PTAB

IPR2025-01312

Samsung Electronics America Inc v. Maxell Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Video Processing Apparatus
  • Brief Description: The ’645 patent discloses a video processing apparatus that conditionally corrects a video signal. The technology is directed at problems arising from displaying video of one aspect ratio (e.g., 4:3) on a screen with a different aspect ratio (e.g., 16:9), which adds "wallpaper" or "no-picture areas." The invention detects these "pattern portions" and controls a corrector to apply video correction only when such patterns are not present, thereby preventing undesirable visual artifacts.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3 are obvious over Kim.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kim (Application # 2004/0156545).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kim discloses every element of claims 1-3. Kim teaches a video enhancement system that detects "pattern-like images" (e.g., test patterns) and adjusts the level of video enhancement accordingly. Kim's "r calculation device 34" functions as the claimed detector, determining if a pattern is present by calculating a parameter 'r'. This parameter 'r' then acts as the input to a "mixer 36," which functions as both the corrector and controller. When no pattern is detected (r=0), the mixer applies full enhancement; when a pattern is detected (r=1), the mixer applies no enhancement, thereby not correcting the signal. For dependent claims 2 and 3, Petitioner asserted that Kim's "histogram calculation device 10" is a "characteristic point detector" that detects the level and distribution of luminance to calculate the parameter 'r'.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As a single-reference ground, Petitioner contended that Kim itself teaches the claimed invention. Petitioner further argued that if any minor element were deemed missing from Kim, combining it would have been a matter of mere design choice for a POSITA to achieve predictable results.

Ground 2: Claims 1-4 are obvious over Fujimura.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fujimura (Patent 5,808,697).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Fujimura discloses a video contrast enhancement system that addresses "letterbox" formats, where black, non-picture bands are present above and below the main picture area. Fujimura's "letterbox signal detector 46" serves as the claimed "detector," identifying these black bands as "pattern portions." A "vertical limiter 47" acts as the claimed "controller," which instructs a "luminance contrast enhancer 2" (the "corrector") to apply enhancement only to the picture area (when pattern portions are not contained) and to not apply enhancement to the black letterbox bands (when pattern portions are contained). Petitioner also asserted that the letterbox detector functions as a "characteristic point detector" by counting bright and dark pixels to determine the luminance distribution. Claim 4 was allegedly met because Fujimura's black letterbox bands are single-color "no-picture areas" added above and below the content.

Ground 3: Claims 5-8 are obvious over Fujimura in view of Kim.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fujimura (Patent 5,808,697) and Kim (Application # 2004/0156545).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Fujimura provides the base system for claims 5-8 by teaching the detection of single-color "no-picture areas" (its letterbox bands) and selectively applying correction to the main picture content, as required by limitations like [5.e.i]. However, Fujimura does not teach how to handle multi-color, non-content patterns (e.g., test patterns). Kim was argued to supply this missing teaching, specifically for limitation [5.e.ii], which requires the system to not correct the video signal when the pattern portions are not the single-color no-picture areas. Kim’s system detects such multi-color "pattern-like images" and disables correction, thereby providing the functionality that Fujimura lacks.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Kim with Fujimura to create a more robust video enhancement system. Fujimura’s system only accounts for simple, single-color letterbox bands. Kim taught that applying enhancement to complex "pattern-like images" can introduce "unwanted or undesirable results." A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Kim’s detection and correction-disabling mechanism into Fujimura’s system to prevent such artifacts when encountering multi-color patterns that are not simple letterbox bands.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as straightforward, involving adding Kim's pattern detection logic to Fujimura's existing video processing chain. A POSITA would have reasonably expected success because the integration would predictably enhance Fujimura’s system to handle a wider, known variety of non-content video patterns without altering its core function of correcting the main picture content.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "correct[s] the video signal" (claims 1-3, 5): Petitioner argued this term should be construed to include correcting only a part of the video signal. This construction is critical because the prior art (e.g., Fujimura) teaches applying correction only to the main picture area while leaving the letterbox bands uncorrected.
  • "when the pattern portions are contained" (claims 1, 3, 5): Petitioner adopted the Patent Owner's apparent construction from district court litigation, which interprets "when" broadly to be satisfied by certain instances of pattern presence, rather than requiring it "whenever" a pattern is present. This allows Petitioner to map prior art that operates in specific modes (e.g., "Food mode" or "Portrait mode").
  • "characteristic point detector" (claims 2-3, 6): Petitioner asserted this term should include a component that determines a histogram of luminance from an input video signal. This construction allows Kim's histogram calculation device and Fujimura's pixel-counting detector to meet the limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-8 of the ’645 patent as unpatentable.