`
`________________
`
`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 ........................... 10
`
`VI. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the ’724 Patent ............................................................... 10
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History ................................................. 12
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 12
`
`D. Declaration Evidence ......................................................................... 12
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................... 13
`
`VIII. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ON WHICH PETITIONER IS
`LIKELY TO PREVAIL ................................................................................ 16
`
`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 7-9, 19,
`
`20-22, 24, 26-28,, 33-40, 44-45, 57, 59-60, 63, 72, 74, 83 and 85 (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 Case Nos.
`
`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
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`partes review. 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 the ’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 on
`
`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
`
`Basis of Unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`19
`
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson, Wang
`
`7-9, 20-22
`
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson, Aishin
`
`24
`
`26
`
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson, Niles
`
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson, Aishin, Schmidt
`
`27, 28
`
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson, Fuji
`
`33, 35, 36-38 Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson, Otsuka
`
`34
`
`39
`
`40
`
`44
`
`45
`
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson, Otsuka, Conner
`
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson, Otsuka, Sato
`
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson, Otsuka, Paff
`
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson, King
`
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson, Goesch
`
`57, 72, 83
`
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson, Wang, Aishin, Fuji
`
`59
`
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson, Wang, Aishin,
`Otsuka
`
`60, 74, 85
`
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson, Wang, Aishin, Paff
`
`63
`
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, Lemelson, Wang, Aishin,
`King
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`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, less than one year before the earliest effective filing
`
`date for the ’724 patent (May 22, 1996), and is therefore prior art to the ’724
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). See also Ex. 1020 at ¶¶ 62-69.
`
`(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, more than one year before the filing date for the
`
`’724 patent, and is therefore 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
`
`
`1 The pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 apply to the claims of the
`
`’724 patent.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`Kabushiki-Kaisha (“Aishin,” Ex. 1005 (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.
`
`(6)
`
`Japanese Publication No. 59-114139 assigned to Niles Co., Ltd.
`
`(“Niles,” Ex. 1011 (certified English translation attached as Ex. 1012)) published
`
`on July 2, 1984, as a result of a Japanese patent application filed on
`
`December 17, 1982. Because it published more than one year before the filing
`
`date for the ’724 patent, Niles is prior art to the ’724 patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`102(b). See also Ex. 1020 at ¶¶ 87-90.
`
`(7) GB Patent No. 2,233,530, assigned to Fuji Jukogyo Kabushiki Kaisha
`
`(“Fuji,” Ex. 1010), published on January 9, 1991, more than one year before the
`
`filing date for the ’724 patent, and is therefore prior art to the ’724 patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b). See also Ex. 1022 at ¶¶ 49-52.
`
`(8) U.S. Patent No. 4,963,788 to King (“King,” Ex. 1013) issued on
`
`October 16, 1990. King is prior art to the ’724 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`See also Ex. 1022 at ¶¶ 53-56.
`
`(9) U.S. Patent No. 4,966,441 to Conner (“Conner,” Ex. 1014) issued on
`
`October 30, 1990. Conner is prior art to the ’724 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`See also Ex. 1022 at ¶¶ 57-60.
`
`(10) U.S. Patent No. 5,793,420 to Schmidt (“Schmidt,” Ex. 1015) issued
`
`on August 11, 1998, from an application filed on February 20, 1996. Because
`
`Schmidt’s filing date (February 20, 1996) was before the earliest priority date for
`
`the ’724 patent (May 22, 1996), Schmidt is prior art to the ’724 patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(e). See also Ex. 1022 at ¶¶ 61-63.
`
`(11) SAE Paper No. 871288 to Otsuka et al. (“Otsuka,” Ex. 1016)
`
`published on November 8, 1987. Because it published more than one year before
`
`the filing date for the ’724 patent, Otsuka is prior art to the ’724 patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b). See also Ex. 1020 at ¶¶ 67-69.
`
`(12) U.S. Patent No. 4,833,534 to Paff (“Paff,” Ex. 1017) issued on May
`
`23, 1989. Paff is prior art to the ’724 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See also
`
`Ex. 1020 at ¶¶ 64-66.
`
`(13) U.S. Patent No. 4,390,895 to Sato (“Sato,” Ex. 1018) issued on June
`
`28, 1983. Sato is prior art to the ’724 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See also
`
`Ex. 1020 at ¶¶ 70-72.
`
`(14) SAE Paper No. 890288 to Goesch (“Goesch,” Ex. 1019) published on
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`February 1, 1989. Because it published more than one year before the filing date
`
`for the ’724 patent, Goesch is prior art to the ’724 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b). See also Ex. 1020 at ¶¶ 73-77.
`
`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
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`1020 at ¶¶ 40-41. 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
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`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 ¶¶ 43-47.
`
`This Petition and supporting evidence demonstrate each and every claimed
`
`feature was well-known prior to the ’724 patent’s earliest effective filing date.
`
`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,
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`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
`
`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.2 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
`
`
`2 In IPR2014-00220, which involves U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565, a substantially
`
`similar patent with a nearly identical specification to that of the ’724 Patent, the
`
`Board construed “without duplication of image information” to mean “there is
`
`minimal multiple exposure in the composite image.” Paper No. 18, p. 11 at ¶2.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`driver views the synthesized image is used as a high-information content display
`
`to selectively display various types of auxiliary information.” All disclosures in
`
`the 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 term “seamless,” which at
`
`its narrowest means “lacking any visible demarcation or border.” The language in
`
`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.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`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). More
`
`specifically, this claim format was held in SuperGuide to require “at least one” of
`
`each identified category (the categories being indicated by “vvv,” “www,” “xxx,”
`
`“yyy,” etc.), in other words, a conjunctive list. In reaching that conclusion, the
`
`CAFC relied, in part, on the fact that the specification and drawings of
`
`SuperGuide’s patent both 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.
`
`In contrast to SuperGuide, the ’724 patent specification makes clear 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,
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`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
`
`again makes 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
`
`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
`
`16
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724
`
`
`A.
`
`[Ground 1] – Claim 19 is obvious in view of Yamamoto,
`Mitsubishi, Lemelson and Wang
`
`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 pat