Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`.
`
`Paper 15
`Entered: June 26, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TRW AUTOMOTIVE US LLC
`Petitioner
`
`Vv.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-00263
`Patent8,222,588 B2
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, BARRY L. GROSSMAN,and
`BEVERLYM. BUNTING,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GROSSMAN,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`DenyingInstitution of Inter Partes Review
`37 CFR. § 42.108
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`.
`
`Paper 15
`Entered: June 26, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TRW AUTOMOTIVE US LLC
`Petitioner
`
`Vv.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-00263
`Patent8,222,588 B2
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, BARRY L. GROSSMAN,and
`BEVERLYM. BUNTING,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GROSSMAN,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`DenyingInstitution of Inter Partes Review
`37 CFR. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00263
`Patent 8,222,588 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`TRW Automotive US LLC (‘Petitioner’) filed a Petition requesting an inter
`
`partes review of claims 1-6, 8—23, and 25—27 of U.S. Patent No. 8,222,588 B2
`
`(“the ’588 patent”). Paper | (“Pet.”). The patent owner, Magna ElectronicsInc.
`
`(“Patent Owner”), filed.a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (Prelim. Resp.”’).
`
`The standardfor instituting an interpartes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a):
`
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter
`partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any
`response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of
`the claims challengedin the petition.
`
`Wedeterminethat the information presented does not showthatthere is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the
`unpatentability of any of claims 1-6, 8—23, and 25—27. Accordingly, we deny the
`Petition and do notinstitute an inter partes review of the ’588 patent.
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`TRWstates that the 588 patent is involved in a pendingdistrict court case,,
`
`titled Magna Electronics Inc. v. TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., No. 1:12-cv-
`
`00654-PLM (W.D. Mich.). Pet. 5.
`
`B. The ’588 Patent
`The challenged claims are directed to an image sensing system. Ex.' 1002,
`col. 12, 1. 58. The patent relates, in particular, to a system for controlling the
`
`headlights of a vehicle. Jd., col. 1, Il. 23-25. The disclosed system particularly is
`
`adapted to controlling the vehicle’s headlampsin response to sensing the
`headlights of oncoming vehicles and taillights of leading vehicles. /d., col. 1, 25—
`28. The image processing system is capable of identifying unique characteristics
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00263
`Patent 8,222,588 B2
`
`of light sources by comparing light source characteristics with spectral signatures .
`of known light sources, such as headlights and taillights. Jd., col. 1, 1. 67—col. 2,1.
`
`9.
`
`.
`Asshowngenerally in Figure 2 of the ’588 patent, reproduced below,the
`
`image processing system includes imaging sensor module 14, which senseslight
`from a scene forwardofthe vehicle; imaging controlcircuit 13', which receives
`data from sensor 14; and vehicle lighting control logic module 16, which
`exchangesdata with controlcircuit 13 and controls headlamps 18 for the purpose
`_of modifying the headlight beam. Ex. 1002,col. 3, I. 44-51.
`
`|
`| VEHICLE.
`LIGHTING —
`| CONTROL |
`
`‘LOGIC,
`
`Fig. 2 of the ’588 patent.
`
`' The Specification also refers to imaging control circuit 13 as a “digital signal
`processor.” See Ex. 1002, col. 3, 1. 47 (“imaging control circuit 13”); col. 4, Il. 53—
`54 (“digital signal processor 13”). This explains why reference numeral 13 in
`Figure 2 points to a box labelled “DSP.”
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00263
`Patent 8,222,588 B2
`
`Imaging sensor module 14 includesa lens, an array of photon-accumulating
`light sensors, and a spectral separation device, such asafilter array, for separating
`light from the scene forward ofthe vehicle into a plurality ofspectral bands. Ex.
`1002,col. 4, ll. 24-29. Digital signal processor 13 includes an analog-to-digital
`converter, which receives the output of the array of photon-accumulating light
`sensors and converts the analog pixel valuesto digital values. Id. at col. 4, Il. 56-
`58. The digital values are supplied toataillight detection circuit and a headlight
`detection circuit. Jd. at col. 4, Il. 58-60.
`|
`
`|
`
`The taillight detection circuit detects a red light source having an intensity
`above a particular threshold. Ex. 1002, col. 5, ll. 4-5. For each pixel thatis “red,”
`a comparison is made with adjacent “green”pixels and “blue” pixels. Jd. at col. 5,
`
`ll. 6-7. If the intensity of a red pixel is more than a particular numberoftimes the
`
`intensity of an adjacent green pixel and an adjacent blue pixel, then it is determined
`
`that the light source is red. Jd. at col. 5, Il. 7-10. The headlight detection circuit
`carries out a similar process. Jd. at col. 5, ll. 13-21. The image processing system
`recognizes the spectral signatures of detected light sources,i.e., headlights and
`taillights, as well as the spectral signatures of rejected light sources, such as lane
`markers, signs, and other sourcesofreflected light, all of which maybereadily
`
`identified by their spectral signature. Jd., col. 10, ll. 38-47.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Challenged claim 1, the sole challenged independentclaim, reproduced
`below,is illustrative of the claimed invention:
`
`1. An image sensing system for a vehicle, said image
`sensing system comprising:
`an imaging sensor comprising a two-dimensional array of
`light sensing pixels;
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00263
`Patent 8,222,588 B2
`
`said imaging sensor having.a forward field of view through
`the windshield of a vehicle equipped with said image sensing
`system to the exterior of the equipped vehicle;
`wherein said imaging sensor is operable to capture image
`data;
`a control comprising an image processor;
`wherein said image sensing system determines an object of
`interest present in said forward field of view of said imaging
`sensor via processing of said captured image data by said image
`processor; and
`wherein said image processing comprises spatialfiltering.
`
`D. References Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`
`ne
`| Issued Nov. 13, 1990
`US. Pat. No. 4,970,653.
`|
`
`uibitNumber)
`Ex. 1004
`
`|
`
`Published June 15,1987|Ex. 1005
`Japanese Kokai
`.
`Application, No. S62-
`131837, with certified
`translation.
`Bottesch,
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,166,681.
`
`Issued Nov. 24, 1992
`
`translation.’
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Tadashi, Published April 28, 1992|Ex. 1007
`
`Japanese Kokai
`Application No. Hei 4-
`127280, with certified
`
`.
`
`” Wereferto “Yanagawa”and “Tadashi”as the English translations of the original
`references. Petitioner provided affidavits attesting to the accuracy of the
`translations. See Exs. 1005, 1007; 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b).
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`August 1995
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Mei Chen,
`“AURORA:A Vision-
`Based Roadway
`Departure Warning
`System,” IEEE/RSJ
`International Conference
`on Intelligent Robots and
`Systems, p. 243.
`Ex. 1010
`Date and source not
`Zheng,
`“An Adaptive System for|included with exhibit
`Traffic Sign
`submitted’
`Recognition.”
`
`IPR2014-00263
`Patent 8,222,588 B2
`
`Vellacott,
`“CMOSin Camera”, IEE
`
`May 1994
`|
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`.
`
`No. 0 353 200.
`
`Venturello,
`European Patent
`Application Publication
`
`Published Jan. 31, 1990
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`> Exhibit 1010 has no identifying indicia of its source and date. Exhibit 1010
`includesthetitle, identity of the authors, what appears to be the identity of the
`authors’ employer, and text of an article. The Petition, on page 3, states the
`following citation for Exhibit 1010: Zhenget al., “An Adaptive System for Traffic
`Sign Recognition,” IEEE Proceedingsofthe Intelligent. Vehicles °94 Symposium,
`pp. 165-170 (Oct. 1994). The Petition is not evidence of the source and date of
`Exhibit 1010. 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(a).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00263
`Patent 8,222,588 B2
`
`E. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103:
`
`StatutoryBasis
`
`
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`1-6, 8, 9, 13-20, 26, and
`
`27
`
`
`
`-
`
`-
`
`25
`
`.
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`.
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kenue
`Yanagawa
`Tadashi
`Bottesch
`
`
`
`
`
`References; 200
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kenue
`
`
`Yanagawa
`Tadashi
`
`
`
`
`Bottesch
`
`
`Aurora
`
`
`Kenue
`
`
`Yanagawa
`Tadashi
`
`
`
`Bottesch
`
`
`Zheng
`
`
`Kenue
`Yanagawa
`Tadashi
`
`
`Bottesch
`
`Vellacott
`
`Kenue
`
`Yanagawa
`Tadashi
`Bottesch
`
`Venturello
`
`* Onpage 3 ofthe Petition,in the text preceding the chart, Petitionerlists claims 1—
`6, 8, 9, 13-23, and 25-27 as being challenged (not including claims 10—12), but
`claims 10-12 are listed as being challenged on page 4 and argued on pages 50—S6.
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00263
`Patent 8,222,588 B2
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be givenits
`
`broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Claim Construction); In re Am.
`
`Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “[W]hen
`
`interpreting a claim, wordsofthe claim are generally given their ordinary and
`
`accustomed meaning,unless it appears from the specification or the file history
`that they were used differently by the inventor.” Jn re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
`(Fed. Cir. 1994). Any special definition for a claim term must beset forth in the
`
`specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Jd. (citation
`
`omitted). Against this backgroundofgeneral principles, we construe relevant
`terms in the ’588patent.
`|
`Petitioner proposes specific construction of the claim terms “spatial
`
`filtering”(Pet. 7); “spectral,” “spectral characteristic,” or “spectral signature” (Pet.
`9); and “pattern recognition” (Pet. 11). Patent Ownerasserts specific constructions
`for the phrase “determines an object of interest,” recited in claim 1 (Prelim. Resp.
`
`24); “spatial filtering” (Prelim. Resp. 26); and the phrase “environment in which
`
`the vehicle is being driven,” recited in claim 19 (Prelim. Resp. 27). For purposes
`
`of this decision, we concludethat only “spatial filtering” needs to be interpreted.
`
`“Spatialfiltering”
`
`Petitioner proposesthat the claim term “spatial filtering” should be
`
`construed to mean “categorization of data that involves an assessment of
`
`information obtained from botha first pixel or group of pixels and a secondpixel
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00263
`Patent 8,222,588 B2
`
`or group ofpixels, wherein thefirst pixel or group ofpixels is adjacent or closely
`related to the second pixel or group ofpixels.” Pet. 9.
`Patent Ownerasserts that Petitioner misconstrued the phrase “spatial
`filtering” and that Petitioner’s proposed construction “is wrong becauseit does not
`
`include a spectral signature component.” Prelim. Resp. 26.
`
`The Specification states that “[b]y spatial filtering is meant consideration of
`not only whethera particular pixel, or pixel group, is detecting a light source
`
`having a particular spectral signature, but also what adjacent, or closelyrelated,
`pixels or pixel groups, are detecting.” Ex. 1002, col. 10, ll. 55-59 (emphasis
`
`added). We agree with Patent Ownerthat the Specification thereby expressly
`defines the term “spatial filtering.” This definition is fully consistent with the
`claims, whichstate the result of spatial filtering. Forexample, claim 3 states that
`spatial filtering enhances determination of a light source; claim 4 states that spatial
`filtering enhances determination of a headlampora taillight; and claim 10 states
`that spatialfiltering, at leastin part, identifies atmospheric conditions by detecting
`the effect on a light source caused by different types of atmospheric conditions.
`
`Based onthe evidence before us and for purposes of this Decision, the
`
`broadest reasonable constructionin light of the Specification of the claim term
`
`“spatial filtering” is consideration of not only whethera particular pixel, or pixel
`
`group, is detecting a light source having a particular spectral signature, but also
`_ what adjacent, or closely related, pixels or pixel groups,are detecting.
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`1. Obviousness Based on Kenue, Yanagawa, Tadashi, and Bottesch
`a. Claim 1
`
`Claim 1 is the sole independent claim amongthe challenged claims.
`Petitioner asserts that claim 1 would have been obvious based on a combination of
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00263
`Patent 8,222,588 B2
`
`four references, Kenue, Yanagawa, Tadashi, and Bottesch. Pet. 14.
`
`i, Spatialfiltering
`
`Claim | requires that the image processing includespatial filtering. For
`
`purposesof this Decision, we have construed the phrase “spatial filtering” to mean
`“consideration of not only whethera particular pixel, or pixel group, is detecting a
`light source havinga particular spectral signature, but also what adjacent, or
`closely related, pixels or pixel groups, are detecting.” Spatial filtering, as defined,
`requires detection of a light source havinga particular spectral signature. The
`
`Specification of the ’588 patent states that one characteristic used in identifying a
`lightsource is the spectral characteristic ofthat source, which is compared with
`spectral signatures of knownlight sources, such as those of headlights and
`taillights. Ex. 1002, col. 2, Il. 5-9. As explained in the Specification,taillights are
`detected by identifying and analyzing a “red”pixel from the visible light
`electromagnetic spectrum, whereas headlights are detected by identifying and
`analyzing red, green, and blue pixels. Accordingly, a “spectral signature” isa
`unique identifier ofvisible light based on wavelengths ofthe electromagnetic
`spectrum. Spatial filtering, thus, requires detecting this unique identifier of visible
`
`light.
`
`Petitioner asserts that the boundary tracing algorithm of Kenueincludes
`spatial filtering, as claimed in claim 1. Pet. 17. Patent Owner’s declarant, Jeffrey
`A. Miller, Ph.D., opines that Kenue “showsspatial filtering.” Ex. 1012, § 20, p.
`
`1012-10. Patent Ownerasserts that “Kenue teaches a black and white camerathat
`
`does not detect a particular spectral signature.” Prelim. Resp. 27.
`
`Kenuediscloses that the boundary tracing algorithm saves connected or
`
`adjacent pixels and follows the contour of a lane markeror a road edgeinall
`
`directions. Ex. 1004,col. 6, Il. 7-9. Next, obstacle detection is performed by
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00263
`Patent 8,222,588 B2
`
`counting edge pixels within the lane boundaries and within 50 feet of the vehicle.
`
`Id. at col. 6, ll. 18-20. We note that the Specification of the ’588 patent states that
`
`“[lJane markers, signs, and other sources of reflected light . .. may be readily
`
`identified by spectral signature.” Ex. 1002, col. 10, Il. 45-47.
`
`Kenue programs a computer with algorithms for processing the images
`
`sensed by the camera. Ex. 1004, col. 2, Il. 40-41. Two main algorithmsfor
`
`processing the image are disclosed. One uses a Houghtransform andthe other
`uses template matching. /d. at col. 2, ll. 41-44. In the template matching
`algorithm, a template or window ofdesired intensity and shapeis correlated with
`the imageto create a correlation matrix. /d. at col. 3, ll. 22-26. In the Hough
`
`algorithm, the intensity of pixels is determined and usedto identify lane markers
`
`and obstacles. Jd. at col. 6, Il. 47-60. Thus, the algorithms in Kenue rely on
`
`intensity or shape, not color, to identify objects of interest. Indeed, the system in
`
`Kenuedoesnot analyze color, because Kenue uses a “black and white CCD video
`
`camera.” /d. at col. 2, Il. 29-30. Because Kenue does not detect color, Kenue does
`
`not considerany “spectral signature” and, therefore, does not provide “spatial
`filtering,” as required by claim 1.
`
`Alternatively, Petitioner asserts that Yanagawa discloses an image sensing
`
`system using “spatial filtering for determining the presence ofbothtaillights of
`
`leading vehicles and headlights of oncoming vehicles.” Pet. 18. According to
`Petitioner, Yanagawa recognizestaillights “when two closely related pixels or
`pixel groups each indicate the presence ofred light, and recognizes headlights
`
`whentwoclosely related pixels or pixel groups each indicate the presence of white
`luminescent colors. /d., citing Ex. 1005, 1005-008.° The cited disclosurein
`
`° This citation is incorrect. The correct page of the English translation is 1005-003.
`Thecitations are to the unique, sequential page numberofthe exhibit. 37 C.F.R.
`1]
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00263
`Patent 8,222,588 B2
`
`Yanagawa, however, does notrefer to pixels or pixel groups. The cited disclosure
`
`states that recognition unit 143 determines whether the image, from which features
`
`have been extracted, is a taillight based on whether there are two red imagesat the
`
`same height. Ex. 1005, 1005-003.
`
`Patent Ownerasserts that Yanagawa doesnot“teach the claim elements as
`
`[Petitioner] contends.” Prelim. Resp. 33.
`
`Yanagawa discloses a recognition device for a traveling vehicle that
`
`recognizes the presenceoftaillights of a vehicle traveling ahead and headlights of
`
`an oncoming vehicle. Ex. 1005, 1005-001, col. 2. The recognition device uses an
`imaging sensor, such as a color television camera. Jd. at 1005-002,col. 2. The
`device extracts color features of headlights andtaillights to form afeature
`extracted color image signal based on a color video signal. Jd. As shown in Figure
`1 from Yanagawa, reproduced below,a videosignal of images from television
`
`camera 11 is supplied to decoder 13. Decoder 13 forms R (red), G (green) and B
`
`(blue) color image signals based on the video signal, and supplies the color image
`signals to image signal processor 14. /d. at 1005-003. Features are extracted by
`
`image signal processor 14 from the color image signal, and the luminescent colors
`of white and red are emphasized. Id. Image signal processor 14 includes features
`extraction unit 141, as shownin Figure4, reproduced below. Id. The R, G and B
`color imagesignals from decoder 13 are supplied to features extraction unit 141,
`where the inputted image signals “are binarized” to capture only information
`relating to headlights andtaillights. Jd. Based on the information captured,
`recognition unit 143 determines whetherthe imageisataillight. Jd. Recognition
`unit 143 makes this determination according to whether there are two red imagesat
`the same height. Jd.
`—
`
`§ 42.63(d)(2)(i).
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00263
`Patent 8,222,588 B2
`
`
`velicles and relative
`
`“Computedrest of
`“Gisteace
`betwen
`
`Figure 4 from Yanagawa
`
`Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to modify Kenueto use
`
`_ the spatial filtering system of Yanagawa. Pet. 19-20. Petitioner, however, has not
`pointed us to sufficient evidence showing that Yanagawadiscloses or suggests
`
`“spatial filtering” as required by claim 1, i.e., consideration of not only whether a
`
`particular pixel, or pixel group, is detecting a light source having a particular
`
`spectral signature, but also what adjacent, or closely related, pixels or pixel groups,
`
`are detecting. The disclosure on which Petitionerrelies, a determination based on
`
`the physical height of two detected red lights, is a recognition of a pattern; it is not
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00263
`Patent 8,222,588 B2
`
`“spatial filtering” as required by the claimsofthe ’588 patent.° Petitioner
`
`concludesthat “claim | is obvious asall the elements are shownin the
`
`combination of Kenue with Yanagawa, Bottesch and Tadashi.” Pet. 20. This
`
`conclusion, even if factually accurate, would not be a persuasiverationale for
`
`combining the references. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“a
`patent composed of several elementsis not proved obvious merely by
`demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, knowninthe prior
`art.”)
`
`Petitioneralso relies on the declaration of Dr. Miller. Dr. Miller summarizes
`
`his view ofthe references and opinesthat “[i]t would be obvious to modify Kenue
`
`to include any ofthespatial filtering discussed in either Yanagawa or Tadashi
`yielding predictable results as taught in such references.” Ex. 1012 at 12. Dr.
`Miller does not provide a persuasive rationale why it would have been obvious to
`
`modify Kenueas alleged by Petitioner.
`
`Weare not persuadedthat either Kenue or Yanagawadisclosesspatial
`filtering as required by claim 1. Moreover, even ifYanagawadisclosed “spatial
`filtering,” Petitioner does not provide a persuasive explanation as to why a person
`of ordinary skill would have combined the technologies of Kenue and Yanagawa
`
`to achieve the system recited in claim 1. The mere fact that the two references are
`
`“in the samefield of endeavor”(Pet. 18) is not persuasive. Likewise unpersuasive
`
`is the rationale that the proposed modification “would merely be a use of known
`
`techniques to improve similar devices in the same way.” See Pet. 19. This
`
`“rationale”is a restatement of one ofthe basic tests identified by the Supreme
`
`° See discussion of pattern recognition in the 588 patent (Ex. 1002, col. 11, Il. 1-
`14), which discusses the fact that headlights andtaillights usually occur in pairs.
`Pattern recognition is not spatial filtering (e.g., id. at col. 10, Il. 55-59).
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00263
`Patent 8,222,588 B2
`
`Court for determining whetheran invention would have been obvious. KSR, 550
`U.S. 416 (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methodsis
`likely to be obvious whenit does no more than yield predictable results.”) General
`principles on what may constitute a supporting rationale cannot substitute for
`
`specific application of those principlesto the facts. Petitioner does not provide a
`
`" persuasive fact-based analysis to support the proposed combination.
`
`Accordingly, based on the arguments and evidenceofPetitioner, we are not
`
`persuadedthatthere is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with
`
`respect to patentability of claim 1. Petitioner has the burden of proofto establish a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its asserted ground. Based on the evidence
`
`and arguments presented in the Petition and supporting Declaration, Petitioner has
`
`not met that burden.
`
`As a secondalternative, Petitioner asserts that Tadashi discloses spatial
`
`filtering. Pet. 19. According to Petitioner, Tadashi usesspatial filtering to detect
`
`the presence of tunnels.
`
`/d. Petitioner cites and quotes from the Tadashi
`
`disclosure concerning black level and white level regions of an image. Jd.
`
`Petitioner does not direct ourattention to any disclosure in Tadashi that provides
`
`“spatial filtering,” as required by claim 1.
`
`' Petitioner relies on the samerationale asserted for Yanagawato assert that
`
`the claimed invention in claim 1 would have been obvious. Pet. 19-20.
`
`Weare not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that Tadashi’s black and
`white image processing constitutes “spatial filtering” as required by claim 1. We
`
`also are not persuadedthat Petitioner has provided an adequate rationale for
`
`combining Tadashi with Kenue,for the reasons stated abovein our analysis of
`
`Yanagawa. Petitioner, therefore, has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing as to claim 1, or claims 2-6, 8, 9, 13-20, 26, and 27, which depend from
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00263
`Patent 8,222,588 B2
`
`claim 1.
`
`2. Other Grounds
`
`Petitioner also asserts that claim 21 is unpatentable over Kenue, Yanagawa,
`
`Tadashi, Bottesch, and Aurora; claims 22 and 23 are unpatentable over Kenue,
`
`Yanagawa, Tadashi, Bottesch, and Zheng; claim 25 is unpatentable over Kenue,
`Yanagawa, Tadashi, Bottesch, and Vellacott; and claims 10-12 are unpatentable
`
`over Kenue, Yanagawa, Tadashi, Bottesch, and Venturello. Pet. 45-56. All of
`
`these claims are dependent from claim 1, and Petitioner does not rely on the
`
`additional references as teaching the limitation of “spatial filtering” as recited in
`
`claim 1. See id. Therefore, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on the additional groundsas well.
`
`Ill. CONCLUSION
`_Forthe foregoing reasons, based on the information presented inthe
`Petition, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
`
`that it would prevail in establishing that any of claims 1-6, 8-23, and 25-27 of.the
`°588 patent are unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and do not
`institute an inter partes review of claims 1-6, 8-23, and 25-27 of the ’588 patent.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`For the reasons’given, itis
`ORDEREDthat the Petition challenging the patentability of claims 1-6, 8-
`23, and 25—27 of U.S. Patent No. 8,222,588 B2 is denied.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00263
`Patent 8,222,588 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Josh Snider
`Timothy Sendek
`A. Justin Poplin
`LATHROP & GAGE LLP
`patent@lathropgage.com
`tsendek@lathropgage.com
`jpoplin@lathropgage.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Timothy A. Flory
`Terence J. Linn
`GARDNER, LINN, BURKHART & FLORY, LLP
`Flory@glbf.com
`linn@glbf.com
`
`David K.S. Cornwell
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC
`davidc-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`17
`
`
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
