`
` 
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`Valeo, Inc.; Valeo S.A.; Valeo GmbH; Valeo Schalter und Sensor GmbH;
`Connaught Electronics Ltd.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`Magna Electronics Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 7,991,522
`Issued: August 2 2011
`Filed: December 28, 2010
`
`Inventor: Michael J. Higgins-Luthman
`Title: IMAGING SYSTEM FOR VEHICLE
`
`_____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. __________
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Jan-Michael Frahm Regarding
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`
`
`Petitioner Valeo – Ex. 1010
`
`

`

`I, Dr.—Ing. Jan-Michael Frahm, do hereby declare and state,
`
`that all
`
`statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and that all statements
`
`made on information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these
`
`statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like
`
`so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of
`
`Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Dated: July 2 (f , 2014
`
`
`
`32:; é é
`
`Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Jan—Michael Frahm
`Regarding US. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`ii
`
`Petitioner Valeo — EX. 1010
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Engagement ........................................................................................................... 1
`B.
`Background And Qualifications ............................................................................ 1
`C.
`Compensation And Prior Testimony ..................................................................... 5
`D.
`Information Considered ......................................................................................... 6
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY ........................................ 7
`E.
`Anticipation ........................................................................................................... 8
`F.
`Obviousness .......................................................................................................... 9
`G.
`The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ............................................................ 15
`H.
`The State of the Art – Description of Background Technology ......................... 17
`III. THE ’522 PATENT ..................................................................................... 26
`A.
`Technical Overview Of The ’522 Patent ............................................................. 26
`B.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................................. 27
`a.
`“to at least partially compensate for the determined
`misalignment” ............................................................................. 28
`“processing … at least partially accounts for misalignment” ..... 28
`“at least partially compensate for the determined degree of
`misalignment” ............................................................................. 28
`“operable to adjust said data” ...................................................... 29
`“operable to adjust processing” ................................................... 29
`“edge detection” .......................................................................... 29
`“algorithmically processes captured image data to a reduced data
`set” ............................................................................................... 30
`“target zone” ................................................................................ 30
`h.
`Patentability Analysis of the ’522 Patent ............................................................ 31
`1.
`Discussion of Relevant Patents and Publications .................................... 32
`i.
`Nissan Patent ............................................................................... 32
`j.
`Gutta Patent ................................................................................. 36
`k.
`Broggi .......................................................................................... 39
`l.
`Sun ............................................................................................... 42
`m.
`Broggi II ...................................................................................... 44
`n.
`Hitachi Patent .............................................................................. 45
`o.
`Breed Patent Application ............................................................ 50
`p.
`Ohtsuka........................................................................................ 52
`
`b.
`c.
`
`d.
`e.
`f.
`g.
`
`C.
`
`Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Jan-Michael Frahm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`iii
`
`Petitioner Valeo – Ex. 1010
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
`2.
`
`s.
`
`t.
`
`u.
`v.
`
`w.
`
`x.
`
`Bos ............................................................................................... 56
`q.
`Motivations to Combine .......................................................................... 58
`r.
`Motivation to combine Nissan and Hitachi “control, … is
`operable to adjust … said image processing to at least partially to
`compensate for the detected misalignment” or in the alternative
`“operable to adjust said data to at least partially compensate for
`the determined misalignment of said imaging array sensor.” ..... 59
`Obvious to combine Nissan, Hitachi and Gutta for “object
`detection” .................................................................................... 64
`Obvious to combine Nissan, Hitachi and Gutta for field of view at
`least partially sideward ................................................................ 68
`Combing Nissan, Hitachi and Gutta for “CMOS camera” .......... 71
`Obvious to combine Nissan, Hitachi, and Ohtsuka (or
`alternatively Broggi II) for reduced dataset ................................ 72
`Motivation to combine Nissan, Hitachi, and Ohtsuka for “reduced
`data set is representative of a target zone” .................................. 77
`Motivation to combine Nissan, Hitachi, and Broggi for
`“distinguish between an object in the field of view of said
`imaging array sensor and a shadow of an object” ....................... 79
`Obvious to combine Nissan, Hitachi, and Broggi for “edge
`detection” .................................................................................... 81
`Obvious to combine Nissan, Hitachi, and Broggi for filtering and
`false positive detection ................................................................ 84
`Obvious to combine Nissan, Hitachi, Sun and Bos “for night and
`day algorithms in dependence on ambient light level” ............... 87
`Obvious to combine Nissan, Hitachi and Gutta or in the
`alternative Nissan, Hitachi, and Breed for taking in to account
`steering angle for object detection and alerting the driver .......... 92
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 96
`
`y.
`
`z.
`
`aa.
`
`bb.
`
`Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Jan-Michael Frahm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`iv
`
`Petitioner Valeo – Ex. 1010
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
`Appendix A:
`
`Appendix B:
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF APPENDICES
`
`List of Materials Considered
`
`CV of Dr.-Ing Jan-Michael Frahm
`
`Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Jan-Michael Frahm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`v
`
`Petitioner Valeo – Ex. 1010
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Engagement
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Valeo, Inc., Valeo S.A., Valeo
`
`GmbH, Valeo Schalter und Sensor GmbH and Connaught Electronics Ltd as an
`
`expert witness in the above-captioned proceeding. I have been asked to render an
`
`opinion regarding the validity of claims 2-5, 7, 11, 12, 16-26, 28, 32-35, 37, 40,
`
`and 44-46 of U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522 (“the ’522 patent”), which is submitted
`
`herewith as Petition Exhibit 10011. The following is my written report on that
`
`topic.
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`Background And Qualifications
`
`I am currently an Associate Professor of Computer Science at the
`
`University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the Department of Computer
`
`Science. I am also the head of the 3D Computer Vision Group in the Department
`
`of Computer Science.
`
`3.
`
`Since the mid 1990s, I have studied and worked in the field of
`
`computer science and engineering. My experience includes research and teaching,
`
`with research interests in 3D camera vision technology, including issues arising out
`
`of camera motion, camera self-calibration, and multi-camera systems.
`
`                                                            
`1 In this declaration, citations to “Pet. Ex. [No.]” refer to exhibits to Valeo's Petition
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522. Citations to “Att. [A, B, C,
`etc.]” refer to documents attached to this declaration that are not cited as exhibits in
`Valeo’s Inter Partes Review Petition of U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522. 
`Declaration of Dr. .-Ing. Jan-Michael Frahm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`Petitioner Valeo – Ex. 1010
`
`1
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
`4.
`
` I earned my diploma, which is the equivalent of an American Masters
`
`degree, in Computer Science from the University of Lübeck in 1999 and my
`
`doctorate of engineering in Computer Science from the Christian-Albrechts-
`
`University of Kiel, in the Multi-Media Information Processing Group of the
`
`Institute of Computer Science in 2005. My dissertation thesis topic was “Camera
`
`Self-Calibration with Known Camera Orientation”. In addition, during my
`
`doctoral studies, I worked on a project for DaimlerChrysler to evaluate the use of
`
`monoscopic camera systems for driver assistance systems.
`
`5.
`
`After earning my PhD, I earned a post-doctoral research position at
`
`the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill where I continued my studies in
`
`computer vision.
`
`6.
`
`In 2007, I became a research assistant professor at the University of
`
`North Carolina at Chapel Hill where I continued to research computer vision and,
`
`in particular, 3D computer vision. In 2011, I became an assistant professor and in
`
`2014 an associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and
`
`in 2014 I was promoted to associate professor. In my roles as a professor I have
`
`taught and continue to teach, for example, computer vision and advanced topics in
`
`computer vision.
`
`7.
`
`In addition to my role as a professor, I also have held other various
`
`titles and served various roles both in and outside the university. For example, in
`
`Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Jan-Michael Frahm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Valeo – Ex. 1010
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
`2010, I became Editor-in-Chief of the Elsevier Journal of Image and Vision
`
`Computing, and, in 2012, I became the Director of Computer Vision at the
`
`Renaissance Computing Institute. In addition, in 2012, I became Scientific
`
`Advisor to URC Ventures, a company that aims to solve large-scale industry
`
`challenges through real-time digitization of the physical world.
`
`8.
`
`Over the years I have received awards and recognition in my field,
`
`including the prize for the Best PhD Dissertation in the School of Engineering at
`
`the Christian-Albrechts-University in 2006 and the Best Demo Award at the IEEE
`
`Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition in
`
`2007. Over the past five years, I also have received recognition by having
`
`obtained several million dollars in research funding for various projects from the
`
`United States government and industry sources.
`
`9.
`
`I am the author or co-author of over 90 publications and book chapters
`
`in the field of computer vision, including over 80 articles in peer-reviewed
`
`conference proceedings and standards documents. Many of these publications
`
`describe computer vision systems, some of which are directed specifically to
`
`camera calibration, feature extraction, feature
`
`tracking and feature based
`
`recognition. The following list includes a selected sample of publications that I
`
`have authored or co-authored.
`
`a. Seon Joo Kim, David Gallup, Jan-Michael Frahm, Marc Pollefeys,
`“Joint Radiometric Calibration and Feature Tracking System with an
`Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Jan-Michael Frahm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`Petitioner Valeo – Ex. 1010
`
`3
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
`to Stereo”, Journal Computer Vision and Image
`Application
`Understanding, 2010
`
`b. S. Sinha, J.-M. Frahm, M. Pollefeys, Y. Genc, “Feature Tracking and
`Matching in Video Using Programmable Graphics Hardware”, Journal
`of Machine Vision and Application, 2009.
`
`c. J. Heinly, E. Dunn, and J. M. Frahm, “Comparative Evaluation of
`Binary Features”, European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV),
`2012.
`
`d. Y. Xu, G. Reynaga, S. Chiasson, J.-M. Frahm, F. Monrose, and P. van
`Oorschot, “Security and Usability Challenges of Moving-Object
`CAPTCHAs: Decoding Codewords in Motion”, Usenix Security,
`2012.
`
`e. Rahul Raguram, Andrew White, Dibyendusekhar Goswami, Fabian
`Monrose and Jan-Michael Frahm, “iSpy: Automatic Reconstruction of
`Typed Input from Compromising Reflections”, ACM Conference on
`Computer and Communications Security
`(CCS), 2011
`(14%
`acceptance rate).
`
`f. Yi, Xu, Jared Heinly, Andrew White, Jan-Michael Frahm, and Fabian
`Monrose, “Seeing Double: Reconstructing Obscured Typed Input
`from Repeated Compromising Reflections”, ACM Conference on
`Computer and Communications Security (CCS) 2013.
`
`g. Ram Krishan Kumar, Adrian Ilie, Jan-Michael Frahm, Marc
`Pollefeys, “Simple calibration of non-overlapping cameras with a
`mirror”, IEEE conference Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
`(CVPR 2008, oral acceptance rate 4%).
`
`h. Christopher Zach, David Gallup and Jan-Michael Frahm, “Fast Gain-
`Adaptive KLT Tracking on the GPU”, CV GPU' 08 workshop in
`conjunction with IEEE Conference Computer Vision and Pattern
`Recognition 2008.
`
`i. Jan-Michael Frahm, Kevin Köser and Reinhard Koch, “Pose
`
`Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Jan-Michael Frahm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Valeo – Ex. 1010
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
`estimation for a Multi-Camera System”, DAGM (German Pattern
`Recognition Conference) 2004.
`
`j. Jan-Michael Frahm and Reinhard Koch, “Camera Calibration with
`known Rotation”, International Conference Computer Vision (ICCV
`2003, acceptance rate 20.6%).
`
`k. Daniel Grest, Jan-Michael Frahm, and Reinhard Koch, “A Color
`Similarity Measure for Robust Shadow Removal in Real Time”, 8th
`International Workshop on Vision, Modeling, and Visualization 2003.
`
`10.
`
`In addition to written works, I also have been invited to speak at
`
`several conferences and industry research labs, such as, Daimler’s Image
`
`Understanding group. I have also served for many years as reviewer or in other
`
`roles on numerous program committees in the field including, for example, the
`
`IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, the European Conference on
`
`Computer Vision, and the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
`
`Recognition.
`
`11.
`
`I also regularly review articles for the top computer vision journals
`
`including, for example, the International Journal of Computer Vision, IEEE
`
`Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.
`
`12. A copy of my curriculum vitae, which describes in further detail my
`
`qualifications, responsibilities, employment history, honors, awards, professional
`
`associations, invited presentations, and publications is attached as Appendix B to
`
`this declaration.
`
`C. Compensation And Prior Testimony
`Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Jan-Michael Frahm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Valeo – Ex. 1010
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
`13.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $420 per hour for my study,
`
`declaration and testimony in this matter. I am also being reimbursed for
`
`reasonable and customary expenses associated with my work and testimony in this
`
`investigation. My compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this matter or
`
`the specifics of my testimony.
`
`14.
`
` During the previous four years I testified in a jury trial as an expert
`
`once, in March 2013, in the United States District Court for the Southern District
`
`of New York in the following case: Tomita Technologies USA, LLC et al v.
`
`Nintendo Co., Ltd et al, Case No 1:11-cv-04256.
`
`D.
`
`Information Considered
`
`15. My opinions are based on my years of education, research, and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have considered the materials referred to herein or listed in
`
`Appendix A.
`
`16.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to rebut
`
`arguments raised by the patentee. Further, I may also consider additional
`
`documents and information in forming any necessary opinions – including
`
`documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`17. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration
`
`Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Jan-Michael Frahm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Valeo – Ex. 1010
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information
`
`and on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`
`18.
`
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`
`claims of the ’522 patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles that
`
`counsel has explained to me.
`
`19. First, I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be
`
`found patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious in light of
`
`what came before it. That which came before is generally referred to as “prior art.”
`
`20.
`
`I understand that in this context the burden is on the party asserting
`
`unpatentability to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a
`
`preponderance of the evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more
`
`likely than not.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claims
`
`after being construed in this manner are then to be compared to the information in
`
`the prior art.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the information that may be
`
`evaluated is limited to patents and printed publications. My analysis below
`
`Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Jan-Michael Frahm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Valeo – Ex. 1010
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
`compares the claims to patents and printed publications that are prior art to the
`
`claims. I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a patent
`
`claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the claim.
`
`Second, the prior art can be shown to “render obvious” the claim. My
`
`understanding of the two legal standards is set forth below.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that the ’522 patent was granted from an application
`
`(12/764,355) that was filed on December 28, 2010. Ex. 1001. I also understand
`
`that the ’522 patent claims benefit to a series of Continuation applications, the
`
`earliest of which, patent application no. 11/315,675 (now US Patent No.
`
`7,720,580) was filed on December 22, 2005. In addition, provisional application
`
`no. 60/638,687 was filed on December 23, 2004, before US Patent No. 7,720,580,
`
`to which the ’522 patent is entitled to priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e).
`
`Accordingly, I have used December 23, 2004, as the “date the invention was
`
`made” in my analysis. I am using this date for analysis based on the assumption
`
`that there is a proper claim to priority within the chain of continuation application
`
`to which the ’522 patent claim benefit; however, if this assumption is incorrect,
`
`then my analysis may change.
`
`E. Anticipation
`
`Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Jan-Michael Frahm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Valeo – Ex. 1010
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a patent claim is “anticipated” by the prior art. I have applied these
`
`standards in my evaluation of whether the claims asserted in this investigation are
`
`anticipated.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that, for a patent claim to be “anticipated” by the prior
`
`art, each and every requirement of the claim must be found, expressly or
`
`inherently, in a single prior art reference as recited in the claim. I understand that
`
`claim limitations that are not expressly found in a prior art reference are inherent if
`
`the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claim
`
`limitations.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that it is acceptable to examine evidence outside the prior
`
`art reference (extrinsic evidence) in determining whether a feature, while not
`
`expressly discussed in the reference, is necessarily present within that reference.
`
`F. Obviousness
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time
`
`the invention was made.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the obviousness standard is defined in the patent
`
`statute (35 U.S.C. § 103(a)) as follows:
`
`A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically
`disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the
`
`Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Jan-Michael Frahm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Valeo – Ex. 1010
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
`ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the
`invention was made.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a claim in a patent is obvious. I have applied these standards in my
`
`evaluation of whether the claims of the ’522 patent would have been considered
`
`obvious at the time of the invention.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that a claim in a patent is obvious when the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter
`
`pertains.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that a suggestion to combine references may be found
`
`expressly in the prior art references themselves, or it may come from knowledge
`
`by those skilled in the art that certain prior art references, or disclosures in those
`
`references, are known to be of special interest or importance in the particular field.
`
`I further understand that the suggestion may also come from the nature of the
`
`problem to be solved, leading inventors to look to references relating to possible
`
`solutions to that problem. Therefore, when determining the patentability of a
`
`claimed invention that combines two known elements, I understand the question is
`
`Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Jan-Michael Frahm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Valeo – Ex. 1010
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
`whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest the desirability,
`
`and thus the obviousness, of making such a combination.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that elements missing from a prior art document may be
`
`supplied by the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the
`
`relevant time.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that obviousness may be shown by considering more
`
`than one item of prior art. I also understand that the relevant inquiry into
`
`obviousness requires consideration of four factors (although not necessarily in the
`
`following order):
`
`• The scope and content of the prior art;
`
`• The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`• The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art;
`and
`
`• Whatever objective factors
`indicating obviousness or non-
`obviousness may be present in any particular case.
`
`In addition, I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be
`
`34.
`
`done in hindsight, but should be done through the eyes of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the relevant art at the time the subject patent was filed (i.e., December 23, 2004).
`
`35.
`
`I understand the objective factors indicating obviousness or non-
`
`obviousness may include: commercial success of products covered by the patent
`
`claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by others to make the
`
`Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Jan-Michael Frahm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Valeo – Ex. 1010
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
`invention; copying of the invention by others in the field; unexpected results
`
`achieved by the invention; praise of the invention by the infringer or others in the
`
`field; the taking of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of surprise by
`
`experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and the patentee
`
`proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that the combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
`
`results. I understand that when a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
`
`incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of that work, either in the
`
`same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a
`
`predictable variation, that variation would have been considered obvious. I
`
`understand that for similar reasons, if a technique has been used to improve one
`
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using that technique to improve the other
`
`device would have been obvious unless its actual application yields unexpected
`
`results or challenges in implementation.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, but
`
`instead can take account of the “ordinary innovation” that does no more than yield
`
`predictable results, which are inferences and creative steps that a person of
`
`Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Jan-Michael Frahm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Valeo – Ex. 1010
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that sometimes 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. I understand that all these
`
`issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason to
`
`combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a
`
`formalistic conception of the words “teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” I
`
`understand that in 2007, the Supreme Court issued its decision in KSR Int'l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex, Inc., where the Court rejected the previous requirement of a “teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine” known elements of prior art for purposes of
`
`an obviousness analysis as a precondition for finding obviousness. It is my
`
`understanding that KSR confirms that any motivation that would have been known
`
`to a person of skill in the art, including common sense, or derived from the nature
`
`of the problem to be solved, is sufficient to explain why references would have
`
`been combined.
`
`40. A person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a problem will not be
`
`led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem. I
`
`understand that under the KSR standard, common sense is important and should be
`
`Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Jan-Michael Frahm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Valeo – Ex. 1010
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
`considered. Common sense teaches that familiar items may have obvious uses
`
`beyond the particular application being described in a reference, that if something
`
`can be done once it is obvious to do it multiple times, and in many cases a person
`
`of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like
`
`pieces of a puzzle. As such, the prior art considered can be directed to any need or
`
`problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention and can
`
`provide a reason for combining the elements of the prior art in the manner claimed.
`
`In other words, the prior art does not need to be directed towards solving the same
`
`problem that is addressed in the patent. Further, the individual prior art references
`
`themselves need not all be directed towards solving the same problem.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity.
`
`42.
`
`I further understand that in many fields, it may be that there is little
`
`discussion of obvious techniques or combination, and it often may be the case that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive design
`
`trends. When there is such a design need or market pressure to solve a problem
`
`and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of
`
`ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical
`
`grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
`
`innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a
`
`Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Jan-Michael Frahm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Valeo – Ex. 1010
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
`combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious. The fact that a
`
`particular combination of prior art elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that
`
`the combination was obvious even if no one attempted the combination. If the
`
`combination was obvious to try (regardless of whether it was actually tried) or
`
`leads to anticipated success, then it is likely the result of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense rather than innovation.
`
`G. The Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`43.
`
`I have been informed that “a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
`
`art” is a hypothetical person considered to have the normal skills and knowledge in
`
`a particular technical field, without being a genius. See e.g., Environmental
`
`Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 218 USPQ 865 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`This person is one to whom an expert in the relevant field could assign a routine
`
`task with reasonable confidence that the task would be successfully carried out. I
`
`have been informed that the level of skill in the relevant art is evidenced by the
`
`prior art references.
`
`44.
`
`I believe, and the prior art discussed herein demonstrates, that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’522 patent would be someone
`
`who was familiar with basic automotive and/or computer vision systems
`
`documented in the vision systems literature prior to December 2004. That
`
`literature would have included books and/or publications that had been written on
`
`Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Jan-Michael Frahm
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Valeo – Ex. 1010
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
`tracking and classifying objects, blind spot monitoring on vehicles, object
`
`detection using one or more cameras, computer vision, calibration of cameras as
`
`used in automotive vision systems, as well as academic papers published at
`
`conferences such as the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Proceedings of the
`
`Asian Conference on Computer Vision, Proceedings of the European Conference
`
`on Computer Vision, the IEEE International conference on Computer Vision, and
`
`the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition; and in such
`
`publications as the Image and Vision Computing Journal.
`
`45. The person of ordinary skill in the art may have been a graduate
`
`student in mathematics, engineering, or computer science, and may have had a
`
`graduate degree in one of these disciplines.
`
`46. A person of ordinary skill in the art may have been a graduate student
`
`or worked in industry, in the field of computer vision and/or driver assistance
`
`systems.
`
`47. The person of ordinary skill in the art may have worked in academia
`
`(either as a professor or a graduate student), for a company, or for a government.
`
`48. Based