PTAB

IPR2024-00955

Google LLC v. 138 East LCD Advancements Ltd

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Image Processing Device and Method
Brief Description: The ’365 patent relates to a technique for determining the main object characterizing an image and subsequently adjusting the picture quality of that object. The system analyzes image data by color and position to identify objects and then applies corrections to improve image quality.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Luo-250 (Application # 2003/0108250).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Luo-250, by itself, disclosed all limitations of the challenged claims. Luo-250 teaches an image processing device that determines a "target subject matter" (the claimed "main object") in an image. It acquires a digital color image composed of pixels, segments the image into regions of pixels, and analyzes them to classify colors (e.g., skin-tone, sky, lawn grass). Luo-250 then defines "candidate subject matter areas" by associating adjacent pixel groups with the same color. Petitioner asserted that Luo-250 also meets the position-related limitations by acquiring a "pixel position (x,y)" for these areas and using a "specific location" as a unique characteristic to identify the target subject matter (e.g., lawn grass is "near bottom of the image"). Finally, Luo-250 determines the target subject matter using both color and location data and teaches that its software modules can be constructed in hardware, such as an integrated circuit.
- Motivation to Combine: Not applicable (single reference).
- Expectation of Success: Not applicable (single reference).

Prior Art Relied Upon: Luo-250 (Application # 2003/0108250) and Hibi (Japanese Publication # JP2003-248825).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims directed to identifying the sky as the main object and classifying objects for more detailed correction. Petitioner contended that while Luo-250 teaches detecting sky, it notes that color-only classification is unreliable. Hibi allegedly remedies this by teaching an image processing device that recognizes a "sky area" as an object by using both its blue color and its "position at the top of the image." For claims related to detailed classification (e.g., claim 20), Petitioner argued Hibi teaches further classifying a main object (e.g., "sky") into more detailed sub-categories ("clear sky" or "sunset sky") and preparing different correction values for each.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Hibi with Luo-250 to solve the unreliable sky detection problem that Luo-250 itself identified. Hibi provided a known solution—using location in addition to color—to improve the robustness of object detection. Further, a POSITA would be motivated to augment Luo-250's color correction with Hibi's detailed object classification to improve image quality and color balance, a stated goal of Luo-250.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have an expectation of success because using object attributes and location for image processing was a well-known technique.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Luo-250 (Application # 2003/0108250) and Luo-668 (Patent 7,212,668).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground focused on claim 4, which requires determining a person is the main object when a flesh-tone color range is in the "central area of the image." Petitioner argued Luo-250 teaches identifying a person based on "skin-tone" color but does not explicitly link it to a central location. Luo-668 supplied this limitation by teaching that "the main subject tends to be located near the center instead of the periphery of the image."
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Luo-668's teaching with Luo-250's person-detection method to improve its accuracy. Since Luo-250 noted that color-only detection can be unreliable, adding a common heuristic about subject location from Luo-668 would be a simple and logical step to make the detection more robust.
- Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known, simple positional heuristic to a known object detection system, which would yield predictable improvements in accuracy.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Luo-250 (Application # 2003/0108250) and Miyano (Patent 5,659,357).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims requiring a "correction level determining module" that uses a formula to reduce the difference between an acquired color and a standard color. Petitioner argued that while Luo-250 teaches the general concept of "color re-mapping" to a "preferred" color, it lacks implementation details. Miyano allegedly provided these details, teaching a "white balance adjusting" method that uses "adjusting signals Radj and Badj" to correct "color failure." These signals function as a formula (addition or subtraction) to modify RGB color components.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, seeking to implement Luo-250's conceptual color re-mapping, would look to known techniques like Miyano's white balance adjustment. Miyano's method provided a concrete, formula-based approach to achieve the color correction goal described in Luo-250, particularly for images captured under various lighting conditions.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in applying Miyano's known technique for color adjustment to improve Luo-250's system, as both address the common problem of correcting color in digital images.

Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be improper. The parallel district court litigation was dismissed after the court found the claims ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. Although the decision is on appeal, Petitioner asserted that no claim construction or §103 invalidity issues were ever raised or addressed in that forum, meaning there is no overlap of issues.
Petitioner also argued that denial under §325(d) would be improper because the prior art references asserted in the petition were never considered by the examiner during the original prosecution. The claims were allowed without any rejection.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-33 of Patent 7,668,365 as unpatentable.