IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`
`Customer No.:
`
`Real Party in Interest: FLIR Systems,
`Inc.
`
`70052.1039
`
`27683
`
`In re patent of: Jonathan A.
`Walkenstein
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,911,652
`
`Issued: June 28, 2005
`
`Title: LOW LIGHT IMAGING
`DEVICE
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Eugene Pochapsky
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`I, Dr. Eugene Pochapsky, do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of FLIR Systems, Inc. in
`
`the matter of the Inter Partes Review of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No 6,911,642
`
`(“the ’652 patent”) to Jonathan A. Walkenstein.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter. My
`
`compensation in no way depends upon the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`(1) The ‘652 Patent, FLIR-1001;
`
`(2) The prosecution history of the parent patent application of the ‘652
`
`Patent, FLIR-1002;
`
`
`
`–1–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`
`Customer No.:
`
`Real Party in Interest: FLIR Systems,
`Inc.
`
`70052.1039
`
`27683
`
`In re patent of: Jonathan A.
`Walkenstein
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,911,652
`
`Issued: June 28, 2005
`
`Title: LOW LIGHT IMAGING
`DEVICE
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Eugene Pochapsky
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`I, Dr. Eugene Pochapsky, do hereby declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of FLIR Systems, Inc. in
`
`the matter of the Inter Partes Review of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No 6,911,642
`
`(“the ’652 patent”) to Jonathan A. Walkenstein.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter. My
`
`compensation in no way depends upon the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have studied:
`
`(1) The ‘652 Patent, FLIR-1001;
`
`(2) The prosecution history of the parent patent application of the ‘652
`
`Patent, FLIR-1002;
`
`
`
`–1–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`(3) The prosecution history of the ‘652 Patent, FLIR-1003;
`
`(4) U.S. Patent No. 5,035,472 to Hansen (“Hansen”), FLIR-1004;
`
`(5) U.K. Patent No. 2,143,397 to Barnes et al. (“Barnes”), FLIR-1005;
`
`(6) Mullard, XX1500 Data Sheet (1988) (“Mullard”), FLIR-1006;
`
`(7) U.S. Patent No. 5,847,868 to Palmer (“Palmer”), FLIR-1007
`
`4.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`(1) The documents listed above,
`
`(2) The relevant legal standards, including the standard for obviousness
`
`provided in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) and
`
`any additional authoritative documents as cited in the body of this
`
`declaration, and
`
`(3) My knowledge and experience based upon my work in this area as
`
`described below.
`
`Qualifications and Professional Experience
`
`5. My qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae, a copy of
`
`which is attached as an exhibit to this declaration. As set forth in my curriculum
`
`vitae, I have over 30 years of experience in electro-optical and night vision systems
`
`design, development and manufacture.
`
`
`
`–2–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`6.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`University of Pittsburgh in 1979. I received an M.S. and a Ph.D in Electrical
`
`Engineering from Carnegie Mellon University in 1986 and 1989. My doctoral
`
`research included both laboratory and theoretical based research in the field of
`
`optical engineering and, in particular, included research into the design and
`
`demonstration of a diode-laser-based linear optical photonic computer.
`
`7.
`
`Between 1989 and 1992, I was employed by Contraves Optical
`
`Systems to develop multi-spectral tracking mounts and to direct the radiometric
`
`and optical performance testing of infrared missile tracking systems and the
`
`development of electro-optic surveillance systems, including, multi-spectral long-
`
`range surveillance systems and image-intensified cameras. Between 1992 and
`
`1996 I was in charge of Engineering and Manufacturing at Star-Tron Technology,
`
`Inc., an electro-optics company specializing in intensified night vision systems for
`
`scopes and weapons sights. Between 1996 and 2010, I led the design and
`
`production of an inline clip-on night sight and other multi-spectral systems and
`
`optical components at Optical Systems Technology, Inc., including the formation
`
`of a $10M multi-spectral lens fabrication and coating facility co-funded by the U.
`
`S. Government under a Title III program award.
`
`8.
`
`I have been the VP of Advanced Technology at FLIR Systems, Inc. in
`
`Pittsburgh, PA since 2010, where I oversee and/or help design and manufacture
`
`
`
`–3–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`night vision systems, especially weapon-mounted IR, image-intensified and multi-
`
`spectral sights, and long-range image intensified platforms. Over the course of my
`
`career, including my tenure at FLIR Systems, Inc., I have become an accomplished
`
`inventor and researcher with a number of issued patents and responsible for a
`
`number of commercial products related to the multi-spectral imaging sciences.
`
`9.
`
`I am familiar with the knowledge and capabilities of one of ordinary
`
`skill in the fields of low light imaging devices and specifically image intensifier
`
`technology and thermal imaging technology in the time period from 1990 to 1998.
`
`Specifically, my experience (1) in the industry, (2) in academia, and (3) with
`
`engineers practicing in the field allowed me to become personally familiar with the
`
`level of skill of individuals and the general state of the art. Unless otherwise
`
`stated, my testimony below refers to the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`field of low light imaging devices during the 1990 to 1998 time period.
`
`10.
`
`In my opinion, the level of ordinary skill in the art associated with the
`
`‘652 patent is a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and several years of
`
`industry experience in low light imaging.
`
`Relevant Legal Standards
`
`11.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether the
`
`claims of the ‘652 patent are anticipated or would have been obvious to a person
`
`
`
`–4–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, in light of the
`
`prior art. It is my understanding that, to anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102,
`
`a reference must teach every element of the claim. Further, it is my understanding
`
`that a claimed invention is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences
`
`between the invention 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. I also understand that
`
`the obviousness analysis takes into account factual inquiries including the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claimed subject matter.
`
`12.
`
`It is my understanding that the Supreme Court has recognized several
`
`rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness
`
`of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the following:
`
`combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results; simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`
`results; use of a known technique to improve a similar device (method, or product)
`
`in the same way; applying a known technique to a known device (method, or
`
`product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; choosing from a finite
`
`number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of
`
`success; and some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`
`
`–5–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior
`
`art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`Background Of The ‘652 Patent
`
`13. The ‘652 patent includes seven apparatus claims (total) including four
`
`independent claims 1, 5, 6, and 7. The independent claims are all directed to a low
`
`light imaging device that optically combines the adjustable outputs of an image
`
`intensifier and a thermal imager. Each independent claim includes an optical input
`
`defining a line of sight, an image intensification assembly generating an enhanced
`
`photon based image and a thermal imaging assembly generating a thermal image
`
`(sometimes referred to as “first” and “second” imaging assemblies), a
`
`corresponding pair of image adjustment assemblies, and an output image
`
`generation assembly. The “enhanced photon based image” generated by the image
`
`intensification assembly is the conventional “night goggle” type optical output
`
`consisting of visible spectrum radiation and near infrared spectrum radiation that is
`
`amplified and converted to a visible spectrum greyscale (typically in the hue of
`
`phosphor-green) optical output. (FLIR-1001, 2:60-3:2, 4:40-5:14) The thermal
`
`image (commonly referred to as a thermogram) is presented using a display, such
`
`as a cathode ray tube (CRT) or LCD/LED based display. (FLIR-1001, 2:54-59,
`
`4:9-39) The “intensities” or “gains” of each of the image intensifier and the
`
`thermal imager are adjustable. (FLIR-1001, 5:48-67)
`
`
`
`–6–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`14.
`
`In Claim 1, the thermal image adjustment assembly is configured to
`
`adjust an intensity of the thermal image generated by the thermal imaging
`
`assembly, and the photon image adjustment assembly is configured to adjust the
`
`image intensification assembly to adjust an intensity of the enhanced photon based
`
`image. In Claim 5, the pair of image adjustment assemblies are configured to
`
`adjust the imaging assemblies to adjust “an intensity” of the thermal and enhanced
`
`photon based images. In Claim 6, the thermal image adjustment assembly is
`
`configured to adjust the thermal imaging assembly “to adjust said thermal image.”
`
`In Claim 7, the photon image adjustment assembly is configured to adjust the
`
`image intensification assembly to adjust the enhanced photon based image.
`
`Although the descriptive language is different in each independent claim, the
`
`limitations are similar: the image adjustment assemblies adjust the image
`
`generating assemblies themselves (e.g., the thermal imaging assembly and/or the
`
`image intensification assembly) to effect adjustment of the images generated
`
`thereby. This interpretation is supported by the Prosecution History as explained
`
`more fully below. (FLIR-1003, Affidavits of Jan. 25, 2005 at paragraphs 7-8)
`
`15. Both embodiments include a single optical input 20 defining a single
`
`line of sight (dashed line), and radiation received through optical input 20 is split
`
`by optical splitter 22 into a first beam for thermal imaging assembly 30 and a
`
`second beam for image intensification assembly 40. Image intensification
`
`
`
`–7–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`assembly 40 “is preferably disposed in visually aligned relation with the optical
`
`input 20 [using beam splitter 22] so as to effectively view the same tactical
`
`environment that is being perceived by the thermal imaging assembly 30.” (FLIR-
`
`1001, 4:49-53) Thermal imaging assembly 30 “generate[s] a thermal image of the
`
`tactical environment perceived through the optical input 20,” and includes “a
`
`corresponding output display 34 which provides the thermal image in a readily
`
`viewable state.” (FLIR-1001, 4:23-32) Image intensification assembly 40 “is
`
`responsive to photons within the line of sight, and will amplify those perceived
`
`photons in order to generate an enhanced photon based image which can be viewed
`
`by a user.” (FLIR-1001, 4:42-46) Similar to thermal imaging assembly 30, image
`
`intensification assembly 40 is configured to “generate an enhanced photon based
`
`image which can be viewed by a user [e.g., in a readily viewable state].” (FLIR-
`
`1001, 4:42-46) Therefore, neither imaging assembly provides images in a digital
`
`or data signal format for later processing.
`
`16. At the output end of the device, a “beam re-combiner 52 is positioned
`
`to receive the thermal image from the thermal imaging assembly 30 and the
`
`enhanced photon based image from the image intensification assembly 40.”
`
`(FLIR-1001, 5:29-32) Beam re-combiner 52 has the effect of optically combining,
`
`overlaying, and/or overlapping the images “to produce a single, composite output
`
`image viewable by a user through the optical output 50.” (FLIR-1001, 5:38-47,
`
`
`
`–8–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`6:15-24) Optical output 50 may be implemented as “an eyepiece, viewing screen,
`
`or monitor.” (FLIR-1001, 5:15-20)
`
`17. The ’652 patent explains that thermal image adjustment assembly 36
`
`(of Fig. 1), which may include a knob or button, is “structured to adjust an output
`
`of the thermal imaging assembly 30, such as by increasing or decreasing the gain
`
`on the thermal image produced.” (FLIR-1001, 5:50-60) The ’652 patent also
`
`explains that “photon image adjustment assembly 46 [of Fig. 1] is preferably
`
`directly associated with the image intensification assembly 40 so as to selectively
`
`increase or decrease the gain or intensity of the enhanced photon based image
`
`produced.” (FLIR-1001, 5:60-64) The ‘652 patent uses the terms “gain” and
`
`“intensity” interchangeably to refer to the output intensity or the gain of the
`
`imaging assemblies as perceived in corresponding output images.
`
`18. With respect to the alternative embodiment shown in Fig. 2, the ‘652
`
`patent explains that “the thermal image adjustment assembly and the photon image
`
`adjustment assembly may be integrated as part of an image adjustment assembly of
`
`the output image generation assembly 55 if direct control of the thermal imaging
`
`assembly 30 and/or the image intensification assembly 40 is not desired. In such
`
`an embodiment, the output image generation assembly 55 receives the thermal
`
`image and the enhanced photon based image in a generally non-adjusted state.”
`
`(FLIR-1001, 6:1-9, emphasis added) The ‘652 patent then notes that exterior
`
`
`
`–9–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`actuator 56, “such as a fader, button(s), or knob(s) 56 may be provided to
`
`correspondingly adjust or limit the amount of the thermal or photon based images
`
`that the re-combiner overlays.” (FLIR-1001, 6:15-19) Moreover, “a conventional
`
`signal mixer may be provided and coupled to the fader type structure to provide the
`
`desired adjustment.” (FLIR-1001, 6:21-24) As explained more fully in the
`
`Prosecution History section below, non-“direct control” of the assemblies (e.g.,
`
`non-direct control of the images produced by the two imaging assemblies) was
`
`surrendered during prosecution of the ‘652 patent.
`
`19. None of the recited features (e.g., a thermal imaging assembly with an
`
`output adjusted by a thermal image adjustment assembly, an image intensification
`
`assembly with an output adjusted by a photon image adjustment assembly, a beam
`
`combiner combining the adjusted outputs) were novel and nonobvious when
`
`the’652 patent was filed.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`20. The ‘652 patent was originally filed as a continuation-in-part of U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 09/532,635, filed March 22, 2000 (“the ‘635 application”).
`
`The first office action in the parent ‘635 application rejected all claims as either
`
`anticipated or rendered obvious by GB21433971 to Barnes et al. (FLIR-1005) in
`
`combination with one of three other references. (FLIR-1002, Office Action of
`
`Nov. 21, 2001) The corresponding response canceled various claims and included
`
`
`
`–10–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`amendments and arguments related to independent adjustment of thermal and
`
`enhanced photon based images. (FLIR-1002, Amendment of May 21, 2002) The
`
`subsequent and final office action found the amendments and arguments
`
`unpersuasive and rejected all claims as rendered obvious by Barnes in combination
`
`with one or two of the same three references cited in the first office action. (FLIR-
`
`1002, Office Action of Aug. 20, 2002) The ‘635 application was eventually
`
`abandoned after a request for an extension of time was filed without a response.
`
`(FLIR-1002, Notice of Abandonment of Mar. 25, 2003)
`
`21. The continuation-in-part application that issued as the ‘652 patent
`
`(U.S. Pat. App. No. 10/371,170, or “the ‘170 application”) was filed by express
`
`mail on February 20, 2003, the abandonment date of the ‘635 application.
`
`Therefore, the earliest priority date for the ‘652 patent is the filing date of the
`
`parent ‘635 application, or March 22, 2000.
`
`22. The first office action in the ‘170 application rejected all claims 1-4 as
`
`rendered obvious by Barnes (FLIR-1005) in combination with US4967276 to
`
`Murakami et al. (“Murakami”) – one of the references cited in the abandoned
`
`parent ‘635 application. (FLIR-1003, Office Action of Nov. 29, 2004) An
`
`examiner interview was conducted on January 18, 2005, and both the examiner’s
`
`summary and the response to the first office action indicated the parties agreed
`
`“that independent control of each of the assemblies to adjust the intensity of the
`
`
`
`–11–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`corresponding images was not suggested by Murakami which controls signals
`
`related to the images.” (FLIR-1003, Interview Summary of Jan. 24, 2005 and
`
`Amendment of Jan. 25, 2005)
`
`23. The response to the first office action amended claim 1 and added
`
`claims 5-7. Claim 1 was amended to note that the adjustment assemblies were
`
`independently operable, and in particular, that the photon image adjustment
`
`assembly was “structured to adjust said image intensification assembly so as to
`
`adjust an intensity of said enhanced photon based image generated thereby.”
`
`(FLIR-1003, Amendment of Jan. 25, 2005) Claims 5-7 recited that the adjustment
`
`assemblies were configured to adjust one or both of the imaging assemblies. (Id.)
`
`24.
`
`In addition, the response was filed with two 37 CFR 1.132 affidavits
`
`by non-inventors J. Brian Gillespie and Roland G. Dumas, who represented they
`
`had extensive experience with military type low light imaging devices. (FLIR-
`
`1003, Affidavits of Jan. 25, 2005) Except for curriculum vitae-type specifics, the
`
`two affidavits were substantially identical (paragraphs 4 and 6-12 of the affidavits
`
`were entirely identical), and both attempted to distinguish Murakami by noting:
`
`7) That the Murakami system, even if configured to independently
`
`control each output, only discloses the adjustment of a previously
`
`generate video image having finite parameter rather than direct
`
`adjustment of the signal being generated by the image generating
`
`
`
`–12–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`assembly itself.
`
`8) That conversely, Mr. Walkenstein’s system incorporates
`
`independent image adjustment assemblies to control the image
`
`generating assemblies themselves in order to adjust the intensity of
`
`each output such that an operator can include as much or as little of
`
`each signal without regard to the amount of the other signal being
`
`used and can maintain full control over the image being generated
`
`rather than merely adjusting an already generated image…
`
`(Id. at ¶¶ 7-8)
`
`25. The subsequent Notice of Allowance noted that paragraph 7 “was
`
`instrumental to understanding the invention and the impetus behind the claim
`
`amendments [provided in the Amendment of Jan. 25, 2005].” (FLIR-1003, Notice
`
`of Allowance of Feb. 23, 2005)
`
`26. Based on the affidavits, the Notice of Allowance, and the ‘652 patent
`
`itself, the concepts of non-direct control or adjustment of the images produced by
`
`the two imaging assemblies (e.g., non-direct control of the assemblies themselves),
`
`and adjustment or other types of manipulation of “previously generated video
`
`image” (e.g., digital still or video images stored in memory, even for a short period
`
`of time) were expressly surrendered during prosecution of the ‘652 patent. (FLIR-
`
`1001, 6:1-24; FLIR-1003, Affidavits of Jan. 25, 2005 at ¶ 7 and 8, Notice of
`
`
`
`–13–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`Allowance of Feb. 23, 2005)
`
`27. None of Hansen (FLIR-1004), Mullard (FLIR-1006), or Palmer
`
`(FLIR-1007) were submitted or reviewed by the Examiner during prosecution of
`
`the ‘652 patent or the parent ‘635 application.
`
`28. Four other familial but unpublished continuing applications were filed
`
`and subsequently abandoned starting in 2005 (11/169,233 filed on 06-28-2005,
`
`11/605,827 filed on 11-28-2006, 11/789,682 filed on 04-25-2007, and 12/589,251
`
`filed on 10-20-2009).
`
`Claim Construction
`
`29.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ‘652
`
`patent, the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that
`
`the claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification. It is my further understanding that claim terms are given their
`
`ordinary and accustomed meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art, unless the inventor, as a lexicographer, has set forth a special meaning
`
`for a term.
`
`30.
`
`In order to construe the claims, I have reviewed the entirety of the
`
`‘652 patent, as well as its prosecution history.
`
`“an intensity”
`
`
`
`–14–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`31. As noted above, affidavits submitted in support of patentability of the
`
`‘652 patent admitted “Mr. Walkenstein’s system incorporates independent image
`
`adjustment assemblies to control the image generating assemblies themselves in
`
`order to adjust the intensity of each output.” (FLIR-1003, Affidavits of Jan. 25,
`
`2005) Furthermore, the ‘652 patent appears to use the terms “gain” and “intensity”
`
`interchangeably and in a non-rigorous fashion throughout. (FLIR-1001, 5:53-55,
`
`63-64)
`
`32.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand the broadest reasonable interpretation of “an intensity” in view of the
`
`specification and file history to be: “the output intensity produced by an imaging
`
`assembly and/or the gain of the imaging assembly.”
`
` “Challenge #1: Claims 1-7 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`
`Hansen in view of Barnes, Mullard, and Palmer
`
`33.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find
`
`that Hansen, Barnes, Mullard, and Palmer renders obvious claims 1-7.
`
`34. Hansen is the primary reference for Challenge 1 and teaches
`
`substantially all the limitations of the ‘652 patent’s independent claims. For
`
`example, Hansen teaches a device that enhances the user’s ability to see in low-
`
`light and no-light conditions through the combined use of an adjustable photon
`
`
`
`–15–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`image intensifier and an adjustable thermal imager. (FLIR-1004, Abstract) The
`
`outputs of the intensifier and the thermal imager are combined to produce a
`
`combined image for viewing by a user. (FLIR-1004, 3:32-61, 4:10-22)
`
`Furthermore, Hansen teaches that each imager is individually adjustable through
`
`use of multiple rotary switches. (FLIR-1004, Abstract, 2:44-50, 4:23-30, and Figs.
`
`2A and 4-5)
`
`35. Barnes teaches a similar device that enhances the user’s ability to see
`
`in low-light and no-light conditions through the combined use of an adjustable
`
`image intensifier and an adjustable thermal imager. (FLIR-1005, Abstract, 1:64-
`
`82, 2:60-64, and Fig. 1) The outputs of the intensifier and the thermal imager are
`
`combined to produce a combined image for viewing by a user. (FLIR-1005, 2:38-
`
`44) Barnes’ thermal imager is adjustable using “controls 65.” (FLIR-1005, Fig. 1)
`
`Barnes does not specifically describe how to adjust its image intensifier, but
`
`Barnes notes that the image intensifier is typically a “Mullard XX1500 second
`
`generation image intensifier.” (FLIR-1006, 1:67-68) FLIR-1006 is a product
`
`datasheet that describes particular specifications and features of the XX1500 image
`
`intensifier, including an external adjustment of gain/customer gain control
`
`implemented through use of a 10kOhm linear variable resistor (e.g., a
`
`potentiometer, commonly coupled to a user-operated dial used to adjust voltage or
`
`current in a circuit, such as a volume control for a radio). (FLIR-1006, pp. 1, 3)
`
`
`
`–16–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Barnes and Mullard supplement the teachings of Hansen by showing
`
`that the concept of independently adjustable image intensifier and thermal imaging
`
`assemblies was known in the art.
`
`36.
`
`In addition, Palmer teaches a night vision monocular(cid:1)binocular
`
`assembly including an adjustable image intensifier tube controlled by gain or
`
`brightness buttons that increase or decrease the gain of the adjustable image
`
`intensifier tube and/or the output intensity or brightness of the image generated by
`
`the image intensifier tube. (FLIR-1007, 11:60-65) Accordingly, Palmer
`
`supplements the teachings of Hansen, Barnes, and Mullard with respect to a
`
`specific implementation for an adjustable image intensifier and an associated
`
`adjustment assembly. Palmer is included in the challenge because it shows an
`
`actual adjustable image intensification assembly, whereas Mullard describes the
`
`concept more generally.
`
`37. Reasons to Combine: It would have been obvious to supplement
`
`Hansen with the teachings of Barnes, Mullard, and Palmer to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention for the following reasons. First, the references Hansen, Barnes, Mullard,
`
`and Palmer are in the same field as the ’652 patent, which is low-light “night
`
`vision” imaging devices for use in military/law enforcement applications. (FLIR-
`
`1001, 1:11-18; FLIR-1005, 1:28-33, 67-69 (noting use of the XX1500); FLIR-
`
`1007, 1:17-28, 43-48) Hansen and Barnes are particularly similar to the ’652
`
`
`
`–17–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`patent because they are both directed to night vision devices employing the
`
`combination of thermal imagers and image intensification assemblies to create a
`
`composite image. Since Barnes, Mullard, and Palmer address the same problems
`
`addressed by Hansen concerning the use of low light imaging systems for tactical
`
`use generally, it would have been common sense to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to consult Barnes, Mullard, and Palmer about specific implementations for
`
`adjustment assemblies and/or for general component layout.
`
`38.
`
`It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art to combine
`
`Hansen with Barnes because the references have substantially similar teachings,
`
`such that substituting the thermal imaging and image intensifier assemblies from
`
`Barnes (as clarified by Mullard) for the corresponding assemblies in Hansen is a
`
`simple substitution of known elements to obtain predictable results. As noted
`
`above, both Hansen and Barnes use a combination of thermal imaging and image
`
`intensification assemblies to create a single composite low light image for a user.
`
`Hansen teaches that the thermal imager and image intensification assembly are
`
`independently adjustable (see element [1.i] below). Barnes shows additional detail
`
`on how independent adjustment would be implemented, and shows that the
`
`assemblies are independently adjustable relative to one another (see element [1.i]).
`
`Specifically, Barnes teaches that the thermal imager is adjusted with “thermal
`
`image brightness control […] generally at 65” (FLIR-1005, 2:62-63) and that the
`
`
`
`–18–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`image intensifier 14 is the Mullard XX1500 (FLIR-1005, 1:67-68), which has its
`
`own independent gain (brightness) control. (FLIR-1006, 1, 3) Thus, it would have
`
`been obvious to substitute the adjustment capabilities of Barnes and Mullard in
`
`place of the adjustment capabilities of Hansen.
`
`39. For similar reasons, this substitution is also obvious as a use of known
`
`techniques to improve similar devices in the same way and applying a known
`
`technique to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
`
`398 (2007). Having independent brightness controls on the thermal image and
`
`image intensification assemblies is obvious because it is a natural outgrowth of
`
`sensing light using different sensors. For example, it was known in the art that
`
`thermal imagers and image intensifiers had different beneficial attributes under
`
`different environmental conditions. Image intensifiers were known to work well
`
`under clear, low light conditions, but if smoke, mist, or camouflage was involved,
`
`or there was no ambient light, thermal imagers were known to work better. (FLIR-
`
`1005, 1:93-100) Moreover, thermal imagers and image intensifiers would
`
`naturally be adjusted differently to compensate for a concurrent environmental
`
`condition, such as adjusting the gain on the image intensifier to compensate for
`
`ambient light that would not be detected by the thermal imager. For example,
`
`changing the sensitivity of a thermal imager focal plane array and/or the effective
`
`gain of a constituent thermal imager is a different process than simply changing the
`
`
`
`–19–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`gain on an image intensifier. Thus, to a person of skill in the art, it would be
`
`obvious that the two types of night-vision mechanisms require separate and
`
`independent power/brightness controls.
`
`40. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the
`
`known elements of Hansen, Barnes, Mullard, and Palmer because the combination
`
`would have: combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; and substituted one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results.
`
`41. The following chart specification describes how Hansen in view of
`
`Barnes, Mullard, and Palmer teaches each and every element of claims 1-7.
`
`Claims 1-7: Obvious over Hansen in view of Barnes, Mullard, and Palmer
`
`Claim 1
`
`[1.a] A low
`light imaging
`device,
`comprising: a)
`an optical
`input
`structured to
`define a line of
`sight;
`
`Hansen teaches a low light imaging device including an optical
`input configured to define a line of sight. Specifically, Hansen is
`directed to “an integrated electro-optical weapons sight […] which
`may be used either in daytime, twilight, or nighttime environments
`without changing the sight.” (FLIR-1004, 1:12-16) Hansen
`teaches that “[t]he multispectral radiant energy 6 from a typical
`scene enters the sight through sighting window 15 and
`through objective lens 14A [e.g., the single optical input
`defining the line of sight] along an objective optics common
`optical axis 19 [e.g., the line of sight].” (FLIR-1004, 3:15-18,
`emphasis added). From there, radiant energy 6 is split into
`multiple beams by beam splitter 16A. (FLIR-1004, 3:18-29).
`
`Dichroic beam splitters and multi-spectral lenses were well
`known in the art at the time of filing of Hansen.
`
`
`
`–20–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`Claims 1-7: Obvious over Hansen in view of Barnes, Mullard, and Palmer
`
`optical input
`
`line of sight
`
`FLIR-Hansen, Fig. 4
`
`
`Barnes also teaches a low light imaging device including multiple
`optical inputs (input optics 18 and afocal telescope 32) configured
`to define two lines of sight (e.g., two optical axes). (FLIR-1005,
`1:5-8, 1:83-106, Fig. 1) Mullard describes specifications for a low
`light imaging device (a XX1500 intensifier tube) including an
`optical input configured to define a line of sight (“XX1500 – the
`basic version for use in direct viewing night vision systems”), and
`Palmer described a particular implementation with a specific type
`of optical input (e.g., image intensifier tube 64 and objective lens
`62 of Fig. 4). (FLIR-1006, p. 1; FLIR-1005, 8:4-9:63, Fig. 4)
`
`Thus, Hansen in view of Barnes, Mullard, and Palmer teaches
`[1.a].
`Hansen teaches a thermal imaging assembly responsive to
`radiation signatures (e.g., thermal radiation) disposed within the
`line of sight/common optical axis 19. Specifically,
`Hansen teaches providing a component/beam of radiant energy 6
`along channel 19A to an “uncooled focal plane array 18 controlled
`by focal plane array electronics 24 in which the far infrared
`spectrum is converted to equivalent electrical signals which are in
`turn fed directly to a cathode ray tube display 26 for reconverting
`the electrical signals to the visible spectrum at the output of 26
`[e.g., all of which comprise Hansen’s thermal imaging assembly].”
`(FLIR-1004, 3:43-53, Fig. 4).
`
`[1.b] b) a
`thermal
`imaging
`assembly
`responsive to
`radiation
`signatures
`disposed
`within said
`line of sight;
`
`
`
`–21–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`Claims 1-7: Obvious over Hansen in view of Barnes, Mullard, and Palmer
`
`thermal
`imaging
`assembly
`
`FLIR-Hansen, Fig. 4
`
`
`
`Barnes also teaches such a thermal imaging assembly including a
`32 element linear pyroelectric detector array 36 detecting thermal
`radiation along a line of sight defined by afocal telescope 32, and
`circuitry 60 coupled to an array of LEDs 62 to convert the
`detected thermal radiation to a thermal image. (FLIR-1005,
`1:102-2:2, 2:28-41, Fig. 1).
`
`thermal
`imaging
`assembly
`
`FLIR-Barnes, Fig. 1
`
`
`Thus, Hansen in view of Barnes teaches [1.b].
`
`Hansen teaches an image intensification assembly responsive to
`photons at least within the line of sight/common optical axis 19.
`Specifically, Hansen teaches providing a component/beam of
`
`[1.c] c) an
`image
`intensification
`
`
`
`–22–
`
`FLIR-1008
`
`
`
`Claims 1-7: Obvious over Hansen in view of Barnes, Mullard, and Palmer
`assembly
`radiant energy 6 along near infrared and visible (“twilight”)
`responsive to
`spectrum channel 19C to a “U.S. Army thi
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
