PTAB

IPR2018-01031

HTC Corporation v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Determining Pose of an Object
  • Brief Description: The ’934 Patent discloses a system for determining the absolute pose (position and orientation) of a manipulated object in a three-dimensional environment. The system uses a photodetector mounted on the object to detect a known pattern of external light sources, and a controller analyzes the resulting "derivative pattern" to calculate the object's pose.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

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

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Welch-HiBall (Welch et al., "High-Performance Wide-Area Optical Tracking: The HiBall Tracking System," Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, Feb. 2001).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Welch-HiBall teaches every element of the challenged claims. Welch-HiBall described an "inside-out" optical tracking system (the "HiBall") comprising a wearable, head-mounted sensor unit that detects fixed infrared LEDs arranged in a known pattern on the ceiling. The system's sensors (Lateral Effect Photo-Diodes, or LEPDs) functioned as the claimed "photodetector," generating data representative of the positions of the light sources. A host computer acted as the claimed "controller," analyzing the pattern of detected light spots (the "derivative pattern") to calculate the 6-degree-of-freedom pose (position and orientation) of the wearable unit. The teachings were found to apply to both position-based claims (1-6) and orientation-based claims (7-12), as well as dependent claims covering augmented/virtual reality applications, glasses, and auxiliary motion sensors.

Ground 2: 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 and SIGGRAPH 2001 (Allen et al., "Tracking: Beyond 15 Minutes of Thought," SIGGRAPH 2001 Conference Course Materials).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that even if Welch-HiBall did not anticipate every limitation, the combination with SIGGRAPH 2001 rendered the claims obvious. Welch-HiBall provided the foundational inside-out tracking system. SIGGRAPH 2001, a course taught by some of the same authors as Welch-HiBall, explicitly discussed known alternatives for every key component. It taught using simple video or CCD cameras as photodetectors and described combining optical data with inertial sensor data (the "auxiliary motion detection component" of claims 6 and 12) in hybrid systems to improve accuracy. SIGGRAPH 2001 also detailed the benefits of applying such tracking improvements to augmented and virtual reality systems.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings because both references addressed the same problem of pose tracking and were from the same field. Welch-HiBall itself suggested pursuing hybrid approaches, and SIGGRAPH 2001 explicitly taught how to combine optical systems (like Welch-HiBall) with inertial sensors to create more accurate and stable tracking. This combination addressed known trade-offs, using inertial data for high-frequency motion and optical data to correct for low-velocity drift, a well-known design choice.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as SIGGRAPH 2001 provided detailed instructions and known techniques (e.g., Kalman filtering) for fusing data from optical and inertial sensors to achieve predictable improvements in tracking performance.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Photodetector": Petitioner proposed this term be given its plain and ordinary meaning, not limited to a single component, thereby encompassing the array of sensors (LEPDs) taught in Welch-HiBall. It should not be construed to exclude the patent's own preferred embodiments, such as position-sensitive detectors (PSDs).
  • "Derivative pattern": Proposed construction was "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 was supported by the patent's own description of how a pattern of lights undergoes a "well-understood transformation" due to perspective distortion.
  • "Controller configured to identify a derivative pattern": Petitioner argued this should be construed as any processor performing the claimed function, consistent with its depiction in the patent as a generic unit. An alternative means-plus-function construction was proposed, with the function being the identification of the derivative pattern and the structure being a general-purpose processor programmed to perform the steps disclosed in the specification.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Priority Date Entitlement: Petitioner contended that the ’934 patent was not entitled to its claimed 2004 priority date. The key claim terms, including "derivative pattern," were argued to be new matter added to the application series in 2009, after the publication of an intervening patent (Hotelling) that used similar language. Therefore, Petitioner asserted the effective priority date was no earlier than 2009, making the 2001 Welch-HiBall and SIGGRAPH 2001 references clearly prior art.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Not Cumulative Under §325(d): Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate because the core prior art references, Welch-HiBall and SIGGRAPH 2001, were not considered by the Examiner during prosecution. It was argued that these references teach the very "inside-out" tracking concept that formed the basis of the invention, presenting grounds not previously before the USPTO.

7. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 of Patent 9,235,934 as unpatentable.