PTAB

IPR2021-00176

Unified Patents LLC v. DigiMedia Tech LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method for Processing Images to Identify a Head Portion of a Subject
  • Brief Description: The ’476 patent discloses a computer-implemented method for identifying a head portion of a subject within images. The core invention involves using two distinct processes to generate two separate confidence values, which are then combined to identify the final location of the head, aiming to improve tracking accuracy and reliability.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Cosatto - Claims 1-4, 8, 14-16, 21-23, 27, and 28 are obvious over Cosatto in view of the knowledge of a POSA.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Cosatto (Patent 5,864,630).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Cosatto teaches every element of the challenged claims. Cosatto describes a multi-channel system for tracking heads and faces using three separate analysis channels: shape, color, and motion. Petitioner asserted that Cosatto’s use of a "color channel" and a "motion channel" directly corresponds to the ’476 patent’s claimed "first process" and "second, different process." In Cosatto, each channel produces intermediate data that is fed to a "system classifier," which "assigns a measure of confidence for each feature." This directly maps to the ’476 patent’s generation of a "first confidence value" and a "second confidence value." Finally, Cosatto’s "system controller" evaluates these confidence measures to determine an optimal tracking strategy, which Petitioner equated with the claimed step of identifying the head location based on both confidence values. Dependent claims related to calibration and identifying areas as possible head portions were also argued to be taught by Cosatto's disclosure of calibration procedures and its classifier evaluating various features.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As a single-reference ground, the argument focused on the motivation to implement Cosatto’s disclosed system. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) reading Cosatto, which explicitly aims to create a robust head-tracking method, would have understood that its disclosed multi-channel algorithm, classifier, and controller are meant to be implemented together as a complete system. The combination of its different analytical channels to produce a more reliable result is the explicit purpose of the reference.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing Cosatto’s system. The reference describes using known computer vision techniques (color analysis, motion detection, shape analysis) and standard components (classifiers, controllers) in a predictable way to achieve the stated goal of improved head tracking.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Cosatto and Khosravi - Claims 9, 10, 24, and 29 are obvious over Cosatto in view of the knowledge of a POSA and Khosravi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Cosatto (Patent 5,864,630) and Khosravi (Patent 6,184,926).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the teachings of Cosatto as established in Ground 1 and added Khosravi to teach the limitations of claims 9, 10, 24, and 29, which require removing a background image to obtain a foreground image. While Cosatto focuses on multi-channel analysis, it does not explicitly teach background subtraction. Khosravi, however, is directed to head detection in uncontrolled environments and expressly discloses a "background subtraction and thresholding" step (step 212) to achieve "segmentation of people in the foreground regions." Petitioner argued that this technique in Khosravi directly teaches the additional limitation of removing the background, as recited in the challenged dependent claims.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSA would combine Khosravi’s background subtraction with Cosatto's multi-channel system to solve a known problem. Both references share the goal of robust head tracking. A POSA would recognize that Cosatto's system could be vulnerable to errors from cluttered backgrounds or lighting variations, a problem that Khosravi is designed to solve. Therefore, a POSA would be motivated to incorporate Khosravi's well-known background subtraction technique into the Cosatto system as a preliminary processing step to improve its overall accuracy and reliability.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination would have yielded predictable results. Background subtraction was a well-known, fundamental technique in the field of computer vision at the time. A POSA would have reasonably expected that applying Khosravi's background removal to the input images before they are processed by Cosatto's color, motion, and shape channels would successfully reduce noise and improve the performance of each channel, leading to a more robust final output.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under either §314(a) or §325(d) would be improper.
  • Against Fintiv Denial (§314(a)): Petitioner asserted that the factors weigh against denial because no trial date had been set in any of the five parallel district court litigations, and the courts' and parties' investment in those cases was minimal. Furthermore, Petitioner argued that there was no overlap in arguments, as invalidity contentions had not yet been served in the district court cases. Finally, Petitioner highlighted that it is not a defendant in the co-pending cases and that the petition is based on strong prior art (Cosatto and Khosravi) that was never considered during prosecution.
  • Against §325(d) Denial: Petitioner argued that denial would be inappropriate because the primary references, Cosatto and Khosravi, were not before the examiner during original prosecution. Therefore, the petition raises new, substantial questions of patentability that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has not previously considered.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-4, 8-10, 14-16, 21-24, and 27-29 of Patent 7,715,476 as unpatentable.