Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 13
`
`
` 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 IPR2014-00221
`Patent 7,991,522
`
`
`
`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 IPR2014-00221
`Patent 7,991,522
`
`
`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 1-50 (“the
`challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522 (Ex. 1001, “the ’522
`patent”). Paper 6 (“Pet.”). Magna Electronics, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response. Paper 12 (“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, 6, 8-10, 13-15, 27, 29-31, 36,
`38, 39, 41-43, and 47-50 of the ’522 patent. Accordingly, pursuant to 35
`U.S.C. § 314, we institute an inter partes review of only claims 1, 6, 8-10,
`13-15, 27, 29-31, 36, 38, 39, 41-43, and 47-50 of the ’522 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’522 patent is involved
`in a case captioned Magna Elecs., Inc. v. Valeo, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv-
`11376 (E.D. Mich.), filed March 28, 2013. Pet. 3; Paper 8 at 2. Petitioner
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00221
`Patent 7,991,522
`
`also has filed five petitions for inter partes review of other related patents of
`Patent Owner: IPR2014-00220 (U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565), 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 ’522 Patent
`The ’522 patent relates generally to vision or imaging systems for
`vehicles and, more particularly, to imaging systems that are operable to
`determine if a vehicle or object of interest is adjacent to, forward of, or
`rearward of the subject vehicle to assist the driver in changing lanes or
`parking the vehicle. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 18-23. The prior art included many
`lane change aid/side object detection/lane departure warning devices or
`systems, and the like, that are operable to detect a vehicle or other object that
`is present next to, ahead of, or rearward of the equipped vehicle or in a lane
`adjacent to the equipped vehicle. Id. at ll. 29-33. Such known systems
`statistically analyzed all of the pixels in a pixelated image. Id. at ll. 48-51.
`However, because such systems continuously analyze every pixel for every
`frame captured, they require expensive processing controls and
`computationally expensive software to continuously handle and process
`substantially all of the data. Id. at ll. 60-67. In addition, prior art warning
`systems may result in many intended maneuvers causing a warning. Id. at
`col. 2, ll. 19-24. As a result, the driver may begin to ignore the warnings.
`Id. at ll. 25-27.
`To address these issues, the ’522 patent discloses an object detection
`system operable to detect and/or identify a vehicle or other object of interest
`at the side, front, or rear of the vehicle equipped with the object detection
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00221
`Patent 7,991,522
`
`system. Id. at ll. 35-44. The system uses an edge detection algorithm to
`detect edges of objects in the captured images. Id. at ll. 44-51. The system
`processes a subset of image data that is representative of a target zone or
`area of interest within the field of view where a vehicle or object is likely to
`be present. Id. at ll. 51-55. The system processes the detected edges within
`the subset of image data to determine whether they are part of a vehicle. Id.
`at ll. 55-59. The system utilizes various filtering mechanisms to
`substantially eliminate or substantially ignore edges or pixels that are not or
`cannot be indicative of a vehicle or significant object to reduce the
`processing requirements and to reduce the possibility of false positive
`signals. Id. at ll. 60-65.
`Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts an overhead view of a vehicle incorporating the object
`detection system of the present invention. Id. at col. 4, ll. 7-8. Lane change
`assist or aid system 10 is positioned at vehicle 12 (such as at exterior
`rearview mirror 12a) and is operable to capture an image of a scene
`occurring sidewardly and rearwardly at or along one or both sides of vehicle
`12. Id. at ll. 47-51. Lane change assist system 10 comprises image capture
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00221
`Patent 7,991,522
`
`device or sensor or camera 14, which captures an image of the scene
`occurring toward a respective side of the vehicle 12, and control 16, which
`processes the captured image to determine whether another vehicle 18 is
`present at the side of vehicle 12. Id. at ll. 51-57. Control 16 may be further
`operable to activate a warning indicator or display or signal device to alert
`the driver of vehicle 12 that another vehicle is present at the side of vehicle
`12. Id. at ll. 57-60.
`Figure 2 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 2 is a representation of a captured image of a side area of a vehicle as
`captured by an imaging sensor. Id. at ll. 9-11. In order to verify that the
`camera or imaging sensor is mounted at the vehicle (such as at an exterior
`portion of the vehicle) within a desired tolerance limit so as to provide the
`desired field of view, the camera may detect the side of the vehicle (30)
`and/or the front door handle (32a) or rear door handle (32b) of the vehicle,
`and the control may confirm that they are in the expected location in the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00221
`Patent 7,991,522
`
`captured images. Id. at col. 6, ll. 11-19. If the control determines that the
`camera is not aligned or aimed at the desired location (such as by
`determining that the vehicle edge and/or door handle/handles are not at the
`expected location), the control may adjust the image and/or image
`processing to account for any such misalignment of the camera. Id. at ll. 19-
`24. For example, the degree of misalignment may be calculated, and the
`image processing may be adjusted or shifted and/or rotated to position the
`reference structure at the appropriate location in the captured images. Id. at
`ll. 24-28.
`Figures 3A-C are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figures 3A-C are schematics of the captured image of Figure 2, showing
`adjustments that may be made to the image processing to account for
`misalignment of the image sensor. Id. at col. 4, ll. 12-14. As shown in
`Figures 3A-C, the actual or detected vehicle edges may be misaligned or
`separated from the expected vehicle edges, such that the image processing
`may be adjusted to shift the captured image data accordingly to
`accommodate such misalignment of the camera. Id. at col. 6, ll. 42-47.
`Based on the results of the image processing techniques, data or information
`of the yaw, pitch, and roll may be used to set the polygon co-ordinates and H
`depression pixel calibration parameters, so that the expected vehicle edges
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00221
`Patent 7,991,522
`
`are substantially aligned with the actual or detected vehicle edges. Id. at ll.
`47-52.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 27, 36, 41, 44, and 47 are
`independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
`1.
`An imaging system for a vehicle, said imaging system
`comprising:
`an imaging array sensor comprising a plurality of photo-
`sensing pixels, wherein said imaging array sensor is disposed at
`an exterior rearview mirror assembly at a side of a vehicle
`equipped with said imaging system;
`wherein, when said imaging array sensor is disposed at
`the exterior rearview mirror assembly, said imaging array
`sensor has a field of view exterior of the equipped vehicle, and
`wherein said imaging array sensor is operable to capture an
`image exterior of the equipped vehicle;
`a control for processing said captured image;
`wherein said control is operable to determine that said
`imaging array sensor is misaligned when said imaging array
`sensor is disposed at the exterior rearview mirror assembly at
`the side of the equipped vehicle; and
`wherein said control, responsive to a determination of
`misalignment of said imaging array sensor, is operable to at
`least partially compensate for the determined misalignment of
`said imaging array sensor.
`
`D. References Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following references:
`Saito (“Nissan”)1
`JP 2004-1658
`Jan. 8, 2004
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`
`1 Nissan is a Japanese language document. Ex. 1002. Unless indicated
`otherwise, all citations to Nissan in this decision will refer to its certified
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00221
`Patent 7,991,522
`
`
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Oct. 7, 2003
`U.S. 6,631,316
`Stam
`July 23, 2002
`U.S. 6,424,273
`Gutta
`Broggi, Multi-Resolution Vehicle Detection Using Artificial
`Vision, 2004 IEEE INTELLIGENT VEHICLE SYMP. 310, June 14-
`17, 2004 (“Broggi”)
`Kastrinaki, A Survey of Video Processing Techniques for
`Traffic Applications, 21 IMAGE & VISION COMPUTING 359, Apr.
`2003 (“Kastrinaki”)
`Sun, On-Road Vehicle Detection Using Optical Sensors: A
`Review, PROC. 7 INT’L IEEE CONF. ON INTELLIGENT TRANSP.
`SYS. 585, Oct. 3-6, 2004 (“Sun”)
`Broggi, AUTOMATIC VEHICLE GUIDANCE: THE EXPERIENCE OF
`THE ARGO AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE, 1999 (“Broggi II”)
`Furusawa (“Hitachi”)2
`JP 2002-74339
`Mar. 15, 2002 Ex. 1012
`Breed
`U.S. 2002/0005778
`Jan. 17, 2002
`Ex. 1014
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Nissan and Hitachi
`
`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
`§ 102 1-5, 7-9, 11-14, 27-29, 32-
`38, 40, and 44-46
`§ 103 6, 10, 15, 30, 31, 39, 41-43,
`and 47-50
`§ 103 18, 21, 22(a), 25, and 26
`Nissan and Gutta
`§ 103 16
`Nissan and Stam
`§ 103 17
`Nissan, Stam, and Kastrinaki
`§ 103 16
`Nissan and Broggi II
`§ 103 23
`Nissan and Kastrinaki
`
`English language translation. Ex. 1003.
`2 Hitachi is a Japanese language document. Ex. 1012. Unless indicated
`otherwise, all citations to Hitachi in this decision will refer to its certified
`English language translation. Ex. 1013.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00221
`Patent 7,991,522
`
`
`Basis Claims challenged
`Reference(s)
`Nissan, Kastrinaki, and Broggi § 103 24
`Nissan and Broggi
`§ 103 19
`Nissan and Sun
`§ 103 20
`Nissan and Breed
`§ 103 22(b)
`
`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. “operable to at least partially compensate for the determined
`misalignment” (claims 1, 27, 36, and 47)
`Petitioner proposes that “operable to at least partially compensate for
`the determined misalignment” be construed to mean “at least partially
`correcting misalignment by adjusting the data (as defined in Section VI(D),
`below) or adjusting the image processing (as defined in Section VI(E),
`below).” Pet. 16-17. In Section VI(D), Petitioner proposes that “adjust said
`data” be construed to encompass “(i) modifying the data captured by the
`camera or image sensor and (ii) modifying what data the camera or image
`sensor is capturing, prior to such data being provided to the image
`processor.” Id. at 18. In Section VI(E), Petitioner further proposes that
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00221
`Patent 7,991,522
`
`“adjust processing”3 be construed to encompass “modifying how the data
`provided by the camera is processed (for example, by selecting an
`appropriate portion of the image data and/or analyzing the appropriate data
`(or a portion thereof)) in order to extract information.” Id. at 18-19. In
`effect, Petitioner proposes that “operable to at least partially compensate for
`the determined misalignment” be construed to encompass both modifying
`what data is captured and modifying how the captured data is processed. In
`support of its construction, Petitioner argues that its proposed construction is
`“consistent with what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
`term to mean in view of the written description contained in the ’522
`Patent.” Id. at 16-17 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 85), 18 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 83), 19
`(citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 84).
`Patent Owner argues that “operable to at least partially compensate for
`the determined misalignment” should be construed to mean “the control
`adjusts image processing of already captured image data.” Prelim. Resp.
`14-15. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s construction is unreasonably
`broad. Id. at 11-17. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s
`construction is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the term “compensate”
`and with the specification. Id.
`First, Patent Owner argues that the plain meaning of “compensate” is
`“to provide something good as a balance against something bad or
`undesirable to make up for some defect or weakness.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex.
`
`
`3 Petitioner uses three variations of this term: “adjust . . . processing,”
`“wherein said control . . . is operable to adjust processing” and “adjust . . .
`said processing.” Pet. 18-19. We refer to the term “operable to adjust
`processing,” which is recited in claims 6, 30, 39, and 41.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00221
`Patent 7,991,522
`
`2002, 1). In contrast, the plain meaning of “modify” is “to change some
`parts of the data, while not changing other parts.” Id. at 15-16 (citing Ex.
`2001, 1). Thus, according to Patent Owner, “modifying what data the
`camera or image sensor is capturing”—as proposed by Petitioner—is
`inconsistent with the plain meaning of the claim term “compensate.” Id.
`(emphasis added).
`Second, Patent Owner argues that the Specification describes only
`techniques for modifying already-captured data. Id. at 16-17 (citing Ex.
`1001, col. 6, l. 10 et seq.). According to Patent Owner, the ’522 patent
`“does not describe any sort of modification/change to the capture
`characteristics of the camera or image sensor itself,” and “accommodation of
`camera misalignment is an algorithmic/mathematical adjustment to
`processing of captured image data and is not a physical/mechanical
`correction of the physical misalignment of the camera.” Id.
`As an initial matter, the claim terms “said image data set” and “said
`image processing” each have antecedent basis in the claim. Specifically, the
`claim recites, “said captured image comprising an image data set,” and “a
`control for processing said captured image.” Ex. 1001, 17:4-6.
`Consequently, the independent claims require that the control is operable to
`adjust at least one of: 1) the image data set of the captured image and 2) the
`image processing of the captured image.
`As Patent Owner correctly points out, the ’522 patent does not
`describe a single embodiment in which a determined misalignment is
`compensated for by modifying what image data is captured by the image
`sensor or camera prior to such data being provided to the image processor.
`Instead, the ’522 patent discusses the use only of image processing
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00221
`Patent 7,991,522
`
`techniques to compensate for a determined misalignment. Ex. 1001, col. 6,
`ll. 10-63. For example, the Specification describes that during camera
`calibration, the control determines that the camera is misaligned, and the
`control may “adjust the image and/or image processing” to account for such
`misalignment. Id. at 6:10-24. The Specification goes on to describe that,
`“[f]or example, the degree of misalignment may be calculated, and the
`image processing may be adjusted or shifted and/or rotated to position the
`reference structure at the appropriate location in the captured images.” Id. at
`6:24-28.
`Finally, Patent Owner has provided sufficient and credible evidence
`that the plain meaning of “compensate” does not encompass modifying what
`data is captured. Prelim. Resp. 15-16.
`Accordingly, we agree with Patent Owner that the broadest reasonable
`construction of “operable to at least partially compensate for the determined
`misalignment,” does not include “modifying what data the camera or image
`sensor is capturing, prior to such data being provided to the image
`processor.” Prelim. Resp. 17.
`On this record, we construe “operable to at least partially compensate
`for the determined misalignment” to mean “operable to adjust image
`processing of captured image data.”
`2. “operable to adjust said data” (claims 7, 29, 38, and 44)
`Petitioner proposes that “adjust said data” be construed to encompass
`“(i) modifying the data captured by the camera or image sensor and (ii)
`modifying what data the camera or image sensor is capturing, prior to such
`data being provided to the image processor.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner does
`not propose a specific construction for this term, but does argue that
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00221
`Patent 7,991,522
`
`Petitioner’s construction is unreasonably broad. Prelim. Resp. 11-17. We
`agree. For example, with respect to dependent claim 7, “said data” refers to
`the “said captured image” recited earlier the claim which, in turn, refers to
`the image previously captured by the imaging array sensor recited in
`independent claim 1. Thus, “operable to adjust said data” does not
`encompass modifying what data the camera or image sensor captures in
`subsequent image captures. For the foregoing reasons and for the reasons
`discussed above with respect to “operable to at least partially compensate for
`the determined misalignment,” we construe “operable to adjust said data” to
`mean “operable to adjust said data previously captured by the imaging array
`sensor.”
`3. “operable to adjust processing” (claims 6, 30, 39, and 41)
`Petitioner proposes that “adjust processing”4 be construed to
`encompass “modifying how the data provided by the camera is processed
`(for example, by selecting an appropriate portion of the image data and/or
`analyzing the appropriate data (or a portion thereof)) in order to extract
`information.” Pet. 18-19. Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed
`construction. However, Petitioner’s construction limits the modification to
`how the image data is processed “in order to extract information.” In
`addition, the example provided by Petitioner relates to selecting a subset of
`the image data, but the ’522 patent describes other types of image
`processing, such as a “histogram equalization,” “edge detection,” “filter[ing]
`. . . to remove noise,” “a coarse structure fitting,” and “a fine structure fitting
`. . . for calculating shift in yaw, pitch, and roll.” Ex. 1001, col. 6, ll. 29-42.
`
`
`4 See supra note 3.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00221
`Patent 7,991,522
`
`Because not all of the processing must be “in order to extract information,”
`as required by Petitioner’s construction, Petitioner’s construction is unduly
`narrow. On this record, we construe “operable to adjust processing” to mean
`“operable to adjust image processing.”
`
`B. Impermissible Changes to Corrected Petition
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner made impermissible changes to
`the Corrected Petition in response to the Board’s Notice of Filing Date
`Accorded. Prelim. Resp. 4-5. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that
`Petitioner (1) added citations to Exhibit 1013 at pages 6-8 of the Corrected
`Petition; and (2) added language at pages 36, 54, and 57. Patent Owner is
`correct. The Board will not consider those additions for purposes of this
`Decision to Institute.
`
`C. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-14, 27-29, 32-38, 40, and 44-46 –
`Anticipated by Nissan
`Petitioner argues that claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-14, 27-29, 32-38, 40, and
`44-46 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Nissan.
`Pet. 20-35.
`Nissan (Exhibit 1003)
`Nissan describes a vehicle-mounted camera optical axis misalignment
`detection system. Ex. 1003, Title. The vehicle-mounted system 30 of the
`second embodiment captures an image of a position which is a blind spot for
`the driver at the front left of the car (near the left fender) with the vehicle-
`mounted camera 2, in response to an instruction input by the passenger of
`the car, and displays this image to the display 3, thereby providing the driver
`with driving support when, for example, making a left turn. Id. ¶ 0032. The
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00221
`Patent 7,991,522
`
`vehicle-mounted camera 2 is built in to a left-hand door mirror of the car.
`Id. The vehicle-mounted camera 2 is mounted on the car such that a left turn
`signal provided to the side of the car is visible, so as to capture images
`including the left turn signal. Id. A data ROM 8 stores an image showing
`where the turn signal ought to be observed in images captured by the
`vehicle-mounted camera 2 when the vehicle-mounted camera 2 is in an ideal
`state, mounted in a correct position and with no optical axis misalignment
`occurring. Id. ¶ 0034. A CPU 6 of control unit 5 executes an optical axis
`misalignment detection program to determine periodically whether or not
`optical axis misalignment has occurred in the vehicle-mounted camera 2. Id.
`¶ 0041. A turn signal position detection unit 33 performs a process to detect
`the position where the turn signal is displayed in the actual image of the left
`front of the car. Id. ¶ 0044. A turn signal misalignment evaluation unit 34
`compares the position where the left turn signal ought to be observed as
`shown in the template image stored in the data ROM 8 against the position
`of the left turn signal in the actual image as detected by the turn signal
`position detection unit 33, and judges, based on the degree of misalignment
`therebetween, whether or not optical axis misalignment has occurred in the
`vehicle-mounted camera 2. Id. ¶ 0045. This process is depicted in Figure 8,
`reproduced below.5
`
`
`5 Figure 8 depicts a second embodiment of Nissan. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 0043-47.
`Nissan describes a first embodiment in paragraphs 0010-31 and a second
`embodiment in paragraphs 0032-51.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00221
`Patent 7,991,522
`
`
`
`Figure 8 is a view for describing a method for detecting positional
`misalignment between a position of a left turn signal in an actual image and
`a position of the left turn signal in a template image in a vehicle-mounted
`system of the first embodiment. Id. at p. 18. As depicted in Figure 8, (a)
`shows the image captured when the left turn signal is on, (b) shows the
`image captured when the left turn signal is off, (c) shows the difference
`between the two captured images, and (d) shows an image indicating where
`the left turn signal ought to be observed. Id.
`When optical axis misalignment is detected in vehicle-mounted
`camera 2, control unit 5 drives an actuator (camera position adjusting means
`capable of adjusting the direction of the optical axis of vehicle mounted
`camera 2) according to the detected amount of optical axis misalignment in
`vehicle-mounted camera 2. Id. ¶ 0052. Specifically, control unit 5
`continuously monitors scores D1 and D2, which represent the degree of
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00221
`Patent 7,991,522
`
`misalignment, and drives the actuator such that both of these scores are
`substantially zero. Id.
`Analysis
`In light of the arguments and evidence, Petitioner has not established a
`reasonable likelihood that claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-14, 27-29, 32-38, 40, and 44-
`46 are unpatentable as anticipated by Nissan.
`Patent Owner argues that Nissan does not disclose “to at least partially
`compensate for the determined misalignment,” as recited in independent
`claims 1, 27, 36, and 44. Prelim. Resp. 17-20. As discussed above, we
`construe “operable to at least partially compensate for the determined
`misalignment” to mean “operable to adjust image processing of captured
`image data.” Nissan discloses:
`[A]n actuator (camera position adjusting means) capable
`of adjusting the direction of the optical axis of the vehicle-
`mounted camera 2 is provided to the vehicle-mounted systems
`1 and 30, and the control unit 5 drives the actuator according to
`the detected amount of optical axis misalignment in the vehicle-
`mounted camera 2.
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 0052. Thus, the system of Nissan physically moves camera 2 in
`response to the determined misalignment. Petitioner cites nothing in Nissan
`that discloses “adjust[ing] image processing of captured image data,” as we
`have construed “operable to adjust image processing of captured image
`data” to require. Pet. 20-22 (citing Ex. 1003, ¶ 0052). Accordingly, we are
`not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it
`would prevail in establishing that claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by
`Nissan.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00221
`Patent 7,991,522
`
`
`Conclusion
`We are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail in showing that independent claim 1 is
`unpatentable as anticipated by Nissan. For the same reasons, we also are not
`persuaded with respect to: (1) independent claims 27, 36, and 44; and (2)
`dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-14, 28, 29, 32-35, 37, 38, 40, 45, and 46.
`
`D. Claims 6, 10, 15, 30, 31, 39, 41-43, and 47-50 –
`Obvious over Nissan and Hitachi
`Petitioner argues that claims 6, 10, 15, 30, 31, 39, 41-43, and 47-50
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Nissan and
`Hitachi. Pet. 36-45. In support of this ground of unpatentability, Petitioner
`explains how each claim limitation is taught by Nissan or Hitachi and relies
`upon the Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Jan-Michael Frahm (“Dr.-Ing. Frahm”) (Ex.
`1010). Id. (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 169-73, 190-98).
`Hitachi (Exhibit 1013)
`Hitachi describes an image capture apparatus for recognizing a
`vehicle driving environment. Ex. 1013 ¶ 0001.
`Figure 2 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00221
`Patent 7,991,522
`
`Figure 2 shows an embodiment of the automotive image capture apparatus
`according to Hitachi being used as a driving environment recognition
`apparatus. Id. ¶ 0018. Marks 3 disposed on the left and right of hood MB of
`the automobile M. Id. at ¶ [0018]; Fig. 2. Field of view AE represents the
`image capture visual field of camera 1, and marks 3 are disposed at two
`locations on the left and right of the hood of the automobile. Id. ¶ 0019.
`When the initial mark position X of mark 3 is not identical to the current
`mark position Y (steps S4, S5) and correction is within the correctable range
`(step S9), a correction is calculated (step S10), and image data is corrected
`(step S11). Id. at ¶¶ [0032]-[0048]; Figs. 4, 5.
`Analysis
`In light of the arguments and evidence, Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood that claims 6, 10, 15, 30, 31, 39, 41-43, and 47-50 are
`unpatentable as obvious over Nissan and Hitachi.
`For example, we are persuaded that the record supports a finding that
`the limitations of independent claim 41 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:
`Independent Claim 41
`an imaging array sensor
`comprising a plurality of photo-
`sensing pixels
`wherein said imaging array sensor
`is disposed at least partially
`within an exterior rearview mirror
`assembly at a side of a vehicle
`equipped with said imaging
`system
`
`“[V]ehicle-mounted camera 2 is built in
`to a left-hand door mirror of the car.”
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 0032.
`
`Nissan
`vehicle-mounted camera 2
`
`19
`
`

`

`“[V]ehicle-mounted camera 2 is
`mounted on the car such that a left turn
`signal provided to the side of the car is
`visible, so as to capture images
`including the left turn signal.” Id.
`
`control unit 5
`
`Case IPR2014-00221
`Patent 7,991,522
`
`wherein . . . said imaging array
`sensor has a field of view exterior
`of the equipped vehicle, and
`wherein said imaging array sensor
`is operable to capture an image
`exterior of the equipped vehicle
`a control for processing said
`captured image
`wherein said control is operable
`to determine that said imaging
`array sensor is misaligned when
`said imaging array sensor is
`disposed at least partially within
`the exterior rearview mirror
`assembly at the side of the
`equipped vehicle
`
`“[T]he turn signal misalignment
`evaluation unit 34 compares the position
`where the left turn signal ought to be
`observed as shown in the template
`image . . . against the position of the left
`turn signal in the actual image as
`detected by the turn signal position
`detection unit 33, and judges . . .
`whether or not optical axis
`misalignment has occurred in the
`vehicle-mounted camera 2.” Id. ¶ 45.
`Independent claim 41 also recites “wherein said control, responsive to
`a determination of misalignment of said imaging array sensor, is operable to
`adjust processing of said captured image to at least partially compensate for
`the determined misalignment of said imaging array sensor.” Petitioner cites
`Hitachi for disclosing that:
`[W]hen the image data correction amount is calculated in Step
`S10, that result is assessed in Step S14 as to whether or not it is
`only a case of translational displacement, as shown in Fig. 7(a).
`If the result is Yes, instead of image data correction, the used
`image area A1 and the initial mark 3A position X are changed,
`as shown in Fig. 7(b).
`Ex. 1013 ¶ 54. We are persuaded that by Petitioner’s citation is sufficiently
`supported by the reference.
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner fails
`to cite any testimonial support from Dr.-Ing. Frahm. Prelim. Resp. 20-21.
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-00221
`Patent 7,991,522
`
`To the contrary, Petitioner cites Dr.-Ing. Frahm’s testimony. Pet. 36 (citing
`Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 190-98). Moreover, this testimony explains Hitachi (Ex. 1010
`¶ 196) and articulates a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have been motivated to combine Hitachi and Nissan (id. ¶ 197).
`Petitioner has, therefore, provided sufficient explanation of Hitachi and the
`proposed combination with 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 and luminant blending (citing Ex. 1004 Fig. 4, col. 7, ll. 6-7, ll.
`9-11, l. 35; Ex. 1011 ¶ 101), and that image warping was a known technique
`for image processing at the time of the invention of the ’565 patent (citing
`Ex. 1011, ¶¶ 128-29).
`Claim 6
`Claim 6 depends from inde