`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed: April 25, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2019-00534
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00534
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 1
`II. PETITIONER SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO JOIN THE GOOGLE
`IPR, AND THE PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS TIME
`BARRED ........................................................................................................... 2
`III. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 10
`IV. REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE PETITIONER ............................. 18
`A. U.S. Patent 7,089,148 to Bachmann (Bachmann, Exhibit 1004) .. 18
`B. U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2004/0095317 to Zhang (Zhang,
`Exhibit 1005) ..................................................................................... 22
`Zhang has been interpreted by the USPTO in various ex
`i.
`parte examinations against relevant parties ........................ 24
`C. U.S. Patent 7,158,118 to Liberty (Liberty, Exhibit 1006) .............. 24
`Liberty has been interpreted by the USPTO in various ex
`i.
`parte examinations against relevant parties ........................ 26
`V. CHALLENGES .............................................................................................. 28
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 30
`A.
`“3D pointing device” ........................................................................ 32
`B.
`“spatial reference frame”/ “spatial reference frame associated
`with the 3D pointing device” ........................................................... 35
`“rotation output” .............................................................................. 35
`C.
`VII. BACHMANN DOES NOT QUALIFY AS ANALGOUS ART ................. 35
`VIII. THE REFERENCES DO NOT DISCLOSE ALL LIMITATIONS OF
`THE CHALLENGED INVENTIONS ................................................................ 40
`A. Ground 1 –Zhang in view of Bachmann ......................................... 40
`i.
`Claim 1 .................................................................................... 42
`ii.
`Claim 12 .................................................................................. 47
`B. Ground 2 –Liberty in view of Bachmann ........................................ 47
`i.
`Claim 10 .................................................................................. 49
`ii.
`Claim 12 .................................................................................. 51
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 51
`
`
`
`
` i
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00534
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp.,
` 897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................. 7
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
` 383 U.S. 1 (1966). ............................................................................................... 29
`In re Clay,
` 966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................................................................. 37
`
`In re Dembiczak,
` 175 F.3d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................. 30
`
`In re Gurley,
` 27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................... 30
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
` 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 29, 30
`
`Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
` 848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 41, 48
`
`Richardson-Vicks Inc. v. Upjohn Co.,
` 122 F.3d 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................... 29
`
`Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.,
` 721 Fed. Appx. 943 (Fed. Cir. 2018). ................................................................. 37
`
`Ventex Co., Ltd. v. Columbia Sportswear N.A., Inc.,
` IPR2017-00651, Paper 148 (PTAB January 24, 2019) ......................................... 6
`
`W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
` 721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ........................................................................... 29
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................. 29, 37
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ................................................................................................... 4, 10
`
` ii
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00534
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I. SUMMARY
`
`
`Petitioner has challenged the patentability of Claims 10 and 12 of U.S.
`
`IPR2019-00534
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`Patent No. 8,552,978 (the “‘978 Patent”) based solely on obviousness grounds.
`
`Petitioner cannot meet its burden of showing that any of the claims are
`
`unpatentable over the asserted combination for at least the following reasons:
`
`• Petitioner’s challenges rely on two different combinations of references—
`
`Zhang in view of Bachmann, and Liberty in view of Bachmann—neither of
`
`which teaches or suggests all the claim limitations.
`
`• The Bachmann (Ex. 1004) device is not a “3D pointing device;” it is not a
`
`handheld device used to control actions on a display and does not point to
`
`anything at all. Bachmann merely measures movements of an articulated rigid
`
`object such as limbs of a human body. Tellingly, neither Petitioner nor the
`
`Board alleges that Bachmann discloses a “3D pointing device.” As such,
`
`Bachmann is not analogous art to the ‘978 Patent. See infra Section VI.
`
`• Petitioner’s challenges based on the combination of Zhang (Ex. 1005) and
`
`Bachmann and the combination of Liberty (Ex. 1006) and Bachmann rely on
`
`references that would not be combined by one of ordinary skill in the art. Dr.
`
`LaViola, a PHOSITA with extensive experience in the relevant art, has
`
`concluded that one of skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the
`
`references because they provide no reason for why they can be combined and,
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`in
`
`fact,
`
`teach away
`
`from such combination, would
`
`IPR2019-00534
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`require undue
`
`experimentation to achieve an operable combination according to the express
`
`requirements and teachings of the references, and a PHOSITA would therefore
`
`have no reasonable expectation of success
`
`in achieving an operable
`
`combination. See infra Section VII.A and VII.B.
`
`For at least these reasons, the Board should deny the Petition.
`
`
`
`II. PETITIONER SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO JOIN THE GOOGLE
`IPR, AND THE PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS TIME
`BARRED
`
`Petitioner has submitted a Motion for Joinder to Google LLC v. CyWee
`
`Group Ltd., IPR2018-001258 (the “Google IPR”) along with its Petition in the
`
`present IPR.1 Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder should be denied, and its Petition
`
`should be dismissed as time barred, for at least the following reasons.
`
`First, Petitioner is attempting to game the IPR system in a concerted effort
`
`with Google to sidestep the related district court action, which had progressed
`
`considerably before being stayed, and circumvent the time bar preventing it from
`
`filing its own petition. Second, Samsung is merely one of four parties now seeking
`
`joinder to the Google IPRs; this abusive deluge of joinder petitions raises new
`
`questions of fact regarding the real parties in interest (“RPIs”) and will require
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner has also filed a petition and motion to join Google LLC v. CyWee
`Group Ltd., IPR2018-001258 regarding related U.S. Patent 8,441,438 (IPRs 2018-
`001257 and 001258 are referred to collectively as the “Google IPRs”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00534
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`additional discovery from multiple parties. Third, Petitioner’s actions thus far
`
`indicate that it will not truly be taking a “silent understudy” role in the Google IPR.
`
`Fourth, Samsung and LG have made binding representations to the USPTO
`
`regarding prior art references asserted in the Google IPR that are contrary to the
`
`positions they seek to take in the Google IPR proceeding. Finally, Samsung seeks
`
`to use the Google IPRs as a vehicle to resurrect prior art assertions that Petitioner
`
`abandoned long ago.
`
`The Board recently issued a precedential opinion denying joinder in
`
`Proppant Express Investments, LLC, et al., v. Oren Tech., LLC, IPR2018-00914,
`
`Paper 38 (PTAB, March 13, 2019). Proppant makes clear that the discretionary
`
`nature of joinder is designed to avoid gamesmanship and prejudice to the Patent
`
`Owner. Congress’ intent in establishing the AIA proceedings was “to provide a
`
`cheaper, faster alternative to district court litigation” that could “be used instead of,
`
`rather than in addition to, civil litigation.” 157 Cong. Rec. S1363 (daily ed. Mar. 8,
`
`2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer). The district court action against Samsung has
`
`progressed considerably, as claim construction has concluded, expert reports have
`
`been exchanged, and motions for summary judgment have been filed by both
`
`Patent Owner and Samsung. After receiving a claim construction order that was
`
`unfavorable to its positions, Petitioner Samsung now seeks to subvert that adverse
`
`order and its own prior positions by moving to join the Google IPRs after staying
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00534
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`the district court proceedings. Indeed, after two years of district court litigation
`
`which progressed until virtually the eve of trial, Petitioner seeks to join the Google
`
`IPRs in a desperate attempt to renew its reliance on a reference, Bachmann, which
`
`it previously abandoned in district court proceedings.
`
` Where a time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) exists, the Board will only
`
`exercise its discretion to grant joinder under § 315(c) in limited circumstances.
`
`Proppant, IPR2018-00914, Paper 38 at 16. This narrow exercise may be justified
`
`where, for example, a patent owner has taken certain actions in a co-pending
`
`litigation (e.g., the late addition of newly asserted claims). Id. at 19. No such action
`
`has been taken here by the Patent Owner, CyWee. Rather, Petitioner seeks to
`
`circumvent the § 315(b) time bar through its Petition and Motion for Joinder to the
`
`Google IPR. CyWee served its patent infringement complaint on Samsung on
`
`February 23, 2017, in the Eastern District of Texas. Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`
`comes nearly a full year after the § 315(b) deadline to file an IPR petition of its
`
`own. Samsung waited on the sidelines until after Google filed its IPRs and used its
`
`after-the-fact request to join the IPRs to stay the district court action. Because of
`
`the advanced stage of the litigation, the stay significantly prejudices Patent Owner.
`
`Based on the available facts, it appears that Samsung has acted in concert
`
`with Google to attempt to circumvent the time bar under § 315. Four parties now
`
`seek joinder to the Google IPRs—Samsung, LG, ZTE, and Huawei (collectively,
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00534
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`the “Joinder Petitioners”). All of the Joinder Petitioners utilize Google’s Android
`
`operating system in their respective accused infringing devices. They are thus
`
`common members of the “Android Ecosystem” with the mutual goal of selling
`
`more devices, including the accused devices, to more users. See Android
`
`Compatibility Program Overview, ANDROID OPEN SOURCE PROJECT available at
`
`https://source.android.com/compatibility/overview#android-compatibility-is-free-
`
`and-its-easy. In the corresponding district court action against it, Google was
`
`requested to produce any licensing, joint defense, joint interest, and/or other
`
`agreements between Google and Samsung. Ex. 2011, Responses to RFPs 3, 4, and
`
`5. Google refused to produce such agreements, but, tellingly, did not deny their
`
`existence. This tacit admission that such agreements exist means that granting
`
`joinder will necessitate additional discovery in the Google IPRs regarding such
`
`agreements between Google, Samsung, and the other Joinder Petitioners, as well as
`
`any other third parties that may have an interest in the outcome of those IPRs.
`
`As but one example of such agreements, Google has entered into the
`
`“Android Networked Cross-License” agreement (the “PAX”) with Samsung, LG,
`
`and HTC and other Android-based device makers in order to “collectively defend
`
`themselves against patent lawsuits.” Google and Top Android Partners Agree to
`
`Share Software Patents, THE VERGE (April 3, 2017, 3:16PM) available at
`
`https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/3/15164556/pax-google-samsung-htc-lg-patent-
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00534
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`peace-group. According to Google’s VP of Business Operations for Android, the
`
`members of PAX have pooled resources (e.g., patents) and entered into cross-
`
`licenses with the express purpose of growing the Android Ecosystem. Introducing
`
`PAX: the Android Networked Cross-License Agreement, Jamie Rosenberg, The
`
`Keyword, GOOGLE (April 3, 2017) available at https://blog.google/outreach-
`
`initiatives/public-policy/introducing-pax-android-networked-cross-license-
`
`agreement/. These parties therefore have a “mutual interest in the continuing
`
`commercial and financial success of each other.” See Ventex Co., Ltd. v. Columbia
`
`Sportswear N.A., Inc., IPR2017-00651, Paper 148 (PTAB January 24, 2019).
`
`The facts here closely parallel those in Ventex, a decision recently
`
`designated as precedential by the Board. In that decision, the Board dismissed the
`
`petition because the petitioner—a supplier of an accused infringing material—
`
`failed to disclose as an RPI an otherwise time-barred defendant—a manufacturer
`
`that
`
`incorporated
`
`the
`
`infringing material
`
`into
`
`its products—in a related
`
`infringement suit. Id. at 3, 7. Here, Google likewise conspicuously failed to name
`
`Samsung as an RPI in filing its petitions. According to its petitions, Google knew
`
`of Patent Owner’s suit against Samsung as a related matter in which the same
`
`patents were being asserted. Had Google named Samsung as an RPI, its petitions—
`
`filed June 14, 2018—would have been dismissed as time barred under § 315(b).
`
`Huawei, the only party Google did name as an RPI, on the other hand, did not
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00534
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`present such an issue for Google. It is apparent on these facts that Google and
`
`Samsung have thus acted with concerted gamesmanship to create a loophole that
`
`would allow Samsung to be involved in the Google IPRs without triggering the §
`
`315(b) time bar. In sum, Samsung should not now be permitted to game the system
`
`by joining in its partner’s petition after it was time-barred from filing its own
`
`petition. See id. at 6 (the § 315(b) time bar serves “to safeguard patent owners from
`
`having to defend their patents against belated administrative attacks by related
`
`parties”) (quoting Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., 897 F.3d
`
`1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
`
`Patent Owner also now faces the piling on of the four Joinder Petitioners to
`
`each of the Google IPRs. Joinder by these petitioners raises several new and
`
`significant issues that were not originally at issue in the Google IPRs.
`
`As Patent Owner already mentioned in its Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion
`
`for Joinder, it is impossible to believe that the Joinder Petitioners will be willing to
`
`take understudy roles in the Google IPRs. The Joinder Petitioners appear to be
`
`making concerted efforts in their actions thus far. The four Joinder Petitioners
`
`moved to join at the same time, all of them using virtually identical motions for
`
`joinder with nearly identical language. Congress granted the Office discretion over
`
`granting joinder precisely to prevent this kind of cumulative and harassing practice
`
`by providing a “safety valve [to] allow the Office to avoid being overwhelmed...
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00534
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`[by] a deluge of joinder petitions in a particular case.” Unified Patents, Inc. v.
`
`PersonalWeb Tech., LLC, et al., IPR2014-00702, Paper 12 at 4 (quoting 157 Cong.
`
`Rec. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl)).
`
`Samsung has already shown that it intends to pursue active and aggressive
`
`involvement in the Google IPRs. Samsung, before even being joined, sought to
`
`reduce Patent Owner’s time to file this preliminary response, a request that the
`
`Board denied because Samsung could not provide a legitimate reason for why a
`
`shortened time for a preliminary response was warranted. Indeed, the only effect a
`
`grant of this request would have had is, once again, putting unnecessary pressure
`
`and hardship on the Patent Owner.
`
`Furthermore, as will be discussed below, Samsung has made representations
`
`and responded to findings made by the USPTO regarding Zhang and Liberty
`
`during the prosecution of its own applications for patents. As to Google, these
`
`representations are indicative of how a PHOSITA would understand the inventions
`
`of Zhang and Liberty. However, as to Samsung, these representations should be
`
`binding as an admission of a party opponent. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). As will
`
`be discussed in Section IV.B.i, Samsung’s statements to the USPTO are entirely
`
`inconsistent with Google’s position that Zhang and Liberty are analogous art to
`
`Bachmann. Because the representations made to and/or by the USPTO during
`
`examination of Samsung’s patent applications will have a different effect on some
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00534
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`of the Petitioners than they will on others, for this reason alone, joinder should not
`
`be granted.
`
`Finally, Samsung originally identified Bachmann (Ex. 1004) as a prior art
`
`reference in its invalidity contentions before the Eastern District of Texas but later
`
`dropped this reference from its invalidity positions altogether, obviously because it
`
`did not consider Bachmann to be relevant analogous art to the CyWee Patents.
`
`Samsung intentionally omitted Bachmann from its invalidity contentions and
`
`expert reports, and yet it now seeks another chance to assert against CyWee the
`
`same reference that it previously discarded. Such gamesmanship of the IPR system
`
`is the kind that the Board cautioned against in Proppant, where the Board made
`
`clear that it will typically refuse to exercise its discretion to grant joinder to correct
`
`“the mistakes or omissions of a petitioner.” Proppant, IPR2018-00914, Paper 38 at
`
`4. Here, Samsung’s removal of Bachmann from its invalidity contentions at district
`
`court was no mere “mistake or omission,” it was an intentional and calculated
`
`action after careful consideration by Samsung and its attorneys. Samsung should
`
`not be allowed to use Google as a proxy to correct for its own actions in the co-
`
`pending litigation in order to resurrect its long-abandoned position. Allowing for a
`
`petitioner to game the IPR system in this way is greatly prejudicial and abusive to
`
`patent owners and should be disallowed. See Ventex, IPR2017-00651, Paper 148 at
`
`6, 12 (disallowing multiple IPRs by a party and its proxy “safeguard[s] patent
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00534
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`owners from having to defend their patents against belated administrative attacks
`
`by related parties”).
`
`
`
`For the reasons above as well as those explained in Patent Owner’s
`
`Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (Paper 6), Petitioner should not be
`
`allowed to join the Google IPRs, and the Petition should be dismissed as time
`
`barred by § 315(b).
`
`III. BACKGROUND
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,553,978 (the “‘978 Patent”) (Ex. 1001) issued on October 8,
`
`2013, with 18 claims including independent claims 1 and 10. Of these claims,
`
`independent claim 10, as well as dependent claim 12—which depends from claim
`
`10—are subject to the Petition.
`
`The claims subject to the Petition are directed to a 3D pointing device and an
`
`enhanced method for compensating the movement thereof. Ex. 1001, Abstract. As
`
`will be discussed infra in Section V.A, a 3D pointing device 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.” Declaration of
`
`Dr. Joseph LaViola, Ex. 2004, ¶ 53.
`
`The 3D pointing device of the ‘978 Patent utilizes a nine-axis sensor module
`
`that may include sensors known in the art. These sensors include sensors for
`
`detecting axial acceleration (i.e., accelerometers) along three spatial axes, sensors
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00534
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`for detecting the angular velocity of rotation (i.e., gyroscopes) about those same
`
`three axes, and sensors for detecting magnetic field (i.e., magnetometers) about the
`
`same three axes. Exhibit 1001, 4:15-32. The invention applies a novel “enhanced
`
`comparison method” to reduce and compensate for errors and noise in the sensor
`
`readings that normally accumulate over time in order to better map the movements
`
`of the device and have the capability to more precisely control a display. Id. at
`
`4:33-57.
`
`After taking readings of a first signal set comprising the axial accelerations
`
`along the three axes from the accelerometer and a second signal set comprising the
`
`magnetic fields about the three axes from the magnetometer and the rotation output
`
`comprising the angular velocities about the three spatial axes, the claimed method
`
`fuses the three signal sets, and maps the movements of the 3D pointing device onto
`
`the display frame of a screen. Id. Claim 10, Fig. 10-11; Ex. 2004, ¶ 32. Claim 10,
`
`Fig. 10-11.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00534
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`
`
`The ‘978 Patent describes the 3D pointing device to be a handheld portable
`
`electronic device such as a controller, smartphone, or navigation equipment. Ex.
`
`1001, 8:38-42, 13:5-16, Figs. 3 and 6. The optional display on which the pointing
`
`device’s movements can be mapped may be attached or integrated with the
`
`pointing device itself, such as in a mobile gaming system or a smartphone. Id. at
`
`13:5-16, Fig. 6.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00534
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`
`
`The 3D pointing device and enhanced comparison method of the ‘978 Patent
`
`utilizes at least three types of motion sensors: accelerometers, magnetometers, and
`
`rotation sensors such as gyroscopes. Ex. 2004, ¶ 34. Accelerometers are used to
`
`measure axial accelerations. Id. For example, car airbags use accelerometers to
`
`trigger release when a sudden deceleration is detected. Id. Accelerometers can also
`
`be used to measure the forces exerted by the acceleration due to gravity. Id.
`
`Gyroscopes are used to measure angular velocity, the rate of rotation about an axis.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00534
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`Id. Magnetometers measure magnetism such as the strength of a magnetic field
`
`along a particular direction. Id. Each kind of sensor suffers from inaccuracies. Id.
`
`For instance, gyroscopes are subject to a small, added bias. Id. This bias is an
`
`offset from the true value that accumulates over time and eventually amasses to a
`
`potentially very large drift error. Id. Magnetometers suffer from interference from
`
`magnetic fields generated by various natural and manmade sources (e.g., powered
`
`electronics). Id. Each sensor typically only takes measurements along a single axial
`
`direction. Id. In order to accurately measure motion and orientation in a three-
`
`dimensional reference frame, three sensors of a kind must be grouped together and
`
`arranged orthogonally to one another. Id. A set of three sensors aligned at right
`
`angles like this is referred to as a three-axis sensor. Id.
`
`The ‘978 Patent discloses and claims technology for combining different
`
`kinds of sensors to incorporate their data and to correct for the errors generated by
`
`the various sensors. Id. at ¶ 35. Specifically, the ‘978 Patent discloses and claims
`
`an improved nine-axis sensor system and a method for measuring, calculating, and
`
`mapping orientation (including deviation angles along three axes) by using
`
`measurements from a three-axis accelerometer, a three-axis magnetometer, and a
`
`rotation sensor such as a three-axis gyroscope. Ex. 1001, 4:15-32. The ‘978 Patent
`
`further discloses and claims an enhanced method for combining or fusing the
`
`various signal sets that is capable of reducing the errors and noise that accumulate
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00534
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`over time. Id. at 4:33-57. This technology is capable of accurately representing the
`
`orientation and movement of a portable 3D pointing device in three-dimensional
`
`space on a two-dimensional display. Id. at 7:55-67; Ex. 2004, ¶ 35. The invention
`
`of the ‘978 Patent is capable of mapping deviation angles such as yaw, pitch, and
`
`roll of the pointing device relating to its movement onto a display reference frame,
`
`such as that of a two-dimensional display screen. Id.; Ex. 1001, 5:12-45. In sum,
`
`the ‘978 Patent claims an improved system and method for capturing the motion of
`
`a pointing device in a three-dimensional space, compensating or correcting for
`
`errors in the sensed motion, and outputting a movement pattern on a display frame
`
`to control actions on a display. Ex. 2004, ¶ 35.
`
`The invention of the ‘978 Patent corrects for such errors using its novel
`
`enhanced comparison method. An embodiment of the method can be found in
`
`Figure 10 of the ‘978 Patent. Ex. 1001, Fig. 10. First, a quaternion is taken from a
`
`previous timestep t-1 (the first quaternion) and used in conjunction with the
`
`angular velocity from the rotation sensor (three-axis gyroscope) and the differential
`
`equation described in Equation 1 to compute a current quaternion at time t (the
`
`second quaternion). Id. at 16:27-56, Fig. 10; Ex. 2004, ¶ 36. This second
`
`quaternion is used to compute predicted axial accelerations with Equations 2-4 and
`
`predicted magnetisms with Equations 18-20 in the ‘978 Patent. Ex. 1001, 16:57-
`
`17:23, 22:34-23:8; Ex. 2004, ¶ 36. The method then takes the current quaternion
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00534
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`(second quaternion), the predicted axial accelerations, the measured axial
`
`accelerations (first signal set), the predicted magnetisms, and the measured
`
`magnetisms (second signal set) and uses Equations 5-11 to compute an updated
`
`quaternion (third quaternion). Ex. 1001, 17:24-18:33; Ex. 2004, ¶ 36.
`
`A PHOSITA would understand that Equations 5-11 represent a non-linear
`
`recursive estimator which, in the case of this embodiment of the ‘978 Patent,
`
`combines elements of an extended Kalman Filter coupled with a weighted vector
`
`norm. Id. Equation 5 is the predicted state estimate. Ex. 1001, 17:47-54; Ex. 2004,
`
`¶ 37. The predicted covariance estimate is equivalent to the Equation above
`
`Equation 6 in the ’978 patent. Ex. 1001, 17:55-67; Ex. 2004, ¶ 37. The state
`
`transition Jacobian matrix is equivalent to Equations 6 and 7 in the ‘978 Patent. Id.
`
`This state transition Jacobian matrix maps to both Equations 6 and 7 based on
`
`which variable is held constant during partial differentiation. Id. Equation 8
`
`describes the innovation or measured residual. Ex. 1001, 18:1-6; Ex. 2004, ¶ 37.
`
`The innovation or measured residual covariance matrix is Equation 9. Ex. 1001,
`
`18:7-17; Ex. 2004, ¶ 37. The observation Jacobian matrix described is equivalent
`
`to Equation 10. Id. Finally, the weighted vector norm is presented as Equation 11
`
`which ultimately takes the information from the process and measurement models
`
`and finds an optimal recursive least squares estimate for the updated quaternion.
`
`Ex. 1001, 18:18-24; Ex. 2004, ¶ 37. This procedure (Equations 5-11) effectively
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00534
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`combines or fuses the second quaternion, the predicted axial acceleration, the
`
`measured axial accelerations, the predicted magnetism, and the measured
`
`magnetism to compute the third quaternion (updated state). Ex. 1001, 17:24-18:33,
`
`Fig. 10; Ex. 2004, ¶ 37.
`
`The orientation information returned by the claimed invention of the ‘978
`
`Patent has many potential applications, particularly when applied to mobile cellular
`
`devices. Ex. 2004, ¶ 38. These applications include such uses as navigation,
`
`gaming, and augmented and virtual reality simulation. Id. Navigation applications
`
`can use orientation information from the mobile phone to determine the direction
`
`the user is facing and then automatically re-orient the map to align with the
`
`cardinal directions. Id. Many mobile games and other applications use the motion
`
`of the phone to trigger input commands, for instance, rotating the mobile phone to
`
`simulate turning a steering wheel. Id. Augmented and virtual reality simulation
`
`applications rely on accurate determination of the device’s orientation to properly
`
`render graphics and images at the correct location on the screen. Id. Even small
`
`inconsistencies in tracking a device’s orientation and movement in virtual reality
`
`simulation can result in severe cybersickness for the user, rendering the simulator
`
`unusable. Id.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IV. REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE PETITIONER
`A. U.S. Patent 7,089,148 to Bachmann (Bachmann, Exhibit 1004)
`
`IPR2019-00534
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`
`
`Bachmann is directed towards a method and apparatus for motion tracking
`
`of articulated rigid bodies. Ex. 1004, Abstract. To this end, Bachmann discloses
`
`using a “three-axis magnetometer,” a “three-axis accelerometer,” and a “three-axis
`
`angular rate sensor.” Id. at 10:10-14. Bachmann discloses methods for minimizing
`
`error. Id. at 7:32-45.
`
`Bachmann is not directed towards a 3D pointing device. It is directed to a
`
`system and method for tracking the motions of an articulated rigid body, namely a
`
`human body. Id. 13:32-41, 48-51, Fig. 4. The multiple sensor devices of Bachmann
`
`are placed on the body and are not used to point to anything or control any actions
`
`at all. Ex. 2004, ¶ 57. Bachmann merely tracks movement without mapping those
`
`movements onto a 2D display frame as a movement pattern for controlling a virtual
`
`object on the display. Id. Neither Samsung nor Google contends that Bachmann
`
`discloses a 3D pointing device, and Dr. LaViola agrees that it does not disclose this
`
`limitation. Id. And as mentioned, Samsung acknowledged in the district court that
`
`Bachmann is not analogous by discarding the reference altogether.
`
`Bachmann discloses the ability to mount its various sensor units on
`
`articulated rigid bodies, such as various limbs of the human body, to track motion.
`
`Id. While Bachmann acknowledges that such sensors may also be used to track
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00534
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`movement of handheld props such as “swords, pistols, or simulated weapons,” it
`
`explicitly states that it is not directed towards such devices themselves (none of
`
`which by themselves are 3D pointing devices, as that claim term has been
`
`construed), but is inste