Valeo, Inc.v.Magna Electronics Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 28, 2015

12979497 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 58
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 IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 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

IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 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 1–50 of U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’522 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, 6, 8–10, 13–15, 27, 29–31, 36,
38, 39, 41–43, and 47–50 (“the instituted claims”) 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 54), which
Petitioner opposed (Paper 56). Patent Owner filed a Reply to Petitioner’s
Opposition to its Motion to Exclude. Paper 57.
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 ’522 patent are unpatentable. Patent Owner’s
Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.

1
A transcript of the oral hearing is included in the record as Paper 53
(“Tr.”).
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

3
A. Related Proceedings
Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’522 patent is involved
in a case captioned Magna Elecs., Inc. v. Valeo, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-11376
(E.D. Mich.), filed March 28, 2013. Pet. 3; Paper 8 at 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), IPR2014-00222
(U.S. Patent No. 8,386,114 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 ’522 Patent is also the subject of IPR2014-01208. Paper 30, 1.
B. The ’522 Patent
The ’522 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, 1:18–23. 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 1:29–33. Such known systems
statistically analyzed all of the pixels in a pixelated image. Id. at 1:48–51.
Such systems, however, continuously analyze every pixel for every frame
captured and as such, they require expensive processing controls and
computationally expensive software to handle continuously and to process
substantially all of the data. Id. at 1:60–67. In addition, prior art warning
systems may result in many intended maneuvers causing a warning. Id. at
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

4
2:19–24. As a result, the driver may begin to ignore the warnings. Id. at
2:25–27.
To address these issues, the ’522 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 2:35–44. The system uses an edge detection algorithm to
detect edges of objects in the captured images. Id. at 2:44–51. 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 2:51–55. The system processes the detected edges within
the subset of image data to determine whether they are part of a vehicle. Id.
at 2:55–59. The system utilizes various filtering mechanisms to eliminate
substantially or to ignore substantially 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
2:60–65.
Figure 1 is reproduced below.

IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

5
Figure 1 depicts an overhead view of a vehicle incorporating the object
detection system of the present invention. Id. at 4:7–8. 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
4:47–51. 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 4:51–57. Control 16 may be further 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
4:57–60.
Figure 2 is reproduced below.

IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

6
Figure 2 is a representation of a captured image of a side area of a vehicle as
captured by an imaging sensor. Id. at 4:9–11. In order to verify that the
camera or imaging sensor is mounted at the vehicle (such as at an exterior
portion of the vehicle) within a desired tolerance limit so as to provide the
desired field of view, the camera may detect the side of the vehicle (30)
and/or the front door handle (32a) or rear door handle (32b) of the vehicle,
and the control may confirm that they are in the expected location in the
captured images. Id. at 6:11–19. If the control determines that the camera is
not aligned or aimed at the desired location (such as by determining that the
vehicle edge and/or door handle/handles are not at the expected location),
the control may adjust the image and/or image processing to account for any
such misalignment of the camera. Id. at 6:19–24. For example, the degree
of misalignment may be calculated, and the image processing may be
adjusted or shifted and/or rotated to position the reference structure at the
appropriate location in the captured images. Id. at 6:24–28.
Figures 3A–C are reproduced below:

Figures 3A–C are schematics of the captured image of Figure 2, showing
adjustments that may be made to the image processing to account for
misalignment of the image sensor. Id. at 4:12–14. As shown in Figures 3A–
C, the actual or detected vehicle edges may be misaligned or separated from
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

7
the expected vehicle edges, such that the image processing may be adjusted
to shift the captured image data accordingly to accommodate such
misalignment of the camera. Id. at 6:42–47. Based on the results of the
image processing techniques, data or information of the yaw, pitch, and roll
may be used to set the polygon co-ordinates and H depression pixel
calibration parameters, so that the expected vehicle edges are aligned
substantially with the actual or detected vehicle edges. Id. at 6:47–52.
C. Illustrative Claim
Of the instituted claims, claims 1, 27, 36, 41, and 47 are independent.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An imaging system for a vehicle, said imaging system
comprising:
an imaging array sensor comprising a plurality of photo-
sensing pixels, wherein said imaging array sensor is disposed at
an exterior rearview mirror assembly at a side of a vehicle
equipped with said imaging system;
wherein, when said imaging array sensor is disposed at
the exterior rearview mirror assembly, said imaging array
sensor has a field of view exterior of the equipped vehicle, and
wherein said imaging array sensor is operable to capture an
image exterior of the equipped vehicle;
a control for processing said captured image;
wherein said control is operable to determine that said
imaging array sensor is misaligned when said imaging array
sensor is disposed at the exterior rearview mirror assembly at
the side of the equipped vehicle; and
wherein said control, responsive to a determination of
misalignment of said imaging array sensor, is operable to at
least partially compensate for the determined misalignment of
said imaging array sensor.
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

8
D. Prior Art Supporting Instituted Challenges
Petitioner relies upon the following references:
Saito (“Nissan”)
2
JP 2004-1658 Jan. 8, 2004 Ex. 1002
Furusawa (“Hitachi”)
3
JP 2002-74339 Mar. 15, 2002 Ex. 1012
E. The Instituted Ground of Unpatentability
We instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 6, 8–10, 13–15, 27, 29–
31, 36, 38, 39, 41–43, and 47–50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Nissan and Hitachi.
II. MOTION TO EXCLUDE
A. Analysis of Motion
Patent Owner seeks to exclude Exhibit 1016, which is an article
published by Dr. Turk, et al., titled, “VITS ˗ A Vision System for
Autonomous Land Vehicle Navigation” (the “VITS article”). 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 dismissed as moot.
Prior to filing its Motion to Exclude, Patent Owner objected to Exhibit
1016 within the required five business days. Petitioner did not respond to
the objections. Paper 54, 2. Patent Owner preserved the objections by filing
a Motion to Exclude Evidence. Paper 37. The Board expunged this motion

2
Nissan is a Japanese language document. Ex. 1002. Unless indicated
otherwise, all citations to Nissan in this decision will refer to its certified
English language translation. Ex. 1003.
3
Hitachi is a Japanese language document. Ex. 1012. Unless indicated
otherwise, all citations to Hitachi in this decision will refer to its certified
English language translation. Ex. 1013.
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

9
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 48 (referring to earlier order at
Paper 15). Patent Owner requested rehearing of that order. Paper 50. The
Board granted the request for rehearing to permit filing of a revised Motion
to Exclude with inappropriate argument removed. Paper 51. 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 52, 2. Patent Owner also was told to 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 1016. Paper 54.
On this record, we need not decide Patent Owner’s Motion to exclude
because our analysis does not rely upon Exhibit 1016. Consequently, Patent
Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence is dismissed as moot.
B. Related Issues
We note that the VITS article is referenced by Dr.-Ing. Frahm in
Exhibit 1015. See Ex. 1015 ¶ 14. Patent Owner does not contest the
admissibility of Exhibit 1015. Indeed, an expert may base an opinion on
facts or data that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed.
See Fed. R. Evid. 703; 37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a).
Patent Owner argued that certain evidence submitted with Petitioner’s
reply was introduced improperly. Paper 31. Specifically, Patent Owner
alleged the following evidence was improperly introduced: (1) paragraph 14
of Dr.-Ing. Frahm’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1015); (2) VITS article (Ex.
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

10
1016); and (3) portions of Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 26) relying on that
evidence (pp. 5–6). Paper 32.
A Petitioner’s reply may only respond to arguments raised in Patent
Owner’s response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Therefore, the question raised
by Patent Owner is whether the arguments on pages 5–6 of Petitioner’s
Reply that rely upon the identified exhibits (1015, 1016) are in response to
arguments raised in Patent Owner’s Response. We need not reach this issue
because we do not rely, in this Final Written Decision, on any of the
disputed evidence or disputed portions of the Petitioner’s Reply.
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 ’522 patent as follows:
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

11
Claim Term (Claims) Interpretation
“operable to at least partially
compensate for the determined
misalignment”
(1, 27, 36, and 47)
operable to adjust image processing of
captured image data
“operable to adjust said data”
(7, 29, 38, and 44)
operable to adjust said data previously
captured by the imaging array sensor
“operable to adjust processing”
(6, 30, 39, and 41)
operable to adjust image processing
See Dec. on Inst. 9–14. 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, 6, 8–10, 13–15, 27, 29–31, 36, 38, 39, 41–43, and 47–50 –
Obvious over Nissan and Wang
Petitioner argues that claims 1–5, 7–9, 11–14, 27–29, 32–38, 40, and
44–46 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Nissan.
Pet. 20–35. Petitioner argues that claims 6, 10, 15, 30, 31, 39, 41–43, and
47–50 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Nissan and
Hitachi. Pet. 36–45. In support of these grounds of unpatentability,
Petitioner explains how each claim limitation is taught by Nissan or Hitachi
and relies upon the Declaration of Dr.-Ing. Jan-Michael Frahm (“Dr.-Ing.
Frahm”) (Ex. 1010). Id. (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 169–73, 190–98).
In our Decision on Institution, we recognized that Petitioner did not
articulate specifically a ground of unpatentability against claims 1, 8, 9, 13,
14, 27, 29, 36, and 38 based on the combination of Nissan and Hitachi, but
we exercised our discretion to recognize that the assertion was made
implicitly by alleging that claims 6, 10, 15, 30, 31, and 39 are unpatentable
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

12
as obvious over the combination of Nissan and Hitachi. Dec. to Inst. 19–29;
see also Cuozzo Speed Techs. 778 F.3d at 1283–85 (upholding the Board’s
final decision on claims instituted upon an implied ground).
Patent Owner argues that (1) the Petition fails to explain sufficiently
the portion of Hitachi cited for teaching “adjust[ing] processing;” and (2)
Petitioner did not articulate a reason with rational underpinnings to support a
legal conclusion of obviousness. PO Resp. 4–11.
Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and supporting
evidence, we determine that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that claims 1, 6, 8–10, 13–15, 27, 29–31, 36, 38, 39, 41–43,
and 47–50 are unpatentable as obvious over Nissan and Hitachi.
1. Nissan (Exhibit 1003)
Nissan describes a vehicle-mounted camera optical axis misalignment
detection system. Ex. 1003, Title. Vehicle-mounted system 30 of the
second embodiment captures an image of a position, which is a blind spot
for the driver at the front left of the car (near the left fender) with vehicle-
mounted camera 2, in response to an instruction input by the passenger of
the car, and displays this image to display 3, thereby providing the driver
with driving support when, for example, making a left turn. Id. ¶ 32.
Vehicle-mounted camera 2 is built in to a left-hand door mirror of the car.
Id. 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. Data ROM 8 stores an image showing
where the turn signal ought to be observed in images captured by vehicle-
mounted camera 2 when vehicle-mounted camera 2 is in an ideal state,
mounted in a correct position and with no optical axis misalignment
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

13
occurring. Id. ¶ 34. CPU 6 of control unit 5 executes an optical axis
misalignment detection program to determine periodically whether optical
axis misalignment has occurred in vehicle-mounted camera 2. Id. ¶ 41.
Turn signal position detection unit 33 performs a process to detect the
position where the turn signal is displayed in the actual image of the left
front of the car. Id. ¶ 44. Turn signal misalignment evaluation unit 34
compares the position where the left turn signal ought to be observed as
shown in the template image stored in data ROM 8 against the position of
the left turn signal in the actual image as detected by turn signal position
detection unit 33, and judges, based on the degree of misalignment
therebetween, whether optical axis misalignment has occurred in vehicle-
mounted camera 2. Id. ¶ 45. This process is depicted in Figure 8,
reproduced below.
4

4
Figure 8 depicts a second embodiment of Nissan. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–47.
Nissan describes a first embodiment in paragraphs 10–31 and a second
embodiment in paragraphs 32–51.
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

14

Figure 8 is a view for describing a method for detecting positional
misalignment between a position of a left turn signal in an actual image and
a position of the left turn signal in a template image in a vehicle-mounted
system of the first embodiment. Id. at 18. As depicted in Figure 8,
(a) shows the image captured when the left turn signal is on, (b) shows the
image captured when the left turn signal is off, (c) shows the difference
between the two captured images, and (d) shows an image indicating where
the left turn signal ought to be observed. Id.
When optical axis misalignment is detected in vehicle-mounted
camera 2, control unit 5 drives an actuator (camera position adjusting means
capable of adjusting the direction of the optical axis of vehicle mounted
camera 2) according to the detected amount of optical axis misalignment in
vehicle-mounted camera 2. Id. ¶ 52. Specifically, control unit 5
continuously monitors scores D1 and D2, which represent the degree of
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

15
misalignment, and drives the actuator such that both of these scores are
substantially zero. Id.
2. Hitachi (Exhibit 1013)
Hitachi describes an image capture apparatus for recognizing a
vehicle driving environment. Ex. 1013 ¶ 1.
Figure 2 is reproduced below:

Figure 2 shows an embodiment of the automotive image capture
apparatus according to Hitachi being used as a driving environment
recognition apparatus. Id. ¶ 18. Marks 3 disposed on the left and right of
hood MB of the automobile M. Id. ¶ 18, Fig. 2. Field of view AE represents
the image capture visual field of camera 1, and marks 3 are disposed at two
locations on the left and right of the hood of the automobile. Id. ¶ 19. When
the initial mark position X of mark 3 is not identical to the current mark
position Y (steps S4, S5) and correction is within the correctable range (step
S9), a correction is calculated (step S10), and image data is corrected (step
S11). Id. ¶¶ 32–48, Figs. 4, 5.
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

16
3. Analysis
In light of the arguments and evidence, Petitioner has demonstrated,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 6, 8–10, 13–15, 27, 29–
31, 36, 38, 39, 41–43, and 47–50 are unpatentable as obvious over the
combination of Nissan and Hitachi.
a. Claims 41–43 and 47–50
We are persuaded that the record supports a finding that the
limitations of independent claim 41 listed in the first column of the
following table are taught by the corresponding disclosure of Nissan
identified in the second column of the table:
Independent Claim 41 Nissan
an imaging array sensor
comprising a plurality of photo-
sensing pixels
vehicle-mounted camera 2
wherein said imaging array sensor
is disposed at least partially
within an exterior rearview mirror
assembly at a side of a vehicle
equipped with said imaging
system
“[V]ehicle-mounted camera 2 is built in
to a left-hand door mirror of the car.”
Ex. 1003 ¶ 32.
wherein . . . said imaging array
sensor has a field of view exterior
of the equipped vehicle, and
wherein said imaging array sensor
is operable to capture an image
exterior of the equipped vehicle
“[V]ehicle-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.
a control for processing said
captured image
control unit 5
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

17
wherein said control is operable
to determine that said imaging
array sensor is misaligned when
said imaging array sensor is
disposed at least partially within
the exterior rearview mirror
assembly at the side of the
equipped vehicle
“[T]he turn signal misalignment
evaluation unit 34 compares the position
where the left turn signal ought to be
observed as shown in the template
image . . . against the position of the left
turn signal in the actual image as
detected by the turn signal position
detection unit 33, and judges . . .
whether or not optical axis
misalignment has occurred in the
vehicle-mounted camera 2.” Id. ¶ 45.
Independent claim 41 also recites “wherein said control, responsive to
a determination of misalignment of said imaging array sensor, is operable to
adjust processing of said captured image to at least partially compensate for
the determined misalignment of said imaging array sensor.” Petitioner cites
Hitachi for disclosing that:
[W]hen the image data correction amount is calculated in Step
S10, that result is assessed in Step S14 as to whether or not it is
only a case of translational displacement, as shown in Fig. 7(a).
If the result is Yes, instead of image data correction, the used
image area A1 and the initial mark 3A position X are changed,
as shown in Fig. 7(b).
Ex. 1013 ¶ 54. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s citations support
Petitioner’s contentions.
We also are persuaded that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence with
respect to claims 42, 43, and 47–50 (Pet. 41–45) support Petitioner’s
contentions.
b. Claims 1 and 6
Claim 6 depends from independent claim 1. Claim 6 recites, “wherein
said control, responsive to a determination of misalignment of said imaging
array sensor, is operable to adjust processing of said captured image to at
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

18
least partially compensate for the determined misalignment of said imaging
array sensor.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, claim 6 specifies that the control
“at least partially compensate[s] for the determined misalignment of said
imaging array sensor,” as recited in claim 1, by “adjust[ing] processing of
said captured image.”
Petitioner cites Hitachi as teaching the limitation of claim 6. Pet. 37
(citing Ex. 1013
5
¶ 54). As discussed above with respect to claim 41, we are
persuaded that Hitachi teaches adjusting processing of said captured image
data to at least partially compensate for misalignment of an imaging array
sensor. See, e.g., Ex. 1013 ¶ 54.
In teaching this limitation of claim 6, Hitachi teaches that the “control
. . . is operable to at least partially compensate for the determined
misalignment of said imaging array sensor,” as recited in claim 1. Petitioner
cites Nissan as disclosing every other element of claim 1. Pet. 20–22.
Accordingly, we are also persuaded that the combination of Nissan and
Hitachi teaches every limitation of claim 1.
6
We recognize that Petitioner
did not articulate specifically a ground of unpatentability against claim 1
based on Nissan and Hitachi. However, we exercise discretion to recognize
that the assertion was made implicitly by alleging that claim 6 would have
been obvious over Nissan and Hitachi.
c. Claims 8–10
Claim 10 depends from claim 9, which depends from claim 8, which
depends from independent claim 1. As discussed above in connection with

5
The Petition appears to cite Exhibit 1003 inadvertently rather than Exhibit
1013.
6
We address Petitioner’s reason to combine Nissan and Hitachi below.
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

19
claim 1, we are persuaded that the combination of Nissan and Hitachi
teaches every limitation of claim 1. We also are persuaded that Nissan
discloses the limitations recited in dependent claims 8 and 9. Pet. 24.
Claim 10 recites:
wherein processing undertaken by said control at least partially
accounts for misalignment of said imaging array sensor at the
side of the equipped vehicle at least in part responsive to image
data captured of the portion of the side of the equipped vehicle
encompassed by said field of view of said imaging array sensor.
Petitioner cites Hitachi for teaching processing undertaken by the control to at
least partially account for misalignment of an imaging array sensor. Pet. 37
(citing Ex. 10[1]3 ¶ 54). We are persuaded that Hitachi, as cited by
Petitioner, supports Petitioner’s contention.
Accordingly, we are persuaded that the combination of Nissan and
Hitachi teaches every limitation of dependent claims 8, 9, and 10.
7
We
recognize that Petitioner did not articulate specifically a ground of
unpatentability against claims 8 and 9 based on the combination of Nissan
and Hitachi. We, however, exercise discretion to recognize that the
assertion was made implicitly by alleging that claim 10 would have been
obvious over Nissan and Hitachi.
d. Claims 13–15
Claim 15 depends from claim 14, which depends from claim 13,
which depends from independent claim 1. As discussed above in connection
with claim 1, we are persuaded that the combination of Nissan and Hitachi
teaches every limitation of claim 1. Claim 14 recites a “control . . . operable

7
We address Petitioner’s reason to combine Nissan and Hitachi below.
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

20
to at least partially compensate for the determined degree of misalignment of
said imaging array sensor.” As discussed above in connection with claim 6,
we are persuaded that Hitachi teaches this limitation. Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex.
10[1]3 ¶ 54). We also are persuaded that Nissan discloses the limitations
recited in dependent claim 13. See Pet. 25.
Claim 15 recites:
wherein said control processes said captured image to detect a
reference structure at the side of the equipped vehicle, and
wherein said control is operable to adjust said processing to
position the reference structure at an appropriate location in the
captured image to at least partially compensate for the determined
degree of misalignment of said imaging array sensor.
Petitioner cites Hitachi for teaching a control operable to adjust processing
of a captured image to position a reference structure at an appropriate
location in the captured image to at least partially compensate for the
determined degree of misalignment. Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 10[1]3 ¶ 54).
We are persuaded that Hitachi, as cited by Petitioner, supports Petitioner’s
contention.
Accordingly, we are persuaded that the combination of Nissan and
Hitachi teaches every limitation of dependent claims 13, 14, and 15.
8
We
recognize that Petitioner did not articulate specifically a ground of
unpatentability against claims 13 and 14 based on Nissan and Hitachi. We,
however, exercise discretion to recognize that the assertion was made
implicitly by alleging that claim 15 would have been obvious over Nissan
and Hitachi.

8
We address Petitioner’s reason to combine Nissan and Hitachi below.
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

21
e. Claims 27 and 29– 31
Claims 30 and 31 depend from claim 29, which depends from
independent claim 27. As with claim 1, discussed above, we are persuaded
that Nissan discloses every limitation of independent claim 27 except for
“operable to at least partially compensate for the determined misalignment.”
Similarly, we are not persuaded that Nissan discloses a “control . . . operable
to adjust said data to at least partially compensate for the determined
misalignment of said imaging array sensor,” as recited in claim 29.
However, for claims 30 and 31, Petitioner presents sufficient and credible
evidence that Hitachi teaches these limitations of claims 27 and 29. Pet. 38–
39 (citing Ex. 10[1]3 ¶ 54).
Specifically, claim 30 recites, “wherein said control, responsive to a
determination of misalignment of said imaging array sensor, is operable to
adjust processing of said data.” Thus, claim 30 specifies that the control “at
least partially compensate[s] for the determined misalignment of said
imaging array sensor,” as recited in claim 27, by “adjust[ing] processing of
said data.” We are persuaded that Hitachi teaches adjusting processing of
said captured image data to at least partially compensate for misalignment of
an imaging array sensor. See, e.g., Ex. 1013 ¶ 54. In teaching this limitation
of claim 30, Hitachi teaches that the “control . . . is operable to at least
partially compensate for the determined misalignment of said imaging array
sensor,” as recited in claim 27.
Likewise, claim 31 recites:
wherein processing undertaken by said control at least partially
accounts for misalignment of said imaging array sensor at the side
of the equipped vehicle at least in part responsive to processing of
data captured of the portion of the side of the equipped vehicle
encompassed by said field of view of said imaging array sensor.
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

22
Petitioner cites Hitachi for teaching processing undertaken by the control to at
least partially account for misalignment of an imaging array sensor. Pet. 38–39
(citing Ex. 10[1]3 ¶ 54). We are persuaded that Hitachi, as cited by
Petitioner, supports Petitioner’s contention.
Accordingly, we are persuaded that the combination of Nissan and
Hitachi teaches every limitation of claims 27, 29, 30, and 31.
9
We recognize
that Petitioner did not articulate specifically a ground of unpatentability
against claims 27 and 29 based on Nissan and Hitachi. We, however,
exercise discretion to recognize that the assertion was made implicitly by
alleging that claims 30 and 31 would have been obvious over Nissan and
Hitachi.
f. Claims 36, 38, and 39
Claim 39 depends from claim 38, which depends from independent
claim 36. As with claim 1, discussed above, we are persuaded that Nissan
discloses every limitation of independent claim 36 except for “operable to at
least partially compensate for the determined misalignment.” Similarly, we
are not persuaded that Nissan discloses a “control . . . operable to adjust said
data to at least partially compensate for the determined misalignment of said
imaging array sensor,” as recited in claim 38. For claim 39, however,
Petitioner presents sufficient and credible evidence that Hitachi teaches these
limitations of claims 36 and 38. Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 10[1]3 ¶ 54).
Specifically, claim 39 recites “wherein said control, responsive to a
determination of misalignment of said imaging array sensor, is operable to
adjust processing of said data.” Thus, claim 39 specifies that the control “at

9
We address Petitioner’s reason to combine Nissan and Hitachi below.
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

23
least partially compensate[s] for the determined misalignment of said imaging
array sensor,” as recited in claim 36, by “adjust[ing] processing of said data.”
Petitioner cites Hitachi for teaching a control operable to adjust processing
of a captured image to at least partially compensate for the determined
misalignment of an imaging array sensor. Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 10[1]3 ¶ 54).
We are persuaded that Hitachi, as cited by Petitioner, supports Petitioner’s
contention. In teaching this limitation of claim 39, Hitachi teaches that the
“control . . . is operable to at least partially compensate for the determined
misalignment of said imaging array sensor,” as recited in claim 36 and that
the “control . . . is operable to adjust said data,” as recited in claim 38.
Accordingly, we are persuaded that the combination of Nissan and
Hitachi teaches every limitation of claims 38 and 39.
10
We recognize that
Petitioner did not articulate specifically a ground of unpatentability against
claims 36 and 38 based on Nissan and Hitachi. We, however, exercise
discretion to recognize that the assertion was made implicitly by alleging
that claim 39 would have been obvious over Nissan and Hitachi.
g. Adjusting image processing
Patent Owner contends that the Petition only provides a series of
unexplained quotes and therefore fails to satisfy Petitioner’s burden of
providing a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence. Id. at
3–4 (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(4)). PO Resp. 4–5.
Specifically, Patent Owner argues that “Petitioners’ selected quote from
Hitachi does not state that the image processing of the device is adjusted in
the manner required by the claims,” and that “Petitioners do not explain how

10
We address Petitioner’s reason to combine Nissan and Hitachi below.
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

24
this quote discloses adjusting image processing in the claimed manner.” PO
Resp. 6. According to Patent Owner, Dr.-Ing. Frahm’s Declaration also fails
to provide any support and makes it unclear whether Dr.-Ing. Frahm regards
the quoted passage as adjusting image processing or adjusting the area used
by the camera. Id. Finally, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s reliance
on the same portion of Hitachi for multiple claim limitations creates
“confusion and logical inconsistency.” Id. at 7.
Petitioner counters that (1) Hitachi clearly discloses adjustment of
image processing; and (2) the Petitioner provided ample analysis and
evidence with respect to this limitation. Pet. Reply 2–3.
We determine that Petitioner’s arguments are persuasive. Hitachi
teaches that an “image data correction amount” is calculated. Ex. 1013 ¶ 54.
If it is only a case of translational displacement, then “the used image area
A1 and the initial mark 3A position X are changed.” Id. If it is not, image
data correction is performed. Id. The Petition’s reliance on Hitachi’s
adjustment of the used area is clear. For example, the Petition states,
“Hitachi discloses selecting a different portion of the captured image as part
of the image processing instead of correcting the image data.” Pet. 37.
Also, Dr.-Ing. Frahm’s testimony relies on Hitachi’s disclosure of adjusting
the used area. Ex. 1010 ¶ 197 (“By using the wider field of view camera of
Hitachi to be able to adjust the used area within the wider field of view, a
person of ordinary skill in the art . . . .”).
Moreover, the Petition and Dr.-Ing. Frahm specifically allege that
adjusting the used area involves selecting a different portion of captured
image data. Pet. 37; Ex. 1010 ¶ 197. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Matthew
A. Turk, alleges that an ambiguity exists in Dr.-Ing. Frahm’s testimony (Ex.
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

25
2003 ¶ 27), but does not testify that Hitachi is not adjusting image
processing of captured image data. On this record, we credit the testimony
of Dr.-Ing. Frahm. Accordingly, we are persuaded and we agree that the
Petition has identified sufficiently how Hitachi discloses adjusting
processing of captured image data, as we have construed the claim language
to require.
h. Reason to combine
Patent Owner argues that Dr.-Ing. Frahm does not provide a sufficient
explanation for his opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have combined Nissan with Hitachi. PO Resp. 8–11. Specifically, Patent
Owner argues that Dr.-Ing. Frahm’s testimony relies upon assumptions, such
as “an assumption that cost and mechanical failure of physical actuators
were problems at the time of the priority date of the ’522 patent” (Id. at 9),
that are unsupported by evidence. Id. at 9–10. According to Patent Owner,
“Dr.[-Ing.] Frahm impermissibly used the invention to define the problem
that the invention solves.” Id. at 10. Patent Owner also argues that Nissan
solves the problem of camera physical realignment, and “[a person of
ordinary skill in the art], therefore, would not have concluded that software-
based image processing, such as that of Hitachi, would necessarily have
improved Nissan.” Id.
Petitioner counters that Dr.-Ing. Frahm testified “as to why it would
have been obvious [to] implement the misalignment correction using
software in place of the mechanical solution described in Nissan” (Pet.
Reply 3–4 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 192, 193)), and argues that “Patent Owner
completely ignores the evidence of well-established principles of vehicle
vision system design that were well known at the time of the filing of the
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

26
’522 patent” (Pet. Reply 4). According to Petitioner, “one skilled in the art
would clearly have looked to minimize the mechanical stresses that are
experienced by hardware components by implementing various mechanical
functions in software.” Id. at 5.
We determine that Petitioner’s arguments are persuasive. As
Petitioner correctly points out, Nissan describes the problem to be solved as
accurate detection of optical axis misalignment in a vehicle mounted camera.
Pet. Reply 6; Ex. 1003, Abstract; contra PO Resp. 10. Nissan describes that
an actuator may be used to adjust the direction of the vehicle-mounted
camera to correct for such detected misalignment. Ex. 1003 ¶ 52. Patent
Owner characterizes Nissan’s solution (physical camera realignment) as the
problem faced by Nissan in an attempt to make it appear that Nissan has no
need of the improvement proposed by Petitioner.
Patent Owner asserts that a common symptom of hindsight is an
insufficient rationale for combining the references (PO Resp. 9), but Patent
Owner does not address the merits of the rationale proffered by Petitioner.
Petitioner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that physical adjustment as disclosed by Nissan has higher
production cost and greater potential for mechanical failure than adjusting
the image data set or image processing. Pet. 36; Ex. 1010 ¶ 192. Patent
Owner’s expert, Dr. Turk, essentially concedes that physical actuators add
cost and present risk of mechanical failure, but reasons that actuators were a
suitable tool for solving Nissan’s problem of camera physical alignment.
Ex. 2003 ¶ 39. Again, Nissan sought to solve the problem of accurately
detecting camera misalignment, not camera physical misalignment.
Petitioner has articulated a rational underpinning to support the legal
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

27
conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007).
Conclusion
Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
claims 1, 6, 8–10, 13-15, 27, 29–31, 36, 38, 39, 41–43, and 47–50 are
unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Nissan and Hitachi.
IV. CONCLUSION
Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims
1, 6, 8–10, 13–15, 27, 29–31, 36, 38, 39, 41–43, and 47–50 of the ’522
patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
V. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that claims 1, 6, 8–10, 13–15, 27, 29–31, 36, 38, 39, 41–
43, and 47–50 of the ’522 patent are held unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is
dismissed; 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.
IPR2014-00221
Patent 7,991,522 B2

28
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