Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`.
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: July 23, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`EIZO CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`BARCON.YV.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-00358
`Patent RE43,707 E
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JAMESB. ARPIN,and
`DAVID C. McKONE,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE,Administrative PatentJudge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 CFR. $ 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`.
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: July 23, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`EIZO CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`Vv.
`
`BARCON.YV.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-00358
`Patent RE43,707 E
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JAMESB. ARPIN,and
`DAVID C. McKONE,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE,Administrative PatentJudge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 CFR. $ 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Eizo Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a corrected Petition requesting
`an inter partes review of claims 36, 46, 54, 64, 65, 77-79, 93, 94, 101-104,
`and 107 ofPatent No. US RE43,707 E (Ex. 1001; “the ’707 patent”).
`Paper4 (“Pet.”). Barco N.V. (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in
`35 US.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows:
`THRESHOLD—TheDirector maynot 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 showsthat there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`Uponconsideration ofthe Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`determinethatthe information presented by Petitioner has established that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the
`unpatentability of claims 101-104. Accordingly, weinstitute an inter partes
`review of these claims. We havealso determinedthat the information
`presented by Petitioner has not established that there is a reasonable
`
`.
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of
`
`claims 36, 46, 54, 64, 65, 77-79, 93, 94, and 107 of the ’707 patent.
`
`Accordingly, we do notinstitute an inter partes review ofthose claims.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner indicates that the ’707 patent is the subject of a Federal
`district court case: Barco, N.V. et al. v. Eizo Nanao Corp., 11-cv-00258
`
`(N.D. Ga). Pet. 1.
`
`Additionally, the ’707 patent is the subject ofInter Partes
`
`Reexamination No. 95/002,047 and was the subject of Ex Parte
`Reexamination No. 90/020,037 (“the ’037 Reexam.”).' Pet. 1.
`|
`B. The ’707 Patent
`The 707 patent is directed to a system and methodfor noise reduction
`in medical images being viewed on display systems. Ex. 1001, 4:14-16.
`
`Scientific studies indicate that even a “slight increase of noise in medical
`_ images can haveasignificant negative impact on the accuracy and quality of
`medical diagnosis.” Jd. at 1:30-33. Accordingly, the ’707 patent provides a
`noise reduction system and methodthat addresses non-uniformity ofpixel
`behavior presentin matrix-addressed electronic display devices. Jd. at 4:36-
`
`41.
`
`The ’707 patent includes a range of embodiments, including a vision
`
`measurement system —aset-up for automated,electronic vision of
`individual pixels of a matrix-addressed display. Jd. at 6:10-17. The vision
`measurement system includes an image capturing device, a movement
`
`device for moving the image capturing device, and/or a display. Jd. at 6:17-
`
`' The Office issued a rexexaminationcertificate, Reexamination Certificate
`No. US RE43,707 C1 (“the ’707 C1 certificate”), on March 31, 2014.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`20. Each of the embodiments reaches the sameresult of outputting an
`electronic image ofpixels. Jd. at 6:20-23. “TA] processis run to extract
`pixel characterization data from the electronic image.” Id. at 7:4-7.
`
`Algorithms are used to assign a luminance value to each pixel, where the
`algorithm includesa first task of identifying a location ofeach ofthe matrix
`display pixels and relating the pixels to the pixels of the electronic image,
`
`and a secondtask of calculating and assigning one light-output value for
`
`each pixel. Id. at 7:8-13, 8:52-54. A test image may be generated by driving
`
`each of the pixels with the samedrive signal or drive level, and the light-
`
`output of each pixel can be calculated from the test image. Jd. at 9:25-39.
`
`The next task of the algorithm is to define a drive function, thereby
`providing a correction principle to generate a required light-output response
`curve for an individual pixel and, thus, equalizing the responseofall of the
`
`pixels in a display. Jd. at 10:29-42.
`
`An example of equalizing the behavior ofthe pixels is illustrated in
`
`Figure 10 as follows:
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`Figure 10 illustrates that pixels with curves A — C are equalized to that of
`curve D. Id. at 12:3-5. A specific transfer curve for each pixel may be used
`to compensate the behavior ofeach pixel’s characteristic luminance
`response, thereby modifying or curing any unequal luminance behavior over
`
`_
`
`a display area. Jd. at 12:19-28.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 36, 46, 54, 64, 65, 77-79, 93, 94, 101-
`104, and 107 of the ’707 patent. Pet. 22-45. Subsequentto thefiling of the
`Petition, a Reexamination Certificate issued in the ’037 Reexam., cancelling
`someof the claims challenged in the Petition and amending others.
`See Ex. 2005. Independent claim 36 was confirmed. Jd. at 2. Claim 101,
`which depended from independentclaim 100, now is written in independent
`form to include all ofthe limitations of cancelled claim 100. Jd. Claim 64,
`which depended from claim 62, now depends from cancelled claim 94,
`which depended previously from claim 62. Claim 46 depends from
`independent claim 41. Claim 54 depends from independent claim 53.
`Claim 65 is disclaimed, and claims 77-79 and 93 are cancelled. Claims 102-
`
`104 depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claim 101. ‘Claim 107
`
`depends from independentclaim 105.
`Claims 36, 64, 101, and 107 areillustrative ofthe remaining,
`challenged claims and are reproduced below:
`36. A method of image processing, said method comprising:
`for each of a plurality of pixels of a display, obtaining a
`measure ofa light-output response ofat least a portion of the
`- pixel at each ofa plurality of driving levels;
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`modifying a mapofthe display that is based on the
`obtained measures,said modifying including, with respect to a
`magnitude of a component havinga spatial period between one
`and fifty millimeters, decreasing a magnitude of a component
`having a spatial period less than one millimeter and decreasing
`a magnitude of a component havinga spatial period greater than
`fifty millimeters; and
`based on the modified map and an imagesignalthat
`represents at least one physical and tangible object, obtaining a
`display signal that is configured to cause the display to depict
`the at least one physical and tangible object.
`
`64. The image processing apparatus of claim 94, wherein the
`desired non-uniform light-output response comprises a lower
`degree of non-uniformity for pixels substantially at a center of
`the display than for pixels substantially at edges of the display.
`
`101. An image processing apparatus comprising:
`an array of logic elements configured to generate a
`display signal based on a map and an imagesignalthat
`represents at least one physical and tangible object
`wherein the display signal is configured to cause a
`display to depict a display imageofthe at least one physical
`and tangible object, and
`wherein the map comprises correction data configured to
`correct for pixel non-uniformity only when the pixel non-
`uniformity is outside of a tolerance level, and
`wherein the tolerance level varies amongpixels of the:
`display.
`
`107. The image processing apparatus accordingto claim 105,
`wherein the map comprises correction data for a first pixel in
`the display based in part on a light-output responseofat least
`one pixelin the display adjacentto the first pixel that has a
`degree of non-uniformity greater than a predetermined
`threshold.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`D.
`
`References Relied Upon By Petitioner
`
`Patent Publication No. US 2005/0012821 Al (“Kanai”)
`
`Patent Publication No. US 2005/0093798 Al (“Kamada”)
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following references:
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`_References.:
`1002
`PatonSetUS 7,227— Bl Kawase”) 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005 _—
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`Patent No. US 5,359,342 (“Nakai”)
`
`Patent Publication No. US 2005/0023986 A1 (“Mizukoshi’)
`
`Patent No. US 7,050,074 B1 (“Koyama”)
`
`Patent No. US 6,271,825 B1 (“Greene’’)
`
`Patent No. US 6,791,566 B1 (“Kuratomi”)
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts grounds of unpatentability for claims 36, 46, 54, 64,
`65, 77-79, 93, 94, 101-104, and 107 ofthe ’707 patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`
`_
`
`
`_ Reference(s) (| __-Basis.
`
`§§ 102 and 103, as follows (see Pet. 22-45): "Challenged
`
`Il. ANALYSIS
`
`.
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the |
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012). Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`would be understood by one ofordinary skill in the art in the context of the
`entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`(Fed. Cir. 2007). A claim term will not be given its ordinary and customary
`meaning, however, when an inventoracts as his or her own lexicographer,
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`defining the term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness,
`and precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’per Azioni, 158 F.3d
`1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposesthe construction of any
`claim terms. Accordingly, all terms are given their ordinary and customary —
`meaning consistent with the Specification.
`
`' B. Timeliness ofPetition
`
`Patent Ownercontendsthat the Petition is time-barred under Section
`
`315(b) because the Petition wasfiled more than one yearafter the date on
`which Petitioner was served a complaint alleging infringementofthe patent.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 2-15. Patent Ownerspecifically argues that it served a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of Patent No. US 7,639,849 B2 (“the ’849
`
`|
`patent”) upon Petitioner on October 7, 2011. Jd. at 2; see Ex. 2002.
`Subsequentto this service, the °849 patent was reissued on October 2, 2012,
`
`as the ’707 patent. Prelim. Resp. 2. The instant Petition was filed on
`January 17, 2014, more than twoyearsafter the date ofservice ofthe
`complaint. Id. Accordingly, Patent Owner arguesthat the Petitionis
`
`untimely under Section 315(b). Jd. at 2-15.
`
`Weare not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. Sections 251
`
`and 252 state, respectively, that “[w]heneverany patentis, througherror,
`deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, .
`.
`. the Director shall, on the
`
`surrender ofsuch patent .
`.
`. , reissue the patent for the invention disclosed
`in the original patent” and “[t]he surrender ofthe originalpatent shall take
`effect upon the issue ofthe reissued patent.” 35 U.S.C. §§ 251, 252
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`(emphasis added). The new reissuepatentis a distinct property right that
`“doesnot simply replace an original patent nunc pro tunc.” ‘Intel Corp. v.
`Negotiated Data Solutions, Inc., 703 F.3d 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(citing Spectronics Corp. v. H.B. Fuller Co., 940 F.2d 631, 637-38 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1991)). 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) recites that
`
`[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition
`requesting the proceeding is filed: more than 1 yearafter the
`date on which the petitioner, real party of interest, or privy of
`the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement
`ofthe patent (emphasis added).
`
`Here, Patent Ownerserved upon Petitioner a complaintalleging ©
`infringement of the °849 patent. See Ex. 2002. The reissuanceofthe ’849
`patent as the ’707 patent did not continue the ’849 patent, but rather resulted
`in thesurrenderofthe ’849 patent and the issuance ofa new patent, the ’707
`patent. Patent Ownerserved Petitioner with an amended complaintalleging
`
`infringement of the ’707 patent on January 17, 2013. See Ex. 2004. The
`Board accorded the instant Petition a filing date of January 17, 2014.
`See Paper 3. Accordingly, Section 315(b) is not applicable here because the
`Petition was not filed more than one year after Petitioner was served with the
`
`amended complaintfirst alleging infringement of the ’707 patent.
`
`Wealso are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argumentthat the claims
`of the ’849 patent are substantially identical to the claims of the ’707 patent,
`and, therefore, under Section 252, the ’849 patentis the same as the
`|
`°707 patent for the purposes of Section 315(b). Prelim. Resp. 6-8, 12-14.
`
`Section 315(b) requires that “the petitioner .
`
`.
`
`. is served with a complaint
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`alleging infringementofthe patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (emphasis added).
`
`That is, Section 315(b) is concerned with alleging infringement of a patent
`
`generally, and not specific claims. Jd.
`
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument and
`
`determinethat the Petition satisfies Section 315(b).
`C. Claims 36, 46, and 54 — Obviousness over Kawase and Kanai
`Petitioner contends that claims 36, 46, and 54 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)as obvious over Kawase and Kanai. Pet. 22-30.
`1. Kawase (Fx. 1002) |
`Kawase teaches a methodofdriving a display panelthat corrects
`
`luminancevariation that arises as a result of change over time. Ex. 1002,
`
`- 1:8-15. The method includes the step of changing a luminancesetting
`reference value with the elapsing oftime. Jd.at 5:16-1 8. The renewal
`intervals are changed in accordance with the characteristics of luminance
`degradation. Jd. at 5:19-21. A correction operation, which includes the
`
`driving of pixel and capturing of luminance information,is carried out
`
`within a period not affecting video signal output. Jd. at 5:27-29. Grey scale
`then is realized. Jd. at 5:31-37. The driving methodis illustrated in
`
`Figure 1, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`~
`
`Fig i
`
`:
`
`;
`
`: eeoeweet
` 12
`
`i
`
`» Lpmeeren
`Conrection Graut
`
`Figure 1 illustrates the flow of inputted video signals. Ex. 1002,
`10:19. Video decoder 1 separates an input composite video signal into an
`RGBluminancesignal and horizontal and vertical signals. Id. at 10:22-24.
`The RGB luminancesignalis converted to adigital signal by A/D
`.
`converter 3. Jd. at 10:23-25. Controller 2 “receives the horizontal and .
`vertical signals from video decoder 1 and generates timing signals that are
`| synchronized with the horizontal and vertical signals.” Id. at 10:25-28.
`| Correction circuit 12 uses a value related to luminancein orderto
`
`suppress variation in luminance betweenpixels. Jd. at 10:28-31. Fora
`display panel using electron-emitting elements, phosphors and an anode
`electrode are disposed on a surface opposing the electron-emitting elements,
`and the current emitted from each pixel is determined by measuring the
`
`amountof current flowing to the anode electrode. /d. at 10:33-42. “In
`
`addition, the driving current signal from signal driver 7 is a detected driving
`
`signal applied to the display panel.” Jd. at 10:41-43. Either of these values
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`may be used for error correction. Ex. 1002, 10:43-44. Correction value
`
`arithmetic unit 6 performs comparison operations betweenvaluesrelated to
`
`measured luminance values and target luminance values andstores the
`differences as correction values in memory 5. /d. at 10:44-49. Corrector 4
`retrieves these values from memory 5 and performsthe correction. /d. at
`
`10:50-54.
`
`2. Kanai (Ex. 1003)
`
`Kanai teaches a methodof correcting luminance unevennessof a
`
`display device. Ex. 1003 § 3. The display device, which includes-a
`correction unit and a plurality of display elements, performs a correction on
`input signals before outputting the signals to respective display elements.
`Id. § 10.
`|
`
`Generally, the correction “method reduces or deletes some frequency
`
`components from among frequency components of luminance unevenness” ~
`
`in order to keep the unevenness from easily being viewed. Id. § 21. In
`
`selecting the frequency componentsto be reducedor deleted, the method
`
`selects components of higher frequency than at least one of the components
`to be maintained, or.selects components of a higher frequency than a
`predetermined frequency. Jd.
`
`Luminance unevenness may be measured by driving individual
`
`display elements on the basis of input signals having the same value
`
`indicative of a predetermined luminance. Jd. 22. Measured luminance
`
`data is sent to a correction value generating part that calculates correction
`
`values. Id. § 64. The display device also calculates a luminancetarget value
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`for the display element, whichis “the luminance ofa certain display element
`
`that is obtainable when luminance unevennessis eliminated by ideal
`correction free of correction error.” Ex. 1003 16. “Each frequency
`componentof the luminancetarget values is not greater than the luminance
`
`‘unevennessdiscrimination threshold.” Jd. { 82. The correction values are
`
`calculated by dividing the luminancetarget values by the measured
`
`luminancedata. Id. J] 85, 101. The calculated correction values then are
`stored in a table and used by a multiplier to multiply the image data by the |
`correction value, which then outputs image data representative of corrected
`
`luminance unevenness. Id. J] 86, 103.
`
`3. Analysis
`The evidenceset forth by Petitioner is insufficient to persuade us that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing that
`claims 36, 46, and 54 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
`‘over Kawase and Kanai. Pet. 22-30. Specifically, we are not persuaded by
`
`Petitioner that the combination of Kawase and Kanaiteachesor suggestsall
`ofthe limitations of claims 36, 46, and 54.
`|
`Independent claim 36recites “a method of image processing” that
`
`comprises “for each ofaplurality of pixels of a display, obtaining a measure
`
`of a light-output response of at least a portion of the pixel at each ofa
`
`plurality of driving levels.” Independent claims 41 and 53, from which
`
`claims 46 and 54 depend, respectively, recite similar limitations. Petitioner
`contends that Kawase describes that “luminance information from all the
`
`pixels is captured by the luminance capturing meansand is compared with
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`[a] target luminance.” Pet. 22-23 (citing Ex. 1002, 17:31-34). Petitioner
`
`further contends that Kawasedescribesthat, “[w]hen there is a deviation
`from the target luminance,driving voltage is changed and luminanceis
`measured again until a voltage value that converges to the target luminance
`
`is determined.” /d. (citing Ex. 1002, 17:34-41). Accordingly, Petitioner
`
`contends that Kawasedescribesthis limitation.
`
`Claim 36 furtherrecites
`
`modifying a map of the display that is based on the obtained
`measures,
`said modifying including, with respect
`to a
`magnitude of a componenthavinga spatial period between one
`and fifty millimeters, decreasing a magnitude of a component
`having a spatial period less than one millimeter and decreasing
`a magnitude of a componenthavinga spatial period greater than
`fifty millimeters.
`Claims 46 and 54recite similar limitations. Petitioner acknowledgesthat
`“Kawase does not disclose decreasing a magnitude of components having a
`spatial period less than one millimeter andgreater than fifty millimeters.”
`
`Id. Petitioner contends that Kanai describes “a step of reducing
`
`predetermined high frequency components and reducing predetermined low
`
`frequency components from among frequency componentsofspatial
`frequency data.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ff 14, 16). Kanai discloses
`specifically that “high-frequency [unevenness] is approximately completely
`eliminated and low-frequency unevennessis reduced to a negligible degree.”
`Ex. 1003 488.
`|
`Petitioner acknowledges that Kanai fails to “explicitly disclose the
`
`specific spatial periods of one and fifty millimeters.” Pet. 30. Petitioner
`
`15
`
`-
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`argues, however, that spatial periods below one millimeter and abovefifty
`millimeters are in accordance with human perceptuallimitations, and,
`because Kanai disclose’ reducing or eliminating components according to
`human perceptuallimitations, the spatial periods of one andfifty millimeters
`would have been obviousto one ofordinary skill in the art. Id. Petitioner
`arguesthat “one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`|
`
`modify the system of Kawase with Kanai’s teaching of reducing or
`
`eliminating frequency components outside of a passage region because
`Kanaiteachesthat this reduces unevenness and improves image quality.”
`Td. (citing Ex. 1003 F§ 87, 88).
`.
`Weare not persuadedby Petitioner. Petitioner hasnot provided
`evidence to support the argument that decreasing the magnitude ofa —
`
`componentwithaspatial period below one millimeter and decreasing the
`
`magnitude of a componentabovefifty millimeters would have been obvious
`to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner also does not provide
`- sufficient evidence to support the argumentthat spatial periods below one
`
`|
`
`millimeter and abovefifty millimeters are in accordance with human
`perceptuallimitations. Although basic knowledge available to a person with
`ordinary skill in the art may provide a reason to combine elements in prior
`
`art, it does not establish the presence of the elementitself. See K/S HIMPP
`
`v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362,.1365-1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`General conclusions about whatis “basic knowledge”are not a substitute for
`documentary evidencefor describing core fact finding. Jd. Here, we are not
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`persuadedbyPetitioner that such limitations would have been obviousto a
`
`person with ordinaryskill in theart.
`
`Furthermore, we are persuaded by Patent Ownerthat Kanai does not
`
`describe explicitly decreasing the magnitude of a componenthavinga spatial
`
`period below a specified value and decreasing the magnitude of a component
`
`having a spatial period above a specified value. Prelim. Resp. 17-22.
`Petitioner argues that Kanaidiscloses “that applying correction processing
`approximately completely eliminates the high-frequency unevenness and
`
`reduces the low-frequency unevennessto a negligible degree.” Pet. 23
`(citing Ex. 1003 4 88). Figures 8B and 8D,reproducedbelow,illustrate the
`elimination of high-frequency and low-frequency unevenness:
`Fig.8B
`-
`
`Fig.8D
`
`Figure 8B illustrates luminance unevennessfor pixels, and Figure 8D
`
`illustrates the correction of the unevennessof pixels. Ex. 1003 fj 87-88.
`
`Weare notpersuaded, however, that the magnitudes of both high-frequency
`
`and low-frequency values, in Figure 8B, are decreasedin order to provide
`
`the correction values in Figure 8D.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has not showna reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing in showing that claims 36, 46, and 54 of the *707 patent would
`have been obvious over Kawase and Kanai.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`D. Claim 64 — Anticipation by Kamada
`
`Petitioner contends that claim 64 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(e) as anticipated by Kamada. Pet. 30-32. Original claim 64 depended
`from claim 62. See Ex. 1001, 36:16-19. Claim 64, as amended by the
`707 Clcertificate, now dependsfrom cancelled claim 94. Ex. 2005, 1:32-
`36. Petitioner only presents arguments directed to original claim 64,as
`depending from claim 62, and does not present any argumentsasto the
`limitations recited by cancelled claim 94. Pet. 30-32. Petitioner bears the
`
`burden of showing that Kamadadiscloses the limitations of dependent
`
`claim 64andthe claims from whichclaim 64 depends, directly or indirectly.
`Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Kamada
`discloses the limitations 64 as depending from claim 94. Accordingly,
`Petitioner has not established that there is a reasonable likelihoodthat
`
`Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claim 64 as
`
`anticipated by Kamada.
`
`E. Claims 101-104 — Obvious over Greene and Kamada
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 101-104 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Greene and Kamada. Pet. 38-42. Original
`
`claim 101 depended from claim 100. Ex. 1001, 38:33-34. Claim 101, as
`
`amendedby the ’707 C1 certificate, includes the samelimitations as original
`
`claim 101, but is written in independent form to incorporate the limitations
`of its original base claim, independent claim 100. Ex. 2005, 2:55-3:2; see
`also Ex. 1001, 38:22-34. As such,original claim 101 and amended claim
`101 are identical in scope. Although Petitioner and Patent Owner only have
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`presented arguments directed to original claim 101, we find that the same
`
`arguments apply to amended claim 101 because the scope oforiginal claim
`101 and that of amendedclaim 101 are identical. Accordingly, our analysis
`here is of amended claim 101.
`|
`
`1. Greene (Ex. 1008)
`
`Greene teaches methodsfor correcting spatial non-uniformities in the
`brightness of electronic displays. Ex. 1008, 1:8-13. Greene describes
`“several methods for keeping a resultant luminance substantially constant
`using active control means.” Jd. at 8:45-47. “The correction methods
`incorporate the measurementofbrightness characteristics ofthe display” and
`“can be applied to selected pixels orall of the pixels.” Jd. at 4:34-36. The
`
`measured data is stored and then “selectively retrieved during the operation
`
`of the display and usedto scale and/or interpolate drive signals in real-time.”
`Id. at 4:39-44. Corrections are made with respect to a chosen reference
`system suchthat any remaining gradual and abrupt brightness non-
`
`uniformities over the selected pixels fall below the human eye’s detectable
`luminance threshold under intended viewing conditions. Jd. at 4:5 1-55. The
`luminance correction methodisillustrated in Figure 4, reproduced below:
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`aieSe oo Video Cock Sryne
`
`fepat input: put
`
`Figure 4 is a block diagram of the luminance correction method,
`
`which includes data input, luminance scaler/adder 56, central random access
`memory 54, display controller 52, row drivers 52a, and column drivers 52b.
`Ex. 1008, 10:48-58. Luminance scaler/adder 56 receives data input, such as
`
`video data, and recomputesthe color coordinates of the received data input
`based on luminanceratios stored in central random access memory 54. Id. at
`10:53-58. As a result of this recomputing, the color coordinates are
`normalized for the intended light display. Jd. at 10:59-61. Then, display
`controller 52, which is operatively connected to row drivers 52a and column
`
`|
`
`drivers 52b, receives the normalized data. Jd. at 10:53-56. A modified pixel
`stream thenis output to drivers 52a and 52b. Jd. at 11:8-11.
`2. Kamada (Ex. 1004)
`
`Kamadateachesa display correction circuit and a display apparatus
`
`that correct uneven image appearance causedbythe display apparatus.
`
`Ex. 1004 § 2. Kamada describes a memory that stores first data indicative of
`
`size and position of a rectangular region on the display screen and second
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`data indicative of gray level changes in a surrounding region around the
`rectangular region in an isometric mannerwith respect to a horizontal and
`
`vertical direction. Id. | 19. An image processing unit adjusts gray level of |
`image data in response to the first data and second data. Jd. The image
`processing apparatusisillustrated in Figure 1, reproduced below:
`FIG.1
`
`
`
`
`
`LIQUID CRYSTAL
`DISPLAY PANEL
`
`Figure 1 is a diagram ofthe liquid crystal display apparatusthat
`
`includes image processing apparatus 11, memory 12, signal source 13, and |
`
`liquid crystal display panel 14. Ex. 1004 FJ 41-42. Signal source 13
`
`supplies image data signals for display on liquid crystal display panel 14.
`
`|
`
`Id. | 42. Image processing apparatus 11 corrects the image data signals
`based on correction data stored by memory 12 and supplies the corrected
`imagedata signals to liquid crystal display panel 14. Jd.
`_An areato be corrected is specified by two points corresponding to the
`top left corner and thebottom right corner of a rectangular region. Id. J 45.
`‘Constant correction value k, which corresponds to an amountofshift by
`whicha gray level is changed, is applied to the rectangular region. Id. -
`Constant correction value k is decreased gradually in a region surrounding
`the rectangular region, where the surrounding region has a specified width
`.
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`surrounding the rectangular region. Jd. Thus, the correction valueis k at the
`
`edge of the rectangular region and decreases to zero at the edge of the
`
`surrounding region. Jd.
`
`3. Analysis
`
`The evidenceset forth by Petitioner persuades usthat there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood ofits prevailing in showing that claims 101-104 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Greene and Kamada.
`Pet. 38-42. In particular, independentclaim 101 recites, inter alia, that an
`‘image processing apparatus comprises “an array of logic elements
`configured to generate a display signal based on a map and an imagesignal
`that representsat least one physical and tangible object” and that “the
`-display signal is configured to cause a display to depict a display image of
`
`the at least one physical and tangible object.” Petitioner contendsthat
`Greene discloses storingand using brightness parameters to scale drive
`signals, where corrections are performed forgradual and abrupt brightness
`non-uniformities of selected display pixels. Pet. 38-39 (citing Ex. 1008,
`
`Abstract, 4:35-36, 4:50-58). Petitioner also contends that Kamada discloses
`a display correction circuit and display apparatus, where the apparatus
`includes amemory that stores correction data, a signal source that supplies
`imagedata signals, and an image processing apparatus that corrects the
`
`image data signals from the signal source based on the correction data. Id.
`
`(citing Ex. 1004 4 42).
`Independentclaim 101 further recites “the map comprisescorrection
`data configured to correct for pixel non-uniformity only whenthe pixel non-
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`uniformity is outside of a tolerance level.” Petitioner contends that Greene
`discloses that corrections are performed with respect to a reference system
`such that gradualand abruptbrightness non-uniformities over theselected
`display pixels fall below the detectable threshold. Pet. 39-40(citing
`
`.
`Ex. 1008, 4:50-58).
`Claim 101 additionally recites “the tolerance level varies among
`pixels of the display.” Petitioner acknowledgesthat “Greenefails to
`
`disclose that the tolerance level varies amongpixels of the display.” Pet. 40.
`
`Petitioner argues, however, that Kamadaadditionally describes that a
`
`constant correction value is applied to a rectangular region, and the
`
`correction value gradually decreases in the surrounding region untilit
`
`becomes zero. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1004 7 45). Petitioner further argues that
`both Greene and Kamadaaredirected to suppressing non-uniformity or
`unevenness of‘light-output in pixel displays and that a person with ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Greene and Kamada
`
`in order to reduce the size of correction data that needs to be stored, an
`
`advantage disclosed by Kamada. Pet. 40-41 (citing Ex. 1004 { 47).
`Patent Owner argues that Kamada discloses setting “the dimensions of
`the rectangular and surrounding regions according to a particular uneven
`appearance to be corrected”andthis description is not the sameas “the
`tolerance level varies among pixels of the display.” Prelim. Resp. 27-28.
`
`Wearenotpersuaded by this argument. Kamada describes a constant
`correction valuekthatis applied to a rectangular region and this constant
`
`correction value is gradually decreased to zero as applied to the surrounding
`
`23
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E _
`
`region. Ex. 1004 445. In other words, Kamadais describing the desired
`response of having a lower degree of non-uniformity for pixels in the
`rectangular region and a graduating lower degree of non-uniformity in the
`
`surrounding region. The difference in the desired degrees of non-uniformity
`is a variancein the tolerance level.
`Asnoted above, claims 102-104 depend from independentclaims 101.
`
`Each ofthese claimsrecites further limitations regarding
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
