EXHIBIT 1211
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. MILLER
`
`("MILLER DEC.")
`
`TRW Automotive U.S. LLC: EXHIBIT 1211
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NUMBER 8,599,001
`
`
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. MILLER
`
`("MILLER DEC.")
`
`TRW Automotive U.S. LLC: EXHIBIT 1211
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NUMBER 8,599,001
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. ___
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
` TRW AUTOMOTIVE US LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
` MAGNA ELECTRONICS INCORPORATED
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2015-00____
`
`Patent 8,599,001
`
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. MILLER
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
`
`that the statements in this declaration are true and correct.
`
`Executedon
`
`\Q'W’FQNDE
`
`gig A/[fl
`
`lg
`
`Jeffrey A. Miller, PhD.
`
`J
`
`
`
`I, Jeffrey A. Miller, declare:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I am an adult individual and make this Declaration based on personal
`
`knowledge.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by TRW Automotive US LLC (“Petitioner”) to
`
`provide analysis regarding U.S. Pat. No. 8,599,001 (“the ‘001 Patent”). I have
`
`personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration unless otherwise
`
`stated. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the facts set
`
`forth in this Declaration.
`
`A.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3.
`
`I am an Associate Professor of Engineering Practices in the
`
`Department of Computer Science at the University of Southern California. I was
`
`awarded a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of Southern California
`
`in 2007. I have authored numerous publications and a supplement to a book. I
`
`have given many presentations. I have assisted in developing curricula for the
`
`Computer Science and Computer Systems Engineering programs at UAA. I am a
`
`named inventor on one U.S. Patent Application. A copy of my curriculum vitae
`
`(“CV”) is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`4.
`
`I was the Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE Intelligent Transportation
`
`Systems Magazine through 2013. I was previously an Associate Editor of the same
`
`magazine. I am presently an Associate Editor of IEEE Transactions on Intelligent
`
`Transportation Systems.
`
`3
`
`
`
`5.
`
`I have conducted research on the software and network architectures
`
`and algorithms used in mobile and wireless communication. Since 2008, I have
`
`secured over $930,000 for projects concerning Intelligent Transportation Systems
`
`networks and architectures.
`
`6.
`
`I was the General Chair for the IEEE 69th Vehicular Technology
`
`Conference in fall 2009, the IEEE 15th Intelligent Transportation Systems
`
`Conference in fall 2012, and the IEEE 77th Vehicular Technology Conference in
`
`fall 2013. I was also a Program Co-Chair and Technical Program Chair for the
`
`IEEE 73rd Vehicular Technology Conference in fall 2011. I was on the IEEE
`
`Intelligent Transportation Systems Society Board of Governors for the term from
`
`January 2009 – December 2011 and was elected as Vice President for
`
`Administrative Activities in the same society from January 2011 – December
`
`2012. I was also on the IEEE Vehicular Technology Society Board of Governors
`
`for the term from September 2011 – December 2013. From October 2011 –
`
`December 2013, I was the Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE ITS Magazine. Within the
`
`ITSS, I am an Associate Editor for the IEEE Transactions on Intelligent
`
`Transportation Systems since 2010. In 2010, I was the treasurer for the Alaska
`
`section of the IEEE and was the chair of the section from January 2011 –
`
`December 2011. During my time as chair of the IEEE Alaska Section, the section
`
`won the 2011 Outstanding Section Award for the Region 6 Northwest Area. In
`
`addition to being a member of the Intelligent Transportation Society of Alaska, I
`
`was also the president from January 2010-December 2011.
`
`4
`
`
`
`7.
`
`I have reviewed the patent at issue as well as the prior art patents and
`
`printed publications discussed in this Declaration and Petitioner’s Request for Inter
`
`Partes Review of that same patent. I am familiar with state of and nature of the art
`
`at the time of the invention by virtue of my review of contemporaneous materials,
`
`including, but not limited to the prior art patents and printed publications addressed
`
`in this Declaration. I am also familiar with the state of and nature of the art at the
`
`time of the invention based on my own studies, research, publications, and
`
`experience as explained in the attached CV (Ex. A). For example, my studies,
`
`research, publications, and experience related to intelligent vehicles has included
`
`significant study of references of the time period of, before, and after the time of
`
`the claimed invention.
`
`B.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`8.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the claims of the ‘001
`
`patents at the time of the alleged inventions would have had at least the
`
`qualifications of or equivalent to either an undergraduate degree in electrical
`
`engineering or mechanical engineering with course work or research in automobile
`
`accessory systems and with at least two years of work making automobile
`
`accessory systems (sometimes referred to as the “POSITA”).
`
`C.
`
`STANDARDS GOVERNING OBVIOUSNESS
`
`9.
`
`Petitioner’s counsel has explained to me that a patent claim is invalid
`
`for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 if the differences between the subject matter
`
`5
`
`
`
`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.
`
`10.
`
`I have also been informed that various rationales may be used to find
`
`a patent claim obvious. For example, a combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than
`
`yield predictable results. And when a work is available in one field, design
`
`incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same
`
`field or in another. Rearranging parts in a manner that does not change operation
`
`of the device is also not a patentable improvement. And still further, where a
`
`skilled artisan merely pursues known options from a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, the result was merely obvious to try. Obviousness also exists
`
`when a claimed improvement is but a predictable use of prior art elements
`
`according to their established functions.
`
`11.
`
`I have been further informed that to determine whether there was an
`
`apparent reason to combine the known elements in the way a patent claims, it is
`
`often necessary to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; to the effects
`
`of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and to
`
`the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`In addition, I understand that a validity analysis need not seek out precise teachings
`
`directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, as the inferences
`
`and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be
`
`6
`
`
`
`recognized, and that the legal determination of obviousness may include recourse
`
`to logic, judgment, and common sense.
`
`12. Petitioner’s counsel has also informed me that an obviousness
`
`analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) proceeds by setting a background against which
`
`obviousness is measured. In this analysis, the inquiry is to: (1) determine the scope
`
`and content of the prior art, (2) ascertain the differences between the prior art and
`
`the claims at issue, and (3) resolve the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner’s
`
`counsel has further informed me that known mathematical algorithms are
`
`considered abstract ideas, and the step of programming an abstract algorithm into a
`
`computer, in and of itself, does not render a claim patent eligible under 35 U.S.C.
`
`101.
`
`D.
`
`THE ‘001 PATENT
`
`13.
`
`I have been asked to consider the meaning of certain claim terms
`
`appearing in the ‘001 Patent. The ‘001 Patent is entitled “Vehicular Vision
`
`System.” The ‘001 Patent was filed on November 19, 2012, issued on December
`
`3, 2013, and has not yet expired.
`
`14. For at least for the reasons discussed below, all of claims 1-24, 28, 32,
`
`34-40, 42-69, 71, and 73-109 of the ‘001 patent are obvious in light of several prior
`
`art references, considered with respect to different combinations thereof, under 35
`
`U.S.C. 103(a). A copy of the ‘001 Patent is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`15. Although I am not a lawyer, I understand that the words appearing in
`
`the claims of a patent are normally given their ordinary meaning from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). I further
`
`understand that the perspective of the person of ordinary skill is discerned with
`
`reference to the time of filing of an earlier patent application within the ‘001 patent
`
`family. In this case, I am considering the ‘001 Patent from the perspective of the
`
`POSITA as of June 7, 1995. By using this date I do not intend to express an
`
`opinion that any of the claims of the ‘001 patent were actually conceived or
`
`reduced to practice on or before this date. I am simply adopting a date I
`
`understand has been identified by the Patent Owner for the purpose of establishing
`
`the reference point for a POSITA.
`
`16. Petitioner’s counsel has informed me that construing claims is a
`
`matter of law, and has asked me to construe the term “plurality”, which appears in
`
`claims 1, 7, 36, 56, 61, 79, and 96 in the phrases “plurality of photosensor
`
`elements,” “plurality of exposure periods,” “plurality of light beams,” and
`
`“plurality of sub-arrays,” to mean, at a minimum, “greater than one.” My analysis
`
`and conclusions use this construction.
`
`17. Petitioner’s counsel has further informed me that the claim phrase
`
`“pattern of light”, which is present in claims 8, 62, and 83, to mean, at a minimum,
`
`the choice of light intensity and/or direction, i.e., high beam or low beam, for the
`
`8
`
`
`
`equipped vehicle headlights. My analysis and conclusions use this construction.
`
`Vehicular Machine-Vision Systems in June 1995
`
`18. As discussed further below with regard to specific prior art references,
`
`a conventional machine-vision system from June 1995 all shared a basic hardware
`
`configuration: (A) a camera or image sensor positioned in a desired location; (B)
`
`an image processor to process image data captured by the camera/sensor; and (C) a
`
`controller to execute a desired function based on the results from the image
`
`processor of the processed data. Although, in June 1995, CCD-type photosensor
`
`cameras had been prevalent in the field for a number of years, as of 1993, CMOS
`
`photosensor array cameras had come to be a recognized replacement or
`
`substitution for CCD cameras.
`
`19.
`
`“CCD” refers to Charge Coupled Devices, and CCD-type photosensor
`
`imager arrays (also known as “CCD image sensors” or “CCD cameras”) were
`
`solid-state, that is, semiconductor, arrays of light-sensitive photosensors that
`
`generate an electrical signal in response to light incident on the photosensor. In a
`
`CCD image sensor, the individual photosensors, or pixels, in the array utilize a p-
`
`doped or n-doped Metal Oxide Semiconductor (MOS) elements capacitors to
`
`generate the electrical charge from the incident light. “CMOS” refers to
`
`Complimentary Metal Oxide Semiconductor, which are a variant of MOS
`
`technology. CMOS imager photosensor arrays (also known as “CMOS image
`
`sensors” and “CMOS cameras”) are similar to CCD image sensors in many ways,
`
`9
`
`
`
`but utilize both a p-doped and an n-doped MOS elements together. CMOS arrays
`
`generally operated at lower power than CCD arrays, but there were many tradeoffs
`
`between the two variants.
`
`20. By 1993, many of the tradeoffs negatively affecting the use of CMOS
`
`arrays as image sensors, as opposed to the more prevalent CCD image sensors, had
`
`been overcome, as particularly described in detail by Vellacott (Ex. C), for
`
`example.
`
`Overview of the Claimed Subject Matter
`
`21. The claims of the ‘001 Patent all claim a “system,” but in fact each
`
`claim actually requires a mixture of not only structural, that is, hardware,
`
`components of a device, but also functional methods of and operating such a
`
`device. This distinction is significant because, as discussed in the preceding
`
`section, typical machine-vision system devices of June 1995 all shared the same
`
`basic camera/image processor/controller configuration, and
`
`these
`
`typical
`
`processors and controllers were easily capable of being programmed to perform a
`
`variety of different functional algorithms without altering the electronics or
`
`structure of the device.
`
`22. With regard to the actual structural device requirements of the ‘001
`
`Patent, all of the claims require at least a CMOS photosensor array and a control
`
`having an image processor that processes image data captured by the CMOS array.
`
`Several dependent claims define various functional capabilities of the claimed
`
`10
`
`
`
`CMOS array/image processor/control configuration, but none of the claims deviate
`
`from this basic vehicular vision system configuration.
`
`23. The basic configuration is important, because the written description
`
`of
`
`the ‘001 Patent expressly acknowledges how
`
`this claimed hardware
`
`configuration of its vehicular vision system was not actually new to the listed
`
`inventors of the ‘001 Patent, but instead an off-the-shelf machine-vision system
`
`made by VLSI Vision Limited (“VVL”) for several years prior to the claimed June
`
`1995 priority date of the ‘001 Patent. Specifically, the ‘001 Patent admits that the
`
`“photosensor array 32 is the VLSI Vision Limited (VVL) Single Chip Video
`
`Camera Model #ASIS 1011.” (Ex. B, col. 13, lines 30-37).
`
`24. The written disclosure of the ‘001 Patent further describes various
`
`specific details of a logic and control circuit (Ex. B, col. 18, line 30, for example),
`
`but none of the claims require such details. Where a logic and control circuit
`
`appears in the claims, only its generic presence is required in connection with the
`
`control and image processor. The claims are not limited to the particular
`
`descriptions of the logic and control circuit in the ‘001 Patent.
`
`25. A similar issue arises with respect to the various operational
`
`capabilities (e.g., headlight detection, fog detection, collision avoidance, etc.)
`
`featured in the ‘001 Patent claims. Whereas the written description of the ‘001
`
`Patent includes some details of particular algorithms used to allow such operation,
`
`the claims themselves require no such detail. The claims merely feature the
`
`11
`
`
`
`generic ability to perform such function, but require no specifics as to how such
`
`functionality is accomplished. I note in particular that the ‘001 Patent includes no
`
`method claims.
`
`E.
`
`SUMMARIES OF RELEVANT PRIOR ART
`
`Vellacott
`
`26. The primary reference is Vellacott (Ex. C). Vellacott is of particular
`
`relevance because it provides significant detail about the very device that the ‘001
`
`Patent admits to use as its “light sensing device,” namely, the VVL model #ASIS
`
`1011 (Ex. B at 13:36-37), in a vehicular vision system. As shown by Vellacott,
`
`VVL’s single-chip “Peach” camera model #ASIS 1011 was much more than
`
`simply a light sensing device. The ASIS 1011 was an integral component of “a
`
`complete standalone machine-vision system” sold by VVL as “The imputer.” (Ex.
`
`C, page 3, Fig. 4). The imputer was specifically programmed for use in
`
`automotive vision systems. (Ex. C at page 4, col. 3). “ASIS” refers to an
`
`“Application-Specific Interconnect Structure.”
`
`27.
`
`In addition to the Peach/ASIS camera chip structure, Vellacott states
`
`that the imputer also included “A full library of machine-vision functions …
`
`including morphological (shape) filters, transforms, correlators, convolvers, image
`
`segmentation, frequency filtering rotation, reflection and logical operators.”
`
`28. Paradiso (Ex. D) provides a more detailed analysis of the VVL
`
`imputer, its capabilities, and several known applications in the field. Paradiso
`
`12
`
`
`
`confirms that the Peach camera and ASIS 1011 were a unified package where the
`
`reference explicitly states that “As of last year [1993], the Peach chip[14] (ASIS-
`
`1011-B) was separately available for under £30.” (Ex. D at page 4, last two lines,
`
`emphasis added). Paradiso is thus describing the same Peach camera with
`
`supporting electronics (ASIS 1011) that constitutes the VVL imputer described by
`
`Vellacott.
`
`29. Paradiso further illustrates the electronic schematics of the camera,
`
`processor, and control of the VVL imputer. (Ex. D, page 6, at Figure 5). Paradiso
`
`states that “The complete camera (with housing) measures 3.5 x 3.5 cm. The
`
`CMOS monolithic inside integrates the sensor (operating down to 5 Lux @ F1.8)
`
`with all video formatting and signal processing.” (Ex. D, page 4, last paragraph).
`
`30. As shown above, Paradiso clearly demonstrates VVL imputer further
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`included exposure control as an integral function of the camera that forms the
`
`nucleus of the Vellacott imputer. (Ex. D, page 6, at Figure 5). Paradiso further
`
`confirms that the Peach CMOS photo-diode sensor array was not only available in
`
`the 256x256 or 512x512 arrays mentioned by Vellacott as examples, but also in an
`
`asymmetric “1/2" array of 312x287 photodiode pixels,” which would, by
`
`definition, have a greater width than height to the array. (Ex. D, page 4, last
`
`paragraph). Fletcher (Ex. M) further confirms that the hardware of VVL imputer,
`
`disclosed by Vellacott, was capable of supporting lenses and lens mountings of
`
`different sizes. Given this known capability of the VVL imputer, choice of a
`
`compatible photosensor array having different dimensions would have been an
`
`obvious matter of design choice by the POSITA.
`
`31. The GEM reference (Ex. E), discussed further below, also analyzes
`
`the Peach camera chip and confirms that the Peach camera chip with ASIS 1011
`
`electronics was unified package at the time of the invention. (Ex. E, page 109).
`
`GEM specifically states that “Along with a 1/2" format image sensor array, ASIS-
`
`1011-B includes the circuits which control and read the array, plus a
`
`comprehensive control input and output set for digital video applications.” (Ex. E,
`
`page 109, emphasis added). GEM further confirms that the Peach camera, together
`
`with the ASIS 1011 processor/control was on sale to the public as early as at least
`
`June 1993, two years prior to the earliest claimed priority date of the ‘001 Patent.
`
`(Ex. E, page 109).
`
`32. Paradiso and GEM thus both confirm that the Peach CMOS camera
`
`14
`
`
`
`was packaged and sold together with the ASIS 1011 electronics chip circuitry as a
`
`single unified product. Vellacott specifically describes the Peach CMOS camera
`
`(which included the ASIS 1011 electronics) as an integral part of the VVL imputer,
`
`and that the VVL imputer had been sold to the Applicant of the ‘001 Patent
`
`(“Donnelly Corporation,” Ex. C at page 4) as a vehicular vision system well before
`
`the ‘001 Patent’s priority date.
`
`33. Most importantly, the ‘001 Patent itself specifically admits that the
`
`model “ASIS 1011” image sensor was the preferred embodiment for its disclosed
`
`“photosensor array 32” (Ex. B, col. 13, lines 30-37), which is the same element 32
`
`utilized for both the rearward and forward embodiments. (Ex. B, col. 33, lines 9-
`
`15). Therefore, for the purposes of this discussion, I consider the terms “imputer,”
`
`“Peach camera,” and “ASIS 1011” to interchangeably refer to the same CMOS
`
`camera with an image processor and a logic and control circuit that were integral to
`
`the “VVL imputer” as described by Vellacott.
`
`34. The only capability of the VVL imputer that I find to not be attributed
`
`to VVL by the ‘001 Patent is the VVL imputer’s additional “full library of
`
`machine-vision functions” that came pre-packaged with the imputer, as discussed
`
`by Vellacott, above. This considerable pre-packaged library of programming
`
`functions is very significant because Vellacott further explains how the VVL
`
`imputer was “completely programmable” with this full library. (Ex. C, page 3,
`
`cols. 2-3). Vellacott further discloses that the number of machine-vision
`
`applications which can be run on the imputer is limited only by the processing
`
`15
`
`
`
`power of the mothercard, which, at the time was an 8-bit Intel 8032
`
`microcontroller in the main disclosed embodiment. (Ex. C, page 3, col. 1).
`
`35. Vellacott further states, however, that the processing power of the
`
`imputer could be increased “3000-fold” using “optional plug-in coprocessors” (the
`
`Motorola 56002 DSP is provided as one example) if greater processing power was
`
`desired. As of 1994, such coprocessor of greater power were known and available,
`
`and it would have thus been an obvious matter of design choice for the POSITA to
`
`choose one or more of these more powerful coprocessors to run more complex
`
`algorithms, or more than one algorithm for the same vehicular vision system,
`
`dependent only on cost restrictions for the overall system. With a known, more
`
`powerful processor, the VVL imputer described by Vellacott would have easily
`
`been capable of running multiple complex processes and algorithms from its pre-
`
`packaged library of programs and control algorithms. No undue experimentation
`
`would have been required for the POSITA to choose from among the library of
`
`pre-packaged machine-vision functions.
`
`36. Vellacott explicitly discloses that at least one of its pre-packaged
`
`library of machine-vision functions was dedicated to an automotive/vehicular
`
`vision system for headlight detection by a CMOS camera (with imputer) housed in
`
`the rearview mirror. Rearview mirror assemblies were well-known to the POSITA
`
`at the time of the invention, to be located at the upper portion of the windshield of
`
`the equipped vehicle for most passenger vehicles (large trucks being an exception).
`
`Such passenger vehicles were further commonly known to attach these mirror
`
`16
`
`
`
`assemblies directly to the windshield. Vellacott specifically states “The imputer
`
`was programmed to analyse this image to recognise when and where headlamps
`
`are present in the field of view.” (Ex. C, page 4, col. 3). Although this specific
`
`mention of headlight detection is performed with the imputer facing rearwardly,
`
`the pre-packaged algorithm of the imputer would predictably function in exactly
`
`the same way when facing forward. That is, the algorithm used to detect and
`
`recognize the headlights would not change with the orientation of the camera.
`
`37. Vellacott utilizes this pre-packaged headlight detection program to
`
`then send a control signal from the imputer to dim its rearview mirrors. Vellacott
`
`states “The dimming is controlled by an analogue voltage from the imputer, which
`
`directly sets the chrominance of the mirror.” This option to control the mirror
`
`dimming, however, as opposed to any other system of the equipped vehicle (such
`
`as headlights, for example), would have been an obvious matter of design choice to
`
`the POSITA at the time of the claimed invention. Vellacott’s imputer was clearly
`
`capable of sending an analogue control signal to any vehicle system wired directly
`
`to the imputer, or wired through vehicle communication bus connected to the
`
`imputer. No special skill in the art would have been required to send such a
`
`control signal to a different vehicle system. Fletcher (Ex. M) states that, for the
`
`VVL imputer specifically, “Binary ports are controllable from software,”
`
`confirming that desired control signals from the imputer could have been purely a
`
`matter of programming, and not a change in the structure or operation of the
`
`device.
`
`17
`
`
`
`38.
`
`In its most general sense, a control signal is any type of signal that is
`
`used to control something. In the specific case of computer vision systems, the
`
`control signal would be a “true” or “false” signal that signifies whether an object of
`
`interest was detected in the field of view. The control signal does not necessarily
`
`mean that something will change, such as whether the state of the high beams, but
`
`it is anticipated that the signal will result in a change. In one example, an image is
`
`taken from the sensors and processed by a processor. The programming of the
`
`processor then “decides” whether or not an object is detected in the camera’s field
`
`of view. If an object is detected (i.e. a headlight), then a control signal of “true”
`
`will be sent to a control signal receiving system, for example, one that controls the
`
`state of the high beams, dimming of a rear-view mirror, or any other vehicular
`
`system that can be controlled by a control signal, which is to say almost all, if not
`
`all, of such systems. The control signal receiver of the particular vehicular system
`
`then makes a decision on what to do based on the received control signal sent from
`
`the computer vision system.
`
`39.
`
`It should be understood that such a “true” control signal would be sent
`
`over some communication network within the vehicle, for example, a bus
`
`communication system or by direct wiring. If it was desired to send the signal over
`
`the bus, no additional programming would be required to reroute the control signal
`
`of the detection/recognition program. Once the control signal is established by the
`
`program, the POSITA would need only to specify the address destination of the
`
`signal. In other words, the numerical variable of the control signal address would
`
`18
`
`
`
`simply need to be set to match the desired vehicle system, without changing any of
`
`the processing of the particular program.
`
`40. Alternatively, a control signal from the imputer could be sent to a
`
`particular vehicle system (e.g., headlights) by direct wiring, which would have
`
`been a very simple, but more cumbersome, solution that was well-known to the
`
`POSITA at the time of the claimed invention. If you have a control signal as an
`
`output of one system (e.g., Vellacott’s imputer) that corresponds to the input of the
`
`receiver of another system (e.g., rear-view mirror dimmer or headlights), it is
`
`obvious that you would connect the output of one system to the input of the other.
`
`Wiring electrical components together was an obvious capability of the POSITA
`
`requiring no special skill in the art or inventiveness.
`
`41. Therefore, according to my complete review and understanding of the
`
`text of the ‘001 Patent, as well as the Vellacott reference (further explained by the
`
`GEM and Paradiso references analyzing the Vellacott imputer), it is my opinion
`
`that the entirety of the hardware structure of the claimed vehicular vision system of
`
`the ‘001 Patent is simply that of Vellacott’s imputer, including both Vellacott’s
`
`CMOS photosensor array and its image processor-plus-control, along with its
`
`considerable pre-packaged library of machine-vision functions. As discussed
`
`further below, all of the claims of the ‘001 Patent could easily be performed by the
`
`VVL imputer, utilizing one or more of the multitude of pre-packaged applications,
`
`or else by basic additional programming of similar algorithms that would have
`
`been well within the capability of the POSITA in 1994, who would have only had
`
`19
`
`
`
`to understand C-language computer programming for Windows. (Ex. C, page 3,
`
`col. 2).
`
`42. The conclusion that the ‘001 Patent is simply utilizing the VVL
`
`imputer, as taught by Vellacott, is further confirmed by Vellacott’s explicit
`
`statement, discussed above, that “One of VVL's customers is US automotive
`
`components manufacturer Donnelly Corp. Donnelly has used the imputer to
`
`develop electro-chromic rearview mirrors, which automatically reduce headlamp
`
`glare from behind.” I see that “Donnelly Corporation” of Holland Michigan is the
`
`entity listed on the face of the ‘001 Patent as “Applicant.” With respect to any
`
`potential development of electro-chromic mirrors in relation to Vellacott’s imputer,
`
`it should be noted that none of the ‘001 Patent’s claims require an electro-chromic
`
`mirror.
`
`Kenue
`
`43. Kenue (Ex. F) discloses a forward-facing vehicular vision system for
`
`viewing a roadway scene in front of a vehicle, utilizing a CCD camera, as well as
`
`“template matching techniques” and “Hough algorithms” to detect lane markers or
`
`other objects. (Ex F. at Abstract). Kenue’s camera 10 is mounted “at the upper
`
`center of the windshield” (Ex. F at 2:31), and Kenue’s system is further able to
`
`analyze captured image data and automatically send a control signal to one or more
`
`vehicle systems, for example, a warning system, vehicle guidance system (steering
`
`and braking), or headway control system. (Ex. F, at Abstract, 1:19-24, and 2:28-
`
`20
`
`
`
`39). Kenue’s computer vision system is disposed “at the upper center of the
`
`windshield” (Ex. F at 2:31), very similar to Vellacott’s express statement to house
`
`the imputer within a rearview mirror, which would be located at substantially the
`
`same location.
`
`Yanagawa
`
`44. Yanagawa (Ex. G) similarly describes a forward-facing vehicular
`
`vision system, or “traveling vehicle recognition device,” which has the functional
`
`capability “of automatically controlling headlight beams to high and low beams
`
`according to the state of whether there is a vehicle ahead.” (Ex. G, page 2, at upper
`
`right column). Yanagawa does not specify what type of imaging device is utilized
`
`to capture image data, other than the statement that the imaging device is a “color
`
`television camera (11).” Nevertheless, Yanagawa does state that the image data
`
`captured by its television camera is binarized, or digitized, and thereby converted
`
`into digital image data for image processing by the video signal processor 14. (Ex.
`
`G, page 2, col. 2, last two paragraphs).
`
`45. Yanagawa further indicates that its video signal processor 14 includes
`
`“extracting,” “recognizing,” and “calculating” means (Ex. G, page 1, “Claim”) that
`
`would render the video signal processor capable of the standard functionality of a
`
`conventional image processor available in 1994-1995. Similarly, Yanagawa’s
`
`executing part 15, which “executes headlight control based on the recognition
`
`result” of the recognizing means of the image processor 14 is clearly a “control,”
`
`21
`
`
`
`as described by the ‘001 Patent disclosure. Again, although the logic and control
`
`circuitry within the written disclosure of the ‘001 Patent is described (for some
`
`embodiments) in differing levels of detail, the claims of the ‘001 Patent merely
`
`require a generic control having no more functionality than that described and
`
`shown by Yanagawa (and also Vellacott and Kenue, as discussed above).
`
`46.
`
`It is significant to note that Yanagawa shows that it was well-known
`
`to utilize recognition results from the vehicular vision system’s image processor to
`
`control the headlights of the equipped vehicle. (Ex. G, page 1, col. 2, first
`
`paragraph). The desired control signal, that is, which vehicle system (e.g.,
`
`headlights, mirror dimmer, etc.) is then just an obvious matter of design choice to
`
`the POSITA.
`
`47. For a typical vehicular vision system at the time of the claimed
`
`invention, an image is taken from the sensors (for Yanagawa, by the camera 11)
`
`and then processed (i.e., by the image processor 14). Within the typical image
`
`processor it is then decided whether or not an object is detected (Yanagawa’s
`
`“recognizing means”) in the field of view. If an object is detected (i.e. a headlight,
`
`as in both Yanagawa and Vellacott), then a control signal of “true” could be sent to
`
`a particular application run by the processor, such as the one that controls the state
`
`of the high beams, such as in Yanagawa. The particular application can thus make
`
`a “decision” on what to do – through the controller (executing means 14 in
`
`Yanagawa) based on the control signal that was sent from the processor.
`
`Yanagawa thus clearly demonstrates that it was well-known by the time of the
`
`22
`
`
`
`claimed invention to utilize the detection and recognition of headlights from a
`
`forward facing camera to control the equipped vehicle’s own headlights. The
`
`selection of the particular control signal (headlight system or m
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
