PTAB

IPR2020-01420

Israel Weapon Industries (I.W.I) Ltd. v. Smart Shooter, Ltd.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Firearm Aiming System and Method
  • Brief Description: The ’764 patent discloses a firearm aiming system for personal, hand-held firearms designed to reduce the probability of missing a target. The system uses a firing processor incorporating an "epsilon logic module" to control firearm discharge, ensuring it occurs only when there is a high probability of hitting the selected target.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lenner and Nir - Claims 1, 2, 4-5, 11-12, 14, and 18 are obvious over Lenner in view of Nir.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lenner (Application # 2006/0005447) and Nir (Application # 2008/0205700).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lenner discloses the core elements of the challenged claims, including a processor-aided aiming system for small arms with a camera, a user display, and an image processor that automatically identifies targets. For the key "epsilon logic module" limitation, Petitioner contended that Lenner’s system dynamically defines and adjusts a "tolerance area" for firing based on the target’s image, user-defined accuracy settings (e.g., Minute of Angle), and real-time prediction of barrel and target movement. This, Petitioner asserted, is equivalent to the claimed "epsilon area" that dynamically changes based on target shape and likelihood of hitting. Nir was introduced to supply the limitation of selecting a target when the aim-point indicator is near, but not directly on, the target. Nir discloses a "snap-to-target" autocorrection module that facilitates target selection when the pointing device is proximal to the target, fulfilling this claim element.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would combine Lenner's aiming system with Nir's target selection method to improve usability and effectiveness, particularly in combat situations. Since Lenner teaches that the aiming cursor can be controlled by gun movement, which may be erratic, Nir's "snap-to-target" feature would be a desirable and known solution to make target selection easier and more reliable.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references. Both Lenner and Nir are analogous art concerning processor-based targeting systems for weapons. Integrating Nir's well-known software functionality into Lenner's system would be a predictable modification, as both systems use similar components and methods for displaying and selecting targets.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lenner/Nir in view of Edwards - Claims 1, 2, 4-5, 11-12, 14, and 18 are obvious over Lenner in view of Nir in further view of Edwards.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lenner (Application # 2006/0005447), Nir (’700 application), and Edwards (Patent 6,871,439).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground reinforces the argument for the "epsilon area" by adding Edwards. To the extent the Lenner/Nir combination is deemed insufficient to teach calculating a hit area within the boundaries of an irregular target, Edwards explicitly discloses this. Edwards teaches an algorithmic "coring" of a target, where firing is only actuated within a central zone, purposefully excluding the outer edges to increase the probability of a casualty.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would be motivated to incorporate the "coring" concept from Edwards into the Lenner/Nir system to further increase accuracy and lethality, which is the fundamental objective of such systems. It directly addresses how to define an optimal firing zone on an irregularly shaped target.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Lenner/Nir in view of Greene - Claims 16 and 17 are obvious over Lenner in view of Nir in further view of Greene.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lenner (Application # 2006/0005447), Nir (’700 application), and Greene (Patent 7,210,392).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targets dependent claims 16 and 17, which add limitations for selecting a lock-on point based on Automatic Target Recognition (ATR) and selecting between lethal and non-lethal modes. Greene discloses an autonomous weapon system that includes ATR, a target database of "soft points" (predetermined aimpoints), and selectable rules of engagement that allow for both lethal and non-lethal firing clearances.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would integrate Greene’s features into the Lenner/Nir system to expand its operational capabilities. Greene's target database would assist the ATR in identifying critical (or non-lethal) aimpoints that may not be obvious to a user, and the selectable firing modes would make the system adaptable to different scenarios, such as policing or peacekeeping, thereby increasing its versatility.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claim 22 based on the combination of Lenner, Nir, and Page (Patent 7,404,268), arguing Page taught automatically locking on to the closest potential target after the firearm has been discharged to allow for rapid re-engagement.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "locking on": Petitioner contended that "locking on" to a target should be construed as being equivalent to "selecting" a target. This construction is based on the patent's specification and allows the teachings of prior art references that use the term "select" to be mapped onto the claims.
  • "Epsilon area," "lock-on point," and "hit area": Petitioner argued that a POSA would understand these related terms to collectively mean "a location within a target" for which aiming within a desired tolerance would enable firing. This construction broadens the terms to encompass concepts from the prior art, such as Lenner's "tolerance area" and Edwards's "central zone," which are crucial to the obviousness arguments.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-2, 4-5, 11-12, 14, 16-18, and 22 of the ’764 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.