PTAB

IPR2014-00773

FLIR Systems Inc v. CanVS Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: LOW LIGHT IMAGING DEVICE
  • Brief Description: The ’652 patent describes a low-light imaging device that combines outputs from an image intensification assembly and a thermal imaging assembly. The device receives multi-spectrum radiation, splits it into two paths for the respective assemblies, allows for independent adjustment of each channel’s intensity or gain, and optically combines the two images into a single, direct-view output for a user.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Hansen, Barnes, Mullard, and Palmer - Claims 1-7 are obvious over Hansen in view of Barnes, Mullard, and Palmer under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hansen (Patent 5,035,472), Barnes (U.K. Patent No. 2,143,397), Mullard (XX1500 Data Sheet (1988)), and Palmer (Patent 5,847,868).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the primary reference, Hansen, taught substantially all limitations of the challenged claims. Hansen disclosed an electro-optical weapon sight that combined an adjustable photon image intensifier and an adjustable thermal imager to produce a composite image for a user. Petitioner asserted that Hansen taught the core architecture: an optical input, a beam splitter, separate thermal and image intensification channels, adjustable controls for each channel, and a beam combiner for the output. The secondary references were used to supplement Hansen, particularly concerning the independent and separate adjustment of the two imaging channels. Barnes taught a similar low-light device with adjustable thermal imaging and image intensification outputs. Mullard, a data sheet for the image intensifier cited in Barnes, explicitly taught an "external adjustment of gain" via a variable resistor. Palmer further taught a night vision assembly with gain/brightness buttons to adjust the output intensity of an image intensifier, providing a concrete example of the adjustment means described more generally in Mullard. For dependent claims, Petitioner argued the detailed structure of an image intensifier tube (claim 2) and the use of an eyepiece (claim 3) were well-known components inherent in Hansen’s disclosed Gen III intensifier and weapon sight design.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references because they all addressed the same field of low-light, night-vision imaging devices for military and tactical use. Since Hansen already provided the fundamental combination of thermal and image intensification technologies, a POSITA seeking to implement or improve upon Hansen’s design would naturally look to other references like Barnes, Mullard, and Palmer for known implementation details, such as specific adjustment assemblies. Combining the independent adjustment features from Barnes (clarified by Mullard and Palmer) with Hansen’s system was presented as a simple substitution of known elements to achieve the predictable result of independent control over each sensor. This was further motivated by the known benefits of adjusting each sensor type differently to compensate for varying environmental conditions (e.g., increasing image intensifier gain in low light, which would not affect the thermal imager).
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the combination involved applying known techniques (independent brightness controls) to a known device (a combined thermal/intensifier sight) to yield predictable results. The integration of standard, independently adjustable gain circuits for the respective imaging assemblies was a well-understood engineering task with no technical hurdles.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "an intensity": Petitioner proposed that this term should be construed as "the output intensity produced by an imaging assembly and/or the gain of an imaging assembly."
    • This construction was based on Petitioner’s assertion that the patent specification used the terms "gain" and "intensity" interchangeably. Furthermore, affidavits submitted during the patent’s prosecution history distinguished prior art by emphasizing the invention’s "direct adjustment" of the image generating assemblies themselves to control each output, supporting a construction tied to the assembly's gain.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-7 of the ’652 patent as unpatentable.