TRW Automotive U.S. LLCv.Magna Electronics Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 3, 2014

13550064 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 3, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 15 IPR2014-00296
Tel: 571-272-7822 Paper 15 IPR2014-00297
Paper 19 IPR2014-00298
Entered: July 3, 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________
TRW AUTOMOTIVE US LLC,
Petitioner,

v.
MAGNA ELECTRONICS INC.,
Patent Owner.
_______________

Cases IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2
_______________

Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.108

IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2

2

I. INTRODUCTION
TRW Automotive US LLC (“Petitioner”) filed three Petitions requesting
inter partes review of claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 15-18, 20-39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 53, 55, 58-
64, 66-71, 73-87, and 90-104 of U.S. Patent No. 8,324,552 B2 (“the ’552 patent”).
The patent owner, Magna Electronics Inc. (“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary
Response in each of the three proceedings, as listed in the following chart:

Case No. Claims Petition
Paper No.
Preliminary
Response Paper
No.
IPR2014-
00296
1, 4-6, 9-11, 15-18, 20-39, 41,
42, 44, 45, 53, 55, and 58-601
1
(“296
Pet.”)
8
(“296 Prelim.
Resp.”)
IPR2014-
00297
61-64, 66-71, and 73-87 1
(“297
Pet.”)
8
(“297 Prelim.
Resp.”)
IPR2014-
00298
90-1042 1
(“298
Pet.”)
12
(“298 Prelim.
Resp.”)

Cases IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298 involve the
same patent and parties, and there is overlap in the asserted prior art and additional
evidence submitted by Petitioner.
The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
§ 314(a):

1 Claims 34-37 were omitted from the listing of challenged claims in Section II.A.
of the IPR2014-00296 petition; however, Petitioner provided arguments
challenging the patentability of claims 34-37. 296 Pet. 4, 53-56.
2 Claims 90 and 101 were omitted from the listing of challenged claims in Section
II.A. of the IPR2014-00298 petition; however, Petitioner provided arguments
challenging the patentability of claims 90 and 101. 298 Pet. 4, 15-22, and 25-26.
IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2

3

THRESHOLD.— The Director may not authorize an inter partes
review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any
response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable
likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of
the claims challenged in the petition.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Upon consideration of the
Petitions and Preliminary Reponses, we determine that the information presented
does not show that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
establishing the unpatentability of any challenged claim of the ’552 patent for the
reasons that follow. Accordingly, we deny the Petitions and do not institute an
inter partes review of the ’552 patent.
A. Related Proceedings
TRW states that the ’552 patent is involved in a pending district court
infringement action, Magna Electronics Inc. v. TRW Automotive Holding Corp.,
Case No. 1:12-cv-00654-PLM (W.D. Mich.). Pet. 4-5.
B. The ’552 Patent
The ’552 patent relates generally to an image sensing system for a vehicle,
and, in particular, to a system for controlling the headlights of the vehicle. Ex.
1002, 1:24-26. The disclosed system particularly is adapted to controlling the
vehicle’s headlamps in response to sensing the headlights of oncoming vehicles
and taillights of leading vehicles. Id. at 1:26-29. The image processing system is
capable of identifying unique characteristics of light sources by comparing light
source characteristics with spectral signatures of known light sources, such as
headlights and taillights. Id. at 1:67-2:9.
As shown generally in Figure 2 of the ’552 patent, reproduced below, the
image processing system includes imaging sensor module 14, which senses light
IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2

4

from a scene forward of the vehicle; imaging control circuit 13,3 which receives
data from sensor 14; and vehicle lighting control logic module 16, which
exchanges data with control circuit 13 and controls headlamps 18 for the purpose
of modifying the headlight beam. Id. at 3:44-51.

Figure 2 of the ’552 patent is a partial side view of a vehicle headlight dimming
control system.
Imaging sensor module 14 includes a lens, an array of photon-accumulating
light sensors, and a spectral separation device, such as a filter array, for separating
light from the scene forward of the vehicle into a plurality of spectral bands. Id. at

3 The Specification also refers to imaging control circuit 13 as a “digital signal
processor.” See Ex. 1002, 3:47 (“imaging control circuit 13”), 4:53–54 (“digital
signal processor 13”). This explains why reference numeral 13 in Figure 2 points
to a box labelled “DSP,” i.e., digital signal processor.
IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2

5

4:24-29. Digital signal processor 13 includes an analog-to-digital converter, which
receives the output of the array of photon-accumulating light sensors and converts
the analog pixel values to digital values. Id. at 4:56-58. The digital values are
supplied to a taillight detection circuit and a headlight detection circuit. Id. at
4:58-60.
The taillight detection circuit detects a red light source having intensity
above a particular threshold. Id. at 5:4-5. For each pixel that is “red,” a
comparison is made with adjacent “green” pixels and “blue” pixels. Id. at 5:6-7. If
the intensity of a red pixel is more than a particular number of times the intensity
of an adjacent green pixel and an adjacent blue pixel, then it is determined that the
light source is red. Id. at 5:7-10. The headlight detection circuit carries out a
similar process. Id. at 5:13-21. The image processing system recognizes the
spectral signatures of detected light sources, i.e., headlights and taillights, as well
as the spectral signatures of rejected light sources, such as lane markers, signs, and
other sources of reflected light, all of which may be identified readily by their
spectral signature. Id. at 10:38-47.
C. Illustrative Claim
Petitioner challenges claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 15-18, 20-39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 53,
55, 58-64, 66-71, 73-87, and 90-104 of the ’552 patent. Of the challenged claims,
claims 1, 61, 79, and 90 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative and reads as follows:
1. An image sensing system for a vehicle, said image
sensing system comprising:
an imaging sensor comprising a two-dimensional CMOS
array of light sensing photosensor elements;
wherein said imaging sensor has a forward field of view to
the exterior of a windshield of a vehicle equipped with said
image sensing system;
IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2

6

wherein said imaging sensor views through the windshield of
the equipped vehicle at a region of the windshield that is swept
by a windshield wiper of the equipped vehicle;
wherein said imaging sensor is operable to capture image
data;
wherein said imaging sensor is operable to capture frames
of image data at a plurality of exposure periods;
a control comprising an image processor;
wherein said image sensing system identifies objects in
said forward field of view of said imaging sensor via processing
of said captured image data by said image processor;
wherein identification of objects is based at least in part on
at least one of (i) shape, (ii) luminance, (iii) geometry,
(iv) spatial location, (v) motion and (vi) spectral characteristic;
and
wherein objects identified by said image sensing system
comprise at least one of (i) headlights of approaching vehicles,
(ii) taillights of leading vehicles, (iii) lane markers on a road
being traveled by the equipped vehicle, (iv) traffic signs,
(v) traffic lights, (vi) stop signs and (vii) caution signs.
D. References Relied Upon
Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references and the declaration
of Jeffrey A. Miller, Ph.D. (Ex. 1016):
References Patents/Printed Publications4 Date Exhibit5
Yanagawa Japanese Kokai Application,
No. S62-131837, with
certified translation
June 15, 1987 1004
Bendell U.S. Patent No. 4,521,804 June 4, 1985 1005
Vellacott Vellacott, “CMOS in
Camera,” IEEE Review
May 1994 1006

4 Petitioner relies upon a certified translation for both Yanagawa (Ex. 1004) and
Tadashi (Ex. 1011), and provides affidavits attesting to the accuracy of the
translations. See Exs. 1004, 1011; 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b).
5 The Exhibit numbers refer generally to IPR2014-00296, unless first cited in
IPR2014-00297 or IPR2014-00298.
IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2

7

Bottesch U.S. Patent No. 5,166,681 Nov. 24, 1992 1007
Kawahara U.S. Patent No. 4,758,883 July 19, 1988 1008
Zheng Zheng, “An Adaptive System
for Traffic Sign
Recognition,” Proceedings of
the Intelligent Vehicles ’94
Symposium, Paris, France
Oct. 24-26,
1994
1009
Kenue U.S. Patent No. 4,970,653

Nov. 13, 1990 1010
Tadashi Japanese Kokai Application
No. Hei 4-127280, with
certified translation
April 28, 1992 1011
Venturello European Patent Application
Publication No. 0 353 200
Jan. 31, 1990 1012
Aurora Mei Chen,
“AURORA: A Vision-Based
Roadway Departure Warning
System,” Proceedings 1995
IEEE/RSJ International
Conference on Intelligent
Robots and Systems, Vol. 1,
p. 243
Aug. 5-9, 1995 1013
Kakinami U.S. Patent No. 5,096,287 March 17, 1992 1113
Aikens U.S. Patent No. 4,254,931 March 10, 1981 1114
IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2

8

E. The Asserted Grounds
Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
Claims Challenged Statutory Basis References
1, 4-6, 10, 11, 15, 16,
20, 24, 27, 38, 39, 41,
42, 44, 45, 53, 55, and
59
§ 103(a) Yanagawa, Applicant’s Admitted
Prior Art (“AAPA”),6 Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch
9, 25, 26, and 30 § 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Kenue
30 and 31 § 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Kenue, Aurora
17, 18, 21-23, 32, and
58
§ 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Kawahara
28, 29, and 34-37 § 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Tadashi
33 § 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Zheng
60 § 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Venturello

6 Petitioner asserts that the following statement in the Specification constitutes
AAPA: “Photosensing array 38 may be a charge couple device (CCD) array of the
type commonly utilized in video camcorders and the like. Alternatively,
photosensing array 38 could be a CMOS [complementary metal oxide
semiconductor] array of the type manufactured by VLSI Vision Ltd. (VVL) in
Edinburgh, Scotland.” Ex. 1002, 8:45-52; see 296 Pet. 18 n.3, 20; Ex. 1016 ¶ 22;
297 Pet. 19, 43; 298 Pet. 18, 19.
IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2

9

61, 62, 64, 66, 67, and
73-78
§ 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Kawahara
63 § 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Kawahara, Venturello
68 § 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Kawahara, Aikens,
Kakinami
69 § 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Kawahara, Kenue,
Tadashi
70 § 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Kawahara, Kenue
71 § 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Kawahara, Kenue,
Aurora
79, 80, 83, and 84 § 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Zheng
81 and 85 § 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Zheng, Kawahara
82 § 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Zheng, Kenue
87 § 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Zheng, Kenue, Tadashi
86 § 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Zheng, Aikens,
Kakinami
90-94 and 101-104 § 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch
IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2

10

95 § 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Kawahara
96 § 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Kawahara, Aikens,
Kakinami
98 § 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Kenue
97 § 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Kenue, Tadashi
99 § 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Kenue, Aurora
100 § 103(a) Yanagawa, AAPA, Bendell,
Vellacott, Bottesch,
Zheng
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, “[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); see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
Reg. 48,756, 48,764, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Claim Construction); In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “[W]hen
interpreting a claim, words of the claim are generally given their ordinary and
accustomed meaning, unless it appears from the specification or the file history
that they were used differently by the inventor.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
(Fed. Cir. 1994). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the
specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Id. (citation
omitted).
IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2

11

Petitioner proposes specific constructions of the following claim terms:
“spatial differentiation,” “spectral characteristic,” “activity level,” “priority basis,”
and “red complement filter.” 296 Pet. 8-13. Patent Owner asserts specific
constructions for the phrases “wherein objects of interest are at least one of
qualified and disqualified based, at least in part, on object motion” (296 Prelim.
Resp. 24-25); “wherein said control, responsive to processing of said captured
image data, is operable to determine an ambient light level at the equipped vehicle”
(296 Prelim. Resp. 25-29); and “wherein at least one of (a) said control determines
the ambient light level by processing data captured by a subset of said light sensing
photosensor elements and (b) said control determines the ambient light level by
processing data captured by a subset of said light sensing photosensor elements
over a period of time” (296 Prelim. Resp. 30-32).7
As explained herein, we determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficient
reasons for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of
the prior art references in the manner asserted in the Petitions. Thus, for purposes
of this decision, we need not construe expressly any of the terms in the challenged
claims.
B. Obviousness Grounds Based on Yanagawa
The analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is objective and includes a
determination of “the scope and content of the prior art,” the “differences between
the prior art and the claims at issue,” and “the level of ordinary skill in the
pertinent art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting
Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)).

7 Petitioner and Patent Owner likewise proffered arguments for these claim terms
in IPR2014-00297 and IPR2014-00298. See 297 Pet. 9-12; 297 Prelim. Resp. 27-
31; 298 Pet. 8-11; and 298 Prelim. Resp. 29-34.
IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2

12

In undertaking this inquiry:
Often, it will be necessary . . . to look to interrelated teachings
of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
community or present in the marketplace; and the background
knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all
in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to
combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at
issue.
Id. at 418. The Supreme Court explained that “[t]o facilitate review, this analysis
should be made explicit,” agreeing with the Federal Circuit that “‘rejections on
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead,
there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” Id. (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Against this backdrop, we consider Petitioner’s allegations. Petitioner
asserts that claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 15-18, 20-39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 53, 55, 58-60, 61-64,
66-71, 73-87, and 90-104 would have been obvious based on Yanagawa in
combination with various other references, as indicated previously. See supra
Section I.E. In support thereof, Petitioner provides claim charts that identify the
disclosure in Yanagawa and in the other cited references alleged to teach the
subject matter of the challenged claims. Id. at 51-55. Petitioner further relies on a
declaration from Jeffrey A. Miller, Ph.D., to support the analysis in the Petitions.
Ex. 1002. We have considered the arguments and evidence presented, and
determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would
prevail on its obviousness challenge to independent claims 1, 61, 79, and 90, or the
other challenged claims depending therefrom.
IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2

13

1. Overview of Yanagawa
Yanagawa discloses a recognition device for a traveling vehicle that
recognizes the presence of taillights of a vehicle traveling ahead and headlights of
an oncoming vehicle. Ex. 1004, 7. The recognition device uses an imaging sensor,
such as a color television camera. Id. at 8. The device extracts color features of
headlights and taillights to form a feature extracted color image signal based on a
color video signal. Id. As shown in Figure 1 from Yanagawa, reproduced below, a
video signal of images from television camera 11 is supplied to decoder 13. Id. at
2.

Figure 1 from Yanagawa illustrates the traveling vehicle recognition device for
automatically controlling headlight beams.
Decoder 13 forms R (red), G (green), and B (blue) color image signals based
on the video signal, and supplies the color image signals to image signal processor
14. Id. at 8. Image signal processor 14 extracts features from the color image
signal, and the luminescent colors of white and red are emphasized. Id. Image
signal processor 14 includes features extraction unit 141, as shown in Figure 4,
reproduced below. Id.
IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2

14

Figure 4 from Yanagawa illustrates the configuration of the image signal
processor.
Thus R, G, and B color image signals from decoder 13 are supplied to
features extraction unit 141, where the inputted image signals “are binarized” to
capture only information relating to headlights and taillights. Id. Based on the
information captured, recognition unit 143 determines whether the image is a
taillight. Id. Recognition unit 143 makes this determination according to whether
there are two red images at the same height. Id. at 9.
2. Overview of Vellacott
Vellacott discloses a single chip CMOS image sensor that “could eventually
displace the multi-chip CCDs [charge couple devices]” presently in use. Ex.1006,
2. Exposure control of the image sensor is implemented on-chip by monitoring the
output waveform, and the exposure length “is controlled by varying the pixel reset
time via the vertical shift register; this allows the exposure period to be set in
multiples of the line readout time.” Id. As a result, the total exposure range is
40,000:1. Id. Vellacott further describes a field trial that includes the CMOS
image sensor (imputer) during the development of “electro-chromic rearview
mirrors, which automatically reduce headlamp glare from behind.” Id. at 4.
IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2

15

According to Vellacott, “[t]he imputer was programmed to analyze [an] image to
recogni[z]e when and where headlamps are present in the field of view . . . [and to]
dim[] the rear-view and wing mirrors automatically to reduce glare to the driver.”
Id.
3. Claim 1
Claim 1 recites an “imaging sensor” comprising “a two-dimensional CMOS
array of light sensing photosensor elements,” where the “imaging sensor is
operable to capture frames of image data at a plurality of exposure periods.” In
arguing that claim 1 would have been obvious over the “the combination of
Yanagawa, the AAPA as evidenced by Bendell and Vellacott, and Bottesch,”
Petitioner relies on Vellacott (and other references) as teaching the CMOS
limitation of claim 1. 296 Pet. 15-22. Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have had reason to modify the system of Yanagawa, which
uses a television camera having electron-gun tubes, to have a solid state CCD
sensor as taught by Bendell, and to substitute the CMOS sensor of Vellacott for the
CCD sensor of Bendell. Id. at 17-19. Petitioner contends that Vellacott discloses
single-chip CMOS sensors being “advantageously lower-power substitutes for
CCD sensors,” and that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize these
well-known advantages and so also be motivated to choose to use a camera that
contains a CMOS photosensor array as disclosed and suggested in Vellacott.” Id.
at 19.
Petitioner further relies on the disclosure of Vellacott as allegedly teaching
the “plurality of exposure periods” limitation of claim 1. 296 Pet. 21-22 (citing Ex.
1006, 2). Specifically, Petitioner cites in its claim chart to Vellacott’s disclosure
that exposure control is implemented “by monitoring the output wave-form to
determine the appropriate exposure setting. The length of exposure is controlled
IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2

16

by varying the pixel reset time via the vertical shift register.” 296 Pet. 21 (citing
Ex. 1006, 2). Petitioner further cites to the disclosure in Vellacott, which suggests,
“[b]y gating this readout signal with a pulse that is a multiple of the pixel readout it
is possible to decrease the exposure even further, down to 500 ns. This gives a
total exposure range of 40[,]000:1.” Id.
Patent Owner argues that although “Vellacott was included in the grounds
for an alleged teaching of a CMOS sensor, there is absolutely no obviousness
analysis as to how or why the frame capture/exposure period feature would have
been obvious to combine with Yanagawa.” 296 Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner’s
argument is persuasive. Petitioner does not provide a persuasive fact-based
analysis to support the proposed combination of Yanagawa and Vellacott with
regards to the limitation of claim 1 reciting “capture frames of image data at a
plurality of exposure periods.” Petitioner also has not provided a persuasive
rationale for combining these references. Petitioner’s statements as to the general
use of a CMOS sensor, and the alleged advantage of CMOS sensors over CCD
sensors in general, do not relate specifically to the exposure period limitation of
claim 1 and do not constitute a sufficient reason why a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have combined the references in the manner alleged to “capture
frames of image data at a plurality of exposure periods,” as recited in claim 1. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved
obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
known in the prior art.”).
Petitioner also relies on the declaration of Dr. Miller in support of its
arguments. Dr. Miller summarizes his view of the references, but does not proffer
any explanation or persuasive evidence demonstrating that it would have been
obvious to combine Yanagawa and Vellacott. Ex. 1016 ¶ 22; see 37 C.F.R. §
IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2

17

42.65(a). As such, Petitioner does not provide a persuasive fact-based analysis to
support the proposed combination of Yanagawa and Vellacott with respect to the
claim limitation of capturing frames of image data at a plurality of exposure
periods. Moreover, Petitioner does not rely on Bendell or Bottesch to overcome
this deficiency. Petitioner relies on Bendell only to describe a solid state television
camera having a solid state CCD-type sensor array matrix (Pet. 17-18), and
Bottesch only to describe positioning of the image sensor so that camera views
through the windshield are at an area swept by a windshield wiper (Pet. 19).
Further, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s challenge of claim 1 is
deficient because Petitioner does not address the claim limitation “wherein said
imaging sensor has a forward field of view to the exterior of a windshield of a
vehicle equipped with said imaging sensing system” in the arguments supporting
the ground challenging claim 1, the claim chart, and the declaration of Dr. Miller.
296 Prelim Resp. 16. We agree, as Petitioner has not provided the requisite
detailed explanation establishing how the cited references disclose this limitation.
See, e.g., Pet. 19-22 (claim chart missing the limitation); see 37 C.F.R. §
42.22(a)(2).
Accordingly, based on the arguments and evidence of Petitioner and Patent
Owner, we are not persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
would prevail with respect to its contention that claim 1 is unpatentable.
4. Dependent Claims
Challenged claims 4-6, 9-11, 15-18, 20-39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 53, 55, and 58-60
all depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claim 1. Our determination
concerning the insufficiency of Petitioner’s evidence with respect to the “capture
frames of image data at a plurality of exposure periods” limitation of independent
claim 1, discussed above, applies equally to the claims that depend from claim 1.
IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2

18

Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would
prevail with respect to its contention that claims 4-6, 9-11, 15-18, 20-39, 41, 42,
44, 45, 53, 55, and 58-60 are unpatentable.
5. Claims 61-64, 66-71, and 73-78
Challenged claim 61 is independent, and claims 62-64, 66-71, and 73-78
depend, directly or indirectly, therefrom. Like claim 1, claim 61 includes the
limitation that the imaging sensor is operable to “capture frames of image data at a
plurality of exposure periods.” Our determination concerning the insufficiency of
the evidence with respect to a persuasive rationale for combining Yanagawa and
Vellacott to reach the “capture frames of image data at a plurality of exposure
periods” limitation of independent claim 1, discussed above, applies equally to
claim 61 and the claims that depend therefrom. Petitioner’s only support for
modifying Yanagawa based on the disclosure in Vellacott consists of quotations
from Vellacott in its claim chart, and the general assertion that “all references are
properly combined.” 297 Pet. 16-23. According, we determine that Petitioner
does not proffer sufficient evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have modified Yanagawa using the disclosure of Vellacott to “capture
frames of image data at a plurality of exposure periods,” as required by claim 61.
In addition, claim 61 recites “wherein a red spectral filter is disposed at
some of said light sensing photosensor elements and wherein a red spectral filter is
not disposed at others of said light sensing photosensor elements and wherein at
least one of (a) said others of said light sensing photosensor elements are neighbors
of said red filtered light sensing photosensor elements and (b) said others of said
light sensing photosensor elements are immediately adjacent to said red filtered
light sensing photosensor elements.” Petitioner acknowledges that Yanagawa does
not disclose this feature, but asserts that this teaching is found in Bendell, which
IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2

19

describes, “where the filter action is prismatic, and the light is directed to
respective red, blue and green imagers.” 297 Pet.18-19. Petitioner further
characterizes Figure 4 of Kawahara as suggesting filter elements that are red and
other filters that are not red. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1108, 3:3-15, Fig. 4). With
respect to providing a reason to combine the references, Petitioner merely
concludes “all references are properly combined to show all elements of what is
claimed.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1116 ¶ 21).
Patent Owner counters that Petitioner presents “ambiguous and conflicting
assertions regarding [the] red spectral filter feature of claim 61” in arguing that
both Bendell and Kawahara suggest this feature. 297 Prelim. Resp. 14. Moreover,
Patent Owner points out that Petitioner “summarily concludes all references are
properly combined,” without providing any analysis or discussion of how the
references are to be combined. Id. at 14-15, 17-20 (emphasis added). Petitioner
also does not proffer a “proper rationale for combining the references,” according
to Patent Owner. Id. at 34.
Patent Owner’s arguments are persuasive. Petitioner’s conclusory
statements as to the red spectral filter feature allegedly suggested by Bendell, and
the spectral filter allegedly suggested by Kawahara, are lacking in detail and do not
articulate sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the
system of Yanagawa using the alleged red spectral filters of Bendell or Kawahara.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“A patent composed of several elements is not proved
obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
known in the prior art.”). Petitioner’s cite to the declaration of Dr. Miller in
support of its conclusion of obviousness, without providing analysis or
explanation, also is not persuasive. We note that Dr. Miller summarizes his view
of the references, but does not proffer any explanation or persuasive evidence
IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2

20

demonstrating that it would have been obvious to combine Yanagawa with Bendell
and/or Kawahara. Ex. 1016 ¶ 21; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).
Accordingly, based on the evidence and arguments of record, Petitioner has
not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to its
contention that claims 61-64, 66-71, and 73-78 are unpatentable.
6. Claims 79-87
Challenged claim 79 is independent, and claims 80-87 depend, directly or
indirectly, therefrom. Claim 79 includes the limitation that “identification of
objects is based at least in part on at least one of (i) shape, (ii) luminance, (iii)
geometry, (iv) spatial location, (v) motion and (vi) spectral characteristic.”
Petitioner argues that each detail of the prior art is “present as claimed,” and that
Zheng is “further combined to show that the imaging sensing system identifies
traffic signs by spectral signature of the signs.” 297 Pet. 42. Petitioner then states
that “[t]hose skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of
Zheng with the other references, in order to detect traffic signs based on spectral
signature. The inclusion of Kenue to detect lane markers within claim 79 of the
‘552 Patent is obvious and noninventive since it merely constitutes a trivial
addition of a known element from the prior art in the same manner as taught in the
art.” Id. (citing Ex. 1116 ¶ 38).
It is unclear why Petitioner references Kenue in its analysis of claim 79, as
the asserted ground is based only on the combination of Yanagawa, AAPA,
Bendell, Vellacott, and Bottesch. Id. To the extent Petitioner meant to reference
Zheng instead of Kenue, Petitioner has not provided a sufficient reason why a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Zheng
with those of the other references in the manner asserted. Petitioner’s statement
that Zheng allegedly teaches identifying traffic signs by spectral signature is
IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2

21

merely an allegation that the reference teaches the claim limitation. It does not
explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined that teaching
in Zheng with the teachings of the other references. Petitioner also relies on the
declaration of Dr. Miller. Dr. Miller, however, summarizes his view of the
references, but does not proffer any explanation or persuasive evidence
demonstrating that it would have been obvious to combine Zheng with any of the
other references. Ex. 1016 ¶ 38; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).
As such, Petitioner does not provide a persuasive fact-based analysis to
support the proposed combination of Yanagawa and Zheng with regards to the
claim limitation of detecting objects, e.g. traffic signs, based on spectral
characteristic, as recited in claim 79. Moreover, Petitioner does not rely on any of
the other cited references to overcome this deficiency.
Accordingly, based on the arguments and evidence of Petitioner, we are not
persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with
respect to its challenge to claim 79. Our determination concerning the
insufficiency of the evidence with respect to claim 79 applies equally to dependent
claims 80-87. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
likelihood that it would prevail with respect to its contention that claims 79-87 are
unpatentable.
7. Claims 90-104
Challenged claim 90 is independent, and claims 91-104 depend, directly or
indirectly, therefrom. Similar to claim 1, claim 90 recites that the image sensing
system includes an “exposure control which determines an accumulation period of
time said imaging sensor senses light when capturing a frame of image data and
wherein said exposure control defines a plurality of accumulation periods.”
Petitioner’s only support for modifying Yanagawa based on the disclosure in
IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2

22

Vellacott consists of quotations from Vellacott in its claim chart, and the general
assertion that “claim 90 is obvious where the references are properly combined to
show all elements of what is claimed.” 298 Pet. 15-22. Accordingly, we conclude
that Petitioner does not proffer sufficient evidence showing that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have modified Yanagawa using the disclosure of Vellacott to
capture frames of image data at a plurality of accumulation periods, as required by
claim 90.
Our determination concerning the insufficiency of the evidence with respect
to the similar limitation in claim 1 regarding capturing frames of image data,
discussed above, applies equally to claim 90 and the claims that depend therefrom.
Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would
prevail with respect to its contention that claims 90-104 are unpatentable.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, based on the information presented in the
Petitions, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
likelihood that it would prevail in establishing that any of the challenged claims of
the ’552 patent are unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny the Petitions and do not
institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No.
8,324,552 B2.
IV. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that the Petitions in Cases IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and
IPR2014-00298 challenging the patentability of the claims of U.S. Patent No.
8,324,552 B2 are denied; and
IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298
Patent 8,324,552 B2

23

FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision be entered into the file
of all three proceedings.

FOR PETITIONER:

Josh Snider
Timothy Sendek
A. Justin Poplin
LATHROP & GAGE LLP
patent@lathropgage.com
tsendek@lathropgage.com
jpoplin@lathropgage.com

FOR PATENT OWNER:

Timothy A. Flory
Terence J. Linn
GARDNER, LINN, BURKHART & FLORY, LLP
Flory@glbf.com
linn@glbf.com

David K.S. Cornwell
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC
davidc-PTAB@skgf.com