Microsoft Corp v. Science Applications Intl Corp

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-01359
• Patent #: 9,229,230
• Filed: July 22, 2019
• Petitioner(s): Microsoft Corp.
• Patent Owner(s): Science Applications International Corp.
• Challenged Claims: 1-3, 12-17, 26-31, 40-42

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System and Method for Identifying Corresponding Portions of Images from Independently Movable Video Sources
• Brief Description: The ’230 patent describes a system, such as a heads-up display for a soldier, that integrates and aligns images from two independently movable video sources. The system uses motion data from sensors attached to each source to perform an initial registration and then evaluates that registration using the image data itself to display a fused, correctly oriented view.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Roberts and Dobbie - Claims 1-2, 12-13, 15-16, 26-27, 29-30, and 40-41 are obvious over Roberts in view of Dobbie.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Roberts (a 1997 conference paper) and Dobbie (Patent 6,560,029).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Roberts disclosed a military heads-up display (HMD) system with independently movable orientation sensors: a Head Orientation Sensor (HOS) on a helmet and a Weapon Orientation Sensor (WOS) on a rifle. This system used motion data to register the weapon's aimpoint on the soldier's HMD. Dobbie disclosed a system controller for fusing images from two different camera types (e.g., thermal and image-intensified) and displaying the combined image on an HMD. The proposed combination would implement Dobbie’s image-fusing controller into Roberts’s motion-based registration framework. This combination allegedly taught all limitations of the independent claims, including two independently movable video sources (helmet camera and weapon camera), associated motion sensors, and a controller that receives both video and motion data to produce a combined display.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references to enhance a soldier's situational awareness. The combination would provide the tactical benefit of fused imagery from different spectra (from Dobbie) while ensuring the imagery was correctly registered and oriented within the soldier's field of view (from Roberts). This would create a single, information-rich display, avoiding the need to switch between different views and preventing disorientation from unregistered overlays.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended the combination involved integrating known components using established techniques—motion-based registration and video fusion—to achieve a predictable result.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Roberts/Dobbie in view of Zitová - Claims 1, 3, 15, 17, 29, and 31 are obvious over Roberts and Dobbie in view of Zitová.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Roberts (a 1997 conference paper), Dobbie (Patent 6,560,029), and Zitová (a 2003 survey paper on image registration methods).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Roberts/Dobbie combination by adding Zitová to teach the claim limitation of "evaluating" the initial motion-based registration by "a comparison of data from the first and second video source images." Zitová described numerous image-based registration techniques, including feature-based methods that identify control points (e.g., corners, edges) within images to assess and refine alignment accuracy. Petitioner argued that implementing Zitová’s image-content analysis would serve as a second registration step to check the accuracy of the first, motion-based registration from Roberts.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add Zitová’s teachings because, as Zitová stated, it is "highly desirable to provide the user with an estimate [of] how accurate the registration actually is." Adding an image-based verification step would correct for potential inaccuracies in the motion-based system, such as sensor drift or calibration errors, leading to a more reliable and robust system.
  • Expectation of Success: The techniques described in Zitová were well-known and applying them to verify another registration method was a conventional approach to improving system accuracy.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Roberts/Dobbie in view of Azuma - Claims 1, 3, 13, 15, 17, 27, 29, 31, and 41 are obvious over Roberts and Dobbie in view of Azuma.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Roberts (a 1997 conference paper), Dobbie (Patent 6,560,029), and Azuma (Application # 2004/0051680).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that Azuma taught a hybrid registration system that complements the limitations of purely motion-based tracking. Azuma disclosed using an inertial measurement unit for an initial orientation estimate, which is then corrected and refined using image-based feature tracking (template matching). Petitioner argued this hybrid approach provided another basis for the "evaluating" and "identifying" steps of the claims, where the system uses image content to improve upon an initial motion-based alignment.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Azuma's hybrid techniques with the Roberts/Dobbie system to overcome known weaknesses of inertial sensors, such as "accumulated gyro drifts over long periods of time," a problem explicitly noted by Azuma. This would result in a more accurate and stable registration than achievable with motion sensors alone, which was a well-understood goal in the art.
  • Expectation of Success: The use of hybrid tracking systems to exploit the complementary nature of different registration techniques was a known design choice, and its implementation would have been predictable.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations including Temovskiy (for rotational correction of images based on motion data) and Feyereisen (for scaling graphic icons based on their distance from the viewer), but relied on similar design modification theories.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner proposed that the term "a second video source, movable independent of the first video source" means that the two sources are not in a fixed relation to each other and are capable of being moved along two or more axes in a different manner. This construction was central to mapping the helmet-mounted camera and weapon-mounted camera of the prior art to the claim language.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner presented substantial arguments that the petition should not be time-barred under §315(b) due to a co-pending litigation. Petitioner, a recently-added intervenor in that case, argued it was not in "privity" with the original defendant (the U.S. Government). The basis for this argument was that its interests were not adequately represented by the government, a position validated by the court's decision to grant its motion to intervene.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 12-17, 26-31, and 40-42 of the ’230 patent as unpatentable.