`
`
`
`
`Filed: May 8, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`
`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.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2019-00563
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`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 .............................................................................................. 8
`IV. REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE PETITIONER ............................. 16
`A. U.S. Patent 7,089,148 to Bachmann (Bachmann, Exhibit 1004) .. 16
`B. U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2004/0095317 to Zhang (Zhang,
`Exhibit 1005) ..................................................................................... 20
`Zhang has been interpreted by the USPTO in various ex
`i.
`parte examinations against relevant parties ........................ 22
`C. U.S. Patent 7,158,118 to Liberty (Liberty, Exhibit 1006) .............. 23
`Liberty has been interpreted by the USPTO in various ex
`i.
`parte examinations against relevant parties ........................ 24
`V. CHALLENGES .............................................................................................. 26
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 29
`A.
`“3D pointing device” ........................................................................ 30
`B.
`“spatial reference frame”/ “spatial reference frame associated
`with the 3D pointing device” ........................................................... 33
`“rotation output” .............................................................................. 33
`C.
`VII. BACHMANN DOES NOT QUALIFY AS ANALGOUS ART ................. 33
`VIII. THE REFERENCES DO NOT DISCLOSE ALL LIMITATIONS OF
`THE CHALLENGED INVENTIONS ................................................................ 38
`A. Ground 1 –Zhang in view of Bachmann ......................................... 38
`i.
`Claim 1 .................................................................................... 40
`ii.
`Claim 12 .................................................................................. 45
`B. Ground 2 –Liberty in view of Bachmann ........................................ 45
`i.
`Claim 10 .................................................................................. 47
`ii.
`Claim 12 .................................................................................. 49
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 49
`
`
`
`
` i
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
` 383 U.S. 1 (1966). ............................................................................................... 27
`
`In re Clay,
` 966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................................................................. 35
`
`In re Dembiczak,
` 175 F.3d 994 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................. 28
`
`In re Gurley,
` 27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................... 28
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
` 550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 28
`
`Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
` 848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 39, 46
`
`Proppant Express Investments, LLC, et al., v. Oren Tech., LLC,
` IPR2018-00914, Paper 38 (PTAB, March 13, 2019). ........................................... 3
`
`Richardson-Vicks Inc. v. Upjohn Co.,
` 122 F.3d 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................... 27
`
`Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.,
` 721 Fed. Appx. 943 (Fed. Cir. 2018). ................................................................. 35
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. PersonalWeb Tech., LLC, et al.,
` IPR2014-00702, Paper 12 (PTAB July 24, 2014) ................................................. 8
`
`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) ........................................................................... 27
`
` ii
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`
`IPR2019-00563
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`US. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`
`Statutes
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................. 27, 35
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................. 27, 35
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ..................................................................................................... 3, 8
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ..................................................................................................... 3, 8
`
` iii
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`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 Preliminary 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)
`
`iv
`
`
`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.
`
`IPR2019-00563
`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.
`
`Joseph 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
`
`IPR2019-00563
`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., IPR2018-01257 (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 CyWee’s related district court action, which had already
`
`progressed considerably before being stayed.2 Second, Huawei 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”)
`
`
`2 The court issued a claim construction order in that case in CyWee’s favor on
`every term on December 6, 2018.
`
`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
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`and will require 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.
`
`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 Huawei has
`
`progressed considerably as claim construction has concluded. After receiving a
`
`claim construction order that was unfavorable to its positions in every respect,
`
`Petitioner Huawei now seeks to subvert that adverse order and its own prior
`
`positions by moving to join the Google IPRs after staying the 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
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`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 Huawei on June
`
`14, 2017, in the Eastern District of Texas. Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder comes
`
`months past the § 315(b) deadline to file an IPR petition. Petitioner’s
`
`gamesmanship of the IPR system should not be allowed.
`
`Patent Owner now faces the piling on of four petitioners to each of the
`
`Google IPRs—Samsung, LG, ZTE, and Huawei (collectively, the “Joinder
`
`Petitioners”). Joinder by these petitioners raises several new and significant issues
`
`that were not originally at issue in the Google IPRs.
`
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`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, Huawei, and the other Joiner 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-
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`Sportswear N.A., Inc., IPR2017-00651, Paper 148 (PTAB January 24, 2019). The
`
`Joinder Petitioners also have a mutual interest in the Google IPRs. Huawei and
`
`each of the other petitioning parties have all been sued in district court
`
`infringement actions on the same patents-at-issue in the Google IPRs. The accused
`
`devices in all of these infringement suits run on the Android operating system, and
`
`the Android operating system forms a central component of CyWee’s infringement
`
`claims against each of these parties.
`
`Huawei, like its fellow Joinder Petitioners, is an Android Ecosystem
`
`member and those members seek to game the IPR system to Patent Owner’s
`
`disadvantage. The facts as to Joinder Petitioners Samsung and LG 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 and LG as RPIs in filing its petitions.
`
`According to its petitions, Google knew of Patent Owner’s suit against these
`
`parties as related matters in which the same patents were being asserted. Had
`
`Google named Samsung and LG as RPIs, its petitions—filed June 14, 2018—
`
`would have been dismissed as time barred under § 315(b). Huawei, the only party
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`Google named as an RPI, on the other hand, did not present such an issue for
`
`Google. In fact, Google filed its petitions exactly one year from the service of
`
`CyWee’s infringement complaint on Huawei, on the last possible day it could have
`
`filed an IPR naming Huawei as an RPI. It is apparent on these facts that the Joinder
`
`Petitioners have thus acted with concerted gamesmanship with Google to create a
`
`loophole that would allow LG and Samsung to be involved in the Google IPRs
`
`without triggering the § 315(b) time bar. As with its fellow Android Ecosystem
`
`members, Huawei, as a mutual beneficiary of this scheme, should not now be
`
`permitted to game the system by joining in its partner’s petition that should be
`
`time-barred. 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)).
`
`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. Huawei has already been named as an
`
`RPI to the Google IPRs. As an RPI, Huawei stands to benefit from the outcome of
`
`those IPRs and functions as a true “silent understudy” to Google. Thus, there is no
`
`reason for Huawei to separately join the IPRs unless it intends to circumvent that
`
`role—Huawei’s efforts to now also join the as a Petitioner, retaining its own,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`separate counsel, demonstrates that it seeks to exert far more control in the Google
`
`IPR proceedings than it would otherwise be entitled to. Additionally, 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... [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 (PTAB July 24, 2014) (quoting 157 Cong. Rec. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011)
`
`(statement of Sen. Kyl)).
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`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.
`
`
`
`The ‘978 Patent consistently 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.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`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.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`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
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`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
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`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
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`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.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IV. REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE PETITIONER
`A. U.S. Patent 7,089,148 to Bachmann (Bachmann, Exhibit 1004)
`
`IPR2019-00563
`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
`
`limbs of 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 Huawei nor Google contends
`
`that Bachmann discloses a 3D pointing device, and Dr. LaViola agrees that it does
`
`not disclose this limitation. Id.
`
`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
`
`movement of handheld props such as “swords, pistols, or simulated weapons,” it
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`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 instead a method used to track “the posture of articulated rigid
`
`objects” such as human limbs. Id.; Ex. 1004, 13:42-54. Further, Bachmann does
`
`not teach that these props are used to control actions on a display. Ex. 2004, ¶ 58.
`
`Bachmann only cursorily mentions the ability to incorporate the movements of its
`
`sensor units in a virtual environment. Id. at 14:20-39, Fig. 4. The output display
`
`signal in Bachmann is not converted into a movement pattern to interact with or
`
`control anything on the display; the sensors are only used to track the movement of
`
`the devices. Id.; Ex. 2004, ¶ 58.
`
`Figure 4 of Bachmann depicts an implementation of the invention in which
`
`three sensors are used to track the posture of the human body via attachment of
`
`sensors to different limbs. Id. One sensor is attached to each limb segment to be
`
`tracked. Ex. 2004, ¶ 59. The sensor information is output to a processing unit that
`
`calculates the posture of the body. Ex. 1004, 14:2-5.
`
`Bachmann discloses the possibility of outputting a signal to a display to
`
`enable a virtual representation of the articulated rigid body to be displayed. Id. at
`
`14:20-29, Fig. 4. However, Bachmann is merely concerned with tracking the
`
`position and orientation of its multiple sensor devices, which are separately
`
`attached to various limbs, and it is capable of rendering the positions of each such
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`device on a display. Ex. 2004, ¶ 60. The ‘978 Patent, on the other hand, is
`
`concerned with tracking orientation of its handheld pointing device, translating
`
`changes in orientation to a display frame as a movement pattern, and using that
`
`orientation information to control actions on a display. Id.
`
`Bachmann teaches a device that has multiple housings that are placed at
`
`different articulations of a body. Id. Bachmann also teaches that “[t]he individual
`
`components [of the MARG sensor] can be integrated using a single integrated
`
`circuit board with the accelerometers mounted separately.” Ex. 1001, 14:49-51.
`
`Bachmann discloses a method that operates completely differently from that
`
`of