US 8471950

I'll verify current docket and PTAB status via live search before summarizing.

Let me check the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket and the district court case specifics.

US 8,471,950 — Verified Summary

Search performed against live sources (Google Patents full text, PTAB/PTABCTS documents, PACER-derived dockets, CAFC docket listings). Identifiers below are reported literally as they appear; where sources conflict with the previously generated sections, I flag it.

1. Bibliographic data (confirmed)

Family: JP 5135184 B2 (JP 2010-130393 A) and CN 101753834 B (CN 101753834 A) are listed as counterparts. Independent-claim scope in the US grant should be verified against the JP/CN members if you need a family-wide reading, since I have not compared them.

2. Abstract (verbatim)

A signal processor capable of extracting evaluated values used for automatic control more appropriately, including: a feature detection unit which detects a feature change position of any target pixel and its peripheral pixels in an input picture signal; a hold unit which holds the position information; a region creation unit which creates a region by excluding the held positions from an evaluated value extraction region; and an evaluated value extraction unit which extracts evaluated values in accordance with the region; wherein unnecessary portions different in feature from the periphery are extracted in accordance with any pixel unit by detection of the feature change position so that the feature change position is excluded from the evaluated value extraction region.

Note a scope gap worth flagging: the abstract recites the hold unit, but the hold unit does not appear in claim 1 — it appears only in claim 2 (which claim 1 does not require). Do not treat the abstract as a claim-scope statement.

3. Independent claims — plain language

There is exactly one independent claim in this patent: claim 1. Every other claim is dependent (claim 2 → 1; claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 → 2; claims 8, 9 → 7; claims 10, 11, 12, 14 → 1; claim 13 → 12; claim 15 → 14). Several of these — 3, 7, 10, 12, 14 — read like "application" claims, but formally they are dependent claims and inherit claim 1's limitations. That matters for the IPR (see §5).

Claim 1 (sole independent claim)

A signal processor comprising five elements arranged as a closed loop:

1. Feature detection unit — "detects a position where features of each pixel of an input picture signal have changed." The detection granularity is framed per-pixel, not per-block or per-preset region.
2. Region creation unit — "creates a region by removing pixels with the features from an evaluated value extraction region." The operative verb is removing pixels, not moving/selecting a different region. This is the point of distinction the patent itself draws over JP-A-6-14236 (which "changes" the region and must re-verify absence of high luminance).
3. Evaluated value extraction unit — "extracts an evaluated value in accordance with the evaluated value extraction region" (i.e., the post-removal region).
4. Processing unit — "applies predetermined processing to the picture signal" (generic; the specific processing is supplied by the dependent claims).
5. Control unit — "controls the processing unit in accordance with the evaluated value having been extracted by the evaluated value extraction unit."

The claim closes with a wherein clause: "the control unit controls the processing unit by using an evaluated value of a region from which pixels having an extracted predetermined feature are removed." Functionally this restates element 5 and adds the "predetermined feature" qualifier. A practitioner should note that this clause is largely duplicative of the element it follows — potentially useful for § 112(b) argument, but it does not appear to narrow scope beyond elements 1–2.

Practical reading of claim 1: detect outlier pixels by local feature change (e.g., luminance discontinuity from a spotlight), delete those pixels from the AF/AE/AWB evaluation window, compute the control value from what remains, and drive the image-quality adjustment with that value. No photometry, no threshold value, and no specific hardware are recited.

Dependent-claim tree (what each branch adds)

Asserted set in district court (from Patent Owner's infringement contentions, IPR2025-01315 Ex. 1013): claims 1–5, 7–8, 10, 12 and 14. Claims 6, 9, 11, 13 and 15 (the constant-area claims) are not asserted in that case, but are challenged in the IPR.

4. Specification context worth carrying forward

• The stated problem is JP-A-6-14236, which changes the ranging frame upon detecting high luminance and then re-checks the new frame — requiring iterative change/verify cycles when multiple high-luminance portions exist. The patent's asserted advantage is single-pass exclusion plus better processing efficiency and lower power consumption (and easier software implementation, since no extra evaluated values are computed).
• The disclosed detection mechanism is differentiation of a target pixel against left/right and upper/lower neighbors with a preset threshold, applied across the frame to yield a fringed "position information indicator" (FIG. 3).
• The disclosed region-fitting rule (FIG. 3 flowchart): if the left sub-region meets the preset size, use it; else if the right sub-region meets it, use that; else split the extraction region across both — done independently in horizontal and vertical, yielding one region (edge spotlight) or two regions (center spotlight).
• Embodiment 4 covers white-balance evaluation; Embodiment 5 covers block segmentation with overlap detection; Embodiment 6 covers the constant-area adjuster.

5. Litigation / PTAB status — corrections and additions to the earlier sections

This section supplements the previously generated litigation and PTAB sections; where they conflict with live sources, the live sources control.

Corrections to earlier generated content

1. Contradiction — petitioner identity. The earlier "NPE / troll-pattern signals" section states the IPR was "filed by Unified Patents" and calls Unified Patents the "defensive aggregator." That is incorrect. IPR2025-01315 was filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) The "Unified Patents" label on the Google Patents page is a data-provider attribution ("Unified Patents PTAB Data … licensed under CC BY 4.0"), not the petitioner. This materially changes the defensive-aggregator analysis, which should be revised.
2. Contradiction — defendant identity. The earlier litigation summary lists the defendant as "OO Electronics Co LTD / OO Electronics America Inc." Live dockets show the defendant in 5:25-cv-00052 is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. ("OO" appears to be a redaction artifact — treat it as non-authoritative).
3. Gap — prior art actually at issue. The earlier prior-art and obviousness sections were built on the examiner-cited references (US 5,978,027; US 2001/0028402; US 2002/0080247; US 2003/0002732; US 2004/0169767; US 2005/0157189; US 2006/0087578) and on JP-A-6-14236. None of those are the grounds Samsung asserted. The IPR grounds are entirely different references (below). The earlier obviousness analysis should not be relied on as a prediction of PTAB outcome.
4. Change in posture — the district court case has been stayed. The earlier litigation section lists it as simply "Ongoing." As of 2026-04-02, Judge Schroeder granted an unopposed motion to stay the case pending IPR (Dkt. 74). A mediation with Hon. David Folsom (ret.) was ordered 2026-03-30, to occur no later than 2027-03-31; a technical advisor (Michael D. Paul) was appointed with the Markman hearing reset to 2026-05-12.

IPR2025-01315 — updated facts

Grounds asserted (all § 103 obviousness; no § 102 anticipation and no § 112 grounds were identified in the sources reviewed):

• Ground 1: Claims 1–15 obvious over Tsujino (US 8,237,850) in view of Iwasaki (US 2007/0189758).
• Ground 2: Claims 1–15 obvious over Tsujino in view of Shui (JP 2007-25559) and Iwasaki.
• Ground 3: Claims 1–15 obvious over Shui in view of Iwasaki.

Samsung's mapping has Tsujino's CPU as the feature detection unit (thresholding high-luminance pixels), Tsujino's exclusion of those pixels as the region creation unit, and Tsujino's CPU as the control unit; Iwasaki supplements with auto-exposure exclusion of high-luminance subject groups, and Shui adds differential-based (focus-evaluation-value-peak / photometric differential) discrimination of false focus peaks plus block-based region exclusion. Samsung also filed a broadened ("Sotera plus") stipulation and the Acting Director's Fintiv analysis (per Samsung's sur-reply) weighed against discretionary denial — i.e., Maxell's discretionary-denial request did not succeed. A separate Board order dated 2025-12-01 alerted the parties to an ex parte communication regarding this IPR and Samsung's other IPRs.

Federal Circuit (2026) — no appeal identified for the '950 patent

Searches of CAFC dockets surfaced no appeal captioned to US 8,471,950. The Maxell/Samsung CAFC activity identified relates to other patents:

• 26-1111 — Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (filed 2025-10-29); Maxell is appellant, corrected opening brief filed 2026-03-24, Samsung's response brief due 2026-06-26.
• 26-1320, 26-1330 — further Maxell/Samsung appeals (Jan. 2026 filings).
• 26-1625 — Maxell v. Samsung, filed 2026-04-07, appeal from PTAB IPR2024-00867.
• 26-1681 — Samsung v. Maxell, filed 2026-04-16, appeal from PTAB IPR2024-00735.

Because IPR2025-01315's FWD is not due until ~February 2027, no CAFC appeal on the '950 patent can be ripe yet; a 2026 CAFC appeal specific to US 8,471,950 should not be expected. I did not locate one, and I would flag as unverified any search result implying otherwise.

Unresolved item

A Law360 headline dated 2026-04-28 states the PTAB "threw out all the claims Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. challenged in a pair of Maxell Ltd. video processing patents." The snippet does not name the patents. Given the timing and the "video processing" descriptor, this most plausibly refers to Maxell's video-processing patents such as US 7,952,645 (see IPR2024-00828, FWD 2025-10-30, and IPR2024-00867), not the '950. I cannot confirm which patents are involved from the retrieved text — treat as unconfirmed and verify against the actual FWD documents before relying on it.

6. Confidence and caveats

• High confidence: all bibliographic fields, the abstract, the claim text and dependency structure, and the identity of claim 1 as the sole independent claim — these come from the granted patent text itself.
• High confidence: institution date (2026-02-10), petitioner identity, challenged claim range (1–15), and the three asserted grounds, sourced from PTAB/aggregator records.
• Medium confidence: the asserted-claim set (1–5, 7–8, 10, 12, 14) — this comes from a description of Maxell's infringement contentions cited within Samsung's IPR papers, not from the contentions themselves.
• Explicit uncertainty: assigned APJ panel for IPR2025-01315; the exact date and full text of the institution decision's reasoning; whether the 2026-04-28 Law360 item touches the '950 patent; and the JP/CN counterpart claim scope. I do not have authoritative information on these from the sources retrieved, and I am not asserting them.

Suggested verification steps: pull the institution decision (Paper 8/9 range) and Samsung's petition from the PTAB E2E system for IPR2025-01315 to confirm the grounds and whether the "constant area" claims 6/9/11/13/15 received separate treatment; pull Maxell's infringement contentions via the stayed E.D. Tex. docket (5:25-cv-00052) to confirm the asserted claim set; and check the USPTO Assignment Center for any post-2021 encumbrances not reflected in the Google Patents legal-events list.

As of April 26, 2026, there is known litigation involving US patent 8471950.

Here is the known case:

• Plaintiff(s): Maxell Ltd.
• Defendant(s): OO Electronics Co LTD / OO Electronics America Inc
• Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: 5:25-cv-00052
• Filing Date: 2025.04.21 (April 21, 2025)
• Outcome/Current Status: Ongoing

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding is on file for US patent 8471950, which is currently active and in the "Trial Instituted" phase. This means the patent's claims are actively being challenged, and the outcome could significantly impact the patent's validity. A defendant currently facing assertion of this patent should closely monitor this proceeding, as an unfavorable outcome for the patent owner could weaken any infringement claims.

IPR2025-01315 — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Maxell, Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-29
• Status: Trial Instituted. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has decided to initiate a trial to review the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific Administrative Patent Judges assigned to this panel is not publicly available at this time.
• Petition grounds: Details regarding the specific claims challenged, the prior art asserted, and the statutory grounds (§ 102 for anticipation / § 103 for obviousness / § 112 for indefiniteness or written description) are not available from the provided patent text or initial search results.
• Institution decision: The trial was instituted. The exact date of the institution decision and the panel's detailed reasoning are not explicitly stated in the provided patent document, beyond the status update "last modified 2026-05-12".
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not yet issued, as the proceeding is active and instituted.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the proceeding is currently active.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This active IPR presents a potential opportunity for a defendant. If the challenged claims are ultimately invalidated, any infringement theory relying on those claims would be significantly undermined. Conversely, if the claims are upheld, it would strengthen the patent owner's position.

Strategic summary

Currently, the patent US8471950 has one active IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01315. Since the trial has been instituted, the claims challenged in this IPR are currently under review by the PTAB. There are no claims that have been formally CANCELED or SUSTAINED by the PTAB yet. The specific claims being challenged and, by extension, the claims that remain UNTESTED, are not specified in the provided information.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if IPR2025-01315 proceeds to a Final Written Decision, the petitioner ([[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd. et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.)) and its privies would be estopped under § 315(e)(2) from asserting in future district court litigation or other PTAB proceedings any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised during this IPR. For a defendant not privy to Samsung, prior art grounds not covered by this IPR (or that could not have been reasonably raised) would still be available for challenging the patent.

There are no clear pattern signals of multiple IPRs by the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner at this time. However, the presence of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as a petitioner indicates a significant challenge to the patent.

Recommended next steps

• Monitor IPR2025-01315 closely: As this IPR has been instituted, it will proceed to a Final Written Decision. The PTAB has a statutory one-year deadline from institution to issue a Final Written Decision. The institution decision date is not precisely stated, but the "last modified 2026-05-12" date suggests the trial is well underway. Key upcoming milestones would include the patent owner's response, petitioner's reply, potential oral hearing, and the Final Written Decision due date.
• Obtain the petition and institution decision: A defendant should seek to obtain the full IPR petition and the institution decision for IPR2025-01315. These documents will detail which claims are challenged, the specific prior art asserted, and the PTAB's reasoning for instituting the trial, which is crucial for understanding the current defensive posture. These documents are typically available on the USPTO PTAB End-to-End (E2E) system.
• Evaluate challenged claims: Understand which claims of US8471950 are being challenged in IPR2025-01315. If your product or service is asserted against specific claims, it is critical to know if those claims are among the ones being reviewed.

Inventors

• Junji Kamimura (Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co Ltd)
• Akihito Nishizawa (Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co Ltd)
• Junji Shiokawa (Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co Ltd)
• Shinichi Nonaka (Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co Ltd)

All inventors were employed by Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co Ltd, the original assignee, at the time of filing. There is no indication of all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

The original assignee, as listed on the patent application, was Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co Ltd. This company was a part of the larger Hitachi conglomerate, which historically produced a wide range of consumer electronics, including video cameras and digital still cameras, directly embodying the claims of image quality adjustment. Hitachi, Ltd. is a large, diversified Japanese multinational conglomerate that continues to operate, though its structure and core businesses have evolved over time. Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co Ltd itself has undergone various reorganizations and its consumer electronics businesses have been shifted within the Hitachi group and to other entities.

Assignment timeline

• 2009-12-22 to 2010-01-06 (executed) / recorded 2010-01-20 — Reel 023820/0050
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Kamimura, Junji; Nishizawa, Akihito; Shiokawa, Junji; Nonaka, Shinichi (inventors)
  • Assignee: HITACHI CONSUMER ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., JAPAN
  • Correspondent: Not provided by Google Patents legal events.
  • Context: Initial assignment from inventors to original corporate assignee.
• 2014-08-26 (executed) / recorded 2014-09-08 — Reel 033694/0745
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: HITACHI CONSUMER ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., JAPAN
  • Assignee: [HITACHI MAXELL, LTD., JAPAN](/asserters/hitachi-maxell-japan)
  • Correspondent: Not provided by Google Patents legal events.
  • Context: Internal corporate transfer within the Hitachi group.
• 2017-10-01 (executed) / recorded 2018-01-25 — Reel 045142/0208
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: HITACHI MAXELL, LTD., JAPAN
  • Assignee: MAXELL, LTD., JAPAN
  • Correspondent: Not provided by Google Patents legal events.
  • Context: Corporate name change/rebranding within the Maxell group.
• 2021-10-01 (executed) / recorded 2021-11-29 — Reel 058255/0579
  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: MAXELL, LTD.
  • Assignee: MAXELL HOLDINGS, LTD., JAPAN
  • Correspondent: Not provided by Google Patents legal events.
  • Context: Corporate reorganization via merger.
• 2021-10-01 (executed) / recorded 2021-12-03 — Reel 058666/0407
  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: MAXELL HOLDINGS, LTD.
  • Assignee: MAXELL, LTD., JAPAN
  • Correspondent: Not provided by Google Patents legal events.
  • Context: Corporate name change, reverting to Maxell, Ltd.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8471950
    2009 : Application filed
    2010 : Assigned to Hitachi Consumer
    2013 : Patent granted
    2014 : Assigned to Hitachi Maxell
    2018 : Assigned to Maxell Ltd
    2021 : Maxell reorganizes to Maxell Holdings
         : Maxell Holdings changes name to Maxell Ltd
    2025 : IPR filed
         : Infringement suit filed E.D. Texas

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The transfers are between well-established Japanese electronics companies (Hitachi Consumer Electronics, Hitachi Maxell, Maxell Ltd.) that manufacture and sell products. There are no indications of names like "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" used for the primary assignee entities in the chain to suggest a shell entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Unclear. While Maxell Ltd. is not typically listed as a pure NPE, recent search results indicate it has become an "increasingly active patent licensor and litigant, asserting patents across multiple technology domains globally." Maxell has asserted patents against companies like Samsung and ZTE in mobile device-related litigation, covering technologies including image processing. The filing of an IPR (IPR2025-01315) by Unified Patents against this patent, and a related US District Court case in E.D. Texas (5:25-cv-00052), indicates active assertion.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. Correspondent information (attorney name, firm, address) is not available from the provided Google Patents legal events for any assignment. This would require a live search of the USPTO Assignment Center.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. The assignments are spread out over several years (2010, 2014, 2018, 2021) and represent corporate changes and re-organizations of established companies, not rapid transfers between chained LLCs in a short period.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The last assignment/change of name was recorded on 2021-12-03 (effective 2021-10-01). The earliest known litigation activity (IPR and E.D. Texas case) began in 2025. This gap of more than 6 months does not indicate a pre-litigation transfer.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no information to suggest the original assignee or any subsequent assignee filed for bankruptcy and sold the patent in proceedings.
7. Privateering — Unclear. While Maxell is an operating company actively asserting its patents, the specific motivation behind the E.D. Texas litigation (e.g., whether it's on behalf of a third party) cannot be determined without details of the complaint. However, Maxell's history of litigation against competitors (Samsung, ZTE) suggests direct assertion.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent is currently held by Maxell, Ltd., and is subject to an IPR petition by Unified Patents, implying active assertion, not neutralization.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion
The patent is currently owned by Maxell, Ltd., a Japanese consumer electronics company with a history of manufacturing relevant products like projectors and previously camcorders. Maxell has been identified as an active patent litigant asserting patents across various technology domains, including image processing, against other operating companies such as Samsung and ZTE. The recent IPR filing by Unified Patents and the related litigation in the Eastern District of Texas (both in 2025) confirm the patent is actively being asserted. The assignment chain reflects internal corporate restructuring among established operating companies (Hitachi and Maxell groups) rather than transfers to shell entities.

USPTO Assignment Center search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by Patent Number: 8471950)

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 8471950, I will first search the USPTO database for the patent and then analyze its cited references.

US Patent 8471950 Details

Patent Number: US8471950B2
Title: Signal processor for adjusting image quality of an input picture signal
Publication Date: 2013-06-25
Filing Date: 2009-11-18
Assignee: Maxell Ltd. (originally Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co Ltd)
Inventors: Junji Kamimura, Akihito Nishizawa, Junji Shiokawa, Shinichi Nonaka

The patent describes a signal processor that enhances automatic control by excluding "unnecessary portions" or "feature change positions" (like spotlights) from an evaluated value extraction region. This allows for more appropriate extraction of evaluated values for automatic adjustments such as exposure, focus, and white balance in devices like video cameras and digital still cameras.

Most Relevant Prior Art Citations

Here are the patent citations listed for US8471950B2, along with their details and potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102:

1. US5978027A

   • Full Citation: US5978027A, "Image pickup apparatus having sharpness control"
   • Publication Date: 1999-11-02 (Filing Date: 1992-06-24)
   • Brief Description: This patent describes an image pickup apparatus that controls sharpness by analyzing image signals and adjusting an image processing circuit. It focuses on detecting edges and performing different sharpness corrections based on image content.
   • Potential Anticipation: US5978027A potentially anticipates claims related to image processing and adjustment of image quality based on features within an image (Claim 1). While US8471950B2 specifically focuses on excluding feature-changing pixels from an evaluation region, US5978027A's broader concept of feature detection for image quality adjustment could be argued to be relevant.

2. US20010028402A1

   • Full Citation: US20010028402A1, "Imaging apparatus having autofocus function"
   • Publication Date: 2001-10-11 (Filing Date: 2000-03-08)
   • Brief Description: This application details an imaging apparatus with an autofocus function that uses multiple focus evaluation areas. It selects an optimal evaluation area from these multiple areas for accurate autofocusing.
   • Potential Anticipation: This reference is highly relevant to claims involving automatic control systems, particularly autofocus, and the use of evaluated value extraction regions (Claims 1, 3). The method of selecting an optimal region to avoid problematic areas (like high luminance, as mentioned in the background of US8471950B2) could potentially anticipate the inventive step of excluding features in US8471950B2's region creation unit.

3. US20020080247A1

   • Full Citation: US20020080247A1, "Image pickup device"
   • Publication Date: 2002-06-27 (Filing Date: 1991-08-21)
   • Brief Description: This patent application describes an image pickup device with a focus detection circuit that can change the focus detection area based on image brightness or specific patterns.
   • Potential Anticipation: Similar to US20010028402A1, this reference could potentially anticipate claims related to adjusting an evaluated value extraction region for automatic focus control (Claims 1, 3). The dynamic adjustment of the detection area based on image characteristics aligns with the general problem addressed by US8471950B2.

4. US20030002732A1

   • Full Citation: US20030002732A1, "Method and apparatus for digital image segmentation using an iterative method"
   • Publication Date: 2003-01-02 (Filing Date: 2000-08-04)
   • Brief Description: This application describes a method for segmenting digital images into regions based on pixel characteristics, using an iterative process. While not directly about image quality adjustment, it deals with identifying and separating different regions within an image.
   • Potential Anticipation: This reference could potentially anticipate aspects of the "feature detection unit" and "region creation unit" of US8471950B2, particularly Claim 1 and Claim 2, which deal with detecting pixel features and creating regions by removing those pixels. The iterative segmentation method could be seen as a way to identify and exclude specific features from an evaluation.

5. US20040169767A1

   • Full Citation: US20040169767A1, "Digital camera and control method thereof"
   • Publication Date: 2004-09-02 (Filing Date: 1998-07-22)
   • Brief Description: This application describes a digital camera with an image processing unit that can perform various image adjustments, including exposure control and white balance, potentially using different evaluation areas.
   • Potential Anticipation: This reference broadly anticipates claims related to image processing, white balance adjustment, and exposure control in a digital camera (Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 14). While not explicitly detailing the exclusion of specific features from the evaluation region in the same manner as US8471950B2, the concept of using different evaluation areas for these controls is present.

6. US20050157189A1

   • Full Citation: US20050157189A1, "Signal-processing system, signal-processing method, and signal-processing program"
   • Publication Date: 2005-07-21 (Filing Date: 2003-10-24)
   • Brief Description: This application describes a signal processing system that identifies specific regions in an image, such as high-luminance areas, and performs image processing to correct for problems caused by these regions (e.g., overexposure).
   • Potential Anticipation: This reference is highly relevant to the core invention of US8471950B2, particularly claims 1 and 2, which involve detecting features (like high luminance) and removing them from an evaluated value extraction region. The explicit mention of processing to correct problems caused by high-luminance regions directly aligns with the problem US8471950B2 aims to solve, indicating a strong potential for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

7. US20060087578A1

   • Full Citation: US20060087578A1, "Method of controlling digital photographing apparatus for out-focusing operation and digital photographing apparatus adopting the method"
   • Publication Date: 2006-04-27 (Filing Date: 2004-10-27)
   • Brief Description: This application describes a digital photographing apparatus and method for controlling an out-focusing operation, potentially involving the analysis of image characteristics for aesthetic blur effects.
   • Potential Anticipation: While focused on out-of-focus effects, the method's reliance on analyzing image characteristics could broadly relate to the feature detection unit and evaluated value extraction of US8471950B2 (Claim 1). However, the specific inventive step of excluding features to obtain more accurate control values for basic image quality adjustments (like focus or exposure) might differentiate US8471950B2.

Most Relevant Prior Art:

Among the listed citations, US20050157189A1 appears to be the most relevant prior art. It explicitly describes a system that identifies high-luminance areas and performs image processing to address problems caused by them. This directly relates to the core inventive concept of US8471950B2, which is to exclude such "feature change positions" (like spotlights or high luminance areas) from the evaluated value extraction region to obtain more appropriate values for automatic control. This similarity suggests that US20050157189A1 could potentially anticipate claims 1 and 2, as well as those related to specific automatic control functions (e.g., exposure control, white balance, or autofocus) where problematic features are identified and handled.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US8471950

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would render the claims of US patent 8471950 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) as of the priority date (2008-11-28). The core inventive concept of US8471950, as exemplified by its independent claim, is to improve automatic image quality control by detecting features (e.g., spotlights), removing pixels associated with these features from an evaluated value extraction region, extracting evaluated values from the resulting modified region, and then using these "clean" values to control image processing.

Overview of the Invention (US8471950)

US8471950 describes a signal processor that includes:

1. A feature detection unit to identify positions where pixel features (e.g., sudden signal intensity changes indicating a spotlight) have changed.
2. A region creation unit that modifies a predefined evaluated value extraction region by removing the pixels with the detected features.
3. An evaluated value extraction unit that extracts values from this modified region.
4. A processing unit that applies image quality adjustments (e.g., exposure, focus, white balance).
5. A control unit that controls the processing unit based on the evaluated values obtained from the feature-removed region.

The patent explicitly highlights a problem with prior art, specifically JP-A-6-14236, stating that "when there are a plurality of high luminance portions, there is a problem that it is necessary to repeat the change of the region and the process of confirming the absence of the high luminance portion." This indicates a motivation to improve the efficiency and accuracy of evaluated value extraction by directly addressing the problematic regions.

Prior Art Combination and Obviousness Rationale

Primary Combination: JP-A-6-14236 in view of US20030002732A1 (Gossett) and/or general knowledge of image processing techniques.

JP-A-6-14236

As described in the background of US8471950, JP-A-6-14236 discloses:

• An object "to obtain safe and accurate focusing information from an image region (ranging frame) with exposure most suitable for AF and without high luminance."
• A solution where "a system control circuit changes an image region for detection of a focusing lens position when a high luminance detection circuit detects a high luminance portion."

From this description, JP-A-6-14236 teaches most elements of Claim 1:

• Feature detection unit: The "high luminance detection circuit" detects high luminance portions (features).
• Evaluated value extraction unit: The system obtains "focusing information" (an evaluated value) from an image region.
• Processing unit and Control unit: The system is for "AF" (automatic control) and involves a "system control circuit" changing regions for "detection of a focusing lens position," implying control over a focusing lens (processing unit) based on evaluated values.

However, US8471950 identifies a critical drawback in JP-A-6-14236: "the change of the region is not performed after the absence of the high luminance portion in the changed region is confirmed... Therefore, when there are a plurality of high luminance portions, there is a problem that it is necessary to repeat the change of the region and the process of confirming the absence of the high luminance portion." This problem demonstrates a clear motivation for a PHOSITA to find a more efficient and precise method of defining the evaluated value extraction region.

US20030002732A1 (Gossett)

US20030002732A1 (Gossett) is titled "Method and apparatus for digital image segmentation using an iterative method." Image segmentation is a well-known image processing technique for partitioning a digital image into multiple segments or sets of pixels. This technique is used to precisely identify and isolate specific portions of an image based on their features.

Motivation to Combine and Obviousness

A PHOSITA, aware of the image processing system in JP-A-6-14236 and its inefficiency when dealing with multiple problematic features (e.g., high luminance portions) within the evaluation region, would be motivated to improve this system. The goal would be to reliably exclude these problematic features from the evaluated value extraction region in a single, non-iterative step.

It would be obvious for a PHOSITA to combine the teachings of JP-A-6-14236 with known image processing techniques, such as image segmentation or masking, for the following reasons:

1. Known Problem and Predictable Solution: JP-A-6-14236 clearly articulates the problem of iterative region changes. Image segmentation, as taught by Gossett, provides a direct and well-understood method for precisely identifying and isolating specific pixels or regions based on features. Applying such a segmentation technique to the high luminance portions detected by JP-A-6-14236 would predictably allow for their direct removal or exclusion from the evaluation region, thereby addressing the stated inefficiency and improving the accuracy of the extracted evaluated values.
2. Standard Design Choice: Once a problematic feature is detected (as by JP-A-6-14236), the most direct way to prevent its influence on evaluation is to mask it out or segment it away from the region of interest. This is a fundamental concept in image processing for obtaining accurate measurements from specific parts of an image while ignoring others.
3. Efficiency Improvement: By directly removing the pixels with the detected features from the evaluation region, rather than iteratively changing the entire region, the combined system eliminates the need for repeated checks, thus increasing processing efficiency, which is a desirable goal for any automatic control system.

Therefore, a PHOSITA would be motivated to combine JP-A-6-14236 with the techniques of US20030002732A1 (Gossett) (or general image segmentation/masking knowledge) to implement a "region creation unit which creates a region by removing pixels with the features from an evaluated value extraction region." This renders Claim 1 obvious.

Obviousness of Dependent Claims

The dependent claims build upon the core invention by adding standard components, applying the invention to known applications, or detailing specific implementations.

• Claim 2 (Hold Unit): A "hold unit which holds position information of the detected pixels" is a standard functional component in any digital system where detected information (like pixel positions of features) needs to be stored for subsequent processing (e.g., by the region creation unit). Adding a hold unit to store the feature positions detected by JP-A-6-14236 and/or segmented by Gossett would be an obvious design choice for a PHOSITA.
• Claims 3 & 12 (Focus Lens Control): JP-A-6-14236 explicitly concerns "focusing information" and "AF," using the detected high luminance portions to modify regions for "detection of a focusing lens position." Applying the improved signal processor (JP-A-6-14236 modified with pixel removal) to the existing autofocus application described in JP-A-6-14236 would be an obvious continuation of its original purpose, aiming for more accurate AF. US20010028402A1 (Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.) and US20060087578A1 (Samsung Techwin Co., Ltd.) further confirm that autofocus was a well-known field encountering such issues.
• Claims 4 & 14 (White Balance Adjustment): Adjusting white balance in digital cameras is a well-known function. Prior art such as US20040169767A1 (Norita) for a "Digital camera and control method thereof" or JP2008176211A (Hitachi Ltd) broadly address digital camera control which includes white balance. Strong light sources (like spotlights) can skew white balance calculations. Extending the feature-removal technique to white balance evaluation to obtain more accurate color balance would be an obvious application for a PHOSITA, analogous to its application in AF or exposure control, to prevent inaccurate readings from problematic image features.
• Claims 7 & 10 (Light Intensity Adjustment/Exposure Control): The problem of spotlights affecting evaluated values, which can lead to underexposure of other parts of the image, is a known issue in automatic exposure control. JP-A-6-14236 mentions "exposure most suitable for AF." Prior art like JP4077217B2 (Ricoh) specifically addresses "Automatic exposure control device." Applying the feature-removal technique to exposure control to prevent bright spots from distorting overall exposure calculations is an obvious extension for a PHOSITA to improve image quality.
• Claims 5 & 8 (Region Segmentation Unit and Overlap Detection Unit): These claims describe a specific implementation of the region creation unit using a "region segmentation unit for segmenting an effective region in advance" and an "overlap detection unit which detects overlap of position information output from the hold unit with blocks segmented by the region segmentation unit." US20030002732A1 (Gossett) teaches digital image segmentation, which can be implemented using various methods, including block-based approaches. The concept of segmenting an image into blocks and then identifying and excluding blocks that overlap with detected features is a common and obvious way to implement pixel-level removal for region creation in image processing.
• Claims 6, 9, 11, 13, & 15 (Keeping Total Area Constant): These claims involve keeping "the total area of the evaluated value extraction region constant by excluding unnecessary portions from the evaluated value extraction region." In automatic control systems, maintaining a consistent evaluation area can simplify control algorithms and lead to more stable and predictable adjustments, as the absolute magnitude of an evaluated value might otherwise change simply due to a change in the evaluation area. For a PHOSITA, compensating for removed areas by expanding other valid regions or adjusting the evaluation metrics to maintain consistency would be an obvious design consideration for improving control stability and simplifying subsequent processing.

In conclusion, the core innovation of removing specific pixels with detected features from an evaluation region, rather than iteratively changing the entire region, would have been obvious to a PHOSITA by combining the problem identified in JP-A-6-14236 with established image segmentation or masking techniques known in the art (e.g., from US20030002732A1). The applications to specific image quality adjustments (AF, exposure, white balance) and the detailed implementations (hold unit, segmentation by blocks, constant area) are also rendered obvious as logical and predictable refinements or applications for a PHOSITA.