PTAB

IPR2020-00881

Syte Visual Conception Ltd v. Slyce Acquisition Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Image-based search of visual content
  • Brief Description: The ’624 patent is directed to systems for image-based searching of visual content. The system analyzes images by detecting "attributes" or "properties" within various categories (e.g., color, pattern, material) to perform a proximity search and find visually similar items in a database.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 12-19 and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. §102

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: IBM (Niblack et al., “The QBIC Project: Querying Images By Content Using Color, Texture, and Shape,” 1993).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that IBM’s “Query by Image Content” (QBIC) system, developed over a decade before the ’624 patent’s priority date, anticipated every limitation of the challenged claims. IBM disclosed a system that queried image databases using image content, including for retail and fashion applications. The QBIC system analyzed images to compute "features" (the patent's "attributes") across categories including color, texture, and shape. It then calculated a "distance" metric (the patent's "measure of distinction") between a query image and database images to determine similarity and displayed the "best n" results. Petitioner asserted that the generic structure disclosed in the ’624 patent for its means-plus-function elements (e.g., a computing device, an application, and a storage device) was anticipated by the specific, concrete structure of the QBIC system (e.g., an RS/6000 workstation, software written in C, and a Starburst database).

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 12-22 over IBM in view of Bourdelais

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: IBM (Niblack et al., 1993) and Bourdelais (Patent 6,727,925).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that to the extent IBM alone did not teach every feature, the combination with Bourdelais rendered the claims obvious. IBM taught the core content-based image retrieval (CBIR) engine and its applicability to retailing. Bourdelais taught a system specifically directed to web-based search and display of images in an online retail environment, such as viewing and purchasing furniture for a room. Bourdelais disclosed using conventional web browsers (e.g., Netscape Navigator) as the user interface and provided functionality for displaying a group of items together and overlaying them on a background image (e.g., placing furniture in a virtual room), allegedly teaching limitations of claims 19 and 20.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), guided by IBM’s suggestion to integrate its technology into retail applications, would have been motivated to combine IBM's powerful search engine with Bourdelais' established online retail framework. This combination would meet the clear market trend toward online commerce and would allow users to search for and purchase items in a single, integrated environment.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining a known backend search engine with a known frontend web-based retail interface was a matter of routine engineering that would yield predictable results.

Ground 3: Anticipation of Claims 12-19 and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. §102

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Jain (Patent 5,893,095).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: As an alternative to IBM, Petitioner argued that Jain independently anticipated the claims. Jain disclosed a "visual information retrieval (VIR) engine" for content-based search of visual objects, with explicit application to "browsing an electronic catalog for on-line shopping." Jain’s system analyzed images for "visual attributes" across categories including color, texture, and shape, which were stored as a "Feature Vector." To find similar images, it calculated an "Overall Similarity" distance score between feature vectors, which represents the claimed "measure of distinction." Jain’s system ranked the results and displayed the top-ranked thumbnails to the user. Similar to the argument regarding IBM, Petitioner asserted that Jain’s disclosed structure (a personal computer with a storage device running the VIR software) was a specific implementation that anticipated the broad, generic structure of the ’624 patent’s means-plus-function claims.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims 19-20 and 22 are obvious over Jain in view of Bourdelais, based on a similar motivation to combine a core search engine with an e-commerce framework. Further, Petitioner argued that claims 12-19 and 21-22 are obvious over Jain in view of Luo (Application # 2002/0131641) to the extent the term "item" is construed to mean only a foreground object within an image, as Luo taught isolating a main subject from background clutter to improve search accuracy.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Means-Plus-Function (MPF) Claims: Petitioner adopted the district court's construction for the MPF limitations in claims 12-22. A central contention was that the structure construed by the court for performing the claimed functions—primarily "application 104, application server 108, and the corresponding language in the specification"—is extremely broad and generic.
  • Impact on Anticipation: Petitioner argued that because the patent’s claims cover this generic structure, a prior art reference need only disclose one specific species or implementation falling within that genus to be anticipatory. Therefore, the concrete systems disclosed in IBM (an RS/6000 running QBIC software) and Jain (a PC running a VIR engine) were specific instances that fell within the scope of the broadly claimed functions and structures, thus anticipating the claims.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 12-22 of Patent 9,152,624 as unpatentable.