PTAB

IPR2024-00958

Google LLC v. 138 East LCD Advancements Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Digital Camera
  • Brief Description: The ’638 patent discloses a digital camera with a main lens and a sub-lens that capture a main image and a sub-image, respectively. The system generates a composite image by combining the two images after setting a magnification level based on the main lens's focal length to substantially match the sizes of the main image and sub-image.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Parulski - Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are obvious over Parulski

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Parulski (Application # 2008/0218611).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Parulski, which discloses an electronic camera with two imaging stages, teaches or renders obvious every limitation of the challenged claims. Parulski's first and second imaging stages, each with its own lens and sensor, correspond to the claimed main and sub-imaging units. Parulski's control processor, which adjusts zoom and focus, was argued to inherently acquire the focal length of the main lens. Petitioner contended that Parulski discloses modifying the magnification of the sub-image by upsampling it so that corresponding features in the images from both lenses span the same number of pixels, thereby setting a magnification level based on focal length to match the image sizes. The combination of these images to create an "enhanced" or "modified" image was argued to meet the "composite image generating unit" limitation. Finally, Parulski’s system includes an LCD screen for displaying images.
    • Motivation to Combine (for obvious modifications): Petitioner asserted that to the extent Parulski does not explicitly disclose certain features, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to make simple modifications. For dependent claim 2, a POSITA would find it obvious to use a pan-focus lens (as taught by Parulski for one of its lenses) for the sub-lens to achieve a greater depth of field and simplify the camera design. For claim 4, a POSITA would find it obvious to incorporate a conventional roller and position sensor to mechanically detect the lens position and acquire the focus amount.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in making these modifications, such as incorporating a pan-focus lens or a position sensor, as they involve implementing well-known, conventional components and techniques in a predictable manner to improve camera functionality.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Parulski and Safonov - Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are obvious over Parulski in view of Safonov

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Parulski (Application # 2008/0218611) and Safonov (South Korean Patent Publication No. 10-2007-0046010).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative in the event the Board finds Parulski alone does not teach the "composite image generating unit" limitation, particularly if that limitation is interpreted to require alpha blending. Parulski provides the foundational multi-lens camera system capable of capturing and combining a main image and a sub-image. Safonov explicitly discloses a method for digital image enhancement that uses alpha blending to combine two images into a single, higher-quality composite image, improving characteristics like local contrast and luminance.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Parulski's camera system with Safonov's alpha blending technique to solve the known problem of seamlessly combining images. The stated goal in Parulski is to create a modified image with "relatively low noise and good sharpness" by replacing portions of one image with another. A POSITA would recognize that alpha blending, as taught by Safonov, is a well-known and suitable technique to smooth the transition between the combined image portions, thereby preventing visible edges and creating a more cohesive final image.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the combination involves applying a conventional, well-understood image processing technique (alpha blending from Safonov) to a known type of multi-image camera system (Parulski) to achieve the predictable result of a seamlessly blended composite image.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial is not warranted. Denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and the Fintiv factors is inappropriate because the parallel district court litigation involving the ’638 patent was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, and the case is closed.
  • Petitioner further argued that denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) is unwarranted because the primary prior art references, Parulski and Safonov, were not considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution of the ’638 patent.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-2 and 4-6 of Patent 8,482,638 as unpatentable.