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 IPR2017-00357
`Patent No. 8,989,445
`____________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES LLC’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`____________________
`
`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 IPR2017-00357
`Patent No. 8,989,445
`____________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES LLC’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Overview of the ’445 Patent .......................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 6
`
`Claim Construction ............................................................................... 7
`
`III. Legal Standards ............................................................................................. 7
`
`IV. No Review Should be Instituted for Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 18, 24, 25 and 27 11
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Shown that a POSA Would Have Selected and
`Combined the Asserted References to Arrive at the Claimed
`Invention .............................................................................................. 12
`
`1. Ground 1: Petitioner Has Not Shown that a POSA Would Have
`Combined Gilbert and Brady ........................................................ 12
`
`2. Ground 2: Petitioner Has Not Shown that a POSA Would Have
`Combined Gilbert and Hashima ................................................... 15
`
`3. Ground 3: Petitioner Has Not Shown that a POSA Would Have
`Combined Hashima and Brady ..................................................... 18
`
`4. Grounds 1 and 2: Petitioner Has Not Shown that a POSA Would
`Have Combined Altan with Any of Gilbert, Brady and Hashima 22
`
`V. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 26
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.,
` IPR2015-00442, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. July 13, 2015) ................................... 8, 9, 10
`
`Google, Inc. v. Everymd.com LLC,
`IPR2014-00347, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. May 22, 2014) ............................................... 9
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966), ..............................................................................................7, 8
`
`Grain Processing v. American-Maize Prods,
` 840 F.2d 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................. 11
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l.,
` 829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .........................................................................8, 9
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
` 654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................... 11
`
`In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation,
` 536 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................... 10
`
`InTouch Tech., Inc. v. VGo Communs., Inc.,
` 751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................... 11
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
` 688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................. 8
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ......................................... 10, 11
`
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
` CBM-2012-00003, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2012) .....................................8, 9
`
`Ortho-McNeil Pharm. v. Mylan Labs,
` 520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................... 11
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................................. 7
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
` 566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................ 9, 10
`
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. ComplementSoft,
` LLC, 825 F.3d 1341 (2016) ................................................................................... 7
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
` 814 F.3d 1309 (2016) ............................................................................................ 7
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
` 655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................... 10
`
`W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
` 721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ........................................................................... 12
`
`Whole Space Indus Ltd.,
` IPR2015-00488, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. July 24, 2015) ............................................ 8
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ......................................................................................................7, 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Image Processing Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) hereby
`
`respectfully 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 IPR2017-00357 for
`
`review of claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 18, 24, 25 and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 8,989,445 (the
`
`“’445 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 fails to show that a POSA
`
`would have combined the asserted references Gilbert, Brady and Hashima (claims
`
`1, 4, 6, 9, 24, 25 and 27) and additionally Altan (claim 18) to arrive at the claimed
`
`subject matter.
`
`The Board should decline to institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 4,
`
`6, 9, 18, 24, 25 and 27 of the ’445 patent.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ’445 PATENT
`The ’445 patent is directed to efficient, real time identification and
`
`localization of a wide range of moving objects using histograms. E.g., ’445 patent,
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:37–42; 9:17–24; 16:48–56. The inventor developed a system that
`
`1
`
`
`
`can track a target object using one or more characteristics, such as velocity, color,
`
`direction, etc. E.g., Ex. 1001 at 25:25–37; 25:61–26:3. Tracking techniques
`
`known at the time of the invention of the ’445 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, 1:43–2:9; 2:44–3:17.
`
`The ’445 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 units 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 size of a tracking box.
`
`E.g., Ex. 1001 at 18:14–17; 18:49–55; 21:50–22:5; 24:4–25:4.
`
`Figure 11 of the ’445 patent shows a histogram processor with multiple
`
`histogram formation blocks 24–29 that are interconnected by a bus 23.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 13, referring to histogram formation block 25 and validation unit 31
`
`of Figure 11, shows a histogram formation unit 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 18:23–27.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`The number of registers can vary depending on the domain of the classifier.
`
`E.g., Ex. 1001 at 18:33–45. For example, “[t]he classifier associated with
`
`histogram formation unit 24 preferably has 256 registers, one register for each
`
`possible luminance value of the image.” Ex. 1001 at 18:33–35. 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 18:45–48.
`
`4
`
`
`
`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 18:51–55.
`
`The image processing system of the ’445 patent can be used to track a target,
`
`for example, a person’s face. E.g., Ex. 1001 at 22:6–33. 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 10:48–63; 22:35–57. 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 22:63–23:25.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`’445 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.
`
`6
`
`
`
`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.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`Petitioner has the burden to show that it is likely to prevail as to at least one
`
`claim of the ’445 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
`
`make a prima facie showing of obviousness for a challenged claim under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103, the Petition must, among other requirements, fulfill the requirements set
`
`forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), including demonstrating
`
`7
`
`
`
`that the cited references, in combination, disclose each element of the claim. In re
`
`Magnum Oil Tools Int’l., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see Apple Inc. v.
`
`Contentguard Holdings, Inc., IPR2015-00442, Paper 9 at 12 (P.T.A.B. July 13,
`
`2015).
`
`A legal conclusion of obviousness must be based on a factual background
`
`developed by consideration of each of the following factors: (1) the scope and
`
`content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at
`
`issue; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a); Graham, 383 U.S. 1 at 17–18. Without exception,
`
`consideration of every factor in the Graham framework is mandatory. Kinetic
`
`Concepts, 688 F.3d at 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v.
`
`Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM-2012-00003, Paper 7 at 3 (Order) (P.T.A.B. Nov.
`
`26, 2012).
`
`In particular, an obviousness analysis must identify the difference(s)
`
`between the claim and the prior art. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew,
`
`Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Indeed, courts must consider all of the
`
`Graham factors prior to reaching a conclusion with respect to obviousness.”);
`
`Whole Space Indus Ltd., IPR2015-00488, Paper 14 at 15 (P.T.A.B. July 24, 2015)
`
`(differences between the prior art and the claims at issue is one of the fundamental
`
`factual inquiries underlying an obviousness analysis); Google, Inc. v. Everymd.com
`
`8
`
`
`
`LLC, IPR2014-00347, Paper 9 at 25 (P.T.A.B. May 22, 2014) (“Rather,
`
`Petitioners’ summaries, quotations, and citations from both references, with
`
`Belanger’s figures, place the burden on us to . . . identify any differences between
`
`the claimed subject matter and the teachings of Shah and Belanger.”) (emphasis
`
`added); Liberty Mut., CBM-2012-00003, Paper 7 at 2–3 (“Differences between the
`
`claimed invention and the prior art are a critically important underlying factual
`
`inquiry for any obviousness analysis.”).
`
`Petitioner also has the burden to show whether there would have been a
`
`motivation or reason to combine the asserted prior art, and whether the proposed
`
`combination would render the patented claims obvious. In re Magnum Oil Tools,
`
`829 F.3d at 1376.
`
`A petition must provide an explicit rationale to make proposed modifications
`
`to or combinations of the prior art references, despite the differences between the
`
`claimed invention and the prior art, without relying on the patent disclosure itself.
`
`Apple Inc. v. Contentguard, Paper 9 at 15; see also Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Teva
`
`Pharm. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 995 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`A petition must also explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`simultaneously make multiple changes and implementation choices to arrive at a
`
`particular invention. Apple Inc. v. Contentguard, Paper 9 at 16–17 (“[W]e are not
`
`persuaded that the Petition sufficiently explains why a person of ordinary skill
`
`9
`
`
`
`would simultaneously make all of the many particular proposed changes and
`
`implementation choices”) (internal citations omitted). Even if individual
`
`modifications or choices were obvious, a petition must explain why making all of
`
`the changes at once would be obvious. Id. at 16–17 (“[T]he mere fact that
`
`individual changes might have been obvious does not make doing all of the
`
`changes at once obvious.”).
`
`Most inventions rely on known building blocks, so Petitioner must show that
`
`a POSA would both select and combine the building blocks “in the normal course
`
`of research and development to yield the claimed invention.” Unigene Labs., Inc.
`
`v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)) (emphasis added). It is important to
`
`identify a reason and motivation that would have prompted a POSA to combine the
`
`prior art elements in the way claimed in the challenged patent, to achieve the
`
`invention. Proctor & Gamble Co., 566 F.3d at 994; KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–19.
`
`“Obviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes
`
`separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under
`
`examination.” Unigene Labs, 655 F.3d at 1360 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). The
`
`lack of a technological obstacle to combining references, in and of itself, does not
`
`justify a finding of obviousness. See In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, 536 F.3d
`
`1361, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A reason for combining disparate prior art
`
`10
`
`
`
`references is critical and should be made explicit. InTouch Tech., Inc. v. VGo
`
`Communs., Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at
`
`418).
`
`Hindsight analysis is inappropriate; obviousness must be measured “at the
`
`time the invention was made.” Ortho-McNeil Pharm. v. Mylan Labs, 520 F.3d
`
`1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original). The Petitioner must not use
`
`the patent as a roadmap. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`(citing Grain Processing v. American-Maize Prods, 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1988)); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
`
`IV. No Review Should be Instituted for Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 18, 24, 25 and 27
`The Petition is deficient because it impermissibly shifts to the Board the
`
`burden of figuring out how and why the references would be combined in the
`
`manner asserted by the Petition, and in what manner the POSA would achieve the
`
`claimed invention through the asserted combination. As shown below, Petitioner
`
`does not explain how a POSA would have combined the references to arrive at the
`
`claimed invention or why a POSA would have been motivated to select and
`
`combine the references.
`
`11
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner Has Not Shown that a POSA Would Have Selected and
`Combined the Asserted References to Arrive at the Claimed
`Invention
`
`Petitioner has not shown that a POSA would have selected and combined the
`
`asserted references as set forth in the Petition to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`The Petition fails to analyze the references as a whole, and therefore ignores
`
`disclosures in Gilbert, Brady, Hashima and Altan that would lead a POSA away
`
`from the invention of the ’445 patent. This failure to address the references as a
`
`whole by avoiding any discussion of these problematic disclosures is another
`
`reason why the petition should be denied. W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock,
`
`Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (a prior art reference must be
`
`considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away
`
`from the claimed invention).
`
`1. Ground 1: Petitioner Has Not Shown that a POSA Would
`Have Combined Gilbert and Brady
`
`Petitioner has not shown that a POSA would have looked to apply the
`
`disclosure of Brady to the disclosure of Gilbert in order to arrive at the claimed
`
`subject matter of the ’445 patent, as proposed in Ground 1. The references are
`
`directed to different objectives. Gilbert is directed to tracking a single target, or
`
`possibly two targets in separate tracking windows. Ex. 1005 at 48. Gilbert’s
`
`system includes a movable optical mount used to follow a target. Ex. 1005 at 47.
`
`In contrast, Brady is directed to monitoring vehicle traffic by switching between a
`
`12
`
`
`
`plurality of stationary cameras situated over a plurality of roadways. Ex 1007 at
`
`3:61-66. Brady is also concerned with automatic tracking of all vehicles in an
`
`image, and criticizes the prior art for being unable to do so. Ex. 1007 at 2:23–27;
`
`11:14–19.
`
`Additionally, the systems disclosed by the references operate in different
`
`ways that are incompatible. Gilbert’s objective is to identify and track objects in
`
`complex and changing backgrounds. Ex. 1005, Abstract. Gilbert discloses the
`
`determination of whether a given pixel belongs to a target, a background or a
`
`plume region based on intensity value. Ex. 1005 at 50. However, Gilbert does not
`
`seek to identify different types (or classes) of targets. Instead, Gilbert depends on
`
`the assumption that the target has some video intensities that are not contained in
`
`the immediate background. Ex. 1005 at 2. In contrast, Brady’s tracking is
`
`performed against a static background (roadways), and the tracking algorithms are
`
`specifically tailored to roadway backgrounds, by, for example, assuming that
`
`regions of interest are truck-sized trapezoids, an assumption that depends on the
`
`position of the static camera above the roadway, looking down at an angle at the
`
`rear of passing vehicles (see Ex. 1007, Figs. 1 & 5 and 7:35–45). For instance, in
`
`order to identify the class of vehicle, each “vehicle class is assigned a set of
`
`appropriately sized and shaped regions.” Ex. 1007 at 7:39–42. Candidate regions
`
`of interest are sized according to vehicle class, e.g., car sized or truck sized
`
`13
`
`
`
`trapezoids. Ex. 1007 at 7:46–54. Defining candidate regions of appropriate size
`
`would not be possible in Gilbert because there are no static points of reference
`
`such as lane boundaries and no known or predetermined vehicle shape. Without an
`
`appropriate candidate region, edgel values and fuzzy set theory would have limited
`
`utility, if any, in Gilbert’s system. Similarly, candidate regions can be dynamically
`
`generated by “prior calibration of the scene” in Brady, Ex. 1007 at 7:42–45, which
`
`would not be possible in the complex and non-stationary background of Gilbert.
`
`Petitioner has also not shown a credible reason why a POSA would combine
`
`Gilbert with Brady. The fact that both references make some use of histograms,
`
`and find a target center in some manner, Petition at 38, does not mean that a POSA
`
`would seek to combine the disclosures of the two references. Petitioner asserts that
`
`Brady’s alleged use of edgel intensity would benefit Gilbert, but fails to address
`
`that Brady uses either pre-defined target shapes such as truck-shaped trapezoids or
`
`requires training using a known background (Ex. 1007, Figs. 1 & 5 and 7:35–45),
`
`which would not be possible when tracking an object in the sky as Gilbert does.
`
`Petitioner also asserts that the alleged disclosure of intermittent processing
`
`(skipping frames) of Brady would benefit Gilbert. However, tracking a fast-
`
`moving rocket in a changing background would facially not benefit from skipping
`
`the processing of frames. While Petitioner seeks to avoid this problem by asserting
`
`that skipping frames would be helpful when tracking a rocket that is not moving (a
`
`14
`
`
`
`rocket before launch), Petition at 40, it is precisely in this easy-to-track case that
`
`Petitioner has not shown a motivation for a POSA to seek an alleged improvement
`
`in tracking capability.
`
`Therefore, because Gilbert and Brady are directed towards different
`
`objectives and operate in incompatible ways, and because Petitioner has not
`
`offered a credible reason to combine the references, Petitioner has not shown that a
`
`POSA would have combined these references as asserted in the Petition.
`
`2. Ground 2: Petitioner Has Not Shown that a POSA Would
`Have Combined Gilbert and Hashima
`
`Petitioner has not shown that a POSA would have looked to apply the
`
`disclosure of Gilbert to the disclosure of Hashima in order to achieve the claimed
`
`subject matter of the ’445 patent, as proposed in Ground 2.
`
`Petitioner’s reasons for combining Hashima and Gilbert are generally
`
`supported by superficial analysis supported by conclusory statements, including
`
`that Hashima and Gilbert “are not only in the same field of endeavor but also are
`
`directed to very similar systems and processes” and that “[a] POSA would have
`
`reasonably expected that such a combination would be successful in that it would
`
`have resulted in a more efficient computation system.”1 See, e.g., Petition at 60–
`
`61. The fact that both references have video input, make some use of histograms
`
`1 Elsewhere, for example, the Petition repeats an conclusory assertion that “[e]ach
`compliments [sic] the other such that strong disclosures of one make up for
`weaknesses in the other.” Petition at 58, 77, 81.
`
`15
`
`
`
`and track a target does not mean that a POSA would combine the references, and
`
`as shown below a POSA would have recognized the differences between the
`
`references and therefore not been motivated to select and combine them.
`
`In fact, the references are directed to different objectives. For instance,
`
`Gilbert is directed to military applications where a target is tracked from far away
`
`and is not specifically limited to any particular type of object. Hashima relates to
`
`tracking a target mounted on an object to enable a nearby robot to grip the object,
`
`and Hashima requires a predefined target with a specific and known three-
`
`dimensional shape (e.g., Ex. 1006 at Figures 2, 4), for example, a single triangle
`
`within a circle (Figure 6), two triangles within a circle (Figures 11 and 12), or a
`
`combination of both (Figure 13).
`
`The references disclose different, incompatible manners of operation. For
`
`instance, Gilbert relies on the target intensity being different than the intensity of
`
`the immediate background, Ex. 1005 at 2, whereas Hashima relies on knowing the
`
`exact three-dimensional shape of the target in advance, including that the target
`
`includes, for example, a triangle that rests on a post and thus is offset from a
`
`circular background of a contrasting color, Ex. 1006 at Figures 2 & 4 and 7:66-
`
`8:17, and uses that knowledge to track the target in three-dimensional space in
`
`order to guide the robot towards the target.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Petitioner has not shown a credible reason why a POSA would attempt to
`
`combine the two references. Petitioner asserts that Gilbert’s alleged use of
`
`histograms in multiple domains is advantageous over Hashima because the system
`
`would have a higher likelihood of successfully recognizing a target in an image
`
`frame. Petition at 61. However, Petitioner does not point to any recognized or
`
`obvious need for a higher likelihood of successful recognition in Hashima’s
`
`system, especially given that the target of Hashima is predefined in detail and
`
`contains an object with known contrasting colors, shapes, including part of the
`
`target being offset from the rest of the target in a third dimension. In fact, the
`
`combination would increase the computational burden on Hashima’s system rather
`
`than being more efficient. This would obviously be problematic for an attempt to
`
`grip a moving object or spacecraft in real-time. See Ex. 1006 at Fig. 41, 1:19-22,
`
`6:24-25, 20:30-65. In this regard, Petitioner has not shown that an increase in
`
`successful recognition would outweigh the corresponding increase in computation.
`
`Therefore, because Gilbert and Hashima are directed towards different
`
`objectives and operate in an incompatible manner, and because Petitioner has not
`
`offered a credible reason to combine, Petitioner has not shown that a POSA would
`
`have sought to combine these references in the manner asserted in the Petition.
`
`17
`
`
`
`3. Ground 3: Petitioner Has Not Shown that a POSA Would
`Have Combined Hashima and Brady
`
`Petitioner has not shown that a POSA would have looked to apply the
`
`disclosure of Brady to the disclosure of Hashima in order to achieve the claimed
`
`subject matter of the ’445 patent, as proposed in Ground 3.
`
`Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to modify the disclosure of
`
`Hashima based on Brady in order to (1) make Hashima’s algorithm more general,
`
`(2) reduce computational burden by intermittent tracking, (3) enhance flexibility by
`
`using edgels and fuzzy set theory, and (4) improve Hashima’s center based
`
`tracking technique. Petition at 78–81.
`
`The references, however, disclose a different, incompatible manner of
`
`operation. As to reasons (1) and (3), Hashima’s system cannot be modified to
`
`include Brady’s use of edgel intensity and fuzzy set classification because pre-
`
`defined marks, including known shapes of contrasting colors on the target and that
`
`the shape of the target is known in all three dimensions, are necessary for
`
`Hashima’s system to work as intended. Hashima’s overall objective of enabling a
`
`robot to track and grip an object requires a significant degree of tracking precision.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1006 at 2:13–41 (criticizing the accuracy of conventional methods for
`
`calculating the position and attitude of a target); 25:44–46 (“In FIG. 55, an object 1
`
`to be gripped by a robot hand during operation of a robot is in any optional
`
`position and has any optional attitude in a three-dimensional space.”). Thus,
`
`18
`
`
`
`Hashima has sub-objectives of “recognizing and tracking a target mark while
`
`eliminating measuring error variations due to the positional relationship between
`
`the target mark and a camera” and “measur[ing] the distance up to and the attitude
`
`of an object simply with high accuracy.” Ex. 1006 at 2:54–56. To meet these
`
`objectives, Hashima requires not only a special mark, but also a robot with a
`
`moving mechanism supporting a video camera and movable with six degrees of
`
`freedom. Ex. 1006 at 2:64–3:13. As noted earlier, Brady’s system relies on
`
`stationary cameras and includes an assumption, such as that areas of interest will
`
`have a trapezoidal truck shape, based on the known, fixed camera angle and
`
`location with respect to a known road scene.
`
`To determine shifts in the attitude of the camera coordinate system (e.g.,
`
`shifts in the yaw, pitch or roll directions), Hashima detects corresponding shifts in
`
`the image of the mark, e.g., a shift of a triangular portion of the mark in relation to
`
`a circular potion of the mark. See, e.g., Ex. 1006 at 11:47–67; Figure 27. After
`
`determining actual shifts, a speed command is generated for operating the robot’s
`
`manipulator (e.g., a gripping hand). Ex. 1006 at 18:31–37.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
` Substituting Brady’s use of edgel intensity and fuzzy set classification
`
`would not satisfy Hashima’s performance requirements with respect to detecting
`
`positional shift. Thus, Hashima’s algorithm cannot be generalized based on
`
`Brady’s disclosure.
`
`Petitioner has not shown that Hashima would benefit from the disclosure of
`
`Brady. As to reason (2) (adding Brady to reduce computational load), Hashima’s
`
`algorithm does not impose any significant computational burden in the first place
`
`that would be alleviated through Brady’s alleged use of intermittent tracking. In
`
`Hashima, “[s]ince the projected histograms are calculated in a one-dimensional
`
`20
`
`
`
`domain, they can simply be calculated and the required calculations are small.
`
`Therefore, the shifts of the target mark 10 can be determined by high-speed
`
`processing. As a result, real-time data depending on the shifts can be fed back to
`
`the robot 30, allowing the camera 20 to track the target mark on a real-time basis.”
`
`Ex. 1006 at 15:29–35. Thus, it would not have been obvious or beneficial to apply
`
`Brady’s intermittent tracking to Hashima.
`
`Additionally, Brady’s use of edgel intensity and fuzzy set classification
`
`would add computational requirements and increase the computational load. In
`
`comparison, Hashima’s formation of an intensity histogram from a binary-
`
`converted image is relatively straightforward and efficient, as it must be given the
`
`application of gripping a moving object or spacecraft in real-time. See Ex. 1006 at
`
`Fig. 41, 1:19-22, 6:24-25, 20:30-65. Therefore, a POSA would not look to Brady
`
`for reducing computational burden in Hashima.
`
`As to reason (4) (improving center-based tracking), Petitioner’s assertion
`
`that Brady’s center-based tracking is more sophisticated is supported only by
`
`Petitioner’s assertion that Brady considers inertial history. Petitioner ignores the
`
`disclosures in which Hashima describes how positional shifts can be calculated
`
`rapidly and with great accuracy using the predefined mark. E.g., Ex. 1006 at
`
`23:62–24:5 (“using a target mark in the form of a triangle of a certain shape and X-
`
`and Y-histograms of the triangle image . . . a wide range of rotational angles can be
`
`21
`
`
`
`detected stably, and shifts of rotational angles can be detected accurately.
`
`Accordingly, the time required to correct positional shifts may be shortened.”);
`
`3:26–35 (“the target mark composed of th
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
