Microsoft Corp v. Science Applications Intl Corp

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-01311
• Patent #: 7,787,012
• Filed: July 11, 2019
• Petitioner(s): Microsoft Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Science Applications International Corp.
• Challenged Claims: 1-19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System for Registering Video Images with an Underlying Visual Field
• Brief Description: The ’012 patent discloses a system and method for registering video images from a source, such as a soldier's weapon-mounted camera, onto a transparent heads-up display (HUD) mounted on the soldier's helmet. The system uses orientation data from a sensor on the helmet and a second sensor on the weapon to align the video feed with the soldier's real-world visual field.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Hanson and Roberts - Claims 1-7, 15-16, and 18 are obvious over Hanson in view of Roberts.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hanson (Patent 5,200,827) and Roberts (a 1997 conference paper titled "A Helmet Integration Case Study: Head Orientation Sensor Integration into Land Warrior").
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hanson disclosed the foundational system of a weapon-mounted camera providing video signals to a helmet-mounted transparent display (HUD). Roberts disclosed the missing element: a system using separate orientation sensors on both a soldier's helmet (Head Orientation Sensor) and weapon (Weapon Orientation Sensor) to calculate their relative orientations and register a weapon sight indicator on the soldier's display. The combination of Hanson's hardware with Roberts's registration technique renders the claimed invention obvious. Specifically, Hanson’s weapon-mounted camera is the claimed "video source" and its helmet-mounted screen is the "transparent display," while Roberts teaches determining the orientation of both to perform registration.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Hanson and Roberts to solve the known problem of ensuring that image data from a weapon-mounted camera accurately corresponds to the soldier's field of view. Without the registration taught by Roberts, the video overlay in Hanson's system would be confusing or irrelevant when the weapon and head are pointed in different directions. The combination was presented as a predictable application of known orientation-sensing techniques to improve an existing video display system.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because combining the systems involved the arrangement of known elements, each performing its known function, to yield a predictable result.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Hanson, Roberts, and Belt - Claims 8-14, 17, and 19 are obvious over Hanson in view of Roberts, in further view of Belt.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hanson (Patent 5,200,827), Roberts (1997 conference paper), and Belt (a 2000 conference paper titled "Combat Vehicle Visualization System").
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Hanson/Roberts combination to further address limitations in claims 8, 14, and 17 related to "cropping a portion of the video feed." Petitioner contended that Belt disclosed this feature in its description of a system where a tracked object "slides off the edge of the field of view," causing only a segment of the video to be displayed. This functionality is equivalent to the claimed "cropping."
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add Belt's cropping functionality to the Hanson/Roberts system to enhance its usability. This would permit the soldier to pan their head and view freely without completely losing the video feed from the weapon-mounted camera when it moves off-screen. Instead of disappearing entirely, the image would be cropped at the edge of the display, maintaining situational awareness.
  • Expectation of Success: Incorporating a known video processing technique like cropping into the combined display system would be a straightforward and predictable modification for a POSITA.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Hanson, Roberts, and Lynde - Claims 1-7, 15-16, and 18 are obvious over Hanson and Roberts, in further view of Lynde.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hanson (Patent 5,200,827), Roberts (1997 conference paper), and Lynde (Patent 6,181,302).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative to Ground 1, specifically addressing the claim limitation "wherein boundaries of the displayed video images are in registration with boundaries of portions of the visual field." If the primary combination was found insufficient, Petitioner argued that Lynde explicitly taught this feature. Lynde discloses an augmented reality system for binoculars that superimposes navigational information (e.g., outlines of a harbor) over a real-world view, aligning the graphical boundaries with the corresponding real-world boundaries.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Lynde's boundary-alignment technique into the Hanson/Roberts system to provide more precise and definitive information to the user. This would be particularly useful in low-visibility conditions (e.g., at night), where delineating boundaries of roads, buildings, or vehicles is critical for navigation and targeting. Applying Lynde's teachings would be a logical step to improve the registration accuracy of the base system.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be predictable, as it involved applying a known boundary registration method (from Lynde) to an existing augmented reality display system (Hanson/Roberts) to enhance its core function.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "registering video images with an underlying visual field": Petitioner proposed this term means "aligning video images with the correct relative position of an underlying field of view." This construction was central to mapping the orientation-correcting disclosures of Roberts onto the claims.
• "wherein boundaries of the displayed video images are in registration with boundaries of portions of the visual field...": Petitioner argued this means "that the subject matter of the video image is aligned on the display approximately in front of the same subject matter shown in the visual field." This interpretation was based on the patent's specification and prosecution history, where the language was added to distinguish prior art that showed an "offset" image. This construction was key to arguing that Roberts inherently taught the limitation and, alternatively, that Lynde explicitly did.
• "independently movable about multiple axes": Petitioner asserted this means the video source (weapon) and transparent display (helmet) are not in a fixed relation and can be moved along two or more axes differently from each other. This was argued to be inherently met by a system with a handheld weapon and a head-mounted display.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of Patent 7,787,012 as unpatentable.