Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 35
`Date: June 23, 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 IPR2014-00255
`Patent 7,423,248 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
`JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 35
`Date: June 23, 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 IPR2014-00255
`Patent 7,423,248 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
`JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00255
`Patent 7,423,248 B2
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`TRW Automotive US LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
`
`“Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 3–5, 8, 9, 11–13, 17–
`
`19, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,423,248 B2 (Ex. 1002, “the ’248 patent”).
`
`On June 26, 2014, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1, 3–5, 9,
`
`11–13, 17–19, and 21 on four grounds of unpatentability (Paper 17, “Dec. on
`
`Inst.”).
`
`Magna Electronics Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent Owner
`
`Response (Paper 22, “PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 25,
`
`“Reply”).
`
`An oral hearing was held on February 18, 2015. A transcript of the
`
`hearing is included in the record. Paper 34 (“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 shown by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3–5, 9, 11–13, 17–19, and 21
`
`of the ’248 patent are unpatentable.
`
`A.
`
`The ’248 Patent
`
`The ’248 patent, titled “Automatic Exterior Light Control for a
`
`Vehicle,” is directed to an automatic exterior light control that characterizes
`
`and analyzes light sources to identify headlights of oncoming vehicles and
`
`taillights of leading vehicles, and adjusts the state of the vehicle’s headlights
`
`based on the presence or absence of these light sources. Ex. 1002, 2:18–34.
`
`According to the ’248 patent, the disclosed light control “is exceptionally
`
`discriminating in identifying oncoming headlights and leading taillights” and
`
`“ignores other sources of light including streetlights and reflections of the
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00255
`Patent 7,423,248 B2
`
`
`controlled vehicle’s headlights off signs, road markers, and the like.” Id. at
`
`
`
`3:20–25.
`
`The ’248 patent describes a vehicle headlight dimming control
`
`comprising an imaging sensor module that senses light from a scene forward
`
`of the vehicle, an imaging control circuit that receives data from the sensor
`
`module, and a vehicle lighting control logic module that exchanges data with
`
`the imaging control circuit and controls the headlights. Id. at 3:62-4:3. The
`
`imaging sensor module includes a spectral separation device for separating
`
`light from the scene forward of the vehicle, an optical device such as a lens,
`
`and a light-sensing array that includes “a plurality of photosensor elements
`
`. . . arranged in a matrix of columns and rows.” Id. at 4:42–55. In a
`
`disclosed embodiment, the light-sensing array is “an array of 512 rows and
`
`512 columns of light-sensing pixels, each made up of a photosensor
`
`element.” Id. at 4:55–57. According to the ’248 patent, the vehicle
`
`headlight dimming control can include an ambient light-sensing circuit,
`
`which “samples a subset of photosensor elements” that “detect portions of
`
`the forward-looking scene that are just above the earth’s horizon” and
`
`supplies an indication of the ambient light level as an input to a lighting
`
`control module. Id. at 5:42–51.
`
`The imaging sensor module can be mounted to, or near, the vehicle’s
`
`windshield, “because the location within the interior of the vehicle
`
`substantially eliminates environmental dirt and moisture from fouling the
`
`light sensor module.” Id. at 4:22–30. The ’248 patent also states that
`
`positioning the sensor behind the windshield, “which typically is kept
`
`relatively clear through the use of washers and wipers and the like, ensures a
`
`relatively clear view of the scene forward of [the] vehicle.” Id. at 4:30–36.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00255
`Patent 7,423,248 B2
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 9, and 17 of the ’248 patent are independent. Claims 3–5
`
`
`
`depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1, which is reproduced below:
`
`1.
`
`An automatic exterior light control, comprising:
`
`an image array sensor, said image array sensor comprising an
`array of pixel sensors, wherein said image array sensor is
`configured and mounted such that a field of view of said
`image array sensor substantially passes through an
`associated windshield area that is wiped by a windshield
`wiper; and
`
`a controller connected to said image array sensor and
`configured to receive at least a portion of at least one
`image from said image array sensor that is substantially
`free of windshield surface contamination, said controller,
`responsive to said image array sensor, generating an
`output for controlling at least one exterior light of the
`vehicle.
`
`Ex. 1002, 13:12–25.
`
`Claims 11–13 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 9, which is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`9.
`
`An automatic exterior light control, comprising:
`
`an image array sensor, said image array sensor comprising an
`array of pixel sensors, wherein said image array sensor is
`configured and mounted such that a field of view of said
`image array sensor is adjustable electronically; and
`
`a controller connected to said image array sensor configured to
`acquire pixel data from a subset of pixels associated with
`a desired field of view, said controller, responsive to said
`image array sensor, generating an output for controlling
`at least one exterior light of the vehicle.
`
`Id. at 13:48–58.
`
`Claims 18, 19, and 21 depend directly from claim 17, which is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00255
`Patent 7,423,248 B2
`
`
`
`17. An automatic exterior light control, comprising:
`
`
`
`an image array sensor, said image array sensor comprising an
`array of pixel sensors; and
`
`a controller configured with an ambient light input, said
`controller, responsive to said image array sensor,
`generating an output for controlling at least one exterior
`light of the vehicle, wherein automatic exterior light
`control is enabled when an ambient light level is below a
`threshold, wherein manual operation of exterior lights
`remains functional.
`
`Id. at 14:24–33.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art
`
`The pending grounds of unpatentability in this inter partes review are
`
`based on the following prior art:
`
`Tadashi
`
`Japanese Patent App. Pub.
`No. H04-12780
`Yanagawa1 Japanese Unexamined
`Patent Pub. No. S62-
`131837
`U.S. 4,645,975
`
`Meitzler
`
`
`April 28, 1992 Ex. 1004
`
`June 15, 1987
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Feb. 24, 1987
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`C.
`
`Pending Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`This inter partes review involves the following grounds of
`
`unpatentability:
`
`
`1 We refer to “Tadashi” and “Yanagawa” as the English translations of the
`original references. Petitioner provided affidavits attesting to the accuracy
`of the translations. See Exs. 1004, 1006; 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b).
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00255
`Patent 7,423,248 B2
`
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Tadashi
`
`
`Basis
`
`Claim[s] challenged
`
`
`
`§ 102(b) 1, 4, 5
`
`Tadashi and
`Yanagawa
`Tadashi and Meitzler
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`3, 9, 11–13
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`17, 18, 21
`
`Tadashi, Meitzler,
`and Yanagawa
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`19
`
`Dec. on Inst. 23.
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`The claims of the ’248 patent have expired. See Pet. 1; Tr. 24:5–8.
`
`For claims of an expired patent, the Board’s claim interpretation is similar to
`
`that of a district court. 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) (internal citations omitted). Only those terms in controversy need
`
`to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1999).
`
`1.
`
`“ambient light”
`
`In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted the claim term “ambient
`
`light” as “light of the surrounding environment, not light introduced by any
`
`particular source, such as a headlight that moves in and out of the
`
`environment.” Dec. on Inst. 8. The parties do not dispute this interpretation,
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00255
`Patent 7,423,248 B2
`
`
`and we see no reason to modify that interpretation in light of the record
`
`
`
`developed at trial. See Tr. 4:14–24, 25:16–26:3.
`
`2.
`
`“image array sensor, said image array sensor
`comprising an array of pixel sensors”
`
`Patent Owner argues that the term “image array sensor, said image
`
`array sensor comprising an array of pixel sensors” in claims 1, 9, and 17
`
`should be interpreted to mean “a two-dimensional image array sensor
`
`arrangement of pixel sensors.” PO Resp. 10. As support for this proposed
`
`interpretation, Patent Owner cites the Specification’s disclosure of an
`
`“[i]maging sensor module” that includes an array of photosensor elements
`
`“arranged in a matrix of columns and rows.” Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 1002, 4:42–
`
`55 and Figure 4). Patent Owner further contends that it was “well known in
`
`the art that ‘an array of pixel sensors’ means a two-dimensional image array
`
`sensor that has multiple pixels in columns and rows forming a width and
`
`height of the sensor.” Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 2032 ¶ 22). Petitioner responds
`
`that Patent Owner is attempting “to read limitations into the claimed ‘image
`
`array sensor . . . comprising an array of pixel sensors’ by requiring a two-
`
`dimensional array.” Reply 2. According to Petitioner, the Specification
`
`supports a broad construction of the claim term, and the term should “be
`
`construed to include a one-dimensional array since the [claim] language
`
`does not specify a two-dimensional array.” Id. at 2–3.
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that “image array
`
`sensor, said image array sensor comprising an array of pixel sensors” should
`
`be limited to a two-dimensional arrangement of pixel sensors. Although
`
`Patent Owner directs our attention to an embodiment that shows sensors
`
`arranged in an array of 512 rows and 512 columns, we are not inclined to
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00255
`Patent 7,423,248 B2
`
`
`import this specific configuration into the claim. See Arlington Indus., Inc.
`
`
`
`v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 345 F.3d 1318, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (stating it
`
`is improper to read a limitation from the specification into the claims). The
`
`claim itself does not recite a two-dimensional array of sensors, or include
`
`any language indicating that the image array sensor should be defined as
`
`being a two-dimensional array. Moreover, Patent Owner does not identify
`
`anything in the Specification that indicates that the claimed image array
`
`sensor must have a two-dimensional arrangement of sensors.
`
`Patent Owner also contends that it is “well known in the art” that an
`
`array of pixel sensors means a two-dimensional image array sensor. PO
`
`Resp. 9. In support of that contention, Patent Owner’s declarant,
`
`Dr. Matthew A. Turk, states that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand “that ‘an array of pixel sensors’ means a two-dimensional
`
`image array sensor that has multiple pixels arranged in columns and rows to
`
`form a sensor having a width and height,” and would further understand that
`
`a one-dimensional image sensor “is typically referred to as a vector, not an
`
`array,” but does not provide any evidence or explain the reasons why that
`
`would be the case. Ex. 2032 ¶ 22. Dr. Turk also acknowledges that “one
`
`might argue that a one-dimensional image sensor has a height of one pixel.”
`
`Id.
`
`Petitioner also notes that the ’248 patent issued from an application
`
`that was a continuation of the application that issued as U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,459,664 (Ex. 1011, “the ’664 patent”), and that the ’248 patent and the
`
`’664 patent include “substantially the same specification.” Reply 2. The
`
`claims of the ’664 patent recite “an imaging sensor,” and further specify that
`
`“said imaging sensor compris[es] a two-dimensional array of light sensing
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00255
`Patent 7,423,248 B2
`
`
`photosensor elements.” See, e.g., Ex. 1011, 13:9–14 (claim 1), 15:5–10
`
`
`
`(claim 24). Petitioner also notes that the ’248 patent claims priority to U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,550,677 (Ex. 1009, “the ’677 patent”), which “claims both an
`
`‘array of sensing elements,’ and a ‘two-dimensional array of rows and
`
`columns.’” Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1009, claims 1 and 16). That the ’664 and
`
`’677 patents include claims that specifically recite that the image sensor is a
`
`two-dimensional array further supports the conclusion that “image array
`
`sensor” as used in claims 1, 9, and 17 of the ’248 patent is not limited to just
`
`two-dimensional arrays, as Patent Owner contends. See NTP Inc. v.
`
`Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (When
`
`construing claims in patents that derive from the same parent application and
`
`share common terms, “we must interpret the claims consistently across all
`
`asserted patents.”); see also Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, Civ. Nos. 2014-
`
`1676, 2014-1677, 2015 WL 1781484, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 17, 2015)
`
`(unpublished) (approving of the Board’s claim construction that referred to a
`
`parent and grandparent application that were incorporated by reference).
`
`Accordingly, we interpret “image array sensor, said image array
`
`sensor comprising an array of pixel sensors” to include one-dimensional and
`
`two-dimensional arrangements of pixel sensors. Patent Owner’s
`
`construction is overly restrictive, and Patent Owner does not provide
`
`persuasive reasoning as to why the term must be limited to two-dimensional
`
`arrays.
`
`B.
`
`Anticipation of Claims 1, 4, and 5 by Tadashi
`
`To prevail on its patentability challenge, Petitioner must establish
`
`facts supporting its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 4, and 5 are
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00255
`Patent 7,423,248 B2
`
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Tadashi, and relies
`
`
`
`on the Declarations of Dr. Jeffrey A. Miller. Pet. 15–21; Reply 1–5, 10–13
`
`(citing Exs. 1010, 1014). Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s
`
`assertions, and relies on the Declaration of Dr. Turk. PO Resp. 7–15, 23–31,
`
`34–37 (citing Ex. 2032).
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Tadashi
`
`Tadashi is directed to tunnel-detection apparatuses that apply to auto-
`
`light control devices. Ex. 1004, 1004–006. The disclosed tunnel-detection
`
`apparatus comprises a one-dimensional imaging device, means for
`
`“binarizing” a one-dimensional video signal output from the one-
`
`dimensional imaging device (i.e., creating a video signal with two possible
`
`values for each pixel), and a tunnel-judgment means for judging a tunnel by
`
`processing the binarized signal. Id. at 1004–007.
`
`Figure 1 of Tadashi is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a block diagram of an embodiment of Tadashi’s tunnel-
`
`detection apparatus. The tunnel-detection apparatus includes one-
`
`dimensional imaging device 1, converter 2 as a binarization-processing
`
`means, microcomputer 3 as a tunnel-judgment means, and auto-light control
`
`device 4 that is driven by the microcomputer. Id. at 1004–008. Imaging
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00255
`Patent 7,423,248 B2
`
`
`device 1 comprises “[a] 512-pixel [charge-coupled device] linear image
`
`
`
`sensor 1b and a lens system 1a . . . disposed in a case.” Id. Imaging device
`
`1 is mounted on a vehicle dashboard facing the direction of vehicle travel, so
`
`that “[l]ight incidented through the front windshield images on the pixel line
`
`of the CCD [charge-coupled device] linear image sensor 1b via the lens
`
`system 1a.” Id. at 1004–008, Fig. 5. CCD linear image sensor 1b outputs a
`
`one-dimensional video signal Vs to converter 2, and converter 2 compares
`
`Vs to a predetermined threshold voltage Vref and outputs a binarized signal
`
`Vd. Id. Microcomputer 3 processes binarized signal Vd and, when a tunnel
`
`is present, “outputs a light signal to the auto-light control device 4.” Id.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1
`
`The parties focus their arguments on two elements present in claim 1
`
`of the ’248 patent: (1) “image array sensor comprising an array of pixel
`
`sensors,” and (2) “field of view of said image array sensor substantially
`
`passes through an associated windshield area that is wiped by a windshield
`
`wiper” such that a controller connected to the image array sensor receives
`
`“at least a portion of at least one image from said image array sensor that is
`
`substantially free of windshield surface contamination.” As to the other
`
`elements of claim 1, we have reviewed the evidence and arguments
`
`presented in the Petition and find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that
`
`those elements are disclosed. Pet. 15–19. We address the arguments
`
`regarding the disputed elements in turn.
`
`a.
`
`Image array sensor comprising
`an array of pixel sensors
`
`Petitioner argues that Tadashi discloses an image array sensor
`
`comprising an array of pixel sensors, namely, one-dimensional imaging
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00255
`Patent 7,423,248 B2
`
`
`device 1, which comprises 512-pixel CCD linear image sensor 1b. Pet. 17
`
`
`
`(citing Ex. 1004, 1004-008). Patent Owner responds that Tadashi does not
`
`meet the “image array sensor comprising an array of pixel sensors”
`
`limitation of claim 1 because “Tadashi discloses a one-dimensional image
`
`sensor comprising a vector of pixel sensors.” PO Resp. 10–11 (citing Ex.
`
`1004, 1004-007–008 and Ex. 2032 ¶¶ 26–28). Patent Owner’s argument is
`
`premised on its contention that the claimed image array sensor requires a
`
`two-dimensional arrangement of pixel sensors. Id. at 8–10. We do not
`
`agree that the claim term should be interpreted in that manner, for the
`
`reasons explained above. See supra Section II.A.2.
`
`Accordingly, we are persuaded that Tadashi discloses an “image array
`
`sensor, said image array sensor comprising an array of pixel sensors” as
`
`recited in claim 1.
`
`b.
`
`Field of view of said image array sensor substantially
`passes through an associated windshield area that is
`wiped by a windshield wiper; and a controller connected
`to said image array sensor and configured to receive at
`least a portion of at least one image from said image
`array sensor that is substantially free of windshield
`surface contamination
`
`Petitioner contends that Tadashi discloses this element of claim 1
`
`because one-dimensional imaging device 1 is mounted on a vehicle
`
`dashboard so that light coming through the front windshield images on the
`
`pixel line of CCD linear image sensor 1b. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1004, 1004-
`
`008). Petitioner contends that Tadashi discloses that it is possible for the
`
`tunnel-detection apparatus to detect rain or the movement of the windshield
`
`wiper blades. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 1004-010). Petitioner further contends
`
`that Tadashi senses an image that is substantially free of windshield surface
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00255
`Patent 7,423,248 B2
`
`
`contamination because the windshield wiper blades clean the windshield in
`
`
`
`the same manner that is claimed in the ’248 patent. Id. at 18–19.
`
`Patent Owner asserts that Tadashi does not disclose a sensed image
`
`that is substantially free of windshield surface contamination. PO Resp. 13–
`
`14. According to Patent Owner, the sensor in Tadashi intentionally images
`
`windshield contamination, and “appears to be designed to use images that
`
`specifically include windshield surface contamination.” Id. at 14–15.
`
`Petitioner replies that Patent Owner is characterizing a part of Tadashi
`
`out of context of the disclosure as a whole. Reply 5. Petitioner notes that
`
`Tadashi does disclose an embodiment that can detect the presence of a
`
`tunnel as well as raindrops and windshield wiper blades, but argues that
`
`Tadashi’s tunnel detection function uses an image that is free from
`
`windshield surface contamination. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 1004-008).
`
`Petitioner further argues that, even when it is raining, the windshield is
`
`substantially free of surface contamination at the point at which the
`
`windshield wiper passes the image array sensor’s field of view. Id.
`
`We agree with Petitioner. Tadashi describes a first embodiment
`
`wherein one-dimensional imaging device 1 is mounted on a vehicle
`
`dashboard, and is arranged to face in the direction in which the vehicle is
`
`traveling. Ex. 1004, 1004-008. Tadashi discloses that light passes through
`
`the windshield and images on CCD linear sensor 1b. Id. After describing
`
`the tunnel detection process, Tadashi states that “[i]t is possible for the
`
`apparatus of this embodiment to detect rain droplets adhering to the front
`
`windshield and windshield wiper blade action.” Id. at 1004-009.
`
`Considered in its entirety, Tadashi’s first embodiment is able to
`
`perform at least two functions: (1) tunnel detection, and (2) detecting rain
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00255
`Patent 7,423,248 B2
`
`
`droplets and windshield wiper action. Patent Owner has not directed us to
`
`
`
`any disclosure in Tadashi, nor have we identified any, that indicates that the
`
`Tadashi image sensor only senses images when it is raining. Thus, Patent
`
`Owner’s contention that Tadashi is designed to use images that include
`
`windshield contamination ignores the tunnel detection functionality of
`
`Tadashi, the operation of which is not limited to specific weather conditions,
`
`and is unsupported by the record. Petitioner’s argument and supporting
`
`evidence, as a whole, supports its position that Tadashi discloses an image
`
`array sensor that is mounted and configured such that its field of view passes
`
`through a windshield area that is wiped by a windshield wiper. Pet. 18–19;
`
`Reply 4–5.
`
`We also are persuaded that Tadashi discloses a controller connected to
`
`the image array sensor that receives “at least a portion of at least one image
`
`from said image array sensor that is substantially free of windshield surface
`
`contamination.” Tadashi discloses that CCD linear image sensor 1b outputs
`
`video signal Vs to converter 2 after CCD linear image sensor 1b senses light
`
`passing through the windshield. Ex. 1004, 1004-008. The binarized signal
`
`that microcomputer 3 (Tadashi’s “controller”) uses to judge the presence of
`
`a tunnel is based on video signal Vs. Id. Because video signal Vs is a result
`
`of the light imaged on the image sensor, and the image sensor is mounted
`
`and configured such that its field of view passes through a windshield area
`
`that is substantially free of windshield contamination (by virtue of the
`
`windshield wipers), it follows that at least a portion of at least one image
`
`from the image sensor also is substantially free of windshield contamination.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00255
`Patent 7,423,248 B2
`
`
`
`
`c.
`
`Conclusion
`
`
`
`
`
`After considering Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s positions, as well as
`
`their supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) as anticipated by Tadashi.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 4
`
`Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and further requires “an ambient light
`
`level input.” Petitioner asserts that Tadashi discloses an ambient light level
`
`input, because it “utilizes ambient ‘[l]ight incidented through the front
`
`windshield’ to generate a ‘one-dimensional video signal Vs to the converter
`
`2.’” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1004, 1004-008). Petitioner asserts that Tadashi
`
`discloses that video signal Vs is compared to threshold voltage Vref to
`
`generate binarized signal Vd, which is then used to judge the existence of a
`
`tunnel. Id.
`
`Patent Owner contends that Tadashi does not disclose an ambient light
`
`level input because Tadashi’s one-dimensional imaging device images only
`
`in a horizontal direction in order to detect a tunnel. PO Resp. 25. According
`
`to Patent Owner, by focusing only horizontally, Tadashi is not detecting
`
`portions of the forward-looking scene above the earth’s horizon that can be
`
`indicative of the ambient light condition. Id.
`
`Petitioner argues in reply that ambient light does not require detecting
`
`portions of the scene above the horizon. Reply 10. We agree. As set forth
`
`above, we interpreted “ambient light” to mean “light of the surrounding
`
`environment, not light introduced by any particular source, such as a
`
`headlight that moves in and out of the environment,” and the parties do not
`
`dispute that interpretation. See supra Section II.A.1. This interpretation
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00255
`Patent 7,423,248 B2
`
`
`does not set any conditions on the direction from which the light of the
`
`
`
`surrounding area is to be detected, and there is no indication in claim 4 as to
`
`what part of the imaged scene is to be used in the recited “ambient light level
`
`input.”
`
`Patent Owner further contends that Tadashi’s disclosure of the entire
`
`pixel region being “substantially a white level” demonstrates that Tadashi’s
`
`imaging device cannot differentiate between sourced light and ambient light.
`
`PO Resp. 25. Patent Owner contends that, in order to provide an ambient
`
`light level input, the imaging sensor must have the ability to differentiate
`
`between ambient light and sourced light. Id. at 28. Patent Owner contends
`
`that any source of light, including headlights, taillights, or road lights, is
`
`used by Tadashi in determining whether the entire pixel is substantially a
`
`white level. Id. at 29. Because ambient light is construed to mean “light of
`
`the surrounding environment, not light introduced by any particular source,
`
`such as a headlight that moves in and out of the environment,” Patent Owner
`
`concludes that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`understood that the claimed ambient light level input must be distinguished
`
`from particularly sourced light. Id.
`
`Petitioner asserts that the construction of “ambient light” does not
`
`require an active step of differentiating between ambient light and
`
`particularly sourced light. Reply 11. Petitioner asserts that “ambient light”
`
`includes all light of the surrounding environment, which “may include
`
`collectively light from the sun, moon, streetlights, [and] headlamps, but does
`
`not include light from a particular source (e.g. one specific headlight).” Id.
`
`Petitioner asserts this understanding of “ambient light” is consistent with the
`
`Specification, relying on the following disclosure as support: “Ambient
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00255
`Patent 7,423,248 B2
`
`
`detection circuit 84 samples a subset of photosensor elements and detects
`
`
`
`light levels sensed by the subset over a long period of time in order to
`
`produce significant time filtration.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 5:42–45).
`
`We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the imaging
`
`sensor must be able to differentiate between ambient light and particularly
`
`sourced light in order to provide the ambient light level input recited in
`
`claim 4. Patent Owner has not provided a convincing rationale for requiring
`
`an active differentiation step in determining the claimed ambient light level
`
`input. For example, Patent Owner argues that a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art “would have understood” that “‘ambient light level input’ must be
`
`an input indicative of an ambient light level (light of the surrounding
`
`environment), which has been distinguished from sourced light.” PO
`
`Resp. 29 (citing Ex. 2032 ¶ 74). Patent Owner cites Dr. Turk’s testimony in
`
`support of this contention, but Dr. Turk’s statements regarding what a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art would have understood are not supported by
`
`any objective evidence or analysis. Neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Turk point
`
`to anything in the Specification that supports Patent Owner’s contention that
`
`“ambient light level input” requires an active step of differentiating ambient
`
`light from sourced light, and claim 4 does not include an express limitation
`
`directed to such an active differentiation step.
`
`Petitioner, in contrast, provides persuasive reasoning as to why a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art would not have understood “ambient
`
`light level input” to require an active differentiation step. Reply 11–12. For
`
`example, Petitioner argues that the Specification’s description of sampling a
`
`subset of photosensors over time in order to determine ambient light levels
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00255
`Patent 7,423,248 B2
`
`
`would include light impinging on the photosensors from any given source.
`
`
`
`Id. at 11. Petitioner cites Dr. Miller’s testimony in support of this argument:
`
`Ambient light is detected in the ’248 Specification based
`upon [an] ambient detection circuit that “samples a subset of
`photosensor elements and detects light levels sensed by the
`subset over a long period of time in order to produce significant
`time filtration.” This does not involve distinguishing light from
`a particular light source such as a headlamp from general light
`such as from the moon/sun. Instead, all light impinging on the
`imaging array is averaged so that the ambient light is not
`indicative [of light] from a particular light source, but all light
`in the entire surrounding environment.
`
`Ex. 1014 ¶ 9 (internal citation omitted). We find Petitioner’s arguments and
`
`Dr. Miller’s testimony, supported by the Specification of the ’248 patent,
`
`that “ambient light level input” does not require an active step of
`
`differentiating between ambient light and particularly sourced light, to be
`
`persuasive. Reply 11–12.
`
`After considering Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s positions, as well as
`
`their supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, that claim 4 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) as anticipated by Tadashi.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 5
`
`Claim 5 depends from claim 4, and further requires that “automatic
`
`exterior light control is enabled when an ambient light level is below a
`
`threshold.” Petitioner contends that Tadashi discloses turning on the exterior
`
`lights when a tunnel is detected, and extinguishing the exterior lights when
`
`the entire pixel region is substantially a white level. Pet. 21. Petitioner
`
`further contends that the determination as to whether to turn on or extinguish
`
`the lights is made by comparing video signal Vs to predetermined threshold
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00255
`Patent 7,423,248 B2
`
`
`voltage Vref, and therefore Tadashi discloses enabling external light control
`
`
`
`when the ambient light level is below a threshold, as recited in claim 5. Id.
`
`Patent Owner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood claim 5 to mean that when the ambient light level
`
`drops below a threshold, the automatic exterior light control is enabled (or
`
`activated or readied or made available or made operational), “but the
`
`controller may not generate an output for controlling at least one exterior
`
`light of the vehicle.” PO Resp. 35. Patent Owner argues that Tadashi
`
`discloses generating an output for controlling the exterior lights, but does not
`
`disclose enabling the exterior light control when the ambient light level input
`
`is below a threshold. Id. at 36. Petitioner responds that a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that when Tadashi’s
`
`microcomputer 3 outputs a signal to auto-light control device 4, the signal
`
`from microcomputer 3 is “activating, making ready, making available, or
`
`making operational” auto-light control device 4. Reply 14–15.
`
`Based on our review of the record, we find Petitioner’s argument to be
`
`persuasive. Patent Owner’s argument that Tadashi does not enable exterior
`
`light control because enabling the exterior light control does not encompass
`
`outputting a sig
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
