PTAB

IPR2018-01798

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. FotoNation Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Digital Image Processing
  • Brief Description: The ’274 patent relates to digital image processing methods, particularly for automatically processing or suggesting enhancements to a digital image by using information gained from identifying and analyzing faces appearing within that image.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claim 5 is anticipated by Hara under 35 U.S.C. §102(e)

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hara (Patent 7,170,633).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hara, which discloses a digital camera with advanced image processing capabilities, teaches every limitation of method claim 5. The argument centered on Hara’s camera operating in a "preparation state" where it continuously captures and processes images before a final picture is taken. In this state, Hara allegedly performed the claimed method by automatically identifying a face within a captured image (scene judgment step #130), generating a collection of low-resolution images by repeatedly capturing and "thinning" pixel data (steps #115 and #120), and tracking the face's movement by comparing successive low-resolution frames. Petitioner contended Hara further met the limitation of determining default values by describing a process to detect "color fogging" based on averaged color values in image sub-regions. Subsequently, Hara adjusted image parameters by applying compensation factors based on these default values. Finally, Petitioner asserted that Hara’s feature of compensating exposure control values specifically for the main object (the face) to bring its luminance within a predefined range, without altering the rest of the image, constituted the claimed "automatically providing a fill flash."

Ground 2: Claims 1, 5, and 9 are obvious over Hara in view of Simon under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hara (Patent 7,170,633) and Simon (Patent 7,082,211).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Hara teaches the core method steps for processing a digital image using face detection, as detailed in Ground 1. The combination with Simon was argued to render the full scope of the challenged claims obvious. Specifically, Simon was cited to teach the apparatus limitations of claims 1 and 9, which require processor-readable storage devices embodying code to perform the method. Simon explicitly disclosed an image processing system that uses a CPU executing a computer program stored on a readable medium (e.g., RAM or ROM) to enhance portrait-type images. Petitioner also argued that if Hara’s exposure compensation was found to apply to the entire image rather than just the face, Simon’s disclosure of face-specific enhancement filters (e.g., a "skin tone enhancing filter" that modifies shadows only on the face) would make it obvious to modify Hara to apply its exposure adjustment exclusively to the detected facial region to achieve the claimed "fill flash" effect.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Hara's method with Simon's software-based implementation because it was a well-known, predictable, and common-sense approach to developing digital camera functionality. Implementing features in software rather than dedicated hardware offered greater flexibility, easier modification, and lower development costs. Furthermore, since both Hara and Simon address the enhancement of images containing faces, a POSITA seeking to improve the quality of Hara's portrait processing would have naturally looked to Simon's teachings on face-specific enhancements, such as selectively lightening facial shadows, to produce a more natural-looking final image.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. Implementing a known image processing algorithm like Hara's on a standard processor with stored software as taught by Simon was a routine task in the art. The result—a software-driven digital camera—was entirely predictable. Similarly, applying Simon's face-specific brightening technique to Hara's exposure compensation step would predictably result in an improved image where the subject's face is properly illuminated without overexposing the background, thereby improving computational efficiency and the final aesthetic result.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 5, and 9 of the ’274 patent as unpatentable.