Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-6 Filed 12/16/21 Page 1 of 91 PageID #: 6308
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-6 Filed 12/16/21 Page 1 of 91 PagelD #: 6308
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`EXHIBIT 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-6 Filed 12/16/21 Page 2 of 91 PageID #: 6309
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Ex Parte Reexamination of:
`
`U. S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`Issue Date: Jun. 5, 2012
`
`Inventor: Timothy R. Pryor
`
`Appl. No. 13/051,698
`
`Filing Date: Mar. 18, 2011
`
`For: CAMERA BASED SENSING IN
`HANDHELD, MOBILE, GAMING,
`OR OTHER DEVICES
`
`
`)
`
`)
`) Control No.: To be assigned
`)
`
`) Group Art Unit: To be assigned
`)
`
`) Examiner: To be assigned
`)
`
`) Confirmation No.: To be assigned
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`)
`
`Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`Attn: Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Dear Commissioner:
`
`REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,194,924
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-6 Filed 12/16/21 Page 3 of 91 PageID #: 6310
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 
`Identification of Claims and Citation of Prior Art Presented ............................................ 2 
`Overview of the ’924 Patent .............................................................................................. 2 
`A. 
`Specification and Drawings of the ’924 Patent ...................................................... 2 
`B. 
`Claims of the ’924 Patent ....................................................................................... 4 
`C. 
`Prosecution History of the ’924 Patent .................................................................. 4 
`D. 
`The Effective Priority Date of Claims 1-14 of the ’924 Patent ............................. 5 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................................................ 6 
`A. 
`“oriented to view” of claim 1 ................................................................................. 9 
`B. 
`“a computer within the housing . . . wherein the computer is adapted to
`perform a control function of the handheld device based on at least one of
`the first camera output and the second camera output” of claims 1, 6-8, 10,
`12, and 14 ............................................................................................................... 9 
`“gesture” of claims 6 and 9 .................................................................................. 10 
`C. 
`“adapted to” of claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 12, and 14 ..................................................... 11 
`D. 
`Statement of Substantial New Questions of Patentability ............................................... 11 
`A. 
`SNQ1: Liebermann .............................................................................................. 13 
`1. 
`Overview of Liebermann ......................................................................... 13 
`2. 
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................................... 14 
`3. 
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................................... 25 
`4. 
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................................... 25 
`5. 
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................................... 26 
`6. 
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................................... 27 
`7. 
`Claim 13 ................................................................................................... 27 
`SNQ2: Liebermann in view of Tryding ............................................................... 28 
`1. 
`Overview of Tryding ................................................................................ 28 
`2. 
`Claim 11 ................................................................................................... 29 
`SNQ3: Liebermann in view of Gershman ........................................................... 32 
`1. 
`Overview of Gershman ............................................................................ 32 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-6 Filed 12/16/21 Page 4 of 91 PageID #: 6311
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`2. 
`Claim 14 ................................................................................................... 32 
`SNQ4: Liebermann in view of Himmel ............................................................... 34 
`1. 
`Overview of Himmel ................................................................................ 34 
`2. 
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................................... 35 
`3. 
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................................... 41 
`4. 
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................................... 41 
`5. 
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................................... 41 
`6. 
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................................... 41 
`7. 
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................................... 42 
`8. 
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................................... 43 
`9. 
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................................... 43 
`10. 
`Claim 10 ................................................................................................... 44 
`11. 
`Claim 12 ................................................................................................... 45 
`12. 
`Claim 13 ................................................................................................... 48 
`SNQ5: Liebermann in view of Himmel and Tryding ........................................... 48 
`1. 
`Claim 11 ................................................................................................... 48 
`SNQ6: Liebermann in view of Himmel and Gershman ....................................... 49 
`1. 
`Claim 14 ................................................................................................... 49 
`SNQ7: Liebermann in view of Sears ................................................................... 49 
`1. 
`Overview of Sears .................................................................................... 49 
`2. 
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................................... 52 
`3. 
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................................... 62 
`4. 
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................................... 62 
`5. 
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................................... 62 
`6. 
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................................... 63 
`7. 
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................................... 63 
`8. 
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................................... 64 
`9. 
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................................... 65 
`10. 
`Claim 10 ................................................................................................... 66 
`11. 
`Claim 12 ................................................................................................... 67 
`12. 
`Claim 13 ................................................................................................... 68 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-6 Filed 12/16/21 Page 5 of 91 PageID #: 6312
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`H. 
`
`I. 
`
`J. 
`
`K. 
`
`L. 
`
`M. 
`
`N. 
`
`SNQ8: Liebermann in view of Sears and Tryding ............................................... 69 
`1. 
`Claim 11 ................................................................................................... 69 
`SNQ9: Liebermann in view of Sears and Gershman ........................................... 69 
`1. 
`Claim 14 ................................................................................................... 69 
`SNQ10: Liebermann in view of Kimball ............................................................. 69 
`1. 
`Overview of Kimball................................................................................ 70 
`2. 
`Claim 14 ................................................................................................... 70 
`SNQ11: Liebermann in view of Himmel and Kimball......................................... 72 
`1. 
`Claim 14 ................................................................................................... 72 
`SNQ12: Liebermann in view of Sears and Kimball ............................................ 73 
`1. 
`Claim 14 ................................................................................................... 73 
`SNQ13: Liebermann in view of Himmel ............................................................. 73 
`1. 
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................................... 73 
`SNQ14: Liebermann in view of Sears ................................................................. 75 
`1. 
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................................... 75 
`Detailed Explanation of the Pertinence and Manner of Applying the Prior Art to
`the Claims ........................................................................................................................ 78 
`A. 
`Bases for Proposed Rejections of the Claims ...................................................... 78 
`B. 
`Proposed Rejections ............................................................................................. 80 
`1. 
`Proposed Rejection #1 ............................................................................. 80 
`2. 
`Proposed Rejection #2 ............................................................................. 80 
`3. 
`Proposed Rejection #3 ............................................................................. 80 
`4. 
`Proposed Rejection #4 ............................................................................. 80 
`5. 
`Proposed Rejection #5 ............................................................................. 81 
`6. 
`Proposed Rejection #6 ............................................................................. 81 
`7. 
`Proposed Rejection #7 ............................................................................. 81 
`8. 
`Proposed Rejection #8 ............................................................................. 81 
`9. 
`Proposed Rejection #9 ............................................................................. 81 
`10. 
`Proposed Rejection #10 ........................................................................... 81 
`11. 
`Proposed Rejection #11 ........................................................................... 81 
`12. 
`Proposed Rejection #12 ........................................................................... 81 
`
`VI. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-6 Filed 12/16/21 Page 6 of 91 PageID #: 6313
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`13. 
`Proposed Rejection #13 ........................................................................... 82 
`Proposed Rejection #14 ........................................................................... 82 
`14. 
`VII.  Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 82 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-6 Filed 12/16/21 Page 7 of 91 PageID #: 6314
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS:
`
`Ex. PA-SB08
`
`USPTO form SB/08
`
`Ex. PAT-A
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924 (“the ’924 patent”)
`
`Ex. PAT-B
`
`Prosecution History of the ’924 patent
`
`Ex. PAT-C
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949 to Pryor
`
`Ex. PAT-D
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,750,848 to Pryor
`
`Ex. PA-DEC
`
`Declaration of Dr. Gregory D. Abowd
`
`Ex. PA-DEC CV
`
`Curriculum vitae of Dr. Gregory D. Abowd
`
`Ex. PA-1
`
`Ex. PA-2
`
`Ex. PA-3
`
`Ex. PA-4
`
`Ex. PA-5
`
`Ex. PA-6
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`(“Liebermann”)
`
`5,982,853
`
`to Liebermann
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,482 to Sears et al. (“Sears”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,622,015
`(“Himmel”)
`
`to Himmel et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,434,403 to Ausems et al. (“Ausems”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,401,085 to Gershman et al.
`(“Gershman”)
`
`Microsoft Announces Release of Windows CE 2.0 -
`Stories
`
`Ex. PA-7
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,880,732 to Tryding (“Tryding”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-6 Filed 12/16/21 Page 8 of 91 PageID #: 6315
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`Ex. PA-8
`
`Ex. PA-9
`
`Ca. Patent App. 2,175,288 to Bushnag (“Bushnag”)
`
`Bushnag Bibliographic Summary, Canadian Patents
`Database
`
`Ex. PA-10
`
`Logic Reference Guide
`
`Ex. PA-11
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,953,322 to Kimball (“Kimball”)
`
`Ex. PA-12
`
`V. Pavlovic et al., Visual Interpretation of Hand
`Gestures for Human-Computer Interaction: A Review,
`19 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANALYSIS AND
`MACHINE INTELLIGENCE 677 (1997).
`
`Ex. PA-13
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,454,043 to Freeman (“Freeman”)
`
`Ex. PA-14
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,256,033 to Nguyen (“Nguyen”)
`
`Ex. PA-15
`
`RESERVED
`
`Ex. PA-16
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`(“Zimmerman”)
`
`4,988,981
`
`to Zimmerman
`
`Ex. PA-17
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,147,678 to Kumar (“Kumar”)
`
`Ex. PA-18
`
`Ex. PA-19
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,594,469 to Freeman (“Freeeman-
`469”)
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`(“Numazaki”)
`
`to 6,144,366
`
`to Numazaki
`
`Ex. COMPLAINT-1 Complaint (Dkt. #1) in Gesture Partners, LLC v.
`Samsung Elecs. Co., No 2-21-CV-00041 (E.D. Tex.
`Feb. 4, 2021)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-6 Filed 12/16/21 Page 9 of 91 PageID #: 6316
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`Ex. CC-1
`
`Ex. CC-2
`
`GTP’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. #64)
`in Gesture Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., No 2-
`21-CV-00040 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2021) (consolidated
`with Gesture Partners, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No
`2-21-CV-00041)
`
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order (Dkt.
`#93) in Gesture Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co.,
`No 2-21-CV-00040 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 12, 2021)
`(consolidated with Gesture Partners, LLC v. Samsung
`Elecs. Co., No 2-21-CV-00041)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-6 Filed 12/16/21 Page 10 of 91 PageID #: 6317
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`An ex parte reexamination is requested on claims 1-14 (“the challenged claims”) of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924 that issued on June 5, 2012 to Pryor (“the ’924 patent,” Ex. PAT-A),
`for which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“Office”) files identify Gesture Technology
`Partners, LLC (“GTP”) as the assignee. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(6), Requester
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Requester”) hereby certifies that the statutory estoppel provisions
`of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1) do not prohibit it from filing this ex parte
`reexamination request.
`This request raises substantial new questions of patentability based on prior art that the
`Office did not have before it or did not fully consider during the prosecution of the ’924 patent,
`and which discloses the features recited in the challenged claims.1 The Office should find the
`claims unpatentable over this art.
`On February 4, 2021, Patent Owner (“PO”) initiated a litigation campaign asserting, inter
`alia, infringement of the ’924 patent against five defendants across two different venues in Gesture
`Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Case No. 2-21-cv-00040 (EDTX), Gesture
`Technology Partners, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 2-21-cv-00041 (EDTX),
`Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6-21-cv-00121 (WDTX), Gesture
`Technology Partners, LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd., Case No. 6-21-cv-00122 (WDTX), and Gesture
`Technology Partners, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc., Case No. 6-21-cv-00123 (WDTX). The LG
`case was transferred to Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., Case No. 2-21-
`cv-19234 (DNJ). Requester respectfully urges that this Request be granted and that reexamination
`be conducted with “special dispatch” pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 305.
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.20(c), the fee for ex parte reexamination (non-
`streamlined) is submitted herewith. If this fee is missing or defective, please charge the fee as well
`as any additional fees that may be required to Deposit Account No. 50-2613.
`
`
`1 At the time of filing of this Request, there are two pending inter partes reviews, Apple Inc. v.
`Gesture Technology Partner, LLC, IPR2021-00923 (filed May 26, 2021), and LG Electronics, Inc.
`et al. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, IPR2022-00093 (filed November 5, 2021),
`challenging the claims of the ’924 patent based on prior art not presented in this Request.
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-6 Filed 12/16/21 Page 11 of 91 PageID #: 6318
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`II.
`
`Identification of Claims and Citation of Prior Art Presented
`Requester respectfully requests reexamination of claims 1-14 of the ’924 patent in view of
`the following prior art references, which are also listed on the attached PTO Form SB/08 (Ex. PA-
`SB08).
`
`Ex. PA-1
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,982,853 to Liebermann
`(“Liebermann”)
`
`Ex. PA-2
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,482 to Sears et al. (“Sears”)
`
`Ex. PA-3
`
`Ex. PA-5
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,622,015 to Himmel et al.
`(“Himmel”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,401,085 to Gershman et al.
`(“Gershman”)
`
`Ex. PA-7
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,880,732 to Tryding (“Tryding”)
`
`Ex. PA-11
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,953,322 to Kimball (“Kimball”)
`
`A copy of each of the above-listed references is attached to this request pursuant
`to 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(3). A copy of the ’924 patent is also attached to this request as Exhibit
`PAT-A pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(4).
`III. Overview of the ’924 Patent
`A.
`Specification and Drawings of the ’924 Patent
`
`The ’924 patent generally relates to “simple input devices” for “optical[] sensing.” (Ex.
`PAT-A, 2:7-11.) The devices operate by “optically sensing a human input to a display screen or
`other object and/or the sensing of human positions or orientations.” (Id., 2:8-11.) The optical
`sensing devices may use “single or multiple TV cameras whose output is analyzed and used as
`input to a computer, such as a home PC, to typically provide data concerning the location of parts
`of, or objects held by, a person or persons.” (Id., 2:20-23.) Alternatively, “suitable electro-optical
`sensors” may be used in place of the TV cameras. (Id., 3:21-22.)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-6 Filed 12/16/21 Page 12 of 91 PageID #: 6319
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-6 Filed 12/16/21 Page 12 of 91 PagelD #: 6319
`
`The embodiment disclosed in the context of Figure 18 (reproduced below) “illustrates an
`
`improved handheld computer embodiment of the invention, in which the camera or cameras may
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`USS. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`be used to look at objects, screens and the like as well as look at the user.” (/d., 3:11-14.)
`1955
`DISPLAY
`p Y
`
`1951
`CPU
`
`:
`
`SN.
`
`1935
`_
`Sv o-~-1910
`o N.
`.
`~~
`
`/
`|
`
`~N
`
`>
`C
`1957
`
`é
`
`1956
`
`y,
`
`1906
`
`1910 a0
`ld
`iO Ay /
`a ia, aa
`of
`‘
`OW <
`Weer)
`( “4902a
`a“
`aN
`
`~.
`
`-
`
`Fig. 18
`
`
`
`1940
`SN.
`1981
`NN,
`™.™,
`4
`S™
`ws.™~
`Th F
`/
`
`f / 1988
`/
`
`
`
`(d., FIG. 18.) As shown in Figure 18, the handheld computer incorporates “a camera 1902 which
`
`can optionally be rotated about axis 1905 so as to look at the user or a portion thereof such as
`
`finger 1906, or at objects at whichit is pointed.” (/d., 25:40-43.) The camera arrangement can
`
`optionally incorporate “a stereo pair of camerasto further include camera 1910,” and both cameras
`
`can rotate.
`
`(/d., 25:43-45.) “Alternatively fixed cameras can be used when physical rotation is
`
`not desired, for ruggedness, ease of use, or other reasons.” (Jd., 25:45-49.) “When aimedat the
`
`user,” the cameras can “view and obtain imagesof: [o]nes self,” including facial expressions,
`2 cc
`
`“To|nes fingers,”
`
`“[o]ne or more objects in ones hand,”or “[o]nes gestures.” (/d., 25:50-63.)
`
`“The camera 1902 (and 1910 if used, and if desired), can also be optionally rotated and
`
`used to view points in space ahead of the device.” (/d., 25:64-66.) When rotated, “[t]he camera
`
`can also be used to see gestures of others, as well as the user, and to acquire raw video images of
`
`objects in its field.” (/d., 26:25-27.) Additionally, the stereo cameras can be positioned in this
`
`way “to observe or pointat (using optional laser pointer 1930) Points such as 1935 on a wall ora
`
`mounted LCD or projection display such as 1940 on a wall or elsewhere such as on the back of an
`
`airline seat.” (/d., 25:64-26:5.) “The camera unit 1902 can sense the location of the display in
`
`space relative to the handheld computer, using for example the four points 1955-1958 on the
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-6 Filed 12/16/21 Page 13 of 91 PageID #: 6320
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`corners of the display as references. This allows the handheld device to become an accurate pointer
`for objects displayed on the screen including control icons.” (Id., 26:16-21.) It also “allows the
`objects on the screen to be sensed directly by the camera,” such that sensing can occur even “if
`one does not have the capability to spatially synchronize and coordinate the display driver with
`the handheld computer.” (Id., 26:21-24.) In one instance, the ’924 patent discloses that a computer
`may be a processing unit such as a “400 MHz Pentium II” processor. (Id., 3:32-34.) In another
`instance, a computer may be a device “such as a home PC” that is capable of “providing data
`concerning the location of parts of, or objects held by, a person or persons.” (Id., 2:20-23.)
`B.
`Claims of the ’924 Patent
`
`The ’924 patent includes fourteen claims total and claim 1 is the only independent claim.
`(Id., 26:54-28:14.) Independent claim 1, among other claim features, recites a handheld device
`comprising a housing, a computer, a first camera, and a second camera. (Id., 26:54-65.) The first
`camera is “oriented to view a user of the handheld device and ha[s] a first camera output.” (Id.)
`The second camera is “oriented to view an object other than the user of the device and ha[s] a
`second camera output. (Id.) The claim also recites that “wherein the first and second cameras
`include non-overlapping fields of view, and wherein the computer is adapted to perform a control
`function of the handheld device based on at least one of the first camera output and the second
`camera output.” (Id.)
`The dependent claims further specify, among other limitations, a mobile phone device;
`types of images the cameras are adapted to acquire; various computer determinations based on one
`or more camera outputs; persons that perform gestures; a computer recognition processes based
`on the second camera output; the computer is adapted to generate control instructions for a display;
`the computer is adapted to determine a reference frame of the object; the computer is adapted to
`perform a control function based on camera outputs; and the computer is adapted to transmit
`information over an internet connection. (Id., 26:66-28:14.)
`C.
`Prosecution History of the ’924 Patent
`
`The Examiner initially rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as failing
`to comply with the written description requirement. (Ex. PAT-B, 107-10.) In response, the
`Applicant asserted that the originally filed claims were supported by an application that was
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-6 Filed 12/16/21 Page 14 of 91 PageID #: 6321
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`incorporated by reference. (Id., 128-29.) The Examiner then withdrew the written description
`rejection and turned to the merits of the originally filed claims. (Id., 134-42.)
`Originally filed claim 24 was amended during prosecution and issued as the only
`independent claim of the ’924 patent. (Ex. PAT-B; Ex. PAT-A.) In originally filed claim 24, the
`Applicant claimed a handheld device comprising a housing, a computer within the housing, “a first
`camera oriented to view a user of the handheld device” and “a second camera oriented to view an
`object other than the user of the device.” (Ex. PAT-B, 55-58.) The Examiner rejected claim 24
`based on a combination of Silverbrook and Kimura. (Id., 134-42.) Specifically, the Examiner
`found it would have been obvious to orient two camera sensors on two sides of a device to capture
`the user and another object as claimed because Kimura taught two cameras that were positioned
`on different sides of a device. (Id.) In response, the Applicant did not dispute that, as a matter of
`physical positioning, a camera on one side of a device was oriented to view a user and a camera
`on a different side of the device was oriented to view an object other than the user as claimed. (Id.,
`159-62.) Instead, the Applicant amended its claims to require the first and second cameras to have
`outputs and non-overlapping fields of view, and amended the computer to perform a control
`function of the handheld device based on at least one of the first camera output and the second
`camera output. (Id., 157-58.) It also argued that neither Silverbrook nor Kimura taught a computer
`adapted to perform a control function based on a camera output as claimed because “Kimura
`merely transfers video data to a user.” (Id., 159-62.) In fact, Kimura did no more than display a
`video. (Id.) The Applicant asserted that “[b]y contrast, the present invention provides a handheld
`device with added functionality and an enhanced method of interacting with the handheld device.”
`(Id., 160-61.) After these amendments and arguments, the ’924 patent issued. (Id., 166-72.)
`The references forming the substantial new questions of patentability (“SNQ”)—
`Liebermann, Tyding, Gershman, Himmel, Kimball, and Sears—were not cited or considered during
`prosecution of the ’924 patent. (Ex. PAT-A, Cover; Ex. PAT-B.) Likewise, these references are
`not cited and will not be considered in the pending IPRs. Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology
`Partners, LLC, IPR2021-00923 (filed May 26, 2021); LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Gesture
`Technology Partners, LLC, IPR2022-00093 (filed November 5, 2021).
`D.
`The Effective Priority Date of Claims 1-14 of the ’924 Patent
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-6 Filed 12/16/21 Page 15 of 91 PageID #: 6322
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`For purposes of this reexamination only, Requester assumes that claims 1-14 are entitled
`to the filing date of Provisional Application No. 60/142,777 identified on the cover of the ’924
`patent, which is July 8, 1999. (Ex. PAT-A, Cover.)
`Liebermann issued on November 9, 1999 from Application No. 08/653,732 filed May 23,
`1996; Himmel issued on September 16, 2003 from Application No. 09/240,960 filed January 29,
`1999; Gershman issued on June 4, 2002 from Application No. 09/263,969 filed March 5, 1999;
`Tryding issued on March 9, 1999 from Application No. 845,937 filed April 29, 1997; Sears issued
`on September 5, 2000 from Application No. 09/176,999 filed October 22, 1998; Kimball issued
`on September 14, 1999 from Application No. 08/792,532 filed January 31, 1997. Thus,
`Liebermann, Himmel, Tryding, Gershman, Sears, and Kimball qualify as prior art at least under
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`IV. Claim Construction
`In a reexamination proceeding involving claims of an expired patent, claim construction
`pursuant to the principle set forth by the court in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75
`U.S.P.Q.2.d 132, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and
`customary meaning’ as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time
`of the invention) should be applied since the expired claim[s] are not subject to amendment. MPEP
`§ 2258 I.(G) (citing Ex Parte Papst-Motoren, 1 U.S.P.Q.2.d 1655 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter.
`1986)). The ’924 patent, which lists July 7, 2000 as the date of the earliest related continuation
`and does not list any term extensions or adjustments, has expired. See Ex. PAT-A; 35 U.S.C. §
`154. Therefore, the claim interpretations submitted or implied herein for the purpose of this
`reexamination adhere to the Phillips standard. See In re CSB-System Int’l, Inc., 832 F.3d 1335,
`1340-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).2
`
`2 Requester reserves all rights to raise claim constructions and other arguments in other venues.
`For example, Requester has not necessarily raised all challenges to the ’924 patent in this
`proceeding, including those under 35 U.S.C. § 112, given the limitations placed by the Rules
`governing this proceeding. For example, Requester has alleged some terms are indefinite in
`district court proceedings. But given how closely the prior art maps to the claims (as explained
`below), those issues do not need to be resolved to assess patentability in this proceeding. In
`addition, a comparison of the claims to any accused products in litigation may raise controversies
`that need to be resolved through claim construction that are not presented here given the
`similarities between the references and the ’924 patent. Thus, the SNQs presented herein should
`not be interpreted to (and do not) conflict with Requester’s indefiniteness positions in other
`proceedings regarding the ’924 patent (and how the Court ruled on such positions) (Ex. CC-2).
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 157-6 Filed 12/16/21 Page 16 of 91 PageID #: 6323
`
`Request for Ex Parte Reexamination
`U.S. Patent No. 8,194,924
`
`recently
`related Eastern District of Texas cases
`the
`in
`The district court
`construed/considered several terms recited in the claims of the ’924 patent under the Phillips
`standard. (Ex. CC-2.) A summary of the district court constructions/interpretations and the
`constructions advanced by the parties in the litigation is listed in the following table.
`
`’924 Patent Terms
`
`E.D. Texas
`Construction
`
`“oriented to view” of
`claim 1
`
`plain meaning (Ex.
`CC-2, 41-44)
`
`“oriented to view a
`user” of claim 1
`
`plain meaning (Ex.
`CC-2, 44-46)
`
`Construction
`Advanced by
`Defendant(s)
`“having a field of
`view encompassing”
`(Ex. CC-2, 41-44)
`indefinite (Ex. CC-2,
`44-46)3
`
`Construction
`Advanced by PO
`
`no construction
`necessary (Ex. CC-2,
`41-44)
`no construction
`necessary (Ex. CC-2,
`44-46)
`no construction
`necessary (Ex. CC-2,
`47-48)
`No construction
`necessary (Ex. CC-2,
`48-50)
`
`plain meaning (Ex.
`CC-2, 47-48)
`
`indefinite (Ex. CC-2,
`47-48)4
`
`indefinite (Ex. CC-2,
`48-50)5
`
`indefinite (Ex. CC-2,
`48-50)
`
`“oriented to view an
`object other than the
`user” of claim 1
`“wherein the gesture
`is performed by a
`person other than the
`user of the handheld
`device” of claim 9
`
`3 While the district court declined to find this term indefinite, Requester does not concede the claim
`is definite by demonstrating how the prior art discloses/suggests this limitation below. Instead, as
`noted, Requester presents how a substantial new question of patentability is raised by the prior art
`where the term is interpreted under the district court’s (and PO’s) plain meaning interpretation of
`the claimed term.
`
` 4
`
` While the district court declined to find this term indefinite, Requester does not