PTAB

IPR2014-00593

Luxottica Retail North America Inc v. Lennon Image Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Virtual Apparel Fitting
  • Brief Description: The ’843 patent discloses a computer system that allows a potential customer to virtually "try on" apparel. The system captures a live image of the customer and merges it with stored images of apparel items to create a composite image, which is then shown on a video display.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: 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 taught all limitations of the challenged claims. Blancato disclosed a method and apparatus for previewing hairstyles by capturing a subject's image on a computer, outlining their face, and replacing their hair with a selected hairstyle from a database. This system taught the core components of independent claim 1: a controller (CPU), an image capture system (video camera), a database for storing style images (hairstyles on a disk), and a display system for showing a composite image. To the extent Blancato's "hairstyles" were not considered "apparel style images" or that it did not explicitly store the customer image in a database, Petitioner contended Spackova supplied these teachings. Spackova disclosed a "previewer" system for virtually trying on various articles, including eyeglasses, clothing, and other accessories, expressly solving the same problem as the ’843 patent. Spackova also taught storing images of a subject on a video recorder for later retrieval and criticized prior art for using static images, motivating the use of full-motion video as claimed in dependent claims 3 and 15. For independent method claim 14, Petitioner asserted the steps of capturing, generating a composite image, displaying, and storing the customer image were all present in the combined teachings of Blancato's system architecture and Spackova's broader application and storage capabilities.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the references because both addressed the identical problem of allowing a user to virtually preview an item's appearance without physically trying it on. Blancato provided a specific implementation for hairstyles, while Spackova provided a broader framework for various articles of apparel and accessories. A POSITA would combine the specific image manipulation techniques of Blancato with the broader, more dynamic previewing system of Spackova to create a system for virtually trying on general apparel, as claimed in the ’843 patent. This was presented as a straightforward application of a known technique (Blancato's hairstyle previewer) to a similar problem (Spackova's apparel previewer).
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references. Both Blancato and Spackova relied on conventional computer and video imaging components available at the time. Integrating Spackova's teachings of storing customer images and previewing a wider range of apparel items into Blancato's established system architecture would have involved predictable design choices, not undue experimentation.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner emphasized that the Board had previously instituted an inter partes review (IPR2013-00432) on nearly identical claims of the ’843 patent based on the same combination of Blancato and Spackova, demonstrating the strength and validity of the proposed ground.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed adopting two claim constructions that the Board had previously adopted in the related Lumondi IPR (IPR2013-00432) for the purpose of the petition.
  • "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 construction was important to show that the "selectable hairstyles" of Blancato could be considered a species of the broader genus of "apparel style image," or alternatively, that Spackova's teachings of previewing clothing and accessories directly met the limitation.
  • "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 supported Petitioner's argument that the keyboard and mouse disclosed in Blancato, which are used to operate the system, constituted the claimed "trigger device."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-7, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 17-19 of the ’843 patent as unpatentable.