Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2019-00560
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`II.
`
`Page
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ............................................................................................1
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL ...................................................2
`NOTICE OF THE REAL-PARTIES-IN-INTEREST..............................................3
`NOTICE OF RELATED MATTERS.......................................................................3
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATION...............................................................4
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING.................................................................................5
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ............................................5
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW.......................5
`I.
`INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................6
`A.
`Prosecution History and Issued Claims .............................................10
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .........................................................................12
`A.
`Claim 10—“spatial reference frame” and similar terms....................14
`B.
`Claim 10—“rotation output”..............................................................16
`GROUNDS .............................................................................................................17
`Ground 1. Claims 10 and 12 are obvious over Zhang in view of Bachmann. ......17
`Overview of the Combination ......................................................................18
`Rationale for the Combination .....................................................................28
`Ability to Implement and Reasonable Expectation of Success....................35
`Graham Factors............................................................................................37
`Claim Mapping.............................................................................................37
`Ground 2. Claims 10 and 12 are unpatentable over Liberty in view of
`Bachmann. ....................................................................................................58
`Overview of the Combination ......................................................................59
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Rationale for the Combination .....................................................................65
`Ability to Implement and Reasonable Expectation of Success....................71
`Difference Between the Combination and Prior Discussion of Liberty ......73
`Graham Factors............................................................................................74
`Claim Mapping.............................................................................................74
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................81
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE...............................................................................82
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT.....................................................................83
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978 (“the ’978 patent”).
`
`Declaration of Professor Majid Sarrafzadeh.
`
`C.V. of Professor Majid Sarrafzadeh.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,089,148 (“Bachmann”).
`
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2004/0095317 (“Zhang”).
`
`U.S. Pat. 7,158,118 (“Liberty”).
`
`Return of Service for Cywee Group Ltd. v. Google, Inc., Case
`No. 1-18-cv-00571, (D. Del.).
`
`Return of Service for Cywee Group Ltd. v. Huawei
`Technologies Co., Inc. et al., Case No. 2-17-cv-00495, (E.D.
`Tex.).
`
`1009
`
`File History of U.S. Pat. App. 13/176,771.
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement in Cywee
`Group Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 2-17-
`cv-00140, (E.D. Tex.).
`
`Exhibit E (Claim chart with of U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978) to
`CyWee’s Complaint in Cywee Group Ltd. v. Google, Inc., Case
`No. 1-18-cv-00571, (D. Del.)
`
`1012
`
`Institution Decision for IPR2018-01257 (paper 8)
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`LG Electronics Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter partes review
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §311 of claims 10 and 12 of U.S. Pat. 8,552,978 (“the ’978
`
`patent”). This Petition is being submitted concurrently with a Motion for Joinder.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner requests institution and joinder with Google LLC v. Cywee
`
`Group Ltd., IPR2018-01257 (“the Google IPR” or “the Google proceeding”),
`
`which the Board instituted on December 11, 2018. This Petition is substantially
`
`identical to the Petition in the Google IPR; it contains the same grounds (based on
`
`the same prior art combinations and supporting evidence) against the same claims.
`
`Petitioner authorizes the Office to charge Account No. 50-0310 for fees set forth in
`
`37.C.F.R. § 42.15(a), and further authorizes payment of additional fees to be
`
`charged to that Account.
`
`NOTICE OF LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL
`Lead Counsel: Collin W. Park (Reg. No. 43,378); Tel: 202.739.3000;
`
`Facsimile: 202.739.3001.
`
`Backup Counsel: Andrew V. Devkar (Reg. No. 76,671); Tel: 310.255.9070
`
`Backup Counsel: Jeremy Peterson (Reg. No. 52,115); Tel: 202.739.3000.
`
`Backup Counsel: Adam D. Brooke (Reg. No. 58,922); Tel: 202.739.3000
`
`Address of
`
`lead counsel: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 1111
`
`Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004-2541.
`
` Facsimile:
`
`202.739.3001.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`NOTICE OF THE REAL-PARTIES-IN-INTEREST
`The real-parties-in-interest for this petition are LG Electronics Inc. and LG
`
`Electronics U.S.A., Inc.1 Petitioner further identifies as real-parties-in-interest the
`
`parties identified in IPR2018-01257 (to which this petition seeks joinder): 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., Huawei Device (Hong Kong) Co. Ltd.
`
`NOTICE OF RELATED MATTERS
`The ’978 patent is asserted in the following matters:
`
` Cywee Group Ltd. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 1-18-cv-00571, (D. Del.);
`
` Cywee Group Ltd. v. ZTE Corporation et al., Case No. 3-17-cv-
`
`02130, (S.D. Cal.);
`
` Cywee Group Ltd. v. HTC Corporation et al., Case No. 2-17-cv-
`
`00932, (W.D. Wash.);
`
` Cywee Group Ltd. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, Case No. 1-17-cv-
`
`00780, (D. Del.);
`
`
`
`1 LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. merged into and is now part of LG
`
`Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
` Cywee Group Ltd. v. Huawei Technologies Co., Inc. et al., Case No.
`
`2-17-cv-00495, (E.D. Tex.);
`
` Cywee Group Ltd. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Case No. 3-17-cv-
`
`01102, (S.D. Cal.);
`
` Cywee Group Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 2-
`
`17-cv-00140, (E.D. Tex.);
`
` Cywee Group Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4-14-cv-01853, (N.D. Cal.).
`
`Also, as noted above, the ’978 patent has been challenged in the Google IPR
`
`Proceeding. Petitioner has concurrently filed a motion to join this proceeding. The
`
`’978 patent is also at issue in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al v. CyWee Group
`
`Ltd., IPR2019-00534. Petitioner is also concurrently filing a petition challenging
`
`claims 1 and 3-5 of U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438 (IPR2019-00559) along with a
`
`motion to join Google LLC v. Cywee Group Ltd., IPR2018-01258, which the
`
`Board instituted on December 11, 2018.
`
`NOTICE OF SERVICE INFORMATION
`Please address all correspondence to the lead counsel at the addresses shown
`
`above. Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at:
`
` collin.park@morganlewis.com;
`
` andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com;
`
` jeremy.peterson@morganlewis.com;
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
` adam.brooke@morganlewis.com; and
`
` MLB_CyWeevsLGE@morganlewis.com.
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the patent for which review is sought is
`
`available for inter partes review, and that the Petitioner is not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting an inter partes review on the grounds identified in the petition. In
`
`particular, inter partes review IPR2018-01257 was instituted on December 11,
`
`2018 (Ex.1012) and this petition is accompanied by a request for joinder in that
`
`review, pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.122(b).
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner respectfully requests that claims 10 and 12 of the ’978 patent be
`
`canceled based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 10 and 12 are obvious over Zhang and Bachmann.
`
`Ground 2: Claims 10 and 12 are obvious over Liberty and Bachmann.
`
`THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`This petition presents “a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioners would
`
`prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition”, 35
`
`U.S.C. §314(a), as shown in the Grounds explained below.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The present petition is supported by the declaration of Prof. Majid
`
`Sarrafzadeh (Ex.1002). Professor Sarrafzadeh holds the title of Distinguished
`
`Professor of Computer Science & Electrical Engineering at the University of
`
`California, Los Angeles. Professor Sarrafzadeh’s CV is included as Exhibit 1003.
`
`The ’978 patent relates to 3D pointing devices. (Ex.1001, Title). The ’978
`
`patent describes the function of a 3D pointing device as “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, 1:31-33)(Ex.1002,
`
`¶26). For example, a 3D pointing device could be a kind of computer mouse that
`
`detects movements and rotations of the mouse in three dimensions, allowing the
`
`movements and rotations to be translated into actions on a computer. (Ex.1001,
`
`1:52-61)(Ex.1002, ¶26). An example of such a device 110 (and a corresponding
`
`display 120) is shown in Fig. 1 of the ’978 patent, reproduced below:
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`To keep track of the motions and rotations of a 3D pointing device, the ’978
`
`patent proposes using three kinds of sensors: rotation sensors (for detecting the
`
`angular velocity of rotation), accelerometers (for detecting axial accelerations), and
`
`magnetometers (for detecting the local magnetic field). (Ex.1001, Fig. 4)(Ex.1002,
`
`¶27). These sensors are mounted in or on the 3D pointing device, and provide
`
`information on the movements and rotations of the device. (Ex.1002, ¶27).
`
`The ’978 patent also purports to provide methods of using data output from
`
`the rotation sensors, accelerometers and magnetometers to calculate the orientation
`
`of the 3D pointing device. (Ex.1001, 4:15-57)(Ex.1002, ¶28). The “orientation” of
`
`the device (also called the “attitude” or “tilt” of the device) is the direction of the
`
`device, e.g. the angles between the device and the axes of any given coordinate
`
`system.’ (Ex.1001, 1:62-64)(Ex.1002, ¶28). For example, Fig. 2 of the ’978 patent
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`shows the same device 110 in a different “orientation”, having been rotated about
`
`the x-axis by 90 degrees:
`
`(Ex.1001, 2:11-14)(Ex.1002, ¶28).
`
`While the ’978 patent acknowledges the existence of prior-art 3D pointers
`
`using sensors to detect and calculate orientation, the ’978 patent criticizes the
`
`specific devices mentioned as allegedly unable to calculate orientation accurately.
`
`(Ex.1001, 2:41-3:52)(Ex.1002, ¶33). The ’978 patent purports to provide a
`
`solution2 to the alleged deficiencies of the prior art, by using additional sensors and
`
`
`
`2 Orientation may be expressed in a number of equivalent ways, such as with a
`
`quaternion. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶30-32).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`“compensating” the output of the sensors to improve the accuracy of the
`
`orientation calculation. (Ex.1001, 1:22-27).
`
`To “compensate” the output of the sensors, the ’978 patent discloses a
`
`mathematical method using quaternions. (Ex.1001, 16:5 et seq.)(Ex.1002, ¶34). As
`
`explained by Professor Sarrafzadeh, a “quaternion” is a way to represent an
`
`orientation (rotation angles) using a four-valued vector. (Ex.1002, ¶¶30-32).
`
`Quaternion math operations (such as multiplication) are defined differently than
`
`for standard vectors, and can sometimes be used for efficient calculation of
`
`rotations. (Ex.1002, ¶¶30-32).
`
`A basic sketch of the ’978 patent
`
`method can be seen in Fig. 7, which is
`
`reproduced at right. The method of Fig. 7
`
`obtains measured angular velocities at
`
`step 715
`
`(Ex.1001,
`
`16:27-30) and
`
`measured axial accelerations in step 725
`
`(Ex.1001, 16:60-64). The method then
`
`calculates a predicted set of axial
`
`accelerations at step 730. (Ex.1001,
`
`17:2-9). By comparing the actual and
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`predicted accelerations (step 735), the method purports to improve the estimate of
`
`orientation (called the “updated state (3rd quaternion)” in box 735). (Ex.1001,
`
`18:25-55)(Ex.1002, ¶34).
`
`A.
`
`Prosecution History and Issued Claims
`
`This petition challenges independent claim 10 and dependent claim 12. As
`
`originally filed, claim 10 (then numbered claim 12), read as follows:
`
`“12. 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;
`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.”
`
`(Ex.1009, p. 044-045). The claim was thus directed to generating a rotation output
`
`(i.e. output of rotation sensors), calculating orientation output, and then somehow
`
`“using” orientation output and rotation output to generate a “transformed output”.
`
`The Examiner initially rejected all original claims for double patenting, and
`
`as anticipated or obvious over U.S. Pat. Pub 2009/0262074 to Nasiri. (Ex.1009, pp.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`071-089). The applicants responded by requesting an interview. (Ex.1009, pp. 060-
`
`066). In the interview request, the applicants’ representative argued that Nasiri did
`
`not teach using a global reference frame associated with Earth, and that Nasiri
`
`“only briefly talks about ‘magnetometers’ (Ex.1009, pp. 060-066).
`
`The applicants then submitted an amendment. (Ex.1009, pp. 040-055). In the
`
`amendment, the applicants modified claim 12 to add several limitations. First, the
`
`applicants added language to claim 12 requiring generating signal sets associated
`
`with accelerometers and magnetometers. (Ex.1009, pp. 044-045). Second, the
`
`applicants specified that the “orientation output” must be “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”. (Id.). Third, the applicants specified that “the orientation
`
`output and the rotation output is generated by a nine-axis motion sensor module”,
`
`and that a “resultant deviation including a plurality of deviation angles” must be
`
`obtained “using” a “plurality of measured magnetisms Mx, My, Mz and a plurality
`
`of predicted magnetism Mx’, My’ and Mz’ for the second signal set.” (Id.).
`
`Following the amendment, the Examiner allowed the claims without further
`
`comment. (Ex.1009, pp. 024-027). As issued, independent claim 10 reads as
`
`follows:
`
`“10. A method for compensating rotations of a 3D pointing
`device, comprising:
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`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;
`generatinq [sic] a first signal set comprising axial 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’ and Mz’ for the
`second signal set.”
`
`II.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`In the interest of filing a substantially identical petition to that of IPR2018-
`
`01257 (to which this petition seeks joinder), Petitioner proposes identical
`
`constructions to those proposed by original petitioner Google. However,
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`recognizing that the Board has construed the terms in instituting IPR2018-01257,
`
`Petitioner consents to the Board’s constructions.
`
`Moreover, while the claim construction standard has changed from BRI to
`
`Phillips for petitions filed after November 13, 2018, the Board should apply the
`
`BRI standard to the instant petition because Petitioner is simply seeking joinder as
`
`a co-petitioner to the Google proceeding. If the Board deems that its rule(s) require
`
`application of the Phillips standard to this petition, Petitioner seeks waiver of such
`
`rule(s) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b). Alternatively, even if the Phillips standard
`
`is deemed to apply to this petition, Petitioner submits that the Board’s
`
`constructions should be the same and would apply in the same manner in all
`
`aspects of the petition and decision instituting IPR2018-01257.
`
`“A claim in an unexpired patent shall be given its broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears”. 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 195 L. Ed. 2d 423 (2016).
`
`For this proceeding, claim terms are presumed to take on their broadest reasonable
`
`ordinary meaning, which is explained in certain instances below. The constructions
`
`below are for the purpose of this petition only, and Petitioner reserves the right to
`
`change these constructions as appropriate in future proceedings. Petitioner also
`
`does not concede, by seeking this petition, that the challenged claims are of
`
`definite scope or properly described under 35 U.S.C. §112.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`A.
`
`Claim 10—“spatial reference frame” and similar terms
`
`Claim 10 uses the phrases “spatial reference frame” and “spatial reference
`
`frame associated with the 3D pointing device”. These phrases should be interpreted
`
`to mean “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”. (Ex.1002, ¶37).
`
`The ’978 patent states as follows concerning the spatial reference frame:
`
`“There are two reference frames, such as the spatial pointer
`reference frame and the display frame, associated with the pointing
`device 110 and the display device 120, respectively. The first
`reference frame or spatial pointer reference frame associated with
`the pointing device 110 is defined by the coordinate axes XP, YP
`and ZP as shown in FIG. 1.”
`(Ex.1001, 1:39-1:45)(Emphasis added)(Ex.1002, ¶40). Thus, the “spatial pointer
`
`reference frame” is shown by the coordinate axes XP, YP and ZP in Fig. 1. Figure 1
`
`is reproduced here:
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`(Ex.1002, ¶41). As can be seen from Fig. 1, the spatial pointer reference frame is a
`
`reference frame associated with the 3D pointing device, which has its origin at a
`
`point in the device. (Ex.1002, ¶¶41-45).
`
`Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 2, when the device is rotated, the axes XP, YP
`
`and ZP rotate with the device. (Ex.1002, ¶¶45-46). Figure 2 is reproduced below,
`
`and shows a 90-degree roll of the device, with correspondingly rotated axes YP and
`
`ZP:
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`(Ex.1002, ¶¶42-43). For that reason, in the spatial pointer reference frame,
`
`the origin and axes of the frame stay fixed with respect to the device. (Ex.1002,
`
`¶¶4246). Note that the ’978 patent treats each of the phrases “spatial reference
`
`frame” and “spatial pointer reference frame” as referring to a device-centered
`
`frame of reference analogous to the XP, YP and ZP axes. (Ex.1001, 9:19-20, 1:39-
`
`47, 3:6-7)(Ex.1002, ¶39-42). Because “spatial reference frame” already refers to a
`
`frame with its origin in the device, the longer phrase “spatial reference frame
`
`associated with the 3D pointing device” has the same meaning, as CyWee
`
`concedes. (Ex.1002, ¶¶38-41; Ex.1010, p. 2).
`
`Thus, the phrases “spatial reference frame” and “spatial reference frame
`
`associated with the 3D pointing device” should both be interpreted to mean “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” (Ex.1002, ¶¶37-47). Cywee agreed to these constructions
`
`during a co-pending litigation. (Ex.1010, p. 2).
`
`B.
`
`Claim 10—“rotation output”
`
`Claim 10 uses the phrase “rotation output”. In the specification, the ’978
`
`patent makes clear that the rotation output is the output of a rotation sensor (a
`
`sensor that detects rotation). For example, the ’978 patent states:
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`“The rotation sensor generates 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.”
`
`(Ex.1001, 7:61-64)(Emphasis added)(Ex.1002, ¶50).
`
`Thus, “rotation output” should be interpreted in accordance with the
`
`specification as “output of a rotation sensor”. (Ex.1002, ¶¶48-52).
`
`GROUNDS
`Ground 1. Claims 10 and 12 are obvious over Zhang in view of Bachmann.
`Claims 10 and 12 are unpatentable as obvious over U.S. Pat. App. Pub.
`
`2004/0095317 (“Zhang”)(Ex.1005),
`
`in view of U.S. Pat. No. 7,089,148
`
`(“Bachmann”)(Ex.1004).
`
`Zhang was published on May 20, 2004, and is thus prior art under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(b). Bachmann issued on August 8, 2006, and is thus also prior art
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b). Zhang and Bachmann are analogous art,
`
`because they are in the same field and reasonably related to the problems facing
`
`the named inventors, as shown by the discussion below.
`
`Neither Zhang nor Bachmann are listed as prior art of record on the face of
`
`the ’978 patent.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`Overview of the Combination
`Claim 10 is directed to a method for compensating rotations of a 3D pointing
`
`device. 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.
`
`Zhang teaches a “a handheld pointing device” that is used for a “computer
`
`pointing control system”. (Ex.1005, Abstract)(Ex.1002, ¶53). Such a computer
`
`pointing control system is shown, for example, in Fig. 2 of Zhang (reproduced
`
`below), where the handheld device (a 3D pointer) has reference numeral 100:
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`Inside Zhang’s device 100, there are several sensors that detect the
`
`orientation of the device. Zhang explains:
`
`“A universal pointing control system for televisions and computer
`displays is disclosed. The system is comprised of a remote handheld
`device, a display control unit and a command delivery unit. The
`remote handheld device includes a set of orientation sensors that
`detect the device’s current orientation.”
`
`(Ex.1005, ¶0008)(Emphasis added)(Ex.1002, ¶54).
`
`Zhang discloses that the device 100 has several different orientation sensors.
`
`The orientation sensors are arranged on a circuit board in the housing of the device,
`
`as shown in Fig. 3 of Zhang,
`
`reproduced at right. In Fig. 3,
`
`numeral 160 is the circuit board,
`
`while numerals 120 and 130 are
`
`sensors. (Ex.1005, ¶0025)(Ex.1002,
`
`¶¶55-56). Numeral 120 is “a two-
`
`axis magnetic field sensor 120
`
`[that] is used to detect the device’s
`
`orientation relative to the direction of the earth’s magnetic field 25.” (Ex.1005,
`
`¶0026)(Ex.1002, ¶¶57-58). Numeral 130 is an “accelerometer sensor 130 [that]
`
`contains
`
`two orthogonally
`
`arranged
`
`acceleration detectors.”
`
`(Ex.1005,
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`¶0027)(Ex.1002, ¶¶57-58). Numeral 110 is a microcontroller for performing
`
`calculations. (Ex.1005, ¶0025)(Ex.1002, ¶59).
`
`A system diagram of Zhang’s device 100 is shown in Fig. 5, reproduced
`
`below at right. (Ex.1005, ¶0029)(Ex.1002, ¶59). In Fig. 5, the two sets of two
`
`sensors (magnetometers 120 and
`
`accelerometers 130) are shown on
`
`the left side (the Petitioner has
`
`placed a red-dashed box around the
`
`numerals 120 and 130). These
`
`sensors output signals to circuits
`
`111-112, 121-124 and 131-134.
`
`(Ex.1005, ¶0029)(Ex.1002, ¶60).
`
`These circuits condition the sensor
`
`output, convert it to digital format,
`
`and pass the digital data to the
`
`microcontroller
`
`(MCU)
`
`110.
`
`(Ex.1005, ¶0029)(Ex.1002, ¶60). The MCU 110 determines the device’s
`
`orientation, including azimuth and inclination angles (yaw and pitch). (Ex.1005,
`
`¶0029)(Ex.1002, ¶60). These angles are shown in Figs. 4(a) and 4(b), reproduced
`
`below.
`
`20
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`(Ex.1002, ¶58). After Zhang’s device calculates its own orientation, Zhang’s
`
`system translates those angles into a display command (e.g. moving a cursor), by
`
`translating the angles into screen coordinates. (Ex.1005, ¶¶0024, 0030)(Ex.1002,
`
`¶60).
`
`Zhang’s primary embodiment has a four-axis sensor module (compared to
`
`the “nine-axis sensor module” required by claim 10). Zhang explains that more
`
`sensors can be used, and that different kinds of sensors can be used. For example,
`
`21
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`Zhang states that gyro sensors (angular rate sensors that measure “rotation output”)
`
`could be used:
`
`“The orientation sensors’ mechanisms are shown in FIGS. 4a and 4b.
`The orientation sensor demonstrated in FIG. 4a is a magnetic field
`sensor, whereas the one in FIG. 4b is an accelerometer sensor.
`However, the orientation detection may not be limited to these
`types of sensors. Other sensors, for example, a gyro sensor, can
`also be used in the pointing control system.”
`
`(Ex.1005, ¶0026)(Emphasis added)(Ex.1002, ¶61). Zhang also mentions that
`
`accelerometers, magnetometers and gyro (angular rate) sensors can be used in
`
`combination. (Ex.1005, ¶¶0006, 0026, claim 2)(Ex.1002, ¶62).
`
`Bachmann, in turn, provides an example of a nine-axis sensor system that
`
`combines accelerometers, magnetometers and angular rate detectors (e.g.
`
`gyroscopes), as suggested by Zhang. Bachmann, for example, states:
`
`the magnetometers
`and
`embodiment,
`sensor
`another
`“In
`accelerometers are supplemented with angular rate detectors
`configured to detect the angular velocity of the sensor (comprising so-
`called Magnetic, Angular Rate, Gravity (MARG) sensors). Each
`MARG sensor contains angular rate detectors, accelerometers, and
`magnetometers.”
`
`22
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`(Ex.1004, 7:34-41)(Emphasis added)(Ex.1002, ¶64). In Bachmann’s system, each
`
`type of sensor is a three-axis sensor, making the entire system (3 sensor types x 3
`
`axes per type) a nine-axis system. (Ex.1002, ¶65).
`
`Bachmann teaches combining sensor data using an attitude estimation filter
`
`to produce an estimate of the orientation of a tracked object. Bachmann explains:
`
`“[T]he filter inputs are from a three-axis accelerometer (h1 h2 h3) 31,
`a three-axis magnetometer (b1 b2 b3) 32, and a three-axis angular
`rate sensor (p, q, r) 33. Its output is a quaternion representation of the
`orientation of the tracked object q̂ 39.”
`
`(Ex.1004, 10:10-14)(Emphasis added)(Ex.1002, ¶66). Bachmann thus takes the
`
`output of accelerometer, magnetometer and angular rate sensors, and uses these
`
`sensor outputs to calculate an orientation of a tracked device. (Ex.1002, ¶67).
`
`To calculate the orientation from sensor inputs, Bachman uses a filter.
`
`Bachmann’s
`
`filter mirrors
`
`the claimed calculations of
`
`the ’978 patent. (Ex.1002,
`
`¶68). A control diagram of
`
`Bachmann’s filter process is
`
`shown in Fig. 3, reproduced
`
`at right, where the Petitioner
`
`23
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`has drawn a red-dashed box around the output, q̂ , in the lower right. (Ex.1004,
`
`Fig. 3)(Ex.1002, ¶68). The output q̂ is a quaternion representing the orientation of
`
`the tracked object in space. (Ex.1004, 10:10-14)(Ex.1002, ¶68).
`
`Bachmann’s filter as shown in Fig. 3 receives inputs from three sets of
`
`sensors (accelerometers, magnetometers and angular-rate sensors) marked 31, 32
`
`and 33, on the left side of Fig. 3. These sensors are shown in red-dashed boxes,
`
`below:
`
`(Ex.1002, ¶69).
`
`The output of the angular rate sensors (33) is used to calculate the
`
`orientation of the device q̂ . The calculation is shown in the boxes along the red-
`
`dashed line that has been added to the lower portion of Fig. 3, below:
`
`24
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`(Ex.1002, ¶70). In the figure, the output of the angular rate sensors (33) is a set of
`
`measured angular rates of rotation (p, q, r) about three axes. (Ex.1004, 10:10-
`
`14)(Ex.1002, ¶70). These rates are converted, in box 37, to a rate quaternion q̂ .
`
`(Ex.1004, 10:15-36)(Ex.1002, ¶70). To the rate quaternion q̂ is added a correction
`
`factor q̇ ε (which will be explained below), to yield a corrected rate quaternion
`
`.
`
`(Ex.1004, 10:15-65)(Ex.1002, ¶¶70-74). The corrected rate quaternion
`
`is then
`
`integrated in box 42 and normalized to a unit length in box 43, to yield the
`
`orientation quaternion at the output, q̂ . (Ex.1004, 10:15-65)(Ex.1002, ¶¶70-74).
`
`Bachmann’s filter shown in Fig. 3 takes advantage of extra sensor
`
`measurements from the accelerometers and magnetometers via the previously-
`
`mentioned correction factor, q̇ ε. Bachmann calculates this correction factor q̇ ε in
`
`25
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`steps 34-41 of Fig. 3. There, Bachmann first obtains actual sensor measurements
`
`from the accelerometers3 (31) and magnetometers (32), forming a six-valued
`
`measurement vector (h1 h2 h3 b1 b2 b3), as shown in box 34. (Ex.1004, 10:10-14,
`3:13-17, 8:47-51)(Ex.1002, ¶72). These six measurement values include three
`
`measurements of acceleration along the X, Y and Z axes of the sensors, and three
`
`measurements for magnetism, also along the X, Y and Z axes of the sensors. (Id.).
`
`The six actual measurements are then compared to six predicted measurements
`
`()
`
`()
`
`̅
`
`
`
`found in the vector
`
`, by subtracting the predicted measurements
`
`from the
`
`actual measurements (h1 h2 h3 b1 b2 b3). (Ex.1004, 8:63-9:18, 17:12-22)(Ex.1002,
`
`¶72). This forms a six-valued error vector
`
`(
`
`)), numbered 36. (Ex.1004, 17:12-22,
`
`̅
`
`
`
`9:9-14)(Ex.1002, ¶72).
`
`The six-valued error v