PTAB

IPR2019-00068

ASUSTeK Computer Inc v. Maxell Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Electric Camera
  • Brief Description: The ’226 patent discloses an electric camera with a solid-state image sensor having a number of vertical pixel rows (N) that is at least three times the number of effective scanning lines (M) of a standard television display. The camera employs techniques of "vertically mixing or culling" signal charges from pixels to reduce the output video signal to the required number of lines (M), particularly when a change in the viewing angle (zoom) is requested.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claim 1 is obvious over Misawa in view of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Misawa (Patent 6,700,607).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Misawa taught all elements of claim 1. Misawa described an electric camera with a 1280x960 pixel image sensor (N=960), which is four times the 240 effective scanning lines for an NTSC television system field (M=240), satisfying the N ≥ 3M limitation. Misawa disclosed a driver that operates in at least two modes: a "normal image capturing mode" that reads signals from 1/4 of the vertical pixels (culling at an interval of K=4) and a "central part enlarging function" that reads from 1/2 of the pixels (culling at K=2). These two modes correspond to at least two integers less than or equal to the quotient of N/M (which is 4). Finally, Misawa disclosed that a "central part enlargement button" is used to switch from the normal mode (K=4) to the enlargement mode (K=2), which constituted the claimed "switch... which requests a view angle change."
    • Motivation to Combine: This ground relied on a single reference combined with the general knowledge of a POSITA. Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would have understood from Misawa that the value of K could be modified based on the image sensor size and the desired output resolution.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success as implementing the switch to change between known culling modes was a straightforward application of existing camera technology.

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

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Misawa (Patent 6,700,607) and Okino (Patent 5,990,947).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Misawa provided the base electric camera with a large image sensor and the capability to vertically cull pixels at different integer intervals (K=4 and K=2). Okino taught a camera with both optical and electronic zoom functions operated by a "zooming operation member" (a switch) that allowed for continuous zooming. The combination of Misawa's multi-mode pixel culling with Okino's continuous zoom switch rendered claim 1 obvious. A POSITA would have implemented Okino’s continuous zoom control to vary the pixel culling interval (K) in Misawa’s camera, thereby changing the number of pixels culled in response to a zoom request.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine these references to improve the functionality of Misawa’s camera. Misawa disclosed both optical and electronic zoom capabilities but did not provide a detailed description of how they were controlled or integrated. Okino provided this missing detail, teaching how to implement a continuous zoom that smoothly integrates optical and electronic functions. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Okino’s advanced zoom control into Misawa’s camera to improve its focus and provide a more desirable user experience.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have been straightforward. Misawa’s selective readout of sensor rows was compatible with Okino’s electronic zoom, and integrating Okino’s zoom control system into Misawa’s camera architecture would have been a routine modification for a POSITA.

Ground 3: Claim 1 is obvious over Matsuzaka in view of Egawa and the knowledge of a POSITA.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Matsuzaka (Patent 6,757,013) and Egawa (Japanese Application H3-117985).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Matsuzaka disclosed an electric camera with a "zoom switch" that controlled a rapid, continuous zoom function by combining optical and electronic zooming. However, Matsuzaka did not specify the sensor size or the method for driving it. Egawa supplied this missing element, teaching a method for driving a large image sensor (N=982 pixels) in two distinct modes: a first mode culling pixels at an interval of K=4 for a full-frame view, and a second mode culling at K=2 for a 2X enlarged central view. A POSITA would have found it obvious to implement Egawa's specific sensor driving method within Matsuzaka’s camera system. This combination resulted in a camera where Matsuzaka's zoom switch would change the pixel culling interval between K=4 and K=2, as taught by Egawa, in response to a view angle change request.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to build the camera in Matsuzaka, which promised high-quality rapid zooming, would have looked to a reference like Egawa for a specific method to drive the image sensor. Egawa provided an explicit method for mixing or culling pixels at different ratios to achieve different zoom levels, which directly addressed the implementation details absent from Matsuzaka. Combining the two would allow for the "rapid electronic zooming" of Matsuzaka without the "deterioration in resolution" by using Egawa’s efficient pixel culling techniques.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have readily combined these teachings. Implementing Egawa’s driving method for Matsuzaka's camera would be a routine task, as conventional drive circuits were well-known and necessary for any CCD sensor. The selective readout taught by Egawa was compatible with the electronic zoom of Matsuzaka, and the combination would be a predictable way to achieve high-quality digital zoom.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claim 1 of Patent 7,403,226 as unpatentable.