Valeo North America, Inc.v.Magna Electronics, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 13, 2015

13800691 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 7
571.272.7822 Entered: May 13, 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 IPR2015-00252
U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724 B2

Before RICHARD E. RICE, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

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

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Valeo North America, Inc., Valeo S.A., Valeo GmbH, Valeo Schalter
Und Sensoren GmbH, and Connaught Electronics Ltd. (“Petitioner”) filed a
IPR2015-00252
U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724 B2
2
Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–48
(“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724 B2 (Exhibit 1001, “the
’724 Patent”). Magna Electronics, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be
instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any
[preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that
the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Based on our review of the record, we determine that Petitioner has
not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to
any of the challenged claims.
B. Related Proceedings
Petitioner and Patent Owner identify, as related proceedings, a district
court case involving alleged infringement of the ’724 Patent, which is
Magna Electronics Inc. v. Valeo, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-10540 (E.D. Mich.). Pet.
4; see Magna Electronics, Inc.’s Mandatory Notices Pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 42.8 (“Patent Owner Notice,” Paper 4).
C. The ’724 Patent
The ’724 Patent relates to multi-camera vision systems for vehicles.
See generally Ex. 1001, Abstract. According to the ’724 Patent, a long-felt
need in the art of vehicle rearview vision systems has been to eliminate
exterior rearview mirrors by using image capture devices, such as cameras,
in combination with dashboard displays. Id. at 1:43–46. Prior art camera-
based systems, however, had not obtained commercial acceptance because
they presented too much information in a confusing manner. Id. at 1:60–64.
IPR2015-00252
U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724 B2
3
To address these issues, the ’724 Patent describes a rearview vision
system having two side image capture devices positioned, respectively, on
opposite sides of the vehicle and a center image capture device disposed at a
rear portion of the vehicle. Id. at 5:53–58. The ’724 Patent describes
techniques for synthesizing images captured by these image capture devices
to form a view as would be seen from a camera at a single location, and that
is displayed to the driver. See e.g., id. at 3:12–25.
Figure 3, reproduced below, depicts a display according to the
invention.

Figure 3 illustrates image display device 20
displaying composite image 42.

As shown in Figure 3, composite image 42 is made up of left image
portion 44, right image portion 46, and center image portion 48. Id. at 7:44–
46. The image portions at boundaries 50 and 52 are continuous such that
composite image 42 is a seamless panoramic view rearwardly of the vehicle.
Id. at 7:55–58. Composite image 42 provides a clear image that avoids
IPR2015-00252
U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724 B2
4
confusion and simplifies the task of extracting information from the multiple
image portions. Id. at 7:64–67.
D. Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is the only independent claim challenged by Petitioner. We
do not address the additional prior art or grounds of unpatentability
Petitioner asserts against dependent claims 2–48 because Petitioner has not
established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to
claim 1, from which each of claims 2–48 depends, directly or indirectly.
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A multi-camera vision system for a vehicle, said
vehicular multi-camera vision system comprising:
at least three image capture devices disposed at a vehicle
equipped with said vehicular multi-camera vision system;
said at least three image capture devices comprising a
first image capture device disposed at a driver-side portion of
the equipped vehicle at a first location;
said at least three image capture devices comprising a
second image capture device disposed at a passenger-side
portion of the equipped vehicle at a second location;
said at least three image capture devices comprising a
third image capture device disposed at a rear portion of the
equipped vehicle at a third location;
wherein said first image capture device has a first field of
view exterior of the equipped vehicle;
wherein said second image capture device has a second
field of view exterior of the equipped vehicle;
wherein said third image capture device has a third field
of view exterior of the equipped vehicle;
wherein said first field of view of said first image capture
device overlaps with said third field of view of said third image
capture device defining a first overlap zone;
wherein said second field of view of said second image
capture device overlaps with said third field of view of said
third image capture device defining a second overlap zone;
IPR2015-00252
U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724 B2
5
wherein said first image capture device captures first
image data;
wherein said second image capture device captures
second image data;
wherein said third image capture device captures third
image data;
an image processor;
wherein first image data captured by said first image
capture device is received at said image processor via at least
one of an analog data stream and a digital data stream;
wherein second image data captured by said second
image capture device is received at said image processor via at
least one of an analog data stream and a digital data stream;
wherein third image data captured by said third image
capture device is received at said image processor via at least
one of an analog data stream and a digital data stream;
wherein, responsive to processing by said image
processor of received image data, a synthesized image is
generated without duplication of objects present in said first
overlap zone and in said second overlap zone and wherein said
synthesized image approximates a view as would be seen by a
virtual camera at a single location exterior of the equipped
vehicle; and
wherein said synthesized image is displayed by a single
display screen of a reconfigurable display device that is
viewable by a driver of the equipped vehicle when normally
operating the equipped vehicle.
E. The Asserted Prior Art
Petitioner relies upon the prior art references below in its challenge of
independent claim 1. Pet. 10.
Reference Patent No. or
Publication No.
Issued, Filed, or Published
Date
Exhibit
No.
Lemelson U.S. Patent No.
6,553,130 B1
Filed: June 28, 1996
Issued: Apr. 22, 2003
1002
IPR2015-00252
U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724 B2
6
Nissan Japanese
Publication No.
JP H3-99952
Published: Apr. 25, 1991 1003
(1004)1
Hino Japanese
Publication No.
62-16073
Published: Apr. 10, 1987 1007
(1008)

F. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
Petitioner challenges independent claim 1 of the ’724 Patent, under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over the combination of Nissan, Hino, and
Lemelson. Pet. 10. In support of this ground, Petitioner presents a
Declaration by Dr. George Wolberg (Ex. 1019) and a Declaration by
Dr. Ralph Wilhelm (Ex. 1020). Petitioner also asserts grounds of
unpatentability for dependent claims 2–48. Pet. 10.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
1. Legal Standard
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. § 42.300(b); see
also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC., 778 F.3d 1271, 1281–1282 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (“Congress implicitly adopted the broadest reasonable interpretation
standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by
[United States Patent and Trademark Office (‘USPTO’)] regulation.”).
Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, and absent any special

1In parenthesis are Exhibit numbers of certified English translations of
foreign language references. Citations herein are to the certified English
translations.
IPR2015-00252
U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724 B2
7
definitions, 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
disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(en banc)).
2. “said synthesized image”
The term “said synthesized image” is recited in independent claim 1.
Neither party proposes a construction for that term. Patent Owner, however,
contends that Nissan and Hino are insufficient to teach “wherein said
synthesized image approximates a view as would be seen by a virtual camera
at a single location exterior of the equipped vehicle,” as recited in claim 1.
Prelim. Resp. 31. To evaluate Patent Owner’s contention, we determine the
broadest reasonable interpretation of “said synthesized image.”
The antecedent basis for “said synthesized image” is within the
following phrase: “wherein, responsive to processing by said image
processor of received image data, a synthesized image is generated”
(emphasis added). Accordingly, “said synthesized image” is generated by
synthesizing the received image data captured by the image capture devices.
The ’724 Patent Specification does not define “synthesized.” A
dictionary definition is useful in ascertaining the way in which one of
ordinary skill in the art would use the term. Starhome GmbH v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, 743 F.3d 849, 856–57 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Chambers 21st
Century Dictionary defines “synthesize” as “to combine (simple parts) to
form (a complex whole).” Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (2001)
available at http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/chambdict
IPR2015-00252
U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724 B2
8
/synthesize_or_synthesise/0 (retrieved on April 22, 2015) (Ex. 3001)
(emphasis added).
The dictionary definition is consistent with the use of “synthesize” in
the ’724 Patent Specification. For instance, the ’724 Patent Specification
states, “[r]earview vision system 12 additionally includes [ ] image processor
18 for receiving data signals from image capture devices 14, 16 and
synthesizing, from the data signals, [ ] composite image 42 which is
displayed on [ ] display 20.” Ex. 1001, 5:57–62 (emphasis added). The
’724 Patent Specification more particularly describes that the composite
image is “made up of” image portions, and “[e]ach image portion 44–48 is
reversed from the image as captured by the respective image capture
device.” Id. at 7:44–49 (emphasis added). Additionally, the ’724 Patent
Specification indicates that the synthesized image is generated by a
“[c]ombined image generator.” Id. at 11:34–35; see also id. at 12:29–31
(“[m]erging of multiple image portions would require additional combined
image generators.”)
Upon review, we determine that construing “said synthesized image”
as “the image generated by combining the received image data captured by
the image capture devices” is the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the ’724 Patent Specification.
B. Asserted Obviousness of Claim 1 over Nissan, Hino, and
Lemelson
Petitioner contends that independent claim 1 of the ’724 Patent is
unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Nissan, Hino, and
Lemelson. Pet. 25–32. In light of the arguments and evidence submitted,
Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail
IPR2015-00252
U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724 B2
9
with respect to its contention that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over the
combination of Nissan, Hino, and Lemelson.
1. Nissan
Nissan teaches a device for displaying information about a vehicle’s
surroundings to the driver by using cameras. Ex. 1004, 2:16–20. Figure 1
of Nissan, reproduced below, illustrates placement of the cameras.

Figure 1 illustrates a vehicle equipped with cameras.
Specifically, as shown in Figure 1, cameras 1–6 are set up such that
two cameras are embedded in each of the front and rear bumpers and one
camera is embedded in each front directional indicator. Id. at 3:36–4:3.
Nissan additionally teaches displaying the positions of other vehicles,
the states of obstructions, and the center line. Id. at 2:16–18. Figure 3(b),
reproduced below, illustrates an exemplary display.
IPR2015-00252
U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724 B2
10

Figure 3(b) is the display during the operation
of the right directional indicator.
As illustrated in Figure 3, a plane (road surface) view is depicted
showing the center line and neighboring vehicle 11 traveling behind vehicle
10. Id. at 4:29–37.
2. Hino
Hino teaches providing a status in the vicinity of an automobile as
seen from directly above the automobile. Ex. 1008, 2. Figure 1 of Hino
illustrates a bus equipped with cameras. Id.

Figure 1 depicts a side-view of a bus equipped with television
cameras.
As shown in Figure 1, the bus is equipped with three television
cameras mounted on the roof including a television camera with a wide-
angle lens positioned at each of the front, center, and rear of the bus. Id.
IPR2015-00252
U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724 B2
11
Each camera is mounted to display a road surface in the vicinity of the bus.
Id.
Figure 3 of Hino, reproduced below, illustrates an exemplary display.

Figure 3 is a view of a display sample of a cathode ray tube
disposed at the driver’s seat.
As shown in Figure 3, the cathode ray tube displays the road surface
in the vicinity of the bus. Id. at 3.
3. Lemelson
Lemelson teaches a system and method for assisting the driver of a
motor vehicle by displaying warnings of approaching hazards. See generally
Ex. 1002, Abstract. Lemelson teaches displaying “[a]ctual image data”
using a video display (id. at 6:46–54), which is received from camera 16
“mounted at the front of the vehicle” (id. at 5:31–33). The displayed image
“may include highlighting of hazards, special warning images such as
flashing lights . . . and other hazard and safety related messages.” Id. at
6:49–52.
IPR2015-00252
U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724 B2
12
4. Claim 1
Claim 1 recites “at least three image capture devices comprising a first
image capture device disposed at a driver-side portion[,] . . . a second image
capture device disposed at a passenger-side portion[,] . . . [and] a third image
capture device disposed at a rear portion of the equipped vehicle.” Petitioner
contends that these three image capture devices are taught by the following
portion of Nissan: “two cameras are embedded in each of the front and rear
bumpers, and one in each front directional indicator.” Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex.
1004, 4:1–3); see also id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:15–18, Fig. 4)
(contending that the synthesized image is taught by “converting and
combining the images from cameras 1 to N into one image.”)
Claim 1 also recites, “wherein said synthesized image approximates a
view as would be seen by a virtual camera at a single location exterior of the
equipped vehicle.” For the reasons discussed above, we determine that “said
synthesized image” means “the image generated by combining the received
image data captured by the image capture devices.” In other words, the
image that is generated by combining the received image data captured by
cameras on the sides and rear of the vehicle must approximate a view as
would be seen by a virtual camera at a single location exterior the equipped
vehicle.
In reliance on the Declaration by Dr. Wolberg, Petitioner contends
that Nissan teaches an image produced from a single virtual location that is
directly above a vehicle. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 108–109). In
particular, Dr. Wolberg testifies “it is my opinion that Nissan alone renders
obvious this limitation.” Ex. 1019 ¶ 108. Dr. Wolberg states that the
perspective conversion of Nissan “would be clearly understood by a
IPR2015-00252
U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724 B2
13
PHOSITA as being used to obtain a bird’s eye view of the vehicle’s
surroundings.” Id. Dr. Wolberg also testifies “Figs. 3a-3c of Nissan clearly
show images displayed to the driver from a bird’s eye view perspective.” Id.
Although we agree with Dr. Wolberg to the extent that Figure 3(a)
displays a view showing the roof of vehicle 10, we disagree with Dr.
Wolberg that Figure 3(a) depicts “a view as would be seen by a virtual
camera at a single location” (id.). Contrary to Dr. Wolberg’s testimony,
Nissan teaches, “neighboring vehicle 11 is displayed in side view.” Ex.
1004, 4:34–35. We, therefore, conclude that Figure 3(a) of Nissan does not
illustrate a view as would be seen by a virtual camera at a single location.
Furthermore, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Wolberg explain adequately
how the view illustrated in each of Figures 3(b) and 3(c) of Nissan would
result from the combination of received image data captured by cameras
embedded in the front and rear bumpers and in the front directional
indicators illustrated in Figure 1 of Nissan. As Patent Owner notes, “none
of the cameras are placed in a location where they could capture the top of
another car.” PO Resp. 32. We also note that Nissan indicates “the
vehicle’s position is simultaneously drawn in a diagram.” Ex. 1004, 4. In
contrast, claim 1 requires displaying “said synthesized image,” which is
generated by combining the received image data captured by cameras on the
sides and rear of the vehicle.
Petitioner, relying on the Declaration of Dr. Wolberg, also contends
“it would have been obvious to combine Nissan and Hino to achieve an ideal
view shown to the driver from the perspective of a virtual camera at a single
location directly above the vehicle, looking downward.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex.
1019 ¶¶ 110–114). Dr. Wolberg testifies “Nissan is not as ideal an aerial
IPR2015-00252
U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724 B2
14
view as would be desired to a driver of the equipped vehicle.” Ex.
1019 ¶ 112. In particular, Dr. Wolberg identifies “a distorted view of
neighboring vehicle in Fig. 3(a)” of Nissan. Id. Dr. Wolberg, states “a
PHOSITA would have found it obvious to improve the picture that is shown
to the driver of Nissan to depict the ideal aerial view that is shown in Fig. 3
of Hino.” Id.
As discussed above, Figure 3(a) of Nissan illustrates vehicle 10 in a
plane or road surface view whereas “neighboring vehicle 11 is displayed in
side view.” Ex. 1004, 4:34–35. Dr. Wolberg’s testimony that Figure 3(a) of
Nissan “clearly shows [an] image[] displayed to the driver from a bird’s eye
perspective” (Ex. 1019 ¶ 108), but the image “is not as ideal an aerial view
as would be desired” (id. ¶ 112) does not take into account adequately that
neighboring vehicle 11 is displayed in side view. Because Dr. Wolberg’s
testimony is inconsistent with the Nissan reference, we are not persuaded.
Dr. Wolberg also testifies that “Nissan and Hino show similar views
to the driver, and thus are combinable to produce a more robust vision
system display.” Ex. 1019 ¶ 111. Petitioner, however, points to Nissan’s
teaching that “two cameras are embedded in each of the front and rear
bumpers, and one in each front directional indicator,” as rendering obvious
the image capture devices recited in claim 1. Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1004,
4:1–3). Dr. Wolberg testifies, “a PHOSITA would have readily understood
that Nissan is not being modified to alter the camera positions or placement
of the six cameras in Nissan.” Ex. 1019 ¶ 113. Neither Petitioner nor
Dr. Wolberg explain adequately how the images captured by Nissan’s
cameras embedded in bumpers and directional indicators can be mapped to
create a plan view of the vicinity of the vehicle, as taught by Hino. Dr.
IPR2015-00252
U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724 B2
15
Wolberg provides conclusory statements without explaining persuasively the
basis for his view that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to
combine the teachings of Nissan and Hino. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)
(“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on
which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”)
We are not persuaded that Petitioner’s contentions regarding
Lemelson (Pet. 30–31) cure the deficiencies above. Petitioner cites to
Lemelson’s teaching, e.g., of a reconfigurable display with respect to the
following recitation of claim 1: “wherein said synthesized image is
displayed.” Petitioner, however, does not rely on Lemelson’s teachings for
either “wherein . . . a synthesized image is generated” or “wherein said
synthesized image approximates a view as would be seen by a virtual
camera at a single location,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 29.
C. Other Asserted Grounds
Petitioner also asserts other grounds of unpatentability contending that
claims 2-48 of the ’724 Patent are unpatentable, under 35 U.S.C. §103. Pet.
32–59. Each of these other claims depends, directly or indirectly, from
independent claim 1. Additionally, each of the other grounds asserted by
Petitioner is based on claim 1 being obvious over the combination of Nissan,
Hino, and Lemelson. Id. For the reasons given, we are not persuaded that
Petitioner has met its burden with respect to independent claim 1. We,
therefore, determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable
likelihood that it would prevail with respect to the dependent claims.
IPR2015-00252
U.S. Patent No. 8,643,724 B2
16

III. ORDER
For the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no inter partes review is
instituted.

PETITIONER:

Tammy J. Terry
Seema Mehta
Aly Dossa
Peter C. Schechter
OSHA LIANG LLP
terry@oshaliang.com
mehta@oshaliang.com
dossa@oshaliang.com
schechter@oshaliang.com

PATENT OWNER:

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

David K.S. Cornwell
Salvador M. Bezos
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC
davide-PTAB@skgf.com
sbezos-PTAB@skgf.com