PTAB

IPR2018-01258

Google LLC v. Cywee Group Ltd

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: 3D Pointing Devices
  • Brief Description: The ’438 patent relates to a three-dimensional (3D) pointing device that uses rotation sensors and accelerometers to determine its orientation. The invention purports to improve orientation accuracy by using a mathematical method involving quaternions to compensate for sensor data, comparing predicted axial accelerations (derived from rotation sensor data) with measured axial accelerations.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Zhang and Bachmann - Claims 1 and 3-5 are obvious over Zhang in view of Bachmann.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Zhang (Application # 2004/0095317) and Bachmann (Patent 7,089,148).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Zhang taught the foundational elements of a 3D pointing device, including a housing, a printed circuit board (PCB), and a set of orientation sensors (accelerometers and magnetometers) to control a cursor. Zhang also expressly suggested that other sensors, such as a gyro sensor, could be used to enhance the device's capabilities. However, Zhang’s primary embodiment lacked a six-axis sensor module and the specific comparison method claimed.

    • Petitioner asserted that Bachmann remedied these deficiencies. Bachmann taught an advanced orientation tracking system using a nine-axis sensor suite that included a three-axis accelerometer, a three-axis magnetometer, and a three-axis angular rate sensor (gyroscope), as suggested by Zhang. Crucially, Bachmann disclosed a sophisticated quaternion-based filter to process the data from these sensors. This filter calculated a device's orientation by comparing actual measurements from accelerometers with predicted measurements derived from the angular rate sensor data. This comparison generated a correction factor that compensated for the inherent drift of gyro sensors, resulting in a highly accurate orientation output. The combination of Zhang's base device with Bachmann's advanced sensor suite and filter logic allegedly rendered the claims obvious.

    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Zhang and Bachmann for several reasons. First, Zhang itself suggested using gyro sensors to improve its device, providing an explicit reason to look for technologies like Bachmann’s. Second, a POSITA would have sought to improve the accuracy and functionality (e.g., detecting roll angles) of Zhang’s device, and Bachmann provided a known solution with clear advantages, such as eliminating singularities and reducing computational complexity compared to traditional Euler angle calculations. Petitioner argued this was a predictable substitution of known components and methods (Bachmann’s advanced sensors and filter) into a known system (Zhang’s pointer) to achieve an expected improvement in performance.

    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. The sensor types described by Bachmann were commercially available, and integrating them onto a PCB within a handheld device was a standard practice. Furthermore, implementing Bachmann's quaternion-based filter in software on a microcontroller, as taught by both references, was well within the ordinary skill in the art, with no unexpected difficulties reported or anticipated.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "comparison": Petitioner argued this term should be construed to mean "performing calculations based on sensor signals to obtain the orientation of the device with respect to the spatial pointing frame in a way that reduces the effect of sensor noise." This construction was based on the specification’s description that the term may "generally refer to the calculating and obtaining of the actual deviation angles... while reducing or eliminating noises."

  • "spatial pointer reference frame": Petitioner proposed construing this term as "a reference frame associated with the 3D pointing device, which always has its origin at the same point in the device and in which the axes are always fixed with respect to the device." This construction was based on figures and descriptions in the ’438 patent showing the reference frame’s axes (XP, YP, ZP) moving and rotating with the physical device.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1 and 3-5 of Patent 8,441,438 as unpatentable.