PTAB

IPR2018-01801

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. FotoNation Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Digital Image Processing With Face Detection
  • Brief Description: The ’932 patent discloses methods for digital image processing that automatically enhance images based on information gained from identifying and analyzing faces. The technology focuses on detecting the skin tone of faces within an image and adjusting parameters, such as luminance or fill-flash, for each detected face.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lao-I and Lao-II - Claims 7-9, 11-15, 17, and 18 are obvious over Lao-I in view of Lao-II.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lao-I (Application # 2004/0228528) and Lao-II (Application # 2004/0208114).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lao-I teaches the core method of the challenged claims, including an image editing apparatus that processes a digital image using face detection. Lao-I discloses identifying a group of pixels corresponding to a face, detecting a skin tone by inferring characteristics like race from feature amounts (e.g., histograms of color and lightness), and comparing these to default templates. Based on this inference, Lao-I adjusts parameters like intensity, gradation, and lightness for each individual face to achieve a desired skin color and correct for issues like backlighting. Petitioner contended this maps to the limitations of independent claim 7, including the separate adjustment of luminance for each face based on its detected skin tone. For dependent claims, Petitioner asserted that Lao-I’s teaching of correcting for backlight is equivalent to applying a digital fill-flash to open up shadows (claim 8) and that its disclosure of processing images with multiple faces covers repeating the process for a second face (claim 9).
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that while Lao-I discloses an external image editing apparatus, Lao-II teaches a digital camera that performs similar image processing functions (like face detection) internally. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Lao-I’s advanced, per-face correction method with Lao-II’s in-camera implementation to create a more desirable, portable, and real-time product. The fact that both references are in the same technical field and share a common inventor would have provided a strong motivation for a POSITA to integrate their teachings.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Lao-II already discloses a digital camera with a CPU and memory capable of performing image processing. Implementing the specific algorithms from Lao-I within the camera architecture of Lao-II was presented as a predictable integration of known technologies to achieve the improved functionality of real-time, per-face image enhancement.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lao-I, Lao-II, and Simon - Claims 8 and 14 are obvious over Lao-I in view of Lao-II and Simon.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lao-I (Application # 2004/0228528), Lao-II (Application # 2004/0208114), and Simon (Patent 7,082,211).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative for claims 8 and 14, which require selectively applying fill-flash to "open up shadows." Petitioner argued that if the combination of Lao-I and Lao-II was deemed insufficient to teach this limitation, the addition of Simon would render it obvious. Simon explicitly discloses a retouching method for enhancing faces in digital images, which involves identifying skin imperfections described as "highlights and shadows in places where they should not be." Simon teaches using a "skin tone enhancing filter" that modifies luminance to "lighten[] or darken[] the skin region," thereby directly addressing the concept of opening up shadows in a face image.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that Simon is in the same field as Lao-I and Lao-II (portrait image enhancement) and addresses the same problems. A POSITA seeking to improve the backlight correction of the combined Lao-I/Lao-II system would have been motivated to incorporate Simon's explicit teachings on shadow reduction. The goal would be to produce a more aesthetically pleasing image by more effectively correcting shadowed faces, a known problem in photography.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be a predictable application of known image processing techniques. A POSITA would have possessed the knowledge to integrate Simon's shadow-lightening filter into the Lao-I/Lao-II processing workflow to achieve the predictable result of improved facial brightness in backlit or shadowed conditions.

4. Key Technical Contentions

  • Priority Date Challenge: A central contention of the petition was that the ’932 patent is not entitled to its claimed priority date of June 26, 2003 (from the ’810 application). Petitioner argued that the key limitation of "adjusting a luminance of each face image separately depending on the skin tone of each face image" lacks written description support in the ’810 application. This concept was allegedly first introduced in the ’539 continuation-in-part application, filed October 30, 2006. Therefore, Petitioner asserted the challenged claims have an effective filing date no earlier than October 30, 2006, making Lao-I (published Nov. 2004) and Lao-II (published Oct. 2004) valid intervening prior art references under pre-AIA §102(b).

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 7-9, 11-15, 17, and 18 of the ’932 patent as unpatentable.