
`1 Nissan is a Japanese language document. Ex. 1003. Unless indicated
`otherwise, all citations to Nissan in this decision will refer to its certified
`English language translation. Ex. 1004.
`2 Aishin is a Japanese language document. Ex. 1005. Unless indicated
`otherwise, all citations to Aishin in this decision will refer to its certified
`English language translation. Ex. 1006.
`3 Niles is a Japanese language document. Ex. 1009. Unless indicated
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00220
`Patent 7,859,565
`
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner argues that the challenged claims are unpatentable based
`upon the following grounds:
`Reference(s)
`Nissan
`
`Basis Claims challenged
`§ 103 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, 25, 26, 28, 29, 41-44,
`46, 47, and 49
`§ 103 4, 17, and 27
`Nissan and Wang
`§ 103 10
`Nissan and Bendell
`§ 103 16, 30, 31, 40, 45, and 48
`Nissan and Aishin
`Nissan, Aishin, and Wang § 103 18-24
`Nissan, Aishin, and Niles § 103 32-39
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`2012). Also, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning,
`as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of
`the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`(Fed. Cir. 2007).
`1. “composite image” (claims 1, 11, 13-15, 18, 25, 30, 41, 43, 44, 46,
`47)
`Petitioner proposes that “composite image” be construed as “a single,
`combined image.” Pet. 23. As support for its proposed construction,
`Petitioner notes that this term was added by amendment during prosecution
`
`otherwise, all citations to Niles in this decision will refer to its certified
`English language translation. Ex. 1010.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00220
`Patent 7,859,565
`
`and argues that its construction is supported by both the specification and the
`arguments made during prosecution, including a declaration from Dr. Niall
`R. Lynam, who at that time was Patent Owner’s Senior Vice President and
`Chief Technical Officer. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 50).
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s proposed construction is
`unreasonably broad and that “composite image” should be construed to
`mean either “a synthesized image that comprises a single merged or stitched
`or blended image (such as, for example, a substantially seamless image
`synthesized from and composed of image data from at least two image
`capture devices of the equipped vehicle)” (Prelim. Resp. 23) or “a
`synthesized image that comprises a single merged or stitched or blended
`image” (id. at 28). Patent Owner also proposes a third variation: “the image
`data captured by the image capture devices are merged or stitched or
`blended to provide a single image, such as a substantially seamless single
`image, that includes image portions from image data captured by two or
`more image capture device[s].” Id. at 23. Each of the three proposals
`require that the “composite image” be the result of merging, stitching, or
`blending. Patent Owner argues that such a requirement is consistent with the
`context of the claim, the specification, the prosecution history, and the
`ordinary meaning of the term, as evidenced by Petitioner’s own expert. Id.
`at 24.
`
`We are not persuaded that the broadest reasonable construction of
`“composite image” requires merging, stitching, or blending, as proposed by
`Patent Owner. First, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that
`merging, stitching, or blending is “consistent with” the claim limitation that
`requires that the composite image be “without duplication of image
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00220
`Patent 7,859,565
`
`information.” Id. Patent Owner does not explain why merging, stitching, or
`blending are necessary in order for a “composite image” to be “without
`duplication of image information.”
`Second, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that its
`proposed construction is supported by the specification. Patent Owner
`correctly points out that the specification describes providing “a
`substantially seamless panoramic view rearwardly of the vehicle without
`duplicate or redundant images of objects.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 5-
`8). The ’565 patent further describes composite image 42 of Figure 3 as “a
`seamless panoramic view rearwardly of the vehicle.” Ex. 1001, col. 5, l. 48
`to col. 6, l. 4. However, the ’565 patent does not explicitly define the term
`“composite image.” While the ’565 patent does describe composite image
`42 in Figure 3 as “a seamless panoramic view,” the ’565 patent does not
`describe merging, stitching, or blending, and Patent Owner does not explain
`why merging, stitching, or blending are necessary to produce “a seamless
`panoramic view.”
`Third, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that its
`proposed construction is supported by the prosecution history. Patent Owner
`quotes a declaration from Dr. Lynam for the following: “[w]hen the two or
`three images are merged and the synthesized merged image is displayed on
`the single display screen, the displayed image approximates a rearward view
`from a single location and may provide a substantially seamless view
`rearwardly of the vehicle.” Prelim Resp. 26 (quoting Ex. 2002 ¶ 14).
`However, Dr. Lynam does not use the term “composite image” in this
`paragraph. Indeed, nowhere in the Lynam Declaration does Dr. Lynam
`explicitly describe a “composite image” as requiring merging, stitching, or
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00220
`Patent 7,859,565
`
`blending. Patent Owner also argues that “composite image” was
`distinguished from Nishimura during prosecution. Although the ’565 patent
`was allowed over Nishimura, Patent Owner does not identify in the
`prosecution history where Patent Owner explicitly disavowed the scope of
`the term “composite image” such that it cannot encompass a “single,
`combined image.”
`Fourth, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that its
`proposed construction is supported by the ordinary meaning of the term
`“composite image” and by the Declaration of Dr. George Wolberg (Ex.
`1011).4 Patent Owner does not provide any evidence of the ordinary
`meaning of the term “composite image.” Moreover, Dr. Wolberg’s
`testimony relates to “image compositing,” not to a “composite image.” See,
`e.g., Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 50-53, 62, 63, 66. Moreover, Dr. Wolberg testifies that the
`process of stitching together multiple input images to form one composite
`output image is known as “image mosaicing,” not “image compositing.” Id.
`¶ 51. According to Dr. Wolberg, “[i]mage compositing is a related term that
`refers to the blending of the overlapping regions.” Id. Because Dr.
`Wolberg’s testimony does not describe merging or stitching as part of
`“image compositing,” it does not support Patent Owner’s contention that the
`ordinary meaning of “composite image” requires a “merged or stitched or
`blended” image.” Patent Owner’s proposal is, therefore, unduly narrow.
`
`
`4 We conclude that Dr. Wolberg is qualified to testify in this proceeding as
`to the understanding of one skilled in the art. See Ex. 1101 ¶¶ 2-12, 44-48.
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art required experience in the automotive field, particularly with
`systems for use on a moving vehicle. Prelim. Resp. 15-18.
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00220
`Patent 7,859,565
`
`
`On this record, we are persuaded that the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of “composite image” consistent with the specification of the
`’565 patent is “a single, combined image.”
`2. “without duplication of image information” (claims 1, 11, 18, 25, 30,
`41, 43, 44, 46, 47)
`Petitioner proposes that “without duplication of image information”
`be construed to mean “there is minimal multiple exposure in the composite
`image.” Pet. 23-24. As support for its proposed construction, Petitioner
`notes that this term was added by amendment during prosecution and argues
`that its construction is supported by the specification. Id. (citing Ex. 1002,
`29-44). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction of
`this term.
`As Patent Owner notes, the ’565 patent does not use the phrase
`“without duplication of image information” apart from the claims.
`However, the ’565 patent does disclose, with respect to Figure 2, that “[a]n
`object in an overlap zone 32, 34 will appear on display 20 in multiple image
`portions in a redundant or duplicative fashion.” Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 10-12
`(emphasis added). The ’565 patent further discloses, with respect to Figure
`3, that central image portion 48 is narrower than left image portion 44 and
`right image portion 46 as a result of “reducing the horizontal field of view
`26 of center image capture device 16 sufficiently to move points P, and thus
`overlap zones 32 and 34, a sufficient distance behind vehicle 10 to reduce
`redundant and duplicative images between image portions 44-48.” Id. at
`col. 5, l. 64 to col. 6, l. 1 (emphasis added). Because the ’565 patent
`describes “reducing” duplicative image information, we are persuaded that
`the duplicative image information need not be eliminated entirely. On this
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00220
`Patent 7,859,565
`
`record, we are persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`“without duplication of image information” consistent with the specification
`of the ’565 patent is “with minimal multiple exposure in the composite
`image.”
`
`B. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, 25, 26, 28, 29, 41-44, 46, 47, and 49 –
`Obviousness over Nissan
`Petitioner argues that claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, 25, 26, 28, 29, 41-44, 46,
`47, and 49 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
`Nissan. Pet. 25-47.
`Nissan (Exhibit 1004)
`Nissan describes a device for displaying the positions of other
`vehicles, the states of obstructions, the center line, and other information
`about the vehicle’s surroundings to the driver by using cameras. Ex. 1004,
`p. 2, ll. 16-20. The system of Nissan includes a plurality of cameras
`installed in a vehicle, a means for performing a perspective conversion that
`converts the images from those cameras to other coordinates, a means for
`combining the converted images into one image related to an image of the
`vehicle itself, and a display for displaying the image to the occupants. Id. at
`p. 3, ll. 15-21.
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00220
`Patent 7,859,565
`
`
`Figure 1 is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 1 is an overhead view of a vehicle equipped with the system of
`Nissan. Id. at ll. 34-35. As depicted in Figure 1, a plurality of cameras 1-6
`are setup so that the respective fields of view, 1a-6a, cover the environment
`surrounding the vehicle. Id. at ll. 36-38. Images from the cameras are input
`and converted to other coordinates by a perspective conversion. Id. at p. 4,
`ll. 15-17. The converted images are then combined into one image by an
`image display unit and displayed on a monitor positioned at the driver’s seat.
`Id. at ll. 17-20. The vehicle’s position is drawn simultaneously in a diagram.
`Id. at ll. 22-24. The displayed position of the vehicle is offset from the
`center of the image screen depending on signals corresponding to the gear
`position, the vehicle speed, and the operation of the directional indicator. Id.
`at ll. 24-27.
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00220
`Patent 7,859,565
`
`
`Figure 3(a) is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3(a) is an example of the display results on display when backing up.
`Id. at ll. 29-31; p. 7, ll. 30-32. Specifically, Figure 3(a) shows backing up in
`the direction of the arrow and is a fixed display with vehicle 10 in the upper
`part in the center. Id. at p. 4, ll. 31-33. Neighboring vehicle 11 is displayed
`in a side view. Id. at ll. 33-35. According to Nissan, by looking at the
`display device, the driver can behave appropriately when backing up. Id. at
`p. 6, ll. 23-25.
`Analysis
`In light of the arguments and evidence, Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood that claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 25, 26, 28, 29, 41,
`42, and 47 are unpatentable as obvious over Nissan. Petitioner has not
`established a reasonable likelihood that claims 6, 14, 43, 44, 46, or 49 are
`unpatentable as obvious over Nissan.
`Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 25, 26, 28, 29, 41, 42, and 47
`For example, we are persuaded that the record supports a finding that
`the limitations of independent claim 1 listed in the first column of the
`following table are taught by the corresponding disclosure of Nissan
`identified in the second column of the table:
`
`14
`
`

`
`Nissan
`Figure 1, vehicle with cameras 1-6
`
`Figure 1, any two of cameras 1-6
`
`Figure 1, e.g., camera views 1a and 2a, or
`camera views 3a and 5a
`Image converter 7 and image display unit
`8
`“In an image converter 7, the images from
`cameras 1 to N are input and converted to
`other coordinates by a perspective
`conversion.” Ex. 1004, p. 4, ll. 15-17.
`“the images from cameras 1 to N . . .
`combined into one image by an image
`display unit 8.” Id. at ll. 15-18.
`
`“a display for displaying said image to the
`occupants.” Id. at p. 3, ll. 20-21.
`“displayed on a TV monitor 9 positioned
`at the driver’s seat.” Id. at p. 4, ll. 18-20.
`
`Case IPR2014-00220
`Patent 7,859,565
`
`
`Independent Claim 1
`a vehicle equipped with at least
`two image capture devices
`said two image capture devices
`capturing images external of
`the vehicle
`said two capture devices having
`overlapping fields of view
`an image processor
`
`wherein image data captured by
`said two image capture devices
`are processed by said image
`processor
`said image processor producing
`a synthesized image from said
`image data captured by said
`two image capture devices
`a display screen displaying said
`synthesized image
`said synthesized image
`displayed as a single image on
`a single display screen that is
`viewable by a driver of said
`vehicle when the driver is
`normally operating said vehicle
`wherein the displayed image
`displayed on said single display
`screen includes an image
`portion from an image captured
`by each of said two image
`capture devices
`
`“In an image converter 7, the images from
`cameras 1 to N are input and converted to
`other coordinates by a perspective
`conversion, are combined into one image
`by an image display unit 8, then displayed
`on a TV monitor 9 positioned at the
`driver’s seat.” Id. at ll. 15-20; see also
`Fig. 3(a).
`Independent claim 1 also recites, “said image processor processing
`said image data by at least one technique chosen from luminant blending,
`chrominant blending, dynamic range extending, pixel group compensation,
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00220
`Patent 7,859,565
`
`anti-blooming, multiple exposure, image morphing compensation and image
`warping compensation.” Petitioner argues that “chrominant and luminant
`blending would have been understood from Nissan’s disclosures of color
`image processing and color display, which require chrominant blending, and
`infrared image processing for nighttime recognition of obstacles, which
`requires luminant blending for displaying gray-scale images.” Pet. 27.
`Petitioner also cites Dr. Wolberg for the following:
`Nissan contemplates use of a color TV monitor to display
`color images. Pet. Ex. 1004 at p. 7, ll. 6-7. Chrominant
`blending must be used to average color images, which typically
`consists of three color components. See my state of the art
`discussion, ¶62, supra. Nissan also contemplates use of
`infrared cameras for night vision. Pet. Ex. 1004 at p. 7, ll. 9-11.
`Luminant blending is used to average the infrared data, which
`consists of a single value per pixel.
`Ex. 1101 ¶ 101. We are persuaded by the above-quoted analysis of
`Dr. Wolberg.
`Independent claim 1 also recites “wherein said synthesized image
`comprises a composite image of said image data captured by said two image
`capture devices without duplication of image information.” Nissan teaches
`that “the images from cameras 1 to N are input and converted to other
`coordinates by a perspective conversion [and] are combined into one image
`by an image display unit 8.” Ex. 1004, p. 4, ll. 15-18. As shown in Figure
`3(a), when backing up, Nissan combines the images from a rear-facing
`camera showing the area behind the vehicle with images from a side-view
`camera to form one image that is displayed to the driver. Id. Fig. 3(a); p. 4,
`ll. 29-35. With respect to the combined image being “without duplication of
`image information,” Petitioner cites Dr. Wolberg for the following:
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00220
`Patent 7,859,565
`
`
`123. Nissan performs a perspective transformation to
`display a combined image from multiple cameras on a single
`display to a driver. See Pet. Ex. 1004 at p. 3, ll. 17-19; p. 5, ll.
`12-30. The perspective transformation performed in Nissan
`geometrically aligns the images from the different cameras on
`the vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`appreciated that this process in Nissan inherently removes
`multiple exposure effects (duplication). Indeed, one of the
`primary purposes of geometric alignment
`is
`to remove
`redundancy in overlapping regions of images.
`124. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have found it obvious prior to May 1995 to produce a
`composite image without any duplication of image information.
`In order to reduce duplication in a composite image, one must
`bring the images captured by various cameras into geometric
`alignment. This is known in the art as image registration, a
`concept that was well-known prior to May 1995. See e.g., Pet.
`Ex. 1004. Nissan performs such geometric alignment by
`performing a perspective conversion among the images.
`Specifically, Nissan brings all the images into a single
`coordinate system, from
`the
`independent camera screen
`coordinates to the road surface plane. Pet. Ex. 1004 at p. 5, ll.
` Whenever such a perspective transformation is
`25-30.
`performed, duplication of image information in overlapping
`regions of the camera fields of view would be minimized
`because the duplicate image portions are overlaid upon each
`other such as to reduce multiple exposure effect.
`Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 123-24 (emphases added). We are persuaded by the above-
`quoted analysis of Dr. Wolberg.
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Nissan does
`not teach “wherein said synthesized image comprises a composite image of
`said image data captured by said two image capture devices without
`duplication of image information.” Prelim. Resp. 30-38. Patent Owner’s
`argument is based upon its proposed claim construction of “composite
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00220
`Patent 7,859,565
`
`image,” which we declined to adopt. As we construed it above, the term
`“composite image” does not require merging, stitching, or blending. Thus,
`even assuming that Patent Owner is correct that Nissan’s performance of
`perspective transformation does not teach “merging, stitching or blending
`images” (id. at 33), we are not persuaded that Nissan fails to teach a
`“composite image” as we have construed it. Moreover, we are not
`persuaded that Nissan fails to teach that the composite image is “without
`duplication of image information.” We construed that term to mean “with
`minimal multiple exposure in the composite image.” As discussed above,
`we are persuaded by Dr. Wolberg’s testimony that Nissan’s “perspective
`conversion” results in an image with minimal multiple exposure in the
`composite image.
`Patent Owner also argues that vehicle 10 in Figure 3(a) is not image
`data, but rather is drawn in by the image display unit. Id. at 34-35. Indeed,
`Nissan teaches that, “[i]n the image display unit 8, the vehicle’s position is
`simultaneously drawn in a diagram.” Ex. 1004, p. 4, ll. 22-24; see also id. p.
`6, ll. 2-4 (“Next, the monitor image C(X,Y) is cleared, and a figure of the
`vehicle is drawn with (Xo,Yo) at the center.”). However, the drawing of
`vehicle 10 is displayed together with the combined, converted images from
`each camera. Id. at p. 6, ll. 19-21 (“From the above, the converted image of
`each camera in image C(X,Y) and the drawn vehicle figure can be displayed
`together.”). Thus, its presence on the display does not preclude the
`combined image with which it is displayed from being the “combined
`image” recited in claim 1.
`We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that
`Petitioner failed to meet its burden because Nissan was considered
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00220
`Patent 7,859,565
`
`previously by the Examiner during prosecution. Prelim. Resp. 18-20. The
`fact that Nissan was disclosed in an Information Disclosure Statement
`during prosecution of the application that issued as the ’565 patent does not
`preclude Nissan from forming the basis for a ground of unpatentability.
`We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that Nissan
`is cumulative to Nishimura, which was considered by the Examiner during
`prosecution. Id. at 37-38. On this record, we are not persuaded that Nissan
`is cumulative to Nishimura. Even if it is, that does not preclude institution
`of trial on the basis of Nissan. We have considered the fact that Nishimura
`was previously considered by an Examiner.
`We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner
`failed to address secondary considerations of non-obviousness. Id. at 20-21.
`The Examiner found a prima facie case of obviousness during prosecution.
`Ex. 1002, 115-24. Patent Owner submitted a Response to Office Action that
`amended pending claims, distinguished the prior art, and included evidence
`of secondary considerations of non-obviousness. Exs. 2002, 2003; see also
`Ex. 1002, 9-111. The Examiner then issued a Notice of Allowability. Ex.
`1002, 6-8. In the Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance, the
`Examiner stated:
`[Secor’s] apparatus lacks the synthesizing and single
`display as claimed. This apparatus further lacks the non-
`duplication of information as claimed. A further search was
`conducted which failed to yield any prior art. Therefore, the
`prior art fails to teach or render obvious these limitations taken
`within the others in the claim.
`Id. at 7. Thus, the Examiner’s allowance was based upon an inability to find
`prior art that taught the recited limitations, not upon a determination that the
`evidence of secondary considerations of non-obviousness overcame the
`
`19
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00220
`Patent 7,859,565
`
`prima facie case. As a result, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s failure
`to address the evidence of secondary considerations submitted during
`prosecution precludes it from establishing a reasonable likelihood that it
`would prevail in showing that independent claim 1 is unpatentable as
`obvious over Nissan.
`We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner
`made impermissible changes to page 27 of the corrected Petition by
`presenting new substantive arguments regarding the list of processing
`techniques recited in claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 5. The substance of the
`paragraph added to page 27 of the corrected Petition is found in the original
`Petition in the portion of the claim chart spanning pages 26-27. In both
`places, Petitioner argues that Nissan’s disclosed processing requires
`chrominant