`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