Paper 23
`
`
` Entered: December 22, 2016
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC., VALEO S.A., VALEO GMBH,
`VALEO SCHALTER UND SENSOREN GMBH, and4
`CONNAUGHT ELECTRONICS LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-014101
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-01414 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`Petitioners Valeo North America, Inc., Valeo S.A., Valeo GmbH,
`Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH, and Connaught Electronics Ltd.
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed two Petitions requesting inter partes review
`of claims 1–86 of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’724
`patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–19, as listed in the following chart.
`Case Number
`Challenged Claims
`Petition
`
`IPR2015-01410 1–6, 10–18,2 23, 25,
`29–32, 41–43, 46–56,
`58, 61, 62, 64–71, 73,
`75–82, 84, and 86
`IPR2015-01414 7–9, 19–22, 24, 26–28,
`33–40, 44, 45, 57, 59,
`60, 63, 72, 74, 83, and
`85
`
`Paper 1 (“Pet.”)
`
`Paper 1 (“-1414 Pet.”)
`
`On December 28, 2015, we instituted an inter partes review of claims
`1, 3–12, 14, 15, 17, 19–52, 54–67, 69–79, and 81–86 on 17 grounds of
`unpatentability and consolidated Case IPR2015-01414 with Case
`IPR2015-01410 (Paper 7, “Dec. on Inst.”). Patent Owner Magna Electronics
`Inc. filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 14, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner
`filed a Reply (Paper 17, “Reply”). The parties did not request oral
`argument, and no hearing was held. See Paper 22.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). For the reasons that
`follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the
`
`
`2 Petitioner lists claim 19 in its Petition in Case IPR2015-01410, but does
`not include claim 19 in any asserted ground of unpatentability. See Pet. 1, 6.
`Thus, we presume that the initial listing of claims was a typographical error.
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`evidence that claims 1, 3–12, 14, 15, 17, 19–52, 54–67, 69–79, and 81–86
`are unpatentable.
`
`
`A. The ’724 Patent3
`The ’724 patent relates generally to “rearview vision systems which
`provide the vehicle operator with scenic information in the direction
`rearward of the vehicle.” Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 22–25. According to the
`’724 patent, there was a need in the art to “reduce the amount of time spent
`gathering information [about] the condition around the vehicle in order to
`safely carry out a vehicle maneuver, such as a turn or a lane change,” and
`also a need to “eliminate exterior rearview mirrors by utilizing image
`capture devices, such as cameras, in combination with dashboard displays.”
`Id. at col. 1, ll. 28–59. Prior art camera-based systems typically used more
`than one camera to reduce blind spots, but displayed multiple images, which
`could confuse the driver. Id. at col. 1, l. 60–col. 2, l. 3. Specifically,
`“[w]hen multiple image capture devices are positioned at different
`longitudinal locations on the vehicle, objects behind the vehicle are at
`different distances from the image capture devices,” such that the same
`object would have a different size in each display. Id. at col. 2, ll. 3–8.
`
`
`3 Petitioner previously filed petitions seeking inter partes review of the
`’724 patent in Cases IPR2015-00252 and IPR2015-00253. The petitions
`were denied. See Valeo N. Am., Inc. v. Magna Elecs., Inc., Case
`IPR2015-00252 (PTAB May 13, 2015) (Paper 7); Valeo N. Am., Inc. v.
`Magna Elecs., Inc., Case IPR2015-00253 (PTAB May 13, 2015) (Paper 7).
`U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565 B2 (“the ’565 patent”), which has a similar
`specification to the ’724 patent, also was challenged in Cases
`IPR2014-00220 and IPR2014-01203.
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`
`To address these issues, the ’724 patent discloses a multi-camera
`vision system having two image capture devices on the sides of the vehicle
`and one at the rear of the vehicle, and a reconfigurable display device that
`displays a synthesized image from the image capture devices. Id. at col. 2,
`l. 59–col. 3, l. 25. Figure 1 of the ’724 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts vehicle 10 traveling in direction T and comprising side
`image capture devices 14 each with field of view 22 and center image
`capture device 16 with field of view 26. Id. at col. 5, l. 47–col. 6, l. 21. The
`three captured images are processed and
`juxtaposed on display 20 by image processor 18 in a manner
`which approximates the view from a single virtual image
`capture device positioned forwardly of the vehicle at a location
`C and facing rearwardly of the vehicle, with the vehicle being
`transparent to the view of the virtual image capture device.
`Id. at col. 5, l. 63–col. 6, l. 2. The resulting display provides a “substantially
`seamless panoramic view rearwardly of the vehicle without duplicate or
`redundant images of objects.” Id. at col. 6, ll. 2–5.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`
`Figure 3 of the ’724 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3 depicts composite image 42 comprising left image portion 44, right
`image portion 46, and center image portion 48, reversed from the images
`captured by the image capture devices, as well as compass readout 54,
`vehicle speed 56, and turn signals 58. Id. at col. 7, l. 44–col. 8, l. 7. Due to
`the different positioning of side image capture devices 14 and center image
`capture device 16, the system may process side images differently from the
`central images (e.g., by vertically compressing the central images) to avoid
`the appearance of disjointed objects. Id. at col. 14, l. 52–col. 16, l. 14.
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1 of the ’724 patent recites:
`1. A multi-camera vision system for a vehicle, said
`vehicular multi-camera vision system comprising:
`at least three image capture devices disposed at a vehicle
`equipped with said vehicular multi-camera vision system;
`said at least three image capture devices comprising a
`first image capture device disposed at a driver-side portion of
`the equipped vehicle at a first location;
`
`
`
`5
`
`

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

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

`
`IPR2015-01410
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No. 2-117935, published
`Sept. 21, 1990 (Ex. 1005, “Mitsubishi”);
`UK Patent Application Publication No. GB 2233530 A,
`published Jan. 9, 1991 (Ex. 1010, “Fuji”);
`Japanese Patent Publication No. H7-30149, published
`June 6, 1995 (Ex. 1003, “Yamamoto”);4
`Tatsumi Otsuka et al., Flat Dot Matrix Display Module
`for Vehicle Instrumentation, SAE Paper No. 871288, Nov. 8,
`1987 (Ex. 1016, “Otsuka”);
`M. Weihrauch, G. G. Meloeny, & T. C. Goesch, The
`First Head Up Display Introduced by General Motors, SAE
`Paper No. 890288, Feb. 1, 1989 (Ex. 1019, “Goesch”); and
`G. Wang et al., CMOS Video Cameras,
`IEEE
`TH0367-3/91/0000/0100, 1991 (Ex. 1009, “Wang”).
`
`D. Pending Grounds of Unpatentability
`The instant inter partes review involves the following grounds of
`unpatentability:
`References
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`and Lemelson
`
`Claim(s)
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)5 1, 3–6, 10–12, 14,
`15, 17, 23, 25,
`29–32, 41–43, and
`46–48
`
`
`4 We refer to “Aishin,” “Niles,” “Mitsubishi,” and “Yamamoto” as the
`English translations of the original references (Exhibits 1002, 1004, 1007,
`and 1011). Petitioner provided affidavits attesting to the accuracy of the
`translations. See Exs. 1003, 1005, 1008, 1012; 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b). Also,
`when citing the asserted non-patent references, we refer to the page numbers
`at the lower right corner of each page. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(2).
`5 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112. Because the
`’724 patent has an effective filing date before the effective date of the
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`
`References
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, Wang, and
`Aishin
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Claim(s)
`49–52, 54–56, 58,
`61, 62, 64–67,
`69–71, 73, 75–79,
`81, 82, 84, and 86
`19
`
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, and Wang
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, and Aishin
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, and Niles
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, Aishin, and
`Schmidt
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, and Fuji
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, and Otsuka
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, Otsuka, and
`Conner
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, Otsuka, and
`Sato
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, Otsuka, and
`Paff
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, and King
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, and Goesch
`
`applicable AIA amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA versions of 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 102, 103, and 112.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`7–9 and 20–22
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`26
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`27 and 28
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`33 and 35–38
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`34
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`39
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`40
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`44
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`45
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`
`References
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, Wang,
`Aishin, and Fuji
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, Wang,
`Aishin, and Otsuka
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, Wang,
`Aishin, and Paff
`Yamamoto, Mitsubishi,
`Lemelson, Wang,
`Aishin, and King
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Claim(s)
`57, 72, and 83
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`59
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`60, 74, and 85
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`63
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Interpretation
`The Board interprets claims of unexpired patents using the “broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`[they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). For claims of an expired patent,
`such as the ’724 patent, however, the Board’s claim interpretation analysis is
`similar to that of a district court. See In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46
`(Fed. Cir. 2012). Claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning as
`would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “There are only two
`exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and
`acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full
`scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.”
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
`2012). We apply this standard to the claims of the expired ’724 patent.6
`
`1. Previously Interpreted Terms
`In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted the term “synthesized
`image” to mean the image generated by combining the received image data
`captured by the image capture devices, and interpreted the “at least one of”
`clauses in the challenged claims to signify a disjunctive list of alternatives
`(i.e., only one limitation is required). Dec. on Inst. 11 (stating that the
`analysis would be the same under either the broadest reasonable
`interpretation or the district court standard). The parties do not dispute these
`interpretations. We do not perceive any reason or evidence that compels any
`deviation from these interpretations. Accordingly, we adopt our previous
`analysis for purposes of this Decision.
`
`
`
`6 The ’724 patent expired during trial on May 22, 2016. See PO Resp. 8;
`Reply 1. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner “should have known that the
`’724 patent would expire during this proceeding,” and by proposing
`interpretations under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in the
`Petitions, “waived its opportunity to provide” proposed claim interpretations
`under the district court standard. PO Resp. 13–14. We disagree. The
`’724 patent had not yet expired when the Petitions were filed. Further, as
`noted in the Decision on Institution, our analysis was not impacted by
`whether we apply the broadest reasonable interpretation or the district court
`standard. Dec. on Inst. 11 n.5. The same holds true for our analysis at this
`stage of the proceeding. Also, because the parties had not addressed the
`expiration date of the ’724 patent in the Petitions and Preliminary
`Responses, we expressly “encouraged [them] to address the expiration date
`of the ’724 patent and the appropriate claim interpretation standard in their
`papers during trial.” Id.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`
`2. “Synthesized Image is Generated Without Duplication of Objects”
`Independent claims 1, 49, 65, and 78 recite that “a synthesized image
`is generated without duplication of objects present in said first overlap zone
`and in said second overlap zone.” Petitioner argues that the “without
`duplication of objects” clause means that “there is minimal multiple
`exposure of objects appearing in overlap zones in the synthesized image.”
`See Pet. 11; Reply 3–7. Patent Owner responds that the clause should be
`interpreted to mean that “the generated synthesized image shows primarily
`one representation (with minimal multiple exposure) of each object in the
`captured scene despite the claimed locations of image capture devices.”7
`PO Resp. 8–11.
`At the outset, we observe that the parties appear to agree that the
`claims allow for some duplication, as both proposed interpretations include
`the phrase “minimal multiple exposure.”8 Thus, the difference between the
`proposed interpretations is Patent Owner’s addition that the generated
`synthesized image shows “primarily” one representation of each object in
`the scene “despite the claimed locations of image capture devices.”
`According to Patent Owner, the additional language is warranted based on
`
`7 Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s proposed interpretations “are
`appropriate under Phillips.” PO Resp. 9 (emphasis added). Contrary to
`Petitioner’s argument, we presume this to be a typographical error, as Patent
`Owner subsequently argues that Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of the
`“without duplication of objects” clause is not correct under the district court
`standard. See id. at 9–11; Reply 4.
`8 In another inter partes review involving a patent with a similar
`specification as the ’724 patent, the panel similarly interpreted “without
`duplication of image information” as “with minimal multiple exposure in the
`composite image.” Valeo N. Am., Inc. v. Magna Elecs., Inc., Case
`IPR2014-00220, 12 (PTAB May 28, 2015) (Paper 59).
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`other language in the claims. Id. at 9–11. Specifically, the claims require
`that the image capture devices be located at the “driver-side portion,”
`“passenger-side portion,” and “rear portion” of the vehicle, and that the
`synthesized image be without duplication of objects “present in said first
`overlap zone and in said second overlap zone,” such that, according to
`Patent Owner, the unprocessed image data from the devices would exhibit
`the effects of parallax. Id. Parallax is a “displacement in the apparent
`position of an object viewed along two different lines of sight,” which can
`be avoided by multiple cameras sharing a “common center of projection.”
`Ex. 1020 ¶ 36; see Ex. 2004 ¶ 44; infra Section II.C.1.
`The fact that other parts of the claims recite locations of the image
`capture devices and the overlap zones does not mean that anything more
`should be read into the “without duplication of objects” clause, which
`appears clear on its face. Further, the claims do not say anything about
`parallax or require that the problem of parallax be solved for the synthesized
`image. Indeed, parallax is not the same as the duplication of objects. See
`Ex. 1066 ¶ 11 (“Duplication . . . is different from parallax. For example,
`when each of the cameras have a common center of projection, there will be
`little or no parallax, but given their overlapping fields of view, the cameras
`may nonetheless capture the same objects multiple times resulting in
`duplication.” (citation omitted)). Thus, we are not persuaded that reading in
`any language pertaining to parallax effects would be appropriate based on
`the language of the claims.
`Nor does the Specification support Patent Owner’s proposed
`interpretation. The Specification does not define what it means to generate a
`synthesized image “without duplication of objects,” but discloses exemplary
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`ways in which duplication can be minimized. The Specification discloses
`that an object in overlap zone 32 or 34 (shown in Figure 1 above) will
`appear on the display “in multiple image portions in a redundant or
`duplicative fashion” because it will be captured by the center image capture
`device and one of the side image capture devices. Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 2–7.
`Duplication may be reduced “to a satisfactory extent by moving points P
`away from the vehicle and thereby increasing distance Q . . . to a length that
`will exclude vehicles travelling at a typical separation distance behind
`vehicle 10 from overlapping zones 32, 34.” Id. at col. 7, ll. 7–16, 32–36; see
`also id. at col. 7, ll. 60–64 (points P may be moved “a sufficient distance
`behind vehicle 10 to reduce redundant and duplicative images between
`image portions 44–48”). Petitioner provides the following figures on page 6
`of its Reply to illustrate the process.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`
`
`The first figure is an annotated version of Figure 1 of the ’724 patent, and
`the second figure is a modified version where points P are moved further
`behind the vehicle to reduce object duplication in the images (which in turn
`increases the size of blind zones 30). In addition to adjusting the field of
`view by moving points P, the Specification discloses adjusting the field of
`view by “utilizing a selective presentation of pixels of the captured image in
`the displayed image.” Id. at col. 7, ll. 41–43. Thus, although the
`Specification discloses one way to minimize duplication—by adjusting the
`field of view of the center image capture device—that way is not required by
`the claims themselves, which simply recite generation “without duplication
`of objects.”
`Patent Owner acknowledges that the Specification discloses the above
`process, but argues that it “is not the whole story.” PO Resp. 7, 10–11.
`Patent Owner contends that the system further accounts for duplication by
`processing the image from the center image capture device differently than
`the images from the side image capture devices. Id. (citing Ex. 1001,
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`col. 15, ll. 19–23). Again, we do not see why the exemplary types of
`processing described in the Specification should be read into the claims.9
`Further, we do not agree with Patent Owner because the cited portion of the
`Specification regarding different processing pertains to vertical image
`compression/scaling, not avoiding duplication of objects in the synthesized
`image, which is described earlier in columns 6–7 of the Specification. See
`Ex. 1001, col. 15, ll. 19–40 (“Central image portion 48' is reduced vertically,
`or compressed, by removing specified scan lines, or pixel rows, from the
`image captured by center image capture device 16 in a graduated fashion.”);
`Ex. 1066 ¶ 15–16; Reply 7.
`Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation improperly reads in
`limitations pertaining to parallax that are not required by the surrounding
`claim language or the Specification. It also introduces ambiguity into the
`claims, as it is not clear how one could determine what is “primarily” one
`representation in a synthesized image. Accordingly, we interpret
`“synthesized image is generated without duplication of objects” to mean the
`synthesized image is generated with minimal multiple exposure of objects
`appearing in the overlap zones.
`
`
`
`9 Indeed, the Specification describes other forms of image processing, such
`as “[l]uminant and chrominant blending” and “[i]mage morphing and
`warping compensation techniques,” which Patent Owner does not contend
`are required to compensate for duplication of objects. See Ex. 1001, col. 18,
`ll. 1–15.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`
`3. “Synthesized Image Approximates a View as Would be Seen by a Virtual
`Camera at a Single Location Exterior of the Equipped Vehicle”
`Independent claims 1, 49, 65, and 78 further recite that the
`“synthesized image approximates a view as would be seen by a virtual
`camera at a single location exterior of the equipped vehicle.” Petitioner
`argues that the clause should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, i.e.,
`“the claimed view must be from a single virtual camera and does not have to
`be perfect or precise such that there may be some deviation from the actual
`view.” See Reply 7–10. As support, Petitioner cites a dictionary definition
`of the word “approximate” as “nearly exact; not perfectly accurate or
`correct.” Ex. 1069, 3; see Reply 8.
`Patent Owner argues that the clause should be interpreted to mean
`“a view that appears to be from a single virtual camera without different
`image sizes and disjointed boundary lines.” PO Resp. 11–13. Patent
`Owner’s arguments are similar to those made with respect to the “without
`duplication of objects” clause, and again rely on the Specification’s
`disclosure of exemplary image processing. See id. We do not see any basis
`for reading in language pertaining to parallax effects into the claims for the
`reasons set forth above. See supra Section II.A.2. Patent Owner’s proposed
`interpretation, which dictates that the view be “without different image sizes
`and disjointed boundary lines,” also is inconsistent with and would read out
`the term “approximate” in the claims. See Reply 8–10. A view would not
`need to have completely uniform image sizes or completely eliminate
`disjointed boundary lines to “approximate” a view seen by the recited virtual
`camera.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`
`Nothing in the claim language or Specification otherwise limits the
`“approximates a view” clause, and we conclude that the plain and ordinary
`meaning of the term “approximate” applies. No further interpretation is
`necessary. Accordingly, we interpret “synthesized image approximates a
`view as would be seen by a virtual camera at a single location exterior of the
`equipped vehicle” to mean the synthesized image is a nearly exact
`representation of what would be seen by a virtual camera at a single location
`exterior of the vehicle.
`
`
`4. “Reconfigurable Display”
`Petitioner argues that “reconfigurable display” should be interpreted
`to mean “a display in which a portion of the display upon which the driver
`views the synthesized image is used as a high-information content display
`to selectively display various types of auxiliary information.” Pet. 11 (citing
`Ex. 1001, col. 12, ll. 49–64; Ex. 1022 ¶ 38). Patent Owner states that it
`“does not acquiesce” to Petitioner’s proposed interpretation, but does not
`provide a proposed interpretation of its own. PO Resp. 13 n.4.
`Independent claims 1, 49, 65, and 78 recite that “said synthesized
`image is displayed by a single display screen of a reconfigurable display
`device that is viewable by a driver of the equipped vehicle when normally
`operating the equipped vehicle.” The Specification of the ’724 patent
`discloses:
`Alternatively, the remaining portion of the display can be a
`reconfigurable high-information content display area
`to
`selectively display various
`types of
`information.
` Such
`information may
`include
`incoming
`facsimile or pager
`information, phone numbers, and navigational aids including
`pull-up maps, route guidance information, global positioning
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`
`system (GPS) data, intelligent vehicle highway system (IVHS)
`information, as well as radio and environmental system control
`settings, and the like. Display 20 is especially useful for
`displaying such alternative data. . . . The content of the
`auxiliary information displayed may be user-selectable by a
`keypad, trackball, or other input device on the dashboard,
`steering column, or other position readily accessible to the
`driver.
`Ex. 1001, col. 12, l. 55–col. 13, l. 7 (emphasis added). We agree with
`Petitioner that the “reconfigurable display” selectively presents information
`to be viewed by the driver.10 Petitioner’s proposed interpretation is
`consistent with the claim language and written description of the
`’724 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision.
`
`
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when “the
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
`a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
`matter pertains.”
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a)). Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`time of the filing of the ’724 patent (May 1996) would have had “a
`bachelor’s or master’s degree in engineering, computer science, or physics
`with some experience in the automotive industry (e.g., two to five years),”
`
`10 Certain dependent claims further recite the type of reconfigurable display
`device (e.g., “flat-panel display device” in claim 33), what types of
`information are displayed on the display screen of the device (e.g., “a map”
`and “vehicle speed” in claim 29), and how content on the display screen is
`“user-selectable,” i.e., selectable by the user (e.g., via a “keypad” in claims
`30–31).
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`and “a working understanding of combining image data from multiple
`cameras and microprocessor driven controls for displays, actuators, and
`elementary decision making.” Pet. 10. Petitioner’s declarants, George
`Wolberg, Ph.D., and Ralph V. Wilhelm, Jr., Ph.D., agree with this
`assessment. See Ex. 1020 ¶ 25; Ex. 1022 ¶ 18. Patent Owner argues that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a bachelor’s
`degree in electrical, electronic, or mechanical engineering, or computer
`science, or equivalent experience, and at least two years of experience in the
`relevant field, such as vision systems for real-world applications, such as
`encountered in vehicular vision systems,” citing the testimony of Ralph
`Etienne-Cummings, Ph.D. PO Resp. 4 n.2 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 24–25).
`Neither party explains in detail why their proposed level of ordinary
`skill in the art should be adopted. After reviewing the evidence, including
`the cited prior art, however, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s definition is
`substantially correct. The ’724 patent describes “rearview vision systems
`which provide the vehicle operator with scenic information in the direction
`rearward of the vehicle” using “image capture devices, such as CMOS
`[(complementary metal-oxide semiconductor)] imaging arrays and the like.”
`Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 22–27. “Camera-based rearview vision systems” had
`been proposed at the time, but had not “obtained commercial acceptance”
`and suffered from various problems according to the ’724 patent. Id. at
`col. 1, l. 60–col. 2, l. 55. The ’724 patent further acknowledges that various
`aspects of the disclosed systems, such as, for example, CMOS and
`charge-coupled device (CCD) imaging arrays, optical correction systems,
`various types of image filtering, backlit liquid-crystal displays (LCDs), and
`systems for measuring the distance of an object behind the vehicle, were
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01410
`Patent 8,643,724 B2
`
`known at the time. See, e.g., id. at col. 11, ll. 60–64, col. 12, ll. 33–37,
`col. 13, ll. 26–41, col. 17, ll. 48–62, col. 20, ll. 42–53, col. 22, ll. 3–19,
`44–55. Drs. Wolberg and Wilhelm further testify as to the development and
`state of the art by the time of the ’724 patent, which we find helpful in
`assessing what background knowledge would have been available to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 27–39; Ex. 1022
`¶¶ 20–27.
`As a whole, the evidence indicates a higher level of ordinary skill than
`what Patent Owner proposes, and suggests, for example, that an ordinarily
`skilled artisan would have had at least some understanding of ways in which
`images from multiple cameras could be combined. See, e.g., Ex. 1020
`