`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`
`
`
` Entered: August 18, 2017
`
`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 IPR2017-01189
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1006, 0001
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01189
`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 2−17, 20, 21, and 23−28 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,959,293 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’293 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Image
`Processing Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted
`unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow,
`we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that
`it would prevail with respect to the challenged claims. We hereby decline to
`institute an inter partes review as to the ’293 patent in this proceeding.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’293 patent is involved in Image
`Processing Techs., LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Case No. 2:16-cv-00505-
`JRG (E.D. Tex.) and Case IPR2017-00336. Pet. 2; Paper 4, 2.
`
`B. The ’293 Patent
`The ’293 patent describes a visual perception device, particularly a
`device for processing image signals using self-adapting histogram
`calculation units. Ex. 1001, 1:6–10. Figure 3 of the ’293 patent illustrates a
`passive histogram calculation unit, and is reproduced below with
`highlighting added by Petitioner (Pet. 6).
`2
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1006, 0002
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01189
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`·-- /
`
`, ________ _
`s
`.
`,+1/+0 ! ·
`
`107 "'
`
`0
`
`.
`.
`
`DATA
`IN
`
`OUT
`
`1QQ
`
`OATA(A)
`
`i
`i
`i
`I
`l
`'
`I
`I
`!
`i
`I
`I
`
`i
`
`I
`i
`I
`
`I
`
`1~6
`, l
`~ux r
`t
`MEMORY
`INIT
`i I
`WRITE+ WR
`COUNTER - r:l ~ux J . ADRESS
`.
`i :
`+ '--105
`r I I I 1 !"\.101 r
`INIT
`1Q1
`102 ,...,.
`OUT
`• 191 s
`
`VALIDATION -
`
`·-··- - ·-7
`
`103 )
`
`INIT
`DATA --.
`
`.
`VALIDATION
`r-
`m
`p
`
`104
`I
`.
`
`MIN
`MAX
`RMAX
`POSRMAX
`NBPTS
`
`I
`I
`
`.
`I
`I
`I
`
`102 SI
`
`OUT
`2 1 0
`
`/
`
`I I l11T T
`
`,
`
`I
`
`inE ....
`
`inC
`
`inB ' lnA i
`I
`i
`!
`......
`I
`
`
`..
`
`'
`l
`\.111
`-----·--·-- -·- --
`. ......
`i.. -·--·--·•
`·••-···-··
`As shown in highlighted Figure 3 above, histogram calculation unit 1
`includes analysis memory 100 (highlighted in red), address multiplexer 105
`(highlighted in green), data input multiplexer 106, incrementation unit 107,
`classifier 101 (highlighted in blue), time coincidences unit 102 (highlighted
`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 is connected to
`bus 111 (highlighted 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
`analysis output registers 104. Id. at 10:1–14. This statistical information
`3
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1006, 0003
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01189
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`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. 8).
`
`1
`
`lHIT
`
`WRITE
`
`ENO
`
`COUNTJ;R
`
`Vol-Zone
`
`c.....
`c..co.ae,
`eu,,,.
`R-C°"W
`
`91
`
`LEARN ,
`
`Clod<
`SL
`ST
`
`OATA(A) -+<>---+---r~
`COIMTER+---t-----i...~.....1
`
`FIG. 4
`
`
`
`According to the ’293 patent, in the self-adapting embodiment
`illustrated in Figure 4, the content of the memory of classifier 101 is updated
`automatically. Ex. 1001, 11:14–29. To implement the self-adapting
`function (i.e., real-time updating of classifier 101), classifier 101 has an
`4
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1006, 0004
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01189
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`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. 31a
`
`··--··-v1a
`
`!
`
`1~
`Out
`--,r--.-.-.,..J !
`I
`
`12
`
`
`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,
`polyvalent histogram calculation units can be operated in a matrix. Id. at
`21:37–42.
`
`5
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1006, 0005
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01189
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 3, 23, and 28 are independent.
`Although claim 2 depends from claim 1 and claims 20 and 21 depend from
`claim 18, claims 1 and 18 are not being challenged in this proceeding.
`Claims 4−17 depend from claim 3; and claims 24−27 depend from claim 23.
`Claim 3 is illustrative:
`3. A visual perception processor, comprising:
`data bus;
`a time coincidences bus; and
`two or more histogram calculation units that receive the data
`DATA(A), DATA(B), . . . DATA(E) via the data bus and supply
`classification information to the single time coincidences bus,
`wherein at least one of said two or more histogram calculation
`unit processes data aijT associated with pixels forming together a
`multidimensional space (i, j) evolving over time and represented
`at a succession of instants (T), wherein said data reaches said at
`least one calculation unit in the form of a digital signal DATA(A)
`in the form of a succession aijT of binary numbers of n bits
`associated with synchronization signals enabling to define the
`given instant (T) of the multidimensional space and the position
`(i, j) of the pixels in this space, to which the signal aijT received
`at a given instant (T) is associated, said unit comprising:
`an analysis memory including a memory with addresses, each
`address associated with possible values of the numbers of n bits
`of the signal DATA (A) and whose writing process is controlled
`by a WRITE signal;
`a classifier unit comprising a memory intended for receiving a
`selection criterion C of the parameter DATA(A), said classifier
`unit receiving the signal DATA(A) at the input and outputting a
`binary output signal having a value that depends on a result of
`
`6
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1006, 0006
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01189
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`the comparison of the signal DATA(A) with the selection
`criterion C;
`a time coincidences unit that receives the output signal from the
`classifier unit and, from outside the histogram calculation unit,
`individual binary enabling signals affecting parameters other
`than DATA(A), wherein said time coincidences unit outputs a
`positive global enabling signal when all the individual time
`coincidences signals are positive;
`a test unit;
`an analysis output unit including output memory;
`an address multiplexer;
`an incrementation enabling unit; and
`a learning multiplexer;
`wherein a counter of each address in the memory corresponds to
`the value d of aijT at a given instant, which is incremented by one
`unit when the time coincidences unit outputs a positive global
`enabling signal;
`wherein the test unit is provided for calculating and storing
`the data aijT
`statistical data processes, after
`receiving
`corresponding to the space at an instant T, a content of the
`analysis memory in order to update the output memory of the
`analysis output unit, wherein the output memory is deleted before
`a beginning of each frame for a space at an instant T by an
`initialization signal;
`wherein the learning multiplexer is configured to receive an
`external command signal and initiate an operation according to a
`learning mode in which registers of the classifier unit and of the
`time coincidences unit are deleted when starting to process a
`frame, wherein the analysis output unit supplies values typical of
`a sequence of each of these registers.
`Ex. 1001, 26:65−27:59 (emphases added).
`
`7
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1006, 0007
`
`
`
`IPR2017-0l 189
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies upon the prior art references listed below.
`
`Pirim
`
`July 22, 1999
`
`(Ex. 1005)
`
`WO 99/36893
`us 5,239,594
`Yoda
`July 15, 1999
`WO 99/35606
`Qian
`(Ex. 1007)
`Martin Eriksson and Nikolaos Papanikolopoulos, Eye-Trackingfor
`Detection of Driver Fatigue, IEEE CONFERENCE ON INTELLIGENT
`TRANSPORTATION, 314-319 (Nov. 12, 1997) (Ex. 1008, "Eriksson").
`
`Aug. 24, 1993
`
`(Ex. 1006)
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 3-4):
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`2, 23, and 28
`
`§ 103(a)1 Pirim
`
`24-27
`
`§ 103(a) Pirim and Qian
`
`20 and 21
`
`§ 103(a) Pirim and Eriksson
`
`3-17
`
`§ 103(a) Pirim and Yoda
`
`1 Because the claims at issue have a filing date prior to March 16, 201 3, the
`effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 11 2- 29,
`125 Stat. 284 (2011) ("AIA"), we apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 in this Decision.
`
`8
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1006, 0008
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01189
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard,
`the terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the
`Specification. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`In its Petition, Petitioner does not propose any claim construction, but
`argues that the claim terms should be interpreted according to their ordinary
`and customary meaning. Pet. 22. In its Preliminary Response, Patent
`Owner urges us to adopt our claim constructions in Case IPR2017-00336,
`which also involves the ’293 patent. Prelim. Resp. 10–20. We agree with
`Patent Owner, and hereby incorporate our previous analysis and claim
`constructions for the purpose of this Decision. Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Image
`Processing Techs. LLC, Case IPR2017-00336, slip op. 10–16 (PTAB May
`25, 2016) (Paper 15).
`For clarity, we reproduce our claim constructions in the Institution
`Decision of Case IPR2017-00336 here. Notably, we interpreted the claim
`element “the histogram calculation units being configured to form a
`histogram representative of the parameter,” as recited in claim 1, to mean
`“the at least two histogram calculation units being configured to each form a
`histogram representative of at least one common parameter.” Id. at 10−12.
`
`9
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1006, 0009
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01189
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`We also interpreted 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.” Id. at 12−14 (emphases
`added). We further determined that the “statistical information,” as recited
`in the claim element of claim 18—namely, “wherein classification is
`performed automatically by processing statistical information associated
`with the calculated histogram”—must be associated with the same histogram
`for which the classification applies. Id. at 14−16.
`
`B. Principles of Law
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective
`evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
`(1966).
`
`10
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1006, 0010
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01189
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`(quoting Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey–Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d
`955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). In that regard, we do not observe a meaningful
`differences between the parties’ assessments of a person of ordinary skill in
`the art at the time of the invention. Pet. 28–29; Prelim. Resp. 9–10. For
`instance, both the parties agree that such an artisan would have had a degree
`in electrical engineering or a related field and experience in the field of
`image processing. Id. We further note that either assessment appears
`consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding. See Okajima
`v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Our analysis in this
`Decision is supported by either assessment.
`
`D. Obviousness over Pirim
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 2, 23, and 28 are unpatentable under
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Pirim, citing to the Declaration of John C. Hart,
`Ph.D., for support. Pet. 68–79; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 140–168. Patent Owner
`opposes. Prelim. Resp. 32–38. In our discussion below, we first provide a
`brief overview of Pirim, and then we address the parties’ contentions in turn,
`focusing on the disputed claim limitations.
`11
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1006, 0011
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01189
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`Overview of Pirim
`Pirim discloses an image processing system for detecting whether a
`driver is falling asleep by acquiring pictures of the driver and forming
`histograms to analyze opening and closing the driver’s eyes. Ex. 1005, 3.2
`Figure 14 of Pirim is reproduced below with highlighting added by
`Petitioner (Pet. 11).
`
`
`As shown in highlighted Figure 14 above, each histogram formation
`block 25 has histogram forming portion 25a, which includes memory 100
`(highlighted in red) and classifier 25b (highlighted in blue) for selecting the
`
`2 All references to the page numbers in Pirim are the original page numbers,
`not the page numbers inserted by Petitioner.
`12
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1006, 0012
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01189
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`criteria of pixels for which the histogram is to be formed. Ex. 1005, 26–27.
`Classifier 25b enables only data having selected classification criteria to be
`considered further. Id. at 27. The output of classifier 25b proceeds to bus
`23 (highlighted in yellow), which also carries the output of other classifiers
`in the system. Id. at 29. These signals proceed to validation unit 31
`(highlighted in purple), which generates a validation signal. Id. at 26.
`
`Claim 2
`As a dependent claim, claim 2 requires all of the limitations recited in
`independent claim 1, including “at least two histogram calculation units . . .
`being configured to form a histogram representative of the parameter.”
`Ex. 1001, 26:47–50. As discussed above in the claim construction section,
`we interpret this claim limitation as “the at least two histogram calculation
`units being configured to each form a histogram representative of at least
`one common parameter.” See supra Section II.A.
`In this regard, Petitioner acknowledges that Pirim’s histogram
`units 24−29, as shown in Figure 12, treat different parameters, not the
`same parameter, as required by claim 2. Pet. 72 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 12).
`Nevertheless, Petitioner argues that it would have been “obvious that two
`histogram units could process the same parameter.” Id. (emphasis added)
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 144−45). As support, Petitioner notes that Pirim
`discloses that “each of the histogram formation blocks 24−29 is identical to
`the others and functions in the same manner.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 28).
`According to Petitioner, each of the histogram units “is capable of forming a
`histogram of any of the parameters.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`13
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1006, 0013
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01189
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner counters that Pirim does not teach or suggest two
`histogram calculation units treating a common parameter. Prelim. Resp.
`32−36. Patent Owner notes that Figure 12 of Pirim shows that each
`histogram block receives a separate and different parameter. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1005, 75, Fig. 12). Patent Owner argues that the mere possibility that
`“two histogram units could process the same parameter” is not sufficient to
`render a claim element obvious, especially when Pirim discloses the
`opposite. Id. at 35−36 (citing In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed.
`Cir. 2014) (“In the context of the claimed rowing machine, however, the
`mere capability of pulling the handles is not the inquiry that the Board
`should have made; it should have determined whether it would have been
`obvious to modify the prior art apparatus to arrive at the claimed rowing
`machine.”)).
`We agree with Patent Owner. There is no dispute that Figure 12 of
`Pirim shows each histogram block processing a different parameter.
`Pet. 70−71; Prelim. Resp. 33−35; Ex. 1005, 27–28, 75, Fig. 12.
`
`14
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1006, 0014
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01189
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`F l
`
`Sprc-d
`,,,.
`C0-7)
`
`Figure 12 of Pirim is reproduced below with annotations added by
`Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 34).
`...
`L .......... -..lCW'
`lfl-~!l'-11
`
`OirtC"tio•
`
`•-"'"• ----------l--~
`-----
`-
`
`1-
`
`1-- - - -- -- - ....:=--~ r-:.......,.""'-::--u:-uc------,
`
`-
`
`111 Pesir:io•
`C' Ul-brr el pi'UPI.,
`i • almc--
`
`.22'1
`
`'P-
`
`!- Po~ili•n
`• ' •mlbie'ror1aa .. -.
`IH • ,ra . . -e-)
`
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 12 above, Pirim’s histogram formation
`blocks 24–29 receive input signals for different parameters. Notably,
`histogram formation block 24 forms histograms for the luminance values.
`Ex. 1005, 27. Histogram formation block 25 forms histograms for speed
`signals; histogram formation block 26 forms histograms for direction
`signals; histogram formation block 27 forms histograms for time constant
`signals; and histogram formation block 28 and 29 form histograms for the
`x and y positions of pixels, respectively. Id. at 27–29. In short, each of the
`histogram formation blocks in Pirim is configured to process a different
`parameter—no two histogram formation blocks are configured to process
`the same parameter, as required by claim 2.
`15
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1006, 0015
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01189
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and Dr. Hart’s
`testimony that “it would be obvious that two histogram units could process
`the same parameter, even if the example of Figure 12 shows them treating
`different parameters.” Pet. 72; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 144−45 (emphasis added). As
`our reviewing court has explained, “obviousness concerns whether a skilled
`artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the
`combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed
`invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d, 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir.
`2015) (citing InTouch Technologies, Inc. v. VGO Communications, Inc., 751
`F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
`Nothing in Pirim suggests a system having two histogram blocks
`treating the same parameter. In fact, as discussed above, each of Pirim’s
`histogram blocks is configured to process a different parameter. Petitioner
`does not direct us to where Pirim teaches or suggests otherwise. Neither
`Petitioner nor Dr. Hart has articulated why one with ordinary skill in the art
`would have had a reason to modify Pirim’s system to configure two
`histogram formation blocks for treating the same parameter. See KSR, 550
`U.S. at 418 (stressing that it is “important to identify a reason that would
`have prompted [an ordinarily skilled artisan] to combine the elements in the
`way the claimed new invention does”).
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not
`demonstrated sufficiently that Pirim teaches or suggests at least two
`histogram calculation units being configured to treat the same parameter, as
`required by claim 2.
`
`16
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1006, 0016
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01189
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`Claims 23 and 28
`Claim 23 recites, in relevant part:
`wherein the classification unit automatically anticipates values
`associated with the selected parameter at a next instant of time
`T2 based on statistical information associated with the
`calculated histograms at time T1 and at a previous time T0.
`Ex. 1001, 30:44−48 (emphasis added). Claim 28 recites a similar limitation.
`Id. at 31:6−10.
`In regard to this claim limitation, Petitioner argues that Pirim
`discloses processing statistical information associated with the calculated
`histogram. Pet. 75 (citing Ex. 1005, 30). Petitioner also asserts that Pirim
`discloses a system that “includes an anticipation function which enables
`XMIN, XMAS, YMIN and YMAX to be automatically modified by the
`system to compensate for the speed and direction of the target,” and that the
`controller in Pirim may modify these values on a frame-by-frame basis. Id.
`at 76−79 (citing Ex. 1005, 12, 16, 30, 38, Fig. 5; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 157−68).
`Petitioner contends that it would have been “obvious to anticipate the value
`of a parameter at time T2 based on statistical information associated with the
`calculated histograms at time T1 and at a previous time T0.” Id.
`In Patent Owner’s view, however, Petitioner fails to show Pirim
`teaches or suggests that the “classification unit automatically anticipates
`values associated with the selected parameter . . . based on statistical
`information associated with the calculated histograms at time T1 and at a
`previous time T0.” Prelim. Resp. 36−38 (emphasis added). Patent Owner
`avers that XMIN, XMAX, YMIN and YMAX are not “statistical
`information associated with a calculated histogram,” but are values defining
`17
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1006, 0017
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01189
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`a “user-defined area,” which causes the histogram formation unit to process
`pixels only within those boundaries. Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 1005, 33). Patent
`Owner also contends that Petitioner fails to identify “histograms at an instant
`of time T1 and at a previous instant of time T0,” as required by claims 23
`and 28. Id. at 38.
`We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner’s contention that it would
`have been “obvious to anticipate the value of a parameter at time T2 based
`on statistical information associated with the calculated histograms at time
`T1 and at a previous time T0” is conclusory. Pet. 75−77. Petitioner fails to
`establish that the XMIN, XMAS, YMIN and YMAX, in Pirim, are
`“statistical information associated with the calculated histograms at time T1
`and at a previous time T0,” as required by claims 23 and 28. Id. (emphasis
`added). Nothing in the cited portions of Pirim suggests that those values are
`associated with both “calculated histograms at time T1 and at a previous
`time T0.” Id. at 77 (emphasis added); Ex. 1005, 12, 16, 30, 38.
`The cited portions of Pirim, at best, disclose that those values are
`information associated with a single calculated histogram. Id. Petitioner
`does not articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
`reason to modify Pirim “to anticipate the value of a parameter at time T2
`based on statistical information associated with calculated histograms at time
`T1 and at a previous time T0.” Id. Dr. Hart’s testimony is also unavailing,
`adding nothing beyond the statements already in the Petition. Ex. 1002
`¶¶ 157−168. Obviousness cannot be established “by mere conclusory
`statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some
`
`18
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1006, 0018
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01189
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR,
`550 U.S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`It is Petitioner’s burden to explain how the asserted prior art, Pirim,
`renders the claims unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(4). Here, Petitioner’s conclusory statement, without further
`explanation as to how the cited disclosures in Pirim support that conclusion,
`is insufficient to meet its burden.
`In light of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not
`established adequately that Pirim teaches or suggests a “classification unit
`automatically anticipates values associated with the selected parameter . . .
`based on statistical information associated with the calculated histograms at
`time T1 and at a previous time T0,” as required by claims 23 and 28.
`
`Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated that there
`is a reasonable likelihood that claims 2, 23, and 28 are unpatentable under
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Pirim.
`
`E. Obviousness over Pirim and Qian
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 24−27 are unpatentable under § 103(a) as
`obvious over the combination of Pirim and Qian. Pet. 79−83.
`Claims 24−27, as dependent claims, each incorporate all of the limitations
`recited in independent claim 23. Petitioner relies upon the same arguments
`presented above to account for the limitation a “classification unit
`automatically anticipates values associated with the selected parameter . . .
`based on statistical information associated with the calculated histograms at
`19
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1006, 0019
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01189
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`time T1 and a previous time T0,”as recited in claim 23. Id. In our analysis
`above regarding claim 23, we have addressed those arguments, and
`determine that Petitioner’s arguments are likewise unavailing here.
`Petitioner does not rely on Qian for any teaching that would remedy the
`deficiencies discussed above in connection with claim 23. Therefore,
`Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its
`assertion that claims 24−27 are unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over
`Pirim and Qian.
`
`F. Obviousness over Pirim and Eriksson
`Petitioner asserts that claims 20 and 21 are unpatentable under
`§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Pirim and Eriksson. Pet. 60–
`68. Patent Owner opposes. Prelim. Resp. 30−32. In our discussion below,
`we first provide a brief overview of Eriksson, and then we address the
`parties’ contentions in turn, focusing on the disputed claim limitations.
`
`Overview of Eriksson3
`
`Eriksson discloses an eye-tracking system that uses histograms to
`identify and track eye movement. Ex. 1008, Abstract, 315.4 Eriksson
`locates the eyes using a threshold classifier and an adaptive thresholding
`method. Id. at 316. Starting with a low threshold, if two good eye-regions
`are found, that threshold is stored, and used the next time the eyes have to be
`
`3 An overview of Pirim has been provided previously in the section
`concerning the obviousness ground based on Pirim alone (Section II.D).
`4 All references to the pages numbers in Eriksson are the original page
`numbers, not the page numbers inserted by Petitioner.
`20
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1006, 0020
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01189
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`localized. Id. If not, the system automatically uses a higher threshold until
`the regions are found. Id.
`
`Claims 20 and 21
`Claims 20 and 21, as dependent claims, each incorporate all of the
`limitations recited in independent claim 18, including: a classification unit
`“configured to determine the data in the histogram that satisfy a selected
`criterion . . . , wherein classification is performed automatically by
`processing statistical information associated with the calculated histogram.”
`Ex. 1001, 29:31–35, 43–45. As discussed above in the claim construction
`section, the “statistical information” used for automatic classification must
`be associated with the same histogram for which the classification applies.
`See supra Section II.A.
`In regard to this limitation, Petitioner avers that Pirim discloses
`processing statistical information associated with the calculated histogram,
`and Pirim also discloses that “the controller can read the statistical data, can
`set the values of the classification criteria, and can run a program to do so.”
`Pet. 64−66 (citing Ex. 1005, 30, 38, 39). Petitioner further argues that
`Eriksson updates classification thresholds based on previously collected
`data. Id. at 65−66 (citing Ex. 1008, 316; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 131−33). According
`to Petitioner, to keep the system working well under a variety of lighting
`conditions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
`apply Eriksson’s adaptive thresholding to Pirim’s system. Id. at 62 (citing
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 122).
`
`21
`
`Petitioner LG Ex-1006, 0021
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01189
`Patent 6,959,293 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner counters that Petitioner has not shown the combination
`of Pirim and Eriksson teaches or suggests the aforementioned limitation.
`Prelim. Resp. 30−32. We agree with Patent Owner. In particular, Petitioner
`does not show sufficiently how Pirim discloses the “classification is
`performed automatically by processing statistical information associated
`with the calculated histogram,” as required by claims 20 and 21. Petitioner’s
`assertion that Pirim discloses “the controller can read the statistical [data,]
`can set the values of the classification criteria, and can run a program to do
`so” (Pet. 65) is unsupported by Pirim’s disclosure (Ex. 1005, 30, 38−39). As
`Patent Owner points out (Prelim. Resp. 31), Petitioner provides no evidence
`of such a program or configuration in Pirim. Moreover, the cited portions of
`Pirim do not disclose the statistical information used for automatic
`classification is associated with the same histogram for which the
`classification applies. Ex. 1005, 30, 38−39. As our reviewing court has
`articulated, “legal determinations of obviousness, as with such
`determinations generally, should be based on evidence rather than on mere
`speculation or conjecture.” Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286,
`1290 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`Petitioner also does not show Eriksson teaches or suggests that the
`statistical information used for automatic classification is associated with the
`same histogram for which the classification applies. As Patent Owner notes
`(Prelim. Resp. 31−32), Petitioner acknowledges that the portion of Eriksson
`on
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
