Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 34
`Entered: June 25, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TRW AUTOMOTIVE US LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICS INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00251
`Patent 6,097,023
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
`JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 34
`Entered: June 25, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TRW AUTOMOTIVE US LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICS INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00251
`Patent 6,097,023
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
`JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00251
`Patent 6,097,023
`
`
`A.
`
`Background
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner, TRW Automotive US LLC, filed a Petition (Paper 3,
`
`“Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 13, 18, 29, 30,
`
`54, 62–64, and 70 of U.S. Patent No. 6,097,023 (Ex. 1002, “the ’023
`
`patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Patent Owner, Magna
`
`Electronics Inc., subsequently filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 9,
`
`“Prelim. Resp.”). On June 26, 2014, we instituted an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1, 8, 9, 18, 29, 30, 54, 62–64, and 70 on five grounds of
`
`unpatentability (Paper 14, “Dec. on Inst.”).
`
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper
`
`20, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 24, “Reply”).
`
`An oral hearing was held on February 18, 2015. A transcript of the
`
`hearing is included in the record. Paper 33 (“Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). This Final Written
`
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not shown, by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 8, 9, 18, 29, 30, 54, 62–64, and
`
`70 are unpatentable.
`
`B.
`
`The ’023 Patent
`
`The ’023 patent, titled “Vehicle Headlight Control Using Imaging
`
`Sensor,” issued on August 1, 2000. The ’023 patent describes a system for
`
`“controlling [a] vehicle’s headlamps in response to sensing the headlights of
`
`oncoming vehicles and taillights of leading vehicles.” Ex. 1002, 1:17–20.
`
`According to the ’023 patent, prior attempts at automatic vehicle headlight
`
`controls included a single light sensor, wherein the headlights were dimmed
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00251
`Patent 6,097,023
`
`in response to sensed light exceeding a threshold. Id. at 1:35–38. Such
`
`systems are ineffective at detecting oncoming headlights at a distance and
`
`detecting taillights of leading vehicles. Id. at 1:39–47.
`
`The ’023 patent describes vehicle headlight dimming control 12
`
`comprising imaging sensor module 14, imaging control circuit or digital
`
`signal processor 13, and vehicle lighting control logic module 16. Id. at
`
`3:41–45, Fig. 2. Imaging sensor module 14 includes optical device 36, light
`
`sensing array 38, and spectral separation device 40 disposed between optical
`
`device 36 and array 38. Id. at 4:19–24, Fig. 2. Imaging sensor module 14
`
`may be mounted to, or near, the vehicle’s windshield via bracket 34. Id. at
`
`3:67–4:2, Fig. 2. This positioning provides an interior location that
`
`substantially eliminates environmental dirt and moisture problems, and
`
`provides a relatively clear view forward of the vehicle. Id. at 4:3–11.
`
`Light sensing array 38 includes a plurality of photosensor elements 42
`
`arranged in a matrix. Id. at 4:29–31, Fig. 4. Digital signal processor 13,
`
`which receives output 56 from light sensing array 38, includes taillight
`
`detection circuit 76 and headlight detection circuit 78. Id. at 4:50–55, Fig. 3.
`
`Taillight detection circuit 76 detects red light sources above a particular
`
`threshold, and headlight detection circuit 78 detects white light sources
`
`above a particular threshold. Id. at 4:65–5:15. Thus, “the control identifies
`
`light sources that are either oncoming headlights or leading taillights by
`
`identifying such light sources according to their spectral makeup.” Id. at
`
`2:36–38.
`
`Vehicle lighting control logic module 16 receives input 20 from
`
`digital signal processor 13. Id. at 3:60–61, Fig. 2. Module 16 responds to
`
`the input by switching headlights 18 to an appropriate mode. Id. at 5:42–44.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00251
`Patent 6,097,023
`
`For instance, the headlights might be switched from high-beam mode to
`
`low-beam mode in response to detecting oncoming headlights. Id. at 7:47–
`
`50.
`
`C.
`
`Illustrative Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims in the ’023 patent, claims 1, 18, 54, and 62
`
`are independent. Claims 1 and 18 are illustrative of the claims at issue:
`
`A vehicle headlamp control useful with a vehicle
`1.
`having a cabin and a windshield for controlling the vehicle’s
`headlamps in response to sensing headlights of oncoming
`vehicles and taillights of leading vehicles, said headlamp control
`comprising:
`
`a headlamp control assembly including a solid-state light
`sensor array comprising a plurality of sensors arranged in a
`matrix on at least one semiconductor substrate, a spectral
`separation filter to apply particular spectral regions to particular
`ones of said sensors, a lens directing light onto said sensor array
`and a control means for identifying headlights of oncoming
`vehicles and taillights of leading vehicles;
`
`wherein said headlamp control assembly is positioned in
`the vehicle cabin with said imaging array and said optical lens
`positioned to view scenes forward of the vehicle through a
`portion of the windshield.
`
`Ex. 1002, 12:60–13:9.
`
`18. A vehicle headlamp control, for controlling the
`vehicle’s headlamps in response to sensing headlights of
`oncoming vehicles and taillights of leading vehicles, said
`headlamp control comprising:
`
`an imaging sensor that senses light in a field of view
`forward of the vehicle in sequential image captures;
`
`a microprocessor-based control that is responsive to said
`imaging sensor in order to identify oncoming vehicle headlight
`signatures and leading vehicle taillight signatures; and
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00251
`Patent 6,097,023
`
`
`said control switching the vehicle headlamps to a low-
`beam state when at least one of headlights of an oncoming
`vehicle and taillights of a leading vehicle are identified from the
`presence of at least one of a headlight signature and a taillight
`signature in a plurality of sequential image captures captured by
`said imaging sensor and processed to identify the respective
`headlight signature or taillight signature.
`
`Ex. 1002, 13:64–14:14.
`
`D.
`
`Prior Art
`
`The pending grounds of unpatentability in this inter partes review are
`
`based on the following prior art:
`
`1. Japanese Kokai Application No. S62-131837, published
`June 15, 1987 (“Yanagawa”) (Ex. 1004)1;
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 4,521,804, issued June 4, 1985
`(“Bendell”) (Ex. 1005);
`
`3. Oliver Vellacott, CMOS in camera, IEE Review, 111–
`114 (May 1994) (“Vellacott”) (Ex. 1006);
`
`4. U.S. Patent No. 5,177,606, issued January 5, 1993
`(“Koshizawa”) (Ex. 1007); and
`
`5. Applicant admitted prior art described in the ’023
`patent (“AAPA”).
`
`E.
`
`Pending Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted the instant inter partes review on the following grounds
`
`of unpatentability:
`
`
`1 Petitioner’s Exhibit 1004 contains both the Japanese patent document and an
`English translation of the document; Petitioner provided an affidavit attesting
`to the accuracy of the translation. See Ex. 1004; 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b). Our
`references to Yanagawa in this decision refer to the English translation.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00251
`Patent 6,097,023
`
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Yanagawa
`
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`and Koshizawa
`Yanagawa, AAPA, and
`Bendell
`Yanagawa and Vellacott
`
`Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
`and Vellacott
`
`Basis
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`18
`
`§ 103
`
`1, 8, and 9
`
`§ 103
`
`30, 54, and 62–64
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`29
`
`70
`
`Dec. on Inst. 27.
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`Petitioner contends, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that the ’023
`
`patent has expired. Pet. 1. The Board’s interpretation of the claims of an
`
`expired patent is similar to that of a district court’s review. See In re
`
`Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We are guided, therefore,
`
`by the principle that the words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary
`
`and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “In determining the meaning of
`
`the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of
`
`record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the
`
`prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic
`
`Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1312–17).
`
`Limitations arising under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, are
`
`interpreted in light of the corresponding structure, material, or acts described
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00251
`Patent 6,097,023
`
`in the specification. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994) (“[P]aragraph six applies regardless of the context in which the
`
`interpretation of means-plus-function language arises, i.e., whether as part of
`
`a patentability determination in the PTO or as part of a validity or
`
`infringement determination in a court.”). The sixth paragraph of § 112 states
`
`that a claim limitation expressed in means-plus-function language “shall be
`
`construed to cover the corresponding structure . . . described in the
`
`specification and equivalents thereof.”2
`
`In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted certain claim terms as
`
`follows:
`
`
`2 Section 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”) re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph,
`as 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Because the ’023 patent has a filing date prior to
`September 16, 2012, the effective date of the AIA, we refer to the pre-AIA
`version of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00251
`Patent 6,097,023
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Construction
`
`“control means for identifying
`headlights of oncoming vehicles
`and taillights of leading vehicles”
`
`“spectral separation filter”
`
`Dec. on Inst. 7–11.
`
`Function: “identifying headlights of
`oncoming vehicles and taillights of
`leading vehicles”;
`Corresponding structure: digital
`signal processor 13 implementing
`the algorithm described at pages 9–
`10 of the Decision on Institution3
`a device that separates light into a
`plurality of spectral bands
`
`Neither party has expressed disagreement with these constructions,
`
`and we see no reason to modify these constructions based on the evidence
`
`introduced during trial. We maintain these constructions for this Final
`
`Written Decision.
`
`
`3 Specifically, the disclosed algorithm has the following steps:
`
`(1) grabbing a frame captured by the imaging sensor;
`(2) determining whether the intensity of light sensed by each
`“red” pixel is greater than a threshold and, if so, incrementing a
`“red” counter; (3) determining for each pixel whether an
`adjacent set of “red,” “green,” and “blue” pixels each exceeds a
`particular threshold and whether the pixel intensity levels all
`fall within a particular range and, if so, incrementing a “white”
`counter; (4) incrementing a high-beam counter and setting a
`low-beam counter to zero if both the “red” and “white” counters
`are below respective high-beam thresholds; (5) setting the
`high-beam counter to zero and incrementing the low-beam
`counter if either one of the “red” and “white” counters exceeds
`respective low-beam thresholds; (6) setting both the low-beam
`and high-beam counters to zero if neither one of the “red” and
`“white” counters exceeds respective low-beam thresholds; and
`(7) determining that a headlight or taillight has been detected if
`the low-beam counter exceeds a particular threshold.
`
`Dec. on Inst. 9–10.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00251
`Patent 6,097,023
`
`B.
`
`Asserted Anticipation of Claim 18 by Yanagawa
`
`Petitioner asserts that claim 18 is anticipated by Yanagawa under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 3, 19–23; Reply 4–6. To support this assertion,
`
`Petitioner relies on the Declarations of Jeffrey A. Miller, Ph.D. (Exs. 1010,
`
`1013). To prevail on this patentability challenge, Petitioner must establish
`
`facts supporting the challenge by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). Patent Owner disagrees with
`
`Petitioner’s assertion and relies on the Declaration of Matthew A. Turk,
`
`Ph.D. (Ex. 2003). PO Resp. 19–24.
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Yanagawa
`
`Yanagawa discloses a “traveling vehicle recognition device capable,
`
`for example, of automatically controlling headlight beams to high and low
`
`beams according to the state of whether there is a vehicle ahead.” Ex. 1004,
`
`2. The device includes color television camera 11 mounted to image the
`
`forward direction of vehicle 12. Id. A video signal from television camera
`
`11 is supplied to decoder 13, which separates the video signal into R (red), G
`
`(green), and B (blue) color image signals that are supplied to image signal
`
`processor 14. Id. Image signal processor 14 processes the color image
`
`signals to recognize or detect the presence of taillights or headlights within
`
`the imaged video. Id. at 2–3. Image signal processor 14 extracts and stores
`
`image data at regular intervals, such as every 0.05 seconds. Id. at 3. In the
`
`event taillights or headlights are recognized, executing part 15 executes tasks
`
`for controlling the vehicle’s headlight beams. Id.
`
`2.
`
`Analysis
`
`Petitioner contends that Yanagawa discloses all elements of the
`
`claimed vehicle headlamp control. Pet. 19. In particular, Petitioner asserts
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00251
`Patent 6,097,023
`
`that Yanagawa’s color television camera 11 corresponds to the claimed
`
`imaging sensor. Id. at 21–22. Regarding the claimed control responsive to
`
`the imaging sensor, Petitioner asserts that image signal processor 14
`
`identifies headlight and taillight signatures, and executing part 15 controls
`
`the vehicle’s headlight beams based on the recognition of oncoming
`
`headlights or leading taillights. Id. at 22–23.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Yanagawa does not disclose a
`
`microprocessor-based control as required by claim 18. PO Resp. 20;
`
`Tr. 35–36. In particular, Patent Owner argues that “Yanagawa is entirely
`
`silent as to any details about its [image] signal processor 14 or its executing
`
`part 15,” and “Yanagawa’s disclosure of an image signal processor does not
`
`inherently imply or suggest a microprocessor-based control.” PO Resp. 20
`
`(citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 41). Patent Owner contends that neither Petitioner nor its
`
`expert point to any disclosure in Yanagawa of a microprocessor-based
`
`control. Id.; see also id. at 21 (“Nowhere is there any reference by
`
`[Petitioner] or its expert to any portion of Yanagawa that allegedly discloses
`
`a microprocessor-based control, as claimed.”). Patent Owner further argues
`
`that because claim 1 of the ’023 patent, in contrast to claim 18, does not
`
`require a microprocessor-based control,4 the doctrine of claim differentiation
`
`“provides further evidence that a control for switching a headlamp state need
`
`not necessarily be—and is not inherently—a microprocessor-based control.”
`
`Id. at 21.
`
`In response, Petitioner argues that “Yanagawa does teach the use of a
`
`microprocessor as claimed when read from the perspective of ordinary
`
`
`4 Claim 1 recites “a control means for identifying headlights of oncoming
`vehicles and taillights of leading vehicles.” Ex. 1002, 13:3–5.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00251
`Patent 6,097,023
`
`skill.” Reply 1. Petitioner asserts that Yanagawa discloses binarizing or
`
`digitizing image signals prior to processing by image signal processor 14,
`
`and the use of binary signals “proves conclusively that the processor is not
`
`analog.” Id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1004, 3). Petitioner then asserts that “digital
`
`processing by Yanagawa’s image signal processor conclusively establishes
`
`the use of a microprocessor from the perspective of ordinary skill.” Id. at 3.
`
`Petitioner relies on the testimony of Dr. Miller to support this
`
`position. See Reply 2–3; Tr. 27. Dr. Miller testifies that processing of the
`
`image data in Yanagawa
`
`logic gates,
`requires such hardware components as
`integrated circuits, and transistors, but those components
`comprise a microprocessor. Of course not all of the
`features of a microprocessor will need to be used for every
`application, but it is crystal clear from the disclosure of
`Yanagawa that this would be the means for processing the
`data.
`
`Ex. 1013 ¶ 5. Dr. Miller also testifies that the image signal processing in
`
`Yanagawa “is all digital, which in this application requires the use of a
`
`microprocessor.” Id. ¶ 6. Furthermore, according to Dr. Miller:
`
`If this isn’t done by a microprocessor, then nothing
`else is apparent to do this. We know that it is done by
`some sort of a processor because it is referred to as a
`“video signal processor” in Yanagawa. Dealing with
`digital data, which is both the input and output of the video
`signal processor in practical terms from the perspective of
`ordinary skill in the art, this can only be a microprocessor.
`
`Id. ¶ 10.
`
`These contentions by Dr. Miller, however, are conclusory statements
`
`not supported sufficiently by any objective evidence or analysis and, thus,
`
`are not persuasive. See Perreira v. Dep’t of Health and Human Serv., 33
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00251
`Patent 6,097,023
`
`F.3d 1375, 1377 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“An expert opinion is no better than
`
`the soundness of the reasons supporting it.”). Dr. Miller does not point to
`
`any specific disclosure in Yanagawa indicating that use of a microprocessor
`
`(as opposed to another type of device) is “crystal clear.” Moreover, there is
`
`no explanation why digital processing necessarily requires the use of a
`
`microprocessor. Instead, we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that
`
`Yanagawa provides insufficient detail as to the structure and functionality of
`
`its image signal processor 14 and executing part 15, and that the two
`
`components “could be analog circuitry-based or digital circuitry-based
`
`without necessarily employing or being based upon a microprocessor.” PO
`
`Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 41).
`
`Generally, microprocessors are distinguished from other processors in
`
`that they are contained on an integrated chip. See, e.g., DICTIONARY OF
`
`COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY: TERMS, DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS,
`
`WILEY (John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1998), available at
`
`http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/wileycommtech/microproces
`
`sor/0 (last visited June 17, 2015) (defining “microprocessor” as “[a]n
`
`electronic circuit on the surface of a small silicon chip which can be
`
`programmed to perform a wide variety of functions within the computer
`
`system or terminal”).5 Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Miller addresses how
`
`Yanagawa’s image signal processor 14 and/or executing part 15 constitute a
`
`microprocessor-based control in this sense.
`
`Yanagawa provides little detail on the makeup of image signal
`
`processor 14, stating only that is configured as shown in Figure 4 (which
`
`shows characteristics extraction unit 141, memory 142, recognition unit 143,
`
`
`5 We include this definition of “microprocessor” in the record as Exhibit 3002.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00251
`Patent 6,097,023
`
`and computation unit 144). Ex. 1004, 3, Fig. 4. We agree with Patent
`
`Owner that Yanagawa provides no additional details on the nature of image
`
`signal processor 14. See PO Resp. 20; see also Tr. 35–38 (Patent Owner
`
`arguing that, based on the disclosure of Yanagawa, “[w]e just don’t know”
`
`exactly how it is structured). Also, we credit the testimony of Dr. Turk that
`
`image signal processor 14 may or may not be a microprocessor, as it is
`
`consistent with the limited disclosure in the reference. See Ex. 2003 ¶ 41.
`
`Accordingly, we conclude that although image signal processor 14 might be
`
`microprocessor-based, there is simply not enough detail in the reference for
`
`us to conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood it
`
`to be a microprocessor-based control.
`
`Based on the foregoing discussion and the record, we conclude that
`
`Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Yanagawa
`
`discloses a microprocessor-based control. As such, Petitioner has failed to
`
`establish that claim 18 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
`
`anticipated by Yanagawa.
`
`C.
`
`Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1, 8, and 9 over Yanagawa,
`AAPA, Bendell, and Koshizawa
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if 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 the
`
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). In the Petition, Petitioner proposed that a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art of the ’023 patent at the time of the invention would have had
`
`at least the qualifications of, or equivalent to, either (1) a master’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering or computer science, with course work or research in
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00251
`Patent 6,097,023
`
`vision systems, or (2) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or
`
`computer science with at least two years of work making optical vision
`
`systems. Pet. 25. Patent Owner argued that this definition was incorrect
`
`because it failed to make any mention of expertise in vehicle technologies.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 16. In our Decision on Institution, we found Patent Owner’s
`
`argument unpersuasive because Patent Owner did not explain how the
`
`allegedly incorrect definition led to an incorrect obviousness analysis. Dec.
`
`on Inst. 17–18. The parties have not disputed this definition further, and we
`
`see no reason to modify it in light of the record developed during trial.
`
`Therefore, we adopt the above-mentioned definition of a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of this Final Written Decision.
`
`With respect to claim 1, Petitioner asserts that Yanagawa discloses a
`
`headlamp control having a control means and a light sensor array (i.e., color
`
`television camera 11), but does not disclose explicitly the claimed spectral
`
`separation filter. Pet. 25–28. Petitioner also concedes that Yanagawa’s
`
`television camera 11 “is not necessarily ‘a solid-state light sensor array
`
`comprising a plurality of sensors arranged in a matrix on at least one
`
`semiconductor substrate’” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 28. Petitioner
`
`contends, however, that such a solid-state light sensor array is taught in the
`
`AAPA, as “further evidenced” by Bendell, which discloses a color television
`
`camera having a solid-state charge-coupled device (CCD)-type sensor array
`
`matrix and in which prism 22 provides spectral separation filtering. Id. at
`
`28–29. Regarding the control means, Petitioner contends that Yanagawa’s
`
`image signal processor 14 “extracts the feature of red as the color of
`
`taillights and the feature of white as the color of headlights” and “determines
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00251
`Patent 6,097,023
`
`the ‘[e]xistence or non-existence of taillight and headlight.’” Id. at 26–27
`
`(quoting Ex. 1004, 2, Fig. 2).
`
`In view of these contentions, Petitioner asserts that “the substitution of
`
`the television camera of Bendell for the unspecified type of television
`
`camera of Yanagawa, is an equivalent (and unpatentable) interchange of
`
`television cameras.” Id. at 29 (referring to KSR). As a further reason for
`
`combining the references, Petitioner submits that Bendell’s CCD camera has
`
`the “known advantages of low power consumption and smaller size.” Id.
`
`(citing Ex. 1005, 2:4–7).
`
`Regarding the claim 1 requirement that the headlamp control
`
`assembly be positioned in the vehicle cabin, Petitioner appears to take the
`
`position that this is either “a matter of equivalent design choice” or,
`
`alternatively, disclosed by Koshizawa. Id. at 30. Petitioner argues that
`
`Koshizawa is properly combinable with Yanagawa, AAPA, and Bendell in
`
`view of the advantages of in-cab mounting disclosed in Koshizawa. Id.
`
`(citing Ex. 1007, 1:30–35).
`
`Patent Owner presents several arguments against this asserted ground
`
`of unpatentability. PO Resp. 24–42. We focus on Patent Owner’s argument
`
`that “none of the asserted references disclose or suggest ‘a control means for
`
`identifying headlights of oncoming vehicles and taillights of leading
`
`vehicles,’ as this term has been construed by the Board.” Id. at 27 (citing
`
`Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 56–65). In support of this argument, Patent Owner contends the
`
`Board has interpreted claim 1 to require, among other steps
`
`(2) determining whether the intensity of light sensed by
`each “red” pixel is greater than a threshold and, if so,
`incrementing a “red” counter… [and] (3) determining for
`each pixel whether an adjacent set of “red,” “green,” and
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00251
`Patent 6,097,023
`
`
`“blue” pixels each exceeds a particular threshold and
`whether the pixel intensity levels all fall within a particular
`range and, if so, incrementing a “white” counter.
`
`Id. at 29 (citing Dec. on Inst. 9–10). Patent Owner then argues that
`
`Yanagawa does not disclose these features because the reference “never
`
`actually explains how images may be obtained at a pixel-by-pixel level.” Id.
`
`(citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 62). Patent Owner further argues that none of the
`
`additional references cure this deficiency of Yanagawa. Id. at 31.
`
`In the Reply, Petitioner asserts that “[i]n addition to ‘corresponding
`
`structure’ disclosed in the specification, 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 also covers
`
`‘equivalents’ to the corresponding structure.” Reply 8. Petitioner argues
`
`“Yanagawa discloses an equivalent within the ambit of § 112 ¶ 6 because
`
`there is an insubstantial change with respect to what is claimed.” Id. at 9.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner argues “[w]hether the detection concerns individual
`
`pixels that are later grouped or initially sensed using larger areas of the
`
`sensor is immaterial; Yanagawa recognizes the pattern of taillights in pairs
`
`(1004-003), and so also does the ’023 Patent in an embodiment utilizing
`
`enhanced detection by pattern recognition.” Id. Petitioner further contends
`
`that “Yanagawa operates in substantially the same way [as the ’023 patent],
`
`which is to detect red or white light indicative of taillight[s] or headlights
`
`through use of an intensity/ ratio analysis.” Id.
`
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. In instituting trial on
`
`this ground, we found that Petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Yanagawa’s image signal processor 14 is the same or
`
`equivalent to the corresponding structure of the “control means” in the ’023
`
`patent, i.e., digital signal processor 13 performing the algorithm identified in
`
`our claim construction. Dec. on Inst. 15. In view of the entire record,
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00251
`Patent 6,097,023
`
`however, we now are persuaded Petitioner fails to show that image signal
`
`processor 14 performs an algorithm equivalent to the algorithm implemented
`
`by digital signal processor 13 of the ’023 patent. Petitioner’s assertions of
`
`similarities in how the controls of Yanagawa and the ’023 patent operate are
`
`insufficient to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
`
`Yanagawa’s processor implements an equivalent algorithm, particularly
`
`given that there is no evidence that Yanagawa processes image data pixel-
`
`by-pixel or uses counters, as required by multiple steps of the disclosed
`
`algorithm, such as steps 2 through 6. See Dec. on Inst. 9–10. In that regard,
`
`we have reviewed the disclosure of Yanagawa and credit Dr. Turk’s
`
`explanation as to why the reference does not disclose steps 2 through 6
`
`specifically, or even pixel light thresholds, pixel light counters, or comparing
`
`adjacent pixel light levels generally. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 62–64. Absent some
`
`comparison between the algorithm of Yanagawa and the steps of the
`
`algorithm disclosed in the ’023 patent, we cannot say that Yanagawa
`
`discloses structure equivalent to the “control means” in claim 1. It is not
`
`enough to show merely that Yanagawa, at a high level, operates in
`
`“substantially the same way” as the ’023 patent to identify headlights and
`
`taillights, as Petitioner suggests. See Reply 9.
`
`After considering Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s positions, as well as
`
`their supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has not shown, by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, that claim 1, or claims 8 and 9 depending
`
`therefrom, are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
`
`combination of Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell, and Koshizawa.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00251
`Patent 6,097,023
`
`D. Obviousness of Claims 30, 54, and 62–64 over Yanagawa,
`AAPA, and Bendell
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Bendell
`
`Bendell discloses a television camera including four-port color-
`
`splitting prism 22 and four solid-state imagers: blue-responsive imager 14,
`
`red-responsive imager 16, and green-responsive imagers 18, 20. Ex. 1005,
`
`3:23–25, 46–52, Fig. 1a. Bendell further discloses that each “solid-state
`
`imager may be of the CCD type.” Id. at 3:53.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of AAPA
`
`Regarding the alleged AAPA, the ’023 patent states “[p]hotosensing
`
`array 38 may be a charge couple device (CCD) array of the type commonly
`
`utilized in video camcorders and the like.” Ex. 1002, 8:40–42.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 30
`
`Claim 30 depends from claim 18. As discussed above, Petitioner fails
`
`to show that Yanagawa discloses a microprocessor-based control as recited
`
`in claim 18. See supra Section II.B.2. Petitioner does not assert that a
`
`microprocessor-based control would have been obvious in view of the
`
`combination of Yanagawa, AAPA, and Bendell. As such, we determine that
`
`Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 30
`
`is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
`
`Yanagawa, AAPA, and Bendell.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 54
`
`Petitioner contends that Yanagawa discloses all the limitations of
`
`independent claim 54 except spectral separation filtering and a solid-state
`
`sensor array. Pet. 38–43. Petitioner contends, however, that a solid-state
`
`light sensor array is taught in the AAPA, and that Bendell discloses a solid-
`
`state color television camera that includes zoom lens 10 and prism 22, which
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00251
`Patent 6,097,023
`
`provides spectral separation filtering. Id. at 40. Petitioner argues it would
`
`have been obvious “to substitute the television camera of Bendell for the
`
`unspecified type of television camera of Yanagawa” because such
`
`modification “is an equivalent interchange of television cameras” and “a
`
`simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results.” Id. As a further reason for combining the references, Petitioner
`
`submits that Bendell’s CCD camera has the “known advantages of low
`
`power consumption and smaller size.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 2:4–7).
`
`Similar to claim 18, claim 54 recites “a microprocessor-based control
`
`identifying light levels sensed by said sensors.” Petitioner relies solely on
`
`Yanagawa for this limitation, arguing that “Fig. 3 shows the extraction
`
`processing of Yanagawa” and that “[t]he circuitry assembled to perform
`
`the[] functions [of detecting red, blue, and green luminescence signals]
`
`meets the construction of ‘control means’ as provided above [in the
`
`Petition], especially where the signal extraction analysis assesses the relative
`
`signal strengths as a difference and applies a ratio/threshold analysis and
`
`processing occurs by sequential image captures.” Pet. 38. For the same
`
`reasons explained above with respect to claim 18, Petitioner has failed to
`
`show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Yanagawa discloses a
`
`microprocessor-based control. See supra Section II.B.2. Petitioner further
`
`does not assert that a microprocessor-based control would have been
`
`obvious, e
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
