HTC Corp 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 and Method for Determining an Absolute Pose of a Manipulated Object
• Brief Description: The ’935 patent discloses systems and methods for determining the absolute position and orientation (pose) of a manipulated object in a three-dimensional environment. The system uses a photodetector and a relative motion sensor mounted on the object to detect fixed external light sources and to sense the object's own motion, respectively, combining the data to calculate the object's pose.

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 (a February 2001 journal article) and SIGGRAPH 2001 (August 2001 conference course materials).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Welch-HiBall taught the core "inside-out" tracking system of independent claims 1 and 12, disclosing a manipulated object (the "HiBall") with on-board photodetectors that track its pose by detecting fixed infrared LEDs in the ceiling. This reference was alleged to teach accepting light data from predetermined light sources with known locations in world coordinates to determine pose. Petitioner asserted that SIGGRAPH 2001 taught the remaining key limitation: incorporating an on-board "relative motion sensor" (an inertial sensor like an accelerometer or gyroscope) and combining its data with the optical data to produce a more accurate and stable pose estimate.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to improve the performance of the optical tracking system in Welch-HiBall. SIGGRAPH 2001 explicitly taught the benefits of hybrid optical-inertial systems for overcoming the limitations of each sensor type alone (e.g., optical accuracy at low speeds, inertial responsiveness at high speeds). Furthermore, Welch-HiBall itself suggested pursuing hybrid approaches, and SIGGRAPH 2001 even referenced the HiBall system as an example of an optical tracker that could be hybridized.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because SIGGRAPH 2001 detailed well-known techniques for sensor fusion, such as using a Kalman filter, to optimally combine the data streams. The ’935 patent’s own specification acknowledged that such data fusion techniques were well-known in the art.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Welch-HiBall, SIGGRAPH 2001, and Romanik - Claims 7-11 and 19-21 are obvious over Welch-HiBall and SIGGRAPH 2001 in view of 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 built upon the base combination of Welch-HiBall and SIGGRAPH 2001, which together taught a hybrid system for generating pose data for a manipulated object. Petitioner argued that Romanik supplied the additional teachings required by the dependent claims: using the calculated pose data to render and control a visual element on a display. Romanik explicitly taught an optical tracking system where the determined pose of a hand-held controller was used to manipulate the position and orientation of a virtual 3D object or cursor on a screen.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Romanik with the primary references because using pose data to provide real-time visual feedback was a common and logical application for such tracking systems. Welch-HiBall taught using its system for applications requiring "real-time feedback," and Romanik demonstrated a predictable and known way to implement that feedback visually. Applying the improved pose data from the Welch-HiBall/SIGGRAPH 2001 system to the common display application taught by Romanik was argued to be a simple substitution of known elements for a predictable result.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was a straightforward application of a tracking system's output to a known user interface task. Since both the generation of pose data and the use of such data to control on-screen elements were well-understood, a POSITA would have a high expectation of success in combining them.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner proposed constructions for several key terms to clarify the scope of the claims.

• "Photodetector": Should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and not be construed to exclude preferred embodiments from the specification, such as position-sensitive detectors (PSDs).
• "Relative motion sensor": Should be construed as a sensor that detects relative motion, such as an inertial sensing device (e.g., an accelerometer or gyroscope), consistent with the specification.
• "World coordinates": Should be construed as "a three-dimensional coordinate system with an origin situated in the real environment," distinguishing it from object-relative coordinate frames.
• "A processor for determining the pose...": Petitioner argued this term should not be treated as a means-plus-function limitation. Alternatively, if it were, Petitioner identified the corresponding structure in the specification as a general-purpose processor programmed to perform steps like extracting light source locations and performing perspective transformation calculations.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d). It was contended that none of the cited references were considered by the Examiner during the prosecution of the ’935 patent. Petitioner emphasized that Welch-HiBall and SIGGRAPH 2001 taught the exact features the Examiner relied upon for allowance—the combination of light data from an on-board photodetector with relative motion data. As the file history reflected no consideration of prior art with these specific teachings, Petitioner asserted that the petition raised new grounds not previously before the Office.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-21 of the ’935 patent as unpatentable.