Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 12
`Entered: May 25, 2017
`
`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 TECHNOLOGIESLLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, MICHAEL R. ZECHER,and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F-R. § 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 12
`Entered: May 25, 2017
`
`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 TECHNOLOGIESLLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, MICHAEL R. ZECHER,and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F-R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 311-19 requesting an inter partes review of claims 14 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,805,001 B2, issued on August 12, 2014 (Ex. 1001, “the ’001 patent’).
`
`Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Image Processing Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner’)
`
`filed a Preliminary Response. Paper6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Applying the
`
`standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstration of a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`
`one challenged claim, we grant Petitioner’s request and institute an inter
`
`partes review ofall challenged claims.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ’001 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The °001 patentis titled “Image Processing Method.” Ex. 1001, at
`
`[54]. The Abstract describes the subject matter as follows:
`
`A method and apparatusfor localizing an area in relative
`movement and for determining the speed and direction thereofin
`real time is disclosed. Each pixel of an image is smoothed using
`its own time constant. A binary value corresponding to the
`existence of a significant variation in the amplitude of the
`smoothed pixel from the prior frame, and the amplitude of the
`variation, are determined, and the time constant for the pixel is
`updated. For each particular pixel, two matrices are formed that
`include a subset of the pixels spatially related to the particular
`pixel. The first matrix contains the binary values of the subset of
`pixels. The second matrix contains the amplitudeofthe variation
`of the subset of pixels.
`In the first matrix,
`it is determined
`whether the pixels along an oriented direction relative to the
`* particular pixel have binary values representative of significant
`variation, and, for such pixels, it is determined in the second
`matrix whether the amplitude of these pixels varies in a known
`manner indicating movementin the oriented direction.
`In each
`of several domains, histogram of the values in the first and
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`second matrices falling in such domain is formed. Using the
`histograms,it is determined whetherthere is an area having the
`characteristics of the particular domain. The domains include
`luminance, hue, saturation, speed (V), oriented direction (Dl),
`time constant (CO), first axis (x(m)), and second axis (y(m)).
`
`Td. at [57].
`
`Figure 14a of the ’001 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 14a depicts a hypothetical velocity histogram with classes Ci—-Cy
`
`each representing a particular velocity. Jd. at 20:54-59. Figure 17 of the
`
`’001 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 17 depicts x axis and y axis histogramsof the head of a user in a
`
`video conference. Jd. at 22:10-12, 22:60—23:5. The face V ofthe useris
`
`approximately defined by the peaksin the two histograms. Jd. at 23:6-14.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`Figure 22 of the ’001 patent is reproduced below.
`
` mee me ee
`
`><——--p—-[.--- a
`
`222
`
`Xvi 4 c Yaar
`
`CIC. 22
`
`)Btnk
`
`Figure 22 depicts a circumstance where an area under consideration begins
`
`to cross the borders of the target. Jd. at 24:42—46. In particular, histograms
`
`222 and 224 for x and y projections include pixels in whichthereis a
`
`significant variation, and thus the histograms detect the target edge in the x
`
`and y axis. Jd. at 5:15—18, 24:42-46. The ’001 patent discloses that in a
`
`preferred embodiment, the center of the area “is determined to be
`
`(XmmtXmaxy2, (Ymint+Ymax)/2, where Xmiw and Xmax are the positions of
`
`the minima and maximaofthe x projection histogram, and Yuin and Ymax
`
`are the positions of the minima and maximaofthe y projection histogram.
`
`... Other methodsofrelocating the center of the target box may beused if
`
`desired.” Jd. at 24:50-58.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`
`Ofthe challenged claims, claim 1 is independent andis reproduced
`
`below:
`
`in an input signal
`1. A process of tracking a target
`implemented using a system comprising an image processing
`system, the input signal comprising a succession of frames, each
`frame comprising a succession ofpixels, the target comprising
`pixels in one or more ofa plurality of classes in one or more of a
`plurality of domains,
`the process performed by said system
`comprising, on a frame-by-framebasis:
`forming at least one histogram ofthe pixels in the one or
`more ofa plurality of classes in the one or more ofa plurality of
`domains, said at least one histogram referring to classes defining
`said target, and identifying the target
`in said at
`least one
`histogram itself,
`least one
`in said at
`wherein identifying the target
`histogram further comprises determining a center of the target to
`be between X and Y minima and maxima of the target.
`
`Id. at 26:40-54.
`
`C. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owneridentify a related litigation in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas involving the ’001 patent, as well as other patents,titled:
`
`Image Processing Techs. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:16-cv-00505-
`
`JRG (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 1; Paper 3, 2. Petitioner indicates that it has
`
`concurrently filed inter partes review petitions for the other patents asserted
`
`in thatlitigation, and Patent Owneralso identifies those inter partes reviews.
`Pet. 1; Paper3, 2.
`|
`
`D. Level ofSkill in the Art
`
`Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`[at] the time of the alleged invention of the 001 Patent would
`have had either (1) a Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`or Computer Science or the equivalent plus at least a year of
`experience in the field of image processing, image recognition,
`machinevision, or a related field or (2) a Bachelor’s Degree in
`Electrical Engineering or Computer Science or the equivalent
`plus at least three years of experience in the field of image
`processing, image recognition, machinevision,or a related field.
`
`Pet. 4. Petitioner further contends “[a]dditional education could substitute
`
`for work experience and vice versa.” Jd. (citing Ex. 1002 (Declaration of
`
`Dr. John C. Hart) J 44-48). Patent Owner contends a person of ordinary
`
`skill “would be someone with an undergraduate degreein electrical
`
`engineering or image processingora related field, followed by at least two
`
`years of graduate courseworkandalso at least early-stage thesis research,in
`
`digital image processing.” Prelim. Resp. 11-12. At this stage of the
`
`proceeding, we determine our decision would not change undereither
`
`assessment.
`
`E. References
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`
`1. “Gilbert” (Alton L. Gilbert, et al., A Real-Time Video Tracking
`System, PAMI-2 No. 1 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN
`ANALYSIS AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE47-56 (1980))
`(Ex. 1005);
`;
`2. “Hashima” (U.S. Patent No. 5,521,843; issued May 28, 1996)
`(Ex. 1006); and
`
`3. “Ueno” (U.S. Patent No. 5,150,432; issued Sept. 22, 1992)
`(Ex. 1007).
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`F. Grounds Asserted
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1-4 of the ’001 patent
`
`on the following grounds:
`
`|peterences|ass|i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I USC.$ 1056)
`
`
`
`Petitioner also relies on expert testimony from Dr. Hart (Ex. 1002,
`
`“Hart Decl.’’).
`
`Il. ANALYSIS:
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`Claims of an expired patent are given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning in accordance with Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc). See In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir.
`2012). On the other hand, claim terms in an unexpired patent are construed
`according to their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 8. Ct. 2131, 2144-46 (2016).
`
`Petitioner contends the ’00! patent will expire on December2, 2017,
`
`which is within 18 months of the Notice of Filing Date Accorded (Paper5
`
`(according the Petition a filing date of November 29, 2016)) and, thus,
`
`Petitioner states that it has applied the Phillips standard to all claim
`
`construction issues. Pet. 3. We note that Petitioner does not propose any
`
`explicit constructions for any claim terms, and Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Hart,
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`states he has “interpreted all claim terms accordingto their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning.” Jd.; Ex. 1002 49. Patent Owner “agrees that the
`
`Phillips standard should apply for purposesofthis inter partes review,” and
`
`Patent Ownerproposes constructions for several claim terms. Prelim. Resp.
`12-23.
`
`In an inter partes review, a party may requesta district court-type
`claim construction standard beapplied if the challenged patent will expire
`
`within 18 months of the entry of the Notice of Filing Data Accorded to
`
`Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In this case, other than the phrase
`
`“forming at least one histogram ofthe pixels in the one or more ofaplurality
`of classes in the one or moreofa plurality of domains,”asrecited in claim 1
`
`and discussed below, we determine explicit construction of any term is not
`
`necessary to resolve the issues before usat this stage of the proceeding. 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 construedthat are in
`controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”).
`
`Wefurther determine our construction of “forming at least one histogram of
`
`the pixels in the one or moreof a plurality of classes in the one or more of a
`
`plurality of domains,” discussed below, would not change based on the
`
`claim construction standard applied. Because Patent Ownerdoes not contest
`
`that the 001 patent will expire during this proceeding, we construe the
`
`claims of the 001 patent under the claim construction standard applicable to
`
`expired patents—namely, the district court-type claim construction standard.
`
`Patent Ownerarguesthat “forming at least one histogram ofthe pixels
`
`in the one or moreofa plurality of classes in the one or more ofa plurality
`
`of domains” should be construedas “forming at least one histogram of the
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`pixels in two or more classesthat are in two or more domains.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 17. In essence, Patent Ownerarguesthat “one or more ofa plurality”
`
`requires at least one plurality (i.e., two or more). Jd. (citing Ex. 2002).
`
`Patent Ownerfurther argues that a construction that requires “at least one
`
`class selected from multiple classes, and at least one domain selected from
`
`multiple domains, would render the term ‘plurality’ superfluous, so that the
`
`claim limitation would be reduced to ‘one or moreclasses in one or more
`
`domains.’” Jd. at 17-18.
`
`Wedisagree with Patent Owner. “[C]laims are interpreted with an
`
`eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.” Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann
`
`Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`construction would render “one or more”in the claim superfluous(i.e.,
`under Patent Owner’s construction, the claim could simply read “a plurality
`
`of classes that are in a plurality of domains”). On the other hand,
`
`interpreting the phrase “formingat least one histogram ofthe pixels in the
`
`one or more ofa plurality of classes in the one or moreofa plurality of
`
`domains” to encompassat least one class from amonga plurality of possible
`
`classes and at least one domain from amonga plurality of possible domains
`
`gives effect to all the terms of the claim.
`
`Accordingly, we determinethat “forming at least one histogram ofthe
`
`pixels in the one or more of a plurality of classes in the one or moreof a
`plurality of domains”is not limited to “forming at least one histogram ofthe
`pixels in two or moreclasses that are in two or more domains.”
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`B. Asserted Obviousness Over Gilbert and Hashima
`1. Overview of Gilbert and Hashima
`
`Gilbert is titled “A Real-Time Video Tracking System,” and dated
`
`January 1980. Ex. 1005, 47.' Gilbert relates to an object identification and
`
`tracking system, which includes an image processing system comprising a
`
`video processor, a projection processor, a tracker processor, and a control
`
`processor. Id. at 47-48. Gilbert’s video processor receives a digitized video
`
`signal in which eachfield consists of pixels. Jd. at 48. Gilbert discloses that
`
`“Te]very 96 ns, a pixel intensity is digitized and quantizedinto eightbits
`
`(256 gray levels), counted into one of six 256-level histogram memories, and
`
`then converted by a decision memory to a 2-bit code indicating its
`
`classification (target, plume, or background.).” Jd. Gilbert’s projection
`
`processor then usespixels identified as being part of the target to create
`
`x- and y-projections. Jd. at 50. Figure 4 of Gilbert is reproduced below.
`
`' Werefer to the original page numbersat the top of the pages rather than
`the page numbersadded by Petitioner.
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`Fig. 4. Projection location technique.
`
`Figure 4 of Gilbert depicts a Y-projection and X-projections ofthe target.
`
`Gilbert’s system uses these projections to determine the center of the upper
`
`and lowerportions of the target, and those points are then used to determine
`
`the center of the target (Xc, Yc). Jd. at 50-51.
`
`Hashimaistitled “System for and Method of Recognizing and
`Tracking Target Mark,” and issued on May 28, 1996. Ex. 1006, at [45],
`
`[54]. Hashimarelates to a system and method of recognizing andtracking a
`target mark with a video camera. Jd. at [57]. In Hashima, the target mark
`
`can be a black circle with a white triangle as depicted in Figure 3
`
`(reproduced below).
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`FIG.3
`
`10
`
`f~
`
`Figure 3 depicts Hashima’s target mark. Figure 6 of Hashima is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`Y-PROJECTED
`
`HISTOGRAM
`
`XPROUECTED wsTooRaa
`
`F1G.6
`
`Figure 6 depicts x- and y-projected histogramsof a target mark. Hashima
`
`describes creating these histograms by summing the numberofblack pixels
`
`at each x- or y- location. Jd. at 8:18—9:7. Hashima also describes finding
`
`the central position of the detected mark as shownin Figure 15 below.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`Yb!
`
`™~
`
`12A
`
`HA
`
`C
`Yb2
`
`FIG.I5
`
`fp
`
`!
`
`Yow
`
`15
`
`Figure 15 depicts a process of finding central position Pm ofthe target mark.
`
`Hashimadescribes finding Pm (mx, my) using the equations (1) mx =
`
`(Xb1+Xb2)/2 and (2) my = (Yb1+Yb2)/2. Jd. at 11:6-25.
`
`2, Analysis
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and theprior art are such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obviousat the time the
`
`invention was madeto a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. See 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 contentofthe priorart;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the priorart;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) whenin the record, objective
`
`evidence of nonobviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`
`17-18 (1966). In that regard, an obviousnessanalysis “need not seek out
`
`precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
`
`claim, for a court can take accountof the inferences andcreative steps that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1-4 would have been obvious over
`
`Gilbert and Hashima. Pet. 32-49. We have reviewedthe information
`
`provided by Petitioner, including the relevant portions of the supporting Hart
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1002), and are persuaded, based on the current record,that
`
`Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this
`
`obviousnesschallenge.
`
`For example, for claim 1’s preamble,” Petitioner contends Gilbert
`
`discloses a processof trackinga target(i.e., a missile) and uses a video
`
`signal (i.e., input signal) comprising digitized fields with a frame rate of 60
`
`fields/s (i.e., 30 frames/s in a succession of frames), each image frame
`
`comprising a matrix of digitized points (i.e., a succession of pixels). Pet. 37
`
`(citing Ex. 1005, 47-48; Ex. 1002 9§ 90-91). Petitioner further contends
`
`that Gilbert tracks the target by categorizing pixels into 256 gray-scale levels
`
`(i.e., a plurality of classes) according to their pixel intensity (i.e., domain),
`
`and Gilbert discloses that a plurality of other domains, such as “texture,
`
`edge, and linearity measures” could also be used.
`
`/d. (citing Ex. 1005, 48).
`
`Petitioner contends Hashimaalso teaches the preamble. Jd. at 38.
`
`Petitioner contends Gilbert and Hashimaeachdisclose the step of
`
`“forming at least one histogram ofthe pixels in the one or moreofa plurality
`
`of classes in the one or more ofa plurality of domains, said at least one
`
`histogram referring to classes defining said target,” as recited in claim 1. Id.
`
`at 38. Specifically, Petitioner relies on Gilbert’s intensity histogram
`
`(discussed above), as well as Hashima’s X- and Y- projection histograms.
`
`Id. at 38-39 (citing Ex. 1005, 48; Ex. 1006, 24:14-21; Ex. 1002 J] 95-98).
`
`* Atthis stage of the proceeding, we need not decide whether the claim
`preambleis limiting. Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`Forthe limitation of “identifying the target in said at least one histogram
`
`itself,” Petitioner contends the histograms in both Gilbert and Hashimaare
`
`used to identify a target. Jd. at 40-41 (citing Ex. 1005, 48-50; Ex. 1006,
`
`8:18—10:24; Ex. 1002 4¥ 102-103).
`
`Regarding “wherein identifying the target in said at least one
`
`histogram further comprises determining a center of the target to be between
`
`X and Y minima and maximaofthe target,” as recited in claim 1, Petitioner
`
`contends “Gilbert determines a center by computing the center of areas of
`
`the target’s upper and lowerhalves,” and by teachingthat “*
`tail points’ could be used.” Jd. at 41 (citing Ex. 1005, 50-51, Fig. 4;
`
`target nose and
`
`Ex. 1002 J 104). Petitioner further contends that Hashimadiscloses
`
`“determining X-maxima and minima and Y-maxima and minimaofthe
`
`boundaries ofthe target in the histogram to calculate the center point of the
`
`target using the equations (Xmm + Xmax)/2 and (Ymin + Ymax)/2.” Id.
`
`(citing Ex. 1006, 11:13-24, Fig. 15; Ex. 1002 47 105-107).
`
`AlthoughPetitioner appears to contend Gilbert disclosesall of the
`
`limitations of claim 1, Petitioner contendsthat, “[t]o the extent Patent Owner
`
`argues Gilbert does not disclose the claimed plurality of domains or method
`
`of finding the center of the target, it would have been obviousto replace
`
`these features of Gilbert with those of Hashima.” Jd. at 41 (citing Ex. 1002
`
`101). Petitioner further argues the combination of Hashimaand Gilbert
`
`teach “an input signal comprising a succession of frames, each frame
`
`comprising a successionofpixels,” as recited in claim 1. Jd. at 42.
`
`Petitioner also providesa sufficiently persuasive rationale for
`
`combining the teachings of Gilbert and Hashima. For example, Petitioner
`
`contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading Gilbert would have
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`been motivated to plot histograms in other domainsto increase the
`
`likelihood of successfully recognizing the target “because each additional
`
`domain provides another opportunity for correlation between that domain
`
`and the unique target being tracked.” Jd. at 34. Petitioner also contendsthat
`
`a person ofordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace
`
`Gilbert’s calculation of center points for the top and bottom half of the target
`
`with a simpler center calculation for the entire target as taught in Hashima to
`
`achieve a “significantly smaller computational burden,” and to allow Gilbert
`
`to track objects with different shapes. Jd. at 36. To support its rationales for
`
`combining the teachings of Gilbert and Hashima, Petitioner relies upon the
`
`supporting testimony of Dr. Hart. Ex. 1002 4 79-89.
`
`Petitioner provides further analysis of claims 2-4, detailing whereit
`
`contends each limitation of those claimsis taught by Gilbert and Hashima.
`
`Id. at 42-46. Wehave reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and argument, and
`
`find that, on the current record, Petitioner has sufficiently shownthe cited
`
`references teach each limitation of the challenged claims, and that Petitioner
`
`has provided a sufficiently persuasive rationale for combining those
`
`teachingsat this stage of the proceeding. Id.
`
`Patent Owner argues Gilbert and Hashima, alone or in combination,
`
`do not teach “forming at least one histogram ofthe pixels in the one or more
`
`of a plurality of classes in the one or more ofa plurality of domains,said at
`
`least one histogram referring to classes defining said target,” “identifying the
`
`target in said at least one histogram itself,” and “wherein identifying the
`
`target in said at least one histogram further comprises determining a center
`
`of the target to be between X and Y minima and maximaofthe target,” as
`
`'
`
`recited in claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 29-38. Patent Owner arguesneither
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`Gilbert’s intensity histogramsnorits projection histograms teach these claim
`
`limitations. Jd. at 29-35. Regarding Gilbert’s intensity histograms, Patent
`
`Ownerarguesthey fail to teach these limitations because (1) they are in a
`
`single domain(i.e., intensity), (2) they are not formed ofpixels in two or
`
`more classes, and (3) they do not determine a center of the target. Jd. at 29-
`
`33. Patent Owneralso argues that because Gilbert mentions other
`
`parameters(i.e., domains), but does not disclose using more than a single
`
`parameter(i.e., intensity) in combination, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have been lead away “from forming histogram(s) of the pixels in two
`or more selected subsets of parameter values that are in two or more
`
`domains, where the histogram(s) refer to selected subsets of parameter
`
`values that define the target.” Jd. at 31-32.
`
`Regarding Gilbert’s projection histograms, Patent Ownerargues they
`
`fail to teach the argued limitations because (1) they are formedafter the
`
`target has been identified, (2) the classes in those histogramsdo notdefine
`
`the target, (3) they are not used to identify the target by determining a center
`
`of the target, and (4) they determine the center of the upper and lower halves
`
`of the target. Jd. at 33-35. Patent Owneralso argues that Gilbert “teaches
`
`away from identifying and using minima and maximaofthetarget(i.e., nose
`
`and tail).” Jd. at 34.
`
`Patent Ownerfurther argues that “Hashimadoesnot cure the
`
`deficiencies of Gilbert, because the x-axis and y-axis histograms of Hashima
`
`on which Petitioner relies do notsatisfy the language of the claim.” Jd. at
`
`35. In particular, Patent Owner argues Hashima’s histograms(1) includeall
`
`of the pixels in a window,(2) form separate histogramsin the x- and y-
`
`position domains, and (3) look for target characteristics such as numberof
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`peaks. Id. at 35-37. Patent Owneralso argues Hashima’s computation of
`
`the center ofthe target is not part of its identification of the target. Jd. at 37.
`
`Atthis stage of the proceeding, we are not persuaded by Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments regarding the references’ teachings. As discussed above
`
`in our claim construction section, we have not adopted Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed construction which would require a plurality of domains. See
`
`supra Section II.A. Wealso find Petitioner has sufficiently shown the
`
`references teach a plurality of classes. For example, Petitioner relies on
`
`Gilbert’s 256 gray-scale levels in its intensity domain as teaching a plurality
`
`of classes. See Pet. 37; Ex. 1002
`
`52.
`
`Wealso see no requirementin claim | that the classes collectively
`
`must comprise less than all of the values in the domain as Patent Owner
`
`appears to suggest. See Prelim. Resp. 32 (arguing Gilbert’s intensity
`
`histogramsinclude pixels with all intensity values and, thus, “are not formed
`
`of pixels in two or moreselected subsets of values of a parameter (classes),
`
`in this case, intensity, that define the target’’); id. at 35 (arguing Hashima’s
`
`histograms “include ail of the pixel data in the window”). Specifically,
`
`claim 1, which uses the open-endedtransition “comprising,” recites that the
`
`target comprises pixels in one or more ofa plurality of classes and that the
`
`histogram is formed from thosepixels, but it does not preclude the histogram
`
`from also including other pixels outside the target.
`
`Patent Ownerarguesthata target is not identified from Gilbert’s
`
`projection histograms becausethe target was already previously identified in
`
`Gilbert’s intensity histogram. Prelim. Resp. 33-34. Weare sufficiently
`
`persuadedthat identifying the target in the intensity histograms does not
`
`preclude the target from also being identified in the projection histograms.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`As shownin Gilbert’s Figure 4 (depicted above), Gilbert’s projection
`
`histograms display target pixels and identify the target in the x- and
`
`y-domains. See Ex. 1002 (Hart Decl.) 9 55.
`
`Patent Owner further argues “Petitioner admits that Gilbert’s center
`calculation does not involve x and y minima and maximaofthe target, but
`
`instead uses the center of areas of the target’s upper and lower halves.”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 34 (citing Pet. 41). Patent Owner argues “Gilbert teaches
`
`awayfrom identifying and using minima and maximaofthetarget(i.e., nose
`
`and tail)’ because “Gilbert explains thatit is difficult to determine nose and
`
`tail position and the determinationis sensitive to noise.” Id.
`Weare not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments regarding claim
`1’s determination of a center because these arguments are not commensurate
`
`with the scope of the claim, whichrecites “identifying the target in said at
`
`least one histogram further comprises determining a center of the target to be
`
`between X and Y minima and maximaofthe target.” This limitation does
`
`not require that the center calculation “involve x and y minima and maxima”
`
`or the nose andtail of the target, as Patent Owner argues (Prelim. Resp. 34).
`
`Instead, it requires that the center of the target “be between X and Y minima
`
`and maximaofthe target.” As shownin Figure 4 of Gilbert (reproduced
`
`above), Gilbert determines a center of the target (Xc, Yc) which is between
`
`the X and Y minima and maxima. Ex. 1005, 50, Fig. 4. At this stage of the
`
`proceeding, we.do not read claim 1 as precluding Gilbert’s intermediate
`calculation of the center of the top half and bottom half of the target, which
`are then used to determinethe target’s center. See id. In addition, we note
`that Patent Owner’s arguments do not persuasively address Petitioner’s
`
`contention that it would have been obvious to combine Gilbert with
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`Hashima’s teaching of determining the center of the target to be between X
`
`and Y minima and maximaofthe target. See Pet. 35-36, 41.
`
`Patent Owner argues Hashimadoesnot cure Gilbert’s deficiencies and
`
`that Hashima’s x-axis and y-axis histogramsdo notsatisfy the limitations of
`
`claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 35. At this stage of the proceeding, we do not find
`
`these arguments persuasive because they focus on Hashimain isolation, and
`
`they do not address the combination of Gilbert and Hashima argued by
`
`Petitioner (see Pet. 32-36).
`
`Regarding Petitioner’s rationale to combine Gilbert and Hashima,
`
`Patent Ownercontends a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
`
`combined Gilbert and Hashima because Gilbert is directed to tracking an
`
`unknown and fast-moving target (e.g., a missile), whereas Hashimais
`
`directed to tracking a knowntarget(e.g., for docking a spaceship). Prelim.
`
`Resp. 45-52. Patent Owneralso argues “Hashima’s histogram algorithm is
`
`incompatible with Gilbert,” and “Petitioner fails to explain why a [person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art] would have used Hashima’s x- and y-axis
`
`histogramsin place of Gilbert’s intensity histograms, especially given that
`
`the target shape and attitude with respect to the camera are not knownto the
`
`system of Gilbert.” Jd. at 49-50. Patent Owneralsoreiterates its teaching
`
`away argumentfor Gilbert: “Gilbert teaches away from using [a method of
`
`calculating the target center based on the nose andtail points] becauseit
`
`would be overly sensitive to noise in the operating environmentof Gilbert.”
`
`Id. at 50-51.
`
`Atthis stage of the proceeding, we are not persuaded by Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments. As discussed above, Petitioner provides sufficiently
`
`persuasive reasoning for combining the teachings of Hashimawith Gilbert,
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`including that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
`
`modify Gilbert to (1) include histograms in multiple domains, as taught in
`
`Hashima,to increase the likelihood of successfully recognizing a target in an
`
`image frame (Pet. 34-35 (citing Ex. 1002 J§ 84—-85)); and (2) use the center
`
`calculation of Hashimabased on the end-points of a target, which is simpler
`
`and would result in a lower number of needed computations(id. at 35-36
`
`(citing Ex. 1002 J¥ 86—89)). Petitioner’s reasoningin this regard is
`
`supported by its expert’s testimony. Ex. 1002 (Hart Decl.) JJ 84-89.
`
`Based on the current record, we are unpersuaded a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would not have considered both Gilbert and Hashima because
`
`they track different types of targets. It is well-settled that simply because
`
`two references have different objectives does not preclude a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art from combiningtheir respective teachings. Jn re
`
`Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“The use of patents as
`
`referencesis not limited to what the patentees describe as their own
`
`inventions or to the problems with whichthey are concerned.”) (quoting Jn
`
`re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968)); see also EWP Corp. v.
`
`Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“A reference
`
`must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described
`
`invention or a preferred embodiment.”). In addition, we do not find Patent
`
`Owner’s teaching away argument persuasive for essentially the same reasons
`
`previously discussed above(i.e., claim 1 does not require a center
`
`calculation that uses the nose andtail points).
`
`For the reasons discussed above, based on the current record, we
`
`determine Petitioner has showna reasonablelikelihood of prevailing with
`
`respect to its obviousness challenge to claims 1-4 over Gilbert and Hashima.
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness Over Ueno and Gilbert
`
`1. Overview of Ueno
`
`Uenois titled “Apparatus for Encoding/Decoding Video Signals to
`
`Improve Quality of a Specific Region,” and issued on September 22, 1992.
`
`Ex. 1007, at [45], [54]. Ueno’s abstract describes its subject matter as
`
`follows:
`
`An image encoding apparatus comprises a region detecting
`circuit for detecting a specific region from input imagesignals
`and outputting the region specifying signals for discriminating
`the specific region from other regions, a low-pass filter for
`selectively filtering and outputting the image signals of regions
`other than the specific region in the input image signals, and an
`encoding circuit for encoding the imagesignal output from the
`low-passfilter.
`
`Id. at [57]. Figure 3 of Uenois reproduced below.
`
`(0,0) HISTOGRAM
`
`HISTOGRAM
`
`Xs
`
`xe
`
`FIG 3
`
`Figure 3 shows x- and y-axis histograms in Ueno. Uenostates:
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00347
`Patent 8,805,001 B2
`
`FIG. 3 showsan interframe difference image inputto the facial
`region detecting circuit 102.
`Information for the interframe
`difference image is converted into binary data of “0” or “1” by
`the presetfirst threshold level. Then the numberofpixels having
`the binary data value of “1” or the value equal to or more than
`the first threshold value is counted in the vertical and horizontal
`directions of the sc
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
