Camtek Successfully Opposes Orbotech Patent for Image Analysis

Orbotechcamtek

Camtek and Orbotech are two Israeli companies making automated inspection systems for the microelectronics industry.

There appears to be a fair amount of bad blood between the two companies, and invariably when one receives a patent allowance in Israel, the other files oppositions.

In March 2001, Orbotech filed a patent application number IL 142028 into Israel. The application was a national phase entry of WO00/19372, titled “Pixel Coding and Processing Method” and had a priority date of 28 September 1998. The independent claim as filed reads as follows:

“A method of multi-level pixelization of images comprising: determining at least one edge between a first area and a second area in the image; dividing the image into pixels; assigning a first value to pixels completely in the first area; assigning a second value to pixels completely in the second area; and assigning a value to pixels through which the edge passes, said value being one of the first value, the second value or a different value.”


In June 2006, the patent was allowed and published for opposition purposes. Camtek filed an opposition claiming lack of novelty, obviousness, insufficient disclosure and lack of enablement.
MS Yaara Shoshani Caspi, an adjudicator at the patent office accepted that the claimed invention was obvious based on the teachings of:

  • US 5,148,495 “Line region Segmentation Method”
  • US 5,754,690 “Position Sensitive Detector based Image Conversation System Capable of Preserving Sub Pixel Information”
  • US 4,896,364 “Method of Detecting Boundary Structures in a Video Signal” and
  • US 4,873,577 “Edge Decomposition For the transmission of High Resolution Facsimile Images.”

The opposition was accepted and the applicant was ordered to pay costs of NIS 30,000 to the opposer.

COMMENTS

I think Ms Caspi Shoshani’s ruling as to obviousness of the main claim is reasonable. I note that she does not consider that all four cited patents are required to knock out the main claim.

There were, however, some other aspects of the ruling I was less happy about.

  1. There appears to be an assumption that if the independent claim is obvious, the patent should be rejected without substantially relating to the dependent claims. I reject this totally.
  2. the application was criticized as being confusing and difficult to understand, and without the affidavit of the expert witness, it was beyond the arbitrator to understand what the purpose of the invention was. I reviewed the application, and like many patents for image analysis, it is not easy subject matter. Nevertheless, I didn’t feel that the applicant was trying to obfusticate.
  3. The examples dealt with printed circuit boards but the applicant claimed image analysis in a much wider, context independent manner, without bringing support for so doing. The adjudicator criticized this.┬áNow, I accept that a photograph of copper paths laid down on a dielectric substrate provides one of the easiest types of images to approximate as a binary image and to unambiguously determine the edges of. Nevertheless, the approach taken is clearly application independent, and I can’t see any reason for the applicants to have discussed and brought examples of printed text or other images.

At the end of the day, the adjudicator construed the main claim and compared to the prior art cited to find the approach obvious. She also correctly noted that by assigning edges with a value representing dark, representing light or representing another value, the claim covered all imaging algorithms and was thus too broad. I think the decision could reasonably have been left at that.

We note that although the PCT received a positive international search report, it appears that the application was rejected in Australia and not allowed anywhere else.

Finally, as the two sides were fighting the opposition over a 6 year period, with a hearing, etc., it seems that the NIS 30,000 in legal costs awarded was less than generous.

Israel Patent Office ruling concerning Opposition to IL 142028 to Orbotech by Camtek, adjudicated 9 December 2012, by Ms Shoshani Caspi

3 Responses to Camtek Successfully Opposes Orbotech Patent for Image Analysis

  1. Benny Attar says:

    Yet another example of a case where a competent examiner would not have allowed the patent in the first place, thus saving 2 high-tech companies considerable expense in legal fees. Our own company is held back by such cases where we are required to pay hefty legal fees to pay for the errors, lapses, nay, I will call the child by his name, the sheer incompetence of USPTO examiners.

    • gk says:

      Yet another example of a case where a competent patent attorney would not have misdrafted the patent in the first place, thus saving 2 high-tech companies considerable expense in legal fees. Our whole society is held back by such cases where we are required to spend hefty sums of taxpayer’s money in examiners’ extra working hours to account for the errors, lapses, nay, I will call the child by his name, the sheer incompetence of patent agents and advocates.

      • Dear GK,

        I have no problem with readers expressing the opinion that a patent is poorly written, particularly if it is not one I wrote.

        I’d prefer you to identify yourself though. I think it is a little cowardly to insult someone (or indeed the profession, without identifying yourself.

        Firstly, your comment implies that oppositions are the result of poorly drafted applications. that is simply NOT the case. Generally firms oppose patent applications where they are in commercial competition. They first decide to oppose and then look for grounds for so doing. Orbotech and Camtek certainly are motivated by business considerations and not by the purity of the patent register. When they were looking to work together, they suspended their fights. A couple of years ago Orbotech had four applications allowed and, representing Camtek, Adv. Adi Levit filed an opposition for “varied and different reasons”.

        In general, I don’t think this is generally a poorly drafted application, (although I am aware that Ms Shoshani Caspi had her reservations). the main problem here was prior art that the Examiner missed and Camtek, who had a commercial interest did find.

        I don’t know who wrote the application. It was presumably someone at Fenster’s – a firm that no longer exists as it was bought out by Ehrlich who renamed Ehrlich and Fenster. At the time the application was written, the firm Fenster had a fairly good reputation and most of their attorneys were generally competent.

        In the past, I’ve written a number of patent applications for image analysis for Siemens CAD Vision. The patents have mostly issued. It would be nice to think that this is indicative of my greater skill than that of the attorney who drafted the current case. However, it is possible that the attorney had a very tight deadline. His failure to uncover the prior art may not be his fault. He may not have been asked to do a search. Also, most of the problem is with the invention not the drafting. Why should the attorney be held responsible for an invention not being considered inventive?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 255 other followers

%d bloggers like this: