`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.
`
`1 of 28
`
`Petitioner Huawei
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`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
`
`2 of 28
`
`Petitioner Huawei
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`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
`
`3 of 28
`
`Petitioner Huawei
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`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
`
`4 of 28
`
`Petitioner Huawei
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`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
`
`5 of 28
`
`Petitioner Huawei
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`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
`
`6 of 28
`
`Petitioner Huawei
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`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
`
`7 of 28
`
`Petitioner Huawei
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`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
`
`8 of 28
`
`Petitioner Huawei
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`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
`
`9 of 28
`
`Petitioner Huawei
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`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
`
`10 of 28
`
`Petitioner Huawei
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`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
`
`11 of 28
`
`Petitioner Huawei
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`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
`
`12 of 28
`
`Petitioner Huawei
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`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
`
`13 of 28
`
`Petitioner Huawei
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`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
`
`14 of 28
`
`Petitioner Huawei
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`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
`
`15 of 28
`
`Petitioner Huawei
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`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
`
`16 of 28
`
`Petitioner Huawei
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`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
`
`17 of 28
`
`Petitioner Huawei
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`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
`
`18 of 28
`
`Petitioner Huawei
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`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
`
`19 of 28
`
`Petitioner Huawei
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`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
`
`20 of 28
`
`Petitioner Huawei
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`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
`
`21 of 28
`
`Petitioner Huawei
`Exhibit 1012
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`involves “compensating signals of [an] orientation sensor subject to
`movements and rotations o