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 IPR2017-00355
`Patent No. 7,650,015
`____________________
`
`
`
`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 ’015 Patent ............................................................................ 2 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 7 
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 7 
`
`1.  “Domain” ........................................................................................ 8 
`
`2.  “Class” ............................................................................................ 9 
`
`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” ....................................................................................... 12 
`
`4.  “Said at least one histogram referring to classes defining said
`target” ............................................................................................ 17 
`
`III.  Legal Standards ............................................................................................. 19 
`
`IV.  No Review Should be Instituted for Claim 6 ................................................ 23 
`
`A. 
`
`Petitioner Has Not Shown that the Asserted References Teach or
`Suggest All Elements of Claim 6 of the ’015 Patent .......................... 23 
`
`1.  Ground 1: Petitioner Has Not Shown that Gilbert and Schaming
`Teach or Suggest All Elements of the Challenged Claim ............ 24 
`
`2.  Ground 2: Petitioner Has Not Shown That Gilbert and Ueno
`Teach or Suggest All Elements of the Challenged Claim ............ 31 
`
`3.  Ground 3: Petitioner Has Not Shown That Hashima and
`Schaming Teach or Suggest All Elements of the Challenged
`Claim ............................................................................................. 35 
`
`B. 
`
`Petitioner Has Not Shown That a POSA Would Have Selected and
`Combined the Asserted References .................................................... 37 
`
`1.  Petitioner Has Not Shown That a POSA Would Have Combined
`Gilbert and Schaming ................................................................... 38 
`
`i
`
`

`

`2.  Petitioner Has Not Shown That a POSA Would Have Combined
`Gilbert and Ueno ........................................................................... 43 
`
`3.  Petitioner Has Not Shown That a POSA Would Have Combined
`Hashima and Schaming................................................................. 47 
`
`C. 
`
`Petitioner’s Reasons for Combining the References Are Driven by
`Improper Hindsight Analysis .............................................................. 50 
`
`V. 
`
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 53 
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`Apple Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.,
` IPR2015-00442, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. July 13, 2015) ............................... 20, 21, 22
`
`Google, Inc. v. Everymd.com LLC,
`IPR2014-00347, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. May 22, 2014) ............................................. 20
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966), ......................................................................................... 19, 20
`
`Grain Processing v. American-Maize Prods,
` 840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................. 23
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l.,
` 829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 20, 21
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
` 654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 23, 50
`
`In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation,
` 536 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................... 22
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) .......................................................................... 51
`
`InTouch Tech., Inc. v. VGo Communs., Inc.,
` 751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 23
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
` 688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 20, 50
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ......................................... 22, 23
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
` CBM-2012-00003, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2012) ................................ 20, 21
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm. v. Mylan Labs,
` 520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 23, 50
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................................. 8
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
` 566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................................................... 21, 22
`
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft,
` LLC, 825 F.3d 1341 (2016) ................................................................................. 19
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
` 814 F.3d 1309 (2016) .......................................................................................... 19
`
`Trivascular Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 51
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
` 655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................... 22
`
`W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
` 721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .................................................................... 38, 51
`
`Whole Space Indus Ltd.,
` IPR2015-00488, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. July 24, 2015) .......................................... 20
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................. 19, 20
`
`Exhibits 
`Ex. 2001, IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms, 6th Ed.,
`IEEE (1996) ........................................................................................................... 9
`
`Ex. 2002, Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary,
` Barnes & Noble Books (1996) ..................................................................... 12, 13
`
`Ex. 2003, Copy of IPR Petition (Annotated with page numbers) ................... passim
`
`
`
`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 IPR2017-00355 for review of claim
`
`6 of U.S. Patent No. 7,650,015 (the “’015 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 the
`
`challenged claim.
`
`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 6: “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 from said at least one
`
`histogram,” as required by claim 6.
`
`As to each of Grounds 1, 2, and 3, Petitioner has also not shown that a
`
`POSA would have combined the four asserted references Gilbert, Schaming, Ueno,
`
`and Hashima to arrive at the subject matter of claim 6.
`
`The Board should decline to institute an inter partes review of claim 6 of the
`
`’015 patent.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’015 PATENT
`The ’015 patent is directed to efficient, real-time identification and
`
`localization of a wide range of moving objects using histograms. E.g., Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:16–21; 3:13–23. 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 25:23–34; 25:58–67. Tracking techniques known at the time of the
`
`invention of the ’015 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 1:23–55; 2:23–63.
`
`The ’015 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
`
`forming its own histogram; and using histograms to adjust a tracking box with
`
`2
`
`

`

`respect to the size and location of the tracking box. E.g., Ex. 1001 at 18:10–13;
`
`18:46–52; 21:48–22:3; 24:1–25:2.
`
`In Figure 10 of the ’015 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 9:6–10. 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 9:26–34;
`
`11:30–31. 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 9:42–57. 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 16:44–52.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Figure 11 of the ’015 patent shows an example of a histogram processor 22a
`
`with multiple histogram formation blocks 24–29. Ex. 1001 at 16:53–59. Block 24
`
`enables a histogram to be formed in the luminance domain (ranging from 0–255).
`
`Id. at 16:61–17:2. Similarly, the domain for Block 25 is speed (V) (ranging from
`
`0–7). Id. at 17:3–9. The domain for Block 26 is oriented direction (DI) (ranging
`
`from 0–7). Id. at 17:10–17. The domain for Block 27 is time constant (CO)
`
`(ranging from 0–7). Id. at 17:18–25. The domain for Block 28 is position on the
`
`x-axis. Id. at 17:26–37; 18:53–58; 20:53–21:10. The domain for Block 29 is
`
`position on the y-axis. Id. The histogram formation blocks and other components
`
`are interconnected by a bus 23. Id. at 16:53–55.
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`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.
`
`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 image processing system of the ’015 patent can be used to track a target,
`
`for example, a person’s face. E.g., Ex. 1001 at 22:4–30. The system may form x-
`
`axis and y-axis projection histograms using, for example, pixels whose brightness
`
`has undergone significant variation (DP=1) relative to a prior image frame. E.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001 at 10:29–44; 22:31–54. In this example, the center (V) of the face is
`
`located within an area whose boundaries are computed based on the locations of
`
`peaks in the histograms, and may correspond to the pixel position at the center of
`
`the bounded area. E.g., Ex. 1001 at 22:59–23:22. Servomotors can be actuated to
`
`move the camera to better center the face on the screen. Ex. 1001 at 23:18–22.
`
`6
`
`

`

`In the example of Figure 15, “[t]he image processing system determines the
`
`position and movement of the subject P, and controls servo motors 43 of camera 13
`
`to direct the optical axis of the camera towards the subject and particularly towards
`
`the face of the subject, as a function of the location, speed and direction of the
`
`subject, and may vary the zoom, focal distance and/or the focus of the camera to
`
`provide the best framing and image of the subject.” Ex. 1001 at 22:11–17.
`
`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
`
`’015 patent) would be someone with an undergraduate degree in electrical
`
`engineering or image processing or a related field, followed by at least two years of
`
`graduate coursework and also at least early-stage thesis research, in digital image
`
`processing. The requisite knowledge and experience would have been acquired,
`
`for example, by someone who had completed all coursework in a two year
`
`master’s program focused on digital image processing, along with at least some
`
`thesis research qualifying towards a degree in such a program.
`
`B. Claim Construction
`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
`
`7
`
`

`

`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 3:47–58. 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
`
`memory is used. Ex. 1001, 16:64–17:2. 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.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Similarly, the speed domain is the set of all possible values that can be taken
`
`on by the speed parameter. For example, the ’015 patent discloses that speed
`
`preferably has a value between 0–7. Ex. 1001 at 17:54–59, 18:10–16. 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 18:19–20. A three-bit
`
`memory is used for speed. Ex. 1001, 17:5–9. 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.”
`
`“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
`
`9
`
`

`

`Owner’s proposed construction. The ’015 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 18:10–13. 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 ’015 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, 16:44–47. “[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.
`
`The ’015 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
`
`10
`
`

`

`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 18:13–23.
`
`As another example of values that are a selected subset of the possible
`
`values of the domain, the ’015 patent teaches the “selected classes” within
`
`“selected domains” of speed of 2, a direction of 4, and a luminance of 125. Ex.
`
`1001 at 19:9–16. Yet another example taught by the’015 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:
`
`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,
`
`11
`
`

`

`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 21:11–23.
`
`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.
`
`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 the claim limitation is that the term “one or more”
`
`12
`
`

`

`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.”
`
`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 ’015 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 ’015 patent and the
`
`description at 16:44–19:39 teach an exemplary set of histogram formation and
`
`13
`
`

`

`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 16:61–17:29. In the exemplary case of
`
`a color camera, the ’015 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.
`
`A POSA would also have understood the specification of the ’015 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
`
`5:62–67 (emphasis added). Similarly, the specification refers to “means for
`
`forming a histogram for pixels of the output signal within the classes selected by
`
`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.
`
`14
`
`

`

`the classifier within each domain selected by the validation signal.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`7:40–42 (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
`
`18:13–16.
`
`The ’015 patent describes specific embodiments in which a histogram is
`
`formed using two or more classes in two or more domains. For example, the ’015
`
`patent discusses the selection of multiple domains using a validation unit in
`
`conjunction with the classifiers via which classes within each domain are selected:
`
`“for 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 18:63–19:5 (emphasis added). As
`
`the patent explains, “[t]hus, using the classifiers in combination with validation
`
`units 30–35, the system may select for processing only data points in any selected
`
`classes within any selected domains. For example, the system may be used to
`
`15
`
`

`

`detect only data points having speed 2, direction 4, and luminance 125 . . . .” Id. at
`
`19:8–12.
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`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.” 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 ’015 patent.
`
`Further, as explained earlier in this Section II, Figure 11 teaches a number
`
`histogram formation and processing blocks for various data domains (24–29)
`
`interconnected by a bus (23). Ex. 1001, 16:53–61. The validation units (30–35)
`
`associated with each histogram formation block receive classification information
`
`in parallel from all classification units for each histogram formation and processing
`
`block. As explained by the ’015 patent, the validation units contain a register that
`
`includes a binary value for each data domain that the system is capable of
`
`processing. Id. at 18:46–58. The exemplary use of the system is to detect data
`
`points having speed 2, direction 4 and luminance 125—that is, classes defining the
`
`target. Id. at 19:8–39.
`
`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-
`
`17
`
`

`

`axis domains that are selected by the user to locate a target. Ex. 1001, 23:59–24:23.
`
`The controller sets the selected x-position and y-position boundaries based on the
`
`user selection of the position of the target. Ex. 1001 at 23:59–24:11. These
`
`boundaries are set in the classification units of histogram formation blocks 28 (x-
`
`position) and 29 (y-position). Id. at 24:8–11. 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 24:14–23 (emphasis added).
`
`Other examples of the ’015 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
`
`18
`
`

`

`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 ’015 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 ’015 patent.
`
`Claim 6 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 ’015 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 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d
`
`1309, 1316–17 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`All three of Petitioner’s Grounds rely on obviousness combinations. To
`
`mak