IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`Valeo North America, Inc., Valeo S.A., Valeo GmbH,
`Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH,
`and Connaught Electronics Ltd.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Magna Electronics, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`IPR2015-_______
`_________________
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Madison Building (East)
`600 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22313
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW U.S. PATENT NO. 8,643,724
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B) .............................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................2
`
`Related Matters .....................................................................................2
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel ...................................................................3
`
`Service Information ...............................................................................3
`
`III. NONREDUNDANT GROUNDS ...................................................................3
`
`IV. PAYMENT OF FEES ......................................................................................5
`
`V.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................5
`
`A. Grounds for Standing ............................................................................5
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Identification of Challenge ...................................................................5
`
`Identification of Prior Art .....................................................................6
`
`D. How The Construed Claims Are Unpatentable And Supporting
`Evidence Relied Upon To Support The Challenge ..............................8
`
`VI. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..........................................................................8
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the ’724 Patent ..................................................................8
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History ................................................. 10
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 10
`
`D. Declaration Evidence ......................................................................... 10
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 10
`
`VIII. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ON WHICH PETITIONER IS
`LIKELY TO PREVAIL ................................................................................ 14
`
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 60
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,643,724 to Schofield.
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Japanese Publication No. JP H7-30149 assigned to Masatoshi
`Yamamoto
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Certified English Translation of Japanese Publication No. JP H7-
`30149 assigned to Masatoshi Yamamoto (“Yamamoto”)
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Japanese Publication No. H2-117935 assigned to Mitsubishi
`Motors Corporation
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Certified English Translation of Japanese Publication No. H2-
`117935 assigned to Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (“Mitsubishi”)
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`U.S Pat. No. 6,553,130 to Lemelson (“Lemelson”).
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Japanese Publication No. JPA64-14700 assigned to Aishin Warner
`Kabushiki-Kaisha.
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Certified English Translation of Japanese Publication No. JPA64-
`14700 assigned to Aishin Warner Kabushiki-Kaisha (“Aishin”).
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Wang, G., et al. "CMOS Video Cameras", IEEE, 1991, dated May
`27-31, 1991 (“Wang”).
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Great Britain Patent No. GB 2233530 assigned to Fuji Jukogyo
`Kabushiki Kaisha (“Fuji”).
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Japanese Publication No. H2-36417 assigned to Niles Co., Ltd.
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Certified English Translation of Japanese Publication No. H2-
`36417 assigned to Niles Co., Ltd. (“Niles”)
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,963,788 to King (“King”).
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,966,441 to Conner (“Conner”).
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,793,420 to Schmidt (“Schmidt”).
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`SAE Paper No. 871288 to Otsuka (“Otsuka”).
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,833,534 to Paff (“Paff”).
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,390,895 to Sato (“Sato”).
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`SAE Paper No. 890288 to Goesch (“Goesch”).
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. George Wolberg
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`Dr. George Wolberg Curriculum Vitae
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Ralph Wilhelm
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`Dr. Ralph V. Wilhelm Curriculum Vitae
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`Robert Nathan, Digital Video Data Handling, NASA JPL Tech
`Report 32-877, Pasadena, CA, Jan. 5, 1966.
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`P. Burt et al., A Multiresolution Spline with Application to Image
`Mosaics, ACM Transactions on Graphics, Vol. 2. No. 4, Pages
`217-236, October 1983.
`
`Lisa Gottesfeld Brown, A Survey of Image Registration
`Techniques, vol. 24, ACM Computing Surveys, pp. 325-376,
`1992.
`
`Ex. 1027
`
`George Wolberg, Digital Image Warping, IEEE Computer Society
`Press, 1990.
`
`Ex. 1028
`
`N. Greene et al., Creating Raster Omnimax Images from Multiple
`Perspective Views Using the Elliptical Weighted Average Filter,
`IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 21-
`27, June 1986.
`
`Ex. 1029
`
`Richard Szeliski, Image Mosaicing for Tele-Reality Applications,
`DEC Cambridge Research Laboratory, CRL 94/2, May 1994.
`
`Ex. 1030
`
`G. Wolberg, “A Two-Pass Mesh Warping Implementation of
`Morphing,” Dr. Dobb’s Journal, no. 202, July 1993.
`
`Ex. 1031
`
`T. Porter and T. Duff, “Compositing Digital Images,” Computer
`Graphics (Proc. Siggraph), vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 253-259, July 1984.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`Ex. 1032
`
`SAE Paper No. 750364 to Nolan
`
`Ex. 1033
`
`SAE Paper No. 890282 to Corsi
`
`Ex. 1034
`
`SAE Paper No. 890283 to Brandt
`
`Ex. 1035
`
`SAE Paper No. 860173 to Ortega
`
`Ex. 1036
`
`SAE Paper No. 930456 to Gumkowski
`
`Ex. 1037
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,693,524 to Payne
`
`Ex. 1038
`
`SAE Paper No. 770274 to Smith
`
`Ex. 1039
`
`Declaration of Gerard Grenier in Support of IEEE publication
`Wang, G., et al “CMOS Video Cameras”
`
`Ex. 1040
`
`Tremblay, M., et al. High resolution smart image senor with
`integrated parallel analog processing for multiresolution edge
`extraction, Robotics and Autonomous Systems 11 (1993), pp. 231-
`242.
`
`Ex. 1041
`
`Abstract for the Publication of High Resolution Smart Image
`Sensor
`
`Ex. 1042
`
`Lu, M., et al. On-chip Automatic Exposure Control Technique,
`Solid-State Circuits Conference, 1991. ESSCIRC ’91. Proceedings
`– Seventeenth European (Volume:1)
`
`Ex. 1043
`
`IEEE.org Abstract On-chip Automatic Exposure Control
`Technique
`
`Ex. 1044
`
`CMOS sensor page of University of Edinburgh
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners Valeo North America, Inc., Valeo S.A., Valeo GmbH, Valeo
`
`Schalter und Sensoren GmbH, and Connaught Electronics Ltd. (collectively
`
`“Valeo” or “Petitioner”) respectfully request inter partes review of claims 1-6, 10-
`
`19, 23, 25, 29-32, 41-43, 46-56, 58, 61, 62, 64, 65-71, 73, 75-82, 84 and 86 (the
`
`“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724 (“the ’724 patent,” Ex. 1001) in
`
`accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`The ’724 patent is generally directed to a vision system for a motor vehicle.
`
`More particularly, the ’724 patent is directed to a multi-camera vision system for a
`
`vehicle that includes two or three vehicle-mounted image capture devices (i.e.,
`
`cameras), an image processor, and a display to provide the driver with perspective
`
`of the vehicle’s surroundings. (Ex. 1001 at 2:23-35; 2:59-3:22 and Fig. 8). The
`
`image processor synthesizes the image portions captured by each of the image
`
`capture devices, resulting in a “synthesized image” characterized by the absence of
`
`duplicate objects that might otherwise appear in images due to the cameras
`
`capturing images having overlapping fields of view. (Id. at 7:5-16; 7:44-57; Fig.
`
`3). Ultimately, a reconfigurable display device inside the vehicle shows the driver
`
`a synthesized image on a display that may also show other auxiliary information.
`
`The driver (or another user) may select the types of information displayed on the
`
`reconfigurable display.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`As demonstrated by various prior art references and as discussed in Section
`
`VIII (below) and in the declarations of Dr. George Wolberg and Dr. Ralph
`
`Wilhelm, submitted in support of this petition, motor vehicle vision systems and
`
`methods for processing image data to display a synthesized image to a driver of
`
`the vehicle and reconfigurable displays were well known to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter “PHOSITA”) well before May 22, 1996, the
`
`earliest claimed priority date of the ’724 patent, and thus, the challenged claims of
`
`the ’724 patent are obvious.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies that Valeo North
`
`America, Inc., Valeo S.A., Valeo GmbH, Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH, and
`
`Connaught Electronics Ltd. are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner states that the ’724 patent
`
`attached as Ex. 1001 is involved in the litigation styled Magna Electronics Inc. v.
`
`Valeo North America, Inc., et al., No. 2:14-cv-10540 (E.D. Mich.). In November
`
`2014, Petitioner filed two petitions requesting IPR of the ’724 patent in IPR2015-
`
`00252 and -00253 (denied on May 13, 2015 at Paper 7, collectively “the ’252/253
`
`IPRs”), and moved to stay the district court litigation pending inter partes review.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`The court has not ruled on that motion.
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), Petitioner provides the following
`
`designation of counsel, and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney
`
`accompanies this Petition:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Tammy J. Terry (Reg. No.: 69,167)
`terry@oshaliang.com
`OL-Valeo@oshaliang.com
`OSHA LIANG LLP
`909 Fannin Street, Suite 3500
`Houston, TX 77010-1034
`Phone: 713.228.8600
`Fax: 713.228.8778
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Seema Mehta (Reg. No.: 56,235)
`mehta@oshaliang.com
`Aly Dossa (Reg. No.: 63,372)
`dossa@oshaliang.com
`Peter C. Schechter (Reg. No.: 31,662)
`schechter@oshaliang.com
`909 Fannin Street, Suite 3500
`Houston, TX 77010-1034
`Phone: 713.228.8600/Fax: 713.228.8778
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), papers concerning this matter should be
`
`served on lead and backup counsel whose service information is provided above.
`
`Petitioner consents to service of papers in this proceeding by e-mail.
`
`III. NONREDUNDANT GROUNDS
`
`On May 13, 2015, the Board denied institution in the ’252/253 IPRs,
`
`finding the primary prior art combination of Nissan and Hino deficient. This
`
`petition presents further, non-redundant grounds for IPR. Although some prior art
`
`references were presented in he ’252/253 IPRs, this Petition presents for the first
`
`time new and previously unknown reference(s) and combinations of references,
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`and new and different arguments that could not have been presented previously,
`
`based on the results of prior art searches previously performed and/or
`
`interpretations of those references then-available to Petitioner.
`
`None of the grounds of unpatentability in the current Petition rely upon
`
`exactly the same combination of prior art as the grounds of unpatentability
`
`asserted against the same claims in the ’252/253 IPRs. For example, unlike the
`
`Petitions in the ’252/253 IPRs, which relied on Nissan and Hino for disclosing
`
`“approximates a view from a single location,” as claimed, this Petition relies on
`
`Yamamoto and Mitsubishi, which are more robust in certain important respects,
`
`and, unlike Nissan, were not cited to the Examiner in the prosecution of the ’724
`
`patent.
`
`Thus, this petition does not present “the same or substantially the same prior
`
`art or arguments” as have been presented in any earlier proceeding. Therefore, to
`
`the extent the Board interprets 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), (which is found in the section
`
`of the AIA relating to post-grant reviews but not in the provisions applicable to
`
`inter partes reviews), to apply to this inter partes review, the Director should not
`
`exercise discretion to reject this Petition under § 325(d). This Petition presents
`
`combinations of prior art references and arguments not previously presented or
`
`considered by the Board and, therefore, includes sufficiently distinct grounds to
`
`warrant institution of inter partes review, the Director’s statutory discretion under
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) notwithstanding.
`
`IV. PAYMENT OF FEES
`
`Petitioner authorizes the Office to charge Deposit Account No. 50-0591 for
`
`the fee required by 37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) for this Petition and further authorizes for
`
`any additional fees to be charged to this Deposit Account.
`
`V. REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`As set forth below and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104, each requirement for
`
`inter partes review of the ’724 patent is satisfied.
`
`A. Grounds for Standing
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner hereby certifies that the ’724
`
`patent is available for inter partes review and that the Petitioner is not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting inter partes review challenging the claims of the ’724
`
`patent on the grounds identified herein. The ’724 patent has not been subject to a
`
`previous estoppel based proceeding of the America Invents Act (AIA), and the
`
`complaint was served within the last twelve months.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(1), Petitioner requests IPR of the
`
`Challenged Claims on the grounds set forth in the table below, and requests that
`
`the Challenged Claims be found unpatentable. An explanation of unpatentability is
`
`provided, indicating where each element is found in the prior art. Additional
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`explanation and support for each ground is set forth in Exs. 1020 and 1022,
`
`Declarations of Dr. George Wolberg and Dr. Ralph Wilhelm.
`
`Ground
`
`’724 Patent
`Claims
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1-6, 10-18, 23, 25,
`29-32, 41-43, 46-
`48
`49-56, 58, 61, 62,
`64-71, 73, 75-82,
`84 and 86
`
`Basis of Unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, and Lemelson
`
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson, Wang, and
`Aishin
`
`C.
`
`Identification of Prior Art
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2), Petitioner identifies the references on
`
`which this IPR is based, each of which is prior art to the ’724 patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), and/or (e):1
`
`(1)
`
`Japanese Publication No. JP H7-30149 assigned to Masatoshi
`
`Yamamoto (“Yamamoto,” Ex. 1002 (certified English translation at Ex. 1003))
`
`published on June 6, 1995, from an application filed on March 31, 1993. Because
`
`it published less than one year before the filing date for the ’724 patent (May 22,
`
`1996), Yamamoto is prior art to the ’724 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). See
`
`also Ex. 1020 at ¶¶ 62-69.
`
`
`1 The pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 apply to the claims of the
`
`’724 patent.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`(2)
`
`Japanese Publication No. H2-117935 assigned to Mitsubishi Motors
`
`Corporation (“Mitsubishi,” Ex. 1004 (certified English translation at Ex. 1005))
`
`published on September 21, 1990, from an application filed on March 10, 1989.
`
`Because it published more than one year before the filing date for the ’724 patent,
`
`Mitsubishi is prior art to the ’724 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See also Ex.
`
`1020 at ¶¶ 70-75.
`
`(3) U.S Patent No. 6,553,130 to Lemelson (“Lemelson,” Ex. 1006) was
`
`filed on June 28, 1996, and claims benefit to a parent application filed on August
`
`11, 1993. Because Lemelson’s effective filing date (August 11, 1993) was before
`
`the ’724 patent’s earliest priority date (May 22, 1996), Lemelson is prior art to the
`
`’724 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). See also Ex. 1022 at ¶¶ 44-48.
`
`(4)
`
`Japanese Publication No. JP A64-14700 assigned to Aishin Warner
`
`Kabushiki-Kaisha (“Aishin,” Ex. 1007 (certified English translation at Ex. 1008))
`
`published on January 18, 1989, from an application filed on July 8, 1987. Because
`
`it published more than one year before the filing date for the ’724 patent, Aishin is
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See also Ex. 1020 at ¶¶ 76-82.
`
`(5) Wang, G., et al. “CMOS Video Cameras”, IEEE, 1991, p. 100-103,
`
`(“Wang,” Ex. 1009) published on May 27-31, 1991. Because it published more
`
`than one year before the filing date for the ’724 patent, Wang is prior art to the
`
`’724 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See also Ex. 1020 at ¶¶ 83-86.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`D. How The Construed Claims Are Unpatentable And Supporting
`Evidence Relied Upon To Support The Challenge
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4), an explanation of how the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’724 patent are unpatentable under the statutory grounds identified
`
`above, including the identification of where each element of the claim is found in
`
`the prior art, is provided in Section VIII below. Pursuant to § 42.104(b)(5),
`
`Section VIII also includes the Exhibit numbers of the supporting evidence relied
`
`upon to support the challenges, identifies specific portions of that evidence, and
`
`explains the relevance of the evidence to the challenges raised.
`
`VI. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the ’724 Patent
`
`The ’724 patent generally describes a driver assist vision system for a motor
`
`vehicle. Ex. 1001 at 2:59-3:22 and Fig. 1. More particularly, the ’724 patent
`
`describes a multi-camera vision system in which three image capture devices (e.g.,
`
`cameras) are mounted on a vehicle and an image processor processes captured
`
`images in such a way as to display the vehicle’s surroundings in a synthesized
`
`single image to the driver of as the driver operates the vehicle. Ex. 1001 at 2:59-
`
`3:22 and Fig. 8. These image capture devices capture scenes exterior of the vehicle
`
`and have zones of overlap with each other. Ex. 1001 at Fig. 1; 6:66-7:5.
`
`According to the ’724 patent, an image processor processes the captured
`
`images and the result is a “synthesized image,” which shown to the driver on a
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`reconfigurable display that can selectively display camera images as well as
`
`various auxiliary information of interest to the driver. Ex. 1001, 12:49-64; Ex.
`
`1019 at ¶¶42-43. This “synthesized image” shows the perspective of a virtual
`
`camera at a single location exterior of the equipped vehicle (Ex. 1001 at 5:64-6:2),
`
`and has little or no duplication of objects that might otherwise be present due to
`
`overlapping portions of the fields of views of the image capture devices. Ex. 1001
`
`at 7:5-16.
`
`The drafters of the ’724 patent wrote a very lengthy specification with many
`
`different embodiments directed to different aspects of a generally conventional
`
`driver assist vision system, and then filed a series of continuation applications to
`
`cover the various embodiments of this unpatentable automobile vision system,
`
`each with an unusually large number of claims. The ’724 patent has 86 claims,
`
`some of which recite several alternatives, and all of which add conventional, well-
`
`known features to an otherwise unpatentable core invention. Due to its length and
`
`the many embodiments in the ’724 patent, Exs. 1020 and 1022 explain in detail the
`
`state of the art of various features that were well-known much before the time of
`
`the ’724 patent. It is well known, however, that claiming a conventional feature
`
`from standard product configurations does not lend to patentability. Indeed, the
`
`PHOSITA would expect such features to be practical to include in a driver assist
`
`system, to make the system useful. See Ex. 1020 at ¶¶ 40-47; Ex. 1022 at ¶¶ 28-30.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`The application for the ’724 Patent was filed on March 13, 2013, and claims
`
`priority to a series of parent applications with an earliest effective filing date of
`
`May 22, 1996. A notice of allowance was mailed without any substantive Office
`
`Action being issued in the application on December 11, 2013. After the Applicant
`
`corrected minor informalities, the ’724 Patent issued on February 4, 2014.
`
`C.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`The person having ordinary skill in the art as of the Filing Date of the ’724
`
`patent would have had a bachelor’s or master’s degree in engineering, computer
`
`science, or physics with some experience in the automotive industry (e.g., two to
`
`five years). This person would also have had a working understanding of
`
`combining image data from multiple cameras and microprocessor driven controls
`
`for displays, actuators, and elementary decision making.
`
`D. Declaration Evidence
`
`Additional explanation and support for each ground is set forth in Ex. 1020,
`
`Declaration of Dr. George Wolberg, Ph.D., CV is Ex. 1021; and Ex. 1022,
`
`Declaration of Dr. Ralph Wilhelm, Ph.D., CV is Ex. 1023.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), the challenged claims of the unexpired
`
`’724 Patent shall receive the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`specification of the patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`All claim terms not specifically addressed below have been given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretations in view of the patent specification, including
`
`plain and ordinary meanings to the extent a skilled artisan could determine them.
`
`All of the claims of the ’724 Patent recite the phrase “without duplication
`
`of objects,” which means that “there is minimal multiple exposure of objects
`
`appearing in overlap zones in the synthesized image.” All disclosures in the
`
`specification support this construction. Ex. 1001 at 12:49-64; Ex. 1020 at ¶ 55-56.
`
`All of the claims of the ’724 Patent recite the phrase “reconfigurable
`
`display,” which means “a display in which a portion of the display upon which the
`
`driver views the synthesized image is used as a high-information content display
`
`to selectively display various types of auxiliary information.” All disclosures in
`
`specification support this construction. Ex. 1001 at 12:49-64; Ex. 1022 at ¶ 38.
`
`All of the claims also include the term “said synthesized image,” which
`
`refers to “the image generated by combining the received image data captured by
`
`the image capture devices.” Ex. 1001 at 7:5-16. This construction is supported by
`
`the ’724 patent and was also adopted by the Board in IPR2014-00252 (Paper 7, 8).
`
`Ex. 1020 at ¶ 57.
`
`Many of the claims of the ’724 patent recite the phrase “seamless,” which at
`
`its narrowest means “lacking any visible demarcation or border.” The language in
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`the ’724 Patent supports this construction. Ex. 1020 at ¶ 59.
`
`Claims of the ’724 patent also recite the phrase “panoramic view,” which
`
`means “a wide or elongated field of view rearward of the vehicle.” Although the
`
`phrase “panoramic view” is not specifically defined in the ’724 patent, all
`
`disclosures in the specification support this construction. There is no mention of
`
`“panoramic view” in the ’724 Patent that refers to any view other than a wide
`
`rearward view. Ex. 1020 at ¶ 58.
`
`Many of the claims of the ’724 patent recite the phrase “wherein at least
`
`one of (a) vvv, (b) www, (c) xxx,” or more items in a list of distinct elements.
`
`This claim format was used by Patent Owner at the time the claims of the ’724
`
`Patent were filed, i.e., in 1996, in a manner that differs from what subsequently
`
`became its customary interpretation after the CAFC’s 2004 decision in
`
`SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enter., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004). This
`
`claim format was held in SuperGuide to require “at least one” of each identified
`
`category (the categories being indicated by “vvv,” “www,” “xxx,” etc.), in other
`
`words, a conjunctive list. In reaching that conclusion, the CAFC relied on the fact
`
`that the specification and drawings of SuperGuide’s patent described and
`
`illustrated the invention as requiring at least one selection from each of the recited
`
`categories, and that interpreting the phrase to mean “any one or more of” would
`
`have contradicted the purpose of the invention. SuperGuide, 358 F.3d at 885-88.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`In contrast to SuperGuide, the specification of the ’724 patent makes clear
`
`that the claim format was intended to signify a disjunctive list of alternatives, with
`
`the presence of any one or more in an accused instrumentality intended to give rise
`
`to infringement. For example, claim 31 of the ’724 patent recites “wherein content
`
`displayed by said display screen of said reconfigurable display device is user-
`
`selectable via at least one of a keypad and a trackball.” A specification passage
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 13:3-7) describing this aspect of the claimed invention states “[t]he
`
`content of the auxiliary information displayed may be user-selectable by a keypad,
`
`trackball, or other input device on the dashboard, steering column, or other
`
`position readily accessible to the driver.” (Emphasis added.). Additional examples
`
`are in claims 28, 57, 72, and 83. Corresponding passages in the specification make
`
`clear that “at least one of” means one or the other of a list of alternatives. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001 at 10:60-7:22 (“Ambient light input 104 may be produced by a
`
`separate ambient light sensor of the type which…Alternatively, ambient light
`
`input 103 may be produced by…[listing alternatives].”) (emphasis added).
`
`Unlike the use of “at least one of” in SuperGuide, there is nothing to
`
`compel, let alone suggest, that each and every item in the claimed lists of
`
`alternatives is necessary, or is required by the purpose of the invention. In many
`
`instances, such an interpretation would lead to plainly nonsensical results. In sum,
`
`all of the variations of “at least one of” as used in the claims should be construed
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`to mean the same thing, that is, to introduce disjunctive lists of alternatives.
`
`Accordingly, a teaching of any one of the listed alternatives in any of the claim
`
`elements which recite the “at least one of” language found in the prior art is
`
`sufficient to render that element of the claim, in its entirety, disclosed in the prior
`
`art regardless of whether any of the other listed alternatives are also disclosed.
`
`VIII. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ON WHICH PETITIONER IS
`LIKELY TO PREVAIL
`
`A.
`
`[Ground 1] – Claims 1, 2, 3, 4-6, 10-18, 23, 25, 29-32, 41-43, 46-48
`are obvious in view of Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, and Lemelson
`
`Yamamoto is a published Japanese patent application that discloses a multi-
`
`camera vision system for a vehicle that provides a monitor for a driver of the
`
`vehicle to check the rear of the vehicle for safety while operating the vehicle. Ex.
`
`1003 at Abstract. Specifically, Yamamoto teaches three cameras 1-3 mounted on
`
`an equipped vehicle (Ex. 1003 at FIG. 1) with overlapping fields of views and a
`
`television monitor installed near the driver’s seat to display the rear view, as
`
`shown in FIG. 5 of Yamamoto, which depicts a view that is exactly the view
`
`shown in FIGs. 3, 8, and 10 of the ’724 patent. Although Yamamoto does not
`
`explicitly describe an image processor, it discloses trimming image data and
`
`composing a single image, which would inherently require an image processor.
`
`Mitsubishi is another published Japanese patent application, similarly
`
`directed to a multi-camera vision system that provides a rearward view to the
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`driver, and specifically addresses methods for synthesizing an image that take into
`
`account the overlap between the images in a manner that reduces multiple
`
`exposure in the image shown to the driver. Ex. 1005 at FIG 3. Mitsubishi
`
`describes a system with up to six cameras, three cameras mounted in the front and
`
`three positioned at the rear of the vehicle, in a variety of arrangements so that their
`
`fields of view overlap. Id. at 3-4. The cameras capture images that are transmitted
`
`to an image processing circuit in digital form and synthesized, and the system then
`
`outputs a series of synthesized images to an image display unit. Id. at 5.
`
`Yamamoto and Mitsubishi do not explicitly teach a reconfigurable display
`
`device; however, Lemelson does. Lemelson is a U.S. patent that describes one of
`
`the first vehicular systems designed around video cameras that scanned the
`
`roadway ahead of the vehicle to assist the driver for safe operation on the
`
`roadway. This robust driver assistance system not only included a forward looking
`
`camera, but also reconfigurable displays in the vehicle for the driver’s
`
`information. Lemelson contemplates a wide variety of features and alternative
`
`embodiments, including the use of multiple sideward and rearward cameras. The
`
`Lemelson computer would generate electronic codes to identify obstacles in front
`
`of the vehicle and warn the driver in real-time so that obstacles and accidents
`
`could be avoided. Ex. 1006 at Abstract; 1:10-17; 6:46-54; 15:45-53.
`
`Claim 1 – [1.0]: A multi-camera vision system for a vehicle, said vehicular
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`multi-camera vision system comprising:”
`
`Yamamoto teaches “A set of three cameras is
`
`installed to an automobile and a monitor television
`
`installed near the driver’s seat to display the rear view.”
`
`Ex. Ex. 1003 at p. 1. Three cameras are also shown in
`
`FIG. 1 of Yamamoto, depicting a multi-camera rear
`
`view vision system, in which cameras 1-3 are mounted on a vehicle, where
`
`reference numerals 5-7 depict exterior field of views (FoVs) of each camera. The
`
`primary purpose of Yamamoto is to “provide[s] a monitor television system of
`
`automobile with which a driver of the automobile may check the rear view for
`
`safety driving,” which is precisely what the preamble of claim 1 of the ’724 patent
`
`requires.
`
`[1.1]: “at least three image capture devices disposed at a vehicle equipped
`with said vehicular multi-camera vision system;”
`
`As described above, FIG. 1 of Yamamoto shows three image capture
`
`devices (or cameras) 1-3 disposed at a vehicle having the rear view vision system.
`
`[1.2]: “said at least three image capture devices comprising a first image
`capture device disposed at a driver-side portion of the equipped vehicle at a
`first location;” and
`
`[1.3]: “said at least three image capture devices comprising a second image
`capture device disposed at a passenger-side portion of the equipped vehicle at
`a second location;”
`
`Yamamoto provides that “[T]wo miniature cameras (1) and (2) are installed
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`at the positions of the side mirrors or nearby of an automobile…” Ex. 1003, Claim
`
`1. Yamamoto’s camera 2 is the “first image capture device disposed at a driver-
`
`side portion of the equipped vehicle” of limitation 1.2. Camera 2 is shown at the
`
`driver-side portion of the vehicle in Yamamoto (i.e., the left-hand side of the
`
`vehicle in