PTAB

IPR2021-00647

Microsoft Corp v. D3D Technologies Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for Three Dimensional Viewing of Images
  • Brief Description: The ’771 patent describes a process for combining image slices from medical imaging devices to create a three-dimensional volume of interest. This volume is then presented as a stereoscopic 3D representation to a user via a Head Display Unit (HDU), allowing for interactive manipulation such as rotation, tissue subtraction, and zooming.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-21 are anticipated and/or obvious over Schoolman

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Schoolman (Patent 5,488,952).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Schoolman, which relates to stereoscopically displaying 3D ultrasound images, discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Schoolman taught reconstructing a 3D model from a series of 2D image slices, displaying right and left stereoscopic image components on a head-worn viewing unit, and allowing a user to manipulate the image. Petitioner contended that Schoolman’s system allowed for selecting an anatomical structure of interest (a "volume of interest") and displaying it from a selected viewing angle. The system inherently required different viewpoints for the left and right eyes to create a stereoscopic effect. Furthermore, Schoolman disclosed "removal of selected parts of images," which Petitioner mapped to the '771 patent's filtering limitations.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): While primarily an anticipation argument, Petitioner asserted that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have found it obvious to implement Schoolman's stereoscopic system using different viewpoints for each eye to simulate the natural spacing between an observer's eyes, a well-known principle for creating 3D effects.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success as stereoscopic display principles were well-established and Schoolman's system was designed for this purpose.

Ground 2: Claims 1-21 are obvious over Murphy

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Murphy (WO 2007/059477).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Murphy, a "Virtual Patient Simulator," rendered all challenged claims obvious. Murphy described a stereoscopic display system for viewing human anatomy in a virtual environment using data from CT or MR imaging. Petitioner argued Murphy taught selecting a "part or sub-part of the virtual patient" (a "volume of interest") from a collection of image slices, performing volume rendering to create a 3D model, and displaying the image on a stereoscopic display, such as a head-mounted display (HMD). Murphy explicitly taught rendering the 3D image from "two slightly different view transformations, reflecting the different locations of the ideal viewer's two eyes," directly teaching the separate left and right viewpoint limitations. Murphy also disclosed the ability to "hide and show each anatomical feature" and "cut away sections arbitrarily," which Petitioner contended taught the claimed filtering steps.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): N/A (single reference ground). The argument focused on Murphy's direct disclosures combined with the general knowledge of a POSITA.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have readily understood how to implement the features described in Murphy, as they represented known techniques in 3D medical visualization.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claim 2 is obvious over Schoolman in view of Bauch (Application # 2002/0183607) and over Murphy in view of Bauch. In both grounds, Petitioner argued a POSITA would combine the primary reference's 3D viewing system with Bauch's disclosure of a user interface with a "recording" function to enable the selection and saving of images for future reference, a predictable improvement for training and simulation purposes.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The co-pending district court trial date (9/6/2022) was not significantly earlier than the Final Written Decision (FWD) deadline, and recent court orders had canceled all hearings. Petitioner asserted it was diligent, filing the petition within six months of being served and before any substantive orders or claim construction had occurred in the litigation. Finally, Petitioner argued the merits of the petition were particularly strong and that it had stipulated not to pursue the same invalidity grounds in district court if the IPR was instituted, weighing against denial.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-21 of the ’771 patent as unpatentable.