`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: July 10, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TRW AUTOMOTIVE USS. LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICSINC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Cases IPR2015-00436, IPR2015-00437,
`IPR2015-00438, and IPR2015-00439
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, BART A. GERSTENBLITH,and
`FRANCESL. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 CFR. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436, IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, IPR2015-00439
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`Petitioner, TRW Automotive U.S. LLC,filed four Petitions requesting
`
`inter partes review of claims 1-24, 28, 32, 34-40, 42-69, 71, and 73-109 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,599,001 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’001 patent”)' pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-19. Patent Owner, Magna ElectronicsInc., filed a
`
`Preliminary Responsein each proceeding,as listed in the following chart.
`
`Case Number
`
`Challenged
`Claims
`
`Petition
`
`Preliminary
`Response
`
`IPR2015-00436|1-10, 15-23, 28,|Paper 3 Paper9 (“Prelim.
`
`
`32, 34-40, and=|(“‘Pet.””) Resp.”)
`42-55
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00437|24, 56-69, 71, Paper 3 Paper 9 (“-437
`
`and 73-78 (“-437 Pet.”)|Prelim. Resp.”)
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00438|79-95 Paper 4 Paper9 (“-438
`
`(“-438 Pet.”)|Prelim. Resp.”)
`
`
`IPR2015-00439|11-14 and Paper 2 Paper9 (‘‘-439
`
`. (“-439 Pet.”)|Prelim. Resp.’’)96-109
`
`
`
`Wehavejurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a), the Director may not authorize an inter partes review unless the
`
`information in the petition and preliminary response “showsthat there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respectto at
`
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasonsthat follow,
`
`weinstitute an inter partes review as to claims 1-15, 24, 28, 32, 34-40,
`
`42-50, 53-66, 69, 71, 73-79, 81-85, 87-100, and 102—08 of the °001 patent
`
`on certain grounds of unpatentability. To administer the proceedings more
`
`' Petitioner filed its exhibits in the following series: Exhibits 1001-11
`(Case IPR2015-00436), Exhibits 1101—11 (Case IPR2015-00437),
`Exhibits 1201-11 (Case IPR2015-00438), and Exhibits 1301-11
`(Case IPR2015-00439). References herein to each of Petitioner’s exhibits
`are to the exhibit filed in the corresponding proceeding.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436, IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, IPR2015-00439
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`efficiently, we also exercise our authority under 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) to
`
`consolidate the four proceedings and conduct the proceedingsas onetrial.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ’001 Patent
`
`The ’001 patent describes a “vehicle lighting control system for
`
`controlling a vehicle lighting system in an automotive vehicle comprising a
`
`photosensor array meansfor sensinglight levels in a forward field of view”
`ofthe vehicle. Ex. 1002, col. 6, 1. 61-col. 7, 1. 2. The disclosed system is
`integrated with the rearview mirrorof the vehicle and “directed generally
`forward ofthe vehicle so that it may sensea field of view forward of the
`rearview mirror” through the vehicle’s front windshield. /d. at col. 33,
`
`ll. 7-17. Figure 6B of the ’001 patent is reproduced below.
`alll |
`Circuit
`
`Sensitivity Control
`
`410g
`
`Mew Usht severe|ccnemee{~ aera seeroars
`
`
`
`32
`
`a4
`
`ewe eran een ree ee ie wet
`|.
`
`Forward
`4
`{
`Field of
`
`
`
`ormation
`\— armors wenecd
`
`ecruts),erste same meen eerie
`rrlog-to-Disia|fr
`Converter
`i
`|4 Logic Great
`
`PigletTorAndiog
`
`50
`
`7
`
`‘6
`§
`fas osa |
`
`Randoxn
`
`FIG, 6B
`
`Figure 1 depicts lens 30, photosensorarray 32, logic and controlcircuit 34,
`
`and headlight switches 29.
`
`/d. at col. 33, ll. 7-46. Logic and control
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436, IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, IPR2015-00439
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`Circuit 34 receives image data from photosensorarray 32, processes the data
`
`to “determine and identify whetherthere are other headlights andtaillights in
`
`the driver’s forward field of view,” and uses that determination to “control
`
`automatically the vehicle headlights” via low beam mode switch 29a, mid
`
`beam modeswitch 29b, and high beam mode switch 29c. /d. at col. 33,
`
`ll. 31-67.
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 1 of the °001 patent recites:
`
`1. A vehicular vision system,
`system comprising:
`
`said vehicular vision
`
`an imager comprising a lens and a CMOS photosensor
`
`array;
`
`wherein said photosensor array comprises a plurality of
`photosensor elements;
`
`wherein said imageris disposed at an interior portion of a
`vehicle equipped with said vehicular vision system and wherein
`said imager views exterior of the equipped vehicle through a
`windshield of the equipped vehicle and forward of the equipped
`vehicle;
`
`least said imager is disposed in a module
`wherein at
`attached at the windshield of the equipped vehicle;
`
`a control comprising an image processor, said image
`processor processing image data captured by said photosensor
`array;
`
`wherein said image processor processes captured image
`data to detect an object viewed by said imager;
`wherein said photosensorarray is operable at a plurality
`of exposure periods; and
`wherein said plurality of exposure periods comprises a
`first exposure period and a second exposure period, and
`wherein the time period of exposure of said first exposure
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436, IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, IPR2015-00439
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`period is longer than the time period of exposure of said second
`exposure period.
`
`C. The Prior Art
`
`Petitioner relies on the following priorart:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,930,742,
`(Ex. 1108, “Schofield”);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,970,653,
`(Ex. 1005, “Kenue”);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,166,681,
`(Ex. 1010, “Bottesch”);
`
`issued June
`
`5,
`
`1990
`
`issued Nov.
`
`13,
`
`1990
`
`issued Nov. 24,
`
`1992
`
`Unexamined
`published
`June
`
`Japanese
`No. S62-131837,
`“Yanagawa”);”
`European Patent Application Publication No. 0353200
`A2, published Jan. 31, 1990 (Ex. 1107, “Venturello”);
`
`Patent
`15,
`1987
`
`Publication
`(Ex.
`1006,
`
`Application
`Patent
`International
`No. WO 93/11631, published June
`10,
`1993
`“Denyer’’); and
`
`Publication
`(Ex.
`1009,
`
`_ Oliver Vellacott, CMOS in camera, IEE REV., May 1994,
`at 111 (Ex. 1004, “Vellacott”).’
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1—24, 28, 32, 34-40, 42-69, 71, and
`
`73-109 of the 001 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`? Werefer to “Yanagawa”as the English translation of the original
`reference. Petitioner provided an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the
`translation. See Ex. 1006; 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b).
`
`3 Whenciting Yanagawaand Vellacott, werefer to the page numbersat the
`lowerright corner of each page. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(2).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436, IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, IPR2015-00439
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`
`
`Case Number(s)|References Claim(s) Challenged
`
`IPR2015-00436|Vellacott and Kenue 1-5, 15, 16, 23, 28,
`
`35-40, 42-53,’ and 55
`
`IPR2015-00436|Vellacott, Kenue, and 6-10, 32, and 34
`
`
`Yanagawa
`
`IPR2015-00436|Vellacott, Kenue, and 17-22
`
`
`Bottesch
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`64, 65, 79-85, 88-93,
`Schofield, Venturello, and Yanagawa
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436
`
`Vellacott, Kenue, and
`Denyer
`
`54
`
`IPR2015-00437|Vellacott, Kenue, and 24, 56-60, 66, 67,
`
`and
`Schofield
`73-76, 96, 97, 100,
`IPR2015-00439
`102-06, and 109
`
`61-63, 68, 69, 71, and
`Vellacott, Kenue,
`IPR2015-00437
`Schofield, and Yanagawa|77
`
`IPR2015-00437,|Vellacott, Kenue,
`IPR2015-00438,|Schofield, and Venturello|98, 99, and 101
`and
`
`IPR2015-00439
`
`78
`Vellacott, Kenue,
`IPR2015-00437
`_|Schofield, and Denyer .
`
`
`IPR2015-00438|Vellacott,Kenue, 86 and 87
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00438
`Vellacott, Kenue,
`94, 95, 107, and 108
`
`
`Schofield, Venturello, and
`and
`
`
`IPR2015-00439|Denyer
`
`
`.|
`
`IPR2015-00439
`
`Vellacott, Kenue, and
`Venturello
`
`11-14
`
`* Petitionerlists claims “1-5, 15-16, 23, 28, 35-40, 42-50, 52-53, and 55”
`in its Petition, but asserts later in the Petition that claim 51 is unpatentable as
`well. See Pet. 2,37. Thus, we presumethatthe initial listing of claims was
`a typographicalerror.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436, IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, IPR2015-00439
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`E. Claim Interpretation
`
`The Board interprets claims of unexpired patents using the “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`[they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). For claims of an
`
`expired patent, however, the Board’s claim interpretation analysis is similar
`to that of a district court. See In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012). Claim termsare given their plain and ordinary meaning as would be
`
`understoodby a person ofordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “There are only two
`
`exceptionsto this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and
`
`acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavowsthefull
`
`scope of a claim term eitherin the specification or during prosecution.”
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.Cir.
`
`2012). We apply this standard to the claims of the expired ’001 patent. See
`
`Prelim. Resp. 34-35.
`
`Petitioner asserts in its Petitions that “the claimsat issue do not need
`
`specific constructions,” but proposes an interpretation for “wherein said
`
`vertical span is asymmetric relative to a horizon” in claims 46, 74, and 89,
`
`and similar language in claim 103, and cites the analysis of Jeffrey A.
`Miller, Ph.D., regarding the meaningof “predefined array” in claim 37.° See
`
`* Patent Ownerargues that Petitioner did not propose an interpretation for
`any term in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). See, e.g., Prelim. Resp.
`34-35. In the future, to avoid any confusion, Petitioner is encouragedto set
`forth clearly any proposedinterpretations in a separate section ofa petition.
`Wealso note that Dr. Miller’s declaration (Ex. 1011), filed as an exhibit in
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436, IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, IPR2015-00439
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`Pet. 5, 29-30, 35 (citing Ex. 1011184-88); -437 Pet. 5, 37-38; -438 Pet.
`
`4, 37-38; -439 Pet. 5, 40-41. Patent Owner proposesaninterpretation for
`
`“operable at a plurality of exposure periods” in claim 1 and “operable at a
`
`first exposure period and a second exposure period”in claims 75, 90, and
`
`104. See Prelim. Resp. 35-37; -437 Prelim. Resp. 35-37; -438 Prelim.
`
`Resp. 39-41; -439 Prelim. Resp. 42-45. For purposes of this Decision, we
`
`conclude that only the “exposure period” terms require interpretation.
`
`Patent Ownerarguesthat “operable at a plurality of exposure periods”
`
`and “operable at a first exposure period and a second exposure period”
`
`should be interpreted to mean “operable at different exposure periods during
`
`operation of the photosensorarray to capture image data for processing by
`
`the image processor.” See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 35-37; -437 Prelim. Resp.
`
`35-37. Patent Ownerfirst contends that we mustinterpret each term “to
`preserveits validity to have its plain meaning in view ofthe intrinsic
`evidence of record.” Prelim. Resp. 36. We do not apply a rule of
`
`interpretation that claims of an expired patent in an inter partes review
`
`should be interpreted to preserve their validity, however. See W. L. Gore &
`Assocs., Inc. v. LifePort Scis. LLC, Case IPR2014-01321, slip op. at 9
`|
`(PTAB Feb. 25, 2015) (Paper 7). “The different standard weuse in
`
`construing the claims in an expired patent does not changethe statutory
`
`requirement in this proceeding that Petitioner has the burden of proving a
`
`proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence” under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Jd.
`
`each proceeding,itself includes a numberof“exhibits.” The parties are
`remindedthatall exhibits must be filed and numbered separately. See
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436, IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, IPR2015-00439
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`Patent Ownernext points to the Specification of the ’001 patent,
`
`whichstates that “an exposure time or exposure period EP ofthe
`photosensorarray 32 may be varied over some range depending on the light
`level.” Ex. 1002,col. 16, ll. 62-64; see, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 36. We do not.
`agree that the cited portion of the Specification amounts to a definition of the
`claim languageorindicates that the applicants were acting as their own
`
`lexicographer. Moreover, the cited portion does not state that the exposure
`
`period is “varied” during operation of the photosensorarray, and thus does
`not support Patent Owner’s proposedinterpretation.® On this record, we
`
`concludethat the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms applies, and
`
`interpret “operable at a plurality of exposure periods” to mean capable of
`
`operating at more than one exposureperiod, andinterpret “operable at a first
`
`exposure period and a second exposure period” to mean capable of operating
`
`at a first exposure period and second exposureperiod.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Obviousness Ground Based on Vellacott and Kenue
`(Claims 1-5, 15, 16, 23, 28, 35-40, 42-53, and 55)
`
`Petitioner contendsthat claims 1—5, 15, 16, 23, 28, 35-40, 42-53, and
`
`55 are unpatentable over Vellacott and Kenue under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
`
`° We also note that in a continuation of the 001 patent, U.S. Patent
`No. 8,917,169 B2 (Ex. 3001), Patent Ownerrecites in claim 15 a vehicular
`vision system “wherein said photosensorarray is operable at a plurality of
`exposure periods; wherein at least one exposure period ofsaid plurality of
`exposure periods is dynamically variable; [and] wherein said at least one
`exposure period is dynamically variable over a range depending on a light
`level detected by said vehicular vision system.” By contrast, the claims of
`the °001 patent do notrecite that the exposure periods are “dynamically
`variable.”
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436, IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, IPR2015-00439
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`relying on the supporting testimony of Dr. Miller. Pet. 9-39. We are
`
`persuadedthat Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on its asserted groundas to claims 1-5, 15, 28, 35-40, 42—S0, 53,
`
`and 55 for the reasons explained below.
`
`1. Vellacott
`
`Vellacott describes research performed at Edinburgh University and
`
`then “VLSI Vision Ltd in Edinburgh” (“VVL”) regarding CMOS
`
`(complementary metal-oxide semiconductor) image sensors. Ex. 1004, 1.
`
`“VVL’s approach [was] to combine image sensing with control functions on
`
`_ asingle CMOSchip.” Id. Vellacott discloses that “[e]xposure controlis .. .
`
`implemented on-chip” where“[t]he length of exposure is controlled by
`
`varying the pixel reset time via the vertical shift register; this allows the
`
`exposure period to be set in multiples of the line readout time.” Jd. at 2.
`
`According to Vellacott, “single-chip CMOSsensors could eventually
`
`displace the multi-chip CCDs [charge-coupled devices] that are the current
`
`standard,” which “would result in smaller, cheaper, less power-hungry
`
`cameras.” Jd. Vellacott describes a particular machine vision system called
`an “imputer” that had a mothercard with an “image sensor, frame grabber,
`microprocessor, framestore and external” input/output. Jd. at 3. Vellacott
`
`further discloses:
`
`One of VVL’s customers is US automotive components
`manufacturer Donnelly Corp. Donnelly has used the imputer to
`develop electro-chromic rearview mirrors, which automatically
`reduce headlamp glare from behind. The imputer was housed
`inside the rear-view mirror and positioned to look out the rear
`and sides of the car in a 90° arc, using a chip-mounted
`microlens (Fig.6).
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436, IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, IPR2015-00439
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`The imputer was programmed to analyse this image to
`recognise when and where headlampsarepresentin the field of
`view. Based on this information, the imputer then dims the
`rear-view and wing mirrors automatically to reduce glare to the
`driver. The dimmingis controlled by an analogue voltage from
`the imputer, which directly sets the chrominance of the mirror.
`Donnelly’s system is now undergoing field trials with car
`manufacturers.
`
`Id. at 4.
`
`2. Kenue
`
`Kenuedescribes a “vision method of detecting lane boundaries and
`
`obstacles close to a vehicle within the lane boundaries.” Ex. 1005, col. 1,
`
`Il. 7-11. Figure 1 of Kenue is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure | depicts CCD video camera 10, analog-to-digital converter 12,
`computer 14, and three output devices: display 16, obstacle warning alarm
`
`18, and utilization circuit 20. Jd. at col. 2, Il. 28-39. CCD camera 10 is
`
`“mounted in a vehicle, say at the upper center of the windshield to capture
`
`the driver’s view of the road ahead.” Jd.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436, IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, IPR2015-00439
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`Figure 2 of Kenue is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 shows an example of an image received in the camera imageplane.
`
`Id. at col. 2, Il. 9-10. When processing the image to detect lane markers,
`
`Kenue’s system defines search areas in which to look for the lane markers.
`
`Id. at col. 1, Il. 59-67, col. 2, ll. 44-48,col. 3, Il. 3-6. For example,
`
`/d. at
`boxes 28 in Figure 2 illustrate search areas defined by the system.
`col. 3, ll. 3-6. Kenue discloses two approachesto searching for lane
`markers within the search areas:
`template matching and a Houghtransform.
`Id. at col. 2, ll. 41-44. In both approaches, the system detects obstacles by
`
`counting strong edge points in the area between the lane boundaries.
`
`/d. at
`
`col. 3, ll. 59-63, col. 6, Il. 18-22. If the count indicates an obstacle closer
`
`than 50 feet away, the system generates an obstacle warning. Jd. at col. 3,
`Il. 65-68,col. 6, ll. 22—24, col. 3, Il. 10-17.
`
`3. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`“Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
`between the subject matter soughtto be patented andthepriorart are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would havebeen obviousat the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436, IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, IPR2015-00439
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 405
`
`(2007). Petitioner argues that a person ofordinary skill in the art would
`
`have had “at least the qualifications of or equivalent to either a[n]
`
`undergraduate degreein electrical engineering or mechanical engineering
`
`with course workor research in automobile accessory systems with at least
`
`two years of work making automobile accessory systems.” Pet. 8—9 (citing
`
`Ex. 1011 8). Based on the current record, including our review ofthe
`
`001 patent and the types of problemsandsolutions described in the
`
`°001 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s assessmentof the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.
`
`4. Claim 1
`
`Petitioner relies on Vellacott forall limitations of claim 1, except one.
`
`Pet. 9-23. For example, Petitioner argues that Vellacott teaches an imager
`
`comprising a “CMOSphotosensorarray”(i.e., imputer with a CMOS image
`
`sensor) and “disposed at an interior portion of a vehicle”(i.e., imputer
`
`housedinside the rear-view mirror), as well as a “control comprising an
`image processor”(i.e., 8-bit Intel 8032 microcontroller). Jd. Vellacott,
`
`however,discloses that its imputer was “positioned to look out the rearand
`
`sides of the car in a 90° arc.” Ex. 1004, 4. Petitioner, therefore, relies on
`
`Kenueas teaching the claim limitation that the imager “views exterior of the
`
`equipped vehicle through a windshield of the equipped vehicle and forward
`
`of the equipped vehicle.” Pet. 12-19. Petitioner contends that reversing the
`
`direction of an imager to face forward of a vehicle and detect objects in the
`
`forward direction, as taught by Kenue, would have been an obvious
`
`modification within the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan, relying on the
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436, IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, IPR2015-00439
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`testimony of Dr. Miller in support.
`
`/d. (citing Ex. 1011 J 36, 62, 66-68,
`
`71-75, 105-10). Upon review ofthe parties’ papers, we are persuaded that
`
`Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
`Patent Owner makesten arguments.’ First, Patent Ownerargues that
`
`Petitioner incorrectly equates Vellacott’s image sensor with the preferred
`
`embodimentdescribed in the Specification of the 001 patent. Prelim. Rep.
`
`9-11. The Specification discloses that “[a]n example of .. . a photosensor
`
`array 32 is the VLSI Vision Limited (VVL) Single Chip Video Camera
`
`Model #ASIS 1011.” Ex. 1002, col. 13, ll. 35-37. Vellacott describes a
`
`“Peach camera”andfieldtrials of its disclosed imputer performed by
`
`Donnelly Corporation (“Donnelly”), which was the original assignee of the
`
`"001 patent. See Ex. 1004, 3-4; Ex. 1002. Accordingto Petitioner and
`Dr. Miller, ““Vellacott’s imputer is the claimed vehicular vehicle system of
`
`claim 1.” Pet. 9-10 (citing Ex. 1011 {J 26, 43, 61-75). Patent Owner
`
`disputes this characterization because Vellacott never mentions the specific
`
`Model #ASIS 1011 cited in the Specification. Prelim. Resp. 9-11. We
`
`agree that Vellacott does not mention Model #ASIS 1011, and that Petitioner
`
`has not shown definitively that the image sensor disclosed in Vellacott is
`
`identical to the preferred embodiment described in the ’001 patent.
`
`Petitioner need not prove they are the same, however. Petitioner only needs
`
`to establish a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious
`
`” Patent Owner makes a numberof arguments regarding the proposed
`combination of Vellacott and Kenuein all four of its Preliminary Responses.
`For those arguments, we refer only to the briefing in Case IPR2015-00436
`for convenience.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436, IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, IPR2015-00439
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`based on whatis taught by Vellacott and Kenue. We concludethat
`Petitioner has done so.®
`
`Second, Patent Ownerasserts that Petitioner improperly relies on
`
`“per se” rules of obviousness and inapposite case law, rather than
`
`performing a fact-based analysis for the proposed combination of Vellacott
`
`and Kenue. Prelim. Resp. 15-31. This argumentis not persuasive based on
`
`the current record. Petitioner explains whyit believes reversing the
`
`direction of Vellacott’s image sensor to face forward, as taught by Kenue,
`
`would have been an obvious modification to a person of ordinary skill in the
`art, with supporting testimony from Dr. Miller. For example, Petitioner
`contends that (1) Vellacott and Kenue operate the same way (other than one
`
`using a CMOSsensorandthe other a CCD sensor) for the same general
`
`purpose; (2) a person of ordinary skill in the art would have seen the reversal
`
`of direction of Vellacott’s image sensor to detect headlights ahead of the
`
`vehicle to be an “improvement”; (3) the result of using Vellacott’s image
`
`- sensor to view the scene ahead of the vehicle would have been predictable to
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art; (4) the forward orientation is merely one
`
`of a finite numberof solutions, where Vellacott teaches facing the image
`
`® We note that, to the extent Dr. Miller relies on other documents to support
`his opinion that Vellacott’s image sensor is Model #ASIS 1011, those
`referencesare not discussedatall in the Petition and are not part of
`Petitioner’s asserted ground of unpatentability; consequently, we give that
`analysis no weight. See, e.g., Ex. 1011 4§ 28, 32 (citing two documents
`attached as Exhibits D and E to the declaration and referred to as “Paradiso”
`and “GEM”); Prelim. Resp. 11-12; 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) (a petition
`mustidentify “[t]he exhibit numberof the supporting evidence relied upon
`to support the challenge and the relevance of the evidence to the challenge
`raised, including identifying specific portions of the evidence that support
`the challenge”’).
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436, IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, IPR2015-00439
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`sensor rearward andto the side, and the only other directions are up, down,
`
`and forward; and (5) there would be no unexpectedresults from the
`
`proposed modification to Vellacott, i.e., “all components would work
`
`exactly as expected whether facing forward or backward, namely headlights
`
`will still be detected and identified.” Jd. at 12-17 (citing Ex. 1011). We are
`
`not persuadedthat Petitioner applied any per se rules of obviousness, as the
`
`analysis in the Petition discusses the specific teachings of Vellacott and
`
`Kenue, with citations to the references and parenthetical explanations for the
`
`cited case law. Petitioner’s analysis is sufficient, at this stage of the
`
`proceeding, to show “somearticulated reasoning with somerational
`
`underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See KSR,
`
`550 U.S. at 417-18 (quotation omitted).
`
`Third, Patent Owner argues that changing Vellacott’s orientation
`
`would renderit unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because Vellacott
`
`detects headlights in the rearward direction to “‘dim[] the rear-view and
`
`wing mirrors automatically to reduce glare to the driver.’” Prelim. Resp.
`
`23-24 (citing Ex. 1004, 4). We are not persuaded that Vellacott’s intended
`
`purposeis that narrow. Although Vellacott discloses a particular
`
`embodiment used by Donnelly,it broadly discloses the use of a single-chip
`
`CMOSimagesensor as an improvement on CCD image sensorsofthe time,
`
`without restriction on the types of devices for which the sensor could be
`
`used. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 1-4 (describing, for example, edge detection in an
`
`inspection probe, andstating that the disclosed imputer “open(s] up a large
`
`market that would remain nascent without CMOSimaging technology”).
`
`Thus, based on the current record, we disagree that changing Vellacott’s
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436, IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, IPR2015-00439
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`orientation would not have been something a personofordinary skill in the
`
`art would have considered.
`
`Fourth, similar to its third argument, Patent Ownerasserts that
`
`Vellacott and Kenueare not “comparable” because (1) Vellacott detects
`
`headlights rearward of a vehicle to dim the rear-view mirror and Kenue
`
`detects lane markersin front of a vehicle, and (2) CMOSimage sensors
`
`operate differently than CCD image sensors. See Prelim. Resp. 24-25,
`
`29-31. We disagree. Viewed more broadly, both references pertain to
`
`image sensors nearor within a rear-view mirrorthat are used to detect
`
`objects and take some action based onthat detection, as Petitioner contends.
`
`See Pet. 15, 22.
`
`Fifth, Patent Ownerargues that the Board previously held in another
`proceeding, Case IPR2014-00293,that “Vellacott cannot be combined with
`Kenue as proposedhere.” Prelim. Resp. 25-26. Kenue was notasserted in
`
`the prior proceeding, however. See TRW Auto. US LLC v. MagnaElecs.
`
`Inc., Case IPR2014-00293, slip op. at 7 (PTAB July 1, 2014) (Paper 19).
`
`Moreover,the decision notto institute an inter partes review in that
`
`proceeding was basedonan entirely different record, including different
`
`arguments presented by Petitioner and different claims. Thus, we do not see
`
`the relevance of the prior determination.
`
`Sixth, Patent Ownerarguesthat Petitioner improperly attempts to
`bolster its obviousness analysis by citing to the Specification of the
`
`°001 patent for allegedly “admitted” prior art. Prelim. Resp. 44-46. In
`
`particular, Petitioner cites the following disclosure in the Specification to
`
`argue that forward-facing image sensors were well-knownandstructurally
`
`the same as rearward-facing image sensors:
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436, IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, IPR2015-00439
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`The method for processing the forward field of view imageis
`the same as that shown through step S140 in the flow chart of
`FIG. 7A, andis generally the sameas to steps S150 and $160 as
`detailed in the flow chart FIG. 8A, except that steps S155, S156
`and $162 are excluded.
`
`Ex. 1002, col. 33, 1. 67—col. 34, 1. 5; see Pet. 12-14. Although we agree with
`
`Petitioner that the Specification of the 001 patent discloses performing the
`
`same processing regardless of whether the imageis a forward or rearward
`
`view, the asserted ground of unpatentability is based on Vellacott and
`
`Kenue. Thus, we base our analysis on the teachings of the references, and
`
`determine that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing based on those
`
`teachings.
`
`Seventh, Patent Ownertakes issue with various aspects of Dr. Miller’s
`
`testimony. Patent Ownerarguesthat Dr. Miller’s declaration is flawed
`
`because he states in two portionsthat “Jfind no difference between the
`
`limitations of this claim and the specific automotive rearview mirror
`
`embodimentof the VVL imputer described by Vellacott,” and “Jfind that
`
`claim 1 merely takes Vellacott’s VVL imputer in the rearview mirror
`
`embodiment. .
`
`. and simply directs the camera portion of the imputer
`
`forward, but without changing any other feature of the imputer,” rather than
`
`assessing the claims from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. Ex. 101162, 65 (emphasis added); see Prelim. Resp. 14-15. We
`
`disagree that these statements make Dr. Miller’s testimony improper, as he
`
`provides his opinions ontheparticular limitations of the claims as well as
`
`what a person ofordinary skill in the art would have found obvious based on
`
`the teachings of the cited references. See, e.g., Ex. 1011 ff] 8-12, 61-75,
`
`175.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436, IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, IPR2015-00439
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`Patent Owneralso argues that Dr. Miller improperly relies on three
`
`additional documents in support of his opinions on the proposed
`
`combination. Prelim. Resp. 28-31; see Ex. 1011 J 68, 74 (citing three
`
`documents as Exhibits D, E, and N to the declaration and referred to as
`
`“Paradiso,” “GEM,” and “Koshizawa”). Again, on this issue we agree with
`
`Patent Owner because the additional documents are not discussedat all in
`
`the Petition and are not part of Petitioner’s asserted ground of
`
`unpatentability. See supra n.8. We give that aspect of Dr. Miller’s
`
`testimony no weight, but conclude that Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted groundregardless.”
`
`Eighth, Patent Ownerargues that Vellacott and Kenue do not teach a
`
`“module attached at the windshield,” as recited in claim 1. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 39-40. Petitioner cites, for example, Vellacott’s statementthat the
`
`imputer was ‘“‘housed inside the rear-view mirror’” and photographof a
`
`rear-view mirror in Figure 6, as well as Dr. Miller’s testimony in support.
`Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1004, 4, Fig. 6, Ex. 1011 ff 111-12). Based on the
`current record, we are persuadedthat Vellacott teaches an “imager”(i.e.,
`
`imputer) disposed in a “module”(i.e., a rear-view mirror assembly), which
`
`would be located “at” the windshield of the vehicle.
`
`Ninth, Patent Ownerargues that Vellacott does not teach a
`
`“photosensorarray .
`
`.
`
`. operable at a plurality of exposure periods,” as
`
`recited in claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 41-43. Patent Owner’s argumentis
`
`> Patent Owneralso contendsthat the Petitions improperly incorporate by
`reference portions of Dr. Miller’s declaration for certain dependentclaims.
`Prelim. Resp. 12—13. We have evaluated each ofthe Petitions on its own
`merits, however, and do not consider any material where the underlying
`argumentor position is not explained sufficiently in the Petition itself
`(e.g., Dr. Miller’s testimony regarding the three additional references).
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00436, IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, IPR2015-00439
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`premised on its proposedinterpretation of “operableata plurality of
`exposure periods”as requiring different exposure periods during operation.
`
`For the reasons explained above, we do not adopt that interpretation and
`
`instead interpret the term to mean capable of operating at more than one
`
`exposure period. See supra Section I.E. Vellacott discloses multiple
`
`“exposure period[s]” within a “total exposure range.” Ex. 1004, 2; see
`
`Pet. 20-21. Petitioner’s analysis is sufficient, based on the current record, to
`
`establish that Vellacott’s imputer is capable of operating at more than one
`
`exposureperiod.
`
`Tenth, Patent Owner argues that Vellacott does not teach an image
`
`processor that processes captured image data to “detect an object,” as recited
`
`in claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 43-44. Vellacott discloses that “[t]he imputer was
`
`programmedto analyse th[e] image to recognise when and where headlamps
`
`are present in the field of view.” Ex. 1004, 4; see Pet. 20. Patent Owner
`
`contendsthat the Petition fails to explain how recognizing when and where
`
`headlights are located is the same as detecting an object. Prelim. Resp.
`43-44. It is unclear, however, how Vellacott c