PTAB

IPR2018-00909

Olympus Corp v. Maxell Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Electric Camera
  • Brief Description: The ’604 patent discloses an electric camera with an image sensor capable of operating in multiple readout modes. The system uses a driver to vertically mix or cull signal charges from pixels at different intervals based on a selected view angle, thereby producing zoomed images while maintaining a constant number of output signal lines.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Matsuzaka and Egawa - Claims 1-5 are obvious over Matsuzaka in view of Egawa.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Matsuzaka (Patent 6,757,013) and Egawa (Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication H3-117985).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Matsuzaka taught an electric camera with interlocked optical and electronic zoom functions controlled by a zoom switch. Matsuzaka’s electronic zoom relied on interpolation, which it acknowledged could deteriorate image quality. Egawa taught a method for driving a high-resolution image sensor using multiple drive modes to achieve high-quality digital zoom. Specifically, Egawa disclosed switching between different pixel mixing/culling ratios (e.g., mixing every four lines for a wide view versus every two lines for a zoomed view) to read out a smaller area of the sensor while maintaining a constant number of output lines that match television standards (e.g., NTSC). Petitioner asserted that implementing Egawa’s sensor driving method in Matsuzaka’s camera would meet the limitations of claim 1.
    • Motivation to Combine (for 35 U.S.C. §103 grounds): Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references to solve the known problem of image degradation from interpolation-based electronic zoom, a problem acknowledged in Matsuzaka. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Egawa’s superior digital zoom technique, which maintained higher resolution by using more sensor data at zoomed levels, into Matsuzaka's camera system. This combination would enhance the performance of Matsuzaka’s camera by providing the rapid electronic zoom it described, but with better image quality, reduced power consumption, and faster readout rates.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because the combination involved applying a known sensor driving technique (Egawa) to a conventional camera system (Matsuzaka) to achieve the predictable and desirable result of improved electronic zoom quality.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Egawa - Claim 1 is obvious over Egawa in view of the knowledge of a POSITA.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Egawa (Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication H3-117985).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Egawa taught the core inventive concept of claim 1. Egawa disclosed a method for driving an image sensor with more than three times the vertical pixels of an NTSC display. The method used multiple drive modes to vertically mix or cull signal charges from different areas of the sensor at different intervals (e.g., K1=3 and K2=2) to produce different view angles, all while generating a constant number of output lines corresponding to the NTSC standard. Petitioner asserted that the remaining elements of claim 1—such as implementing this method in an "electric camera," using a "switch" to change modes, and employing a "signal processing unit"—were conventional components that a POSITA would have found obvious to use to create a functional device based on Egawa's teachings.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): The motivation was to implement Egawa's disclosed sensor driving method in its intended environment—a video or television camera. A POSITA would have understood that to make Egawa’s method functional, it would be necessary to incorporate it into a camera body with conventional components. A switch was a well-known mechanism for selecting camera modes, and a signal processing unit was a necessary component to convert raw sensor data into a standard NTSC video signal.
    • Expectation of Success (for §113 grounds): A POSITA would have expected success in implementing Egawa’s detailed driving method using well-known, off-the-shelf camera hardware, as such integration was routine in the art.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "signal processing unit": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a unit that performs signal processing on the output of the image sensing device." Petitioner argued that this term connotes sufficient definite structure to a POSITA and should not be treated as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6. However, Petitioner also provided an alternative construction, identifying the corresponding structure in the specification, should the Board find the term is governed by §112, ¶6. This construction is central to defining the scope of the claimed components.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-5 of the ’604 patent as unpatentable.