www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`90/014,056
`
`12/15/2017
`
`6959293
`
`0716030.121-US2
`
`1361
`
`Byrne Poh LLP / IPT
`ll Broadway
`Suite 760
`New York, NY 10008
`
`BANANKHAH, MAJID A
`
`3992
`
`02/12/2019
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0001
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0001
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`Commissionerfor Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
` MARC PENSABENE
`O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`7 TIMES SQUARE
`NEW YORK, NY 10036
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/014,056.
`
`PATENT UNDER REEXAMINATION 6959293 .
`
`ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the aboveidentified exparte reexamination proceeding (87 CFR 1.550(f)).
`
`Wherethis copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the timefor filing a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the evparfe reexamination requester will be
`acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).
`
`PTOL-465 (Rev.07-04)
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0002
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0002
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`Commissionerfor Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Application Number: 90/014,056
`Filing Date: 12/15/2017
`Appellant(s): 6,959,293
`
`Michael E. Shanahan
`For Appellant
`
`EXAMINER’S ANSWER
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0003
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0003
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`(1) Introduction
`
`Page 3
`
`This is in response to the appealbrief filed January 07, 2019 appealing from the
`
`Final Action mailed September 07, 2018.
`
`Every ground of rejection set forth in the final Office action from which the appeal
`
`is taken is being maintained. The Examiner incorporates by reference the rejection of
`
`original claim 1 of the U.S. Patent 6,959,293 (“the ‘293 patent”). The following is the
`
`summary of the grounds ofrejection raised in the final Office action:
`
`A. Summary of Proposed Rejection of Claim 1
`
`In the final Office action the following grounds of rejection are applicable against
`
`claims 1, of the ‘293 patent.
`
`Ground #1. Claim1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being Obvious over
`Pirim PCT" in view of Siegel 2.
`
`Ground #2. Claim1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being Obvious over
`Pirim PCTin view of Hirota’.
`
`(2) Response to Arguments
`
`Examiner adopts the Patent Owner’s (“the PO”) organization of the arguments.
`
`(A) Overview of the ‘293 Patent (Remarks at 9-10)
`
`The PO states that “[T]he ‘293 patent specifically describes the use of multiple
`
`histogram calculation units that process same parameter(s): “the choice of the
`
`parameter processed by each histogram calculation unit, the content of the analysis
`
`output register 104 and the function fog* are determined by the A.P.1.5” (the ‘293 patent
`
`1 International Patent Publication WO 99/36893 (“Prim PCT”)
`2 Siegel, Howard J., el al., “PASM: A Partitionable SIMD/MIMD System for Image Processing and Pattern
`Recognition,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, Vol. C-30, No. 12 (December 1981) (“Siegel”)
`3U.S. Patent No. 6,118,895 (“Hirota”)
`4 Function to process parameters DATA(a), DATA(B),
`
`... described at 20:48-54 in conjunction with Figure
`
`5 Application program interface (A.P.I.)
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0004
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0004
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`
`20:54-57).” (Remarks at 9) Examiner respectfully disagrees with the PO’s interpretation
`
`of the cited portions. First, the specification uses “parameter” and “DATA”
`
`interchangeably. See foe example, the specification states:
`
`“The parameter, for example DATA(A) for the unit 1A, is compared to the content
`of the register 101r of the classifier 101.” [Emphasis added]
`
`‘293 patent at 10:47-49
`
`As another example the specification states:
`
`“For example, ...the incrementation by one unit of the content of the register of
`the memory 100 corresponding to the value of the parameter DATA(A),
`simultaneously the test unit 103 ensures ...
`into the analysis output register 104”
`
`The portion at 20:48-57 states that each parameter or DATA (7)is in fact,
`
`processed by one Histogram Calculation Unit (“the HCU”). The cited portion specifically
`
`states that HCU 1a, 18, ...,1£, processes one of the DATA(A),DATA(B), ..., DATA(E) by
`
`the corresponding function (fog)a... individually an output value (1015)a. Additionally
`
`Figure 30 indicate that the parameters DATA(A), DATA(B),
`
`... DATA(E) are input to their
`
`associated units 1A, 1B, ...,1E. Having that in mind, it is clear that the statement recited
`
`abovethat “[T]he parameter DATA(A)for unit 1A” (/d., at 10:47-49), specifically indicate
`
`that one parameter is processed by one HCU, and not by multiple HCUs. Accordingly,
`
`the PO erred by stating that portions cited at 20:48-57 indicate the use of multiple HCUs
`
`that process same parameter(s).
`
`The POfurther states that “[i]n at least one embodiment, the ‘293 patent explains
`
`that “control unit 513 provides overall control and determines which of the parametersF,
`
`T, S, V, D, pO, pi, ..., pI5 are to be processed at a given time by one or several
`
`dedicated polyvalent histogram unit(s).” Ex. 1001 at 21:42-47; FIG. 32 (figure below).
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0005
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0005
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`me AhATERICSSONER,GRaRSTORNANEINGRNRRSTN
`=
`.
`.
`x
`s
`$
`.
`gistenerriecennnnrpent
`:
`:
`“Reeagenseennipaancingg
`=
`g
`:
`i
`$
`$
`
`
`
`&
`
`geaneyptoreterrennrnrertty,
`
`SAARRNA
`X
`ge as
`Fo
`Ss
`conteneS
`:
`ARIE 3 RS
`3
`s
`s
`
`
`2OMerereLes,SE
`
` bbppinenererennneroggrragerererdrerrernrngeneiggrenii
`
`
` APLAEERSAERAAEEPELEOLELPEALESEAATIALLEE
`
`peirannnnnrerncitentecerocernereeteieteties
`
`
`
`AAPALLSLLDASAPALSDADSALLSLEAL
`
`
`
`
`SAEIEPp
`
`ewe
`oO. &
`Ba
`; ¥
`ee
`<aSa
`aot
`Ay
`x
`
`
`. tt.AXENISYEEAAEN
`Saenesnannk,
`AAONON SSN
`Soa
`
`
`%Zz
`
`ee
`
`
`
`.
`
`ti
`
`:z
`RURAANSSEmE
`Eg
`:
`Ss
`=
`s
`3
`SSEEE 3
`é
`=
`PRAAngannnnians
`seORRNNR
`z
`eg.
`eee
`=
`‘
`:
`
`
`&
`MO
`ai : a
`beens
`
`
`.
`2
`ee
`PRE See
`:
`¥
`2
`aan
`ARaAAAOUDGOLESIOC
`
`é
`ss
`Roar
`=
`Reves
`
`
`—
`Rak
`
`3
`
`.
`
`Examiner respectfully disagrees with the PO’s interpretation. The portion cited
`
`does notclearly states that “which one” of the parameter is to be processed at a given
`
`time by one or several dedicated polyvalent histogram unit(s), rather generally states
`
`that parameters are processed by the HCUs depending on the number of parameters;
`
`same numbers of HCUs are employed. Control unit determines which parameter is
`
`assigned to which HCU, but does not say that control unit assign one parameter to be
`
`processed by two HCUs.
`
`Claim Construction (Remarks at 10-21)
`
`(B.1) 35 USC 112 Paragraph Six does not and Should Not Apply (Remarks at 10-17)
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0006
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0006
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`(B.1.(i)) The Examiner Erred in Adopting a § 112 (6) construction for Claim 1
`
`(Remarks at 10-13)
`
`The PO contendsthat 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph six does not and should not
`
`apply and that the Examiner erred in adopting a § 112(6) construction for claim 1. The
`
`PO requesting the Board consider and adoptits previous claim construction of claim 1
`
`of the ‘293 as set forth in IPR | and IPR II®. The PO arguesthat “[T]he IPR decisions did
`
`not find that construction under § 112, paragraph six was required or appropriate for any
`
`claim term, nor did the parties to the IPR or in this reexamination proceeding request
`
`the adoption of a § 112 (6) construction.” Arguing that the Examiners’ § 112 (6)
`
`interpretation is inconsistent with the Board’s and Courts’ construction, and is
`
`unnecessary to the Examiners’ decision. (Remarks at 11) The POfurther arguesthat,
`
`there is no reason in the present case to stray from the prior interpretation of claim 1,
`
`which did not impose § 112 (6). The patentee argues that in both IPRI and IPR Il,
`
`neither the PTAB nor the requester did not present a construction of “at least two
`
`histogram calculation units for the treatment of the at least one parameter” (Remarksat
`
`12).
`
`The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the PO’s argument for several reasons.
`
`First, as notedin final Office action, MPEP states that; “Applicant may usefunctional
`
`language, alternative expressions, negative limitations, or any style of expression or
`
`format of claim which makes clear the boundaries of the subject matter for which
`
`protection is sought.” (See, MPEP, 2173.01, “Interpreting the Claims”) MPEP also
`
`states that:
`
`6 See IPR2017-01189, Institution Decision Paper 9 at pages 9-10 and IPR2017-00336 Final Written
`Decision, Paper38 at pages 10-27
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0007
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0007
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`
`“As part of the claim interpretation analysis, examiners should determine whether
`eachlimitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`paragraph or not. If the claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the claim limitation must "be construed to cover the
`corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and
`equivalents thereof." 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`paragraph; see also In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845,
`1849 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc)” Id., 2173.01(II.)
`
`(See MPEP, 2173.01 (II.))
`
`Accordingly, the Examiner must construe the claim to cover the corresponding
`
`structure in the specification. In the presentsituation, the PO have usedfunctional
`
`language in claim 1, claiming, “the histogram calculation units being configured to form
`
`a histogram representative of the parameter as a function of ... and selection criterion
`
`C, wherein the ...time coincident bus, and wherein ... the time coincident bus,” that
`
`according to the analysis in the final Office action, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). See for
`
`example the final Office action at pages 5-6, describing that the phrase “histogram
`
`calculation unit configure to ...” satisfied the three prongs (A), (B), and (C) analysis, and
`
`that invokes 112 (6) paragraph. Based on the analysis, the corresponding structure is
`
`also identified at pages 7-8 of the final Office action.
`
`The PO arguesthat the Examiners have provided no compelling rationale as to
`
`why their newly adopted, unrequested, and unnecessary means-plus-function analysis
`
`should supersede the PTAB’s previous two analyses and the USPTO’s original
`
`prosecution, and ignore the significant procedural history of this case. Arguing that
`
`generally speaking, the PTAB’s prior claim construction ruling on the same claim terms
`
`is binding on the PTO. The POfurther arguesthat neither in the pending Samsung
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0008
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0008
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`litigation nor the present reexamination, the requesters propose a construction of this
`
`term under 35 USC §112, paragraph six. (Remarks at 12-13)
`
`Examiner respectfully disagrees with the PO’s argument. As stated earlier when
`
`an element in a claim expressed as a means plus function (or a placeholder in the
`
`present situation) without the recital of structure, such claim shall be construed to cover
`
`structure, material or acts described in the specification. If the specification defines what
`
`is meant by the limitation for the purposes of the claimed invention, the examiner should
`
`interpret the limitation as having that meaning. If no definition is provided, some
`
`judgment mustbe exercised in determining the scope of the limitation. See, e.g., B.
`
`Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1900
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1997) (See MPEP, 2182)
`
`With respect to the question of previous claim construction by the PTAB, the
`
`PTABstated that “[A]ccording to the ‘293 patent, each polyvalent histogram
`
`calculation unit can be timeshared among different parameters during each
`
`frame, and_can calculate histograms and associated statistics for two or more
`
`parameters, Id. at 21:18-36. Control unit 513 determines which of the parameters are
`
`to be processed at a given time by one or several dedicated polyvalent histogram
`
`calculation units. /d. at 21:42-47” (Emphasis added) The PTABfurther stated the
`
`following:
`
`“In light of the Specification and the language of claim 1, we agree with
`Patent Owner, and adoptits proposed claim construction. In sum, we interpret
`the claim element “the [at least two] histogram calculation units being configured
`to form a histogram representative of the parameter” as ‘the at least two
`histogram calculation units being configured to each form a histogram
`representative of at least one common parameter (See, e.g., IPR2017-00336,
`Final Written Decision, pp. 13-14) (Emphasis added)
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0009
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0009
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`As understood, the PTAB agreed with the PO becausetheyrelied on the portion
`
`addressed by the PO, indicating that each histogram calculation unit (“HCU”) can be
`
`time shared among different parameters during each frame. For example, in Fig 32,
`
`units 1a00 and 1a01 could be configured (see FIG, 31a) to both time share the same
`
`parameter (e.g., DATA (A), in order to reduce the required number of histogram
`
`calculation units. In other words since both units 1a00 and 1a01 are processing the
`
`parameters (e.g., DATA(A), or DATA(B)) simultaneously, number of HCU’s are
`
`reduced’. In other words, each HCU is working on part of DATA(A) and not the whole
`
`The POQ’s interpretation is against the PTAB’s decision because, their conclusion
`
`was basedon specification at 21:18-36[in light of the specification] that HCU’s could be
`
`time shared among different parameters. The PO’s interpretation, which is not
`
`related to the PTAB’s decision. The portions cited by the PTABis related to the notion
`
`that each HCU can time shared among different parameters like L, T, S, V, D , or p0,
`
`p1,
`
`... p15.
`
`Even the portion pointed out by the PTABin the IPR, i.e., “[C]Jontrol unit 513
`
`determines which of the parameters are to be processed at a given time by one or
`
`several dedicated polyvalent histogram calculation units,” (See, ‘293 patent at, 21:42-
`
`47) does not means that each of the two HCU being configured to each forma a
`
`histogram representative of at least one common parameter separately and without
`
`T See the section addressed by the PTABat 21:18-29, that states, “In one embodiment, a histogram calculation unit
`is time-shared among different parameters during each frame._For example, with reference to FIG. 31a, histogram
`calculation unit 1 according to this embodimentcalculates histograms and associated statistics for two or more
`parameters (e.g., Data (A) and Data (C)) during each frame. Multiplexer 500, in this embodiment, is capable of time
`multiplexing the various parameters. In this manner, fewer histogram calculation units are needed for processing the
`desired parameters, thereby reducing the amountof silicon required for producing the required numberof histogram
`calculation units.” (Emphasis added)
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0010
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0010
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`timesharing with the other HCU’s. (Emphasis added)In light of the specification and
`
`based on the two portions cited in the IPR, time sharing of HCUs wasthe reason that
`
`PTAB agreed with the PO.
`
`(B.1.(ii)) Claim 1 Does not Trigger A 35 U.S.C. § 112 (6) construction
`
`(Remarks at 13-16)
`
`The PO contends that Claim 1 does not include “means”or “step” (the “trigger”)
`
`terms and that, it is presumed that 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) does not apply. The PO points to
`
`MPEP § 2181, arguing that the fact that a particular mechanism.... is defined in
`
`functional terms is not sufficient to convert a claim element containing that term into a
`
`‘means for performing a specified function, because “the term “histogram calculation
`
`unit,” when read in the context of the specification and Claim 1 as a whole, contains
`
`sufficient defining structure.” within the meaning of Paragraph 6.” (Remarksat 13-14)
`
`Examiner agrees with the PO, that generally speaking, when a particular
`
`mechanism is defined in functional terms is not sufficient to convert a claim element
`
`containing that term into a ‘means for performing’ a specified function. However, the
`
`Examiner does not agrees that the “HCU” which is considered to be a ‘nonce term’,
`
`followed by “configured to” does not invoke 35 USC 112 (6). Because the functions after
`
`the nonce term in claim 1
`
`is specific and, cannot necessarily be performed by a general
`
`“HCU”. In fact, majority of the PO’s argumentsin this Appeal Brief is about the function
`
`performed by the “HCUs’”.
`
`If any general “HCU”in the art can perform the claimed
`
`functions, then this would entail that the function is well known in the art, because any
`
`general HCU can perform those functions.
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0011
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0011
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`
`The PO arguesthat paragraph6 will not apply if persons of ordinary skill in the
`
`art reading the specification understand the term to have a sufficiently definite meaning
`
`as the name for the structure that performs the function, even when the term covers a
`
`broad class of structures or identifies the structures by their function. The PO argues
`
`that, the term “computing unit,” when “read in light of the specification connoted
`
`sufficient, definite structure to one of skill in the art to preclude application” of Paragraph
`
`6. MPEP § 2181, citing Inventio AG v Thyssenkrupp Elevator Amers. Corp., 649 F.3d
`
`1350, 1359-60 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The PO continues and arguing that Similar to the
`
`“computing unit”, the term “histogram calculation unit,” when read in light of the
`
`specification, connotes sufficient, definite structure. Although the claim is not
`
`necessarily limited to all the features of a particular embodiment, the term “histogram
`
`calculation unit” is no different in kind from the term “computing unit” cited in the MPEP.
`
`Arguing that a “calculation unit”, is indeed, a form of “computing unit” in both processes
`
`instructions and calculates results. (Remarksat 14)
`
`Examiner agrees with the cited portion of the MPEP. However, the Examiner
`
`points that a “general purpose “computing unit’ is only sufficient as the corresponding
`
`structure for performing a general computing function (e.g., “means for storing data’),
`
`but the corresponding structure for performing a specific function is required to be more
`
`than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor. In /n re Katz Interactive Call
`
`Processing PatentLitigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1747 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2011) (citations omitted). It appears that the PO is arguing that a[n] “HCU’”is similar to a
`
`“computing unit” and that the functions performed by a[n] “HCU”in claim 1 are
`
`computer-implemented functions similar to the functions performed by a “computer
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0012
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0012
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`
`unit”. However, in that regards, the MPEP states that, to claim a means for performing a
`
`specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose
`
`computer asthe structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional
`
`claiming, and in that instance, the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph claim limitation for a computer-implemented
`
`function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer
`
`or microprocessor disclosed in the specification. (Id., MPEP, 2181 (II.B) [citations
`
`omitted]. Indeed as explained above,if any generic processor is capable of performing
`
`the claimed function, then this would entail that the function is well knownin the art,
`
`since any generic processor can perform the claimed function.
`
`Examiner notes that similar to the above analysis, claiming means for performing
`
`a[n] “HCU implemented”’ function, and then disclosing only a general purpose “HCU” as
`
`the structure to perform that function amount to a pure functional claiming, and in that
`
`instance the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112,
`
`sixth paragraphclaim limitation for an “HCU implemented” function must be identified in
`
`the specification. The PO arguesthat the “histogram calculation unit” is a component of
`
`the “visual perception processor,” /.e., a term that uses the term “processor” that has
`
`been found to be not a means + function term. The component acts on the supplied
`
`data in calculating a histogram. (Remarks at 14-15) However, examiner notes that the
`
`“HCU”is a processor that processes data asindicated in the specification. See for
`
`example, the specification discloses that the “histogram calculation units” process data
`
`8 Which according to the specification an HCUis similar to a processor that “processes data a.sub.ijT”. (‘293 at 2:1-
`2)
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0013
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0013
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`aijT (Id., at 2:1-2). As such, an “UCH’is to be treated as a “processor” and notjust
`
`component of another processor.
`
`The PO arguesthat here the “histogram calculation unit” is a componentof the
`
`“visual perception processor,” /.e., a term that uses the term “processor” that has been
`
`found to be not a means + function term. It is the component that acts on the supplied
`
`data in calculating a histogram. (Remarks at 15) Examiner notes that this is irrelevant,
`
`because asstated above, the “HCU’”is a processorby its own and is not modified by
`
`other componentsin the claim.
`
`The PO arguesthat claim 1 include sufficient structure such that 112(6) should
`
`not apply. The PO points to MPEP and arguesthat terms that include a functional
`
`component such as “eyeglass hanger member” and “eyeglass contacting member” are
`
`not subject to § 112(6) where the “claims themselves contain sufficient structural
`
`limitations for performing these functions. MPEP § 2181, citing Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int'l,
`
`Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1317-19 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Examiner agreesthat the example of
`
`“eyeglass hanger member” and “eyeglass contacting member” have sufficient structural
`
`limitations for performing their function but does not agree that any “HCU”perform the
`
`functions recited in claim 1. (Remarks at 15) However, Examiner reiterates that, if any
`
`generic “HCU”is capable of performing the claimed function, then the function is well
`
`knownin the art, since any generic “HCU” can perform the claimed function. The PO
`
`arguesthat similar to A/-Site Corp. the claim 1 of the 293 patent recites a physical
`
`device, namely a visual perception processor that includes, among other things: 1) a
`
`“data bus” that carries a digital signal for a parameter and, 2) a “time coincidences bus.”
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0014
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0014
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 14
`
`The POfurther argues, each histogram calculation unit based on this structural
`
`interconnection determines: 3) “a binary classification signal’ that is sent to the “time
`
`coincidences bus,” and 4) a validation signal is produced from the “time coincidence
`
`signals” from the time coincidences bus, so that the calculation of the histogram
`
`depends on the classification signals. These interdependent structural connection
`
`elements clearly identify sufficient structure such that application of § 112(6)is
`
`improper. (Remarks at 115-16)
`
`Examinerrespectfully disagrees with the PO’s interpretation. Once again, the PO
`
`is arguing about the “physical device, namely a visual perception unit”. As stated above,
`
`the question is not the “physical perception unit” ratherit is the “HCU”that, as noticed
`
`by the PO is a generic processor’(i.e., the “HCU”) and whether it can perform the
`
`function recited in claim 1. This issue was addressed by the Examiner’s analysis in the
`
`final Office action but the PO has not shown the analysis in thereis in error.
`
`The PO arguesthat as an additional evidenceof the structure in claim 1, claim 2
`
`recites, “several histogram calculation unis organized into a matrix”, wherein each of the
`
`calculation units is connected to the data bus and to the time coincident bus. (Remarks
`
`at 16) However, as stated in claim 1, the classification unit sent to the time coincident
`
`bus and what function is recited by the “HCU”is independentof the data bus. In other
`
`words, the “data bus” is not modifying the function recited by the HCU’s.
`
`(B.1.(iii)) The Proposed Means- Plus Function Construction Omits
`
`Structures (Remarks at 16-17)
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0015
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0015
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 15
`
`(B.1.(iv)) Patent Owner’s Argument Prevails Even Under a § 112 (Claims
`
`Interpretation (Remarks at 17)
`
`The PO arguesthat the Examiners’ means-plus-function claim construction
`
`actually omits significant portions of the structure described in the specification and
`
`drawings for performing the claimed function. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the
`
`PO’s contention. The PO states that memory 100 is not mentioned in the proposed
`
`construction.
`
`Examiner notes thatthis is not the case. As stated at the bottom of page 7,
`
`memory 100is specifically mentioned’. With respect to the PO’s position that the three
`
`different embodiment of classifiers described at col. 11 line 54 through col. 13 line 36
`
`have been omitted in the proposed construction, the Examiner disagrees with the PO’s
`
`argument. First, it is noted that in the analysis of claim 1 the Examiner has mentioned
`
`classifier 101 that covers the classification signal in claim 1. Second, different
`
`embodiments pointed by the PO are focused on the functions of different components of
`
`the classifier in each case, which are not recited in claim 1. For example, first
`
`embodiment(See Fig. 12 and col. 11, lines 54 through col. 12 line 14) is focused on the
`
`multiplexer 108 and enabling calculator 115, neither of them are recited in claim 1.
`
`Second embodiment (See Fig. 13a, and col, 12, lines 15-42) is focused on multiplexer
`
`102, whichis not recited in claim 1. Third embodiment (See Fig. 13d, and col. 12, line
`
`43 through col. 13, line 36) is focused on output memory 100 and multiplexer 105;
`
`neither of them are recited in the claim. In other words claim 1, broadly recites
`
`° See for example “[S] Specifically, the Examiners find that the correspondingstructures for calculating a histogram
`are generally shown in FIG. 3, reprinted above, which is a histogram calculation unit 1 as part of a processing chip
`(shown in ‘293 Patent FIG. 32) with elements multiplexers 105 and 106, memory 100,at least... [etc.]. Final Office
`action at page 7.
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0016
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0016
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 16
`
`classification signal and the Examiner pointed to the classifier 101 to be the structure for
`
`performing the functions of classification signal in claim 1.
`
`The POfurther states that claim 1
`
`is patentable over the combination of
`
`references cited under both a proper 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) claim construction as well as a
`
`BRI-based claim construction. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the PO’s assertion.
`
`For the reasons stated infra, claims are rejected in Ground 1 and 2.
`
`(B.2 Color Is Not Individual Parameter
`
`The PO contendsthat color is not a parameter. The POstates that, in the Reply
`
`to the Office action, Patent Owner did in fact imprecisely refer to a “color” as parameter.
`
`This was intended to meanthatin view of the well-established record, an individual
`
`color component such as Hue (in HSV color space) or Red (in RGB color space) or a
`
`scalar composite value derived from the color components in a predetermined fashion is
`
`a parameter (such as a 24-bit composite mentioned on the page 17 of the Reply). The
`
`patentee further states that, the Patent Owner did not intend to give the impression that
`
`it was taking the position that color itself qualifies as a parameter.(Remarks at 17-18)
`
`Examiner however, notes that the PO in his remarks dated 06/26/2018 argued
`
`that “[F]or example, units 1a00 and 1a01 could be configured (see FIG. 31 a copied
`
`below) to both treat the same parameter (e.g., color), which would enable the matrix of
`
`FIG. 32 to evaluate the data for that parameter in real-time from two different
`
`perspective, for example two different ranges of color for two different but
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0017
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0017
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 17
`
`simultaneously formed histograms of color.” (See Remarks of 06/26/2018, at pages 13-
`
`14). See also Bovik’s declaration at J 141°
`
`Here however, arguing that “color” is not a parameter, rather the “color values”
`
`are parameters. Even, considering this interpretation, the PO’s statementin that
`
`response, is unclear as to what is meant by range of color. If two different range of color
`
`is to be interpreted as two different color component such as hue and saturation, then
`
`the parameters are different, which indicates two HCU are calculating different
`
`parameters.
`
`(B.3.(iv)) The Final Rejection Improperly Interprets the Term “Two Histogram
`
`Units” (Remarks at 18-21
`
`The PO contends that the limitation:
`
`“the histogram calculation units being configured to form a histogram
`representative of the parameter as a function of a validation signal and to
`determine by classification a binary classification signal resulting from a
`comparison of the parameter and a selection criterion C,
`wherein the classification signal is sent to the time coincidences bus, and
`wherein the validation signal is produced from time coincidences signals from the
`time coincidence bus sothat the calculation of the histogram depends on the
`classification signals carried by the time coincidence bus.”
`
`Should/[must] be interpreted as “the histogram calculation units each being configured
`
`[etc.]...”
`
`10 As a simple example, given two HCUsthat each look at 24-bit color values(e.g.,, 8 most significant bits being for
`the color’s red component, 8 least significant bits being for the color’ blue componentand 8 bits in the middle bits
`being for the color’s green component), the invention as recited in Claim I could allow for one histogram to be
`calculated on pixels having a strong red component(e.g., the red bits corresponding to a numberhigher than’ 128)
`and a weak, green component(erg., the green bits corresponding to a number lower than 128), and another
`histogram to be calculated for pixels having a strong red componentand. a strong green component(erg,, the green
`bits corresponding to a numberhigher than 128). This would allow a simultaneous evaluation of the data from two
`different perspectives, which is an innovative’ approachthat, in the contest of image processing would enable
`completion of an analysis in fewer Computationalsteps.
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0018
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2011, p. 0018
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 18
`
`The PO states that the claim recites: “wherein the validation signal is produced
`
`from ...on the classification signals carried by the time coincident bus.” The PO argues
`
`that for "the classification signals" (plural) from this portion of the claim to have an
`
`antecedent basis, portion reciting "th