UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`TRW AUTOMOTIVE U.S. LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-004361
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`_____________
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, and IPR2015-00439 have been
`
`consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00436 for U.S. Pat. 8,599,001
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`E. 
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`A. 
`Summary of instituted Grounds ............................................................ 1 
`B. 
`Summary of deficiencies in the instituted Grounds .............................. 2 
`Summary of the deficiencies of base references Vellacott and Kenue ........... 5 
`A.  Deficiencies of Vellacott ....................................................................... 5 
`B. 
`Deficiencies of Kenue ........................................................................... 7 
`It was not obvious to change the rear-ward facing operation of Vellacott
`based on the forward facing operation of Kenue to meet the claimed features
`in claims 1, 56, 79, and 96. .............................................................................. 8 
`A.  Under collateral estoppel, the Board here should follow the decisions
`in IPR2014-00293 and IPR2015-00951 that held Vellacott cannot be
`combined with Kenue, or similar references, to teach a forward facing
`camera.................................................................................................... 8 
`1. 
`Collateral estoppel law ................................................................ 9 
`2. 
`This proceeding is almost identical factually to IPR2014-00293
`and this panel should look to the prior panel’s decision as
`guidance to find Vellacott is not obvious to combine with
`Kenue. ....................................................................................... 12 
`This proceeding is almost identical factually to IPR2015-00951
`and this panel should look to the other panel’s decision as
`guidance to find Vellacott is not obvious to combine with
`Kenue. ....................................................................................... 14 
`Vellacott and Kenue were not properly combinable because TRW did
`not articulate a credible or consistent obviousness theory. ................. 15 
`Reversing the field of view of Donnelly’s system, as taught in
`Vellacott, would have modified Vellacott’s operation of the system
`and rendered unsuitable for its intended purpose. ............................... 19 
`D.  Vellacott’s CMOS-based vision system was not obvious to combine
`with Kenue’s CCD-based vision system because there was no
`reasonable expectation of success the modified system would work. 25 
`Vellacott and Kenue are not combinable because their combination
`does not enable the claimed inventions. .............................................. 31 
`
`3. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00436 for U.S. Pat. 8,599,001
`
`B. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`IV.  Even if Vellacott was properly combinable with the various secondary
`references, the combinations lack teaching or suggestion of critical claim
`features. .......................................................................................................... 37 
`A. 
`The combination of Vellacott and Kenue fails to teach a module
`attached to a windshield (independent claim 1 and dependent claims
`2-14, 24, 28, 32, 34-40, 42-50, 53-55). ............................................... 37 
`1. 
`TRW fails to show the module feature is taught in Vellacott... 37 
`2. 
`Kenue does not cure the deficiencies of Vellacott, so the
`combination does not teach the module attached to a
`windshield. ................................................................................ 39 
`Vellacott fails to teach an array with more columns than rows
`(independent claim 96 and dependent claims 3, 4, 97-100, 102-09)
`and where the array has at least 40 rows (independent claim 96 and
`dependent claims 4, 59, 81, 97-100, 102-09) ...................................... 40 
`1. 
`TRW fails to show an array with more columns than rows is
`taught in Vellacott. .................................................................... 40 
`Dr. Miller does not demonstrate this claim feature was merely a
`design choice. ............................................................................ 41 
`Dr. Miller’s allegations fail to establish a “convincing line of
`reasoning” that this claim feature is an obvious design choice.
` ................................................................................................... 42 
`Dr. Miller’s allegations fail to establish that the claims merely
`arrange known elements in a configuration recognized as
`functionally equivalent to a known configuration. ................... 44 
`At the time of the priority date, each vision system was
`uniquely designed such that no vision system was an “obvious
`design choice.” .......................................................................... 45 
`Reprogramming an array does not change the physical
`characteristics of the array. ....................................................... 46 
`Vellacott fails to teach that the array with more columns than
`rows also has at least 40 rows. .................................................. 47 
`Vellacott fails to teach that “image data processing by said image
`processor comprises pattern recognition” (claim 28). ........................ 48 
`D.  Vellacott and Kenue fail to teach a “control [that] determines a peak
`light level of at least one sub-array” (claims 35, 36). ......................... 51 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00436 for U.S. Pat. 8,599,001
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`H. 
`
`I. 
`
`J. 
`
`2. 
`
`Vellacott fails to teach “a connector for electrically connecting to a
`power source of the equipped vehicle” (independent claim 56 and
`dependent claims 52, 57-66, 69, 71, and 73-78). ................................ 53 
`Vellacott fails to teach an image processor that compares captured
`image data with stored data and outputs a vehicle control signal based
`on the comparison (claims 15, 66, 85, 100). ....................................... 55 
`The combination including Schofield does not teach or suggest a
`module that releasably mounts (independent claims 56, 79 and 96 and
`dependent claims 57-66, 69, 71, 73-78, 81-85, 87-95, 97-100, 102-
`08). ....................................................................................................... 56 
`The combination including Kenue fails to teach or suggest an image
`sensor array with more columns than rows (independent claim 96 and
`dependent claims 3, 4, 97-100, 102-08). ............................................. 57 
`The combination including Venturello does not teach or suggest a
`vehicular vision system that “determines a presence . . . of fog” or
`“recognize[s] veiling glare” (claims 11-14, 64, 65, 79, 80-85, 87-95,
`98, 99). ................................................................................................. 59 
`1. 
`TRW’s premise for Venturello teaching this feature is
`misplaced because Venturello does not teach controlling
`headlamps. ................................................................................. 59 
`It was not obvious to combine Venturello with Vellacott
`because the combination would necessarily change the
`operation of Vellacott. .............................................................. 60 
`a) 
`Vellacott’s operation would necessarily change because
`it would require Venturello’s special hardware to
`function. .......................................................................... 60 
`Vellacott’s operation would necessarily change because
`it was incapable of capturing and processing images that
`Venturello’s pulsed light system would produce. .......... 63 
`Vellacott’s operations would necessarily change because
`its CMOS devices could not operate in the required IR
`Spectrum of Venturello. ................................................. 65 
`The combination including Venturello does not teach or suggest
`“determin[ing] a presence of at least one of fog, snow and rain”
`(claims 79 and 84). .............................................................................. 65 
`
`b) 
`
`c) 
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00436 for U.S. Pat. 8,599,001
`
`V. 
`
`TRW is barred under Section 315(b) because Magna’s complaint was
`effectively served on December 11, 2013 with TRW’s consent. .................. 70 
`A. 
`Because TRW previously consented in writing under the first prong of
`Rule 15(a)(2), no action by the court was required. ............................ 72 
`B.  Magna’s motion only requested leave to file the complaint, not to
`amend it; the complaint was already amended by consent. ................ 74 
`VI.  TRW’s failure to accurately identify all real parties in interest renders the
`Petition fatally defective. ............................................................................... 77 
`A. 
`TRW Holdings is an unnamed RPI. .................................................... 78 
`B. 
`ZF is an unnamed RPI. ........................................................................ 82 
`VII.  TRW failed to prove that Vellacott is prior art .............................................. 86 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 88 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00436 for U.S. Pat. 8,599,001
`
`Exhibit List
`
`Description
`Definition of “integrated,” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary,
`accessed at http://www.merriam-
`webster.com/dictionary/integrated
`Definition of “plurality,” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary,
`accessed at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/plurality
`Declaration of Dr. Ralph Etienne-Cummings
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Ralph Etienne-Cummings
`Moini, A. “Vision Chips or Seeing Silicon,” Third Revision
`(March 1997)
`“How does an image intensifier work?” accessed at
`http://www.nightvision.nl/faq-reader/how-does-an-image-
`intensifier-work.html
`Seger, U., et al., “Vision Assistance in Scenes with Extreme
`Contrast,” IEEE Micro, Vol. 13, No. 1 (February 1993)
`Excerpts from Holst, G.C., CCD Arrays, Cameras, and Displays,
`Second Edition, Bellingham, WA: SPIE Optical Engineering
`Press, 1998; pp. v-xxiii, 7-12, 45-101, and 176-179.
`“Vision Systems 101: An Introduction,” Teledyne DALSA Inc.,
`accessed at
`https://www.teledynedalsa.com/imaging/products/vision-
`systems/vs101/
`Taylor, S.A., “CCD and CMOS Imaging Array Technologies:
`Technology Review,” Xeros Ltd., Technical Report EPC-1998-
`106 (1998)
`Dickinson, A, et al., “CMOS Digital Camera with Parallel Analog-
`to-Digital Conversion Architecture” (April 1995)
`Leachtenauer, J.C., “Resolution requirements and the Johnson
`criteria revisited,” Proceedings of SPIE, Infrared Imaging
`Systems: Design, Analysis, Modeling and Testing XIV, Vol. 5076
`(2003).
`Yadid-Pecht, O., et al., “Wide Intrascene Dynamic Range CMOS
`APS Using Dual Sampling,” IEEE Transactions on Electron
`- v -
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`2004
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00436 for U.S. Pat. 8,599,001
`
`Description
`Devices, Vol. 44, No. 10 (1997)
`ZHENG et al., “An Adaptive System for Traffic Sign
`Recognition,” IEEE Proceedings of the Intelligent Vehicles ’94
`Symposium, pp. 165-170, Oct. 1994.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,917,477 to Bechtel et al.
`Shaldover, S.E., “Research and Development Needs for Advanced
`Vehicle Control Systems,” IEEE Micro, Vol. 13, No. 1 (February
`1993)
`Yamada, K., et al., “Wide Dynamic Range Vision Sensor for
`Vehicles,” 1994 Vehicle Navigation & Information Systems
`Conference Proceedings
`Fossum, E.R., “Active Pixel Sensors: Are CCD’s dinosaurs?”
`Proceedings of SPIE, Charge-Coupled Devices and Solid-State
`Optical Sensors III, Vol. 1900 (1993)
`Doudoumopoulos, N.A., et al., “CMOS Active Pixel Sensor
`Technology for High Performance Machine Vision Applications,”
`SME Applied Machine Vision ’96 – Emerging Smart Vision
`Sensors (June 1996)
`Nixon, R.H., et al., “256 × 256 CMOS Active Pixel Sensor
`Camera-on-a-Chip,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, Vol. 31,
`No. 12, Paper FA 11.1 (1996)
`Mendis, S., et a., “CMOS Active Pixel Image Sensor,” IEEE
`Transactions on Electron Devices, Vol. 41, No. 3 (March 1994)
`Aw, C.H., et al., “A 128 x 128 Pixel Standard-CMOS Image
`Sensor with Electronic Shutter,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State
`Circuits, Vol. 31, No. 12 (December 1996)
`Kemeny, S. E., et al., “Multiresolution Image Sensor,” IEEE
`Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, Vol.
`7, No. 4 (August 1997)
`Ackland, B., et al., “Camera on a chip,” Digest of Technical
`Papers of the 42nd Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC),
`Paper TA 1.2 (1996)
`“How an Image Intensifier Tube Works,” PHOTONIS Group,
`accessed at http://www.nightvision.nl/faq-reader/how-does-an-
`- vi -
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2014
`
`2015
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00436 for U.S. Pat. 8,599,001
`
`Description
`image-intensifier-work.html
`“Image intensified CCD high speed cameras,” Stanford Computer
`Optics, Inc., accessed at
`http://www.stanfordcomputeroptics.com/technology/iccd-system-
`overview.html
`Ientilucci, E.J., “Synthetic Simulation and Modeling of Image
`Intensified CCDs (IICCD),” (March 31, 2000)
`“CCD vs. CMOS,” Teledyne DALSA Inc., accessed at
`https://www.teledynedalsa.com/imaging/knowledge-
`center/appnotes/ccd-vs-cmos/
`Fowler, B., et al., “A CMOS Area Image Sensor With Pixel-Level
`A/D Conversion,” Digest of Technical Papers of the 41st Solid-
`State Circuits Conference (ISSCC) (2001)
`“The Electromagnetic and Visible Spectra,” Light Waves and
`Color – Lesson 2, accessed at
`http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/light/Lesson-2/The-
`Electromagnetic-and-Visible-Spectra
`Elwell, C., et al., “Near Infrared Spectroscopy,” accessed at
`http://www.ucl.ac.uk/medphys/research/borl/intro/nirs
`Hall, D., “Why I Dislike auto-Dimming Rearview Mirrors,”
`accessed at http://blog.consumerguide.com/why-i-dislike-auto-
`dimming-rearview-mirrors/
`Carley, L.R., et al., “Synthesis Tools for Mixed-Signal ICs:
`Progress on Frontend and Backend Strategies,” Proceedings of the
`33rd Design Automation Conference (1996)
`Trainor, D. W., et al., “Architectural Synthesis of Digital Signal
`Processing Algorithms Using ‘IRIS’,” Journal of VLSI Signal
`Processing Systems for Signal, Image and Video Technology, Vol.
`16, No. 1 (1997)
`Abshire, P., et al., “Confession Session: Learning from Others
`Mistakes,” 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and
`Systems (ISCAS) (2011)
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`“Versatile LEDs Drive Machine vision in Automated
`- vii -
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`2037
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00436 for U.S. Pat. 8,599,001
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Manufacture,”
`http://www.digikey.ca/en/articles/techzone/2012/jan/versatile-
`leds-drive-machine-vision-in-automated-manufacture
`U.S. Patent No. 4,243,196 to Toda et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 3,411,843 to Moller
`U.S. Patent No. 4,870,264 to Beha
`Litwiller, D., “ CD vs. CMOS: Facts and Fiction,” Photonics
`Spectra (January 2001)
`Coghill, J., “Digital Imaging Technology 101” (2003)
`INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
`U.S. Patent No. 3,069,654 to Hough
`Fujimori, I.L., “CMOS Passive Pixel Imager Design Techniques,”
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ph.D. Dissertation for
`Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (February 2002)
`Brunelli, R., et al., “Template Matching: Matched Spatial Filters
`and Beyond,” Patter Recognition, Vol. 30, No. 5 (1997)
`Eid, E.-S., et al., “A 256 x 256 CMOS Active Pixel Image
`Sensor,” Proceedings of SPIE: Charge-Coupled Devices and Solid
`State Optical Sensors V, Vol. 2415 (1995)
`Fossum, E.R., “CMOS Active Pixel Sensor (APS) Technology for
`Multimedia Image Capture,” 1997 Multimedia Technology &
`Applications Conference (MTAC97)
`Denes, L.J., et al., “Assessment of driver vision enhancement
`technologies,” Proceedings of SPIE: Collusion Avoidance and
`Automated Traffic Management Sensors,” Vol. 2592 (October
`1995)
`Ishihara, Y., et al., “Interline CCD Image Sensor with an Anti
`Blooming Structure,” IEEE International Solid-State Circuits
`Conference, Session XIII: Optoelectronic Circuits, THPM 13.6
`(February 11, 1982)
`IEEE Xplore Search Results for “ISSCC 1996” and “Image
`Sensor”
`Kozlowski, L.J., et al., “Comparison of Passive and Active Pixel
`- viii -
`
`2038
`2039
`2040
`2041
`
`2042
`2043
`2044
`2045
`
`2046
`
`2047
`
`2048
`
`2049
`
`2050
`
`2051
`
`2052
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2053
`
`2054
`
`2055
`
`2056
`
`2057
`
`2058
`
`2059
`
`2060
`
`2061
`
`Case IPR2015-00436 for U.S. Pat. 8,599,001
`
`Description
`Schemes for CMOS Visible Imagers,” Proceedings of SPIE
`Conference on Infrared Readout Electronics IV, Vol. 3360 (April
`1998)
`Third Amended Complaint, Magna Electronics Inc. v. TRW
`Automotive Holdings Corp. et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-00654 (W.D.
`Mich.), dated December 11, 2013
`E-mails between T. Linn to A. Sternstein dated December 10,
`2013
`Plaintiff’s Consented Motion for Leave to File Third Amended
`Complaint, Magna Electronics Inc. v. TRW Automotive Holdings
`Corp. et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-00654 (W.D. Mich.), dated
`December 11, 2013
`Notice of Electronic Filing for Consented Motion for Leave to
`Filed Third Amended Complaint and accompanying exhibits,
`Magna Electronics Inc. v. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. et al.,
`Case No. 1:12-cv-00654 (W.D. Mich.), dated December 11, 2013
`Notice of Electronic Filing for Third Amended Complaint, Magna
`Electronics Inc. v. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. et al., Case
`No. 1:12-cv-00654 (W.D. Mich.), dated December 17, 2013
`Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Agreed Motion for Leave to File a
`Third Amended Complaint, Magna Electronics Inc. v. TRW
`Automotive Holdings Corp. et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-00654 (W.D.
`Mich.), dated December 11, 2013
`Public Redacted Version of Answer to Third Amended Complaint
`and Jury Demand, Magna Electronics Inc. v. TRW Automotive
`Holdings Corp., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-00654-PLM (W.D.
`Mich.), filed February 5, 2014.
`Amended Corporate Disclosure Statement Under Fed. R. Civ. P.
`7.1, Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC v. TRW
`Automotive Holdings, Corp., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-1550 (D.
`Del.), filed August 7, 2015.
`Form 10-K (Annual Report) for TRW Automotive Holdings
`Corp., filed February 13, 2015 for the Period Ending December
`31, 2014, with Amended Annual Report Form 10-K/A, filed April
`28, 2015.
`
`
`
`
`- ix -
`
`

`
`Exhibit No.
`2062
`
`2063
`
`2064
`
`2065
`2066
`
`2067
`
`2068
`
`2069
`
`2070
`
`2071
`
`2072
`
`2073
`
`Case IPR2015-00436 for U.S. Pat. 8,599,001
`
`Description
`TRW Press Release, “U.S. Federal Trade Commission Clears ZF’s
`Acquisition of TRW,” dated May 5, 2015.
`ZF Press Release, “ZF completes Acquisition of TRW
`Automotive,” dated May 15, 2015. (“May 15 ZF Press Release”)
`ZF Locations in the USA, accessed at
`http://www.zf.com/corporate/en_de/company/locations_worldwid
`e/north_america/united-
`states_locations/united_states_zfworldwide.jsp
`TRW’s Website, accessed at http://www.trw.com
`“From a Position of Strength: ZF and TRW Unleash the Power
`of2,” accessed at
`http://www.zf.com/corporate/en_de/magazine/magazin_artikel_vie
`wpage_22089384.html?_ga=1
`ZF Board of Management, accessed at
`http://www.zf.com/corporate/en_de/company/organization/board_
`of_management/board-of-management.html
`ZF TRW Board of Directors, accessed at
`http://www.trw.com/AboutTRW/leadership/ZF_TRW_Board_of_
`Directors
`ZF Press Release, “New Members to ZF’s Board of
`Management,” dated December 18, 2014
`ZF Press Release, “Peter Lake is Member of ZF’s Board of
`Management Responsible for Corporate Market,” dated October 6,
`2015
`Condensed Interim Consolidated Financial Statements as of June
`30, 2015 for ZF Friedrichshafen AG for Period dating January 1 to
`June 30, 2015.
`ZF Investor Relations, accessed at
`http://www.zf.com/corporate/en_de/company/organization/investo
`r_relations/investor_relations_index.html?_ga=1.233489116.3167
`08794.1436894979
`“Highway Driving Assist Totally relaxed at 75 mph,” accessed at
`http://www.zf.com/corporate/en_de/magazine/magazin_artikel_vie
`wpage_22123496.html
`
`
`
`
`- x -
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00436 for U.S. Pat. 8,599,001
`
`Exhibit No.
`2074
`
`Description
`Fowler, B., et al., “A CMOS Area Image Sensor With Pixel-Level
`A/D Conversion,” IEEE International Solid-State Circuits
`Conference, pp. 226-227 (1994)
`
`
`
`
`- xi -
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00436 for U.S. Pat. 8,599,001
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`TRW submitted four Petitions asserting various Grounds based on Vellacott
`
`and Kenue against at least independent claims 1, 56, 79, and 96 of U.S. Patent
`
`8,599,001 (“the ’001 Patent”) with a priority date of June 7, 1995. The Board
`
`instituted trial on claims 1-15, 24, 28, 32, 34-40, 42–50, 53-66, 69, 71, 73-79, 81-
`
`85, 87-100, and 102-08 (“instituted claims” or “claims”) and consolidated all four
`
`proceedings. Paper 10, 43-45.
`
`Summary of instituted Grounds
`
`A.
`The instituted Grounds are:
`
`Claims
`
`Statutory
`Basis
`
`Primary
`Reference
`
`Secondary References
`
`1-5, 15, 28, 35-40, 42-
`50, 53, and 55
`
`6-10, 32, and 34
`54
`24, 56–60, 66, 73-76,
`96, 97, 100, and 102–06
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Vellacott
`
`Vellacott
`Vellacott
`
`Vellacott
`
`61-63, 69, 71, and 77
`
`§ 103
`
`Vellacott
`
`Kenue
`
`Kenue and Yanagawa
`Kenue and Denyer
`
`Kenue and Schofield
`
`Kenue, Schofield, and
`Yanagawa
`
`Kenue, Schofield, and
`Venturello
`
`Kenue, Schofield, and
`Denyer
`
`64, 65, 79, 81-85, 88-
`93, 98, and 99
`
`78
`
`87
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 103
`
`Vellacott
`
`§ 103
`
`Vellacott
`
`§ 103
`
`Vellacott
`
`Kenue, Schofield,
`Venturello, and Yanagawa
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00436 of U.S. Pat. 8,599,001
`
`Claims
`
`Statutory
`Basis
`
`Primary
`Reference
`
`94, 95, 107, and 108
`
`§ 103
`
`Vellacott
`
`Secondary References
`
`Kenue, Schofield,
`Venturello, and Denyer
`
`11-14
`
`§ 103
`
`Vellacott
`
`Kenue and Venturello
`
`
`Summary of deficiencies in the instituted Grounds
`
`B.
`The Board should find that none of the instituted Grounds support
`
`unpatentability of their respective claims. First, the Vellacott and Kenue references
`
`are not obvious to combine, as TRW proposed. Indeed, the Board has already
`
`twice held the very modification TRW proposed here would not have been
`
`obvious. All instituted Grounds are based on TRW’s erroneous proposal and thus,
`
`each fails for this reason. In addition, the asserted references do not teach many
`
`critical features of the individual claims. For the additional reasons discussed
`
`below, TRW has failed to address or identify those claim features. The Petitions
`
`also failed to meet minimum statutory requirements to name the correct real parties
`
`in interest and be timely filed under §315(b).
`
`With regard to being non-obvious to combine, Magna’s expert, Dr. Ralph
`
`Etienne-Cummings, who has twenty-five years of experience in the imaging and
`
`image processing fields, demonstrates in his Declaration that the references are not
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00436 of U.S. Pat. 8,599,001
`
`combinable for at least three reasons: (1) reversing the field of view of Donnelly’s2
`
`rearview system, a system discussed in Vellacott, would have detrimentally
`
`modified operation of the system and rendered it unsuitable for its intended
`
`purpose; (2) a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) could not have
`
`successfully combined Vellacott’s CMOS-based VVL imputer with Kenue’s CCD-
`
`based lane detection algorithm; and, despite being § 103 Grounds, (3) Vellacott
`
`and Kenue are not enabling prior art.
`
`In addition to these three core defects, each of the Grounds against the
`
`independent claims is flawed at least because the following features are not taught
`
`or suggested by the references:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Attached to a windshield (claims 1–14, 24, 28, 32, 34–40, 42-50, 53–
`55);
`An array with more columns than rows (claims 3, 4, 96–100, 102–08)
`At least 40 rows (claims 4, 59, 81, 96–100, 102–08);
`Image data processing by an image processor comprising pattern
`recognition (claim 28);
`A control that determines a peak light level of at least one sub-array
`(claims 35, 36);
`
`
`2 Donnelly’s dimmable rearview mirror system is discussed in Vellacott. Ex.
`
`1004, 114. Donnelly was later acquired by Magna.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00436 of U.S. Pat. 8,599,001
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Converter for electrically connecting to a power source of the
`equipped vehicle (claims 52, 57–66, 69, 71, 73–78);
`Image processor that compares captured image data with stored data
`and outputs a vehicle control signal based on . . . (claims 15, 66, 85,
`100);
`8. Module that releasably mounts (claims 57-66, 69, 71, 73–78, 81–85,
`87–95, 97–100, 102–08);
`An image sensor array with more columns than rows (claims 3, 4, 96–
`100, 102–08); and
`10. A vehicular vision system that determines the presences of fog or
`recognizes veiling glare (claims 11-14, 64, 65, 79, 80–85, 87–95, 98,
`99).
`Finally, there are two fatal statutory defects: (1) the Petition fails to properly
`
`9.
`
`name all real parties in interest, and more problematic, (2) the Petition was filed
`
`more than one year after an amended complaint was served on TRW. TRW failed
`
`to properly identify its controlling parent entity, TRW Holdings, in its Petitions
`
`and to properly update the Board via mandatory notice when TRW Holdings was
`
`wholly acquired by ZF Friedrichshafen. Moreover, TRW was statutorily barred
`
`under §315(b) from even filing a Petition against the ’001 Patent one year after
`
`December 11, 2013 – the day TRW consented to service of an amended complaint
`
`alleging infringement of the ’001 Patent.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00436 of U.S. Pat. 8,599,001
`
`II.
`
`
`
`Summary of the deficiencies of base references Vellacott and Kenue
`A. Deficiencies of Vellacott
`Vellacott chronicles research and development of the VLSI Vision Ltd.
`
`(“VVL”) imputer. Ex. 1004, 113–14. The VVL imputer was based on VVL’s early
`
`attempt to develop complementary-metal-oxide-semiconductor (“CMOS”) imaging
`
`technology. Ex. 2003 ¶84, 85. CMOS imaging technology was still in the early
`
`stages of development in the year preceding the ’001 Patent’s effective filing date
`
`of June 7, 1995. Ex. 1004, 111; Ex. 2003 ¶49. VVL’s CMOS architecture was
`
`based on a so-called “passive” pixel. Ex. 1004, 111, Figure 1; Ex. 2003 ¶50.
`
`Though building an imager using CMOS imaging technology offered potential
`
`benefits, passive pixel CMOS sensors suffered from well documented deficiencies.
`
`Id. at ¶51. Indeed, when the underlying research for the VVL’s passive pixel
`
`architecture was presented, it was “met with near incredulity” since passive pixel
`
`architectures “had been used in previous designs, but without success.” Ex. 1004,
`
`111. Vellacott states that “several research groups had tried the same thing and
`
`concluded that it was not feasible.” Id. Indeed, even eight years later, researchers
`
`were still trying to understand and design a viable passive pixel CMOS sensor. Ex.
`
`2003 ¶51; Ex. 2045.
`
`VVL’s design still suffered from noise, speed, and sensitivity problems. Ex.
`
`2003 ¶85, 86. Early attempts at making a camera “could not match the
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00436 of U.S. Pat. 8,599,001
`
`performance of CCDs.” Ex. 1004, 112. VVL devised “several novel techniques” to
`
`compensate for the lack of performance of the camera, but Vellacott does not
`
`describe how VVL was able to overcome these performance issues. Ex. 2003 ¶84.
`
`Even still, Vellacott characterizes the dedicated camera as “comparable with low-
`
`end CCDs in performance.” Ex. 1004, 112. Based on VVL’s limited success and
`
`“novel techniques,” Vellacott says that—according to VVL—“single-chip CMOS
`
`sensors could eventually displace the multi-chip CCDs that are the current
`
`standard.” Id. (emphasis added). Because CMOS allows imaging and processing
`
`on a single chip, integrated systems offered the potential of “smaller, cheaper, less
`
`power-hungry cameras.” Id.
`
`Vellacott describes how the single-chip CMOS approach had potential for
`
`use as “smart cameras,” but smart cameras required an application specific design.
`
`Id. at 112–13. Designing and implementing an application specific integrated
`
`circuit (“ASIC”) had “high engineering costs.” Id. at 113. According to Vellacott,
`
`VVL’s solution was to produce the “imputer” – a programmable machine-vision
`
`system. Id. The imputer had limited processing power (i.e., an 8-bit
`
`microcontroller) and limited sensor resolution (i.e., 256 x 256 pixels). Id. Thus, the
`
`VVL imputer processor was only sufficient power for “very simple techniques,”
`
`such as reading the height of mercury in a thermometer. Id.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00436 of U.S. Pat. 8,599,001
`
`In its last ten sentences, Vellacott mentions that one of VVL’s customers,
`
`Donnelly Corp., was using the VVL imputer to develop an electro-chromic
`
`rearview mirror that automatically dims to reduce glare from the headlights of
`
`trailing vehicles. Id. at 114. Vellacott states that Donnelly –and not VVL—
`
`programmed the imputer “to analyse [an] image to recognise when and where
`
`headlamps are present in the [rearward] field of view.” Id. Unsurprisingly,
`
`Vellacott does not discuss Donnelly’s programming or how the mirror was able to
`
`recognize headlamps. Ex. 2003 ¶94, 95.
`
`B. Deficiencies of Kenue
`Kenue, titled “Vision Method of Detecting Lane Boundaries and Obstacles,”
`
`
`
`discloses a system using CCD video camera 10 to detect lane markers in front of a
`
`vehicle. Ex. 1005, Abstract, 2:28–32. The video camera is mounted in a vehicle “to
`
`capture the driver’s view of the road ahead.” Id. at 2:30–32. The camera output is
`
`coupled to a computer 14 and utilized by a display 16, an obstacle warning alarm
`
`18, and “any device using the lane boundary information for vehicle guidance,
`
`performance monitoring or headway control, for example.” Id. at 2:34–39.
`
`Kenue further discloses a vehicle vision system that is specific to detecting
`
`the presence or absence of lane markers in the front of the vehicle. Id. at Abstract.
`
`Kenue discloses “a black and white CCD video camera 10 mounted in a vehicle,
`
`say at the upper center of the windshield to capture the driver’s view of the road
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00436 of U.S. Pat. 8,599,001
`
`ahead.” Id. at 2:28–32. Kenue senses locations where it believes there should be
`
`lane markers and compares the position of the lane markers to estimate lane
`
`boundaries. Kenue searches the areas where it believes lane markers are supposed
`
`to be and processes the image with boundary tracing algorithm to recognize
`
`characteristics specific to lane markers, such as dark edge data and straight lines.
`
`Id. at FIG. 4a, 3:3–6, 6:27–46. Thereafter, Kenue’s system performs obstacle
`
`detection by counting edge pixels within lane boundaries and within 50 feet of the
`
`vehicle. Id. at 6:18-20.
`
`III.
`
`It was not obvious to change the rear-ward facing operation of Vellacott
`based on the forward facing operation of Kenue to meet the claimed
`features in claims 1, 56, 79, and 96.
`A. Under collateral estoppel, the Board here should follow the
`decisions in IPR2014-00293 and IPR2015-00951 that held
`Vellacott cannot be combined with Kenue, or similar references,
`to teach a forward facing camera.
`
`
`
`The Board has now held in two cases that Vellacott cannot be combined
`
`with Kenue, or similar technology in other references, to teach a forward facing
`
`camera. TRW v. Magna, IPR2014-00293, Decision Denying Institution, pp. 17–18
`
`(P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2014); TRW v. Magna, IPR2015-00951, Decision Denying
`
`Institution, pp. 14-19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 17, 2015).
`
`
`
`In both prior decisions, the issue involves the same feature (i.e., the dimming
`
`mirror system mentioned in Vellacott) and the same proposed modification (i.e.,
`
`reversing a rearward viewing sensor for use in the dimming mirror to face
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-00436 of U.S. Pat. 8,599,001
`
`forward). In addition, TRW pointed to similar evidence—along with conclusory
`
`statements—to support its contention. In those decisions, the panels denied
`
`institution.
`
`M