UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, LTD., AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`CASE IPR2017-00336
`Patent No . 6,959,293
`____________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 
`Overview of the ’293 Patent ........................................................................... 3 
`A. 
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ...................................................... 8 
`B. 
`Claim Construction .............................................................................. 9 
`1. 
`“the histogram calculation units being configured to form
`a histogram representative of the parameter” (Claim 1) .......... 10 
`“a classification unit . . . configured to determine the data
`in the histogram that satisfy a selected criterion” (Claim
`18) ............................................................................................ 14 
`“wherein classification is performed automatically by
`processing statistical information associated with the
`calculated histogram” (Claim 18) ............................................ 17 
`III.  Grounds 2 and 3 Are Fatally Flawed Because the Petition Does Not
`Establish that Rogers Is Prior Art ................................................................. 21 
`IV.  Legal Standards ............................................................................................ 25 
`V.  No Review Should Be Instituted for Claims 1, 18, 19, 22, and 29 .............. 29 
`A. 
`The Asserted References Do Not Teach or Suggest All
`Elements of Claims 1, 18, 19, or 29 of the ’293 Patent ..................... 29 
`1. 
`None of the asserted references teaches or suggests “the
`histogram calculation units being configured to form a
`histogram representative of the parameter” (Claim 1) ............ 29 
`None of the asserted references teaches or suggests
`“wherein classification is performed automatically by
`processing statistical information associated with the
`calculated histogram” (Claim 18) ............................................ 36 
`Tomitaka does not teach or suggest “wherein . . .
`automatic classification involves updating the selection
`criteria in the memory table based on the processed
`statistical information” (Claim 19) .......................................... 46 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`4. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`None of the asserted references teaches or suggests
`“automatically updating, for each instant of time, the
`classification criteria stored in the classification memory
`based on statistical information associated with the
`histogram” (Claim 29) ............................................................. 48 
`The Petition Fails to Identify a Reason and Motivation that
`Would Have Prompted a POSA to Combine the Asserted Prior
`Art ....................................................................................................... 48 
`1. 
`The Petition fails to identify a reason and motivation why
`a POSA would have combined Pirim and Tomitaka ............... 49 
`The Petition fails to identify a reason and motivation why
`a POSA would have combined Rogers and Gilbert ................. 55 
`The Petition fails to identify a reason and motivation why
`a POSA would have combined Tomitaka and Rogers ............. 57 
`Petitioner’s Asserted Combination of References is Driven by
`Improper Hindsight ............................................................................ 61 
`VI.  Conclusion .................................................................................................... 64 
`
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Table of authorities
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`2Wire, Inc. v. TQ Delta LLC,
`IPR2015-00239, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. May 29, 2015) ......................................... 24
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 10
`
`Apple Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00442, Paper 9 (July 13, 2015) ..................................................... 26, 27
`
`Apple Inc. v. DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc.,
`IPR2015-00369, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2015) ......................................... 22
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., v. C-Cation Technologies, LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014) ......................................... 25
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC,
`793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 9
`
`Dish Network L.L.C. v. Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC,
`IPR2015-00499, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. July 17, 2015) ............................................ 21
`
`Front Row Techs., LLC v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P.,
`IPR2015-01932 Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2016) ............................................ 63
`
`Google Inc. v. ART+COM InnovationPool GmbH,
`IPR2015-00788, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 2, 2015) ............................................. 24
`
`Google, Inc. v. Everymd.com LLC,
`IPR2014-00347, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. May 22, 2014) ........................................... 26
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .................................................................................... 25, 26, 28
`
`Grain Processing v. American-Maize Prods,
`840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................ 29
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 61
`iii
`
`

`

`International Business Machines Corporation v. Intellectual Ventures
`II LLC,
`Case IPR2015-01323, Paper 38 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 27, 2016) ................................ 24
`
`InTouch Tech., Inc. v. VGo Communs., Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 29
`
`Johns Manville Corp. v. Knauf Insulation, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01402 Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2015) ........................................... 62
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 26, 61
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .......................................................................... 28, 29, 49, 60
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`CBM-2012-00003, Paper 7 (Order) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2012) .................... 26, 27
`
`In re Lister,
`583 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 21, 23
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 25, 27
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Bradium Techs. LLC,
`IPR2015-01432, Paper 51 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016) ................................... 28, 48
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Corel Software, LLC,
`IPR2016-01083, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2016) ........................................... 24
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 29, 61
`
`In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation,
`536 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 28
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm. v. Mylan Labs,
`520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 29, 61
`
`Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................................................... 27, 28
`
`iv
`
`

`

`SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC,
`825 F.3d 1341 (2016) .......................................................................................... 25
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`814 F.3d 1309 (2016) .......................................................................................... 25
`
`Trivascular Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 61
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................. 28, 49, 60
`
`W.L. Gore v. Garlock,
`721 F.2d (Fed. Cir. 1983) ................................................................................... 61
`
`Whole Space Indus Ltd.,
`IPR2015-00488, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. July 24, 2015) .......................................... 26
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................... 21
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... 26
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ........................................................................................................ 25
`
`Rules
`
`FED. R. EVID. § 602 .................................................................................................. 22
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) .............................................................................................. 25
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ............................................................................................ 24
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Exhibits List
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,486,909 to Pirim
`
`Exhibit 2002
`
`Modern Dictionary of Electronics, 5th edition (1977)
`
`Exhibit 2003
`
`New Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language (1971)
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Language (1996)
`
`Exhibit 2005
`
`Cover page of Published International Application Number
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WO 00/11610
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Image Processing Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) hereby
`
`submits this Preliminary Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition filed by Samsung
`
`Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Petitioner”) on November 29, 2016 in case IPR2017-00336 for review of claims
`
`1, 18, 19, 22 and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 6,959,293 (the “’293 patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board should not institute review because the Petition fails to establish a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail with respect to any of the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`As to each of Grounds 1, 2 and 3,1 Petitioner has not shown that the asserted
`
`references teach or suggest, alone and in combination, at least the following claim
`
`elements: As to claim 1 (from which claim 2 depends), claim element 1.E, “the
`
`histogram calculation units being configured to form a histogram representative of
`
`the parameter.” As to claim 18 (from which claim 19 depends), claim element
`
`18.G, “wherein classification is performed automatically by processing statistical
`
`information associated with the calculated histogram.” As to claim 29, Claim 29.E,
`
`“automatically updating, for each instant of time, the classification criteria stored
`
`1 If the Board institutes review of any challenged claims, Patent Owner may also
`
`show that additional claim elements are not being taught or suggested by the cited
`
`references.
`
`1
`
`

`

`in the classification memory based on statistical information associated with the
`
`histogram.”
`
`As to Grounds 1 and 3, for which Petitioner relies on Tomitaka, Petitioner
`
`has not shown that Tomitaka teaches or suggests the required element of claim 19
`
`of automatic classification that involves “updating the selection criteria in the
`
`memory table based on the processed statistical information.”
`
`For each of Grounds 1, 2 and 3, the asserted references do not teach or
`
`suggest at least the following claim elements: two histogram calculation units
`
`being configured to form a histogram representative of one parameter; and
`
`automatic classification based on statistical information.
`
`As to each of Grounds 1, 2 and 3, the Petitioner fails to identify a reason and
`
`motivation that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA)
`
`to combine each of the four references: Pirim and Tomitaka (Ground 1), Rogers
`
`and Gilbert (Ground 2), or Tomitaka and Rogers (Ground 3) in the way claimed in
`
`the ’293 patent, to achieve the invention.
`
`Finally, Grounds 2 and 3 are fatally flawed because the Petition does not
`
`establish that Rogers is prior art.
`
`The Board should therefore decline to institute an inter partes review of the
`
`challenged claims, namely, clams 1, 18, 19, 22, and 29 of the ’293 patent.
`
`2
`
`

`

`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’293 PATENT
`Mr. Pirim is a named inventor for a large portfolio of U.S. Patents, including
`
`U.S. Patents 6,486,909 (the “’909 patent”) and its progeny, including U.S. Pat.
`
`Nos. 8,989,445; 8,983,134; 8,805,001; 7,650,015; 9,042,602; and 7,181,047.2 The
`
`’909 patent family claims priority to French Patent Application No. 96/09420
`
`(published as 2 751 772), which was filed in July 26, 1996. Ex. 2001 (’909 patent)
`
`at 1 (face of patent). Asserted reference Pirim (WO99/36893) also claims priority
`
`to this same French Patent Application No. 96/09420 via PCT/EP98/05383
`
`(WO00/11610) and PCT/FR97/01354 (WO98/05002). Ex. 1005 at 1 (face) (listing
`
`PCT/EP98/05383) and 2, 10 (referring to “[c]ommonly-owned PCT Application
`
`Serial Nos. PCT/FR97/01354 and PCT/EP98/05383”); Ex. 2005 at 1 (face) (listing
`
`PCT/FR97/01354); see Ex. 2001 at 1 (face).
`
`The patent at issue here, the later-filed ’293 Patent, claims priority through a
`
`different and later French application, FR00/02355, which was filed on February
`
`24, 2000.
`
`During prosecution of the application for the ’293 patent, Mr. Pirim cited
`
`Pirim (WO99/36893), the Pirim reference that Petitioner relies upon as prior art, as
`
`well as numerous other patents and publications of the ‘909 patent family that are
`
`2 Five of Mr. Pirim’s patents are currently the target of inter partes review petitions
`
`filed by Samsung. Petition at 2.
`
`3
`
`

`

`similar to Pirim (WO99/36893). Ex. 1004 at 243–245. In an April 14, 2003
`
`Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), in addition to citing Pirim
`
`(WO99/36893), Mr. Pirim cited the ’909 Patent, French publication 2 751 772, and
`
`PCT publication WO 98/05002, among other Pirim patents and publications having
`
`similar disclosures. Ex. 1004 at 243–245. See, e.g. Ex. 2001 (’909 Patent) at Figs
`
`11–13, containing disclosures like those of Pirim (WO99/36893). Further, the
`
`’293 patent specification incorporates by reference WO98/05002, which also has a
`
`similar disclosure. Ex. 1001 at 7:22–28.
`
`The examiner considered Pirim (WO99/36893) and also the disclosures of
`
`these other, similar Pirim patents and publications during prosecution of the ’293
`
`patent. See Ex. 1004 at 243–245 (April 14, 2003 IDS with examiner’s initials by
`
`FR 2 751 772; WO 98/05002; WO 99/36893; and U.S. Pat. No. 6,486,909).
`
`As detailed below, the ’293 patent is directed to a different invention than
`
`these prior art Pirim references. The ’293 patent specification discloses a visual
`
`perception processor comprised of histogram calculation units. Ex. 1001 at 1
`
`(Abstract). The baseline embodiment taught by the ’293 patent is the “passive
`
`histogram calculation unit[s],” as shown in Figure 3 of the patent:
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`The passive histogram calculation unit receives signal DATA(A), with “A”
`
`representing a pixel parameter such as speed (V) or direction (DI). Ex. 1001 at
`
`7:30–34, 7:48–51, 8:19–24. Analysis memory 100 (red) contains a number (n) of
`
`addresses (d) equal to the number of possible levels of the parameter A that must
`
`be distinguished. Id. at 8:45–50. For each frame, each enabled pixel for which the
`
`value of parameter A has a value d will increment the address of row d of memory
`
`100 by 1. Id. at 8:53–64. Whether a pixel is enabled or not depends on the
`
`classifier 101 and time coincidences unit 102, as described below.
`
`The classifier 101 (blue) contains a register 101r that is capable of storing
`
`certain possible level values (d) for the levels of parameter A. For each pixel, the
`
`classifier provides a binary output “1” if the value of parameter A for the pixel has
`
`5
`
`

`

`a level corresponding to the register 101r. Id. at 9:28-34. The output of the
`
`classifier 101 is connected to a bus 111. Id. Thus, “the classifier acts as a
`
`classification function fA which is the relationship that it establishes between the
`
`data DATA(A) that it receives and the output binary value (101s)A that it
`
`produced, via the memory of the classifier.” Ex. 1001 at 11:49–52.
`
`The time coincidences unit 102 (purple) includes at least one register 102r.
`
`The unit receives for each pixel the output values of the classifiers 101 from the
`
`various histogram calculation units 1 connected to bus 111 (yellow). Id. at 9:37-
`
`50. The time coincidences unit, for each pixel, compares the output values
`
`received from bus 111 to values stored in register 102r, and generates an enable
`
`signal 102s equal to 1 when there is a coincidence between the register values and
`
`the data received from the bus.
`
`If the pixel is enabled (102s signal equal to 1), the histogram memory 100 is
`
`incremented for value d of parameter A. Id. at 9:7-13, 11:45 (“histogram memory
`
`100”). Also, the test unit 103 receives the same signal and updates, in parallel with
`
`the formation of the histogram, calculates key features such as minimum (MIN),
`
`maximum (MAX), number of points (NBPTS), position (POSRMAX) of the
`
`maximum of the histogram, and number of points (RMAX) at the maximum of the
`
`histogram. Id. at 10:7-13.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Although Petitioner points to disclosures of Pirim (WO99/36893) that are
`
`purportedly similar to the passive histogram calculation unit of Figure 3 of the ’293
`
`patent, as noted the ‘293 patent specification notes that it is “desirable to provide
`
`an improved visual perception processor, and methods, as well as, in preferred
`
`embodiments, the auto-adapting, anticipation, and learning functions.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:49–53. For example, the ’293 Patent, unlike the prior Pirim references, teaches a
`
`“self-adapting histogram calculation unit[s] according to the invention.” Ex. 1001
`
`at 4:45–49. Figure 4, which is included on the face of the patent, shows an
`
`exemplary embodiment of a self-adapting histogram calculation unit:
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`As taught by the ’293 Patent:
`
`“According to one embodiment of the present invention, a self-
`
`adapting histogram processing unit 1 is provided. In this embodiment,
`
`the content of the memory of the classifier 101 is automatically
`
`updated. . . . To fulfill the self-adapting function, i.e. real time
`
`updating of the classifier 101, the histogram calculation unit 1 of
`
`FIG. 3 is perfected in accordance with FIG. 4. Instead of having a
`
`simple register 101r written outside the system, the classifier 101 has
`
`an addressable memory . . . . The memory of the classifier 101 is
`
`controlled by the system, and its content is modifiable.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 11:14–31 (emphasis added).
`
`Another teaching of the ’293 Patent not disclosed in Pirim
`
`(WO99/36893) is the polyvalent histogram unit. As explained further
`
`below, polyvalent histogram units can be programmed to process more than
`
`one parameter, and may operate in a matrix whereby each polyvalent
`
`histogram unit has access to all parameter data for maximum flexibility of
`
`operation. Id. at 1001, 21:18-36, 42–47, Fig. 32.
`
`A.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`For purposes of this inter partes review, Patent Owner submits that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art (or “POSA”) in 2000 (the foreign priority date of the
`
`8
`
`

`

`’293 patent) would be someone with an undergraduate degree in electrical
`
`engineering or image processing or a related field, followed by at least two years of
`
`graduate coursework and also at least early-stage thesis research, in digital image
`
`processing. The requisite knowledge and experience would have been acquired,
`
`for example, by someone who had completed all coursework in a two year
`
`master’s program focused on digital image processing, along with at least some
`
`thesis research qualifying towards a degree in such a program.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`Patent Owner proposes the construction of certain claim language below
`
`pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) for the sole purpose of this
`
`inter partes review proceeding. The scope of unexpired patent claims is
`
`determined giving claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
`
`specification; the words of a claim are given their plain meaning unless the plain
`
`meaning is inconsistent with the patent specification as understood by a POSA at
`
`the time of the invention. See In re Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015). Patent Owner’s proposed constructions for the three terms below,
`
`found in Claims 1 and 18, are the broadest reasonable interpretations of these terms
`
`in light of the claim language, consistent with the patent specification as would be
`
`understood by a POSA at the time of the invention.
`
`9
`
`

`

`1. “the histogram calculation units being configured to form a
`histogram representative of the parameter” (Claim 1)
`
`Patent Owner proposes that the claim language “the histogram calculation
`
`units being configured to form a histogram representative of the parameter” should
`
`be construed as “the at least two histogram calculation units being configured to
`
`each form a histogram representative of at least one common parameter.”3 In other
`
`words, at least one parameter must be treated in common by at least two
`
`histograms. Concomitantly, not every parameter must be treated by two histogram
`
`calculation units, but at least one must be.
`
`Based on a natural reading of the claim language, Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`construction is the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`
`specification as it would be understood by a POSA at the time of the invention.
`
`The claim reads:
`
`A visual perception processor for automatically detecting
`an event occurring in a multidimensional space (i, j)
`evolving over time with respect to at least one digitized
`parameter in the form of a digital signal on a data bus . .
`. the visual perception processor comprising . . . at least
`two histogram calculation units for the treatment of the
`
`
`3 Because the claim construction standard in this proceeding differs from the
`standard applicable to a district court litigation, see In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
`Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004), Patent Owner expressly reserves
`the right to argue in litigation a different construction for any term recited by the
`claims of the ’293 patent.
`
`10
`
`

`

`at least one parameter, the histogram calculation units
`being configured to form a histogram representative of
`the parameter as a function of a validation signal and to
`determine by classification a binary classification signal
`resulting from a comparison of the parameter and a
`selection criterion C . . . .”
`
`The claim language requires that there must be at least one common parameter that
`
`is treated by at least two histogram calculation units. The term “the parameter”
`
`refers to the preamble recital of “at least one digitized parameter in the form of a
`
`digital signal on a data bus.” Ex. 1001 at 26:36–37. Claim 1 also requires “at least
`
`two histogram units” for the treatment of “the at least one parameter.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`26:47–48. The claim requires that the plural histogram calculation units must each
`
`form a histogram representative of the singular parameter. Claim 1 states “the
`
`histogram calculation units being configured to form a histogram representative of
`
`the parameter as a function of a validation signal and to determine by
`
`classification.” Ex. 1001 at 26:49–51. The plural “histogram calculation units”
`
`must therefore each form a histogram representative of the singular “parameter.”
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction is consistent with Petitioner’s
`
`argument for Ground 1. Petitioner argues in Ground 1 that “it would have been
`
`obvious to modify Tomitaka such that the two histogram units processed the same
`
`parameter.” Petition at 36 (emphasis added). Petitioner also claims in Ground 1
`
`11
`
`

`

`that “Pirim discloses that in some configurations, a single parameter, such as x-
`
`position of a pixel, may be processed by multiple histogram units simultaneously.”
`
`Petition at 35.
`
`The specification of the ’293 patent also supports Patent Owner’s
`
`construction whereby two histogram units treat a common parameter. The ’293
`
`patent teaches the use of multiple histogram calculation units in certain
`
`embodiments with programmable input. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at Fig. 32; Ex. 1001 at
`
`5:66–67 (“FIG. 32 represents a set of histogram calculation units with
`
`programmable input control in their context of usage . . . .”). Figure 32 teaches an
`
`exemplary device comprising sixteen “polyvalent histogram calculation units,”
`
`which are the sixteen squared labelled “1a00” through “1a33,” each of which has
`
`access via bus 510 (yellow) to parameters including luminance (L), tone (T),
`
`saturation (S), speed (V), and direction (D):
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1001 at 20:43-47 (describing L, T, S); 21:33-47 (describing embodiment of
`
`Figure 32). A polyvalent histogram calculation unit is capable of processing
`
`various parameters, not only a single fixed parameter. Id. at 1001, 21:18-36. The
`
`’293 patent teaches that more than one polyvalent histogram unit may be tasked to
`
`process one parameter. The patent teaches that “control unit 513 provides overall
`
`control and determines which of the parameters . . . are to be processed at a given
`
`time by one or several dedicated polyvalent histogram unit(s).” Ex. 1001 at 21:42–
`
`47.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Therefore, based on the requirements of the language of Claim 1 in the
`
`context of the specification, the claim language “the histogram calculation units
`
`being configured to form a histogram representative of the parameter” should be
`
`construed as “the at least two histogram calculation units being configured to each
`
`form a histogram representative of at least one common parameter.”
`
`2. “a classification unit . . . configured to determine the data in
`the histogram that satisfy a selected criterion” (Claim 18)
`
`Patent Owner proposes that the language of claim 18 “a classification unit . .
`
`. configured to determine the data in the histogram that satisfy a selected criterion”
`
`should be construed to mean “a classification unit . . . configured to determine the
`
`data to be included in the histogram based on satisfying a selected criterion.”
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction follows naturally from the language of the
`
`claim, in the context of the teachings in the patent specification about what a
`
`“classifier” does.
`
`Claim 18 recites a device that includes a histogram unit, a classification unit,
`
`a coincidence unit, a controller bus, and a transfer bus. Ex. 1001 at 29:20–45. A
`
`POSA would have understood the claim in the context of the specification,
`
`including the description of the passive histogram calculation unit 1 that is shown
`
`in Figure 3, shown below:
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`While the passive histogram unit of Figure 3 (the operation of which is
`
`described earlier in this Section II) does not show all limitations of Claim 18, it is a
`
`simple example for understanding the relationship between many of the claim
`
`elements. Claim 18 is reproduced below with item numbers as shown in Figure 3
`
`of the ‘293 Patent embedded to show this context, with the claim language
`
`proposed for construction bolded:
`
`a histogram unit [100 (red)] coupled to the input portal
`and configured to calculate a histogram for a selected
`parameter;
`
`a classification unit [101 (blue)] coupled to the input
`portal and the histogram unit, and configured to
`determine the data in the histogram that satisfy a
`selected criterion [101r (blue)], and to generate an
`
`15
`
`

`

`the classification unit
`[101s] accordingly,
`output
`supplying the output to the transfer bus [111 (yellow)];
`and
`
`a coincidence unit [102 (purple)] coupled to receive the
`output of the classification unit [inA] from the transfer
`bus and to receive selected coincidence criteria from the
`controller bus, the coincidence unit being configured to
`generate an enable signal [102s] for the histogram unit
`when the output of the classification unit satisfies the
`selected coincidence criterion [102r],
`
`Although the term “classification unit” does not appear in the specification
`
`outside of the patent claims, the “classifier” or “classifier unit,” item 101, is
`
`described as a “classification function” that is the relationship between DATA(A)
`
`and the binary signal 101s. Ex. 1001 at 11:49-52.
`
`In the context of the specification and claim, “the data in the histogram”
`
`refers to data that will be used to form the histogram. For example, where the
`
`specification states that a “signal ETD enables the calculation of the range in the
`
`memory 118 of the classifier,” (Ex. 1001 at 16:33–35), the specification means that
`
`the signal ETD enables a calculation of the range that will be used in memory 118.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 16:30–42. Prior to the calculation, the content of memory 118 is
`
`represented by a distribution R0 at time t0 (yellow). Id. at 16:30–31. As shown in
`
`Figure 20, signal ETD (yellow) enables a multi-step calculation that takes place at
`
`16
`
`

`

`times T1 through t5 (purple), resulting in the calculation of distribution R5 (green).
`
`The distribution of values R5 is then used in memory 118 in t6:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at 16:30-42, Fig. 20. Thus, a POSA would understand the claim
`
`language in the manner proposed by Patent Owner’s construction because “in the”
`
`is used consistently with this construction in the specification.
`
`3. “wherein classification is performed automatically by
`processing statistical information associated with the
`calculated histogram” (Claim 18)
`
`Patent Owner proposes that “wherein classification is performed
`
`automatically by processing statistical information associated with the calculated
`
`17
`
`

`

`histogram” should be construed as “wherein classification for the histogram being
`
`calculated is performed using criteria that are updated using data characterizing the
`
`distribution of parameter values contained in the histogram.” That is, the criteria
`
`used for classification is updated while the histogram is being calculated. This is
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, consistent with the
`
`specification, as it would be understood by a POSA at the time of the invention.
`
`The language of the claim supports Patent Owner’s proposed construction.
`
`“Classification” refers to the classification unit configured as set forth in the
`
`claim—this is the only other reference to classification in the claim. The phrase
`
`“the calculated histogram,” refers to the histogram that is calculated by the
`
`histogram unit. See Ex. 1001 at 29:28–29, 33–35. In this context, “calculated”
`
`means determined by mathematical calculation, not that this calculation has been
`
`completed. See Ex. 2004 (Webster’s Unabridged) (Calculated 1. arrived at or
`
`determined by mathematical calculation; ascertained mathematically”). The
`
`classification criteria for the histogram being calculated are updated in real time
`
`while data are being added to the histogram is analyzed. Ex. 1001 at 11:14–31
`
`(real time updating of the classifier).
`
`The specification also supports Patent Owner’s construction. The
`
`specification teaches that statistical information for a histogram is calculated and
`
`stored in memory in parallel with the formation of the histogram, and these
`
`18
`
`

`

`statistics are available during histogram calculation for use in the system. Ex. 1001
`
`at 10:7–13. For example, referring to the example shown in Figure 3 of the patent,
`
`the “test unit 103 updates the analysis