PTAB

IPR2018-00909

Olympus Corporation v. Maxell, Ltd.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Electric Camera
  • Brief Description: The ’604 patent discloses an electric camera with an image sensor capable of being driven in multiple readout modes. The system vertically mixes or culls signal charges from pixels at different ratios (intervals) corresponding to different user-selected view angles, which allows it to produce output images with different view angles but the same number of output scanning lines.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

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

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Matsuzaka (Patent 6,757,013) and Egawa (Japanese Application Publication H3-117985).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Matsuzaka taught an electric camera with interlocked electronic and optical zoom functions, a zoom switch, and signal processing with interpolation, but lacked specifics on the image sensor's drive method. Egawa taught a method for driving a high-resolution image sensor (with N=982 vertical pixels) using multiple modes to achieve digital zoom. In a first mode (wide view), Egawa mixed or culled pixels at a first interval (K1=4) to produce an output signal with M≈240 lines. In a second mode (zoomed view), it read from a smaller, central area of the sensor and mixed/culled at a second, smaller interval (K2=2) to produce an output with the same M≈240 lines. The combination of Matsuzaka's camera system with Egawa's sensor and driving method allegedly rendered claims 1-5 obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the teachings to improve the image quality of Matsuzaka's camera. Matsuzaka expressly recognized improved resolution as "preferable," and Egawa's method of using different mixing/culling ratios for different zoom levels on a megapixel sensor directly addressed the known problem of resolution loss from digital interpolation. This combination would maintain the rapid zooming advantage of Matsuzaka while enhancing resolution by using more sensor data at zoomed-in angles, a known design goal. It would also reduce power consumption by avoiding the need to read out the entire sensor for every frame, a desirable benefit.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings. The integration involved applying Egawa's known sensor readout technique to Matsuzaka's camera architecture to achieve the predictable result of improved resolution during electronic zoom.

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

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Egawa (Japanese Application Publication H3-117985).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Egawa alone taught the core inventive concept. Egawa disclosed an image sensor and drive method with all key features of claim 1: a high-resolution sensor (N=738 > 3 * M=240), a driver with multiple modes that mix/cull pixels at different intervals (e.g., K1=3 and K2=2), reading from different sensor areas for different view angles, and generating a consistent number of output lines (M≈240) compatible with the NTSC television standard.
    • Motivation to Combine (with POSITA knowledge): Egawa expressly stated its methods were for use in "video cameras" or "television cameras" to realize a "high-functionality digital zoom." A POSITA would have found it obvious to implement Egawa's driving method in a conventional electronic camera. This would involve using standard, well-known components, such as a switch to select between the drive modes (view angles) and a standard signal processing unit to convert the sensor's output into a viewable NTSC signal. These components were conventional and their implementation would have been a simple, straightforward application of common knowledge in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have readily understood how to implement Egawa's disclosed driving modes using well-known driver and signal processing hardware. Egawa provided detailed timing diagrams, and implementing such logic with off-the-shelf components was a routine task for a skilled artisan at the time.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed a construction for the term "signal processing unit" as a "unit that performs signal processing on the output of the image sensing device."
  • Petitioner argued this term connotes definite structure and therefore 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6 (pre-AIA) does not apply. However, Petitioner acknowledged that an Examiner in a related case found the term to be a means-plus-function limitation and argued that its invalidity grounds would succeed even under that alternative construction. This construction was central to mapping the functions of the prior art systems to the claimed elements.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested that the Board institute an inter partes review (IPR) of claims 1-5 of the ’604 patent and cancel those claims as unpatentable.