Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-1208,97-1208 |
| Citation | 149 F.3d 1335,47 USPQ2d 1418 |
| Parties | DIGITAL BIOMETRICS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IDENTIX, INC. and Randall C. Fowler, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Alan G. Carlson, Merchant, Gould, Smith, Edell, Welter & Schmidt, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Philip P. Caspers and Thomas E. Bejin.
Frank E. Scherkenbach, Fish & Richardson P.C., Menlo Park, California, argued for defendants-appellees. With him on the brief were Jack L. Slobodin, Fish & Richardson P.C. and Robert T. Haslam, Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, Palo Alto, California. Of counsel on the brief were Frank P. Porcelli and John C. Phillips, Fish & Richardson P.C., Boston, Massachusetts.
Before PLAGER, Circuit Judge, SKELTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and BRYSON, Circuit Judge.
Digital Biometrics, Inc. ("DBI") brought suit against Identix and Randall Fowler for patent infringement, both literal and under the doctrine of equivalents, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The district court granted Identix's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. See Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc., No. C 95-01808 CW, 1996 WL 784567 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 16, 1996). DBI appeals. We affirm the district court's judgment of non-infringement.
The present suit involves U.S. Pat. No. 4,933,976 (the '976 patent), entitled "System for Generating Rolled Fingerprint Images." As the title implies, the patented invention relates to a system (and method) for capturing, storing, and displaying fingerprint images. Unlike conventional systems, which use paper and ink, this one uses a computer controlled imaging and retrieval system. By digitally representing a fingerprint image, the system can automate fingerprint storage, retrieval, and most importantly, searching.
The inventors of the '976 invention were not the first to create a digital fingerprint system. Several such prior-art systems are described in the "Background of the Invention" section of the patent. The problem with those systems, according to the patent, was that they failed to represent accurately the fingerprint image due to the problems associated with capturing a curved surface of the fingerprint on a flat, two-dimensional surface. Accordingly, the stated advantage of the present invention is that it produces "fewer discontinuities and artifacts" in the final image. Col. 2, ll. 22-23.
The system described in the written description of the patent includes a microprocessor coupled to random access memory (RAM) and read only memory (ROM). The microprocessor is further coupled to a terminal, such as a standard keyboard, that allows an operator to input data. A video monitor and printer are also included in the system to allow the operator to view and print, respectively, a fingerprint image generated by the system.
The method of generating the fingerprint image is at the heart of this patent and at the heart of this dispute. It is therefore necessary to describe precisely the imaging sequence performed by the system. First, the system generates an analog representation of a fingerprint image, referred to in the written description as "frames of video signals." Col. 3, ll. 52-54. In the preferred embodiment, that analog image is generated by a video camera that captures an image of a fingerprint presented on an "image propagating surface." In the preferred embodiment, this surface is a prism or platen, upon which a subject rolls a finger. The camera captures the entire image of the image propagating surface of the prism. Col. 3, ll. 49-51. Because of the arcuate shape of the finger, however, only a portion of the finger is actually in contact with the prism at any time. Thus, the camera, in effect, takes "snap-shots" of the image propagating surface of the prism at discrete intervals of time as the finger rolls across the surface.
The analog output of the video camera is fed to a "frame digitizer" that converts the analog output to a digital format. In the words of the written description, "[d]igitizer 24 produces two-dimensional arrays of digital pixel values PVn,m/ representative of the intensity of fingerprint images at corresponding discrete pixel locations PLn,m/." Col. 3, line 67--col. 4, line 2. In the preferred embodiment, the frame digitizer is an 8-bit analog-to-digital converter. Col. 4, ll. 17-20. The digitizer operates under the control of the microprocessor. The output of the digitizer is read by the microprocessor and stored in RAM. The data structures produced by this process are repeatedly referred to as "image arrays." See, e.g., Col. 4, ll. 2-4, 16; col. 5, ll. 9, 27, 38, 47, 50, 53, 65; col. 6, ll. 12, 47, 43-54. The "image arrays" are referred to as "IAL, IAC and IAR" in the written description, as shown in Figs. 3A, 3B, and 3C, respectively, for the example illustrated therein. Each image array includes "N horizontal rows and M vertical rows." Col. 4, ll. 6-7. In one preferred embodiment, N is equal to 480 and M is equal to 512. This size is apparently a direct function of the size of the frame signal from which the image array is derived. As shown in the drawings, for purposes of illustration in the application, N is equal to 20 and M is equal to 28. The exact point in the process at which the optical image becomes an "array," however, is one of the disputed issues in the case.
Once the first image array is captured and stored in memory, the system determines the extent to which the intensity of each pixel varies from that of an average intensity. Col. 4, ll. 51-55. These resulting "variances" are then used to define an "active area" within the image array. Generally, the higher the variance for a particular pixel the greater the probability that that pixel actually represents that portion of the finger currently in contact with the image propagating surface. An active area is therefore a sub-set of the image array in which there exists data characteristic of an actual fingerprint image. In the preferred embodiment, the active area is a rectangular array. The left and right edges or boundaries of the active area are determined by comparing the variances in a particular row with a pre-determined threshold value. The microprocessor compares each variance value to the threshold value. The left edge of the active area is set equal to the column of the image array in which the first variance value exceeds the threshold value. Col. 5, ll. 50-67. The microprocessor then sequentially processes the variances in the particular row in question until it identifies the last variance value in the particular row that is greater than the threshold value. The right edge is then set equal to the last so identified column. Col. 6, ll. 4-9. The upper and lower boundaries of the active area are assumed, in the preferred embodiment, to be equal to row 1 and row N, respectively.
The pictures in the specification are particularly helpful in illustrating the actual operation. 1 Figure 3A, shown below, illustrates a first image ("OIL") taken from the platen as the finger is rolled from left to right.
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
The corresponding image array is shown in Fig. 4A. For the image array IAL shown in Fig. 4A, the corresponding active area is shown by the broken-line AAIAL.
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
Once the active area is defined, the image data within the image array circumscribed by the active area boundaries, and only that data, are copied into a "composite array," which is used to store the final fingerprint image. Col. 6, ll. 14-20. This step is described in the written description as "copying the first 'slice' or active area such as AAIAL into composite array CA." Col. 6, ll. 37-8. The composite array will previously have been initialized so that all of the values therein are cleared. Figure 5A, shown below, illustrates the results of copying active area AAIAL into the composite array.
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
The above described sequence is substantially repeated for each subsequent video frame. As the fingerprint is rolled across the image propagating surface, subsequent frames will contain a different portion of the fingerprint image. The current video frame is digitized in the above-described manner and stored as the next image array. That image array is then analyzed by the microprocessor to determine its active area. The active area for that image array is then merged into the composite array, as described further below.
The result of the image capturing and active area defining steps for the second video frame is illustrated in Figs. 3B and 4B, respectively, as shown below. The active area for this second image array is labeled "AAIAC" in Fig. 4B.
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
The active area of this second image array AAIAC is then combined with the active area of the first image array using a "mathematical function." Overlap between the current active area AAIAC and the previously stored active area in the composite array AAIAL is critical to the effective operation of the system. In fact, if the microprocessor fails to detect such an overlap, it activates an alarm to indicate to the operator that a "portion of the fingerprint is ... lost." Col. 7, ll. 24-30. The existence on an overlap is easily determined in the present invention by comparing the left edge of the current active area with the right edge of the previous active area, as now stored in the composite array. In the preferred embodiment, the system requires a minimum overlap of eight pixels. In the illustrations shown, however, a different minimum is assumed.
Once the microprocessor determines that there is in fact an overlap, it merges or combines the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MICROAIRE SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS LLC. v. ARTHREX INC.
...has a right to rely upon such definitive statements made by the applicant during patent prosecution. Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1347 (Fed.Cir.1998). In particular, the Court finds the Signtech v. Vutek case in the Federal Circuit to be highly relevant to the p......
-
Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Science, Inc.
...of clarity [in the claims] may result in the conclusion that the claim is too indefinite to be valid." Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed.Cir. 1998). Enablement and definiteness are separate and distinct requirements. See Hybritech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 849......
-
Jeneric/Pentron, Inc. v. Dillon Company, Inc., No. 3:98cv818(EBB) (D. Conn. 8/27/2001), 3:98cv818(EBB).
...identical or equivalent to each claimed element of the patented invention." Id. at 29; accord Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1998). To prove infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, the accused product or process "must be shown to include an......
-
Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson, Civil Action No.: 00-2876 (RMU) (D. D.C. 3/14/2001)
...term. Even within the intrinsic evidence, "there is a hierarchy of analytical tools." See Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998). "The actual words of the claim are the controlling focus." Id. (citing Thermalloy, Inc. v. Aavid Eng'g, Inc., 121 F.3d 6......
-
Table Of Cases
...v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), 2, 3, 44. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), 3. Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Indentix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 1998), 34. Digital Equip. v. Diamond, 653 F.2d 701 (1st Cir. 1981), 96. Dippin’ Dots, Inc. v. Mosey, 476 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2007), ......
-
Basics of Intellectual Property Laws for the Antitrust Practitioner
...Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 141. Research Plastics , 421 F.3d at 1296; Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Indentix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the record before the Basics of Intellectual Proper......
-
Chapter §2.04 Claim Definiteness Requirement
...objects, and that the supply can consist of one material object.") (emphasis added) (citing Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (basing claim construction on the entire written description, despite an isolated passage in apparent conflict)).[377] ......