PTAB

IPR2018-01031

HTC Corp v. Electronic Scripting Products Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wearable Article with Absolute Pose Tracking
  • Brief Description: The ’934 patent relates to systems for determining the absolute pose (position and orientation) of a manipulated object, such as a wearable article. The system uses a photodetector mounted on the object to detect a pattern of fixed external light sources and calculates the object's pose based on the apparent positions of those lights as viewed from the object.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Welch-HiBall - Claims 1-12 are anticipated by Welch-HiBall under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Welch et al., "High-Performance Wide-Area Optical Tracking: The HiBall Tracking System," Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments (Feb. 2001) ("Welch-HiBall").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Welch-HiBall discloses every element of the challenged claims. Welch-HiBall teaches the "HiBall," an "inside-out" optical tracking system where sensors are mounted on a moving, user-worn object to detect fixed infrared (IR) LEDs installed in a known pattern on the ceiling. The HiBall is described as a wearable article (e.g., for a head-mounted display) comprising photodetectors (Lateral Effect Photo-Diodes or LEPDs) configured to detect the fixed light sources. A host computer acts as the controller, receiving photodetector data and calculating the HiBall's pose based on the apparent positions of the LEDs. This "derivative pattern" of lights is indicative of the wearable's position (claim 1) and orientation (claim 7). Petitioner asserted that dependent claims are also taught, as Welch-HiBall discloses use in augmented and virtual reality (claims 2, 4, 8, 10), use with glasses-like head-mounted displays (claims 3, 5, 9, 11), and suggests combining the optical system with inertial sensors ("auxiliary motion detection component" per claims 6 and 12).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Welch-HiBall and SIGGRAPH 2001 - Claims 1-12 are obvious over Welch-HiBall in view of SIGGRAPH 2001 under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Welch-HiBall (a February 2001 article) and Allen et al., "Tracking: Beyond 15 Minutes of Thought," SIGGRAPH 2001 Conference Course Materials ("SIGGRAPH 2001").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that even if Welch-HiBall were found not to anticipate certain claim limitations under a narrow construction, the combination with SIGGRAPH 2001 renders all claims obvious. SIGGRAPH 2001 was a course on pose tracking that taught various known technologies, including the benefits of "hybrid" systems. It specifically detailed how to combine optical tracking data with data from inertial sensors (e.g., accelerometers and gyroscopes) using techniques like Kalman filtering to achieve more accurate and stable tracking. This directly teaches the "auxiliary motion detection component" of claims 6 and 12. SIGGRAPH 2001 also extensively discussed the application of such advanced tracking systems to improve performance in augmented and virtual reality environments, further supporting the obviousness of the dependent claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings for several reasons. Welch-HiBall itself acknowledges the existence of and author interest in "hybrid" tracking approaches. SIGGRAPH 2001, a course taught by some of the same authors as Welch-HiBall, explicitly referenced Welch-HiBall as an exemplary optical system and explained the known benefits of combining such systems with inertial sensors—namely, to overcome the weaknesses of each individual technology (e.g., drift in inertial sensors, lower update rates in optical systems). This combination was a known method to improve a device, yielding predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. Combining different types of sensors to leverage their respective strengths was a well-understood and common practice in the field of pose tracking, and SIGGRAPH 2001 provided detailed instructions and known mathematical frameworks (like the Kalman filter) for achieving this integration.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Photodetector": Petitioner proposed this term be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which should not be construed to exclude preferred embodiments from the specification (like position-sensitive detectors) and should be interpreted to include systems with one or more photodetectors, consistent with case law on the article "a".
  • "Derivative pattern": Petitioner proposed the construction "the pattern formed by the positions of light beams measured by one or more photodetectors from multiple light sources disposed in a known pattern." Petitioner argued this construction is consistent with the patent's disclosure of perspective transformation and was broad enough to cover the sequential measurement of individual light sources, a method the Patent Owner allegedly relied on to establish priority during prosecution.
  • "Controller configured to identify a derivative pattern": Petitioner proposed this term should be construed to include any processor that performs the claimed function. As an alternative, should the term be found subject to 35 U.S.C. §112, sixth paragraph, Petitioner proposed the function is "identify[ing] a derivative pattern..." and the corresponding structure is a general-purpose processor programmed to perform the steps disclosed in the specification (e.g., Fig. 6).

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 of the ’934 patent as unpatentable.