IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................................... iii
`I.
`CYWEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO A PRIORITY DATE EARLIER
`THAN JULY 6, 2011 ...................................................................................... 1
`AT A MINIMUM, THE PROPOSED AMENDED CLAIMS
`ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE
`PROVISIONAL APPLICATION. .................................................................. 3
`A.
`Claim 19 ................................................................................................ 3
`1.
`“handheld” 3D pointing device [19(a)] ...................................... 3
`2.
`a display device built-in to and integrated with the 3D pointing
`device [19(g)] .............................................................................. 5
`Dependent Claim 20 .............................................................................. 6
`B.
`III. THE PROPOSED AMENDED CLAMS WOULD BE OBVIOUS ............... 6
`A. Overview of the Combination ............................................................... 7
`B.
`Rationale and Motivation Supporting the Combination ....................... 7
`C.
`Reasonable Expectation of Success .................................................... 10
`D. Analogous Art ..................................................................................... 10
`E.
`Claim Mapping .................................................................................... 11
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 25
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`
`Description
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978 (“the ’978 patent”).
`Declaration of Professor Majid Sarrafzadeh.
`C.V. of Professor Majid Sarrafzadeh.
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,089,148 (“Bachman”).
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2004/0095317 (“Zhang”).
`U.S. Pat. 7,158,118 (“Liberty”).
`Return of Service for Cywee Group Ltd. v. Google, Inc., Case No.
`1-18-cv-00571, (D. Del.).
`Return of Service for Cywee Group Ltd. v. Huawei Technologies
`Co., Inc. et al., Case No. 2-17-cv-00495, (E.D. Tex.).
`File History of U.S. Pat. App. 13/176,771
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement in Cywee
`Group Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 2-17-
`cv-00140, (E.D. Tex.).
`Ex. D to Complaint of April 16, 2018 in Cywee Group Ltd. v.
`Google, Inc., Case No. 1-18-cv-00571 (D. Del.).
`Email of August 3, 2018 from Michael Shore to Luann Simmons.
`CyWee’s First Requests for Production of Documents in Cywee
`Group Ltd. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 1-18-cv-00571, (D. Del.).
`CyWee’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder to Inter
`Partes Review IPR2018-01258 of February 8, 2019.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`
`1024
`1025
`
`CyWee’s Opp. to Defendants’ Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes
`Review Proceedings in CyWee Group, Ltd. v. Samsung Elec. Co.,
`Ltd., Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP (E.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2019).
`Complaint of April 16, 2018 in Cywee Group Ltd. v. Google, Inc.,
`Case No. 1-18-cv-00571 (D. Del.).
`U.S. Pat. Pub. No. US 2010/0312468 Al (“Withanawasam”).
`Rebuttal Declaration of Professor Majid Sarrafzadeh
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Joseph LaViola in IPR2018-01257,
`-01258 (May 22, 2019)(“LaViola Tr.”).
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,356,361 (“Hawkins”).
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,630,741 (“Siddiqui”).
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,738,103 (“Puente Baliarda”)
`USPTO PATFT database search
`results
`“ref/7089148”).
`U.S. Pat. Pub. 2018/0153587 A1 (“van der Walt”).
`Deposition Transcript of Joseph LaViola in CyWee Group Ltd., v.
`Huawei Device Co. Ltd., CASE NO. 2017-cv-00495-WCB-RSP
`(E.D. Tex. September 25, 2018).
`
`(search string
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`
`Google respectfully submits this opposition to CyWee’s motion to amend
`
`(“Mot.”). The motion should be denied-in-full for the following reasons.
`
`I.
`
`CYWEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO A PRIORITY DATE EARLIER
`THAN JULY 6, 2011
`To the extent CyWee seeks a priority date for its proposed amended claims
`
`earlier than the actual filing date of the ’771 application, CyWee has not met its
`
`burden. A patent owner seeking the benefit of an earlier priority date in an IPR bears
`
`an initial burden of production to demonstrate entitlement to priority. See Dynamic
`
`Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(the initial burden of production for showing an earlier priority date rests with the
`
`patent owner, not the petitioner). At a minimum, the patent owner’s initial burden
`
`of production under § 119(e)/120 requires the patent owner to identify support in
`
`each application—including each intermediate application in the chain—stretching
`
`back to the first application whose priority date is sought. The need to identify how
`
`each (non-provisional)
`
`intermediate application
`
`independently satisfies
`
`the
`
`requirements of § 120 is born out of the statutory language requiring each earlier
`
`application to be “similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first
`
`application.” 35 U.S.C. § 120; Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elecs. of
`
`Am., Inc., 609 F.3d 1345, 1350-52 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(interpreting “similarly entitled”
`
`to require each intermediate application to independently satisfy all § 120
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`requirements).
`
`Here, CyWee has not met its burden of production for priority purposes under
`
`§ 119(e)/120. CyWee cites and discusses only the very first application (the ’558
`
`provisional) and the very last application (the ’771 application) in the priority chain
`
`that resulted in the ’978 patent. (Mot. 5-8). CyWee fails to even acknowledge that
`
`two intermediate applications are in the priority chain, namely, U.S. Appl. No.
`
`12/943,934 (filed Nov. 11, 2010) and U.S. Appl. No. 13/072794 (filed Mar. 28,
`
`2011). These intermediate applications—one of which is a CIP—are necessary for
`
`CyWee to satisfy the co-pendency requirement of § 119(e)/120, because the ’558
`
`provisional had already been abandoned as of its 1-year anniversary (on Jan. 6, 2011)
`
`by the time the ’771 application was filed (on July 6, 2011).
`
`The two intermediate applications (the ’934 and ’794 applications) have not
`
`been entered into evidence in this IPR2018-01257 proceeding. This absence of
`
`evidence, coupled with the absence of argument in CyWee’s motion, constitutes a
`
`failure to satisfy the burden of production under § 119(e)/120, including the
`
`requirement that each intermediate application must have co-pendency, a common
`
`inventor, a specific reference to earlier applications, and adequate support under
`
`§ 112(a) for each claim. See Encyclopaedia Britannica, 609 F.3d at 1350-52. As
`
`but one example, the intermediate ’934 application lacks support for “a smartphone”
`
`added in claim 20. (Ex. 1019, ¶34).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`
`As a result, CyWee’s failure to meet its burden of production under Dynamic
`
`Drinkware means that no proposed new claim is entitled to a prior date earlier than
`
`the actual filing date of the ’771 application (i.e., July 6, 2011).
`
`II. AT A MINIMUM, THE PROPOSED AMENDED CLAIMS ARE NOT
`ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PROVISIONAL
`APPLICATION.
`Assuming arguendo that CyWee did meet its burden of production (contrary
`
`to supra §I), the proposed amended claims are not entitled to the benefit of the
`
`provisional application. As a result, the relevant date for purposes of obviousness
`
`(infra §III), is no earlier than the filing date of the ’934 application (i.e., November
`
`11, 2010).
`
`A. Claim 19
`Claim 19 is not entitled to the benefit of the provisional application because
`
`the provisional does not support either (a) the genus of “handheld” 3D pointing
`
`devices (infra §II.1) or (b) “a display device built-in to and integrated with the 3D
`
`pointing device” (infra §II.2).
`
`1. “handheld” 3D pointing device [19(a)]
`The word “handheld” never appears in the provisional application. See
`
`generally Ex. 2012 (provisional). The word was added in the non-provisional ’934
`
`application. Ignoring this omission, CyWee points to the limited disclosure in the
`
`provisional of “a remote controller, a joystick or a cellular phone,” and then reasons
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`that these three devices are handheld. (Mot. 6)(citing Ex. 2012, ¶[0023]). This
`
`reasoning is faulty. Each of the three devices mentioned in paragraph [0023] may or
`
`may not be handheld depending on the device or its context. (Ex. 1018, ¶28). For
`
`example, a remote controller or a joystick can be built into a keyboard, tabletop, or
`
`laptop. A cellular phone can be hardwired into a speaker system and controlled
`
`using a keypad integrated in a tabletop console. In each of these scenarios, the device
`
`is not handheld. (Ex. 1018, LaViola Tr., 62:7:16) (testifying that a “laptop” is not
`
`“handheld” because it is “designed to be put on your lap or on a table”). The
`
`provisional application is silent as to whether or not the three devices are handheld.
`
`It is not enough, for purposes of written description, that it would have been obvious
`
`to make these devices handheld. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d
`
`1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“[A] description that merely renders the
`
`invention obvious does not satisfy the [written description] requirement.”).
`
`CyWee argues that Fig. 1 of the provisional “depicts such a handheld
`
`embodiment of the device.” (Mot. 6). This figure, however, 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. (Ex. 1018, ¶31). The size of the device may be too
`
`big—or too small—to be used comfortably and without encumbrance or undue
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`strain. (Ex. 1019, LaViola Tr., 60:21-61:23)(testifying that the “essential
`
`characteristic” of a “handheld” device is “something that was ergonomically
`
`designed so that one could hold it in their hand or something small enough that could
`
`be held in the hand”). Figure 1 also provides insufficient information to know
`
`whether the device is attached to the surface on which it is sitting or is otherwise
`
`intended to be used while it rests on a tabletop—scenarios that Dr. LaViola admits
`
`would render a device not “handheld”. (Ex. 1019, LaViola Tr., 62:7:16).
`
`2. a display device built-in to and integrated with the 3D pointing
`device [19(g)]
`There is also no support in the provisional application for element 20(j), which
`
`adds, among other things, “a display device built-in to and integrated with the 3D
`
`pointing device and associated with a display reference frame.”
`
`The device in Fig. 1, discussed above, shows a “Screen”—separate from the
`
`3D pointing device—on which a cursor or a game is displayed. (Ex. 2012, Fig. 1
`
`id.at ¶[0024]). Because the display screen is separate from the 3D pointing device,
`
`the display is clearly not “built-in to and integrated with” the device. (Ex. 1018,
`
`¶31). There is no other relevant disclosure. CyWee thus hangs its entire argument
`
`on the mention of “a cellular phone” in paragraph [0023], from which CyWee
`
`assumes that the cellular phone has a built-in display integrated therein. (Mot. 7).
`
`The provisional, however, says nothing about whether this cellular phone has a
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`display. Nor does it suggest that the display is large enough to display “a movement
`
`pattern in the display reference frame,” as required by element [20(j)], rather than
`
`displaying merely a single line of numbers or letters (as many cellular phones do).
`
`(Ex. 1018, ¶29).
`
`B. Dependent Claim 20
`Dependent claim 20 is additionally not entitled to the benefit of the provisional
`
`because a “smartphone” is not supported by the provisional. CyWee’s proffered
`
`support for the “smartphone” of claim 21 is the description of “a cellular phone.”
`
`(Mot. 7)(citing Ex. 2012, ¶[0023]). But a smartphone is a specific type of cellular
`
`phone. CyWee points to no disclosure in the provisional of the specific functionality
`
`and features necessary to turn a generic “cellular phone” into the claimed species
`
`that is a “smartphone.” (Ex. 1018, ¶30). The bare disclosure of a genus is
`
`insufficient to demonstrate possession of an undisclosed species. See Ariad, 598
`
`F.3d at 1352.
`
`III. THE PROPOSED AMENDED CLAMS WOULD BE OBVIOUS
`The proposed amended claims are also obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) in
`
`view of U.S. Pat. Pub. US 2010/0312468 A1 (“Withanawasam”)(Ex. 1017) in view
`
`of U.S. Pat. No. 7,089,148 (“Bachmann”)(Ex. 1004). Withanawasam published on
`
`December 9, 2010, from an application filed June 3, 2009, and is thus prior art
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1). Bachmann, also cited in the petition, is a
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`issued on August 8, 2006, and is thus prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`A. Overview of the Combination
`Withanawasam teaches a device, such as a smartphone, that uses sensors to
`
`obtain data that are processed to produce an orientation, where the orientation data
`
`can be displayed on a built-in display in a variety of ways. (Ex. 1018, ¶¶55).
`
`Withanawasam does not restrict the choice of sensors, and does not expressly teach
`
`a method of integrating sensor data (“sensor fusion”) to calculate a device
`
`orientation. (Ex. 1018, ¶¶55). Bachmann, however, teaches a method for accurately
`
`calculating a device orientation from three-axis magnetic, three-axis gyroscopic and
`
`three-axis acceleration sensors. (Ex. 1018, ¶¶55). It would have been obvious to
`
`use Bachmann’s choice of sensors and Bachmann’s method of calculating
`
`orientation by fusing magnetic, gyroscopic and acceleration sensor outputs to
`
`implement Withanawasam’s device. (Ex. 1018, ¶¶55).
`
`B. Rationale and Motivation Supporting the Combination
`There was ample motivation to combine Withanawasam with Bachmann. a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the relevant timeframe would have understood from
`
`Withanawasam that smartphones with multiple sensors (including magnetic,
`
`gyroscopic and acceleration sensors) existed, and that these sensors were typically
`
`used to calculate a device orientation. (Ex. 1017, ¶0001)(Ex. 1018, ¶56). A person
`
`of ordinary skill would also have understood that the sensors themselves do not
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`produce an orientation value as an output, but rather the sensors’ output data must
`
`be processed further, by Withanawasam’s processor 110, to calculate a device
`
`orientation. (Ex. 1017, ¶¶0011-0012)(Ex. 1018, ¶56). Withanawasam, however,
`
`leaves open the exact configuration of sensors. (Ex. 1017, ¶¶0009-0013, 0015,
`
`0017-0018, 0008, 00024)(Ex. 1018, ¶¶57-60). Withanawasam also does not
`
`expressly teach a method for mathematically fusing sensor data. Thus, a person of
`
`ordinary skill, seeking to implement the smartphones described by Withanawasam,
`
`would have had a reason to look to relevant art to pick a known sensor configuration
`
`and method for mathematically fusing sensor data. (Ex. 1018, ¶¶56, 61).
`
`A person of skill would have understood that using Bachmann’s nine-axis
`
`sensor in Withanawasam’s smartphone would have provided several advantages.
`
`(Ex. 1018, ¶61). First, the teachings of Bachmann would have allowed a person of
`
`skill to choose sensors and fuse the sensor data accurately. (Ex. 1018, ¶61). Second,
`
`Bachmann’s nine-axis sensor would have allowed Withanawasam’s smartphone to
`
`obtain the orientation of the device in all rotational degrees of freedom (roll, pitch
`
`and yaw). (Ex. 1018, ¶61). Third, a person of skill would have understood that
`
`Bachmann’s nine-axis sensor and sensor fusion method would have allowed for
`
`greater precision through overdetermination (the information beyond that necessary
`
`to determine orientation), which enables better error control. (Ex. 1018, ¶61).
`
`Bachmann’s nine-axis sensors were well-known in the art in the relevant
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`timeframe. (Ex. 1004, 14:37-57)(Ex. 1018, ¶62). Bachmann further states that its
`
`sensors and filter processing can be used
`
`in hand-held devices (like
`
`Withanawasam’s. (Ex. 1004, 13:42-48)(Ex. 1018, ¶63). A person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have been motivated and able to use nine-axis MARG sensors like
`
`those in Bachmann to implement Withanawasam’s smartphone, and could have used
`
`as MARG sensors implemented as Withanawasam’s integrated sensor devices to do
`
`so. (Ex. 1018, ¶64). It would also have been obvious to use Bachmann’s specific
`
`filter (sensor fusion) method, which in Bachman is a quaternion-based filter
`
`processing method that is computationally more efficient than processing that uses
`
`spatial (e.g., Euler) angle calculations. (Ex. 1004, 5:33-7:31)(Ex. 1018, ¶65).
`
`Bachmann’s quaternion-based techniques also avoid singularities that might
`
`otherwise occur at certain sensor orientations. (Ex. 1004, 5:33-7:31)(Ex. 1018, ¶65).
`
`The combination of Withanawasam and Bachmann presented here is nothing
`
`more than the combination of known elements to achieve an expected improvement.
`
`Withanawasam’s smartphone has a housing, sensors, and a processor that estimates
`
`the device’s orientation used the sensor outputs. (Ex. 1018, ¶66). Bachmann’s
`
`device does the same thing, but with different sensors and specific processing.
`
`Bachmann’s sensors were available on the commercial market as of 2001, and
`
`Bachmann’s calculations were known at least as early as 2004. (Ex. 1018, ¶66).
`
`Bachmann’s functional blocks (sensors and calculations) could have been
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`substituted for the similar functional blocks in Withanawasam using only ordinary
`
`skill as discussed below. (Ex. 1018, ¶66). The results would have been the expected
`
`improvement described in Bachmann. (Ex. 1018, ¶66).
`
`Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use
`
`Bachmann’s quaternion-based filter processing with a nine-axis MARG sensor
`
`because (1) that was its intended use and (2) it performed better than the alternatives.
`
`C. Reasonable Expectation of Success
`A person of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected success in using
`
`Bachmann’s quaternion-based filter processing with a nine-axis sensor in a
`
`smartphone like Withanawasam’s. (Ex. 1018, ¶68). As explained by Dr.
`
`Sarrafzadeh, smartphones with requisite sensors were well-known in the relevant
`
`timeframe, and a person of ordinary skill could have implemented Bachmann’s
`
`sensors and filter method using ordinary skill. (Ex. 1018, ¶68). CyWee’s expert, Dr.
`
`LaViola, has also admitted that many of the requisite skills in the art existed in the
`
`relevant timeframe. (Ex. 1019, LaViola Tr., 91:9-93:15, 84:21-85:9, 88:8-89:25).
`
`D. Analogous Art
`Both Withanawasam and Bachmann are analogous art. Both references relate
`
`to the field of the ’438 and ’978 patents, namely that of generating device
`
`orientations based on sensor outputs. (Ex. 1017, ¶0001, 0011-0012)(Ex. 1004, 1:18-
`
`20, 13:42-48)(Ex. 1018, ¶69). Both the Withanawasam and Bachmann references
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`further would have been reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
`
`the inventor is involved. (Ex. 1018, ¶69). Withanawasam teaches the use of sensors
`
`within devices to determine orientation (Ex. 1017, ¶0011), while Bachmann teaches
`
`a specific selection of sensors and method for fusing sensor data to produce an
`
`orientation of a tracked device. (Ex. 1004, generally)(Ex. 1018, ¶69). These
`
`teachings are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventors
`
`of the ’438 and ’978 patents were involved. (Ex. 1018, ¶69).
`
`E. Claim Mapping
`Proposed Amended Claim 19
`“[19(a)] A method for compensating rotations of a 3D pointing
`device, which is handheld, comprising:”
`
`Withanawasam teaches a three-dimensional (3D) pointing device, in the
`
`form of a portable navigation device that can be a smartphone running certain
`
`software. 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.”
`
`(Ex. 1017, ¶0011)(Emphasis added)(Ex. 1018, ¶71).
`
`Withanawasam’s smartphone, which functions as a personal navigation
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`device, is a (3D) pointing device according to CyWee’s proposed construction of
`
`that term,1 because it is “a handheld device that detects the motion of said device in
`
`three-dimensions and is capable of translating the detected motions to control an
`
`output on a display.” (Patent Owner Response, p. 19). First, as stated in the quote
`
`above, Withanawasam’s device is handheld. (Ex. 1017, ¶0011, claim 17)(Ex. 1018,
`
`¶¶72). Second, Withanawasam’s device “detects the motion of said device in three-
`
`dimensions and is capable of translating the detected motions to control an output
`
`on a display”. Withanawasam first describes detecting the motion of said device in
`
`three-dimensions. Withanawasam states:
`
`“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.”
`
`(Ex. 1017, ¶0012, see also claim 15)(Ex. 1018, ¶¶73). Withanawasam also notes
`
`
`1 Google disputes CyWee’s proposed construction.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`that smart phones typically have a “magnetic compass that have to work even when
`
`the device is not held level, which requires a micro-electromechanical systems
`
`(MEMS) accelerometer or a gyroscope to be integrated with the magnetic sensors.”
`
`(Ex. 1017, ¶0001)(Emphasis added)(Ex. 1018, ¶73).
`
`Third, the Withanawasam device is capable of translating the detected
`
`motions to control an output on a display. Specifically, Withanawasam’s device
`
`comprises “a display configured to present the positional information to a user.” (Ex.
`
`1017, claim 16). For example, Withanawasam states:
`
`“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.”
`
`(Ex. 1017, ¶0011)(Emphasis added)(Ex. 1018, ¶74).
`
` This indicates that
`
`Withanawasam’s device is capable of translating the detected motions to control an
`
`output on a display, because the motions that are detected by a sensor are translated
`
`to a device orientation, which is used to control output on a display (by display the
`
`orientation, a compass direction, or a path). (Ex. 1018, ¶74). Dr. LaViola, CyWee’s
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`expert, would agree. His declaration cites a “navigation device” as an example of a
`
`“3D pointing device”. (Ex. 2011, ¶16).
`
`The combination also teaches a method for compensating rotations, as
`
`described in under the limitations below. (Ex. 1018, ¶75)
`
`“[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;”
`
`The combination uses Bachmann’s filter to generate an orientation output¸
`
`in the form of Bachmann’s orientation quaternion q̂ that represents the device’s
`
`orientation. (Ex. 1004, 7:59-61)(Ex. 1018, ¶76). The orientation quaternion is
`
`associated with an orientation of the 3D pointing device because it is generated
`
`from measurements by an accelerometer, magnetometer, and angular rate sensor
`
`made in the device’s frame of reference. (Ex. 1004, 10:10-14)(Ex. 1018, ¶77). The
`
`orientation quaternion q̂ is associated with three coordinate axes of a global
`
`reference frame associated with Earth because it represents the rotation between
`
`the spatial sensor frame of reference and a “flat Earth” or “earth fixed” reference
`
`frame. (Ex. 1004, 8:61-67, 5:50-61)(Ex. 1018, ¶77-83). Put differently, q̂ represents
`
`the tracked body’s roll, pitch, and yaw between the sensor frame and Earth frame.
`
`(Ex. 1018, ¶77-83).
`
`“[19(c)] generating a first signal set comprising axial accelerations
`associated with movements and rotations of the 3D pointing device
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`
`in [the] a spatial reference frame;”
`
`
`
`The combination of Withanawasam and Bachmann would use a three-axis
`
`accelerometer that generates a first signal set (
`
`) representing measured
`
`acceleration. (Ex. 1004, 8:12-16)(Ex. 1018, ¶84-85). Bachmann also represents the
`
`measured acceleration as a vector or set of axial acceleration signals along different
`
`axes. Bachmann denotes this vector as (h1, h2, h3) (shown in box 31 of Fig. 3) and
`
`derives it by low-pass filtering the measured acceleration to remove fast
`
`accelerations. (Ex. 1004, 8:13-42)(Ex. 1018, ¶86). The measured acceleration
`
`comprises axial accelerations associated with movements and rotations of the 3D
`
`pointing device because the signals comprise forced linear acceleration. (Ex. 1004,
`
`8:12-16)(Ex. 1018, ¶87). The measured acceleration is in the spatial reference
`
`frame because the accelerometer is part of the 3D pointing device. (Ex. 1005, ¶¶21
`
`and 25)(Ex. 1018, ¶88). As a result, moving or rotating the 3D pointing device causes
`
`the accelerometer to move or rotate in the exact same way. (Ex. 1018, ¶88).
`
`“[19(d)] generating a second signal set associated with Earth's
`magnetism;”
`
`The combination of Withanawasam and Bachmann would include a three-axis
`
`magnetometer,
`
`implemented as
`
`three orthogonally mounted
`
`single-axis
`
`magnetometers. (Ex. 1018, ¶89). The magnetometers in Bachmann generate a
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`second signal set (b1, b2, b3), which is shown in box 32 of Fig. 3. (Ex. 1004, 7:63-
`
`65)(Ex. 1018, ¶¶89-90). The local magnetic field vector is associated with Earth’s
`
`magnetism because it points to magnetic north. (Ex. 1004, 5:11-20)(Ex. 1018, ¶90).
`
`“[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;”
`
`As shown in Fig. 3 and explained in detail by Dr. Sarrafzadeh (Ex. 1018, ¶¶91-
`
`97), Bachmann generates the orientation output (orientation quaternion q̂ ) both
`
`based on the first signal set (measured acceleration)(Ex. 1018, ¶92) and the second
`
`signal set (magnetometer outputs)(Ex. 1018, ¶93). The orientation output is also
`
`based on the rotation output, which is the angular rate information from the angular
`
`rate sensors. (Ex. 1004, 10:10-14)(Ex. 1018, ¶94).
`
`“[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;”
`
`Bachmann uses angular velocity (rate) detectors 33 to generate a rotation
`
`output. (Ex. 1018, ¶98). This rotation output is a vector with components (p, q, r)
`
`and is associated with three coordinate axes of a spatial reference frame
`
`associated with the 3D pointing device. (Ex. 1018, ¶98). Specifically,
`
`Bachmann’s angular rate sensor is a “three-axis angular rate sensor”. (Ex. 1004,
`
`10:12)(Emphasis added)(Ex. 1018, ¶99). The three-axis angular rate sensor is
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`mounted or affixed to the 3D pointing device, so its axes match or are at least fixed
`
`with respect to the axes of 3D pointing device. (Ex. 1018, ¶99). As a result, rotating
`
`the 3D pointing device causes the three-axis angular rate sensor to rotate in the same
`
`way. Bachmann states that the angular rates are “measured in the sensor reference
`
`frame” (Ex. 1004, 10:17-30), which would be the same as or fixed with respect to
`
`the spatial reference frame because the sensor is fixed with respect to the 3D pointing
`
`device. (Ex. 1018, ¶99). Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`readily recognize that p, q, and r each represent angular velocity around a different
`
`axis within the spatial reference frame. This is standard notation, with p as the roll
`
`rate, q as the pitch rate, and r as the yaw rate. (Ex. 1004, 10:30-32)(Ex. 1018, ¶100).
`
`“[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;”
`
`As discussed above under limitations [19e] and [19f], Bachmann discloses
`
`generating an orientation output q̂ and a rotation output (p, q, r). (Ex. 1018, ¶101).
`
`These outputs are generated by a nine-axis motion sensor module with “a three-
`
`axis accelerometer (h1, h2, h3) 31, a three-axis magnetometer (b1, b2, b3) 32, and a
`
`three-axis angular rate sensor (p, q, r) 33.” (Ex. 1004, 10:10-14)(Ex. 1018, ¶101).
`
`This is the same type of nine-axis motion sensor module described in the ’978 patent.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`(Ex. 1001, FIG. 4)(Ex. 1018, ¶101).
`
`It would have been obvious to generate a transformed output associated
`
`with a fixed reference frame associated with a display device. Bachmann
`
`suggests that its orientation output be transformed to the coordinate system of a
`
`display device (e.g., in connection with Fig. 4). (Ex. 1004, 14:20-29)(Ex. 1018,
`
`¶102).
`
`Withanawasam teaches that its smartphone has a built-in display device 140.
`
`(Ex. 1017, Fig. 1 RN 140, ¶0011)(Ex. 1018, ¶157). It further would have been well-
`
`understood and obvious in the relevant timeframe that the display 140 of
`
`Withanawasam, in a smartphone embodiment, would have been built-in to and
`
`integrated with the smartphone. (Ex. 1018, ¶158). This was typical for
`
`smartphones in the relevant timeframe, and would have been obvious to do, to
`
`protect the electrical circuits of the display and avoid forcing the user to carry the
`
`display as a separate element. (Ex. 1018, ¶158). A display built in to and integrated
`
`with the device would have inherently and obviously been “associated with” a
`
`display reference frame, which is simply a coordinate system that moves with the
`
`display. (Ex. 1018, ¶158).
`
`It would have been obvious to use the orientation output and the rotation
`
`output for this transformation. (Ex. 1018, ¶103). In the combination here, the
`
`orientation output q̂ represents the orientation of Withanawasam’s smartphone. (Ex.
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`
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
