Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 15
`
`
`
` Entered: May 25, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 15
`
`
`
` Entered: May 25, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review
`of claims 1, 18, 19, 22, and 29 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,959,293 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’293 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Image
`Processing Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted
`unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow,
`we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it
`would prevail with respect to claim 22, but not with respect to claims 1, 18,
`19, and 29. We hereby institute an inter partes review only as to claim 22 of
`the ’293 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The parties indicate that the ’293 patent is involved in Image
`Processing Techs., LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Case No. 2:16-cv-00505-
`JRG (E.D. Tex.) and other proceedings. Pet. 2; Paper 4, 2.
`
`B. The ’293 Patent
`
`The ’293 patent describes a visual perception device, particularly a
`device for processing image signals using self-adapting histogram
`calculation units. Ex. 1001, 1:6–10. Figure 3 of the ’293 patent illustrates a
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`passive histogram calculation unit, and is reproduced below with
`highlighting added by Petitioner (Pet. 5).
`
`
`
`As shown in highlighted Figure 3 above, histogram calculation unit 1
`includes analysis memory 100 (highlighted in red), address multiplexer 105
`(highlighted in green), data input multiplexer 106, incrementation unit 107,
`classifier 101 (highlighted in blue), time coincidences unit 102 (highlighted
`in purple), and test unit 103, which is connected to analysis output registers
`104. Ex. 1001, 8:37–43, 9:51–54. Output of classifier 101 is connected to
`bus 111 (highlighted in yellow). Id. at 9:36.
`Analysis output registers 104 receive and store statistical information
`prepared on the basis of the values of parameter A of signal DATA(A) for
`each frame. Id. at 9:51–57. In particular, after processing a complete frame,
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`statistical information representative of this frame is produced and stored in
`analysis output registers 104. Id. at 10:1–14. This statistical information
`includes minimum values (MIN) and maximum values (MAX) of the
`histogram, the number of points (NBPTS) of the histogram, the position
`(POSRMAX) of the maximum of the histogram, and the number of points
`(RMAX) at the maximum of the histogram. Id. These features are
`determined in parallel with the formation of the histogram by test unit 103.
`Figure 4 of the ’293 patent illustrates a self-adapting histogram
`calculation unit with anticipation and learning functionalities, and is
`reproduced below with highlighting added by Patent Owner (Prelim.
`Resp. 7).
`
`According to the ’293 patent, in the self-adapting embodiment
`illustrated in Figure 4, the content of the memory of classifier 101 is updated
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`automatically. Ex. 1001, 11:14–29. To implement the self-adapting
`function (i.e., real-time updating of classifier 101), classifier 101 has an
`addressable memory whose writing is controlled by signal END, which is
`generated by sequencer 9. Id. Histogram calculation unit 1 also includes
`selection circuit 110 (e.g., an “OR” gate), receiving as its input signals INIT
`and END and whose output is connected to the selection input of address
`multiplexer 105. Id.
`Figure 31a of the ’293 patent illustrates a polyvalent histogram
`calculation unit that can be programmed to process more than one
`parameter, and is reproduced below (id. at 21:18–36).
`
`
`As shown in Figure 31a above, polyvalent histogram calculation
`unit 1a comprises histogram calculation unit 1, input multiplexer 500,
`associated register 501, and learning multiplexer 503. Id. In this
`embodiment, it is possible to use a single histogram calculation unit to
`process any of parameters Data (A) – Data (E), which are addressed by bus
`510 in relation to SELECT command 502. Id. at 20:58–66. Additionally,
`polyvalent histogram calculation units can be operated in a matrix. Id. at
`21:37–42.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 18, 22, and 29 are independent.
`Claim 19 depends directly from claim 18. Claims 1, 18, and 22 are
`illustrative:
`1. 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, said digital signal being in the
`form of a succession aijT of binary numbers associated with
`synchronization signals enabling to define a given instant (T) of
`the multidimensional space and the position (i, j) in this space,
`the visual perception processor comprising:
`the data bus;
`a control unit;
`a time coincidences bus carrying at least a time coincidence
`signal; and
`at least two histogram calculation units for the treatment of the
`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, wherein the classification
`signal is sent to the time coincidences bus, and wherein the
`validation signal is produced from time coincidences signals
`from the time coincidence bus so that the calculation of the
`histogram depends on the classification signals carried by the
`time coincidence bus.
`Ex. 1001, 26:34–59 (emphasis added).
`18. A device for detecting one or more events including aural
`and/or visual phenomena, the device comprising:
`a controller coupled to a controller bus and a transfer bus;
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`an input portal adapted to receive data describing one or more
`parameters of the event being detected;
`and a data processing block coupled to the input portal, the
`transfer bus and the controller bus,
`the data processing block including:
`a histogram unit coupled to the input portal and configured to
`calculate a histogram for a selected parameter;
`a classification unit coupled to the input portal and the histogram
`unit, and configured to determine the data in the histogram that
`satisfy a selected criterion, and
`to generate an output
`accordingly, the classification unit supplying the output to the
`transfer bus; and
`a coincidence unit coupled to receive the output of the
`classification unit from the transfer bus and to receive selected
`coincidence criteria from the controller bus,
`the coincidence unit being configured to generate an enable
`signal for the histogram unit when the output of the classification
`unit satisfies the selected coincidence criterion,
`wherein classification is performed automatically by processing
`statistical information associated with the calculated histogram.
`Id. at 29:20–42 (emphases added).
`22. A device for detecting one or more events including aural
`and/or visual phenomena, the device comprising:
`a controller coupled to a controller bus and a transfer bus;
`an input multiplexer adapted to receive data describing one or
`more parameters of the event being detected, and to output data
`describing a selected one of the one or more parameters in
`response to a selection signal; and
`a data processing block coupled to the multiplexer, the transfer
`bus and the controller bus, the data processing block including:
`a histogram unit coupled to the input portal and configured to
`calculate a histogram for the selected parameter;
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`a classification unit coupled to the input portal and the histogram
`unit, and configured to determine the data in the histogram that
`satisfy a selected criterion, and
`to generate an output
`accordingly, the classification unit supplying the output to the
`transfer bus; and
`a coincidence unit coupled to receive the output of the
`classification unit from the transfer bus and to receive selected
`coincidence criteria from the controller bus, the coincidence unit
`being configured to generate an enable signal for the histogram
`unit when the output of the classification unit satisfies the
`selected coincidence criterion.
`Id. at 29:61–30:18 (emphases added).
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`
`
`Petitioner relies upon the prior art references listed below.
`Pirim
`
`WO 99/36893
`July 22, 1999
`(Ex. 1005)
`Tomitaka
`
`US 5,546,125
`Aug. 13, 1996
`(Ex. 1007)
`Robert Barclay Rogers, Real-Time Video Filtering with Bit-Slide
`Microprogrammable Processors, Ph.D. Dissertation, New Mexico State
`University (December 1978) (Ex. 1006, “Rogers” or “Rogers Dissertation”).
`Alton L. Gilbert et al., A Real-Time Video Tracking System, PAMI-w,
`No. 1 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANALYSIS AND
`MACHINE INTELLIGENCE, 47–56 (1980) (Ex. 1008, “Gilbert”).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 3):
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`1, 18, 19, 22, and 29
`
`1, 18, 19, 22, and 29
`
`1, 18, 19, 22, and 29
`
`
`References
`Basis
`§ 103(a)1 Pirim alone2 or in combination with
`Tomitaka
`§ 103(a) Rogers and Gilbert
`
`§ 103(a) Tomitaka and Rogers
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard as the claim interpretation
`standard to be applied in inter partes reviews). In that regard, the terms are
`generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the
`
`1 Because the claims at issue have a filing date prior to March 16, 2013, the
`effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), we apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 in this Decision.
`2 Petitioner’s substantive analysis for claim 22 relies upon Pirim alone.
`Pet. 49–51.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`Specification. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`On this record, Petitioner does not propose any specific claim
`construction, but merely argues that the claim terms should be interpreted
`according to their ordinary and customary meaning. Pet. 29–30. Patent
`Owner expressly proffers proposed constructions for three claim elements.
`Prelim. Resp. 10–21. We address each of these claim elements in turn.
`
`“the histogram calculation units being configured to form a histogram
`representative of the parameter,” as recited in claim 1
`Patent Owner proposes to construe “the histogram calculation units
`
`being configured to form a histogram representative of the parameter” as
`“the at least two histogram calculation units being configured to each form a
`histogram representative of at least one common parameter.” Prelim. Resp.
`10–14 (emphasis added). Although Petitioner did not submit an express
`construction for this claim limitation, Petitioner implicitly applies, in its
`prior art analysis, a claim construction that is consistent with Patent Owner’s
`proposed claim construction. See, e.g., Pet. 35, 36 (arguing that “it would
`have been obvious to modify Tomitaka such that the two histogram units
`processed the same parameter” (emphasis added)).
`In support of its proposed construction, Patent Owner explains that
`each of the “histogram calculation units,” as recited in claim 1, must form a
`histogram representative of the singular parameter. Prelim. Resp. 11.
`Patent Owner also contends that the Specification describes that more than
`one polyvalent histogram calculation unit may be tasked to process one
`parameter. Id. at 12–14. Patent Owner directs our attention to Figure 32 of
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`the ’293 patent, which illustrates a processor that includes a set of histogram
`calculation units with programmable input control. Id.
`Figure 32 is reproduced below with highlighting and annotations
`added by Patent Owner (id. at 13).
`
`
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 32 above, processor 520 includes a
`matrix of sixteen polyvalent histogram calculation units 1a00 – 1a33, each
`of which has access via bus 510 (highlighted in yellow) to parameters,
`including luminance L, tone T, saturation S, speed V, and direction D.
`Ex. 1001, 21:37–63. According to the ’293 patent, each polyvalent
`histogram calculation unit can be timeshared among different parameters
`during each frame, and can calculate histograms and associated statistics for
`two or more parameters. Id. at 21:18–36. Control unit 513 determines
`which of the parameters are to be processed at a given time by one or several
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`dedicated polyvalent histogram calculation units. Id. at 21:42–47.
`In light of the Specification and the language of claim 1, we agree
`with Patent Owner, and adopt its proposed claim construction. In sum, for
`purposes of this Decision, we interpret the claim element “the histogram
`calculation units being configured to form a histogram representative of the
`parameter” as “the at least two histogram calculation units being configured
`to each form a histogram representative of at least one common parameter.”
`
`“a classification unit . . . configured to determine the data in the histogram
`that satisfy a selected criterion,” as recited in claim 18
`Patent Owner proposes to construe “a classification unit . . .
`
`configured to determine the data in the histogram that satisfy a selected
`criterion” as “a classification unit . . . configured to determine the data to be
`included in the histogram based on satisfying a selected criterion.” Prelim.
`Resp. 14–17 (emphases added). As support for its proposed construction,
`Patent Owner asserts that the classifier (e.g., classifier unit 101, as shown in
`Figure 3), as described in the Specification, provides written description
`support for the claim term “classification unit.” Id. at 15–16 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 11:49–52, Fig. 3). Citing Figure 20 and relevant portions of the
`Specification, Patent Owner also asserts that the claim term “the data in the
`histogram” refers to “data that will be used to form the histogram.” Id. at 16
`(citing Ex. 1001, 16:30–42, Fig. 20).
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`Figure 20 of the ’293 patent is reproduced below with highlighting
`added by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 17).
`
`
`The highlighted Figure 20 above shows signals INIT, WRITE, END,
`
`ETD, T, SP, and SM on the left with reference to time axis t. Ex. 1001,
`16:12–23. Signal INIT starts the processing cycle of a frame. Id. Signal
`WRITE controls the statistical calculations for the frame. Id. At the end of
`signal END, time t0 (highlighted in blue), the data for the frame is
`represented by curve C, whose axes represent in abscissa the values of the
`parameter and in ordinate the number of occurrences, and the content of
`memory 118 is represented by distribution R0. Id. at 16:12–35. Signal ETD
`(highlighted in yellow), which starts at time t0, enables the calculation of the
`range in memory 118 of the classifier. Id. Figure 20 shows that signal ETD
`enables a multi-step calculation from time t0 through t5 (highlighted in
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`purple), resulting in the calculation of distribution R5 (highlighted in green).
`Id. at 16:36–50.
`In light of the Specification, we agree with Patent Owner, and adopt
`its proposed claim construction because it is consistent the portions of the
`Specification identified above. In sum, for purposes of this Decision, we
`interpret the claim element “a classification unit . . . configured to determine
`the data in the histogram that satisfy a selected criterion” as “a classification
`unit . . . configured to determine the data to be included in the histogram
`based on satisfying a selected criterion.”
`
`“wherein classification is performed automatically by processing statistical
`information associated with the calculated histogram,”
`as recited in claim 18
`Patent Owner proposes to interpret “wherein classification is
`performed automatically by processing statistical information associated
`with the calculated histogram” 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.” Prelim. Resp. 17–21 (emphasis added). According to Patent
`Owner, the classification criteria for a histogram are updated in real-time
`while data are being added and the histogram is being calculated. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1001, 11:14–32). Patent Owner further contends that the “statistical
`information” used for automatic classification must be associated with the
`same histogram for which the classification applies. Id. at 20, 39.
`As Patent Owner notes, the Specification describes that the statistical
`information for a histogram of a specific frame and parameter is calculated
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`in parallel with the formation of the histogram. Ex. 1001, 9:51–10:14. The
`Specification also discloses that the memory of the classifier is updated
`automatically in real-time and the classification is performed using the
`statistical information of the histogram. Id. at 11:14–52, 12:16–42.
`Figure 13a of the ’293 patent illustrates an example of a real-time updating
`classifier, and is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 13a depicts a classifier having multiplexer 120 and comparator
`
`119 that performs a comparison of parameter P to statistical value Q. Id. at
`12:16–42. Statistical value Q is derived from the statistical information of
`the histogram being calculated that stored in analysis output register 104,
`1143 (e.g., RMAX or RMAX/2). Id.
`We further observe that “the histogram” in this claim element refers
`back to the histogram for which the classification unit determines data that
`satisfy a selected criterion. Thus, in light of the Specification and the
`
`
`3 Analysis output register 114, as shown in Figure 13a, is identified
`improperly as 104 in the written description of the Specification. See
`Ex. 1001, 12:16–39.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`language of claim 18, we agree with Patent Owner that the “statistical
`information” used for automatic classification must be associated with the
`same histogram for which the classification applies. We, however,
`determine that we need not further construe this phrase to resolve the issues
`before us. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that
`are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy”).
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective
`evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
`(1966).
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`(quoting Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey–Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d
`955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). In that regard, we do not observe a meaningful
`differences between the parties’ assessments of a person of ordinary skill in
`the art at the time of the invention. Pet. 28–29; Prelim. Resp. 8–9. For
`instance, both the parties agree that such an artisan would have had a degree
`in electrical engineering or a related field and experience in the field of
`image processing. Id. We further note that either assessment appears
`consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding. See Okajima
`v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Our analysis in this
`Decision is supported by either assessment.
`
`D. Obviousness over Pirim and Tomitaka
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 18, 19, 22, and 29 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Pirim alone or in combination
`with Tomitaka, citing to the Declaration of John C. Hart, Ph.D., as support,
`which mainly repeats Petitioner’s arguments. Pet. 30–53; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 63–
`107. Patent Owner opposes. Prelim. Resp. 25–64. In our discussion below,
`we first provide a brief overview of the prior art, and then we address the
`parties’ contentions in turn, focusing on the disputed claim limitations.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`Overview of Pirim
`Pirim discloses an image processing system for detecting whether a
`driver is falling asleep by acquiring pictures of the driver and forming
`histograms to analyze opening and closing the driver’s eyes. Ex. 1005, 5.4
`Figure 14 of Pirim is reproduced below with highlighting added by
`Petitioner (Pet. 10).
`
`
`
`
`4 All references to the pages number in Pirim are the page numbers in
`Exhibit 1005 inserted by Petitioner in the bottom, right-hand corner of each
`page—note the original page numbers that appear in the middle of each
`page.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`As shown in highlighted Figure 14 above, each histogram formation
`block 25 has histogram forming portion 25a, which includes memory 100
`(highlighted in red) and classifier 25b (highlighted in blue) for selecting the
`criteria of pixels for which the histogram is to be formed. Ex. 1005, 26–27.
`Classifier 25b enables only data having selected classification criteria to be
`considered further. Id. at 27. The output of classifier 25b proceeds to bus
`23 (highlighted in yellow), which also carries the output of other classifiers
`in the system. Id. at 31. These signals proceed to validation unit 31
`(highlighted in purple), which generates a validation signal. Id. at 26.
`
`Overview of Tomitaka
`
`Tomitaka discloses a video signal follow-up processing system for
`tracking a moving object. Ex. 1007, Abstract. Figure 1 of Tomitaka is
`reproduced below with highlighting added by Petitioner (Pet. 15).
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`As illustrated in highlighted Figure 1 above, color video signal S1
`from optical system 1 is provided to signal separation/automatic gain control
`circuit 5 and then digitized in analog-to-digital conversion circuit 6.
`Ex. 1007, 3:61–4:11. The color of each pixel is separated into brightness (Y
`or L) and chroma (C) signals. Id. at 4:7–16. The chroma color signal is
`further demodulated into individual color difference signals R-Y and B-Y to
`form three color values: Y, R-Y, and B-Y. Id. at 4:17–32. The color data
`are converted into the HLS color coordinate system and written to image
`memory 15 (highlighted in orange) for processing. Id. at 4:39–50.
`Brightness and hue are then processed separately by histogram units 19, 20
`(highlighted in blue and red, respectively). Signals S13, S14 from histogram
`units 19, 20 are sent to follow-up signal processor 16 (highlighted in purple),
`which forms feature patterns from the hue and brightness histograms that are
`compared with reference measurements to track an object. Id. at 5:42–65,
`6:64–7:2.
`
`Claim 1
`Claim 1 recites “at least two histogram calculation units . . . being
`configured to form a histogram representative of the parameter as a function
`of a validation signal.” Ex. 1001, 26:47–50. As discussed above in the
`claim construction section, we interpret this claim element as “the at least
`two histogram calculation units being configured to each form a histogram
`representative of at least one common parameter.” See supra Section II.A.
`In this regard, Petitioner takes the position that Pirim, in combination
`with Tomitaka, teaches or suggests a plurality of histogram calculation units,
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`as recited in claim 1. Pet. 34–36. In particular, Petitioner avers that Pirim
`discloses a plurality of histogram formation units (e.g., elements 24–29 in
`Figure 12), and that a single parameter (e.g., x-position of a pixel) may be
`processed by multiple histogram units simultaneously. Id. (citing Ex. 1005,
`27, 28, 39, Figs. 12, 15a; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 71–72). Alternatively, Petitioner
`argues that Pirim’s histogram units “could be replaced by the histogram
`units of Tomitaka, wherein two histogram units process components of
`color.” Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1007, 4:12–32). In Petitioner’s view, “it would
`have been obvious to modify Tomitaka such that the two histogram units
`processed the same parameter,” and it would have been “obvious to use
`multiple histogram units processing a color component with Pirim’s
`system.” Id. at 36, 37 (citing Ex. 1005, 47; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 73–75).
`Patent Owner counters that neither Pirim nor Tomitaka discloses at
`least two histogram calculation units being configured to form a histogram
`of at least one common parameter. Prelim. Resp. 30–34. Upon review of
`the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence in this record, we agree
`with Patent Owner. As Patent Owner points out, Figure 12 of Pirim shows
`each histogram block processing a different parameter, not the same
`parameter. Id. at 30–32 (citing Ex. 1005, 27–28, Fig. 12).
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`Figure 12 of Pirim is reproduced below with annotations added by
`Patent Owner (id. at 31).
`
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 12 above, Pirim’s histogram formation
`blocks 24–29 receive input signals for different parameters. Notably,
`histogram formation block 24 forms histograms for the luminance values.
`Ex. 1005, 25. Histogram formation block 25 forms histograms for speed
`signals; histogram formation block 26 forms histograms for direction
`signals; histogram formation block 27 forms histograms for time constant
`signals; and histogram formation block 28 and 29 form histograms for the
`x and y positions of pixels, respectively. Id. at 25–27. In short, each of the
`histogram formation blocks in Pirim is configured to process a different
`parameter, and no two histogram formation blocks are configured to process
`the same parameter, as required by claim 1.
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`We also are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Pirim
`discloses a single parameter (x-position of a pixel) that may be processed by
`multiple histogram units simultaneously (Pet. 35–36) because each of the 16
`x-direction histogram formation units is processing a different x-axis, not the
`same x-axis. Petitioner relies upon the following passage of Pirim:
`Fig. 15A shows a histogram of certain points under
`consideration, where the histogram is taken along the x-axis, i.e.,
`projected down onto the x-axis. . . . In operation, on successive
`frames, or on the same frame if multiple x-direction histogram
`formation units are available, it is advantageous to calculate R at
`different angles, e.g., 33.75° and 57.25° (assuming the axes are
`limited to 16 degrees of rotation), in order to constantly ensure
`that R is at minimum. For applications in which it is desirable to
`detect lines, and assuming the availability of 16 x-direction
`histogram formation units, it is advantageous to carry out the
`calculation of R simultaneously along all possible axes . . . .
`Ex. 1005, 37 (emphases added).
`As Patent Owner points out (Prelim. Resp. 32–33), the axes are
`described as rotated at different angles (16 degrees of rotation). Ex. 1005,
`36–37, Figs. 15A–B. Figures 15A and 15B of Pirim are reproduced below.
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 15A above (left) depicts a histogram that is taken along the x-
`axis (with zero rotation), whereas Figure 15B above (right) depicts a
`histogram of an x-axis that is rotated at approximately 45o. Ex. 1005, 39.
`Each of the 16 x-direction histogram formation units is configured to form a
`histogram for a different rotated axis, not the same axis—using 16 units for
`16 degrees of rotation and calculating the R value at different angles,
`simultaneously. Id. Petitioner does not explain how these different rotated
`axes are the same parameter. Pet. 35–36. Therefore, Petitioner has not
`shown that Pirim teaches or suggests a plurality of histogram calculation
`units being configured to form a histogram representative of at least one
`common parameter, as required by claim 1.
`We also are not persuaded by Petitioner’s alternative argument that
`the combination of Pirim and Tomitaka discloses a plurality of histogram
`calculation units, as recited in claim 1. Pet. 36–37. The cited portions of
`Tomitaka do not support Petitioner’s argument. Indeed, Petitioner confirms
`24
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`that “Tomitaka decomposes color into hue, luminance (brightness), and
`saturation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 4:12–32). Tomitaka describes histogram
`generation unit 19 processes hue signals, while histogram generation unit 20
`processes brightness signals separately. Ex. 1007, 5:36–41, Fig. 1. As
`Patent Owner points out, brightness and hue are different parameters, not the
`same parameter. Prelim. Resp. 34; see also Ex. 1001, 21:37–63 (luminance
`L, tone T, saturation S, speed V, and direction D are separate parameters for
`generating histograms); Ex. 1007, 4:66–5:5 (explaining that, unlike hue that
`is not susceptible to lightness of the light source, saturation and brightness
`are not “best suited as parameters”). Moreover, Petitioner’s declarant,
`Dr. Hart, also confirms that color is represented typically by three values:
`hue (tone), saturation, and luminance (brightness). Ex. 1002 ¶ 26. In short,
`Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Tomitaka teaches or suggests a
`plurality of histogram units processing the same parameter. As such,
`Petitioner’s proposed combination—replacing Pirim’s histogram units with
`Tomitaka’s histogram units—would not teach or suggest at least two
`histogram calculation units processing the same parameter, as required by
`claim 1.
`Furthermore, Petitioner does not explain suffici
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
