throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: July 12, 2019
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., HUAWEI DEVICE CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN) CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI INVESTMENT & HOLDING CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI TECH. INVESTMENT CO. LTD., and
`HUAWEI DEVICE (HONG KONG) CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK M. BOUCHER, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
`CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Petition for Inter Partes Review and Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a), 315(c)
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`
`Huawei Device USA, Inc., Huawei Device Co. Ltd., Huawei
`Technologies Co. Ltd., Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co. Ltd., Huawei
`Investment & Holding Co. Ltd., Huawei Tech. Investment Co. Ltd., and
`Huawei Device (Hong Kong) Co. Ltd. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed (1) a
`Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 10 and
`12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’978 patent”); and (2) a
`Motion for Joinder (Paper 3, “Mot.”) with IPR2018-01257 (“the related
`IPR”), which was instituted on December 11, 2018. CyWee Group Ltd.
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 9, “Prelim. Resp.”) to
`the Petition, as well as an Opposition (Paper 6, “Opp.”) to Petitioner’s
`Motion for Joinder. Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 7, “Reply”) to Patent
`Owner’s Opposition in support of its Motion.
`We grant the Motion for Joinder, joining Petitioner as a party to the
`related IPR, and terminate this proceeding.
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`A. The ’978 Patent
`The ’978 patent “generally relates to a 3D pointing device,” which is
`described as having the function of “detecting motions of the device and
`translating the detected motions to a cursor display such as a cursor pointing
`on the screen . . . of a 2D display device.” Ex. 1001, 1:22–23, 1:29–33. For
`example, the pointing device “may be a mouse of a computer or a pad of a
`video game console” and the display device “may be a part of the computer
`or the video game console.” Id. at 1:36–39. A user may then perform
`control actions and movements with the pointing device for some purpose,
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`such as playing a video game. Id. at 1:52–55. For example, when the user
`moves the pointing device, a pointer on the display device may “move along
`with the orientation, direction and distance travelled by the pointing device.”
`Id. at 1:56–61.
`Figure 3 of the ’978 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3 is an exploded diagram showing electronic device 300, which may
`correspond to a pointing device. Id. at 9:14–16. Within housing 330,
`formed of top cover 310 and bottom cover 320, are rotation sensor 342,
`accelerometer 344, and magnetometer 345, each attached to printed circuit
`board 340, as well as other components that allow data transmission and
`processing. Id. at 9:26–33.
`The ’978 patent refers to rotation sensor 342, accelerometer 344, and
`magnetometer 345 as “a nine-axis motion sensor module.” Id. at 9:57–62.
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`The term “nine-axis” refers to and includes three angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz
`detected by rotation sensor 342, three axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az
`detected by accelerometer 344, and three “magnetisms” Mx, My, Mz
`detected by magnetometer 345. Id. at 9:65–10:23. The x, y, and z
`components are illustrated in the patent for a Cartesian spatial reference
`frame relative to electronic device 300, but, more generally, “may not need
`to be orthogonal in a specific orientation and they may be rotated in different
`orientations.” Id. at 10:23–29.
`Various dynamic environments may present external influences that
`impact the ability to calculate orientation accurately. See id. at 15:53–16:4.
`For example, nongravitational forces may cause undesirable axial
`accelerations and/or extraneous electromagnetic fields may cause
`undesirable magnetism. Id. at 15:55–60. Such complications are addressed
`with a method illustrated by the flow diagram shown in Figure 7 of the ’978
`patent, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 7 shows a method “for obtaining and/or outputting a resultant
`deviation including deviation angles in a spatial reference frame of an
`electronic device.” Id. at 13:60–63. The method of Figure 7 uses
`quaternions, which Petitioner’s declarant, Majid Sarrafzadeh, Ph.D.,
`explains are four-valued vector generalizations of complex numbers with
`“special mathematical properties that allow them to describe rotations
`efficiently.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30–31.
`After obtaining a previous state of the nine-axis sensor module at
`steps 705 and 710, the method obtains measured angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`from the motion sensor signals of the nine-axis motion sensor module at a
`current time, at steps 715 and 720. Ex. 1001, 14:23–43. A current-time
`measured state of the nine-axis motion sensor module is then obtained by
`obtaining measured axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az at step 725; and
`predicted axial accelerations Ax′, Ay′, Az′ based on measured angular
`velocities ωx, ωy, ωz are calculated at step 730. Id. at 14:43–51. This allows
`obtaining an updated state of the nine-axis motion sensor module at step 735
`by comparing the current state with the measured state. Id. at 14:51–54.
`“[T]o provide a continuous loop,” the updated state of the nine-axis motion
`sensor module is output to the previous state at step 740, i.e. by outputting
`the third quaternion obtained at step 735 to the first quaternion identified at
`step 710 for the previous state. Id. at 14:62–15:3. Ultimately, the resultant
`deviation is obtained at step 745, “whereby the resultant deviation
`compris[es] deviation angles associated with the updated state of the nine-
`axis motion module[,] excluding said undesirable external interferences in
`the dynamic environments.” Id. at 14:54–62.
`
`
`B. Challenged Claims
`Challenged claims 10 and 12 are reproduced below.
`10. A method for compensating rotations of a 3D pointing
`device, comprising:
`
`generating an orientation output associated with an
`orientation of the 3D pointing device associated with three
`coordinate axes of a global reference frame associated with
`Earth;
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`
`set comprising axial
`signal
`first
`generatin[g] a
`
`accelerations associated with movements and rotations of the 3D
`pointing device in the spatial reference frame;
`
`generating a second signal set associated with Earth’s
`magnetism; generating the orientation output based on the first
`signal set, the second signal set and the rotation output or based
`on the first signal set and the second signal set;
`
`generating a rotation output associated with a rotation of
`the 3D pointing device associated with three coordinate axes of
`a spatial reference frame associated with the 3D pointing device;
`and
`using the orientation output and the rotation output to
`
`generate a transformed output associated with a fixed reference
`frame associated with a display device, wherein the orientation
`output and the rotation output is generated by a nine-axis motion
`sensor module; obtaining one or more resultant deviation
`including a plurality of deviation angles using a plurality of
`measured magnetisms Mx, My, Mz and a plurality of predicted
`magnetism Mx′, My′, Mz′ for the second signal set.
`
`Ex. 1001, 36:62–37:21.
`
`
`12. The method of claim 10, wherein the orientation output is a
`rotation matrix, a quaternion, a rotation vector, or comprises
`three orientation angles.
`
`Id. at 36:36–38.
`
`
`C. Evidence
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`Bachmann
`US 7,089,148 B1
`Aug. 8, 2006
`Zhang
`US 2004/0095317 A1
`May 20, 2004
`Liberty
`US 7,158,118 B2
`Jan. 2, 2007
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Ex. 1004
`Ex. 1005
`Ex. 1006
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`
`In addition, Petitioner relies on a Declaration by Majid Sarrafzadeh,
`Ph.D. Ex. 1002. Patent Owner relies on a Declaration by Joseph LaViola,
`Ph.D. Ex. 2004.
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges claims 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`the combination of Zhang and Bachmann and over the combination of
`Liberty and Bachmann. Pet. 3.
`
`
`E. Real Parties in Interest
`The parties identify only themselves as real parties in interest. Pet. 2;
`Paper 4, 2.
`
`
`F. Related Matters
`The parties identify the following matters as involving the ’978
`patent: (1) CyWee Group Ltd. v. Google, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00571 (D. Del.);
`(2) CyWee Group Ltd. v. ZTE Corporation, No. 3:17-cv-02130 (S.D. Cal.);
`(3) CyWee Group Ltd. v. HTC Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-00932 (W.D.
`Wash.); (4) CyWee Group Ltd. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 1:17-cv-
`00780; (5) CyWee Group Ltd. v. Huawei Technologies Co., Inc., No. 2:17-
`cv-00495 (E.D. Tex.); (6) CyWee Group Ltd. v. LG Electronics, Inc., No.
`3:17-cv-01102 (S.D. Cal.); (7) CyWee Group Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics
`Co. Ltd., No. 2:17-cv-00140 (E.D. Tex.); and (8) CyWee Group Ltd. v. Apple
`Inc., No. 4-14-cv-01853 (N.D. Cal.). Pet. 2; Paper 4, 2–3.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`
`In addition to the instant proceeding, other parties have filed petitions
`and moved to join the related proceeding in the following matters:
`IPR2019-00525 (ZTE (USA), Inc.), IPR2019-00534 (Samsung Electronics
`Co., Ltd.), and IPR2019-00560 (LG Electronics Inc.). See Paper 4, 3.
`Related U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438 B2 (“the ’438 patent”) is the subject of
`IPR2018-01258. Petitioner notes that it has filed a petition challenging
`claims of the ’438 patent, as well as filed a motion to join IPR2018-01258 in
`IPR2019-00562. Pet. 3. In addition, other parties have filed petitions and
`moved to join IPR2018-01258 in the following matters: IPR2019-00526
`(ZTE (USA), Inc.), IPR2019-00535 (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.), and
`IPR2019-00559 (LG Electronics Inc.).
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Introduction
`In the related IPR, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 10
`and 12 on the bases set forth above. Google LLC v. CyWee Group Ltd.,
`Case IPR2018-01257, slip op. at 7, 26 (PTAB Dec. 11, 2018) (Paper 8).
`Petitioner challenges the same claims challenged in the related IPR on
`the same grounds of unpatentability. Pet. 3. The Petition also “relies on the
`same substantive arguments and substantive evidentiary record” as the
`petition upon which review was instituted in the related IPR. See Mot. 1.
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response differs in certain respects from the
`preliminary response filed by Patent Owner in the related IPR. And Patent
`Owner relies on testimony by a different witness than it relied on during the
`preliminary phase of the related IPR. See Ex. 2004. Accordingly, we
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`initially address whether the Petition “warrants the institution of an inter
`partes review under section 314” in light of the arguments and evidence
`provided by Patent Owner specific to this proceeding. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).
`
`
`B. Legal Principles
`Petitioner advances only obviousness challenges. A claim is
`unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter 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).
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
`of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of non-
`obviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.1 See Graham v. John Deere
`Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`Additionally, the obviousness inquiry typically requires an analysis of
`“whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in
`the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In
`re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated
`reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`
`
`1 The parties do not address secondary considerations, which, accordingly,
`do not form part of our analysis.
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`obviousness”)); see In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., 832 F.3d 1327, 1333
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG
`v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Both Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Sarrafzadeh, and Patent Owner’s
`declarant, Dr. LaViola, opine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have “at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science, Electrical
`Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, or Physics, or equivalent work
`experience, along with knowledge of sensors (such as accelerometers,
`gyroscopes and magnetometers), and mobile computing technologies.” Ex.
`1002 ¶ 24; Ex. 2004 ¶ 27. This statement is generally consistent with our
`determination in the related IPR that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have “an undergraduate degree in computer science, electrical
`engineering, mechanical engineering, or other related technical field, and
`knowledge of sensor systems and quaternion mathematics.” See Google,
`slip op. at 15.
`Dr. LaViola adds that such a person would also “be familiar with
`Kalman filters and EKFs [i.e., extended Kalman filters], and with equations
`typically used with such filters.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 27. For purposes of this
`Decision, we do not adopt Dr. LaViola’s statement regarding this additional
`specialized knowledge. Our conclusion would be the same even under Dr.
`LaViola’s articulation of the standard because, if anything, such additional
`specialized knowledge would strengthen the reason for effecting the
`combination of references that Petitioner proposes.
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`
`Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we consider a person of
`ordinary skill in the art to have an undergraduate degree in computer
`science, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or other related
`technical field, and knowledge of sensor systems and quaternion
`mathematics.
`
`
`D. Claim Construction
`Between the time the petition in the related IPR was filed and when
`the instant Petition was filed, the Board changed the claim-construction
`standard it uses in trial proceedings. See Changes to the Claim Construction
`Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (stating
`“[t]his rule is effective on November 13, 2018 and applies to all IPR, PGR
`and CBM petitions filed on or after the effective date”). Specifically, the
`claims were construed in the related IPR using the broadest reasonable
`interpretation in light of the patent specification. Google, slip op. at 8 (citing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2016)). For petitions filed after November 13, 2018,
`the Board uses “the same claim construction standard that would be used to
`construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including
`construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary
`meaning of such claim 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); see
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`Petitioner contends that we nonetheless “should apply the [broadest
`reasonable interpretation] standard to the instant petition because Petitioners
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`are simply seeking joinder as a co-petitioners to the Google IPR.” Pet. 11
`n. 2. Patent Owner conversely contends that, because the Petition was filed
`after November 13, 2018, it “should be subject to claim construction under
`the Phillips standard.” Opp. 8. For the reasons explained below, we need
`not resolve which claim-construction standard to apply under the specific
`circumstances presented to us.
`
`
`1. “spatial reference frame”
`Independent claim 10 recites “the spatial reference frame” and “a
`spatial reference frame associated with the 3D pointing device.” Ex. 1001,
`37:3, 37:11–12. Petitioner proposes that both phrases should be construed as
`“a reference frame associated with the 3D pointing device, which always has
`its origin at the same point in the device and in which the axes are always
`fixed with respect to the device.” Pet. 12. Petitioner further asserts that
`Patent Owner “agreed to these constructions during a co-pending litigation.”
`Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1010, 2).
`We adopted this construction in the related IPR as the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of the phrase. Google, slip op. at 9. That
`construction is also consistent with the Specification’s use of the term, and
`clarifies that “the spatial reference frame” is with respect to the 3D pointing
`device, even though the phrase is recited without apparent antecedent basis.
`See Ex. 1001, 37:3. Furthermore, Patent Owner agrees that this
`“construction is consistent with the understanding of a [person having
`ordinary skill in the art] and with the claim construction of the district
`courts.” Prelim. Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 2003, 6; Ex. 2004 ¶ 54).
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`
`The construction thus comports with both the broadest reasonable
`interpretation and with the civil-action standard. In light of the parties’
`apparent agreement, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction for
`purposes of this Decision.
`
`
`2. “rotation output”
`Independent claim 10 recites the phrase “rotation output” in multiple
`places. Ex. 1001, 37:6–7, 37:9, 37:13, 37:16. Petitioner proposes that the
`phrase be construed as “output of a rotation sensor,” and we adopted this
`construction as the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase in the
`related IPR. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 48–52); Google, slip op. at 10.
`According to Petitioner, this construction is consistent with how the term is
`used in the patent disclosure. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:61–64). We agree
`with this assessment. See Ex. 1001, Abstract (“The rotation sensor generates
`a rotation output . . . .”), 7:61 (“The rotation sensor generates a rotation
`output . . . .”), 30:58–59 (“[T]he rotation sensor 342 generates a rotation
`output (ωx, ωy, ωz) . . . .”), 31:51–52 (“[T]he rotation sensor 342 generates a
`rotation output . . . .”), 32:62–63 (“[ωx, ωy, ωz]P is the rotation output
`generated by the rotation sensor 342.”), 33:38–39 ([T]he rotation sensor 342
`generates a rotation output (ωx, ωy, ωz).”), 35:46 (“a rotation sensor,
`generating a rotation output”).
`Patent Owner does not dispute this construction and agrees that it “is
`consistent with the understanding of a [person having ordinary skill in the
`art].” Prelim. Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 55). The construction thus
`comports with both the broadest reasonable interpretation and with the civil-
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`action standard. In light of the parties’ apparent agreement, we adopt
`Petitioner’s proposed construction for purposes of this Decision.
`
`
`3. “3D pointing device”
`Independent claim 10 recites a “3D pointing device.” Ex. 1001,
`36:62, 36:65, 37:2–3, 37:9–11. Petitioner does not expressly address a
`construction for the phrase.
`For purposes of the institution decision in the related proceeding, we
`preliminarily adopted the construction advanced by Patent Owner in that
`proceeding, namely “a device capable of sensing movement and orientation
`in three dimensions to point to or control actions on a display.” Google, slip
`op. at 10–11. In the instant proceeding, Patent Owner shifts position and
`advocates for a construction specifically requiring that the “3D pointing
`device” be “handheld”: “a handheld device that detects the motion of said
`device in three-dimensions and is capable of translating the detected motions
`to control an output on a display.” Prelim. Resp. 30–33. In doing so, Patent
`Owner draws our attention to consideration of the phrase by two district
`courts and Dr. LaViola’s testimony. See Ex. 2003, 7–8; Ex. 2004 ¶ 33, 52–
`53; Ex. 2006, 2; Ex. 2007, 6–7.
`The evidence that Patent Owner presents may justify reaching a
`different construction under the civil-action standard than under the broadest
`reasonable interpretation. But because the prior art discloses handheld
`devices, as we discuss below, we would reach the same ultimate conclusion
`as to institution regardless whether “3D pointing device” were construed as
`in the related IPR or under the more narrow construction Patent Owner
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`advocates in this proceeding. Because we need not construe claim terms
`unless they are material to resolving the disputed issues, we do not expressly
`adopt a construction of “3D pointing device” for purposes of this Decision.
`See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d
`1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g,
`Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`
`E. Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`1. Overview of Zhang
`Zhang describes a “universal pointing device to control home
`entertainment systems and computer systems using spatial orientation sensor
`technologies.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 7. When a user points the device to an arbitrary
`position of a screen, a set of orientation sensors inside the device detects the
`orientation and generates a pointing direction signal. Id. ¶ 21. Via encoding
`and transmission of the signal to a display control unit, and subsequent
`decoding and processing of the transmitted signal, a pointer image is
`superimposed onto a video input signal and displayed on a screen. Id. “The
`user perceives that the pointer is moved following the aiming line of sight.”
`Id.
`
`Figure 3 of Zhang is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 3 illustrates internal components of the pointing device, as well as
`external buttons 101, 102, 103 for collecting “user selection activities.” Id.
`¶ 25. Orientation sensors 120 and 130 are mounted on printed circuit board
`160, and respectively sense the device’s yaw angle and pitch angle. Id.
`According to Zhang, “[a]dditional sensors (not show[n] in the picture) could
`be used to detect [the] device’s roll angle which may provide an additional
`dimension of control.” Id. Microcontroller 110 provides computation
`power as well as logic control for transmitted 140 and other electronic
`components. Id. Although Zhang expressly illustrates orientation detection
`with magnetic-field sensors and with accelerometor sensors, it teaches that
`“the orientation detection may not be limited to these types of sensors,” and
`that other sensors such as a “gyro sensor” can be used. Id. ¶ 26.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`
`2. Overview of Liberty
`Liberty “relates generally to handheld, pointing devices and, more
`specifically to three-dimensional (hereinafter ‘3D’) pointing devices and
`techniques for tilt compensation and improved usability associated
`therewith.” Ex. 1006, 1:31–34. “Such devices enable the translation of
`movement, e.g., gestures, into commands to a user interface,” with Liberty
`describing both angular movements of roll, pitch, and yaw, as well as linear
`movement along “x, y, and z axes.” Id. at 7:17–27. To track user
`movements, Liberty uses sensors within the pointing device, with one
`embodiment including two rotational sensors and one accelerometer. Id. at
`7:57–60.
`Liberty explains that “various measurements and calculations” are
`performed in determining appropriate output for a user interface based on
`outputs of such sensors. Id. at 8:36–42. In particular, such measurements
`and calculations are used to compensate for (1) intrinsic factors, such as
`errors associated with the particular sensors used, and (2) non-intrinsic
`factors associated with the manner in which a user uses the pointing device,
`such as linear acceleration, tilt, and tremor. Id. at 8:42:53. Liberty provides
`examples of mathematical techniques for handling each of these effects. See
`id. at 8:54–12:53. Such techniques include converting data from the frame
`of reference of the pointing device’s body into another frame of reference,
`such as a user’s frame of reference that corresponds to a coordinate system
`associated with a screen on which a user interface is displayed. Id. at 16:21–
`29.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`
`Liberty addresses various modifications that may be made to its
`disclosure, including the use of different sensors that measure motion with
`respect to the body of the device, such as “accelerometers, rotational
`sensors, gyroscopes, magnetometers and cameras.” Id. at 18:30–33. In
`addition, Liberty notes that “[t]he user frame does not need to be stationary,”
`such as when the user’s frame of reference is selected to be the user’s
`forearm, with the device responding only to wrist and finger movement. Id.
`at 18:34–37.
`
`
`3. Overview of Bachmann
`Bachmann describes “a method and apparatus for tracking the posture
`of a body without the need for a generated field (or source) of a plurality of
`fixed stations.” Ex. 1004, 4:59–62. In particular, Bachmann describes “full
`body posture tracking of multiple users over an area that is only limited by
`the range of a wireless LAN.” Id. at 5:3–6. As Bachmann explains, “a
`system having a plurality of sensors, each mounted to a limb of an
`articulated rigid body can be used to track the orientation of each limb.” Id.
`at 5:25–28. Accordingly, “body posture can be tracked and introduced into
`a synthetic environment, thereby allowing a user to interface with the
`synthetic environment.” Id. at 5:28–30.
`Bachmann describes the use of a filter, in conjunction with data
`supplied by sensors, to produce a sensor orientation estimate. Id. at 7:32–34.
`In one embodiment of Bachmann, “the sensors include a three-axis
`magnetometer and a three-axis accelerometer.” Id. at 7:34–35. In another
`embodiment, “the magnetometers and accelerometers are supplemented with
`19
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`angular rate detectors configured to detect the angular velocity of the
`sensor.” Id. at 7:35–40.
`Figure 3 of Bachmann is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 3 is a block diagram that illustrates a filtering method disclosed by
`Bachmann. Id. at 4:46–48. Using outputs from accelerometers 31,
`magnetometers 32, and angular rate sensors 33, Bachmann calculates an
`
`output 𝑞𝑞� (identified by number 39 in the lower right of the drawing), which
`Id. at 10:10–14. In calculating such output 𝑞𝑞�, sensor measurements from
`correction factor 𝑞𝑞̇𝜀𝜀, which is used to compensate rate 𝑞𝑞̇ determined from
`
`
`
`20
`
`is a quaternion representing the orientation of the tracked object in space.
`
`accelerometers 31 and magnetometers 32 are used to calculate rate
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`angular rate sensors 33 by minimizing the difference between actual and
`predicted measurements. Id. at 9:9–35, 10:10–65.
`
`
`F. Combination of Zhang and Bachmann
`Petitioner challenges claims 10 and 12 as unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Zhang and Bachmann. Pet. 15–56. “The combination
`of Zhang and Bachmann, broadly speaking, uses Zhang’s 3D pointing device
`together with Bachmann’s extra sensors and method for compensating
`rotations.” Id. at 16.
`Pointing to Zhang’s express disclosure that orientation detection may
`not be limited to magnetic-field and accelerometer sensors, and that “a gyro
`sensor[] can also be used in the pointing control system,” Petitioner reasons
`that it would have been obvious to add the angular-rate sensors of
`Bachmann. Id. at 26–27; Ex. 1005 ¶ 26. In doing so, Petitioner cites to
`testimony by Dr. Sarrafzadeh that one of skill in the art would have
`understood that such additional sensors provide at least two benefits:
`(1) allowing the device to detect different modes of movement, such as a roll
`angle; and (2) increasing the overdetermination to enable better error and
`noise control. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 94).
`In articulating a motivation to combine the references, Petitioner also
`points to Bachmann’s disclosure that nine-axis sensors were known in the art
`and commercially available, and, in particular, to Bachmann’s disclosure of
`using its sensors in “hand-held devices.” Id. at 27–30; Ex. 1004, 13:42–48.
`As Petitioner summarizes, “Zhang’s device has a housing, sensors and a
`software for using sensor output to calculate the orientation of the device,”
`21
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`and “Bachmann has the same, but uses additional sensors and a modified
`calculation.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1002, ¶101). Petitioner reasons that
`“[t]hese functional blocks (sensors and calculations) could have been
`substituted for the same functional blocks in Zhang requiring only ordinary
`skill to implement,” and that “[t]here would have been no unexpected
`results—only the expected improvement promised by Bachmann.” Id. at
`30–31 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 101).
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s detailed claim mapping for claims 10
`and 12 at pages 35–57 of the Petition, and find that Petitioner adequately
`identifies the recited elements in its proposed combination of Zhang and
`Bachmann. Patent Owner makes several arguments, which we address
`below.
`First, Patent Owner contends that Bachmann is not analogous art.
`Prelim. Resp. 33–38. We rejected a similar presentation of this argument in
`the related IPR based on the evidence and arguments on the preliminary
`record of that case, Google, slip op. at 21–22, but Patent Owner contends
`that construing “3D pointing device” as limited to a handheld device
`compels a different conclusion. See Prelim. Resp. 35 (“Proper interpretation
`of this term is necessary because it is important for determining whether the
`asserted references are analogous prior art.”). We disagree.
`As Patent Owner acknowledges, two separate tests define the scope of
`analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
`regardless of the problem addressed; and (2) if the reference is not within the
`field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference is still “reasonably
`pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In
`22
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00563
`Patent 8,552,978 B2
`
`re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see Prelim. Resp. 35 (citing In re
`Clay, 966 F.2d 658–59 (Fed. Cir. 1992) for the same statement of the tests).
`According to Patent Owner, “[t]he ‘978 Patent is involved with the problem
`of compensating for accumulated errors of signals of a 3D pointing device
`using a nine-axis sensor system for the purposes of being able to better map
`the dynamic movements of that pointing device onto a display and to more
`precisely control actions on that display.” Prelim. Resp. 37. Focusing on
`this characterization of the “problem” addressed by the ’978 patent, Patent
`Owner argues that “Bachmann does not address the problem of mapping the
`movement and rotation of a 3D pointing device to more precisely control
`actions on a display.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 85).
`But as in the related proceeding, “we disagree with Patent Owner’s
`characterization of the problem addressed by the ’978 patent as focused on
`the control of a display.” Google, slip op. at 21. Rather, as the ’978 patent
`itself makes clear in its statement of the field of the invention, the problem
`addressed more generally involves “compensating signals of [an] orientation
`sensor subject to movements and rotations of [a] 3D pointing device.” Ex.
`1001, 1:22–27. Although Bachmann’s emphasis is on tracking the posture
`of articulated rigid bodies, such as a human body, Bachmann presents its
`teachings more generally as “relate[d] t

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket