PTAB

IPR2021-00921

Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Gesture-Based Device Operation
  • Brief Description: The ’949 patent describes a system to automate image capture. The system uses an "electro-optical sensor" to detect a specific user gesture and, in response, commands a separate, higher-quality digital camera to capture and store an image or video.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-18 are obvious over Numazaki in view of Nonaka

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Numazaki (Patent 6,144,366) and Nonaka (Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication JPH4-73631).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Numazaki teaches a portable device (e.g., a laptop) with multiple forward-facing sensors for gesture recognition. This system includes a two-camera configuration to isolate a user's hand, a processor to recognize pre-registered gestures (like a sequence of hand shapes) and map them to commands, and a separate video camera for image capture. However, Numazaki does not explicitly link a gesture to an image capture command. Petitioner argued that Nonaka supplies this missing element by teaching a camera system that uses a predetermined gesture, such as a hand moving toward the camera, as a remote "release instruction" to trigger image capture. The combination of Numazaki's multi-sensor, gesture-recognition portable device with Nonaka's gesture-based trigger for image capture allegedly renders the challenged claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Nonaka’s gesture-based image capture trigger with Numazaki’s gesture-controlled portable device to improve functionality. Nonaka explicitly addresses the desire for hands-free camera operation, which offers greater freedom and convenience than timers or wired remotes. A POSITA would recognize that applying this known benefit to Numazaki’s existing gesture-control framework would be a natural and advantageous modification, allowing a user to initiate video capture remotely.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because Numazaki already provides the necessary hardware (multiple sensors, processor, memory) and software architecture for detecting gestures and capturing video. Integrating Nonaka's concept of mapping a specific gesture to an "image capture" command would be a straightforward software adaptation within Numazaki's established framework for mapping gestures to other commands (e.g., power on/off).

Ground 2: Claims 6, 12, and 17 are obvious over Numazaki in view of Nonaka and in further view of Aviv

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Numazaki (Patent 6,144,366), Nonaka (Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication JPH4-73631), and Aviv (Patent 5,666,157).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon Ground 1 and specifically addresses the limitations in dependent claims 6, 12, and 17, which require the gesture-detecting electro-optical sensor to have a lower resolution than the digital camera. Petitioner argued that Aviv explicitly teaches a surveillance system using a "moderate resolution" camera for continuous motion monitoring that, upon detecting a suspicious event, activates a separate "high resolution" camera to capture a "detailed video signal." This teaching directly corresponds to the claimed dual-resolution architecture.
    • Motivation to Combine: Aviv provides an explicit rationale for using a dual-resolution system: it is an efficient method for continuous monitoring without the computational burden of a high-resolution sensor, while still allowing for high-quality capture when needed. A POSITA would be motivated to apply this known and advantageous design principle to the Numazaki/Nonaka combination to optimize performance and cost. This aligns with Numazaki's own teaching of using lower-cost components where feasible, such as using a "rough" image for gesture detection.
    • Expectation of Success: The use of different resolution sensors for detection and capture was a well-understood engineering trade-off. Implementing Aviv's established dual-resolution strategy into the Numazaki device, which already contains the foundational multi-sensor hardware, would be a predictable and successful integration for a POSITA.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "capture and store an image": Petitioner argued this term should be construed to encompass both still images and video sequences. This construction is asserted to be critical because the primary prior art, Numazaki, discloses capturing video. Petitioner contended the ’949 patent specification repeatedly discusses video and "movie making," and that the open-ended "comprising" language and use of the article "an" support a construction of "one or more" images, which would include a video stream.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The core arguments were:
    • The parallel district court litigation (W.D. Tex.) was in its earliest stages, with no significant investment by the parties or the court, no discovery conducted, and no claim construction orders issued.
    • The trial date in the district court was speculative and, based on historical data for the venue, likely to slip until after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD) in the inter partes review (IPR).
    • The petition raises strong invalidity grounds that warrant review on the merits, which serves the public interest in removing invalid patent claims.
    • Petitioner also made a broader argument that the Fintiv framework itself is legally invalid because it exceeds the Director's statutory authority under the AIA, is arbitrary and capricious, and was adopted without proper notice-and-comment rulemaking.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’949 patent as unpatentable.