Valeo, Inc.v.Magna Electronics Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 23, 2014

12764355 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 13
571˗272˗7822 Entered: December 23, 2014

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˗01206
Patent 7,877,175 B2
____________

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

KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

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

IPR2014˗01206
Patent 7,877,175 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 Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute
an inter partes review of claims 1–18 and 20–24 of U.S. Patent No.
7,877,175 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’175 patent”). Patent Owner, Magna
Electronics, Inc., filed a timely Preliminary Response (Paper 6,
“Prelim. Resp.”). After considering the Petition and Preliminary
Response, we determine that Petitioner has not established a
reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the
challenged claims of the ’175 patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Accordingly, we deny the Petition, and decline to institute inter partes
review.

II. BACKGROUND
A. Related Proceedings
1. Prior Petition
Petitioner previously filed two other petitions for inter partes
review challenging the ’175 patent: IPR2014˗00227 and
IPR2014˗00228. In a decision to institute, we consolidated those two
proceedings. Valeo, Inc. v. Magna Electronics, Inc., Case IPR2014-
00227, slip op. at 3 (PTAB May 29, 2014) (Paper 13) (“227 Decision
to Institute”). Further references to IPR2014-00227 (“the 227 IPR”)
mean the consolidated proceeding.

IPR2014˗01206
Patent 7,877,175 B2

3
2. Other Inter Partes Reviews
Related U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522 B2 is a continuation of the
’175 patent, and is the subject of inter partes reviews, also filed by
Petitioner, designated IPR2014-00221 and IPR2014-01208.
Related U.S. Patent No. 8,386,114 B2 is a subsequent
continuation of the application that matured into the ’175 patent, and
is involved in inter partes reviews, also filed by Petitioner, designated
IPR2014-00222 and IPR2014-01204.
1

3. Alleged Infringement
Patent Owner asserted the ’175 patent against Petitioner in
Magna Electronics Inc., v. Valeo, Inc., et al., No. 2:13˗cv˗11376 (filed
on Mar. 28, 2013) (E.D. Mich.). Pet. 3; Paper 5, 2.

1
U.S. Patent No. 8,386,114 B2 was also the subject of IPR2014-
00223; however, the Board did not institute inter partes review.
IPR2014˗01206
Patent 7,877,175 B2

4
B. Asserted Grounds and Prior Art
Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability
under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Claims Challenged References
1–9, 12, 14–18, and
21
Hitachi
2
and either Ohtsuka
3
or Matsushita
4

10 Hitachi, Ohtsuka, and Broggi
5

11 Hitachi, Ohtsuka, Sun
6
, and Bos
7

13 Hitachi, Ohtsuka, and either Gutta
8
or Breed
9

20 Hitachi, Sun, and Bos
22–24 Matsushita and Hitachi

2
Ex. 1002, JP 2002˗74339 (Mar. 15, 2002). We refer to the English
translation (Ex. 1003) throughout.
3
Ex. 1007, US 6,570,998 (May 27, 2003).
4
Ex. 1008, EP 1115250 A1 (Nov. 7, 2001).
5
Ex. 1011, Alberto Broggi et al., Multi-Resolution Vehicle Detection
Using Artificial Vision, 2004 IEEE INTELLIGENT VEHICLES SYMP. 310.
6
Ex. 1005, Zehang Sun, et al., On-Road Vehicle Detection Using
Optical Sensors: A Review, 2004 IEEE INT’L CONF. ON INTELLIGENT
TRANSP. SYS. 1.
7
Ex. 1009, US 6,313,454 (Nov. 6, 2001).
8
Ex. 1004, US 6,424,273 B1 (July 23, 2002).
9
Ex. 1006, US 2002/0005778 A1 (Jan. 17, 2002).
IPR2014˗01206
Patent 7,877,175 B2

5
C. The ’175 Patent
The ’175 patent relates to an imaging system that is operable to
determine if a vehicle or object of interest is adjacent, forward, or
rearward of the vehicle to assist the driver in changing lanes or
parking the vehicle. Ex. 1001, 1:15–22.

Figure 1 of the ’175 patent is reproduced below:

Figure 1 is a top plan view of a vehicle incorporating the object
detection system of the ’175 patent. Id. at 4:7–8.
The system includes: 1) an imaging array sensor and 2) a
control. Id. at 3:12–14. The imaging array sensor comprises a
plurality of photo˗sensing pixels. Id. at 3:14–16. The sensor is
positioned with a field of view exteriorly of the vehicle, and is
operable to capture an image of that view that comprises an image
data set. Id. at 3:16–20.
The control algorithmically processes the image data set of the
captured image into a reduced image data set, and the control
processes the reduced data set to extract information. Id. at 3:20–24.
The control is operable to: determine if the imaging array sensor is
misaligned, calculate a degree of misalignment, and adjust the image
data set or the image processing to account for such misalignment. Id.
IPR2014˗01206
Patent 7,877,175 B2

6
at 6:10–29, 54–55. Additionally, the control may also be operable to
activate a warning indicator to alert the driver of the vehicle that
another vehicle is present at the side of the driver’s vehicle. Id. at
4:57–60; Fig. 1.

D. Illustrative Claim
Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 16, and 22 are independent.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:
1. An imaging system for a vehicle comprising:
an imaging array sensor comprising a plurality of photo˗
sensing pixels, wherein said imaging array sensor
is positioned at the vehicle and has a field of view
exterior of the vehicle, and wherein said imaging
array sensor is operable to capture an image of a
scene exterior of the vehicle, said captured image
comprising an image data set representative of the
exterior scene;
a control for processing said captured image, said control
algorithmically processing said image data set to a
reduced image data set of said image data set, said
control processing said reduced image data set to
extract information from said reduced image data
set;
wherein said control is operable to determine that said
imaging array sensor is not aligned within a
desired tolerance when said imaging array sensor
is positioned at the vehicle; and
wherein said control, responsive to a determination of a
misalignment of said imaging array sensor when
said imaging array sensor is positioned at the
vehicle, is operable to adjust at least one of said
image data set and said image processing to at
least partially compensate for the determined
misalignment of said imaging array sensor.
Ex. 1001, claim 1.
IPR2014˗01206
Patent 7,877,175 B2

7
III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Our analysis here does not necessitate explicit claim
construction of any term.

IV. REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
The Petition identified five entities as the real parties-in-
interest, including Valeo, Inc. and Valeo GmbH. Pet. 3. Patent
Owner’s contentions focus on Valeo, Inc. and Valeo GmbH, in
support of the argument that the Petition is fatally deficient because it
fails to identify all real parties in interest as required by 35 U.S.C.
§ 312(a)(2). Prelim. Resp. 1–3; Paper 12,
10
1.

A. Valeo, Inc.
Patent Owner contends that, at the time the Petition was filed,
Petitioner knew or should have known that Valeo, Inc. had ceased to
exist due to merger into Valeo North America, Inc. Prelim. Resp. 3–
4; Paper 12, 1. Indeed, prior to filing of the Petition, Valeo, Inc. had
merged with another entity to become Valeo North America, Inc.
11

Paper 10,
12
1–2; Ex. 1022. However, Patent Owner’s arguments fail
to account for the fact that Valeo North America, Inc. is the legal
successor to the original entity (Valeo, Inc.). See Paper 10, 1–2;

10
Paper 12 is PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S BRIEF
REGARDING REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST VALEO NORTH AMERICA,
INC., AND VALEO GMBH.
11
The merger was effective December 31, 2013, and the Petition was
filed on July 25, 2014. Ex. 1022, 1˗2; Paper 3, 1.
12
Paper 10 is PETITIONERS’ BRIEF REGARDING REAL PARTIES-IN-
INTEREST VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC. AND VALEO GMBH.
IPR2014˗01206
Patent 7,877,175 B2

8
Ex. 1022, 1–2; Prelim. Resp. 1–3; Paper 12, 1. The Petition was
technically in error in that it named Valeo, Inc. when at that time the
correct name of the entity was Valeo North America, Inc. Despite
this, because Valeo North America, Inc. is the legal successor to
Valeo, Inc., the Petition was correct substantively, in that it identified
the real party of interest..
13

B. Valeo GmbH
According to Patent Owner, prior to filing of the Petition, an
entity named Valeo Holding Deutschland GmbH was renamed to, and
possibly consolidated with, the original Valeo GmbH, so that it is
unclear if the Valeo GmbH named in the Petition is the correct entity.
Prelim. Resp. 5–6. Patent Owner’s response addresses only Valeo,
Inc., and does not further address Valeo GmbH. See Paper 12. This
suggests that Patent Owner no longer considers there to be an issue
regarding identifying Valeo GmbH as a real party in interest. Despite
this, out of an abundance of caution, we address the issue.
Prior to the filing of the Petition, Valeo GmbH merged into and
transferred assets to Valeo Holding Deutschland GmbH.
14
Paper 10,

13
Petitioner has since filed an updated mandatory notice to reflect
that Valeo North America, Inc., previously Valeo, Inc., is a real party
in interest. Paper 9.
14
The merger was effective January 1, 2013, and the Petition was
filed on July 25, 2014.
IPR2014˗01206
Patent 7,877,175 B2

9
1˗2; Ex. 1023,
15
4, 10. Valeo Holding Deutschland GmbH is the legal
successor to Valeo GmbH, and continues to hold the name Valeo
GmbH. Id. Therefore, the Petition correctly identified Valeo GmbH
(which is the name of Valeo Holding Deutschland GmbH) as a real
party in interest.

C. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Petition identifies all
real parties in interest as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).

V. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
The Decision to Institute in general, and determinations under
35 U.S.C. § 325(d) in particular, are discretionary decisions.
16

Patent Owner asks that the Board exercise its discretion under
35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to reject the Petition because it raises substantially

15
Exhibit 1023 includes page numbers at the top center of the page
and Petitioner added exhibit page numbers to the bottom right of each
page. On the tenth page of the exhibit, the correct number is at the
top, but the added number (i.e.”1023˗011”) is incorrect. We refer to
the correct numbering sequence at the top of each page.
16
See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see generally Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc.
v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., Case IPR2013-00324, slip op. at 4
(PTAB Nov. 21, 2013) (Paper 19) (“Congress did not mandate that an
inter partes review must be instituted under certain conditions.
Rather, by stating that the Director—and by extension, the Board—
may not institute review unless certain conditions are met, Congress
made institution discretionary.”); see also 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (stating
that the Director “may” take into account whether the same or
substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were
presented to the Office).
IPR2014˗01206
Patent 7,877,175 B2

10
the same arguments and prior art as raised in the 227 IPR. Prelim.
Resp. 1–2, 6–12. In support of this argument, Patent Owner contends
that the Board has held consistently that a petitioner must explain
adequately why a follow-on petition is not redundant, and Petitioner
has not done so in this case. Prelim. Resp. 6 (citing Medtronic, Inc., v
NuVasive, Inc., Case IPR2014-00487, slip op. at 7 (PTAB Sept. 11,
2014)(Paper 8)).
The citation of a single case does not demonstrate what the
Board has consistently held. Also, the case cited is not precedential
and does not set forth a “requirement” that a petitioner must explain
adequately why a follow-on petition is not redundant. Contrary to
what Patent Owner’s argument implies, there is no per se rule that a
Petitioner must demonstrate how the Petition is not redundant to any
prior art and argument presented to the Office. Rather, 35 U.S.C.
§ 325(d) is discretionary, stating only that the Board “may” consider
whether the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments
were previously presented to the Office.
Patent Owner also contends that that Board has held
consistently that the addition of prior art and argument that are
different and non-cumulative does not preclude rejecting a petition
under § 325(d). Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Unilever, Inc. v. Procter &
Gamble Co., Case IPR2014-00506, slip op. at 6 (PTAB July 7, 2014)
(Paper 17)). However, such argument does little to demonstrate why
we should exercise our discretion to reject the Petition at hand.
IPR2014˗01206
Patent 7,877,175 B2

11
In support of the argument that we should reject the Petition,
Patent Owner provides the following chart:
17

Claims 227 IPR Present Petition
1–7, 9, 12,
15–18, 21
Hitachi
18
1. Hitachi, Ohtsuka
2. Hitachi, Matsushita
8 Gutta, Hitachi 1. Hitachi, Ohtsuka
2. Hitachi, Matsushita
10 Hitachi, Broggi Hitachi, Ohtsuka, Broggi
11 Hitachi, Sun Hitachi, Ohtsuka, Sun, Bos
13 1. Gutta, Hitachi
2. Gutta, Hitachi, Breed
1. Hitachi, Ohtsuka, Gutta
2. Hitachi, Ohtsuka, Breed
4 Gutta, Hitachi, Kastrinaki 1. Hitachi, Ohtsuka
2. Hitachi, Matsushita
20 Gutta, Hitachi, Gentex, Sun Hitachi, Sun, Bos
22 Gutta, Hitachi Matsushita, Hitachi
23, 24 Gutta, Hitachi, Gentex Matsushita, Hitachi
We are not persuaded that the art and arguments presented in
this Petition are the same or substantially the same prior art or
arguments previously presented to the Office. For example, none of
the grounds of unpatentability in this Petition rely upon exactly the
same combination of prior art as the grounds of unpatentability
asserted against the same claims in the 227 IPR. For example, the
Petition relies upon a combination of Hitachi and Ohtsuka for
disclosing algorithmically processing an image data set to a reduced
image data set as claimed, while in contrast the petitions in the 227
IPR relied upon Hitachi alone. 227 Decision to Institute, 17–18; Pet.
9, 20–27. This distinction is present for each ground of
unpatentability in the Petition.

17
Prelim. Resp. 9–10.
18
This ground of unpatentability was based upon 35 U.S.C. § 102
and the other grounds are based upon 35 U.S.C. § 103.
IPR2014˗01206
Patent 7,877,175 B2

12
Consequently, we decline to exercise our discretion under
35 U.S.C. § 325(d) in this case.

VI. ANALYSIS
A. Hitachi and Ohtsuka or Hitachi and Matsushita - Claims 1–9,
12, 14–18, 21
Petitioner asserts that claims 1–9, 12, 14–18, and 21 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hitachi and either
Ohtsuka or Matsushita. Pet. 20–40.
Each of independent claims 1 and 16 are directed to an imaging
system having a control that algorithmically processes a captured
image comprising an image data set to a reduced image data set, and
processes that reduced image data set to extract information from it
(“algorithmically processing”). This limitation is also present in
claims 2–9, 12, and 14–18 by virtue of their dependence from claims
1 and 16, respectively. Claim 21 depends from independent claim 19
and contains a similar limitation.
Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to modify
Hitachi to include algorithmically processing as disclosed by Ohtsuka.
In support of the assertion that Ohtsuka discloses algorithmically
processing as claimed, the claim chart quotes two portions of
Ohtsuka.
19
Pet. 24–26. The portions of the Ohtsuka cited by
Petitioner describe a first embodiment that includes an imaging device
and pre-processing section 2. Ex. 1007, 9:8–10. Pre-processing
section 2 produces a differentiated image (i.e. an edge detection image

19
With regard to claims 16 and 21, Petitioner simply incorporates the
discussion of claim 1. Pet. 34, 37.
IPR2014˗01206
Patent 7,877,175 B2

13
to thereby detect an area including many horizontal and vertical
edges) in order to detect a vehicle candidate area, which is then sent to
evaluating sections 3 and 5. Ex. 1007, 9:10–12, 11:61-67.
20

For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis is
unpersuasive in that it does not explain adequately how Hitachi is
modified to reach the claimed subject matter. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.104(b)(4) (the petition must explain how the construed claim is
unpatentable). First, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis is incomplete
in that it fails to state explicitly the differences between Hitachi and
the claimed subject matter. See Pet. 20–40; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (citing with approval the four part
obviousness test of Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18
(1966), that includes determining the differences between the claims
at issue and the prior art); see also the 227 Decision to Institute, 32
(noting the same omission in the earlier Petition).
Second, the Petition simply quotes portions of the references,
and does not explain persuasively the relevance of the evidence. See
Pet. 24–26; 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5). For example, the claims require
algorithmically processing an image data set to a reduced image data
set. The cited portions of Ohtsuka do not explicitly disclose the claim
terminology (e.g., algorithmically processing or a reduced data set).
See Pet. 24 (quoting Ex. 1007, 9:8–12; 11:60–67). In support of the
reason to combine the references, the Petition cites to portions of the
Declaration See Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 127–136); Pet. 22 (citing

20
Petitioner cites to Ex. 1007, 9:60˗65, but quotes through line 67.
Pet. 24.
IPR2014˗01206
Patent 7,877,175 B2

14
Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 164–171
21
). This citation is in support of the reason to
combine, not in support of the assertion that Ohtsuka discloses
algorithmically processing as claimed. Further, the cited portion of
the Declaration spans pages 62 to 65 and makes several references to
other portions of the Declaration (e.g., ¶ 164 referencing ¶ 74, ¶ 166
referencing ¶ 127, ¶ 168 referencing ¶¶ 127–136). Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 164–
171. The Petition simply cites the lengthy explanation in the
Declaration and does not otherwise provide an argument or
explanation. That is insufficient. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5); 37
C.F.R. § 42.6 (a)(3); see generally Cisco Systems, Inc., v. C-Cation
Techns., LLC, Case IPR2014-00454, slip op. at 9-10 (PTAB Aug. 29,
2014) (Paper 12) (expanded panel decision explaining that arguments
not made in the Petition will not be considered).
Third, to explain how the references are combined to reach the
claimed subject matter, Petitioner provides the conclusory assertions
that the teachings are combined, and that Ohtsuka’s reduced image
data set functionality is incorporated in Hitachi. Pet. 21–22. Such
explanation is insufficient in that, for example, it is unclear if
Ohtsuka’s functionality is added to Hitachi or replaces some portion
of Hitachi’s processing and, if so, which portion. Consequently,
Petitioner has not explained cogently how Ohtsuka’s algorithmic
processing is incorporated into Hitachi’s system.
For all of the above-stated reasons, Petitioner has not
established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing that

21
Petitioner also cites Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 185-189; however, these
paragraphs relate to claim 8.
IPR2014˗01206
Patent 7,877,175 B2

15
claims 1–9, 12, 14–18, and 21 are unpatentable over Hitachi and
Ohtsuka.
The alternative ground based upon Hitachi and Matsushita
suffers from the same shortcomings. In particular, Petitioner’s
obviousness analysis is incomplete in that it: fails to state explicitly
the differences between the Hitachi and the claimed subject matter,
does not explain persuasively the relevance of the evidence, and
presents conclusory assertions regarding how the references are
combined. See Pet. 20˗40. Accordingly, Petitioner has not
established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing that
1–9, 12, 14–18, and 21 are unpatentable over Hitachi and Matsushita.

B. Various Combinations - Claims 10, 11, 13
Because claims 10, 11, and 13 depend from independent claim
1, the grounds of unpatentability asserted against claims 10, 11, and
13 each rely upon the combination of Hitachi and Ohtsuka analyzed
above. See Pet. 41, 43, 46. Petitioner does not remedy these
shortcomings with the additional references (Broggi, Sun, Bos, Gutta,
or Breed). Therefore, these grounds of unpatentability suffer from the
shortcomings identified in the analysis of the previous ground of
unpatentability, and Petitioner has not established a reasonable
likelihood of prevailing in establishing that these claims are
unpatentable over the asserted gorunds.

IPR2014˗01206
Patent 7,877,175 B2

16
C. Hitachi, Sun, and Bos - Claim 20
Petitioner asserts that claim 20 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Hitachi, Sun and Bos. Pet. 48–50.
Claim 20 depends from claim 19 and recites, “wherein said
control is operable to switch between daytime and nighttime
algorithms in response to ambient light levels at the vehicle.”
Petition asserts that Sun discloses using different algorithms
during day and night, and that Bos discloses a vehicle vision system
with the ability to detect the ambient light level at the vehicle. Pet.
50, 52. According to Petitioner, it would have been predictable to
modify Hitachi’s system to be adaptable to changing light conditions
as taught by Sun in order to make Hitachi’s system as robust as
possible and. Pet. 49–50.
In support of the contention that Sun discloses using different
algorithms during the day and night, the claim chart in the Petition
provides the following quotation from Sun,
Most of the cues discussed above are not helpful for
night time vehicle detection - it would be difficult or
impossible to detect shadows, horizontal/vertical edges,
or corners in images obtained at night conditions.
Pet. 52–53 (citing Ex. 1005, 3
22
).
The quoted portion of Sun discloses that the cues discussed
earlier in the article (various types of knowledge-based methods of
finding candidate vehicle locations in an image) are not helpful for
nighttime vehicle detection. See Ex. 1005, 2–3. The use of different
algorithms for day and night is not mentioned. Petitioner simply

22
The quoted disclosure is found in paragraph V.A.7.
IPR2014˗01206
Patent 7,877,175 B2

17
quotes the reference without providing a cogent explanation of the
relevance of the evidence (i.e., how this disclosure corresponds to
daytime and nighttime algorithms, as claimed). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.104(b)(5).
Elsewhere, the Petition cites to the Declaration of Dr.˗Ing. Jan-
Michael Frahm in support of the contention that Sun discloses the
need to use different algorithms during the day and night. Pet. 50
(citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 119). The Declaration of Dr.˗Ing. Frahm repeats
the portion of Sun quoted in the Petition. Ex. 1010 ¶ 119. This
repetition adds nothing to Petitioner’s analysis. The Declaration also
states that Sun points to algorithms for day and night, such as
disclosed by Cucchiara, and then quotes a portion of Cucchiara. Id.
(citing Ex. 1010, attachment J). The Petition does not provide an
argument or explanation of this disclosure in Cucchiara. As discussed
above with respect to the ground of unpatentability based on Hitachi
and Ohtsuka (section VI.A.), we will not consider an argument not
made in the petition.
This ground of unpatentability is deficient for at least these
reasons. Consequently, we determine that Petitioner has not
established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing that
claim 20 is unpatentable over Hitachi, Sun, and Bos.

IPR2014˗01206
Patent 7,877,175 B2

18
D. Matsushita and Hitachi - Claims 22–24
Petitioner asserts that claims 22–24 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Matsushita and Hitachi.
23
Pet. 53–58.
Independent claim 22 is directed to an imaging system having
at least a first and second imaging array sensor, each sensor
comprising a plurality of photo-sensing pixels. The system also
includes a control that is operable to determine that at least one of the
imaging array sensors is not aligned within a desired tolerance.
Claims 23 and 24 depend from independent claim 22.
Petitioner proposes to modify Matsushita to “use the calibration
mechanism and single camera object detection of Hitachi” in order to
reduce the cost and maintenance of Matsushita’s vehicle vision
system. Pet. 54 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 222–239).
Petitioner’s analysis is deficient in several respects. First,
paralleling the ground of unpatentability over Hitachi and Othsuka
analyzed above, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis is incomplete in
that it fails to state explicitly the differences between Matsushita and
the claimed subject matter.
Second, in Hitachi, the vehicle must be in the camera’s field of
view because the system utilizes marks on the vehicle to correct
misalignment, whereas, in Matsushita, the vehicle is not within the
field of view. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 1, 10, 18; Fig. 2; Pet. 54 (relying upon
Matsushita’s cameras as show in Ex. 1008, Fig. 43(a)); Ex. 1008, Fig.

23
This ground of unpatentability combines the references in a
different manner from the ground based upon Hitachi and Matsushita
asserted against claims 1˗9, 12, 14˗18, and 21.
IPR2014˗01206
Patent 7,877,175 B2

19
43(a) (showing the vehicle is not in the field of view of any of the
three cameras).
24
Petitioner does not address cogently repositioning
of Matsushita’s cameras to permit alignment as disclosed by Hitachi.
Third, Matsushita discloses a multi-camera system that
synthesizes the captured images into a single image, while in contrast
Hitachi discloses an alignment technique for a single camera system.
The Petition does not explain cogently how Hitachi’s technique for
aligning a single camera is utilized in Matsushita’s multi-camera
system. Rather, the Petition presents the conclusory statement that it
would have been obvious “to use” Hitachi’s technique in Matsushita’s
system. Pet. 54 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 222–239). The cited portion of
the Declaration also does not provide a cogent explanation; rather, the
Declaration presents a similarly conclusory statement that it would be
obvious “to combine” Hitachi’s functionality into Matsushita’s
system. Ex. 1010 ¶ 225.
25

This ground of unpatentability is deficient for at least these
reasons. Consequently, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
likelihood of prevailing in establishing that claims 22–24 are
unpatentable over Matsushita and Hitachi.

24
Essentially the same omission was made in a ground of
unpatentability addressed in the prior Petition. See 227 Decision to
Institute, 33˗34.
25
See also 227 Decision to Institute, 33 (pointing out that Petitioner
did not explain adequately how Hitachi’s single camera alignment and
adjustment technique operates in a multi-camera system).

IPR2014˗01206
Patent 7,877,175 B2

20
VII. CONCLUSION
Based on the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition,
we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
likelihood that it will prevail in showing claims 1–18 and 20–24 of the
’175 patent are unpatentable.

VIII. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the petition is denied; and
FURTHER ORDERED that no inter partes review is instituted.

IPR2014˗01206
Patent 7,877,175 B2

21
PETITIONER:
Tammy Terry
terry@oshaliang.com

Aly Dossa
dossa@oshaliang.com

Peter Schechter
schechter@oshaliang.com

PATENT OWNER:

Timothy Flory
Flory@glbf.com

David Cornwell
davidc-PTAB@skgf.com

Terence Linn
linn@glbf.com

Salvador Bezos
sbezos-PTAB@skgf.com