PTAB

IPR2019-00535

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. CyWee Group Ltd.

Log In

1. Case Identification

  • Case #: IPR2018-01258 (referenced for joinder)
  • Patent #: 8,441,438
  • Filed: January 8, 2019
  • Petitioner(s): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
  • Patent Owner(s): Cywee Group Ltd.
  • Challenged Claims: 1, 3-5

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: 3D Pointing Devices
  • Brief Description: The ’438 patent discloses a three-dimensional (3D) pointing device that determines its orientation using data from internal sensors. The invention purports to improve orientation accuracy by using an "update program" to compensate for sensor drift and noise, specifically by comparing measured acceleration data with predicted acceleration data derived from angular velocity signals.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 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 the combination of Zhang and Bachmann rendered the challenged claims obvious. Zhang disclosed a handheld 3D pointing device that used accelerometers and magnetometers to determine its orientation (yaw and pitch) and expressly suggested that gyro sensors could also be used. Bachmann disclosed a more advanced orientation tracking system using a nine-axis sensor suite—including a three-axis accelerometer and a three-axis angular rate sensor (gyroscope)—which together form the "six-axis motion sensor module" required by claim 1.
    • Petitioner asserted that Bachmann taught the core method of the ’438 patent. Bachmann’s system employed a quaternion-based filter that calculated a device’s orientation by processing signals from all its sensors. This filter performed the claimed "comparison" by taking the angular velocity data (the "first signal set") to predict expected acceleration values. It then compared these predicted values against the actual measured acceleration data (the "second signal set"). The difference, or error, was used to calculate a correction factor that refined the orientation estimate. This process of predicting, comparing, and correcting constituted the claimed "update program" to obtain an "updated state" from a "previous state."
    • Critically, Petitioner argued the combination met the negative limitation "without using any derivatives of the first signal set." Bachmann’s prediction of accelerations was based on the prior orientation quaternion, which is an integrated value of angular velocity (the first signal set), not its derivative (i.e., angular acceleration). Thus, the prediction was achieved without using derivatives of the angular velocity signals. Dependent claims 3-5 were argued to be obvious as they recited basic, well-known features also taught by the prior art combination, such as the PCB layout (claim 3) and the calculation of yaw, pitch, and roll angles (claim 4).
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Zhang and Bachmann for several reasons. Zhang expressly suggested adding gyro sensors to its device to improve functionality. A POSITA would have recognized that incorporating Bachmann's superior nine-axis sensor system and its advanced filter would predictably improve the accuracy and robustness of Zhang’s simpler device, enabling full 3D orientation tracking (including roll) and providing better noise control. Bachmann itself taught that its system was applicable to handheld devices and that its quaternion-based calculations were computationally superior to other methods.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing the combination. The sensor components described in Bachmann were commercially available and their integration into a device like Zhang's involved standard electronic design techniques. The filter algorithms described by Bachmann could be implemented in software on a standard microprocessor, and the mathematical conversions (e.g., from a quaternion to Euler angles) were well-known in the art.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "comparison": Petitioner proposed construing this term to mean "performing calculations based on sensor signals to obtain the orientation of the device...in a way that reduces the effect of sensor noise." This construction was argued to be supported by the specification and is broad enough to encompass the multi-step filter process disclosed in Bachmann, which involves prediction, subtraction (to find an error vector), and correction, rather than a simple side-by-side comparison of raw signals.
  • "spatial pointer reference frame": Petitioner proposed this term means "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 clarifies that the frame is body-fixed, which is essential for mapping the sensor data disclosed in the prior art to the claimed system.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate because the petition was filed concurrently with a Motion for Joinder to an already-instituted IPR, Google LLC v. Cywee Group Ltd., IPR2018-01258. Petitioner asserted that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), the one-year time-bar set forth in 35 U.S.C. §315(b) does not apply to a petition accompanied by a request for joinder, making the petition timely and removing a potential basis for denial.

6. Relief Requested

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