PTAB

IPR2022-00090

LG Electronics, Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Computer Input via Optical Gesture Sensing
  • Brief Description: The ’079 patent describes computer input devices that employ cameras and light sources to optically sense the position and orientation of a user's body parts, such as a hand. The system is designed to recognize gestures performed in a "work volume" and translate them into computer commands.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

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

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Numazaki (Patent 6,144,366) and the general knowledge of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Numazaki discloses all limitations of the independent claims. Specifically, Numazaki’s eighth embodiment teaches a laptop computer with a light source and a camera (“photo-detection unit”) fixed above the keyboard. This system illuminates a user's hand in a work volume, observes gestures like pointing, and determines the gesture to control on-screen functions. Petitioner contended that Numazaki's broader disclosure of a two-camera system for image differencing to remove ambient light would be understood by a PHOSITA to be part of the laptop embodiment's gesture determination process.
    • Motivation to Combine (for dependent claims): For claims requiring an LED (e.g., claim 2), Petitioner asserted a PHOSITA would combine the laptop embodiment with Numazaki's teachings from other embodiments that an LED is a superior light source due to its ability to emit intense light instantaneously while reducing power consumption—a clear benefit for a portable device. For claims requiring analysis of sequential images (e.g., claim 4), this was argued to be an inherent aspect of tracking motion for gesture recognition, a technique explicitly detailed in Numazaki’s other embodiments.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as these modifications involved applying known techniques (using LEDs, analyzing image sequences) described within the same reference to improve the performance of a similar device in a predictable manner.

Ground 2: Plurality of LEDs - 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. Petitioner asserted that Numazaki ’863, which shares an inventor and assignee with the primary Numazaki reference, explicitly teaches a range-finding system using an array of LEDs to determine the distance to an object like a user's hand.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the LED array from Numazaki ’863 with the gesture recognition system of the primary Numazaki reference. The motivation was to improve the system's ability to perform distance calculations and 3D shape detection, which Numazaki already contemplates. This would enhance the accuracy of detecting small finger movements and complex gestures.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was predictable because the combination involved applying a known range-finding technique from the same inventor, disclosed in the context of a nearly identical system, to achieve the known benefit of improved 3D data acquisition.

Ground 3: Three-Dimensional Display - 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 discloses a computer system that stereoscopically projects a 3D interface into a space where a user can interact with it using their finger, with cameras tracking the finger's position and orientation.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to replace Numazaki’s conventional 2D display with DeLuca's 3D projected display. Since Numazaki already describes gesturing in a 3D workspace above the keyboard, this modification would create a more intuitive user experience by aligning the 3D interaction space with a 3D visual interface.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success in combining these known elements, as improving a user interface by making it more intuitive is a common design goal, and the technical integration was presented as straightforward.

Ground 4: Pinch Gesture - Claim 18 is obvious over Numazaki in view of DeLeeuw.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Numazaki (Patent 6,144,366) and DeLeeuw (Patent 6,008,018).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claim 18, which requires the determination of a pinch gesture. DeLeeuw explicitly teaches a system where a user performs a "pinch" with their index finger and thumb to simulate a "mouse down" event for manipulating on-screen icons.
    • Motivation to Combine: While Numazaki teaches icon manipulation (e.g., "click and drag"), it does not explicitly disclose a pinch gesture. Petitioner asserted a POSITA would incorporate DeLeeuw's pinch gesture into Numazaki's system because it represents a known, intuitive, and predictable solution for the stated function of icon manipulation.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have anticipated success because Numazaki’s system is already described as having the hardware and programming necessary to detect gestures involving multiple fingers, making the incorporation of a pinch-detection algorithm a minimal and predictable modification.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claim 20 (requiring a grip gesture) based on Numazaki in view of Maruno (Patent 6,191,773), which teaches a "grasp" motion for manipulating virtual objects.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The core arguments were that the parallel district court litigation was in its earliest stages, with minimal party and court investment, an unset trial date, and a high likelihood that any trial would occur well after the Board’s Final Written Decision (FWD). Petitioner further committed to stipulating that it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the district court if the IPR were instituted. Finally, Petitioner presented arguments that the Fintiv framework itself exceeds the Director's statutory authority, is arbitrary and capricious, and was adopted without proper notice-and-comment rulemaking.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-30 of Patent 8,553,079 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.