NIELSEN COMPANY (US), LLC v. TVISION INSIGHTS, INC.
Before Dyk, Reyna, and Bissoon (Chief District Judge for U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation). Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A prior-art reference can be analogous art even if it addresses a broader problem than the specific problem identified in the patent.
TVision Insights, Inc. (“TVision”) petitioned for inter partes review of a patent directed to audience measurement and methods and apparatus to capture images, which was owned by The Nielsen Company (US), LLC (“Nielsen”). TVision asserted obviousness over various prior-art references in view of “Tian,” a publication titled “Evaluation of Face Resolution for Expression Analysis.” Tian disclosed experimental results evaluating the performance of facial-expression-analysis steps using certain images. Nielsen argued that Tian was not analogous art, but the Board disagreed and found the claims obvious. Nielsen appealed.
On appeal, Nielsen argued that the Board erred by considering Tian. First, Nielsen argued that the Board violated the Administrative Procedure Act in finding Tian was reasonably pertinent, because the petition only argued Tian was in the same field of endeavor as the challenged patent—a separate test. The Federal Circuit rejected that argument, reasoning “the same evidence was germane to both prongs[,]” TVision was not required to expressly state its analogous-art theories, and Nielsen had the opportunity to address—and did address—both theories in its Patent Owner Response.
Second, Nielsen disputed the merits of the Board’s finding that Tian was analogous, arguing that the prior-art publication fell outside the narrowly defined problems in the challenged patent. But the problems an inventor faced, the Federal Circuit observed, “are not limited to those expressly identified in a patent, and a patent may be directed to multiple problems.” Moreover, there was “ample support” in the patent itself, including, for example, the claims’ recitation of the analysis of camera images, for the Board’s identification of “problems in image processing, and, particularly, . . . problems in facial detection and analysis.”
Accordingly, the Federal Circuit found that substantial evidence supported the Board’s reasonable-pertinence finding and its determination that Tian was analogous. The court also concluded that the Board did not err in concluding that the challenged claims were unpatentable. Thus, the Federal Circuit affirmed.
Editor: Sean Murray
Subscribe for News and Updates
