UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`TESLA, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`IPR2025-00342
`U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805
`
`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`In Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805
`(Claims 1-2 and 6-11)
`
`1
`
`EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805
`
`Table of Contents
`I.
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4
`II.
`Qualifications and Professional Experience .................................................... 4
`III. Materials Considered ....................................................................................... 8
`IV.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 9
`V.
`Legal Principles ............................................................................................. 10
`A.
`Prior Art ............................................................................................... 10
`B.
`Obviousness ......................................................................................... 11
`C.
`Other Challenges to Validity ............................................................... 14
`D.
`Level of Proof ...................................................................................... 14
`E.
`Interpretation of Claims ...................................................................... 14
`The ’805 Patent .............................................................................................. 15
`A.
`’805 PATENT OVERVIEW ............................................................... 15
`B.
`’805 Patent Prosecution History .......................................................... 18
`C.
`Challenged Claims of the ’805 Patent ................................................. 18
`VII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 19
`VIII. Prior Art ......................................................................................................... 20
`A.
`Broggi .................................................................................................. 20
`B.
`Huttenlocher ........................................................................................ 24
`C.
`Brady ................................................................................................... 26
`D.
`Bertozzi................................................................................................ 27
`Summary of Opinions .................................................................................... 28
`Analysis ......................................................................................................... 28
`
`IX.
`X.
`
`VI.
`
`2
`
`EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805
`
`
`B.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-2 and 9-10 are rendered obvious over
`Broggi in view of Huttenlocher and Brady ......................................... 29
`1.
`Reasons to Combine Broggi, Huttenlocher, and Brady .......... 30
`a)
`Analogous Art .......................................................................... 30
`b)
`Motivation to Combine Broggi and Huttenlocher ................... 31
`c)
`Motivation to Combine Broggi and Huttenlocher with Brady 34
`2.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 37
`3.
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 86
`4.
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 88
`5.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 90
`Ground 2: Claims 6-8 and 11 are rendered obvious over Broggi
`in view of Huttenlocher, Brady, and Bertozzi..................................... 92
`1.
`Reasons to Combine Broggi, Huttenlocher, and Brady .......... 93
`a)
`Analogous Art .......................................................................... 93
`b)
`Motivation to Combine Broggi, Huttenlocher, Brady, and
`Bertozzi .................................................................................... 93
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 96
`2.
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................... 99
`3.
`Claim 8 ................................................................................... 101
`4.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................. 102
`5.
`XI. Availability for cross-examination .............................................................. 113
`XII. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 114
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805
`
`I, Jeffrey J. Rodriguez, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) as an
`
`independent expert witness for the above-captioned Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805 (“the ’805 Patent”). I am being compensated
`
`at my usual and customary rate for the time I spend in connection with this IPR. My
`
`compensation is not affected by the outcome of this IPR.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1-2
`
`and 6-11 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’805 Patent are unpatentable as they
`
`would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as
`
`of the earliest claimed priority date.1
`
`
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`
`3. My current curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1004, which includes
`
`a detailed listing of my education, work experience, honors, awards, professional
`
`
`1 I understand that the ’805 patent claims priority to German Patent Application
`
`DE 10 2004 028 763.5, filed June 16, 2004. I have been instructed by counsel to
`
`assume for purposes of my analysis that the earliest claimed priority date is June
`
`16, 2004.
`
`
`
`4
`
`EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805
`
`associations, publications, and a list of expert consulting activities during the past
`
`five years in which I have testified as an expert at deposition or trial.
`
`4.
`
`I am a professor at The University of Arizona in the Department of
`
`Electrical & Computer Engineering, where I hold or have held the following
`
`positions: (a) Associate Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering, with tenure
`
`(1997–present), (b) Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering, with tenure
`
`(2017–present), (c) Director of ECE Online Programs (2023–present), (d) Director
`
`of the Signal and Image Laboratory (1990–present), (e) Director of Image Analysis,
`
`Cancer Imaging Shared Services, Arizona Cancer Center (2009–2014), (f) Co-
`
`Director of Connection One, a National Science Foundation industry/university
`
`cooperative research center for wired and wireless communication circuits and
`
`systems, (g) Director of Graduate Studies for the Department of Electrical &
`
`Computer Engineering (2000–2003, 2005–2016).
`
`5. My formal education includes a Bachelor of Science degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin in May 1984, a Master
`
`of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology in June 1986, and a Ph.D. Degree in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`University of Texas at Austin in May 1990. I teach courses at both the graduate and
`
`undergraduate level through the Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering and the
`
`College of Optical Sciences. The courses I have taught include Digital Image
`
`
`
`5
`
`EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805
`
`Processing, Digital Image Analysis, Digital Signal Processing, Advanced Digital
`
`Signal Processing, Signals and Systems, and Circuit Analysis. I have been awarded
`
`the Outstanding Teaching Award by the IEEE and Eta Kappa Nu (IEEE-HKN),
`
`given by students at The University of Arizona to one outstanding professor each
`
`year.
`
`6. My research activity focuses on systems for digital signal/image/video
`
`processing
`
`and
`
`analysis. My
`
`research
`
`activities
`
`include
`
`automated
`
`detection/classification/recognition of regions/objects/targets using neural networks
`
`and other machine learning methods, as well as conventional technologies. My
`
`research has included applications such as military target recognition, biomedical
`
`image analysis, animal species classification, convolutional neural networks for
`
`driver distraction detection, and real-time video processing for analysis of zebrafish.
`
`7.
`
`One of my recent research projects involved the design and
`
`development of a real-time image and video processing system for automated
`
`detection and behavioral analysis of zebrafish for use in ototoxicity assessment of
`
`drugs. The system we designed and built includes an array of Raspberry Pi
`
`microcomputer systems configured for parallel video capture of sixteen zebrafish
`
`populations. Each Raspberry Pi features a system on a chip, which includes a CPU,
`
`a video graphics processing unit (GPU), a disk storage system, and a memory
`
`system. Our zebrafish analysis system automatically captures and transmits
`
`
`
`6
`
`EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805
`
`compressed MPEG video data to a local personal computer or to a high-performance
`
`computing cluster to decode the video and implement customized algorithms for
`
`detection of zebrafish pose and motion using multi-scale edge map analysis,
`
`resulting in automated assessment of zebrafish swimming behavior.
`
`8.
`
` In a past research project, I developed a terrain matching algorithm for
`
`use in a passive aircraft navigation system based on image processing rather than
`
`using active emissions such as radar. A sequence of aerial, optical images are
`
`analyzed using stereo analysis of successive images to generate an estimated
`
`elevation map of the corresponding terrain. Next, edge detection is applied to the
`
`estimated elevation map to obtain a “cliff map” representation of the terrain surface.
`
`Similarly, edge detection is applied to a reference digital elevation map of a large
`
`geographical area to obtain a reference cliff map. Finally, the estimated cliff map is
`
`matched to the reference cliff map by performing edge segmentation, then shape
`
`analysis of the edge segments, followed by a matching algorithm to align the edge
`
`segments of the estimated cliff map with those of the reference cliff map. The
`
`position and heading of the aircraft are determined by locating the position or
`
`orientation of the recovered cliff map within the reference cliff map.
`
`9.
`
`I am a Senior Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`Engineers (IEEE) and the IEEE Signal Processing Society. I served as Treasurer of
`
`the 2024 IEEE Southwest Symposium on Image Analysis and Interpretation
`
`
`
`7
`
`EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805
`
`(SSIAI), General Chair of SSIAI 2016, and General Chair of the 2007 IEEE
`
`International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). In addition, I served on the
`
`IEEE Signal Processing Society Technical Committee on Image, Video, and
`
`Multidimensional Signal Processing (2005–2011) and served as Associate Editor of
`
`the IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (1996–2000). Over the years, I have
`
`served on numerous other professional committees, and I have served as a technical
`
`reviewer for numerous journals and professional conferences.
`
`10.
`
`I am named as an inventor on a patent involving polar dynamic
`
`programing for automated image segmentation. I have authored or co-authored over
`
`140 technical publications. Over the past 30 years, I have trained hundreds of
`
`students in signal/image/video processing, including directing the research of
`
`numerous graduate students, resulting in more than 50 graduate theses and
`
`dissertations. I have served as an expert in patent cases since 2005, involving
`
`signal/image/video processing, data compression systems, video receivers,
`
`document cameras, cellular camera phones, signal/image/video transmission over
`
`wireless networks, etc.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`11.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed:
`
`• Ex. 1001, the ’805 Patent;
`
`• Ex. 1002, the file history of the ’805 Patent;
`
`
`
`8
`
`EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805
`
`
`• Ex. 1005, “Visual Perception of Obstacles and Vehicles for
`
`Platooning,” Broggi et al. (“Broggi”);
`
`• Ex. 1006, “Object Recognition Using Alignment,” Daniel
`
`Huttenlocher et al. (“Huttenlocher”);
`
`• Ex. 1007, U.S. Patent No. 5,434,927 to Brady et al. (“Brady”);
`
`• Ex. 1008, “Automatic Vehicle Guidance: The Experience of the
`
`ARGO Autonomous Vehicle,” Alberto Broggi, Massimo Bertozzi,
`
`Alessandra Fascioli, and Gianni Conte (“Bertozzi”).
`
`• any other document cited below.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I have considered:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`the documents listed above,
`
`any additional documents and references cited in the analysis
`
`below,
`
`c)
`
`the relevant legal standards, including the standard for
`
`obviousness, and
`
`d
`
`my knowledge and experience.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`12.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the
`
`
`
`9
`
`EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems.
`
`13. For my analysis, I have been asked to assume that the time of the
`
`claimed invention is the filing date of the ’805 patent, which is June 16, 2004.
`
`14. A person of ordinary skill in the art at and before the claimed priority
`
`date of the ’805 Patent (June 16, 2004) (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a
`
`related subject, and four years of work experience in image processing, automated
`
`vehicle control/navigation, or a related field. Additional education would offset a
`
`lesser amount of experience, and vice versa.
`
`V. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`15.
`
`I am not an attorney and offer no legal opinions. For the purpose of this
`
`Declaration, I am relying on certain basic legal principles that counsel have
`
`explained to me. These principles are discussed below, and the analysis in this
`
`Declaration is in accordance with these legal principles.
`
`A.
`
`16.
`
`Prior Art
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’805 Patent includes patents and printed
`
`publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the ’805 Patent. I have
`
`been instructed by counsel to assume for purposes of my analysis that the earliest
`
`claimed priority date is June 16, 2004. I have not considered and express no opinion
`
`
`
`10
`
`EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805
`
`as to whether the claims of the ’805 Patent are actually entitled to a priority date of
`
`June 16, 2004.
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that a claimed invention is unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that
`
`the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains.
`
`I have also been informed by counsel that the obviousness analysis takes into
`
`account factual inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in the art, the scope and
`
`content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and the claimed
`
`subject matter.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the Supreme Court has recognized
`
`several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show
`
`obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the
`
`following: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (c) use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`(method, or product) in the same way; (d) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (e)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable
`
`
`
`11
`
`EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805
`
`expectation of success; and (f) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior
`
`art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`19.
`
`I further understand that a claim would have been obvious if it unites
`
`old elements with no change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by mere
`
`substitution of one element for another known in the field and that combination
`
`yields predictable results. Also, I understand that obviousness does not require
`
`physical combination/bodily incorporation, but rather consideration of what the
`
`combined teachings would have suggested to persons of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the claimed invention. I understand that the combination of familiar
`
`elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
`
`than yield predictable results.
`
`20. As mentioned above, I understand that a claim would have been
`
`obvious if it unites old elements with no change to their respective functions or alters
`
`prior art by mere substitution of one element for another known in the field and that
`
`combination yields predictable results. While it may be helpful to identify a reason
`
`for this combination, I understand that there is no rigid requirement of finding an
`
`express teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine within the references. When
`
`a product is available, design incentives and other market forces can prompt
`
`variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. I understand that if a
`
`
`
`12
`
`EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805
`
`POSITA can implement a predictable variation, obviousness likely bars its
`
`patentability. For the same reason, I understand that if a technique has been used to
`
`improve one device and a POSITA would recognize that it would improve similar
`
`devices in the same way, using the technique would have been obvious. I understand
`
`that a claim would have been obvious if common sense directs one to combine
`
`multiple prior art references or add missing features to reproduce the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`21.
`
`I further understand that certain factors may support or rebut the
`
`obviousness of a claim. I understand that such secondary considerations include,
`
`among other things, commercial success of the patented invention, skepticism of
`
`those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, unexpected results of
`
`the invention, any long-felt but unsolved need in the art that was satisfied by the
`
`claimed invention, the failure of others to make the claimed invention, praise of the
`
`claimed invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the
`
`claimed invention by others in the field. I understand that there must be a nexus—a
`
`connection—between any such secondary considerations and the claimed invention.
`
`I also understand that contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a
`
`secondary consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`
`
`13
`
`EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805
`
`
`22.
`
`I am not aware of any allegations by the named inventors of the ’805
`
`Patent or any assignee of the ’805 Patent that any secondary considerations tend to
`
`rebut the obviousness of the Challenged Claims of the ’805 Patent.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that in considering obviousness, it is important not to
`
`determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight derived from the patent being
`
`considered.
`
`C. Other Challenges to Validity
`
`24.
`
`I understand that other challenges to the validity of a patent, including
`
`patent ineligibility, enablement, written description, and indefiniteness, cannot be
`
`raised in inter partes review proceedings before the Board to challenge the validity
`
`of the ’805 Patent. Accordingly, I did not consider those other challenges.
`
`D. Level of Proof
`
`25.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability
`
`by a preponderance of evidence, which means it is more likely than not that the
`
`claims are unpatentable.
`
`E.
`
`26.
`
`Interpretation of Claims
`
`I understand that the claims are to be construed according to the same
`
`claim construction standard that district courts use wherein claim terms are given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning from the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`
`
`14
`
`EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805
`
`VI. THE ’805 PATENT
`’805 PATENT OVERVIEW
`A.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that the ’805 Patent issued on February 26, 2008, from
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/154,772 (“the ’772 Application”), filed June 16,
`
`2005, and claims priority to German Patent Application DE 10 2004 028 763.5, filed
`
`June 16, 2004. The face of the ’805 Patent lists Ottmar Gehring et al. as the inventors.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that, according to assignment records, Intellectual
`
`Ventures II LLC is the current assignee of the ’805 Patent.
`
`28. The ’805 patent describes a method for docking assistance using
`
`image analysis. Ex. 1001, Abstract. A vehicle is equipped with a camera (e.g.,
`
`image sensor 22 on vehicle 20 as illustrated in Fig. 2 below) to obtain image
`
`data. Ex. 1001, 2:56-57.
`
`
`
`15
`
`EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 2 (annotated)
`
`
`
`29. Obtained images are analyzed to locate objects such as a cargo door
`
`26 illustrated in Fig. 2 (above). Ex. 1001, Abstract, 7:13-29. Following common
`
`practice, the obtained image data is broken down into edge segments.
`
`Interrelationships between the edge segments are stored in a tree structure. Ex.
`
`1001, 3:37-39; 4:43-45. The ’805 patent itself recognizes that “[m]any different
`
`proven methods for creating and organizing such a hierarchical tree structure are
`
`available to one skilled in the art.” Ex. 1001, 4:45-47. The edge segments are
`
`then analyzed to check for the presence of a geometric object that is similar to a
`
`shape (e.g., geometric form) associated with a potential destination of the
`
`vehicle. Ex. 1001, 3:40-43. In this regard, the ’805 patent explains that “the
`
`
`
`16
`
`EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805
`
`typical geometric form substantially corresponds to a rectangle.” Ex. 1001, 3:45-
`
`46. The detected geometric objects are then “analyzed for plausibility” using a
`
`known matching algorithm. Ex. 1001, 2:41-43; 3:3-8; 3:47-50; 5:25-29 (The
`
`well-known “IPC [sic] algorithm … is particularly advantageously suited.”).2
`
`Plausible objects then undergo an additional “acceptance analysis.” Ex. 1001,
`
`3:41-54. Accepted object(s) are then used in calculating a trajectory for the
`
`vehicle to assist in vehicle guidance. Ex. 1001, 3:61-66.
`
`30.
`
`Image processing for vehicle navigation as described in the ’805
`
`patent was widely used before the priority date. For example, image processing
`
`techniques such as edge detection, edge segmentation, and matching algorithms
`
`were all commonplace. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 170-171 (describing vehicle detection
`
`using a “traditional pattern matching technique,” and describing the extraction of
`
`vertical and horizontal edges); see generally Ex. 1006 (describing “Object
`
`Recognition Using Alignment”). These techniques were also widely used in the
`
`specific context of vehicle navigation assistance. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 170-171
`
`(describing vehicle detection for purposes of platooning). The ’805 patent describes
`
`and claims a combination of image processing and vehicle guidance techniques
`
`
`2 While the ’805 patent references the “IPC algorithm,” it is actually referring to
`
`the iterative closest point, or ICP, algorithm.
`
`
`
`17
`
`EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805
`
`that were widely utilized long before the earliest claimed priority of the ’805
`
`patent.
`
`B.
`
`’805 Patent Prosecution History
`
`31. The U.S. Patent Application that issued as the ’805 Patent (U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 11/154,772 referred to herein as “the ’772 Application”) was filed
`
`on June 16, 2005. The ’772 Application claims priority to a German Patent
`
`Application DE 10 2004 028 763.5, filed June 16, 2004.
`
`32. Even though the ’805 patent described and claimed a combination of
`
`well-known elements, the examiner issued a first action allowance for all claims.
`
`Ex.1002, 26. The Notice of Allowance identified elements [1.4.0], [1.4.3], and
`
`[1.4.4] as the allowable features of independent claim 1. Ex. 1002, 31. As shown in
`
`Section VIII below, elements [1.4.0], [1.4.3], and [1.4.4] are obvious over prior art
`
`not considered by the Examiner.
`
`C. Challenged Claims of the ’805 Patent
`
`33.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1-2
`
`and 6-11 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’805 patent are unpatentable as they
`
`would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the claimed invention, in light
`
`of the prior art. For example, claim 1 is recited as follows, where reference labels
`
`[1.0], [1.1], etc. have been added to individual portions of the claim for convenience:
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805
`
`
`Claim 1. [1.0] A method for assisting guidance of a motor vehicle on the basis of image
`data, the method comprising:
`[1.1] acquired image data using an imaging sensor from a surrounding field of the motor
`vehicle;
`[1.2] extracting from the acquired image data positional parameters of at least one
`potential destination relative to the motor vehicle; and
`[1.3] calculating at least one trajectory describing an optimized travel path using the
`positional parameters so as to assist a subsequent vehicle guidance for at least one of
`the potential destinations,
`[1.4.0] wherein the extracting includes:
`performing an edge detection and edge segmentation on the image data so as to break
`down the image data into a plurality of edge segments and storing
`interrelationships of the plurality of edge segments in a mathematical tree structure;
`[1.4.1] analyzing the plurality of edge segments for the presence of a geometric object
`associated with a geometrical form that may at least partially describe a potential
`destination so as to identify one or more potential geometric objects;
`[1.4.2] analyzing the one or more potential geometric objects for plausibility using a
`matching algorithm so as to identify one or more plausible objects;
`[1.4.3] performing an additional acceptance analysis so as to identify at least one
`accepted object, the additional acceptance analysis including analyzing a shape of
`the image formation of each object in the image data based on knowledge of at
`least one imaging property of the imaging sensor relative to the surrounding field;
`and
`[1.4.4] storing at least one accepted object that corresponds to a most proximate
`destination together with corresponding relative positional data in an object list.
`
`
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`34.
`
`It is my understanding that in order to properly evaluate the ’805 Patent,
`
`the terms of the claims must first be interpreted. It is my understanding that the
`
`claims are to be construed according to the same claim construction standard that
`
`district courts use. Under the claim construction standard that district courts use (i.e.,
`
`the so-called Phillips standard), claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning from the perspective of a POSITA at the time of the invention. I have been
`
`
`
`19
`
`EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805
`
`informed that that the phrase “ordinary and customary meaning” in the so-called
`
`Phillips standard is often referred to as the “plain and ordinary meaning.” I will use
`
`the phrase “plain and ordinary meaning” below.
`
`35.
`
`In order to construe the Challenged Claims of the ’805 Patent, I have
`
`reviewed the entirety of the ’805 Patent along with portions of the prosecution
`
`history of the ’805 Patent. Consistent with the ’805 Patent disclosure, I have
`
`interpreted the terms in the Challenged Claims according to their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning as understood by a POSITA, and considered any explicit definitions
`
`provided by the specification of the ’805 Patent, where applicable.
`
`VIII. PRIOR ART
`A. Broggi
`
`36.
`
`“Visual Perception of Obstacles and Vehicles for Platooning,”
`
`(“Broggi,” Ex. 1005) was published by Alberto Broggi et al. in September 2000.
`
`Broggi describes a method for vehicle navigation using image analysis. Ex. 1005,
`
`164 (“perception of the environment is performed through the processing of images
`
`acquired from the vehicle…. The control system… allows the vehicle to follow the
`
`road or other vehicles”). The automatic driving system of Broggi (“ARGO”) is
`
`embodied in a vehicle (Fig. 1, below) that uses image analysis to perform automated
`
`driving tasks. Ex. 1005, 166.
`
`
`
`20
`
`EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Jeffrey J. Rodriguez Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805
`
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 1.
`
`
`
`37. The vision system of Broggi localizes and tracks objects using one or
`
`more cameras mounted in the vehicle. Ex. 1005, 164 (“Vehicles are localized and
`
`tracked using a singular monocular image sequence whilst a distance refinement is
`
`computed using stereo vision.”). Broggi further describes following a preceding
`
`vehicle in a method called “platooning.” Ex. 1005, 166 (“Platooning: The automatic
`
`following of the preceding vehicle, that requires the localization and tracking of a
`
`target vehicle.”). Ex. 1005, 166. During platooning, the system of Broggi localizes
`
`and tracks the preceding vehicle so that the following vehicle can navigate to the
`
`location of the preceding vehicle. Note that Broggi uses the terms “preceding
`
`vehicle” and “leading vehicle” interchangeably, referring to a vehicle in front of
`
`another vehicle when platooning. As use