HTC Corporation v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc.

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2018-01032
• Patent #: 8,553,935
• Filed: May 10, 2018
• Petitioner(s): HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Electronic Scripting Products, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-21

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System for Determining Pose of Manipulated Object
• Brief Description: The ’935 patent discloses methods and systems for determining the absolute pose (position and orientation) of a manipulated object. The system uses a photodetector mounted on the object to detect a pattern of external, fixed light sources and a relative motion sensor (e.g., an inertial sensor) to supplement the pose calculation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Welch-HiBall and SIGGRAPH 2001 - Claims 1-6, 11-18, and 21 are obvious over Welch-HiBall in view of SIGGRAPH 2001.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Welch-HiBall ("High-Performance Wide-Area Optical Tracking: The HiBall Tracking System," Feb. 2001) and SIGGRAPH 2001 ("Tracking: Beyond 15 Minutes of Thought," conference materials, Aug. 2001).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the core concept of the ’935 patent—an "inside-out" tracking system—was already well-known and detailed in the prior art. Welch-HiBall taught a system using optical sensors (photodetectors) mounted on a moving object (the "HiBall") to detect fixed infrared LEDs in the ceiling to determine the object's pose in six degrees of freedom. This was asserted to teach the limitations of accepting light data from predetermined sources via an onboard photodetector to determine pose with respect to world coordinates, as recited in independent claims 1 and 12.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner contended that while Welch-HiBall disclosed the primary optical tracking system, it only briefly mentioned hybrid systems. SIGGRAPH 2001, however, explicitly taught the benefits of combining optical tracking with inertial sensor data to create more accurate and stable "hybrid" systems. A POSITA would combine the detailed optical system of Welch-HiBall with the detailed sensor fusion techniques of SIGGRAPH 2001 to improve tracking accuracy, a known problem with a predictable solution. The motivation was strengthened by the fact that SIGGRAPH 2001 explicitly referenced Welch-HiBall as an exemplary optical system suitable for such hybridization.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because SIGGRAPH 2001 provided specific, well-understood methods for fusing optical and inertial data, such as using a Kalman filter, which addresses known issues like drift in inertial sensors and lower update rates in optical systems.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Welch-HiBall, SIGGRAPH 2001, and Romanik - Claims 7-11 and 19-21 are obvious over Welch-HiBall, SIGGRAPH 2001, and Romanik.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Welch-HiBall, SIGGRAPH 2001, and Romanik (Patent 5,884,239).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the combination in Ground 1 to address dependent claims requiring the use of pose data to render or manipulate a visual element on a display. While Welch-HiBall and SIGGRAPH 2001 taught the generation of pose data, Romanik was introduced to teach the application of that data. Romanik disclosed an optical tracking system where the determined pose of a hand-held controller was used to manipulate a virtual object on a screen, such as a 3D image or a cursor.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued that combining Romanik's teachings was an obvious step. The system from Ground 1 outputs pose data. A well-known and common application for such data was providing visual feedback to a user, as taught by Romanik. A POSITA would be motivated to use the pose data from the more accurate hybrid system of Welch-HiBall and SIGGRAPH 2001 to control an on-screen visual element as taught by Romanik to improve the system's utility and provide intuitive user feedback. This was presented as a simple substitution of known elements for a predictable result.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success would be expected, as applying pose data to manipulate a graphical display was a conventional and straightforward task in computer graphics at the time.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "Photodetector": Petitioner proposed its plain and ordinary meaning, arguing it should not be construed to exclude preferred embodiments like position-sensitive detectors (PSDs) and should be interpreted to include one or more photodetectors.
• "Relative motion sensor": Proposed to be construed as "a sensor that detects relative motion, such as an inertial sensing device such as an accelerometer or gyroscope," consistent with the specification.
• "World coordinates": Proposed as "a three-dimensional coordinate system with an origin situated in the real environment," distinguishing it from moving reference frames like "image coordinates."
• "A processor for determining the pose...": Petitioner argued this term should not be limited to a specific type or location of processor. It also proposed an alternative construction under means-plus-function principles, identifying the function as determining pose from light and motion data, and the corresponding structure as a general-purpose processor programmed to perform the steps disclosed in the specification, such as perspective transformation and sensor fusion.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under §325(d) because the primary references, Welch-HiBall and SIGGRAPH 2001, were not considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution of the ’935 patent or its predecessors. Petitioner asserted that these references teach the exact features—specifically, the combination of "inside-out" optical tracking with relative motion data—that the Examiner relied upon for allowance, and the file history shows no evidence that the Examiner considered any prior art teaching this combination.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-21 of Patent 8,553,935 as unpatentable.