TAND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PAT
`
`Inventor(s}
`
`Patent Chamer
`
`Patrick PIRIM
`
`image Processing Technologies LLC
`
`Reexam. Control No.
`
`:
`
`SO/014,056
`
`Reexam. Filed
`
`December bS, 2017
`
`Confirmation No,
`
`1361
`
`Patent Na.
`
`issue Date
`
`Application No.
`
`App. Filing Date
`
`Tithe
`
`6,959,293
`
`Crctober 25, 2005
`
`09/792,436
`
`Pebreary 23, 2001
`
`METHOD AND DEVICE FOR AUTOMATIC VISUAL
`PERCEPTION
`
`Praminer
`
`Art Unit
`
`Majid Banankhah
`
`3992
`
`Mail Stop £x Parte Reexam
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box. 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`REPLY TO NON-FINALOFFICE ACTION
`
`Dear Examiner:
`
`This Reply to Non-Final Office Action is in response to the Office Action dated March
`
`26, 2018(hereinafter "Office Action”) in connection with the above-referenced reexamination
`
`proceeding. Aone-monthextension to theperiod for response was requested and granted to
`
`make the duc date for this paper June 26, 2018.
`
`‘This paper is organized as follows:
`
`Remarks begin on page 2 ofthis paper.
`
`HAO 19G2$3.2
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0001
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0001
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`1.
`
`Summary of Office Action
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claim| of United States Patent No. 6,959,293 (heremafter “the 293 patent") Is ander
`
`examination in this ex parte reexamination proceeding.
`
`Claim | has been rejectedas follows:
`
`Ground #1:
`
`Claim J has been rejected under 34 U.S.C, § 103{a) as allegedly being
`
`unpatentable over International Patent Publication WO 99/36893,
`
`published July 22, 1009, (hereinafter "Prim PCT"in viewof Siegel,
`
`Howard J. etal. “PASM: A Partitionable SIMD/MIMDSystemfor
`
`image Processing and Pattern Recognition,” TEEE Transactions on
`
`Computers, Vol. C-30, No. [2 (December 1981) thereinafter “Siegel").
`
`Ground $2,
`
`Claim { has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103{a) as allegedly being
`
`unpatentable over Pirim PCT in view of Hirota et al. United States
`
`Patent No. 6,118,895, fled March 5, 1996, issued September 12, 2000,
`
`(hereinafier “Hirota").
`
`Ground 83.
`
`Claim 1 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103fa) as allegedly being
`
`unpatentable over Hirota.
`
`i,
`
`Summary of Patent Owner's Reply
`
`
`
`
`The Examiner’s rejections are respectfully traversed.
`
`HAO 19G2$3.2
`
`to
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0002
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0002
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Tin
`
`Notice of Concurrent Proceedings 37 CER.
`
`
`
`a ae
`Pursnant fo 37 CLPLR. § LS63(a), the Ofte is advised that the "293 patent is or was
`
`invelved in the followingproceedings:
`
`L
`
`is
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`fmage Processing Technalagies,LLC v. Canon inc, et al,, Case No, 10-CV-03867
`{E.DONLY) (Dismissed)
`
`
`Image Processing Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Lid et al. ,
`
`Case No, 2:16-CV-505 (“the Samsunglitigation’) (ED. Tx.) (Pending)
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Lid. ef al v. Image Processing Technologies, LLC,
`PTPR2017-00336 CUPR ES (Concluded; Claim 1 held to be not invalid over Pirim
`PCTin combination with other art (See Ex. 15, IPR2017-G0336, paper 38 (5-9-
`2018) at page 103)!
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Lid. efal v. maze Processing Technologies, LEC,
`IPR2O17-01189 CIPR 2") Cinsutution Denied)
`
`IV.
`
`Yable of Exhibits
`
`Exhithits hereto are listed in the table below:
`
`Description
`
`to Terminate EPR 9V/O14,056
`
`TPR2017-00336 C293 Patent), Paper 38, Final Written Decision
`
`IPR2017-00336(293Patent), Paper 39, Order Denying Request for
`
`Leave toFle Mation to Terminate EPR, 20414056
`
`EPR2017-06336 (293 Patent), Paper 40. Request for Rehearing o
`
`Board's Order(Paper39) Denying Request for Leave to FileMotion
`
`' Patent Owner has asserted. that this ex parte reexamination proceedingshould be terminated in view ofthe resalt in
`this iPR. The PPAR inilally declined to alow Patent Gwnerto brieffthig issue but has subsequently allowed
`
`briefhig on a request for reheari
`The briefing gn Patent Owner's request far rehearing was Med an Jane 20,
`if L
`2018 andig submiited herewith {Exhibits 16-17). Patent Ownerasserts that this ex parte reexamination proceeding
`sheuld be terminated for ihe peasons. set forth therein.
`
`HAO 19G2$3.2
`
`lad
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0003
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0003
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`‘ExhibitNumber|Description=ittiiststi(<‘SéC;O;”*~*~*~*~”O””””OOCS
`
`WoO1PR2017-00336('293Patent),Paper9,DECISIONDenying=
`
`
`
`Institution of Jufer Partes Review 33 USC.
`§ 31l4(a) and 37
`
`Vv. Written Statement Under 37 C.F.R. LS60(b) ~ Interview Summary
`
`Qn May 9, 2018, Patent Chvner's representatives, Michael Shanahan (Ree. No. 43,914)
`
`and Matthew Byme (the undersigned), conducted an interview with the Examiners Banankhah,
`
`Esealanie, and Patel.
`
`Patent Owner and Patent Owner's representatives thankthe Examiners fortheir time and
`
`emurtesies in conducting the Interview.
`
`During the interview, Patent Owner's representatives presented a PowerPoint presentation
`
`and discussed whatis shownin the presentation. A copy of the presentation is attached to the
`
`Examiner's By Parte Reexamimation Interview Summaryandtherefore is nat resubmitted
`
`herewith.
`
`As part of the presentation, the following was discussed:
`
`© Claim lin view of the specification and drawings of the "293 patent, and howthe
`
`clairn should be interpreted;
`
`© That Hirota byitself does not showthe validation signals required by Claim £;
`
`© That the “rotated x-axes" described in Pirim PCT(e.2., at page 37) do not show
`
`two histogram calcuistionunits treating the same parameter, and that the PTAB
`
`decided as much in IPR2017-0336 on the dayofthe Interview:
`
`oe Patent Owner's questions regarding the modifications to Hirota (nat Pirim PCT)
`
`discussed on page 15 of the Office Action;
`
`(R019
`
`4
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0004
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0004
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`&
`
`Patent Owner's question regarding how Pirim PCT would exactly be modified in
`
`viewof Hirota:
`
`© Patent Owner's questions regarding the alleged means-plus-fumction limitations
`
`not being identified in Ground #3; and
`
`eo That Siegel's parallel processing could not be used with Pirim PCT because Pirim
`
`PCTreceives data serially and because the validation signals require two
`
`classifications of the same pixel, nat different pixels.
`
`Daring the interview, the Examiners asked Patent Qwner's representative to pointout
`
`“where in specification it teaches the disclosed embodiment regarding the use of two or more
`
`histogram units processing asingle parameter." (Interview Sunimary, p. 2} In response, Patent
`
`Owner respectfully directs the Examiners to PIGS. 31a and 32 and the corresponding portions of
`
`the specification, including, but not limited to columm 21, lines 43-47 of the ‘293 patent.
`
`No agreement was reached during the interview.
`
`VL
`
`The Interpretation of the Claim Unier 35 U.S.C. 8 112. Paravranh Six
`
`
`
`The Office Action, at pp. 3-8, interprets the following portion (hereinafter "FL AL) of
`%
`claim | as being a means-plus-fimetion limitation under 35 ULS.C. § 112, paragraph six:
`
`at least twe histogram calculation units for the treatmentof
`the at least one paramiter,
`
`the histogramcalculation units being configured to forma
`histogramrepresentative of the parameter as a fimction of a
`validation signal and to determine byclassification a binary
`classification signal resulting from a comparison of the parameter
`
`to the time coincidences bus, and wherein the validation signalis
`produced fromtime coincidences signals from the time
`coincidence bus so that the calculation of the histogram depends on
`the classification signals carried by the time coimecidence bus,
`
`HAO 19G2$3.2
`
`Say
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0005
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0005
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Patent Chyner does not agree with this determinationthat FL #1 should be interpreted
`
`ander 35 U.5,C. § 112, paragraph sis.
`
`VLA. 35 OSC. § 112, Paragraph Six Dees Not and Sheald Not Apply
`
`Claim | has been construed by the PTAB under the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`standard without reference to
`
`§ 112, paragraphsix and there appears to be no dispute that this
`
`plain meaning claim interpretation under a broadest reasonable interpretation (ARD standard is
`
`correct. There is a presumption that ¢ 112, paragraph six does not apply because the claim does
`
`not melude the term "means" or "step." MPEP S$ 2181, eftine Phillips v. ARPCorp., 415 Pad
`
`1303,
`
`1316 Ged. Cir. 2005) Cen dane).
`
`FRA The Examiners Should Constrne the Claim 1 Without Resert to
`$112, Paragraph Six Consistent with the PTAB's Interpretation of
`the Claim in Twe Prior Patent Office Proceedings
`
`Patent Owner respectiully requests that the Examiners consider the Office's inlerpretation
`
`of claim {as set forth in IPRTand IPR Handconstrue claim | consistently with the Office's
`
`prior claimconstruction, without resort to § 112, paragraph six. IPR proceedings are akin to a
`
`reexamination of the patent and are part of the prosecution record of thepatent in construing the
`
`patent's claims. See 4vlus Neaworks, jac. x. dpple dne., 856 F.3d 1383, 1360 (Fed. Cyr. 2017)
`
`{holding that statements made during an IPR are properly considered and relied upon in later
`
`claim construction). The PTAB Cand its predecessor the BPATDhas repeatedly admonished that,
`
`although itis permissible to change positions if warranted bythe evidence.as. prosecution
`
`progresses, “ideally the Examiner's position would remain consistent throughout prosecution.”
`
`Ex Parte Dresster, et ai.,Appeal Na. 2012-0L1087, 2013 WL 996274, at *S CPUTL_A.B. Mar. 3,
`
`2015). There is no evidentiary reason to stray from the repeated prior BRI plain meaning
`
`interpretations of claim 1.
`
`(ROTI2S302
`
`6
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0006
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0006
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Notably, although Claim | has been at issue in two inter partes review proceedings and
`
`two district court Itigations, in ne case has the PTLAB ordistrict court judge, interpreted the
`
`claimander 39 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph sis, nor has such interpretation been sought by the
`
`Patent Owner, or the Petitioner
`
`In fact, in both IPR Land IPR [in whichthe term"atleast pwo histogram caleulation
`
`units for the treatment of the al least one parameter" was construed, the PTAB chosenotte
`
`construe this term under 35 U.S.C, § 112, paragraph six. (bx, ES at 13~14; Ex. 18 at 9, 13~14).
`
`And, in both IPR Land IPR I], the Petitioner Gvhois the Requester inthis reexamination
`
`proceeding) did not present a constructionof “at least nvo histogramcalculation units for the
`
`treatment of the at least one parameter" under 35 ULS.C..§ 112, paragraph six, which was
`
`requiredto do if appropriate" Additionally, in the Samsung Hligation (in which Requester and
`
`Patent Owner are parties}, the parties did not seck to have the Court construe "at least two
`
`histogram calculation units for the treatment ofthe at least ane parameter" under 39 LOS.C. §
`
`112. paragraph six, and the Court's "Memorandum Opinion and Order" dated June 21, 2017 daes
`
`not constrae this term under 35 U.S.C. § 112. paragraph six. See generally, Ex. 1] (ne
`
`constraction of this term). Finally, even in the Request for Ex Parte Reexamination im the
`
`present proceeding, the Petitioner chose not to propose a construction of this term under
`
`35 US.C, $112, paragraph six.
`
`VELA itis Presumed That 35 S.C, § 142, Paragraph Six Does Net Apply
`to Claim 1, and This Presumption is Unrebutted
`
`fhis presumed that § 112, paragraphsix does net apply to claim 1. As noted inMPEP
`
`§ 2181, a claim element that. does not include the term “means” or "step" niggers arebuttable
`
`747 CER. § 82.108(3) requires the Peiitionerja an deter Purtes Review to “identify the specific portions ofthe
`specification that describe the structure, material, oracts corresponding to.each claimed finction" “[w]here the clatn
`io be conatrued contains acadans-plis-hinction or aiep-plhs-finction Himitation.”
`
`(HOTISIIL
`
`7
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0007
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0007
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`presumptionthat 35 ULS.C. § 112, paragraph six dees not apply. Claim1 does not include these
`
`terms. Patent Owner respectidly subnuts that this presumption has not been overcome, The
`
`Oiice Action asserts that “histogram calculation anil” a nonce word. However, as mdicated by
`
`MPEP2181, “the fact that a particular mechanism. ..is defined in functional terms is not
`
`sufficient to convert a claim element containing that term inte a ‘means for performing 3
`
`specified function’ " within the meaning of Paragraph 6. MPEP § 2181; See alse Zeroctick, LLC
`
`v Apple inc. 891 b.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Farther, § 172, paragraph six should not apply
`
`because hoth the term "histogram calculation anit" in the context ofthe specification, andclaim
`
`i as awhole, contain suificient structure.
`
`The term “histagram calculation unit", in the context ofthe specifieation, discloses
`
`suiicient structure such that § 112, paragraph six does not apply. Asnoted byMPEP § 2181,
`
`“paragraph 6 will not apply if persons of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification
`
`understandthe term to have a sufficiently definiie meaning as the name for the structure that
`
`performs the fimetion, even when the term covers a broad class of structures or identifies the
`
`structures by their function.” For example, the term “computing unit,” when “read in light ofthe
`
`specification connoted safficient, definite structure to one of skiflin the art to precinde
`
`application” of Paragraph 6. MPEP § 218], ening faventio AG yv TAysxenkrupn Elevator Amers.
`
`Corp, 649 F3d 1350, 1389-60 (red, Cir, 2011) Cholding the term “computing unit” cannoted
`
`suificiently definite structure based on the connections between the unit and other components in
`
`the claimitself and based onthe specification description of the term). Sunilarly, the term
`
`“histogram calculation unit," wher read in hieht of the spectlication, connotates sufficient,
`
`definite structure. Although the claimis net necessarily limited to: particular embodiment, the
`
`patent specification extensively describes “histogramcalculation unit” (Element 1).
`
`(GOLG2S343
`
`8
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0008
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0008
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Claim | also, consistent with the specification description, includes sufficient structure
`
`such that $112, paragraph six clearly does not apply. As noted by MPEP § 2181, the Federal
`
`Circuit has held that terms that mclude a function such as “eyeglass hanger momber" and
`
`“eyeglass contacting member” are nat subject to § 112, paragraph six where the “claims
`
`themselves contain sufficient structural limitations for performing these finetions. MPEP §
`
`2181, citing dbSte Corp. vy. RAY fne’l, dac., 174 F.3d 1308, 1317-19 (Ped. Cir, 1999)(claim
`
`recital of structure, “an attaching portionattachable to a portion of said frame ofsaid pair of
`
`eyeglasses to enable the temples of the frame [to be opened and clased]" precluded application of
`
`§ 112, paragraph six). Claim | recites a visual perception processor that comprises, amongother
`
`things. a “data bus" that carries a digital signal for a parameter and a “time coincidences bus.”
`
`Each histogram calculation unit determines “a binary classification signal” that is sent to the
`
`“time coincidences bus,” and a validation signal is produced from the "time comcidence signals”
`
`from the time coincidences bus, so that the calculation of the histegram depends on the
`
`classification signals.
`
`As additional evidence ofthe structure recited bythe claim, dependent claim 2recites
`
`“several histogram calenlation units organized into a matrix, wherein each ofthe calculation
`
`units is connected to the data bus and to the time cemeidences bus.” See Figure 32 of the '293
`oe
`patent and relateddisclosures ofthespecification, which are discussedin the next section.
`
`VIAS.
`
`The Allesed Means-Plas-Function Construction Clearly Omits
`Structurefor the Claimed Function
`
`While Patent Ownerstrongly asserts that a § 112, paragraph six construction as set forth
`
`in the Office Action is improper, Patent Owner alse notes that the means-plus-lanction claim
`
`construction onnits significant portions of the structure described in the specification and
`
`drawings for performing the claimed function. Por example, memory 100 (shown in FIG. 3) is
`
`(GOL9OISIe2
`
`9
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0009
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0009
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`not mentioned in the constriction. Likewise, test unit 103 and analysis output register 104, while
`
`used in some embodiments, are not used in all for the functions claimed in claim 1]. Ailsa,
`
`portions of the specification identified with the headings the following headings recite structure
`
`that has not been identified: VIEL Selfadaptation (col. 11, Hines 9-53); A. First Embodiment of
`
`Classifier (col, 11, Ime 54 through col. 12, Hne 14): B. Secend Embodiment of Classifier(eol.
`
`12, Hnes 15-42); and C. Third Embodiment of Classifier (col 12, line 43 through col. 13, line
`
`36), Patent Owner notes that this list is not exhaustive.
`
`PLS. Eves Under a 35 OSC § 1i2, Paragraph Sis Claim Ceastruction, Patent
`Quwner's Argument Remains the Same and Withdrawal ofthe Rejections is
`Respectfully Requested
`
`Although Patent Owner disagrees with the assertion that a 35 USC. § 112, paragraph six
`
`claimconstruction should apply, Patent Qwner notes that claim | is patentable over the
`
`references cited Grounds #1—3 under both a 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph six claim construction as
`
`well as a broadest reasonable interpretation claim construction. Therefore, Patent Owner
`
`respectfully requests withdrawal ofthe rejections even if the construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`
`paragraph six is net withdrawn,
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner respectfully requests thai claim | be interpreted as not
`“oY
`inchiding any mean-plus-fonetion limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph six.
`
`Vil. Claim 1
`
`Claim | requires:
`
`atleast two histogram calculation units for the treatment of
`[LDP
`the al least one parameter,
`
`fIE.L] the histogram calculation units being configured
`
`[L&.2} to form a histogramrepresentative of the parameter as a
`function of a validation. signal
`
`(GOL9OISIe2
`
`16
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0010
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0010
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`FIFA] and to determine by classification a binaryclassification
`signal resultmg froma cornparison of the parameter and a selection
`criterion C,
`
`{i P.2] wherein the classificationsignal is sent to the time
`coincidences bus, and
`
`[1P.3] wherem the validation signal is produced from time
`comcidences signals from the time coincidence bus sa that the
`calonlathon of the histogram depends on the classification signals
`carried by the time coincidence bus.
`
`FILA, Claim Interpretation
`
`AS canbe seen in portion [IP3) of tis claim quotation, the claimrecites: “wherein the
`
`validation signal is produced fromtime coincidences signals from the time coincidence bus so
`
`that the calculation of the histogram depends onthe classificationsignals carried by the time
`
`coincidence bus” (emphasis added). For "the classification signals” fromthis portion ofthe
`
`clam to have an antecedent basis, portion [1E.1] reciting "the histogramcaloulation units being
`
`configured" must be interpreted to mean "the histogram calculation wits each being configured"
`
`so that each histogram caloulation unit is configured to determine “a binary classification signal”
`
`in portion {1TF.1]. Otherwise, there would be no antecedent basis for the term “the classification
`
`signals” recited in [TFS]. Such an interpretation is consistent with the specification and
`
`drawings.
`
`portion [TE.1] of the claim was interpreted fo mean “the histogram calculation units
`
`collectively beme configured,” only a single histogram would be formed by portion [TE.2],
`
`which would be inconsistent with the specification and drawings and which wouldnot give
`
`eHect to the claim language “the histogram depends on the classification signals” (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`(HOTISIIL
`
`tl
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0011
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0011
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`MiLB. Overview of Claint Quotation
`
`To aid inunderstanding the portions of the claim quoted above, a series of Ulustrations is
`
`provided and discussed below. While this is intended to aid mn understanding the claim
`
`language, if is not intended to be Hmiting on the scope of the claim.
`
`Portion {LE} of Claim | recites "at least two histogramcalculation units for the treatment
`
`afthe at least one parameter, the histogram calculation units bemg conligured to form a
`
`histogram representative of the parameter as a fanction of a validation signal." As has been
`
`coustrred bythe Patent Trials and Appeals Board GSee, eg, Bx. 15, pp. 13~-14), this limitation
`
`requires that the at least two histogram calculation units are configured to each form a histogram
`
`representative of at least one comunon parameter.
`
`FIG, 32 from the “293 patent, copied below, shows an architecture m which two HCUs
`
`can be configured to cach form a histogram representative of at least one common parameter.
`
`(Ex. 15, pp. 13-14).
`
`(HOTISIIL
`
`12
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0012
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0012
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`=. neemire8Snip
`
`i.
`
`f{{
`
`VAAAEetbat9te
`
`Ln
`
`boenema990
`
`_
`
`As discussed in the '293 patentat eclumn21, lines 39-30:
`
`FIG, 32 represents a complete devies vxSmnpriSIE for
`exemplification purposes, a act of SiRTOEHsuch pebyvalent
`histogram caleulation xUITHES. These wis Tye constite & materx, and
`are comnected ta abase510 on which the parameters DLV, 8, TLL,
`
`ple (pt pd pa... pid in one
`:
`>
`slopes of reference axes), The bus LET carries ihe
`time coincidences infrmation.
`In dus embodiment, contre!
`wut S93 provides overall control and determines which of the
`parameters L, TOS. YD, ph, pl, ..., pS are in be processed at a
`ef
`
`giventime by one or several dedicated polyvalent hisiogram
`unit(s} and bythe sequencer ¥.
`
`For example, parameter data is available via bus 310 to the polyvalent histogram units tn
`
`the matrix. For example, units 1200 and laQ! could be configured (see FIG. 31a copied below)
`
`to bath treat the same parameter (e.g., color}, which would enable the matrix of FIG. 32 te
`
`13
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0013
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0013
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`evahiate the data for that parameter in real-time from two different perspectives, for example,
`
`two different mages of color for bwo different but simultaneously formed histograms of color.
`
`FIG. 310
`aCeCes eranRARAHEnhrenenaetiamNRdeA RERENCERAR
`
`2
`
`
` 1504
`Sipab RepealeRRnra
`
`
`An example of two HCUs treating the same parameter can be mure simplyrepresented by
`
`the following figure (based on FIG. 3 of the "293 patent) m which two HCUs CHCUy and HCUs}
`
`are shownside-by-side and connected to the same parameter (DATA(A)) and a bas 211.
`
`
`
` parameter parameter
`
`In accordance with portion [1.1], the figure belowdlustrates a first binaryclassification
`
`signal (Ci) being "determined by classification” by the fast histogram calculation unit (ACU)
`
`HAOLISISI
`
`14
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0014
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0014
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`“Hrom a comparison of the parameter anda selection criterion C" and a second binary
`
`classification signal (C2) being “determined byclassification” by the second histogram
`
`calculation unt (HCU)) “froma comparison of the parameter and a selection crilerion C,"
`
`NCU,
`
`|
`
`rte
`
`44
`As
`oH
`
`
`
`; V
`
`ASAT: ae
`
`
`paeenn,meeas8
`a0
`ARIE haa2
` bevccrered
`i “
`cs
`
` oe wets
`
`
`
`parameter
`
`parameter
`C,
`
`
`Portion [UE.2) of the claim quotation above requires that cach histogram calculation unit
`
`(HCL) forms a histogramrepresentative ofthe parameter.as a function ofa validation signal,
`
`Thus, in accordance with portion [1[E.2], the figure belowtlustrates a first HCU (ACU) forming
`
`a firat histogram(H)) representative ofthe parameter (e.g. DATA(CA)) as a function ofa first
`
`validation signal (Vy). Likewise, the figure also ilnstrates a second HCU (HCUs) forminga
`
`second histogram (Ho) representativeof theparameter (e.¢.,DATA(A)) as a function ala second
`
`validation signal (V2).
`
`(HOTISIIL
`
`1s
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0015
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0015
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`
` 3
`i
`2
`
`revenge
`A
`‘st
`BET med
`ge php
`
`i
`NEM
`
`wer
`i MEMORY
`eeARTERR ya
`
`
`STyyened Lf
`
`.
`
`parameter
`
`
`
`Portion [LPS] of the claim quotationabove requires that each validation signal is
`
`produced “so that the calculation of [the corresponding] histogram depends on the classification
`
`signals." Thus, the first validation signal (Vi) 1s produced so that the calculation of Hirst
`
`histogram Cy) depends onthe first binary classification signal (Cy) and the second binary
`
`classificationsignal (C2), and the second validation signal (V2) is produced so that the
`
`calculation ofsecond histogram (fy) depends onthe first binaryclassificationsignal (Cy) and the
`
`second binary classification signal (Ca). This is illustrated in the drawing below. As shawn, the
`
`first classification signal Cy is provided to unit 102 in each HCUvia bus [11], and the second
`
`classification signal Cs is also provided tounil 102 in each HOU via bus PET) Unit 102 inthe
`
`left HCV produces V) and unit 102 in the right HCU produces V3.
`
`(HOTISIIL
`
`16
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0016
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0016
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s
`\
`g
`‘
`\
`Xe
`a~
`
`“
`
`\3
`:
`3
`y
`|
`wg
`iy
`yf
`:
`3
`;
`;
`
`:3
`
`3
`
`
`
`parameter
`
`€, parameter
`
`Therefore, in this example, the claim requires that the histogram formation for cach of the
`
`chamed histogram calealation units depends on the same two classification signals. Each
`
`validation signal is produced so that the caleulation ofthe histogramby the corresponding
`
`histogramcaloulation unit “depends on the classification signals." Not only does the claim
`
`language require this, but as illustrated by the example above, this is howthe invention is taught
`
`in the specilication.
`
`As the 293 patentteaches, using the same set ofclassification signals for each of two
`
`histogram caleulation units G1CUs) is important because this is what allows the classification
`
`results from the two units to be taken Imto account at the time that data associated with each pixel
`
`is being evaluated for addition to the two histograms. As a simple example, given two HCUs
`
`that each look at 24-bH color values (e.g., 8 mast significant bits being for the coalor's red
`
`component, ¥ least significant bits heing for the color’ blue component, and-& bits uy the middie
`
`bits being for the colar'’s green component), the invention could alawlor one histogram to be
`
`caleulaied on pixels having a strong red component (e.¢., the red bits corresponding to a number
`
`higher than. 128) and a weak ereen component (e.g, the green bits corresponding to a number
`
`lawer than 128), and another histagram fo be calculated on pixels having a. strangred component
`
`(HOTISIIL
`
`]
`
`vmod
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0017
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`2
`
`.:
`
`MS
`;
`Nt
`y
`ae’
`a
`~
`-
`, Les.
`oo
`:
`3
`$
`SATS
`i
`OUT panes
`es
`RUE
`3
`STa
`ys
`;
`3
`ayn
`f
`sengesgey
`i
`i
`i
`'
`ae
`i MENGE |
`ae
`ooREE EWR
`i
`i
`etE
`,
`‘ engantnpeSREon
`3
`:
`PONog
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0017
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`and a strong green
`
`component (e.g.,
`
`the green bits corresponding to a number higher than 128).
`
`This would allowa simultancons evaluation af the data from two different perspectives, which is
`
`an imovative approach that, im the context of image processing would enable completion of an
`
`analysis in fewer computational steps. (See Declaration Under 37 CPLR. 1.132 filed
`
`concurrently herewith, paragraph 14).
`
`VOL The Rejections Under 34 U.S.C. § 103¢
`
`
`
`RHLA. Ground #1
`
`Claim1 bas been rejected as allegedly being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103{3) over
`
`PiriPCT in view afSiegel,
`
`VHLAT. Overview afthe Rejectian
`
`Claim | recites “at least two histogram calculation units for the treatment of the at least
`
`one parameter, the histogramcalculation units being configured to form. a histogram
`
`representative of the parameter as a fimetion ofa validation signal.” As has been construed by
`
`the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (See, e.g, EX. 1S at 13-14) this limitation requires that the
`
`at least two histogram caloulation units are configured to each forma histogram representative of
`
`at least one common parameter,
`
`4,
`The Office Action asserts. that "Siegel teaches achieving ‘real-time’ processing of an
`
`image by using multiple identical processors (called 'PEs') in parallel to each process and form a
`
`histogram of the same parameter. See Siegel at 934, Abs, and 044, LL. calummn” and that “it
`
`would have been obvious for a person ofordinary skill in the art ("POSTTA") to combine real
`
`(HOTISIIL
`
`]
`
`KS
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0018
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0018
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`time image processing of Pirim PCT with image processing using nrultiple identical processors
`
`ofSiegel for the benefit of increasing the processing speed.” (Office Action, p. 1D
`
`PHILA. Patent Owner's Interpretation ofthe Rejection
`
`Patent Cwwner interprets the rejection in Ground #1 of the Office Action as merelyrelying
`
`on Siegel forits alleged disclosure of using multiple identical processors in parallel to each
`
`pracess and form.a histogram of ihe same parameter, and not relying on Siegel lor anyofits
`
`hardware, Thisis consistent with the following statements from the Office Actions’
`
`e
`
`“ Tiowould have been obvious ... to combine real time image processing of Pirim
`
`&ee
`PCTwith image processing using multiple identical processors of Siegel ... For
`
`example, aPOSTTAwould consider it obvious to add an additional element 288
`
`
`
`
`
`adjacent and similar to element 28 in Fieure 12 In Pirin PCT.” (Office Action, p.
`
`12: emphasis added), (As can been seen here, the example of “image processing
`
`using multiple identical processors of Siegel” describes replicating a histogram
`
`formation unit of Pirim PCT, not actually using multiple processors of Siegel.)
`
`e
`
`“The combination simply requires combining prior art clements (the histogrant
`
`unit system of Pirim PCT with Siegel's idea of using two histogram units fo treat
`
`the same parameter)." (Office Action, p. 12) emphasis added) CAs can be seen
`
`here, the word "idea" appearsto indicate that Siegel is not being relied uponto
`
`shawits processars being used in Pirim: PCT, but simplythat Siegel is being
`
`2th rejecting claim 1, the Offine Actionaiscuasserts that “Pirkr PCT .. discloses that in some configerations,
`
`parameters, such as the xposition ofa pe may be processed by multiplehistogramanits simultaneously See
`however, Pirin: PCYdees nat disclase or"suggest at least feo histogramcalcu!lation nits that treai the same
`
`Poin PCT at 37." (fice Action, p11}. Ashas been determined by the Patent Trials and Appeals Board,
`
`US ab 4e-483. Thus, Pirin POT dass not
`parameter, Rather, Pirim PCT describes treating different paranieters,
`
`showthis limitation ofthe claim. Based on the Interviewandthe Interview Summary, Jf is believed that the
`Esadner agress wih this point, but this. point is being made here for the sake af completeness.
`* To the extent that this interpretation is incorrect, Patent Owner respectfully requests clarification on exactly what
`aspect of Siegel is beingbed upon connection willy any Mhture rejection(s) ofthe olainw baaed un Siegel.
`
`(GOL9OISIe2
`
`19
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0019
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2006, p. 0019
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`relied upon for the idea of using multiple processors to look at the same
`
`parameter}
`
`PHILA. There is Ne Reason to Combine Pirin PCT and Siegel
`
`As set forth in detail below, the proposed combination of Pirim PCTand Siegelis
`
`improper because a POSITA world not have been motivated to modily PinimPCTin viewof
`
`Hirota for the purpese of increasing the speed of Pirim PCT,
`
`PHULA3.a. There Must Be Same Mativation to
`Combine References Under 35 ULS0C08 103
`
`As articulated by the PTAB in connection withthe '293 patent, "abviousness cancerns
`
`whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been mativatedto make
`
`the combinations er modifications of prier art te arrive at the clanmed invention.”
`
`
`
`IPR2G17-O1189 p 16, re. ‘293 patent (internal quotation marks omitted: emphasis added).
`
`Example 3 in subsection 1A. of MPEP § 2143 is a good example ofthere being a need
`
`for a motivation. In that example, while all of the elements ofthe claimedinvention were
`
`present in the prior art and the proposed combination would wark, the District Court and the
`
`Federal Circuit foundthat there was simply no reason why a POSITA would have made the
`
`combination of references proposed, Because ofthis, the courts found the invention te be
`
`patentable over the priorart.
`
`Thus, for the rejection of claim | under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Pr