PTAB

IPR2022-00359

Google LLC v. Gesture Technology Partners LLC

Key Events

Petition

Title: Method and Apparatus for Computer Input
Brief Description: The ’431 patent describes methods and apparatuses for controlling a handheld computing device. The system uses one or more cameras to optically sense human input, such as the position and movement of a user's finger, to control a function of the device.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Numazaki (Patent 6,144,366).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Numazaki disclosed all limitations of the challenged claims. Numazaki teaches a method for detecting gestures using a camera system, including an embodiment in a handheld device "that can be held by one hand." In this device, a user controls a cursor by moving a finger in front of a window containing a lighting unit and a photo-detection sensor unit. This system electro-optically senses light reflected from the user's finger, determines the finger's movement, and uses that information to control the device. Petitioner contended Numazaki's "photo-detection units" are camera units, that controlling a cursor constitutes signaling a command, and that the device's ability to track finger movement in 3D space and for videoconferencing meets further dependent claim limitations.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): This ground is based on Numazaki combined with the general knowledge of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA). Petitioner asserted a PHOSITA would have been motivated to implement various disclosed features of Numazaki (e.g., 3D sensing, videoconferencing) into its handheld embodiment to improve functionality and usability. For example, adding 3D sensing would provide more intuitive ways to issue commands, such as moving a finger toward the screen to "click" an icon.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Numazaki (Patent 6,144,366), DeLeeuw (Patent 6,088,018).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that DeLeeuw remedied a deficiency in Numazaki's handheld embodiment by explicitly teaching the sensing of multi-finger gestures, specifically a "pinch" gesture involving the relative movement of an index finger and thumb to manipulate on-screen objects.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner asserted that while Numazaki's handheld device allows for cursor control via a single finger, it does not explicitly disclose detecting a pinching gesture for icon manipulation. DeLeeuw teaches using a pinch gesture for such interactions. A POSITA would combine DeLeeuw's intuitive pinch gesture with Numazaki’s handheld system to provide a predictable and well-known method for icon manipulation, improving the device's user interface.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would expect success because Numazaki already included the necessary hardware (camera, processor) and programming logic for detecting hand gestures, making the incorporation of a multi-finger pinch gesture a straightforward modification.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Numazaki (Patent 6,144,366), DeLuca (Patent 6,064,354).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued DeLuca taught using a stereoscopic, three-dimensional (3D) display where a user interacts with projected virtual objects (e.g., icons, game elements) by moving a physical object, such as their fingertip, in 3D space.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner contended that while Numazaki teaches 3D gesture sensing, its handheld embodiment uses a conventional 2D display. A POSITA would combine DeLuca's 3D display system with Numazaki's handheld device to improve the user experience. This combination would create a more intuitive interaction where the user's 3D gestures directly correspond to actions in a projected 3D application space, a known method for improving user interfaces.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Numazaki (Patent 6,144,366), Peters (Patent 6,243,683).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted Peters taught a camera-based system that uses detected user gestures—such as looking directly at the camera or pointing—to activate or "aid" a speech recognition unit. This gesture analysis determines user intent and expression.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Numazaki expressly states that its gesture recognition technology should serve as a "complement" to speech input. A POSITA would therefore have been expressly motivated to incorporate the teachings of Peters into Numazaki's handheld device. This would allow the device to use visual cues, like a user's facial expression or gaze, as an aid to speech recognition, for example, by activating the microphone only when the user is looking at the device.

Petitioner argued that several terms in claims 7 and 11 invoked 35 U.S.C. §112(f) as means-plus-function limitations.
"camera means ... for obtaining an image" (Claim 7): Petitioner contended this term does not invoke §112(f) because "camera" itself provides sufficient structure. In the alternative, if construed as a means-plus-function term, the corresponding structure is an optical image sensor like those disclosed in the ’431 patent.
"computer means ... for analyzing said image" (Claim 7): Petitioner argued this term required construction under §112(f). The corresponding structure is a processor programmed to perform algorithms disclosed in the specification, such as identifying natural features (e.g., a fingertip) or artificial targets, and tracking their movement.
"means for controlling a function" (Claim 7): Petitioner asserted this is a means-plus-function term with the corresponding structure being a processor programmed to perform specific control algorithms based on the analyzed position or movement of an object.
"means for transmitting information" (Claim 11): Petitioner asserted this is a means-plus-function term with the corresponding structure being at least a cellular transceiver, as described in the ’431 patent.

Petitioner argued strongly against discretionary denial under both the General Plastics and Fintiv factors.
The petition was filed with a motion for joinder to an already-instituted inter partes review (IPR), IPR2021-00920, which challenges a subset of the same claims on similar grounds. Petitioner argued that joinder is efficient and that the General Plastics factors, which guard against repetitive petitions, weigh in favor of institution in this context.
Regarding the Fintiv factors, Petitioner argued that parallel district court litigation should not preclude institution. It noted that the co-pending case against Apple had been stayed pending the outcome of the related IPR. Other related cases were either in early stages, had motions to stay pending, or were unlikely to reach trial before a Final Written Decision in this IPR.

Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-31 of the ’431 patent as unpatentable.