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
`_____________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. RALPH ETIENNE-CUMMINGS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, and IPR2015-00439 have been
`
`consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`Magna 2003
`TRW v. Magna
`IPR2015-00436
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................... .. 1
`
`III. Materials Considered ..................................................................................... ..3
`
`IV. Overview Of The Law Used In This Declaration ......................................... ..9
`
`A.
`
`Level of Skill in the Art ..................................................................... .. 10
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Obviousness ....................................................................................... ..11
`
`Obviousness to Combine ................................................................... .. 12
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................... ..13
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`Qualifications ................................................................................................... 1 
`II. 
`Qualifications ................................................................................................. .. 1
`II.
`III.  Materials Considered ....................................................................................... 3 
`IV.  Overview Of The Law Used In This Declaration ........................................... 9 
`A. 
`Level of Skill in the Art ....................................................................... 10 
`B. 
`Obviousness ......................................................................................... 11 
`C. 
`Obviousness to Combine ..................................................................... 12 
`D. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 13 
`Instituted Grounds ......................................................................................... 14 
`V. 
`VI.  Technology .................................................................................................... 15 
`VI.
`Technology .................................................................................................. ..15
`A.  Vision Systems .................................................................................... 15 
`A.
`Vision Systems .................................................................................. ..15
`B. 
`Vehicular Vision Systems ................................................................... 19 
`B.
`Vehicular Vision Systems ................................................................. ..19
`C. 
`Image Sensors ...................................................................................... 21 
`C.
`Image Sensors .................................................................................... ..21
`1. 
`Charge-Coupled Devices (“CCD’s”) ........................................ 22 
`1.
`Charge-Coupled Devices (“CCD’s”) ...................................... ..22
`2. 
`CMOS ....................................................................................... 23 
`D.  Attributes Characterizing Image Sensors ............................................ 28 
`D.
`Attributes Characterizing Image Sensors .......................................... ..28
`1. 
`Responsivity .............................................................................. 28 
`1 .
`Responsivity ............................................................................ . .28
`2. 
`Dynamic Range ......................................................................... 29 
`2
`Dynamic Range ....................................................................... ..29
`3. 
`Uniformity ................................................................................. 33 
`3
`Uniformity ............................................................................... ..33
`4. 
`Shuttering .................................................................................. 34 
`4.
`Shuttering ................................................................................ ..34
`5. 
`Speed ......................................................................................... 36 
`5.
`Speed ....................................................................................... ..36
`6. 
`Processing ................................................................................. 37 
`6
`Processing ............................................................................... ..37
`7.  Windowing ................................................................................ 37 
`7
`Windowing .............................................................................. ..37
`8. 
`Anti-blooming ........................................................................... 38 
`8
`Anti-blooming ......................................................................... . .3 8
`9. 
`Resolution ................................................................................. 39 
`Image Intensifiers ................................................................................ 40 
`E. 
`Image Intensifiers .............................................................................. ..4O
`E.
`VII.  Summary of the Asserted References ............................................................ 44 
`VII. Summary of the Asserted References .......................................................... ..44
`A.  Vellacott (Passive-Pixel CMOS Vision Systems) .............................. 44 
`A.
`Vellacott (Passive-Pixel CMOS Vision Systems) ............................ ..44
`
`V.
`
`Instituted Grounds ....................................................................................... ..14
`
`2.
`
`CMOS ..................................................................................... ..23
`
`9.
`
`Resolution ............................................................................... . .3 9
`
`

`
`C. 
`
`The Kenue Reference (CCD Vision System for Lane Markers) ........ 52 
`B. 
`Venturello (Intensified Camera and Display) ..................................... 57 
`C. 
`Schofield (Rearview Mirror) ............................................................... 61 
`D. 
`Comparison of Alleged Prior Art Vision Systems .............................. 63 
`E. 
`VIII.  Analysis ......................................................................................................... 63 
`A.  A POSA not would have found it obvious to combine Vellacott with
`Kenue ................................................................................................... 64 
`B.  Modifying Vellacott with Kenue would have rendered Vellacott’s
`systems inoperable for its intended purpose – to reduce glare in the
`rearview mirror. ................................................................................... 68 
`There is no reason to believe that Donnelly’s EC mirror dimming
`system could detect headlights in a forward field of view and no
`reason to do it. ..................................................................................... 75 
`D.  Donnelley’s rearview mirror system and Kenue’s lane detection
`systems operate in different ways for disparate purposes. .................. 81 
`There is not a reasonable expectation of success in modifying
`Vellacott with Kenue’s teachings. ....................................................... 84 
`Even if Vellacott was properly combinable with the various secondary
`references, the combinations lack a suggestion of critical claim
`features. ............................................................................................... 88 
`1. 
`Vellacott fails to teach a module attached to a windshield
`(claims 1-14, 24, 28, 32, 34-40, 42-50, 53-55) ......................... 88 
`Vellacott fails to teach an array with more columns than rows
`(claims 3, 4, 96-100, 102-109). ................................................. 93 
`Vellacott fails to teach an array comprising at least 40 rows
`(claims 4, 59, 81, 96 -100, 102-109). ......................................101 
`Vellacott fails to teach that image data processing by said image
`processor comprises pattern recognition (claim 28). ..............102 
`Vellacott and Kenue fail to teach a control that determines a
`peak light level of at least on sub-array (claims 35, 36). ........105 
`Vellacott fails to teach a connector for electrically connecting to
`a power source of the equipped vehicle (52, 56-66, 69, 71, 73-
`78). ..........................................................................................109 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`

`
`8. 
`
`9. 
`
`7. 
`
`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).
` .................................................................................................112 
`The combination including Schofield does not teach or suggest
`a module that releasably mounts (claims 56-66, 69, 71, 73-79,
`81-85, 87-100, 102-108). ........................................................114 
`The combination including Kenue fails to teach or suggest an
`image sensor array with more columns than rows (claims 3, 4,
`96-100, 102-109). ....................................................................115 
`10.  The combination including Venturello does not teach or suggest
`a vehicular vision system that “determines a presence of fog” or
`“recognize veiling glare” (claims 11-14, 64, 65, 79, 80-85, 87-
`95, 98, 99). ..............................................................................118 
`11.  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). .................................................................129 
`IX.  Conclusion ...................................................................................................132 
`
`
`

`
`Introduction
`
`I.
`I, Dr. Ralph Etienne-Cummings, hereby declare as follows:
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00436
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001
`
`1.
`
`I understand that in response to a Petition submitted by TRW Automotive
`
`U.S. LLC (“TRW”), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) instituted an
`
`inter partes review as to claims 1–15, 24, 28, 32, 34-40, 42-50, 53-66, 69, 71, 73-
`
`79, 81-85, 87-100, and 102–08 of U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001 (“the ’001 Patent”). I
`
`understand that the ’001 Patent is titled “Vehicular Vision System” by Kenneth
`
`Schofield et al. and that the ’001 Patent is currently assigned to Magna Electronics
`
`Inc. (“Magna”).
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Magna to provide expert opinions in
`
`connection with this inter partes review proceeding. Specifically, I have been
`
`asked to provide my expert opinion relating to the patentability of claims 1-15, 24,
`
`28, 32, 34-40, 42–50, 53-66, 69, 71, 73-79, 81–85, 87-100, and 102-08 of the ’001
`
`Patent relative to the instituted grounds based on the Vellacott, Kenue, Yanagawa,
`
`Denyer, Schofield, and Venturello references.
`
`II. Qualifications
`3.
`I am expert in the field of computer vision, having designed and
`
`implemented image sensors and vision algorithms hardware and software.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00436
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001
`Currently, I am Chairman and Professor of Electrical and Computer
`
`4.
`
`Engineering at the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, MD.
`
`5.
`
`I am also the Director of the Computational Sensory Motor Systems Lab at
`
`the Johns Hopkins University.
`
`6.
`
`I am a founding member of the Laboratory for Computational Sensing and
`
`Robotics at the Johns Hopkins University.
`
`7.
`
`I received my B.S. degree in physics in 1988, from Lincoln University,
`
`Pennsylvania. I completed my M.S.E.E. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical
`
`engineering at the University of Pennsylvania in 1991 and 1994, respectively.
`
`8.
`
`From August 1998 to July 2002 I was an Assistant Professor of electrical
`
`and computer engineering at the Johns Hopkins University. From July 2002 to July
`
`2008, I was an Associate Professor.. During my first four years, I was Director of
`
`computer engineering at Johns Hopkins University and
`
`the Institute of
`
`Neuromorphic Engineering. I was promoted to Professor in July 2008.
`
`9.
`
`I am recipient of the National Science Foundation’s Career and Office of
`
`Naval Research Young Investigator Program, Kavli Frontiers Fellowship and
`
`Fulbright Fellowship Awards.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00436
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001
`I have won numerous best paper awards of the Institute of Electrical and
`
`10.
`
`Electronic Engineering (“IEEE”) for articles in IEEE journals and conferences for
`
`my work on computer vision systems, robotics and neuroprosthetics.
`
`11.
`
`I am an IEEE Fellow, an honor bestowed on the top 0.1% of IEEE members,
`
`for contributions to neuromorphic sensory-motor systems.
`
`12.
`
`I am a Topic Editor of the IEEE Sensors Journal and the Deputy Editor in
`
`Chief of the IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Circuits and Systems.
`
`13.
`
`I have expertise in mixed signal very-large-scale integration (“VLSI”)
`
`systems, complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (“CMOS”) image sensors,
`
`computational sensors, computer vision, neuromorphic engineering, smart
`
`structures, mobile robotics, legged locomotion, and neuroprosthetics based on
`
`education, research, and industrial experience.
`
`III. Materials Considered
`14.
`In forming my expert opinions expressed in this declaration, I have
`
`considered and relied upon my education, background, and experience. I reviewed
`
`the Petition filed by TRW along with relevant exhibits to the Petition.
`
`15.
`
`I have reviewed the specification of the ’001 Patent. I understand that the
`
`’001 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Appl. No. 13/525,763, filed Jun. 18, 2012,
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00436
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001
`now U.S. Pat. No. 8,314,689, which is a continuation of U.S. Appl. No.
`
`13/351,098, filed Jan. 16, 2012, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,203,440, which is a
`
`continuation of U.S. Appl. 11/074,521, filed Mar. 8, 2005, now U.S. Pat. No.
`
`8,098,142, which is a continuation of U.S. Appl. No. 10/940,700, filed Sep. 14,
`
`2004, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,953,253, which is a continuation of U.S. Appl. No.
`
`10/372,873, filed Feb. 24, 2003, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,802,617, which is a
`
`continuation of U.S. Appl. No. 09/975,232, filed Oct. 11, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No.
`
`6,523,964, which is a continuation of U.S. Appl. No. 09/227,344, filed Jan. 8,
`
`1999, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,302,545, which is a continuation of U.S. Appl. No.
`
`08/478,093, filed on Jun. 7, 1995, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,877,897.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that the ’001 Patent has been provided as Exhibit 1002. I will
`
`cite to the specification using the following format: (’001 Patent, 1:1–10). This
`
`example citation points to the ’001 Patent specification at column 1, lines 1–10.
`
`17.
`
`I have also reviewed and am familiar with the following documents:
`
`Paper /
`Exhibit #
`
` 3
`9
`10
`
`1002
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review (Pet.)
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response (POPR)
`Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review (dated July 10,
`2015) (Inst. Dec.)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001 to Schofield et al. (’001 Patent)
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00436
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001
`
`Description
`
`Paper /
`Exhibit #
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`1006
`
`1107
`
`1108
`1009
`1011
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`’001 Patent File History
`Vellacott, Oliver, “CMOS in Camera,” IEEE Review, pp. 111-114
`(May 1994) (Vellacott).
`U.S. Pat. No. 4,970,653 to Kenue (Kenue)
`Japanese Application S62-131837 by Yanagawa et al.
`(Yanagawa)(certified translation.)
`European Pat. Appl. No. 0 353 200, published Jan. 31, 1990
`(Venturello)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,930,742 to Schofield et al. (Schofield ’742)
`PCT Pub. No. WO 93/11631 by Denyer (Denyer)
`Expert Declaration of Jeffrey A. Miller
`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
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Ralph Etienne-Cummings
`2004
`2005 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)
`Excerpt from Holst, G.C., “CCD Arrays, Cameras, and Displays,”
`Second Edition (1998)
`“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)
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00436
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001
`
`Description
`
`Paper /
`Exhibit #
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`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
`Devices, Vol. 44, No. 10 (1997)
`Zheng, Y., 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)
`2021 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 Electroncic 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)
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Paper /
`Exhibit #
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00436
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001
`
`Description
`
`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-
`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)
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00436
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001
`
`Description
`
`[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
`“Versatile LEDs Drive Machine vision in Automated
`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”
`
`Paper /
`Exhibit #
`2036
`2037
`
`2038
`2039
`2040
`2041
`
`2042
`2043
`2044
`2045
`
`2046
`
`2047
`
`2048
`
`2049
`
`2050
`
`2051
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Paper /
`Exhibit #
`2052
`
`2074
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00436
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001
`
`Description
`
`Kozlowski, L.J., et al., “Comparison of Passive and Active Pixel
`Schemes for CMOS Visible Imagers,” Proceedings of SPIE
`Conference on Infrared Readout Electronics IV, Vol. 3360 (April
`1998)
`Fowler, B., et al., “A CMOS Area Image Sensor With Pixel-Level
`A/D Conversion,” IEEE International Solid-State Circukits
`Conference, pp. 226-227 (1994)
`
`
`I have been asked to provide my technical review, analysis, insights, and
`
`18.
`
`opinions regarding the ’001 Patent and the above-noted references that form the
`
`basis for the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition and the Institution
`
`Decision. To the best of my knowledge, the exhibits cited in my initial declaration
`
`are true and accurate copies of what they purport to be, and that an expert in the
`
`field would reasonably rely on them to formulate opinions such as those set forth
`
`in my initial declaration.
`
`IV. Overview Of The Law Used In This Declaration
`19. When considering the ’001 Patent and stating my opinions, I am relying on
`
`legal principles that have been explained to me by counsel.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that for a claim to be found patentable, the claims must be,
`
`among other requirements, novel and nonobvious from what was known at the
`
`time of the invention, i.e., the earliest priority date of the ’001 patent – June 7,
`
`1995.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00436
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001
`I understand that the information that is used to evaluate whether a claim is
`
`21.
`
`novel and nonobvious is referred to as prior art.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, TRW has the burden of proving that
`
`each claim element of the ’001 Patent is rendered obvious by the alleged prior art
`
`references.
`
`A. Level of Skill in the Art
`I have been asked to consider the level of ordinary skill in the art that
`
`23.
`
`someone would have had in 1995. With over 25 years of experience in electrical
`
`engineering and imaging systems and having educated individuals at the bachelors,
`
`masters, Ph.D. and post-doctoral levels, I am well informed with the level of
`
`ordinary skill, which takes into consideration:
`
` Levels of education and experience of persons working in the field;
`
` Types of problems encountered in the field; and
`
` Sophistication of the technology.
`
`
`
`24. Based on
`
`the
`
`technologies disclosed
`
`in
`
`the ’001 Patent and
`
`the
`
`considerations listed above, a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”)
`
`would have had a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering, Physics, or
`
`an equivalent field, as well as at least one year of industry experience designing
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00436
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001
`vision systems. Less education could be compensated by more direct experience
`
`and vice versa.
`
`25. Throughout my declaration, even if I discuss my analysis in the present
`
`tense, I am always making my determinations based on what a POSA would have
`
`known at the effective filing date. Additionally, throughout my declaration, even if
`
`I discuss something stating “I,” I am referring to a POSA’s understanding.
`
`B. Obviousness
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid if the claims would have been
`
`26.
`
`obvious to a POSA at the effective filing date of June 7, 1995. I understand that the
`
`obviousness inquiry should not be done in hindsight, but from the perspective of a
`
`POSA as of the effective filing date of the patent claim.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that to obtain a patent, the claims must have, as of the effective
`
`filing date, been nonobvious in view of the prior art in the field. I understand that a
`
`claim 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 to a POSA at the time the invention was made.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that to prove that prior art or a combination of prior art renders
`
`a patent obvious, it is necessary to: (1) identify the particular references that, singly
`
`or in combination, make the patent obvious; (2) specifically identify which
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00436
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001
`elements of the patent claim appear in each of the asserted references; and (3)
`
`explain how a POSA could have combined the prior art references to create the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that certain objective criteria can be important evidence
`
`regarding whether a patent is obvious or nonobvious. Such indicia include:
`
`commercial success of products covered by the patent claims; long-felt need for
`
`the invention; failed attempts by others to make the invention; copying of the
`
`invention by others in the field; unexpected results achieved by the invention as
`
`compared to the closest prior art; praise of the invention by the infringer or others
`
`in the field; 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.
`
`C. Obviousness to Combine
`I understand that obviousness can be established by combining multiple
`
`30.
`
`prior art references to meet each and every claim element, but I also understand
`
`that a proposed combination of references can be susceptible to hindsight bias.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that references are more likely to be combinable if the nature of
`
`the problem to be solved is the same.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00436
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001
`I understand that if the combination of references results in the references
`
`32.
`
`being unsatisfactory for their intended purposes or the combination changes the
`
`references’ principle of operation, a POSA would not have a motivation to
`
`combine the references.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that teaching away, e.g., discouragement, is strong evidence
`
`that the references are not combinable. I also understand that a disclosure of more
`
`than one alternative does not necessarily constitute a teaching away. I understand
`
`that the combination does not need to result in the most desirable embodiment, but
`
`if the proposed combination does not have a reasonable expectation of success at
`
`the time of the invention, a POSA would not have teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation to combine the references.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`I understand that the claims of a patent are read in light of the specification
`
`34.
`
`of the patent as understood by a POSA at the time of the invention. I understand
`
`that “the time of the invention” refers to the effective filing date of the patent in
`
`question. Here, the effective filing date is not in dispute and has been deemed to be
`
`Jun. 7, 1995 for the purpose of this proceeding.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that words of the claims are generally given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning in the art field. In concluding how a POSA would interpret
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00436
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001
`words of the claims, I have considered the words of the claims themselves, their
`
`context, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and, where
`
`needed, extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of
`
`technical terms, and the state of the art.
`
`V.
`36.
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`I understand that Board has consolidated four inter partes reviews – namely,
`
`IPR2015-00436, -00437, -00438, and -00439. The Board instituted trial of claims
`
`1-15, 24, 28, 32, 34-40, 42-50, 53-66, 69, 71, 73-79, 81-85, 87-100, and 102-108
`
`of the ’001 Patent in the manner shown in the table below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00436
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001
`
`Claims
`
`Statutory
`Basis
`
`Primary
`Reference
`
`Secondary References
`
`1–5, 15, 28, 35-40, 42-
`50, 53, and 55
`
`§ 103
`
`Vellacott
`
`Kenue
`
`6-10, 32, and 34
`
`§ 103
`
`Vellacott
`
`Kenue and Yanagawa
`
`54
`
`§ 103
`
`Vellacott
`
`Kenue and Denyer
`
`24, 56-60, 66, 73-76,
`96, 97, 100, and 102-06
`
`§ 103
`
`Vellacott
`
`Kenue and Schofield
`
`61-63, 69, 71, and 77
`
`§ 103
`
`Vellacott
`
`64, 65, 79, 81-85, 88-
`93, 98, and 99
`
`78
`
`87
`
`§ 103
`
`Vellacott
`
`§ 103
`
`Vellacott
`
`§ 103
`
`Vellacott
`
`94, 95, 107, and 108
`
`§ 103
`
`Vellacott
`
`Kenue, Schofield, and
`Yanagawa
`
`Kenue, Schofield, and
`Venturello
`
`Kenue, Schofield, and
`Denyer
`Kenue, Schofield,
`Venturello, and
`Yanagawa
`Kenue, Schofield,
`Venturello, and Denyer
`
`11-14
`
`§ 103
`
`Vellacott
`
`Kenue and Venturello
`
`VI. Technology
`A. Vision Systems
`37. Vision systems can be thought of as computers with eyes that can capture an
`
`image, process the captured image to highlight and/or identify critical aspects of
`
`the captured image, and utilize the highlighted and/or identified critical aspects to
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00436
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001
`operate a computerized device. Ex. 2009; Ex. 2008, 7-12. While camera
`
`manufacturers strive to provide a captured image at the highest possible fidelity in
`
`representing the imaged scene, vision system designers must account for—not only
`
`image quality, but also the processing of that image and the suitability of the entire
`
`system for its specific application. Ex. 2005, 7. Conventional vision systems,
`
`required a chip for an imager (usually a charge coupled