PTAB

IPR2020-01420

Israel Weapon Industries IWI Ltd v. Smart Shooter Ltd

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Firearm, Aiming System Therefor, Method of Operating the Firearm and Method of Reducing the Probability of Missing a Target
  • Brief Description: The ’764 patent discloses a firearm aiming system that uses an image processor and a display to assist a user in aiming and firing. The system features an "Epsilon Logic Module" that calculates a target area (the "epsilon area") and controls a firing actuator to permit discharge only when there is a high probability of hitting the 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 taught the core elements of the challenged claims, including a processor-aided firearm aiming system with an imaging sensor, user display, and automatic target detection. Lenner’s system also calculated a "tolerance area" around a target where firing is enabled based on factors like target movement and environmental conditions, which Petitioner equated to the claimed "epsilon area." Petitioner asserted that Nir supplemented Lenner by teaching the selection of a target when a cursor is near the target, not necessarily directly on it, through its "snap-to-target" functionality. This combination, Petitioner contended, met the limitation of locking on to a target viewed "even near said indicator."
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Nir’s well-known "snap-to-target" feature with Lenner’s aiming system to improve the speed and ease of target selection. This would be particularly useful in combat situations where erratic gun movement, user fatigue, and target motion make precise cursor placement difficult, thereby making the overall system more effective.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references are analogous art concerning target selection on video displays for weapon systems. The integration of Nir's software-based feature into Lenner's processor-based system would involve applying known principles without undue experimentation.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Lenner, Nir, and 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 (Application # 2008/0205700), and Edwards (Patent 6,871,439).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground reinforced Ground 1 by adding Edwards to address the claim limitation that the epsilon area is calculated within the boundaries of a target, accounting for irregular shapes. Petitioner argued that Edwards disclosed an algorithmic "coring" of a target, where firing is actuated only within a central zone, explicitly avoiding the outer edges to maximize the probability of a casualty. This teaching directly corresponds to calculating an effective epsilon area within an irregularly shaped target’s boundaries.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Edwards’ "coring" logic into the Lenner-Nir system to increase lethality and accuracy. By ensuring the calculated firing zone is concentrated on the most critical part of a target, the combination would produce a more effective and predictable weapon system, which is a primary goal of such technology.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected, as the Lenner-Nir system already performed automatic target recognition (ATR). Integrating the known algorithmic "coring" calculation from Edwards would be a straightforward modification to enhance the existing firing solution logic.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges:

    • Claims 16-17 were challenged as obvious over Lenner, Nir, and Greene (Patent 7,210,392), arguing Greene taught selecting predetermined aimpoints ("soft spots") based on ATR and using selectable lethal/non-lethal engagement modes.
    • Claim 22 was challenged as obvious over Lenner, Nir, and Page (Patent 7,404,268), arguing Page taught automatically locking onto the closest target after a firearm has been discharged, improving engagement of multiple targets.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "locking on": Petitioner argued this term should be construed to mean "selecting" a target, as supported by the specification equating the two actions.
  • "hit area" / "lock-on point": Petitioner asserted that the "hit area" in claim 2 and the "lock-on point" in claim 1 should both be construed as "a location within a target." This construction is based on their function as the center point around which the "epsilon area" is calculated, which itself must be within the target's boundaries.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Mischaracterization of Prior Art During Prosecution: A central contention was that the Patent Owner overcame prior art rejections by mischaracterizing Lenner to the Examiner. Petitioner argued that, contrary to the Patent Owner’s assertions during prosecution, Lenner did in fact disclose: (1) the automatic calculation of a dynamically changing, variable-shaped target area for enabling fire, and (2) the automatic detection of potential targets. Petitioner asserted that because the Examiner relied on these mischaracterizations, the full teachings of the primary prior art were never properly considered.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) for claims 1-2, 4-5, 11-12, 14, 16-18, and 22 of the ’764 patent, and that these claims be cancelled as unpatentable.