PTAB

IPR2019-00002

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. FotoNation Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for Red-Eye Detection in an Acquired Digital Image
  • Brief Description: The ’674 patent describes a method and apparatus for detecting and correcting red-eye defects in digital images. The system identifies candidate red-eye regions, assesses their geometric consistency with an eye, performs further analysis to eliminate false positives, and then corrects confirmed red-eye pixels.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Wang and Shiffer - Claims 29, 35, 41, and 42 are obvious over Wang in view of Shiffer.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wang (Patent 6,278,491) and Shiffer (Application # 2006/0257132).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Wang taught an automatic red-eye detection and reduction system implemented as a software program on a general-purpose computer. This system met the core functional limitations of claim 29 by acquiring an image, analyzing partial face regions (dividing a face into "eye candidate windows"), determining characteristics (detecting a red pupil), identifying a corrective process (a red-eye reduction module), and applying it. However, Wang did not explicitly disclose implementing its system in a portable device. Shiffer was asserted to cure this deficiency by teaching red-eye detection performed in a portable digital camera, which included a lens, image sensor, processor, and non-volatile memory for storing instructions.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings because both references address red-eye detection. Petitioner contended it would have been obvious to implement Wang's software-based method on the portable camera hardware described by Shiffer to create an integrated, in-camera red-eye correction system, a known and desirable product configuration.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining Wang’s software with Shiffer’s hardware, as this involved applying a known image processing technique to a standard portable device to achieve the predictable result of in-camera red-eye correction.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Gaubatz and Shiffer - Claims 29, 35, 41, and 42 are obvious over Gaubatz in view of Shiffer.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gaubatz (a 2002 IEEE publication) and Shiffer (Application # 2006/0257132).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Gaubatz taught a three-stage method for automatic red-eye detection and correction: 1) face detection, 2) red-eye detection, and 3) correction. For the analysis step, Gaubatz taught narrowing the search for red-eye artifacts to the upper half of a detected face, thereby analyzing a "partial face region." Within this region, Gaubatz determined characteristics like color variation and redness to identify red-eye candidates before applying a correction process. Similar to the Wang-based ground, Petitioner relied on Shiffer to teach the portable, processor-based device (a digital camera) for implementing Gaubatz's algorithm.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Gaubatz's efficient algorithm with Shiffer's portable camera hardware to benefit from Gaubatz’s flexible and minimally invasive correction procedure in a consumer device. This combination would provide a fully automatic red-eye correction feature without requiring user intervention.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as the predictable implementation of a known algorithm on a known device, for which a POSITA would expect success.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Steinberg, Shiffer, and Gaubatz - Claims 29, 35, 41, and 42 are obvious over Steinberg in view of Shiffer and Gaubatz.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Steinberg (Application # 2006/0093213), Shiffer (Application # 2006/0257132), and Gaubatz (a 2002 IEEE publication).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Steinberg disclosed an improved in-camera red-eye detection system that analyzed an acquired image to determine "image quality characteristics" (e.g., blur) and then identified an appropriate corrective process. Shiffer was again cited for providing the well-known hardware components of a portable digital camera. Petitioner argued that while Steinberg taught analyzing the image for quality characteristics, it did not explicitly teach doing so by analyzing only a partial face region. Gaubatz was added to supply this limitation, as it taught analyzing the upper half of a detected face to search for red-eye artifacts.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would first combine Steinberg and Shiffer to implement Steinberg’s method in a standard camera. A POSITA would then be motivated to incorporate Gaubatz’s technique of analyzing only a partial face region to determine the image characteristics. This modification would make Steinberg's process faster and less computationally burdensome, a clear advantage in resource-constrained portable devices.
    • Expectation of Success: This combination involved applying Gaubatz’s known efficiency-improving technique to Steinberg’s red-eye detection system, which would predictably result in a faster, more efficient process.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against claim 36 by adding Hong (Patent 6,633,655) to the primary combinations to teach performing analysis on both full and subsampled resolution partial face regions for computational efficiency. Petitioner also asserted additional challenges against claim 40 by adding Ray (Patent 6,940,545) to the primary combinations to teach face recognition capabilities.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should institute this petition and a concurrently filed, similar petition. It was explained that the second petition was filed as a protective measure to address a potential claim construction argument the Patent Owner might raise regarding the term "to analyze one or more partial face regions." Petitioner contended that instituting both would ensure that, should the Board later adopt the Patent Owner's potential construction, a fully developed prior art ground addressing that construction would be available for consideration.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 29, 35, 36, 40, 41, and 42 of the ’674 patent as unpatentable.