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 IPR2017-00353
`Patent No. 8,983,134
`____________________
`
`
`
`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 ’134 Patent ............................................................................ 2 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 9 
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 10 
`
`1.  “Domain” ...................................................................................... 10 
`
`2.  “Class” .......................................................................................... 12 
`
`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” ....................................................................................... 15 
`
`4.  “Said at least one histogram referring to classes defining said
`target” ............................................................................................ 19 
`
`III.  Legal Standards ............................................................................................. 21 
`
`IV.  No Review Should be Instituted for Claims 1 and 2 ..................................... 25 
`
`A. 
`
`Petitioner Has Not Shown that the Asserted References Teach or
`Suggest All Elements of Claim 1 of the ’134 Patent .......................... 25 
`
`1.  Petitioner Has Not Shown that Gilbert and Hashima Teach or
`Suggest All Elements of Claim 1 .................................................. 27 
`
`2.  Petitioner Has Not Shown That Hashima and Ueno Teach or
`Suggest All Elements of Claim 1 .................................................. 35 
`
`3.  Petitioner Has Not Shown That Gilbert and Ueno Teach or
`Suggest All Elements of Claim 1 .................................................. 39 
`
`B. 
`
`Petitioner Has Not Shown That a POSA Would Have Selected and
`Combined the Asserted References .................................................... 40 
`
`1.  Petitioner Has Not Shown That a POSA Would Have Combined
`Gilbert and Hashima ..................................................................... 41 
`
`i
`
`

`

`2.  Petitioner Has Not Shown That a POSA Would Have Combined
`Hashima and Ueno ........................................................................ 47 
`
`3.  Petitioner Has Not Shown That a POSA Would Have Combined
`Gilbert and Ueno ........................................................................... 50 
`
`C. 
`
`Petitioner’s Reasons for Combining the References Are Driven by
`Improper Hindsight Analysis .............................................................. 53 
`
`V. 
`
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 55 
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`Apple Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.,
` IPR2015-00442, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. July 13, 2015) ............................... 22, 23, 24
`
`Google, Inc. v. Everymd.com LLC,
`IPR2014-00347, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. May 22, 2014) ............................................. 23
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966), ................................................................................................ 22
`
`Grain Processing v. American-Maize Prods,
` 840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................. 25
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l.,
` 829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 22, 23
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
` 654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 25, 53
`
`In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation,
` 536 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................... 25
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 53
`
`InTouch Tech., Inc. v. VGo Communs., Inc.,
` 751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 25
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
` 688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 22, 53
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 24, 25
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
` CBM-2012-00003, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2012) ................................ 22, 23
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm. v. Mylan Labs,
` 520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 25, 53
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 10
`
`Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
` 566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................................................... 23, 24
`
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft,
` LLC, 825 F.3d 1341 (2016) ................................................................................. 21
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
` 814 F.3d 1309 (2016) .......................................................................................... 21
`
`Trivascular Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 53
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
` 655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................... 24
`
`W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
` 721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .................................................................... 40, 53
`
`Whole Space Indus Ltd.,
` IPR2015-00488, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. July 24, 2015) .......................................... 22
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 22
`
`Exhibits 
`Ex. 2001, IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms, 6th Ed.,
`IEEE (1996) ......................................................................................................... 11
`
`Ex. 2002, Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary Barnes & Noble
`Books (1996) ................................................................................................. 14, 15
`
`
`
`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 30, 2016 in case IPR2017-00353 for review of claims
`
`1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 8,983,134 (the “’134 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 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) “forming the at least one histogram further comprises
`
`determining X minima and maxima and Y minima and maxima of boundaries of
`
`the target.”
`
`As to each of Grounds 1, 2, and 3, Petitioner has also 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.
`
`1
`
`

`

`The Board should decline to institute an inter partes review of claims 1 and
`
`2 of the ’134 patent.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’134 PATENT
`The ’134 patent is directed to efficient, real-time identification and
`
`localization of a wide range of moving objects using histograms. E.g., Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:35–39; 3:31–41. 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 25:22–34; 25:58–67. Tracking techniques known at the time of the
`
`invention of the ’134 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 1:41–2:6; 2:41–3:14.
`
`The ’134 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
`
`classification criteria to possibly be included 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
`
`2
`
`

`

`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 18:11–14; 18:46–
`
`52; 21:48–22:3; 24:1–25:2.
`
`In Figure 10 of the ’134 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 9:23–26. 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 9:35–51,
`
`9:60–10:2; 11:44–47. 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 9:59–10:7. 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 16:45–53.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Figure 11 of the ’134 patent shows an example of a histogram processor 22a
`
`with multiple histogram formation blocks 24–29. Ex. 1001 at 16:54–60. Block 24
`
`enables a histogram to be formed in the luminance domain (ranging from 0–255).
`
`Id. at 16:62–17:3. Similarly, the domain for Block 25 is speed (V) (ranging from
`
`0–7). Id. at 17:4–10. The domain for Block 26 is oriented direction (DI) (ranging
`
`from 0–7). Id. at 17:11–18. The domain for Block 27 is time constant (CO)
`
`(ranging from 0–7). Id. at 17:19–26. The domain for Block 28 is position on the
`
`x-axis (range corresponding to the number of pixels in a line). Id. at 17:27–38;
`
`18:53–58; 20:55–21:11. 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 16:54–56.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`A validation unit accompanies each histogram formation block of Figure 11.
`
`Figure 13, referring to histogram formation block 25 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 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 18:20–24.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`The number of registers can vary depending on the domain of the classifier.
`
`E.g., Ex. 1001 at 18:29–42. 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 18:30–32. 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
`
`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 18:42–48.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Further, each validation unit generates a validation signal that determines “for each
`
`incoming pixel, whether the histogram formation block will utilize that pixel in
`
`forming it [sic] histogram.” Ex. 1001 at 18:48–52.
`
`The ’134 patent teaches the use of histograms to track a target. As shown in
`
`the example of Figures 20–23, tracking may involve displaying a tracking box. 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 24:1–7. A bounded area (XA, XB, YC,
`
`YD) corresponding to the tracking box is set by configuring the classification units
`
`of x and y histogram 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 24:7–12.
`
`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 24:25–29. 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
`
`7
`
`

`

`the box overlaps the boundary of the target.” Ex. 1001 at 24:29–38. 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 24:38–54.
`
`
`
`After additional iterations, the tracking box will be larger than the target in
`
`that XA-nk<XMIN, XA+nK>XMAX, YA-nK<YMIN, and YA+nK>YMAX. Ex. 1001 at 24:55–
`
`59; Figure 23. When this occurs, the entire target is bounded, and the size of the
`
`tracking box is reduced to better track the target. Ex. 1001 at 24:55–65. In this
`
`manner, histograms are formed based on the determined X minima and maxima
`
`and Y minima and maxima of boundaries of the target, and “in the course of
`
`tracking a target, the tracking box will be enlarged and reduced as appropriate to
`
`maintain a track of the target, and is preferably adjusted on a frame by-frame
`
`basis.” Ex. 1001 at 24:66–25:2.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`A.
`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
`
`’134 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.
`
`9
`
`

`

`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. As
`
`noted above, the classes referred to in the claimed subject matter are subsets of a
`
`larger range of values. This larger range is a domain which may include, for
`
`example, (i) luminance, (ii) speed (V), (iii) oriented direction (D1), (iv) time
`
`constant (CO), (v) hue, (vi) saturation, (vii) first axis (x(m)), and (viii) second axis
`
`(y(m)). E.g., Ex. 1001 at 3:65–4:9. 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, an eight-bit
`
`10
`
`

`

`memory is used. Ex. 1001, 16:65–17:3. 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, the speed domain is the set of all possible values that can be taken
`
`on by the speed parameter. For example, the ’134 patent discloses that speed
`
`preferably has a value between 0–7. Ex. 1001 at 17:55–60, 18:11–17. 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 18:20–21. A three-bit
`
`memory is used for speed. Ex. 1001, 17:6–10. 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.
`
`
`
`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.”
`
`11
`
`

`

`“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. The ’134 patent describes a system that
`
`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 18:11–14. Thus, the classification criteria are applied to form a group of
`
`pixels having common characteristics, and these pixels can potentially be used in
`
`forming a histogram. As explained by the specification of the ’134 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, 16:45–48. “[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.” Ex. 1001 at 18:63–66.
`
`12
`
`

`

`The ’134 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 18:14–24.
`
`As another example of values that are a selected subset of the possible
`
`values of the domain, the ’134 patent teaches the “selected classes” within
`
`“selected domains” of speed of 2, a direction of 4, and a luminance of 125. Ex.
`
`1001 at 19:10–17. Yet another example taught by the ’134 patent is a speed of 2
`
`and a direction of 4. Ex. 1001 at 21:48–53.
`
`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:
`
`13
`
`

`

`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 21:12–24.
`
`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.
`
`Therefore, based on intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, a class is a
`
`selected subset of values from a larger range of parameter values.
`
`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”
`
`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 iteration 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, classes.
`
`Likewise, the claim requires at least one plurality, meaning two or more, 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 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.”
`
`15
`
`

`

`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 ’134 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 ’134 patent and the
`
`description at 16:45–19:40 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 position (block 28) and y-
`
`axis position (block 29). See Ex. 1001 at 16:62–17:30. In the exemplary case of a
`
`color camera, the ’134 patent teaches that two histogram formation blocks for hue
`
`and saturation are included. Ex. 1001 at 25:48–52. 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 Ex. 1001 at 25:58–67.
`
`Thus, a POSA would understand based on the specification that the claim language
`
`contemplates histogram formation in two or more domains.
`
`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,
`Saturation, Value. Another example of a color space is RGB (Red, Green, Blue).
`See Ex. 1002 (Hart Declaration) at ¶30.
`
`16
`
`

`

`A POSA would also have understood the specification of the ’134 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
`
`6:14–19 (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
`
`7:58–60 (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
`
`18:14–17.
`
`The ’134 patent describes specific embodiments in which a histogram is
`
`formed using two or more classes in two or more domains. For example, the ’134
`
`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
`
`17
`
`

`

`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 18:63–19:6 (emphasis added). Therefore, the histogram formation
`
`block can also 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.
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`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.”
`
`19
`
`

`

`The plain language of the claim requires interpreting “classes,” a plural term,
`
`to mean “two or more.” Patent Owner’s proposed construction is also supported
`
`by the ’134 patent including, for example, Figure 11 (showing histogram formation
`
`processor), Figure 13 (showing classifier 25b) and the corresponding description in
`
`the specification.
`
`In one embodiment represented in Figures 20–23, tracking is performed by
`
`using the class DP=1 (DP=1 representing motion) and classes in the x-axis and y-
`
`axis domains that are selected by the user to locate a target. Ex. 1001, 23:59–24:24.
`
`As taught by the specification, DP=1 is selected to identify the edges of the target,
`
`but other classes that define the target may also be used:
`
`Those pixels with DP=1 would normally be located on the peripheral
`
`edges of target 218, unless the target had a strong color or luminance
`
`variation throughout, in which case, many of the pixels of the target
`
`would have DP=1. In any case, in order to locate pixels with DP=1,
`
`the validation units would be set to detect pixels with DP=1. Thus, the
`
`only pixels that will be considered by the system are those in the
`
`bounded area with DP=1. Alternatively, the system may be set to
`
`detect a velocity greater than zero, or any other criteria that define the
`
`edges of the object.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 24:15–24 (emphasis added).
`
`20
`
`

`

`Other examples of the ’134 patent also employ multiple classes to define the
`
`target. For example, “[a]ssuming that it were desired to identify an object with a
`
`speed of ‘2’ and a direction of ‘4’, the validation units for speed and direction
`
`would be set to ‘1’, and the classifiers for speed ‘2’ and direction ‘4’ would be set
`
`to ‘1’.” Ex. 1001 at 21:49–53. Similarly, the ’134 patent describes tracking a
`
`target using “velocity, and/or color, and/or direction, etc.”2 Ex. 1001 at 25:58–67.
`
`Therefore, Patent Owner’s proposed construction gives effect to the
`
`plain language of the claim, and is supported by the written disclosure of the
`
`’134 patent. Claim 1 requires that at least one histogram is formed of pixels
`
`in at least two classes that define the target.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`Petitioner has the burden to show that it is likely to prevail as to at least one
`
`claim of the ’134 patent. 35 U.S.C. § 314. The Board may decline to institute the
`
`petition as to any claim for which the Board determines that Petitioner has not
`
`shown it is likely to prevail. SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC, 825 F.3d
`
`1341, 1352