US 6972774

Here's a concise summary of US patent 6972774:

US Patent 6972774

• Title: Image processing system for inserting plurality of images into composite area, and medium
• Original Assignee: Fujitsu Ltd
• Current Assignee: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc
• Inventor: Harutaka Eguchi
• Filing Date: 2000-12-18
• Issue Date: 2005-12-06
• Abstract: An image processing system providing efficient management and utilization of image data. It includes a display unit that shows a composite area, which is an aggregation of unit areas where images can be inserted, and an operation unit for inserting a target image into a unit area within this composite area.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1: This claims an image processing apparatus that takes one or more images (processing target unit images) and stores them into a grid of empty storage spaces. A control unit manages this storage, accessing the spaces in a specific order to create a single combined image from the inserted images.
• Claim 3: This claims a computer-readable storage medium that, when a program on it is executed, causes a machine to display a grid of empty sections (a composite area) on a screen. Users can then select and place images into these empty sections within the composite area.
• Claim 4: This claims a computer-readable storage medium that, when a program on it is executed, causes a machine to display a grid of empty sections (a composite area). It then detects when an image is pointed to, senses when that image is moved, and allows the selected image to be placed into one of the empty sections.
• Claim 5: This claims an image processing apparatus with a control unit that divides a display into a specific grid of empty blocks (composite area), where images can be inserted into these blocks or they can remain empty. An operation unit then combines this entire grid of blocks, whether filled or vacant, into a single composite image.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
A search for "CAFC 2026 dockets 6972774" did not return any specific results indicating litigation involving US6972774 in the CAFC in 2026. The Google Patents information indicates that the patent expired on 2021-04-28. Therefore, new litigation is unlikely. While Google Patents lists several district court litigation cases for this patent from 2019-2022, there is no indication of active CAFC dockets in 2026.

The following litigation involving US patent 6972774 has been identified from its Google Patents page, which links to various cases on the Unified Patents portal. The plaintiff in these cases is highly likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., the current assignee of the patent. While specific details for each case such as the precise filing date, defendant(s), and current status are not fully extractable without direct access to each Unified Patents case page or PACER, the known cases are listed below by jurisdiction and case number.

Known Litigation Involving US Patent 6972774:

• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-03600
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:19-cv-01056
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Virginia Eastern District Court

  • Case Number: 2:19-cv-00365
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Virginia Eastern District Court

  • Case Number: 1:19-cv-00913
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 6:21-cv-00420
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 6:21-cv-00251
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 6:21-cv-00076
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 6:21-cv-00021
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 6:20-cv-01193
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 6:20-cv-01047
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: California Central District Court

  • Case Number: 2:19-cv-06479
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 3:19-cv-03925
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 3:19-cv-08298
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 1:19-cv-03808
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:19-cv-02258
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-00836
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

  • Case Number: 1:22-cv-00051
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 6:20-cv-00988
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Florida Southern District Court

  • Case Number: 1:21-cv-20805
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Southern District Court

  • Case Number: 4:20-cv-02169
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-04218
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case Number: 2:20-cv-00234
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

  • Case Number: 2:21-cv-00078
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Southern District Court

  • Case Number: 4:20-cv-01392
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-00413
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 1:19-cv-01207
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 1:20-cv-00352
  • Plaintiff: Likely Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
  • Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Not specified in the provided search results.

The search results provided information about "PGR - Progressive Corp." and its stock, which is completely irrelevant to PTAB proceedings for a patent. The "PGR" in the search results refers to "Progressive Corp." stock ticker, not "Post-Grant Review" patent proceedings. This indicates my initial broad search terms might have led to misinterpretations.

I need to refine my search to specifically look for PTAB cases. I will explicitly include "Patent Trial and Appeal Board" or "PTAB" in the queries, along with the patent number.## Proceedings overview

The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for US patent 6972774 as of the most recent ingest. A web search for AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) related to US patent 6972774 yielded no results. Therefore, there is no PTAB activity on file for this patent.

Strategic summary

As there are no PTAB proceedings on file for US6972774, all claims of the patent remain untested by AIA trial challenges. This means there is no record of claims being canceled or sustained through IPR, PGR, or CBM. The patent has not been subjected to PTAB scrutiny, and consequently, there are no estoppel implications under § 315(e)(2) for any potential petitioner.

The absence of PTAB activity could imply several things:

• The patent may not have been asserted aggressively in litigation, which often triggers IPR filings.
• Potential challengers might have evaluated the patent and determined that an AIA trial would not be successful, or they may have chosen other defensive strategies (e.g., district court invalidity defenses, non-infringement).
• The patent expired in 2021-04-28, which means any IPR filing would have needed to occur before that date (or within one year of service of a complaint alleging infringement, if earlier). The timing may have precluded IPR filings for some.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US6972774, a defendant facing assertion of this patent today should consider the following:

• Validity Analysis: Conduct a thorough prior art search and develop robust invalidity contentions, as the patent's claims have not been challenged at the PTAB.
• PTAB Feasibility: While the patent has expired, it is generally not possible to file new AIA trial petitions on an expired patent. However, if there are ongoing district court litigations that were filed before the patent expired and are still active, the applicability of PTAB challenges would need to be re-evaluated carefully, though typically an IPR can only be filed within one year of being served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent. Given the patent's expiration in April 2021, new PTAB filings are highly unlikely.
• Evaluate Assertion Claims: Carefully review the asserted claims in any demand letter or complaint. Since no claims have been invalidated by the PTAB, the defensive posture is that all claims are presumed valid until proven otherwise in court or through an earlier, unrecorded PTAB proceeding (which the search did not identify).

Inventors

• Harutaka Eguchi (Fujitsu Ltd)

Original assignee

Fujitsu Ltd is the original assignee. Fujitsu's primary line of business is information and communication technology (ICT) services, including IT products, solutions, and services. They shipped products embodying image processing technologies. Fujitsu Ltd is currently an operating company.

Assignment timeline

• 2000-12-14 (executed) / recorded 2000-12-18 — Reel 011910/0173

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: EGUCHI, HARUTAKA
  • Assignee: FUJITSU LIMITED
  • Correspondent: BEYER WEAVER & THOMAS, LLP, P.O. BOX 778, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, 94704-0778
  • Context: Transfer of inventor's interest to original assignee.

• 2011-06-07 (executed) / recorded 2011-06-15 — Reel 026725/0644

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: FUJITSU LIMITED
  • Assignee: LD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
  • Correspondent: FISH & RICHARDSON P.C., P.O. BOX 1022, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA, 55440-1022
  • Context: Transfer of patent rights.

• 2019-01-23 (executed) / recorded 2019-01-23 — Reel 048113/0031

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: LD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
  • Assignee: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES 94 LLC
  • Correspondent: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES, 2711 LBJ FREEWAY, SUITE 700, DALLAS, TEXAS, 75234
  • Context: Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment. This correspondent appears on other tracked patents related to Intellectual Ventures.

• 2019-01-25 (executed) / recorded 2019-01-25 — Reel 048119/0001

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: LD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
  • Assignee: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES ASSETS 94 LLC
  • Correspondent: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES, 2711 LBJ FREEWAY, SUITE 700, DALLAS, TEXAS, 75234
  • Context: Corrective assignment to correct receiving party data. This correspondent appears on other tracked patents related to Intellectual Ventures.

• 2019-03-08 (executed) / recorded 2019-03-11 — Reel 048384/0831

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: INTELLECTUAL VENTURES ASSETS 94 LLC
  • Assignee: STEEPHILL TECHNOLOGIES LLC
  • Correspondent: SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP, 30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 10112-0015
  • Context: Transfer of patent rights.

• 2019-05-10 (executed) / recorded 2019-05-13 — Reel 048744/0488

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: STEEPHILL TECHNOLOGIES LLC
  • Assignee: CEDAR LANE TECHNOLOGIES INC.
  • Correspondent: SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP, 30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 10112-0015
  • Context: Transfer of patent rights. This correspondent appears on other tracked patents.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6972774
    2000 : Inventor to Fujitsu Ltd
    2005 : Issued
    2011 : Assigned to LD Technologies LLC
    2019 : Assigned to Intellectual Ventures 94 LLC
         : Assigned to Intellectual Ventures Assets 94 LLC
         : Assigned to Steephill Technologies LLC
         : Assigned to Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present.

   • LD Technologies, LLC (assignee on 2011-06-15, Reel 026725/0644), Intellectual Ventures 94 LLC (assignee on 2019-01-23, Reel 048113/0031), Intellectual Ventures Assets 94 LLC (assignee on 2019-01-25, Reel 048119/0001), Steephill Technologies LLC (assignee on 2019-03-11, Reel 048384/0831), and Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (assignee on 2019-05-13, Reel 048744/0488) are all entities commonly associated with patent licensing and assertion rather than product development. The address for Intellectual Ventures (2711 LBJ FREEWAY, SUITE 700, DALLAS, TEXAS, 75234) is consistent with a registered-agent service.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present.

   • Intellectual Ventures 94 LLC and Intellectual Ventures Assets 94 LLC appear in the chain (assigned on 2019-01-23, Reel 048113/0031 and 2019-01-25, Reel 048119/0001 respectively), which is a well-known patent licensing and assertion company.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present.

   • INTELLECTUAL VENTURES (2711 LBJ FREEWAY, SUITE 700, DALLAS, TEXAS, 75234) appears as the correspondent for both the 2019-01-23 (Reel 048113/0031) and 2019-01-25 (Reel 048119/0001) assignments to Intellectual Ventures entities.
   • SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP (30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 10112-0015) appears as the correspondent for the 2019-03-11 (Reel 048384/0831) and 2019-05-13 (Reel 048744/0488) assignments to Steephill Technologies LLC and Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., respectively.

4. Cascading transfers — present.

   • There were four consecutive assignments in a period of less than six months in 2019: to Intellectual Ventures 94 LLC (2019-01-23), Intellectual Ventures Assets 94 LLC (2019-01-25), Steephill Technologies LLC (2019-03-08), and Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (2019-05-10). These transfers involve different LLCs and shared correspondents for some transactions, which is a strong indicator of cascading transfers.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — present.

   • The patent was assigned to Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. on 2019-05-10 (recorded 2019-05-13, Reel 048744/0488). Google Patents indicates multiple litigations filed in 2019, including cases filed in California Northern District Court (3:19-cv-03925) and Illinois Northern District Court (1:19-cv-03808). This timing suggests the transfer was made shortly before litigation commenced.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present.

   • There is no indication that Fujitsu Ltd, the original assignee, filed for bankruptcy and sold its patents.

7. Privateering — unclear.

   • While Fujitsu Ltd transferred the patent to an NPE, there is no direct evidence in the provided data to confirm an arrangement where the NPE is asserting on Fujitsu's behalf against competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present.

   • The current assignee, Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., is not a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The assignment chain for US6972774 exhibits multiple strong signals of NPE assertion, including transfers to known asserter Intellectual Ventures (Reel 048113/0031, Reel 048119/0001), cascading transfers between shell entities in early 2019, and assignments occurring within months of the patent being asserted in district court litigation. The use of repeat correspondents (Intellectual Ventures, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP) further strengthens this conclusion.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search for patent number 6972774)

The most relevant prior art documents cited in US patent 6972774 are listed below, along with their publication/filing dates, brief descriptions, and the claims they potentially anticipate. Prior art is information that has been made available to the public before the filing date of a patent application, used to determine if an invention is novel and non-obvious.

Cited Prior Art for US6972774:

1. US4602286A

   • Full Citation: US4602286A - Video processing for composite images.
   • Publication Date: 1986-07-22 (Filing date: 1982-01-15)
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a video processing system for producing composite images by manipulating video signals. It involves techniques for combining and arranging various video elements to create a unified display.
   • Potentially Anticipates Claims: This patent potentially anticipates aspects of Claims 1 and 5, particularly regarding the concept of generating a composite image from multiple units. The general idea of processing and composing images could be considered.

2. US5381518A

   • Full Citation: US5381518A - Method and apparatus for imaging volume data using voxel values.
   • Publication Date: 1995-01-10 (Filing date: 1986-04-14)
   • Brief Description: This patent focuses on imaging volume data using voxel values, which relates to displaying three-dimensional images constructed from discrete volumetric elements.
   • Potentially Anticipates Claims: While not directly about 2D image composition, the underlying principles of arranging and rendering discrete data units to form a larger image could be argued to anticipate, at a high level, aspects of Claim 1, which discusses generating a composite image from unit images.

3. US5627651A

   • Full Citation: US5627651A - Modifying print information based on feature detection.
   • Publication Date: 1997-05-06 (Filing date: 1991-02-22)
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a method for modifying print information by detecting features within an image. This could involve adjusting how an image is prepared for printing based on its content.
   • Potentially Anticipates Claims: This might relate to the processing of individual images before insertion, potentially touching on the "modifies the original image so as to adapt itself to the block dimensions" aspect mentioned in the detailed description of US6972774 (S39 in FIG. 11), thereby potentially anticipating elements of Claim 1, 5, and 14 concerning image adjustment and processing within a display system.

4. US5636334A

   • Full Citation: US5636334A - Three-dimensional image creation devices.
   • Publication Date: 1997-06-03 (Filing date: 1994-01-28)
   • Brief Description: This patent concerns devices and methods for creating three-dimensional images.
   • Potentially Anticipates Claims: Similar to US5381518A, this could broadly touch upon the concept of combining distinct elements to form a larger visual representation, potentially anticipating parts of Claim 1 and 5 in a general sense, although the focus on 3D is a distinguishing factor.

5. US5732230A

   • Full Citation: US5732230A - Computer user interface for manipulating image fragments using drag, drop and merge operations.
   • Publication Date: 1998-03-24 (Filing date: 1995-05-19)
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a user interface that allows manipulation of image fragments through drag, drop, and merge operations. This directly addresses user interaction for image composition.
   • Potentially Anticipates Claims: This patent is highly relevant as it explicitly describes "drag, drop and merge operations" for image fragments. This directly anticipates elements of Claims 3, 4, and 8, which discuss inserting images into unit areas by drag-and-drop, and the general concept of manipulating images within a composite area.

6. US5819103A

   • Full Citation: US5819103A - Information recording/reproducing apparatus and method.
   • Publication Date: 1998-10-06 (Filing date: 1993-09-21)
   • Brief Description: This patent relates to an apparatus and method for recording and reproducing information, likely including image data.
   • Potentially Anticipates Claims: This could be broadly relevant to the storage aspects of US6972774, particularly the "unit storage areas for storing processing target images" in Claim 1 and the storage of the composite area in Claim 10.

7. US5861888A

   • Full Citation: US5861888A - Method and a system for the nonlinear storage of a texture map within a linear memory device.
   • Publication Date: 1999-01-19 (Filing date: 1996-11-27)
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a method and system for storing texture maps in a nonlinear fashion within a linear memory device, relevant to graphics rendering and image data management.
   • Potentially Anticipates Claims: This relates to memory management for image data, which could be relevant to the "plurality of vacant unit storage areas" in Claim 1 and the discussion of image memory areas in US6972774, potentially anticipating Claim 1 and 2 in terms of storage and varying capacities.

8. US5977965A

   • Full Citation: US5977965A - Automatic frame accumulator.
   • Publication Date: 1999-11-02 (Filing date: 1997-09-29)
   • Brief Description: This patent describes an automatic frame accumulator, likely used in video or image processing to collect and combine frames.
   • Potentially Anticipates Claims: This could be relevant to the idea of aggregating multiple images, thus potentially anticipating the "aggregation of unit areas" in Claims 3, 4, and 5, and the overall concept of creating a composite image.

9. US5979424A

   • Full Citation: US5979424A - Toy gun for firing balloons.
   • Publication Date: 1999-11-09 (Filing date: 1998-06-22)
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a toy gun for firing balloons.
   • Potentially Anticipates Claims: This patent appears to be unrelated to image processing and is unlikely to anticipate any claims of US6972774.

10. US5982350A

    • Full Citation: US5982350A - Compositer interface for arranging the components of special effects for a motion picture production.
    • Publication Date: 1999-11-09 (Filing date: 1991-10-07)
    • Brief Description: This patent details a compositer interface for arranging components of special effects in motion picture production, involving the combination and manipulation of various visual elements.
    • Potentially Anticipates Claims: This is highly relevant to the concept of composing images. It potentially anticipates Claims 1, 3, 4, and 5 by describing a system for arranging and combining visual components into a composite output, especially considering the "composite area" and "inserting a processing target image" aspects.

11. US6031542A

    • Full Citation: US6031542A - Image processing method and arrangement for the display of reflective objects.
    • Publication Date: 2000-02-29 (Filing date: 1996-02-12)
    • Brief Description: This patent describes an image processing method and arrangement for displaying reflective objects, which involves specific rendering techniques.
    • Potentially Anticipates Claims: This could be broadly related to image processing and display, potentially touching upon the "displaying a composite area on a display" in Claims 3 and 4, and the general image processing aspects of Claim 1 and 5.

12. US6137498A

    • Full Citation: US6137498A - Digital composition of a mosaic image.
    • Publication Date: 2000-10-24 (Filing date: 1997-01-02)
    • Brief Description: This patent details the digital composition of mosaic images, which inherently involves arranging and combining multiple smaller images into a larger composite.
    • Potentially Anticipates Claims: This patent is highly relevant, directly describing the "composition of a mosaic image." This strongly anticipates Claims 1, 3, 4, and 5, as it deals with the core concept of inserting multiple images into an arrangement to form a composite image.

13. US6266068B1

    • Full Citation: US6266068B1 - Multi-layer image-based rendering for video synthesis.
    • Publication Date: 2001-07-24 (Filing date: 1998-03-13)
    • Brief Description: This patent describes multi-layer image-based rendering for video synthesis, indicating the combination of different image layers to create a synthetic video.
    • Potentially Anticipates Claims: This prior art is relevant to the general concept of combining images, particularly the "generating a composite image from the unit images" in Claim 1 and the "aggregating the matrix of the plurality of blocks, whether filled with an image or vacant into a combined image" in Claim 5.

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

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would render the claims of US patent 6972774 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). The focus is on the claims, particularly the independent claims, and how they would have been apparent given the knowledge and existing technologies at the time of the patent's priority date (February 21, 2000).

The patent US6972774 generally relates to an image processing system for inserting a plurality of images into a composite area, which is an aggregation of unit areas, and then storing this composite area as a single image. The system uses a display unit and an operation unit, and notably features drag-and-drop functionality for image manipulation and a "consecutive insert" mode for related images.

General State of the Art (circa 2000):

At the priority date of February 21, 2000, digital image manipulation was a well-established field. Software applications for image editing, photo album creation, and desktop publishing were widely available. These applications commonly allowed users to:

• Display multiple images on a screen.
• Arrange images on a canvas or "sheet."
• Resize and reposition images.
• Manage overlapping images (e.g., "layers").
• Save composite images.
• Utilize graphical user interfaces with drag-and-drop functionality for moving objects on a screen.

The patent itself acknowledges conventional technology for managing multiple images by laying them out on a sheet, allowing arbitrary positioning, overlapping, and different sizes, and notes that this "requires a great quantity of resources for retaining a multiplicity of pieces of management data, and the process of re-forming each image is a load on the system (software)." It aims to address the limitations of prior art in efficiently managing and utilizing images, especially in resource-constrained environments.

Combinations of Prior Art References and Motivation to Combine:

Since specific prior art references cited within US6972774 are not provided in the prompt's "Prior Art" section, this analysis will rely on the general description of the "Description of the Related Art" within the patent and common knowledge in the field at the time.

Hypothetical Combination 1: General Image Editing Software + Drag-and-Drop User Interfaces

• Prior Art Elements:

  • Conventional Image Editing Software: The patent explicitly mentions "a technology of managing a plurality of images by laying out these images on a sheet as in the case of a photo album." This technology allows images to be laid out in any position, to overlap, and to have different sizes. It also notes that such systems manage positional, overlap, and size data, often using "layer management."
  • Drag-and-Drop User Interfaces: The concept of drag-and-drop for manipulating graphical objects on a computer screen was well-known and widely implemented in operating systems and applications by 2000.

• Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA in 2000, faced with the stated problem of inefficient image management and utilization (especially under resource constraints) in existing photo album-like software, would be motivated to combine the known functionalities. The motivation would be to enhance user interaction and efficiency. Implementing drag-and-drop for inserting, moving, and deleting images in a "composite area" (which is essentially a structured "sheet" from the prior art) would be an obvious improvement for user-friendliness and direct manipulation. This directly addresses the patent's goal of enabling users to "efficiently operate and edit the image data."

• Obviousness Argument for Independent Claims:

  • Claim 1 (Image Processing Apparatus with Unit Storage Areas): The concept of storing images in distinct "unit storage areas" (corresponding to the "blocks" or "unit areas" on the display) and then accessing them in a "predetermined sequence" to generate a "composite image" would be an obvious implementation detail for an image editing system that arranges images in a grid. Prior art photo album software already managed individual image data and their positions; structuring this management into discrete storage units for a grid layout is a logical engineering choice to streamline the creation of a composite output.
  • Claim 3 (Storage Medium for Displaying and Inserting Images): Displaying a "composite area as an aggregation of vacant unit areas arranged in a matrix" and "selectively inserting processing target images into selected ones of the vacant unit areas" is directly analogous to laying out images on a digital sheet or album page. The "matrix" arrangement is a common and intuitive way to organize multiple images.
  • Claim 4 (Storage Medium for Detecting Indication, Transfer, and Insertion): Detecting an "indication of a processing target image," "detecting a transfer of the indicated image," and "selectively inserting the indicated image into one of the vacant unit areas" precisely describes the drag-and-drop functionality which was already prevalent in various graphical user interfaces for moving and placing objects. Applying this to image insertion in an album-like layout would be an obvious extension.
  • Claim 5 (Image Processing Apparatus with Controlling Unit for Dividing Display and Operation Unit for Aggregating): A "controlling unit for dividing a portion of a display into a predetermined composite area... including a plurality of vacant blocks arranged in a matrix" and an "operation unit aggregating the matrix... into a combined image" is a straightforward description of how a digital photo album or image collage application would function. The "blocks" are simply the "unit areas" or "cells" in the matrix, and the aggregation into a "combined image" is the act of saving or rendering the collage.

Hypothetical Combination 2: Image Editing Software + Batch Processing/Sequencing of Related Images

• Prior Art Elements:

  • Conventional Image Editing Software: (As above) for displaying and arranging multiple images.
  • Batch Processing/Scripting in Image Software: Many image processing applications by 2000 offered scripting or batch processing capabilities to apply the same operation to multiple selected images or to process a sequence of images (e.g., from a digital camera's burst mode).
  • Digital Cameras with Burst/Consecutive Shot Modes: Digital cameras were common and often included "burst" or "consecutive photographing" modes that captured a series of related images.

• Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the concept of arranging images in a grid with the known ability to handle groups of related images (e.g., from a camera's burst mode) in an automated or semi-automated fashion. The patent itself highlights the problem of efficiently managing "multiplicity of images." Automating the insertion of a set of related images would clearly be an efficient solution, reducing repetitive user actions.

• Obviousness Argument for Dependent Claim 11 (Consecutive Insertion):

  • Claim 11: "a related image indicating module relating a plurality of target images to each other, wherein when a first target image is related to other images, the related images are consecutively inserted together as a group with the first target image into the plurality of blocks." Given that digital cameras produced sets of "related images" (e.g., sequential shots), and image editing software could perform batch operations, it would be obvious to provide a function to insert these related images sequentially into available blocks in a composite area. The "related image indicating module" could be as simple as recognizing a sequential file naming convention or metadata from a burst shot. The motivation is clear: to streamline the creation of collages or albums from related photographs.

Conclusion on Obviousness:

The core inventive concepts of US6972774, such as inserting images into a grid-like composite area via drag-and-drop and consecutively inserting related images, appear to be obvious combinations of technologies widely known and available at the time of the patent's priority date (February 21, 2000). The patent itself acknowledges the existence of systems for laying out multiple images on a "sheet" with various positional and size manipulations. The implementation of a structured grid (blocks/unit areas) for this layout, coupled with intuitive drag-and-drop operations and automated sequential insertion for related image sets, would have been a logical and obvious step for a PHOSITA seeking to improve user efficiency and reduce system load in image processing applications, particularly for personal use on devices with potentially limited resources.