`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 38
`
`
`
` Entered: May 9, 2018
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318 (a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1005, 0001
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review
`of claims 1, 18, 19, 22, and 29 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,959,293 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’293 patent”) and a Declaration of John
`Hart, Ph.D. (Ex. 1002). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Image Processing Technologies
`LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”). Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we
`determined that the information presented in the Petition established that
`there was a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect
`to challenging claim 22, but not with respect to challenging claims 1, 18, 19,
`and 29, and for only the sole ground that claim 22 is unpatentable under
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Pirim, but not for any other grounds asserted by
`Petitioner. Paper 15 (“Dec. on Inst.”). Consequently, on May 25, 2017, we
`entered an Institution Decision, instituting an inter partes review only as to
`claim 22, but not with respect to claims 1, 18, 19, and 29. Id. at 53.
`Subsequent to institution, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 21,
`“PO Resp.”) and a Declaration of Peggy Agouris, Ph.D. (Ex. 2009), and
`Petitioner filed a Reply, all directed only to claim 22 and the instituted
`ground. Paper 24 (“Pet. Reply”). A transcript of the oral hearing held on
`February 21, 2018, has been entered into the record as Paper 34 (“Tr.”).
`On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a
`decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all
`claims challenged in the petition. SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 2018 WL
`1914661, at *10 (U.S. Apr. 24, 2018). In light of the Guidance on the
`2
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1005, 0002
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings1 posted on April 26, 2018, we
`modified our Institution Decision to institute on all of the challenged claims,
`including claims 1, 18, 19, and 29, and all of the grounds presented in the
`Petition. Paper 37. Both parties affirmatively waived additional briefing,
`relying on the arguments and evidence already of record, for the newly
`instituted challenged claims and grounds. Id. at 3.
`This Final Written Decision addresses all of the challenged claims and
`all of the grounds presented in the Petition. For the reasons that follow,
`Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
`claim 22 of the ’293 patent is unpatentable. However, Petitioner has not
`demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 18, 19, and
`29 of the ’293 patent are unpatentable.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’293 patent is involved in Image
`Processing Technologies., LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Case No. 2:16-
`cv-00505-JRG (E.D. Tex.) and other proceedings. Pet. 2; Paper 4, 2.
`
`B. The ’293 Patent
`The ’293 patent describes a visual perception device, including a
`device for processing image signals using histogram calculation units.
`Ex. 1001, 1:6–10. Figure 3 of the ’293 patent illustrates a histogram
`
`
`1 See https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-
`appeal-board/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial.
`3
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1005, 0003
`
`
`
`MEMORY
`
`ljT
`WRITE + WR
`1QQ
`ADRESS
`
`VALIDATION
`
`!
`i
`I
`; COUNTER _ r:J~ux_ I
`i
`• '--105
`I I I I I "-101 r
`INIT
`i
`- - ----~ 121
`i OATA(A)--
`,
`
`-
`
`OUT
`I
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`calculation unit, and is reproduced below with highlighting added by
`Petitioner (Pet. 5).
`
`·-- / -·-··-·-··-··-s
`
`rl""~....----=.:VA:..:.:L:::ID~A~Tl~O!!.N· ____ ·-·_·--·-7
`
`,+1/+0 ·""'--- -
`
`107 ..
`
`1~6
`
`~UXi--l-i 0
`
`--
`~JA OUT 1---...i
`
`0
`
`103 1
`
`INIT
`DATA _
`
`104
`I
`'
`
`MIN
`MAX
`RMAX
`
`POSRMAX
`NBPTS
`r-
`L-====~.J 102 s :
`m
`2 1 O
`P
`OUT
`i
`/
`' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
`102 ,.,,,.
`"inC 1in8 ' lnA i
`inE....
`; =·:====================-.1.•_..:.:19_:..:.1~s==-\':;;;==~====:==:==~=-j;
`!
`'-----··-- - · · --------- --------_
`\.1 11
`
`As shown in highlighted Figure 3 above, histogram calculation unit 1
`includes analysis memory 100 (in red), address multiplexer 105 (in green),
`data input multiplexer 106, incrementation unit 107, classifier 101 (in blue),
`time coincidences unit 102 (in purple), and test unit 103, which is connected
`to analysis output registers 104. Ex. 1001, 8:37–43, 9:51–54. Output of
`classifier 101 (in blue) is connected to bus 111 (in yellow). Id. at 9:36.
`Analysis output registers 104 receive and store statistical information
`prepared on the basis of the values of parameter A of signal DATA(A) for
`each frame. Id. at 9:51–57. In particular, after processing a complete frame,
`statistical information representative of this frame is produced and stored in
`4
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1005, 0004
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`analysis output registers 104. Id. at 10:1–14. This statistical information
`includes minimum values (MIN) and maximum values (MAX) of the
`histogram, the number of points (NBPTS) of the histogram, the position
`(POSRMAX) of the maximum of the histogram, and the number of points
`(RMAX) at the maximum of the histogram. Id. These features are
`determined in parallel with the formation of the histogram by test unit 103.
`Figure 4 of the ’293 patent illustrates a self-adapting histogram
`calculation unit with anticipation and learning functionalities, and is
`reproduced below with highlighting added by Patent Owner (Prelim.
`Resp. 7).
`
`INIT
`
`WRITE
`
`ENO
`
`SE.0VENC£R
`
`COUHTER
`
`Clock
`SL
`ST
`
`91
`
`EN04-i-l---+------:-;;;--(cid:173)
`DATA(A) ....._.>-+- --r--i
`COUNTER--+------ll----..--,
`
`10 11
`
`FIG. 4
`According to the ’293 patent, in the self-adapting embodiment
`illustrated in Figure 4, the content of the memory of classifier 101 (in blue)
`is updated automatically. Ex. 1001, 11:14–29. To implement the
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1005, 0005
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`self-adapting function (i.e., real-time updating of classifier 101), classifier
`101 has an addressable memory whose writing is controlled by signal END,
`which is generated by sequencer 9. Id. Histogram calculation unit 1 also
`includes selection circuit 110 (e.g., an “OR” gate), receiving as its input
`signals INIT and END and whose output is connected to the selection input
`of address multiplexer 105. Id.
`Figure 31a of the ’293 patent illustrates a polyvalent histogram
`calculation unit that can be programmed to process more than one
`parameter, and is reproduced below (id. at 21:18–36).
`FIG. 310
`
`
`As shown in Figure 31a above, polyvalent histogram calculation
`unit 1a comprises histogram calculation unit 1, input multiplexer 500,
`associated register 501, and learning multiplexer 503. Id. In this
`embodiment, it is possible to use a single histogram calculation unit to
`process any of parameters Data (A) – Data (E), which are addressed by bus
`510 in relation to SELECT command 502. Id. at 20:58–66. Additionally,
`
`6
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1005, 0006
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`polyvalent histogram calculation units can be operated in a matrix. Id. at
`21:37–42.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 18, 22, and 29 are independent.
`Claim 19 depends directly from claim 18. Claims 1, 18, and 22 are
`illustrative:
`1. A visual perception processor for automatically detecting an
`event occurring in a multidimensional space (i, j) evolving over
`time with respect to at least one digitized parameter in the form
`of a digital signal on a data bus, said digital signal being in the
`form of a succession aijT of binary numbers associated with
`synchronization signals enabling to define a given instant (T) of
`the multidimensional space and the position (i, j) in this space,
`the visual perception processor comprising:
`the data bus;
`a control unit;
`a time coincidences bus carrying at least a time coincidence
`signal; and
`at least two histogram calculation units for the treatment of the
`at least one parameter,
`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 so that the calculation of the
`histogram depends on the classification signals carried by the
`time coincidence bus.
`Ex. 1001, 26:34–59 (emphasis added).
`7
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1005, 0007
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`18. A device for detecting one or more events including aural
`and/or visual phenomena, the device comprising:
`a controller coupled to a controller bus and a transfer bus;
`an input portal adapted to receive data describing one or more
`parameters of the event being detected;
`and a data processing block coupled to the input portal, the
`transfer bus and the controller bus,
`the data processing block including:
`a histogram unit coupled to the input portal and configured to
`calculate a histogram for a selected parameter;
`a classification unit coupled to the input portal and the histogram
`unit, and configured to determine the data in the histogram that
`satisfy a selected criterion, and
`to generate an output
`accordingly, the classification unit supplying the output to the
`transfer bus; and
`a coincidence unit coupled to receive the output of the
`classification unit from the transfer bus and to receive selected
`coincidence criteria from the controller bus,
`the coincidence unit being configured to generate an enable
`signal for the histogram unit when the output of the classification
`unit satisfies the selected coincidence criterion,
`wherein classification is performed automatically by processing
`statistical information associated with the calculated histogram.
`Id. at 29:20–42 (emphases added).
`22. A device for detecting one or more events including aural
`and/or visual phenomena, the device comprising:
`a controller coupled to a controller bus and a transfer bus;
`an input multiplexer adapted to receive data describing one or
`more parameters of the event being detected, and to output data
`describing a selected one of the one or more parameters in
`response to a selection signal; and
`a data processing block coupled to the multiplexer, the transfer
`8
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1005, 0008
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`bus and the controller bus, the data processing block including:
`a histogram unit coupled to the input portal and configured to
`calculate a histogram for the selected parameter;
`a classification unit coupled to the input portal and the histogram
`unit, and configured to determine the data in the histogram that
`satisfy a selected criterion, and to generate an output accordingly,
`the classification unit supplying the output to the transfer bus;
`and
`a coincidence unit coupled to receive the output of the
`classification unit from the transfer bus and to receive selected
`coincidence criteria from the controller bus, the coincidence unit
`being configured to generate an enable signal for the histogram
`unit when the output of the classification unit satisfies the
`selected coincidence criterion.
`Id. at 29:61–30:18 (emphases added).
`
`
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`Petitioner relies upon the prior art references listed below.
`Pirim
`
`WO 99/36893
`July 22, 1999
`(Ex. 1005)
`Tomitaka
`
`US 5,546,125
`Aug. 13, 1996
`(Ex. 1007)
`Robert Barclay Rogers, Real-Time Video Filtering with Bit-Slide
`Microprogrammable Processors, Ph.D. Dissertation, New Mexico State
`University (Dec. 1978) (Ex. 1006, “Rogers” or “Rogers Dissertation”).
`Alton L. Gilbert et al., A Real-Time Video Tracking System, PAMI-w,
`No. 1 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANALYSIS AND MACHINE
`INTELLIGENCE, 47–56 (1980) (Ex. 1008, “Gilbert”).
`
`9
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1005, 0009
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 3):
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`
`Basis
`
`Reference( s)
`
`22
`
`§ 103(a)2 Pirim alone3
`
`1, 18, 19, and 29
`
`§ 103(a) Pirim and Tomitaka
`
`1, 18, 19, 22, and 29
`
`§ 103(a) Rogers and Gilbert
`
`1, 18, 19, 22, and 29
`
`§ 103(a) Tomitaka and Rogers
`
`II.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.l00(b). "Under a broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain
`
`meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification and
`
`2 Because the claims at issue have a filing date prior to March 16, 2013 , the
`effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284 (2011) ("AIA"), we apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 in this Decision.
`
`3 Petitioner's substantive analysis for claim 22 relies upon Pirim alone.
`Pet. 49-51.
`
`10
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1005, 0010
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`prosecution history.” TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062
`(Fed. Cir. 2016).
`In its Petition, Petitioner does not propose any specific claim
`construction, but merely argues that the claim terms should be interpreted
`according to their ordinary and customary meaning. Pet. 29–30. In its
`Preliminary Response, Patent Owner expressly proposed constructions for
`three claim elements: (1) “the histogram calculation units being configured
`to form a histogram representative of the parameter,” as recited in claim 1;
`(2) “a classification unit . . . configured to determine the data in the
`histogram that satisfy a selected criterion,” as recited in claim 18; and (3)
`“wherein classification is performed automatically by processing statistical
`information associated with the calculated histogram,”
`as recited in claim 18. Prelim. Resp. 10–21.
`In our Institution Decision, we addressed each of those claim elements
`in turn. Dec. on Inst. 10−16. Our claim construction analysis from the
`Institution Decision is reproduced below in Subsections 1−3 of Section II.A
`of this Final Written Decision. After institution, neither party challenges any
`aspect of our claim constructions as to those three claim elements. See
`generally PO Resp.; Pet. Reply; Paper 37, 3 (noting “both parties
`affirmatively waive additional briefing”). Based on the entire record
`presented during trial, we discern no reason to alter our analysis or claim
`constructions of those claim elements in this Final Written Decision.
`In its Response, Patent Owner additionally proffers construction for
`the limitation “an input multiplexer adapted to receive data describing one or
`more parameters of the event being detected, and to output data describing a
`11
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1005, 0011
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`selected one of the one or more parameters in response to a selection signal,”
`as recited in claim 22. We address Patent Owner’s proposed construction of
`this claim limitation below in Subsection 4 of Section II.A of this Final
`Written Decision.
`
`1. “the [at least two] histogram calculation units being configured to
`form a histogram representative of the parameter,” as recited in
`claim 1
`In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner proposes to construe “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.” Prelim. Resp. 10–14 (emphasis added).
`Although Petitioner did not submit an express construction for this claim
`limitation, Petitioner implicitly applies, in its prior art analysis, a claim
`construction that is consistent with Patent Owner’s proposed claim
`construction. See, e.g., Pet. 35, 36 (arguing that “it would have been
`obvious to modify Tomitaka such that the two histogram units processed the
`same parameter” (emphasis added)).
`In support of its proposed construction, Patent Owner explains that
`each of the “histogram calculation units,” as recited in claim 1, must form a
`histogram representative of the singular parameter. Prelim. Resp. 11.
`Patent Owner also contends that the Specification describes that more than
`one polyvalent histogram calculation unit may be tasked to process one
`parameter. Id. at 12–14. Patent Owner directs our attention to Figure 32 of
`
`12
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1005, 0012
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`the ’293 patent, which illustrates a processor that includes a set of histogram
`calculation units with programmable input control. Id.
`Figure 32 is reproduced below with highlighting and annotations
`added by Patent Owner (id. at 13).
`r·- -·-·--··--·:-·---·-------·-·-------·--·---
`
`r-- ---,_ _ _ r-51 3
`
`! l
`
`I
`r
`!
`i
`~
`i
`i
`r
`I
`!
`t
`r
`!
`' i
`!
`
`6
`
`p1
`
`p2
`
`
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 32 above, processor 520 includes a
`matrix of sixteen polyvalent histogram calculation units 1a00 – 1a33, each
`of which has access via bus 510 (highlighted in yellow) to parameters,
`including luminance L, tone T, saturation S, speed V, and direction D.
`Ex. 1001, 21:37–63. According 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
`13
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1005, 0013
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`dedicated polyvalent histogram calculation units. Id. at 21:42–47.
`In light of the Specification and the language of claim 1, we agree
`with Patent Owner, and adopt its 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.”
`
`2. “a classification unit . . . configured to determine the data in the
`histogram that satisfy a selected criterion,” as recited in claim 18
`In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner proposes to construe “a
`
`classification unit . . . configured to determine the data in the histogram that
`satisfy a selected criterion” as “a classification unit . . . configured to
`determine the data to be included in the histogram based on satisfying a
`selected criterion.” Prelim. Resp. 14–17 (emphases added). As support for
`its proposed construction, Patent Owner asserts that the classifier (e.g.,
`classifier unit 101, as shown in Figure 3), as described in the Specification,
`provides written description support for the claim term “classification unit.”
`Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:49–52, Fig. 3). Citing Figure 20 and
`relevant portions of the Specification, Patent Owner also asserts that the
`claim term “the data in the histogram” refers to “data that will be used to
`form the histogram.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:30–42, Fig. 20).
`
`14
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1005, 0014
`
`
`
`...
`...
`..
`...
`...
`..._
`...
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`Figure 20 of the ’293 patent is reproduced below with highlighting
`added by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 17).
`E' ...
`
`CUMUL
`
`... -
`
`--
`
`~
`
`.....
`
`11
`
`-;-~
`E
`.. -2
`
`.
`
`•
`
`••
`,..
`...
`..
`..
`
`'"
`.,.._ ..
`-C
`,c
`----
`C
`..,._,.
`-~-
`-
`~
`•
`__ ,
`.,-
`- "
`
`FlG_ 20
`The highlighted Figure 20 above shows signals INIT, WRITE, END,
`
`ETD, T, SP, and SM on the left with reference to time axis t. Ex. 1001,
`16:12–23. Signal INIT starts the processing cycle of a frame. Id. Signal
`WRITE controls the statistical calculations for the frame. Id. At the end of
`signal END, time t0 (highlighted in blue), the data for the frame is
`represented by curve C, whose axes represent in abscissa the values of the
`parameter and in ordinate the number of occurrences, and the content of
`memory 118 is represented by distribution R0. Id. at 16:12–35. Signal ETD
`(highlighted in yellow), which starts at time t0, enables the calculation of the
`range in memory 118 of the classifier. Id. Figure 20 shows that signal ETD
`enables a multi-step calculation from time t0 through t5 (highlighted in
`15
`
`. .. -2
`
`I
`
`... -
`
`I
`. .. -.2
`
`I
`. .. -2
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1005, 0015
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`purple), resulting in the calculation of distribution R5 (highlighted in green).
`Id. at 16:36–50.
`In light of the Specification, we agree with Patent Owner, and adopt
`its proposed claim construction because it is consistent with the portions of
`the Specification identified above. In sum, we interpret the claim element “a
`classification unit . . . configured to determine the data in the histogram that
`satisfy a selected criterion” as “a classification unit . . . configured to
`determine the data to be included in the histogram based on satisfying a
`selected criterion.”
`
`3. “wherein classification is performed automatically by processing
`statistical information associated with the calculated histogram,”
`as recited in claim 18
`In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner proposes to interpret
`“wherein classification is performed automatically by processing statistical
`information associated with the calculated histogram” as “wherein
`classification for the histogram being calculated is performed using criteria
`that are updated using data characterizing the distribution of parameter
`values contained in the histogram.” Prelim. Resp. 17–21 (emphasis added).
`According to Patent Owner, the classification criteria for a histogram are
`updated in real-time while data are being added and the histogram is being
`calculated. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 11:14–32). Patent Owner further contends
`that the “statistical information” used for automatic classification must be
`associated with the same histogram for which the classification applies. Id.
`at 20, 39.
`
`16
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1005, 0016
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`1 ·19
`
`As Patent Owner notes, the Specification describes that the statistical
`information for a histogram of a specific frame and parameter is calculated
`in parallel with the formation of the histogram. Ex. 1001, 9:51–10:14. The
`Specification also discloses that the memory of the classifier is updated
`automatically in real-time and the classification is performed using the
`statistical information of the histogram. Id. at 11:14–52, 12:16–42.
`Figure 13a of the ’293 patent illustrates an example of a real-time updating
`classifier, and is reproduced below.
`·----------·--------··-............... __ ,.. ............. ___ -~ ................ ,""'"""' ....... _.,. ______ ...... ,. ------------..,
`:
`i i
`120
`t---_...-ll RMAX I !
`1----~---
`114
`----iMUX
`il22
`2 - - -
`
`Q
`
`A----1
`3---+-IA/8
`.__..,...._,
`B :
`
`BIPTS . ; ! j
`i :
`--------------· --· ----· -· ···--·----·····. ------·---··-· -. -----· ----------··---------·----- ...... ,.--·-···-.J
`
`124
`123
`Figure 13a depicts a classifier having multiplexer 120 and comparator
`
`119 that performs a comparison of parameter P to statistical value Q. Id. at
`12:16–42. Statistical value Q is derived from the statistical information of
`the histogram being calculated that stored in analysis output register 104,
`1144 (e.g., RMAX or RMAX/2). Id.
`
`P>Q
`
`i
`
`
`4 Analysis output register 114, as shown in Figure 13a, is identified
`improperly with element number 104 in the written description of the
`Specification. See Ex. 1001, 12:16–39.
`17
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1005, 0017
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`We further observe that “the histogram” in this claim element refers
`back to the histogram for which the classification unit determines data that
`satisfy a selected criterion. Thus, in light of the Specification and the
`language of claim 18, we agree with Patent Owner that the “statistical
`information” used for automatic classification must be associated with the
`same histogram for which the classification applies. We, however,
`determine that we need not further construe this phrase to resolve the issues
`before us. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that
`are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy”).
`
`4. “an input multiplexer adapted to receive data describing one or more
`parameters,” as recited in claim 22
`In its Response, Patent Owner argues that the limitation “an input
`multiplexer adapted to receive data describing one or more parameters of
`the event being detected, and to output data describing a selected one of the
`one or more parameters in response to a selection signal,” as recited in claim
`22, requires a multiplexer that is “capable of receiving data from multiple
`parameters and then outputting data based upon selecting from among such
`parameters.” PO Resp. 14−19, 22 (emphases added).5 Patent Owner
`contends that its construction is supported by the claim language itself, the
`
`
`5 Patent Owner has filed, as Exhibit 2012, the claim construction opinion
`and order from the related district court case. Patent Owner, however, does
`not rely on the order to support any of Patent Owner’s constructions. We
`have considered the order.
`
`18
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1005, 0018
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`Specification, and other claims, and that its construction is consistent with
`how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claim
`language, citing to the testimony of Dr. Agouris for support. Id. (citing
`Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 25−30).
`Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s construction contradicts the
`plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language, reading “out all of the
`disclosed embodiments except for one.” Pet. Reply 2−10. Petitioner also
`argues that Patent Owner’s construction is not supported by the extrinsic
`evidence relied upon by Patent Owner. Id. at 10–11.
`We begin our claim construction analysis with the plain language of
`the claim. In particular, the plain and ordinary meaning of “an input
`multiplexer adapted to receive data describing one or more parameters of
`the event being detected and to output data describing a selected one of the
`one or more parameters in response to a selection signal” encompasses two
`alternative structures. Ex. 1001, 29:64−67 (emphases added). The first
`alternative structure includes a “single parameter” multiplexer. The second
`alternative structure includes a “multiple parameters” multiplexer. The
`Specification confirms our understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning
`of the claim language because the Specification discloses both alternative
`structures. Id. at 2:51−61; 9:1−6, 11:14−48, 17:55−18:23, 20:58−66,
`Figs. 3, 4, 12, 13d, 14, 15a, 15b, 17, 25, 31a.
`Notably, it is undisputed that the embodiment shown in Figure 3 of
`the ’293 patent discloses “single parameter” multiplexers. PO Resp. 16−17;
`Pet. Reply 5, 10. An excerpt of Figure 3 is reproduced below (highlighting
`added by Petitioner).
`
`19
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1005, 0019
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`COUNT18R -
`
`DATA(A),
`
`, ... , '
`WRn'E' W1R
`~ux
`AORE
`
`105
`
`INIT
`
`101
`
`
`The portion of Figure 3 reproduced above depicts multiplexer 105 (in
`yellow) having two input signals: (1) DATA(A) signal for a single
`parameter, and (2) COUNTER signal. Ex. 1001, 8:53−64. Multiplexer 105
`also receives binary selection control signal INIT, and provides one output
`signal. Id. at 9:1−2. The value of the output signal corresponds to one of
`the inputs (COUNTER signal) where the selection control signal is equal to
`one value (e.g., 1), and the other input (DATA(A)) where the control signal
`is equal to a different value (e.g., 0). Id. at 9:2−6. In addition, the
`“Summary of the Invention” section and the embodiments shown in
`Figures 4, 12, 13d, 14, 15a, 15b, 17, and 25 of the ’293 patent also disclose
`“single parameter” multiplexers. Id. at 2:51−61 (disclosing “a data input
`multiplexer with two inputs,” a counting signal COUNTER and a signal
`DATA(A) for a single parameter), 11:14−48, 17:55−18:23, Figs. 4, 12, 13d,
`14, 15a, 15b, 17, 25.
`It also is undisputed that the embodiment shown in Figure 31a
`discloses a “multiple parameter” multiplexer. PO Resp. 15−16; Pet. Reply
`4. Figure 31a is reproduced below (highlighting added by Patent Owner).
`
`20
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1005, 0020
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`FIG. 310
`
`
`
`As shown above in highlighted Figure 31a, data for multiple
`parameters Data (A) . . . and Data (E) (in purple) feed into multiplexer 500
`(in yellow). Ex. 1001, 20:58−60.
`Therefore, in light of the Specification, a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have understood that the plain and ordinary meaning of the
`disputed language in claim 22 encompasses these two alternative structures.
`Interpreting the disputed claim limitation to require a multiplexer “be
`capable of receiving data from multiple parameters and then outputting data
`based upon selecting from among such parameters,” as urged by Patent
`Owner (PO Resp. 14−15, 22), would unduly limit the claim scope to only
`the second structure (a “multiple parameter” multiplexer), ignoring the first
`alternative structure (a “single parameter” multiplexer). Such a construction
`directly contradicts the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language.
`As our reviewing court has explained, “[t]he construction that stays true to
`the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of
`
`21
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1005, 0021
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00336
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Renishaw PLC v.
`Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`Patent Owner’s argument that the “multiplexer must be capable of
`receiving both ‘one’ or ‘more’ than one parameter” is inapposite. PO Resp.
`14−17 (emphases added). As used in the claim, the word “or” is used to link
`two alternatives. Nothing in the Specification requires us to construe “or” to
`mean “and.” As discussed above, the Specification, in fact, discloses both
`alternative structures. Ex. 1001, 2:51−61, 9:1−6, 11:14−48, 17:55−18:23,
`20:58−66, Figs. 3, 4, 12, 13d, 14, 15a, 15b, 17, 25, 31a. We, therefore,
`decline to rewrite the claim language “one or more parameters” to be
`“multiple parameters.”
`We also do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that, if the claim
`were not limited to only “multiple parameter” multiplexers, there would be
`no need to include “one or more” in the claim and the language could simply
`state “a” instead of “one or more.” PO Resp. 14−15. Further, Patent
`Owner’s argument that the claim language could have stated “output data
`describing the parameter” or “output data describing the selected parameter”
`also is misplaced. Id. The fact that a claim could be rewritten with less
`words does not provide a sufficient reason to limit the claim scope unduly to
`only one of the alternative structures, contrary to the plain and ordinary
`meaning of the claim language that se
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
