PTAB

IPR2019-00084

Valve Corp v. Electronic Scripting Products Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Computer Interface Employing a Wearable Article with an Absolute Pose Detection Component
  • Brief Description: The ’934 patent discloses an “inside-out” optical tracking system for determining the absolute pose (position and orientation) of a manipulated object. The system uses a photodetector mounted on a wearable article to detect a plurality of external light sources arranged in a known, fixed pattern in the environment.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-12 are obvious over Maeda II in view of Maeda I.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Maeda II (Maeda et al., “A Wearable AR Navigation System using Vision Based Tracking with Infrared,” Jan. 2004) and Maeda I (Maeda et al., “Proposal of a Three-dimensional User Position and Orientation Detection Technique Using Infrared Identifiers for a Wearable System,” Mar. 2003).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued the combination of Maeda I and Maeda II (the "Maeda Combination") teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Independent claims 1 and 7 recite a wearable article comprising a photodetector and a controller. The Maeda Combination allegedly disclosed a wearable system (a head-mounted display, or HMD, with sensors and a backpack-mounted PC) that functions as a wearable article. This system included a head-mounted stereo camera (e.g., a Point Grey DragonFly with a CCD sensor) that functioned as the claimed photodetector, detecting infrared (IR) light from beacons placed in the environment. A portable notebook PC connected to the camera functioned as the controller. The controller processed data from the camera to identify a "derivative pattern"—the pattern of IR beacons as seen from the camera's perspective—which is indicative of the wearable article's position (claim 1) and orientation (claim 7). Petitioner contended that dependent claims are also rendered obvious, as the Maeda Combination taught deploying the system in an augmented reality application (claims 2, 8), comprising glasses (claims 3, 5, 9, 11), deploying in a virtual reality program (claims 4, 10), and including an auxiliary motion detection component like a gyro sensor (claims 6, 12).
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have been strongly motivated to combine the references. Maeda II was written by the same authors as Maeda I, describes the same ongoing research project, and was published just ten months later. Crucially, Maeda II explicitly cited Maeda I and described its own system as a direct "improvement over the method described in [Maeda I]." A POSITA would therefore look to Maeda I for the baseline system and combine it with the specific improvements detailed in Maeda II.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. Maeda II did not merely propose an improvement but documented the successful implementation and methodology of a hybrid tracking system that built upon the foundation of Maeda I. The success of the combination was expressly documented in the prior art itself.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Photodetector": Petitioner proposed this term's plain and ordinary meaning, "a device that detects light," arguing it would be understood to encompass not only a simple sensor but also a complete camera system (e.g., using a CCD or CMOS sensor) as described in the specification and the prior art.
  • "Derivative pattern": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "the pattern formed by the positions of light beams measured by one or more photodetectors from multiple light sources disposed in a known pattern." This construction is based on the patent's description of a "well-understood transformation" of the light source pattern due to the photodetector's changing perspective.
  • "Auxiliary motion detection component": Petitioner proposed construing this term to include at least an inertial sensing device, such as an accelerometer or gyroscope, based on the patent's specification.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Priority Date Challenge: A central contention was that the ’934 patent is not entitled to its claimed priority date of January 30, 2004, from the ’484 application. Petitioner argued the ’484 application failed to provide adequate written description for key limitations added in later applications, including "wearable article," "plurality of predetermined light sources disposed in a known pattern," and "derivative pattern." Without the 2004 priority date, the earliest possible priority date would be March 8, 2006, making Maeda I (2003) and Maeda II (2004) undisputedly available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should decline to exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The petition asserted that the prior art references relied upon herein (Maeda I and Maeda II) are substantially different from the references considered in previously filed IPRs against the ’934 patent (IPR2018-01031, IPR2019-00062, and IPR2019-00063), which were based on references like Welch-HiBall and Anderson. Because the Maeda references present new, non-cumulative invalidity arguments, Petitioner contended that institution was warranted.

7. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 of the ’934 patent as unpatentable.