Microsoft Corp v. Science Applications Intl Corp

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-01361
• Patent #: 9,618,752
• Filed: July 23, 2019
• Petitioner(s): Microsoft Corp.
• Patent Owner(s): Science Applications International Corp.
• Challenged Claims: 1-18

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System and Method for Identifying Portions of Images
• Brief Description: The ’752 patent is directed to a system that identifies corresponding portions of images from two independently movable video sources. The system initially uses motion data from the sources to perform a registration and then evaluates that registration using the image data itself, typically for display on a heads-up display.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Roberts and Dobbie - Claims 1, 7, and 13 are obvious over Roberts in view of Dobbie.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Roberts (a 1997 conference paper on helmet sensor integration) and Dobbie (Patent 6,560,029).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Roberts disclosed a system using motion sensors—a Head Orientation Sensor (HOS) on a helmet and a Weapon Orientation Sensor (WOS) on a weapon—to register a weapon-mounted display within a soldier’s field of view on a helmet-mounted display (HMD). Dobbie disclosed a system for fusing video from two different sources (e.g., thermal and night vision) and displaying the combined image on an HMD. Petitioner asserted that implementing Dobbie’s dual-camera fusion into Roberts’ motion-based registration framework would result in the claimed system: a helmet-mounted camera as the first video source and a weapon-mounted camera as the second, with their respective motion data used to identify corresponding regions for display.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to enhance a soldier's situational awareness. Adding Dobbie’s image-fusing capability to Roberts' system would provide the user with combined visual data (e.g., thermal and night vision) simultaneously, which is more effective than switching between views. A POSITA would be motivated to use Roberts' registration techniques to ensure the fused image from the weapon-mounted camera was correctly aligned within the user's field of view, preventing disorientation and targeting errors.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as a predictable integration of known technologies, where each element performed its established function to achieve an expected result.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Roberts/Dobbie in view of Zitová - Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-10, 13, and 15-16 are obvious over Roberts and Dobbie in view of Zitová.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Roberts, Dobbie, 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 the teachings of Zitová to satisfy limitations related to evaluating and refining the initial registration using image data. Zitová, a comprehensive survey, described numerous methods for image registration, including using a secondary, image-feature-based method (e.g., using "control points") to check and evaluate the accuracy of an initial registration. Petitioner argued this directly teaches the claimed steps of "comparing" data from the two images to confirm the alignment initially determined by motion data. Zitová also disclosed methods for determining rotational differences, mapping to claims reciting a "twist rotation."
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a POSITA, having combined Roberts and Dobbie, would be motivated to incorporate Zitová’s teachings to improve system accuracy. Zitová explicitly stated that it is "highly desirable to provide the user with an estimate [of] how accurate the registration actually is." This provided a strong reason to add a secondary, image-based analysis as a quality check on the primary motion-based registration, a common engineering practice to enhance reliability.
  • Expectation of Success: Adding a well-documented verification step from a survey article like Zitová to the primary system would have been a straightforward and predictable modification for a POSITA.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Roberts/Dobbie in view of Azuma - Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 13-14 are obvious over Roberts and Dobbie in view of Azuma.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Roberts, Dobbie, and Azuma (Application # 2004/0051680).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that Azuma taught a hybrid registration system that corrects an initial motion-based orientation estimate using image-based feature tracking and template matching. Azuma’s system could also use the comparison results to update "calibration data" to correct for sensor drift, directly mapping to the limitations of dependent claims 2, 8, and 14. Further, Azuma’s predictive orientation filters, which use additional motion and video data to predict future orientation, were mapped to claim limitations requiring receipt of "additional" data to identify subsequent images.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Azuma's hybrid techniques to overcome known limitations of purely motion-based systems like Roberts. Azuma explained that inertial tracking alone suffers from drift and that supplementing it with image-based tracking provides more robust and accurate registration. This addresses a known problem with the primary Roberts/Dobbie combination, providing a clear motivation to improve its performance using Azuma's teachings.
  • Expectation of Success: Creating a hybrid system by combining complementary registration techniques (motion-based and image-based) was a known approach in the art to leverage the strengths of each method, making the combination obvious with a high expectation of success.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted further obviousness challenges for claims 5-6, 11-12, and 17-18 based on the combination of Roberts, Dobbie, and Azuma in view of Yang, which taught calculating a peak-to-sidelobe ratio (PSR) for enhanced pattern matching.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against procedural denial, asserting it was not time-barred under 35 U.S.C. §315(b). Although Microsoft had intervened in a co-pending district court case (Science Applications International Corp. v. The United States of America), Petitioner contended it was not in privity with the U.S. government (the original defendant). The core of this argument was that Microsoft's interests were not adequately represented by the government, a key factor in the legal analysis of privity.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’752 patent as unpatentable.