Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 37
`Date: January 15, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2018-01250
`Patent 8,447,132 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
`AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01250
`Patent 8,447,132 B1
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`In this inter partes review, Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) challenges the
`patentability of claims 1, 5–8, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,447,132 B1 (“the
`’132 patent,” Ex. 1001), which is assigned to Qualcomm Incorporated
`(“Patent Owner”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision, issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), addresses issues and
`arguments raised during the trial in this inter partes review. For the reasons
`discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has proven by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 5–8, and 13 of the ’132 patent
`are unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (“In an inter partes review
`instituted under this chapter, the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a
`proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.”).
`A. Procedural History
`On June 26, 2018, Petitioner requested inter partes review of claims
`1, 5–8, and 13 of the ’132 patent on the following grounds:
`Claim(s) Challenged
`35 U.S.C. §1
`Reference(s)
`1, 5–7
`102(b)
`Needham2
`1, 5–7
`103(a)
`Needham, Nonaka3
`8
`103(a)
`Needham, Dvir4
`8
`103(a)
`Needham, Nonaka, Dvir
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 that became effective after the filing of the
`application for the ’132 patent. Therefore, we apply the pre-AIA versions of
`these sections.
`2 US 2002/0181801 A1, published Dec. 5, 2002 (Ex. 1004).
`3 US 2008/0007634 A1, published Jan. 10, 2008 (Ex. 1005).
`4 US 2008/0291287 A1, published Nov. 27, 2008 (Ex. 1007).
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01250
`Patent 8,447,132 B1
`Claim(s) Challenged
`13
`13
`
`35 U.S.C. §1
`103(a)
`103(a)
`
`Reference(s)
`Needham, Gallagher5
`Needham, Nonaka, Gallagher
`
`Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response. We
`instituted trial on all grounds of unpatentability. Paper 6 (“Dec. on Inst.”), 9.
`In IPR2018-01251, Petitioner separately challenges claims 1, 5–8, 11,
`and 14 of the ’132 patent.
`During the trial, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 23, “PO
`Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 25, “Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner
`filed a Sur-reply (Paper 30, “PO Sur-reply”).
`A combined oral hearing for this inter partes review and for
`IPR2018-01251 was held on October 10, 2019, a transcript of which appears
`in the record. Paper 36 (“Tr.”).
`B. The ’132 Patent and Illustrative Claim
`The ’132 patent generally relates to techniques for improving images.
`Ex. 1001, 1:19–39, 2:7–17. One example given in the ’132 patent is directed
`to improving the visibility of a face in an image. Ex. 1001, 2:7–17. The
`’132 patent explains that, when a digital picture is taken of a person in a dark
`part of a room with a bright window in the background, “the image sensor
`may not be able to acquire both the details of the bright view coming
`through the window and the details of the person’s face.” Ex. 1001, 1:28–
`33. According to the ’132 patent, conventional methods for improving the
`image, such as adjusting the exposure time or using dynamic range
`compression/enhancement methods, “still tend to produce images that lack
`
`
`5 US 6,891,977 B2, issued May 10, 2005 (Ex. 1006).
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01250
`Patent 8,447,132 B1
`details which are important to the end user.” Ex. 1001, 1:35–39. To address
`this purported problem, the ’132 patent discloses the following:
`[T]he technique introduced here includes a method and apparatus
`for dynamic range correction based on image content. Known
`prior techniques of dynamic range correction do not take into
`consideration or use the content of an image, at least to the extent
`such content has semantic significance (meaning) to a human
`viewer. For example, such methods do not consider or apply the
`principle that showing the details of certain types of objects
`depicted in an image often should have higher priority than the
`rest of the image. As a more specific example, in many instances
`showing the details of a person’s face in the foreground of an
`image should be given higher priority than showing the details
`of a view in the background of the image. The technique
`introduced here considers and applies
`this principle
`in
`performing dynamic range correction.
`Ex. 1001, 2:36–50.
`Of the challenged claims, claim 1 is the only independent claim and is
`reproduced below.
`1.
`A method comprising:
`determining whether a first portion of digital image data
`represents a physical object of a predetermined type;
`determining a correction to apply to the first portion of the
`digital image data, based on a determination that the first portion
`of the digital image data represents a physical object of the
`predetermined type, wherein the determined correction is
`matched to the predetermined type;
`applying the determined correction to the first portion of
`the digital image data to enhance a visual characteristic of the
`first portion of the digital image data, by applying a first amount
`of the correction to the first portion of the digital image data; and
`applying a second amount of the correction to a second
`portion of the digital image data, wherein the first amount differs
`from the second amount, and wherein the first amount
`corresponds to a physical object of the predetermined type.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01250
`Patent 8,447,132 B1
`Ex. 1001, 11:30–47.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Alan Bovik, 6 offers the following
`assessment as to the level of ordinary skill in the art:
`A person of ordinary skill in the art as of the Critical Date7
`(a “POSITA”) would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in
`computer science or a similar technical field together with 3-5
`years of educational practicum or work experience in the field of
`computer vision and/or image processing.
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 7. Citing the testimony of its declarant, Dr. John Villasenor,
`Patent Owner argues that the level of ordinary skill in the art would have
`been that of a person with “a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical
`engineering, computer science, or a related discipline, and 2-3 years of
`experience in image processing.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 30–32).
`Patent Owner also argues that, “[a]lthough this definition differs from that
`proposed by petitioner, the difference would not change the actions of this
`proceeding.” PO Resp. 9.
`
`6 Petitioner submitted the declaration of Dr. Larry Davis with its Petition,
`but, due to Dr. Davis’s unavailability for deposition, Petitioner sought to
`enter a substitute declaration in the record. We held a call with the parties to
`discuss the issue. On the call, the parties agreed to a general framework for
`dealing with the situation. Paper 11. After the call, the parties met and
`conferred and emailed us with their proposed solution to allow Petitioner to
`serve and file a substitute declaration (Ex. 3001), and we authorized the
`parties to proceed as agreed (Paper 11). Petitioner filed Dr. Bovik’s
`declaration as Exhibit 1003 and moved unopposed to expunge Dr. Davis’s
`declaration. Paper 13. We granted Petitioner’s unopposed motion and
`expunged Dr. Davis’s declaration. Paper 20.
`7 Dr. Bovik identifies the Critical Date as December 9, 2009, the date of
`filing of US Provisional Application 61/285,063, to which the ’132 patent
`purports to claim priority. Ex. 1003 ¶ 6.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01250
`Patent 8,447,132 B1
`Neither party explains in detail why its proposed level of ordinary
`skill in the art should be adopted. Although there are slight differences
`between the proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art, the parties’
`declarants agree that a person with a Bachelor of Science degree in a field
`such as computer science and professional experience in image processing
`would qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 1003 ¶ 7; Ex. 2001
`¶ 30. Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of the
`parties’ declarants, the subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we
`determine that the skill level of a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have been that of a person having a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical
`engineering, computer science, or a related discipline, and three years of
`experience in image processing. We apply this level of ordinary skill in the
`art in our analysis.
`
`B. Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review for a petition filed before November 13,
`2018, a claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018); see Changes to the Claim Construction
`Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (amending
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018). The Petition was
`accorded a filing date of June 18, 2018, and, therefore, the broadest
`reasonable interpretation standard for claim interpretation applies. See
`Paper 5 (Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition).
`In applying a broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms generally
`are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01250
`Patent 8,447,132 B1
`re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This
`presumption may be rebutted when a patentee, acting as a lexicographer, sets
`forth an alternate definition of a term in the specification with reasonable
`clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
`(Fed. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, only terms that are in controversy need to be
`construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013,
`1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`1. Physical Object of a Predetermined Type
`Petitioner proposes a construction for “physical object of a
`predetermined type.” Pet. 3–4. There is no dispute between the parties that
`the art teaches “determining whether a first portion of digital image data
`represents a physical object of a predetermined type,” and, therefore, we
`agree with Patent Owner that this term does not require express construction.
`See PO Resp. 7–8.
`
`2. Gain
`Patent Owner argues that “gain” is “an attribute that relates to
`brightening or darkening a region of an image.” PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001
`¶ 107). Petitioner does not dispute that Patent Owner’s construction is
`within the broadest reasonable interpretation of gain but instead argues that
`“gain” is not limited to brightening or darkening. Pet. Reply 1–3. Because,
`as explained below, the asserted prior art teaches “gain” under Patent
`Owner’s construction, we need not determine the full scope of the term
`“gain” to resolve the dispute before us. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.
`Rather, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed construction in our analysis
`below.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01250
`Patent 8,447,132 B1
`
`3. Gain Map
`Patent Owner argues that “gain map” is “a representation of a
`plurality of gain values corresponding to different locations of an image.”
`PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 107). Petitioner does not dispute that Patent
`Owner’s construction is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of
`“gain map”; rather, Petitioner’s dispute as to this term centers on the
`broadest reasonable interpretation of “gain,” discussed above. Pet. Reply 1–
`3. Because, as explained below, the asserted prior art teaches “gain map”
`under Patent Owner’s construction, we need not determine the full scope of
`the term “gain map” to resolve the dispute before us. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at
`1017. Rather, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed construction in our
`analysis below.
`
`4. Matched
`Claim 1 recites “determining a correction to apply to the first portion
`of the digital image data, based on a determination that the first portion of
`the digital image data represents a physical object of the predetermined type,
`wherein the determined correction is matched to the predetermined type.”
`Patent Owner argues that “in the context of the claims and specification of
`the ‘132 Patent,” the term “matched” “mean[s] that a correction is
`‘predetermined or assigned to’ an object type.” PO Sur-reply 4. Patent
`Owner argues, therefore, “that the correction must be predetermined or
`assigned to a particular object type, and that ‘matched’ requires more than
`mere happenstance application of a correction to a particular object type
`(e.g., when a correction is applied to an entire image regardless of the
`presence/absence of the object type).” PO Sur-reply 5.
`Patent Owner’s argument suffers the very defect that Patent Owner
`alleges in Petitioner’s contentions, namely that it “effectively eliminate[s]
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01250
`Patent 8,447,132 B1
`the plain meaning of the claim structure and language.” See PO Sur-reply 5.
`In particular, Patent Owner’s argument that “matched” means that a
`correction is “predetermined or assigned to” a particular object renders
`meaningless the recited step of “determining a correction to apply” based on
`determining that the object was detected. If the correction has already been
`determined—“predetermined”—why does it need to be determined again?
`Thus, we question Patent Owner’s proposed construction.
`Although the term “matched” does not appear in the written
`description of the ’132 patent, Patent Owner cites various disclosures in the
`’132 patent that it contends describe the matching required in claim 1. PO
`Sur-reply 4–7. Patent Owner argues the following:
`As a further example of matching, the ‘132 Patent
`describes that “a single gain lookup table contains one or more
`values to be used for specified image content (e.g., faces) and
`separate values to be used for other image content, and the DRC
`[(dynamic range correction)] unit selects the appropriate value
`for a given input pixel from the lookup table according to
`whether that pixel is part of a specified type of object” and that,
`in another embodiment, “a particular gain lookup table is
`provided for specific image content (e.g., faces) and a separate
`gain look up table is provided for all other content.” APPLE-
`1001, 3:12-27. A set of gain values or specific gain table for
`specific image content, such as a set of gain values or specific
`gain table applied to all faces, is a correction that is applied to
`faces because they are faces, i.e., a correction that is matched to
`faces. See EX2001, ¶51.
`Thus, the ‘132 Patent describes a process in which a set of
`gain values are in a gain lookup table are predetermined or
`assigned to a predetermined object type. See APPLE-1001, 3:12-
`22; EX2001, ¶51.
`PO Sur-reply 6.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01250
`Patent 8,447,132 B1
`Patent Owner’s discussion here is helpful in understanding the claim
`in light of the description in the Specification of the ’132 patent. As Patent
`Owner acknowledges in the passage quoted above, the Specification of the
`’132 patent describes that dynamic range correction is applied to the whole
`image but that the gains applied in that correction operation depend on
`objects identified in the image. The ’132 patent states that “the DRC unit
`selects the appropriate value for a given input pixel from the lookup table
`according to whether that pixel is part of a specified type of object” and that
`“the DRC unit uses a weighting factor (effectively, another game) to modify
`the gain obtained/calculated from the lookup table, according to whether the
`input pixel is part of a specified type of object.” Ex. 1001, 3:12–22. Other
`passages of the ’132 patent cited by Patent Owner (see PO Sur-reply 5) also
`confirm that dynamic range correction is applied but the amount of the
`correction depends on the object detected. Ex. 1001, 5:52–60 (describing
`Figure 7 as illustrating “an example of the effects of dynamic range
`correction, such as may be done by using the gain lookup table 207”), 5:65–
`67 (describing how DRC unit 117 uses a lookup table having gain values
`pertaining to pixels that are part of a detected object, such as a face, and
`pixels that are not part of that object).
`For the reasons explained above, we question whether Patent Owner’s
`proposed construction of “matched” as “predetermined or assigned to” is
`appropriate given that it appears to vitiate the step of “determining a
`correction to apply,” but we agree with Patent Owner’s characterization of
`the claimed invention as encompassing one in which a particular correction
`operation, such as dynamic range correction, is applied but the actual
`correction that occurs depends on the detection of “a physical object of a
`predetermined type” and the correction values associated with (“matched
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01250
`Patent 8,447,132 B1
`to”) that predetermined type. Indeed, this is what the ’132 patent describes
`as its contribution to the field. Ex. 1001, 2:36–41 (“[T]he technique
`introduced here includes a method and apparatus for dynamic range
`correction based on image content. Known prior techniques of dynamic
`range correction do not take into consideration or use the content of an
`image, at least to the extent such content has semantic significance
`(meaning) to a human viewer.”); see In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375,
`1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that the broadest reasonable interpretation “is
`an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes
`his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is consistent with
`the specification”) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
`We apply this understanding of the claims in our analysis of the
`teachings of the prior art below.
`C. Principles of Law
`To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged
`as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net
`MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`Although the elements must be arranged or combined in the same way as in
`the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e.,
`identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334
`(Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832–33 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
`A patent 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 said
`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
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01250
`Patent 8,447,132 B1
`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 of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) any secondary
`considerations, if in evidence. 8 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–
`18 (1966).
`
`D. Anticipation by Needham
`(Claims 1 and 5–7)
`Petitioner contends claims 1 and 5–7 of the ’132 patent are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Needham. Pet. 2,
`6–7, 10–16, 18, 20–22.
`
`1. Needham
`Needham is directed to image correction and enhancement and, like
`the ’132 patent, describes detecting objects, such as human faces in an
`image, and performing certain correction operations based on detecting the
`presence of the object in the image. Ex. 1004, code (57), ¶ 17.
`2. Claim 1
`a) First “determining” step
`Independent method claim 1 is reproduced above and recites
`“determining whether a first portion of digital image data represents a
`physical object of a predetermined type.” Petitioner contends Needham’s
`disclosure of detecting types of image features in an image, such as a human
`face, describes this limitation. Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 1, 17, 26, 28–30,
`Figs. 2–5). We agree, and we find Needham describes this subject matter
`because it discloses that “automated feature detection unit 250 detects, from
`the input image 110, the types of image features that are specified by the
`
`8 Patent Owner does not present any objective evidence of nonobviousness
`(i.e., secondary considerations) as to any of the challenged claims.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01250
`Patent 8,447,132 B1
`feature types 220” and also discloses that “a specified image feature may
`correspond to a human face, a building, an animal, etc.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 17, 26;
`see also Ex. 1001, 2:33–35 (“Techniques for detecting faces and other
`arbitrary objects and patterns in an image are known in the art and are
`therefore not described in detail herein.”).
`b) Second “determining” step and the “applying” steps
`The remaining limitations of claim 1 are as follows:
`determining a correction to apply to the first portion of the
`digital image data, based on a determination that the first portion
`of the digital image data represents a physical object of the
`predetermined type, wherein the determined correction is
`matched to the predetermined type.
`applying the determined correction to the first portion of
`the digital image data to enhance a visual characteristic of the
`first portion of the digital image data, by applying a first amount
`of the correction to the first portion of the digital image data; and
`applying a second amount of the correction to a second
`portion of the digital image data, wherein the first amount differs
`from the second amount, and wherein the first amount
`corresponds to a physical object of the predetermined type.
`As discussed above in the section addressing claim construction, we agree
`with Patent Owner’s characterization of the claimed invention as
`encompassing one in which a particular correction operation, such as
`dynamic range correction, is applied but the actual correction that occurs
`depends on the detection of “a physical object of a predetermined type” and
`the correction values associated with (“matched to”) that predetermined
`type.
`Petitioner contends Needham discloses that “feature-based image
`correction is performed based on configuration parameters that include
`feature type(s), feature weight(s), and correction parameter(s).” Pet. 12
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01250
`Patent 8,447,132 B1
`(citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 22, Fig. 2). According to Petitioner, “[a] correction
`parameter defines the correction operation (e.g., maximize the intensity
`dynamic range (i.e., enhance the contrast)) and the operational parameter
`(e.g., specified dynamic range) used during the correction operation.”
`Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 19–20, 24, 31–32, Fig. 7).
`Needham discloses the following:
`Different image features may also be considered with
`different importance. For example, human faces may be
`considered as more important than buildings in the input image
`110. To accomplish this for example, weights may be assigned
`to different image features to specify their relative importance.
`Such weights may be used to control the correction parameter(s)
`during the correction. For instance, if the correction operation of
`maximizing intensity dynamic range is applied to both human
`faces and buildings and a human face feature has a higher weight
`than a building feature, the intensity dynamic range used for
`correcting human faces
`in an
`image may be
`larger
`(corresponding to higher contrast) than that used for correcting
`buildings in an image. In this way, the human faces may be
`corrected so that they become more visible than buildings.
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 22. Thus, according to Petitioner,
`Needham discloses applying a weight assigned to human face
`features (i.e., a first amount of the correction corresponding to
`the physical object of the predetermined type) when correcting
`the dynamic range of a human face, and applying a lower weight
`assigned to building features (i.e., a second, different amount of
`the correction) when correcting the dynamic range of buildings.
`Pet. 16.
`Patent Owner argues that Needham’s disclosure in paragraph 22 does
`not describe the claimed subject matter. PO Resp. 11–23. For example,
`Patent Owner argues that “Needham describes in paragraph 22 a goal for the
`dynamic range correction, but does not disclose in this example the actual
`corrections being applied to the face and the building to obtain the indicated
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01250
`Patent 8,447,132 B1
`visibility.” PO Resp. 13. We disagree. Needham discloses a larger
`dynamic range correction for a face than for a building if the face has a
`higher weight (“considered as more important”) than a building, such that
`“the human faces may be corrected so that they become more visible than
`buildings.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 22. In a passage cited by Patent Owner in support of
`its claim interpretation, the ’132 patent states that “the DRC [(dynamic range
`correction)] unit uses a weighting factor . . . to modify the gain
`obtained/calculated from the lookup table, according to whether the input
`pixel is part of a specified type of object.” Ex. 1001, 3:19–22, cited in PO
`Sur-reply 4–7. Needham and the ’132 patent, therefore, both describe
`determining a dynamic range correction based on identifying a face in the
`image and finding associated weights to apply in the correction operation.
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 22; Ex. 1001, 3:12–27. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s statement
`that “weights themselves are not corrections” (PO Resp. 19) is correct
`insofar as the correction is dynamic range correction performed according to
`the weights in Needham. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 22. But this disclosure of
`Needham is precisely what the ’132 patent discloses in performing dynamic
`range correction based on gain and weight values pertaining to particular
`objects, and, as discussed extensively above, this is the subject matter that
`Patent Owner contends claim 1 encompasses. See Ex. 1001, 3:12–27; see
`also PO Sur-reply 4–6. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s arguments support the
`finding that Needham describes the subject matter of claim 1 of the ’132
`patent.
`Patent Owner argues that “Needham does not describe the cause-
`effect relationship that a determined type of physical object results in the
`particular correction that is applied to the objects of that type in the image”
`and that, “[t]o be ‘matched,’ a particular correction must be applied to a
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01250
`Patent 8,447,132 B1
`particular physical object because it is that particular type.” PO Resp. 15
`(citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 51). Paragraph 22 of Needham, however, expressly
`discloses applying dynamic range correction to human faces differently from
`buildings because “human faces may be considered as more important than
`buildings.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 22.
`Patent Owner also argues the following in reference to Needham:
`“That correction parameters are specified for each feature is insufficient to
`demonstrate that the correction parameters are ‘matched’ to a particular
`object type.” PO Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 51). Yet, in characterizing the
`’132 patent, Patent Owner argues the following: “A set of gain values or
`specific gain table for specific image content, such as a set of gain values or
`specific gain table applied to all faces, is a correction that is applied to faces
`because they are faces, i.e., a correction that is matched to faces.” PO Sur-
`reply 6 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 51). We fail to see a distinction between these
`two disclosures. Needham discloses that automated feature-based image
`correction mechanism 120 identifies “the set of specified image features”
`and that “a specified image feature may correspond to a human face, a
`building, an animal, etc.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 17. And, as Patent Owner
`acknowledges in the quote above (PO Resp. 15), Needham specifies
`correction parameters for each feature. See also Ex. 1004 ¶ 35 (“For each
`detected image feature, the corresponding correction parameters are
`retrieved 860.”). Thus, Needham’s disclosure of specifying correction
`parameters for feature types falls squarely within Patent Owner’s
`explanation of how the ’132 patent describes matching.
`Patent Owner also cites testimony from Petitioner’s declarant,
`Dr. Bovik, stating that, in paragraph 22 of Needham, dynamic range
`correction would occur even in the absence of a face, and Patent Owner
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01250
`Patent 8,447,132 B1
`argues that, “[i]f Needham’s correction happens even in the absence of an
`object, then that correction is not matched to the object.” PO Resp. 15–16
`(citing Ex. 2004, 112:3–16, 112:18–20). Patent Owner’s argument,
`however, ignores Needham’s express disclosure, which describes an input
`image having a face. To the extent Patent Owner’s argument is that prior art
`cannot describe the claimed subject matter unless it expressly prohibits
`putting all image data through the same correction regardless of whether a
`physical object of a predetermined type is found, this argument is directly
`contrary to the disclosure in the ’132 patent. As shown in Figure 1 of the
`’132 patent, all image data go through dynamic range correction (DRC) unit
`117, and, in describing the operation of DRC unit 117, the ’132 patent states
`that “a particular gain lookup table is provided for specific image content
`(e.g., faces) and a separate gain look up table is provided for all other image
`content.” Ex. 1001, 3:24–27, Figure 1. Patent Owner cites this disclosure
`four times in explaining how claim 1 should be interpreted. PO Sur-reply 4–
`6 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:12–27). Thus, the ’132 patent describes performing
`dynamic range correction on an image but using different values depending
`on what objects are detected. See PO Sur-reply 6 (in describing ’132
`patent’s DRC operation, Patent Owner stating that “[a] set of gain values or
`specific gain table for specific image content, such as a set of gain values or
`specific gain table applied to all faces, is a correction that is applied to faces
`because they are faces, i.e., a correction that is matched to faces”).
`Furthermore, claim 1 is not directed to processing that happens if a physical
`object of a predetermined type is not found in the image. Rather, claim 1 is
`directed to a method in which “a first portion of digital image data represents
`a physical object of a predetermined type,” and paragraph 22 of Needham
`discloses human faces and buildings in an image.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01250
`Patent 8,447,132 B1
`For the reasons discussed above, we find Needham’s disclosure of
`applying a larger intensity dynamic range to a face than a building where a
`face is considered more important than a building describes determining a
`correction to apply “wherein the determined correction is matched to the
`predetermined type” because the larger intensity dynamic range is applied
`because the face is detected and has a higher importance than the building.
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 22. Thus, we find Needham’s disclosure of applying different
`amounts of correction to a face and a building in an image describes the
`second “determining” step and the “applying” steps of claim 1.
`Patent Owner also argues that Needham’s paragraph 32 demonstrates
`a lack of the claimed matching. PO Resp. 12. Needham discloses the
`following:
`
`For each defined correction operation, one or more
`operational parameters 720 may be specified. For example, to
`perform the correction operation of enhancing the brightness 730
`of an image feature, an intensity upper bound 750 may be
`specified as an operational parameter so that the brightest
`intensity in the corrected image feature will not exceed the
`defined upper bound. Such upper