Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: December 11, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK M. BOUCHER, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
`CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`Google LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 311–319 to institute an inter partes review of claims 10 and 12 of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,552,978 B2 (“the ’978 patent”). Paper 1 (Pet.”). Cywee Group
`Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 8
`Entered: December 11, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK M. BOUCHER, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
`CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`Google LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 311–319 to institute an inter partes review of claims 10 and 12 of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,552,978 B2 (“the ’978 patent”). Paper 1 (Pet.”). Cywee Group
`Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`Resp.”). Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which
`requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we institute an inter
`partes review on all grounds and claims set forth in the Petition. The Board
`has not made a final determination on the patentability of any claim.
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`A. The ’978 Patent
`The ’978 patent “generally relates to a 3D pointing device,” which is
`described as having the function of “detecting motions of the device and
`translating the detected motions to a cursor display such as a cursor pointing
`on the screen . . . of a 2D display device.” Ex. 1001, 1:22–23, 1:29–33. For
`example, the pointing device “may be a mouse of a computer or a pad of a
`video game console” and the display device “may be a part of the computer
`or the video game console.” Id. at 1:36–39. A user may then perform
`control actions and movements with the pointing device for some purpose,
`such as playing a video game. Id. at 1:52–55. For example, when the user
`moves the pointing device, a pointer on the display device may “move along
`with the orientation, direction and distance travelled by the pointing device.”
`Id. at 1:56–61.
`Figure 3 of the ’978 patent is reproduced below.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 3 is an exploded diagram showing electronic device 300, which may
`correspond to a pointing device. Id. at 9:14–16. Within housing 330,
`formed of top cover 310 and bottom cover 320, are rotation sensor 342,
`accelerometer 344, and magnetometer 345, each attached to printed circuit
`board 340, as well as other components that allow data transmission and
`processing. Id. at 9:26–33.
`The ’978 patent refers to rotation sensor 342, accelerometer 344, and
`magnetometer 345 as “a nine-axis motion sensor module.” Id. at 9:57–62.
`The term “nine-axis” refers to and includes three angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz
`detected by rotation sensor 342, three axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az
`detected by accelerometer 344, and three “magnetisms” Mx, My, Mz
`detected by magnetometer 345. Id. at 9:65–10:23. The x, y, and z
`components are illustrated in the patent for a Cartesian spatial reference
`frame relative to electronic device 300, but, more generally, “may not need
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`to be orthogonal in a specific orientation and they may be rotated in different
`orientations.” Id. at 10:23–29.
`Various dynamic environments may present external influences that
`impact the ability to calculate orientation accurately. See id. at 15:53–16:4.
`For example, nongravitational forces may cause undesirable axial
`accelerations and/or extraneous electromagnetic fields may cause
`undesirable magnetism. Id. at 15:55–60. Such complications are addressed
`with a method illustrated by the flow diagram shown in Figure 7 of the ’978
`patent, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`Figure 7 shows a method “for obtaining and/or outputting a resultant
`deviation including deviation angles in a spatial reference frame of an
`electronic device.” Id. at 13:60–63. The method of Figure 7 uses
`quaternions, which Petitioner’s declarant, Majid Sarrafzadeh, Ph.D.,
`explains are four-valued vector generalizations of complex numbers with
`“special mathematical properties that allow them to describe rotations
`efficiently.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30–31.
`After obtaining a previous state of the nine-axis sensor module at
`steps 705 and 710, the method obtains measured angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz
`from the motion sensor signals of the nine-axis motion sensor module at a
`current time, at steps 715 and 720. Ex. 1001, 14:23–43. A current-time
`measured state of the nine-axis motion sensor module is then obtained by
`obtaining measured axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az at step 725; and
`predicted axial accelerations Ax′, Ay′, Az′ based on measured angular
`velocities ωx, ωy, ωz are calculated at step 730. Id. at 14:43–51. This allows
`obtaining an updated state of the nine-axis motion sensor module at step 735
`by comparing the current state with the measured state. Id. at 14:51–54.
`“[T]o provide a continuous loop,” the updated state of the nine-axis motion
`sensor module is output to the previous state at step 740, i.e. by outputting
`the third quaternion obtained at step 735 to the first quaternion identified at
`step 710 for the previous state. Id. at 14:62–15:3. Ultimately, the resultant
`deviation is obtained at step 745, “whereby the resultant deviation
`compris[es] deviation angles associated with the updated state of the nine-
`axis motion module[,] excluding said undesirable external interferences in
`the dynamic environments.” Id. at 14:54–62.
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`
`B. Challenged Claims
`Challenged claims 10 and 12 are reproduced below.
`10. A method for compensating rotations of a 3D pointing
`device, comprising:
`
`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;
`set comprising axial
`signal
`first
`
`generatin[g] a
`accelerations associated with movements and rotations of the 3D
`pointing device in the spatial reference frame;
`
`generating a second signal set associated with Earth’s
`magnetism; 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;
`
`generating a rotation output associated with a rotation of
`the 3D pointing device associated with three coordinate axes of
`a spatial reference frame associated with the 3D pointing device;
`and
`using the orientation output and the rotation output to
`
`generate a transformed output associated with a fixed reference
`frame associated with a display device, wherein the orientation
`output and the rotation output is generated by a nine-axis motion
`sensor module; 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.
`
`Ex. 1001, 36:62–37:21.
`
`
`12. The method of claim 10, wherein the orientation output is a
`rotation matrix, a quaternion, a rotation vector, or comprises
`three orientation angles.
`
`Id. at 36:36–38.
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`
`C. Evidence
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`Bachmann
`US 7,089,148 B1
`Aug. 8, 2006
`Zhang
`US 2004/0095317 A1
`May 20, 2004
`Liberty
`US 7,158,118 B2
`Jan. 2, 2007
`
`
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`
`In addition, Petitioner relies on a Declaration by Majid Sarrafzadeh,
`Ph.D. Ex. 1002. Patent Owner relies on a Declaration by Gary L. Blank,
`Ph.D. Ex. 2001.
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges claims 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`the combination of Zhang and Bachmann and over the combination of
`Liberty and Bachmann. Pet. 7.
`
`
`E. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner identifies Google LLC, 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. as
`real parties in interest. Pet. 5. Patent Owner identifies only itself as a real
`party in interest. Paper 5, 2.
`
`
`F. Related Matters
`Both parties identify the following matters as involving the ’978
`patent: (1) Cywee Group Ltd. v. Google, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00571 (D. Del.);
`(2) Cywee Group Ltd. v. ZTE Corporation, No. 3:17-cv-02130 (S.D. Cal.);
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`(3) Cywee Group Ltd. v. HTC Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-00932 (W.D.
`Wash.); (4) Cywee Group Ltd. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 1:17-cv-
`00780; (5) Cywee Group Ltd. v. Huawei Technologies Co., Inc., No. 2:17-
`cv-00495 (E.D. Tex.); (6) Cywee Group Ltd. v. LG Electronics, Inc., No.
`3:17-cv-01102 (S.D. Cal.); and (7) Cywee Group Ltd. v. Samsung
`Electronics Co. Ltd., No. 2:17-cv-00140 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 5–6; Paper 5, 2–3.
`In addition, Petitioner identifies Cywee Group Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 4:14-
`cv-01853 (N.D. Cal.) as involving the ’978 patent.
`Patent Owner also identifies IPR2018-01258 as related to this
`proceeding in that the subject patent of that proceeding, U.S. Patent No.
`8,441,438 B2, is related to the ’978 patent. Paper 5, 3.
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review filed before November 13, 2018, the Board
`interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear.
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2016)1; Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.
`Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under the broadest reasonable construction
`
`
`1 This rule has been amended for later-filed cases. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b)(2018); see also Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for
`Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (stating “[t]his rule is
`effective on November 13, 2018 and applies to all IPR, PGR and CBM
`petitions filed on or after the effective date”).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary
`meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`time of the invention and in the context of the entire disclosure. In re
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`
`1. “spatial reference frame”
`Independent claim 10 recites “the spatial reference frame” and “a
`spatial reference frame associated with the 3D pointing device.” Ex. 1001,
`37:3, 37:11-12. Petitioner proposes that both phrases should be construed as
`“a reference frame associated with the 3D pointing device, which always has
`its origin at the same point in the device and in which the axes are always
`fixed with respect to the device.” Pet. 17–18. Petitioner further asserts that
`Patent Owner “agreed to these constructions during a co-pending litigation.”
`Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1010, 2).
`Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s proposed construction “is
`essentially the plain and ordinary meaning” and that Patent Owner
`“therefore believes that no construction of this term is necessary.” Prelim.
`Resp. 18.
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent with the
`Specification’s use of the term, and clarifies that “the spatial reference
`frame” is with respect to the 3D pointing device, even though the phrase is
`recited without apparent antecedent basis. See Ex. 1001, 37:3. Accordingly,
`and because Patent Owner does not disagree expressly with Petitioner’s
`proposed construction, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction for
`purposes of this Decision.
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`
`2. “rotation output”
`Independent claim 10 recites the phrase “rotation output” in multiple
`places. Ex. 1001, 37:6–7, 37:9, 37:13, 37:16. Petitioner proposes that the
`phrase be construed as “output of a rotation sensor.” Pet. 18 (citing
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 48–52). According to Petitioner, this is consistent with how the
`term is used in the patent disclosure. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 7:61–64). Patent
`Owner “does not believe any special construction of this term is necessary.”
`Prelim. Resp. 18.
`Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent with the patent
`disclosure. See Ex. 1001, Abstract (“The rotation sensor generates a rotation
`output . . . .”), 7:61 (“The rotation sensor generates a rotation output . . . .”),
`30:58–59 (“[T]he rotation sensor 342 generates a rotation output (ωx, ωy, ωz)
`. . . .”), 31:51–52 (“[T]he rotation sensor 342 generates a rotation output
`. . . .”), 32:62–63 (“[ωx, ωy, ωz]P is the rotation output generated by the
`rotation sensor 342.”), 33:38–39 ([T]he rotation sensor 342 generates a
`rotation output (ωx, ωy, ωz).”), 35:46 (“a rotation sensor, generating a rotation
`output”). For this reason, and because Patent Owner does not disagree
`expressly with Petitioner’s proposed construction, we adopt that construction
`for purposes of this Decision.
`
`
`3. “3D pointing device”
`Independent claim 10 recites a “3D pointing device.” Ex. 1001,
`36:62, 36:65, 37:2–3, 37:9–11. Petitioner does not expressly address a
`construction for the phrase, and Patent Owner “believes that the phrase ‘3D
`Pointing Device’ may be afforded its plain and ordinary meaning and does
`not require construction.” Prelim. Resp. 19. Nevertheless, Patent Owner
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`asserts that “Petitioner’s positions suggest that clarification may be
`necessary,” and proposes that “[g]iven plain and ordinary meaning to each
`term, this phrase should be construed to mean ‘a device capable of sensing
`movement and orientation in three dimensions to point to or control actions
`on a display.’” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 63). We find this construction
`reasonable in light of the Specification. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:30–33, 1:52–
`55. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s
`construction.
`
`
`B. Legal Principles
`Petitioner advances only obviousness challenges. A claim is
`unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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 invention
`was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
`matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
`of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of non-
`obviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.2 See Graham v. John Deere
`Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`Additionally, the obviousness inquiry typically requires an analysis of
`“whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in
`
`
`2 The parties do not address secondary considerations, which, accordingly,
`do not form part of our analysis at this time.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In
`re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated
`reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`obviousness”)); see In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., 832 F.3d 1327, 1333
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG
`v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the
`time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. “The importance of
`resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of
`maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v.
`Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The “person of ordinary
`skill in the art” is a hypothetical construct, from whose vantage point
`obviousness is assessed. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
`1998). “This legal construct is akin to the ‘reasonable person’ used as a
`reference in negligence determinations” and “also presumes that all prior art
`references in the field of the invention are available to this hypothetical
`skilled artisan.” Id. (citing In re Carlson, 983 F.2d 1032, 1038 (Fed. Cir.
`1993)).
`Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Sarrafzadeh, opines that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art “had at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer
`Science, Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, or Physics, or
`equivalent work experience, along with knowledge of sensors (such as
`accelerometers, gyroscopes and magnetometers), and mobile computing
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`technologies.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 24. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Blank,
`describes a level of ordinary skill “[t]hat is generally in agreement with the
`level of ordinary skill described by Petitioner”: “someone who had, at the
`conception date, at least a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering or an
`equivalent field (or equivalent industry experience) and at least one year of
`experience designing, implementing, and using controlled systems.”
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 14.
`But Dr. Blank further “believe[s] the inventions claimed in the ‘978
`Patent also require background and experience with quaternion mathematics,
`which not all of the persons described above will have.” Id. According to
`Patent Owner, “Quaternion mathematics is a complex topic that is not
`commonly known or understood by those of Petitioner’s proposed level of
`skill.” Prelim. Resp. 25. Relying on testimony by Dr. Blank, Patent Owner
`asserts that “[e]ven individuals with experience far beyond that described by
`Petitioner . . . do not grasp the concept or have not even heard of it.” Id.
`(citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 16 (stating that most of Dr. Blank’s “peers who hold
`advance[d] degrees in various fields of engineering and each have decades
`of academic, industry, and/or consulting experience are unfamiliar with
`quaternion mathematics,” and that it requires specialized education and
`experience to understand and apply it), 91).3
`Although Dr. Sarrafzadeh does not expressly mention experience with
`quaternion mathematics as part of his articulation of the level of skill, he
`
`
`3 It is unclear on this record whether there is a genuine issue of material fact
`as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. To the extent that Dr. Blank’s
`testimony conflicts with Dr. Sarrafzadeh on this point, the Board views such
`conflicting testimony in the light most favorable to Petitioner in deciding
`whether to institute an inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`appears to presume this experience as a component of the background
`education he describes. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶ 30 (“Quaternions were first
`described in the 19th Century.”), ¶ 31 (stating that quaternions allow efficient
`description of rotations, which is of particular concern to the problem
`addressed by the ’978 patent), ¶ 32. (stating that the relationship between
`quaternions and Euler angles (i.e., yaw, pitch, and roll angles) were “well-
`known in the relevant timeframe, and are described in the prior art I
`reviewed” (citing Ex. 1004, 8:63–67; Ex. 1006, 16:65–18:28)).
`The record provides support for Dr. Sarrafzadeh’s position that
`quaternion mathematics was well known in the relevant time frame. First,
`the ’978 patent assumes an understanding of quaternions and does not
`appear to define them for the reader. Second, Bachmann states that “the
`field of quaternion mathematics is known to those having ordinary skill in
`the art and is explained in detail in numerous mathematical texts.” Ex. 1004,
`7:25–28. Bachmann describes the relevant technical field as “methods and
`apparatus for tracking the orientation . . . of an object.” Id. at 1:18–20.4
`Such tracking is also one of the concerns of the ’978 patent. Thus,
`quaternions appear to be a solution to a problem that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have encountered. See In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573,
`1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (stating that the “type of problems encountered in the
`art” is a factor in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art); c.f.
`Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (relying on “the
`prior art itself” as evidence of the level of ordinary skill in the art, where a
`need for testimony on that point is not shown).
`
`
`4 As discussed below, we determine for the purpose of this Decision that the
`Bachmann disclosure is analogous to the invention recited in claim 10.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`
`So for purposes of this Decision, we consider a person of ordinary
`skill in the art to have an undergraduate degree in computer science,
`electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or other related technical
`field, and knowledge of sensor systems and quaternion mathematics. The
`parties will have an opportunity to develop this issue at trial, including
`through cross-examination of the respective declarants.
`
`
`D. Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`1. Overview of Zhang
`Zhang describes a “universal pointing device to control home
`entertainment systems and computer systems using spatial orientation sensor
`technologies.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 7. When a user points the device to an arbitrary
`position of a screen, a set of orientation sensors inside the device detects the
`orientation and generates a pointing direction signal. Id. ¶ 21. Via encoding
`and transmission of the signal to a display control unit, and subsequent
`decoding and processing of the transmitted signal, a pointer image is
`superimposed onto a video input signal and displayed on a screen. Id. “The
`user perceives that the pointer is moved following the aiming line of sight.”
`Id.
`
`Figure 3 of Zhang is reproduced below:
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 3 illustrates internal components of the pointing device, as well as
`external buttons 101, 102, 103 for collecting “user selection activities.” Id.
`¶ 25. Orientation sensors 120 and 130 are mounted on printed circuit board
`160, and respectively sense the device’s yaw angle and pitch angle. Id.
`According to Zhang, “[a]dditional sensors (not show[n] in the picture) could
`be used to detect [the] device’s roll angle which may provide an additional
`dimension of control.” Id. Microcontroller 110 provides computation
`power as well as logic control for transmitted 140 and other electronic
`components. Id. Although Zhang expressly illustrates orientation detection
`with magnetic-field sensors and with accelerometor sensors, it teaches that
`“the orientation detection may not be limited to these types of sensors,” and
`that other sensors such as a “gyro sensor” can be used. Id. ¶ 26.
`
`
`2. Overview of Liberty
`Liberty “relates generally to handheld, pointing devices and, more
`specifically to three-dimensional (hereinafter “3D”) pointing devices and
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`techniques for tilt compensation and improved usability associated
`therewith.” Ex. 1006, 1:31–34. “Such devices enable the translation of
`movement, e.g., gestures, into commands to a user interface,” with Liberty
`describing both angular movements of roll, pitch, and yaw, as well as linear
`movement along “x, y, and z axes.” Id. at 7:20–27. To track user
`movements, Liberty uses sensors within the pointing device, with one
`embodiment including two rotational sensors and one accelerometer. Id. at
`7:57–60.
`Liberty explains that “various measurements and calculations” are
`performed in determining appropriate output for a user interface based on
`outputs of such sensors. Id. at 8:36–42. In particular, such measurements
`and calculations are used to compensate for (1) intrinsic factors, such as
`errors associated with the particular sensors used, and (2) non-intrinsic
`factors associated with the manner in which a user uses the pointing device,
`such as linear acceleration, tilt, and tremor. Id. at 8:42:53. Liberty provides
`examples of mathematical techniques for handling each of these effects. See
`id. at 8:54–12:53. Such techniques include converting data from the frame
`of reference of the pointing device’s body into another frame of reference,
`such as a user’s frame of reference that corresponds to a coordinate system
`associated with a screen on which a user interface is displayed. Id. at 16:21–
`29.
`
`Liberty addresses various modifications that may be made to its
`disclosure, including the use of different sensors that measure motion with
`respect to the body of the device, such as “accelerometers, rotational
`sensors, gyroscopes, magnetometers and cameras.” Id. at 18:30–33. In
`addition, Liberty notes that “[t]he user frame does not need to be stationary,”
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`such as when the user’s frame of reference is selected to be the user’s
`forearm, with the device responding only to wrist and finger movement. Id.
`at 18:34–37.
`
`
`3. Overview of Bachmann
`Bachmann describes “a method and apparatus for tracking the posture
`of a body without the need for a generated field (or source) of a plurality of
`fixed stations.” Ex. 1004, 4:59–62. In particular, Bachmann describes “full
`body posture tracking of multiple users over an area that is only limited by
`the range of a wireless LAN.” Id. at 5:3–6. As Bachmann explains, “a
`system having a plurality of sensors, each mounted to a limb of an
`articulated rigid body can be used to track the orientation of each limb.” Id.
`at 5:25–28. Accordingly, “body posture can be tracked and introduced into
`a synthetic environment, thereby allowing a user to interface with the
`synthetic environment.” Id. at 5:28–30.
`Bachmann describes the use of a filter, in conjunction with data
`supplied by sensors, to produce a sensor orientation estimate. Id. at 7:32–34.
`In one embodiment of Bachmann, “the sensors include a three-axis
`magnetometer and a three-axis accelerometer.” Id. at 7:34–35. In another
`embodiment, “the magnetometers and accelerometers are supplemented with
`angular rate detectors configured to detect the angular velocity of the
`sensor.” Id. at 7:35–40.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`
`Figure 3 of Bachmann is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 3 is a block diagram that illustrates a filtering method disclosed by
`Bachmann. Id. at 4:46–48. Using outputs from accelerometers 31,
`magnetometers 32, and angular rate sensors 33, Bachmann calculates an
`
`is a quaternion representing the orientation of the tracked object in space.
`
`output 𝑞𝑞� (identified by number 39 in the lower right of the drawing), which
`Id. at 10:10–14. In calculating such output 𝑞𝑞�, sensor measurements from
`correction factor 𝑞𝑞̇𝜀𝜀, which is used to compensate rate 𝑞𝑞̇ determined from
`
`angular rate sensors 33 by minimizing the difference between actual and
`predicted measurements. Id. at 9:9–35, 10:10–65.
`
`
`accelerometers 31 and magnetometers 32 are used to calculate rate
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`
`E. Combination of Zhang and Bachmann
`Petitioner challenges claims 10 and 12 as unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Zhang and Bachmann. Pet. 18–60. “The combination
`of Zhang and Bachmann, broadly speaking, uses Zhang’s 3D pointing device
`together with Bachmann’s extra sensors and method for compensating
`rotations.” Id. at 19.
`Pointing to Zhang’s express disclosure that orientation detection may
`not be limited to magnetic-field and accelerometer sensors, and that “a gyro
`sensor[] can also be used in the pointing control system,” Petitioner reasons
`that it would have been obvious to add the angular-rate sensors of
`Bachmann. Id. at 31; Ex. 1005 ¶ 26. In doing so, Petitioner cites to
`testimony by Dr. Sarrafzadeh that one of skill in the art would have
`understood that such additional sensors provide at least two benefits:
`(1) allowing the device to detect different modes of movement, such as a roll
`angle; and (2) increasing the overdetermination to enable better error and
`noise control. Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 94).
`In articulating a motivation to combine the references, Petitioner also
`points to Bachmann’s disclosure that nine-axis sensors were known in the art
`and commercially available, and, in particular, to Bachmann’s disclosure of
`using its sensors in “hand-held devices.” Id. at 31–34; Ex. 1004, 13:42–48.
`As Petitioner summarizes, “Zhang’s device has a housing, sensors and a
`software for using sensor output to calculate the orientation of the device,”
`and “Bachmann has the same, but uses additional sensors and a modified
`calculation.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1002, ¶101). Petitioner reasons that
`“[t]hese functional blocks (sensors and calculations) could have been
`substituted for the same functional blocks in Zhang requiring only ordinary
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`skill to implement,” and that “[t]here would have been no unexpected
`results—only the expected improvement promised by Bachmann.” Id. at
`34–35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 96, 101).
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s detailed claim mapping for claims 10
`and 12 at pages 39–60 of the Petition, and find that Petitioner adequately
`identifies the recited elements in its proposed combination of Zhang and
`Bachmann. Patent Owner makes several preliminary arguments, which we
`address below.
`First, Patent Owner contends that Bachmann is not analogous art
`because it “is not directed to a 3D pointing device, and as such it would not
`be considered prior art from a relevant, analogous field.” Prelim. Resp. 20.
`Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (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 is still “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
`with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir.
`2004). Patent Owner contends that neither test is satisfied, and, in particular,
`that the second test is not satisfied because “[t]he ‘978 Patent addresses the
`problem of more accurately detecting and mapping the movement and
`rotation of a 3D pointing device to more precisely control a display” and
`because “Bachmann does not address the problem of controlling a display.”
`Prelim. Resp. 21.
`On the record before us, we disagree with Patent Owner’s
`characterization of the problem addressed by the ’978 patent as focused on
`the control of a display. Rather, as the ’978 patent itself makes clear in its
`statement of the field of the invention, the problem addressed more generally
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`involves “compensating signals of [an] orientation sensor subject to
`movements and rotations of [a] 3D pointing device.” Ex. 1001, 1:22–27.
`Although Bachmann’s emphasis is on tracking the posture of articulated
`rigid bodies, such as a human body, Bachmann presents its teachings more
`generally as “relate[d] to methods and apparatus for tracking the orientation
`. . . of an object,” and specifically includes “hand-held devices” as examples
`of such objects. Ex. 1004, 1:18–20, 13:47–48. In light of this specific
`teaching, Bachmann “logically would have commended itself to [the]
`inventor’s attention in considering [the] problem” of compensating signals
`of an orientation sensor. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`We thus find Bachmann both to be in the same field of endeavor as the ’978
`patent and reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed.
`Second, Patent Owner contends that the combination of Zhang and
`Bachmann “does not disclose at least the
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
