Filed: July 31, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`GOOGLE LLC, ZTE (USA), INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`LG ELECTRONICS INC., HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO. LTD., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN) CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI INVESTMENT & HOLDING CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI TECH. INVESTMENT CO. LTD., and
`HUAWEI DEVICE (HONG KONG) CO. LTD.,
` Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`GOOGLE LLC, ZTE (USA), INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`LG ELECTRONICS INC., HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO. LTD., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN) CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI INVESTMENT & HOLDING CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI TECH. INVESTMENT CO. LTD., and
`HUAWEI DEVICE (HONG KONG) CO. LTD.,
` Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. WITHANAWASAM DOES NOT QUALIFY AS PRIOR ART ..................... 1
`
`II. THE PROPOSED CLAIMS DO NOT INTRODUCE NEW MATTER
`FROM THE EARLIER FILED APPLICATIONS ............................................. 3
`
`A. The Proposed Amended Claims Are Entitled To The Benefit Of The
`Provisional Application ....................................................................................... 3
`
`III. WITHANAWASAM IN VIEW OF BACHMANN DOES NOT RENDER
`THE PROPOSED AMENDED CLAIMS OBVIOUS ......................................... 5
`
`A. A PHOSITA Would Not Be Motivated to Combine the References ........ 5
`
`B. Withanawasam in View of Bachmann Does Not Disclose all Elements of
`Proposed Amended Claim 19 ............................................................................. 8
`
`i. Withanawasam in view of Bachmann does not disclose element 19(a) “a
`3D pointing device” .......................................................................................... 8
`
`ii. Withanawasam in view of Bachmann does not disclose element 19(g)
`“using the orientation output and the rotation output to generate a
`transformed output associated with a fixed display reference frame;” ...... 9
`
`iii. Withanawasam in view of Bachmann does not disclose element 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’, Mz’ for the second
`signal set” ........................................................................................................ 11
`
`C. Withanawasam in View of Bachmann Does Not Disclose all Elements of
`Proposed Amended Claim 20 ........................................................................... 11
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Eaton v. Evans,
` 204 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................. 2
`
`
`
`
`Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern California Edison Co.,
` 227 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................. 7
`
`Hyatt v. Boone,
` 146 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................. 2
`
`In re Jolley,
` 308 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................. 1
`
`In re Verhoef,
` Ca. No. 2017-1976 (Fed. Cir., May 3, 2018) ........................................................ 1
`
`NFC Tech., LLC v. Matal,
` 871 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................. 1
`
`Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus Am., Inc.,
` 841 F.3d 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................. 2
`
`Price v. Symsek,
` 988 F.2d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ............................................................................. 1
`
`Purdue Pharma. L.P. v. Boehring Ingelheim GmbH,
` 237 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 (Pre-AIA) ................................................................................... 1, 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Declaration of Dr. Gary L. Blank [WITHDRAWN]
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Gary L. Blank CV [WITHDRAWN]
`
`Claim Construction Opinion and Order (Doc. 117), Cywee
`Group Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., C.A. No. 2:17-CV-
`00140-WCB-RSP (E.D. Tex., July 9, 2018)
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Joseph LaViola, Ph.D., in Support
`of Patent Owner Response
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Joseph LaViola, Ph.D.
`
`Order (Doc. 153), Cywee Group Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`Ltd., C.A. No. 2:17-CV-00140-WCB-RSP (E.D. Tex., Aug.
`14, 2018)
`
`Memorandum Opinion (Doc. 55), CyWee Group Ltd. v.
`Motorola Mobility LLC, C.A. No. 17-780-RGA (D. Del.,
`Dec. 21, 2018)
`
`File History of U.S. Application No. 10/396,439
`
`File History of U.S. Application No. 12/413,722
`
`File History of U.S. Application No. 13/367,058
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Joseph LaViola, Ph.D., in Support
`of Motion to Amend
`
`File History of U.S. Provisional Application 61/292,558
`
`Google’s Responses to CyWee’s Requests for Production,
`CyWee Group Ltd. v. Google, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00571 (D.
`Del.) (Sep. 4, 2018)
`
`iii
`
`
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`Google/Samsung 2011-2012 Mobile Application Distribution
`Agreement (Android)
`
`CyWee Group, Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., C.A. No.
`2:17-CV-00140-WCB-RSP, Doc.
`1-1
`(Exhibit A,
`Infringement Claim Chart)
`
`Web Print-Out “Introducing PAX: the Android Networked
`Cross-License Agreement,” available at
`<https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-
`policy/introducing-pax-android-networked-cross-license-
`agreement/>
`
`List of IPR Petitions Filed against Seven Networks, LLC
`
`Demonstrative: Relationship of Android Defendants
`
`Transcript of Call Authorizing Patent Owner to File Motion
`to Terminate (July 8, 2019)
`
`Declaration of Shun-nan Liou
`
`CyWee, Where Technology Entertains 2009.09
`
`JIL Game System Hardware Specification Ver. 1.5
`
`JIL Phone Bill of Materials (May 24, 2010)
`
`Photographs of JIL Phone Prototype
`
`CyWee Phone API Reference
`
`CyWee Motion Fusion Solution
`
`CyWee Where technology entertains Technical Presentation:
`Motion Technology and Gaming Applications
`
`
`iv
`
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2028
`
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`July 29, 2009 email to James Shen, Qualcomm
`
`Attachment to July 29, 2009 email to James Shen,
`Qualcomm
`
`CyWee/Qualcomm Mutual NDA (April 23, 2008)
`
`Attitude.cpp file (last modified February 12, 2010)
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Joseph LaViola, Ph.D., in Support
`of Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of Motion to Amend
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Prof. Majid Sarrafzadeh (July 24,
`2019)
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`I. WITHANAWASAM DOES NOT QUALIFY AS PRIOR ART
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`
`U.S. Pat. Pub. US 2010/0312468 to Withanawasam (“Withanawasam”) (Ex.
`
`1017) was filed on June 3, 2009, and published on December 9, 2010. Ex. 1017.
`
`The ‘978 Patent claims priority to the January 6, 2010, filing date of the ‘558
`
`provisional application. Ex. 1001. However, the claims and proposed amended
`
`clams of the ‘978 Patent are entitled to an even earlier priority date of at least May
`
`22, 2009, based on the conception and diligent reduction to practice of the claimed
`
`invention. See Ex. 2020, Declaration of Dr. Liou.
`
`When determining priority under the Pre-AIA §102, a party may antedate a
`
`reference by showing an earlier date of conception followed by reasonably
`
`continuous diligence in reducing the invention to practice at a later date. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(g) (Pre-AIA); Purdue Pharma. L.P. v. Boehring Ingelheim GmbH, 237 F.3d
`
`1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Conception occurs when the inventor has a definite
`
`and permanent idea of the complete invention. In re Verhoef, Ca. No. 2017-1976 at
`
`*6 (Fed. Cir., May 3, 2018). Conception can be corroborated by contemporaneous
`
`documents and/or testimony that are tethered to the invention. See In re Jolley, 308
`
`F.3d 1317, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1195-96
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1993); NFC Tech., LLC v. Matal, 871 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`A reduction to practice may be either actual or constructive. The invention is
`
`presumed to have been constructively reduced to practice no later than the filing
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`date of the application from which the patent issued. See Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`1348, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The invention is actually reduced to practice when (1)
`
`the party constructed an embodiment or performed a process that met every
`
`element of a claim, and (2) the embodiment or process operated for its intended
`
`purpose. Eaton v. Evans, 204 F.3d 1094, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`In order to claim priority to the date of conception, an inventor must exercise
`
`reasonable diligence in reducing the invention to practice. Perfect Surgical
`
`Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus Am., Inc., 841 F.3d 1004, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Diligence must be “reasonably continuous;” thus, periods of inactivity within the
`
`critical period do not destroy a claim of reasonable diligence. Id.
`
`Here, the named inventors conceived of the invention claimed by the ‘438
`
`and ‘978 Patents by at least May 22, 2009. Ex. 2020 at ¶ 15; Ex. 2022 at 4. A
`
`working prototype of a smartphone—the JIL Phone—practicing all elements of the
`
`challenged claims of the ‘438 Patent was finalized and actually reduced to practice
`
`by at least June 29, 2009; updates to the JIL Phone software actually reduced all
`
`elements of the challenged claims of the ‘978 Patent to practice by September 25,
`
`2009. Ex. 2020 at ¶¶ 15, 23; Ex. 2025 at 2; Exs. 2028-2029; Ex. 2032, Section III.
`
`The JIL Phone was capable of 9-axis output and utilized a sensor fusion method
`
`that practiced all elements of the method claimed by the ‘438 and ‘978 Patents. Ex.
`
`2020 at ¶¶ 18, 21, 24; Ex. 2032, Section III. Dr. Liou and the other inventors
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`worked with reasonably continuous diligence between those critical dates of
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`conception and reduction to practice. Ex. 2020 at ¶15. Because of this diligence,
`
`the ‘438 and ‘978 Patents are entitled to a priority date reaching back to the May
`
`22, 2009 date of conception. § 102(g) (Pre-AIA). As Petitioner has stated,
`
`Withanawasam issued from an application filed on June 3, 2009, which is its date
`
`of priority under Pre-AIA § 102(e)(1). Paper 29 at 5. Because Withanawasam was
`
`filed after the conception date to which the ‘438 and ‘978 Patents are entitled to
`
`priority, Withanawasam does not qualify as prior art to the CyWee Patents.
`
`Petitioner admits that Bachmann alone does not disclose all elements of the
`
`proposed amended claims. Id. at 10-15. Because Withanawasam is not prior art,
`
`and because Bachmann cannot anticipate the proposed claims, Petitioner’s
`
`Opposition fails and Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend should be granted in the
`
`event that the original claims are found to be unpatentable.
`
`
`
`
`II. THE PROPOSED CLAIMS DO NOT INTRODUCE NEW MATTER
`FROM THE EARLIER FILED APPLICATIONS
`
`A. The Proposed Amended Claims Are Entitled To The Benefit Of The
`Provisional Application
`
`As discussed above, the proposed amended claims of the ‘978 Patent are
`
`entitled to a priority date of May 22, 2009, based on the date of conception and
`
`diligent actual reduction to practice of the JIL Phone embodiment. See Section I,
`
`supra. The JIL phone contained all of the features that Petitioner asserts are not
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`disclosed by the ‘558 Provisional including (a) being “handheld," (b) “a display
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`built-in to and integrated with the 3D pointing device,” and (c) a “smartphone.” As
`
`discussed above, the JIL Phone was a smartphone designed to be a 3D pointing
`
`device. See supra Section I; Ex. 2021. The JIL Phone was a handheld smartphone
`
`device with a display built-in to and integrated with the device. Ex. 2024.
`
`Furthermore, the ‘558 Provisional alone discloses more than enough to
`
`indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors were in possession of
`
`each of these three features at the time the application was filed. Ex. 2032, Section
`
`IV. Petitioner concedes that “a remote controller, a joystick or a cellular phone,”
`
`Ex. 2012, ¶ [0023], may be handheld. Paper 29 at 3-4. Petitioner then goes on a
`
`comical thought exercise, stretching the imagination to find embodiments of each
`
`of these traditionally handheld devices that “may not be handheld,” including
`
`physically combining a cellular phone with a speaker system and tabletop console.
`
`Id. Nothing about Petitioner’s argument changes the fact that these devices are
`
`generally designed to be held and operated by human hands. Ex. 2032, ¶ 23. It
`
`would be clear to anyone with even sub-ordinary skill in the art that “a remote
`
`controller, a joystick or a cellular phone” are typically handheld devices. Id.
`
`Likewise, Petitioner jumps through hoops to find that a “built-in display”
`
`and “smartphone” are not supported by ‘558 Provisional. Smartphones were well
`
`known as a popular type of cellular phone by the time the ‘558 Provisional was
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`filed. Id. at ¶ 24. For instance, the most famous smartphone, the iPhone, was
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`released in 2007. Id. At the time the ‘558 Provisional was filed, nearly three years
`
`later, a PHOSITA would have know that a smartphone was an optimal candidate
`
`for a cellular phone that could be used as a 3D pointing device practicing the
`
`invention of the ‘558 Provisional. Id. Smartphones have built-in displays. Id.
`
`Indeed, as Petitioner’s expert admits, “smartphones . . . were already widely
`
`available in the relevant timeframe.” Ex. 1018 ¶ 68. Thus, the provisional
`
`
`
`application’s disclosure of a cellular phone would disclose a smartphone.
`
`III. WITHANAWASAM IN VIEW OF BACHMANN DOES NOT RENDER
`THE PROPOSED AMENDED CLAIMS OBVIOUS
`
`As discussed above, Withanawasam does not qualify as prior art to the ‘978
`
`Patent and, therefore, cannot be used in an obviousness challenge. See supra,
`
`Section I. However, even if Withanawasam did qualify as prior art, a PHOSITA
`
`would not be motivated to combine it with Bachmann, and then, even if the
`
`references were combined, the combination of Withanawasam in view of
`
`
`
`Bachmann does not disclose all elements of the proposed amended claims.
`
`A. A PHOSITA Would Not Be Motivated to Combine the References
`
`Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, the evidence of record suggests that a
`
`PHOSITA would not have been motivated to combine Withanawasam and
`
`Bachmann. Withanawasam is directed to an integrated sensor device to conserve
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`space within a navigation device, such as a smartphone. Ex. 2032, ¶ 26; Ex. 2033,
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`215:10-216:16. Bachmann expressly teaches away from using its sensor system
`
`and fusion method on any rigid bodies made of magnetic materials. Ex. 1004,
`
`13:42-47 (“Sensors constructed in accordance with the principles of the present
`
`invention can be used to track motion and orientation of simple rigid bodies as
`
`long as they are made of non-magnetic materials.” (emphasis added)). All
`
`smartphones and navigation devices are comprised of many magnetic materials.
`
`Ex. 2032, ¶ 28. Therefore, by Bachmann’s express teaching, a PHOSITA would be
`
`motivated not
`
`to combine Bachmann with Withanawasam’s smartphone.
`
`Accordingly, petitioner’s expert, Dr. Sarrafzadeh, admits that he did not
`
`contemplate combining Bachmann with a cellphone. Ex. 2033, 147:16-148:10.
`
`Dr. Sarrafzadeh further admits that counsel provided him the Withanawasam
`
`reference. Ex. 2033, 209:9-16. He also claims not to recall whether he located the
`
`Bachmann reference or whether counsel provided it to him as well. Id. at 299:2-12.
`
`Therefore, it is unclear whether a PHOSITA had any input in locating any of the
`
`references asserted here. Id. at 210:13-19. It is clear that Petitioner has put forth no
`
`evidence that a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the references
`
`because it was Petitioner’s counsel, and not its expert, that decided that the
`
`references should be combined. Indeed, Dr. Sarrafzadeh admits that his “task [was]
`
`to take the claims of [the] ‘438 and ‘978 [Patents] and the amendment claims and
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`map them to Bachmann.” Id. at 244:11-12. Such hindsight reconstruction is
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`improper in an obviousness analysis. See Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern California
`
`Edison Co., 227 F.3d 1361, 1371-1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
`
`
`
`Furthermore, Petitioner’s rationale for the combination is illogical. Petitioner
`
`and its expert admit that Withanawasam does not disclose any teaching regarding
`
`fusing sensor data. Paper 29 at 7; Ex. 1018 at ¶ 55. Petitioner’s assertion that this
`
`lack of any sort of teaching would have motivated a PHOSITA to sua sponte seek
`
`out a method for fusing sensor data in implementing Withanawasam’s smartphone
`
`or navigation device is nonsensical. First, an absence of a teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation in Withanawasam would lead a PHOSITA to the exact opposite result.
`
`Ex. 2032, ¶ 29. A PHOSITA would not be motivated to seek out a sensor fusion
`
`method because Withanawasam contains no indication that a sensor fusion method
`
`would be necessary or useful. Id. Indeed, Bachmann’s method was publicly known
`
`as early as 2000, see, Ex. 1004; see also, IPR2019-00143, Ex. 1014, Bachmann
`
`Dissertation, nearly a decade before Withanawasam was filed. If using
`
`Bachmann’s sensor configuration and fusion method would have been as
`
`advantageous and obvious to a PHOSITA as Petitioner contends, it is unclear why
`
`the Withanawasam inventor—presumably a PHOSITA—did not implement
`
`Bachmann’s method or make reference to sensor fusion at all. The logical
`
`conclusion is that a PHOSITA would not have found it obvious or advantageous to
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`implement that sensor configuration and method. Ex. 2032, ¶ 29. Moreover, as
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`discussed above, Bachmann explicitly teaches away from combination with any
`
`devices made of magnetic materials, such as a smartphone or navigation device.
`
`B. Withanawasam in View of Bachmann Does Not Disclose all Elements of
`Proposed Amended Claim 19
`
`Even if a PHOSITA were to be motivated to combine Withanawasam and
`
`
`
`Bachmann, the combination does not disclose all elements of proposed amended
`
`claim 19 including at least (1) a “3D pointing device;” (2) “using the orientation
`
`output and the rotation output to generate a transformed output associated with a
`
`fixed display reference frame;” and (3) “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’, Mz’ for the second
`
`signal set.” Id. at ¶ 30.
`
`
`
`i. Withanawasam in view of Bachmann does not disclose element 19(a) “a
`3D pointing device”
`
`Withanawasam does not disclose a “3D pointing device” as that term has
`
`been construed by the Board. The Board construed this term to mean “a device
`
`capable of sensing movement and orientation in three dimensions to point out or
`
`control actions on a display.” Paper 8 at 11. Withanawasam, as disclosed, is not
`
`capable of detecting orientation in three-dimensions. Ex. 2023, ¶ 31. The paragraph
`
`in Withanawasam that Petitioner cites to for support does not mention that the
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`device can detect orientation in three-dimensions. Id. Rather, ¶ [0012] of
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`Withanawasam states that the MEMS and Magnetic sensor only provide
`
`information “relating to acceleration, roll, and directional data (that is, relating to a
`
`compass direction).” Id.; Ex. 1017, ¶ [0012]. The MEMS sensor uses “three axes
`
`of sensing for acceleration,” id., which would allow for sensing movement in three
`
`dimensions, but would not orientation. Ex. 2023, ¶ 31. Roll can be detected in
`
`Withanawasam by the single gyroscope disclosed by ¶ [0012], but the disclosure
`
`makes no mention of detecting orientation relating to pitch and/or yaw. Id.
`
`Therefore, Withanawasam is not “capable of sensing... orientation in three
`
`dimensions,” as required by the construction of a “3D Pointing Device.”
`
`Petitioner provides no evidence to argue that Bachmann discloses a 3D
`
`Pointing Device because Bachmann is not capable of mapping its resultant angles
`
`onto a display frame “to point out or control actions on a display.” Id. at ¶ 32.
`
`Indeed, Petitioner’s expert admits that he did not bother to analyze whether
`
`Bachmann could be considered a 3D Pointing Device. Ex. 2033, 136:16-25.
`
`
`
`ii. Withanawasam in view of Bachmann does not disclose element 19(g)
`“using the orientation output and the rotation output to generate a
`transformed output associated with a fixed display reference frame;”
`
`Both Bachmann and Withanawsam mention that orientation or positional
`
`information may be rendered on a display, but neither reference discloses “using
`
`the orientation output and the rotation output to generate a transformed output
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`associated with a fixed display reference frame.” Transformation in the ‘978 Patent
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`occurs when the orientation and rotation outputs based on the three-dimensional
`
`orientation of the device are mapped as a two-dimensional dimensional movement
`
`pattern in the display plane XdYd. Ex. 1001, 30:36-42; 31:51-32:3; Ex. 2032, ¶ 33.
`
`Neither reference asserted by Petitioner enables a PHOSITA to perform such a
`
`transformation. Id. at ¶¶ 33-34. Rather, Bachmann cursorily mentions transmitting
`
`a calculated human “body posture and output[ting] a display signal to a display.”
`
`Ex.. 1004, 14:20-30. Bachmann does not disclose which specific outputs are used
`
`to generate the “display signal,” and does not contemplate a “transformed output”
`
`that converts the three-dimensional orientation of the device into a two-
`
`dimensional movement pattern. Ex. 2032, ¶ 33.
`
`As Petitioner notes, Withanawasam merely teaches that its system may be
`
`used with navigation and orientation applications. Paper 29 at 24. As discussed
`
`above, Withanawsam does not disclose determining orientation
`
`in
`
`three-
`
`dimensions. See supra, Section III.B.i. Furthermore, Withanawasam does not
`
`disclose how, if at all, the limited orientation information it does detect would be
`
`transformed into a movement pattern on its display. Ex. 2032, ¶ 34.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`iii. Withanawasam in view of Bachmann does not disclose element 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’, Mz’ for the second
`signal set”
`
`Proposed claim element 19(h) requires the resultant deviation to be obtained,
`
`in part, from a plurality of predicted magnetisms Mx’, My’, Mz’ for the second
`
`signal set. In the ‘978 Patent, the measured and predicted magnetisms are
`
`measured at current time T, whereas the previous state is obtained at an earlier time
`
`T-1. Ex. 1001, 23:9-34, Fig. 10 (steps 1035 and 1040); Ex. 2032, ¶ 35. Bachmann
`
`does not teach calculating the predicted magnetisms using information from the
`
`current state at time T, as required by proposed element 19(h). Id. The vector ȳ(q̂ )
`
`in Bachmann that Petitioner asserts teaches using a “plurality of predicted
`
`magnetisms Mx’, My’, Mz’” is not, in fact, a predicted magnetism at time T based
`
`on the current state, but instead is a vector based on an estimation of the orientation
`
`
`
`quaternion at a previous time. Ex. 1004, 10:50-51; Ex. 2032, ¶ 35.
`
`C. Withanawasam in View of Bachmann Does Not Disclose all Elements of
`Proposed Amended Claim 20
`
`Because the combination of Withanawasam and Bachmann does not disclose
`
`all of the elements of proposed amended claim 19, which would replace claim 10,
`
`and from which proposed amended claim 20 depends, that combination of
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`references also fails to disclose all elements of the dependent proposed claim 20.
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`Id. at 36.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the forgoing reasons Petitioner’s opposition fails and Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion to Amend should be granted if the Board finds the claims of the ‘978
`
`Patent challenged by the Petition to be unpatentable.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jay P. Kesan/
`Jay P. Kesan
`Reg. No. 37,488
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Cywee Group Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Dated: July 31, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on the date
`
`indicated below, a complete and entire copy of this submission, including the
`
`exhibits hereto, was provided by email to Petitioners’ counsel via email, as agreed
`
`to by Petitioners’ Service Information in the Petition submissions, by serving the
`
`email addresses of record as follows:
`
`Counsel for Google:
`
`Matthew A. Smith
`smith@smithbaluch.com
`
`
`
`Andrew S. Baluch
`baluch@smithbaluch.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Yeuzhong Feng
`yfeng@brinksgilson.com
`
`ZTE_CyweeIPRs@brinksgilson.com
`
`
`Christopher M. Colice
`colice@smithbaluch.com
`
`Counsel for ZTE:
`
`James R. Sobieraj
`jsobierah@brinksgilson.com
`
`Andrea Shoffstall
`ashoffstall@brinksgilson.com
`
`Counsel for Samsung:
`
`Naveen Modi
`Chetan Bansal
`PH-Samsung-Cywee-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`
`Andrew Devkar
`andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com
`
`Adam Brooke
`adam.brooke@morganlewis.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for LG:
`
`Collin Park
`collin.park@morganlewis.com
`
`Jeremy Peterson
`jeremy.peterson@morganlewis.com
`
`MLB_CyweevsLGE@morganlewis.com
`
`Counsel for Huawei:
`
`Kristopher L. Reed
`Benjamin M. Kleinman
`Norris P. Boothe
`HuaweiCywee@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jay P. Kesan/
`Jay P. Kesan
`Reg. No. 37,488
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Cywee Group Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 31, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
