PTAB

IPR2021-00922

Apple Inc v. Gesture Technology Partners LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Computer Input Devices and Methods
  • Brief Description: The ’079 patent describes computer input devices that employ cameras and lights to optically sense the position and orientation of a user's body parts, such as a hand. The system detects gestures performed within an illuminated work volume and translates them into computer commands.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Numazaki - Claims 1, 2, 4-14, 17, 19, 21-22, 24-28, and 30 are obvious over Numazaki in view of the knowledge of a POSITA.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Numazaki (Patent 6,144,366) and the general knowledge of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Numazaki teaches a gesture detection method for computer input that meets the limitations of the independent claims. Specifically, Numazaki’s eighth embodiment disclosed a portable computer with a lighting unit and a camera (“photo-detection sensor unit”) positioned above the keyboard. This system illuminated a user’s hand in a work volume and used the camera, which was in a fixed position relative to the light, to observe gestures like pointing for controlling a cursor and executing "click and drag" operations.
    • Motivation to Combine (with POSITA knowledge): Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have been motivated to implement Numazaki’s light source with a light-emitting diode (LED), as required by dependent claims 2, 14, and 22. Numazaki itself suggested using an LED in other embodiments to achieve more intense, instantaneous light while reducing power consumption, a clear benefit for a portable device. Furthermore, a POSITA would have naturally understood that analyzing "sequential images," as required by claims 4 and 24, was a standard and necessary technique for tracking hand movement to implement the disclosed "click and drag" functionality.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in making these modifications, as they involved applying known, predictable solutions (using LEDs for efficiency, analyzing image sequences for motion tracking) to improve the functionality of Numazaki’s described system.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Numazaki and Numazaki ’863 - Claims 3, 15, and 23 are obvious over Numazaki in view of Numazaki ’863.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Numazaki (Patent 6,144,366) and Numazaki ’863 (Patent 5,900,863).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims requiring a "plurality of light emitting diodes." While Numazaki provided the base system, Numazaki ’863 (by the same inventor) explicitly taught using an "LED array" in a range-finding input device to detect an operator's hand and determine its distance for cursor control on a portable computer.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate the LED array from Numazaki ’863 into the base Numazaki system. This combination would enhance the gesture recognition capabilities of Numazaki by adding precise distance and 3D shape information, improving the system's ability to accurately detect small finger movements. The nearly identical application context (portable computer input) and common inventorship would make this combination particularly logical.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would have been expected because the combination represented a straightforward application of a known range-finding technique, described by the same inventor, to a very similar system to achieve the predictable result of improved gesture detection accuracy.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Numazaki and DeLuca - Claims 16 and 29 are obvious over Numazaki in view of DeLuca.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Numazaki (Patent 6,144,366) and DeLuca (Patent 6,064,354).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted claims requiring a "three-dimensional display." DeLuca disclosed a computer system that stereoscopically projected a 3D interface into a space where a user could interact with it by moving a physical object, like a fingertip, which was tracked by cameras.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to improve the user experience of the Numazaki system. Numazaki already taught detecting gestures in a 3D workspace above the keyboard; replacing its 2D screen with DeLuca’s 3D projected display would create a more intuitive interface where the user could directly interact with 3D objects in the same space their hands were being tracked.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have anticipated success because Numazaki already contemplated detecting 3D hand information. Integrating DeLuca's 3D display technology was a logical next step to enhance the system's human-computer interaction, a known design goal in the field.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claim 18 is obvious over Numazaki in view of DeLeeuw (Patent 6,008,018) for teaching a "pinch gesture," and claim 20 is obvious over Numazaki in view of Maruno (Patent 6,191,773) for teaching a "grip gesture."

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued extensively that discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The core arguments were that the parallel district court litigation was in its infancy, with no significant investment by the parties or the court, and no claim construction or invalidity contentions had occurred. Petitioner asserted that the district court trial was expected to occur after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD) in the IPR. Petitioner also contended that the strength of its invalidity grounds weighed heavily in favor of institution to promote efficiency and system integrity. Finally, Petitioner presented policy arguments that the Fintiv framework itself is legally invalid and should be overturned.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-30 of Patent 8,553,079 as unpatentable.