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 IPR2014-01208
`Patent 7,991,522
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2014-01208 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`2. 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`
`V. 
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`Overview of the ’522 patent ............................................................................ 3 
`Summary of deficiencies in the asserted references discussed in this
`Response. ......................................................................................................... 6 
`A.  Nissan (Ex. 1003) .................................................................................. 7 
`B. 
`Hitachi (Ex. 1013) ................................................................................. 8 
`C. 
`Gutta (Ex. 1005) .................................................................................... 8 
`D. 
`Broggi (Ex. 1006) .................................................................................. 9 
`IV.  Valeo cannot meet its burden of showing unpatentability of the challenged
`claims by a preponderance of the evidence. .................................................. 11 
`A.  Valeo fails to show that Broggi qualifies as prior art. ........................ 11 
`1. 
`The documents submitted with the Petition do not establish any
`publication date for Broggi. ...................................................... 12 
`i. 
`Broggi (Ex. 1006) ........................................................... 13 
`ii. 
`The Frahm Declaration (Ex. 1010) ................................. 14 
`iii. 
`The Grenier Declaration (now Ex. 1024) ....................... 15 
`The additional documents submitted by Valeo with its Motion
`to File Supplemental Information also fail to establish a
`publication date for Broggi. ...................................................... 16 
`i. 
`The Second Grenier Declaration (Ex. 1028) .................. 16 
`ii. 
`The Butler Declaration (Ex. 1029) ................................. 18 
`Valeo fails to resolve the level of ordinary skill. ................................ 20 
`Valeo’s obviousness analysis is deficient because the Petition fails to
`identify how the construed claim is unpatentable. .............................. 22 
`1. 
`Valeo fails to adequately explain how the asserted references
`and portions quoted in its claim charts disclose the claimed
`features. ..................................................................................... 23 
`Valeo’s reasons for combining the references are conclusory. 26 
`2. 
`The asserted references do not disclose all the claim elements. ................... 29 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`B. 
`
`A. 
`
`Case IPR2014-01208 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`Broggi does not disclose “wherein said control is operable to
`distinguish between an object in the field of view of said imaging
`array sensor and a shadow of an object.” ............................................ 29 
`Broggi does not disclose that “an algorithmically executed filtering
`mechanism at least substantially ignores detected edges that are not
`indicative of a significant object.”....................................................... 32 
`VI.  A POSA would not have combined the teachings of the various references
`asserted by Valeo. .......................................................................................... 39 
`A.  Nissan and Hitachi............................................................................... 40 
`B. 
`Nissan, Hitachi, and Broggi ................................................................ 42 
`1. 
`Claim 19 .................................................................................... 43 
`2. 
`Claim 23 .................................................................................... 45 
`3. 
`Claim 24 .................................................................................... 46 
`Nissan, Hitachi, and Gutta ................................................................... 47 
`C. 
`VII.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 49 
`
` 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01208 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases 
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Technologies, LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014) .......................................... 24
`Google Inc. v. Visual Real Estate, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01338, Paper 3 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 2, 2014) .............................................. 24
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .......................................................................................... 21, 39
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................................... 28, 39
`In re Lister,
`583 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 12
`In re Royka,
`490 F.2d 981 (C.C.P.A. 1974) .............................................................................. 29
`Int’l Business Machines Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC,
`IPR2014-00673, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2014) ........................................... 24
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 21, 39
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2014-00547, Paper 3 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2014) ............................................. 24
`Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp.,
`363 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 13
`Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc.,
`950 F.2d 714 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .............................................................................. 21
`ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00136, Paper 31 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2013) ............................................ 24
`Statutes 
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................. 11, 12
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ........................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 11
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ...................................................................................... 20, 21, 29
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01208 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ................................................................................................... 11
`35 U.S.C. § 315(d) ................................................................................................... 27
`Rules 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 23
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ................................................................................... 19, 23
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ............................................................................................ 23
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(i) ........................................................................................ 23
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) .............................................................................................. 24
`Other Authorities 
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................................................... 34
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01208 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Description
`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
`Definition of “desire,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, accessed at
`http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/desire
`Definition of “tolerance,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, accessed
`at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tolerance
`Definition of “determine,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, accessed
`at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/determine
`Definition of “verify,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, accessed at
`http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verify
`Definition of “mode,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, accessed at
`http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mode
`Definition of “algorithm,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, accessed
`at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/algorithm
`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
`E-mail from Petitioners’ Counsel to the Board requesting
`authorization to file Motion to Submit Supplemental Information
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01208 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2015
`
`2016
`2017
`
`Description
`in IPR2014-01208, dated January 22, 2015
`Service E-mail from Petitioners’ Counsel with Petitioners’
`Response to Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence and
`accompanying exhibits filed in IPR2014-01208, dated January 20,
`2015
`Declaration of Dr. Matthew A. Turk with Curriculum Vitae
`Transcript of Deposition of Gerard P. Grenier, Valeo, Inc. v.
`Magna Electronics Inc., Case IPR2014-00220, dated December
`18, 2014.
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01208 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`The Board instituted inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522 (“the
`
`’522 patent”) on four separate grounds asserted by Valeo. The first ground is based
`
`on alleged obviousness of claims 2-3, 5, 7, 11-12, 28, 32-35, 37, 40, and 44-46
`
`over the combination of Nissan and Hitachi. The second ground is based on
`
`alleged obviousness of claims 18, 21, and 25-26 over the combination of Nissan,
`
`Hitachi, and Gutta. The third ground is based on alleged obviousness of claims 19
`
`and 23-24 over the combination of Nissan, Hitachi, and Broggi. The fourth ground
`
`is based on alleged obviousness of claim 22 over the combination of Nissan,
`
`Hitachi, and Gutta. But these grounds suffer from fatal flaws.
`
`As the petitioner, Valeo must show that the challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Here, Valeo has not met its
`
`burden because its analysis is deficient for at least three reasons.
`
`First, with respect to the third ground of alleged obviousness, Valeo has not
`
`established Broggi as prior art. Only patents and printed publications may be relied
`
`upon in inter partes review petitions. Valeo fails to establish that Broggi was
`
`published before the December 23, 2004 priority date of the ’522 patent.
`
`Second, Valeo’s obviousness analysis fails to resolve the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. This is one of the fundamental Graham factors that control the
`
`obviousness inquiry. The Petition itself must address the Graham factors. Yet
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01208 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`Valeo’s Petition fails to even mention the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. Thus, Valeo’s entire obviousness analysis in the Petition is deficient.
`
`Third, Valeo fails to identify how the construed claims are unpatentable.
`
`Valeo does not provide adequate reasons to combine the asserted references.
`
`Instead of providing reasoning with rational underpinnings to support its
`
`conclusions of obviousness, Valeo makes conclusory assertions. Additionally,
`
`Valeo fails to adequately explain how the asserted references and portions quoted
`
`in its claim charts disclose the claimed features. Accordingly, the Petition is
`
`entirely deficient and Valeo cannot show by a preponderance of the evidence that
`
`the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`
`Beyond Valeo’s failure to meet its burden, significant, non-obvious technical
`
`differences exist between the claimed invention and the disclosures of Nissan,
`
`Hitachi, Gutta, and Broggi. The asserted references fail to teach claim features of
`
`the challenged claims. For example, the asserted references do not disclose
`
`“wherein said control is operable to distinguish between an object in the field of
`
`view of said imaging array sensor and a shadow of an object,” as recited in claim
`
`19. Moreover, the asserted references do not disclose “wherein an algorithmically
`
`executed filtering mechanism at least substantially ignores detected edges that are
`
`not indicative of a significant object,” as recited in claim 24.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01208 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”)1 would not have
`
`combined the teachings of Nissan, Hitachi, Gutta, and Broggi in the way suggested
`
`by Valeo in the Petition for various reasons. Valeo’s proposed motivations to
`
`combine are based on inaccurate portrayals of the references. In addition, Valeo
`
`only gives conclusory reasons why a POSA would have combined the references.
`
`Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the Board should confirm the
`
`patentability of claims 2-3, 5, 7, 11-12, 18-19, 21-26, 28, 32-35, 37, 40, and 44-46.
`
`II. Overview of the ’522 patent
`Magna is in the business of providing innovative electronic systems to the
`
`automotive industry. The ’522 patent is directed to “imaging systems which are
`
`operable to determine if a vehicle or object of interest is adjacent to, forward of or
`
`rearward of the subject vehicle.” (’522 patent, Ex. 1001, 1:20-22.) These imaging
`
`systems “may adjust processing to accommodate any misalignment of the camera.”
`
`(Id. at 3:54-57.)
`
`With reference to Figures 1-3 of the ’522 patent, the following overview
`
`describes exemplary embodiments of the ’522 patent specification to provide
`
`
`1 A POSA would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical,
`
`electronic, or mechanical engineering, or equivalent experience, and at least two
`
`years of experience in the relevant field, such as imaging systems for vehicles.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`Case IPRR2014-012008 of
`,522
`
`UU.S. Patent
`No. 7,991
`
`
`
`patent claaims and to illustratee differencces from ffeatures off the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`context
`
`for ’522
`
`
`
`assertedd referencees.
`
`
`
`
`
`EEmbodimennts of the
`
`
`
`
`’522 pat
`
`
`
`ent speciffication deescribe immaging systtems
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`suitablee for vehiccles. The
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vice, capture devn image cncludes ansystem geenerally in
`
`
`
`sensor,
`
`
`
`or camerra 14 and
`
`
`
`a controll 16 that
`
`processes
`
`
`
`the captuured imagge to
`
`
`
`
`
`determine whetheer other vehhicles are ppresent adjjacent to thhe equippeed vehicle.. (Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at 4:51--57.) Figurre 1 of the
`
`
`
`
`
`’522 patennt (reproduuced beloww) depicts aan embodimment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`having
`
`a vehicle
`
`12 equip
`ped with
`
`
`
`a lane chhange systeem 10 acccording too the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claimedd inventionn. The systeem 10 is loocated at aan exterior
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`rearview mmirror 12aa and
`
`
`
`
`
`includess a cameraa 14 to cappture imagges and a ccontrol 166 to processs the capttured
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`images to determiine the pressence of annother vehiicle 18. (Idd. at 4:45-557.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`TThe claimeed control
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPRR2014-012008 of
`,522
`
`UU.S. Patent
`No. 7,991
`
`
`“may adjjust the immage and//or image
`processinng to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`accountt for any suuch misaliggnment of
`
`
`
`the camerra.” (Id. at
`
`
`
`6:19-24.) FFigures 3AA-3C
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the ’’522 patennt (reproduuced beloww) illustratee that this
`
`
`
`
`
`for shiftting in bothh the horizzontal and vvertical dirrections, ass well as rootation.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`adjustmennt can acccount
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TTo reduce
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the processsing requirements aand/or to rreduce thee possibilitty of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`false poositive siggnals, the
`
`
`
`
`
`system mmay utilizee various
`
`
`
`
`
`filtering mmechanismms to
`
`
`
`
`
`substanttially elimiinate or suubstantiallyy ignore eddges or pixeels that aree not indicaative
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01208 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`of a vehicle or significant object. (Id. at 2:60-65.) In addition, the system can
`
`“distinguish between vehicles or other objects and shadows of objects/vehicles.”
`
`(Id. at 3:7-10.) The system distinguishes between objects and shadows through
`
`processing steps that include performing a histogram analysis, extracting unique
`
`features across an edge, and performing a gradient analysis across a detected
`
`horizontal edge. (Id. at 10:1-38.)
`
`Each of the challenged claims covers some or all of these features. For
`
`example, claim 19 recites in part “wherein said control is operable to distinguish
`
`between an object in the field of view of said imaging array sensor and a shadow
`
`of an object.” Claim 24 recites in part “wherein an algorithmically executed
`
`filtering mechanism at least substantially ignores detected edges that are not
`
`indicative of a significant object in order to at least one of (a) reduce a processing
`
`requirement and (b) reduce false signals.”
`
`III. Summary of deficiencies in the asserted references discussed in this
`Response.
`
`The deficiencies of Nissan, Hitachi, Gutta, and Broggi prevent Valeo from
`
`meeting the thresholds for obviousness by a preponderance of the evidence and
`
`establish that the Board should confirm the patentability of the challenged claims.
`
`These references are briefly summarized below.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01208 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`A. Nissan (Ex. 1003)
`All instituted grounds depend on Nissan as a primary reference.2 Nissan is
`
`directed to a “vehicle-mounted camera optical axis misalignment detection
`
`device.” (Nissan, Title (emphasis added).) Thus, Nissan focuses on mere detection
`
`of camera misalignment. (Turk Decl., Ex. 2016 ¶ 22.) When Nissan’s device
`
`detects misalignment, in most embodiments, it merely and solely alerts the
`
`passengers that misalignment has occurred “making it possible to take appropriate
`
`actions, such as taking the car to the repair shop.” (Nissan, [0030].) Nissan’s
`
`device only does something about the misalignment (other than a warning) in one
`
`embodiment, where it uses an actuator to automatically correct the misalignment.
`
`(Id. at [0052].) This is a physical correction that does not adjust image data or
`
`image processing. (Turk Decl. ¶ 22.) Accordingly, Nissan does not disclose
`
`“wherein said control . . . is operable to at least partially compensate for the
`
`determined misalignment of said imaging array sensor.”
`
`2 The Petition states that “Nissan is prior art to the ’522 patent under at least
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” (Petition, p. 7.) But based on information in the Petition
`
`alone, this is not true. If Nissan “published on January 8, 2004” (id.) and the ’522
`
`patent claims priority to December 23, 2004 (id. at 2), then Nissan is not prior art
`
`under § 102(b). Accordingly, Magna disputes that Nissan is a proper § 102(b)
`
`reference.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01208 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`B. Hitachi (Ex. 1013)
`All instituted grounds rely on Hitachi as a key secondary reference. Hitachi
`
`is directed to “an automotive image capture apparatus capable of automatically
`
`accommodating displacements of image capture optical axis and field angle and
`
`the like in relation to design values.” (Hitachi, Abstract.) Hitachi accomplishes this
`
`by using a camera that is “capable of image capture of an area wider than the
`
`required area” and “adjusting the image capture area of the camera 1 in relation to
`
`the detection results.” (Id.)
`
`Accordingly, Hitachi provides a software-based solution for misalignment
`
`problems. Hitachi’s solution is incapable of actually physically fixing the
`
`misalignment and is limited to providing a solution only when the misalignment
`
`stays within the capture-capable image area of Hitachi. Given this and other limits
`
`of Hitachi, a POSA would not have been motivated to combine Hitachi with
`
`Nissan.
`
`C. Gutta (Ex. 1005)
`Valeo relies on Gutta as a secondary reference for two of the instituted
`
`grounds. Gutta is directed to “vehicular vision systems which provide the vehicle
`
`operator with information to utilize when making a determination as to whether to
`
`change lanes while driving.” (Gutta, 1:6-10.) The system has two side image
`
`cameras (12, 14) to obtain rearward and sideward views for both sides of the
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01208 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`vehicle. (Id. at 2:55-60; Fig. 2.) A rear image camera (16) placed on a rear portion
`
`of the vehicle obtains a rearward view. (Id. at 3:1-3.) The images from each of the
`
`cameras are provided to an image processor (22), which processes the images and
`
`provides them to a display (24). (Id. at 3:14-19.) The display provides a composite
`
`image of the cameras’ fields of view. (Id. at 4:24-28; Fig. 3.) An object identifier
`
`(20) analyzes the images from the cameras and identifies the type of objects in the
`
`images. (Id. at 3:34-37.) The display also provides distances to the objects in the
`
`image. (Id. at 40:30-32.) The system indicates to the driver whether it is safe or
`
`unsafe to change lanes. (Id. at 5:23-30.) Gutta does not overcome the deficiencies
`
`of combining Nissan and Hitachi.
`
`D. Broggi (Ex. 1006)
`Valeo relies on Broggi as a secondary reference only for one ground. Broggi
`
`is a paper that “describes a vehicle detection system using a single camera.”
`
`(Broggi, p. 310.) As discussed in further detail below, Broggi is not prior art
`
`because Valeo fails to provide sufficient evidence that Broggi was published
`
`before the ’522 patent’s priority date of December 23, 2004. Regardless, Broggi
`
`does not overcome the deficiencies of combining Nissan and Hitachi.
`
`Broggi focuses on the algorithm used to detect objects. (Turk Decl. ¶ 26.)
`
`“Symmetry calculation is the main part of the algorithm.” (Broggi, p. 311.)
`
`Broggi’s method begins by finding all of the vertical and horizontal edges. (Id.)
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01208 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`After applying a Sobel edge detector and creating three output images (of binarized
`
`Sobel edges, almost-vertical edges, and almost-horizontal edges), symmetry is then
`
`calculated according to a formula—vertical edges are considered symmetric if their
`
`orientation is opposite. (Id.) The symmetry calculation is done on the binarized
`
`Sobel edge image and a new image created with a pixelwise AND of the horizontal
`
`and vertical edges symmetry images (i.e., finding where both types of edges are
`
`present in a location). (Id.)
`
`The new image is used to search for “interesting columns.” (Id.) “An
`
`interesting column is defined as having a high symmetry in: (i) the image that
`
`contains the result of Sobel binarization or in, (ii) the image that contains the AND
`
`between symmetry of horizontal and vertical edges.” (Id. at 312.) Broggi discloses
`
`that “[a] columnwise histogram is then used to locate candidate columns,” as
`
`shown below in Fig. 8 of Broggi. (Id.; Turk Decl. ¶ 27.)
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01208 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`The vertical edges symmetry is checked against the histogram columns to
`
`obtain the expected vehicle width. (Broggi, p. 312.) If there is a high value of
`
`symmetry for widths that are too small to be a vehicle, then the algorithm has
`
`detected a small object. (Id.; Turk Decl. ¶ 28.) The histogram column is therefore
`
`discarded. (Broggi, p. 312; Turk Decl. ¶ 28.) The algorithm next seeks to create
`
`bounding boxes of detected objects that are possibly vehicles. (Broggi, p. 312.)
`
`The box base is found by searching for a horizontal edge with a high concentration
`
`of edges above the horizontal edge. (Id.) Boxes are filtered out if they are too far
`
`from the camera or too large or too small to be a vehicle. (Id.) The distance and
`
`size of the possible detected vehicles are then computed. (Id. at 313.)
`
`Although shadows are discussed in Broggi, they continue to be problematic
`
`in creating false positives. (Id. at 312-14.) Broggi does not address such problems
`
`of shadows. (Turk Decl. ¶ 29.)
`
`IV. Valeo cannot meet its burden of showing unpatentability of the
`challenged claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
`A. Valeo fails to show that Broggi qualifies as prior art.
`The proposed ground of invalidity for claims 19 and 23-24 relies on Broggi.
`
`However, Valeo fails to establish that Broggi qualifies as prior art under any part
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 102, and therefore Broggi cannot serve as the basis of an invalidity
`
`challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In an inter partes review proceeding, a petitioner
`
`may only rely upon patents and printed publications. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). Valeo
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01208 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`fails to provide sufficient record evidence that demonstrates Broggi was a printed
`
`publication as of December 23, 2004—the priority date of the ’522 patent. In its
`
`attempt to do so, Valeo submitted two supporting documents with its Petition (Exs.
`
`1010 and 10243) and later successfully submitted two additional documents as
`
`supplemental information (Exs. 1028-1029).
`
`1. The documents submitted with the Petition do not establish
`any publication date for Broggi.
`
`Valeo fails to satisfy its burden in demonstrating that Broggi is actually
`
`“prior art” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) (pre-AIA) or any other section. In particular,
`
`Valeo fails to satisfy its burden in demonstrating that Broggi is a printed
`
`publication that was publicly accessible before the filing date of the application
`
`leading to the ’522 patent. In order to qualify as a printed publication within the
`
`meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102, a reference “must have been sufficiently accessible to
`
`the public interested in the art” during the relevant time period. In re Lister, 583
`
`F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2009). It is Valeo’s burden to prove, using requisite
`
`evidence, that each reference was “publicly accessible” during the relevant time
`
`period. See id.; Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 363 F.3d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`3 Exhibit 1024 (the Grenier Declaration) was originally appended to Broggi
`
`(Ex. 1006). Valeo has since resubmitted the Grenier Declaration separately as
`
`Exhibit 1024.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01208 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`2004) (holding a party seeking to invalidate a patent must do so by clear and
`
`convincing evidence).
`
`Here, Valeo fails to satisfy its burden in proving that Broggi was publicly
`
`accessible during the relevant time period. Valeo attempts to establish the public
`
`accessibility of Broggi through statements made by its technical declarant, Dr.-Ing.
`
`Frahm, and through the Declaration of Gerard P. Grenier, but the Declarations fail
`
`for this purpose.
`
`i.
`The Petition alleges that the Broggi article was published in June 2004.
`
`Broggi (Ex. 1006)
`
`(Petition, p. 8.) Valeo does not provide in the Petition a specific date on which
`
`Broggi was allegedly published. Moreover, the Petition fails to provide any support
`
`for an asserted publication date. Broggi itself includes information regarding the
`
`2004 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium in Parma, Italy, including its date
`
`(June 14-17), in the top left corner of its first page. (Broggi, p. 310.) It also
`
`includes a copyright date on the bottom left corner of its first page. (Id.) These
`
`dates, however, provide no definitive evidence to support that the paper was
`
`published at or prior to the conference. (See Turk Decl. ¶¶ 30-31.)
`
`Valeo alleges that Broggi is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) (Petition, p.
`
`8) but fails to demonstrate that Broggi was published or made publicly accessible
`
`prior to the December 23, 2004 priority date of the ’522 patent. Neither Valeo’s
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01208 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`Petition nor Dr.-Ing. Frahm’s Declaration provides the requisite evidence. The
`
`Declaration of Gerard P. Grenier, discussed further below, also fails to provide the
`
`requisite evidence. Valeo therefore fails to prove that Broggi is prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`ii.
`Valeo attempts to authenticate the alleged publication date of Broggi using
`
`The Frahm Declaration (Ex. 1010)
`
`its technical declarant, Dr.-Ing. Frahm (Ex. 1010). Dr.-Ing. Frahm states that
`
`“Broggi (Pet. Ex. 1006) is a publication that dates back to June 14-17, 2004 and
`
`was presented at the 2004 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium.” (Frahm Decl. ¶
`
`115.) The Board found that Dr.-Ing. Frahm’s statement provides “sufficient and
`
`credible evidence that Broggi is prior art.” (Institution Decision, p. 24.) But this
`
`cannot be so. There is no evidence that Dr.-Ing. Frahm has personal knowledge of
`
`the alleged publication date of Broggi. And Dr.-Ing. Frahm does not allege to have
`
`been in attendance at the symposium and cannot know that an actual publication
`
`took place during the June 14-17, 2004 range of dates. (See Turk Decl. ¶¶ 30-32.)
`
`Accordingly, Dr.-Ing. Frahm’s statement has no bearing whatsoever on whether
`
`Broggi was actually published during the alleged dates.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01208 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`The Grenier Declaration (now Ex. 1024)
`
`iii.
`Valeo submitted the Grenier Declaration as an attachment to Broggi, as
`
`supposed evidence that Broggi was published in June 2004 and “is prior art under
`
`at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).” (Petition, p. 8.)
`
`The Grenier Declaration provides no support for the alleged June 14-17,
`
`2004 publication date for Broggi. In fact, the Grenier Declaration provides no
`
`evidence of any publication date. Mr. Grenier states only that “IEEE’s records
`
`confirm the following: a) ‘Multi-Resolution Vehicle Detection using Artificial
`
`Vision’ was presented at the 2004 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium which
`
`occurred June 14-17, 2004. b) IEEE registered the copyright to this conference on
`
`January 4, 2005.” (Grenier Decl., p. 1.)
`
`First, a presentation as part of the 2004 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles
`
`Symposium is not a publication, and the Grenier Declaration provides no evidence
`
`of a publication as a result of this presentation. Indeed, Mr. Grenier did not attend
`
`the Symposium. (IPR2014-00220 Deposition of Gerard P. Grenier, 11:17-19 (Ex.
`
`2017; “Grenier Depo.”).) He does not know how many people attended the
`
`Symposium or the qualifications of any of the attendees. (Id. at 11:20-12:2.) Most
`
`importantly, he does not know whether copies of the Broggi article were available
`
`at the Symposium (Id. at 12:3-7.) Moreover, he also does not know when the
`
`Broggi article was first available for public download. (Id. at 12:17-24.) So Mr.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01208 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`Grenier’s Declaration does not provide any evidence that the Broggi article was
`
`published during the June 14-17, 2004 timeframe of the Symposium.
`
`Second, a registration with the U.S. Copyright Office is only the beginning
`
`of the formal copyright process—no evidence is presented to show a publication
`
`date as a result of registration. Moreover, the January 4, 2005 copyright
`
`registration date is after the ’522 patent’s December 23, 2004 priority date.
`
`Accordingly, the Grenier Declaration has no tendency to make a publication date
`
`of Broggi on June 14-17, 2004 any more probab