`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC., VALEO S.A., VALEO GMBH,
`VALEO SCHALTER UND SENSOREN GMBH, AND
`CONNAUGHT ELECTRONICS LTD.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.
`Patent Owner
`______________
`
`Case IPR2014-01203
`Patent 7,859,565
`______________
`
`Before Jameson Lee, Phillip J. Kauffman, and Matthew R. Clements,
`Administrative Patent Judges
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC.’S RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01203 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565
`
`Table of Contents
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`2. 
`
`2. 
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`Overview of the Claimed Inventions in the ’565 Patent ................................. 2 
`II. 
`III.  Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 4 
`A. 
`Legal Standards for Claim Construction ............................................... 4 
`B. 
`Construction of the Term “Image Portion” ........................................... 5 
`1. 
`The ’565 patent specification provides that an “image portion”
`is less than the entire captured image. ........................................ 5 
`The plain language of the claims supports that an “image
`portion” is less than the entire captured image. .......................... 6 
`Valeo agreed that an “image portion” cannot be the entire
`captured image. ........................................................................... 7 
`The word “includes” in the claim does not mean that more of
`the captured image than the “image portion” can be displayed. 8 
`IV.  Response to Substantive Grounds ................................................................... 9 
`A.  Nissan does not disclose the features of the independent claims from
`which claims 6 and 33 depend. ............................................................. 9 
`Claim 6 is patentable over Nissan. ...................................................... 15 
`1. 
`Nissan fails to disclose the “image portion” feature of claim 6
`by virtue of its dependency from independent claim 1. ............ 15 
`Valeo fails to adequately show that the references disclose or
`suggest image data processing “by at least one technique
`chosen from luminant blending, chrominant blending….” ...... 18 
`Claim 33 is patentable over the combination of Nissan, Aishin, Niles,
`Fujitsu, and Honda. ............................................................................. 21 
`1. 
`Nissan fails to disclose the “image portion” feature of claim 33
`by virtue of its dependency from claim 30. .............................. 21 
`The cited references fail to disclose that the distance “indicia
`has a form that responds to the rate of turn of the vehicle.” ..... 22 
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 24 
`
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01203 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases 
`A.C. Dispensing Equip. Inc. v. Prince Castle LLC,
`IPR2014-00511, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 10, 2014) ................................... 19, 23
`CallCopy, Inc. v. Verint Americas, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00486, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2013) ............................................. 18
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Tech., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014) .......................................... 19
`Google v. EveryMD,
`IPR2014-00347, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. May 22, 2014) ...................................... 19, 23
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 4
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................. 4
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012) ........................................... 18
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..........................................................................4, 5
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................ 4
`Statutes 
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 15
`Rules 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 18
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ............................................................................................ 18
`Other Authorities 
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ................................................................ 19, 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01203 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565
`
`Exhibit List
`
`Description
`Information Disclosure Statement filed July 13, 2007 in U.S.
`Patent Appl. No. 10/643,602 (now the ’565 patent)
`Definition of “portion,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, accessed
`at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/portion
`Definition of “infrared,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, accessed
`at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infrared
`Excerpt from Valeo’s 2013 Consolidated Financial Statements
`Exhibit C attached to Schweibenz Declaration, Federal-Mogul
`Corp. et al. v. Valeo Electrical Systems, Inc. et al., 2:13-cv-
`11627-AJT-MKM (E.D. M.I.), filed August 15, 2014
`Summons and Complaint Return of Service, Magna Electronics
`Inc. v. Valeo, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-11627-AJT-MKM
`(E.D. M.I.), served July 26, 2013
`Certificate of Merger (DE) of Valeo, Inc. with and into Valeo
`Electrical Systems, Inc., effective December 31, 2013
`Valeo Inc.ʼs Statement of Disclosure of Corporate Affiliations
`and Financial Interest, Magna Electronics Inc. v. Valeo, Inc. et
`al., 2:14-cv-10540, dated August 15, 2014
`Documents related to removal of Valeo, Inc., as a party and
`reforming captions, Valeo, Inc. et al., v. Federal-Mogul Corp. et
`al., 2:13-cv-14393 (E.D. M.I.)
`Complaint Under Section 337 in the matter of “Windshield
`Wipers and Components Thereof,” ITC-337-TA-928, filed July
`25, 2014
`Transcript of Oral Hearing for Valeo North America, Inc.,
`et al., v. Magna Electronics Inc., Case IPR2014-00220,
`held January 15, 2015
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01203 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The Board initiated trial for challenged claims 6 and 33 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,859,565 (“the ’565 patent”). Claim 6 depends from claim 1. Claim 33 depends
`
`from claim 32, which in turn depends from claim 30. Both independent claims 1
`
`and 30 require that the displayed image includes an “image portion from an image
`
`captured” by each image capture device. Independent claims 1 and 30 also require
`
`that the composite image synthesized from the image data captured by the at least
`
`two image capture devices is “without duplication of image information.” Valeo
`
`proposes that Nissan discloses these features, but it does not. Therefore, Valeo fails
`
`to meet its burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 6 and
`
`33 would have been obvious to a POSA.
`
`Claim 1 also requires image data processing “by at least one technique
`
`chosen from luminant blending, chrominant blending….” Valeo fails to adequately
`
`show that Nissan discloses this feature. Valeo thus fails to meet its burden of
`
`showing that claim 6, by virtue of its dependency from claim 1, would have been
`
`obvious to a POSA.
`
`Further, the five references that Valeo asserts against the patentability of
`
`claim 33 fail to disclose that the distance “indicia has a form that responds to the
`
`rate of turn of the vehicle.” Thus, Valeo fails to meet its burden of showing that
`
`claim 33 would have been obvious to a POSA.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01203 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565
`Accordingly, Magna respectfully requests that the Board affirm the
`
`patentability of claims 6 and 33.
`
`II. Overview of the Claimed Inventions in the ’565 Patent
`The ’565 patent relates to vision systems for vehicles that provide
`
`information to a vehicle operator. (’565 patent, Ex. 1001, 1:18-21.) The vision
`
`systems include at least two image capture devices positioned on the vehicle. (Id.
`
`at 2:28-29.) The image capture devices have overlapping fields of view. (Id. at 5:7-
`
`10.) The vision systems combine image data from each image capture device and
`
`display a single image to the vehicle operator that is substantially without duplicate
`
`or redundant images of objects. (Id. at 3:66-4:8.) An image processor synthesizes
`
`image data from each image capture device and forms a composite image for
`
`display. (Id. at 3:61-65.) “The displayed image includes an image portion from
`
`each of the image capture devices.” (Id. at 2:53-55.)
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01203 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of the ’565 patent, reproduced above, illustrates an example of an
`
`image display according to the claimed inventions. Figure 3 illustrates image
`
`display device 20, which displays composite image 42 composed of left image
`
`portion 44, right image portion 46, and center image portion 48 derived from
`
`image data captured by the image capture devices. (Id. at 5:48-50.) Figure 8, also
`
`reproduced above, shows an upper portion 64 that extends above central image
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01203 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565
`portion 48’ for each of left image portion 44’ and right image portion 46’. (Id. at
`
`9:3-5.) The ’565 patent describes that “upper portions 64 are deleted in order to
`
`present a uniform upper horizontal boundary for display 20’.” (Id. at 9:6-8.)
`
`III. Claim Construction
`A.
`Legal Standards for Claim Construction
`During inter partes review, the Office must give claims a construction that
`
`reasonably reflects the claim and disclosure of the patent “as [they] would be
`
`interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d
`
`1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). The starting point for construing a
`
`claim term is to “look to the words of the claims themselves…to define the scope
`
`of the patented invention.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,
`
`1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The “words in a claim are generally given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning.” (Id.) The Federal Circuit has also stated that claim
`
`construction requires considering both “intrinsic and extrinsic evidence,” and that a
`
`reasonable “construction cannot be divorced from the specification and the record
`
`evidence” including “extrinsic evidence show[ing] [w]hat a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would recognize” regarding the subject matter claimed. In re NTP,
`
`Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Further, dictionaries are extrinsic
`
`evidence that are particularly useful for claim construction. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005). For instance, dictionaries can assist “in
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01203 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565
`determining the meaning of particular terminology to those of skill in the art of the
`
`invention.” (Id.)
`
`Construction of the Term “Image Portion”
`
`B.
`Independent claims 1 and 30, from which claims 6 and 33 depend,
`
`respectively, each require, inter alia, that the displayed image includes an “image
`
`portion” from an image captured by each image capture device:
`
`Claim 1: “…the displayed image displayed on said single display screen
`
`includes an image portion from an image captured by each of said two image
`
`capture devices…”;
`
`Claim 30: “…the displayed composite image displayed on said single
`
`display screen includes an image portion from an image captured by each of said
`
`two image capture devices…”.
`
`1.
`
`The ’565 patent specification provides that an “image
`portion” is less than the entire captured image.
`
`The ’565 patent describes an “image portion” as being a derived part of a
`
`larger image captured by an image capture device. For example, the ’565 patent
`
`explains that, in one embodiment, “the portion of the image displayed is preferably
`
`biased toward the downward portion of the captured image because significantly
`
`less useful information is obtained above the horizontal position of the image
`
`capture devices.” (’565 patent, 7:22-25.) Thus, the ’565 patent distinguishes
`
`between “the portion of the image displayed” (i.e., the “image portion”) and “the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01203 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565
`captured image” from the image capture device. The ’565 patent further describes
`
`that “[e]ach of right image portion 46’ and left image portion 44’ includes an upper
`
`portion 64 which extends above the compressed upper portion of the central image
`
`portion 48’. In the illustrated embodiment, upper portions 64 are deleted in order
`
`to present a uniform upper horizontal boundary for display 20’.” (Id. at 9:3-8
`
`(emphasis added).) Therefore, the displayed “image portions” are not the entire
`
`images captured by each of the image capture devices. The entire captured image
`
`is not displayed. Accordingly, “an image portion from an image captured” should
`
`be construed to be a derived part of a captured image that is less than the entire
`
`captured image.
`
`2.
`
`The plain language of the claims supports that an “image
`portion” is less than the entire captured image.
`The plain language of the claims that “an image portion from an image
`
`captured” requires that the “image portion” is a subset of the entire captured image.
`
`The ordinary and customary meaning of the term “portion” is “a part of a larger
`
`amount, area, etc.” and “an often limited part of a whole.” (Definition of “portion,”
`
`Ex. 2002.) Therefore, the Board should construe “an image portion from an image
`
`captured” to be a derived part of a captured image that is less than the entire
`
`captured image.
`
`Moreover, construing the term “image portion” to include the entire captured
`
`image would destroy the meaning of the claim. The discrete claim term is “image
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01203 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565
`portion.” The claim could have instead recited “a portion of the image,” which
`
`perhaps could include the entire image. But the claim recites an “image portion.”
`
`As discussed above, the term means that you start with a captured image from an
`
`image capture device and then take a part of that image—the “image portion.” The
`
`image portion from each captured image is then combined into a single composite
`
`image—the “displayed image.” Accordingly, the discrete term “an image portion
`
`from an image captured” should be construed to be a derived part of a captured
`
`image that is less than the entire captured image.
`
`3.
`
`Valeo agreed that an “image portion” cannot be the entire
`captured image.
`
`In the oral hearing for related proceeding IPR2014-00220, Valeo agreed that
`
`a “portion” cannot be the entirety of something. (IPR2014-00220 Oral Hearing
`
`Transcript, Ex. 2011, 9:5-9.)
`
`
`
`Although the analogy is drawn to a “portion” of a patent claim and the
`
`“entire” patent claim, the same logic holds true for the “image portion” term at
`
`issue here. The Board summed this position up well: “JUDGE LEE: I think you
`
`and opposing counsel agrees with you that a whole is not a part. Because I asked
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01203 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565
`that specific question, and she said no, it's not -- a whole is not a part.” (Id. at
`
`57:10-12.)
`
`4.
`
`The word “includes” in the claim does not mean that more
`of the captured image than the “image portion” can be
`displayed.
`By way of example, claim 1 recites that “…the displayed image displayed
`
`on said single display screen includes an image portion from an image captured
`
`by each of said two image capture devices….” In view of Valeo’s admission
`
`above, Valeo’s argument hinges on the following assertion:
`
`The claim states “includes an image portion.” As we all
`
`know, includes is an open-ended term. It is equivalent to
`
`comprising. And, therefore, the claim language is not
`
`limited to showing only an image portion from the two
`
`cameras.
`
`(IPR2014-00220 Oral Hearing Transcript, 6:11-14.) Valeo then asserts that
`
`“the prior art can show more than an image portion, as long as it has at least an
`
`image portion, which is what includes means in the plain language of the claim.”
`
`(Id. at 6:16-18.) But Valeo misinterprets the claim language.
`
`The word “includes” refers to what is in the “displayed image.” It means that
`
`“the displayed image…includes an image portion” from each image capture
`
`device. As discussed above, an “image portion” is a discrete term meaning a
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01203 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565
`derived part of a captured image that is less than the entire captured image. The
`
`displayed image may include additional things, but not more of the captured image
`
`than the image portion, because as discussed above, that would destroy the
`
`meaning of the claim. But, for example, the displayed image may also include
`
`other indicia. (’565 patent, 6:1-7 (“Composite image 42 provides a clear image,
`
`which avoids confusion and simplifies the task of extracting information from the
`
`multiple image portions 44-48. As also may be seen by reference to FIG. 3, display
`
`20 may additionally include indicia such as the readout of a compass 54, vehicle
`
`speed 56, turn signals 58, and the like…” (emphasis added).)
`
`Accordingly, the entirety of the evidence establishes that “an image portion
`
`from an image captured” should be construed to be a derived part of a captured
`
`image that is less than the entire captured image, and nothing more.
`
`IV. Response to Substantive Grounds
`A. Nissan does not disclose the features of the independent claims from
`which claims 6 and 33 depend.
`
`Valeo alleges that Nissan discloses or suggests each limitation of
`
`independent claim 1 (Petition, pp. 28-30) and that Nissan in combination with
`
`Aishin discloses or suggests each limitation of independent claim 30 (id. at 50-51).
`
`For both independent claims, Valeo relies solely on Nissan as allegedly disclosing
`
`“wherein said synthesized image comprises a composite image of said image data
`
`captured by said two image capture devices without duplication of image
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01203 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565
`information,” as recited in claim 1, and “a display system which displays a
`
`composite image synthesized from image data captured by said two image capture
`
`devices without duplication of image information,” as recited in claim 30.
`
`Because these claim limitations are similar, they are addressed together using
`
`claim 1 as an example.
`
`Notably, Valeo’s allegation that Nissan discloses or suggests the foregoing
`
`claim features is made without specifically referring to any supporting testimony of
`
`Valeo’s declarant, Dr. Wolberg. Moreover, the Nissan document fails entirely to
`
`identify, acknowledge, or understand the problem solved by the present invention.
`
`The only support Valeo offers in its Petition for the allegations above are
`
`citations in its claim chart for claim 6 (which includes the language of independent
`
`claim 1) to Nissan at 4:15-18 and 5:12-30. (Petition, pp. 29, 50.) Specifically,
`
`Valeo asserts the following:
`
`(Id. at 29.)
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01203 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565
`Nowhere in this claim chart does Valeo point specifically to any disclosure
`
`or suggestion in Nissan for the claimed features “wherein said synthesized image
`
`comprises a composite image of said image data captured by said two image
`
`capture devices without duplication of image information,” as recited in claim 1.
`
`And Valeo’s claim chart for claim 33 (which includes the language of independent
`
`claim 30) merely incorporates by reference its assertions for claim 6. (Id. at 50.)
`
`Valeo’s citation here is based on its overly broad construction of the phrase
`
`“composite image” (id. at 24), ignoring the feature “without duplication of image
`
`information.” Merely combining images, as Valeo alleges is disclosed in Nissan
`
`(with or without transformation), does not account for duplication of image
`
`information. In contrast, the claimed composite image comprises a single merged
`
`or stitched or blended image, without duplication of image information.
`
`Valeo’s Petition makes a passing reference to previously asserted arguments
`
`against claim 1 in a related proceeding, including a citation to the Wolberg
`
`Declaration, without any further explanation. (Id. at 28.) Valeo does not include
`
`any analysis in its Petition of its declarant’s assertions. However, Magna discusses
`
`them herein to address the inaccuracies.
`
`Dr. Wolberg makes a conclusory assertion that “a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have found it obvious prior to May 1995 to produce a composite
`
`image without any duplication of image information.” (Wolberg Decl., Ex. 1011 ¶
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPRR2014-012003 of
`
`UU.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,8599,565
`
`135.) DDr. Wolberrg relies onn Nissan’ss performaance of peerspective
`
`transformaation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(which
`
`is not the
`
`
`
`same as mmerging, stiitching, orr blending
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`images, ass in the subbject
`
`
`
`claims)
`
`
`
`as evidennce that thhe claimedd feature ((“wherein
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`said syntthesized immage
`
`
`
`
`
`comprisses a commposite imaage of saiid image ddata captuured by saaid two immage
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`capture
`
`
`
`devices wwithout duuplication
`
`
`
`
`
`of imagee informattion”) wouuld have bbeen
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`obviouss. (Id. at 134.) Yet DDr. Wolberrg does noot cite anyy support inn Nissan iitself
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that disccloses or ssuggests thhe claimed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`features. IInstead, Drr. Wolbergg asserts (iin an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Valeo’s PPetition) thhat “[a] peerson of orrdinary skiill in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`argumennt not articulated in
`
`
`
`
`
`the art
`
`
`
`would have appreciated that
`
`
`
`
`
`this proceess in Nisssan inherrently remmoves
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`multiplee exposuree effects (dduplication)).” (Id. (emmphasis addded).) Butt this purpoorted
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`process is not discclosed or suuggested bby Nissan.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nor is it innherent.
`
`
`
`WWhat Nissaan describees is a carrtoon or avvatar displlay derivedd from immages
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`capturedd by multtiple televiision cameeras at a vvehicle. NNissan desccribes thatt the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`capturedd images
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`are converrted to othher coordinnates and
`
`displayed
`
`
`
`with a drrawn
`
`
`
`avatar oof the equippped vehiccle. (Nissann, Ex. 10044, 6:19-21..)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01203 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565
`For example, as shown in Figure 3(a) of Nissan above, the display shows a
`
`top view representation of an avatar or drawing of the subject vehicle 10 and a side
`
`view representation of a vehicle 11 adjacent to the subject vehicle. (Id. at 4:29-35.)
`
`There is no merging or blending of captured images in creating what is shown in
`
`Figure 3(a). To the contrary, the subject vehicle 10 is a drawn avatar or iconistic
`
`representation of the subject vehicle. And the vehicle 11 is the side of the vehicle
`
`that is next to the subject vehicle. (Id. at 4:33-35.)
`
`Valeo’s citation to Nissan at 4:15-18 states only that the images from the
`
`cameras are combined into one display (such as by mosaicing). There is no
`
`disclosure in Nissan that the images from the cameras are merged or stitched or
`
`blended to provide a “composite image” as claimed. Nissan states:
`
`Next, in the image display unit 8, each image converted
`
`to the coordinates described above is constructed. Thus,
`
`it is determined in what environment to display the
`
`vehicle in response to the directional indicator operation,
`
`the gear position, and the vehicle speed. That coordinate
`
`is (Xo, Yo). Next, the monitor image C(X,Y) is cleared,
`
`and a figure of the vehicle is drawn with (Xo, Yo) at the
`
`center.
`
`…
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01203 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565
`From the above, the converted image of each camera in
`
`image C(X,Y) and the drawn vehicle figure can be
`
`displayed together.
`
`(Id. at 5:32-6:21.)
`
`This description falls short of disclosing or suggesting “a synthesized image
`
`[that] comprises a composite image of said image data captured by said two image
`
`capture devices without duplication of image information,” as recited in claim 1 of
`
`the ’565 patent.
`
`Moreover, the claimed feature “wherein said synthesized image comprises a
`
`composite image of said image data captured by said two image capture devices
`
`without duplication of image information” is not inherent in the foregoing
`
`approach described by Nissan. Nissan is silent on, and is presumably ignorant of,
`
`what to do with duplicate image information captured. In Nissan, a perspective
`
`conversion converts the entirety of each camera image to the same coordinates. (Id.
`
`at 5:25-26.) Using an averaging function, Nissan then averages the regions of the
`
`entire camera images where the cameras have overlapping fields of view. (Id. at
`
`6:2-17.).
`
`Nissan lacks any explicit or inherent disclosure of the aforementioned claim
`
`features of independent claims 1 and 30, from which claims 6 and 33 depend,
`
`respectively. Thus, Valeo has not met its burden of showing by a preponderance of
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`the eviidence thaat claims
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPRR2014-012003 of
`
`UU.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,8599,565
`
`6 and 333 would hhave beenn obvious
`
` to a POOSA.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordiingly, the BBoard shouuld affirm the patentaability of cclaim 6 andd 33.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BB.
`
`
`
`Claimm 6 is pateentable oveer Nissan.
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`laim ature of clortion” fea“image poNissan ffails to disclose the “
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6 by virttue of its ddependenccy from in
`dependen
`t claim 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TThe Board iinstituted rreview of cclaim 6 as
`
`
`
`
`
`allegedly bbeing unpaatentable uunder
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`35 U.S..C. § 103
`
`
`
`as obviouss over Nisssan alone.. (Institutioon Decisioon, pp. 16--17.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Indepenndent claimm 1, fromm which cllaim 6 deppends, reqquires that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`image inncludes ann “image pportion fromm an imagge capturedd” by each
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the displaayed
`
`
`
`image cappture
`
`
`
`feature annd Valeo ppresents noo evidence
`
`that
`
`device.
`
`
`
`Nissan dooes not disclose this
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this feaature wouldd have beeen obviouss in view
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of Nissann’s disclosuure. Indeedd, as
`
`
`
`explaineed below,
`
`
`
`Nissan diiscloses thhat the dispplayed immage is creeated usingg the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`entire immage captuured by eacch camera..
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RRegarding
`
`
`
`the requirred “imagee portion”” feature oof claim 66 by virtuue of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`dependiing from
`
`
`
`independeent claim
`
`
`
`1, Valeoo’s Petitioon merelyy providess an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`unexplaained statemment with
`
`
`
`
`
`a citation tto Nissan iin a claim
`
`
`
`
`
`chart, reprroduced beelow.
`
`
`
`
`
`(Petitionn, p. 29.)
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01203 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565
`But Valeo’s description of the cited passage of Nissan is inaccurate and
`
`misleading. The actual text of Nissan is reproduced below. (Nissan, 4:13-20.)
`
`
`
`What Nissan actually describes is that “the images from cameras 1 to N”
`
`(i.e., the entire images) are combined into one image and displayed. That Nissan
`
`uses the entire images from its cameras is understood from Nissan’s disclosed
`
`image conversion process. Nissan simultaneously inputs “[t]he images of cameras
`
`1-N” (i.e., the entire images) to image converter 7, which performs perspective
`
`conversions of the camera images according to the disclosed function. (Id. at 5:12-
`
`16.) This perspective conversion converts the entirety of each camera image to the
`
`same coordinates. (Id. at 5:25-30.) Using an averaging function, Nissan then
`
`averages the regions of the entire camera images where the cameras have
`
`overlapping fields of view. (Id. at 6:2-17.) Thus, Nissan does not disclose that the
`
`displayed image has an “image portion from an image captured” by each image
`
`capture device, as required by claim 6 by virtue of its dependency from claim 1.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01203 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565
`In contrast, the ’565 patent claims require that “an image portion from an
`
`image captured” by each of the image capture devices is included in the displayed
`
`image. Only derived parts of captured images are used to form the displayed
`
`image. For example, an embodiment of the ’565 patent teaches deleting a portion
`
`of a captured image that contains less useful information. (See ’565 patent, 7:21-
`
`25, 9:3-8.) Only the more relevant “image portions” from captured images are
`
`combined and displayed, reducing or eliminating redundant image data to provide
`
`a composite displayed image without duplication of image data in the displayed
`
`image. (Id. at 4:5-8.)
`
`Valeo does not provide any additional explanation beyond its incorrect
`
`characterization of Nissan that the claimed “image portion” feature would have
`
`been obvious in view of Nissan. Notably, Valeo’s declarant, Dr. Wolberg, is also
`
`silent on this required feature in his Declaration.
`
`Valeo’s mischaracterization of Nissan as its only support that Nissan
`
`discloses the required “image portion” feature does not make it so. Indeed,
`
`Nissan’s actual text belies Valeo’s assertion. Because Nissan does not disclose the
`
`claimed “image portion,” claim 6 is patentable over Nissan.
`
`17
`
`

`

`2.
`
`Case IPR2014-01203 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565
`Valeo fails to adequately show that the references disclose
`or suggest image data processing “by at least one technique
`chosen from luminant blending, chrominant blending….”
`
`Claim 6, by virtue of its dependency from claim 1, also requires that “said
`
`image processor processing said image data by at least one technique chosen from
`
`luminant blending, chrominant blending….” Valeo’s Petition does not clearly set
`
`forth its rationale and reasoning as to how Nissan discloses this feature.
`
`A petition for inter partes review, not the declaration, must specify where
`
`the claim elements are found in the art. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). If the petition
`
`fails to include a detailed explanation of the declaration’s significance, the Board
`
`may exclude or give no weight to the declaration. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2).
`
`Furthermore, the Board “will address only the basis, rationale, and reasoning put
`
`forth by the Petitioner in the petition” (Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive
`
`Casualty Ins. Co., CBM2012-00003, Paper 8, pp. 10, 14 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012)
`
`(emphasis added)) and should not “substitute [its own] analysis for [that of the
`
`Petitioner’s].” CallCopy, Inc. v. Verint Americas, Inc., IPR2013-00486, Paper 11,
`
`p. 10 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2014).
`
`These rules prevent a petitioner from avoiding page limits by stuffing its
`
`expert declaration with argument. The Board has stated that it “will not consider
`
`arguments that are not made in the Corrected Petition nor will [it] play
`
`archeologist” with a reference and a declaration to determine a petitioner’s
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01203 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565
`intended arguments. A.C. Dispensing Equipment Inc. v. Prince Castle LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00511, Paper 16, p. 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 10, 2014) (emphasis added). The
`
`Board has also found that the “practice of citing the Declaration to support
`
`conclusory statements that are not otherwise supported in the Petition also amounts
`
`to incorporation by reference.” Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Technologies, LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12, p. 9 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014). Incorporating by
`
`reference in this manner is improper, in part, because it leads to abuses, such as
`
`avoiding page limits. (Id. at 10.) In sum, a petitioner should not “submit[] a
`
`repository of all the information that a judge could possibly consider, and [should]
`
`instead focus on concise, well organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported by
`
`readily identifiable evidence of record.” Google v. EveryMD, IPR2014-00347,
`
`Paper 9, p. 19 (P.T.A.B. May 22, 2014) (quoting Patent Office Trial Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48763 (Aug. 14, 2012)).
`
`Rather than providing concise, well organized, easy-to-follow arguments
`
`regarding the claim language “said image processor processing said image data by
`
`at least one technique chosen from luminant blending, chrominant blending…,”
`
`Valeo merel