Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 1 of 47 PageID #: 6173
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 1 of 47 PagelD #: 6173
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 1 of 47 PagelD #: 6173
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 2 of 47 PageID #: 6174
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Paper 11
`571-272-7822
`Date: November 22, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-00917
`Patent 7,933,431 B2
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, KRISTI L. R. SAWERT, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 3 of 47 PageID #: 6175
`IPR2021-00917
`Patent 7,933,431 B2
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Background and Summary
`Petitioner, Unified Patents, LLC, requests that we institute an inter
`partes review to challenge the patentability of claims 7–13 (the “challenged
`claims”) of U.S. Patent 7,933,431 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’431 patent”). Paper 1
`(“Petition” or “Pet.”). Patent Owner, Gesture Technology Partners, LLC,
`argues that Petitioner’s request is deficient and should not be granted. Paper
`6 (“Preliminary Response” or “Prelim. Resp.”). With our authorization,
`Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 7,
`“Reply”) and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 8, “Sur-reply”).
`Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires
`demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least one challenged claim, we grant the Petition and institute an
`inter partes review.1
`B. Related Matters
`The parties identify the following as related matters involving the
`’431 patent: Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd.,
`No. 2:21-cv-00040 (E.D. Tex.); Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v.
`Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2:21-cv-00041 (E.D. Tex.); Gesture
`Technology Partners, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00121 (W.D. Tex.);
`Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd., No. 6:21-cv-
`00122 (W.D. Tex.); and Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. LG
`Electronics, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00123 (W.D. Tex.). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1. Patent
`Owner also identifies the following Board proceedings as related matters:
`
`
`1 Our findings and conclusions at this stage are preliminary, and thus, no
`final determinations are made.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 4 of 47 PageID #: 6176
`IPR2021-00917
`Patent 7,933,431 B2
`IPR2021-00920; IPR2021-00922; and IPR2021-00923. Paper 4, 2.
`C. The ’431 Patent
`The ’431 patent “relates to simple input devices for computers,
`particularly, but not necessarily, intended for use with 3-D graphically
`intensive activities, and operating by optically sensing a human input to a
`display screen or other object and/or the sensing of human positions or
`orientations.” Ex. 1001, 2:7–11. The ’431 patent further states that it relates
`to “applications in a variety of fields such as computing, gaming, medicine,
`and education.” Id. at 2:15–17. For instance, the ’431 patent describes “a
`combination of one or more TV cameras (or other suitable electro-optical
`sensors) and a computer to provide various position and orientation related
`functions of use.” Id. at 11:54–58.
`Figure 8A, reproduced below, illustrates the control of functions via a
`handheld device.
`
`
`Figure 8A shows a perspective view of a cellular phone (800) using a laser
`spot projector (801) to project a laser spot on a detector (802) in a dashboard
`(803). Id. at 12:17–20. The ’431 patent discloses that, alternatively or in
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 5 of 47 PageID #: 6177
`IPR2021-00917
`Patent 7,933,431 B2
`conjunction, round dot targets (805, 806, 807) can be sensed on the cellular
`phone (800), such as by a TV camera (815). Id. at 12:20–25.
`In another example, the cellular phone (800) can be used to signal a
`fax unit (824) to print data from the phone by pointing the cellular phone
`toward the fax unit. Id. at 12:42–45. TV camera (815) scans images of the
`dot targets (805, 806, 807) and a computer (830) analyzes the target images
`to determine the position and/or orientation or motion of the cellular phone
`to thereby determine if a command is being issued with movement of the
`cellular phone. Id. at 12:45–51. The computer then commands the fax unit to
`print if this action is signaled by the position, orientation, or motion of the
`cellular phone. Id. at 12:51–52.
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 7–13 of the ’413 patent. Claim 7 is the
`sole independent claim and is illustrative:
`7. Handheld computer apparatus comprising:
`a housing;
`a camera means associated with said housing for obtaining
`an image using reflected light of at least one object positioned by
`a user operating said object;
`computer means within said housing for analyzing said
`image to determine information concerning a position or
`movement of said object; and
`means for controlling a function of said apparatus using
`said information.
`Ex. 1001, 25:61–26:5.
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 6 of 47 PageID #: 6178
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 6 of 47 PagelD #: 6178
`IPR2021-00917
`Patent 7,933,431 B2
`
`A. Summary ofIssues
`
`Il. ANALYSIS
`
`In the below analysis, wefirst address the grounds of unpatentability.
`
`Wethen address Patent Owner’s discretionary denial and jurisdiction
`
`arguments.
`
`B. Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 5),
`
`supported by the declaration of Christopher M. Schmandt(Ex. 1003):
`
`Claim(s) Challenged|35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
`
`
`7-9, 11, 12
`7,9, 11
`
`Doi, Cousins, Parulski’
`
`1. Legal Standardsfor Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic
`
`Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whetherthe information
`
`presentedin the Petition showsa reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 285-88 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 effective March 16,
`2013. Becausethe challenged patent was filed before March 16, 2013, we
`refer to the pre-AJA versions.
`> US. Patent 6,144,366, issued Nov. 7, 2000 (“Numazaki”) (Ex. 1007).
`4 US. Patent Application Publication 2005/0013462 A1, published Jan. 20,
`2005 (“Rhoads”) (Ex. 1004).
`(Ex. 1005).
`> US. Patent 6,266,061 B1, issued July 24, 2001 (“Doi”)
`° US.Patent 6,417,797 B1, issued July 9, 2002 (“Cousins”)
`(Ex. 1006).
`7 US.Patent 5,666,159, issued Sept. 9, 1997 (“Parulski”)
`(Ex. 1008).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 7 of 47 PageID #: 6179
`IPR2021-00917
`Patent 7,933,431 B2
`prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have
`been unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`“A claim is anticipated [under 35 U.S.C. § 102] only if each and every
`element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
`described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil
`Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Moreover, “[b]ecause the hallmark
`of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art reference—in order to
`anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the
`claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those
`elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Whether a reference anticipates is
`assessed from the perspective of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See Dayco
`Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
`2003).
`A claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if “the
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art
`are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
`time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
`which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
`398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). We resolve the question of
`obviousness based on underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the
`scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the prior art
`and the claims; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence,
`objective indicia of nonobviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383
`U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`We apply these principles to the Petition’s challenges.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 8 of 47 PageID #: 6180
`IPR2021-00917
`Patent 7,933,431 B2
`2. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner asserts that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art at and
`before the priority date for the ’431 Patent (‘POSITA’) would have had a
`bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical
`engineering, or a related subject, and one to two years of work experience
`with human-computer interaction” and that less experience may be
`necessary with additional education and vice versa. Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 36–40). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill
`in the art. Prelim. Resp. 5.
`We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s declarant’s
`statement is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’431 patent
`and prior art of record. We adopt this definition for the purposes of this
`Decision.
`3. Claim Construction
`In inter partes review, we construe claims using the same claim
`construction standard that would be used to construe the claims in a civil
`action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claims in
`accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history
`pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020).
`Petitioner provides a number of claim constructions. Pet. 13–17.
`Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s claim constructions, but does
`argue that the preamble of claim 7 should be limiting. Prelim. Resp. 5–6. We
`address each construction below.8
`
`
`8 As noted below, for the purposes of institution, we accept all of Petitioner’s
`proposed constructions, as well as Patent Owner’s argument that the
`preamble of claim 7 is limiting. However, we invite the parties to address
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 9 of 47 PageID #: 6181
`IPR2021-00917
`Patent 7,933,431 B2
`a) Claim 7’s Preamble
`The preamble of claim 7 states: “Handheld computer apparatus
`comprising . . . .” Ex. 1001, 25:61. Petitioner does not address whether the
`preamble of claim 7 is limiting, but rather attempts to show that,
`independent of whether it is limiting, the preamble is taught by the prior art.
`See e.g. Pet. 21 (“To the extent the preamble is limiting, the combined
`teachings of Doi and Cousins render it obvious”).
`Patent Owner argues that the preamble should be limiting because it
`recites essential structure or steps and is “necessary to give life, meaning,
`and vitality” to claim 7. Prelim. Resp. 6 (quoting Acceleration Bay, LLC v.
`Activision Blizzard, Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 770 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 6, 2018)).
`Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that claim 7’s final limitation refers back
`to the preamble’s “handheld computer apparatus” for antecedent basis. Id.
`Patent Owner further argues that the ’413 patent discloses different
`embodiments, with some embodiments being in the form of a computer and
`some embodiments being in the form of a handheld device. Id. at 6–7 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 12:59–13:7, Fig. 1A). Patent Owner contends that claim 7 claims
`the latter embodiments because claim 7 recites a handheld device and,
`therefore, “the preamble is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to
`claim 7, consistent with the embodiments that the inventor chose to claim.”
`Id. at 7.
`We agree that the preamble of claim 7 is limiting. This is primarily
`because the last clause of claim 7 refers back to the preamble and is
`understood with reference thereto. The last clause states: “means for
`
`
`how these constructions are impacted by the District Court Claim
`Construction Memorandum and Order (Ex. 2004) which was issued after the
`pre-institution briefing was submitted.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 10 of 47 PageID #: 6182
`IPR2021-00917
`Patent 7,933,431 B2
`controlling a function of said apparatus using said information.” Ex. 1001,
`26:4–5 (emphasis added). “Said apparatus” derives antecedent basis from
`“[h]andheld computer apparatus” recited in the preamble. Moreover, the
`“means for controlling a function of said apparatus” can be understood
`because of this reference to the handheld computer apparatus. Thus, we
`agree that the preamble recites essential structure and is “necessary to give
`life, meaning, and vitality” to claim 7.
`b) “camera means associated with said housing”
`Claim 7 recites “a camera means associated with said housing.” Ex.
`1001, 25:63. Petitioner argues that “[t]he phrase ‘associated with’ in the
`claim term ‘camera means associated with said housing’ should not be
`interpreted to require the camera means to be within the recited housing.”
`Pet. 13. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that “claim 7 uses the phrase
`‘associated with’ to describe the relationship between the ‘camera means’
`and the ‘housing,’ while the claim uses the different adjective ‘within’ to
`describe the relationship between the ‘computer means’ and the ‘housing.’”
`Id. Petitioner contends that this is consistent with dictionary definitions for
`“associate” and “within,” and that requiring the camera means to be “within”
`the housing would exclude a disclosed embodiment. Id. at 13–14 (citing Ex.
`1017; Ex. 1001, 12:1–9).
`As noted above, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s
`constructions. Prelim. Resp. 5. For the purposes of institution, we accept
`Petitioner’s construction.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 11 of 47 PageID #: 6183
`IPR2021-00917
`Patent 7,933,431 B2
`c) “camera means associated with said housing for obtaining an
`image using reflected light of at least one object positioned by
`a user operating said object”
`Petitioner asserts that claim 7’s limitation of “camera means
`associated with said housing for obtaining an image using reflected light of
`at least one object positioned by a user operating said object” is a means-
`plus-function limitation under §112 ¶ 6. Pet. 14. Petitioner argues that the
`limitation’s function “is obtaining an image using reflected light of at least
`one object positioned by a user operating said object” and the corresponding
`structure “is one or more TV cameras (e.g., TV camera 815) or other
`suitable electro-optical sensors, and equivalents thereof.” Id. (citing Ex.
`1001, 3:15–29; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50–51).
`As noted above, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s
`constructions. Prelim. Resp. 5. For the purposes of institution, we accept
`Petitioner’s construction.
`d) “computer means within said housing for analyzing said image
`to determine information concerning a position or movement
`of said object”
`Petitioner contends that claim 7’s limitation of “computer means
`within said housing for analyzing said image to determine information
`concerning a position or movement of said object” is a means-plus-function
`limitation under §112 ¶ 6. Pet. 15. Petitioner argues that the limitation’s
`function “is analyzing an image to determine information concerning a
`position or movement of an object” and the corresponding structure “is a
`general purpose computer programmed with an algorithm to cause the
`general purpose computer to: (1) analyze target image(s) of an object
`captured by the camera means; and (2) determine position(s) of the object.”
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 12 of 47 PageID #: 6184
`IPR2021-00917
`Patent 7,933,431 B2
`Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 6:9–18, 7:22–29, 12:1–9, 12:46–52, 17:34–50; Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 53–36).
`As noted above, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s
`constructions. Prelim. Resp. 5. For the purposes of institution, we accept
`Petitioner’s construction.
`e) “means for controlling a function of said apparatus using said
`information”
`Petitioner argues that claim 7’s limitation of “means for controlling a
`function of said apparatus using said information” is a means-plus-function
`limitation under §112 ¶ 6. Pet. 15. According to Petitioner, the limitation’s
`function “is controlling a function of said apparatus using said information”
`and the corresponding structure “is a general purpose computer programmed
`with an algorithm to cause the general purpose computer to” (1) receive
`position information, (2) correlate the position information with a function
`of the apparatus, and (3) cause the apparatus to perform the function,
`wherein the function includes one or more of: (a) a display function, (b) a
`command to print, (c) an image transmission function, or (d) an e-mail
`transmission function. Id. at 15–16 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:46–52, 12:65–66,
`13:36–40, 13:63–67, 26:8–9; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 58–59).
`As noted above, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s
`constructions. Prelim. Resp. 5. However, as discussed above, we determine
`that “said apparatus” refers to the handheld computer apparatus in the
`preamble. Thus, for the purposes of institution, we accept Petitioner’s
`construction with the added requirement that the general purpose computer
`be a handheld computer apparatus.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 13 of 47 PageID #: 6185
`IPR2021-00917
`Patent 7,933,431 B2
`f) “means for transmitting information”
`Petitioner asserts that claim 11’s limitation of “means for transmitting
`information” is a means-plus-function limitation under §112 ¶ 6. Pet. 17.
`Petitioner argues that the limitation’s function “is transmitting information”
`and the corresponding structure “is a mobile phone link and equivalents
`thereof.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 12:65–13:3; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–62).
`As noted above, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s
`constructions. Prelim. Resp. 5. For the purposes of institution, we accept
`Petitioner’s construction.
`4. Anticipation by Numazaki
`Petitioner argues that Numazaki anticipates claims 7–9, 11, and 12.
`Pet. 35–42. Patent Owner contends that Numazaki does not disclose all the
`limitations of independent claim 7, and therefore does not disclose all the
`limitations of claims 8, 9, 11, and 12 which depend therefrom. Prelim. Resp.
`20–25.
`We first give a short overview of the asserted prior art, Numazaki.
`This is followed by a discussion of Petitioner’s position and Patent Owner’s
`arguments in response where we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
`a) Numazaki
`Numazaki “relates to a method and an apparatus for generating
`information input in which input information is extracted by obtaining a
`reflected light image of a target object.” Ex. 1007, 1:8–11. Figure 1,
`reproduced below, depicts a block diagram for an information input
`generation apparatus.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 14 of 47 PageID #: 6186
`IPR2021-00917
`Patent 7,933,431 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 shows an information input generation apparatus including a
`lighting unit (101), a reflected light extraction unit (102), a feature data
`generation unit (103), and a timing signal generation unit (104). Id. at 10:23–
`28. Numazaki describes emitting light from the light emitting unit (101) and
`that the intensity of the light varies in time according to a timing signal from
`the timing signal generation unit (104). Id. at 10:29–31. The light is directed
`onto a target object and light reflected from the target object is extracted by
`the reflected light extraction unit (102). Id. at 10:31–35. Numazaki teaches
`that the feature data generation unit (103) extracts feature data from the
`reflected light image. Id. at 10:57–61. Numazaki further teaches operating a
`computer based on information obtained from the feature data. Id. at 10:61–
`66.
`
`Figure 78, reproduced below, illustrates an information input
`generation apparatus.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 15 of 47 PageID #: 6187
`IPR2021-00917
`Patent 7,933,431 B2
`
`
`Figure 78 shows “a compact portable information device” having “a size that
`can be held by one hand.” Id. at 52:5–8. The device includes a window (712)
`for a lighting unit and a photo-detection sensor unit. Id. at 52:12–14.
`Numazaki describes controlling the position of a cursor (714) on a screen by
`moving a finger (713) in front of the window (712). Id. at 52:14–16.
`b) Claim 7
`Petitioner relies on Numazaki for teaching all of the elements of claim
`7. Pet. 36–41. For example, Petitioner relies on the compact portable
`information device for teaching the handheld computer apparatus of claim 7.
`Id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1007, 52:5–8; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 139–141); see also Ex. 1007,
`Fig. 78. Petitioner argues that Numazaki teaches a photo-detection sensor
`unit inside the housing of the compact portable information device which
`reads on the camera means associated with a housing of the claim. Pet. 36–
`38 (citing Ex. 1007, 52:8–14, Fig. 78; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 142–143, 151). Petitioner
`argues that the feature data generation unit 103 in Numazaki would be
`understood to be the claimed computer means. Id. at 38–39 (citing Ex. 1007,
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 16 of 47 PageID #: 6188
`IPR2021-00917
`Patent 7,933,431 B2
`10:57–61, 16:27–28, 17:19–23, 17:51–56; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 156–160). Petitioner
`also argues that Numazaki’s teaching of a computer process to use a
`fingertip to control a cursor reads on the claimed “means for controlling a
`function of said apparatus using said information.” Pet. 39–41 (citing Ex.
`1007, 26:8–18, 26:23–25, 52:14–16; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 161–165).
`Patent Owner argues that Numazaki does not teach aspects of the
`camera means and computer means claim elements. Prelim. Resp. 20–23.
`We address each argument in turn below.
`(1) Camera Means
`Claim 7 requires “a camera means associated with said housing for
`obtaining an image using reflected light of at least one object positioned by a
`user operating said object.” Ex. 1001, 25:63–65. Petitioner argues that this
`limitation is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and that the relevant structure “is
`one or more TV cameras (e.g., TV camera 815) or other suitable electro-
`optical sensors, and equivalents thereof.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:15–19).
`As noted above, Petitioner argues that Numazaki teaches a photo-
`detection sensor unit inside the housing of the compact portable information
`device, which reads on the camera means associated with a housing as
`claimed. Pet. 36–38 (citing Ex. 1007, 52:8–14, Fig. 78; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 142–
`143, 151).
`Numazaki only provides some details about the photo-detection
`sensor unit. See generally Ex. 1007, 50:25–54:6. However, Petitioner relies
`on Numazaki’s statement that “the disclosure of the first through seventh
`embodiments applies to the eighth embodiment” for more details about the
`photo-detection sensor unit. Pet. 37 (quoting Ex. 1007, 50:21–24). In
`particular, Petitioner equates the photo-detection sensor unit with the
`reflected light extraction unit (102) and photo-detection optics (107) of the
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 17 of 47 PageID #: 6189
`IPR2021-00917
`Patent 7,933,431 B2
`first embodiment. Id. Petitioner argues that the ‘“reflected light extraction
`unit 102’ . . . ‘extracts the reflected light from the target object.’” Id.
`(quoting Ex. 1007, 10:33–35). And that this extraction is done using photo-
`detection optics (107). Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 11:11–15). Petitioner concludes
`that “Numazaki discloses the function and corresponding structure of the
`recited camera means . . . for obtaining an image using reflected light of at
`least one object, as the structure corresponding to the camera means
`limitation includes at least electro-optical sensors, such as those disclosed in
`Numazaki. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 148–150).
`Patent Owner first argues that “Numazaki fails to provide any details
`regarding the function of the ‘photo-detection sensor unit’ and thus fails to
`disclose the ‘photo-detection sensor unit’ obtains an image, as required by
`[this] claim element. Prelim. Resp. 20. We disagree on this record.
`The function of the photo-detection sensor unit is taught in a number
`of locations in Numazaki. For example, Numazaki at 52:8–14 (cited at Pet.
`37) teaches that “a window 712 is provided for the lighting unit and the
`photo-detection sensor unit” to enable the function of “lighting and photo-
`detecting on an external body.” The paragraph continues to teach that “[a]
`position of a cursor 714 on the screen can be controlled by moving a finger
`713 in front of this window 712.” Ex. 1007, 52:14–16. Thus, the function of
`the photo-detection sensor unit is taught by Numazaki. Further, this
`description of the function of the photo-detection sensor unit is consistent
`with Numazaki’s more detailed discussion of the reflected light extraction
`unit and photo-detection optics, which teaches obtaining an image. See Ex.
`1007, 10:33–35, 11:11–15 (“an image is formed on a photo-detection plane
`of the reflected light extraction unit 102 by a photo-detection optics 107.”);
`Pet. 37.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 18 of 47 PageID #: 6190
`IPR2021-00917
`Patent 7,933,431 B2
`Patent Owner also argues that, because they “hav[e] different names,
`Numazaki’s ‘photo-detection sensor unit’ and Numazaki’s ‘reflected light
`extraction unit’ must be different units with different functions.” Prelim.
`Resp. 21. Patent Owner’s argument misunderstands Petitioner’s position.
`The Petition equates Numazaki’s photo-detection sensor unit with
`Numazaki’s reflected light extraction unit (102) and photo-detection optics
`(107). Pet. 37. At the same time, Patent Owner is trying to equate
`Numazaki’s photo-detection sensor unit with only Numazaki’s reflected
`light extraction unit, which does appear to reflect the teachings of Numazaki
`or the position in the Petition.
`For the above reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments do not identify any
`shortcomings in the showing by Petitioner that Numazaki teaches all the
`aspects of the camera means claim element.
`(2) Computer Means
`Claim 7 requires “computer means within said housing for analyzing
`said image to determine information concerning a position or movement of
`said object.” Ex. 1001, 26:1–3. Petitioner argues that this limitation is
`subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and that the relevant structure “is a general
`purpose computer programmed with an algorithm to cause the general
`purpose computer to: (1) analyze target image(s) of an object captured by
`the camera means; and (2) determine position(s) of the object.” Pet. 15
`(citing e.g. Ex. 1001, 12:46–52).
`Petitioner argues that Numazaki’s feature data generation unit 103
`“which ‘extracts [] information . . . from the reflected light image” would be
`understood to be the claimed computer means. Id. at 38–39 (quoting Ex.
`1007, 10:57–61). Petitioner further argues, among other things, that
`consistent with the above computer program, Numazaki teaches “that
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 19 of 47 PageID #: 6191
`IPR2021-00917
`Patent 7,933,431 B2
`‘[w]hen the hand is used as the target object, it is possible to capture the
`information on a position and a shape of the hand without a contact, so that
`it is possible to utilize the present invention as a means for inputting
`information.’” Id. at 39 (quoting Ex. 1007, 17:19–23).
`Patent Owner argues that:
`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.
`Simply put, this is fundamentally different than the apparatus
`recited in claim 7.
`Prelim. Resp. 22; see id. (describing Numazaki in more detail) (citing Ex.
`1007, 10:57–66, 11:20–56, Fig. 2).
`Patent Owner further argues that:
`The alleged “computer means” disclosed in Numazaki cannot
`analyze target images of an object from one TV camera. The
`alleged “computer means” disclosed in Numazaki cannot
`analyze target images without a lighting unit to illuminate the
`object. And the alleged “computer means” disclosed in
`Numazaki cannot analyze target images of an object without
`circuitry for subtracting one image from another. Accordingly,
`Numazaki does not disclose corresponding structure for
`performing the recited function of [the] claim element.
`Id. at 22–23 (emphases omitted).
`We are persuaded, however, that Petitioner has adequately shown on
`this record that Numazaki teaches the claimed computer means.
`First, Patent Owner acknowledges that “[u]nder Petitioner’s proposed
`construction, the corresponding structure for the ‘camera means . . .’ term is
`‘one or more TV cameras,’” but Patent Owner nevertheless appears to argue
`that the camera means requires one camera and that the computer means
`analyzes images from only that one camera. Id. (quoting Pet. 14). Patent
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 20 of 47 PageID #: 6192
`IPR2021-00917
`Patent 7,933,431 B2
`Owner does not identify why the claim should be limited to one camera or
`one image. As Petitioner argued in its claim construction and Patent Owner
`did not dispute, structure in the ’431 patent for the camera means is “one or
`more TV cameras (or other suitable electro-optical sensors).” Ex. 1001,
`3:17–18; Pet. 14. Moreover, we find that the ’431 patent appears to
`expressly contemplate one or more TV cameras. See Ex. 1001, 3:25 (“A
`stereo pair of cameras 100 and 101”), 3:44 (“a three camera arrangement can
`be used”). Patent Owner does not identify, and we were not able to find, any
`disclosure in the ’431 patent that these multiple cameras are used to obtain
`only a single image to support Patent Owner’s argument that the claim
`should be limited in this way.
`Further, though the claim refers to “obtaining an image” and
`“analyzing said image,” this does not limit the claim, at least on this record,
`to only one image. Unless a more limited construction is indicated by the
`specification or prosecution history, the indefinite article “a” or “an” is
`construed in a claim to mean “one or more.” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts,
`Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 18, 2000). Thus, based on the
`current record, the claim appears to encompass obtaining one or more
`images, and analyzing those one or more images.
`Second, as to Patent Owner’s argument that Numazaki requires a
`lighting unit for illumination, claim 7 uses the term “comprising” to create
`an “open ended” claim. “‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim
`language which means that the named elements are essential, but other
`elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the
`claim.” Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`Thus, the presence of a lighting unit is not excluded from the claim. Rather,
`the ’431 patent teaches the use of LEDs “to illuminate [associated] targets”
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-2 Filed 12/16/21 Page 21 of 47 PageID #: 6193
`IPR2021-00917
`Patent 7,933,431 B2
`and claim 12, which depends from claim 7, expressly requires “a light
`source for illuminating said object.” Ex. 1001, 3:34–35, 26:14–15.
`Third, it is not clear what relevance Patent Owner’s following
`statement has to the claim: “Numazaki cannot analyze target images of an
`object without circuitry for subtracting one image from another.” This level
`of detail on how the targe
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
