Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper: 8
`
`
` Entered: June 29, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, MINN CHUNG, and
`TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Huawei Device Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
`“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1 and 2 (the “challenged
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,671,901 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’901 patent”).
`Maxell, Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6,
`“Prelim. Resp.”).
`By statute, institution of an inter partes review may not be authorized
`unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . .
`shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response,
`we conclude that the information presented does not show there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the
`unpatentability of any challenged claim of the ’901 patent. Accordingly, we
`do not institute an inter partes review.
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest and Related Matters
`Petitioner identifies Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device
`USA, Inc., Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd., Huawei Device
`(Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Huawei Tech. Investment Co., Ltd., and Huawei
`Device (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd., as additional real parties-in-interest for
`Petitioner. Pet. 3. Patent Owner identifies only itself as the owner of the
`patent and real party-in-interest. Paper 4, 1.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`
`The parties indicate that the ’901 patent is the subject of the following
`district court litigation: Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device USA Inc., Case No.
`5:16-cv-00178-RWS (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 3; Paper 4, 1.
`
`B. The ’901 Patent
`The ’901 patent describes an image processing apparatus that corrects
`video signals based on the luminance, hue, or saturation of the video signals,
`as well as the illumination detected by an illumination sensor, when any
`change occurs in the input video signal. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 1:46–56.
`As background, the ’901 patent describes that, to correct input video
`signals, multimedia systems convert an input RGB signal to a luminance
`signal and a color difference signal. Id. at 1:20–24. According to the ’901
`patent, the luminance signal is obtained from the RGB video signal as
`specified in the following mathematical formula, where Y signifies the
`luminance signal, and R, G, and B signify the red, green, and blue signals,
`respectively.
`
`Id. at 4:30–40. The hue H and the saturation S of the video signal are
`determined by the following formulas, where (R-Y) and (B-Y) are the color
`difference signals.
`
`Id. at 4:35, 5:54–59.
`The ’901 patent describes a method of correcting luminance signals
`using a “correction characteristic,” which shows the corrected luminance of
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`the output signal in relation to the luminance of the input signal. Id. at 9:41–
`43, 9:52–53.
`Figures 23A and 23B of the ’901 patent are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figures 23A and 23B show exemplar correction characteristics. Id. at 2:48–
`50. Figure 23A shows the characteristic relationship when no correction is
`made, i.e., when the output luminance is the same as the input luminance.
`Id. at 12:36–39. In the correction characteristic shown in Figure 23B, the
`output luminance is increased from the input signal when the input
`luminance is low, i.e., when the input luminance is in the dark or black side.
`Id. at 12:39–45. The ’901 patent describes that, when the intensity of
`illumination detected by an illumination sensor is above a threshold value,
`the luminance of the output signal is corrected according to the correction
`characteristic shown in Figure 23B. Id. at 12:39–41. With this luminance
`correction, because the luminance of the output image is increased on the
`black side, the displayed image can be watched easily in a bright
`environment, such as outdoors on a sunny day. Id. at 12:39–45, 11:52–56.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`
`
`C. Challenged Claims
`The ’901 patent includes only two claims—namely, independent
`claim 1 and claim 2, which depends from claim 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of
`the challenged claims and is reproduced below with the key disputed
`limitation emphasized in italics:
`1. An image processing apparatus comprising:
`an input portion to which video signals are inputted;
`an illumination sensor for detecting illumination;
`a corrector which corrects the video signals inputted to the input
`portion; and
`a controller which executes control so that the correction portion
`corrects the video signals in accordance with distribution of
`luminance or hue or saturation of the video signals and with
`the illumination detected by the illumination sensor when any
`change occurs in the video signal inputted to the input portion,
`wherein the controller corrects luminance of the video signal
`without correcting hue and saturation of the video signal
`when the change of the video signal does not occur and when
`the illumination detected by the illumination sensor is above
`a predetermined value.
`Ex. 1001, 14:40–55.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`
`D. Asserted Prior Art and Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner cites the following references in its challenges to
`patentability.
`
`Designation
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Kitazawa
`
`Ex. 10031
`
`Reference and Relevant Date
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No.
`2003-337580) (published Nov. 28, 2003)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,068,718 (issued Nov. 26,
`1991)
`Japanese Patent Application Publication No.
`6-303551 (published Oct. 28, 1994)
`U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.
`2004/0001165 Al (published Jan. 1, 2004)
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Robert L. Stevenson, Ph.D.
`(Ex. 1015).
`
`
`Iwabe
`
`Yagi
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 10062
`
`Shiota
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`
`1 Exhibit 1003 is an English translation of the original Japanese Patent
`Application Publication No. 2003-337580 (Ex. 1004). Petitioner has filed
`with Exhibit 1003 an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the translation, as
`required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b). See Ex. 1003, 1 (Certificate of
`Translation). Patent Owner does not dispute the accuracy of the English
`translation in Exhibit 1003 at this time. Our citations to Kitazawa are to
`Exhibit 1003, the certified English translation.
`2 Exhibit 1006 is an English translation of the original Japanese Patent
`Application Publication No. 6-303551 (Ex. 1007). Petitioner has filed with
`Exhibit 1006 an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the translation, as
`required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b). See Ex. 1006, 1 (Certificate of Accuracy).
`Patent Owner does not dispute the accuracy of the English translation in
`Exhibit 1006 at this time. Our citations to Yagi are to Exhibit 1006, the
`certified English translation.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`Statutory Basis
`
`References
`
`1 and 2
`1
`2
`
`
`Pet. 6.
`
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`Kitazawa and Iwabe
`Yagi and Shiota
`Yagi, Shiota, and Iwabe
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Cuozzo Speed
`Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of
`the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in inter partes reviews).
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and absent any
`special definitions, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`art, in view of the specification. In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes a construction for any
`claim term recited in the challenged claims. Pet. 25; Prelim. Resp. 11.
`Although Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s analysis of the last limitation
`(i.e., the “wherein” clause) of claim 1 as “mak[ing] an inappropriate implicit
`claim construction,” Patent Owner does not propose an express construction
`of any term of claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 11.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`
`Based on the record presented, for purposes of this Decision, we do
`not find it necessary to make formal claim constructions for any claim terms.
`See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868
`F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are
`in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”
`(quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`(Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`
`B. Obviousness Over the Combination of Kitazawa and Iwabe
`Petitioner contends claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable as obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Kitazawa and Iwabe.
`Pet. 44–75. In support of its contentions, Petitioner submits the Declaration
`of Dr. Stevenson (Ex. 1015). Id. Given the evidence of record, we are not
`persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on this asserted ground as to any of these challenged claims for
`the reasons explained below.
`
`1. Relevant Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter
`pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The
`question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`of skill in the art;3 and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
`considerations.4 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We
`analyze this asserted ground based on obviousness with the principles
`identified above in mind.
`
`2. Overview of Kitazawa (Ex. 1003)
`Kitazawa describes a video display device that displays video with
`pixel luminance adjusted according to ambient brightness. Ex. 1003 ¶ 1. In
`an embodiment, the video display device includes a video signal conversion
`unit, an environmental light detection unit, a CPU, a display drive unit, and a
`display panel. Id. ¶ 13, Fig. 1. The video signal conversion unit performs
`white and black stretch processing on the input video signals, as well as
`luminance compression based on the ambient brightness. Id. ¶ 15. The
`environmental light detection unit detects the ambient brightness in the
`location where the video display device is placed. Id. ¶ 17.
`As shown in Figure 2 (not reproduced herein), the video signal
`conversion unit of Kitazawa includes an A/D conversion unit that converts
`input analog video signals into digital signals, a white and black stretch unit
`for performing white and black stretch processing on the digital signals, and
`
`
`3 Relying on the testimony of Dr. Stevenson, Petitioner offers an assessment
`as to the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’901
`patent. Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 16). Petitioner also asserts that the prior
`art of record reflects the level of skill in the art. Id. At this time, Patent
`Owner does not propose an alternative assessment. To the extent necessary,
`and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the assessment offered by
`Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’901 patent and the asserted prior art.
`4 Patent Owner does not present arguments or evidence of such secondary
`considerations in its Preliminary Response. Therefore, at this preliminary
`stage, secondary considerations do not constitute part of our analysis.
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`a luminance compression unit that performs luminance compression based
`on the bright/dark signal input from the environmental light detection unit.
`Id. ¶ 34, Fig. 2.
`Figure 3 of Kitazawa is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 3 is a block diagram describing the details of the white and black
`stretch unit shown in Figure 2. As shown in Figure 3, the white and black
`stretch unit of Kitazawa receives three separate input signals for three colors
`of red (R), green (G), and blue (B). Id. ¶ 36, Fig. 3. Each of these R, G, and
`B color input signals is stretched by separate stretch units 47R, 47G, and
`47B, respectively. Id. ¶ 43, Fig. 3.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`
`Figure 9 of Kitazawa is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 9 is a diagram depicting the white and black stretching operation
`performed by the white and black stretch unit of Kitazawa. Id. ¶ 66. As
`shown in Figure 9, a pixel with a maximum input luminance value of Lmax
`is corrected by the stretching to have an even higher output luminance value
`of Lmax’. Id. On the other hand, a pixel with a minimum input luminance
`value of Lmin is corrected to have an even lower output luminance value of
`Lmin’. Id. Pixels with an input luminance value between Lmax and Lmin
`are corrected to be either brighter or darker depending on whether the input
`luminance value is greater or less than a threshold value. Id. ¶ 67.
`According to Kitazawa, as the result of the white and black stretching, the
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`bright pixels are made brighter and the dark pixels are made darker so that
`the displayed image is easier to view. Id. ¶ 48.
`As shown in Figure 4 (not reproduced herein), the output from each of
`stretch units 47R, 47G, and 47B, is input to the corresponding luminance
`compression units 52R, 52G, and 52B, respectively, which adjust the
`stretched R, G, and B signals based on the input signal from environmental
`light detection unit 120 and the corresponding greyscale values stored in
`lookup table 120. Id. ¶¶ 49–52, Fig. 4.
`Figure 10 of Kitazawa is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 10 is a diagram depicting the luminance compression operation
`performed by the luminance compression unit of Kitazawa. Id. ¶ 72. As
`shown in Figure 10, a pixel with a minimum input luminance Ymin is
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`corrected to have an output luminance value of Y’min. Id. As discussed
`above, the corrected output luminance values of the luminance compression
`unit are determined based on the input signal from environmental light
`detection unit 120 and the corresponding greyscale values stored in lookup
`table 120. Id. ¶¶ 49–52. As the result, when the surroundings become
`brighter, the luminance of the displayed image is corrected to make it easier
`to view. Id. ¶¶ 7, 15, 73.
`
`3. Overview of Iwabe (Ex. 1005)
`Iwabe describes an image quality correcting system to allow sharply
`imaging two subjects of different brightness levels. Ex. 1005, 2:18–22.
`Figure 3 of Iwabe is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3 is a schematic diagram illustrating the basic components of the
`image quality correcting system of a first embodiment of Iwabe. Id. at
`3:48–50. As shown in Figure 3, separated color signals, R, G, and B are
`converted to color difference signals (R-Y) and (B-Y) and a luminance
`signal Y in matrix circuit 9. Id. at 3:51–55. The luminance signal Y is then
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`delivered to luminance signal correcting circuit 10, which generates a
`corrected luminance signal Yc. Id. at 3:55–58.
`Figure 4 of Iwabe is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 4 is a graph illustrating the input-output characteristic of luminance
`signal correcting circuit 10 of Figure 3. Id. at 3:18–19. As shown in
`Figure 4, in the first embodiment of Iwabe, the luminance values of the
`darkest and the lightest areas, i.e., the minimum luminance and the
`maximum luminance of an image, are retained, whereas the output
`intermediate luminance levels between the minimum and the maximum
`luminance levels are increased. Id. at 4:12–20, 5:48–56. As the result, a
`subject in the image with low luminance values is emphasized to allow
`satisfactory imaging of the dark subject. Id. at 4:12–17, 5:48–61.
`In another embodiment of Iwabe, the color difference signals (R-Y)
`and (B-Y) are corrected in addition to correcting the luminance signal Y to
`suppress “such unwanted phenomena as the whitening of hues that would
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`otherwise occur upon increase of the amplitude of the luminance signal.” Id.
`at 8:4–10, 2:54–61. Figure 12 of Iwabe is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 12 is a schematic diagram illustrating the basic components of the
`image quality correcting system according to a third embodiment of Iwabe.
`Id. at 3:37–39. As shown in Figure 12, the image quality correcting system
`of the third embodiment includes color difference correcting circuits 33 and
`34 to correct the color difference signals (R-Y) and (B-Y), respectively. Id.
`at 8:16–19.
`As further described in Figure 13 (not reproduced herein), gain
`control circuit 38 detects when luminance signal correcting circuit 35
`amplifies the luminance signal Y and, upon detection, controls variable
`amplifiers 36 and 37 to amplify the color difference signals “in synchronism
`with . . . nonlinear amplification shown in FIG. 4.” Id. at 8:35–42, Fig. 13.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`
`4. Claim 1
`In this asserted ground of obviousness based on the combined
`teachings of Kitazawa and Iwabe, Petitioner relies on Kitazawa to teach
`nearly all of the limitations recited in independent claim 1, except for the last
`limitation of the claim reciting “wherein the controller corrects luminance of
`the video signal without correcting hue and saturation of the video signal
`when the change of the video signal does not occur and when the
`illumination detected by the illumination sensor is above a predetermined
`value.” Pet. 44–66. Petitioner identifies this last limitation of claim 1 as
`limitation [1e] and contends that the combination of Kitazawa and Iwabe
`teaches this limitation. Id. at 58. Patent Owner disagrees that the
`combination of Kitazawa and Iwabe teaches limitation [1e]. Prelim. Resp.
`13–18.
`The parties’ dispute centers on whether the proposed combination of
`Kitazawa and Iwabe teaches “correct[ing] luminance of the video signal
`without correcting hue and saturation of the video signal,” as recited in
`claim 1. Referencing Figures 9 and 10 of Kitazawa reproduced above,
`Petitioner asserts that Kitazawa discloses “correcting luminance only, not
`hue, or saturation.” Pet. 61.
`Patent Owner argues that, contrary to Petitioner’s contention,
`Kitazawa’s method for correcting the luminance by white and black
`stretching “inherently affects the saturation and hue,” citing Figure 15 of
`Kitazawa, which Patent Owner asserts “shows that red, green, and blue
`values will be altered by this signal correction process, showing different
`‘in’ and ‘out’ values for each color.” Prelim. Resp. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1003,
`Fig. 15). Patent Owner argues that, because Kitazawa’s white and black
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`stretching method alters the color signals (R, G, and B), Petitioner does not
`show that the hue and saturation are not affected but, rather, only shows that
`“Kitazawa does disclose changing the luminance.” Id. at 15 (citing Pet. 61).
`Citing Figure 16 of Kitazawa, Patent Owner further asserts that the
`luminance compression processing of Kitazawa also would change the color
`signals, which may affect the saturation of the video signals. Id. at 15–16.
`Patent Owner argues that Kitazawa does not even mention the words “hue”
`or “saturation” and that neither Petitioner nor Dr. Stevenson explains what
`they are considering as hue and saturation in the image correcting process
`described in Kitazawa.
`We agree with Patent Owner that Kitazawa’s image correcting
`process changes the three color signals (i.e., the R, G, and B signals)
`separately. As discussed above in Section III.B.2 (Overview of Kitazawa),
`the white and black stretch unit of Kitazawa receives three separate input
`signals for the R, G, and B colors, which are stretched by separate stretch
`units 47R, 47G, and 47B, respectively. Ex. 1003 ¶ 36, Fig. 3. Similarly, the
`output from each of stretch units 47R, 47G, and 47B, is input to the
`corresponding luminance compression units 52R, 52G, and 52B,
`respectively, which adjust the stretched R, G, and B signals separately. Id.
`¶¶ 49–52, Fig. 4. Hence, Kitazawa’s luminance correction process changes
`the color signals, and, therefore, the mere fact that Kitazawa changes the
`luminance of the video signal, without more, does not necessarily show
`Kitazawa changes the luminance of the video signal “without correcting hue
`and saturation of the video signal,” as recited in claim 1.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`
`Furthermore, as discussed above in Section II.B, the ’901 patent
`describes that the hue H and the saturation S of a video signal are
`determined by the following formulas:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:54–59. As described in the ’901 patent, (R-Y) and (B-Y) are
`color difference signals. Id. at 4:35. The mathematical relationships
`described in the formulas above appear to indicate that a change in color
`signals may affect the hue and the saturation values. Neither Petitioner nor
`Dr. Stevenson discusses these formulas (or any other quantitative or analytic
`method of determining hue and saturation) or explains adequately why the
`luminance correction method of Kitazawa would not affect the hue and
`saturation of the video signal based on an analytic determination of hue and
`saturation.
`Although Petitioner asserts that the video signal correction of the
`white and black stretch unit of Kitazawa is “based on the distribution of only
`luminance—not on hue or saturation” (Pet. 54), all that shows is that the
`luminance correction of Kitazawa operates on the luminance signal. It does
`not show why the white and black stretching of the luminance signal in
`Kitazawa would not change the hue and saturation of the video signal.
`In addition, as discussed above in Section III.B.3 (Overview of
`Iwabe), Iwabe describes that “an increase of the amplitude of the luminance
`signal” causes such “unwanted phenomena” as “the whitening of hues.”
`Ex. 1005, 2:59–61 (emphases added), 8:7–10 (emphases added). Indeed, as
`discussed above in the same subsection, Iwabe describes an embodiment
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`(i.e., the third embodiment) where “the color difference signals are corrected
`together with the luminance signal so that the chroma and lightness of each
`color are maintained at satisfactory levels.” Id. at 8:10–14 (emphases
`added). Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Stevenson addresses this disclosure in
`Iwabe or explains adequately how, unlike Iwabe, increasing the luminance
`values of a video signal in Kitazawa would not affect the hue or the
`saturation of the video signal without additional processing.
`Petitioner further asserts that the combination of Kitazawa and Iwabe
`teaches “correct[ing] luminance of the video signal without correcting hue
`and saturation of the video signal,” as recited in claim 1, because Iwabe
`“discloses operating on the video signal in the luminance signal form only,
`rather than in the RGB form.” Pet. 61. In the proposed combination of
`Kitazawa and Iwabe, Petitioner relies on the first embodiment of Iwabe, as
`described in Figures 3 and 4 of Iwabe. Id. at 61–62 (citing Ex. 1005, Figs. 3,
`4).
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on the first embodiment of Iwabe, however, does
`not remedy the deficiency in Petitioner’s analysis of Kitazawa because
`Iwabe’s first embodiment changes at least the hue of the video signal. As
`discussed above, Iwabe describes that the change in the luminance signal in
`Iwabe’s first embodiment causes such “unwanted phenomena” as “the
`whitening of hues.” Ex. 1005, 2:59–61 (emphasis added), 8:7–10 (emphasis
`added). The third embodiment of Iwabe discloses additional color
`difference signal correcting circuits and variable gain amplifiers to correct
`the color difference signals together with the luminance signal to
`“suppress[]” the unwanted changes in hues that “would otherwise occur
`upon increase of the amplitude of the luminance signal” in Iwabe’s first
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`embodiment. Id. at 8:4–42, Figs. 12, 13. As discussed above, in the third
`embodiment, upon detecting an amplification of the luminance signal Y,
`Iwabe controls variable amplifiers to also amplify the color difference
`signals “in synchronism with . . . nonlinear amplification shown in FIG. 4
`[of the first embodiment].” Id. at 8:35–42, Fig. 13.
`In its proposed combination of Kitazawa and Iwabe, Petitioner does
`not mention or rely on the third embodiment of Iwabe. Nor does Petitioner
`explain adequately how the increase in the luminance values described in
`Kitazawa or in the first embodiment of Iwabe would not change the hue or
`saturation without the additional circuits and processing similar to those
`described in the third embodiment of Iwabe.
`Addressing the rationale to combine the references, Patent Owner
`asserts that Kitazawa and Iwabe cannot be combined in the manner
`Petitioner proposes. Prelim. Resp. 18. Patent Owner argues that Kitazawa
`corrects the luminance of a video signal by a “stretch” procedure in which
`the maximum luminance is increased and the minimum luminance is
`decreased (id. (citing Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 89–90)), whereas the first
`embodiment of Iwabe relied upon by Petitioner fixes the luminance values
`of the maximum and minimum luminance pixels and decreases the
`difference between the luminance values of the pixels in between these
`values (id. at 18–19 (citing Pet. 39; Ex. 1005, 2:3–15)). Patent Owner
`asserts that the reasons for combining Kitazawa and Iwabe articulated by
`Petitioner are insufficient because they do not account for the significant
`differences in the teachings of Kitazawa and Iwabe. Id. at 19–20.
`We agree with Patent Owner’s argument. Neither Petitioner nor
`Dr. Stevenson explains in sufficient detail how Petitioner proposes to
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`combine the specific teachings of Kitazawa and Iwabe—that is, how to
`combine Kitazawa’s approach of increasing the maximum luminance and
`decreasing the minimum luminance with Iwabe’s method of keeping the
`maximum luminance and the minimum luminance values the same and
`increasing the intermediate luminance levels between the minimum and the
`maximum luminance levels—and how the proposed combination is
`supposed to work. See Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d
`987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[A] clear, evidence-supported account of the
`contemplated workings of the combination is a prerequisite to adequately
`explaining and supporting a conclusion that a relevant skilled artisan would
`have been motivated to make the combination and reasonably expect success
`in doing so.”) (emphases added).
`Therefore, Petitioner does not show sufficiently the combination of
`Kitazawa and Iwabe teaches or suggests “the controller corrects luminance
`of the video signal without correcting hue and saturation of the video
`signal,” as recited in claim 1.
`For the reasons discussed above, based on the record presented,
`Petitioner does not demonstrate sufficiently that the proposed combination
`of Kitazawa and Iwabe teaches or suggests all limitations of claim 1.
`Accordingly, on this record, we conclude that the information presented in
`the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner
`prevailing in its challenge to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`over the combination of Kitazawa and Iwabe.
`
`5. Claim 2
`Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein the
`corrector executes correction in such a fashion as to increase an illumination
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`tone on black side of the video signal.” Petitioner contends claim 2 is
`unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined
`teachings of Kitazawa and Iwabe. Pet. 70–72.
`Petitioner’s arguments and evidence presented with respect to claim 2
`only address the additionally recited limitation of claim 2, and, therefore, do
`not remedy the deficiencies in Petitioner’s analysis of claim 1 discussed
`above. See id. Therefore, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to dependent claim 2 under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Kitazawa and Iwabe.
`
`C. Obviousness Over the Combination of Yagi and Shiota or the
`Combination of Yagi, Shiota, and Iwabe
`Petitioner contends that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Yagi and Shiota.
`Pet. 75–86. Petitioner further asserts that claim 2 would have been obvious
`over the combination of Yagi, Shiota, and Iwabe. Id. at 87–90. For the
`reasons explained below, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on these asserted grounds
`as to either of these challenged claims.
`
`1. Overview of Yagi (Ex. 1006)
`Yagi describes a television receiver that corrects the contrast of the
`displayed image based on the image signal luminance level and the ambient
`brightness level detected by a brightness detection sensor. Ex. 1006 ¶ 17,
`Abstract.
`
`22
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`
`2. Claim 1 as Obvious over the Combination of Yagi and Shiota
`Petitioner contends that Yagi discloses “the controller corrects
`luminance of the video signal without correcting hue and saturation of the
`video signal,” as recited in claim 1, because Yagi discloses correcting the
`contrast of the video signals. Pet. 82 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 16). Petitioner
`asserts that “correcting the contrast of the video signals means correcting the
`luminance of the video signals without correcting hue or saturation.” Id.
`(citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 200); see also id. at 76 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶ 183) (making
`the same assertion). Petitioner argues this is the case because “contrast is
`increased if darker pixels are made even darker and brighter pixels are made
`even brighter,” and, therefore, when contrast is increased, the “difference in
`luminance” between the pixels is made greater. Id. at 76 (citing Ex. 1015
`¶ 183).
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence because,
`for reasons similar to those discussed above with respect to the ground of
`obviousness based on Kitazawa and Iwabe, the mere fact that the luminance
`of the video signal is increased, without more, does not necessarily show
`that the luminance of the video signal is changed “without correcting hue
`and saturation of the video signal,” as recited in claim 1.
`For example, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Stevenson addresses the
`formulas for hue and saturation set forth in the Specification of the ’901
`patent (see Ex. 1001, 5:54–59) or explains adequately how the purported
`increase in the luminance values due to an increase in contrast in a video
`signal would not affect the hue and saturation of the video signal based on
`an analytic determination of the hue and saturation values. If anything, the
`mathematical relationships described in the formulas discussed above appear
`
`23
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00246
`Patent 7,671,901 B2
`
`to indicate that a change in luminance may affect the hue and the saturation
`v