• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
142 results

Google LLC v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC

Docket IPR2022-00359, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Jan. 6, 2022)
Brent Dougal, Joni Chang, Kevin Turner, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7933431
Patent Owner Gesture Technology Partners, LLC
Petitioner Google LLC
Petitioner LG Electronics
cite Cite Docket

LG Electronics, Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC

Docket IPR2022-00091, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Nov. 5, 2021)
Brent Dougal, Joni Chang, Kevin Turner, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7933431
Patent Owner Gesture Technology Partners, LLC
Petitioner LG Electronics, Inc.
Petitioner Google
cite Cite Docket

Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC

Docket IPR2021-00920, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (May 21, 2021)
Brent Dougal, Joni Chang, Kevin Turner, Kristi Sawert, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7933431
Patent Owner Gesture Technology Partners, LLC
Petitioner Apple Inc.
Petitioner Google
...
cite Cite Docket

28 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision original

Document IPR2021-00920, No. 28 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision original (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2022)
If the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] ... the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Patent Owner argues that “Numazaki requires two photo-detection units to perform an analysis of a target object and control the computer, so it does not teach or suggest ‘determining’ finger movement from reflected light that is ‘electro-optically’ sensed using one ‘sensor means,’ as set forth in [the] claim.” PO Resp. 13.
For the above reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine the showing by Petitioner that Numazaki in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA teaches all of the aspects of the determining movement claim element.
For the above reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine the showing by Petitioner that Numazaki in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA teaches all of the aspects of the computer means claim element.
Petitioner argues that Numazaki’s fifth embodiment teaches a “conference record system” or TV telephone and that “a PHOSITA would have been motivated to implement this transmission functionality in the portable device described in Numazaki’s eighth embodiment.” Pet. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1003, 38:6–16, 40:16–49; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 50–52, 58): id. at 33–34.
cite Cite Document

8 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision original

Document IPR2022-00359, No. 8 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision original (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2022)
If the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] ... the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Patent Owner argues that “Numazaki requires two photo-detection units to perform an analysis of a target object and control the computer, so it does not teach or suggest ‘determining’ finger movement from reflected light that is ‘electro-optically’ sensed using one ‘sensor means,’ as set forth in [the] claim.” PO Resp. 13.
For the above reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine the showing by Petitioner that Numazaki in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA teaches all of the aspects of the determining movement claim element.
For the above reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine the showing by Petitioner that Numazaki in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA teaches all of the aspects of the computer means claim element.
Petitioner argues that Numazaki’s fifth embodiment teaches a “conference record system” or TV telephone and that “a PHOSITA would have been motivated to implement this transmission functionality in the portable device described in Numazaki’s eighth embodiment.” Pet. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1003, 38:6–16, 40:16–49; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 50–52, 58): id. at 33–34.
cite Cite Document

27 Other Hearing transcript: Other Hearing transcript

Document IPR2021-00920, No. 27 Other Hearing transcript - Other Hearing transcript (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2022)
So in a high precision application like controlling objects in a laptop environment such as is depicted in Numazaki in the 8th embodiment Dr. Bederson analyzed the benefits of maybe adding a ring to improve detection.
Patent 7,933,431 B2 8,553,079 B2 embodiments you’re relying on here in figure 8 are laptops and palm tops and they all seem to show a, you know, a gesture that’s fairly close to the device which kind of makes sense because it’s taking, you know, a picture which has to be illuminated to do this difference.
As we see on DX-4, claims 1, 7 and 14 each recite some form of imaging that captures movement of an object such as a user’s finger so that the user can perform device control through hand gestures and as we saw in the ‘079 proceeding, we are relying on Numazaki’s 8th embodiment to satisfy those limitations.
Patent Owner did not elaborate on how reducing video frames to one hundredth the original size would have no impact on the overall bandwidth and that’s simply a technically illogical conclusion to reach.
Your Honor asked a pointed question what evidence has Patent Owner presented in this case that rebuts Dr. Bederson’s analysis of Numazaki’s 5th embodiment and its conclusion that the portable TV telephone is in fact a cell phone.
cite Cite Document

9 Final Written Decision original: Final Written Decision original

Document IPR2022-00091, No. 9 Final Written Decision original - Final Written Decision original (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2022)
If the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] ... the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Patent Owner argues that “Numazaki requires two photo-detection units to perform an analysis of a target object and control the computer, so it does not teach or suggest ‘determining’ finger movement from reflected light that is ‘electro-optically’ sensed using one ‘sensor means,’ as set forth in [the] claim.” PO Resp. 13.
For the above reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine the showing by Petitioner that Numazaki in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA teaches all of the aspects of the determining movement claim element.
For the above reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine the showing by Petitioner that Numazaki in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA teaches all of the aspects of the computer means claim element.
Petitioner argues that Numazaki’s fifth embodiment teaches a “conference record system” or TV telephone and that “a PHOSITA would have been motivated to implement this transmission functionality in the portable device described in Numazaki’s eighth embodiment.” Pet. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1003, 38:6–16, 40:16–49; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 50–52, 58): id. at 33–34.
cite Cite Document

24 Other other: ORDER Setting Oral Argument 37 CFR 4270

Document IPR2021-00920, No. 24 Other other - ORDER Setting Oral Argument 37 CFR 4270 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2022)
The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearings, and the reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearings.4 Each party will have 60 minutes of argument time.
Either party may request that a qualifying LEAP practitioner participate in the program and conduct at least a portion of the party’s oral argument.
All practitioners are expected to have a command of the factual record, the applicable law, and Board procedures, as well as the authority to commit the party they represent.
During the hearing, the parties are reminded to identify clearly and specifically each paper referenced (e.g., by slide or screen number for a demonstrative) to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the court reporter’s transcript and for the benefit of all participants appearing electronically.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that oral argument will commence at 11 AM Mountain Time on September 13, 2022 by Video, and proceed in the manner set forth herein.
cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... 8 9 10 >>