PTAB

IPR2021-00703

Microsoft Corp v. D3D Technologies Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for Three Dimensional Viewing of Images
  • Brief Description: The ’766 patent describes a three-dimensional (3D) viewing system where left eye viewing point (LEVP) and right eye viewing point (REVP) imagery are projected through filters, such as polarization or anaglyph filters. The filtered images are then displayed on a screen to be viewed by a user wearing glasses with corresponding filters to perceive a 3D effect.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1-4 by Rosencwaig

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Rosencwaig (PCT Publication No. WO 95/00872).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Rosencwaig discloses every limitation of claims 1-4. Rosencwaig teaches a stereoscopic display system where a screen displays a stereopair of images using interlaced pixels (or rows of pixels) for the left and right eyes. These pixels are provided with polarizers of different orientations. For example, Rosencwaig’s linear polarization embodiment uses polarizers oriented 90 degrees apart, and its circular polarization embodiment uses filters that generate right-hand and left-hand circularly polarized light, teaching opposite handedness. A viewer wears glasses with oppositely polarized lenses corresponding to the display filters to selectively transmit the appropriate image to each eye, thereby viewing a superimposed 3D image. Rosencwaig also explicitly teaches that its circular polarization filters are implemented using quarter-wave plates, anticipating the limitation of claim 4.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1-3 over Doneus and Dean

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Doneus (a 1999 CIPA conference proceeding) and Dean (Patent 5,402,191).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Doneus describes general stereoscopic viewing systems that use left and right eye images projected through filters of "opposite polarity" to create a 3D effect for a viewer wearing corresponding spectacles. However, Doneus does not explicitly describe the specific types of filters. Dean was argued to supply this missing detail by disclosing specific, well-known polarization methods for 3D systems, including the use of orthogonal linear polarizers (e.g., horizontal and vertical) and circular polarizers (e.g., clockwise and counter-clockwise). The combination, therefore, teaches passing left and right eye imagery through filters with different orientations (linear, circular, or anaglyph) and projecting them onto a display for viewing with corresponding glasses, as claimed.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine Dean’s disclosure of specific filter types with the general system described in Doneus. This combination would simply implement Doneus’s system using the well-known and commercially available polarization techniques taught by Dean, thereby curing Doneus’s lack of specific implementation details.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying known polarization methods to a known type of stereoscopic display system to achieve the predictable result of 3D image viewing.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 7-9, 13, 14, and 16 over Doneus, Dean, and Faris

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Doneus, Dean, and Faris (Patent 6,449,005).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Doneus/Dean combination by adding Faris. Faris describes computer systems, including portable notebooks with LCD displays, for viewing 3D images. Faris explicitly teaches that its methods can be implemented on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having code that, when executed by a processor, performs the steps for 3D viewing. The combination of Doneus/Dean provides the 3D viewing method, while Faris provides the disclosure for implementing such a method on a standard computer system comprising a memory, processor, and communications interface, as recited in the apparatus claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have found it obvious to implement the 3D filtering method of Doneus/Dean on a general-purpose computer system as taught by Faris. This would allow the 3D viewing technology to be applied to a diverse array of devices like laptops and computer monitors, which was a clear and recognized need at the time.
    • Expectation of Success: Encoding instructions for a known image processing method (from Doneus/Dean) onto a computer-readable medium for execution on a standard computer system (from Faris) was a routine and predictable implementation strategy.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional grounds. These included obviousness challenges based on Rosencwaig in view of Ito (for quarter-wave plates), Getty (for augmenting imagery), and Faris (for computer system implementation). Further grounds relied on the Doneus/Dean combination in view of Ito, Getty, and various combinations thereof to address other dependent claims.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The petition was filed early in a co-pending litigation, where the trial date was uncertain and not significantly earlier than the deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD). Petitioner asserted it had been diligent, and that there was minimal investment in the parallel litigation, with key events like the Markman hearing not yet completed. Petitioner further argued the merits of the IPR were strong and stipulated that it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in district court if the IPR was instituted, thereby promoting judicial efficiency and avoiding overlap.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, and 18 of the ’766 patent as unpatentable.