UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`Google LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Cywee Group Ltd.
`(record) Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`IPR2018-01257
`IPR2018-01258
`_____________
`
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`Patent No. 8,441,438
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF
`PROF. MAJID SARRAFZADEH
`
`GOOGLE 1018
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`Google LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Cywee Group Ltd.
`(record) Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`IPR2018-01257
`IPR2018-01258
`_____________
`
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`Patent No. 8,441,438
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF
`PROF. MAJID SARRAFZADEH
`
`GOOGLE 1018
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 3
`OVERVIEW ................................................................................................. 3
`UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELEVANT LAW ..................................... 4
`A. Written Description ..................................................................................... 4
`B. Anticipation ................................................................................................. 5
`C. Obviousness ................................................................................................. 6
`IV.
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 9
`V.
`RELEVANT TIMEFRAME FOR DETERMINING OBVIOUSNESS ...... 9
`VI.
`LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION SUPPORT FOR THE
`PROPOSED AMENDED CLAIMS ........................................................... 10
`A. U.S. Provisional Application 61/292,558 .................................................. 13
`B. U.S. Application No. 12/943,934 .............................................................. 17
`VII.
`OBVIOUSNESS OF THE PROPOSED AMENDED CLAIMS ............... 18
`A. Overview of Withanawasam ...................................................................... 19
`B. Overview of Bachmann ............................................................................. 22
`C. Overview of the Combination ................................................................... 29
`D. Rationale for the Combination................................................................... 30
`E.
`Reasonable Expectation of Success ........................................................... 38
`F. Analogous Art ............................................................................................ 39
`G.
`Specific Claim Limitations ........................................................................ 39
`VIII. OATH .......................................................................................................... 91
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I, Majid Sarrafzadeh, declare as follows.
`
`
`
`
`The terms of my engagement and my qualifications are as-stated in my
`
`prior declarations, which are Exhibits 1002 in the inter partes review proceedings
`
`with trial numbers IPR2018-01257 and IPR2018-01258.
`
`II. OVERVIEW
`I understand that CyWee has filed contingent motions to amend U.S.
`
`
`Pats. Nos. 8,552,978 (“the ’978 patent”) and 8,441,438 (“the ’438 patent”). The
`
`motions to amend seek to add claims 19 and 20 to the ’978 patent, and to add claims
`
`20 and 21 to the ’438 patent (“the Proposed Amended Claims”). I understand that
`
`CyWee seeks to add these claims to the respective patents, and if they are added, to
`
`cancel original claims 10 and 12 of the ’978 patent and claims 1 and 3 of the ’438
`
`patent. The text of the claims is reproduced below, in ¶¶26-25.
`
`
`
`I understand that CyWee contends that its Proposed Amended Claims
`
`are supported by the respective specifications of the ’978 and ’438 patents, and also
`
`by the provisional patent application, U.S. Provisional Patent Application
`
`61/292,558, (“the ’558 Provisional”).
`
`
`
`I am of the opinion that the Proposed Amended Claims are not
`
`supported by the ’558 Provisional. I understand that this would have as a
`
`consequence that the Proposed Amended Claims are not entitled to rely on the
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`January 6, 2010 filing date of the ’558 Provisional.
`
`
`
`I am also of the opinion that proposed claim 21 for the ’438 and
`
`proposed claim 20 for the ’978 patent (adding the limitation to a “smartphone”) are
`
`not supported by the specification of the ’438 patent, including as originally filed
`
`(U.S. Application Serial Number 12/943,934) in Ex. 1009. I understand that this
`
`should mean that proposed amended claim 21 for the ’438 patent would not be
`
`patentable, while proposed amended claim 20 for the ’978 patent would not enjoy
`
`the benefit of the filing date of that application, but only (possibly) of later
`
`applications.
`
`
`
`I am also of the opinion that proposed amended claims 19 and 20 for
`
`the ’978 patent and proposed amended claim 20 for the ’438 patent would be
`
`unpatentable as obvious over U.S. Patent Publication US 2010/0312468 A1
`
`(“Withanawasam”)(Ex. 1017) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 7,089,148 (“Bachmann”)(Ex.
`
`1003). Bachmann is the same reference I examined in my first declarations, Exhibits
`
`1002 in the inter partes review proceedings with trial numbers IPR2018-01257 and
`
`IPR2018-01258.
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELEVANT LAW
`I have the following understanding of the applicable law:
`
`
`A. Written Description
`I understand that in order to satisfy the “written description” requirement, a
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one
`
`skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the
`
`claimed invention. Possession of the claimed invention can be shown by describing
`
`the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as
`
`words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed
`
`invention. An adequate written description of a claimed genus requires more than a
`
`generic statement of an invention's boundaries. A sufficient description of a genus
`
`instead requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling
`
`within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the
`
`genus so that one of skill in the art can visualize or recognize the members of the
`
`genus.
`
`B. Anticipation
`I understand that a claim in an issued patent can be unpatentable if it is
`
`
`anticipated. In this case, “anticipation” means that there is a single prior art reference
`
`that discloses every element of the claim, arranged in the way required by the claim.
`
`
`
`I understand that an anticipating prior art reference must disclose each
`
`of the claim elements expressly or inherently. I understand that “inherent”
`
`disclosure means that the claim element, although not expressly described by the
`
`prior art reference, must necessarily be present based on the disclosure. I understand
`
`that a mere probability that the element is present is not sufficient to qualify as
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`“inherent disclosure”.
`
`C. Obviousness
`I understand that a claim in an issued patent can be unpatentable if it is
`
`
`obvious. Unlike anticipation, obviousness does not require that every element of the
`
`claim be in a single prior art reference. Instead, it is possible for claim elements to
`
`be described in different prior art references, so long as there is motivation or
`
`sufficient reasoning to combine the references.
`
`
`
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable for obviousness if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the alleged invention
`
`was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`
`pertains.
`
`
`
`I understand, therefore, that when evaluating obviousness, one must
`
`consider obviousness of the claim “as a whole”. This consideration must be from
`
`the perspective of the person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, and that such
`
`perspective must be considered as of the “time the invention was made”.
`
` The level of ordinary skill in the art is discussed in ¶22 below.
`
` The relevant time frame for obviousness, the “time the invention was
`
`made”, is discussed in ¶23, below.
`
`
`
`I understand that to combine prior art, the prior art must be “analogous”.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`I understand that two criteria are relevant in determining whether prior art is
`
`analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the
`
`problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s
`
`endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
`
`with which the inventor is involved.
`
`
`
`I understand that in considering the obviousness of a claim, one must
`
`consider four things. These include the scope and content of the prior art, the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time, the differences between the prior art
`
`and the claim, and any “secondary considerations”.
`
`
`
`I understand that “secondary considerations” include real-world
`
`evidence that can tend to make a conclusion of obviousness either more probable or
`
`less probable. For example, the commercial success of a product embodying a claim
`
`of the patent could provide evidence tending to show that the claimed invention is
`
`not obvious. In order to understand the strength of the evidence, one would want to
`
`know whether the commercial success is traceable to a certain aspect of the claim
`
`not disclosed in a single prior art reference (i.e., whether there is a causal “nexus” to
`
`the claim language). One would also want to know how the market reacted to
`
`disclosure of the invention, and whether commercial success might be traceable to
`
`things other than innovation, for example the market power of the seller, an
`
`advertising campaign, or the existence of a complex system having many features
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`beyond the claims that might be desirable to a consumer. One would also want to
`
`know how the product compared to similar products not embodying the claim. I
`
`understand that commercial success evidence should be reasonably commensurate
`
`with the scope of the claim, but that it is not necessary for a commercial product to
`
`embody the full scope of the claim.
`
` Other kinds of secondary considerations are possible. For example,
`
`evidence that the relevant field had a long-established, unsolved problem or need
`
`that was later provided by the claimed invention could be indicative of non-
`
`obviousness. Evidence that others had tried, but failed to make an aspect of the
`
`claim might indicate that the art lacked the requisite skill to do so. Evidence of
`
`copying of the patent owner’s products before the patent was published might also
`
`indicate that its approach to solving a particular problem was not obvious. Evidence
`
`that the art recognized the value of products embodying a claim, for example, by
`
`praising the named inventors’ work, might tend to show that the claim was non-
`
`obvious.
`
`
`
`I further understand that prior art references can be combined where
`
`there is an express or implied rationale to do so. Such a rationale might include an
`
`expected advantage to be obtained, or might be implied under the circumstances. For
`
`example, a claim is likely obvious if design needs or market pressures existing in the
`
`prior art make it natural for one or more known components to be combined, where
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`each component continues to function in the expected manner when combined (i.e.,
`
`when there are no unpredictable results). A claim is also likely unpatentable where
`
`it is the combination of a known base system with a known technique that can be
`
`applied to the base system without an unpredictable result. In these cases, the
`
`combination must be within the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`I understand that when considering obviousness, one must not refer to
`
`teachings in the specification of the patent itself. One can, however, refer to portions
`
`of the specification admitted to being prior art, including the “BACKGROUND”
`
`section. Furthermore, a lack of discussion in the patent specification concerning
`
`how to implement a disclosed technique can support an inference that the ability to
`
`implement the technique was within the ordinary skill in the prior art.
`
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`In my opinion, the relevant art was that of sensors and sensor data
`
`
`processing. In the relevant timeframe, a person of ordinary skill in the art had an
`
`undergraduate degree in computer science, electrical engineering, mechanical
`
`engineering, or other related technical field, and knowledge of sensor systems. I
`
`believe I would meet this definition, and would have met this definition in the
`
`relevant timeframe.
`
`V. RELEVANT TIMEFRAME FOR DETERMINING OBVIOUSNESS
`I understand that obviousness must be evaluated “at the time of the
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`invention”. From the cover page of the ’438 and ’978 patents, I can see that the ’558
`
`Provisional was filed in the United States on January 6, 2010. For the purpose of
`
`this declaration, I will analyze obviousness in the time frame immediately prior to
`
`this date, although my testimony is usually applicable to a longer period of time,
`
`even before January 6, 2010. My testimony is directed to this timeframe, even if I
`
`do not always use a past tense.
`
` As noted above, I do not believe that the Proposed Amended Claims
`
`would be entitled to the date of the ’558 Provisional, but only (possibly) to the date
`
`of later applications. However, because technology in this present field has been
`
`advancing, an invention that is obvious as of just before January 6, 2010 would also
`
`be obvious after that date.
`
`VI. LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION SUPPORT FOR THE
`PROPOSED AMENDED CLAIMS
` CyWee’s Proposed Amended Claims for the ’978 patent are reproduced
`
`below. I understand that proposed amended claims 19 and 20 have the text of issued
`
`claims 10 and 12 of the ’438 patent, but that CyWee has added language that is
`
`underlined, and deleted language that has been struck through:
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PROPOSED AMENDED CLAIM 19 FOR THE ’978 PATENT
`
`[19(a)] A method for compensating rotations of a 3D pointing device, which is
`handheld, comprising:
`
`[19(b)] generating an orientation output associated with an orientation of the 3D
`pointing device associated with three coordinate axes of a global reference frame
`associated with Earth:
`
`[19(c)] generating a first signal set comprising axial accelerations associated with
`movements and rotations of the 3D pointing device in [the]aspatial reference
`frame;
`
`[19(d)] generating a second signal set associated with Earth's magnetism;
`
`[19(e)] generating the orientation output based on the first signal set, the second
`signal set and the rotation output or based on the first signal set and the second
`signal set;
`
`[19(f)] generating a rotation output associated with a rotation of the 3D pointing
`device associated with three coordinate axes of [a] the spatial reference frame
`associated with the 3D pointing device;
`
`[19(g)] and using the orientation output and the rotation output to generate a
`transformed output associated with a fixed display reference frame associated with
`a display device built-in to and integrated with the 3D pointing device, wherein the
`orientation output and the rotation output is generated by a nine-axis motion sensor
`module;
`
`[19(h)] obtaining one or more resultant deviation including a plurality of deviation
`angles using a plurality of measured magnetisms Mx, My, Mz and a plurality of
`predicted magnetism Mx', My' and Mz'for the second signalset.
`
`PROPOSED AMENDED CLAIM 20 FOR THE ’978 PATENT
`
`[20] The method of claim 10, wherein the 3D pointing device is a smartphone, and
`wherein the orientation output is a rotation matrix, a quaternion, a rotation vector,
`or comprises three orientation angles.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` CyWee’s Proposed Amended Claims for the ’438 patent are reproduced
`
`below. I understand that proposed amended claims 20 and 21 have the text of issued
`
`claims 1 and 3 of the ’438 patent, but that CyWee has added language that is
`
`underlined, and deleted language that has been struck through:
`
`PROPOSED AMENDED CLAIM 20 FOR THE ’438 PATENT
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PROPOSED AMENDED CLAIM 21 FOR THE ’438 PATENT
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Provisional Application 61/292,558
` Exhibit 2012 is U.S. Provisional Application 61/292558 (hereinafter
`
`“the ’558 Provisional”).
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paragraph [0023] of the ’558 Provisional mentions three specific types
`
`of devices—“a remote controller, a joystick or a cellular phone”. (Ex. 2012,
`
`¶[0023]). Each of these three devices may or may not be handheld depending on the
`
`device or its context. For example, a remote controller or a joystick can be built into
`
`a keyboard, tabletop, or laptop. (The figure below depicts a joystick that is built into
`
`a keyboard). Moreover, a cellular phone can be hardwired into a speaker system and
`
`controlled using a keypad integrated in a tabletop console. In each of the foregoing
`
`scenarios, the device is not handheld. Thus, in my opinion, the disclosure of three
`
`specific devices, each of which may or may not be handheld depending on the
`
`context, does not demonstrate that the inventors had possession of an entire genus
`
`of all “handheld” 3D pointing devices.
`
`Veilux SVK-64 3-Axis Keyboard with Joystick
`(http://www.veilux.net/svk-64.html)
`
`
`
` As discussed above, paragraph [0023] of the ‘558 Provisional mentions
`
`“a cellular phone.” (Ex. 2012, ¶[0023]). Paragraph [0023] says nothing about this
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`cellular phone having a “display” of any kind, including whether or not such a
`
`display even exists, where it is located, what size it is, or what images are displayed
`
`on it. Indeed, even if a cellular phone does have a display, the display could be too
`
`small (or otherwise lack the technical capability) to display the output of the claimed
`
`invention. For example, a cellular phone might have a display that is capable of
`
`displaying only a single line of numbers or letters (as shown below).
`
`Motorola MicroTAC 9800X
`(https://www.pcmag.com/feature/360314/the-golden-age-of-motorola-cell-
`phones/4)
` As previously mentioned, paragraph [0023] of the ’553 provisional
`
`
`
`discloses “a cellular phone.” (Ex. 2012, ¶[0023]). This paragraph does not say that
`
`the cellular phone is a smartphone. A smartphone is a specific type of cellular phone
`
`that has functionality and features not disclosed in paragraph [0023]. The bare
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`disclosure of a “cellular phone” in this paragraph does not demonstrate, from the
`
`perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, that the inventors had possession
`
`of a smartphone.
`
` Figure 1 of the ’558 Provisional is reproduced below. Figure 1 does
`
`not contain sufficient information for a person of ordinary skill to know whether the
`
`device depicted is or is not
`
`handheld. Figure 1 does not
`
`show a human hand holding
`
`the device, or show how the
`
`device is moved in three
`
`dimensions—by hand or
`
`otherwise. No size scale is
`
`provided in Figure 1 to know whether the device is of a size that can be physically
`
`lifted or is ergonomically designed to be lifted comfortably by a user's hand. The
`
`size of the device may be too big or too small to be used comfortably and without
`
`encumbrance or undue strain. The device might be physically attached to the surface
`
`on which it is sitting, which would prevent the device from being lifted.
`
`Alternatively, even if the device is not physically attached to the surface, the device
`
`may be intended to be used while it rests on the surface. Figure 1 of the ’553
`
`provisional simply provides too little information to know whether the device is or
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`is not handheld.
`
` Figure 1 of the ‘558 Provisional (reproduced above) shows a “Screen”
`
`that is separate from the 3D pointing device. Given that this “Screen” is separate
`
`from the 3D pointing device, the “Screen” is clearly not built-in to and integrated
`
`with the device.
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Application No. 12/943,934
` Exhibit 1009 filed in IPR2018-01258 is U.S. Application No.
`
`12/943,934 (hereinafter “the ’934 application”).
`
` Paragraph [0037] of the ’934 application states that the 3D pointing
`
`device may include “a built-in display” which may further be “integrated on the
`
`housing.” This statement does not mention a smartphone nor demonstrate that the
`
`inventors had possession of a smartphone. Paragraph [0037] does not even mention
`
`a telephone. Many types of devices have “a built-in display” that is “integrated on
`
`the housing” (e.g., desktop computers, laptop computers, tablets, consoles,
`
`televisions, monitors, digital watches). Most of these devices are not telephones,
`
`much less smartphones.
`
` Figure 6 of the ’934 application is reproduced below. According to
`
`paragraph [0037] of the ’934 application, Figure 6 is an exploded diagram showing
`
`a 3D pointing device 600, which has a bottom cover 620, a PCB 640, a battery pack
`
`622, a rotation sensor 642, an accelerometer 644, a data transmitting unit 646, a
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`computing processor 648, a display 682, and a top cover 610. Nothing in Figure 6
`
`or paragraph [0037] indicates that
`
`device 600 is a cellular phone, as
`
`opposed to some other kind of
`
`device. For example, there are is no
`
`speaker or microphone depicted in
`
`Figure 6 that would enable voice
`
`communication,
`
`nor
`
`other
`
`electronic components necessary
`
`for cellular telephony. In short,
`
`Figure 6 simply shows solid boxes
`
`with no apparent functionality beyond what is set forth in paragraph [0037].
`
`VII. OBVIOUSNESS OF THE PROPOSED AMENDED CLAIMS
`I am further of the opinion that proposed amended claims 19 and 20 of
`
`
`the ’978 patent and proposed amended claim 20 of the ’438 patent would have been
`
`obvious over the combination of U.S. Patent Publication US 2010/0312468 A1
`
`(“Withanawasam”)(Ex. 1017) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 7,089,148 (“Bachmann”)(Ex.
`
`1003). Proposed amended claim 21 of the ’438 patent would have been obvious
`
`over Withanawasam, Bachmann and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art.
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I understand that Withanawasam is the publication of a U.S. Patent
`
`Application, and was originally filed on June 3, 2009 (shown at the bottom of the
`
`left column on the cover page of the Withanawasam publication).
`
` Bachmann is the same reference I analyzed in my prior declarations.
`
`A. Overview of Withanawasam
` Withanawasam concerns portable navigation devices,
`
`including
`
`smartphones that include a navigation or orientation application. Withanawasam
`
`states:
`
`“Mobile devices such as personal navigation devices (PND) and
`smart phones typically have some form of navigation and map
`orientation application. These mobile devices often utilize a
`magnetic compass that have to work even when the device is not
`held level, which requires a micro-electro-mechanical systems
`(MEMS) accelerometer or a gyroscope to be integrated with the
`magnetic sensors.”
`
`(Ex. 1017, ¶0001)(Emphasis added). As noted in this passage, it was desirable to
`
`have a compass indication that would work even when the device is held level. A
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant timeframe would understand this to
`
`mean that the device should be able to calculate the full three-dimensional
`
`orientation of itself.
`
` Withanawasam further teaches a device 100 (which can be a
`
`smartphone), as shown in Fig. 1, below:
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Regarding Fig. 1, Withanawasam states:
`
`“FIG. 1 is one embodiment of a personal navigation device
`(PND) 100 comprising an integrated MEMS and magnetic
`sensor 130. The PND 100 can be a mobile (hand-held)
`navigation device, a smart phone, or any similar mobile device
`configured to aid a user in navigation and applications requiring
`orientation information. For example, a user can be a
`professional first responder or a member of the public. The
`PND 100 includes a processor 110 configured to run a
`navigation and orientation routine module 120. A display 140
`presents navigation information to the user, and can comprise a
`liquid crystal display (LCD), a digital display, or the like.
`Navigation information that can be displayed includes
`positional
`information, orientation information, maps,
`compass directions, a predetermined path, or any other
`information useful in navigation.”
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1017, ¶0011)(Emphasis added).
`
` Withanawasam also explains “orientation information”, and that it can
`
`be obtained from integrated sensors:
`
`“Orientation information is information relating to the
`present orientation of the PND 100, and can be determined
`using the integrated MEMS and magnetic sensor 130 (also
`referred to herein as the integrated MEMS sensor). The
`integrated MEMS and magnetic sensor 130 provides
`information to the processor 110 relating to acceleration,
`roll, and directional data (that is, relating to a compass
`direction). The PND 100 can use three axes of sensing for
`acceleration and gyroscope data in one single integrated
`MEMS sensor 130. In alternative embodiments, the PND 100
`comprises a plurality of integrated MEMS sensors 130, each for
`a different axis of acceleration or gyroscope data. The
`components of the PND 100 are communicatively coupled to
`one another as needed using suitable interfaces and
`interconnects.”
`
`(Ex. 1017, ¶0012)(Emphasis added).
`
` An example of Withanawasam’s arrangement is found in claims 15-18
`
`of Withanawasam, which are listed here:
`
`“15. A navigation device, comprising: an integrated sensor device,
`comprising: a first substrate including a surface portion; a second
`substrate coupled to the surface portion of the first substrate in a
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`stacked configuration, wherein a cavity is defined between the first
`substrate and the second substrate; one or more micro-electro-
`mechanical systems (MEMS) sensors located at least partially in
`the first substrate, wherein the one or more MEMS sensors
`communicates with the cavity; and one or more additional sensors;
`a processor operatively coupled to the integrated sensor device; and
`a navigation module run by the processor, wherein the navigation
`module is configured to determine orientation information based on
`data from the integrated sensor device.
`
`16. The navigation device of claim 15, further comprising a display
`configured to present the positional information to a user.
`
`17. The navigation device of claim 15, wherein the navigation
`device comprises a personal navigation device (PND) or a smart
`phone.
`
`18. The navigation device of claim 15, wherein the one or more
`MEMS sensors comprise an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a flow
`sensor, a gas detector, or combinations thereof.
`
`19. The navigation device of claim 15, wherein the one or more
`additional sensors comprise a magnetic sensor, a pressure sensor, or
`combinations thereof.”
`
`B. Overview of Bachmann
` Bachmann discloses determining the orientation of a rigid body, such
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`as a hand-held device, with magnetometers, accelerometers, and angular rate
`
`detectors. (Ex. 1004, Abstract, 7:34-40, 13:43-48). The combination of
`
`magnetometers, accelerometers, and angular rate detectors is called a MARG sensor:
`
`“In another sensor embodiment, the magnetometers and
`accelerometers are supplemented with angular rate detectors
`configured to detect the angular velocity of the sensor
`(comprising so-called Magnetic, Angular Rate, Gravity
`(MARG) sensors). Each MARG sensor contains angular rate
`detectors, accelerometers, and magnetometers.”
`
`(Ex. 1004, 7:34-40)(Emphasis added).
`
` At least one of Bachmann’s MARG sensors is a nine-axis sensor
`
`because it includes three three-axis sensors: “a three-axis accelerometer (h1, h2, h3)
`
`31, a three-axis magnetometer (b1, b2, b3) 32, and a three-axis angular rate sensor.”
`
`(Ex. 1004, 10:10-14). Miniaturized nine-axis MARG sensors were commercially
`
`available as of at least 2001 (Bachmann’s priority date)—about ten years before the
`
`earliest possible filing dates of the ’978 and ’438 patents. (Ex. 1004, 14:37-59).
`
` Bachmann uses a filter to generate a representation of the object’s
`
`orientation. This representation is a quaternion generated from the outputs of the
`
`accelerometer, magnetometer, and angular rate sensor in the MARG sensor.
`
`Bachmann states:
`
`“[T]he filter inputs are from a three-axis accelerometer (h1 h2
`h3) 31, a three-axis magnetometer (b1 b2 b3) 32, and a three-
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`axis angular rate sensor (p, q, r) 33. Its output is a quaternion
`representation of the orientation of the tracked object q̂ 39.”
`
`(Ex. 1004, 10:10-14)(Emphasis added).
`
`
`
`In other words, Bachmann uses the nine outputs from a three-axis
`
`accelerometer, three-axis magnetometer, and three-axis angular rate sensor to
`
`calculate the orientation of a hand-held device or other object.
`
` Bachmann’s FIG. 3 shows the filtering process used to calculate the
`
`device’s orientation from the nine sensor inputs. As I explain in the following
`
`sections, Bachmann’s filtering process corresponds to the calculations of the ’978
`
`and ’438 patents. The output of this filtering process is an estimated orientation
`
`quaternion, q̂ . (Ex. 1004, 7:59-61, 10:10-14). This output is outlined in a red-dashed
`
`box in the annotated version of Bachmann’s FIG. 3 reproduced immediately below:
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The inputs to Bachmann’s filtering process are the outputs from the
`
`accelerometers 31, magnetometers 32, and angular-rate sensors 33 on the left side
`
`of FIG. 3. (Ex. 1004, 10:10-14). These sensors are shown boxed in red below:
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The filtering process in Bachmann’s FIG. 3 involves calculating a rate
`
`quaternion q̇ based on angular rate information 37 from the angular rate sensor 33
`
`and correcting it using a correction factor q̇ ε, which is based on signals from the
`
`accelerometer 31 and magnetometers 32. (Ex. 1004, 10:15-17, 10:38-42). The
`
`angular rate information 37 represents the angular rotation rates about three axes in
`
`the sensor coordinate frame (i.e., a reference frame centered on the hand-held
`
`device). (Ex. 1004, 10:10-30). It is used to calculate the orientation quaternion q̂ as
`
`shown by the boxes along the red line in the following annotated version of FIG. 3:
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` An ideal angular rate sensor 33 would produce noiseless, unbiased
`
`angular rate information 37 that could be used to find a perfectly precise rate
`
`quaternion. (Ex. 1004, 10:19-30). In real life, however, the angular rate information
`
`37 from an angular rate sensor 33 may be imprecise and can drift over time. (Ex.
`
`1004, 10:36-38). Fortunately, data from the accelerometers 31 and magnetometers
`
`32 can be used to reduce this imprecision. (Ex. 1004, 10:38-45).
`
` Boxes 34, 35, 35a, 36, 38, and 41 in Bachmann’s FIG. 3 show how the
`
`accelerometer and magnetometer measurements are used to generate a correction
`
`factor, q̇ ε, that is applied to the rate quaternion. (Ex. 1004, 9:59-10:14). In box 34,
`
`the accelerometer and magnetometer measurements are combined to form a six-
`
`valued measurement vector y0 = [h1 h2 h3 b1 b2 b3]T, where h1, h2, and h3 represent
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`acceleration along the accelerometer’s X, Y, and Z axes, respectively, and b1, b2, and
`
`b3 represent magnetism measurements along the magnetometer’s X, Y, and Z axes,
`
`respectively. (Ex. 1004, 8:37-8:50). In boxes 35 and 35a, a predicted six-valued
`
`measurement vector y̅ (q̂ ) is translated from a reference frame fixed with respect to
`
`the Earth to the sensors’ reference frame. (Ex. 1004, 8:61-9:8). This predicted
`
`measurement vector is based on the angular rate information 37 from the angular
`
`rate sensor 33. (Ex. 1004, FIG. 3). Comparing the predicted measurement vector
`
`y̅ (q̂ ) to the actual measurement vector y0 yields a six-valued error vector ε̅(q̂ ),
`
`numbered 36 in FIG. 3. (Ex. 1004, 9:9-17).
`
` The six-valued error vector ε̅(q̂ ) represents the difference between the
`
`actual and predicted accelerometer and magnetometer measurements. (Ex. 1004,
`
`9:21-48). It is based on the orientation quaternion q̂ generated from the angular rate
`
`sensor measurements as shown by the line in FIG. 3 connecting the orientation
`
`quaternion and box 35. (Ex. 1004, FIG. 3). The error vector ε̅(q̂ ) is corrected using
`
`a Gauss-Newton iteration 38 to yield a full correction Δqfull 40. (Ex. 1004, 10:42-
`
`55). The full correction is scaled by a filter gain value k in box 41 to yield a
`
`correction factor q̇ ε that minimizes the error vector ε̅(q̂ )—and hence the difference
`
`between the actual and predicted measurement vectors—when fed back thro
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
