Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper # 26
`
` Entered: November 28, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`APPLE, INC., LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., AND GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Patent 8,194,924 B2
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 14, 2022
`__________
`
`Before PATRICK R. SCANLON, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper # 26
`
` Entered: November 28, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`APPLE, INC., LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., AND GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Patent 8,194,924 B2
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: September 14, 2022
`__________
`
`Before PATRICK R. SCANLON, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Patent 8,194,924 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`PAUL HART
`ADAM SEITZ
`Of: Erise IP, P.A.
`adam.seitz@eriseip.com
`paul.hart@eriseip.com
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`TODD LANDIS
`JOHN WITTENZELLNER
`Of: Williams Simons & Landis PLLC
`tlandis@wsltrial.com
`johnw@wsltrial.com
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing Wednesday,
`September 14, 2022, commencing at 2:10 p.m. EDT, via Video-conference.
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Patent 8,194,924 B2
`
`
`P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
`
`2:10 p.m.
`
`JUDGE DOUGAL: Okay. This is the oral hearing for IPR 2021-
`
`00923, U.S. Patent 8,194,924 between Apple et al and Gesture Technology
`
`Partners.
`
`As before, I am Judge Brent Dougal. I have with me Judges Scanlon
`
`and Anderson.
`
`We will start with appearances. Who do we have from petitioner?
`
`MR. HART: Thank you, Your Honor. Paul Hart for petitioner,
`
`Apple, Inc. Also in the room is Adam Seitz.
`
`JUDGE DOUGAL: All right. Thank you, Mr. Hart. And who do we
`
`have today for patent owner?
`
`MR. WITTENZELLNER: Good afternoon, Your Honor. My name is
`
`John Wittenzellner with the law firm Williams, Simons and Landis, PLLC.
`
`Here on behalf of the patent owner, I'm joined by my colleague, Mr.
`
`Todd Landis, lead counsel in this proceeding.
`
`JUDGE DOUGAL: Great, thank you. Petitioner, would you like to
`
`reserve any time for rebuttal?
`
`MR. HART: Yes, Your Honor. I'll do 20 minutes for rebuttal.
`
`JUDGE DOUGAL: Okay. And patent owner, would you like to
`
`reserve any time for rebuttal?
`
`MR. WITTENZELLNER: I would also like to reserve 20 minutes,
`
`Your Honor. Thank you.
`
`JUDGE DOUGAL: Okay. Thank you. Well, as this is, I guess at
`
`least for now, the last of a series of hearings.
`
`I'll refer back to our previous discussions in other hearings about our
`
`desire that you are heard.
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Patent 8,194,924 B2
`
`
`And we want to make sure you're heard. If you have any questions or
`
`have any problems with that, please reach out to the contact numbers that
`
`you have. And with that, petitioner, please begin.
`
`MR. HART: Thanks very much, Your Honor. As with all these
`
`proceedings between the parties here, the general issue is gesture based
`
`control of a device.
`
`You need to the '924 patent that is the subject of this proceeding the
`
`claims focus on devices with two cameras that face in different directions
`
`and enable the user to implement a gesture command before one of those
`
`cameras.
`
`DX2 provides a summary of the grounds in this proceeding. The
`
`primary combination at issue proposes that a POSITA would've been
`
`motivated to combine the starkly similar teachings of Mann and Numazaki.
`
`Both reference teach camera-equipped PDAs and camera-equipped
`
`watches.
`
`Both accept user gestures as controlling inputs. Mann's devices are
`
`used to covertly capture video of a subject using the subject facing camera.
`
`To initiate these covert recordings, Mann requires the user to perform
`
`a touch baced gesture on the display of its devices.
`
`Numazaki as we've discussed at length in all these proceedings
`
`teaches controlling its devices using no touch gestures performed over or in
`
`front of a user facing camera.
`
`The petition establishes that Numazaki's no touch gestures improve
`
`the covert nature of Mann's system by allowing a user to casually swipe a
`
`finger over the device to initiate the video recording.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Patent 8,194,924 B2
`
`
`DX3 provides a summary of the remaining disputes between the
`
`parties.
`
`The first is a dispute we've seen in every proceeding here, namely
`
`whether Numazaki's figure 2 falls outside the claims because it uses two
`
`cameras rather than one.
`
`The board rejected its argument and institution, and patent owner
`
`provides no reason to depart from that preliminary conclusion.
`
`Next, the parties dispute whether a POSITA would've been motivated
`
`to replace Mann's touch based gestures with Numazaki's no touch gestures.
`
`Relying on Dr. Bederson, the petition established that no touch
`
`gestures provide numerous benefits, including that they are less likely to
`
`draw the subject's attention when the video recording is initiated.
`
`Turning to the third dispute regarding claim 2, the petition establishes
`
`that a POSITA would've understood Mann's wristwatch telephone and its
`
`communication equipped PDA device satisfy the claimed mobile phone
`
`element.
`
`Turning to ground 2, patent owner and its expert argue that
`
`incorporating Amir's pupil detection functionality on demand is too
`
`complex.
`
`But they ignore critical evidence in support, including one, the
`
`Numazaki already teaches multiple cameras incorporated into devices that
`
`are watches and PDAs as Mann's devices are, and two, that Amir teaches its
`
`technology can be easily incorporated into, quote, extremely compact
`
`packages.
`
`The final dispute between the parties is whether Mann, Amir, and
`
`Aviv are analogous art.
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Patent 8,194,924 B2
`
`
`The petition establishes that each describes a camera equip device
`
`with a variety of computer input functionalities, teachings that fall squarely
`
`within the field of endeavor of the '924 patent.
`
`DX4 through DX9 provide a brief overview of the proposed
`
`combination here and motivations to make that combination.
`
`On DX4, we see Mann's watch embodiment. On the left, it's a
`
`wristwatch with two cameras, one facing the user and one facing a subject.
`
`Among its disclosed functionalities as mentioned, it teaches that a
`
`user can initiate a covert video recording of the subject without the subject's
`
`knowledge.
`
`Mann teaches a touchscreen display on a small portion of its watch
`
`face.
`
`In DX4 on the left image there, we can see it's component 320 that is
`
`the touchscreen interface in Mann's wristwatch.
`
`And within that small touchscreen space, there is a watch screen or a
`
`watch -- wristwatch circular pattern that mimics a wristwatch on which the
`
`user can make note or touch based gestures in order to control the device,
`
`performing functions such as initiating or ending a video recording.
`
`In DX5, we see Numazaki's watch embodiment from its eight-
`
`embodiment.
`
`It also is a camera equipped watch that allows the user to exert control
`
`of gestures.
`
`But Numazaki distinguishing it from Mann teaches no touch gestures
`
`performed over that user facing camera.
`
`The petition as I mentioned proposes replacing Mann's touchscreen
`
`gestures with Numazaki's no touch gestures.
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Patent 8,194,924 B2
`
`
`As discussed in the petition, Mann and Numazaki also include PDA
`
`devices.
`
`Their disclosures largely track the watch disclosures. Both the
`
`watches and the PDAs have been fully mapped in the petition.
`
`In DX6, we see a figure we're very familiar with at this time, figure 2
`
`from Numazaki.
`
`Figure 2 forms the basis of Numazaki's gesture recognition. As
`
`discussed in the other hearings, a first sensor 109 captures an image of the
`
`gesture when illuminated.
`
`Sensor 110 captures an image of the gesture when the light is off.
`
`The difference between those images is produced by the figure 2
`
`structure.
`
`And that is an image that precisely represents just the illuminated
`
`hand, that gesturing hand with all the extraneous background information
`
`removed.
`
`And that process, the two sensor structure that is described by
`
`Numazaki is just to improve the fidelity or the precision of the gesture
`
`detection functionality.
`
`The petition set forth a number of motivations to combine Mann and
`
`Numazaki as I've described.
`
`DX7 is the most prominent of those motivations to combine in the
`
`papers here.
`
`It explains that Numazaki's no touch gestures improve the covert
`
`nature of Mann.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Patent 8,194,924 B2
`
`
`Dr. Bederson explained that they are less conspicuous than Mann's
`
`touch based controls and run less risk of a subject noticing that the user has
`
`initiated a recording.
`
`Again, that is a primary concern in Mann that the subject does not
`
`know the user is recording them, that they have started recording them.
`
`So one of the primary goals of Mann is to avoid the subject learning
`
`that a recording has been initiated.
`
`Dr. Bederson also explained that no touch gestures require less focus
`
`than Mann's gestures.
`
`Mann's gestures must be performed on a very small portion of an
`
`already small touchscreen requiring a significant amount of the user's
`
`attention in order to accurately exert that touch based control.
`
`The ability to casually swipe a finger over the device decreases as
`
`Numazaki provides, decreases the chances that the subject will notice a
`
`recording has been initiated.
`
`In DX8, two additional components of the motivation to combine
`
`here.
`
`We first see Numazaki's expressed motivation. It teaches that no
`
`touch gestures avoid obstructing the display on the device that is being
`
`controlled.
`
`Dr. Bederson explained that this benefit is also realized by Mann's
`
`devices with Numazaki's no touch gestures.
`
`He also explains that a separate benefit is realized in Mann, namely
`
`that no touch gestures avoid the user's finger swiping over the lens of the
`
`camera, the user facing camera.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Patent 8,194,924 B2
`
`
`He explains that the user's finger touching the lens of the user facing
`
`camera over time will decrease fidelity.
`
`Essentially, a build up of oil and dirt will eventually decrease the
`
`effectiveness of that camera.
`
`DX9 addresses the expectation of success. The similarities between
`
`Mann and Numazaki strongly support an expectation of success here.
`
`Both Mann and Numazaki teach camera equipped watches and PDAs.
`
`Both teach converting user gestures into commands. And Numazaki
`
`establishes that it is technically straightforward to incorporate gesture
`
`recognizing cameras and devices that are both watch and PDA form factors.
`
`DX11 and -- sorry, DX10 and DX11 address the first substantive
`
`dispute between the parties which centers on Numazaki's figure 2.
`
`Starting with DX10, we see the claim language here requires only that
`
`a control function is based on the output of the camera and the combination
`
`that is the output of Numazaki's unit 102.
`
`Patent owner argues that because Numazaki uses a second camera to
`
`improve the fidelity of gesture detection that it falls outside the scope of
`
`these claims.
`
`Again, we've seen this argument in every one of these four
`
`proceedings between these parties.
`
`And DX11, we see the board correctly rejected this narrow view of
`
`the challenged claims.
`
`They correctly found not only that the claim is open ended but also
`
`that the control function is simply based on an output of the first camera and
`
`is not limited to only that output.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Patent 8,194,924 B2
`
`
`Patent owner provides the board no reason to deviate from its
`
`preliminary finding here.
`
`Numazaki's gesture recognition unit 102 teaches precisely what's
`
`required by the claims.
`
`It processes gesture control based on the output of a first camera.
`
`That a second camera is used to improve the precision of this
`
`detection is irrelevant to the claim language.
`
`And as we discussed earlier today in the prior proceeding it's not just
`
`the individual image sensors that sensors that satisfy the claim limitations.
`
`But unit 102 as a whole, including its two separate sensors, also
`
`satisfies these claim limitations.
`
`In every scenario, 102 as a whole or either the individual units, image
`
`sensor units, the gesture is detected based on the output of those image
`
`sensors.
`
`DX12 through DX17 addressed the parties' dispute about whether no
`
`touch gestures improve the covert nature of Mann's system.
`
`This is probably the main dispute, the dispute that has taken the most
`
`pages in the papers here.
`
`DX12 reiterates the main points advanced by petitioner's expert, Dr.
`
`Bederson, in support of this covert improvement.
`
`He explained that no touch gestures as taught by Numazaki are less
`
`conspicuous than Mann's touch based controls and run less risk of the
`
`subject noticing that a video has been initiated.
`
`He also explained as I mentioned before that they require less focus.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Patent 8,194,924 B2
`
`
`The fact that Mann requires small gestures in a small screen requires a
`
`lot of focus of the user which makes it more likely that the subject will
`
`notice they are initiating some process on the device.
`
`We turn to DX13. Patent owner's primary argument is that physically
`
`interacting with watches and PDAs, it's expected.
`
`And because it's expected, it would not draw unwanted attention.
`
`It also suggests that the no touch gestures that are the subject of the
`
`proposed combination here would be elaborate or intriguing, something that
`
`would be more likely to draw attention.
`
`Taking that second point first, that's a flawed premise. There is no
`
`evidence in the record that the no touch gestures proposed in the petition
`
`would be elaborate or intriguing.
`
`They are simply finger swipes in a predetermined direction, casual
`
`finger swipes over the face of the device that is captured by Numazaki's
`
`imaging sensors.
`
`Returning to DX14, the main problem with patent owner's argument is
`
`that it gets the analysis exactly backwards.
`
`The goal is to avoid the subject knowing that a recording has been
`
`initiated.
`
`To do so, the goal is to avoid indicating that the user has interacted
`
`with a device at all, that any process has been initiated on the watch or the
`
`PDA.
`
`As Dr. Bederson explained and as patent owner admits, Mann's touch
`
`based gestures are easily recognizable as users interacting with the devices.
`
`It is known to interact with a watch or a PDA through a screen or
`
`through a stylus.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Patent 8,194,924 B2
`
`
`In doing so indicates to the subject that some process may have been
`
`initiated by the user.
`
`It's for this reason they draw more attention and are less covert that
`
`Numazaki's no touch finger swipes.
`
`DX15, Dr. Bederson elaborated on the user attention point in his
`
`supplemental declaration.
`
`He explained that Mann describes a very small touchscreen that
`
`demands a significant amount of focus of the user in order to accurately
`
`control the device to start or stop video recordings.
`
`In fact, Mann teaches that the rectangular touch portion of the watch
`
`display is only 0.7 inches on the diagonal.
`
`And as we saw in the earlier figures, the display that replicates a
`
`watch, circular display that replicates a watch comprises only a portion of
`
`that 0.7 inches on the diagonal rectangle.
`
`So inside an already small rectangle, Mann's device display is an even
`
`smaller circle.
`
`And it is within that circle that the user must precisely implement a
`
`touch based gesture in order to control the device.
`
`Numazaki's no touch gestures on the other hand merely require the
`
`user to swipe a finger over the watch base in a predetermined direction.
`
`This significantly simpler motion requires far less attention of the user
`
`and accordingly improves the covert nature of the process.
`
`In DX16, patent owner advances a new argument and its surreply that
`
`is limited to Mann's PDA embodiment.
`
`It asserts that -- excuse me, that Mann intends for users to actively
`
`engage with a device to use the stylus while covertly recording a subject.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Patent 8,194,924 B2
`
`
`From this, it suggests that Numazaki's no touch gestures which do
`
`away with a stylus contradict Mann's intent.
`
`Now as a procedural point, patent owner could've advanced this in the
`
`patent owner response and did not.
`
`As a result, petitioner and its expert were deprived an opportunity to
`
`respond.
`
`So the board should not credit this argument as a result of it being late
`
`introduced into the matter.
`
`But even if the board were to consider the argument, it's simply based
`
`on a mischaracterization of Mann.
`
`The first quote that we see on DX16 from Mann that patent owner
`
`includes in its surreply states -- it's addressing scenarios in which the video
`
`is continuously captured to avoid missing any content.
`
`This is irrelevant to the combination. The combination is all about the
`
`initiation of a covert video recording.
`
`If the video is consistently recording or continuously recording, there
`
`is no need for a gesture to initiate it, and it simply falls outside the scope of
`
`what this case is about.
`
`The second statement merely proposes that pretending to write on
`
`PDA may be an effective way of hiding the display if the device is
`
`configured to display the captured subject during the co-recording.
`
`Again, no party and no expert has argued that hiding the display is a
`
`requirement here or would be beneficial.
`
`In fact, Mann at page 4 also discloses that the display can be
`
`configured such that it is only visible to the user and not the subject, doing
`
`away with any need to hide it by pretending to write with a stylus.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Patent 8,194,924 B2
`
`
`In sum, this late introduced argument is simply not supported by the
`
`record and turns on a mischaracterization of Mann's teachings.
`
`DX17, the final argument on the covert issue suggests that Dr.
`
`Bederson's opinion should be given little weight because he is not an expert
`
`in, quote, things of a covert nature.
`
`Now, it's important to properly frame the inquiry here. While the
`
`motivation to combine does indeed turn on improving the covert nature of
`
`Mann's device, it is the computer -- human computer interaction or HCI that
`
`dictates how covert such an interaction can be.
`
`The key considerations include how much focus is required of the
`
`user, how casually or inconspicuously a user can perform a covert gesture to
`
`initiate a covert recording.
`
`While the goal is to remain covert, these issues are without question
`
`dictated by the specific HCI limitations of a system.
`
`Dr. Bederson's experience is a precise fit for those issues, and it
`
`precisely aligns with the definition of a POSITA proposed by petitioner and
`
`accepted by patent owner in this case.
`
`That definition proposes that a POSITA would have experience in the
`
`field of human computer interaction.
`
`As we see in DX17 which summarizes Dr. Bederson's qualifications
`
`in this matter, he is widely recognized as a leader in the realm of technology
`
`in the HCI space.
`
`He was a member and past director of the Human Computer
`
`Interaction Lab, one of the best known and oldest HCI labs.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Patent 8,194,924 B2
`
`
`He's received numerous awards for his HCI contributions. And
`
`outside of the HCI space, he also has direct experience with the specific
`
`technology implemented by the proposed combination.
`
`The sensing systems, the applications and mobile devices, the list goes
`
`on and one.
`
`Dr. Bederson is a precise fit for the issues in this case, not only on the
`
`hardware technology side but also on the HCI side.
`
`That really is what dictates the covert questions that are before the
`
`board.
`
`DX18 through DX20 address Numazaki's benefits that no touch
`
`gestures avoid blocking the display and avoid a user's finger touching the
`
`camera lens which degrades fidelity over time.
`
`DX18, as I mentioned earlier, Numazaki expressly motivates the
`
`combination by noting that no touch gestures avoid blocking the display, a
`
`known detriment with touch screen devices at the time.
`
`In response in DX19, the surreply -- patent owner's surreply advances
`
`a unique argument.
`
`It argues that even if Numazaki solves the obstructed display problem
`
`in the context of cover video recordings that benefit can be ignored because
`
`the proposed combination does not eradicate touch inputs entirely.
`
`In other words, patent owner asked this board to ignore a concrete
`
`benefit of the proposed combination simply because the petition does not
`
`explain how to realize that benefit in all contexts unrelated to the invalidity
`
`challenge.
`
`Patent owner provides no authority for this unique and narrow take on
`
`the law nor is petitioner aware of any such authority.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Patent 8,194,924 B2
`
`
`In DX20, we see that patent owner is advancing the same argument
`
`with respect to the benefit the proposed combination adds that it avoids the
`
`user touching the camera lens and degrading fidelity over time.
`
`Again, there's no need that a petition solve a problem in all contexts,
`
`in all uses in a device.
`
`The focus of the petition here is on covert video recordings and how
`
`Numazaki's processes improved those recordings.
`
`The petition did not address nor was it obligated to address other uses
`
`of Mann's devices.
`
`Because there's no legal support for this new critique, the board
`
`should accord it no weight.
`
`DX21 through DX23 addressed patent owner's argument that
`
`Numazaki's figure 2 images are suitable for humans.
`
`Now we didn't get much detail on this in the patent owner response.
`
`As we see in DX21, patent owner did argue that Numazaki's figure 2
`
`is unsuitable for capturing video of the user.
`
`They site their expert, Mr. Occhiogrosso. But he merely stated that its
`
`output is a reflected light image that is unsuitable for humans, that average
`
`users would be confused upon viewing the output of figure 2.
`
`He provided no rational whatsoever for this opinion. In response,
`
`DX22, we see Dr. Bederson's supplemental declaration.
`
`He explained that the whole point of Numazaki's figure 2 is to
`
`improve the precision of the image.
`
`It uses the second sensor to remove extraneous information so that the
`
`resulting image captures only the illuminated object, improving the fidelity
`
`of the output.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Patent 8,194,924 B2
`
`
`He also explained that there is no basis on which to conclude that
`
`figure 2 produces an image unsuitable for humans.
`
`In DX23, patent owner's surreply introduces a new technical argument
`
`that neither party's expert has had an opportunity to analyze or address.
`
`Patent owner suggests that Numazaki's reflected light images, the
`
`output of figure 2, would be invisible to humans because Numazaki uses an
`
`infrared illumination, a lighting unit based on infrared light which is not
`
`visible to humans when illuminated from that lighting source.
`
`Now as I noted, this is a new argument with no support. Neither
`
`parties' expert has addressed it and we have not had an opportunity to
`
`address it.
`
`For that reason, it should be accorded no weight. But even if the
`
`board were to consider this argument, it's technically wrong.
`
`Infrared imaging is a hugely popular field with many applications.
`
`One very popular example is nighttime wildlife photography where
`
`visible light would scare the subjects.
`
`I've looked at the images, infrared, nighttime wildlife photography.
`
`They are beautiful, precise, absolutely intended for human viewing.
`
`Another example has been in the press widely lately. The James
`
`Webb space telescope operates on an infrared light and is currently
`
`producing images of space that are significantly more precise than
`
`predecessor telescopes that operate on the visible spectrum.
`
`Again, because patent owner's new theory is not only unsupported in
`
`the record but also contradicts the actual size of infrared imaging. It should
`
`be rejected here.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Patent 8,194,924 B2
`
`
`The slides 24 and 25 address dependent claim 2's requirement that the
`
`device is a m mobile phone.
`
`Starting with DX24, the petition established a few points regarding
`
`Mann's watch and PDA embodiments.
`
`Number one, that there's no dispute that a watch and a PDA are
`
`mobile devices.
`
`Number two, Mann expressly characterizes the watch as a wristwatch
`
`telephone.
`
`Number three, Dr. Bederson explained that a POSITA would have
`
`agreed that the watch is a wristwatch telephone primarily because Mann
`
`teaches the watch includes wireless communication functionality.
`
`It is a communication, wireless communication capable portable
`
`device.
`
`Four, Mann teaches that its PDA also includes wireless
`
`communication functionality.
`
`Dr. Bederson analyzed that teaching and explained that it would also
`
`be considered a mobile phone for the same reason as the watch.
`
`They both include wireless communication capabilities. The watch is
`
`expressly described as a phone.
`
`And one of skill in the art would conclude that the PDA is as well.
`
`No patent owner does not dispute that Mann's devices are mobile or
`
`that the watch expressly characterizes a phone.
`
`Instead, it seeks to distinguish these teachings by asking the board to
`
`import numerous limitations into claim 2.
`
`Specifically as we see in DX25, patent owner asked the board to
`
`import that the mobile phone is a cellular phone specifically, that it includes
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Patent 8,194,924 B2
`
`the ability to dial numbers, that it includes the ability to answer voice calls,
`
`and that it include a speaker and a microphone allowing the user to
`
`participate in voice calls.
`
`With all these features read into the claim, patent owner asked the
`
`board to exclude Mann's teaching because Mann does not expressly describe
`
`these low level details of placing and receiving voice calls.
`
`Importantly, patent owner admits that the '924 also does not describe
`
`voice calls.
`
`It is entirely focuses, exclusively focused on data communications.
`
`Patent owner in its surreply argue that the implementation details of
`
`voice calls are inherent in the disclosure of a phone and that the '924 patent
`
`need not disclosure based on that inherency.
`
`But that's a logically flawed argument. If the '924 patent may not
`
`describe voice calls because they are inherent in the disclosure of a phone,
`
`those functionalities are also inherent in the prior art's disclosure of a phone.
`
`Mann unambiguously describes mobile devices with communication
`
`capabilities, and it expressly describes its watch as a telephone.
`
`That is all the claim requires here. The record strongly supports
`
`petitioner's conclusion that both devices in Mann satisfy the mobile phone
`
`limitations of dependent claim 2.
`
`DX26 through DX28 addressed disputes concerning round two and
`
`the petitioner's proposal to implement Amir's pupil detection functionality.
`
`And the point of including Amir's pupil detection functionality is to
`
`ensure Mann's device captures the subject when the subject is both facing
`
`the camera and with its eyes open.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Patent 8,194,924 B2
`
`
`In addition to the covert nature of Mann's device, one of Mann's goals
`
`as discussed in a petition is to identify subjects.
`
`So it's subject identifying goals here. And as we describe in the
`
`petition, ensuring the user is facing the camera with our eyes open improves
`
`the chances that that subject's identifying characteristics, their facial
`
`characteristics from which their identity can be discerned or captured by the
`
`images.
`
`DX26 provides an overview of patent owner's primary argument here
`
`based on Mr. Occhiogrosso.
`
`His primary argument is a conclusory statement that incorporating
`
`both Amir's pupil detection and Numazaki's gesture detection into Mann's
`
`devices is too technically difficult to be obvious.
`
`As with prior opinions, Mr. Occhiogrosso ignores key evidence and
`
`support.
`
`Number one, he ignores that Numazaki's own teachings demonstrate
`
`the technical feasibility of incorporating multiple cameras and watches in
`
`PDA.
`
`As I've stated multiple times in this hearing, Numazaki's devices
`
`include multiple cameras.
`
`And Numazaki expressly teaches that those devices can include
`
`watches and PDAs.
`
`He also ignores that Amir expressly describes its hardware as a
`
`minimal to, quote, extremely compact overall packages, end quote.
`
`All of these disclosures in Numazaki and Amir are directed to very
`
`small devices like watches and PDAs.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`IPR2021-00923
`Patent 8,194,924 B2
`
`
`They all assume it is technically feasible to do so because only
`
`petitioner's expert has considered the full relevant record including
`
`Numazaki's teachings and Amir's teachings on this point.
`
`The board should give a little credit to Mr. Occhiogrosso's conclusory
`
`pushback on the technical feasibility.
`
`DX27 highlights patent owner's response and its surreply. In the
`
`POR, in the patent owner response, patent owner argued that Amir's
`
`functionality requires a user to look directly at the camera.
`
`They reason that there was nothing in the record suggesting a user
`
`would look directly at the watch or the PDA in Mann's system because
`
`they're not supposed to know that the video is being recorded at all.
`
`Petitioner's replay establish that there is no requirement that the
`
`subject look at the camera.
`
`Amir's functionality simply detects open eyes, not that the subject is
`
`staring directly into the camera.
`
`Patent owner abandoned that argument in surreply and shifted gears to
`
`suggest that Mann's devices may be positioned so below a subject's fact that
`
`Amir's functionality could not tell whether the subject's eyes are open. And
`
`in that case, it may not work properly.
`
`As with a lot of these arguments, there's simply no basis on which to
`
`assume that such a problem would exist in the real world.
`
`Were that device placed so low that it could not see the subject's eyes,
`
`it would be a misuse of the device and the mere possibility that a user could
`
`misuse the subject device does not defeat obviousness here.
`
`In DX28, p
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
