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,
`
`v.
`
`BARCO N.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00358
`Patent RE43,707 E
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
`DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2002, Page 1
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`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,
`
`v.
`
`BARCO N.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00358
`Patent RE43,707 E
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
`DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2002, Page 1
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`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 of Patent No. US RE43,707 E (Ex. 1001; “the ’707 patent”).
`Paper 4 (“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 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows:
`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 challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`determine that the 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, we institute an inter partes
`review of these claims. We have also determined that 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 not institute an inter partes review of those claims.
`
`2
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2002, Page 2
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`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 of Inter Partes
`Reexamination No. 95/002,047 and was the subject of Ex Parte
`Reexamination No. 90/020,037 (“the ’037 Reexam.”).1 Pet. 1.
`B. The ’707 Patent
`The ’707 patent is directed to a system and method for 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 have a significant negative impact on the accuracy and quality of
`medical diagnosis.” Id. at 1:30-33. Accordingly, the ’707 patent provides a
`noise reduction system and method that addresses non-uniformity of pixel
`behavior present in matrix-addressed electronic display devices. Id. at 4:36-
`41.
`
`The ’707 patent includes a range of embodiments, including a vision
`measurement system — a set-up for automated, electronic vision of
`individual pixels of a matrix-addressed display. Id. 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. Id. at 6:17-
`
`
`1 The Office issued a rexexamination certificate, Reexamination Certificate
`No. US RE43,707 C1 (“the ’707 C1 certificate”), on March 31, 2014.
`
`3
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2002, Page 3
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`20. Each of the embodiments reaches the same result of outputting an
`electronic image of pixels. Id. at 6:20-23. “[A] process is 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 includes a first task of identifying a location of each of the matrix
`display pixels and relating the pixels to the pixels of the electronic image,
`and a second task 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 same drive signal or drive level, and the light-
`output of each pixel can be calculated from the test image. Id. 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 response of all of the
`pixels in a display. Id. at 10:29-42.
`An example of equalizing the behavior of the pixels is illustrated in
`Figure 10 as follows:
`
`
`
`4
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2002, Page 4
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`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 of each pixel’s characteristic luminance
`response, thereby modifying or curing any unequal luminance behavior over
`a display area. Id. 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. Subsequent to the filing of the
`Petition, a Reexamination Certificate issued in the ’037 Reexam., cancelling
`some of the claims challenged in the Petition and amending others.
`See Ex. 2005. Independent claim 36 was confirmed. Id. at 2. Claim 101,
`which depended from independent claim 100, now is written in independent
`form to include all of the limitations of cancelled claim 100. Id. 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 independent claim 105.
`Claims 36, 64, 101, and 107 are illustrative of the 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 of a light-output response of at least a portion of the
`pixel at each of a plurality of driving levels;
`
`5
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2002, Page 5
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`
`modifying a map of the display that is based on the
`
`obtained measures, said modifying including, with respect to a
`magnitude of a component having a 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 having a spatial period greater than
`fifty millimeters; and
`
`based on the modified map and an image signal that
`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 image signal that
`represents at least one physical and tangible object
`wherein the display signal is configured to cause a
`display to depict a display image of the 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 among pixels of the
`display.
`
`107. The image processing apparatus according to claim 105,
`wherein the map comprises correction data for a first pixel in
`the display based in part on a light-output response of at least
`one pixel in the display adjacent to the first pixel that has a
`degree of non-uniformity greater than a predetermined
`threshold.
`
`6
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2002, Page 6
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`
`
`
`References Relied Upon By Petitioner
`D.
`Petitioner relies upon the following references:
`Exhibit No.
`References
`1002
`Patent No. US 7,227,519 B1 (“Kawase”)
`1003
`Patent Publication No. US 2005/0012821 A1 (“Kanai”)
`1004
`Patent Publication No. US 2005/0093798 A1 (“Kamada”)
`1005
`Patent No. US 5,359,342 (“Nakai”)
`1006
`Patent Publication No. US 2005/0023986 A1 (“Mizukoshi”)
`1007
`Patent No. US 7,050,074 B1 (“Koyama”)
`1008
`Patent No. US 6,271,825 B1 (“Greene”)
`1009
`Patent No. US 6,791,566 B1 (“Kuratomi”)
`
`7
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2002, Page 7
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`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 of the ’707 patent under 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 102 and 103, as follows (see Pet. 22-45):
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Kawase and Kanai
`Kamada
`Nakai
`Nakai and Mizukoshi
`Nakai and Koyama
`Greene and Kamada
`Greene
`Greene and Kuratomi
`
`Basis
`
`§ 103(a)
`§ 102(e)
`§ 102(b)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 102(b)
`§ 103(a)
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`36, 46, and 54
`64 and 65
`77-79 and 94
`93
`94
`101-104
`107
`107
`
`II. 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 of ordinary 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 inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer,
`8
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2002, Page 8
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`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 proposes the construction of any
`claim terms. Accordingly, all terms are given their ordinary and customary
`meaning consistent with the Specification.
`B. Timeliness of Petition
`Patent Owner contends that the Petition is time-barred under Section
`315(b) because the Petition was filed more than one year after the date on
`which Petitioner was served a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.
`Prelim. Resp. 2-15. Patent Owner specifically argues that it served a
`complaint alleging infringement of Patent No. US 7,639,849 B2 (“the ʼ849
`patent”) upon Petitioner on October 7, 2011. Id. at 2; see Ex. 2002.
`Subsequent to this service, the ʼ849 patent was reissued on October 2, 2012,
`as the ʼ707 patent. Prelim. Resp. 2. The instant Petition was filed on
`January 17, 2014, more than two years after the date of service of the
`complaint. Id. Accordingly, Patent Owner argues that the Petition is
`untimely under Section 315(b). Id. at 2-15.
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. Sections 251
`and 252 state, respectively, that “[w]henever any patent is, through error,
`deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, . . . the Director shall, on the
`surrender of such patent . . . , reissue the patent for the invention disclosed
`in the original patent” and “[t]he surrender of the original patent shall take
`effect upon the issue of the reissued patent.” 35 U.S.C. §§ 251, 252
`
`9
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2002, Page 9
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`(emphasis added). The new reissue patent is a distinct property right that
`“does not 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 year after the
`date on which the petitioner, real party of interest, or privy of
`the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement
`of the patent (emphasis added).
`
`Here, Patent Owner served upon Petitioner a complaint alleging
`infringement of the ʼ849 patent. See Ex. 2002. The reissuance of the ʼ849
`patent as the ʼ707 patent did not continue the ʼ849 patent, but rather resulted
`in the surrender of the ʼ849 patent and the issuance of a new patent, the ʼ707
`patent. Patent Owner served Petitioner with an amended complaint alleging
`infringement of the ʼ707 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 complaint first alleging infringement of the ʼ707 patent.
`We also are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the claims
`of the ʼ849 patent are substantially identical to the claims of the ʼ707 patent,
`and, therefore, under Section 252, the ʼ849 patent is the same as the
`ʼ707 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
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2002, Page 10
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`alleging infringement of the 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. Id.
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument and
`determine that 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 (Ex. 1002)
`Kawase teaches a method of driving a display panel that corrects
`
`luminance variation that arises as a result of change over time. Ex. 1002,
`1:8-15. The method includes the step of changing a luminance setting
`reference value with the elapsing of time. Id. at 5:16-18. The renewal
`intervals are changed in accordance with the characteristics of luminance
`degradation. Id. 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. Id. at 5:27-29. Grey scale
`then is realized. Id. at 5:31-37. The driving method is illustrated in
`Figure 1, reproduced below:
`
`
`11
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2002, Page 11
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates the flow of inputted video signals. Ex. 1002,
`
`10:19. Video decoder 1 separates an input composite video signal into an
`RGB luminance signal and horizontal and vertical signals. Id. at 10:22-24.
`The RGB luminance signal is converted to a digital signal by A/D
`converter 3. Id. 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 luminance in order to
`suppress variation in luminance between pixels. Id. at 10:28-31. For a
`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
`amount of current flowing to the anode electrode. Id. at 10:33-42. “In
`addition, the driving current signal from signal driver 7 is a detected driving
`signal applied to the display panel.” Id. at 10:41-43. Either of these values
`12
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2002, Page 12
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`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 between values related to
`measured luminance values and target luminance values and stores the
`differences as correction values in memory 5. Id. at 10:44-49. Corrector 4
`retrieves these values from memory 5 and performs the correction. Id. at
`10:50-54.
`2. Kanai (Ex. 1003)
`Kanai teaches a method of correcting luminance unevenness of 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 components to be reduced or 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. Id.
`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. Id. ¶ 22. Measured luminance
`data is sent to a correction value generating part that calculates correction
`values. Id. ¶ 64. The display device also calculates a luminance target value
`
`13
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2002, Page 13
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`for the display element, which is “the luminance of a certain display element
`that is obtainable when luminance unevenness is eliminated by ideal
`correction free of correction error.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 76. “Each frequency
`component of the luminance target values is not greater than the luminance
`unevenness discrimination threshold.” Id. ¶ 82. The correction values are
`calculated by dividing the luminance target values by the measured
`luminance data. Id. ¶¶ 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. ¶¶ 86, 103.
`
`3. Analysis
`The evidence set 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 Kanai teaches or suggests all
`of the limitations of claims 36, 46, and 54.
`Independent claim 36 recites “a method of image processing” that
`comprises “for each of a plurality of pixels of a display, obtaining a measure
`of a light-output response of at least a portion of the pixel at each of a
`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 means and is compared with
`14
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2002, Page 14
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`[a] target luminance.” Pet. 22-23 (citing Ex. 1002, 17:31-34). Petitioner
`further contends that Kawase describes that, “[w]hen there is a deviation
`from the target luminance, driving voltage is changed and luminance is
`measured again until a voltage value that converges to the target luminance
`is determined.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 17:34-41). Accordingly, Petitioner
`contends that Kawase describes this limitation.
`Claim 36 further recites
`modifying a map of the display that is based on the obtained
`measures, said modifying
`including, with respect
`to a
`magnitude of a component having a 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 having a spatial period greater than
`fifty millimeters.
`Claims 46 and 54 recite similar limitations. Petitioner acknowledges that
`“Kawase does not disclose decreasing a magnitude of components having a
`spatial period less than one millimeter and greater 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 components of spatial
`frequency data.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 14, 16). Kanai discloses
`specifically that “high-frequency [unevenness] is approximately completely
`eliminated and low-frequency unevenness is reduced to a negligible degree.”
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 88.
`
`Petitioner acknowledges that Kanai fails to “explicitly disclose the
`specific spatial periods of one and fifty millimeters.” Pet. 30. Petitioner
`
`15
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2002, Page 15
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`argues, however, that spatial periods below one millimeter and above fifty
`millimeters are in accordance with human perceptual limitations, and,
`because Kanai discloses reducing or eliminating components according to
`human perceptual limitations, the spatial periods of one and fifty millimeters
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id. Petitioner
`argues that “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
`Kanai teaches that this reduces unevenness and improves image quality.”
`Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 87, 88).
`
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner. Petitioner has not provided
`evidence to support the argument that decreasing the magnitude of a
`component with a spatial period below one millimeter and decreasing the
`magnitude of a component above fifty millimeters would have been obvious
`to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner also does not provide
`sufficient evidence to support the argument that spatial periods below one
`millimeter and above fifty millimeters are in accordance with human
`perceptual limitations. 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 element itself. See K/S HIMPP
`v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1365-1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`General conclusions about what is “basic knowledge” are not a substitute for
`documentary evidence for describing core fact finding. Id. Here, we are not
`
`16
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2002, Page 16
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`persuaded by Petitioner that such limitations would have been obvious to a
`person with ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Furthermore, we are persuaded by Patent Owner that Kanai does not
`describe explicitly decreasing the magnitude of a component having a 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 Kanai discloses “that applying correction processing
`approximately completely eliminates the high-frequency unevenness and
`reduces the low-frequency unevenness to a negligible degree.” Pet. 23
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 88). Figures 8B and 8D, reproduced below, illustrate the
`elimination of high-frequency and low-frequency unevenness:
`
`
`Figure 8B illustrates luminance unevenness for pixels, and Figure 8D
`illustrates the correction of the unevenness of pixels. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 87-88.
`We are not persuaded, however, that the magnitudes of both high-frequency
`and low-frequency values, in Figure 8B, are decreased in order to provide
`the correction values in Figure 8D.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown a 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
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2002, Page 17
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`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 C1 certificate, now depends from 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 arguments as to the
`limitations recited by cancelled claim 94. Pet. 30-32. Petitioner bears the
`burden of showing that Kamada discloses the limitations of dependent
`claim 64 and the claims from which claim 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 likelihood that
`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
`amended by the ’707 C1 certificate, includes the same limitations 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
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2002, Page 18
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`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 of original claim
`101 and that of amended claim 101 are identical. Accordingly, our analysis
`here is of amended claim 101.
`1. Greene (Ex. 1008)
`Greene teaches methods for 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.” Id. at 8:45-47. “The correction methods
`incorporate the measurement of brightness characteristics of the display” and
`“can be applied to selected pixels or all of the pixels.” Id. at 4:34-36. The
`measured data is stored and then “selectively retrieved during the operation
`of the display and used to scale and/or interpolate drive signals in real-time.”
`Id. at 4:39-44. Corrections are made with respect to a chosen reference
`system such that 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. Id. at 4:51-55. The
`luminance correction method is illustrated in Figure 4, reproduced below:
`
`19
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2002, Page 19
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`
`
`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 recomputes the color coordinates of the received data input
`based on luminance ratios 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. Id. at 10:59-61. Then, display
`controller 52, which is operatively connected to row drivers 52a and column
`drivers 52b, receives the normalized data. Id. at 10:53-56. A modified pixel
`stream then is output to drivers 52a and 52b. Id. at 11:8-11.
`2. Kamada (Ex. 1004)
`Kamada teaches a display correction circuit and a display apparatus
`that correct uneven image appearance caused by the 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
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2002, Page 20
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`data indicative of gray level changes in a surrounding region around the
`rectangular region in an isometric manner with 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. Id. The image
`processing apparatus is illustrated in Figure 1, reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 1 is a diagram of the liquid crystal display apparatus that
`includes image processing apparatus 11, memory 12, signal source 13, and
`liquid crystal display panel 14. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 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
`image data signals to liquid crystal display panel 14. Id.
`An area to be corrected is specified by two points corresponding to the
`top left corner and the bottom right corner of a rectangular region. Id. ¶ 45.
`Constant correction value k, which corresponds to an amount of shift by
`which a 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
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2002, Page 21
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Trial No. IPR2014-01111
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00358
`Patent US RE43,707 E
`
`surrounding the rectangular region. Id. Thus, the correction value is k at the
`edge of the rectangular region and decreases to zero at the edge of the
`surrounding region. Id.
`3. Analysis
`The
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
