Valeo Inc.v.Magna Electronics Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2016

10643602 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2016)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 27
571-272-7822 Entered: January 25, 2016

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 IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 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

IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 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 6, 14, 21–24, 33–38, 43–46, and 49 of U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565 B2
(Ex. 1001, “the ’565 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Magna Electronics, Inc.
(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
On January 28, 2015, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 6 and 33
(“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 21, “PO Resp.”) to which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 22, “Pet.
Reply”). No oral hearing was held.
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 claims
6 and 33 of the ’565 patent are unpatentable.
A. Related Proceedings
Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’565 patent is involved
in Magna Electronics Inc., v. Valeo, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-11376-DRG (filed on
Mar. 28, 2013) (E.D. Mich.). Pet. 4; Paper 5, 3.
The ’565 patent also was the subject of IPR2014-00220 (the “220
IPR”). Pet 4. In a Final Written Decision dated May 28, 2015, we
determined that claims 1–5, 8–13, 15–20, 25–32, 39–42, 47, and 48 are
unpatentable. Valeo North America, Inc., et al. v. Magna Electronics, Inc.
(PTAB May 28, 2015) (Paper 59). On September 15, 2015, Patent Owner
IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 B2

3
filed a notice of appeal in the 220 IPR. Paper 62. The Petition challenges
claims that were challenged in, but for which trial was not instituted, in the
220 IPR.
B. The ’565 Patent
The ’565 patent relates generally to vision systems for vehicles and,
more particularly, to rearview vision systems that provide the vehicle
operator with scenic information in the direction rearward of the vehicle.
Ex. 1001, 1:18–21. According to the ’565 patent, a long-felt need in the art
of vehicle rearview vision systems had been to eliminate exterior rearview
mirrors by utilizing image capture devices, such as cameras, in combination
with dashboard displays (id. at 1:24–27), but prior art camera-based
rearview vision systems for vehicles had not obtained commercial
acceptance in part because such systems present a large amount of visual
information in a manner that is difficult to comprehend (id. at 1:41–45).
According to the ’565 patent, in order to reduce blind spots significantly,
multiple image capture devices are positioned at various locations on the
vehicle. Id. at 1:45–48. As a result, the image of an object behind the
equipped vehicle may be captured by more than one image capture device
and displayed in multiple images. Id. at 1:48–50. This may confuse the
driver as to whether more than one object is present. Id. at 1:50–51. Also,
when multiple image capture devices are positioned at different longitudinal
locations on the vehicle, objects behind the vehicle are at different distances
from the image capture devices, and therefore the same object may have a
different size in each image. Id. at 1:51–56. Another difficulty can arise
from the use of a wide-angle lens, which increases the field of view, but
IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 B2

4
introduces distortion of the scene and further impairs the driver’s ability to
judge distances of objects displayed. Id. at 2:6–19.
To address these issues, the ’565 patent discloses a rearview vision
system having at least two image capture devices positioned on the vehicle
and directed rearwardly with respect to the direction of travel of the vehicle.
Id. at 2:27–31. The system includes a display, which combines the captured
images into an image that would be achieved by a single rearward-looking
camera having a view unobstructed by the vehicle. Id. at 2:31–35.
Specifically, the ’565 patent discloses techniques for synthesizing images
captured by individual, spatially separated, image capture devices into an
ideal image displayed on the display device. Id. at 2:43–46.
Figure 3 of the ’565 patent is reproduced below.

Figure 3 depicts a display according to the invention. Id. at 3:25–26. As
shown, image display device 20 displays composite image 42 made up of
left image portion 44, right image portion 46, and center image portion 48.
Id. at 5:48–50. Each image portion 44–48 is reversed from the image as
captured by the respective image capture device 14, 16 utilizing
IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 B2

5
conventional techniques. Id. at 5:50–53. As may be best seen in Figure 3,
the image portions at boundaries 50 and 52 are continuous whereby
composite image 42 is a seamless panoramic view directed rearwardly of the
vehicle. Id. at 5:59–62. As also is apparent from Figure 3, central image
portion 48 is narrower than either left image portion 44 or right image
portion 46. Id. at 5:62–64. This is a result of reducing horizontal field of
view 26 of center image capture device 16 sufficiently to move points P, and
thus overlap zones 32 and 34, a sufficient distance behind vehicle 10 to
reduce redundant and duplicative images between image portions 44–48. Id.
at 5:64–6:1. Composite image 42 provides a clear image, which avoids
confusion and simplifies the task of extracting information from the multiple
image portions 44–48. Id. at 6:1–4. As may also be seen by reference to
Figure 3, display 20 may additionally include indicia such as the readout of
compass 54, vehicle speed 56, turn signals 58, and the like as well as other
graphical or video displays, such as a navigation display, a map display, and
a forward-facing vision system. Id. at 6:4–9.
C. Illustrative Claim
Claim 6 depends from independent claim 1 (not challenged). Claim
33 depends indirectly from independent claim 30. Claims 1 and 6 are
illustrative and are reproduced below:
1. A vision system for a vehicle, comprising:
a vehicle equipped with at least two image capture
devices, said two image capture devices capturing images
external of the vehicle, said two image capture devices having
overlapping fields of view;
said vehicle equipped with an image processor, wherein
image data captured by said two image capture devices are
processed by said image processor, said image processor
IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 B2

6
producing a synthesized image from said image data captured
by said two image capture devices, and wherein said
synthesized image comprises a composite image of said image
data captured by said two image capture devices without
duplication of image information;
said vehicle equipped with a display screen displaying
said synthesized image, said synthesized image displayed as a
single image on a single display screen that is viewable by a
driver of said vehicle when the driver is normally operating said
vehicle, wherein the displayed image displayed on said single
display screen includes an image portion from an image
captured by each of said two image capture devices; and
said image processor processing said image data by at
least one technique chosen from luminant blending, chrominant
blending, dynamic range extending, pixel group compensation,
anti-blooming, multiple exposure, image morphing
compensation and image warping compensation.

6. The vision system for a vehicle of claim 1, wherein said
display screen is at least one of (a) positioned within the field of
view of the driver without substantially obstructing the view
through a windshield, (b) mounted to one of a dashboard,
a facia, a header and a windshield of the vehicle, (c) mounted at
a position conventionally occupied by an interior rearview
mirror, (d) a display of one of a projected and a virtual image
and (e) a heads-up display.

Ex. 1001, 12:49–13:9, 13:36–43.
D. Prior Art Supporting the Instituted Challenges
Petitioner relies upon the following references:
Noso (“Nissan”)1 JP H3-99952 Apr. 25, 1991 Ex. 1003
Nimura (“Aishin”)2 JP A64-14700 Jan. 18, 1989 Ex. 1005

1 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.
IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 B2

7
Suzuki (“Niles”)3 JP 59-114139 July 2, 1984 Ex. 1009
Imai (“Honda”)4 JP H1-168538 July 4, 1989 Ex. 1014
Ozaki (“Fujitsu”)5 JP H5-213113 Aug. 24, 1993 Ex. 1016
E. The Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
We instituted inter partes review on the following grounds:
Reference(s) Basis Claims Challenged
Nissan § 103 6
Nissan, Aishin, Niles, Fujitsu, and Honda § 103 33
II. 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, 793 F.3d 1268, 1275–79 (Fed. Cir.
2015). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are given
their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of

2 Aishin is a Japanese language document. Ex. 1005. Unless indicated
otherwise, all citations to Aishin in this decision will refer to its certified
English language translation. Ex. 1006.
3 Niles is a Japanese language document. Ex. 1009. Unless indicated
otherwise, all citations to Niles in this decision will refer to its certified
English language translation. Ex. 1010.
4 Honda is a Japanese language document. Ex. 1014. Unless indicated
otherwise, all citations to Honda in this decision will refer to its certified
English language translation. Ex. 1015.
5 Fujitsu is a Japanese language document. Ex. 1016. Unless indicated
otherwise, all citations to Fujitsu in this decision will refer to its certified
English language translation. Ex. 1017.
IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 B2

8
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).
1. “image portion from an image captured” (claims 1 and 30)
Independent claims 1 and 30 recite an “image portion from an image
captured.” Petitioner does not propose a construction of this term. In the
Decision on Institution, we declined to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed
construction of “image portion” to mean “a derived part of a captured image
that is less than the entire image.” Dec. to Inst. 12–13.
In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner argues again that “image
portion” should be construed to mean “a derived part of a captured image
that is less than the entire image.” PO Resp. 5–9. Patent Owner argues that
its construction finds support in the plain meaning of the term and in Valeo’s
concession during oral argument for the ’220 IPR. Id. at 5–8. Patent Owner
also argues that the word “includes,” which precedes the disputed claim
term, means that “the displayed image may include additional things, but not
more of the captured image than the image portion, because as discussed
above, that would destroy the meaning of the claim.” Id. at 9.
Petitioner counters that the ’565 patent does not define “image
portion,” that Patent Owner’s understanding of “includes” is not supported
by the Specification, and that the Board should construe this term as it did in
the Final Written Decision for the ’220 IPR. Pet. Reply 1–3.
The ’565 patent does not define the term “image portion.” Patent
Owner cites column 7, lines 22 to 25, but that disclosure is not determinative
because it states only a preference. PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:22–25
(“However, the portion of the image displayed is preferably biased toward
the downward portion of the captured image . . . .”) (emphasis added)).
IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 B2

9
Patent Owner also cites column 9, lines 3 to 8, but that disclosure does not
inform us as to whether the described image portions—right image portion
46’, left image portion 44’, and central image portion 48’—are less than the
entire image captured by image capture devices 14, 16. Id. at 6.
Elsewhere in the ’565 patent, the terms “left image portion 44,” “right
image portion 46,” and “center image portion 48” are used while describing
Figure 3. Id. at 5:48–50. The ’565 patent states explicitly that “[e]ach image
portion 44–48 is reversed from the image as captured by the respective
image capture device 14, 16 utilizing conventional techniques.” Id. at 5:50–
53. The ’565 patent does not, however, describe each image portion 44, 46,
and 48 as comprising less than the entire image captured by the respective
image capture devices 14, 16. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Patent
Owner’s proposed construction is the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regardless of how “image portion” is construed, we note that the
independent claim limitations in which “image portion” is recited set a
minimum—not a maximum—for what must be included in a displayed
image. Specifically, independent claims 1 and 30 recite “the displayed
[composite] image displayed on said single display screen includes an image
portion” (emphasis added). These limitations require that the displayed
image include an “image portion,” but do not preclude the displayed image
from including more than a portion. The limitations do not, for example,
require that the displayed image include no more than an image portion.
Patent Owner’s definition that a portion is “an often limited part of a
whole” implies that a portion also can include the whole, and we discern
nothing in the Specification inconsistent with that ordinary meaning. See
Ex. 2002.
IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 B2

10
We determine that “image portion” does not require further express
construction.
B. Claim 6 – Obviousness over Nissan
Petitioner argues that claim 6 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Nissan. Pet. 26–30. For the reasons explained
below, Petitioner has established this assertion by a preponderance of the
evidence.
1. Nissan (Exhibit 1004)
Nissan describes a device for displaying the positions of other
vehicles, the states of obstructions, the center line, and other information
about the vehicle’s surroundings to the driver by using cameras. Ex. 1004,
2:16–20. The system of Nissan includes a plurality of cameras installed in a
vehicle, a means for performing a perspective conversion that converts the
images from those cameras to other coordinates, a means for combining the
converted images into one image related to an image of the vehicle itself,
and a display for displaying the image to the occupants. Id. at 3:15–21.
Figure 1 of Nissan is reproduced below:

IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 B2

11
Figure 1 is an overhead view of a vehicle equipped with the system of
Nissan. Id. at 3:34–35. As depicted in Figure 1, a plurality of cameras 1–6
are setup so that the respective fields of view, 1a–6a, cover the environment
surrounding the vehicle. Id. at 3:36–38. Images from the cameras are input
and converted to other coordinates by a perspective conversion. Id. at 4:15–
17. The converted images are then combined into one image by image
display unit 8 and displayed on monitor 9 positioned at the driver’s seat. Id.
at 4:17–20. The vehicle’s position is drawn simultaneously in a diagram.
Id. at 4:22–24. The displayed position of the vehicle is offset from the
center of the image screen depending on signals corresponding to the gear
position, the vehicle speed, and the operation of the directional indicator. Id.
at 4:24–27.
Figure 3(a) of Nissan is reproduced below.

Figure 3(a) is an example of the display results on display when backing up.
Id. at 4:29–31, 7:30–32. Specifically, Figure 3(a) shows backing up in the
direction of the arrow and is a fixed display with vehicle 10 in the upper part
in the center. Id. at 4:31–33. Neighboring vehicle 11 is displayed in a side
view. Id. at 4:33–35. According to Nissan, by looking at the display device,
the driver can behave appropriately when backing up. Id. at 6:23–25.
IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 B2

12
2. Petitioner’s Contentions
Claim 6 depends from independent claim 1. Petitioner cites Nissan
for teaching the limitations of independent claim 1. Pet. 28–30.
Claim 6 recites:
wherein said display screen is at least one of (a) positioned
within the field of view of the driver without substantially
obstructing the view through a windshield, (b) mounted to one
of a dashboard, a facia, a header and a windshield of the
vehicle, (c) mounted at a position conventionally occupied by
an interior rearview mirror, (d) a display of one of a projected
and a virtual image and (e) a heads-up display.
Petitioner contends that Nissan teaches limitations (a) and (b). Pet. 30
(citing Ex. 1004, 4:19). Nissan teaches that TV monitor 9 is positioned at
the driver’s seat. Ex. 1004, 4:19. Petitioner explains that for a person of
ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious and a matter of mere
design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art to use alternate
display types based on varying types of vehicle models and other vehicle
parameters such as space constraints and aesthetics.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex.
1011 ¶¶ 139–144). Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments, we are
persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions.
3. Patent Owner’s Arguments
Patent Owner argues that: (1) Nissan does not teach a “composite
image . . . without duplication of image information,” as recited in
independent claim 1 (PO Resp. 9–15); (2) Nissan does not teach an “image
portion,” as recited in independent claim 1 (id. at 15–17); (3) Petitioner fails
to show that Nissan teaches “by at least one technique chosen from luminant
blending, chrominant blending, dynamic range extending, pixel group
compensation, anti-blooming, multiple exposure, image morphing
IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 B2

13
compensation and image warping compensation,” as recited in independent
claim 1 (id. at 18–21); and (4) the combination of Nissan, Aishin, Niles,
Fujitsu, and Honda does not teach “indicia has a form that responds to the rate
of turn of the vehicle,” as recited in claim 33 (id. at 22–24). We analyze these
arguments in turn.
a. “composite image . . . without duplication of image
information”
Claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recites “a composite image . . .
without duplication of image information.” Patent Owner argues that
“[m]erely combining images, as Valeo alleges is disclosed in Nissan (with or
without transformation), does not account for duplication of image
information.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner argues that the alleged
“composite image” in Nissan is not formed by merging, stitching, or
blending. See, e.g., id. at 11 (“In contrast, the claimed composite image
comprises a single merged or stitched or blended image, without duplication
of image information.”), 13 (“There is no merging or blending of captured
images in creating what is shown in [Nissan’s] Figure 3(a). . . . There is no
disclosure in Nissan that the images from the cameras are merged or stitched
or blended to provide a ‘composite image’”).
Petitioner replies that the Board already found claim 1 of the ’565
patent to be unpatentable as obvious over Nissan in the ’220 IPR. Pet. Reply
5.
The portion of Nissan relied upon by Petitioner teaches that “the
images from cameras 1 to N are input and converted to other coordinates by
a perspective conversion [and] are combined into one image by an image
display unit 8.” Ex. 1004, 4:15–18. As shown in Figure 3(a), when backing
up, Nissan combines the images from a rear-facing camera showing the area
IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 B2

14
behind the vehicle with images from a side-view camera to form one image
that is displayed to the driver. Id. at Fig. 3(a), 4:29–35. With respect to the
combined image being “without duplication of image information,”
Petitioner cites, on page 28 of the Petition, Dr. Wolberg for the following:
134. Nissan performs a perspective transformation to display a
combined image from multiple cameras on a single display to a
driver. See Pet. Ex. 1004 at p. 3, ll. 17-19; p. 5, ll. 12-30. The
perspective transformation performed in Nissan geometrically
aligns the images from the different cameras on the vehicle. A
person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that
this process in Nissan inherently removes multiple exposure
effects (duplication). Indeed, one of the primary purposes of
geometric alignment is to remove redundancy in overlapping
regions of images.
135. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious prior to May 1995 to produce a composite
image without any duplication of image information. In order
to reduce duplication in a composite image, one must bring the
images captured by various cameras into geometric alignment.
This is known in the art as image registration, a concept that
was well-known prior to May 1995. See e.g., Pet. Ex. 1004.
Nissan performs such geometric alignment by performing a
perspective conversion among the images. Specifically, Nissan
brings all the images into a single coordinate system, from the
independent camera screen coordinates to the road surface
plane. Pet. Ex. 1004 at p. 5, ll. 25-30. Whenever such a
perspective transformation is performed, duplication of image
information in overlapping regions of the camera fields of view
would be minimized because the duplicate image portions are
overlaid upon each other such as to reduce multiple exposure
effect.
Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 134–35 (emphases added). We are persuaded by the
above-quoted analysis of Dr. Wolberg.
IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 B2

15
b. “image portion”
Patent Owner argues that Nissan does not disclose an “image
portion,” as recited by independent claim 1, from which claim 6 depends.
PO Resp. 15–17. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that Nissan averages
entire camera images, not just a portion of those images. Id. at 16–17.
Petitioner replies that the Board already found claim 1 of the ’565
patent to be unpatentable as obvious over Nissan in the ’220 IPR, and that in
doing so, the Board addressed this very argument by Patent Owner and
determined that Nissan teaches the recited “image portion.” Pet. Reply 5–6.
Independent claim 1 recites the open-ended language “includes,” and
does not, therefore, preclude the displayed image from having more than the
recited “image portion.” Accordingly, even assuming that Patent Owner’s
characterization of Nissan is accurate, we are not persuaded that Nissan does
not teach this limitation.
c. “by at least one technique chosen from…”
Independent claim 1 recites, “said image processor processing said
image data by at least one technique chosen from luminant blending,
chrominant blending, dynamic range extending, pixel group compensation,
anti-blooming, multiple exposure, image morphing compensation and image
warping compensation.”
We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the “Petition
does not clearly set forth its rationale and reasoning as to how Nissan
discloses this feature.” PO Resp. 18; see also id. at 18–21. Petitioner relies
upon Nissan’s teaching of processing color images and displaying in color,
and of processing infrared images for nighttime recognition of obstacles.
IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 B2

16
Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 4, 7:6–7, 7:9–11, 7:35). Petitioner also
cites, at page 28 of the Petition, Dr. Wolberg for the following:
Nissan contemplates use of a color TV monitor to display color
images. Pet. Ex. 1004 at p. 7, ll. 6-7. Chrominant blending
must be used to average color images, which typically consists
of three color components. See my state of the art discussion,
¶62, supra. Nissan also contemplates use of infrared cameras
for night vision. Pet. Ex. 1004 at p. 7, ll. 9-11. Luminant
blending is used to average the infrared data, which consists of
a single value per pixel.
Ex. 1011 ¶ 99. We are persuaded by the above-quoted analysis of
Dr. Wolberg that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
Nissan’s use of a color TV monitor for displaying color images to teach, at
the very least, the use of chrominant blending.
4. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 6 is
unpatentable as obvious over Nissan.
C. Claim 33 – Obviousness over Nissan, Aishin, Niles, Fujitsu, and Honda
Petitioner argues that claim 33 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Nissan, Aishin, Niles, Fujitsu, and Honda. Pet. 47–
52. For the reasons explained below, Petitioner has established this assertion
by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. Aishin (1006)
Aishin describes a display apparatus for displaying, as a projected
image by a video camera, a field of rear vision at the time of reverse travel
of a vehicle, in which a predicted path of the vehicle is superimposed on the
projected image. Ex. 1006, 2–3. Aishin describes a camera for
IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 B2

17
photographing a field of rear vision, a steering sensor for detecting a steering
angle of a steering wheel, an image processing device for storing an image
of a predicted path corresponding to a steering angle of the steering wheel
and for reading an image of a predicted path based on the signal from the
steering sensor at the time of reverse travel, and a display device for
superimposing and displaying a projected image from the camera and the
image of a predicted path from the image processing device. Id. at 4–5.
Specifically, path superposition device 6 takes as input (1) the image of a
field of rear or lateral vision from video camera 7 on the vehicle; and (2) the
predicted locus ready by computer 2 for locus calculation, to superimpose
and display the image and the predicted locus on display 8. Id. at 6.
Figure 3 is reproduced below.

Ex. 1005, Fig. 3. Figure 3 shows an exemplary display of a predicted path
obtained by the predicted path display device of the vehicle. Ex. 1006, 6.
2. Niles (1010)
Niles describes rearward view monitoring system that includes a
monitor at the driver’s seat that displays plural pairs of distance markers
corresponding to a vehicle width. Ex. 1010, 1–3. The system includes a
camera, a monitor mounted at the driver’s seat, a sensor for sensing distance
IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 B2

18
between the vehicle and a rearwardly positioned obstacle, vehicle speed,
direction of vehicle rearward travel, and a marker signal generating circuit,
which receives as inputs signals from the sensor and which generates a
marker signal as necessary. Id. at 3. The markers are superimposed on the
displayed image. Id. For example, a single marker may be displayed every
one meter. Id. When a tire direction sensor is applied, an anticipated
rearward path of travel can be displayed with the markers. Id. at 4.
Figure 6 is reproduced below.

Figure 6 is an exemplary view of the monitor television when a tire direction
sensor is applied as a sensor. Ex. 1009, Fig. 6; Ex. 1010, 5. As shown in
Figure 6, markers 4 can be displayed curving along the anticipated rearward
path of travel of the vehicle, and thus the monitor can display the vehicle’s
rearward direction more clearly. Ex. 1010, 4.
3. Fujitsu (1017)
Fujitsu describes a display device that displays a rear video image
combined with distance scale markers. Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 34–38. Figure 4(b) is
reproduced below.
IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 B2

19

Figure 4(b) depicts an exemplary display with distance scale marks. Id. at
¶¶ 52, 53.
4. Honda (1015)
Honda describes a rear visual field display device for a vehicle. Ex.
1015, 265. A monitor screen near the driver’s seat displays a rear visual
field captured by a camera. Id. at 266. A predicted rearward trajectory
corresponding to a steering angle detected by a steering angle sensor is
overlaid on the rear visual field captured by the camera. Id. Figure 4 is
reproduced below.

Figure 4 shows what is displayed on a monitor screen of the device of the
invention in Honda. Id. at 267. In this manner, the rearward trajectory X
along the ground of the rear portion of the vehicle body and the rearward
trajectory Y of the top end of the rear portion of the vehicle body are
IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 B2

20
overlaid on the monitor screen (2a) as the predicted rearward trajectory
corresponding to the actual steering angle. Id.
5. Petitioner’s Contentions
Claim 33 depends from dependent claim 32, which depends from
independent claim 30. Petitioner contends that Nissan and Aishin teach the
limitations of claim 30, and that Nissan, Aishin, and Niles teach the
limitations of claim 32. Pet. 47–52. Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s
arguments, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contentions.
Claim 33 recites “wherein at least one of (a) said indicia has a form
that responds to the rate of turn of the vehicle, and (b) said indicia has a form
that responds to at least one of the vehicle's steering system, the vehicle's
differential system and a compass.” Petitioner cites Honda for disclosing
overlay of “a predicted rearward trajectory corresponding to a steering angle
detected by a steering angle sensor.” Pet. 52 (quoting Ex. 1015, 266). With
respect to combining the references, Petitioner argues:
[G]iven Niles’ explicit commentary on having the distance
markers change direction “as needed” and being “dynamically
adjustable” in response to various parameters, it would have
been obvious to modify the vision system of Nissan with the
superimposed image of the predicted path to include the vehicle
trajectories as taught by Aishin, where the trajectories and
distance markers (Niles and Fujitsu) respond to the vehicle’s
steering system as taught by Honda, to provide the driver with
the maximum amount of information when reversing the
vehicle, as reversing the vehicle is the maneuver that is most
dangerous and prone to accidents when operating a vehicle.
The combination of Nissan, Aishin, Niles, Fujitsu, and Honda
allows the driver to be provided with a vehicle box of the
vehicle body at a certain position according to the path of the
front and rear wheels as taught by Aishin, one or more
predicted path trajectories when reversing the vehicle as taught
IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 B2

21
by Aishin and Niles, and distance markers that respond to the
vehicle’s steering system, as taught by Fujitsu and Honda. Ex.
1011 at ¶¶ 195-202.
Pet. 48–49. Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments, we are persuaded
by Petitioner’s contentions.
6. Patent Owner’s Arguments
Patent Owner argues that: (1) Nissan does not teach a “composite
image . . . without duplication of image information,” as recited in
independent claim 30 (PO Resp. 9–15); (2) Nissan does not teach an “image
portion,” as recited in independent claim 30 (id. at 21–22); and (3) the
combination of Nissan, Aishin, Niles, Fujitsu, and Honda does not teach
“indicia has a form that responds to the rate of turn of the vehicle,” as recited
in claim 33 (id. at 22–24).
Patent Owner’s arguments about “composite image” or “image
portion” are substantially the same for claim 33 as they are for claim 6. We
are not persuaded by those arguments for the same reasons discussed above
with respect to claim 6.
We also are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the
combination does not disclose said indicia having “a form that responds to
the rate of turn of the vehicle or to at least one of the vehicle’s steering
system, the vehicle’s differential system and a compass.” PO Resp. 22–24.
Patent Owner argues that Petitioner “has not established how the distance
indicia, now purportedly of Fujitsu, would respond to the rate of turn of the
vehicle.” Id. at 22; see also id. at 33 (“Even if Honda discloses a predicted
trajectory that changes according to a steering angle, there is no disclosure or
suggestion in any of the references for the distance indicia to have ‘a form
that responds to the rate of turn of the vehicle’ or ‘to at least one of the
IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 B2

22
vehicle’s steering system, the vehicle’s differential system and a compass,’
as required by claim 33). Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s argument
ignores the combination of the references, and the PHOSITA’s
ability to take a parameter taught by one reference (predicted
path that responds to steering angle as taught by Honda) and
predictably display a different parameter taught by another
reference (distance indicia as taught by Niles and Fujitsu) as
responsive to the same type of sensor output.
Pet. Reply 9.
We agree with Petitioner. Patent Owner is attacking the references
individually when the proposed ground is based upon a combination.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (C.C.P.A. 1981).
Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the combination of references,
taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee’s invention to a person
having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
7. Conclusion
Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
claim 33 is unpatentable as obvious over Nissan, Aishin, Niles, Fujitsu, and
Honda.
III. CONCLUSION
Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims
6 and 33 of the ’565 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 B2

23
IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that claims 6 and 33 of the ’565 patent are unpatentable;
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.
IPR2014-01203
Patent 7,859,565 B2

24
For PETITIONER:

Russel Levine
Hari Santhanam
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
rlevine@kirkland.com
hsanthanam@kirkland.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