`
`_______________
`
`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] 5;spatial 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(0] 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, M2 and a plurality of
`predicted magnetism Mx', My‘ and M2‘ for the second signal set.
`
`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 b