IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Fatih M. Ozluturk
`In re Patent of:
`U.S. Patent No.: 9,392,175
`Issue Date:
`July 12, 2016
`Appl. Serial No.: 14/679,551
`Filing Date:
`April 6, 2015
`Title:
`METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR USING MOTON
`INFORMATION AND IMAGE DATA TO CORRECT
`BLURRED IMAGES
`
`Attorney Docket No.: 39843-0082IP1
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF UNITED STATES PATENT
`NO. 9,392,175 PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319, 37 C.F.R. § 42
`
`
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B. 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR ........................................................................ 1 
`A.  Grounds for Standing .......................................................................... 1 
`B. 
`Challenge and Relief Requested ......................................................... 1 
`THE ’175 PATENT ....................................................................................... 3 
`A. 
`Brief Description ................................................................................. 3 
`B. 
`The Prosecution History ...................................................................... 4 
`C. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 4 
`D. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 5 
`1. 
`“a processor configured to” (claims 15 and 23) ....................... 5 
`2. 
`“designating . . . a main subject” (claims 1, 8,
`15, and 23) ................................................................................. 7 
`III.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 8 
`A. 
`[GROUND 1A] – Claims 1, 4-7, 15, 17, and 19-22 are
`rendered obvious by Mann and Noriyuki ............................................ 8 
`1. 
`Overview of Mann .................................................................... 8 
`2. 
`Overview of Noriyuki ............................................................... 8 
`3. 
`The combination of Mann and Noriyuki ................................ 12 
`4. 
`Reasons to combine Mann and Noriyuki ................................ 12 
`5. 
`Analysis ................................................................................... 14 
`[GROUND 1B] – Claim 3 is rendered obvious by Mann,
`Noriyuki, and Suh .............................................................................. 31 
`1. 
`Overview of Suh ..................................................................... 31 
`2. 
`The combination of Mann, Noriyuki, and Suh ....................... 34 
`3. 
`Reasons to combine Mann, Noriyuki, and Suh ...................... 35 
`4. 
`Analysis ................................................................................... 36 
`[GROUND 1C] – Claims 2 and 16 are rendered obvious by
`Mann and Noriyuki in view of Nonaka ............................................. 39 
`1. 
`Overview of Nonaka ............................................................... 39 
`
`C. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`The combination of Mann, Noriyuki, and
`Nonaka .................................................................................... 39 
`Reasons to combine Mann, Noriyuki, and
`Nonaka .................................................................................... 39 
`Analysis ................................................................................... 40 
`4. 
`[GROUND 1D] – Claim 18 is rendered obvious by Mann,
`Noriyuki, and Hyodo ......................................................................... 41 
`1. 
`Overview of Hyodo ................................................................. 41 
`2. 
`The combination of Mann, Noriyuki, and Hyodo .................. 41 
`3. 
`Reasons to combine Mann, Noriyuki, and
`Hyodo ...................................................................................... 41 
`Analysis ................................................................................... 42 
`4. 
`[GROUND 1E] – Claims 8-14, 23-25, and 27-30 are
`rendered obvious by Mann and Suh .................................................. 44 
`1. 
`Overview of Suh ..................................................................... 44 
`2. 
`The combination of Mann and Suh ......................................... 47 
`3. 
`Reasons to combine Mann and Suh ........................................ 48 
`4. 
`Analysis ................................................................................... 50 
`[GROUND 1F] – Claim 26 is rendered obvious by Mann,
`Suh and Hyodo .................................................................................. 59 
`1. 
`The combination of Mann, Suh, and Hyodo ........................... 59 
`2. 
`Reasons to combine Mann, Suh, and Hyodo .......................... 59 
`3. 
`Analysis ................................................................................... 60 
`[GROUND 2A] – Claims 1, 4-7, 15, 17, and 19-22 are
`rendered obvious by Mann, Noriyuki, and Manabe .......................... 62 
`1. 
`Overview of Manabe ............................................................... 62 
`2. 
`The combination of Mann, Noriyuki, and
`Manabe .................................................................................... 64 
`Reasons to combine Mann, Noriyuki, and
`Manabe .................................................................................... 64 
`Analysis ................................................................................... 66 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`H. 
`
`I. 
`
`J. 
`
`K. 
`
`L. 
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`[GROUND 2B] – Claim 3 is rendered obvious by Mann,
`Noriyuki, Manabe, and Suh ............................................................... 70 
`[GROUND 2C] – Claims 2 and 16 are rendered obvious by
`Mann, Noriyuki, Manabe, and Nonaka ............................................. 70 
`[GROUND 2D] – Claim 18 is rendered obvious by Mann,
`Noriyuki, Manabe, and Hyodo .......................................................... 70 
`[GROUND 2E] – Claims 8-14, 23-25, and 27-30 are
`rendered obvious by Mann, Manabe, and Suh .................................. 71 
`1. 
`The combination of Mann, Manabe, and Suh ......................... 71 
`2. 
`Reasons to combine Mann, Manabe, and Suh ........................ 72 
`3. 
`Analysis ................................................................................... 73 
`[GROUND 2F] – Claim 26 is rendered obvious by Mann,
`Manabe, Suh, and Hyodo .................................................................. 75 
`IV.  PTAB DISCRETION SHOULD NOT PRECLUDE
`INSTITUTION ............................................................................................ 76 
`A. 
`Factor 1: Institution Will Enable Stay ............................................... 76 
`B. 
`Factor 2: District Court Schedule ...................................................... 76 
`C. 
`Factor 3: Samsung’s Investment in IPR Outweighs Forced
`Investment in Litigation to Date........................................................ 77 
`Factor 4: The Petition Raises Unique Issues ..................................... 78 
`Factor 5: The Petition Enables Invalidity of Claims that
`Might be Reasserted .......................................................................... 79 
`Factor 6: Other Circumstances Support Institution ........................... 79 
`F. 
`PAYMENT OF FEES ................................................................................. 80 
`V. 
`VI.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 80 
`VII.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.8(a)(1) ....................... 80 
`A. 
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ........................ 80 
`B. 
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................. 80 
`C. 
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ............. 80 
`A. 
`Service Information ........................................................................... 81 
`
`
`D. 
`E. 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`SAMSUNG-1001
`SAMSUNG-1002
`
`SAMSUNG-1003
`SAMSUNG-1004
`SAMSUNG-1005
`SAMSUNG-1006
`
`SAMSUNG-1007
`
`SAMSUNG-1008
`SAMSUNG-1009
`SAMSUNG-1010
`SAMSUNG-1011
`SAMSUNG-1012 to
`SAMSUNG-1016
`SAMSUNG-1017
`
`SAMSUNG-1018
`
`SAMSUNG-1019
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175 to Ozluturk (“the ’175 patent”)
`Excerpts from the Prosecution History of the ’175 Patent
`(“the Prosecution History”)
`Declaration of Dr. Hany Farid
`Reserved
`U.S. Patent No. 5,828,793 to Mann (“Mann”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0156216 to Nonaka
`(“Nonaka”)
`Certified Translation of Japanese Patent Publication No.
`2002057933 (“Noriyuki”)
`Reserved
`U.S. Patent No. 6,977,687 to Suh (“Suh”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,034,881 to Hyodo (“Hyodo”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0018927 (“Manabe”)
`Reserved
`
`Joseph Guzman, “Fauci says second wave of coronavirus
`is ‘inevitable’”, TheHill.com (Apr. 29, 2020), available
`at: https://thehill.com/changing-
`america/resilience/natural-disasters/495211-fauci-says-
`second-wave-of-coronavirus-is
`Peter Wells, et al. “Texas puts reopening on hold in face
`of new Covid-19 outbreak”, Financial Times (June 25,
`2020), available at https://www.ft.com/content/e35f3148-
`a797-4e6e-bf7a-1a7ce3181e97
`Order Granting Joint Motion to Amend the Docket
`Control Order and Time for Claim Construction Expert
`
`iv
`
`

`

`SAMSUNG-1020
`SAMSUNG-1021
`SAMSUNG-1022
`SAMSUNG-1023
`SAMSUNG-1024
`
`SAMSUNG-1025
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`Disclosures (Clear Imaging Research, LLC v. Samsung
`Electronics Co. Ltd., 2:19-cv-326-JRG (E.D. Tex. June
`12, 2020))
`Email to Clear Imaging counsel dated February 10, 2020
`Email from Clear Imaging counsel dated July 3, 2020
`Stipulation by Samsung
`Reserved
`P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`Statement, Clear Imaging Research, LLC v. Samsung
`Electronics Co. Ltd., 2:19-cv-326-JRG (E.D. Tex. July
`23, 2020)
`Plaintiff’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions Pursuant to Patent Local Rules,
`Clear Imaging Research, LLC v. Samsung Electronics
`Co. Ltd., 2:19-cv-00326-JRG, Exhibits to Paper 58 (E.D.
`Tex. June 24, 2020)
`
`v
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`
`
`
`
`Samsung petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1-30 (“the
`
`Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175 (“the ’175 Patent”). As
`
`explained in this petition, there exists a reasonable likelihood that Samsung will
`
`prevail on the Challenged Claims.
`
`I.
`
`REQUIREMENTS FOR IPR
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Samsung certifies that the ’175 Patent is available for IPR. Samsung was
`
`served with a complaint of infringement on the ’175 patent in the Eastern District
`
`of Texas on October 3, 2019 (Case 2-19-cv-00326), and is not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting this review of the Challenged Claims.
`
`B. Challenge and Relief Requested
`Petitioner requests IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds listed
`
`below:
`
`Ground
`1A
`
`1B
`1C
`1D
`1E
`
`1F
`
`Claims
`1, 4-7, 15, 17,
`19-22
`3
`2, 16
`18
`8-14, 23-25, 27-
`30
`26
`
`§103 Basis
`Obviousness over Mann and Noriyuki
`
`Obviousness over Mann, Noriyuki, and Suh
`Obviousness over Mann, Noriyuki, and Nonaka
`Obviousness over Mann, Noriyuki, and Hyodo
`Obviousness over Mann and Suh
`
`Obviousness over Mann, Suh, and Hyodo
`
`1
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`§103 Basis
`Obviousness over Mann, Noriyuki, and Manabe
`
`Obviousness over Mann, Noriyuki, Manabe, and
`Suh
`Obviousness over Mann, Noriyuki, Manabe, and
`Nonaka
`Obviousness over Mann, Noriyuki, Manabe, and
`Hyodo
`Obviousness over Mann, Suh, and Manabe
`
`Obviousness over Mann, Suh, Manabe, and
`Hyodo
`
`Claims
`1, 4-7, 15, 17,
`19-22
`3
`
`2, 16
`
`18
`
`8-14, 23-25, 27-
`30
`26
`
`Ground
`2A
`
`2B
`
`2C
`
`2D
`
`2E
`
`2F
`
`
`
`The following table summarizes the prior art basis under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102 for each reference relied on by the present Petition with respect to an
`
`assumed Critical Date of March 25, 2004:1
`
`Reference
`
`Dates
`
`Mann
`(SAMSUNG-1005)
`
`09/07/2000 (filed)
`03/22/2002 (pub)
`
`Prior art basis
`(Provisional Date)
`102(a), (b), (e)
`
`
`1 Although the ’175 Patent lists a March 25, 2004, provisional application,
`
`Patent Owner does not contend that the ’175 Patent is entitled to the provisional
`
`date. SAMSUNG-1025, 11 (only contending that the ’175 Patent is entitled to the
`
`March 24, 2005 date of the non-provisional application).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Reference
`
`Dates
`
`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`Prior art basis
`(Provisional Date)
`102(a), (e)
`
`102(a), (b)
`
`102(e)
`
`102(e)
`
`102(e)
`
`Nonaka
`(SAMSUNG-1006)
`Noriyuki
`(SAMSUNG-1007)
`Suh
`(SAMSUNG-1009)
`Hyodo
`(SAMSUNG-1010)
`Manabe
`(SAMSUNG-1005)
`
`
`
`02/11/2003 (filed)
`08/21/2003 (pub)
`02/22/2002 (pub)
`
`10/07/1998 (filed)
`12/20/2005 (issue)
`10/30/1998 (filed)
`04/25/2006 (issue)
`07/22/2003 (filed)
`01/27/2005 (pub)
`
`II. THE ’175 PATENT
`A. Brief Description
`The ’175 patent, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Using Motion
`
`Information and Image Data to Correct Blurred Images,” was filed on April 6,
`
`2015. The patent describes a “method and apparatus for use in a digital imaging
`
`device for correcting image blur in digital images by combining plurality of
`
`images.” SAMSUNG-1001, Abstract. “The plurality of images that are combined
`
`include a main subject that can be selected by user input or automatically by the
`
`digital imaging device.” Id. The claims are generally directed to “combining [a]
`
`plurality of photographic images selectively to generate a corrected image.” See
`
`id. Independent claim 1 is representative:
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`
`1. A method comprising:
`displaying an image in a viewfinder;
`designating, by a processor, a main subject in the image in the
`viewfinder;
`capturing a plurality of photographic images in a recording
`medium, wherein the plurality of photographic images include the
`designated main subject;
`combining the plurality of photographic images selectively to
`generate a corrected image, wherein a first part of the corrected image
`is generated by combining a first set of images from among the
`plurality of images, a second part of the corrected image is generated
`by combining a second set of images from among the plurality of
`images, and at least one image in the first set of images is not included
`in the second set of images; and
`storing the corrected image in a memory.
`
`B.
`The Prosecution History
`The ’175 patent was filed on April 6, 2015 as U.S. App. No. 14/679,551.
`
`SAMSUNG-1002, 142. The case received a single Office Action including a non-
`
`statutory double patenting rejection of all claims over U.S. Patent No. 9,013,587.
`
`Id., 52-54. Patent Owner subsequently filed a terminal disclaimer, and the case
`
`proceeded to allowance. See id., 14, 42.
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’175 patent (a
`
`4
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`“POSITA”) would have had at least a Bachelor’s Degree in an academic area
`
`emphasizing electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, and
`
`at least two years of experience related to imaging technologies. SAMSUNG-
`
`1003, [11]-[13]. Superior education could compensate for a deficiency in work
`
`experience, and vice-versa. Id.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`Unless otherwise noted, terms should be given their plain meaning, but
`
`Petitioner reserves the right to respond to any constructions offered by Patent
`
`Owner or the Board. Samsung is not waiving any arguments concerning
`
`indefiniteness or claim scope.
`
`1.
`“a processor configured to” (claims 15 and 23)
`Petitioner advances ordinary meaning of this phrase in this proceeding;
`
`however, a question exists regarding it they should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§112, ¶6 (“112/6”). Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015). The absence of the word “means” creates a rebuttable presumption that
`
`112/6 does not apply. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1311 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005). In district court, the parties dispute whether the presumption should be
`
`rebutted. Although claim construction arguments are not yet final, Petitioner may
`
`argue in district court that 112/6 applies and these claims are indefinite.
`
`SAMSUNG-1024, 7-12. However, Patent Owner contends that 112/6 doesn’t
`
`5
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`
`apply. Id.
`
`Because the dispute in district court remains unresolved and because
`
`Petitioner cannot raise indefiniteness here, Petitioner relies on the presumption in
`
`this proceeding and applies prior art to these claims’ ordinary meaning consistent
`
`with Patent Owner’s litigation position. Id. Petitioner will promptly inform the
`
`Board of any district court developments related to these claims’ definiteness.
`
`Further, when determining validity, claim terms need to only be construed to
`
`“resolve the controversy.” Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355,
`
`1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Because this proceeding lacks arguments/evidence
`
`rebutting the presumption, the presumption should stand and the Board should
`
`forego construction absent Patent Owner advocating for 112/6’s application. If
`
`Patent Owner does not endorse a 112/6 construction, no controversy exists
`
`regarding 112/6’s application. Indeed, the presumption holds when neither party
`
`presents argument/evidence to rebut it. HTC America, Inc. v. Virginia Innovation
`
`Sciences, Inc., IPR2017-00872, Paper 11, 9; Dick v. New York Life Ins. Co., 359
`
`U.S. 437, 443 n.3 (1959); Am. Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., 725 F.2d
`
`1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
`
`Finally, any district court claim construction ruling is reviewable by the
`
`Federal Circuit, and yet, denial of institution is non-appealable. Thus, for this
`
`claim construction theory, congressional intent is best served through institution,
`
`6
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`particularly considering that institution would involve prior art consideration
`
`against Patent Owner’s claim construction.
`
`Therefore, in this proceeding, this claim phrase should be given its ordinary
`
`meaning.
`
`2.
`“designating . . . a main subject” (claims 1, 8, 15, and 23)
`Petitioner has asserted in the co-pending district court proceeding that
`
`limitations of the form “designating/detecting … a main subject” should be
`
`construed to mean “identifying an object to use as a reference point for aligning
`
`images to correct blur.” SAMSUNG-1024, 7-12. The specification of the ’175
`
`patent supports this construction. See, e.g., SAMSUNG-1001, 10:52-11:2 (“the
`
`reference point for aligning the higher speed images is … the [designated] subject
`
`itself.”).
`
`The present Petition addresses this claim language according to this
`
`construction (see Grounds 2A-2E), as well as according to Patent Owner’s
`
`proposed interpretation that “[n]o construction [is] necessary” (see Grounds 1A-
`
`1E). SAMSUNG-1024, 7-12. Previous cases have made clear that PTAB rules do
`
`not prohibit Petitioner from addressing the prior art under alternative claim
`
`constructions. See, e.g., 10X Genomics v. Bio-Rad Labs, IPR2020-00086, Paper 8,
`
`18-22 (PTAB April 27, 2020); Western Digital Corp. v. SPEX Techs., Inc.,
`
`IPR2018-00084, Paper 14, 12 (PTAB Apr. 25, 2018). In fact, the Board has
`
`7
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`previously endorsed this approach, stating that “judicial efficiency will be
`
`enhanced by allowing Petitioner to rely upon a claim construction that Patent
`
`Owner is relying upon in the related district court litigation to assert infringement
`
`of the challenged patent.” 10X Genomics, 19.
`
`III. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A.
`[GROUND 1A] – Claims 1, 4-7, 15, 17, and 19-22 are rendered
`obvious by Mann and Noriyuki
`1. Overview of Mann
`Mann teaches techniques in which “[d]ifferent exposures of an electronically
`
`represented, pictorial scene are combined into a final image having expanded
`
`dynamic range yet still capturing subtle differences in exposure.” SAMSUNG-
`
`1005, Abstract. “The final image provides increased shadow, midtone and
`
`highlight detail notwithstanding the limited response of the system (electronic or
`
`photographic) that produced the component images.” Id. The techniques
`
`“feature[] automatic identification of optimally exposed regions (on a pixel-by-
`
`pixel basis) from the component images, as well as automatic combination into a
`
`final image.” Id. Mann teaches that the image data resulting from the combination
`
`are loaded into a “target image buffer 250 whose contents are shown on [a] screen
`
`display 234.” SAMSUNG-1005, 12:48-49; see also 11:61-65, 12:4-21, FIG. 8.
`
`2. Overview of Noriyuki
`Noriyuki relates to “generating a blur control image” by combining multiple
`
`8
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`images of a “main subject to be photographed.” SAMSUNG-1007, Abstract.
`
`Noriyuki’s digital camera includes an “imaging lens 2 and [a] CCD 3” that
`
`“constitute an imaging means,” and “a liquid crystal monitor 103 [red in FIG. 2,
`
`infra] as a viewfinder.” Id., [0014], [0016]; SAMSUNG-1003, [20].
`
`
`
`Noriyuki (SAMSUNG-1007), Detail of FIG. 2 (annotated)
`
`Noriyuki’s digital camera “has a function of recording image data captured
`
`by the CCD 3 on the recording medium 6, and … a function of creating a blur
`
`control image.” SAMSUNG-1007, [0017]. To create a blur control image,
`
`multiple images of a main subject [in red in FIG. 4, infra] are combined, each
`
`image having a different focus. “Reference numeral 12 denotes an image captured
`
`by focusing on the P plane, and 0 of the chart 10, which is a foreground, is clearly
`
`captured … 13 is an image taken by focusing on the Q plane, … and * of the chart
`
`11, which is a background, is clearly displayed.” Id., [0023]. “In the composite
`
`9
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`image mode, an image 14, 15 is created from these 2 images 12, 13. … [T]he
`
`image 15 [in purple] is a blur control image in which the degree of blurring of the
`
`chart 11 which is a foreground is emphasized more than that of the image 13 while
`
`being focused on the chart.” Id., [0024]; see also, [0004] (“all images in which a
`
`plurality of all of the plurality of objects are focused are captured, and the blur
`
`control image processing is performed using the plurality of acquired images”),
`
`[0017] (“a function of creating a full-focus image from a plurality of images
`
`having different focal lengths and a function of creating a blur control image”),
`
`[Claims 1 and 5]. The type of blur image is set by the user, e.g., as “‘foreground
`
`in-focus, background blur large,’ ‘foreground in-focus, background blur small,’
`
`‘foreground blur large, background in-focus,’ ‘foreground blur small, background
`
`in-focus’, and ‘full focus.’” Id., [0029]. In the example of the “foreground in-
`
`focus, background blur large” type of blur image, the main subject is in focus in
`
`the composite blur control image. SAMSUNG-1003, [21].
`
`10
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`
`
`
`Noriyuki (SAMSUNG-1007), Detail of FIG. 4 (annotated)
`
`Noriyuki’s images have a main subject: “it is appropriate to capture a total of
`
`2 images of a focus focused on the main subject 30 [i.e., the foreground; in green
`
`in FIG. 5A, infra] and a focus focused on the infinity 31 [i.e., the background; in
`
`blue].” SAMSUNG-1007, [0033]. Noriyuki’s digital camera automatically
`
`identifies the main subject, e.g., as “a subject closest to the center of the screen” or
`
`“a subject having a predetermined color.” Id., [0037]. “Whether or not the color
`
`has a predetermined color may be determined by, for example, chromaticity (* a *
`
`b *) indicating hue and saturation in the L * a * b * color system. For example by
`
`11
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`determining whether or not a * b * value is within a skin color region, a person can
`
`be identified as a main subject.” Id. SAMSUNG-1003, [22].
`
`
`
`Noriyuki (SAMSUNG-1007), Detail of FIG. 5A (annotated)
`
`3.
`The combination of Mann and Noriyuki
`A POSITA would have found it obvious to modify Mann’s digital camera
`
`such that Mann’s processor identifies a main subject in an image in the screen
`
`display 234, e.g., “a subject closest to the center of the screen” or “a subject having
`
`a predetermined color,” as taught by Noriyuki. SAMSUNG-1007, [0037];
`
`SAMSUNG-1003, [23]. The processor of this modified camera then forms a
`
`composite image using images that include the identified main subject, as taught
`
`by Mann. See SAMSUNG-1005, 3:34-36; SAMSUNG-1003, [23].
`
`4.
`Reasons to combine Mann and Noriyuki
`A POSITA would have found it obvious to configure Mann’s processor to
`
`12
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`designate the main subject in the image in the viewfinder (i.e., in Mann’s screen
`
`display 234) in light of Noriyuki’s description of identifying a main subject (see
`
`SAMSUNG-1007, [0037]-[0038]), e.g., using a process that is performed by a
`
`processor. SAMSUNG-1003, [24]. For instance, a POSITA would have found it
`
`obvious to configure Mann’s processor to designate a main subject, e.g., by
`
`identifying “a subject closest to the center of the screen” or “a subject having a
`
`predetermined color.” SAMSUNG-1007, [0037]; SAMSUNG-1003, [24]. Then,
`
`when Mann’s processor combines source images to generate a composite image
`
`(see SAMSUNG-1005, 3:26-40, 11:26-30, FIGS. 7A-7B), the subject that was
`
`designated by the processor is the in-focus subject in the composite image.
`
`SAMSUNG-1003, [24].
`
`As Dr. Farid explains in his Declaration, “a POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to configure Mann’s processor to designate a main subject in an image
`
`so that the process of composite image generation is primarily automated, without
`
`requiring user input.” SAMSUNG-1003, [25] (citing SAMSUNG-1007, [0037]-
`
`[0038]). “An automated process makes the composite image generation process
`
`easier to use, making the process accessible, for example, to inexperienced,
`
`amateur photographers.” SAMSUNG-1003, [25]. Dr. Farid further states that “[a]
`
`POSITA would have expected success in pursuing this modification given that
`
`Mann’s processor is already capable of image processing and recognition.” Id.;
`
`13
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`see, e.g., SAMSUNG-1005, 12:39-59 (describing the “analyzer module” executed
`
`by the CPU detecting “corresponding subject matter” across source images).
`
`5.
`
`Analysis
`
`Claim 1
`[1pre]: “A method comprising”
`The combination of Mann and Noriyuki renders this limitation obvious. In
`
`the combination, Mann teaches a method in which “[d]ifferent exposures of an
`
`electronically represented, pictorial scene are combined into a final image having
`
`expanded dynamic range yet still capturing subtle differences in exposure.”
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, Abstract. “The final image provides increased shadow,
`
`midtone and highlight detail notwithstanding the limited response of the system
`
`(electronic or photographic) that produced the component images.” Id. Mann
`
`further teaches that the method “features automatic identification of optimally
`
`exposed regions (on a pixel-by-pixel basis) from the component images, as well as
`
`automatic combination into a final image.” Id.; SAMSUNG-1003, [26]. FIG. 7A
`
`from Mann shows the method:
`
`14
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`
`SAMSUNG-1005, Detail of FIG. 7A
`
`Accordingly, the combination of Mann and Noriyuki renders this limitation
`
`
`
`obvious.
`
`[1.1]: “displaying an image in a viewfinder”
`The combination of Mann and Noriyuki renders this limitation obvious. In
`
`the combination, Mann teaches loading image data into a “target image buffer 250
`
`whose contents are shown on screen display 234” (a viewfinder). SAMSUNG-
`
`1005, 12:48-49. In particular, Mann teaches that the “contents of [an] image buffer
`
`… define a ‘raster,’ i.e., a regular two-dimensional pattern of discrete pixel
`
`15
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`positions that collectively represent an image and may be used to drive … screen
`
`display 234 to display that image.” Id., 12:14-21. “The contents of each memory
`
`location” in the buffer “directly govern the appearance of a corresponding pixel on
`
`display 234.” Id., 12:19-21; SAMSUNG-1003, [27].
`
`Also in the combination, Noriyuki describes a viewfinder: “a liquid crystal
`
`monitor 103 as a viewfinder … [is] provided on the rear surface of the camera
`
`body 1 A.” SAMSUNG-1007, [0016], see FIG. 2, infra; SAMSUNG-1003, [28].
`
`Noriyuki (SAMSUNG-1007), Detail of FIG. 2 (annotated)
`
`Noriyuki describes displaying an image in the viewfinder. See
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG-1007, [0037] (“a subject closest to the center of the screen may be
`
`identified as a main subject”). Alternatively or additionally, a POSITA would
`
`have found it obvious for an image to be displayed in Noriyuki’s LCD viewfinder
`
`103 (see id., [0016]) given that the function of a viewfinder in a digital camera is to
`
`16
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`
`display an image. SAMSUNG-1003, [29].
`
`Accordingly, the combination of Mann and Noriyuki renders obvious
`
`“displaying an image in a viewfinder.”
`
`[1.2]: “designating, by a processor, a main subject in the image in the
`viewfinder”
`In the combination, Noriyuki describes designating a main subject in an
`
`image. “[T]he main subject may be detected and specified as follows. In other
`
`words, a subject closest to the center of the screen may be identified as a main
`
`subject, or a subject having a predetermined color may be identified as a main
`
`subject. Whether or not the color has a predetermined color may be determined by,
`
`for example, chromaticity (* a * b *) indicating hue and saturation in the L * a * b
`
`* color system. For example, by determining whether or not a * b * value is within
`
`a skin color region, a person can be identified as a main subject.” SAMSUNG-
`
`1007, [0037]-[0038]; see also [0045] (“Detection of the main object may be
`
`performed from a distance measurement result or may be combined with a
`
`photometry result.”). The designated main subject is a main subject in the image
`
`in the viewfinder: “a subject closest to the center of the screen may be identified
`
`as a main subject” or “[a]lternatively, a subject that is closest to the center of the
`
`screen and that matches a predetermined a * b * value may be identified as a main
`
`subject.” SAMSUNG-1007, [0037]-[0038]; SAMSUNG-1003, [30].
`
`17
`
`

`

`Attorney Docket No. 39843-0082IP1
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,392,175
`To the extent Noriyuki is found not to teach or suggest that a processor
`
`designates the main subject in the image in the viewfinder, a POSITA would
`
`have found it obvious for a processor (e.g., Noriyuki’s “CPU 40 [that] generally
`
`controls the entire digital camera 1,” SAMSUNG-1007, [0019]) to carry out this
`
`task. SAMSUNG-1003, [31]. For instance, as Dr. Farid states, “a POSITA would
`
`have understood that Noriyuki’s described approach to designating a main subject
`
`by determining a chromaticity … is a calculation that is carried out by a processor,
`
`and not an approach that a human user would take to recognizing a main subject
`
`based on color.” SAMSUNG-1003, [31] (citing (SAMSUNG-1007, [0037]-
`
`[0038]) (internal citations omitted).
`
`Also in the combination, Mann’s “central-processing unit (‘CPU’) 220” is a
`
`processor. See SAMSUNG-1005, 11:55-60, FIG. 8; SAMSUNG-1003, [32].
`
`As previously discussed, a POSITA would have found it obvious to
`
`configure Mann’s processor to designate the main subject in the image in the
`
`viewfinder (i.e., in Mann’s screen display