PTAB

IPR2018-01798

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. FotoNation Limited

Log In

1. Case Identification

  • Patent #: 7,860,274
  • Filed: September 27, 2018
  • Petitioner(s): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
  • Patent Owner(s): FotoNation Limited
  • Challenged Claims: 1, 5, and 9

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Digital Image Processing with Face Detection
  • Brief Description: The ’274 patent relates to digital image processing methods and systems that automatically suggest or apply enhancements to a digital image by identifying and analyzing faces appearing within the image.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claim 5 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Hara.

  • 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 system, anticipates every limitation of method claim 5. Hara was alleged to disclose a method of processing a digital image to achieve a desired parameter (e.g., proper exposure or color balance) by first detecting a face. The petition asserted that Hara’s digital camera automatically identifies a group of pixels corresponding to a face. It then generates a collection of low-resolution images for a live preview by "thinning" the pixel data from the image sensor. Within this collection of low-resolution images, Hara tracks the face to detect movement by comparing successive frames.
    • Petitioner further argued that Hara determines default values for image parameters, such as ideal color values to detect and correct for "color fogging" and a predefined target luminance range (100≤LY≤150) for a main object. Based on an analysis of the detected face against these defaults, Hara adjusts image parameters. Specifically, Hara compensates exposure control values for the face to bring its average luminance into the predefined range. This selective brightening of the face was asserted to be the claimed "fill flash," as it digitally adds exposure to the face while not brightening other parts of the image.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 5, and 9 are obvious over Hara in view of Simon.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hara (Patent 7,170,633) and Simon (Patent 7,082,211).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: This ground asserted that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to combine the digital camera system and image processing method of Hara with the software-based image enhancement techniques taught by Simon.
    • Prior Art Mapping: The petition mapped this combination to the limitations of claims 1 (a storage device with processor-readable code), 5 (the method), and 9 (a portable digital imaging device). Hara was argued to disclose the fundamental device and method steps, including a portable camera with a processor and memory. Simon was presented as teaching the implementation of such image processing techniques through software stored on computer-readable media (e.g., RAM or ROM) and executed by a processor.
    • For the "fill flash" limitation, Petitioner contended that if Hara’s exposure compensation was found to not be strictly limited to the face, Simon would have remedied this. Simon explicitly taught a retouching method for enhancing the appearance of a face, including a "skin tone enhancing filter" that applies brightening modifications only to the identified face region, leaving other pixels unaltered.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Hara and Simon because they are in the same technical field of enhancing portrait-style digital images. Implementing Hara's functionality as software, as taught by Simon, was argued to be a common, predictable design choice to increase flexibility, reduce development costs, and allow for easier modification compared to dedicated hardware. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Simon's face-specific enhancement to improve the results of Hara's system, producing a more natural-looking final image and improving computational efficiency by processing fewer pixels.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known software implementation strategy (from Simon) to a known image processing method (from Hara). Petitioner argued this was a simple substitution of one known element for another or a combination of known elements, each performing its known function, which would lead to the predictable result of an operational and effective face-enhancing digital camera.

4. Relief Requested

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