PTAB

IPR2019-00563

Huawei Device USA Inc v. Cywee Group Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: 3D Pointing Devices
  • Brief Description: The ’978 patent discloses methods for compensating rotations in 3D pointing devices. The technology uses a combination of sensors—including rotation sensors, accelerometers, and magnetometers—to calculate the device's orientation and translate detected motions into cursor movements on a 2D display.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Zhang and Bachmann - 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 a four-axis sensor module (two-axis magnetometer and two-axis accelerometer) to determine orientation and control a cursor. Crucially, Zhang expressly suggested that its system was not limited to these sensors and that other sensors, such as a "gyro sensor" (an angular rate sensor), could also be used. Bachmann taught a complete nine-axis sensor system (three-axis accelerometer, three-axis magnetometer, and three-axis angular rate sensor) and a sophisticated quaternion-based filtering method for accurately calculating the orientation of a tracked object. Petitioner asserted that the combination of Zhang's handheld pointer with Bachmann's nine-axis sensor suite and filtering algorithm taught all limitations of claim 10. This included generating orientation output based on signals from all three sensor types, generating the output from a nine-axis module, and obtaining a deviation by comparing measured magnetism with predicted magnetism.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Bachmann's teachings with Zhang's device for several reasons. First, Zhang explicitly invited the use of additional sensors like gyroscopes to improve its system. Second, Bachmann provided a known and advantageous way to implement this suggestion, disclosing a well-known nine-axis "MARG" (Magnetic, Angular Rate, Gravity) sensor system and a superior quaternion-based filter applicable to handheld devices. This combination would predictably improve the accuracy of Zhang's pointer by allowing for the detection of more movement modes (e.g., roll angle) and enabling better error control. Bachmann's quaternion calculations also offered known benefits over traditional Euler angles, such as improved computational efficiency and avoidance of singularities.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the sensor components described in Bachmann were commercially available and could be integrated into Zhang's device using standard engineering techniques. Both references taught implementing the necessary calculations on standard microcontrollers, which were readily available.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Liberty and Bachmann - 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 was similar to Ground 1, substituting the primary reference Liberty for Zhang. Liberty, which is cited in the ’978 patent, taught a 3D handheld pointing device using rotation sensors and accelerometers for tilt compensation. Like Zhang, Liberty expressly stated that "a variety of different sensors could be employed," specifically listing accelerometers, rotational sensors, gyroscopes, and magnetometers. Liberty also suggested that filtering methods could improve stability. Petitioner contended that implementing Bachmann’s specific nine-axis sensor system and quaternion filter into Liberty's device would render the challenged claims obvious, with the mapping of claim limitations being analogous to that presented in Ground 1.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine was nearly identical to that in Ground 1. A POSITA reading Liberty’s express suggestion to use additional sensors (including magnetometers and gyroscopes) and filtering methods would have looked to known solutions like those taught in Bachmann. Bachmann provided a concrete, advantageous, and well-understood method for implementing Liberty's suggestions. Adopting Bachmann's MARG sensor suite and quaternion filter was an obvious path to improving the measurement capabilities and accuracy of Liberty's 3D pointer, a predictable improvement supported by both references.
    • Expectation of Success: As with the first ground, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully integrating Bachmann's known hardware and software techniques into Liberty's device to achieve the desired improvements.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "spatial 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 is based on the patent's specification and figures, which show the frame's axes rotating with the device.
  • "rotation output": Petitioner proposed this term means the "output of a rotation sensor." This construction is based on explicit language in the patent's specification linking the term directly to the output generated by a rotation sensor.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner filed this petition concurrently with a motion for joinder to Google LLC v. Cywee Group Ltd., IPR2018-01257, which the Board had already instituted. Petitioner argued that its petition was substantially identical to the instituted Google IPR, presenting the same grounds based on the same prior art combinations and evidence against the same claims, and thus joinder was appropriate and would not raise concerns of duplicative proceedings.

6. Relief Requested

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