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 No. IPR2017-01218
`U.S. Patent No. 8,983,134
`____________________
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVES FOR ORAL HEARING
`(EXHIBIT 1023)
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1023
`Samsung v. Image Processing Techs.
`
`
`
`____________________
`
`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 No. IPR2017-01218
`U.S. Patent No. 8,983,134
`____________________
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVES FOR ORAL HEARING
`(EXHIBIT 1023)
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1023
`Samsung v. Image Processing Techs.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`U.S. PATENT No. 8,983,134
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`CASE IPR2017-01218
`v.
`Image Processing Technologies, LLC,
`Oral Argument
`June 29, 2018
`
`Samsung’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Petitioners,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`1
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`Overview of the ’134 Patent
`
`Instituted Grounds for Review
`
`Gilbert + Gerhardt + Hashima
`Gerhardt + Bassman
`
`2
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`Overview of the ’134 Patent
`
`Instituted Grounds for Review
`
`Gilbert + Gerhardt + Hashima
`Gerhardt + Bassman
`
`3
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`The '134 Patent
`
`lilllllilllililIllilllillilillililiilillllillllilllllilllllililillllli
`
`Patent N0 .
`
`US 8 983 13 4 B2
`
`"
`
`Date of Patent:
`
`*Mar. 17, 2015
`
`
`
`IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`Filed:
`
`Mar. 17, 2014
`
`(30)
`
`Foreign Application Priority Data
`
`Jul. 26, 1996
`
`(FR) ...................................... 96 09420
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`4
`
`4
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`3.The process according to claim 1, wherein said image processing system
`comprises at least one component selected from a memory, a temporal processing
`unit, and a spatial processing unit.
`4.The process according to claim 1, wherein forming the at least one histogram
`further comprises successively increasing the size of a selected area until the
`boundary of the target is found.
`5.The process according to claim 4, wherein forming the at least one histogram
`further comprises adjusting a center of the selected area based upon a shape of the
`target until substantially the entire target is within the selected area.
`6.The process according to claim 5, wherein forming the at least one histogram
`further comprises setting the X minima and maxima and Y minima and maxima as
`boundaries in X and Y histogram formation units such that only pixels within the
`selected area will be processed by the image processing system
`Ex. 1001
`
`5
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent. Claim 1 (Already Found Invalid)
`
`1. A process of tracking a target in an input signal imple-
`mented using a system comprising an image processing sys-
`tem, the input signal comprising a succession of frames, each
`frame comprising a succession of pixels, the target compris-
`ing pixels in one or more of a plurality of classes in one or
`more of a plurality of domains, the process performed by said
`system comprising, on a frame-by-frarne basis:
`
`and maxima of boundaries of the target.
`
`1[pre]
`1[a]
`1[b]
`1[c]
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`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 refer-
`ring to classes defining said target; and
`
`identifying the target in said at least one histogram itself,
`
`wherein forming the at least one histogram further com-
`prises determining X minima and maxima andY minima
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`6
`
`6
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent, Claims 3-6 (Depend from claim 1)
`
`Claim Language
`
`“A process of tracking a target in an input signal implemented using a system comprising an image
`processing system, the input signal comprising a succession of frames, each frame comprising a
`succession of pixels, the target comprising pixels in one or more of a plurality of classes in one or
`more of a plurality of domains, the process performed by said system comprising, on a frame-by-
`frame basis:”
`“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”
`“wherein forming the at least one histogram further comprises determining X minima and maxima
`and Y minima and maxima of boundaries of the target.”
`
`PO disputes only elements of claim 1 that were already construed in the
`IPR2017-00353 Final Written Decision, which found claim 1 invalid
`
`Element
`
`1[pre]
`
`1[a]
`
`1[b]
`
`1[c]
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`7
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[a]
`
`“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”
`’134 Patent, Fig. 16
`’134 Patent, Fig. 17
`
`Ex. 1001 at Figs. 16, 17; Petition at 9; Reply at 9-11
`
`8
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[b]
`
`“identifying the target in said at least one histogram itself”
`’134 Patent, Fig. 16
`’134 Patent, Fig. 17
`
`Ex. 1001 at Figs. 16, 17; Petition at 9; Reply at 10-12
`
`9
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[c]
`
`“wherein forming the at least one histogram further comprises
`determining X minima and maxima and Y minima and maxima of
`boundaries of the target.”
`’134 Patent, Fig. 17
`’134 Patent, Fig. 16
`
`Ex. 1001 at Figs. 16, 17; Petition at 9; Reply at 10-12
`
`10
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`Gilbert
`
`Gerhardt
`
`Hashima
`
`Board’s
`Construction
`
`Board’s
`Construction
`
`PO’s
`Rejected
`Construction
`
`Board’s
`Construction
`
`PO’s
`Rejected
`Construction
`
`PO arguments rely entirely on constructions
`already rejected in a Final Written Decision
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`
`PO’s
`Rejected
`Construction
`
`Disputed
`
`Disputed
`
`Disputed
`
`Disputed
`
`Disputed
`
`Disputed
`
`Claim
`Element
`1[pre]
`1[b]1[a]
`1[c]3-6
`
`11
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`Gilbert
`
`Gerhardt
`
`Hashima
`
`PO Disputes Claim Construction in IPR2017-0353 FWD
`Claim
`Element
`1[pre]
`1[b]1[a]
`1[c]3-6
`
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`
`Board’s
`Construction
`
`PO’s
`Rejected
`Construction
`
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`
`Disputed
`
`Disputed
`
`Board’s
`Construction
`
`PO’s
`Rejected
`Construction
`
`Disputed
`
`Disputed
`
`Board’s
`Construction
`
`PO’s
`Rejected
`Construction
`
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`
`Disputed
`
`Disputed
`
`12
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`Overview of the ’134 Patent
`
`Instituted Grounds for Review
`
`Gilbert + Gerhardt + Hashima
`Gerhardt + Bassman
`
`13
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`“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”
`“wherein forming the at least one histogram further comprises . . .”
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[a]
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[c],
`4-6
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`14
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`“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
`v
`least one histogram referring to classes defining said target”
`“wherein forming the at least one histogram further comprises . . .”
`v
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[a]
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[c],
`4-6
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`15
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[a]
`
`“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”
`•PO interprets “one or more” as “two or more”:
`“forming a histogram of the pixels in two or more classes that
`are in two or more domains” PO Resp. at 55
`•Rejected by the Board in Institution Decision in IPR2017-00353:
`•Board found PO construction would render “one or more” superfluous
`•Board construed “to encompass at least oneclass from among a plurality
`of possible classes and at least onedomain from among a plurality of
`possible domains” Institution Decision, IPR2017-00353 at 9-10
`
`16
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`“forming at least one histogram of the pixels in the one or more of a
`v
`plurality of classes in the one or more of a plurality of domains, said at
`v
`least one histogram referring to classes defining said target”
`“wherein forming the at least one histogram further comprises . . .”
`v
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[a]
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[c],
`4-6
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`17
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[a]
`
`“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”
`• PO argues “the histogram must refer only to classes defining said target.” PO
`Resp. at 31 (disagreeing with Board), 53-54 (distinguishing prior art)
`• Final Written Decision in IPR2017-00353 rejected this construction:
`“‘said at least one histogram referring to classes defining said target’ is not
`limited to ‘said at least one histogram referring to only classes defining
`said target’” IPR2017-00353, Paper 37, FWDat 12
`
`18
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[a]
`
`“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”
`•PO’s construction interpreting “referring to”as “made up only of”
`is incorrect PO Resp. at 30, 53-54
`“Referring to” classes does not require excluding
`pixels in any class that does not define the target.
`Reply at 3-4
`
`19
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`“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”
`’134 Patent, Fig. 12
`Patent Owner admits:
`“the target in Figure 12 is defined
`by, for example, ‘significant speeds’
`(see Ex. 1001 at 21:37-40).”
`PO Resp. at 36-37
`But the histograms include
`pixels that fall outsideof the
`class of “significant speeds”
`defined by La, Lb, Lc, and Ld
`Reply at 5-6.
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[a]
`
`Ex. 1001; Reply at 5-6.
`
`20
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`“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
`v
`least one histogram referring to classes defining said target”
`“wherein forming the at least one histogram further comprises . . .”
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[a]
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[c],
`4-6
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`21
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[c]
`
`“wherein forming the at least one histogram further comprises
`determining X minima and maxima and Y minima and maxima of
`boundaries of the target.”
`PO does not formally propose a construction
`•Instead argues that claim excludes“later calculation to determine X
`and Y boundaries” that is performed “after formation of the
`histogram.” PO Resp. at 20
`Rejected by the Board in FWDin IPR2017-00353:
`“claim 1 does not precludecreating a histogram, and then
`determining X minima and maxima and Y minima and maxima
`of boundaries of the target from that histogram, from both
`being part of the ‘forming’ step.” IPR2017-00353, Paper 37 at 18
`PO Resp. at 13; Reply at 9; Institution Decision at 20
`
`22
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`“wherein forming the at least one histogram further comprises
`determining X minima and maxima and Y minima and maxima of
`boundaries of the target.”
`PO argues determination must be
`’134 Patent, Fig. 17
`made without taking any additional
`actions after creating the histogram
`But patent describes
`•histograms are formed,
`• thenpeaks are used to calculate
`X/Y minima/maxima of the target
`PO’s construction excludes this
`embodiment Reply at 9-13
`
`23
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[c]
`
`Reply at 9-13; Ex. 1001 at Fig. 17
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`But Figs. 17, and 20-23 all depict the sameembodiment, forming histogram of pixels with DP=1
`Fig. 17
`Fig. 22
`
`“[T]he system of the invention is set to identify
`only pixels with DP=1, and to form a
`histogram of these pixels . . . This is illustrated
`in Fig. 17.” Ex. 1001 at 22:48-55
`PO SuppResp. at 4; Ex. 1001
`
`“Referring to Fig. 22, when the area under consideration
`begins to cross the borders of target 218, the histograms
`222 and 224 for the x and y projections will begin to
`include pixels in which DP=1” Ex. 1001 at 24:38-41
`
`24
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[c]
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 4
`
`“wherein forming the at least one histogram further comprises
`determining X minima and maxima and Y minima and maxima of
`boundaries of the target.”
`“The process according to claim 1, wherein forming the at least one
`histogram further comprisessuccessively increasing the size of a
`selected area until the boundary of the target is found.
`•PO argues all steps must be performed duringhistogram
`creation PO SuppResp. at 1-2
`•PO argues all steps must be performed within a single
`frame PO SuppResp. at 3-5
`
`25
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[c]
`
`“wherein forming the at least one histogram further comprises
`determining X minima and maxima and Y minima and maxima of
`boundaries of the target.”
`“claim 1 does not precludecreating a histogram, and then
`determining X minima and maxima and Y minima and maxima of
`boundaries of the target from that histogram, from both being part of
`the ‘forming’ step.” IPR2017-00353, Paper 37 (Final Written Decision) at 18
`“The process according to claim 1, wherein forming the at least one
`histogram further comprisessuccessively increasing the size of a
`selected area until the boundary of the target is found.
`Claims 4-6 use the same language and must be construed the
`same way
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 4
`
`26
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[c]
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 4
`
`“wherein forming the at least one histogram further comprises
`determining X minima and maxima and Y minima and maxima of
`boundaries of the target.”
`“The process according to claim 1, wherein forming the at least one
`histogram further comprisessuccessively increasing the size of a
`selected area until the boundary of the target is found.
`“Forming” the histogram
`cannot exclude subsequent
`steps, or claim 4 would not
`be functional. See iterative
`steps of Figs. 21, 22, 23
`Reply at 13; Supp. Reply 2-5
`
`Reply at13; Supp. Reply at 2-5; Ex. 1001 at Figs. 21-23
`
`27
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 4
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 6
`
`“The process according to claim 1, wherein forming the at least one
`histogram further comprises successively increasing the size of a
`selected area until the boundary of the target is found.”
`“The process according toclaim 5, wherein forming the at least one histogram
`further comprisessetting the X minima and maxima and Y minima and maxima as
`boundaries in X and Y histogram formation units such that only pixels within the
`selected areawill be processed by the image processing system.”
`Cannot change size during
`histogram creation or claim
`6 would not be functional.
`Supp. Reply 2
`
`Supp. Reply at 2; Ex. 1001 at Figs. 21-23
`
`28
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 4
`
`“The process according to claim 1, wherein forming the at least one
`histogram further comprises successively increasing the size of a
`selected area until the boundary of the target is found.
`Only disclosure of clearing
`histogram memory to
`calculate new histogram
`occurs betweenframes.
`Reply at 13; Supp. Reply 2-5
`“Between frames, memory 100 is initiated, i.e., cleared of all memory . . .” Ex. 1001 at 17:60-62
`“At the completion of the formation of the histogram in memory 100 at the end of each frame, . .
`. the memories 100 are cleared and units 112 are re-initialized for processing the next frame.”
`Ex. 1001 at 19:63-20:2
`Supp. Reply at 5; Ex. 1001 at Figs. 21-23, 17:55-62, 19:63-20:2
`
`29
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 4
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 5
`
`“The process according to claim 1, wherein forming the at least one
`histogramfurther comprises successively increasing the size of a selected
`area until the boundary of the target is found.
`“wherein forming the at least one histogram further comprises adjusting
`a center of the selected area based upon a shape of the target until
`substantially the entire target is within the selected area.”
`“It will be appreciated that as the target moves, the targeting box
`Patent discloses adjusting
`will move with the target, constantly adjusting the center of the
`center and enlarging
`targeting box based upon the movement of the target and
`enlarging and reducing the sizeof the targeting box.” Ex. 1001 at
`targeting box as the target
`25:16-19
`moves, i.e., across multiple
`frames.Supp. Reply 4
`“After additional iterations, as shown in Fig. 23, it being
`undertstood that the center of the box bounding the area of
`consideration may have moved from the prior iteration, the box
`will be largerthan the target . . .” Ex. 1001 at 24:55-58.
`Supp. Reply at 4; Ex. 1001 at Figs. 21-23, 25:16-19, 24:55-58
`
`30
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`•PO argues the examiner’s “pattern of rejections and allowances”
`of other claims during prosecution limits the scope of element
`1[c] but cites no clear disclaimer. PO Supp. Reply at 7
`“An ambiguous disclaimer . . . does not advance the patent's notice function or
`justify public reliance, and the court willnot use it to limit a claim term's
`ordinary meaning.” Sandisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods., 415 F.3d 1278, 1287(Fed. Cir. 2005)
`•The Board already rejected this argumentin IPR2017-00353.
`“We have reviewed the prosecution history in Exhibit 1004, and do not find
`support for Patent Owner’s construction. . . We do not find, and Patent Owner
`has not pointed us to, any disavowal of claim scope or any other statement in
`the prosecution history that clearly limits claim 1 to a particular embodiment in
`the specification.” IPR2017-00353, Final Written Decision at 17.
`
`31
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`Overview of the ’134 Patent
`
`Instituted Grounds for Review
`
`Gilbert + Gerhardt + Hashima
`Gerhardt + Bassman
`
`32
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`Gilbert
`
`Gerhardt
`
`Hashima
`
`Board’s
`Construction
`
`Board’s
`Construction
`
`PO’s
`Rejected
`Construction
`
`Board’s
`Construction
`
`PO’s
`Rejected
`Construction
`
`PO disputes the disclosure of only certain limitations and only under
`constructions already rejected in IPR2017-00353 Final Written Decision
`Claim
`Element
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`1[pre]
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`1[b]1[a]
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`1[c]3-6
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`
`PO’s
`Rejected
`Construction
`
`Disputed
`
`Disputed
`
`Disputed
`
`Disputed
`
`Disputed
`
`Disputed
`
`33
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`Obviousness Over Gilbert, Gerhardt, and Hashima
`
`Gilbert
`
`Gerhardt
`
`Hashima
`
`Claim
`Element
`1[pre]
`1[b]1[a]
`1[c]3-6
`
`Board’s
`Construction
`
`PO’s
`Rejected
`Construction
`
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`
`Disputed
`
`Disputed
`
`Board’s
`Construction
`
`PO’s
`Rejected
`Construction
`
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`
`Disputed
`
`Disputed
`
`Board’s
`Construction
`
`PO’s
`Rejected
`Construction
`
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`Not Disputed
`
`Disputed
`
`Disputed
`
`34
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`•Gilbert published in IEEE Transactions
`on Pattern Analysis and Machine
`Intelligence in January 1980
`Petition at 21
`•Creates projection histograms of
`pixels having intensity values that
`classify them as part of the target
`•Projection histograms identify
`Petition at 26-28; Reply at 25-27
`target and determine its minimum
`and maximum extent in the X-Y
`coordinate space
`Petition at 26-28, 69-70; Reply at 25-27
`Ex. 1005 (Gilbert) at 47, 51; Petition at 21, 26-27, 69-70; Reply at 25-27
`
`35
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`•Gerhardt patent granted January 2, 1996
`•Creates intensity histogram of pixels in eye
`region and identifies darkest pixels as
`potential pupil
`Petition at 13-14; Ex. 1013 at Fig. 5, 9:39-61
`•Creates binary image from darkest 5% of
`histogram and uses “region-growing” method
`to determine max and min X and Y position
`and centroid of “blob” representing pupil
`Petition at 14-15; Ex. 1013 at Figs. 6,10, 8:34-37, 12:32-61
`
`Ex. 1013 (Gilbert); Petition at 13-15
`
`36
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`•Hashima patent granted
`May 28, 1996
`Petition at 30
`•Creates projection
`histograms of black pixels in a
`black-and-white target
`Petition at 32, Reply at 23
`•Projection histograms identify
`target and determine its minimum
`and maximum extent in the X and
`Y directions
`Petition at 33-34; Reply at 27-28
`
`37
`
`Ex. 1006 (Hashima); Petition at 30, 3-34; Reply at 23, 27-28.
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`'134 Patent. Element Ila]
`
`ring to classes defining said target; and
`
`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 refer-
`
`1[pre]
`1[a]
`1[b]
`1[c]
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`38
`
`38
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[a]
`
`“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”
`•PO does not dispute Gilbert discloses 1[a] under the Board’s
`preliminary construction here and in Final Written Decision in
`IPR2017-00353
`•PO only disputes whether the intensity histogramof Gilbert
`satisfies 1[a] under PO’s already rejected construction
`“X and Y ranges of a square window do not define the target if the x-range and
`y-range include both target and non-target ranges . . .” PO Resp. at 61
`•Does noteven address Gilbert’s projection histogram in
`the Response Reply at 22
`PO Resp. at 61; Reply at 21-22
`
`39
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`“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”
`Even under PO’s proposed
`Ex. 1005 (Gilbert) at 50-51
`construction, Gilbert’s projection
`histogramsdisclose element 1[a]
`•Pixels of certain intensity values are
`classified as target pixels
`• Onlypixels in the target intensity
`class are formed into projection
`histograms in X-and Y-coordinate
`space
`Reply at 22
`
`PO does not dispute
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[a]
`
`Ex. 1005 at 50-51; Reply at 22
`
`40
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[a]
`
`“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”
`•PO does not dispute Gerhardt discloses 1[a] under the Board’s
`preliminary construction here and in Final Written Decision in
`IPR2017-00353
`•PO only disputes whether Gerhardt’s intensity histograms
`satisfy 1[a] under PO’s rejected construction
`“Both Gerhardt and Bassmandisclose intensity histograms of allof the pixels
`in an area.”
`PO Resp. at 54
`PO Resp. at 38; Reply at 13-14
`
`41
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[a]
`
`“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”
`•Gerhardt discloses histograms of only an active sub-region:
`“By keeping a running average of the
`Thus, only a subset of pixels
`centroid location for previously-selected
`within the sub-area
`pupil blobs, an active image region can be
`surrounding the target are
`examined that is centered about the
`included in the histogram.
`running average centroid location.”
`Reply at 17-18
`Ex. 1013 at 21:1-18; Reply at 18
`PO Resp. at 38; Reply at 13-14
`
`42
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[a]
`
`“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”
`•PO does not dispute that Hashimadiscloses 1[a] under the
`Board’s preliminary construction here and in Final Written
`Decision in IPR2017-00353
`•PO only disputes whether Hashimadiscloses 1[a] under
`PO’s rejected construction:
`“X and Y ranges of a square window do not define the target if the x-
`range and y-range include both target and non-target ranges . . .”
`PO Resp. at 61
`
`PO Resp. at 61
`
`43
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[a]
`
`“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”
`Even under PO’s rejected construction, Hashima
`Ex. 1006 (Hashima)
`discloses element 1[a]
`• Only blackpixels of target (black circle with white
`triangle) are included in projection histograms.
`PO’s expert admits white pixels are not counted:
`Q. But you would agree that the projection histograms in Figure 6
`include the black pixels, but they don’t include the white pixels
`in the target; right?
`A. Well, I mean --I mean, let me be more precise. Okay? So if I say
`they’re not included, they are included. It’s just that they don’t
`Ex. 2012 (BovikDep. Tr.) at 119:16-23
`
`contribute to the height of the histogram there.
`
`Ex. 1005 at 50-51; Reply at 23
`
`44
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`'134 Patent. Element 11c]
`
`and maxima of boundaries of the target.
`
`wherein forming the at least one histogram further corn-
`prises determining X minima and maxima andY minima
`
`1[pre]
`1[a]
`1[b]
`1[c]
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`45
`
`45
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[c]
`
`“wherein forming the at least one histogram further comprises
`determining X minima and maxima and Y minima and maxima of
`boundaries of the target.”
`•PO admits that Gilbert discloses 1[c] under the Board’s interpretation
`in the Institution Decision and in the Final Written Decision in
`IPR2017-00353
`IPT’sexpert admits Gilbert discloses “nose and tail points” derived from the
`histogram.Ex. 2012, 112:17-25; Reply at 27.
`•PO only disputes whether Gilbert discloses 1[c] under PO’s rejected
`“Calculations based on the projection histograms happen after those histograms
`are completely formed.”PO Resp. at 58
`
`construction:
`
`46
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[c]
`
`“wherein forming the at least one histogram further comprises
`determining X minima and maxima and Y minima and maxima of
`boundaries of the target.”
`Even under PO’s rejected construction,
`Ex. 1005 (Gilbert)
`Gilbert discloses element 1[c]
`•X/Y min/max are immediately known from the
`Gilbert projection histograms - e.g., “nose” and
`“tail” points
`•Thus, forming the histogram also determines the
`X/Y min/max
`PO’s expert argues using nose and tail points as
`X/Y min/max is subject to noise
`•But claim 1 recites no requirement of noise immunity
`
`Ex. 1005 (Gilbert) at 50-51; Figs. 3, 4; Reply at 26-27
`
`47
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[c]
`
`“wherein forming the at least one histogram further comprises
`determining X minima and maxima and Y minima and maxima of
`boundaries of the target.”
`•PO admits that Gerhardt discloses 1[c] under the Board’s
`interpretation in the Institution Decision here and in Final Written
`Decision in IPR2017-00353
`“Gerhardt instead discloses . . . binarizingthe image and then grouping together
`pixels that are adjacent to each other in the binarizedimage”PO Resp. at 56
`•PO only disputes whether Gerhardt discloses 1[c] under PO’s
`“Gerhardt does not suggest determining target boundaries as part of forming the
`histogram”PO Resp. at 56 (emphasis added)
`
`rejected construction:
`
`48
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[c]
`
`“wherein forming the at least one histogram further comprises
`determining X minima and maxima and Y minima and maxima of
`boundaries of the target.”
`Gerhardt may increase speed by using smaller active
`region for blob definition process:
`• “by limiting examination, and thus blob definition, to only a
`portion of the full pixel image (say, a 320x240 or 220x160 pixel
`subset), system speed can be increased significantly.” Ex. 1013 at
`21:4-7
`That smaller portion that is histogrammed is derived from
`the prior blob centroid
`• “an active image region can be examined that is centered about
`the running average centroid location” Ex. 1013 at 21:9-11
`Thus, the histogram is formed within the X-Y region
`bounding the target, and the min and max are found as
`part of forming the histogram. Pet. at 45-46, 51
`Ex. 1013 (Gerhardt) at 21:1-11; Fig. 10; Petition at 45-46, 51; Reply at 18-19
`
`49
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[c]
`
`“wherein forming the at least one histogram further comprises
`determining X minima and maxima and Y minima and maxima of
`boundaries of the target.”
`•PO admits that Hashima discloses 1[c] under the Board’s
`interpretationin the Institution Decision here and in Final Written
`Decision in IPR2017-00353
`•PO only disputes whether Hashima discloses 1[c] under
`“analysis of the projection histograms takes place after the histogram has been
`formed.” PO Resp. at 60
`
`PO’s rejected construction:
`
`50
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 1[c]
`
`“wherein forming the at least one histogram further comprises
`determining X minima and maxima and Y minima and maxima of
`boundaries of the target.”
`Even under PO’s rejected construction, Hashima
`Ex. 1006 (Hashima)
`discloses element 1[c]
`•X and Y min and max are immediately known from the
`projection histograms as points Xb1, Xb2, Yb1, and Yb2
`•Thus, forming the histogram also determines the X and
`Y min and max
`•Hashima also expressly uses X/Y min/max points to
`calculate the center point (mx, my) of the target:
`mx=(Xb1 +Xb2)/2
`my=(Yb1+Yb2)/2
`Ex. 1006 (Hashima) at 11:13-25
`
`Ex. 1006 (Hashima) at Figs. 6, 10, 15; Reply at 27-28
`
`51
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`•P.O. disputes only that Gilbert, Gerhardt, and Hashimadisclose
`elements 1[a] and 1[c] of the underlying base claim
`•P.O. does notdispute limitations added by claim 3 are disclosed
`by Gilbert, Gerhardt, and Hashima
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`52
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`is found.
`
`4. The process according to claim 1, wherein forming the at
`least one histogram further comprises successively increas-
`ing the size of a selected area until the boundary of the target
`
`53
`
`53
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 4
`
`“The process according toclaim 1, wherein forming the at least one
`histogram further comprises successively increasing the size of a selected
`area until the boundary of the target is found.”
`•Gilbert discloses that the “size, shape, and position of the
`tracking window . . . are computed on the basis of the size
`and shape of the target image . . .” Ex. 1005 at 52.
`•Thus, the tracking window may be increased in size until
`the target boundary is found. Petition at 73-74.
`
`Supp. Reply at 6
`
`54
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 4
`
`“The process according toclaim 1, wherein forming the at least one
`histogram further comprises successively increasing the size of a selected
`area until the boundary of the target is found.”
`•PO argues that Gerhardt’s “active window can only be adjusted over
`several framesuntil the pupil blob is selected and is only disclosed as
`occurring after histogram formation.” Inst. Decision at 16 (citing PO Prelim. Resp.
`at 20)
`•Claim 4 does not require that that the boundaries of the target (“blob
`selection”) be determined duringthe creation of the histogram.
`•Claim 4 does not require that adjustments of the blob boundary
`must complete within a single frame.
`Supp. Reply at 6
`
`55
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 4
`
`“The process according toclaim 1, wherein forming the at least one
`histogram further comprises successively increasing the size of a selected
`area until the boundary of the target is found.”
`•Even under PO’s construction requiring successive increases to take place in
`a single frame, Gerhardt discloses Claim 4.
`•Gerhardt selects darkest 5% histogram pixels and applies region-growing
`technique to determine boundary in a single-pass scan of the frame:
`“As a result of the above region-
`growing method, after the single-
`pass scan each pixel in the eye image
`is assigned to a pixel blob containing
`either all dark or all light pixels”
`Ex. 1013 at 12:32-34; Supp. Reply at 6-7
`
`56
`
`SAMSUNG EX. 1023
`
`
`
`’134 Patent
`Claim 4
`
`“The process according toclaim 1, wherein f
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
