Valeo, Inc.v.Magna Electronics Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 28, 2015

13566266 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 55
571-272-7822 Entered: May 28, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC., VALEO S.A., VALEO GMBH,
VALEO SCHALTER UND SENSOREN GMBH, and CONNAUGHT
ELECTRONICS LTD.,
Petitioner,

v.

MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC.,
Patent Owner.

Case IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

Before JAMESON LEE, PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, and
MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Valeo North America, Inc., Valeo S.A., Valeo GmbH, Valeo Schalter
und Sensoren GmbH, and Connaught Electronics Ltd. (collectively,
“Petitioner”) filed a Corrected Petition requesting inter partes review of
claims 1–3, 6, 8–29, 31–41, 44–50, 52–55, and 59 of U.S. Patent No.
8,386,114 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’114 patent”). Paper 6 (“Pet.”). Magna
Electronics, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 12
(“Prelim. Resp.”). On May 29, 2014, we instituted an inter partes review of
claims 1, 3, 6, 8–11, 14–16, 18–29, 31, 32, 34, 35–41, 44, 46, and 47–50
(“the instituted claims”) of the ’114 patent on certain grounds of
unpatentability alleged in the Petition. Paper 13 (“Dec. to Inst.”).
After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
(Paper 22, “PO Resp.”) to which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 26, “Pet.
Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 51), which
Petitioner opposed (Paper 53). Patent Owner filed a Reply to Petitioner’s
Opposition to its Motion to Exclude. Paper 54.
Oral hearing was held on January 14, 2015.
1

The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
instituted claims of the ’114 patent are unpatentable. Patent Owner’s
Motion to Exclude is denied.

1
A transcript of the oral hearing is included in the record as Paper 50
(“Tr.”).
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

3
A. Related Proceedings
Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’114 patent is involved
in Magna Elecs., Inc. v. Valeo, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-11376 (E.D. Mich.), filed
March 28, 2013. Pet. 5; Paper 8, 2. Petitioner also has filed five petitions
for inter partes review of other related patents of Patent Owner: IPR2014-
00220 (U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565 B2), IPR2014-00221 (U.S. Patent No.
7,991,522 B2), IPR2014-00223 (U.S. Patent No. 8,386,114 B2), IPR2014-
00227 (U.S. Patent No. 7,877,175 B2), and IPR2014-00228 (U.S. Patent No.
7,877,175 B2).
The ’114 is also the subject of IPR2014-01204.
B. The ’114 Patent
The ’114 patent relates generally to vision or imaging systems for
vehicles and, more particularly, to imaging systems that are operable to
determine if a vehicle or object of interest is adjacent to, forward of, or
rearward of the subject vehicle to assist the driver in changing lanes or
parking the vehicle. Ex. 1001, 1:23–28. The prior art included many lane
change aid/side object detection/lane departure warning devices or systems,
and the like, that are operable to detect a vehicle or other object that is
present next to, ahead of, or rearward of the equipped vehicle or in a lane
adjacent to the equipped vehicle. Id. at 1:34–38. Such known systems
statistically analyzed all of the pixels in a pixelated image. Id. at 1:53–56.
However, because such systems continuously analyze every pixel for every
frame captured, they require expensive processing controls and
computationally expensive software to continuously handle and process
substantially all of the data. Id. at 1:65–2:5. In addition, prior art warning
systems may result in many intended maneuvers causing a warning. Id. at
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

4
2:24–29. As a result, the driver may begin to ignore the warnings. Id. at
2:30–31.
To address these issues, the ’114 patent discloses an object detection
system operable to detect and/or identify a vehicle or other object of interest
at the side, front, or rear of the vehicle equipped with the object detection
system. Id. at 2:40–49. The system uses an edge detection algorithm to
detect edges of objects in the captured images. Id. at 2:49–56. The system
processes a subset of image data that is representative of a target zone or
area of interest within the field of view where a vehicle or object is likely to
be present. Id. at 2:56–60. The system processes the detected edges within
the subset of image data to determine whether they are part of a vehicle. Id.
at 2:60–64. The system utilizes various filtering mechanisms to
substantially eliminate or substantially ignore edges or pixels that are not or
cannot be indicative of a vehicle or significant object to reduce the
processing requirements and to reduce the possibility of false positive
signals. Id. at 2:65–3:3.
Figure 1 is reproduced below.

Figure 1 depicts an overhead view of a vehicle incorporating the object
detection system of the invention described in the ’114 patent. Id. at 4:10–
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

5
11. Lane change assist or aid system 10 is positioned at vehicle 12 (such as
at exterior rearview mirror 12a) and is operable to capture an image of a
scene occurring sidewardly and rearwardly at or along one or both sides of
vehicle 12. Id. at 4:50–54. Lane change assist system 10 comprises image
capture device or sensor or camera 14, which captures an image of the scene
occurring toward a respective side of the vehicle 12, and control 16, which
processes the captured image to determine whether another vehicle 18 is
present at the side of vehicle 12. Id. at 4:54–60. Control 16 further may be
operable to activate a warning indicator or display or signal device to alert
the driver of vehicle 12 that another vehicle is present at the side of vehicle
12. Id. at 4:60–63.
Side object detection works based on the edges detected. Id. at 9:16.
Horizontal edges are used to detect and track vehicles. Id. at 9:17. Vertical
edges are used to detect vehicles close to the camera and passing vehicles.
Id. at 9:22–24. Vehicle identification may be based on the shadow created
by a vehicle. Id. at 9:25–26. The shadow of the subject or “host” vehicle
may be detected as a target vehicle if the host shadow is extended in the
zone of area of interest alongside the host vehicle, as may happen in the
morning or evening. Id. at 10:43–47.
Figure 14 is reproduced below.

IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

6
Figure 14 is a representation of a captured image showing the shadow of the
vehicle in the area adjacent to the vehicle. Id. at 4:37–38. The host shadow
consists of a straight horizontal edge and an edge line with some slope. Id.
at 10:47–49. The ’114 patent discloses a series of steps to process the image
to remove or ignore the host shadow. Id. at 10:50–67. The ’114 patent
further discloses a bicycle detection process. Id. at 11:10–12:33, Fig. 15.
The ’114 patent further discloses a headlight detection process. Id. at 14:4–
55, Figs. 16–20.
C. Illustrative Claim
Of the instituted claims, claims 1, 27, and 39 are independent. Claim
1 is reproduced below:
1. An imaging system for detecting objects exterior of a
vehicle, said imaging system comprising:
an imaging device comprising a CMOS array of photo-
sensing pixels, wherein said imaging device is part of an
exterior rearview mirror assembly that attaches at a side of a
vehicle equipped with said imaging system, and wherein said
imaging device captures image data;
wherein, with said exterior rearview mirror assembly
attached at the side of the equipped vehicle, said imaging
device has a field of view at least one of rearward of said
exterior rearview mirror assembly in a direction towards the
rear of the equipped vehicle and sideward of said exterior
rearview mirror assembly in a direction away from the side of
the equipped vehicle at which said exterior rearview mirror
assembly is attached;
a control for processing image data captured by said
imaging device;
wherein said control utilizes edge detection in processing
captured image data;
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

7
wherein, responsive at least in part to said processing of
captured image data by said control, said control determines
objects of interest present in the field of view of said imaging
device;
wherein objects of interest determined to be present in
the field of view of said imaging device comprise at least one of
(i) a vehicle that is at least one of rearward of the equipped
vehicle and sideward of the equipped vehicle, (ii) a headlight of
a vehicle that is at least one of rearward of the equipped vehicle
and sideward of the equipped vehicle, (iii) a bicycle that is at
least one of rearward of the equipped vehicle and sideward of
the equipped vehicle, and (iv) a bicycle rider that is at least one
of rearward of the equipped vehicle and sideward of the
equipped vehicle;
wherein, responsive at least in part to said processing of
captured image data by said control, a driver of the equipped
vehicle is alerted to a hazardous condition; and
wherein, in determining objects of interest present in the
field of view of said imaging device, edges that are not
indicative of objects of interest are substantially ignored in
order to at least one of (a) reduce processing requirements and
(b) reduce false signals.
D. Prior Art Supporting Instituted Challenges
Petitioner relies upon the following references:
Gutta et al. U.S. 6,424,273 B1 July 23, 2002 Ex. 1002
Saito (“Nissan”)
2
JP 2004-1658 Jan. 8, 2004 Ex. 1003
Broggi et al., Multi-Resolution Vehicle Detection Using
Artificial Vision, 2004 IEEE INTELLIGENT VEHICLE SYMP. 310
(June 14-17, 2004) (“Broggi”)
Ex. 1005

2
Nissan is a Japanese language document. Ex. 1003. Unless indicated
otherwise, all citations to Nissan in this decision will refer to its certified
English language translation. Ex. 1004.
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

8
Achler et al., Vehicle Wheel Detector Using 2D Filter Banks,
2004 IEEE INTELLIGENT VEHICLES SYMP. 25 (June 14–17, 2004)
(“Achler”)
Ex. 1006
V. Kastrinaki et al., A Survey of Video Processing Techniques
for Traffic Applications, 21 IMAGE & VISION COMPUTING 359
(Apr. 2003) (“Kastrinaki”)
Ex. 1009
Broggi et al., AUTOMATIC VEHICLE GUIDANCE: THE EXPERIENCE
OF THE ARGO AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE (1999) (“Broggi II”)
Ex. 1012
E. The Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
We instituted inter partes review on the following grounds:
References Basis Claims Challenged
Gutta, Nissan, and Broggi § 103 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 18–29, 31,
32, 35–41, 44, and 47–50
Gutta, Nissan, Broggi, and Achler § 103 10, 11, 32, and 44
Gutta, Nissan, Broggi, and Kastrinaki § 103 14 and 15
Gutta, Nissan, Broggi, Kastrinaki, and
Broggi II
§ 103 16, 34, and 46
II. MOTION TO EXCLUDE
Patent Owner seeks to exclude Broggi (Exhibit 1005). Paper 51, 3–5.
As movant, Patent Owner has the burden of proof to establish that it is
entitled to the requested relief. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). For the reasons
stated below, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied.
Prior to filing its Motion to Exclude, Patent Owner objected to Exhibit
1005 within the required five business days. Paper 51, 2. Patent Owner
preserved the objections by filing a Motion to Exclude Evidence. Paper 33
(now expunged). The Board expunged this motion because it failed to
comply with an earlier order stating that a Motion to Exclude Evidence
should not include arguments alleging that a reply exceeds the scope of a
proper reply. Paper 45 (referring to earlier order at Paper 15). Patent Owner
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

9
requested rehearing of that order. Paper 47. The Board granted the request
for rehearing to permit filing of a revised Motion to Exclude with
inappropriate argument removed. Paper 48. Specifically, in a follow-up
conference call, we clarified that arguments alleging that Petitioner’s Reply
was beyond the scope of a proper reply were to be marked in strikethrough.
Paper 49, 2. We also asked that Patent Owner consider whether other
arguments, such as those related to the weight of evidence rather than
admissibility, were appropriate in a motion to exclude evidence. Id. at 2–3.
Patent Owner’s revised Motion to Exclude Evidence seeks to exclude
Exhibit 1005. Paper 51.
Patent Owner argues that Broggi should be excluded because
Petitioner “fails to demonstrate, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), that
Broggi was published or made publicly accessible prior to the December 23,
2004 priority date of the ’114 patent.” Paper 51, 4. According to Patent
Owner, “Broggi only lists the date of the 2004 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles
Symposium in Parma, Italy (June 14-17), which provides no evidence to
support that the paper was published at or prior to the conference.” Id.
Patent Owner also argues that the testimony in the Declaration of Dr.-Ing.
Jan-Michael Frahm (Ex. 1013) as to Broggi’s public accessibility lacks
personal knowledge. Id.
Petitioner argues that Broggi is a “self-authenticating periodical[]
under FRE 902(6) that require[s] no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in
order to be admitted under FRE 902(6).” Paper 53, 4 (citing Liberty Mutual
Insur. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insur. Co., Case CBM2012-00010, slip
op. at 37 (PTAB Feb. 24, 2014) (Paper 59)). Specifically, Petitioner argues
that Broggi “purport[s] to be [a] periodical[] (which Patent Owner, notably,
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

10
does not dispute) and, therefore, require[s] no extrinsic evidence of
authenticity in order to be admitted under FRE 902(6).” Id. at 5. Petitioner
submits a declaration from the IEEE custodian of records, Mr. Gerald P.
Grenier, to corroborate that Broggi was published and presented at the 2004
IEEE Intelligent Vehicle Symposium that occurred on June 14–17, 2004. Id.
at 5–6 (citing Ex. 1021; Ex. 1022). Petitioner also argues that Patent
Owner’s argument is unsupported by evidence, and that there is no
requirement that an expert have personal knowledge of the publication date
of a document in order to rely on it as prior art. Id. at 8–9 (citing EMC
Corp. v. PersonalWeb Techs., Case IPR2013-00082, slip op. at 60 (PTAB
May 15, 2014) (Paper 83)). Finally, Petitioner argues that “[t]he publication
dates and Copyright notice dates on [Broggi] clearly establish [its] prior art
date[].” Id. at 9 (citing FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., Case
IPR2014-00411, slip op at 18–19 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2014) (Paper 9)).
Patent Owner replies that Broggi is not a self-authenticating periodical
because its “range of dates is associated with a conference, and there is no
evidence of publication at that conference.” Paper 54, 1. Patent Owner also
argues that Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Grenier, “admitted at his deposition
that he did not know when the Broggi article was published, and that his
records did not identify a date of publication.” Id. at 1–2 (citing Ex. 2011,
12–13). Finally, Patent Owner distinguishes EMC Corp. on the grounds that
“the other factors that served to authenticate the Langer reference in EMC
Corp. are not present here,” and argues that Broggi’s copyright date—
“© 2004 IEEE”—relates to creation, and cannot be assumed to be a
publication date. Id. at 3.
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

11
In large part, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not established
that Broggi is prior art. See Paper 51, 3–5; Ex. 2007, 1–3 (objections). Such
arguments go to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence and not to
admissibility. A motion to exclude deals with admissibility of evidence, not
the sufficiency of evidence. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (August 14, 2012) (A motion to exclude may not be
used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact.).
Patent Owner’s preliminary response and response were opportunities to
challenge whether Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that Broggi is
prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Patent Owner elected not to make such a
challenge.
Patent Owner’s sole argument regarding admissibility is that
Dr.-Ing. Frahm’s statement in Exhibit 1013 cannot serve to authenticate
Broggi. See Ex. 2007, 2–3; Paper 51, 4. We do not rely upon the Frahm
Declaration to authenticate Broggi.
Federal Rule of Evidence 901 requires that the proponent produce
evidence sufficient to support a finding that an item is what the proponent
claims it is. The Grenier Declaration indicates that Mr. Grenier is the Senior
Director of Publishing Technologies for the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and a neutral third party to this proceeding.
3

Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 1, 4, 5. Having reviewed IEEE records related to Broggi,
Mr. Grenier certifies that Broggi is a true and correct copy of a record kept
in the ordinary course of business, and this article was presented at an IEEE

3
Although the Grenier Declaration is filed as an exhibit, it is supplemental
evidence and may only be considered with regard to the admissibility of
Broggi (Ex. 1005). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2).
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

12
symposium which occurred June 14–17, 2004. Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 3, 7–9. The
Grenier Declaration establishes sufficiently that Broggi is what Petitioner
claims it to be.
We determine that Patent Owner has not met its burden of proof to
establish that Broggi is inadmissible under a Federal Rule of Evidence. See
37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.62(a). Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to
Exclude is denied.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1281–82 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (“Congress implicitly adopted the broadest reasonable interpretation
standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by
PTO regulation.”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim
terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2007).
In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted various claim terms of
the ’114 patent as follows:
Claim Term (Claims) Interpretation
“edge detection”
(1, 8, 27, 32, 39, 44, 52, and 54)
an image segmentation technique in
which edge pixels are identified by
examining their neighborhoods
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

13
Claim Term (Claims) Interpretation
“adjusts said processing of
captured image data” (2)
excludes physically adjusting the
camera
See Dec. on Inst. 9–10. The parties do not dispute these interpretations in
their Patent Owner Response and Reply. We adopt the above claim
constructions based on our previous analysis, and see no reason to deviate
from those constructions, based on the complete record now before us.
B. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 18–29, 31, 32, 35–41, 44, and 47–50 –
Obvious over Gutta, Nissan, and Broggi
Petitioner contends that claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 18–29, 31, 32, 35–41, 44,
and 47–50 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gutta,
Nissan, and Broggi. Pet. 21–44. In support of this ground of
unpatentability, Petitioner explains how each claim limitation is taught by
Gutta, Nissan, or Broggi, and relies upon the Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Frahm.
Id. (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 153–67, 169–73, 178–88, 219, 224, 225, 234–38).
Patent Owner argues that (1) the Petition fails to provide a detailed
explanation of Broggi; (2) the Petition fails to articulate a reason with
rational underpinnings to combine Gutta, Nissan, and Broggi; and (3) Broggi
does not disclose that “said control determines shadows present in the field
of view of said imaging device and discerns shadows from objects present in
the field of view of said imaging device,” as recited in claim 3. PO Resp. 3–
13.
Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and supporting
evidence, we determine that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 18–29, 31, 32, 35–41, 44, and 47–
50 are unpatentable as obvious over Gutta, Nissan, and Broggi.
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

14
1. Gutta (Exhibit 1002)
Gutta describes a vehicular vision system to aid a driver of a vehicle
to determine whether it is safe to change lanes. Ex. 1002, Abstract.
Figure 2 is reproduced below.

Figure 2 depicts an overhead view of cameras on a vehicle having the
vehicular vision system of Gutta. Id. at 2:20–22. Vehicular system 10
includes first and second side image cameras 12 and 14, rear image camera
16, distance determiner 18, and object identifier 20. Id. at 2:29–32. First
and second side image cameras 12 and 14 are placed preferably on, e.g.,
passenger side and driver side front portions of the vehicle, respectively,
such that rearward and sideward fields of view 12’ and 14’ are obtained for
both sides of vehicle 1. Id. at 2:55–60. Rear image camera 16 is placed
preferably on rear portion 30 of vehicle 1 with its field of view oriented such
that a rearward view from vehicle 1 is obtained. Id. at 3:1–3. Rear image
camera 16 preferably has a field of view that results in only very small areas
32 and 34 behind the vehicle not being visible to either rear image camera
16 or first and second side image cameras 12 and 14. Id. at 3:3–7. Images
generated by cameras 12, 14, and 16 are provided to image processor 22,
which processes the image signals generated by the cameras and provides
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

15
processed image signals to display 24 for viewing by the driver, to distance
determiner 18, and to object identifier 20. Id. at 3:14–19, 23–27. Object
identifier 20 identifies the type of objects observed by the camera, preferably
by the well-known methods of extraction and classification. Id. at 3:34–40,
51–56. The identification may be as simple as saying that the object is a car,
bus, motorcycle, sport utility, minivan, or truck. Id. at 3:56–58.
Figure 3 is reproduced below.

Figure 3 is an exemplary display according to Gutta. Id. at 2:23–24. As
depicted in Figure 3, display device 24 displays a composite image that
includes: (1) visual representations 36, 38, and 40 of the fields of view 12’,
14’, and 16’ of cameras 12, 14, and 16, respectively; (2) notations 42 as to
each type of object identified; and (3) indications 44 of the distance between
the object and vehicle 1. Id. at 4:24–32. Based on the information provided
by the cameras, object identifier, and distance determiner, the system can
provide the driver with an indication that it is now safe to change lanes to the
left or right in response to the driver activating the turn signal. Id. at 5:22–
27.
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

16
2. Nissan (Exhibit 1004)
Nissan describes a vehicle-mounted camera optical axis misalignment
detection device that detects optical axis misalignment in a vehicle-mounted
camera that is mounted on a vehicle and captures images of an area around
the vehicle. Ex. 1004 ¶ 1. Vehicle-mounted system 30 includes vehicle-
mounted camera 2 that is built in to a left hand door mirror of the vehicle.
Id. ¶ 32. Vehicle-mounted camera 2 captures an image of a position that is a
blind spot for the driver at the front left of the car near the left fender. Id.
Specifically, vehicle-mounted camera 2 is mounted on the car such that a left
turn signal provided to the side of the car is visible, so as to capture images
including the left turn signal. Id. Vehicle-mounted system 30 displays this
image to display 3, thereby providing the driver with driving support when,
for example, making a left turn. Id.
3. Broggi (Exhibit 1005)
Broggi describes a vehicle detection system using a single camera.
Ex. 1005, Abstract. The system is based on the search for areas with high
vertical symmetry in multi-resolution images. Id. Symmetry is computed
using different sized boxes centered on all the columns of the interest areas.
Id. All the columns with high symmetry are analyzed to get the width of
detected objects. Id. Horizontal edges are examined to find the base of the
vehicle in the individuated area. Id. The aim is to find horizontal lines
located below an area with sufficient amount of edges. Id. The algorithm
deletes all the bounding boxes which are too large, too small, or too far from
the camera in order to decrease the number of false positives. Id. All the
results found in different interest areas are mixed together and the
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

17
overlapping bounding boxes are localized and managed in order to delete
false positives. Id.
An interesting column is defined as having a high symmetry in:
(i) the image that contains the result of Sobel binarization; or (ii) the image
that contains the AND between symmetry of horizontal and vertical edges.
Id. at 3. A columnwise histogram is then used to locate candidate columns.
Id. In correspondence to these columns the vertical edges symmetry is
checked to obtain the expected vehicle width. Id. More specifically, if a
high value of symmetry is present for small widths too, it means that the
algorithm has detected a small object; in this case the column is discarded.
Id.
Figure 5 is reproduced below:

Figure 5 shows an example of discarding a column in which the leftmost
peak is discarded because it presents a high symmetry value also for small
widths. Id. In contrast, the rightmost peak presents an appreciable
symmetry value only for widths above a certain size. Id.
4. Analysis
We are persuaded that the record supports a finding that the
limitations of independent claim 1 listed in the first column of the following
table are taught by the corresponding disclosure of Gutta identified in the
second column of the table:
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

18
Independent Claim 1 Gutta
an imaging device comprising a
CMOS array of photo-sensing pixels
first and second side image cameras
12 and 14, and rear image camera 16,
which may be CMOS imaging arrays
wherein said imaging device
captures image data
a CMOS imaging array captures
image data
wherein, with said exterior rearview
mirror assembly attached at the side
of the equipped vehicle, said imaging
device has a field of view at least one
of rearward of said exterior rearview
mirror assembly in a direction
towards the rear of the equipped
vehicle and sideward of said exterior
rearview mirror assembly in a
direction away from the side of the
equipped vehicle at which said
exterior rearview mirror assembly is
attached
“The first and second side image
cameras 12, 14 are preferably placed
on a portion of the vehicle (e.g., a
passenger side and driver side front
portions of the vehicle, respectively)
such that a rearward and sideward
field of view 12’, 14’ is obtained for
both sides of the vehicle.” Ex. 1002,
2:55–60, Fig. 2.
a control for processing image data
captured by said imaging device
image processor 22 and object
identifier 20
wherein, responsive at least in part to
said processing of captured image
data by said control, said control
determines objects of interest present
in the field of view of said imaging
device
object identifier 20 “analyzes the
images generated by the cameras 12,
14, 16 and identifies the type of
objects observed by the camera. . . .
[T]he identification occurs by
extraction and classification. The
extraction of objects from the field of
view is accomplished in accordance
with any of a number of well-known
methods.” Ex. 1002, 3:34–40.
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

19
Independent Claim 1 Gutta
wherein objects of interest
determined to be present in the field
of view of said imaging device
comprise at least one of (i) a vehicle
that is at least one of rearward of the
equipped vehicle and sideward of the
equipped vehicle, (ii) a headlight of a
vehicle that is at least one of
rearward of the equipped vehicle and
sideward of the equipped vehicle,
(iii) a bicycle that is at least one of
rearward of the equipped vehicle and
sideward of the equipped vehicle,
and (iv) a bicycle rider that is at least
one of rearward of the equipped
vehicle and sideward of the equipped
vehicle
“The identification may be as simple
as saying that the object is a car, bus,
motorcycle, sport utility, minivan or
truck. These methods are known to
persons skilled in the art.” Ex. 1002,
3:56–59.
wherein, responsive at least in part to
said processing of captured image
data by said control, a driver of the
equipped vehicle is alerted to a
hazardous condition
“Thereafter, objects in the field of
view of the cameras are identified by
the object identifier, and the relative
distance of each object from the
vehicle is determined. This
information is then provided to the
display 24 for viewing by the
driver.” Ex. 1002, 3:28–31; see also
id. at Fig. 3.

The “system can provide the driver
with an indication that it is now safe
to change lanes to the left or the right
in response to the driver activating
the turning signal, . . . [and] can have
the capability to automatically
disable the turning signal, in addition
to providing an indication to the
driver on the display, . . . to advise
the driver that it is unsafe to change
lanes.” Ex. 1002, 5:22–31.
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

20
Independent claim 1 also recites “wherein said imaging device is part
of an exterior rearview mirror assembly that attaches at a side of a vehicle
equipped with said imaging system.” Petitioner cites Nissan for teaching
that “vehicle-mounted camera 2 is built in to a left-hand door mirror of the
car.” Pet. 22–23 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 32). We are persuaded that Nissan, as
cited by Petitioner, supports Petitioner’s contention.
Independent claim 1 also recites “wherein said control utilizes edge
detection in processing captured image data.” Petitioner cites Gutta for
teaching that “[t]he extraction of objects from the field of view is
accomplished in accordance with any of a number of well-known methods,”
(Ex. 1002, 3:38–40), and cites Broggi for teaching the use of edge detection
to find areas of an image with the high vertical symmetry that is
characteristic of most vehicles (Ex. 1005, Abstract, 1–3). Pet. 23. We are
persuaded that Gutta and Broggi, as cited by Petitioner, support Petitioner’s
contention.
Independent claim 1 also recites “wherein, in determining objects of
interest present in the field of view of said imaging device, edges that are not
indicative of objects of interest are substantially ignored in order to at least
one of (a) reduce processing requirements and (b) reduce false signals.”
Petitioner cites Broggi for teaching that “the vertical edges symmetry is
checked to obtain the expected vehicle width. . . . [I]f a high value of
symmetry is present for small widths too, it means that the algorithm has
detected a small object; in this case the column is discarded.” Pet. 25–26
(quoting Ex. 1005, 3); see also Ex. 1005, 3 (“Unfortunately not all the
detected boxes are correct: some false positives caused by road signs or
other objects in the scene can be present as well. Two filters are used in
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

21
order to discard some false positives.”). We are persuaded that Broggi, as
cited by Petitioner, supports Petitioner’s contention.
We also are persuaded that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence with
respect to claim 6, 8, 9, 18–28, 31, 32, 35–40, 44, and 47–50 (Pet. 27–44)
support Petitioner’s contentions.
Patent Owner argues that the (1) the Petition fails to provide a detailed
explanation of Broggi; (2) the Petition fails to articulate a reason with
rational underpinnings to combine Gutta, Nissan, and Broggi; and (3) Broggi
does not disclose that “said control determines shadows present in the field
of view of said imaging device and discerns shadows from objects present in
the field of view of said imaging device,” as recited in claim 3. PO Resp. 3–
13. We analyze these arguments in turn.
a. Sufficiency of Petitioner’s Explanation
Patent Owner argues that the Petition fails to provide a detailed
explanation of Broggi (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(4)). PO
Resp. 3–4. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that “Petitioners merely
provided a brief summary of Broggi and claim charts containing
unexplained cut-and-pasted quotations” that “do not contain language
identical to the claim language and lack any explanation to bridge the gap
between the quoted portions of Broggi and the claim elements,” and cites to
claim 3 as an example. Id. at 4. According to Patent Owner, Dr.-Ing.
Frahm’s Declaration “does not add any support.” Id. at 5. Patent Owner
contends that the circumstances “are identical to those in Google.” Id. at 6
(citing Google Inc. v. EveryMD.com LLC, Case IPR2014-00347 (PTAB
May 22, 2014) (Paper 9)).
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

22
Petitioner counters that (1) Patent Owner’s reliance on Google is
misplaced because, unlike in Google, the Petition at hand included a concise
summary of the argument, detailed claim charts, and arguments supported
by an expert declaration; and (2) the one example given by Patent Owner—
claim 3—“illustrates how Patent Owner is wrong.” Pet. Reply 2–4.
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. With respect to claim 3,
for example, Patent Owner’s assertion that “[t]he quotes do not contain
language identical to the claim language,” is not correct. The claim term
“shadow” is used in the cited disclosure of Broggi. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1005,
312 (“[t]he shadow under the car is searched for in order to find the box
base.)). Similarly, Patent Owner asserts that the cited passage of Broggi
“cannot be said to disclose determining a shadow, as required by claim 3,”
but the cited portion of Broggi clearly states that “[t]he shadow under the car
is searched for.” PO Resp. 5. Searching for a shadow under a car
necessarily entails a control “determin[ing] shadows present in the field of
view,” and “discern[ing] shadows from objects present in the field of view,”
as recited in claim 3. Even if the disclosure of Broggi was ambiguous,
which it is not, the Petition cites ¶ 187 of Dr.-Ing. Frahm’s Declaration (Pet.
27), in which he relates the disclosure of Broggi (i.e., “[t]he shadow under
the car is searched for”) to the claim limitations. Ex. 1013 ¶ 187.
Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s explanation of the cited
portions of Broggi is sufficiently clear.
b. Reason to Combine
Patent Owner argues that Petitioner failed to articulate a reason to
combine Gutta, Nissan, and Broggi because (1) it “provided only vague and
unsupported rationale as to why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

23
have been motivated to combine” (PO Resp. 11); (2) “Petitioners and Dr.[-
Ing.] Frahm only analyze the combinations of two references at a time, and
fail to provide analysis for the combination of Nissan, Gutta, and Broggi as
required” (id.) (emphasis original); (3) Petitioner “do[es] not explain why
the object identification system of Gutta would benefit from shadow
detection” (id. at 12); and (4) there is no explanation or evidence of the
alleged well-known design choices and well-known method in the arts that,
in Dr.-Ing. Frahm’s opinion, would have rendered obvious the claimed
invention (id.).
Petitioner counters that Patent Owner’s argument “assumes the
[person of ordinary skill in the art] would lack basic common sense.” Pet.
Reply 6. According to Petitioner, even aside from the discussion of
motivation to combine in the Petition and Dr.-Ing. Frahm’s Declaration, “the
motivation to combine these references is a matter of common sense because
of the particular teachings within Nissan and Broggi as compared to Gutta.”
Id. at 8. Specifically, “[i]t would have been a matter of common sense and
an obvious design choice to modify Gutta to employ (1) a camera in the side
rearview mirror and (2) edge detection.” Id.
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. Petitioner argues that:
A person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have
been motivated to combine the teachings of Gutta, Nissan, and
Broggi given that the references are all in the area of vehicle
vision systems and relate to capturing images of a vehicle’s
surroundings to aid a driver with various vehicle-related
functions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
Gutta’s commentary regarding the number of cameras that
could be employed and the general placement of such cameras
in the vision system of Gutta to use side door mirror mounted
cameras for object detection. Ex. 1013 at ¶¶153-162. Such
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

24
camera placement would have been entirely predictable and a
well-known design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art
prior to December 2004. Id. Further, a person of ordinary skill
in the art would recognize Gutta’s commentary regarding the
use of well-known methods in the art for identifying and
classifying objects from images captured by cameras mounted
on a vehicle would be fully applicable to edge-based
recognition algorithms, using the edge detection as disclosed in
Broggi. Ex. 1013 at ¶¶163-167.
Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶153–67). At the cited portions of his
declaration, Dr.-Ing. Frahm addresses Gutta and Nissan (Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 153–
62), and Gutta and Broggi (Id. ¶¶ 163–67). Although Dr.-Ing. Frahm does
not provide specifically a motivation to make a three-way combination of
Gutta, Broggi, and Nissan, he sufficiently articulates a reason why a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Gutta in view of Nissan (to
place image cameras 14, 16 in the exterior rear view mirrors) and would
have looked to Broggi for the details of Gutta’s “well-known methods” (Ex.
1002, 3:40, 52) of object extraction and classification. Patent Owner points
us to no legal authority for its proposition that a reason to combine three
references cannot be established by discussing the references in separate
pairs. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner has articulated a reason
to combine Gutta, Broggi, and Nissan with rational underpinnings.
c. Claims 3, 29, and 41
Claim 3 recites “said control determines shadows present in the field
of view of said imaging device and discerns shadows from objects present in
the field of view of said imaging device.” Claims 29 and 41 recite “at least
one of . . . (b) said control determines shadows present in the field of view of
said imaging device and discerns shadows from objects present in the field
of view of said imaging device.” Petitioner cites Broggi for teaching that
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

25
“[t]he shadow under the car is searched for,” and that “the algorithm looks
for a high concentration of edges above the horizontal edge” to discern car
shadows from, e.g., bridge shadows. Ex. 1005, 3.
Patent Owner argues that “Broggi does not determine whether or not a
detected object is a shadow, but instead determines the location of the box
base of a vehicle.” PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 (Turk Decl.) ¶ 24).
Specifically, Patent Owner argues that “Broggi merely assumes a shadow is
present beneath the vehicle and . . . determine[s] if a detected horizontal
edge is indicative of a vehicle.” Id. Patent Owner emphasizes Broggi’s
disclosure that “[t]he shadow under the car is searched for in order to find
the box base,” and faults Petitioner for providing “no evidence to show that
‘determining a shadow’ is necessarily performed as part of ‘determining a
box base’ of a vehicle,” and argues that it is not inherent. Id. at 9 (emphasis
original).
Petitioner counters that “Broggi describes searching for a shadow
underneath a car.” Pet. Reply 5.
We determine that Petitioner’s arguments are persuasive. Broggi
states explicitly that “[t]he shadow under the car is searched for.” Ex. 1005,
3. It is irrelevant why the shadow under the car is searched for—to find a
box base or otherwise—because the claims do not require a purpose; they
require only that “said control determines shadows . . . and discerns shadows
from objects.” Patent Owner asserts that, “Broggi merely assumes a shadow
is present beneath a vehicle” (PO Resp. 8), but that cannot be reconciled
with Broggi’s explicit disclosure that “[t]he shadow under the car is searched
for.” Broggi also states explicitly that when looking for car, “the algorithm
looks for a high concentration of edges above the horizontal edge,” “since
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

26
other shadows, like bridges’ ones, could be present on the road as well.”
Ex. 1005, 3. Thus, Broggi’s algorithm not only detects shadows from cars
and bridges, it looks for a high concentration of edges above the horizontal
edge in order to discern whether the shadow is from a car or a bridge.
Accordingly, we are persuaded that Broggi teaches the limitation recited in
claims 3, 29, and 41.
5. Conclusion
Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 18–29, 31, 32, 35–41, 44, and 47–50 are unpatentable as
obvious over Gutta, Nissan, and Broggi.
C. Claims 10, 11, 32, and 44 –
Obvious over Gutta, Nissan, Broggi, and Achler
Petitioner contends that claims 10, 11, 32, and 44 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gutta, Nissan, Broggi, and Achler.
Pet. 44–47. In support of this ground of unpatentability, Petitioner explains
how each claim limitation is taught by Gutta, Nissan, Broggi, or Achler, and
relies upon the Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Frahm. Id. (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 198–
209).
Patent Owner argues that the Petition does not sufficiently articulate a
reason to combine Gutta, Nissan, Broggi, and Achler because Petitioner
provides a motivation to combine only Gutta and Achler. PO Resp. 13–14.
Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and supporting
evidence, we determine that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that claims 10, 11, 32, and 44 are unpatentable as obvious
over Gutta, Nissan, Broggi, and Achler.
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

27
1. Achler (Ex. 1006)
Achler describes a vehicle wheel detector using 2D filter banks.
Ex. 1006, 1. Views from an omnidirectional camera are used to generate
side view images. Id. These images are processed using a difference of
Gaussian filterbank. Id. The responses from the filterbank are applied to a
precomputed set of principle components. Id. The principle component
responses are compared against a Gaussian mixture model of wheels and
Gaussian model roadbed. Id. Wheel candidates are chosen and tracked. Id.
2. Analysis
Claim 10 recites “wherein said control determines that an object of
interest determined to be present in the field of view of said imaging device
is a wheel of a vehicle.” Petitioner cites Achler for teaching a wheel
detector that determines when wheels are present in the field of view of an
imaging device. Pet. 45–46 (citing Ex. 1006, Abstract). We are persuaded
that Achler, as cited by Petitioner, supports Petitioner’s contention.
Claim 11 recites “wherein said control determines the presence of a
wheel of a vehicle by processing image data and determining generally
vertical edges of objects present in the field of view of said imaging device.”
Petitioner cites Achler for teaching detecting the presence of a wheel by
processing image data, and cites Broggi for teaching detecting vertical
edges. Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1006, Abstract; Ex. 1005, Fig. 5, Abstract, 3). We
are persuaded that Achler and Broggi, as cited by Petitioner, support
Petitioner’s contention.
Claims 32 and 44 recite “wherein at least one of . . . (b) [the limitation
recited in claim 10], and (c) [the limitation recited in claim 11].” Patent
Owner does not argue separately claims 32 and 44. For the reasons
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

28
discussed above with respect to claims 10 and 11, we are persuaded that
Achler, as cited by Petitioner, supports Petitioner’s contention.
We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner
failed to articulate a reason to combine Gutta, Nissan, and Broggi with
Achler. PO Resp. 13–14. Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner[] must
explain why one of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
the wheel detector of Achler with the edge detection methodology allegedly
described in Broggi.” Id. at 14. As Petitioner correctly points out, the
Petition proposes to modify Gutta to include wheel detection, as taught by
Achler, and to use edge detection, as taught by Broggi, to detect those
wheels. Pet. Reply 9 (quoting Pet. 45). The Petition cites the following
testimony from Dr.-Ing. Frahm as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art
would combine Gutta, Broggi, and Achler:
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been inclined to
look at Broggi’s teachings for available vehicle detection given
that it also exploits edges. Moreover, as Achler states “[u]sing
a combination of these primitive filters yields a response that is
representative of edges and angles of edges.” Pet. Ex. 1006 at
§1.1. It would have been a simple and obvious variation to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to use the Difference of
Gaussian filters of Achler to extract the edge features exploited
in the edge-based detection scheme of Broggi instead of the
Sobel filter.
Ex. 1013 ¶ 206; Pet. 45. As a result, we are not persuaded by Patent
Owner’s contention that the Petition provides no analysis of why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have combined Achler and Broggi.
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

29
3. Conclusion
Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence,
claims 10, 11, 32, and 44 are unpatentable as obvious over Gutta, Nissan,
Broggi, and Achler.
D. Claims 14 and 15 –
Obvious over Gutta, Nissan, Broggi, and Kastrinaki
Petitioner contends that claims 14 and 15 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gutta, Nissan, Broggi, and Kastrinaki.
Pet. 48–51. In support of this ground of unpatentability, Petitioner explains
how each claim limitation is taught by Gutta, Nissan, Broggi, or Kastrinaki,
and relies upon the Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Frahm. Id. (citing Ex. 1013
¶¶ 210–216).
Patent Owner argues that (1) Kastrinaki does not disclose that the
“reduced data set is representative of a target zone that is encompassed by
the field of view of said imaging device and that is not inclusive of a portion
of the equipped vehicle,” as recited in claim 15; and (2) Petitioner fails to
articulate a reason to combine Kastrinaki with Gutta, Nissan, and Broggi.
PO Resp. 15–19.
Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and supporting
evidence, we determine that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that claims 14 and 15 are unpatentable as obvious over
Gutta, Nissan, Broggi, and Kastrinaki.
1. Kastrinaki (Ex. 1009)
Kastrinaki describes various video processing techniques for traffic
applications known as of 2003. Ex. 1009, 359. Kastrinaki classifies image-
processing methods used in traffic applications, discusses advantages and
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

30
disadvantages of these algorithms, and discusses shortcomings and general
needs in this field of active research. Id. at Abstract. Kastrinaki discloses
techniques related to automatic lane finding and object detection. Id. at
360–72.
2. Analysis
Claim 14 recites “wherein said control reduces captured image data to
a reduced data set of said image data, said control processing said reduced
data set to extract information from said reduced data set.” Petitioner cites
Kastrinaki for teaching the use of a “region of interest (ROI) within each
frame and process[ing] only relevant features within this ROI instead of the
entire image.” Pet. 49 (quoting Ex. 1009, 365). Section 3.2 of Kastrinaki
then describes several techniques for predicting the ROI from previously
processed frames. Ex. 1009, 365. We are persuaded that Kastrinaki, as
cited by Petitioner, supports Petitioner’s contention.
Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and further recites “wherein said
reduced data set is representative of a target zone that is encompassed by the
field of view of said imaging device and that is not inclusive of a portion of
the equipped vehicle.” The Petition states that “Petitioner incorporates all
support cited with respect to claim 14, herein. See also claim 21 above,” and
also states as follows:
Regarding claim 15, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to remove the portion of the equipped vehicle
captured by any camera system from the target zone, as part of
the equipped vehicle is not an object of interest in the vision
system of Gutta. Ex. 1013 at ¶¶224-226.
Pet. 50–51.
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

31
Patent Owner argues that (1) Kastrinaki does not disclose that the
“reduced data set is representative of a target zone that is encompassed by
the field of view of said imaging device and that is not inclusive of a portion
of the equipped vehicle,” as recited in claim 15; and (2) Petitioner fails to
articulate a reason to combine Kastrinaki with Gutta, Nissan, and Broggi.
PO Resp. 15–19. We analyze these arguments in turn.
a. “not inclusive of a portion of the equipped vehicle”
Patent Owner argues that “claims 14 and 21 do not reflect the features
recited by claim 15,” specifically “a target zone . . . that is not inclusive of a
portion of the equipped vehicle.” PO Resp. 15–16. According to Patent
Owner, Kastrinaki does not teach excluding a portion of the equipped
vehicle because, in Kastrinaki, “the equipped vehicle would be included in
the [region of interest], it just would not be processed if it was not a relevant
feature.” Id. at 17. Patent Owner continues that Dr.-Ing. Frahm’s testimony
should be discounted because it is conclusory and unsupported, and “does
not explain why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would need to improve
the system disclosed in Kastrinaki.” Id. at 17–18.
Petitioner counters that it is not relying solely on Kastrinaki for
teaching that recited “target zone . . . is not inclusive of a portion of the
equipped vehicle.” Pet. Reply 11. According to Petitioner, Dr.-Ing. Frahm’s
testimony regarding claim 14 makes clear that Kastrinaki’s region of interest
teaches the “target zone,” and his testimony regarding claim 21 “confirms
that Gutta does not consider a portion of the equipped vehicle to be an object
of interest.” Id. (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 219, 221). Thus, Kastrinaki teaches the
“target zone” while Gutta teaches excluding the portion of the equipped
vehicle. Id. Moreover, Petitioner argues, it would have been obvious to a
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

32
person of ordinary skill in the art to exclude the portion of the equipped
vehicle from the target zone. Id. (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 226; Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 18–23).
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. Contrary to Patent
Owner’s contentions, Petitioner does not rely solely on Kastrinaki to teach
that the “target zone . . . is not inclusive of a portion of the equipped
vehicle.” With respect to this limitation, we credit the testimony of Dr.-Ing.
Frahm, who states that “Gutta does not include any portion of the equipped
vehicle within any region of interest in the captured image data” (Ex. 1013
¶ 219) and that “it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art to reduce the chance of false positives by eliminating portions of the
equipped vehicle from within the designated target zone for the reduced data
set” (id. ¶ 224). Patent Owner takes issue with the support for this
testimony, but does not allege that it is incorrect.
b. Reason to Combine
Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner failed to articulate a reason to
combine Kastrinaki with Gutta, Nissan, and Broggi. PO Resp. 18–19.
Specifically, Patent Owner argues that “simply being in the same field does
not inherently mean that the references are combinable” (id. at 18) and faults
Petitioner for discussing only Gutta and Kastrinaki and, separately, Broggi
and Kastrinaki, but not all four references together (id. at 18–19). Patent
Owner also argues that Dr.-Ing. Frahm’s testimony does not support a prima
facie case of obviousness because it is conclusory. Id. at 19.
Petitioner counters that “the Petition unequivocally provides the
motivation to combine the prior art references.” Pet. Reply 12–13 (citing
Pet. 48–49)). Petitioner also argues that “the motivation to combine Gutta
and Kastrinaki would have been obvious to the PHOSITA based on the
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

33
disclosures within the references themselves.” Id. at 13. Finally, Petitioner
argues that “it would have been a matter of common sense to add Kastrinaki
to the combination of Gutta, Nissan, and Broggi.” Id. (citing Ex. 1014
(Reply Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Frahm) ¶¶ 24–25).
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. The Petition states as
follows:
A person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have been
motivated to combine the teachings of Gutta, Nissan, Broggi,
and Kastrinaki given that the references are all in the area of
vehicle vision systems and relate to capturing images of a
vehicle’s surroundings to aid a driver with various vehicle-
related functions. In addition to the reasons given above with
respect to the combination of Gutta, Nissan, and Broggi, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize Gutta’s
commentary with regard to object identification occurring by
extraction and classification, both of which may be performed
in accordance with “any number of well-known methods,” (Ex.
1002 at 3:36-40) would be fully applicable to any of the video
processing and object identification methods mentioned in the
overview of processing techniques in traffic applications that
are disclosed in Kastrinaki. One of ordinary skill in the art
would also readily recognize the compatibility of Broggi and
Kastrinaki, which both provide for edge detection as a method
for object detection and provide for efficient processing of
edges. In an effort to make the vision system of Gutta as robust
as possible, and given that Kastrinaki provides many of the
relevant processing techniques that were known prior to 2003,
it would have been entirely predictable to make the vision
system of Gutta adaptable to changing conditions. Ex. 1013 at
¶¶210-216.
Pet. 48–49. With respect to claims 14 and 15, the Petition further states as
follows:
With respect to claim 14, it also would have been obvious to
one skilled in the art to combine Gutta and Kastrinaki to
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

34
incorporate the image data reduction of Kastrinaki in the system
of Gutta. Ex. 1013 at ¶¶218-223. Regarding claim 15, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to remove
the portion of the equipped vehicle captured by any camera
system from the target zone, as part of the equipped vehicle is
not an object of interest in the vision system of Gutta. Ex. 1013
at ¶¶224-226.
Id. at 50–51. Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions, Petitioner is not
relying solely on the assertion that these references are in the same field.
Moreover, the Petition discusses Kastrinaki in the context of the other
references. Specifically, it is sufficiently clear that Petitioner is relying on
Kastrinaki as teaching the details of one of the “number of well-known
methods” for object identification alluded to in Gutta. The Petition does not
provide a separate reason for combining Kastrinaki with Nissan. As
Petitioner correctly points out, though (albeit in rebuttal to a different
argument), the Petition “relie[s] on Nissan for a disjoint element of the
system claims of the ’114 patent (i.e., the camera placement in the side
rearview mirror).” Pet. Reply 10. As a result, the proposed modification to
Gutta in view of Kastrinaki does not implicate the teachings of Nissan.
Patent Owner points us to no legal authority for the proposition that a reason
to combine must be provided for every possible pair of a four reference
combination. We are, therefore, persuaded that the reason to combine
articulated by Petitioner is sufficient.
3. Conclusion
Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
claims 14 and 15 are unpatentable as obvious over Gutta, Nissan, Broggi,
and Kastrinaki.
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

35
E. Claims 16, 34, and 46 –
Obvious over Gutta, Nissan, Broggi, Kastrinaki, and Broggi II
Petitioner contends that claims 16, 34, and 46 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gutta, Nissan, Broggi, Kastrinaki, and
Broggi II. Pet. 51–53. In support of this ground of unpatentability,
Petitioner explains how each claim limitation is taught by Gutta, Nissan,
Broggi, Kastrinaki, or Broggi II, and relies upon the Declaration of Dr.-Ing.
Frahm. Id. (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 230–33).
Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to articulate a reason to
combine Gutta, Nissan, Kastrinaki, and Broggi II. PO Resp. 19–22.
Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and supporting
evidence, we determine that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that claims 16, 34, and 46 are unpatentable as obvious over
Gutta, Nissan, Broggi, Kastrinaki, and Broggi II.
1. Broggi II (Ex. 1012)
Broggi II describes a windowing technique for quickly and
dynamically reducing an area of interest (“where the obstacle is supposed to
be”) in a captured image. Ex. 1012, 80. The region of interest is determined
by taking the smaller bounding box including all the obstacles. Id.
Information on vehicle motion and the steering wheel angle can be used to
update the window of attention in a more accurate fashion. Id. Periodically,
or when no obstacles are found, the entire image is analyzed in order to
avoid the risk of missing new obstacles. Id.
2. Analysis
In light of the arguments and evidence, Petitioner has demonstrated,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 16, 34, and 46 are
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

36
unpatentable as obvious over Gutta, Nissan, Broggi, Kastrinaki, and Broggi
II.
Claim 16 recites “wherein said control adjusts said target zone
responsive to a steering angle of the wheels of the equipped vehicle.”
Petitioner cites Broggi II for teaching adjusting a region of interest using
steering wheel angle. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1012, 80). We are persuaded that
Broggi II, as cited by Petitioner, supports Petitioner’s contention.
Claims 34 and 46 recite “[limitation recited in claim 14], and
[limitation recited in claim 15], and [limitation recited in claim 16].”
Petitioner incorporates by reference the support cited for claims 14, 15, and
16. Pet. 52–53. For the same reasons discussed above with respect to
claims 14, 15, and 16, we are persuaded that Broggi II, as cited by Petitioner,
support’s Petitioner’s contention.
Patent Owner argues that Petitioner failed to articulate a reason to
combine Gutta, Nissan, Kastrinaki, and Broggi II. PO Resp. 19–22.
Specifically, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner “only discuss[es] an
alleged motivation to combine Broggi II with Gutta,” and “ignore[s] the
requirement that the motivation to combine must address why one of skill in
the art would have been motivated to combine Nissan, Gutta, Broggi,
Kastrinaki, and Broggi II.” Id. at 20. Patent Owner also argues that “the
[proffered] rationale [to combine Gutta with Broggi II] is conclusory and
based on impermissible hindsight,” (id. at 20) because “there is no
explanation how Broggi II would lead to fewer false positives,” and “there is
no reasoning why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been
motivated to specifically combine the features of Broggi II to improve the
accuracy of Gutta” (id. at 21).
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

37
Petitioner counters that Dr.-Ing. Frahm’s testimony regarding the
motivation to combine Broggi II and Gutta is unrebutted. Pet. Reply 14
(citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 232). Petitioner states that “Broggi II specifically
addresses narrowing the window of attention based on characteristics of the
vehicle, such as the steering angle.” Id. at 15. According to Petitioner, “[i]t
would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] that a more
focused or better directed region of interest, or ‘window of attention’ as
Broggi II calls it, would reduce false positives” because “a more focused
window within which objects are searched for, which is adjustable based on
the steering angle of the equipped vehicle, would not lead to determining
objects in a direction that is not the direction in which the equipped vehicle
is directed.” Id. at 14–15 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 26–28).
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. The Petition does not
ignore the reason to combine Gutta, Nissan, Broggi, Kastrinaki, and Broggi
II. See, e.g., Pet. 51 (“A person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would
have been motivated to combine the teachings of Gutta, Nissan, Broggi,
Kastrinaki, and Broggi II . . . .”); id. (“In addition to the reasons given above
with respect to the combination of Gutta, Nissan, [] Broggi, and Kastrinaki,
. . . .”). Although the Petition does not separately address combining Broggi
II with, for example, Nissan, that is because the Petition relies on Nissan for
a disjoint element (i.e., camera placement in the side rearview mirror) and
the proposed modification to Gutta in view of Broggi II does not implicate
the teachings of Nissan. The Petitioner provides a reason to combine Gutta
with each of Nissan, Broggi, Kastrinaki, and Broggi II. Patent Owner points
us to no legal authority for the proposition that a reason to combine must be
provided for every possible pair of a five reference combination. We are,
IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

38
therefore, persuaded that the reason to combine articulated by Petitioner is
sufficient.
3. Conclusion
Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
claims 16, 34, and 46 are unpatentable as obvious over Gutta, Nissan,
Broggi, Kastrinaki, and Broggi II.
IV. CONCLUSION
Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
instituted claims of the ’114 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
V. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that claims 1, 3, 6, 8–11, 14–16, 18–29, 31, 32, 34, 36–
41, 44, 46, and 48–50 of the ’114 patent are held unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is
denied; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
the parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2014-00222
Patent 8,386,114 B2

39
For PETITIONER:

Tammy J. Terry
Seema Mehta
OSHA LIANG LLP
terry@oshaliang.com
mehta@oshaliang.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