PTAB

IPR2014-00593

Luxottica Retail North America, Inc. v. Lennon Image Technologies LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Apparatus and Method for Manipulating a Customer Image
  • Brief Description: The ’843 patent discloses a computer-based system that allows a potential customer to virtually "try on" apparel. The system captures an image of the customer and merges it with a stored image of an apparel item (e.g., clothing, accessories) to create a composite image, which is then displayed to the customer for evaluation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Virtual Previewer Systems - Claims 1-7, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 17-19 are obvious over Blancato in view of Spackova.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Blancato (Patent 4,731,743) and Spackova (Patent 4,539,585).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Blancato and Spackova discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Independent apparatus claim 1 and independent method claim 14 form the basis of the challenge.
      • Blancato discloses a "Method and Apparatus for Displaying Hairstyles," which Petitioner asserted meets the core limitations of a virtual try-on system. It teaches an apparatus comprising a controller (computer system with CPU), an image capture system (video camera), a database (disk storing hairstyle data), and an image display system. The system captures a subject's image, allows the selection of a hairstyle from the database, and generates a composite image of the subject with the new hairstyle.
      • Spackova discloses a "previewer" system that enables dynamic viewing of articles a user desires to wear, such as eyeglasses, clothing, and other accessories, without physically trying them on. Petitioner argued that Spackova supplements Blancato by explicitly teaching the application of virtual try-on technology to a broader range of "apparel" beyond hairstyles, as recited in the ’843 patent. Spackova also teaches storing the customer's image for later retrieval and using full-motion video for both the customer and the apparel item, addressing limitations in dependent claims. For any limitations arguably not met by Blancato's hairstyle-specific system, Spackova's teachings on previewing general apparel, accessories, and using dynamic video would have been obvious to apply. For example, if Blancato's storage of a "frozen image" was not deemed to be a database, Spackova's disclosure of recording images on a video recorder for later retrieval supplied this teaching.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a strong motivation to combine these references because both addressed the same known problem: allowing a consumer to preview a change in their appearance (a hairstyle in Blancato, apparel/accessories in Spackova) without a physical trial. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) seeking to improve upon Blancato’s hairstyle previewer would have looked to analogous systems like Spackova to expand its utility to other forms of apparel and to incorporate more advanced features like dynamic video previewing, which Spackova taught was superior to static images.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings. Both references describe computer-based image processing systems, and integrating Spackova's teachings (e.g., expanding the database to include clothing items, using full-motion video) into Blancato's framework would have involved applying known and predictable technologies.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner heavily emphasized that the Board had previously instituted an inter partes review (IPR) on nearly identical grounds in Lumondi, Inc. v. Lennon Image Techs., LLC, IPR2013-00432. In that case, the Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the obviousness of claims 1-7, 14, 15, and 17-19 over the same combination of Blancato and Spackova.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued for adopting two claim constructions previously construed by the Board in the related Lumondi IPR. Adopting these constructions was presented as central to the obviousness analysis.
    • "apparel style image": Construed as "an image of a style of clothing, accessories, or any other items for which customer purchase decisions are typically based, in part, upon how the item appears when used by the customer." This broad construction allows prior art disclosing virtual try-on for items like hairstyles (Blancato) or eyeglasses (Spackova) to qualify as teaching an "apparel style image."
    • "trigger device ... that detects the presence of the customer and, in response, causes the composite image to be displayed": Construed as "a device that informs the controller of the presence of a customer, automatically or based on customer input and, in response, causes the composite image to be displayed." This construction allows standard input devices like a keyboard or mouse, as disclosed in Blancato, to meet the "trigger device" limitation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • While the petition predates the Fintiv framework, it presented a strong argument for institution by repeatedly referencing the Board's decision to institute the Lumondi IPR. Petitioner argued that since the Board had already found the same prior art combination raised a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for most of the same claims, it should reach the same conclusion again. This prior institution on identical grounds was positioned as a compelling reason why the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny the petition.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested that the Board institute an IPR and cancel claims 1-7, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 17-19 of the ’843 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.