PTAB

IPR2017-01806

LG Electronics Inc v. Lemaire Illumination Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Pulsed L.E.D. Illumination Apparatus and Method
  • Brief Description: The ’266 patent discloses a method for driving a plurality of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in a device equipped with an electronic camera. The core of the claimed method involves obtaining an image signal, measuring the color balance of that signal, and then adjusting the light spectrum emitted by the LEDs based on the measured color balance.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation/Obviousness of Claim 9 over Yamada

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Yamada (Patent 6,256,067).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Yamada, filed before the ’266 patent’s priority date, anticipated all limitations of claim 9, or at a minimum rendered them obvious. Yamada was asserted to disclose an electronic camera with a light source composed of three LEDs (red, green, blue) that generate light with an adjustable spectrum. Petitioner contended that Yamada’s disclosure of controlling LED intensities to provide an "appropriate color balance" or to "emphasize or diminish a hue characteristic of the subject" inherently taught or suggested the claimed steps. Specifically, to control or change color balance, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have understood that one must first measure the existing color balance from the image signal. Likewise, adjusting the light to achieve a desired hue based on the subject’s hue necessarily requires using the measured color balance data from the image signal.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): For the obviousness alternative, the motivation was not to combine separate references but to recognize the inferential teachings within Yamada itself. A POSITA, understanding the goal of color balance control as taught by Yamada, would have been motivated to implement the necessary and implicit step of measuring the color balance from the image signal to enable such control.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as measuring color data from an image sensor and using it to control an output was a known and logical process in the art.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claim 9 over Yamada in view of Yoshiyama

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Yamada (Patent 6,256,067), Yoshiyama (Patent 4,485,336).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that to the extent Yamada was found not to teach adjusting the LED spectrum based on a measured color balance, this limitation was explicitly taught by Yoshiyama. Yamada provided the primary system of a camera with an adjustable LED light source. Yoshiyama taught an electronic flash device where the color temperature of the flash is automatically controlled based on input from a plurality of light sensors that measure ambient light characteristics. Petitioner argued that controlling for "color temperature" is directly analogous to and specifies "color balance."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to implement automated color control in Yamada’s camera system would combine its teachings with the automated control method of Yoshiyama. The combination was presented as straightforward, involving the application of Yoshiyama's well-understood feedback control principles to Yamada's LED light source. A POSITA would have found it obvious to substitute the xenon flash tubes in Yoshiyama with the LEDs from Yamada to achieve a more modern and efficient light source while retaining the automated color adjustment functionality.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was a plainly compatible integration of a known control strategy (Yoshiyama) with a known imaging system (Yamada) to achieve the predictable result of automated color balance control for an LED-illuminated camera.

Ground 3: Anticipation/Obviousness of Claim 9 over Sakaguchi

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sakaguchi (Patent 6,075,562).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Sakaguchi, which discloses a digital camera with an LED display, taught every element of claim 9. The "plurality of light-emitting diodes" was met by the camera's LED display screen. The method steps were mapped as follows: obtaining a "preliminary exposure" met the limitation of "obtaining an image signal"; the camera's CPU then deciding a "white balance control value" based on color temperature information from the preliminary exposure met the "measuring a color balance" limitation; finally, displaying a subsequent, white-balance-adjusted "regular exposure" on the LED screen met the "adjusting the spectrum of light...based at least in part on the measured color balance" limitation. The core of this argument was that changing the image displayed on an LED screen necessarily adjusts the spectrum of the light emitted by the screen’s LEDs.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): In the alternative obviousness argument, Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have inherently understood that an "LED display" for displaying images comprises a plurality of LEDs. Furthermore, it would have been understood that changing the image data sent to the display (e.g., from a preliminary exposure image to a white-balance-adjusted image) would necessarily adjust the emitted light spectrum in a manner dependent on the white balance measurement.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected that performing the white balance adjustment process described in Sakaguchi and displaying the resulting image on the disclosed LED screen would successfully perform the steps of the challenged claim.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "measuring a color balance of the image signal": Petitioner proposed this term means "determining a ratio or set of ratios between color components comprising an image signal." This construction was central to its arguments, as it equated the prior art's measurement of "color temperature" or calculation of a "white balance control value" with the claimed "measuring a color balance."
  • "adjusting the spectrum of light from the plurality of light-emitting diodes": Petitioner proposed this means "changing the spectrum of light emitted by the LEDs to a selected shape or the ratio among color components may be changed to a selected value or values." This broad construction was key to the argument that Sakaguchi’s teaching of changing the image on an LED display met this limitation, as changing the displayed image inherently changes the emitted light spectrum.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claim 9 of the ’266 patent as unpatentable.