PTAB

IPR2021-00648

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 ’183 patent describes a process for combining image slices, typically from medical imaging devices, to create a three-dimensional volume of interest. This volume is then presented to a user via a stereoscopic display, such as a Head Display Unit (HDU), allowing for interactive manipulation like rotation, zooming, and tissue subtraction.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness/Anticipation over Jones - Claims 1, 5-7, 11-13, 17, and 18 are anticipated and/or rendered obvious by Jones.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Jones (European Patent No. 1056049 A2).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Jones, which teaches a method for displaying volumetric data, discloses every limitation of the independent claims. Jones describes creating a 3D image from a collection of stacked image slices and displaying it stereoscopically by presenting different viewpoints to the observer's left and right eyes. Critically, Jones teaches that its dataset can be rotated to present a plurality of views (initial and alternate viewing angles) and discloses tracking the user's eyes to calculate a "point of intersection," which is shifted when the dataset rotates, thereby providing a different perspective of the volume of interest to the user. This shifting intersection point, Petitioner contended, corresponds to the ’183 patent’s "shifted convergence point."
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner asserted that Jones discloses the very features—selecting separate viewpoints for each eye and selecting an alternate viewing angle—that the Patent Owner relied upon to overcome prior art rejections during prosecution.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Jones and Schoolman - Claims 2-5, 8-10, and 14-16 are obvious over Jones in view of Schoolman.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Jones (European Patent No. 1056049 A2) and Schoolman (Patent 5,488,952).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that Jones teaches the base system of claim 1, while Schoolman supplies the additional features recited in the dependent claims. Schoolman, a system for stereoscopically displaying 3D ultrasound images, explicitly teaches image manipulation capabilities. Petitioner mapped Schoolman’s teaching of "removal of selected parts of images" to the filtering/subtracting limitations (claims 2, 8, 14). Schoolman’s disclosure of assigning color based on properties of anatomical structures was mapped to the coloring limitations (claims 3, 9, 15). Finally, Schoolman’s teaching of "magnification of a selected portion of the structures" was mapped to the zooming limitations (claims 4, 10, 16).
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Schoolman's well-known image manipulation techniques with Jones's 3D viewing system for the predictable purpose of improving image clarity and adding functionality. Jones itself suggests a need for such features by contemplating methods for making desired parts "more clearly visible," and Schoolman provides established solutions for achieving this.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as combining known image processing functions (filtering, coloring, zooming) with a 3D display system was a common and predictable way to enhance usability.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Murphy and Guang - Claims 1-18 are obvious over Murphy in view of Guang.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Murphy (WO 2007/059477) and Guang (Application # 2005/0148848).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Murphy, a "Virtual Patient Simulator," teaches a stereoscopic display system that renders 3D models from medical image data (e.g., CT, MRI scans). Murphy discloses selecting a volume of interest, arranging image slices, rendering separate images for left and right eyes from different viewpoints, and displaying them on devices like Head Mounted Displays (HMDs). It also teaches user manipulation, including rotation (selecting alternate viewing angles) and filtering (hiding/showing anatomical features). Guang was introduced to teach the "shifted convergence point" limitation. Guang describes the dynamic adjustment of an eye convergence point in a stereo display to ensure a user can see an object "clearly and most comfortably" as their gaze shifts.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Guang’s dynamic convergence point adjustment with Murphy’s system to improve the user experience. Murphy already contemplated incorporating eye-tracking to allow surgeons to enhance the part of an image they are viewing. Guang provides the specific, known method for implementing this concept by re-rendering the 3D model to align the stereoscopic convergence point with the user's point of interest, a modification that would predictably result in a clearer, more comfortable view.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be predictable because Murphy already provided the necessary 3D rendering and eye-tracking capabilities, and Guang’s teachings represented a known technique for improving such systems.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The petition was filed early in the co-pending litigation, well before any substantive orders, claim construction, or significant investment by the parties. Petitioner noted that the district court trial date was not scheduled to occur before the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD). Furthermore, Petitioner stipulated that if the IPR was instituted, it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the district court, thus eliminating concerns of duplicative effort and promoting judicial efficiency. Finally, Petitioner asserted that the strong merits of the petition, which relied on prior art not considered during prosecution, weighed heavily in favor of institution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’183 patent as unpatentable.