`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