PTAB

IPR2019-00563

Huawei Device USA, Inc. v. CyWee Group Ltd.

Log In

1. Case Identification

  • Case #: IPR2019-XXX
  • Patent #: 8,552,978
  • Filed: January 11, 2019
  • Petitioner(s): HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., HUAWEI DEVICE CO. LTD., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD., HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN) CO. LTD., HUAWEI INVESTMENT & HOLDING CO. LTD., HUAWEI TECH. INVESTMENT CO. LTD., HUAWEI DEVICE (HONG KONG) CO. LTD.
  • Patent Owner(s): CYWEE GROUP LTD.
  • Challenged Claims: 10 and 12

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: 3D Pointing Devices
  • Brief Description: The ’978 patent relates to 3D pointing devices used to control a cursor on a 2D display. The technology aims to improve orientation accuracy by using a combination of rotation sensors, accelerometers, and magnetometers to detect device motion and employing a mathematical method with quaternions to compensate for sensor errors and calculate the device's orientation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 10 and 12 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 a handheld 3D pointing device using accelerometers and magnetometers to determine orientation. While Zhang’s main embodiment used a four-axis sensor module, it expressly disclosed that its orientation detection was not limited to these sensors and that other sensors, such as a gyro sensor, could be used. Petitioner contended that Bachmann supplied the technology that Zhang suggested adding. Bachmann taught a complete nine-axis sensor system (a "MARG" sensor comprising three-axis accelerometers, magnetometers, and angular rate detectors) and a sophisticated quaternion-based filter to process the sensor data for a more accurate orientation output. Petitioner asserted that combining Zhang’s base device with Bachmann’s nine-axis sensor suite and filtering method rendered all limitations of independent claim 10 obvious. Dependent claim 12, which requires the orientation output to be a quaternion, was argued to be met because Bachmann's filter explicitly produced a quaternion output.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Zhang and Bachmann because Zhang explicitly suggested using additional sensors like gyros to improve its system. Bachmann provided a well-known and commercially available solution that directly addressed this suggestion. Combining the references was argued to be a simple substitution of a known, superior sensor and filtering module (Bachmann) into an existing device (Zhang) to obtain the predictable benefits of improved accuracy, better error control, and the ability to detect more complex movements.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the nine-axis sensors taught by Bachmann were known and commercially available. Integrating these sensors into a device like Zhang’s and implementing Bachmann's quaternion-based filter calculations in software on a standard microcontroller were all within the ordinary skill in the art at the time.

Ground 2: Claims 10 and 12 are obvious over Liberty in view of Bachmann.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Liberty (Patent 7,158,118) and Bachmann (Patent 7,089,148).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued this combination in a manner parallel to Ground 1. Liberty taught a 3D handheld pointing device that used rotational sensors and accelerometers for tilt compensation. Crucially, Liberty expressly stated that its five-axis system could be improved by employing a variety of other sensors, specifically including magnetometers and gyroscopes, and using filtering methods like Kalman filtering. As in the first ground, Petitioner asserted that Bachmann provided the precise technology Liberty suggested for improvement: a nine-axis sensor system and an advanced, quaternion-based estimation filter. Combining Liberty's pointing device with Bachmann’s sensor and filter technology allegedly rendered all limitations of claim 10 obvious. The quaternion output from Bachmann’s filter was argued to satisfy claim 12.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to combine the references to implement the very improvements Liberty suggested. Liberty identified the potential for using magnetometers and gyros to provide "additional stability," and Bachmann provided a known, advantageous, and integrated solution (the MARG sensor system and filter) for doing so. This combination would predictably improve the measurement capabilities of the Liberty device, a recognized goal in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: The rationale was identical to Ground 1. A POSITA would expect success because the necessary components were commercially available and their integration and programming required only ordinary skill. The combination represented the application of a known technique to a similar device to obtain predictable results.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "spatial reference frame": Petitioner argued this term, used in claim 10, should be construed to mean "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 deemed critical to distinguish the device's own moving coordinate system from the Earth's fixed global reference frame, a key aspect of mapping the prior art.
  • "rotation output": Petitioner argued this term from claim 10 should be interpreted as the "output of a rotation sensor." This construction was necessary to map the claim element directly to the output of the angular rate sensors (gyroscopes) disclosed in the Bachmann reference, which measures rotational velocity.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner filed this IPR concurrently with a motion for joinder to Google LLC v. Cywee Group Ltd., IPR2018-01257, an IPR that the Board had already instituted. Petitioner argued that the present petition was "substantially identical" to the one filed by Google, asserting the same grounds based on the same prior art combinations and evidence against the same claims. This procedural posture implicitly argued against discretionary denial, as the Board had already determined in the Google IPR that there was a reasonable likelihood the Petitioner would prevail on these grounds.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 10 and 12 of the ’978 patent as unpatentable.