PTAB

IPR2019-01029

General Electric Co. v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method for Processing Image Pixels to Emphasize a Main Subject
  • Brief Description: The ’668 patent discloses automated computer-implemented methods and systems for processing digital images to emphasize a main subject. The invention aims to replace known manual and labor-intensive techniques by automatically segmenting an image, identifying the main subject using probabilistic belief values, and then altering pixel values (e.g., luminescence, saturation) to make the subject more prominent relative to the background.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kinjo-100 Alone

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kinjo-100 (Patent 5,978,100).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 13-16, 23-25, and 27-29 are obvious over Kinjo-100 alone. Petitioner argued that Kinjo-100 teaches a complete, automated system for modifying an image to emphasize its "principal portion" (i.e., main subject). The system disclosed in Kinjo-100 identifies the main subject by using multiple "extracting units" that analyze image features, segments the image into regions, and assigns "weighting coefficients" (belief values) to each region to determine the principal portion. Petitioner contended these steps generate a "belief map" as claimed. Subsequently, Kinjo-100's "exposure control unit" alters pixel properties like density (luminescence) and color (saturation) to emphasize the identified subject, thereby mapping to the core limitations of the challenged independent and dependent claims.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As this is a single-reference obviousness ground, the motivation was argued to be inherent in Kinjo-100’s own disclosure. Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would find it obvious to implement the disclosed features in a fully automated configuration. While Kinjo-100 described an embodiment with an optional manual review step, a POSITA would have understood that omitting this step for fully automated batch processing (e.g., for an entire roll of film) was a desirable and obvious design choice.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kinjo-100 in view of Etz

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kinjo-100 (Patent 5,978,100) and Etz (a 2000 article titled "Ground Truth For Training and Evaluation of Automatic Main Subject Detection").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: As an alternative ground, Petitioner argued the same claims are obvious over the combination of Kinjo-100 and Etz. Kinjo-100 was presented as the primary framework for an image modification system that identifies and emphasizes a subject. Etz was introduced as a reference teaching a specific, known methodology for automatic main subject detection. Petitioner asserted that Etz reinforces and provides further detail on the concepts of segmenting an image into regions and using probabilistic reasoning to generate a belief map, disclosing that all pixels in a given region are assigned the same belief value.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine these references because they exist in the same technical field and address the identical problem of automatic main subject detection. Petitioner argued that Kinjo-100 explicitly invites the incorporation of other known "extracting methods" to identify the principal portion. Etz was presented as precisely such a known method, and a POSITA would have been motivated to integrate Etz's detailed algorithm into Kinjo-100's system to implement or improve its main subject detection capabilities.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involved integrating a known type of analysis module (Etz) into a compatible processing system (Kinjo-100) to achieve the predictable result of improved or enabled main subject detection.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "A computer method": Petitioner contended this term, recited in the preambles of claims 1 and 14, should be construed to mean "a method performed entirely by a computer (i.e., without manual intervention)." This construction was positioned as crucial to distinguish the invention from prior art with manual steps and to align with the patent's stated goal of automating a labor-intensive process.
  • "main subject": The petition highlighted that the '668 patent provides three distinct definitions for this term: (1) a subjective, observer-based opinion, (2) a binary decision obtained by thresholding a belief map, and (3) a specific objective process based on features like centrality, borderness, and chrominance. Petitioner argued that the prior art renders the claims obvious under any of the three definitions, thereby broadening the invalidity argument against any single narrow construction, but selected the third (objective process) definition if a choice was required.
  • "belief map": Petitioner proposed that this term means "a collection of belief values corresponding to each pixel in the image." This pixel-level construction was used to map more directly to Kinjo-100, which was argued to determine weighting coefficients for "each portion of the image."
  • Means-Plus-Function Terms (Claim 13): For claim 13, Petitioner identified corresponding structures in the '668 patent for the "means for automatically identifying..." and "means for automatically altering..." functions. Petitioner then argued that Kinjo-100 discloses corresponding structures, mapping the "identifying" means to Kinjo-100's "control unit 40" and "extracting units 56" and the "altering" means to its "exposure control unit 60."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 13-16, 23-25, and 27-29 of the '668 patent as unpatentable.