PTAB

IPR2022-00092

LG Electronics Inc v. Gesture Technology Partners LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Digital Imaging
  • Brief Description: The ’949 patent discloses automating digital image capture by using an electro-optical sensor to detect when a subject performs a predetermined gesture, which then causes a separate digital camera to capture and store an image.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Numazaki and Nonaka - 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 argued that Numazaki discloses the core hardware of the challenged claims. Specifically, Numazaki teaches a portable device (e.g., a laptop) with multiple forward-facing sensors: a two-sensor "reflected light extraction unit" that functions as an electro-optical sensor to detect hand gestures, and a separate, higher-quality "visible light photo-detection array" (a CCD camera) for capturing video images. Numazaki also teaches a processing unit that recognizes pre-registered gestures from the sensor's output and maps them to specific commands (e.g., power on/off). However, Numazaki does not explicitly teach using a gesture to trigger image capture. Nonaka remedies this deficiency by teaching a camera system where a user performs a "predetermined motion" (a gesture) to provide a "release instruction," causing the camera to take a picture. The combination of Numazaki's hardware and gesture-to-command framework with Nonaka's specific teaching of a gesture-based image capture command renders the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Nonaka’s gesture-based image capture with Numazaki’s system to improve its functionality. This combination would provide a hands-free way to initiate image or video capture, offering greater convenience and freedom than timers or manual triggers—benefits explicitly touted by Nonaka. Implementing this known technique would be a simple and predictable modification to improve Numazaki's existing gesture-controlled portable device.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because Numazaki already provides the necessary hardware (gesture sensor, digital camera, processor) and a framework for associating gestures with commands. Modifying Numazaki’s system to recognize an image-capture gesture from Nonaka would be a straightforward application of known programming techniques to existing hardware.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Numazaki, Nonaka, and Aviv - 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 (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 limitation in claims 6, 12, and 17 that the electro-optical (gesture) sensor has a lower resolution than the digital camera. While Petitioner argued this is inherent in Numazaki based on its cost-saving suggestions and graphical representations of sensor outputs, Aviv provides an explicit teaching. Aviv discloses a surveillance system that uses a primary "moderate resolution" camera to continuously monitor a scene for suspicious gestures. Upon detecting such a gesture, Aviv's system activates a secondary "high resolution" camera to capture a "detailed video signal."
    • Motivation to Combine: Aviv provides a clear and explicit rationale for using a lower-resolution sensor for monitoring and a higher-resolution sensor for capturing, namely for efficiency and to manage computational load. A POSITA, seeking to optimize the Numazaki/Nonaka combination for cost and performance as suggested by Numazaki itself, would be motivated by Aviv's teachings to implement the gesture-detection sensor at a lower resolution than the primary digital camera. This design choice was a well-understood principle for improving image processing systems.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected, as this combination involves applying a known design principle (using different resolutions for monitoring and capturing) from Aviv to the system of Numazaki/Nonaka to achieve the predictable benefits of improved efficiency and lower cost.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "an image": Petitioner argued that the term "an image" should be construed to encompass both single still images and a sequence of images (i.e., video). This construction is supported by the patent's specification, which describes applications in "movie making" and a "video camera and recorder." Further, Petitioner contended that the prosecution history shows the applicant did not distinguish the invention from prior art based on the capture of still images versus video, implying the term was intended to cover both. This construction is critical because the primary prior art, Numazaki, discloses capturing video.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The parallel district court litigation was in its earliest stages, having been recently transferred with no case schedule set, no claim construction conducted, and minimal investment by the parties. Petitioner asserted that the trial date, if one were ever set, would occur well after the deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD) in the IPR. To address any overlap, Petitioner offered to stipulate that, if the IPR is instituted, it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the district court litigation. Petitioner contended these factors weigh heavily in favor of institution, promoting efficiency and preserving the integrity of the IPR process as an expert forum for assessing patentability.

6. Relief Requested

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