PTAB

IPR2020-00179

LG Electronics Inc v. ImmverVision Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method for Capturing a Digital Panoramic Image
  • Brief Description: The ’990 patent discloses a method for capturing digital panoramic images using an objective lens. The core of the invention is a lens featuring a non-linear image point distribution function, which creates at least one substantially expanded image zone and one substantially compressed image zone to improve image definition in selected areas.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Tada - Claim 5 is obvious over Tada.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tada (Patent 5,861,999).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Tada, a reference not previously considered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, discloses all elements of cancelled independent claim 1 (from which claim 5 depends) and the additional limitations of claim 5. Petitioner’s expert used the explicit lens prescription data from Tada (Table 5) in standard optical design software (Code V) to demonstrate that Tada’s disclosed super-wide-angle lens inherently possesses a non-linear image point distribution function. This analysis showed that Tada's lens compresses the center and edges of the image while expanding an intermediate zone, directly mapping to the specific limitations recited in claim 5. The analysis also calculated a maximum divergence of up to -9.88%, which Petitioner asserted is "on the order of" or sufficiently close to the claimed "at least ±10%" threshold to render the claim obvious, particularly as the patent itself describes the 10% value as an approximation.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable, as this ground relies on a single reference.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Tada in view of Nagaoka - Claim 5 is obvious over Tada in view of Nagaoka.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tada (Patent 5,861,999), Nagaoka (Patent 6,128,145).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative to Ground 1. Assuming Tada's inherent maximum divergence of approximately 9.88% was deemed insufficient to meet the claimed ±10% limitation, Petitioner argued that Nagaoka explicitly teaches this feature. Nagaoka discloses various fisheye lenses with non-linear distribution functions designed to enlarge peripheral image portions, demonstrating maximum divergence values well above the claimed threshold (e.g., -24.19% and -14.76%). The remaining limitations of claim 5 were argued to be taught by Tada, as established in Ground 1.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Nagaoka's teachings on achieving significant maximum divergence with Tada's specific lens design. The motivation was to improve the resolution in Tada's identified "area of interest"—the expanded intermediate zone—by applying Nagaoka's known techniques for manipulating image distribution to enhance specific zones.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because both references are in the same technical field of wide-angle lenses for digital imaging and address the common goal of optimizing image resolution across the field of view. Modifying Tada's lens design using Nagaoka's established principles was presented as a matter of routine optimization.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Tada in view of Baker - Claim 5 is obvious over Tada in view of Baker.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tada (Patent 5,861,999), Baker (Patent 5,686,957).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Similar to Ground 2, this ground used Baker as an alternative reference to teach the ±10% maximum divergence limitation. Petitioner asserted Baker discloses a peripheral-enhancing lens that achieves a "five-fold increase in resolution" for certain portions of an image. This significant resolution enhancement, Petitioner argued, would be understood by a POSITA to inherently require a maximum divergence greater than ±10%, with analysis showing a value of 15.1%.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would be motivated to apply Baker's teachings for enhancing resolution in a specific image area (the periphery in Baker's case) to Tada's lens, which enhances a different area (the intermediate zone). The objective would be to further increase the resolution in Tada's specific area of interest by applying Baker's known method of using a non-linear distribution function.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because the combination involves applying a known technique for resolution enhancement from one wide-angle lens system to another to achieve a predictable improvement in image quality, constituting routine engineering design.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "panoramic objective lens": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as a "super-wide or ultra-wide angle objective lens," such as a "fisheye" lens, based on the patent's specification and examples.
  • "maximum divergence": Petitioner argued this term should be defined by the explicit mathematical formula provided in the ’990 patent specification. This construction was central to the quantitative analysis used to show how the prior art met the ±10% limitation.
  • "expanded zone" / "compressed zone": Petitioner proposed construing these terms as portions of the image point distribution function where the gradient is, respectively, higher or lower than the gradient of a linear distribution function, consistent with the patent's disclosure.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution. It contended this was not an unfair follow-on petition because a prior inter partes review (IPR) was filed by an unrelated petitioner (Panasonic), challenged different claims, and was terminated before a preliminary response from the Patent Owner.
  • Petitioner further argued that the grounds were not cumulative and presented a substantial new question of patentability because the primary reference, Tada, had never been considered by the office. While Nagaoka and Baker were previously of record, they had never been combined with Tada's teachings, thus forming new and distinct arguments.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an IPR and the cancellation of claim 5 of Patent 6,844,990 as unpatentable.