Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: December 28, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC., VALEO S.A., VALEO GMBH,
`VALEO SCHALTER UND SENSOREN GMBH, and
`CONNAUGHT ELECTRONICS LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2015-01410 and IPR2015-01414
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410, IPR2015-01414
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`
`Petitioners Valeo North America, Inc., Valeo S.A., Valeo GmbH,
`
`Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH, and Connaught Electronics Ltd.
`
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed two Petitions requesting inter partes review
`
`of claims 1–86 of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’724
`
`patent”)1 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19. Patent Owner Magna
`
`Electronics Inc. filed a Preliminary Response in each proceeding, as listed in
`
`the following chart.
`
`Case Number
`
`Challenged Claims Petition
`
`IPR2015-01410 1–6, 10–18,2 23,
`25, 29–32, 41–43,
`46–56, 58, 61, 62,
`64–71, 73, 75–82,
`84, and 86
`
`IPR2015-01414 7–9, 19–22, 24,
`26–28, 33–40, 44,
`45, 57, 59, 60, 63,
`72, 74, 83, and 85
`
`Paper 1
`(“Pet.”)
`
`Preliminary
`Response
`
`Paper 6
`(“Prelim.
`Resp.”)
`
`Paper 1
`(“-1414 Pet.”)
`
`Paper 7 (“-1414
`Prelim. Resp.”)
`
`We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a).
`
`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
`
`“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.” For the
`
`reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1, 3–12,
`
`1 Petitioner appears to have filed the same exhibits in each proceeding.
`References to exhibits herein are to those filed in Case IPR2015-01410.
`
` 2
`
` Petitioner lists claim 19 in its Petition in Case IPR2015-01410, but does
`not include claim 19 in any asserted ground of unpatentability. See Pet. 1, 6;
`Prelim. Resp. 1 n.1. Thus, we presume that the initial listing of claims was a
`typographical error.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410, IPR2015-01414
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`14, 15, 17, 19–52, 54–67, 69–79, and 81–86 of the ’724 patent on certain
`
`grounds of unpatentability. To administer the proceedings more efficiently,
`
`we also exercise our authority under 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) to consolidate the
`
`two proceedings and conduct the proceedings as one trial.
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ’724 Patent3
`
`The ’724 patent relates generally to “rearview vision systems which
`
`provide the vehicle operator with scenic information in the direction
`
`rearward of the vehicle.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 22–25. According to the
`
`’724 patent, there was a need in the art to “reduce the amount of time spent
`
`gathering information [about] the condition around the vehicle in order to
`
`safely carry out a vehicle maneuver, such as a turn or a lane change,” and
`
`also a need to “eliminate exterior rearview mirrors by utilizing image
`
`capture devices, such as cameras, in combination with dashboard displays.”
`
`Id. at col. 1, ll. 28–59. Prior art camera-based systems typically used more
`
`than one camera to reduce blind spots, but displayed multiple images, which
`
`could confuse the driver. Id. at col. 1, l. 60–col. 2, l. 3. Specifically,
`
`“[w]hen multiple image capture devices are positioned at different
`
`longitudinal locations on the vehicle, objects behind the vehicle are at
`
`
`3 Petitioner previously filed petitions seeking inter partes review of the
`’724 patent in Cases IPR2015-00252 and IPR2015-00253. The petitions
`were denied. See Valeo N. Am., Inc. v. Magna Elecs., Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-00252 (PTAB May 13, 2015) (Paper 7) (“-252 Dec.”);
`Valeo N. Am., Inc. v. Magna Elecs., Inc., Case IPR2015-00253 (PTAB
`May 13, 2015) (Paper 7) (“-253 Dec.”). A patent sharing a similar
`specification with the ’724 patent also is challenged in Cases
`IPR2014-00220 and IPR2014-01203.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410, IPR2015-01414
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`different distances from the image capture devices,” such that the same
`
`object would have a different size in each display. Id. at col. 2, ll. 3–8.
`
`To address these issues, the ’724 patent discloses a multi-camera
`
`vision system having two image capture devices on the sides of the vehicle
`
`and one at the rear of the vehicle, and a reconfigurable display device that
`
`displays a synthesized image from the image capture devices. Id. at col. 2,
`
`l. 59–col. 3, l. 25. Figure 1 of the ’724 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts vehicle 10 traveling in direction T and comprising side
`
`image capture devices 14 each with field of view 22 and center image
`
`capture device 16 with field of view 26. Id. at col. 5, l. 47–col. 6, l. 21. The
`
`three captured images are processed and “juxtaposed on display 20 by image
`
`processor 18 in a manner which approximates the view from a single virtual
`
`image capture device positioned forwardly of the vehicle at a location C and
`
`facing rearwardly of the vehicle, with the vehicle being transparent to the
`
`view of the virtual image capture device.” Id. at col. 5, l. 63–col. 6, l. 2.
`
`The resulting display provides a “substantially seamless panoramic view
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410, IPR2015-01414
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`rearwardly of the vehicle without duplicate or redundant images of objects.”
`
`Id. at col. 6, ll. 2–5.
`
`Figure 3 of the ’724 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 3 depicts composite image 42 comprising left image portion 44, right
`
`image portion 46, and center image portion 48, reversed from the images
`
`captured by the image capture devices, as well as compass readout 54,
`
`vehicle speed 56, and turn signals 58. Id. at col. 7, l. 44–col. 8, l. 7. Due to
`
`the different positioning of side image capture devices 14 and center image
`
`capture device 16, the system may process side images differently from the
`
`central images (e.g., by vertically compressing the central images) to avoid
`
`the appearance of disjointed objects. Id. at col. 14, l. 52–col. 16, l. 14.
`
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 1 of the ’724 patent recites:
`
`1. A multi-camera vision system for a vehicle, said
`vehicular multi-camera vision system comprising:
`
`at least three image capture devices disposed at a vehicle
`equipped with said vehicular multi-camera vision system;
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410, IPR2015-01414
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`
`said at least three image capture devices comprising a
`first image capture device disposed at a driver-side portion of
`the equipped vehicle at a first location;
`
`said at least three image capture devices comprising a
`second image capture device disposed at a passenger-side
`portion of the equipped vehicle at a second location;
`
`said at least three image capture devices comprising a
`third image capture device disposed at a rear portion of the
`equipped vehicle at a third location;
`
`wherein said first image capture device has a first field of
`view exterior of the equipped vehicle;
`
`wherein said second image capture device has a second
`field of view exterior of the equipped vehicle;
`
`wherein said third image capture device has a third field
`of view exterior of the equipped vehicle;
`
`wherein said first field of view of said first image capture
`device overlaps with said third field of view of said third image
`capture device defining a first overlap zone;
`
`wherein said second field of view of said second image
`capture device overlaps with said third field of view of said
`third image capture device defining a second overlap zone;
`
`wherein said first image capture device captures first
`image data;
`
`wherein said second image capture device captures
`second image data;
`
`wherein said third image capture device captures third
`image data;
`
`an image processor;
`
`wherein first image data captured by said first image
`capture device is received at said image processor via at least
`one of an analog data stream and a digital data stream;
`
`wherein second image data captured by said second
`image capture device is received at said image processor via at
`least one of an analog data stream and a digital data stream;
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410, IPR2015-01414
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`
`wherein third image data captured by said third image
`capture device is received at said image processor via at least
`one of an analog data stream and a digital data stream;
`
`image
`to processing by said
`wherein, responsive
`processor of received image data, a synthesized image is
`generated without duplication of objects present in said first
`overlap zone and in said second overlap zone and wherein said
`synthesized image approximates a view as would be seen by a
`virtual camera at a single location exterior of the equipped
`vehicle; and
`
`wherein said synthesized image is displayed by a single
`display screen of a reconfigurable display device that is
`viewable by a driver of the equipped vehicle when normally
`operating the equipped vehicle.
`
`
`
`C. The Prior Art
`
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,390,895, issued June 28, 1983
`(Ex. 1018, “Sato”);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,833,534, issued May 23, 1989
`(Ex. 1017, “Paff”);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,963,788,
`(Ex. 1013, “King”);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,966,441,
`(Ex. 1014, “Conner”);
`
`issued Oct. 16, 1990
`
`issued Oct. 30, 1990
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,793,420, issued Aug. 11, 1998, filed
`Feb. 20, 1996 (Ex. 1015, “Schmidt”);
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,553,130 B1, issued Apr. 22, 2003,
`continuation of application filed Aug. 11, 1993 (Ex. 1006,
`“Lemelson”);
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No.
`published Jan. 18, 1989 (Ex. 1008, “Aishin”);
`
`JP-A-64-14700,
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No. H2-36417, published
`Aug. 17, 1990 (Ex. 1012, “Niles”);
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410, IPR2015-01414
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No. 2-117935, published
`Sept. 21, 1990 (Ex. 1005, “Mitsubishi”);
`
`UK Patent Application Publication No. GB 2233530 A,
`published Jan. 9, 1991 (Ex. 1010, “Fuji”);
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No. H7-30149, published
`June 6, 1995 (Ex. 1003, “Yamamoto”);4
`
`Tatsumi Otsuka et al., Flat Dot Matrix Display Module
`for Vehicle Instrumentation, SAE Paper No. 871288, Nov. 8,
`1987 (Ex. 1016, “Otsuka”);
`
`M. Weihrauch, G. G. Meloeny, & T. C. Goesch, The
`First Head Up Display Introduced by General Motors, SAE
`Paper No. 890288, Feb. 1, 1989 (Ex. 1019, “Goesch”); and
`
`G. Wang et al., CMOS Video Cameras,
`TH0367-3/91/0000/0100, 1991 (Ex. 1009, “Wang”).
`
`IEEE
`
`
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–86 of the ’724 patent as unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on the following grounds:
`
`Case Number
`
`References
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`IPR2015-01410 Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`and Lemelson
`
`1–6, 10–18, 23, 25,
`29–32, 41–43, and
`46–48
`
`IPR2015-01410 Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, Wang, and
`Aishin
`
`49–56, 58, 61, 62,
`64–71, 73, 75–82, 84,
`and 86
`
`
`4 We refer to “Aishin,” “Niles,” “Mitsubishi,” and “Yamamoto” as the
`English translations of the original references (Exhibits 1002, 1004, 1007,
`and 1011). Petitioner provided affidavits attesting to the accuracy of the
`translations. See Exs. 1003, 1005, 1008, 1012; 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b). Also,
`when citing the asserted non-patent references, we refer to the page numbers
`at the lower right corner of each page. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(2).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410, IPR2015-01414
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`
`Case Number
`
`References
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`IPR2015-01414 Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, and Wang
`
`19
`
`IPR2015-01414 Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, and Aishin
`
`7–9 and 20–22
`
`IPR2015-01414 Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, and Niles
`
`IPR2015-01414 Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, Aishin, and
`Schmidt
`
`24
`
`26
`
`IPR2015-01414 Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, and Fuji
`
`27 and 28
`
`IPR2015-01414 Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, and Otsuka
`
`33 and 35–38
`
`IPR2015-01414 Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, Otsuka, and
`Conner
`
`IPR2015-01414 Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, Otsuka, and
`Sato
`
`IPR2015-01414 Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, Otsuka, and
`Paff
`
`IPR2015-01414 Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, and King
`
`IPR2015-01414 Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, and Goesch
`
`34
`
`39
`
`40
`
`44
`
`45
`
`IPR2015-01414 Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, Wang, Aishin,
`and Fuji
`
`57, 72, and 83
`
`IPR2015-01414 Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, Wang, Aishin,
`and Otsuka
`
`59
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410, IPR2015-01414
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`
`Case Number
`
`References
`
`IPR2015-01414 Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, Wang, Aishin,
`and Paff
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`60, 74, and 85
`
`IPR2015-01414 Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, Wang, Aishin,
`and King
`
`63
`
`
`
`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); In re Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Under this standard,
`
`we interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the
`
`words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
`
`of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
`
`contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
`
`1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We presume that claim terms have their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning is the meaning that
`
`the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.”
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted)). A patentee, however, may rebut this
`
`presumption by acting as his own lexicographer, providing a definition of
`
`the term in the specification with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410, IPR2015-01414
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`
`Petitioner provides proposed interpretations for various limitations of
`
`the claims. Pet. 10–14; -1414 Pet. 13–16. Patent Owner does not provide
`
`any proposed interpretations in its Preliminary Responses.
`
`For purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, we
`
`interpret two claim limitations. First, we incorporate the previous analysis in
`
`Cases IPR2015-00252 and IPR2015-00253, and interpret “synthesized
`
`image” to mean the image generated by combining the received image data
`
`captured by the image capture devices. See -252 Dec. 7–8; -253 Dec. 7–9;
`
`Pet. 11; -1414 Pet. 14. Second, we interpret the “at least one of” clauses in
`
`the claims to signify a disjunctive list of alternatives (i.e., only one limitation
`
`is required), for the reasons stated by Petitioner. See Pet. 12–14; -1414 Pet.
`
`14–16. For example, claim 31 recites that “content displayed by said display
`
`screen of said reconfigurable display device is user-selectable via at least
`
`one of a keypad and a trackball,” meaning that the content must be
`
`user-selectable via a keypad or a trackball (or both).5
`
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Section 325(d)
`
`As an initial matter, Patent Owner argues that the Petitions should be
`
`denied under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because they rely on many of the same
`
`prior art references and arguments as the petitions in Cases IPR2015-00252
`
`
`5 Although the parties did not address the issue, it appears that the
`’724 patent will expire on May 22, 2016. Our analysis in this Decision is
`not impacted by whether we apply the broadest reasonable interpretation or
`the standard outlined in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.
`2005) (en banc), given the arguments presented by the parties. The parties,
`however, are encouraged to address the expiration date of the ’724 patent
`and the appropriate claim interpretation standard in their papers during trial.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410, IPR2015-01414
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`and IPR2015-00253. Prelim. Resp. 4–8.6 Petitioner’s earlier petitions were
`
`denied because Petitioner did not show sufficiently that two asserted prior
`
`art references, Nissan and Hino, teach the generation of a “synthesized
`
`image [that] approximates a view as would be seen by a virtual camera at a
`
`single location,” as recited in independent claims 1, 49, 65, and 78. See
`
`-252 Dec. 12–15; -253 Dec. 13–16. Petitioner now relies on two new
`
`references, Yamamoto and Mitsubishi, as allegedly teaching the limitations
`
`pertaining to a “synthesized image.” See, e.g., Pet. 24–27. Patent Owner
`
`argues that Petitioner’s arguments regarding Yamamoto and Mitsubishi are
`
`similar to those it made with respect to Nissan and Hino, and the other
`
`asserted prior art references, such as Lemelson, are the same as in the
`
`original petitions. Prelim. Resp. 4–8. Therefore, Patent Owner contends
`
`that Petitioner should not be permitted a “second bite at the apple” to
`
`challenge the ’724 patent. Id. at 1–2.
`
`In determining whether to institute an inter partes review, we may
`
`“deny some or all grounds for unpatentability for some or all of the
`
`challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b); see also 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`(prescribing requirement for authorizing institution but not mandating
`
`institution). Our discretionary determination of whether to institute review
`
`is guided by 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), which states, in relevant part, that “[i]n
`
`determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under . . . chapter 31
`
`[applicable to inter partes review proceedings], the Director may take into
`
`6 Petitioner and Patent Owner make a number of arguments in both of their
`Petitions and Preliminary Responses. Where the argument is made by the
`parties in both companion cases (i.e., Cases IPR2015-01410 and
`IPR2015-01414), we refer here to the briefing in Case IPR2015-01410 for
`purposes of citation. In these instances, our analysis still applies to both
`cases.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410, IPR2015-01414
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or
`
`substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to
`
`the Office.” The statutory language gives the Director the authority not to
`
`institute review on the basis that the same or substantially the same prior art
`
`or arguments were presented previously to the Office, but does not require
`
`that result.
`
`We do not exercise our discretion to deny the Petitions under
`
`§ 325(d). Yamamoto and Mitsubishi, and the specific combinations of those
`
`references with the other prior art asserted by Petitioner in these
`
`proceedings, were not considered during prosecution of the ’724 patent or
`
`during Cases IPR2015-00252 and IPR2015-00253. Further, Petitioner relies
`
`on Yamamoto and Mitsubishi not just for the “synthesized image”
`
`limitations, but also for the vast majority of limitations in the independent
`
`claims, unlike in the earlier petitions where Petitioner relied on Nissan and
`
`Hino. See, e.g., Pet. 14–28. The functionality described in Yamamoto and
`
`Mitsubishi also is different from what Nissan and Hino disclose. Thus, we
`
`are not persuaded that the analysis in the Petitions, as well as in the
`
`corresponding declarations of Petitioner’s declarants, is substantially the
`
`same as that presented in the earlier cases. Although we are mindful of the
`
`burden on Patent Owner and the Office in hearing a second challenge to the
`
`’724 patent, based on the particular facts of these proceedings, we are not
`
`persuaded to exercise our discretion under § 325(d).
`
`
`
`B. Obviousness Ground Based on Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, and Lemelson
`(Claims 1–6, 10–18, 23, 25, 29–32, 41–43, and 46–48)
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–6, 10–18, 23, 25, 29–32, 41–43, and
`
`46–48 are unpatentable over Yamamoto, Mitsubishi, and Lemelson under
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410, IPR2015-01414
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a), relying on the supporting testimony of George Wolberg,
`
`Ph.D., and Ralph V. Wilhelm, Jr., Ph.D. Pet. 14–43 (citing Exs. 1020,
`
`1022). We are persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on its asserted ground as to claims 1, 3–6, 10–12,
`
`14, 15, 17, 23, 25, 29–32, 41–43, and 46–48, but not as to claims 2, 13, 16,
`
`and 18, for the reasons explained below.
`
`
`
`1. Yamamoto
`
`Yamamoto describes a television monitor system for a vehicle that
`
`allows the user to see what is behind the vehicle without having to use a
`
`rear-view mirror or side mirrors. Ex. 1003, 5. Figure 1 of Yamamoto is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`Figure 1 depicts miniature color television cameras 1, 2, and 3, with
`
`corresponding view ranges 5, 6, and 7, positioned at the same height at
`
`different locations on the vehicle. Id. at 5–6.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410, IPR2015-01414
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`
`Figure 5 of Yamamoto is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 5 depicts a composite image from the three cameras, which is
`
`displayed on a television monitor in front of the driver. Id. “[I]mages
`
`captured by the three cameras are trimmed by the television monitor . . .
`
`to compose a single image to display.” Id. at 6.
`
`
`
`2. Mitsubishi
`
`Mitsubishi describes a “visibility assisting device for a vehicle
`
`occupant which synthesizes and displays inside the cabin video from a
`
`plurality of imaging devices installed in the vehicle.” Ex. 1005, 3.
`
`Mitsubishi describes how using multiple cameras instead of a single camera
`
`behind a vehicle is advantageous to capture a “wide area beyond the field of
`
`view of the driver from the driver’s seat.” Id. Figure 1 of Mitsubishi is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`Figure 1 depicts cameras 1', 2', and 3' facing the rear of vehicle A such that
`
`the images captured by each camera partially overlap and the entire field of
`
`vision is covered. Id. at 4–5. The system also includes image processing
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410, IPR2015-01414
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`circuit 4, which synthesizes the images from the three cameras and corrects
`
`for overlap by, for example, comparing the left and middle images to
`
`recognize matching patterns and align the images with each other. Id. at 4,
`
`6–8, Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`3. Lemelson
`
`Lemelson describes an automobile system comprising a television
`
`camera that “scans the roadway ahead of the vehicle as the vehicle travels”
`
`and a display to “warn the driver of the vehicle of approaching and existing
`
`hazards.” Ex. 1006, Abstract. The display may be a real-time video display
`
`with “highlighting of hazards, special warning images such as flashing
`
`lights, alpha-numeric messages, distance values, speed indicators and other
`
`hazard and safety related messages.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 47–55.
`
`
`
`4. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`“Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 405
`
`(2007). Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the ’724 patent (May 1996) would have had “a bachelor’s or master’s
`
`degree in engineering, computer science, or physics with some experience in
`
`the automotive industry (e.g., two to five years),” and “a working
`
`understanding of combining image data from multiple cameras and
`
`microprocessor driven controls for displays, actuators, and elementary
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410, IPR2015-01414
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`decision making.” Pet. 10. Dr. Wolberg and Dr. Wilhelm agree with this
`
`assessment. See Ex. 1020 ¶ 25; Ex. 1022 ¶ 18. Patent Owner does not
`
`propose a different level of ordinary skill in the art, but argues that the
`
`testimony of Dr. Wolberg and Dr. Wilhelm is unreliable because they
`
`defined the level of ordinary skill differently in Cases IPR2015-00252 and
`
`IPR2015-00253. Prelim. Resp. 9–12.
`
`We agree that Dr. Wolberg and Dr. Wilhelm appear to have changed
`
`their opinions on the level of ordinary skill in the art from the prior cases.
`
`On further review, however, the opinions are not all that different. For
`
`example, Dr. Wolberg originally testified that he believed a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been familiar with “image stitching and
`
`image compositing,” and now testifies that such an individual would have
`
`understood “combining image data from multiple cameras.” See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1020 ¶ 25; IPR2015-00252, Ex. 1019 ¶ 25. Similarly, both declarants
`
`testified in each proceeding that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had
`
`education in engineering, computer science, or similar fields. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1020 ¶ 25; Ex. 1022 ¶ 18; IPR2015-00252, Ex. 1019 ¶ 26, Ex. 1020
`
`¶ 18. Based on the current record, including our review of the ’724 patent
`
`and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’724 patent and
`
`cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.
`
`
`
`5. Petitioner’s Declarants
`
`Patent Owner makes a number of arguments regarding the testimony
`
`of Dr. Wolberg and Dr. Wilhelm that apply to all of Petitioner’s asserted
`
`grounds. First, Patent Owner argues that Dr. Wolberg is not qualified to
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410, IPR2015-01414
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`testify because there is no evidence in his curriculum vitae (Ex. 1021) that
`
`he has any experience in the automotive industry. Prelim. Resp. 12.
`
`Dr. Wolberg, however, opines that he had the capabilities of a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (as he identifies such an individual) at the time of the
`
`’724 patent. Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 25–26. Regardless, though, we have reviewed
`
`Dr. Wolberg’s qualifications, which include considerable experience with
`
`image processing and computer vision systems, and conclude based on the
`
`current record that he is qualified to testify regarding the matters addressed
`
`in his declaration. See id. ¶¶ 2–11; Ex. 1021.
`
`Second, Patent Owner argues that Dr. Wolberg’s and Dr. Wilhelm’s
`
`reliance on each other for portions of their opinions “invalidates
`
`[Petitioner’s] assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`been motivated to combine the references.” Prelim. Resp. 13–19. For
`
`example, with respect to claim 1, Dr. Wolberg focuses on the combination of
`
`Yamamoto and Mitsubishi pertaining to “image synthesis,” and testifies as
`
`follows:
`
`My opinions in this declaration supplement and are
`supplemented by opinions from Dr. Ralph Wilhelm in his
`declaration at Ex. 1022. My opinions focus on claims and
`limitations within claims that relate to the images that are
`obtained from the camera and issues related to image synthesis.
`To the extent that certain features described in the ’724 patent
`more specifically relate to reconfigurable display technology,
`Dr. Ralph Wilhelm’s area of expertise, I defer to and rely on
`Dr. Wilhelm’s opinions, which I have reviewed, assume to be
`true and accurate, and adopt for purposes of this declaration.
`
`and
`[Mitsubishi],
`reviewed Yamamoto,
`Having
`Lemelson, based on my experience and my review of
`Dr. Wilhelm’s declaration, I assume that the [person of ordinary
`skill in the art] would have been motivated to combine these
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410, IPR2015-01414
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`
`references for
`declaration.
`
`the reasons discussed
`
`in Dr. Wilhelm’s
`
`Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 93–94, 101–102. Conversely, Dr. Wilhelm focuses on the
`
`combination of Lemelson with the other references, based on his knowledge
`
`of “reconfigurable display technology,” and “assume[s]” that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of
`
`Yamamoto and Mitsubishi based on Dr. Wolberg. Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 80–81,
`
`87–88. Patent Owner argues that (1) each declarant’s ultimate conclusion
`
`that the challenged claims would have been obvious is “inappropriate” and
`
`should be “discounted” because they assume certain things to be true based
`
`on the testimony of the other, (2) the declarants’ piecemeal approach is proof
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the
`
`teachings of the three references, and (3) by relying on each other’s
`
`testimony regarding certain limitations of the claims, the declarants fail to
`
`consider each claim as a whole. Prelim. Resp. 13–19.
`
`Having reviewed the testimony of Dr. Wolberg and Dr. Wilhelm, we
`
`are not persuaded that the manner in which they have expressed their
`
`opinions is per se improper, but rather that their assumptions based on the
`
`testimony of the other affect the weight to be accorded their testimony.
`
`Each declarant explains why he believes certain limitations of the claims are
`
`taught by the prior art references and why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have had reason to combine certain teachings of the references. We
`
`conclude, for the reasons stated below, that the testimony supports the
`
`arguments Petitioner makes in its Petitions for the majority of the claims and
`
`that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to
`
`those claims. Patent Owner will have the opportunity during trial to
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410, IPR2015-01414
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`cross-examine both individuals and explore the bases for their opinions and
`
`their reliance on the opinions of each other.
`
`
`
`6. Claim 1
`
`Petitioner relies on Yamamoto as teaching most of the limitations of
`
`claim 1. Pet. 14–27. For example, Petitioner argues that Yamamoto teaches
`
`first and second “image capture devices” disposed at “driver-side” and
`
`“passenger-side” portions of the vehicle (i.e., cameras 1 and 2), a third
`
`“image capture device” disposed at a “rear portion” of the vehicle
`
`(i.e., camera 3), where the fields of view of the first and second cameras
`
`overlap with the field of view of the third camera (i.e., ranges 5 and 6
`
`overlap with range 7 in Figure 1). Id. at 16–20. With respect to the
`
`limitation of an “image processor,” Petitioner argues that (1) Yamamoto
`
`inherently performs some image processing because it trims and combines
`
`the images from the three cameras into a composite image, and, even if
`
`Yamamoto does not teach the limitation, (2) Mitsubishi’s image processing
`
`circuit 4 is an image processor. Id. at 21–23.
`
`Petitioner relies on the combination of Yamamoto and Mitsubishi for
`
`the “synthesized image” limitations. Id. at 19–27. With respect to the
`
`limitation of generating a synthesized image “without duplication of objects
`
`present in [the overlap zones],” Petitioner contends that (1) Yamamoto trims
`
`the images from the three cameras to generate a composite image, and
`
`(2) Mitsubishi processes the images from its cameras to identify patterns and
`
`generate a composite image without duplication of objects. Id. at 24–25.
`
`According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had
`
`reason to incorporate the “more sophisticated” image processing techniques
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410, IPR2015-01414
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`of Mitsubishi in Yamamoto’s system to improve the image shown to the
`
`driver, avoid driver confusion, and improve safety. Id. at 19–20, 25.
`
`Petitioner also argues that Yamamoto teaches a synthesized image that
`
`“approximates a view as would be seen by a virtual camera at a single
`
`location,” i.e., “forward of the driver exterior of the equipped vehicle,
`
`looking rearward to capture the scene behind the driver.” Id. at 25–27
`
`(citing Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 113–16).
`
`Finally, Petitioner relies on Lemelson as teaching a “reconfigurable
`
`display device,” and argues that a per