PTAB

IPR2015-01347

PixArt Imaging Inc v. SyncPoint Imaging LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Computer Presentation System and Method With Optical Tracking of Wireless Pointer
  • Brief Description: The ’214 patent discloses a system for remotely controlling a computer by projecting an "external cursor" (e.g., from a laser pointer) onto a screen displaying the computer's output. A camera captures an image of the screen, and the system processes it to detect both the position and at least one other property (e.g., color, shape, dwell time) of the external cursor to generate commands that control the computer’s internal cursor and functions.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Stove - Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 17-19, and 24-26 are anticipated by Stove under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Stove (International Publication No. WO 97/41502).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Stove discloses every element of the challenged claims. Stove describes a presentation system where a laser pointer creates a light spot (the "external cursor") on a projected screen. A video camera captures the screen, and an interaction computer analyzes the video to locate the spot's position and control a corresponding internal mouse cursor. Stove explicitly teaches detecting a property of the external cursor other than position—specifically, the duration the laser spot is held over a "soft button" on the screen—to generate a command, such as a mouse click. Petitioner asserted this "dwell time" meets the limitation of detecting "at least one property" of the external cursor. Dependent claims were also allegedly met, as Stove teaches using a red light filter (claim 4) and thresholding to distinguish the bright laser spot from the background image (claim 5).

Ground 2: Anticipation over Platzker - Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11, 17-18, and 25 are anticipated by Platzker under §102(b).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Platzker (Patent 5,528,263).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Platzker, which describes an interactive projected video display system, anticipates the challenged claims. In Platzker, a user introduces an object, such as a hand, finger, or pen (the "external cursor"), onto a projected image. A video camera captures the scene, and a computer processes the captured frames to detect the object's position and control an internal cursor. Platzker explicitly discloses detecting various properties of the object to trigger computer operations, including its "profile, size, color, or special movements" (e.g., a hand movement corresponding to a check mark). Petitioner argued that detecting these features satisfies the "at least one property" limitation. Platzker also discloses comparing a captured image to a previously measured image to detect differences (claim 3) and using advanced image processing like feature extraction, which Petitioner equated with filtering (claim 4).

Ground 3: Anticipation over Bronson - Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 17-21, and 24-26 are anticipated by Bronson under §102(b).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bronson (Patent 5,138,304).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Bronson anticipates the claims by disclosing a technique for interacting with a projected video image using a light pen. Bronson's light pen generates a spot (the "external cursor") on a screen, and a sensor array captures the reflected light to determine the spot's position and move a corresponding internal cursor. Bronson expressly teaches that different light pens can be made distinguishable by user-selectable properties such as "color, intensity, blink modulation or any other means detectable by the video display sensor array." The system detects these properties to control various computer functions (e.g., zoom, pan, rotate). This disclosure of detecting multiple, distinct, user-selectable properties was argued to meet the limitations of the independent claims. Bronson further discloses using the sensor array to detect and filter these properties (claim 4) and using a projected image light pen as a source of directed optical energy (claim 8).

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional anticipation challenges under §102(b) based on Elrod (EP Publication No. 0484160A2) and Vogeley (Patent 5,235,363). Petitioner also raised several obviousness grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103, arguing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine features from the primary references (Stove, Platzker, Bronson, Elrod, Vogeley) to arrive at the claimed invention, such as by substituting one known image processing technique for another to achieve predictable results.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "external cursor": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a visual cue or indicator superimposed onto the image output from the computer, projected onto the associated screen by some other device external to the computer." This construction was argued to be consistent with the specification and necessary to encompass the various forms of pointers disclosed in the prior art, such as laser spots, hands, or light pen projections.
  • "filtering": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "selectively passing certain elements of a signal and eliminating or minimizing others." This broad construction, based on a technical dictionary definition, was argued to cover not only optical filters (e.g., color filters) but also digital image processing techniques like thresholding, feature extraction, and pattern correlation, all of which are disclosed in the cited prior art for isolating the external cursor from the background image.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-11, 17-21, and 24-26 of the ’214 patent as unpatentable.