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 IPR2017-00347
`Patent No. 8,805,001
`____________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES LLC’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`
`Overview of the ’001 Patent ............................................................................ 2 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 11 
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 12 
`
`1.  “Domain” ...................................................................................... 12 
`
`2.  “Class” .......................................................................................... 14 
`
`3.  “Forming at least one histogram of the pixels in the one or more
`of a plurality of classes in the one or more of a plurality of
`domains” ....................................................................................... 17 
`
`4.  “Said at least one histogram referring to classes defining said
`target” ............................................................................................ 21 
`
`III.  Legal Standards ............................................................................................. 23 
`
`IV.  No Review Should be Instituted for Claims 1–4 ........................................... 27 
`
`A. 
`
`Petitioner Has Not Shown that the Asserted References Teach or
`Suggest All Elements of Claim 1 of the ’001 Patent .......................... 27 
`
`1.  Petitioner Has Not Shown that Gilbert and Hashima Teach or
`Suggest All Elements of Claim 1 .................................................. 29 
`
`2.  Petitioner Has Not Shown That Hashima and Ueno Teach or
`Suggest All Elements of Claim 1 .................................................. 38 
`
`3.  Petitioner Has Not Shown That Ueno and Gilbert Teach or
`Suggest All Elements of Claim 1 .................................................. 43 
`
`B. 
`
`Petitioner Has Not Shown That a POSA Would Have Selected and
`Combined the Asserted References .................................................... 44 
`
`1.  Petitioner Has Not Shown That a POSA Would Have Combined
`Gilbert and Hashima ..................................................................... 45 
`
`i
`
`

`

`2.  Petitioner Has Not Shown That a POSA Would Have Combined
`Hashima and Ueno ........................................................................ 52 
`
`3.  Petitioner Has Not Shown That a POSA Would Have Combined
`Ueno and Gilbert ........................................................................... 54 
`
`C. 
`
`Petitioner’s Reasons for Combining the References Are Driven by
`Improper Hindsight Analysis .............................................................. 61 
`
`V. 
`
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 63 
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`Apple Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.,
` IPR2015-00442, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. July 13, 2015) ............................... 24, 25, 26
`
`Google, Inc. v. Everymd.com LLC,
`IPR2014-00347, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. May 22, 2014) ............................................. 25
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966), ......................................................................................... 24, 25
`
`Grain Processing v. American-Maize Prods,
` 840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................. 27
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l.,
` 829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 24, 25
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
` 654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 27, 61
`
`In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation,
` 536 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................... 27
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 61
`
`InTouch Tech., Inc. v. VGo Communs., Inc.,
` 751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 27
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
` 688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 24, 61
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 26, 27
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
` CBM-2012-00003, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2012) ................................ 24, 25
`
`McGinley v Franklin Sports, Inc.,
`262 F.3 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ....................................................................... 52, 55
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Ortho-McNeil Pharm. v. Mylan Labs,
` 520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 27, 61
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 12
`
`Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
` 566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................................................... 25, 26
`
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft,
` LLC, 825 F.3d 1341 (2016) ................................................................................. 23
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
` 814 F.3d 1309 (2016) .......................................................................................... 23
`
`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) .................................................................... 26, 27
`
`W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
` 721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .................................................................... 44, 61
`
`Whole Space Indus Ltd.,
` IPR2015-00488, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. July 24, 2015) .......................................... 25
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ........................................................................................................ 23
`
`Exhibits 
`Ex. 2001, IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms, 6th Ed.,
`IEEE (1996) ......................................................................................................... 13
`
`Ex. 2002, Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary Barnes & Noble
`Books (1996) ................................................................................................. 16, 17
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`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 IPR2017-00347 for review of claims
`
`1–4 of U.S. Patent No. 8,805,001 (the “’001 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, Petitioner has not shown that the asserted
`
`references, alone or in combination, teach or suggest at least the following
`
`elements of claim 1: (i) “forming at least one histogram of the pixels in the one or
`
`more of a plurality of classes in the one or more of a plurality of domains, said at
`
`least one histogram referring to classes defining said target” and “identifying the
`
`target in said at least one histogram itself,” and (ii) “identifying the target in said at
`
`least one histogram further comprises determining a center of the target to be
`
`between X and Y minima and maxima of the target.”
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`As to each of Grounds 1, 2, and 3, Petitioner has not shown that a POSA
`
`would have combined the three asserted references Gilbert, Hashima, and Ueno to
`
`arrive at the subject matter of claim 1 or remaining challenged dependent claims 2–
`
`4 which depend from claim 1.
`
`The Board should decline to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–4 of
`
`the ’001 patent.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’001 PATENT
`The ’001 patent is directed to efficient, real-time identification and
`
`localization of a wide range of moving objects using histograms. E.g., Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:32–36; 3:28–38. The inventor developed a system that can track a target object
`
`using multiple characteristics, such as velocity, direction, hue, saturation, etc. E.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001 at 25:26–38; 25:62–26:4. Tracking techniques known at the time of the
`
`invention of the ’001 patent were inadequate because, for example, they were
`
`memory intensive, limited in terms of the information obtained about an object,
`
`could not provide information in real-time, used complex algorithms for computing
`
`object information, or were designed to detect only one type of object. E.g., Ex.
`
`1001 at 1:38–2:3; 2:38–3:11.
`
`The ’001 patent overcame the limitations of the prior art through a number
`
`of novel techniques, including generating histograms of multiple pixel parameters
`
`being detected with the aid of classifiers that enable only data having selected
`
`2
`
`

`

`classification criteria for possible inclusion in the histograms; providing a
`
`validation unit that processes multiple items of classification information from
`
`different histogram formation blocks in parallel to determine whether a
`
`corresponding histogram formation block will utilize data for a particular pixel in
`
`forming its own histogram; and tracking a target using histograms that are formed
`
`based on determined boundaries of the target. E.g., Ex. 1001 at 18:16–19; 18:51–
`
`57; 21:54–22:9; 24:6–25:6.
`
`In Figure 10 of the ’001 patent, an image processing system (11) is shown in
`
`connection with a histogram processor 22a. Image processing system (11) receives
`
`digital video signal S(PI) originating from a video camera or other imaging device.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 9:20–23. S(PI) represents the pixel values PI of video signal S, in a
`
`succession of frames, each representing an instant in time. Ex. 1001 at 9:32–48,
`
`9:56–67; 11:42–45. Image processing system (11) outputs signals SR (delayed
`
`video signal) and also calculated values such as speed (V) and oriented direction of
`
`displacement (DI) for pixels in the image. Ex. 1001 at 9:56–10:4. A bus Z–Z1 (the
`
`dotted line which appears in both Figures 10 and 11) transfers output signals of the
`
`image processing system (11) to histogram processor (22a). Ex. 1001 at 16:50–58.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Figure 11 of the ’001 patent shows an example of histogram processor 22a
`
`with multiple histogram formation blocks 24–29. Ex. 1001 at 16:59–65. Block 24
`
`enables a histogram to be formed in the luminance domain (ranging from 0–255).
`
`Id. at 16:67–17:8. Similarly, the domain for Block 25 is speed (V) (ranging from
`
`0–7). Id. at 17:9–15. The domain for Block 26 is oriented direction (DI) (ranging
`
`from 0–7). Id. at 17:16–23. The domain for Block 27 is time constant (CO)
`
`(ranging from 0–7). Id. at 17:24–31. The domain for Block 28 is position on the
`
`x-axis (range corresponding to the number of pixels in a line). Id. at 17:32–43;
`
`18:58–63; 20:60–21:16. The domain for Block 29 is position on the y-axis (range
`
`corresponding to the number of lines in a frame). Id. The histogram formation
`
`blocks and other components are interconnected by a bus 23. Id. at 16:59–61.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 11 (annotations added).
`
`A validation unit (30–35) accompanies each histogram formation block of
`
`Figure 11. Figure 13, referring to histogram formation block 25 (speed domain)
`
`and validation unit 31 of Figure 11, shows a histogram formation block with a
`
`classifier 25b. The classifier has registers that permit classification criteria to be
`
`individually selected: “[b]y way of example, register 106 will include, in the case
`
`5
`
`

`

`of speed, eight registers numbered 0–7. By setting a register to ‘1’, e.g., register
`
`number 2, only data that meet the criteria of the selected class, e.g., speed 2, will
`
`result in a classification output of ‘1’.” Ex. 1001 at 18:25–29.
`
`
`
`The number of registers can vary depending on the domain of the classifier.
`
`E.g., Ex. 1001 at 18:34–47. For example, “[t]he classifier associated with
`
`histogram formation block 24 preferably has 256 registers, one register for each
`
`possible luminance value of the image.” Ex. 1001 at 18:35–37. The interaction
`
`between the classifiers and the validation units in connection with histogram
`
`formation is significant. In particular, “[t]he output of each classifier is
`
`communicated to each of the validation blocks 30–35 via bus 23, in the case of
`
`6
`
`

`

`histogram formation blocks 28 an[d] 29, through combination unit 36,” and
`
`“[v]alidation units 30–35 receive the classification information in parallel from all
`
`classification units in histogram formation blocks 24–29.” Ex. 1001 at 18:47–53.
`
`Each validation unit contains a register block (108) with a register for each data
`
`domain that the system is capable of processing. Id. at 18:58–65. Thus, based on
`
`the register settings, each validation unit generates a validation signal (“Validation
`
`V2” in Fig. 13), and that determines “for each incoming pixel, whether the
`
`histogram formation block will utilize that pixel in forming it [sic] histogram.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 18:53–57. “The validation signal from each validation unit will only be ‘1’
`
`if for each register in the validation unit that is set to ‘1’, an input of ‘1’ is received
`
`from the classifier for the domain of that register. Id. at 19:4–8. The output of the
`
`validation unit may be expressed by the following formula:
`
`,where Reg0 is the register in the validation unit associated with the input in0. Id. at
`
`
`
`19:7–12.
`
`The ’001 patent teaches the use of histograms to track a target and compute
`
`the target’s center. In the example of Figure 17, the locations of coordinates 126a
`
`(“Ya”), 126b (“Yb”), 126c (“Xc”) and 126d (“Xd”) correspond to the four peaks of
`
`the x- and y-axis histograms 124x and 124y; the purpose of this center computation
`
`7
`
`

`

`is to “better define and center the position of the face V of the subject in the
`
`image.” Ex. 1001 at 22:60–23:14. “The center of face V may be determined, for
`
`example, by locating the pixel position of the center of the box bounded by Ya,
`
`Yb, Xc, and Xd ((Xc+(Xd-Xc)/2), (Ya+(Yb-Ya)/2)) and by comparing this
`
`position to a desired position of face V on the screen.” Ex. 1001 at 23:18–22.
`
`
`
`Center calculations can also be used to identify a target based on a
`
`histogram, as taught in the example of Figures 20–23. In Figure 21, an initial
`
`starting pixel is designated and the system “will process the pixels in successively
`
`larger areas surrounding the [starting] pixel, adjusting the center of the area based
`
`upon the shape of the object, until substantially the entire target area is being
`
`tracked.” Ex. 1001 at 24:6–12. A bounded area (XA, XB, YC, YD) corresponding to
`
`the tracking box is set by configuring the classification units of x and y histogram
`
`8
`
`

`

`formation blocks 28 and 29 (Figure 11), so that the only pixels that will be
`
`processed by the system are those falling within the bounded area. Ex. 1001 at
`
`24:12–17.
`
`After the bounded area is set, the x and y histogram formation blocks
`
`attempt to form histograms, but since there are an insignificant number of pixels
`
`meeting the selected criteria (in this example, DP=1), no histograms are actually
`
`formed at this point. Ex. 1001 at 24:29–33. The size of the bounded area is then
`
`successively increased, for example, to XA-nK, XB+nK, YA-nK, YB+nK (where n is the
`
`current iteration and K is a constant) until “the histogram formed by either of
`
`histogram formation blocks 28 and 29 contains meaningful information, i.e., until
`
`the box overlaps the boundary of the target.” Ex. 1001 at 24:33–42. Figure 22
`
`shows the bounded area beginning to cross the borders of the target, together with
`
`corresponding histograms 222 and 224. When this occurs, the center of the area
`
`under consideration, i.e., the bounded area, is adjusted based upon the content of
`
`histograms 222 and 224. Ex. 1001 at 24:42–50.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`The new center is “determined to be (XMIN+XMAX)/2, (YMIN+YMAX)/2, where
`
`X MIN and X MAX are the positions of the minima and maxima of the x projection
`
`histogram, and YMIN and YMAX are the positions of the minima and maxima of the
`
`y projection histogram.” Ex. 1001 at 24:50–55. After additional iterations, the
`
`tracking box will become larger than the target, as shown in Figure 23. Id. at
`
`24:59–63. “When this occurs, the entire target is bounded, and the constant K may
`
`then be reduced, to thereby reduce the size of the tracking box.” Id. at 24:63–66.
`
`In particular, the constant K is preferably relatively large to expedite locking onto
`
`the target, and “[o]nce a target has been locked onto, K may be reduced.” Id. at
`
`24:66–25:6.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`In this manner, the minima and maxima of the histograms may be used to
`
`identify the target over the course of multiple iterations in which the tracking box
`
`is adjusted with respect to its size and location, preferably on a frame-by-frame
`
`basis. Id. at 25:3–6.
`
`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 1996 (the foreign priority date of the
`
`’001 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
`
`11
`
`

`

`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
`Petitioner proposes that the claims be construed pursuant to the standard in
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., under which “the ordinary and customary meaning of a
`
`claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of
`
`the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005).
`
`Patent Owner agrees that the Phillips standard should apply for purposes of
`
`this inter partes review.
`
`“Domain”
`
`1.
`Patent Owner proposes that “domain” should be construed for purposes of
`
`this proceeding as “the complete set of values for a parameter.”
`
`The patent specification supports Patent Owner’s proposed construction.
`
`Examples of domains are: (i) luminance, (ii) speed (V), (iii) oriented direction
`
`(D1), (iv) time constant (CO), (v) hue, (vi) saturation, (vii) first axis (x(m)), or
`
`(viii) second axis (y(m)). E.g., Ex. 1001 at 3:62–4:6. For example, the luminance
`
`domain is the set of all possible values that can be taken on by the luminance
`
`parameter. For luminance, generally represented by a number in the range 0–255,
`
`12
`
`

`

`an eight-bit memory is used. Ex. 1001, 17:3–8. As is commonly understood, an
`
`eight-bit memory is capable of holding 28 or 256 values, that is, each possible
`
`value 0–255. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8-bit. Similarly, in an HSL (hue,
`
`saturation, luminance) color space, hue and saturation represent the complete set of
`
`values for “tone” and “brilliance” of the color being specified, for example. Ex.
`
`1002 at ¶30 (Pages 13–14 of 155 (exhibit stamp)).
`
`Similarly, the speed domain is the set of all possible values that can be taken
`
`on by the speed parameter. For example, the ’001 patent discloses that speed
`
`preferably has a value between 0–7. Ex. 1001 at 17:60–65, 18:16–22. The
`
`classifier in the speed domain contains registers for the complete set of values for
`
`speed, that is, eight registers numbered 0–7. Ex. 1001 at 18:25–26. A three-bit
`
`memory is used for speed. Ex. 1001, 17:12–15. As is commonly understood, a
`
`three-bit memory is capable of representing 23 or 8 values, that is, each possible
`
`value 0–7.
`
`Consistent with Patent Owner’s proposed construction, the IEEE Standard
`
`Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms (6th ed. 1996) defines “domain” as
`
`“[t]he set of all possible values that can be taken on by an independent variable.”
`
`Ex. 2001 at 312.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Therefore, based on intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, “domain” should be
`
`construed for purposes of this proceeding as “the complete set of values for a
`
`parameter.”
`
`“Class”
`
`2.
`Patent Owner proposes that “class” should be construed for purposes of this
`
`proceeding as “a selected subset of values of a parameter.”
`
`Patent Owner’s construction is based on a natural reading of the claim
`
`language “classes . . . in domains.” Also, the patent specification supports Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed construction, as the specification teaches that classification
`
`criteria are applied to form a group of pixels having common characteristics, and
`
`these pixels can potentially be used in forming a histogram. The ’001 patent
`
`teaches that a system determines, through the use of classifiers, whether a pixel
`
`under consideration meets selected classification criteria: “[c]lassifier 25b enables
`
`only data having selected classification criteria to be considered further, meaning
`
`to possibly be included in the histograms formed by histogram formation blocks
`
`24–29.” Ex. 1001 at 18:16–19. As explained by the specification of the ’001
`
`patent, “[a]s shown in FIGS. 10–14, image processing system 11 is used in
`
`connection with a histogram processor 22a for identifying objects within the input
`
`signal based upon user specified criteria for identifying such objects.” Ex. 1001,
`
`16:50–53. “[F]or any data domain, e.g., speed, the output of the classifier for that
`
`14
`
`

`

`data domain will only be ‘1’ if the particular data point being considered is in the
`
`class of the registers set to ‘1’ in the classifier for that data domain.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`19:1–4. The ’001 patent describes classifiers that are configured to consider
`
`specific values selected from among a larger range of values:
`
`For example, with respect to speed, which is preferably a value in the
`
`range of 0–7, classifier 25b may be set to consider only data within a
`
`particular speed category or categories, e.g., speed 1, speeds 3 or 5,
`
`speed 3–6, etc. Classifier 25b includes a register 106 that enables the
`
`classification criteria to be set by the user, or by a separate computer
`
`program. By way of example, register 106 will include, in the case of
`
`speed, eight registers numbered 0–7. By setting a register to “1”, e.g.,
`
`register number 2, only data that meets the criteria of the selected
`
`class, e.g., speed 2, will result in a classification output of “1”.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 18:19–29.
`
`As another example of values that are a selected subset of the possible
`
`values of the domain, the ’001 patent teaches the “selected classes” within
`
`“selected domains” of speed of 2, a direction of 4, and a luminance of 125. Ex.
`
`1001 at 19:17–22. Yet another example taught by the ’001 patent is a speed of 2
`
`and a direction of 4. Ex. 1001 at 21:54–59.
`
`15
`
`

`

`The patent further explains that histogram formation blocks can be set to
`
`process pixels in a selected subset of the x domain and y domain, in other words, in
`
`a selected area:
`
`In order to process pixels only within a user-defined area, the x-
`
`direction histogram formation block may be set to process pixels only
`
`in a class of pixels defined by boundaries, i.e. XMIN and XMAX.
`
`Any pixels outside of this class will not be processed. Similarly, the y-
`
`direction histogram formation block may be set to process pixels only
`
`in a class of pixels defined by boundaries YMIN and YMAX. Thus,
`
`the system can process pixels only in a defined rectangle by setting
`
`the XMIN and XMAX, and YMIN and YMAX values as desired. Of
`
`course, the classification criteria and validation criteria from the other
`
`histogram formation blocks may be set in order to form histograms of
`
`only selected classes of pixels in selected domains in selected areas.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 21:17–29.
`
`Consistent with the construction proposed by Patent Owner, Webster’s New
`
`Universal Unabridged Dictionary (1996) defines “class” as “[a] number of persons
`
`or things regarded as forming a group by reason of common attributes,
`
`characteristics, qualities, or traits; kind; sort.” Ex. 2002 at 381.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Therefore, based on intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, a class is a
`
`selected subset of parameter values.
`
`3.
`
`“Forming at least one histogram of the pixels in the one or
`more of a plurality of classes in the one or more of a
`plurality of domains”
`
`Patent Owner proposes that “forming at least one histogram of the pixels in
`
`the one or more of a plurality of classes in the one or more of a plurality of
`
`domains” should be construed as “forming at least one histogram of the pixels in
`
`two or more classes that are in two or more domains.”
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction is required by the language of the
`
`claim. The natural reading of claim limitation is that the term “one or more”
`
`modifies “plurality of classes” and that the separate repetition of the term “one or
`
`more” modifies “plurality of domains.” A plurality means “two or more”, i.e., “a
`
`number greater than one.” See Ex. 2002 (Webster’s Unabridged (1996)) at 1490.
`
`Accordingly, the claim limitation requires at least one set of “two or more” (i.e. a
`
`plurality of) classes, and at least one set of “two or more” (i.e. a plurality of)
`
`domains, which means there must be at least two classes and at least two domains.
`
`Therefore, the claim requires at least one plurality, meaning two or more, of
`
`classes. Likewise, the claim requires at least one plurality, meaning two or more,
`
`of domains. By contrast, construing the claim to merely require at least one class
`
`selected from multiple classes, and at least one domain selected from multiple
`
`17
`
`

`

`domains, would render the term “plurality” superfluous, so that the claim limitation
`
`would be reduced to “one or more classes in one or more domains.”
`
`The intrinsic evidence firmly supports a construction requiring formation of
`
`a histogram using two or more classes in two or more domains. For example, the
`
`Abstract of the ’001 patent refers to forming histograms in each of multiple
`
`domains: “[i]n each of several domains, [a] histogram of the values in the first and
`
`second matrices falling in such domain is formed. Using the histograms, it is
`
`determined whether there is an area having the characteristics of the particular
`
`domain.” (emphasis added). Further, Figures 10–13 of the ’001 patent and the
`
`description at 16:50–19:45 teach an exemplary set of histogram formation and
`
`processing blocks for multiple domains: luminance (block 24), speed V (block 25),
`
`oriented direction (block 26), time constant (block 27), x-axis position (block 28)
`
`and y-axis position (block 29). See Ex. 1001 at 16:67–17:35. In the exemplary
`
`case of a color camera, the ’001 patent teaches that two histogram formation
`
`blocks for hue and saturation are included. Ex. 1001 at 25:52–56. In this example,
`
`multiple histogram formation processors of the type taught in Figure 11 (which
`
`include blocks 24–29 as described above), are controlled so that luminance, hue,
`
`and saturation (collectively, color) can be used to track a target.1 See Ex. 1001 at
`
`
`1 “Color” is specified by three values, with the specific three values depending on
`the color space used. For example, in HSV color space, the values are Hue,
`
`18
`
`

`

`16:65–17:8, 25:52–54, 62–26:4. Thus, a POSA would understand based on the
`
`specification that the claim language requires histogram formation in two or more
`
`domains.
`
`A POSA would also have understood the specification of the ’001 patent to
`
`contemplate multiple classes in multiple domains. For example, the specification
`
`states that “[t]he process further includes the steps of forming histograms along
`
`coordinate axes for the pixels within the classes selected by the classifier within
`
`each domain selected by the validation signal, and forming a composite signal
`
`corresponding to the spatial position of such pixels within the frame.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`6:10–15 (emphasis added). Similarly, the specification refers to “means for
`
`forming a histogram for pixels of the output signal within the classes selected by
`
`the classifier within each domain selected by the validation signal.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`7:55–57 (emphasis added). Classes can be selected by configuring the classifiers:
`
`“[f]or example, with respect to speed, which is preferably a value in the range of
`
`0–7, classifier 25b may be set to consider only data within a particular speed
`
`category or categories, e.g., speed 1, speeds 3 or 5, speed 3–6, etc.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`18:19–22.
`
`The ’001 patent describes the specific method by which a histogram is
`
`formed using two or more classes in two or more domains. For example, the ’001
`
`Saturation, Value. Another example of a color space is RGB (Red, Green, Blue).
`See Ex. 1002 (Hart Declaration) at ¶30.
`
`19
`
`

`

`patent discusses the selection of multiple domains using a validation unit in
`
`conjunction with the classifiers via which classes within each domain are selected:
`
`[F]or any data domain, e.g., speed, the output of the classifier for that
`
`data domain will only be “1” if the particular data point being
`
`considered is in the class of the registers set to “1” in the classifier for
`
`that data domain. The validation signal from each validation unit will
`
`only be “1” if for each register in the validation unit that is set to “1”,
`
`an input of “1” is received from the classifier for the domain of that
`
`register. This may be expressed as follows:
`
`out=(In0+Reg0)·(In1+Reg1) . . . (Inn+Regn) . . . (in0+ in1+ ... inn).
`
`Ex. 1001 at 19:1–12 (emphasis added). Therefore, the histogram formation
`
`block can be configured to select multiple pluralities of classes and multiple
`
`pluralities of domains. For example, the registers of the classifier 25b of
`
`Figure 13 may select a first plurality of classes in one domain, while the
`
`registers of the validation unit 31 may, in conjunction with the registers of
`
`corresponding classifiers in other histogram formation blocks, select additional
`
`pluralities of classes in additional domains.
`
`20
`
`

`

`
`
`Therefore, based on the language of the claim as supported by the
`
`disclosure of the specification of the patent, a POSA would have understood
`
`“forming at least one histogram of the pixels in the one or more of a plurality
`
`of classes in the one or more of a plurality of domains” to mean “forming at
`
`least one histogram of the pixels in two or more classes that are in two or
`
`more domains.”
`
`4.
`
`“Said at least one histogram referring to classes defining
`said target”
`
`Patent Owner proposes that “said at least one histogram referring to
`
`classes defining said target” should be construed as “at least one histogram
`
`being formed of pixels in at least two classes that define said target.”
`
`21
`
`

`

`The plain language of the claim requires interpreting “classes,” a plural term,
`
`to mean “two or more.” See Ex. 2002 at 1490. Patent Owner’s proposed