PTAB

IPR2025-01315

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Signal Processor and Image Processing
  • Brief Description: The ’950 patent describes a signal processor for digital cameras that improves image processing functions like autofocus and auto-exposure. The system detects pixels with changed features (e.g., high luminance), creates a new evaluation region by removing these problematic pixels, and then controls camera processing based on an evaluated value extracted from this modified region.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-15 are obvious over Tsujino in view of Iwasaki.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tsujino (Patent 8,237,850) and Iwasaki (Application # US2007/0189758).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Tsujino discloses the core elements of the challenged claims, including a signal processor that detects high-luminance pixels exceeding a threshold and excludes them from consideration to improve autofocus (AF) control. Iwasaki was argued to supply the teaching of applying similar exclusionary logic for auto-exposure (AE) control, by identifying and removing groups of pixels with high average luminance from exposure calculations. The combination was asserted to teach controlling a processing unit based on evaluated values from a region where problematic pixels have been removed, as recited in independent claim 1.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Tsujino and Iwasaki because both address the common problem of improving camera performance in challenging lighting conditions by selectively evaluating image regions. Petitioner contended it would have been a natural and predictable step to extend Tsujino’s exclusionary principle for AF to AE, as taught by Iwasaki, to create a more robust camera system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references utilize similar and compatible hardware architectures (e.g., image sensors, CPUs, processing circuits) and software-based image processing techniques.

Ground 2: Claims 1-15 are obvious over Tsujino in view of Shui and Iwasaki.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tsujino (Patent 8,237,850), Shui (Japanese Publication No. 2007-25559), and Iwasaki (Application # US2007/0189758).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Tsujino/Iwasaki combination by adding Shui. Petitioner argued that while Tsujino teaches a basic threshold-based method for detecting problematic pixels, Shui discloses a more advanced technique. Shui’s system detects changes in pixel features by identifying peaks in focus evaluation values and calculating the differential between photometric values at positions surrounding the peak. This provides a more sophisticated method for both detecting feature changes and creating modified evaluation regions by excluding areas with high-luminance point light sources.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would incorporate Shui's more precise detection methods into the Tsujino/Iwasaki framework to further improve the system's ability to handle challenging lighting. Shui enhances Tsujino’s pixel detection, and Iwasaki provides the complementary AE control, creating a comprehensive and predictable solution.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was asserted to be straightforward as all three references relate to software-based image processing techniques that can be integrated into the common hardware platforms they describe.

Ground 3: Claims 1-15 are obvious over Shui in view of Iwasaki.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Shui (Japanese Publication No. 2007-25559) and Iwasaki (Application # US2007/0189758).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: In this ground, Shui serves as the primary reference. Petitioner argued Shui discloses a system that detects positions where pixel features have changed (by analyzing focus and photometric values) and creates a modified evaluation region by excluding areas with high-luminance point light sources to improve focus accuracy. As in Ground 1, Iwasaki was asserted to supply the teaching of excluding high-luminance regions for exposure calculations, thereby teaching the control of a processing unit (for AE) based on an evaluated value from the modified region.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation is analogous to Ground 1. A POSITA would combine Shui's advanced AF system with Iwasaki’s complementary AE system to create a comprehensive camera capable of handling both focus and exposure in scenes with difficult lighting. Both references employ the same underlying principle of improving results by excluding problematic image data.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success due to the compatible hardware architectures and image processing methodologies (luminance evaluation, region-based analysis) disclosed in both references.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner dedicated a substantial portion of its argument to construing the various "unit" terms recited in the claims (e.g., "feature detection unit," "region creation unit," "control unit") as means-plus-function elements under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
  • The proposed construction for these terms was consistently a software algorithm executing on a general-purpose processor. For example, the "Region Creation Unit" was construed as a software algorithm that manipulates pixel data to define specific regions for evaluation. This interpretation was central to Petitioner’s arguments, as the prior art references similarly disclose processors executing software algorithms to perform these functions.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-15 of Patent 8,471,950 as unpatentable.