Google LLC v. 138 East LCD Advancements Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-00957
• Patent #: 7,454,056
• Filed: June 21, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): 138 East LCD Advancements Ltd
• Challenged Claims: 1-18

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Color Balance Correction on Image Data
• Brief Description: The ’056 patent discloses a device and method for performing color balance correction on digital image data. The technology aims to improve the appearance of a specific subject, such as a human face, by first determining a "specific subject area" and then calculating a color correction value based on the characteristics of that area, thereby avoiding undesirable color shifts that can occur with global correction methods.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Yano and Schroder - Claims 1, 3-7, and 11 are obvious over Yano in view of Schroder.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Yano (Application # 2004/0021779) and Schroder (Patent 6,898,312).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Yano discloses an image processing apparatus that performs nearly all steps of independent claim 1. This includes acquiring image data, determining a specific subject area (a face region), calculating a characteristic value for that area (e.g., average hue), calculating a correction value based on that characteristic and a preset target, and executing the correction. The key limitation allegedly missing from Yano is calculating the characteristic value using a weighted distribution that gives greater weight to the center of the subject area.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Schroder was argued to disclose an automatic color correction process that detects skin regions ("reference parts") and can determine their color value using a weighted average that weights "the color values in the center of the [reference] part ... more ... than the color values of the pixels in the periphery." A POSITA would combine Schroder's center-weighting function with Yano's face-detection system to improve the accuracy of the calculated average hue value. This combination would place greater emphasis on the pixels at the center of the face, where viewers are most likely to focus, thus making the color correction more effective and robust against potentially distorting pixels at the periphery (e.g., hair, scarves).
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have reasonably expected success because it involved applying a known mathematical technique (center-weighted averaging from Schroder) to a known system (Yano) to predictably improve the calculation of an average hue value for a face region, a common goal in the art.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Yano, Schroder, and Steinberg - Claims 2, 8, 12-16, and 18 are obvious over Yano and Schroder in view of Steinberg.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Yano (Application # 2004/0021779), Schroder (Patent 6,898,312), and Steinberg (Patent 7,440,593).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses claims requiring color correction based on a "plurality of said specific subject areas," where the calculation uses a weighted distribution based on the "size of each specific subject area." Petitioner asserted that Yano discloses determining multiple face regions, and the combination with Schroder teaches the base system for color correction. The incremental teaching for weighting multiple faces by size is provided by Steinberg.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Steinberg was argued to disclose a color-correction system that detects multiple faces in an image and assigns each face "a weight based on size of the faces" to define its relative importance. A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Steinberg’s size-based weighting into the Yano/Schroder system to improve color correction for images containing multiple people. This would ensure that the overall correction value is influenced more by larger, more prominent faces, leading to a more aesthetically desirable result, which was a known goal in the art.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Since Yano already taught determining the area of a face region, a POSITA would have found it straightforward to apply conventional data processing techniques to compare the known areas of multiple faces and set relative weights, as taught by Steinberg.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Yano and Kuwata - Claims 9 and 17 are obvious over Yano in view of Kuwata.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Yano (Application # 2004/0021779) and Kuwata (Application # 2003/0043394).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground challenges claims that require the calculated correction value to be "weighted according to an area ratio of said specific subject area to a whole area of said photographed image." Yano was argued to provide the foundational system for calculating a correction value based on a face region. Kuwata was asserted to supply the teaching of weighting this value by an area ratio.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Kuwata was argued to teach regulating the degree of color adjustment by multiplying a correction value by a ratio of flesh-color pixels to total image pixels. This technique beneficially allows for color adjustment without significantly affecting parts of the image other than the flesh-colored part. A POSITA would combine Kuwata’s technique with Yano’s system to avoid the known problem of adversely affecting background colors, particularly when the subject's face is small relative to the entire image.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have expected success because Yano already disclosed calculating the area of the face region and the total number of pixels in the image. Therefore, calculating the ratio and using it to weight the correction value would involve only conventional calculations to achieve the predictable benefit described by Kuwata.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Yano, Schroder, and Kuwata for claims 9 and 17, and challenging claim 10 based on combinations of Yano, Schroder, and Nakamura (Patent 5,557,688), which teaches improving face detection by excluding regions contacting the outer edge of an image.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under both §314(a) and §325(d).
• §314(a) (Fintiv): Petitioner contended that the Fintiv factors favor institution because there is no active parallel district court litigation. The related district court case was dismissed for patent ineligibility under §101 and, although on appeal, the court invested minimal resources, and no §103 issues were ever addressed.
• §325(d): Petitioner argued that denial would be improper because the primary prior art references relied upon in the petition (Yano, Schroder, Steinberg, Kuwata, and Nakamura) were not considered during the original patent examination. Further, these references were argued to teach the very features that formed the basis for the Examiner's allowance of the claims.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’056 patent as unpatentable.