PTAB

IPR2022-00093

LG Electronics Inc v. Gesture Technology Partners LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for Rapid TV Camera and Computer Based Sensing
  • Brief Description: The ’924 patent discloses handheld computer devices that use one or more cameras to optically sense human input for control. The challenged claims require a handheld device with two separate cameras having non-overlapping fields of view, one typically oriented toward the user and the other away from the user.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Mann and Numazaki - Claims 1-6, 11, and 14 are obvious over Mann in view of Numazaki.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mann (Canadian Application # CA2,237,939A1) and Numazaki (Patent 6,144,366).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Mann disclosed the core elements of independent claim 1: a handheld device (a PDA or wristwatch) with a housing, a computer, a first user-facing camera, and a second outward-facing camera with a non-overlapping field of view. Mann’s device was designed for covert recording and used physical touch inputs (e.g., stylus on a PDA, finger strokes on a touch-sensitive watch face) for control. Numazaki taught a portable device (PDA or wristwatch) that uses a camera to recognize a user’s no-touch gestures to control a cursor, thereby avoiding obstruction of the display. Petitioner contended that combining Numazaki’s no-touch gesture control with Mann’s dual-camera handheld device rendered the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Mann and Numazaki for several reasons. First, it would improve the covert nature of Mann's device—a primary goal of Mann—as no-touch gestures are less conspicuous than physically interacting with a watch face or PDA. Second, it would implement the specific benefit taught by Numazaki: preventing the user’s finger from obstructing the display during operation. Finally, for Mann’s wristwatch embodiment, it would prevent the user’s finger from smudging the user-facing camera lens, which was located on the watch face.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references disclose analogous technology in similar form factors (PDAs and wristwatches) with user-facing cameras. The combination would have involved a straightforward replacement of Mann’s touch-based input system with Numazaki’s established gesture-recognition hardware and software routines.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Mann, Numazaki, and Amir - Claims 7, 8, 10, 12, and 13 are obvious over Mann in view of Numazaki and Amir.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mann (Canadian Application # CA2,237,939A1), Numazaki (Patent 6,144,366), and Amir (Patent 6,539,100).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the combination of Mann and Numazaki from Ground 1. It added Amir, which taught a camera-based system that improves photograph quality by conditioning image capture on detecting a subject's pupils. This ensures the picture is taken only when the subject’s eyes are open and facing the camera. Petitioner argued that adding Amir’s pupil-detection functionality to the outward-facing camera of the modified Mann device would allow it to determine facial expressions (claim 7), object position/orientation (claim 8), and recognize an object (claim 10), rendering these dependent claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: Given the modified Mann device’s purpose of covertly capturing images for investigative journalism, a POSITA would be motivated to ensure those images were of high quality and clearly captured the subject's facial features. Amir provided a known solution to this problem by conditioning image capture on detecting open eyes. A POSITA would combine Amir’s teachings to improve the functionality and reliability of the primary image-capture feature of the Mann device.
    • Expectation of Success: Amir expressly taught that its technology could be implemented as compact logic circuitry embedded directly into a camera, making it well-suited for integration into Mann’s portable PDA and wristwatch embodiments without undue experimentation.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Mann, Numazaki, and Aviv - Claims 6 and 9 are obvious over Mann in view of Numazaki and Aviv.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mann (Canadian Application # CA2,237,939A1), Numazaki (Patent 6,144,366), and Aviv (Patent 5,666,157).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground also builds upon the base combination of Mann and Numazaki. It added Aviv, which taught a surveillance system that uses a camera to monitor a scene and automatically begins recording when it detects a gesture from a subject that matches a pre-stored signature of suspicious or criminal intent. Petitioner asserted that adding this functionality to the modified Mann device—using the outward-facing camera to detect a subject's gesture and automatically trigger recording—would render claims 6 and 9 obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Aviv’s teachings to improve the usability and effectiveness of Mann's surreptitious monitoring device. Automatically triggering recording upon detecting relevant subject conduct is more reliable and user-friendly than requiring the operator to manually start recording, ensuring critical events are not missed. This modification represented an obvious improvement to a known device (Mann) using a known technique (Aviv) to yield predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success: Mann's outward-facing camera was already well-suited for monitoring subjects for such gestures. A POSITA would have been able to implement Aviv’s gesture-detection and automatic recording logic into the established hardware of the modified Mann device with a reasonable expectation of success.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The parallel district court case was in its earliest stages, having been recently transferred with no scheduling order, discovery, or claim construction conducted. Petitioner contended that the trial date was not imminent and was expected to occur well after the Board’s final written decision. Petitioner further stated it would stipulate not to pursue the same invalidity grounds in the district court litigation if the IPR is instituted, eliminating concerns about duplicative efforts and promoting efficiency.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-14 of Patent 8,194,924 as unpatentable.