LG Electronics Inc v. Gesture Technology Partners LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-00091
• Patent #: 7,933,431
• Petitioner(s): LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Gesture Technology Partners LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-31

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method and Apparatus for Computer Input
• Brief Description: The ’431 patent describes computer devices that optically sense human input using one or more cameras. The technology is primarily directed to handheld devices that process images of a user, or an object held by a user, to control a function of the device.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-22, 25, 26, and 28 are obvious over Numazaki in view of the knowledge of a POSITA.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Numazaki (Patent 6,144,366).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Numazaki teaches a method for detecting gestures, including implementing the method in a compact, handheld device. Numazaki’s eighth embodiment discloses a portable device where a user’s finger movement in front of a window controls a cursor on the screen. This system uses a controlled light source and multiple photo-detection units (cameras) to capture reflected light from the user’s hand, determine its movement, and use that information to control the device. Petitioner contended this prior art meets the limitations of independent claims 1, 7, and 14, which require a handheld device that electro-optically senses finger movement to control a function.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): The combination here is with the general knowledge of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA). Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would have been motivated to implement features disclosed in Numazaki's various embodiments (e.g., 3D sensing, videoconferencing) into its primary handheld device embodiment. For example, adding 3D gesture sensing would improve usability by offering more intuitive command options, such as moving a finger toward the screen to "click" an icon.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because Numazaki already taught the necessary hardware (e.g., two-camera structure) and disclosed the feasibility of extracting 3D information, making implementation a matter of applying known techniques.

Ground 2: Claims 5, 6, and 29 are obvious over Numazaki in view of DeLeeuw.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Numazaki (Patent 6,144,366) and DeLeeuw (Patent 6,088,018).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground focused on claims requiring the sensing of movement of one finger relative to another, such as a "pinching action." Petitioner argued that while Numazaki teaches pointing gestures, DeLeeuw explicitly discloses a system that detects a user "pinching" their index finger and thumb to generate "mouse down" and "mouse up" events for manipulating on-screen icons.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine DeLeeuw’s pinch gesture detection with Numazaki’s handheld gesture-control system to provide a more intuitive and effective method for icon manipulation. Petitioner asserted that using a pinch gesture to "grab" and move icons is a predictable and well-known solution for user interface control.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success would be expected because Numazaki already included the necessary hardware (cameras) and software capability to detect gestures involving multiple fingers, making the incorporation of DeLeeuw’s specific pinch gesture a minor and predictable modification to the existing programming.

Ground 3: Claims 10, 23, 24, and 27 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 addressed claims requiring a 3D or stereoscopic display. Petitioner argued that DeLuca discloses a computer system that stereoscopically projects a 3D interface into a space where a user can interact with virtual objects (e.g., icons) by moving a physical object, such as their fingertip.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine DeLuca’s 3D display with Numazaki’s 3D gesture-input system to improve the user experience. Projecting the application into a 3D space would make the 3D gesturing and pointing already contemplated by Numazaki more intuitive and immersive, particularly for applications like the gaming function required by claim 27, which DeLuca also teaches.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have anticipated success because Numazaki already taught detecting a user's hand in three dimensions. The modification would primarily involve incorporating the known 3D projection technology from DeLuca into Numazaki's existing gesture-recognition framework, which was well within the skill set of a POSITA.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 4) for claims 30 and 31 over Numazaki in view of Peters (Patent 6,243,683). Peters teaches using gestures, such as looking at the camera, to aid or activate a speech recognition system. Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to combine this with Numazaki's system because Numazaki explicitly states its gesture technology could serve as a "complement to ... speech input."

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that several terms in claims 7 and 11 are means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) but that others are not.
• "camera means ... for obtaining an image" (Claim 7): Petitioner argued this term is not a means-plus-function limitation because a POSITA would understand "camera means" to connote a definite structure (the class of optical image sensors).
• "computer means ... for analyzing said image" (Claim 7): Petitioner asserted this is a means-plus-function term. The corresponding structure in the ’431 patent was argued to be a computer/processor programmed to perform algorithms for (1) identifying natural or artificial features on an object and (2) tracking the movement of those features.
• "means for transmitting information" (Claim 11): Petitioner argued this is a means-plus-function term, and the corresponding structure disclosed in the ’431 patent is a cellular transceiver.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner presented extensive arguments that discretionary denial under both the General Plastics and Fintiv frameworks would be inappropriate.
• General Plastics Factors: Petitioner argued these factors strongly favor institution. This is Petitioner's first challenge to the ’431 patent. Although another IPR by a different party (Unified Patents) was previously filed, Petitioner argued its petition is substantially different, challenging 24 additional claims and relying on different prior art combinations and legal theories (obviousness vs. anticipation).
• Fintiv Factors: Petitioner argued that the factors related to co-pending district court litigation also weigh heavily in favor of institution. The parallel litigation was in its infancy, having recently been transferred to the District of New Jersey with no case schedule set and minimal investment by the parties or the court. Therefore, any trial date was speculative and expected to occur well after the Final Written Decision (FWD) in the IPR.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-31 of the ’431 patent as unpatentable.