IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. and LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00090
`
`Patent No. 8,553,079
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO THE PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,553,079
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`Filed on behalf of Patent Owner by:
`
`Todd E. Landis (Reg. No. 44,200)
`2633 McKinney Ave., Suite 130
`Dallas, TX 75204
`
`John Wittenzellner (Reg. No. 61,662)
`1735 Market Street, Suite A #453
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`
`Adam B. Livingston (Reg. No. 79,173)
`601 Congress Avenue, Suite 600
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .......................... 2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT DOES NOT
`ESTABLISH A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON
`ANY CHALLENEGED CLAIM .................................................................... 3
`
`A. The ’079 Patent ....................................................................................... 3
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................................................... 5
`C. Claim Construction ................................................................................. 5
`D. Ground 1 – Numazaki Does Not Render Claims 1, 2, 4-14, 17, 19, 21,
`22, 24-28, and 30 Obvious ..................................................................... 5
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................... 5
`
`i.
`
`[1(b)] providing a camera oriented to observe a
`gesture performed in the work volume, the camera
`being fixed relative to the light source; and
`determining, using
`the camera,
`the gesture
`performed in the work volume and illuminated by
`the light source ................................................................... 6
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Dependent Claim 2...................................................................... 9
`
`Dependent Claim 4...................................................................... 9
`
`Dependent Claim 5...................................................................... 9
`
`Dependent Claim 6...................................................................... 9
`
`Dependent Claim 7....................................................................10
`
`Dependent Claim 8....................................................................11
`
`Dependent Claim 9....................................................................12
`
`Dependent Claim 10 .................................................................12
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`
`
`10.
`
`Independent Claim 11 ...............................................................12
`
`IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`i.
`
`[11(b)] a camera in fixed relation relative to the
`light source and oriented to observe a gesture
`performed by the human body part in the work
`volume; and a processor adapted to determine the
`gesture performed in the work volume and
`illuminated by the light source based on the
`camera output ...................................................................12
`
`11. Dependent Claim 12 .................................................................14
`
`12. Dependent Claim 13 .................................................................14
`
`13. Dependent Claim 14 .................................................................15
`
`14. Dependent Claim 17 .................................................................15
`
`15. Dependent Claim 19 .................................................................16
`
`16.
`
`Independent Claim 21 ...............................................................16
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`[21(a)] providing a camera oriented to observe a
`gesture performed in a work volume above the
`camera ..............................................................................16
`
`[21(c)] detecting, using the camera, a gesture
`performed by at least one of a user's fingers and a
`user's hand in the work volume........................................17
`
`17. Dependent Claim 22 .................................................................17
`
`18. Dependent Claim 24 .................................................................17
`
`19. Dependent Claim 25 .................................................................18
`
`20. Dependent Claim 26 .................................................................18
`
`21. Dependent Claim 27 .................................................................18
`
`22. Dependent Claim 28 .................................................................19
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`
`
`23. Dependent Claim 30 .................................................................19
`E. Ground 2 – The Combination of Numazaki and Numazaki ’863 Does
`Not Render Claims 3, 15, and 23 obvious ............................................ 20
`F. Ground 3 – The Combination of Numazaki and DeLuca Does Not
`Render Claims 16 and 29 Obvious ....................................................... 20
`G. Ground 4 – The Combination of Numazaki and DeLeeuw Does Not
`Render Claim 18 Obvious .................................................................... 20
`H. Ground 5 – The Combination of Numazaki and Maruno Does Not
`Render Claim 20 Obvious .................................................................... 21
`IV. BOTH THE PETITION AND PETITIONER’S JOINDER MOTION
`SHOULD BE DENIED UNDER 35 U.S.C § 314(a) ....................................21
`
`A. General Plastic Factors ........................................................................ 22
`B. General Plastic Factor One .................................................................. 24
`C. General Plastic Factor Two ................................................................. 25
`D. General Plastic Factor Three ............................................................... 26
`E. General Plastic Factors Four and Five ................................................. 27
`F. General Plastic Factor Six ................................................................... 28
`BOTH THE PETITION AND PETITIONER’S JOINDER MOTION
`SHOULD BE DENIED UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) ...................................29
`
`V.
`
`VI. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THE BOARD
`DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER EXPIRED PATENTS ...........30
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC,
` IPR2021-00922, Paper 1 (P.T.A.B. May 18, 2021) ..................................... passim
`
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
` IPR2020-00854, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2020)........................... 21, 23, 26, 28
`
`Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.,
` 512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 6
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
` 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .........................................................................................21
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
` 567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................10
`
`Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc.,
` 737 F.3d 731 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..............................................................................10
`
`General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
` IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017) .................................... passim
`
`Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
` No. 6:21-cv-00121 (W.D. Tex. Feb 4, 2021) .......................................................25
`
`Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc.,
` No. 6:21-cv-00123 (W.D. Tex. Feb 4, 2021) .......................................................25
`
`KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.,
` 223 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .............................................................................. 6
`
`NetApp Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC,
` IPR2017-01195, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2017)..............................................24
`
`Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC,
` 138 S. Ct. 1365 (2018) .........................................................................................30
`
`Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc.,
` IPR2019-00064, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. May 1, 2019) .............................................27
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`
`Valve Corporation v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc.,
` IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. April 2, 2019) ............................................24
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................ 2, 22, 21, 23, 24
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ...................................................................................................21
`35 U.S.C. § 315(d) ...............................................................................................2, 29
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e) ...................................................................................................29
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“GTP” or “Patent Owner”) respectfully
`
`submits this Preliminary Response (the “Response”) to LG Electronics, Inc. and LG
`
`Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (collectively “LG” or “Petitioner”) Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review (“IPR”) No. IPR2022-00090 (the “Petition” or “Pet.”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,553,079 (the “’079 Patent”). Patent Owner notes that LG has filed a motion to join
`
`IPR2021-00922 (“J.Mot.”).
`
`Institution should be denied because the Petition fails to demonstrate a
`
`reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim of the ’079 Patent is unpatentable.
`
`As detailed herein, the primary reference (Numazaki) applied by the Petition against
`
`the three independent claims of the ’079 Patent fails to disclose at least the following
`
`limitations:
`
` [1(b)]1 providing a camera oriented to observe a gesture performed in the
`
`work volume, the camera being fixed relative to the light source; and
`
`determining, using the camera, the gesture performed in the work volume
`
`and illuminated by the light source;
`
`
`1 For convenience of reference only, this Preliminary Response adopts the claim
`
`element numbering presented in the Petition.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`
`
` [11(b)] a camera in fixed relation relative to the light source and oriented
`
`IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`to observe a gesture performed by the human body part in the work
`
`volume; and a processor adapted to determine the gesture performed in the
`
`work volume and illuminated by the light source based on the camera
`
`output;
`
` [21(a)] providing a camera oriented to observe a gesture performed in a
`
`work volume above the camera; and
`
` [21(c)] detecting, using the camera, a gesture performed by at least one of
`
`a user's fingers and a user's hand in the work volume.
`
`Further, the Board should exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) or
`
`315(d) to deny the Petition.
`
`Further still, the Petition should be denied because the Board does not have
`
`jurisdiction over expired patents.
`
`For these reasons, institution should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Patent Owner requests that the Board deny institution of the Petition with
`
`respect to all challenged claims and all asserted grounds. A full statement of the
`
`reasons for the relief requested is set forth in Sections III-VI of this Response.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`
`III.
`
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT DOES NOT
`ESTABLISH A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON ANY
`CHALLENEGED CLAIM
`
`As shown below, the Petition fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner would prevail with respect to any claim of the ’079 Patent. The Petition
`
`challenges claims 1-30 of the ’079 Patent (the “Challenged Claims”). Pet. at 1. As
`
`detailed herein, each proposed Ground fails to disclose key limitations of each
`
`Challenged Claim. Trial should not be instituted.
`
`A. The ’079 Patent
`
`The ’079 Patent, which is entitled “More Useful Man Machine Interfaces and
`
`Applications,” claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/107,652 filed
`
`on November 9, 1998. See Ex. 1001. The ’079 Patent is directed towards methods
`
`and apparatuses “for determining a gesture illuminated by a light source.” Id.,
`
`Abstract. These methods and apparatuses “utilize the light source to provide
`
`illumination through a work volume above the light source. A camera is positioned
`
`to observe . . . the gesture performed in the work volume.” Id.
`
`In some embodiments, the ’079 Patent describes a computer device with one
`
`or more “cameras to look at points on, typically, the hand or the finger, or objects
`
`held in the hand of the user, which are used to input data to the computer.” Id., 1:66-
`
`2:2. Figure 2, which is reproduced below, depicts some embodiments in which a
`
`computer device (e.g., laptop) includes the functionality of the invention.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 2
`
`In some embodiments, the ’079 Patent describes that the computer device can
`
`“determine the pointing direction vector 160 of the user's finger (for example
`
`pointing at an object displayed on screen 107), or the position and orientation of an
`
`object held by the user.” Id., 2:54-60. The ’079 Patent also describes: “finger
`
`position data can be used to determine gestures such as pinch or grip, and other
`
`examples of relative juxtaposition of objects with respect to each other.” Id. Further,
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`
`the ’079 Patent describes: “[f]inger gestures comprising a sequence of finger
`
`movements can also be detected by analyzing sequential images sets such as the
`
`motion of the finger.” Id., 3:48-50. Further still, the ’079 Patent describes that a
`
`target (e.g., retro-reflective material) may be placed on an object (e.g., user’s finger)
`
`to augment the contrast of the object. See Id., 3:63-4:14.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`For the purposes of this Response only, Patent Owner does not dispute the
`
`level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) identified in the
`
`Petition. Pet., p. 4.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`
`Patent Owner does not contest the constructions proposed in the Petition for
`
`the purpose of this response. See Pet., pp. 5-6. Patent Owner reserves the right to
`
`address claim construction of any term in the Challenged Claims if the Board
`
`institutes inter partes proceedings.
`
`D. Ground 1 – Numazaki Does Not Render Claims 1, 2, 4-14, 17, 19,
`21, 22, 24-28, and 30 Obvious
`
`Numazaki does not render claims 1, 2, 4-14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24-28, and 30
`
`obvious.
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`Numazaki does not render independent claim 1 obvious because it does not
`
`teach or suggest the following elements of independent claim 1:
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`i.
`
`[1(b)] providing a camera oriented to observe a gesture
`performed in the work volume, the camera being fixed
`relative to the light source; and determining, using the
`camera, the gesture performed in the work volume and
`illuminated by the light source
`
`Claim element [1(b)] recites “providing a camera oriented to observe a gesture
`
`performed in the work volume, the camera being fixed relative to the light source;
`
`and determining, using the camera, the gesture performed in the work volume and
`
`illuminated by the light source.” Numazaki does not teach or suggest this limitation
`
`for at least two reasons.
`
`First, Numazaki does not teach or suggest one camera oriented to observe a
`
`gesture performed in the work volume. The Federal Circuit has “repeatedly
`
`emphasized that an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning
`
`of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase
`
`‘comprising.’” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2000). Claim 1 of the ’079 Patent uses the transitional phrase
`
`“comprising,” so the term “a camera” means one or more cameras.
`
`As a preliminary matter, the Petition uses the term “camera units” to refer to
`
`what Numazaki describes as “photo-detection units.” Compare Pet., p. 14 (“when
`
`the first camera unit is active and off when the second camera unit is active.”) (citing
`
`Ex. 1004, 11:20-32) with Ex. 1004, 11:28-32 (“such that the lighting unit 101 emits
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`
`the light when the first photo-detection unit 109 is in a photo-detecting state, whereas
`
`the lighting unit 101 does not emit the light when the second photo-detection unit
`
`110 is in a photodetecting state.”). This response will use the term “photo-detection
`
`unit” (i.e., the term used in Numazaki) to refer to what the Petition identifies as
`
`“camera units.” The Petition concedes Numazaki requires two photo-detection
`
`units. See Pet., p. 14. There is no teaching or suggestion of one or more cameras
`
`oriented to observe a gesture performed in the work volume. The Petition does not
`
`address this deficiency in Numazaki, nor does it assert that it would have been
`
`obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Numazaki such that it meets this claim element.
`
`Second, Numazaki does not teach or suggest “determining, using the camera,
`
`the gesture performed in the work volume and illuminated by the light source.”
`
`Numazaki requires two photo-detection units to perform an analysis. Numazaki
`
`discloses a “reflected light extraction unit 102” with a “first photo-detection unit
`
`109,” a “second photo-detection unit 110,” and a “difference calculation unit 111.”
`
`Ex. 1004, 10:57-66; 11:20-51; Fig. 2. The first photo-detection unit 109 requires
`
`that a lighting unit 101 emit light during detection. Id. at 11:26-30, Fig. 2. Later, at
`
`a different time, when first photo-detection unit 109 is not active, the second photo-
`
`detection unit 110 detects while lighting unit 101 is not active. Id., 11:30-32, Fig. 2.
`
`Those two images—the image from first photo-detection unit 109 and the image
`
`from the second photo-detection unit 110—are then subtracted from each other
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`
`before the information is used in the remainder of the system. See id., 11:43-56.
`
`Thus, Numazaki’s first embodiment requires: (1) two, not one, photo-detection
`
`units; (2) a lighting unit for illumination; (3) timing circuitry that selectively
`
`activates the lighting unit based on which photo-detection unit is active; and (4)
`
`circuitry for subtracting one image from another. Petitioner agrees that Numazaki
`
`requires two photo-detection units to perform an analysis. See Pet., pp. 13-14.
`
`Numazaki requires two photo-detection units to perform an analysis, so it does
`
`not teach or suggest “determining, using the camera, the gesture performed in the
`
`work volume and illuminated by the light source,” where the camera is one or more
`
`cameras. Similarly, Numazaki does not teach or suggest making such a
`
`determination absent the other hardware that Numazaki identifies as necessary, such
`
`as the image-subtraction circuitry and associated timing circuitry. The Petition does
`
`not recognize this deficiency in Numazaki. See Pet., pp. 13-14. Nor does it argue
`
`that it would have been obvious to modify Numazaki to meet this claim element.
`
`See id. To the contrary, Numazaki teaches away because it requires that one of the
`
`photo-detection units capture with lighting unit 101 off (Ex. 1004, 11:30-32, Fig. 2),
`
`which is contrary to the claim, which requires “direct illumination.”
`
`For at least these reasons, Numazaki fails to teach or suggest claim element
`
`[1(b)]. Accordingly, Numazaki fails to render independent claim 1 unpatentable.
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Dependent Claim 2
`
`Dependent claim 2 recites “The method according to claim 1 wherein the light
`
`source includes a light emitting diode.” Claim 2 depends from and adds limitations
`
`to claim 1. Numazaki fails to render claim 1 unpatentable, therefore, Numazaki fails
`
`to render dependent claim 2 unpatentable for at least the same reasons.
`
`3.
`
`Dependent Claim 4
`
`Dependent claim 4 recites “The method according to claim 1 wherein
`
`detecting a gesture includes analyzing sequential images of the camera.” Claim 4
`
`depends from and adds limitations to claim 1. Numazaki fails to render claim 1
`
`unpatentable, therefore, Numazaki fails to render dependent claim 4 unpatentable
`
`for at least the same reasons.
`
`4.
`
`Dependent Claim 5
`
`Dependent claim 5 recites “The method according to claim 1 wherein the
`
`detected gesture includes at least one of a pinch gesture, a pointing gesture, and a
`
`grip gesture.” Claim 5 depends from and adds limitations to claim 1. Numazaki fails
`
`to render claim 1 unpatentable, therefore, Numazaki fails to render dependent claim
`
`5 unpatentable for at least the same reasons.
`
`5.
`
`Dependent Claim 6
`
`Dependent claim 6 recites “The method according to claim 1 further including
`
`determining the pointing direction of a finger in the work volume.” Claim 6 depends
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`
`from and adds limitations to claim 1. Numazaki fails to render claim 1 unpatentable,
`
`therefore, Numazaki fails to render dependent claim 6 unpatentable for at least the
`
`IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`same reasons.
`
`6.
`
`Dependent Claim 7
`
`Dependent claim 7 recites “The method according to claim 1 further including
`
`providing a target positioned on a user that is viewable in the work volume.” Claim
`
`7 depends from and adds limitations to claim 1. Numazaki fails to render claim 1
`
`unpatentable, therefore, Numazaki fails to render dependent claim 7 unpatentable
`
`for at least the same reasons.
`
`Moreover, obviousness may be defeated if the prior art teaches away from the
`
`invention. DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314,
`
`1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009). A reference teaches away when a person of ordinary skill,
`
`upon reading the reference, would be led in a direction divergent from the path that
`
`was taken in the claim. See Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`Claim 7 explicitly requires a “target positioned on a user that is visible in the
`
`work volume” (emphasis added). Accordingly, the “target” is not a natural feature
`
`of the user but rather something that is external to the user and placed on the user.
`
`Example targets disclosed in the specification of the ’079 patent include
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`
`“retroreflective datums, colored datums such as rings or LED light sources.” Ex.
`
`IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`1001, 4:61-63.
`
`Numazaki teaches:
`
`There are also devices, some of which are already in
`practical use, for capturing a shape or a motion of the hand
`or the body by attaching color markers or light emitting
`elements to the hand or a part of the body, and detecting
`these color markers or light emitting elements by using the
`image.
`
`However, the requirement for mounting some element at
`every occasion of its operation is a great demerit from a
`viewpoint of the convenience of the user, and can limit its
`application range significantly. Moreover, as can be seen
`in the example of the data glove, a device that requires to
`mount some element on the movable part such as hand
`tends to have a problem of the durability.
`
`Ex. 1004, 3:26-39 (emphasis added). In other words, Numazaki explicitly criticizes,
`
`discredits, and discourages investigation into the use of targets (i.e., Numazaki’s
`
`markers or elements). Accordingly, upon reading Numazaki, a POSITA would be
`
`led in a path (i.e., an anti-target path) that is divergent from the path in claim 7. Thus,
`
`Numazaki teaches away from the subject-matter of claim 7 and does not render claim
`
`7 obvious.
`
`7.
`
`Dependent Claim 8
`
`Dependent claim 8 recites “The method according to claim 1 further including
`
`determining the three-dimensional position of a point on a user.” Claim 8 depends
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`
`from and adds limitations to claim 1. Numazaki fails to render claim 1 unpatentable,
`
`therefore, Numazaki fails to render dependent claim 8 unpatentable for at least the
`
`IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`same reasons.
`
`8.
`
`Dependent Claim 9
`
`Dependent claim 9 recites “The method according to claim 1 wherein the
`
`camera and the light source are positioned in fixed relation relative to a keypad.”
`
`Claim 9 depends from and adds limitations to claim 1. Numazaki fails to render
`
`claim 1 unpatentable, therefore, Numazaki fails to render dependent claim 9
`
`unpatentable for at least the same reasons.
`
`9.
`
`Dependent Claim 10
`
`Dependent claim 10 recites “The method according to claim 9 the camera, the
`
`light source and the keypad form part of a laptop computer.” Claim 10 depends from
`
`and adds limitations to claim 9. Numazaki fails to render claim 9 unpatentable,
`
`therefore, Numazaki fails to render dependent claim 10 unpatentable for at least the
`
`same reasons.
`
`10.
`
`Independent Claim 11
`
`Numazaki does not render independent claim 11 obvious because it does not
`
`teach or suggest the following elements of independent claim 11:
`
`i.
`
`[11(b)] a camera in fixed relation relative to the light source
`and oriented to observe a gesture performed by the human
`body part in the work volume; and a processor adapted to
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`
`
`determine the gesture performed in the work volume and
`illuminated by the light source based on the camera output
`
`Claim element [11(b)] recites “a camera in fixed relation relative to the light
`
`source and oriented to observe a gesture performed by the human body part in the
`
`work volume; and a processor adapted to determine the gesture performed in the
`
`work volume and illuminated by the light source based on the camera output.” The
`
`Petition relies on and refers back to claim element [1(b)] to argue that claim element
`
`[11(b)] is obvious in view of Numazaki. Pet., pp. 28-29. Accordingly, Numazaki
`
`fails to teach or suggest claim element [11(b)] for the same reasons above with
`
`respect to claim element [1(b)].
`
`In addition, claim element [11(b)] requires, in part, that the “processor” be
`
`capable of determining the gesture performed based on an output from a camera.
`
`The Petition contends that Numazaki’s “feature data generation unit” teaches or
`
`suggests this element. Pet., pp. 28-29. It does not. As discussed above, Numazaki
`
`requires: (1) two, not one, photo-detection units; (2) a lighting unit for illumination;
`
`(3) timing circuitry that selectively activates the lighting unit based on which photo-
`
`detection unit is active; and (4) circuitry for subtracting one image from another. Ex.
`
`1004, 10:57-66, 11:20-51, Fig. 2. Numazaki does not disclose a processor capable
`
`of “determine[ing] the gesture performed in the work volume and illuminated by the
`
`light source based on the camera output” where the camera is one or more cameras.
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`
`Similarly, Numazaki does not teach or suggest making such a determination absent
`
`the other hardware that Numazaki identifies as necessary, such as the image-
`
`subtraction circuitry and associated timing circuitry. The Petition does not recognize
`
`this deficiency in Numazaki. See Pet., pp. 28-29. Nor does it argue that it would
`
`have been obvious to modify Numazaki to meet this claim element. See id. To the
`
`contrary, Numazaki teaches away because it requires that one of the photo-detection
`
`units capture with lighting unit 101 off (Ex. 1004, 11:30-32, Fig. 2), which is
`
`contrary to the claim, which requires that the “work volume” is “illuminated by the
`
`light source based on the camera output.”
`
`For at least these reasons, Numazaki fails to teach or suggest claim element
`
`[11(b)]. Accordingly, Numazaki fails to render independent claim 11 unpatentable.
`
`11. Dependent Claim 12
`
`Dependent claim 12 recites “The computer apparatus of claim 11 further
`
`including a display and a keyboard, wherein the work volume is above the keyboard
`
`and in front of the display.” Claim 12 depends from and adds limitations to claim
`
`11. Numazaki fails to render claim 11 unpatentable, therefore, Numazaki fails to
`
`render dependent claim 12 unpatentable for at least the same reasons.
`
`12. Dependent Claim 13
`
`Dependent claim 13 recites “The computer apparatus of claim 12 wherein the
`
`display is pivotable relative to the keyboard.” Claim 13 depends from and adds
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`
`limitations to claim 12. Numazaki fails to render claim 12 unpatentable, therefore,
`
`Numazaki fails to render dependent claim 13 unpatentable for at least the same
`
`IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`reasons.
`
`13. Dependent Claim 14
`
`Dependent claim 14 recites “The computer apparatus of claim 11 wherein the
`
`light source includes a light emitting diode.” Claim 14 depends from and adds
`
`limitations to claim 11. Numazaki fails to render claim 11 unpatentable, therefore,
`
`Numazaki fails to render dependent claim 14 unpatentable for at least the same
`
`reasons.
`
`14. Dependent Claim 17
`
`Dependent claim 17 recites “The computer apparatus of claim 11 further
`
`including a target that is viewable by the camera when in the work volume.” Claim
`
`17 depends from and adds limitations to claim 11. Numazaki fails to render claim
`
`11 unpatentable, therefore, Numazaki fails to render dependent claim 17
`
`unpatentable for at least the same reasons.
`
`Moreover, as discussed above in reference to claim 7, the “target” is
`
`something that is external to the user and placed on the user. As also discussed
`
`above in referenced to claim 7, Numazaki explicitly criticizes, discredits, and
`
`discourages investigation into the use of targets (i.e., Numazaki’s markers or
`
`elements). See Ex. 1004, 3:26-39. Accordingly, upon reading Numazaki, a POSITA
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`
`would be led in a path (i.e., an anti-target path) that is divergent from the path in
`
`claim 17. Thus, Numazaki teaches away from the subject-matter of claim 17 and
`
`IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`does not render claim 17 obvious. See supra, claim 7.
`
`15. Dependent Claim 19
`
`Dependent claim 19 recites “The computer apparatus of claim 11 wherein the
`
`determined gesture includes a pointing gesture.” Claim 19 depends from and adds
`
`limitations to claim 11. Numazaki fails to render claim 11 unpatentable, therefore,
`
`Numazaki fails to render dependent claim 19 unpatentable for at least the same
`
`reasons.
`
`16.
`
`Independent Claim 21
`
`Numazaki does not render independent claim 21 obvious because it does not
`
`teach or suggest the following elements of independent claim 21.
`
`i.
`
`[21(a)] providing a camera oriented to observe a gesture
`performed in a work volume above the camera
`
`Claim element [21(a)] recites “providing a camera oriented to observe a
`
`gesture performed in a work volume above the camera.” The Petition relies on and
`
`refers back to claim elements [1(b)] and [11(b)] to argue that claim element [21(a)]
`
`is obvious in view of Numazaki. See Pet., p. 32. Accordingly, Numazaki fails to
`
`teach or suggest claim element [21(a)] for the same reasons above with respect to
`
`claim elements [1(b)] and [11(b)]. See supra, claim elements [1(b)] and [11(b)].
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00090
`Patent 8,553,079
`
`
`
`ii.
`
`[21(c)] detecting, using the camera, a gesture performed by
`at least one of a user's fingers and a user's hand in the work
`volume
`
`Claim element [21(c)] recites “detecting, using the camera, a gesture
`
`performed by at least one of a user's fingers and a user's hand in the work volume.”
`
`The Petition relies on and refers back to claim elements [1(b)] and [11(b)] to argue
`
`that claim element [21(c)] is obvious in view of Numazaki. See Pet., p. 32.
`
`Accordingly, Numazaki fails to teach or suggest