Microsoft Corp v. Science Applications Intl Corp

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-01312
• Patent #: 8,817,103
• Filed: July 11, 2019
• Petitioner(s): Microsoft Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Science Applications International Corp.
• Challenged Claims: 1-12

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System for registering video images onto a heads-up display
• Brief Description: The 8,817,103 patent describes a system for infantrymen that registers video images from a weapon-mounted camera onto a heads-up display (HUD) mounted on the soldier's helmet. The system uses data from two separate orientation sensors—one on the helmet and one on the weapon—to align the video feed with the user's visual field.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Hanson and Roberts - Claims 1-3 and 5-12 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: a weapon-mounted video camera that transmits video to a helmet-mounted, transparent HUD. However, Hanson lacked a robust registration system. Roberts allegedly supplied the missing elements by disclosing a system that uses both a Head Orientation Sensor (HOS) on a helmet and a Weapon Orientation Sensor (WOS) on a weapon. Roberts used data from these sensors to generate and superimpose symbology (a Weapon Sight Field of View Indicator) onto a soldier's night vision display, thereby registering the weapon's aimpoint with the soldier's view. The combined system would thus have a weapon-mounted camera (Hanson), a helmet-mounted HUD (Hanson), separate orientation sensors on both the weapon and HUD (Roberts), and a computer (Roberts) to process the sensor data to align the video feed on the display.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Hanson's display system with Roberts' registration techniques to solve the known problem of ensuring that video information from a weapon-mounted camera corresponds to the soldier's actual field of view. This combination would prevent user confusion and improve target acquisition speed and accuracy by arranging old elements for their known purposes.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in combining these systems, as it involved applying known orientation sensing and data processing techniques from Roberts to the established camera-and-display hardware configuration of Hanson.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Hanson, Roberts, and Lynde - Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are obvious over Hanson and Roberts in further view of Lynde.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hanson (Patent 5,200,827), Roberts, and Lynde (Patent 6,181,302).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented contingently, in case the Hanson/Roberts combination was found insufficient to teach the claim limitation "wherein boundaries of the displayed video images are in registration with boundaries of portions of the visual field." Petitioner asserted that Lynde, which discloses marine binoculars with a virtual display, explicitly taught this concept. Lynde's system was designed to superimpose navigational data (e.g., outlines of geographical features) directly over the corresponding real-world objects, thereby aligning the boundaries of the overlay with the boundaries of the objects in the user's view.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Lynde’s boundary-aligning technique into the Hanson/Roberts system to provide more definitive information, particularly in low-visibility or nighttime scenarios. By aligning the boundaries of a thermal image with the real-world view, a soldier could better identify key landmarks like roads or buildings that might otherwise be obscured.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Hanson, Roberts, and Belt - Claim 4 is obvious over Hanson and Roberts in further view of Belt.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Hanson (Patent 5,200,827), Roberts, and Belt (a 2000 SPIE conference paper titled "Combat Vehicle Visualization System").
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically addressed the limitations of claim 4, which requires a computer "adapted to resize and crop the video images." Petitioner argued that Belt, which describes a visualization system for combat vehicles, disclosed this functionality. Belt's system used a centralized computer to perform image processing, including scaling ("resizing") an infrared camera image to match the real-world view and "cropping" the image as a tracked target moved to the edge of the user's field of view.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would incorporate Belt's cropping and resizing capabilities into the Hanson/Roberts system to enhance usability. Cropping would allow a soldier to pan their head without completely losing the image from the weapon-mounted camera, while resizing would ensure the registered image is properly scaled, preventing the user from misjudging distances or the relationship between objects in the scene.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "Independently movable about multiple axes": Petitioner proposed this term means the HUD and the video camera are not in a fixed relationship, such that one can be moved along two or more axes differently from the other. This construction was central to mapping the prior art, where a soldier can move their head (and the HUD) independently of their weapon (and the camera).
• "Wherein boundaries of the displayed video images are in registration with boundaries of portions of the visual field...": Petitioner argued this means the subject matter of the video image is aligned on the display approximately in front of the same subject matter in the visual field. Petitioner contended this does not require complex boundary-detection processing, but rather the general alignment of the image content as taught by the prior art.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the 35 U.S.C. §315(b) one-year time bar was not triggered by a related lawsuit in the Court of Federal Claims. Although Microsoft later intervened in that case (originally filed against the U.S. Government), it was not served with the complaint. Petitioner contended it was not a "privy" of the government because its interests were not adequately represented by the government in the litigation, meaning service on the government did not constitute a "full and fair opportunity" for Microsoft to litigate the patent's validity. Therefore, Petitioner argued it was not barred from filing the IPR.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 of the ’103 patent as unpatentable.