Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 12
`Date: December 17, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK M. BOUCHER, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
`CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`Granting Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`LG Electronics Inc. (“Petitioner”)1 filed (1) a Petition for inter partes
`review (Paper 2, “Pet.”) of claims 1, 4, 5, 14–17, and 19 of U.S. Patent No.
`8,441,438 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’438 patent”); and (2) a Motion for Joinder
`(Paper 3, “Mot.”) with IPR2019-00143 (the “related IPR” or “ZTE IPR”),
`for which we instituted an inter partes review on May 17, 2019. ZTE (USA),
`Inc. v. Cywee Group Ltd., IPR2019-00143, Paper 7 (PTAB May 17, 2019)
`(“IPR2019-00143 Dec.”). CyWee Group Ltd. (“Patent Owner”2), filed a
`Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”). Patent Owner’s arguments
`regarding the Motion for Joinder appear solely in the Preliminary Response.
`See Prelim. Resp. 59–63.
`At our discretion, we may institute an inter partes review when “the
`information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`Applying that standard, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 5,
`14–17, and 19 of the ’438 patent, for the reasons explained below. We also
`grant the Motion for Joinder, joining Petitioner as a party to the related IPR.
`
`
`1 Petitioner identifies itself and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. as the real
`parties in interest. Pet. 1. Petitioner also “further identifies” as real parties in
`interest “the parties identified in IPR2019-00143 (to which this petition
`seeks joinder): ZTE (USA), Inc. and ZTE Corporation.” Id.
`2 Patent Owner identifies itself as the real party in interest. Paper 5, 2.
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`In addition to the related IPR, the parties identify the following as
`related matters: CyWee Group Ltd. v. ZTE (USA) Inc., No. 3:17-cv-02130
`(S.D. Cal.); CyWee Group Ltd. v. Google, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00571 (D. Del.);
`CyWee Group Ltd. v. HTC Corporation et al., No. 2:17-cv-00932 (W.D.
`Wash.); CyWee Group Ltd. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 1:17-cv-00780
`(D. Del.); CyWee Group Ltd. v. Huawei Technologies Co., Inc. et al., No.
`2:17-cv-00495 (E.D. Tex.); CyWee Group Ltd. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 3:17-cv-01102, (S.D. Cal.); and CyWee Group Ltd. v. Samsung
`Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., No. 2:17-cv-00140 (E.D. Tex.); CyWee Group
`Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 4:14-cv-01853 (N.D. Cal.); and Google LLC v. CyWee
`Group Ltd., IPR2018-01258 (PTAB) (trial instituted Dec. 11, 2018). Pet. 1–
`2; Paper 5, 2–3.
`
`B.
`
`THE ’438 PATENT (EX. 1001)
`
`The ’438 patent “relates to a three-dimensional (3D) pointing device.”
`Ex. 1001, 1:17–18. The pointing device uses a “six-axis motion sensor
`module” to measure movements and rotations of the device. Id. at 1:18–23.
`The device then compensates for accumulated measurement errors, to obtain
`actual deviation angles in the device’s spatial reference frame. Id. at 1:23–
`26. The pointing device relates to prior art shown in Figure 1 of the ’438
`patent, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1, above, depicts handheld 3D pointing device 110, which a user may
`point at screen 122 of display device 120. Ex. 1001, 1:28–30. The figure also
`depicts a reference frame, called the “spatial pointer reference frame,”
`associated with pointing device 110, which is defined by coordinate axes XP,
`YP, and ZP (113, 112, and 111, respectively). Id. at 1:38–41.
`Figure 3 of the ’438 patent, reproduced below, shows the pointing
`device’s hardware components:
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 3, above, is an exploded diagram showing 3D pointing device 300.
`Ex. 1001, 7:26–28. Within housing 330, formed of top cover 310 and bottom
`cover 320, are rotation sensor 342, accelerometer 344, data transmitting unit
`346, and computing processor 348, each attached to printed circuit board
`340. Id. at 7:36–55.
`Some of the above hardware components are also depicted in Figure
`4, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 4, above, is a schematic block diagram showing the relationship
`between rotation sensor 342, accelerometer 344, data transmitting unit 346,
`and computing processor 348. Box 302 represents a “six-axis motion sensor
`module,” which groups together rotation sensor 342 and accelerometer 344.
`Ex. 1001, 7:59–61. Box 304 represents a “processing and transmitting
`module,” which groups together data transmitting unit 346 and computing
`processor 348. Id. at 7:61–63.
`Figure 4 also includes arrows from rotation sensor 342 and
`accelerometer 344 to data transmitting unit 346, depicting the flow of first
`and second signal sets, respectively, and an arrow from data transmitting unit
`346 to computer processor 348. See Ex. 1001, 7:64–8:26. The first signal set,
`from rotation sensor 342, includes “angular velocities ωx, ωy, and ωz
`associated with the movements and rotations of the 3D pointing device”
`about the coordinate axes of the reference frame. Id. at 7:65–8:2. The second
`signal set, from accelerometer 344, includes “axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az
`associated with the movements and rotations of the 3D pointing device . . .
`along each of the three orthogonal coordinate axes XP YP ZP of the spatial
`pointer reference frame.” Id. at 8:4–8.
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`
`Using the first and second signal sets, the 3D pointing device
`compensates for accumulated errors, over time, in the device’s estimation of
`its spatial orientation. See Ex. 1001, 1:17–26, 4:6–30. Figure 7, reproduced
`below, depicts a flowchart embodying this process:
`
`
`The process depicted above in Figure 7 starts with either initializing a new
`state or “obtaining a previous state of the six-axis motion sensor module (. . .
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`steps 705, 710).” Ex. 1001, 10:66–11:1. This state is in the form of “a first
`quaternion[3] associated with previous angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz gained
`from the motion sensor signals of the six-axis motion sensor module at a
`previous time T−1.” Id. at 11:2–4.
`The method proceeds by “obtaining measured angular velocities ωx,
`ωy, ωz gained from the motion sensor signals of the six-axis motion sensor
`module at a current time T (. . . steps 715, 720),” to form a second
`quaternion representing the “current state.” Ex. 1001, 11:6–8, 12:32–60. The
`method then obtains a “measured state” using sets of axial accelerations:
`“measured axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az” from the accelerometer (step
`725), and “predicted axial accelerations Ax′, Ay′, Az′,” which are calculated
`based on the measured angular velocities (step 730). Id. at 11:6–12, 12:61–
`13:24. Using the “measured state,” the method next obtains a third
`quaternion, representing an “updated state,” by comparing the current state
`with the measured state (step 735). Id. at 11:15–18, 13:25–14:34.
`“[T]o provide a continuous loop,” the method then outputs and
`substitutes the updated state or third quaternion (step 740) into the first
`quaternion or previous state (step 710). Ex. 1001, 11:22–29. Ultimately, the
`method generates a resultant deviation, in terms of yaw, pitch, and roll
`angles, with respect to the axes of the spatial pointer reference frame. Id. at
`
`
`3 Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Andrews, explains that a quaternion is an
`extension of complex numbers which can represent rotations in three-
`dimensional space in a way that is computationally efficient. Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 41–42 (citing Eric Robert Bachmann, Inertial and Magnetic Tracking of
`Limb Segment Orientation for Inserting Humans into Synthetic
`Environments 56 (Dec. 2000) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Naval
`Postgraduate School), Ex. 1014). Patent Owner does not contest that
`characterization.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`14:47–15:7. According to the ’438 patent, one may use these deviation
`angles to map locations from 3D space to corresponding locations that
`indicate where the device is pointing on a 2D display device. See id. at
`15:39–17:40, Figs. 8, 9.
`
`C.
`
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS AND ASSERTED GROUNDS OF
`UNPATENTABILITY
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1, 4, 5, 14–17, and 19
`of the ’438 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006),4 as summarized in the
`following table:
`Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § References
`1, 4, 5, 14–17, 19
`103(a)
`Yamashita5 and Bachmann6
`Nasiri7 (including Sachs8) and
`1, 4, 5, 14–17, 19
`103(a)
`Song9
`Pet. 6–7. Independent claims 1 and 14, which exemplify the other claims,
`are as follows:
`
`
`4 Because the filing date of the ’438 patent was before March 16, 2013, the
`applicable version of 35 U.S.C. § 103 is the one that was in force prior to the
`Leahy–Smith America Invents Act. See Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 3(n)(1), 125
`Stat. 284, 293 (2011).
`5 Yamashita et al., US 8,267,785 B2, issued Sept. 18, 2012 (“Yamashita”).
`Ex. 1006.
`6 Bachmann et al., US 7,089,148 B1, issued Aug. 8, 2006 (“Bachmann”). Ex.
`1007.
`7 Nasiri et al., US 8,462,109 B2, issued June 11, 2013 (“Nasiri”) (Ex. 1008).
`8 Sachs et al., US 2009/0265671 A1, published Oct. 22, 2009 (“Sachs”) (Ex.
`1009). Nasiri incorporates the entirety of Sachs by reference. See Ex. 1008,
`1:47–49, 1:57–58, 13:65–14:3.
`9 Song et al., US 2007/0299626 A1, published Dec. 27. 2007 (“Song”) (Ex.
`1010).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`
`1. A three-dimensional (3D) pointing device subject to
`
`movements and rotations in dynamic environments,
`comprising:
`a housing associated with said movements and rotations of the
`3D pointing device in a spatial pointer reference frame;
`a printed circuit board (PCB) enclosed by the housing;
`a six-axis motion sensor module attached to the PCB,
`comprising a rotation sensor for detecting and generating a
`first signal set comprising angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz
`associated with said movements and rotations of the 3D
`pointing device in the spatial pointer reference frame,
`an accelerometer for detecting and generating a second signal
`set comprising axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az associated
`with said movements and rotations of the 3D pointing device
`in the spatial pointer reference frame; and
`a processing and transmitting module, comprising a data
`transmitting unit electrically connected to the six-axis
`motion sensor module for transmitting said first and second
`signal sets thereof and a computing processor for receiving
`and calculating said first and second signal sets from the
`data transmitting unit, communicating with the six-axis
`motion sensor module to calculate a resulting deviation
`comprising resultant angles in said spatial pointer reference
`frame by utilizing a comparison to compare the first signal
`set with the second signal set whereby said resultant angles
`in the spatial pointer reference frame of the resulting
`deviation of the six-axis motion sensor module of the 3D
`pointing device are obtained under said dynamic
`environments, wherein the comparison utilized by the
`processing and transmitting module further comprises an
`update program to obtain an updated state based on a
`previous state associated with said first signal set and a
`measured state associated with said second signal set;
`wherein the measured state includes a measurement of said
`second signal set and a predicted measurement obtained
`based on the first signal set without using any derivatives of
`the first signal set.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`
`14. A method for obtaining a resulting deviation including
`
`resultant angles in a spatial pointer reference frame of a three-
`dimensional (3D) pointing device utilizing a six-axis motion
`sensor module therein and subject to movements and rotations
`in dynamic environments in said spatial pointer reference
`frame, comprising the steps of:
`obtaining a previous state of the six-axis motion sensor module;
`wherein the previous state includes an initial-value set
`associated with previous angular velocities gained from the
`motion sensor signals of the six-axis motion sensor module
`at a previous time T−1;
`obtaining a current state of the six-axis motion sensor module
`by obtaining measured angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz gained
`from the motion sensor signals of the six-axis motion sensor
`module at a current time T;
`obtaining a measured state of the six-axis motion sensor module
`by obtaining measured axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az gained
`from the motion sensor signals of the six-axis motion sensor
`module at the current time T and calculating predicted axial
`accelerations Ax′, Ay′, Az′ based on the measured angular
`velocities ωx, ωy, ωz of the current state of the six-axis
`motion sensor module without using any derivatives of the
`measured angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz; said current state of
`the six-axis motion sensor module is a second quaternion
`with respect to said current time T; comparing the second
`quaternion in relation to the measured angular velocities ωx,
`ωy, ωz of the current state at current time T with the
`measured axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az and the predicted
`axial accelerations Ax′, Ay′, Az′ also at current time T;
`obtaining an updated state of the six-axis motion sensor module
`by comparing the current state with the measured state of the
`six-axis motion sensor module; and
`calculating and converting the updated state of the six axis
`motion sensor module to said resulting deviation comprising
`said resultant angles in said spatial pointer reference frame
`of the 3D pointing device.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`Ex. 1001 at 18:54–19:26, 21:8–45. Claim 19 is also independent, and similar
`to claim 14. See id. at 22:17–54. Claims 4 and 5 depend from claim 1, while
`claims 15–17 depend from claim 14. See id. at 19:37–48, 21:46–22:8.
`Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Scott Andrews, Oct. 31, 2018.
`Ex. 1003. Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Joseph LaViola, Ph.D.,
`Feb. 20, 2018. Ex. 2001. Patent Owner also challenges Mr. Andrews’s
`qualifications, on the ground that he is not a person of at least ordinary skill
`in the art. Prelim. Resp. 58–59. However, for the purpose of deciding
`whether to institute an inter partes review, any genuine issue of material fact
`created by differing testimonial evidence is “viewed in the light most
`favorable to the petitioner.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).10 Therefore, solely
`for the purpose of this decision, we accord weight to Mr. Andrews’s
`testimony. We will consider any arguments and evidence that Patent Owner
`presents on this issue during the trial.11
`
`III. GROUNDS OF THE PETITION
`
`In the related IPR, we instituted an inter partes review on the same
`grounds as this Petition. IPR2019-00143 Dec. 8–10, 38. Petitioner
`“challenges the same claims” and “relies on the same substantive arguments
`and substantive evidentiary record” as the petition in the related IPR. See
`
`
`10 We note that a witness does not necessarily need to be a person of ordinary
`skill in the art to testify as an expert. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 34 (Nov. 2019) (citing Sundance, Inc. v.
`DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008)),
`https://go.usa.gov/xpvPF.
`11 We note that in the related IPR, Patent Owner has raised this issue in its
`Patent Owner Response. See IPR2019-00143, Paper 18 at 62 (PTAB Aug. 9,
`2019).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`Mot. 1. However, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response contains additional
`and more extensive arguments compared to its preliminary response in the
`related IPR. Considering these additional arguments, and all the arguments
`and evidence specific to this proceeding, we determine for the reasons below
`that the Petition “warrants the institution of an inter partes review.” 35
`U.S.C. § 315(c).
`A claim is unpatentable 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).
`Additionally, the obviousness inquiry typically requires that we analyze
`“whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in
`the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” Id. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441
`F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). A sufficient ground for obviousness in a
`Petition must “articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to
`support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l,
`Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418); see
`also 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.204(b)(4).
`The obviousness inquiry is based on 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) any objective indicia of obviousness or non-
`obviousness (i.e., secondary considerations) that may be in evidence. See
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We address these
`factors in the sections below, and conclude that Petitioner has shown that
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`there is a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1, 4, and 5 (but not
`claims 14–17 or 19) based on the combination of Yamashita and Bachmann.
`We do not conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based
`on the combination of Nasiri and Song.
`
`A.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`One of the Graham factors is the level of ordinary skill in the
`pertinent art at the time of the invention. See 383 U.S. at 17. The level of
`ordinary skill is also relevant to how we construe the patent claims. See
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`The “person of ordinary skill in the art” is a hypothetical construct, from
`whose vantage point we assess obviousness. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350,
`1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998). This legal construct “presumes that all prior art
`references in the field of the invention are available to this hypothetical
`skilled artisan.” Id. (citing In re Carlson, 983 F.2d 1032, 1038 (Fed. Cir.
`1993)).
`Petitioner’s declarant, Scott Andrews, opines that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art
`would have been familiar with motion sensors (such as
`gyroscopes, accelerometers, and magnetometers) and mobile
`device technology. Such [person of ordinary skill in the art]
`would have, at minimum, a bachelor’s degree in computer
`science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a
`related field, with at least two years of experiences in research,
`design, or development of pointing devices that utilizing motion
`sensors. Extensive experience and technical training may
`substitute for educational requirements, while advanced
`education such as a relevant MS or PhD might substitute for
`experience.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 22; see also Pet. 10. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. LaViola,
`opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had
`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. In addition, a [person having ordinary
`skill in the art] would be familiar with Kalman filters and
`[extended Kalman filters], and with equations typically used
`with such filters.
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 27; see also Prelim. Resp. 58–59 (arguing that according to
`Patent Owner’s proposed definition, Mr. Andrews has less than an ordinary
`level of skill in the art).
`These positions are the same as those proposed in the related IPR. See
`IPR2019-00143 Dec. 10–12. There, we determined that the two competing
`articulations present a genuine issue of material fact, and we thus we
`accepted the minimum of the education and experience level that Mr.
`Andrews proposes. Id. (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)).
`For the same reason, solely for the purpose of this decision, we adopt
`the lower end of Petitioner’s articulation as the level of ordinary skill in the
`art. This level of ordinary skill is consistent with the ’438 patent, which does
`not suggest the need for an advanced degree or many years of experience in
`order to practice in the field. The patent also presumes a level of experience
`with sensors and mobile devices. We will consider this and any further
`arguments and evidence presented at trial, including through cross-
`examination of the respective declarants.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`
`B.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Petitioner proposes identical constructions to those that the petitioner
`proposed in the related IPR. Particularly, Petitioner’s arguments address the
`alleged plain meaning of the terms “three-dimensional (3D) pointing
`device,” “six-axis motion sensor module,” “receiving and calculating said
`first and second signal sets,” and phrases in claims 1, 14, and 19 that include
`the terms “comparison” or “comparing.” Pet. 11–15. However, Petitioner
`consents to the Board’s construction in the related IPR. See Pet. 11.12
`Likewise, Patent Owner asserts that the Board’s constructions in the
`related IPR “are applicable here.” Prelim. Resp. 16. Thus, for the purpose of
`this decision, we apply the same construction of claim terms that we applied
`in the institution decision of the related IPR. See IPR2019-00143 Dec. 12–
`16. These two constructions are as follows: (1) Comparison and comparing
`refer to “the calculating and obtaining of the actual deviation angles of the
`3D pointing device . . . with respect to the first reference frame or spatial
`pointing frame XP YP ZP utilizing signals generated by motion sensors while
`reducing or eliminating noises associated with said motion sensors.” Id. at
`15 (quoting Ex. 1001, 2:28–32). (2) Attached to the PCB means “attached to
`one or more PCBs.” Id. at 16.
`Although we did not construe the term “three-dimensional (3D)
`pointing device” in the related IPR, Patent Owner argues that we should
`
`
`12 Petitioner argues that “the Board should apply [the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard] because Petitioner is seeking joinder as a passive co-
`petitioner to the [related] IPR.” Pet. 11. On the current record, we would
`reach the same claim construction, whether under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard or the standard used to construe claims in a civil
`action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`construe it now. See Prelim. Resp. 16; but see Pet. 13 (arguing that the term
`“should be given its plain and ordinary meaning” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 55–57)).
`Patent Owner proposes that we construe the term as “a handheld device that
`detects the motion and orientation of said device in three-dimensions and is
`capable of translating the detected motions to control an output on a
`display.” Prelim. Resp. 17. According to Patent Owner, this construction is
`consistent with a prior construction in a parallel case in the Eastern District
`of Texas. Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 47–50; Ex. 2003, 8; Ex. 2004, 2; Ex. 2006,
`6–7.).
`Patent Owner proposed the same construction in the related IPR,
`based on essentially the same arguments. See ZTE v. Cywee, IPR2019-
`00143, Paper 6 at 19–20 (PTAB Feb. 20, 2019). The Board declined to adopt
`this construction, however, because the construction “would not affect our
`decision to institute.” IPR2019-00143 Dec. 13. Likewise, adopting Patent
`Owner’s proposed construction of 3D pointing device would not affect our
`decision to institute with respect to this Petition, based on the evidence of
`record. Therefore, we do not construe this term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`(“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`C.
`
`COMBINATION OF YAMASHITA AND BACHMANN
`
`Petitioner’s first ground in the Petition is that claims 1, 4, 5, 14–17,
`and 19 would have been obvious over Yamashita in view of Bachmann. Pet.
`7. We address this ground below.
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Yamashita
`
`Yamashita discloses technology associated with the Nintendo Wii
`Remote (a game controller), and its associated Wii MotionPlus module (an
`attachable gyrosensor unit). Prelim. Resp. 8. Yamashita’s Figure 3,
`reproduced below, illustrates both parts:
`
`
`Figure 3 depicts game controller 5, and associated gyrosensor unit 7 in a
`non-attached configuration. Controller 5 includes housing 31 with various
`operation buttons 32a–32h. Ex. 1006, 9:42–57. Gyrosensor unit 7 includes
`gyrosensors “for sensing an angular velocity around the three axes,” and is
`detachably attached on connector 33 of controller 5. Id. at 11:14–17.
`Figure 7, reproduced below, is a block diagram showing the interior
`parts of controller 5 and gyrosensor unit 7:
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 7 depicts game controller 5 and gyrosensor unit 7. On a substrate (not
`shown) within game controller 7, acceleration sensor 37 detects acceleration
`in three axes, and outputs the acceleration data to communication section 36,
`which includes microcomputer 42. Ex. 1006, 11:52–65, 12:62–67, 13:11–13.
`Connector 33, also on substrate 30, detachably connects to plug 53 on
`gyrosensor unit 7. Id. at 11:8–9, 16–20. Gyrosensor unit 7 also includes
`microcomputer 54, and gyrosensors 55 and 56, which sense angular velocity
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`around three axes (X, Y, and Z) and the unit transmits that information to
`controller 5. Id. at 14:28–34.
`Yamashita discloses that one may calculate the estimated posture or
`orientation of controller 5 with reference to the measured acceleration and
`angular velocity. Ex. 1006, 19:29–40. Yamashita’s Figure 23, a relevant
`portion of which we reproduce below, is an overview of processing steps for
`making this calculation:
`
`
`This reproduced portion of Figure 23 depicts angular velocity data d1 from
`gyrosensor unit 7, and acceleration data d2 from acceleration sensor 37,
`which are combined in posture estimation step p1 to produce estimated
`posture d3.13 Ex. 1006, 19:1–8. According to Yamashita, “any method is
`usable” for “calculating the estimated posture based on the acceleration and
`angular velocity.” Id. at 19:8–10.
`
`
`13 Although Figure 23 labels d3 as “estimated velocity,” the associated text
`consistently refers to d3 as an “estimated posture.” Ex. 1006, 19:8, 41, 44.
`
`20
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Bachmann
`
`Bachmann describes “a method of determining an orientation of a
`sensor,” Ex. 1007, code (57). “[B]y tracking changes in the orientation of the
`sensor with respect to the local magnetic field vector and the local gravity
`vector,” a sensor “can track the orientation of a body.” Id. at 5:21–25; see
`also id. at 4:59–60 (describing the invention as “a method and apparatus for
`tracking the posture of a body”). In addition, “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.
`Figure 4 of Bachmann is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 4, above, shows an embodiment “of an overall system
`implementation in accordance with the principles” described by Bachmann.
`Ex. 1007, 13:33–35. This embodiment uses three sensors 401 to track the
`posture of an articulated rigid body in the form of human body 402. Id. at
`13:35–36, 13:64–67. Sensors 401 send sensor information to processing unit
`403, which calculates the posture of body 402 and outputs a display signal to
`display 404, “thereby enabling the movement of the articulated rigid body
`
`21
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`402 to be incorporated into a synthetic or virtual environment and then
`displayed.” Id. at 14:23–26.
`In addition to tracking the posture of a human body as shown above in
`Figure 4, the disclosed sensors “can be used to track motion and orientation
`of simple rigid bodies as long as they are made of non-magnetic materials.
`Examples include, but are not limited to hand-held devices, swords, pistols,
`or simulated weapons.” Ex. 1007, 13:43–51; see also id. at 13:57–62
`(suggesting use of the sensors to track “non-magnetic prosthetic devices,
`robot arms, or other machinery”).
`Bachmann uses a filter, in conjunction with data supplied by the
`sensors, “to produce a sensor orientation estimate expressed in quaternion
`form.” Ex. 1007, 7:32–34. In one embodiment, “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 angular rate detectors configured to detect the angular
`velocity of the sensor.” Id. at 7:34–40.
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`
`Figure 3 of Bachmann is a block diagram of this filter:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1007, 4:46–48. As depicted in Figure 3 above, the filter takes
`measurement inputs from angular rate sensors 33, which measure sensor
`orientation to produce angular rate information 37, and these measurements
`contain noise. Id. at 10:17–20. According to Bachmann, “output 33 of
`angular rate detectors tends to drift over time . . . unless this orientation is
`continuously corrected using ‘complementary’ data from additional sensors
`(here, accelerometer 31 and magnetometer 32).” Id. at 10:36–42. Thus, the
`
`filter converts angular rate data 37 to a rate quaternion 𝑞𝑞̇ and corrects 𝑞𝑞̇ by
`adding a correction factor 𝑞𝑞𝜀𝜀̇ derived from accelerometers 31 and
`magnetometers 32. See id. The corrected rate quaternion 𝑞𝑞�̇ is then integrated
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`

`IPR2019-01203
`Patent 8,441,438 B2
`
`
`value for estimated orientation of the sensor.” Id. at 10:33–36.
`
`(42) and normalized (43) to produce output 𝑞𝑞� (39), which “describes [a] new
`To obtain correction factor 𝑞𝑞𝜀𝜀̇ , the filter combines accelerometer 31
`and magnetometer 32 measurements into a single vector 𝑦𝑦⃗0 (34). See Ex.
`1007, 8:37–51. The filter then compares measurement vector 𝑦𝑦⃗0 with
`calculated vector 𝑦𝑦⃗(𝑞𝑞�) (35a), which is a predicted value derived from the
`𝑞𝑞�. See id. at 8:52–9:8, 9:65–10:2. Measurement error 𝜀𝜀⃗(𝑞𝑞�) (36) is the
`difference between measurement vector 𝑦𝑦⃗0 and calculated vector 𝑦𝑦⃗(𝑞𝑞�). Id. at
`9:13, 10:2–5. The filter uses error 𝜀𝜀⃗(𝑞𝑞�) in equations to obtain the correction
`factor 𝑞𝑞𝜀𝜀̇ and update the next orientation estimate 𝑞𝑞�. See id. at 10:46–11:26,
`
`local gravitational and magnetic fields, and the updated orientation estimate
`
`Fig. 3.
`
`3.
`
`Obviousness Rationale
`
`Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`of the challenged invention would have had reason “to use Yamashita’s
`game console device with Bachmann’s sensors and filter calculations.” Pet.
`23. In particular, according to Petitioner, “additional sensors, and additional
`types of sensors, would have yielded at least better error and noise control.”
`Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 84). Petitioner argues that “magnetic, angular rate and
`gravitational (acceleration) sensors, known in the art as MARG sensors,
`were already commercially available” at the time of invention, and could
`have been “integrated in a known fas