Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 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
`_______________
`
`Cases IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228
`Patent 7,877,175 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.108, 42.122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 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
`_______________
`
`Cases IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228
`Patent 7,877,175 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.108, 42.122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228
`Patent 7,877,175 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`In case IPR2014-00227, Valeo, Inc., Valeo S.A., Valeo GmbH, Valeo
`Schalter und Sensoren GmbH, and Connaught Electronics Ltd. (collectively,
`“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2) to institute an inter partes review of
`claims 1-12, 15-19, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,877,175 B2 (Ex. 1001, the
`“’175 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311-319. Petitioner submitted a
`revised Petition (Paper 6, “Pet. ’227”) on December 18, 2013. Magna
`Electronics, Inc, (“Patent Owner”) submitted a Preliminary Response on
`March 14, 2014 (Paper 12, “Prelim. Resp. ’227”).
`In case IPR2014-00228, Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper 4) to
`institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 8, 9, 12-16, 19, 20, and 22-27, of
`the ’175 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311-319. Petitioner submitted a
`revised Petition (Paper 7, “Pet. ’228”) on December 18, 2013. Patent Owner
`submitted a Preliminary Response on March 14, 2014 (Paper 13, “Prelim.
`Resp. ’228”).
`35 U.S.C. § 315(d) governs consolidation of inter partes reviews and
`provides:
`(d) MULTIPLE PROCEEDINGS.—Notwithstanding sections
`135(a), 251, and 252, and chapter 30, during the pendency of an
`inter partes review, if another proceeding or matter involving
`the patent is before the Office, the Director may determine the
`manner in which the inter partes review or other proceeding or
`matter may proceed, including providing for stay, transfer,
`consolidation, or termination of any such matter or proceeding.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a) provides that “[w]here another matter involving
`the patent is before the Office, the Board may during the pendency of the
`inter partes review enter any appropriate order regarding the additional
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228
`Patent 7,877,175 B2
`
`matter including providing for the stay, transfer, consolidation, or
`termination of any such matter.” The Board’s rules for AIA proceedings
`“shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of
`every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,758 (August 14, 2012).
`Case IPR2013-00227 and case IPR2013-00228 involve the same
`patent and parties, and there is overlap in the asserted prior art and additional
`evidence submitted by Petitioner.
`We conclude that, under the present circumstances, it is appropriate to
`consolidate case IPR2014-00227 with that of case IPR2014-00228.
`Therefore, decisions to institute inter partes review are entered concurrently
`in both proceedings. Petitioner will be required to re-file any exhibits
`unique to case IPR2014-00228 under case IPR2014-00227, and no further
`papers should be filed in case IPR2014-00228.
`The Board has 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):
`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 Petition, we determine that Petitioner
`established a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail with respect to
`at least one challenged claim. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we institute inter
`parties review as to claims 19 and 25-27, but not claims 1-18 and 20-24 of
`the ’175 patent.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Cases IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228
`Patent 7,877,175 B2
`
`Related Proceedings
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner states that the ’175
`patent is involved in Magna Electronics, Inc. v. Valeo, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-
`cv-11376 (E.D. Mich.) (filed Mar. 28, 2013). Pet. ’227, 4; Pet. ’228, 4. This
`litigation remains pending. Pet. ’227, 4; Pet. ’228, 4.
`Petitioner filed four petitions for inter partes review of other related
`patents of the same Patent Owner: IPR2014-00220 (U.S. Patent No.
`7,859,565), IPR2014-00221 (U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522), IPR2014-00222
`(U.S. Patent No. 8,386,114, and IPR2014-00223 (U.S. Patent No.
`8,386,114).
`
`The ’175 Patent
`The ’175 patent relates to an imaging system that includes a lane
`departure warning system, and is operable to determine if a vehicle or object
`of interest is adjacent, forward, or rearward of the vehicle to assist the driver
`in changing lanes or parking the vehicle. Ex. 1001, 1:15-22.1
`
`B.
`
`
`1 The ’175 patent is Exhibit 1001 in both Pet. ’227 and Pet. ’228.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228
`Patent 7,877,175 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 of the ’175 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 1 is a top plan view of a vehicle incorporating
`the object detection system of the ’175 patent.2
`The system includes: 1) an imaging array sensor and 2) a control. Id.
`at 3:12-14.
`The imaging array sensor comprises a plurality of photo-sensing
`pixels. Id. at 3:14-16. The sensor is positioned with a field of view
`exteriorly of the vehicle, and is operable to capture an image of that view
`that comprises an image data set. Id. at 3:16-20.
`The control algorithmically processes the image data set of the
`captured image into a reduced image data set, and the control processes the
`reduced data set to extract information. Id. at 3:20-24. The control is
`operable to: determine if the imaging array sensor is misaligned, calculate a
`degree of misalignment, and adjust the image data set or the image
`processing to account for such misalignment. Id. at 6:10-29, 54-55.
`Additionally, the control may also be operable to activate a warning
`indicator to alert the driver of the vehicle that another vehicle is present at
`the side of the driver’s vehicle. Id. 4:57-60; Fig. 1.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`2 Ex. 1001, 4:7-8.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Cases IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228
`Patent 7,877,175 B2
`
`Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 16, 19, 22, and 25 are
`independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
`1.
`An imaging system for a vehicle comprising:
`an imaging array sensor comprising a plurality of photo-
`sensing pixels, wherein said imaging array sensor is
`positioned at the vehicle and has a field of view exterior
`of the vehicle, and wherein said imaging array sensor is
`operable to capture an image of a scene exterior of the
`vehicle, said captured image comprising an image data
`set representative of the exterior scene;
`a control for processing said captured image, said control
`algorithmically processing said image data set to a
`reduced image data set of said image data set, said
`control processing said reduced image data set to extract
`information from said reduced image data set;
`wherein said control is operable to determine that said imaging
`array sensor is not aligned within a desired tolerance
`when said imaging array sensor is positioned at the
`vehicle; and
`wherein said control, responsive to a determination of a
`misalignment of said imaging array sensor when said
`imaging array sensor is positioned at the vehicle, is
`operable to adjust at least one of said image data set and
`said image processing to at least partially compensate for
`the determined misalignment of said imaging array
`sensor.
`Ex. 1001, claim 1.
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228
`Patent 7,877,175 B2
`
`Prior Art Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Gutta
`Breed
`
`US 6,424,273 B1
`US 2002/0005778
`A1
`US 6,631,316 B2
`Stam
`Gentex3 US 2004/0164228
`A1
`EP 1 074 430 A1
`
`Diamler
`Chrysler4
`Hitachi5
`Nissan6
`
`
`Ex. #
`Pet. ’227
`1006
`n/a
`
`July 23, 2002
`January 17,
`2002
`October 7, 2003 1007
`August 26, 2004 n/a
`
`July 2, 2001
`
`n/a
`
`Ex. #,
`Pet. ’228
`1006
`1012
`
`n/a
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1003
`1005
`
`JP 2002-74339
`JP 2004-1658
`
`March 15, 2002 1003
`January 8, 2004 1005
`
`
`3 The named inventors are Jeremy Fogg, et al., but we denote this reference
`as “Gentex” (the assignee) for consistency with its use in the Petition. See
`e.g., Pet. ’228, 7.
`4 The named inventors are Boon and Mehring, but we denote this reference
`as “DaimlerChrysler” (the assignee) for consistency with its use in the
`Petition. See e.g., Pet. ’228, 8.
`5 The named inventor is Isao Furusawa, but we denote this reference as
`“Hitachi” for consistency with its use in the Petition. See, e.g., Pet. ’227 at
`6-7; see also Pet. ’227, Ex. 1003 at page 1 (identifying Hitachi as the
`applicant). In IPR2014-00227, Hitachi is Ex. 1002, and Ex. 1003 is its
`certified English translation.
`6 The named inventor is Hiroshi Saito, but we denote this reference as
`“Nissan” for consistency with Petitioner. See, e.g., Pet. ’227 at 7; see also
`Pet. ’227, Ex. 1005 at page 26 (identifying Nissan as the assignee). In
`IPR2014-00227, Nissan is Ex. 1004, and Ex. 1005 is its certified English
`translation.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228
`Patent 7,877,175 B2
`
`Alberto Broggi et al., Multi-Resolution Vehicle Detection Using
`
`Artificial Vision, 2004 IEEE INTELLIGENT VEHICLES SYMP. 310 (Pet. ’227,
`Ex. 1008) (“Broggi”).
`
`V. Kastrinaki, et al., A Survey of Video Processing Techniques for
`
`Traffic Applications 21 IMAGE & VISION COMPUTING 359 (2003) (Pet. ’228,
`Ex. 1010) (“Kastrinaki”)
`
`Zehang Sun, et al., On-Road Vehicle Detection Using Optical
`
`Sensors: A Review, 2004 IEEE INT’L CONF. ON INTELLIGENT TRANSP. SYS. 1
`(Pet. ’227 & Pet. ’228, Ex. 1009) (“Sun”).
`
`E.
`
`The Asserted Grounds
`1.
`Pet. ’227
`Petitioner contends that claims 1-12, 15-19, and 21 of the ’175 patent
`are unpatentable on the following grounds. Pet. ’227, 8.
`Reference[s]
`Basis
`Claims challenged
`Hitachi
`§ 102(b)
`1-7, 9, 12, 15-19, and 21
`
`Nissan and Stam
`
`Nissan and Stam7
`
`Nissan, Stam, and Gutta
`
`Hitachi and Broggi
`
`Hitachi and Sun
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 3, and 5-7
`
`1, 2, 4-6, 8, and 15
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`
`7 The difference between this ground of unpatentability and the preceding
`ground is explained in section IV.C. below.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228
`Patent 7,877,175 B2
`
`2. Pet. ’228
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 8, 9, 12-14, 16, 19, 20, and 22-27 of
`the ’175 patent are unpatentable on the following grounds. Pet. ’228, 9-10.
`Reference[s]
`Basis
`Claims challenged
`
`Gutta and Hitachi
`
`Gutta, Hitachi, and
`Gentex
`Gutta, Hitachi, and
`Kastrinaki
`Gutta and Hitachi
`
`Gutta, Hitachi, and
`Gentex
`Gutta, Hitachi, Gentex,
`and Sun
`Gutta and Nissan
`
`Gutta, Nissan, and
`Gentex
`Gutta, Nissan, and
`DaimlerChrylser
`Gutta, Hitachi, and
`Breed
`
`
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 8, 9, 13, and 15
`
`12 and 16
`
`14
`
`22
`
`19, 23, and 24
`
`20
`
`25-27
`
`26
`
`26
`
`13
`
`CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`II.
`The Board interprets claims using the broadest reasonable
`construction. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Cases IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228
`Patent 7,877,175 B2
`
`Operable to adjust
`Independent claim 1 is directed to an imaging system for a vehicle
`that includes an imaging array sensor and a control. The imaging array
`sensor is operable to capture an image of a scene exterior of the vehicle
`comprising an image data set. Responsive to a determination of
`misalignment of the imaging array sensor, the control “is operable to adjust
`at least one of [1] said image data set and [2] said image processing to at
`least partially compensate for the determined misalignment of said imaging
`array sensor.” Ex. 1001, 17:15-21 (numbering added). Claims 16, 19, 22,
`and 25 contain similar requirements.
`1.
`Adjusting the Image Data Set
`Petitioner construes adjusting the image data set as claimed to mean
`any modification of the data captured or “what data the camera or image
`sensor is capturing” prior to such data being analyzed using image
`processing. Pet. ’227, 17.8 Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s
`construction of adjusting the image data set as claimed is incorrect. Prelim.
`Resp. ’227, 11-19; Prelim. Resp. ’228, 9-13. Specifically, Patent Owner
`asserts that adjusting the image data set as claimed is an adjustment to
`already captured image data and does not cover modifying what data the
`camera (imaging array sensor) is capturing prior to such data being provided
`to the image processor.9 Prelim. Resp. ’227, 10-19; Prelim. Resp. ’228,
`9-13.
`
`
`8 Petitioner’s claim construction in IPR2014-00228 is similar. See Pet.
`’228, 18-20.
`9 With regard to case IPR2014-00227, Patent Owner’s proffered claim
`construction is only made with respect to Nissan, and in case IPR2014-
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228
`Patent 7,877,175 B2
`
`Adjusting Image Processing
`2.
`Petitioner construes adjusting image processing as claimed to mean
`modifying how the image data provided by the camera is processed in order
`to extract information. Id. at 18-19. Patent Owner does not address
`Petitioner’s construction of adjusting image processing as claimed.
`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.
`Consistent with this interpretation, 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 6:25-29.
`In light of this, we agree with Patent Owner that the claims require
`that the control is operable to adjust the image data set of a captured image.
`To the extent that Petitioner’s proposed construction encompasses the
`
`00228 Patent Owner does not tie the proffered claim construction to a single
`reference. See Prelim. Resp. ’227, 11-19; Prelim. Resp. 2’228, 9-13.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228
`Patent 7,877,175 B2
`
`adjustment of something other than a previously captured image, this
`interpretation is incorrect. See Pet. ’227, 17.
`Patent Owner also draws a distinction between “modifying,” as used
`by Petitioner, and “compensating,” as recited in the claims. See Prelim.
`Resp. ’227, 15-16; Ex. 2001; Ex. 200210; see also Pet. ’227, 17-18 (asserting
`that the adjusting as claimed should be interpreted as modifying). Based
`upon this distinction, Patent Owner asserts that the claims require the control
`to be operable to compensate for misalignment by adjusting the image data
`set of a captured image and not by physical adjustment of camera alignment.
`Prelim. Resp. ’227, 16. Our interpretation is consistent with the contention
`that the claims require adjusting either the image data set or the image
`processing of a captured image.
`Petitioner’s contention that adjusting image processing means
`modifying how the image data provided by the camera (a captured image) is
`processed in order to extract information is consistent with our
`interpretation. See Pet. ’227, 18; Pet. ’228, 19-20.
`Consequently, independent claims 1, 16, 19, 22, and 25 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.
`
`
`III. Revised Petitions
`
`A.
`
`Pet. ’227
`The Board notified Petitioner that the original Petition (Paper 2) was
`accorded a filing date, and ordered Petitioner to correct the improper
`
`10 Exhibits 2001 and 2002 are the same in Pet. ’227 and Pet. ’228.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228
`Patent 7,877,175 B2
`
`inclusion of attorney argument in the claim charts without making
`substantive changes. Paper 5, 1-2. In response, Petitioner made a timely
`submittal of a revised Petition (Pet. ’227). In section IV.B.1 of the revised
`Petition, Petitioner added citations to Exhibit 1010 (Declaration of Dr. -ing
`Frahm) to each of paragraphs (1)-(6) (e.g., “See also Ex. 1010 ¶ 95-103”).
`See Pet. ’227, 6-8; see also Prelim Resp. ’227, 3-4 (noting the addition of
`these citations).
`The Board directed Petitioner to remove attorney argument from the
`claim charts, and no other changes were authorized. See Paper 5, 1-2. The
`citations Petitioner added to the revised Petition (Pet. ’227) were not present
`in the claim charts of the original Petition (Paper 2). Therefore, these
`additions were not authorized. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c) (requiring a
`motion to correct clerical or typographical mistakes in a petition).
`Accordingly, we evaluate the revised Petition (Pet. ’227) as if the citations at
`issue were not included.
`
`B. Pet. ’228
`The Board notified Petitioner that the original Petition (Paper 4) was
`awarded a filing date, and ordered Petitioner to correct the improper
`inclusion of attorney argument in the claim charts without making
`substantive changes. Paper 6, 1-2. In response, the Petitioner made a timely
`submittal of a revised Petition (Pet. ’228). In section IV.B.1 of the revised
`Petition, Petitioner added citations to Exhibit 1011 (Declaration of Dr.-Ing
`Frahm) to each of paragraphs (1)-(8) (e.g., “See also Ex. 1011 ¶ 95-103”).
`See Pet. ’228, 6-9; see also Prelim Resp. ’228, 3-4 (noting the addition of
`these citations).
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228
`Patent 7,877,175 B2
`
`The Board directed Petitioner to remove attorney argument from the
`claim charts, and no other changes were authorized. See Paper 6, 1-2. The
`citations Petitioner added to the revised Petition (Pet. ’228) were not present
`in the claim charts of the original Petition (Paper 4). Therefore, these
`additions were not authorized. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c) (requiring a
`motion to correct clerical or typographical mistakes in a petition).
`Accordingly, we evaluate the revised Petition (Pet. ’228) as if the citations at
`issue were not included.
`Patent Owner also asserts that Petitioner improperly added two
`paragraphs to the revised Petition. Prelim. Resp. ’228, 3-4 (citing page 28 of
`the original and the revised Petition).
`The information added is information that was removed from the
`claims charts. Cf. Paper 4, 30 to Pet. ’228, 28. Such modification was
`directed by the Board, and therefore this information is properly before us on
`review. See Paper 6, 1-2.
`
`
`IV. PATENTABILITY11
`Anticipation by Hitachi - Claims 1-7, 9, 12, 15-19, and 21
`A.
`Petitioner contends that claims 1-7, 9, 12, 15-19, and 21 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Hitachi. Pet. ’227, 19-
`34.
`
`On the record before us, for the reasons that follow, we are not
`persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner will prevail with
`
`11 Subsections A-E address grounds from Pet. ’227, and subsections F-N
`address grounds from Pet. ’228. Exhibit numbers cited are to the respective
`petition involved.
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228
`Patent 7,877,175 B2
`
`respect to claims 1-7, 9, 12, 15-18, and 21; however, we are persuaded there
`is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing that
`claim 19 is anticipated by Hitachi.
`1.
`Hitachi (Ex. 1003)
`
`Hitachi discloses an image capture apparatus for recognizing a vehicle
`driving environment that is capable of detecting changes in either field angle
`or image rotation through reference to two photographic subjects in the
`image capture viewing field. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ [0001], [0010].
`Figure 2 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 shows an embodiment of Hitachi’s automotive image
`capture apparatus being used as a driving environment
`recognition apparatus.
`Hitachi’s camera includes image capture device 11 such as a charge-
`coupled device (CCD) having an optoelectic conversion surface made up of
`a plurality of optoelectric conversion elements known as pixels. Id. at ¶¶
`[0003], [0015] - [0017]. Rather than capturing image data on the entire
`optoelectric surface of the camera (capture-capable image area A0), the
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228
`Patent 7,877,175 B2
`
`camera captures image data on used image area A1. Id. at ¶ [0015]; Fig. 1.
`By selecting the pixels that will acquire image data (the used image area
`A1), the field angle can be altered and image rotation can be obtained
`without actually moving the optoelectrical conversion surface (capture-
`capable image area A0) of the image capture device 11. Id. at ¶ [0017].
`Thus, misalignment may be detected and corrected without moving the
`camera by selecting the pixels that acquire image data to alter the field angle
`and/or rotate the image. Id. at ¶¶ [0043]-[0046].
`Hitachi discloses an embodiment having marks 3 disposed on the left
`and right of hood MB of the automobile M. Id. at ¶ [0018]; Fig. 2. 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.
`
`Additionally, Hitachi’s forward vehicle recognition unit 151 detects
`objects, such as a forward vehicle, and danger avoidance decision unit 17
`and warning issuance decision unit 172 determines when the driven vehicle
`is abnormally close to that object, and warns the driver via display unit 5.
`Id. at ¶¶ [0025]-[0029]; Fig. 3. Hitachi’s same-vehicle lane positional
`relationship calculation unit 154, in conjunction with danger avoidance
`decision unit 17 and warning issuance decision unit 172, detects when the
`driven vehicle is about to deviate from its lane and warns the driver via
`display 5. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228
`Patent 7,877,175 B2
`
`2. Analysis
`
`a. Claims 1-7, 9, 12, 15-18, and 21
`Each of independent claims 1 and 16 are directed to an imaging
`system having a control that algorithmically processes a captured image
`comprising an image data set to a reduced image data set. This limitation is
`also present in claims 2-7, 9, 12, 15, 17, and 18 by virtue of their
`dependence from claims 1 and 16, respectively. Claim 21 depends from
`independent claim 19 and contains a similar limitation.
`Petitioner asserts that, “Hitachi discloses an image processor that
`reduces the captured image data.” Pet. ’227, 20, 28, 34. In support of this
`contention, Petitioner identifies image operation unit 1B as depicted in
`Figure 3 of Hitachi as an image processor, and quotes a portion of
`paragraphs [0016] and [0025] of Hitachi.12 Id. at 20.
`Petitioner asserts that the image processor processes the image data
`set to a reduced image data set, but does not address that the claims require
`“algorithmically processing.”
`Further, the portions of the reference quoted by Petitioner do not
`describe algorithmically processing a captured image. See Pet. ’227, 20
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ [0016], [0025]; Fig. 3. Specifically, the first portion of
`the reference quoted by Petitioner describes that Hitachi’s image capture
`device has a large optoelectric conversion surface so that the used image
`capture area A1 is smaller the capture-capable image area A0. Ex. 1003 ¶
`[0016]. The second portion cited by Petitioner relates to the components of
`image processing unit 15 (i.e., units 151-154), and does not address
`
`12 It appears Petitioner cited “Ex. 1002” when “Ex. 1003” was intended.
`See Pet. ’227, 20.
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228
`Patent 7,877,175 B2
`
`algorithmically processing image data. Id. ¶ 25. Nor does Figure 3 support
`Petitioner’s contention. Figure 3 of Hitachi, depicts image operation unit
`1B, which is comprised of numerous sub-units (e.g., Comparison Unit 164,
`Forward Vehicle Recognition Unit 151) that perform a variety of functions,
`none of which have a name indicating algorithmic processing of image data..
`Ex 1003, Fig. 3, ¶¶ [0022]-[0024]. Further, Petitioner fails to identify
`which of these sub-units performs algorithmic processing to reduce the data
`set as claimed. See Pet. ’227, 20.
`As detailed above, Hitachi’s camera does not capture image data on
`the entire optoelectric surface of the camera (capture-capable image area
`A0); rather, the camera captures image data on a portion (used image area
`A1) of that entire surface. Id. at ¶ [0015]; Fig. 1. In a sense, Hitachi’s
`camera captures a reduced image data set in that used image area A0 is
`smaller than the capture-capable image area A1. However, capturing a
`reduced image data set differs from capturing an image that comprises an
`image data set and then algorithmically processing it into a reduced image
`data set as claimed.
`Petitioner has not provided sufficient and credible evidence that
`Hitachi discloses the limitation at issue. Therefore, on the record before us,
`Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the
`assertion that claims 1-7, 9, 12, 15-18, and 21 are anticipated by Hitachi.
`b. Claim 19
`
`
`
`Independent claim 19 differs from independent claims 1 and 16 in that
`claim 19 does not require the control to process the captured imaged to a
`reduced image data set. Due to this distinction, the shortcoming of
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228
`Patent 7,877,175 B2
`
`Petitioner’s assertion with regard to Hitachi discussed above is not relevant
`to claim 19.
`
`Claim 19 also differs from independent claims 1 and 16 in that the
`imaging system of claim 19 is required to include at least one of: an object
`detection system for detecting an object exterior of the vehicle, a headlamp
`control system for detecting a headlamp of a vehicle in the field of view, and
`a lane departure warning system.
`
`Petitioner explains how each claim limitation is disclosed by Hitachi.
`Pet. ’227, 32-34 (incorporating support from claim 1 at Pet. ’227, 19-22).
`For example, Petitioner identifies Hitachi’s camera 1 as an imaging array
`sensor, and Hitachi’s image operation unit 1B as a control for processing the
`captured image. Id. at 32, 19-20; Ex. 1003 ¶ [0022]; Fig. 3. Petitioner
`explains that Hitachi’s system detects camera misalignment and corrects by
`adjusting the captured image. Pet. ’227, 33; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ [0032], [0039]-
`[0041]. Further, Petitioner explains that Hitachi’s system includes an object
`detection system (image processing unit 15 includes a forward vehicle
`recognition unit 151) and a lane departure warning system (same-vehicle
`lane positional relationship calculation unit 154 in conjunction with warning
`issuance decision unit 172). Pet. ’227, 33-34; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ [0025], [0029].
`
`Patent Owner presents two arguments against this ground of
`unpatentability. First, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner “at no point cites
`to any expert testimony to support its case for anticipation.” Prelim. Resp.
`’227, 10. This argument is unpersuasive because expert testimony is not
`required in every case.
`
`Second, Patent Owner argues that the Petition only quotes various
`portions of Hitachi without an accompanying discussion of the basis for
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228
`Patent 7,877,175 B2
`
`applying Hitachi. Id. Contrary to this assertion, the Petition contains
`discussion of the basis for applying Hitachi. For example, the Petition
`explains that Hitachi discloses “an automotive image capture apparatus,”
`and “a vehicle-mounted camera” having an exterior field of view. Pet. ’227,
`32-34, 19-22. The Petition also explains that Hitachi discloses
`“functionality to detect camera misalignment,” and “correction of the
`detected misalignment by adjusting the captured image.” Id. at 33.
`We note that Petitioner cites for support to Hitachi’s Figure 6. Id. at
`
`33 (“see also, FIG. 6”). Figure 6 of Hitachi relates to Hitachi’s third
`embodiment, while the remainder of this ground of unpatentability relies
`upon Hitachi’s first embodiment. See id. at 19-22, 32-34; Ex. 1003
`¶¶ [0015]-[0048] (first embodiment); [0052]-[0056], Figs. 6, 7 (third
`embodiment). Given that Figures 4 and 6 utilize similar step numbering
`(e.g., S10), it is possible that reference to Figure 4 was intended. See Ex.
`1003, Figs. 4, 6. More importantly, Petitioner’s citation to Figure 6 does not
`amount to an improper attempt to mix embodiments in an anticipation
`ground because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing in demonstrating that claim 19 is anticipated by Hitachi’s first
`embodiment. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) (combining different embodiments not proper for
`anticipation).
`Based on Petitioner’s above-mentioned contentions and cited
`evidence in the record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating that claim 19
`is unpatentable over Hitachi.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Cases IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228
`Patent 7,877,175 B2
`
`Obviousness over Nissan and Stam - Claims 1, 3, and 5-7
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 3, and 5-7 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Nissan and Stam. Pet. ’227, 35-41. On
`the record before us, for the reasons that follow, Petitioner has not
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in this contention.
`1. Nissan
`Nissan describes a vehicle-mounted camera optical axis misalignment
`
`detection system. Ex. 1005, 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. at ¶ 0032.
`The 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. at ¶ 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 v
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
