PTAB

IPR2018-00494

MerchSource LLC v. DDC Technology LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Virtual Reality Viewer with Touchscreen Input Mechanism
  • Brief Description: The ’075 patent is directed to a virtual reality (VR) viewer for a mobile device. It purports to solve the problem of user input by providing an integrated mechanism, either moveable or non-moveable, to transfer a capacitive touch from the user to the device's touchscreen without using magnets or separate electronic controllers.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1-3 and 5 - Claims 1-3 and 5 are anticipated by Tech# under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tech# (a May 10, 2015 YouTube video).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Tech# discloses a modification to a Google Cardboard VR viewer that anticipates all limitations of independent claim 1. Tech# teaches a moveable input mechanism accessible from the exterior (a sliding magnet) connected to an aluminum foil extension that passes into the housing. This foil moves a coin stack and moistened cotton swabs (the "electrical shield") into contact with the mobile device's touchscreen to create a capacitive touch event. Dependent claims 2, 3, and 5 were also alleged to be disclosed, covering the mechanism's central location, the use of a cut-out for access, and the mechanism forming part of a view divider.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1-17 and 20 - Claims 1-17 and 20 are obvious over Tech# in view of Compton.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tech# (a May 10, 2015 YouTube video) and Compton (Application # 2013/0141360).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Tech# provides the basic VR viewer with a moveable, capacitive input mechanism. Compton, which was cited during prosecution, discloses a more robust lever-based input mechanism (a rocker arm with a conductive tip) for a head-mounted display. Petitioner argued a POSITA would replace the rudimentary foil-and-swab mechanism of Tech# with the more durable and reliable lever mechanism from Compton to create a more precise and stable product. This combination allegedly teaches all limitations of independent claims 1 and 20, including a lever, flexible linkage, and an electrical shield that contacts the screen.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would be motivated to improve the homemade input mechanism of Tech#, which used unreliable materials like moistened cotton swabs that could dry out or soil the screen. Compton, as analogous art addressing the same problem of input for a head-mounted display, provided a known, more mechanically reliable solution. Petitioner argued that substituting one known input mechanism for another to improve durability and performance was an obvious design choice to meet a clear design need.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining a known lever input mechanism from Compton with a known VR housing from Tech# was presented as a simple mechanical integration with predictable results and no technical hurdles.

Ground 3: Anticipation of Claim 18 - Claim 18 is anticipated by Gigaom under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gigaom (a June 28, 2014 web article including a July 7, 2014 user comment).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Gigaom, specifically a comment by user "tobiasclaren," disclosed all limitations of independent claim 18, which is directed to a non-moveable input mechanism. The comment suggested an alternative to the Google Cardboard magnet: using a strip of metal tape on the central divider that contacts the touchscreen and extends to the exterior for the user to touch. Petitioner argued this discloses a housing enclosing a touchscreen, a back wall with lenses, and a stationary input device (the metal tape) acting as an electrical shield to selectively transfer a capacitive touch from the user to the screen.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted several other grounds, including that claims 1-3, 5-7, 16, and 17 are obvious over Tech# alone due to predictable variations (e.g., substituting cotton swabs with known conductive materials like conductive polymers or fabrics). Further grounds argued that claim 19 is obvious over Gigaom (by adding a compressible pad) and over Gigaom in view of Compton.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner preemptively argued against discretionary denial based on a potential contractual dispute. The petition noted that the Patent Owner might raise a contractual no-challenge clause from a prior agreement but asserted that, under PTAB precedent (Dot Hill Systems), such clauses are not a valid basis to deny institution of an inter partes review (IPR).

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an IPR for claims 1-20 of the ’075 patent and cancellation of all challenged claims as unpatentable.