PTAB

IPR2019-00065

Valve Corp v. Electronic Scripting Products Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Determining an Absolute Pose of a Manipulated Object
  • Brief Description: The ’935 patent discloses a system for determining the six-degree-of-freedom (6DOF) pose—the combined position and orientation—of a manipulated object. The system employs an "inside-out" tracking configuration, using a photodetector and a relative motion sensor mounted on the object to detect light from a plurality of external light sources having known, fixed positions in the environment.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Anderson - Claims 1-21 are obvious over Anderson

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Anderson (Patent 7,063,256).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Anderson, which discloses a system for tracking a head-mounted display (HMD) for augmented reality applications, teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Anderson’s HMD functions as the claimed "manipulated object" and includes an on-board camera (a "photodetector") and inertial sensors (a "relative motion sensor"). This device tracks fixed external light "beacons" with known locations to calculate its 6DOF pose. A local computer on the HMD processes data from both the optical and inertial sensors to determine the pose relative to the external beacons, thereby establishing it with respect to "world coordinates" for displaying superimposed information. Petitioner asserted that Anderson’s disclosure of using infrared light sources for its beacons anticipates the limitations of dependent claims requiring IR LEDs.
    • Motivation to Combine: Not applicable (single reference ground).
    • Expectation of Success: Not applicable (single reference ground).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Anderson in view of Welch-HiBall and/or Applicant-Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) - Claims 6, 11, 18, and 21 are obvious over Anderson in view of Welch-HiBall and/or AAPA

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Anderson (Patent 7,063,256) and Welch-HiBall (a February 2001 journal article titled "High-Performance Wide-Area Optical Tracking: The HiBall Tracking System").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground primarily addressed dependent claims reciting specific types of manipulated objects (e.g., wands, remote controls, handheld tools) and pose definitions (Euler angles). Petitioner argued that while Anderson teaches the core hybrid optical-inertial tracking system, Welch-HiBall explicitly teaches applying a nearly identical "inside-out" tracking system to various handheld manipulated objects, including a "pencil-shaped fiberglass wand," a handheld probe, and a handheld drill. Welch-HiBall describes mounting a sensor (the "HiBall") on these objects to determine their pose by tracking fixed ceiling-mounted IR LEDs. For claims reciting pose defined by Euler angles, Petitioner argued that Anderson’s 6DOF tracking necessarily defines orientation using Euler angles or their mathematical equivalents (like quaternions), which was a standard and well-understood practice for a POSITA.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Anderson’s tracking system with Welch-HiBall’s teachings to apply the tracking technology to different form factors. Both references operate in the same field of 6DOF tracking for augmented/virtual reality and target similar commercial applications (e.g., package handling in Anderson, aircraft assembly in Welch-HiBall). A POSITA would have recognized that applying Anderson’s robust tracking method to a handheld tool, as taught by Welch-HiBall, was a predictable design choice to improve usability for tasks requiring manual interaction, using the same underlying technical principles and infrastructure.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success, as both Anderson and Welch-HiBall describe functioning, closely related systems. The proposed combination merely involved applying a known tracking method to a different, known type of object (swapping Anderson's HMD for a handheld tool from Welch-HiBall), which was a routine adaptation in the art.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Manipulated Object": Petitioner argued this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and not be construed to exclude a head-mounted sensor system. The argument was based on the ’935 patent specification, which explicitly illustrates an embodiment where the manipulated object is a "pair of glasses."
  • "Photodetector": Petitioner proposed this term should be construed to mean a device that detects light, explicitly including a camera with a CCD or CMOS sensor. This construction was supported by the patent’s specification describing the photodetector as "any type of suitable light-sensitive sensor" and its reliance on prior art systems that used cameras.
  • "Relative motion sensor": Petitioner contended this term should be construed to include at least an inertial sensing device such as an accelerometer or gyroscope, consistent with the ’935 patent specification.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) would be inappropriate. The core reasoning was that the primary prior art references, Anderson and Welch-HiBall, were never substantively considered by the Examiner during the original prosecution of the ’935 patent or its predecessors. Petitioner further asserted that the grounds presented were substantially different from those in a separate, pending inter partes review (IPR) on the same patent (IPR2018-01032), justifying institution.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-21 of the ’935 patent as unpatentable.