Paper 15 IPR2014-00296
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822 Paper 15 IPR2014-00297
`
`
` Paper 19 IPR2014-00298
`
`
`
`
`
` Entered: July 3, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`TRW AUTOMOTIVE US LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Cases IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
`Patent 8,324,552 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
`BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
` Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2012, Page 1
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
`Patent 8,324,552 B2
`
`
`Claims
`
`Petition
`Paper No.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`TRW Automotive US LLC (“Petitioner”) filed three Petitions requesting
`inter partes review of claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 15-18, 20-39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 53, 55, 58-
`64, 66-71, 73-87, and 90-104 of U.S. Patent No. 8,324,552 B2 (“the ’552 patent”).
`The patent owner, Magna Electronics Inc. (“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary
`Response in each of the three proceedings, as listed in the following chart:
`
`Case No.
`
`Preliminary
`Response Paper
`No.
`8
`(“296 Prelim.
`Resp.”)
`8
`(“297 Prelim.
`Resp.”)
`12
`(“298 Prelim.
`Resp.”)
`
`IPR2014-
`00296
`
`1, 4-6, 9-11, 15-18, 20-39, 41,
`42, 44, 45, 53, 55, and 58-601
`
`IPR2014-
`00297
`
`IPR2014-
`00298
`
`61-64, 66-71, and 73-87
`
`90-1042
`
`1
`(“296
`Pet.”)
`1
`(“297
`Pet.”)
`1
`(“298
`Pet.”)
`
`
`Cases IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298 involve the
`same patent and parties, and there is overlap in the asserted prior art and additional
`evidence submitted by Petitioner.
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a):
`
`
`1 Claims 34-37 were omitted from the listing of challenged claims in Section II.A.
`of the IPR2014-00296 petition; however, Petitioner provided arguments
`challenging the patentability of claims 34-37. 296 Pet. 4, 53-56.
`2 Claims 90 and 101 were omitted from the listing of challenged claims in Section
`II.A. of the IPR2014-00298 petition; however, Petitioner provided arguments
`challenging the patentability of claims 90 and 101. 298 Pet. 4, 15-22, and 25-26.
`2
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2012, Page 2
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
`Patent 8,324,552 B2
`
`
`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.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Upon consideration of the
`Petitions and Preliminary Reponses, we determine that the information presented
`does not show that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`establishing the unpatentability of any challenged claim of the ’552 patent for the
`reasons that follow. Accordingly, we deny the Petitions and do not institute an
`inter partes review of the ’552 patent.
`A. Related Proceedings
`TRW states that the ’552 patent is involved in a pending district court
`infringement action, Magna Electronics Inc. v. TRW Automotive Holding Corp.,
`Case No. 1:12-cv-00654-PLM (W.D. Mich.). Pet. 4-5.
`B. The ’552 Patent
`The ’552 patent relates generally to an image sensing system for a vehicle,
`and, in particular, to a system for controlling the headlights of the vehicle. Ex.
`1002, 1:24-26. The disclosed system particularly is adapted to controlling the
`vehicle’s headlamps in response to sensing the headlights of oncoming vehicles
`and taillights of leading vehicles. Id. at 1:26-29. The image processing system is
`capable of identifying unique characteristics of light sources by comparing light
`source characteristics with spectral signatures of known light sources, such as
`headlights and taillights. Id. at 1:67-2:9.
`As shown generally in Figure 2 of the ’552 patent, reproduced below, the
`image processing system includes imaging sensor module 14, which senses light
`
`
`
`3
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2012, Page 3
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
`Patent 8,324,552 B2
`
`from a scene forward of the vehicle; imaging control circuit 13,3 which receives
`data from sensor 14; and vehicle lighting control logic module 16, which
`exchanges data with control circuit 13 and controls headlamps 18 for the purpose
`of modifying the headlight beam. Id. at 3:44-51.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of the ’552 patent is a partial side view of a vehicle headlight dimming
`control system.
`Imaging sensor module 14 includes a lens, an array of photon-accumulating
`light sensors, and a spectral separation device, such as a filter array, for separating
`light from the scene forward of the vehicle into a plurality of spectral bands. Id. at
`
`3 The Specification also refers to imaging control circuit 13 as a “digital signal
`processor.” See Ex. 1002, 3:47 (“imaging control circuit 13”), 4:53–54 (“digital
`signal processor 13”). This explains why reference numeral 13 in Figure 2 points
`to a box labelled “DSP,” i.e., digital signal processor.
`4
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2012, Page 4
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
`Patent 8,324,552 B2
`
`4:24-29. Digital signal processor 13 includes an analog-to-digital converter, which
`receives the output of the array of photon-accumulating light sensors and converts
`the analog pixel values to digital values. Id. at 4:56-58. The digital values are
`supplied to a taillight detection circuit and a headlight detection circuit. Id. at
`4:58-60.
`The taillight detection circuit detects a red light source having intensity
`above a particular threshold. Id. at 5:4-5. For each pixel that is “red,” a
`comparison is made with adjacent “green” pixels and “blue” pixels. Id. at 5:6-7. If
`the intensity of a red pixel is more than a particular number of times the intensity
`of an adjacent green pixel and an adjacent blue pixel, then it is determined that the
`light source is red. Id. at 5:7-10. The headlight detection circuit carries out a
`similar process. Id. at 5:13-21. The image processing system recognizes the
`spectral signatures of detected light sources, i.e., headlights and taillights, as well
`as the spectral signatures of rejected light sources, such as lane markers, signs, and
`other sources of reflected light, all of which may be identified readily by their
`spectral signature. Id. at 10:38-47.
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 15-18, 20-39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 53,
`55, 58-64, 66-71, 73-87, and 90-104 of the ’552 patent. Of the challenged claims,
`claims 1, 61, 79, and 90 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
`illustrative and reads as follows:
`
`1. An image sensing system for a vehicle, said image
`sensing system comprising:
`
`an imaging sensor comprising a two-dimensional CMOS
`array of light sensing photosensor elements;
` wherein said imaging sensor has a forward field of view to
`the exterior of a windshield of a vehicle equipped with said
`image sensing system;
`
`
`
`5
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2012, Page 5
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
`Patent 8,324,552 B2
`
`
` wherein said imaging sensor views through the windshield of
`the equipped vehicle at a region of the windshield that is swept
`by a windshield wiper of the equipped vehicle;
` wherein said imaging sensor is operable to capture image
`data;
` wherein said imaging sensor is operable to capture frames
`of image data at a plurality of exposure periods;
`
`a control comprising an image processor;
` wherein said image sensing system identifies objects in
`said forward field of view of said imaging sensor via processing
`of said captured image data by said image processor;
` wherein identification of objects is based at least in part on
`at least one of (i) shape, (ii) luminance, (iii) geometry,
`(iv) spatial location, (v) motion and (vi) spectral characteristic;
`and
` wherein objects identified by said image sensing system
`comprise at least one of (i) headlights of approaching vehicles,
`(ii) taillights of leading vehicles, (iii) lane markers on a road
`being traveled by the equipped vehicle, (iv) traffic signs,
`(v) traffic lights, (vi) stop signs and (vii) caution signs.
`
`Exhibit5
`1004
`
`D. References Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references and the declaration
`of Jeffrey A. Miller, Ph.D. (Ex. 1016):
`Patents/Printed Publications4 Date
`References
`Yanagawa
`Japanese Kokai Application,
`June 15, 1987
`No. S62-131837, with
`certified translation
`U.S. Patent No. 4,521,804
`Vellacott, “CMOS in
`Camera,” IEEE Review
`
`Bendell
`Vellacott
`
`June 4, 1985
`May 1994
`
`1005
`1006
`
`
`4 Petitioner relies upon a certified translation for both Yanagawa (Ex. 1004) and
`Tadashi (Ex. 1011), and provides affidavits attesting to the accuracy of the
`translations. See Exs. 1004, 1011; 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b).
`5 The Exhibit numbers refer generally to IPR2014-00296, unless first cited in
`IPR2014-00297 or IPR2014-00298.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2012, Page 6
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
`Patent 8,324,552 B2
`
`
`Nov. 24, 1992
`July 19, 1988
`Oct. 24-26,
`1994
`
`1007
`1008
`1009
`
`Nov. 13, 1990
`
`1010
`
`April 28, 1992
`
`1011
`
`Jan. 31, 1990
`
`1012
`
`Aug. 5-9, 1995
`
`1013
`
`March 17, 1992 1113
`March 10, 1981 1114
`
`Bottesch
`Kawahara
`Zheng
`
`Kenue
`
`Tadashi
`
`Venturello
`
`Aurora
`
`Kakinami
`Aikens
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,166,681
`U.S. Patent No. 4,758,883
`Zheng, “An Adaptive System
`for Traffic Sign
`Recognition,” Proceedings of
`the Intelligent Vehicles ’94
`Symposium, Paris, France
`U.S. Patent No. 4,970,653
`
`
`Japanese Kokai Application
`No. Hei 4-127280, with
`certified translation
`European Patent Application
`Publication No. 0 353 200
`Mei Chen,
`“AURORA: A Vision-Based
`Roadway Departure Warning
`System,” Proceedings 1995
`IEEE/RSJ International
`Conference on Intelligent
`Robots and Systems, Vol. 1,
`p. 243
`U.S. Patent No. 5,096,287
`U.S. Patent No. 4,254,931
`
`
`
`7
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2012, Page 7
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
`Patent 8,324,552 B2
`
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims Challenged
`1, 4-6, 10, 11, 15, 16,
`20, 24, 27, 38, 39, 41,
`42, 44, 45, 53, 55, and
`59
`
`Statutory Basis References
`§ 103(a)
`Yanagawa, Applicant’s Admitted
`Prior Art (“AAPA”),6 Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch
`
`9, 25, 26, and 30
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`30 and 31
`
`17, 18, 21-23, 32, and
`58
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`28, 29, and 34-37
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`33
`
`60
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Kenue
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Kenue, Aurora
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Kawahara
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Tadashi
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Zheng
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Venturello
`
`
`6 Petitioner asserts that the following statement in the Specification constitutes
`AAPA: “Photosensing array 38 may be a charge couple device (CCD) array of the
`type commonly utilized in video camcorders and the like. Alternatively,
`photosensing array 38 could be a CMOS [complementary metal oxide
`semiconductor] array of the type manufactured by VLSI Vision Ltd. (VVL) in
`Edinburgh, Scotland.” Ex. 1002, 8:45-52; see 296 Pet. 18 n.3, 20; Ex. 1016 ¶ 22;
`297 Pet. 19, 43; 298 Pet. 18, 19.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2012, Page 8
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
`Patent 8,324,552 B2
`
`
`61, 62, 64, 66, 67, and
`73-78
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`63
`
`68
`
`69
`
`70
`
`71
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`79, 80, 83, and 84
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`81 and 85
`
`82
`
`87
`
`86
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`90-94 and 101-104
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`
`9
`
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Kawahara
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Kawahara, Venturello
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Kawahara, Aikens,
`Kakinami
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Kawahara, Kenue,
`Tadashi
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Kawahara, Kenue
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Kawahara, Kenue,
`Aurora
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Zheng
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Zheng, Kawahara
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Zheng, Kenue
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Zheng, Kenue, Tadashi
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Zheng, Aikens,
`Kakinami
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2012, Page 9
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
`Patent 8,324,552 B2
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Kawahara
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Kawahara, Aikens,
`Kakinami
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Kenue
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Kenue, Tadashi
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Kenue, Aurora
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`Vellacott, Bottesch,
`Zheng
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`Reg. 48,756, 48,764, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Claim Construction); In re Am.
`Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “[W]hen
`interpreting a claim, words of the claim are generally given their ordinary and
`accustomed meaning, unless it appears from the specification or the file history
`that they were used differently by the inventor.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
`(Fed. Cir. 1994). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Id. (citation
`omitted).
`
`95
`
`96
`
`98
`
`97
`
`99
`
`100
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`
`10
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2012, Page 10
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
`Patent 8,324,552 B2
`
`
`Petitioner proposes specific constructions of the following claim terms:
`“spatial differentiation,” “spectral characteristic,” “activity level,” “priority basis,”
`and “red complement filter.” 296 Pet. 8-13. Patent Owner asserts specific
`constructions for the phrases “wherein objects of interest are at least one of
`qualified and disqualified based, at least in part, on object motion” (296 Prelim.
`Resp. 24-25); “wherein said control, responsive to processing of said captured
`image data, is operable to determine an ambient light level at the equipped vehicle”
`(296 Prelim. Resp. 25-29); and “wherein at least one of (a) said control determines
`the ambient light level by processing data captured by a subset of said light sensing
`photosensor elements and (b) said control determines the ambient light level by
`processing data captured by a subset of said light sensing photosensor elements
`over a period of time” (296 Prelim. Resp. 30-32).7
`As explained herein, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficient
`reasons for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of
`the prior art references in the manner asserted in the Petitions. Thus, for purposes
`of this decision, we need not construe expressly any of the terms in the challenged
`claims.
`
`B. Obviousness Grounds Based on Yanagawa
`The analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is objective and includes a
`determination of “the scope and content of the prior art,” the “differences between
`the prior art and the claims at issue,” and “the level of ordinary skill in the
`pertinent art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)).
`
`
`7 Petitioner and Patent Owner likewise proffered arguments for these claim terms
`in IPR2014-00297 and IPR2014-00298. See 297 Pet. 9-12; 297 Prelim. Resp. 27-
`31; 298 Pet. 8-11; and 298 Prelim. Resp. 29-34.
`11
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2012, Page 11
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
`Patent 8,324,552 B2
`
`
`In undertaking this inquiry:
`Often, it will be necessary . . . to look to interrelated teachings
`of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
`community or present in the marketplace; and the background
`knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all
`in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to
`combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at
`issue.
`Id. at 418. The Supreme Court explained that “[t]o facilitate review, this analysis
`should be made explicit,” agreeing with the Federal Circuit that “‘rejections on
`obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead,
`there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
`support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” Id. (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
`977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`Against this backdrop, we consider Petitioner’s allegations. Petitioner
`asserts that claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 15-18, 20-39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 53, 55, 58-60, 61-64,
`66-71, 73-87, and 90-104 would have been obvious based on Yanagawa in
`combination with various other references, as indicated previously. See supra
`Section I.E. In support thereof, Petitioner provides claim charts that identify the
`disclosure in Yanagawa and in the other cited references alleged to teach the
`subject matter of the challenged claims. Id. at 51-55. Petitioner further relies on a
`declaration from Jeffrey A. Miller, Ph.D., to support the analysis in the Petitions.
`Ex. 1002. We have considered the arguments and evidence presented, and
`determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would
`prevail on its obviousness challenge to independent claims 1, 61, 79, and 90, or the
`other challenged claims depending therefrom.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2012, Page 12
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
`Patent 8,324,552 B2
`
`
`1. Overview of Yanagawa
`Yanagawa discloses a recognition device for a traveling vehicle that
`recognizes the presence of taillights of a vehicle traveling ahead and headlights of
`an oncoming vehicle. Ex. 1004, 7. The recognition device uses an imaging sensor,
`such as a color television camera. Id. at 8. The device extracts color features of
`headlights and taillights to form a feature extracted color image signal based on a
`color video signal. Id. As shown in Figure 1 from Yanagawa, reproduced below, a
`video signal of images from television camera 11 is supplied to decoder 13. Id. at
`2.
`
`
`Figure 1 from Yanagawa illustrates the traveling vehicle recognition device for
`automatically controlling headlight beams.
`
`Decoder 13 forms R (red), G (green), and B (blue) color image signals based
`on the video signal, and supplies the color image signals to image signal processor
`14. Id. at 8. Image signal processor 14 extracts features from the color image
`signal, and the luminescent colors of white and red are emphasized. Id. Image
`signal processor 14 includes features extraction unit 141, as shown in Figure 4,
`reproduced below. Id.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2012, Page 13
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
`Patent 8,324,552 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4 from Yanagawa illustrates the configuration of the image signal
`processor.
`
`Thus R, G, and B color image signals from decoder 13 are supplied to
`features extraction unit 141, where the inputted image signals “are binarized” to
`capture only information relating to headlights and taillights. Id. Based on the
`information captured, recognition unit 143 determines whether the image is a
`taillight. Id. Recognition unit 143 makes this determination according to whether
`there are two red images at the same height. Id. at 9.
`2. Overview of Vellacott
`Vellacott discloses a single chip CMOS image sensor that “could eventually
`
`displace the multi-chip CCDs [charge couple devices]” presently in use. Ex.1006,
`2. Exposure control of the image sensor is implemented on-chip by monitoring the
`output waveform, and the exposure length “is controlled by varying the pixel reset
`time via the vertical shift register; this allows the exposure period to be set in
`multiples of the line readout time.” Id. As a result, the total exposure range is
`40,000:1. Id. Vellacott further describes a field trial that includes the CMOS
`image sensor (imputer) during the development of “electro-chromic rearview
`mirrors, which automatically reduce headlamp glare from behind.” Id. at 4.
`14
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2012, Page 14
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
`Patent 8,324,552 B2
`
`According to Vellacott, “[t]he imputer was programmed to analyze [an] image to
`recogni[z]e when and where headlamps are present in the field of view . . . [and to]
`dim[] the rear-view and wing mirrors automatically to reduce glare to the driver.”
`Id.
`
`3. Claim 1
`Claim 1 recites an “imaging sensor” comprising “a two-dimensional CMOS
`array of light sensing photosensor elements,” where the “imaging sensor is
`operable to capture frames of image data at a plurality of exposure periods.” In
`arguing that claim 1 would have been obvious over the “the combination of
`Yanagawa, the AAPA as evidenced by Bendell and Vellacott, and Bottesch,”
`Petitioner relies on Vellacott (and other references) as teaching the CMOS
`limitation of claim 1. 296 Pet. 15-22. Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have had reason to modify the system of Yanagawa, which
`uses a television camera having electron-gun tubes, to have a solid state CCD
`sensor as taught by Bendell, and to substitute the CMOS sensor of Vellacott for the
`CCD sensor of Bendell. Id. at 17-19. Petitioner contends that Vellacott discloses
`single-chip CMOS sensors being “advantageously lower-power substitutes for
`CCD sensors,” and that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize these
`well-known advantages and so also be motivated to choose to use a camera that
`contains a CMOS photosensor array as disclosed and suggested in Vellacott.” Id.
`at 19.
`Petitioner further relies on the disclosure of Vellacott as allegedly teaching
`the “plurality of exposure periods” limitation of claim 1. 296 Pet. 21-22 (citing Ex.
`1006, 2). Specifically, Petitioner cites in its claim chart to Vellacott’s disclosure
`that exposure control is implemented “by monitoring the output wave-form to
`determine the appropriate exposure setting. The length of exposure is controlled
`
`
`
`15
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2012, Page 15
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
`Patent 8,324,552 B2
`
`by varying the pixel reset time via the vertical shift register.” 296 Pet. 21 (citing
`Ex. 1006, 2). Petitioner further cites to the disclosure in Vellacott, which suggests,
`“[b]y gating this readout signal with a pulse that is a multiple of the pixel readout it
`is possible to decrease the exposure even further, down to 500 ns. This gives a
`total exposure range of 40[,]000:1.” Id.
`Patent Owner argues that although “Vellacott was included in the grounds
`for an alleged teaching of a CMOS sensor, there is absolutely no obviousness
`analysis as to how or why the frame capture/exposure period feature would have
`been obvious to combine with Yanagawa.” 296 Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner’s
`argument is persuasive. Petitioner does not provide a persuasive fact-based
`analysis to support the proposed combination of Yanagawa and Vellacott with
`regards to the limitation of claim 1 reciting “capture frames of image data at a
`plurality of exposure periods.” Petitioner also has not provided a persuasive
`rationale for combining these references. Petitioner’s statements as to the general
`use of a CMOS sensor, and the alleged advantage of CMOS sensors over CCD
`sensors in general, do not relate specifically to the exposure period limitation of
`claim 1 and do not constitute a sufficient reason why a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have combined the references in the manner alleged to “capture
`frames of image data at a plurality of exposure periods,” as recited in claim 1. See
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved
`obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
`known in the prior art.”).
`Petitioner also relies on the declaration of Dr. Miller in support of its
`arguments. Dr. Miller summarizes his view of the references, but does not proffer
`any explanation or persuasive evidence demonstrating that it would have been
`obvious to combine Yanagawa and Vellacott. Ex. 1016 ¶ 22; see 37 C.F.R. §
`
`
`
`16
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2012, Page 16
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
`Patent 8,324,552 B2
`
`42.65(a). As such, Petitioner does not provide a persuasive fact-based analysis to
`support the proposed combination of Yanagawa and Vellacott with respect to the
`claim limitation of capturing frames of image data at a plurality of exposure
`periods. Moreover, Petitioner does not rely on Bendell or Bottesch to overcome
`this deficiency. Petitioner relies on Bendell only to describe a solid state television
`camera having a solid state CCD-type sensor array matrix (Pet. 17-18), and
`Bottesch only to describe positioning of the image sensor so that camera views
`through the windshield are at an area swept by a windshield wiper (Pet. 19).
`Further, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s challenge of claim 1 is
`deficient because Petitioner does not address the claim limitation “wherein said
`imaging sensor has a forward field of view to the exterior of a windshield of a
`vehicle equipped with said imaging sensing system” in the arguments supporting
`the ground challenging claim 1, the claim chart, and the declaration of Dr. Miller.
`296 Prelim Resp. 16. We agree, as Petitioner has not provided the requisite
`detailed explanation establishing how the cited references disclose this limitation.
`See, e.g., Pet. 19-22 (claim chart missing the limitation); see 37 C.F.R. §
`42.22(a)(2).
` Accordingly, based on the arguments and evidence of Petitioner and Patent
`Owner, we are not persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail with respect to its contention that claim 1 is unpatentable.
`4.
`Dependent Claims
`Challenged claims 4-6, 9-11, 15-18, 20-39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 53, 55, and 58-60
`all depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claim 1. Our determination
`concerning the insufficiency of Petitioner’s evidence with respect to the “capture
`frames of image data at a plurality of exposure periods” limitation of independent
`claim 1, discussed above, applies equally to the claims that depend from claim 1.
`
`
`
`17
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2012, Page 17
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
`Patent 8,324,552 B2
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would
`prevail with respect to its contention that claims 4-6, 9-11, 15-18, 20-39, 41, 42,
`44, 45, 53, 55, and 58-60 are unpatentable.
`5. Claims 61-64, 66-71, and 73-78
`Challenged claim 61 is independent, and claims 62-64, 66-71, and 73-78
`
`depend, directly or indirectly, therefrom. Like claim 1, claim 61 includes the
`limitation that the imaging sensor is operable to “capture frames of image data at a
`plurality of exposure periods.” Our determination concerning the insufficiency of
`the evidence with respect to a persuasive rationale for combining Yanagawa and
`Vellacott to reach the “capture frames of image data at a plurality of exposure
`periods” limitation of independent claim 1, discussed above, applies equally to
`claim 61 and the claims that depend therefrom. Petitioner’s only support for
`modifying Yanagawa based on the disclosure in Vellacott consists of quotations
`from Vellacott in its claim chart, and the general assertion that “all references are
`properly combined.” 297 Pet. 16-23. According, we determine that Petitioner
`does not proffer sufficient evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art
`would have modified Yanagawa using the disclosure of Vellacott to “capture
`frames of image data at a plurality of exposure periods,” as required by claim 61.
`
`In addition, claim 61 recites “wherein a red spectral filter is disposed at
`some of said light sensing photosensor elements and wherein a red spectral filter is
`not disposed at others of said light sensing photosensor elements and wherein at
`least one of (a) said others of said light sensing photosensor elements are neighbors
`of said red filtered light sensing photosensor elements and (b) said others of said
`light sensing photosensor elements are immediately adjacent to said red filtered
`light sensing photosensor elements.” Petitioner acknowledges that Yanagawa does
`not disclose this feature, but asserts that this teaching is found in Bendell, which
`
`
`
`18
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2012, Page 18
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01109
`
`

`

`IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
`Patent 8,324,552 B2
`
`describes, “where the filter action is prismatic, and the light is directed to
`respective red, blue and green imagers.” 297 Pet.18-19. Petitioner further
`characterizes Figure 4 of Kawahara as suggesting filter elements that are red and
`other filters that are not red. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1108, 3:3-15, Fig. 4). With
`respect to providing a reason to combine the references, Petitioner merely
`concludes “all references are properly combined to show all elements of what is
`claimed.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1116 ¶ 21).
`
`Patent Owner counters that Petitioner presents “ambiguous and conflicting
`assertions regarding [the] red spectral filter feature of claim 61” in arguing that
`both Bendell and Kawahara suggest this feature. 297 Prelim. Resp. 14. Moreover,
`Patent Owner points out that Petitioner “summarily concludes all references are
`properly combined,” without providing any analysis or discussion of how the
`references are to be combined. Id. at 14-15, 17-20 (emphasis added). Petitioner
`also does not proffer a “proper rationale for combining the references,” accor