VALEO NORTH AMERICA, INC., VALEO S.A., VALEO GMBH, VALEO SCHALTER UND SENSOREN GMBH, and CONNAUGHT ELECTRONICS LTD.,v.Magna Electronics Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 28, 2015

10643602 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2015)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 59
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 IPR2014-00220
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

IPR2014-00220
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 1–49 of U.S. Patent No. 7,859,565 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’565 patent”).
Paper 7 (“Pet.”). Magna Electronics, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a
Preliminary Response. Paper 17 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On May 29, 2014, we
instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 7–13, 15–20, 25–32, 39–42,
47, and 48 (“the instituted claims”) on certain grounds of unpatentability
alleged in the Petition. Paper 18 (“Dec. to Inst.”).
After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response
(Paper 25, “PO Resp.”) to which Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 30, “Pet.
Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude (Paper 55), which
Petitioner opposed (Paper 57). Patent Owner filed a Reply to Petitioner’s
Opposition to its Motion to Exclude. Paper 58.
Oral hearing was held on January 15, 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 claims
1–5, 8–13, 15–20, 25–32, 39–42, 47, and 48 of the ’565 patent are
unpatentable. Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that claim 7 of the ’565 patent is unpatentable. Patent Owner’s Motion to
Exclude is denied.

1
A transcript of the oral hearing is included in the record as Paper 54
(“Tr.”).
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

3
A. Related Proceedings
Petitioner and Patent Owner indicate that the ’565 patent is involved
in Magna Elecs., Inc. v. Valeo, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-11376 (E.D. Mich.), filed
March 28, 2013. Pet. 4; Paper 9, 2. Petitioner also has filed five petitions
for inter partes review of other related patents of Patent Owner: IPR2014-
00221 (U.S. Patent No. 7,991,522 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 ’565 patent is also the subject of IPR2014-01203. Paper 32, 1.
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
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

4
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
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.
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

5
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
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
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

6
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
Of the instituted claims, claims 1, 11, 18, 25, 30, 41, and 47 are
independent. Claim 1 is 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
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.
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

7
D. Prior Art Supporting the Instituted Challenges
Petitioner relies upon the following references:
Noso (“Nissan”)
2
JP H3-99952 Apr. 25, 1991 Ex. 1003
Nimura (“Aishin”)
3
JP A64-14700 Jan. 18, 1989 Ex. 1005
Wang et al., CMOS Video Cameras, EURO ASIC 1991, 100-03,
May 27-31, 1991 (“Wang”)
Ex. 1007
Bendell US 4,532,550 July 30, 1985 Ex. 1008
Suzuki (“Niles”)
4
JP 59-114139 July 2, 1984 Ex. 1009
E. The Instituted Grounds of Unpatentability
We instituted inter partes review on the following grounds:
Reference(s) Basis Claims Challenged
Nissan § 103 1–3, 5–9, 11–15, 25, 26, 28, 29, 41,
42, and 47
Nissan and Wang § 103 4, 17, and 27
Nissan and Bendell § 103 10
Nissan and Aishin § 103 16, 30, 31, 40, and 48
Nissan, Aishin, and Wang § 103 18–20
Nissan, Aishin, and Niles § 103 32 and 39
II. MOTION TO EXCLUDE
Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude seeks to exclude Wang (Ex. 1007).
Paper 55, 2–4. As movant, Patent Owner has the burden of proof to

2
Nissan is a Japanese language document. Ex. 1003. Unless indicated
otherwise, all citations to Nissan in this decision will refer to its certified
English language translation. Ex. 1004.
3
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.
4
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.
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

8
establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
For the reasons stated below, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied.
Prior to filing its Motion to Exclude, Patent Owner objected to Exhibit
1007 within the required five business days. In response to these objections,
Petitioner served, but did not file, a declaration by Gerard P. Grenier.
5
Id. at
1. Patent Owner objected to the declaration (Ex. 2014) within five business
days of service. Id. Petitioner served, but did not file, a second declaration
by Gerard P. Grenier.
6
Id. at 1–2. Patent Owner objected to the second
declaration. Id. at 2. Patent Owner preserved the objections by filing a
Motion to Exclude Evidence. Paper 37 (now expunged). The Board
expunged this motion because it failed to comply with an earlier order
stating that a Motion to Exclude Evidence should not include arguments
alleging that a reply exceeds the scope of a proper reply. Paper 48 (referring
to earlier order at Paper 20). Patent Owner requested rehearing of that order.
Paper 51. The Board granted the request for rehearing to permit filing of a
revised Motion to Exclude with inappropriate argument removed. Paper 52.
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 53, 2. We also asked that Patent
Owner consider whether other arguments, such as those related to the weight
of evidence rather than admissibility, were appropriate in a motion to

5
Petitioner later filed this declaration, with its Opposition to Patent Owner’s
Motion to Exclude, as Exhibit 1019 (“first Grenier Declaration”). Paper 57,
1.
6
Petitioner later filed this declaration, with its Opposition to Patent Owner’s
Motion to Exclude, as Exhibit 1020 (“second Grenier Declaration”). Paper
57, 1.
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

9
exclude evidence. Id. at 2–3. Patent Owner’s revised Motion to Exclude
Evidence seeks to exclude Wang. Paper 55.
Patent Owner argues that Wang should be excluded because “Valeo
fails to demonstrate, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), that Wang was
publicly accessible more than one year prior to the priority date of the ’565
patent.” Paper 55, 4. According to Patent Owner, it is not sufficient that
Wang lists a copyright date of “© 1991” because a copyright date does not
indicate that the article was publicly accessible. Id. at 3 (citing In re Lister,
583 F.3d 1307, 1316–17 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Patent Owner continues that the
testimony of Dr. George Wolberg (Ex. 1011, “Wolberg Declaration”) as to
Wang’s public accessibility lacks personal knowledge. Id. at 4.
Petitioner argues that Wang is admissible, self-authenticating
evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 902(6), and its copyright date
establishes a prima facie prior art date of 1991. Paper 57, 3–4 (citing FLIR
Sys., Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc., Case IPR2014-00411, slip op. at 18–19
(PTAB Sept. 5, 2014) (Paper 9)). Petitioner also submits a declaration from
the IEEE custodian of records, Mr. Gerard P. Grenier, to corroborate Wang’s
public accessibility in 1991. Id. at 4–5 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 6–9; Ex. 1020
¶¶ 6–9). Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner’s argument is unsupported
by evidence, and that there is no requirement that an expert have personal
knowledge of the publication date of a document in order to rely on it as
prior art. Id. at 5–7.
Patent Owner replies that the second Grenier Declaration (Ex. 1020)
is irrelevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 because it is not evidence
of a prior art date, and is hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 802. Paper
58, 2–3.
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

10
For the reasons that follow, Patent Owner has not presented a cogent
argument that Wang (Ex. 1007) is inadmissible. Significantly, Patent Owner
does not contend that Wang is inadmissible under any Federal Rule of
Evidence. Rather, Patent Owner argues that Wang (Ex. 1007) is
inadmissible because it does not demonstrate adequately that Wang is prior
art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See Ex. 2013 (objections); Paper 55, 3–5;
Paper 58, 2–5. Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the Wolberg and
Grenier Declarations (Exs. 1011, 1020, respectively) must be considered in
the context that Patent Owner only seeks to exclude Wang and not these
Declarations. Consequently, Patent Owner’s argument that Dr. Wolberg
lacks the personal knowledge to demonstrate that Wang was publicly
accessible is not a challenge to the admissibility of the Wolberg Declaration
(Ex. 1011). Instead, this argument is a challenge to the sufficiency of proof
that Wang is prior art. Likewise, Patent Owner’s argument that the Grenier
Declaration (Ex. 1020) is hearsay and irrelevant is not a challenge to the
admissibility of that Declaration. Instead, this argument is a challenge to the
sufficiency of proof that Wang is prior art.
7
In sum, Patent Owner argues
that Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficiently that Wang is prior art under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and does not present a cogent argument regarding the
admissibility of Wang.
Arguing that Wang is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is a
challenge to the sufficiency or weight to be given to Wang. Such argument
is not proper in a motion to exclude, which is a challenge to the admissibility

7
Although the second Grenier Declaration is filed as an exhibit, it is
supplemental evidence and may only be considered with regard to the
admissibility of Wang (Ex. 1007). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2).
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

11
of evidence, not a challenge to sufficiency. See Office Patent Trial Practice
Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (August 14, 2012) (A motion to exclude
may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a
particular fact.). Patent Owner’s preliminary response and response were
opportunities to challenge whether Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated
that Wang is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Patent Owner elected not to
make such a challenge.
We determine that Patent Owner has not met its burden of proof to
establish that Wang is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.62(a). A motion to exclude is a challenge to
admissibility, and is not the proper venue to challenge Wang’s status as prior
art. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is denied.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
also In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1281–82 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (“Congress implicitly adopted the broadest reasonable interpretation
standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by
PTO regulation.”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim
terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2007).
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

12
In the Decision on Institution, we interpreted various claim terms of
the ’565 patent as follows:
Claim Term (Claims) Interpretation
“composite image”
(1, 11, 13–15, 18, 25, 30,
41, 43, 44, 46, and 47)
a single, combined image
“without duplication of
image information”
(1, 11, 18, 25, 30, 41, 43,
44, 46, and 47)
with minimal multiple exposure in the
composite image
See Dec. on Inst. 7–12. 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.
1. “image portion from an image captured” (claims 1, 11, 18, 25, 30,
41, and 47)
Independent claims 1, 11, 18, 25, 30, 41, and 47 recite “image portion
from an image captured.” Petitioner does not propose a construction of this
term. Patent Owner proposes that “image portion [from an image captured]”
be construed to mean “a derived part of a captured image that is less than the
entire captured image.” PO Resp. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:22–25, 9:3–8;
Ex. 2006 (defining “portion” as “a part of a larger amount, area, etc.” and
“an often limited part of a whole.”).
Petitioner, in its Reply, disputes Patent Owner’s distinction between a
portion of an image captured and a portion of an image displayed, and
argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have made such a
distinction. Pet. Reply 2–4 (citing Reply Declaration of Dr. George
Wolberg, Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 3–6). At the hearing, however, Petitioner agreed that
“portion” excludes the whole. Tr. 9:5–11.
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

13
Petitioner also objects to Patent Owner’s proposed construction to the
extent that it implies an “image portion” can be only of a captured image,
and not of a displayed image. While it may be possible to have an “image
portion” from an image displayed, we need not address this concern because
the claims themselves all require that the recited “image portion” be “from
an image captured.”
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. 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). 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.
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 captures devices 14, 16. Based on our review, there is no such
disclosure anywhere in the ’565 patent. Accordingly, we are not persuaded
that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is the broadest reasonable
interpretation.
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

14
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. For example, independent claims 1, 30, 41, and 47 recite “the
displayed [composite] image displayed on said single display screen
includes an image portion” (emphasis added). The other independent claims
recite “image portion” in similar context. See, e.g., Claims 11, 18, and 25
(“the displayed image including 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. 2006.
We determine that “image portion” does not require further express
construction.
B. Claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–15, 25, 26, 28, 29, 41, 42, and 47 –
Obviousness over Nissan
Petitioner argues that claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–15, 25, 26, 28, 29, 41, 42,
and 47 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Nissan.
Pet. 25–47.
Patent Owner counters that (1) Nissan does not teach an “image
portion,” as recited in independent claims 1, 11, 25, 41, and 47; (2) Nissan
does not teach that “fields of view . . . are dynamically adjustable,” as
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

15
recited in dependent claim 7; and (3) Nissan does not teach that “duplication
of objects . . . is not present in said displayed composite image.” PO Resp.
6–13.
Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and supporting
evidence, we determine that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11–15, 25, 26, 28, 29, 41, 42, and
47 are unpatentable as obvious over Nissan. Petitioner has not established,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 7 is unpatentable as obvious
over Nissan.
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.
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

16
Figure 1 of Nissan is reproduced below:

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.
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

17
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.
2. Analysis
Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11–15, 25, 26, 28, 29, 41, 42, and 47 are unpatentable
as obvious over Nissan.
For example, we are persuaded that the record supports a finding that
the limitations of independent claim 1 listed in the first column of the
following table are taught by the corresponding disclosure of Nissan
identified in the second column of the table:
Independent Claim 1 Nissan
a vehicle equipped with at
least two image capture
devices
Figure 1, vehicle with cameras 1–6
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

18
Independent Claim 1 Nissan
said two image capture
devices capturing images
external of the vehicle
Figure 1, any two of cameras 1–6
said two capture devices
having overlapping fields of
view
Figure 1, e.g., camera views 1a and 2a, or
camera views 3a and 5a
an image processor Image converter 7 and image display unit
8
wherein image data captured
by said two image capture
devices are processed by said
image processor
“In an image converter 7, the images
from cameras 1 to N are input and
converted to other coordinates by a
perspective conversion.” Ex. 1004, 4:15–
17.
said image processor
producing a synthesized image
from said image data captured
by said two image capture
devices
“the images from cameras 1 to N . . .
combined into one image by an image
display unit 8.” Id. at 4:15–18.
a display screen displaying
said synthesized image
“a display for displaying said image to
the occupants.” Id. at 3:20–21.
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
“displayed on a TV monitor 9 positioned
at the driver’s seat.” Id. at 4:18–20.
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
“In an image converter 7, the images
from cameras 1 to N are input and
converted to other coordinates by a
perspective conversion, are combined
into one image by an image display unit
8, then displayed on a TV monitor 9
positioned at the driver’s seat.” Id. at
4:15–20, Fig. 3(a).
Independent claim 1 also recites, “said image processor processing
said image data by at least one technique chosen from luminant blending,
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

19
chrominant blending, dynamic range extending, pixel group compensation,
anti-blooming, multiple exposure, image morphing compensation and image
warping compensation.” Petitioner argues that “chrominant and luminant
blending would have been understood from Nissan’s disclosures of color
image processing and color display, which require chrominant blending, and
infrared image processing for nighttime recognition of obstacles, which
requires luminant blending for displaying gray-scale images.” Pet. 27.
Petitioner also cites 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 ¶ 101. We are persuaded by the above-quoted analysis of
Dr. Wolberg.
Independent claim 1 also recites “wherein said synthesized image
comprises a composite image of said image data captured by said two image
capture devices without duplication of image information.” Nissan 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 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.
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

20
With respect to the combined image being “without duplication of image
information,” Petitioner cites Dr. Wolberg for the following:
123. 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.
124. 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 ¶¶ 123–24 (emphases added). We are persuaded by the above-
quoted analysis of Dr. Wolberg.
We also are persuaded that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence with
respect to claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11–15, 25, 26, 28, 29, 41, 42, and 47
support Petitioner’s contentions.
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

21
Patent Owner counters that (1) Nissan does not teach an “image
portion,” as recited in independent claims 1, 11, 25, 41, and 47; (2) Nissan
does not teach that “fields of view . . . are dynamically adjustable,” as
recited in dependent claim 7; and (3) Nissan does not teach that “duplication
of objects . . . is not present in said displayed composite image.” PO Resp.
6–13. We analyze these arguments in turn.
a. “image portion”
Patent Owner argues that Nissan does not disclose an “image
portion,” as recited by claims 1, 11, 25, 41, and 47. PO Resp. 6–10.
Specifically, Patent Owner argues that Nissan averages entire camera
images, not just a portion of those of images. Id. at 8–9.
Petitioner counters that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that Nissan necessarily crops images in order to shift them, as it
discloses, and would have known to discard some image portions in the
process of creating a composite image, as Nissan also discloses. Pet. Reply
6–9. Petitioner also argues that, even if “image portion” excludes the
entirety of the image captured, the disputed claim limitation nevertheless
encompasses the entire captured image because it uses the open-ended
language “includes.” Id. at 10–11.
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. Although the parties
agree that the claim term “image portion from an image captured” excludes
the entire image, the independent claims all recite the open-ended language
“includes” (claims 1, 30, 41, and 47) or “including” (claims 11, 18, and 25).
The claims, therefore, do not preclude the displayed image from having
more than the recited “image portion.” Accordingly, even assuming that
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

22
Patent Owner’s characterization of Nissan is accurate, we are not persuaded
that Nissan does not teach these limitations.
b. Claim 7
Patent Owner argues that Nissan does not teach “said fields of view of
said two image captures devices are dynamically adjustable,” as recited in
claim 7, because the passage cited by Petitioner describes the adjusting of
only what is displayed on the TV monitor, not what is captured by the image
capture devices. PO Resp. 10–11.
Petitioner replies that “[t]he [person of ordinary skill in the art] would
have understood from this disclosure that the fields of view of the cameras in
Nissan would necessarily have to be dynamically adapted depending on the
running state of the vehicle.” Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:34–7:4;
Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 19–22; Ex. 1001, 5:42, 6:12–15).
We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. Petitioner cites only
page 7, lines 1–4 of Nissan, which teaches that “at fast speeds, the image on
the TV monitor is compressed and displayed, and the display region is
widened and displayed, thus, more effective images can be obtained.”
Pet. 30; Ex. 1004, 7:1–4 (emphases added). This passage describes
manipulation of the image being displayed, but teaches nothing about
whether the fields of view of the image capture devices are dynamically
adjusted. Moreover, Petitioner does not argue that the fields of view of the
image capture devices necessarily must be dynamically adjustable in order
for Nissan to manipulate the images as described. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that Nissan teaches this limitation.
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

23
c. Claim 13
Patent Owner argues that Nissan does not teach “duplication of
objects that are captured in the overlapping fields of view of said side and
center image captured devices is not present in said displayed composite
image,” as recited in claim 13, because Nissan does not teach that
duplication of image information is entirely eliminated. PO Resp. 11–13.
According to Patent Owner, “duplication of objects . . . is not present,” as
recited in claim 13, must require more than “without duplication of image
information,” as recited in claim 11, from which claim 13 depends, due to
the canon of claim differentiation. Id. at 11–12. Patent Owner concludes
that the averaging function used by Nissan to combine multiple camera
images results, at best, in minimizing or reducing duplication, but does not
eliminate it, as even Petitioner’s expert concedes. Id. at 12–13 (citing
Ex. 1004, 6:1–17; Ex. 2007 (Declaration of Dr. Matthew A. Turk) ¶¶ 42, 45,
46; Ex. 1011 (Wolberg Decl.) ¶ 124).
Petitioner replies that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“duplication of objects . . . is not present,” does not require complete
elimination of duplication of image information. Pet. Reply 12. According
to Petitioner, claim differentiation does not apply because a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood “image information” and
“objects” to be synonymous. Id. at 12–13 (citing Power Mosfet Techs.,
L.L.C. v. Siemens AG, 378 F.3d 1396, 1410 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Petitioner
argues that, in the context of the ’565 patent, the language requires only
“reduction or minimization of multiple exposure of objects, which Nissan
discloses by performing the averaging function of the transformed images.”
Id. at 12.
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

24
We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. The ’565 patent does
not use the phrase “duplication of objects . . . is not present” apart from the
claims. In the context of claim 13, “objects that are captured in the
overlapping fields of view of said side and center image capture[] devices”
necessarily comprises “image information” representing those objects. We,
therefore, credit the testimony of Dr. Wolberg that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have understood that the complete elimination of objects is
not possible for the same reasons as complete elimination of “image
information” is not possible. Ex. 1012 ¶ 24. We, therefore, construe
“duplication of objects . . . is not present” to have the same scope as
“without duplication of image information”: with minimal multiple
exposure in the composite image.
Thus, even assuming that Patent Owner’s characterization of Nissan
as not entirely eliminating duplicate information is correct, we are
nevertheless persuaded that Nissan teaches this limitation because its
averaging function results in minimal multiple exposure in the composite
image.
3. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8,
9, 11–15, 25, 26, 28, 29, 41, 42, and 47 are unpatentable as obvious over
Nissan. Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
claim 7 is unpatentable as obvious over Nissan.
C. Claims 4, 17, and 27 – Obviousness over Nissan and Wang
Petitioner argues that claims 4, 17, and 27 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Nissan and Wang. Pet. 47–48.
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

25
Patent Owner refers to its arguments above regarding Nissan, and
argues that Wang does not cure those deficiencies. PO Resp. 13.
Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and supporting
evidence, we determine that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that claims 14, 17, and 27 are unpatentable as obvious over
Nissan and Wang.
1. Wang (Exhibit 1007)
Wang describes a single chip CMOS video camera. Ex. 1007,
Abstract. The chip comprises a 312x287 pixel photodiode array together
with all the necessary sensing, addressing, and amplifying circuitry, as well
as a 1,000 gate logic processor, which implements synchronization timing to
deliver a fully-formatted composite video signal and a further 1,000 gate
logic processor, which implements automatic exposure control over a wide
range. Id.
2. Analysis
Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
claims 4, 17, and 27 are unpatentable as obvious over Nissan and Wang.
For example, claim 4 recites “wherein said at least two image capture
devices comprise multi-pixel imaging arrays, and wherein said multi-pixel
imaging arrays comprise CMOS imaging arrays.” Claims 17 and 27 recite
similarly “wherein each of said [three] image capture devices comprises a
CMOS imaging array.” Wang teaches a 312x287 pixel CMOS imaging
array. Ex. 1007, Abstract, Figs. 1, 2. Petitioner argues that “a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ CMOS
imaging arrays in the vision system of Nissan.” Pet. 47. Petitioner also cites
Dr. Wolberg for the following:
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

26
Given that Nissan comments that the type of camera does
not matter, as long as the camera acquires images, it would
have been obvious to combine Nissan and Wang because Wang
provides a type of camera that acquires images. A CMOS
imaging array is specifically designed to capture image data.
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art, having the
benefit of the Nissan disclosure, would have been motivated to
look to Wang, which provides a type of camera for acquiring
images, and to modify the vision system of Nissan with a
CMOS imaging array image capture device.
Ex. 1011 ¶ 133. We are persuaded by the above-quoted analysis of
Dr. Wolberg.
Claims 17 and 27 recite limitations similar to claim 4. We are
persuaded that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence with respect to claims 17
and 27 support Petitioner’s contentions for the same reasons discussed above
with respect to claim 4.
Patent Owner refers to its arguments above regarding Nissan, and
argues that Wang does not cure those deficiencies. PO Resp. 13. As
discussed above, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments
regarding Nissan.
3. Conclusion
Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
claims 4, 17, and 27 are unpatentable as obvious over Nissan and Wang.
D. Claim 10 – Obviousness over Nissan and Bendell
Petitioner argues that claim 10 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Nissan and Bendell. Pet. 48–49. In support of this
ground of unpatentability, Petitioner explains how each claim limitation is
taught or suggested by Nissan and Bendell and relies upon the Declaration
of Dr. Wolberg. Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 113–15, 138–41).
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

27
Patent Owner refers to its arguments above regarding Nissan, and
argues that Bendell does not cure those deficiencies. PO Resp. 13–14.
Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and supporting
evidence, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that claim 10 is unpatentable as obvious over
Nissan and Bendell.
1. Bendell (Exhibit 1008)
Bendell describes solid-state color television cameras having a
variable apertured shutter for varying the exposure time. Ex. 1008, 1:5–8.
For example, two similar shutters are arranged coaxially. Id. at 1:56–57.
One shutter motor is locked to vertical sync while the other shutter motor,
which is also locked to vertical sync, is provided with a variable phasing
control. Id. at 1:57–60. Variation of the relative phase of the two shutters
changes the effective exposure time. Id. at 1:60–62. A variable shutter
exposure control permits the camera operator to select different exposure
techniques for artistic or special effects purposes. Id. at 1:63–65.
2. Analysis
In light of the arguments and evidence, Petitioner has demonstrated,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 10 is unpatentable as obvious
over Nissan and Bendell.
Claim 10 recites “wherein said two image capture devices have
variable exposure periods.” Bendell teaches “solid-state color cameras
having a variable apertured shutter for varying the exposure time.” Id. at
1:7–8. Petitioner argues that “[i]t would have been obvious and predictable
for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ cameras with variable
exposure periods in the vision system of Nissan to enhance the intensity of
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

28
the images captured.” Pet. 48. Petitioner also cites Dr. Wolberg for the
following:
It would have been obvious to combine Nissan and
Bendell to achieve a more robust type of camera, i.e., a camera
with variable exposure periods, for the vision system of Nissan.
Given Nissan’s commentary that any suitable camera that
acquires images could be employed in the vision system of
Nissan, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated
to provide a camera having robust capabilities, which can
provide a combination of features, including a variable
exposure period, such as the camera disclosed in Bendell.
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily
turn to a combination of Nissan and Bendell in order to provide
a better image capture device, i.e., one that helps normalize the
intensity of the image data, in the Nissan vision system.
Ex. 1011 ¶ 140. We are persuaded by the above-quoted analysis of Dr.
Wolberg.
Patent Owner refers to its arguments above regarding Nissan, and
argues that Bendell does not cure those deficiencies. PO Resp. 13–14. As
discussed above, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments
regarding Nissan.
3. Conclusion
Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
claim 10 is unpatentable as obvious over Nissan and Bendell.
E. Claims 16, 30, 31, 40, and 48 – Obviousness over Nissan and Aishin
Petitioner argues that claims 16, 30, 31, 40, and 48 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Nissan and Aishin. Pet. 49–53.
Patent Owner refers to its arguments above regarding Nissan, and
argues that Aishin does not cure those deficiencies. PO Resp. 14.
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

29
Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and supporting
evidence, we determine that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that claims 16, 30, 31, 40, and 48 are unpatentable as
obvious over Nissan and Aishin.
1. Aishin (Exhibit 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
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.
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

30
Figure 3 of Aishin is reproduced below.

Figure 3 shows an exemplary display of a predicted path obtained by the
predicted path display device of the vehicle. Ex. 1006, 6.
2. Analysis
In light of the arguments and evidence, Petitioner has demonstrated,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 16, 30, 31, 40, and 48 are
unpatentable as obvious over Nissan and Aishin.
For example, claim 16 recites “an electronically generated graphic
overlay seen superimposed on said displayed composite image in order to
enhance the driver’s ability to maneuver the vehicle rearwardly.” Petitioner
cites Nissan for teaching that vehicle image 10 is “drawn” on the display.
Pet 50 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:22–24, 7:32, Fig. 3). Petitioner also cites Aishin
for teaching “a display device for superposing and displaying a projected
image by the camera and an image of a predicted path by the image
processing device.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1006, 2, 6). Although claim 11, from
which claim 16 depends, includes a limitation not recited in claim 1—i.e.,
“and directed rearwardly with respect to the direction of travel of said
vehicle”—this feature is shown in Figure 1 of Nissan, which is cited by
Petitioner. We, therefore, are persuaded that Petitioner’s citations support
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

31
Petitioner’s contention. Petitioner argues that “[a] person of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to combine Nissan and Aishin (Ex. 1006)
to enhance the displayed composite image of Nissan to include an electronic
overlay that provides additional information to the driver when traveling
rearward.” Id. at 49. Petitioner also cites Dr. Wolberg for the following:
I believe a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized the benefit of providing a graphic overlay as
disclosed in Aishin superimposed on the composite image
generated in Nissan. To improve and enhance the vision
system of Nissan, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it entirely predictable and a matter of common sense to
provide a graphic overlay as disclosed in Aishin that could be
superimposed on the combined single image provided to the
driver in the vision system of Nissan.
Ex. 1011 ¶ 154. We are persuaded by the above-quoted analysis of Dr.
Wolberg.
Claims 30 and 48 recite a commensurate limitation. Petitioner refers
back to its cited support for claim 16. Pet. 51, 53. Claim 30 also recites
“wherein said graphic overlay is enabled when the vehicle’s gear actuator is
selected to be in reverse gear.” Petitioner cites Aishin for teaching that
“predicted path[s] are displayed on a screen at the time of reverse travel of a
vehicle.” Id. at 51 (quoting Ex. 1006, 4) (emphasis added). We are
persuaded that Petitioner’s citations are sufficient.
Claim 31 recites:
wherein at least one of (a) said graphic overlay has a form that
responds to the rate of turn of the vehicle, (b) said graphic
overlay has a form that responds to at least one of the vehicle’s
steering system, the vehicle's differential system and a compass
and ([c]) said graphic overlay has a form that is a function of at
least one of the direction or travel and speed of the vehicle.
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

32
Petitioner cites Aishin with respect to (a) and (b) for teaching “an
image processing device for . . . reading an image of a predicted path on the
basis of a signal from the steering sensor at the time of reverse travel of a
vehicle.” Pet. 51–52 (quoting Ex. 1006, 4–5). Petitioner cites Aishin with
respect to (c) for teaching that the graphic overlay is responsive to the
direction of the vehicle. Id. at 52 (citing Ex. 1006, 5 (“[W]hen a handwheel
is manipulated, a predicted path corresponding to a steering angle of the
handwheel is read from an image processing device, and the predicted path
is superimposed on a projected image of a field of rear vision.”)). We are
persuaded that Aishin, as cited by Petitioner, supports Petitioner’s
contentions.
Claim 40 recites a combination of limitations from claim 1. Petitioner
incorporates by reference the support it cites for claim 1. Id. We are
persuaded that Petitioner’s citations are sufficient.
Patent Owner refers to its arguments above regarding Nissan, and
argues that Aishin does not cure those deficiencies. PO Resp. 14. As
discussed above, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments
regarding Nissan.
3. Conclusion
Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
claims 16, 30, 31, 40, and 48 are unpatentable as obvious over Nissan and
Aishin.
F. Claims 18–20 – Obviousness over Nissan, Aishin, and Wang
Petitioner argues that claims 18–20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Nissan, Aishin, and Wang. Pet. 53–56.
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

33
Patent Owner refers to its arguments above regarding Nissan, and
argues that Aishin and Wang do not cure those deficiencies. PO Resp. 14–
15.
Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and supporting
evidence, we determine that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that claims 18–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Nissan,
Aishin, and Wang.
1. Analysis
Independent claim 18 recites a combination of limitations from claims
1, 11, and 15–17. Petitioner incorporates by reference the support in Nissan,
Aishin, or Wang that it cites for each of those claims. Id. at 54–55. We are
persuaded that Petitioner’s citations support Petitioner’s contentions.
Claim 19 recites a combination of limitations from claims 12 and 30.
Petitioner incorporates by reference the support in Nissan and Aishin that it
cites for each of those claims. Id. at 55. We are persuaded Petitioner has
made a sufficient showing.
Claim 20 recites:
wherein at least one of (a) said graphic overlay has a form that
responds to the rate of turn of the vehicle, (b) said graphic
overlay has a form that responds to at least one of the vehicle’s
steering system, the vehicle’s differential system and a
compass, (c) said at least three image capture devices are at
substantially the same height on the vehicle and (d) said at least
three image capture devices are aimed along non-parallel axes.
Petitioner cites Aishin with respect to (a) and (b) for teaching “an image
processing device for . . . reading an image of a predicted path on the basis
of a signal from the steering sensor at the time of reverse travel of a
vehicle.” Id. at 55–56 (citing Ex. 1006, 4–5). Because claim 20 requires
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

34
only “at least one of” (a), (b), (c), and (d), we are persuaded by Petitioner’s
showing.
Patent Owner refers to its arguments above regarding Nissan, and
argues that Aishin and Wang do not cure those deficiencies. PO Resp. 14–
15. As discussed above, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments
regarding Nissan.
2. Conclusion
Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
claims 18–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Nissan, Aishin, and Wang.
G. Claims 32 and 39 – Obviousness over Nissan, Aishin, and Niles
Petitioner argues that claims 32 and 39 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Nissan, Aishin, and Niles. Pet. 57–60.
Patent Owner refers to its arguments above regarding Nissan, and
argues that Aishin and Niles do not cure those deficiencies. PO Resp. 15.
Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and supporting
evidence, we determine that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that claims 32 and 39 are unpatentable as obvious over
Nissan, Aishin, and Niles.
1. Niles (Exhibit 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
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
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

35
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 of Niles is reproduced below.

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.
2. Analysis
Claims 32 recites “wherein said graphic overlay comprises distance
indicia indicating distances behind the vehicle of objects juxtaposed within a
grid.” Petitioner cites Niles for teaching distance markers 4 that may be
electronically superimposed on a displayed image. Pet. 57–58 (citing
Ex. 1010, 3–4). We are persuaded that Niles, as cited by Petitioner, supports
Petitioner’s contention.
With respect to motivation to combine, Petitioner argues that:
Given that both Aishin and Niles are directed to display
of electronic graphical overlays (see Ex. 1011 at ¶¶117-20), a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
combine Nissan, Aishin, and Niles (Ex. 1010) to enhance the
displayed composite image of Nissan to include a graphic
overlay that provides additional information to the driver when
traveling rearward.
Pet. 57. Petitioner also cites Dr. Wolberg for the following:
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

36
It would have been obvious to combine Niles with Nissan
and Aishin to enhance the graphical overlay on the composite
image that results from a combination of Nissan and Aishin by
adding markers dynamically adjustable based on distance of
objects from the vehicle. It would be entirely predictable to
include markers on a grid indicating distance indicia, providing
the driver with perspective with respect to how far the equipped
vehicle is from obstacles in the vehicle’s surrounding. It would
be a matter of logical improvement to include such distance
information as described in Niles, on an electronically
superimposed graphical overlay that provides a predicted path
of the vehicle and an outline of the vehicle, as described in
Aishin, to make the graphic overlay provided to the driver more
robust.
Ex. 1011 ¶ 178. We are persuaded by the above-quoted analysis of
Dr. Wolberg.
Claim 39 recites “wherein the displayed image includes a dead space
which would be occupied by said vehicle in the fields of view of said two
image capture devices.” Petitioner incorporates by reference the support it
cites for claim 32, from which it depends, and claim 44, which recites a
similar limitation. Pet. 59. Petitioner cites Nissan for teaching a dead space
where there is no image information and in which an outline of vehicle 10 is
drawn. Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:22–23, Fig. 3(a)). We are persuaded that
Nissan, as cited by Petitioner, supports Petitioner’s contention.
Patent Owner refers to its arguments above regarding Nissan, and
argues that Aishin and Niles do not cure those deficiencies. PO Resp. 15.
As discussed above, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments
regarding Nissan.
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

37
3. Conclusion
Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
claims 32 and 39 are unpatentable as obvious over Nissan, Aishin, and Niles.
IV. CONCLUSION
Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims
1–5, 8–13, 15–20, 25–32, 39–42, 47, and 48 of the ’565 patent are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Petitioner has not shown, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that claim 7 of the ’565 patent is
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
V. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that claims 1–5, 8–13, 15–20, 25–32, 39–42, 47, and 48
of the ’565 patent are held unpatentable;
ORDERED that claim 7 is not held unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is
denied; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
the parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
IPR2014-00220
Patent 7,859,565 B2

38
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