Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Keynetik Inc

1. Case Identification

• Patent #: 8,370,106
• Filed: April 27, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
• Patent Owner(s): Keynetik, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Motion Based Input System
• Brief Description: The ’106 patent describes a motion-based input system for electronic devices. The system uses sensors to detect motion and orientation, distinguishes between "fast" and "slow" motion phases, and analyzes a sequence of orientations detected only during the slow phases to identify a gesture and trigger a corresponding event.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Linjama and Lehrman - Claims 1, 3, 6, 10-12, 14, and 17 are obvious over Linjama in view of Lehrman.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Linjama (Application # 2008/0229255) and Lehrman (Patent 6,703,939).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Linjama teaches a mobile device with motion and orientation sensors that controls functions based on detected gestures, such as a combination of being "substantially stationary" and having a "downward orientation." This discloses most elements of independent claims 1 and 12. However, Linjama did not explicitly teach classifying motion as "slow" and "fast" by comparing a motion vector to the magnitude of gravity. Lehrman, which addresses detecting body motion, remedied this by teaching the use of accelerometers to determine if an object is at rest or in motion by comparing its total acceleration to the force of gravity (1 "g").
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Lehrman's well-known technique for motion/rest detection with Linjama's gesture recognition system. This combination would provide a reliable and predictable method for implementing Linjama's distinction between a "substantially stationary" phase (slow motion) and a "moving" phase (fast motion), which is essential for the claimed invention.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as this involves applying a known physical principle for motion detection to a known type of system (a motion-sensing mobile device) that already possessed the necessary hardware (accelerometers).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Linjama, Lehrman, and Marvit - Claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 13, 16, 19, and 20 are obvious over the combination of Linjama, Lehrman, and Marvit.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Linjama (Application # 2008/0229255), Lehrman (Patent 6,703,939), and Marvit (Patent 7,180,500).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Linjama/Lehrman combination to address dependent claims requiring interpretation of a motion profile using data from a client application. Marvit teaches a handheld device where a gesture's function is context-dependent, varying based on the application currently in focus. For example, Marvit discloses that a gesture could save a file in one application but send an email in another, thereby teaching the binding of a gesture profile with external application data.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to integrate Marvit's context-aware gesture functionality into the Linjama/Lehrman system. This would enhance the system’s usability and functionality by allowing a limited set of gestures to control a wider array of commands across different applications, a known method for improving user interfaces.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be predictable, as the integration is a software-level modification to add contextual logic to an existing gesture-recognition framework.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Linjama, Lehrman, and Tosaki - Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10-12, 14, 15, 17, and 18 are obvious over the combination of Linjama, Lehrman, and Tosaki.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Linjama (Application # 2008/0229255), Lehrman (Patent 6,703,939), and Tosaki (Patent 6,312,335).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented to preempt a potential argument that the Linjama/Lehrman combination does not explicitly teach detecting orientation only during slow motion phases. Tosaki, which describes a motion-sensing fishing game controller, explicitly discloses this feature. It uses separate "acceleration detection" and "inclination detection" modes, explaining that orientation (inclination) is only measured when movement is below a certain threshold (i.e., a slow motion phase) to prevent instability and erroneous readings.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to adopt Tosaki's approach for the reasons it explicitly states: to improve system reliability by ensuring that orientation is measured only during stable, slow-motion periods, which prevents misinterpretation of gestures. This also provides a power-saving benefit by reducing constant processor-intensive calculations, a goal consistent with mobile device design.
  • Expectation of Success: Implementing this feature would be a straightforward and predictable design choice for improving the robustness and efficiency of any motion-based input system.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 4) against claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 13, 16, 19, and 20 over Linjama, Lehrman, Marvit, and Tosaki. The arguments largely relied on combining the teachings of Marvit (from Ground 2) with the base combination of Ground 3.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that the terms "motion detector," "orientation detector," and "inference state machine" as used in claim 1 are means-plus-function terms under §112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA) because they fail to recite sufficiently definite structure for performing their claimed functions.
• Petitioner contended that the ’106 patent specification also fails to disclose the corresponding structure or algorithm required for these functions.
• While reserving its rights on the §112 issue, Petitioner's analysis proceeded by assuming the terms could be construed as software running on a processor. It argued the claims are obvious under this construction and, alternatively, are also obvious if the terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that institution is proper and not subject to discretionary denial because the primary prior art references relied upon (Linjama, Lehrman, Marvit, and Tosaki) were not considered by the USPTO during the original prosecution of the ’106 patent.
• Petitioner also asserted that all four grounds should be instituted to allow for the full development of the record, as the grounds are distinct. They were designed to address different sets of claims and to counter various potential arguments and claim interpretations from the Patent Owner.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’106 patent as unpatentable.