Google LLC v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-00360
• Patent #: 8,553,079
• Filed: December 29, 2021
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Gesture Technology Partners LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-30

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Computer Input Device Using Optical Sensing
• Brief Description: The ’079 patent describes computer input devices that use cameras and light sources to optically sense the position and orientation of a user's body parts, such as a hand, to enable gesture-based control of a computer.

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 a PHOSITA’s knowledge.

• 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 the core limitations of the challenged claims, particularly in its eighth embodiment (Fig. 74), which illustrates a laptop computer. This embodiment included a light source (701) and a photo-detection sensor unit (702), which Petitioner’s expert contended a PHOSITA would understand to be a camera. These components were fixed relative to the keypad and oriented to illuminate a work volume above it, observe a user's hand, and determine gestures like pointing for computer control. Petitioner mapped how Numazaki's system analyzes sequential images (for "click and drag") and detects a pointing gesture, meeting limitations of dependent claims 4 and 5.
  • Motivation to Combine: The "combination" referred to applying a PHOSITA's general knowledge to Numazaki's system. For claim 2 (LED light source), Petitioner argued a PHOSITA would use an LED—a technology explicitly mentioned in Numazaki's other embodiments—to achieve known benefits of intense, instantaneous light emission and lower power consumption, which are highly desirable for a portable device. For claim 7 (target on a user), Petitioner noted Numazaki's discussion that wearing a ring was a known technique to improve detection, and a PHOSITA would accept the minor inconvenience for improved accuracy.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted success was predictable because these modifications involved implementing known techniques (like using LEDs) or accepting known design trade-offs (like wearing a target) to improve a device in a well-understood and foreseeable manner.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Numazaki and Numazaki ’863 - 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 Numazaki taught the base system, while Numazaki ’863—by the same inventor and with a common assignee—disclosed a range-finding input device using a "two-dimensional LED array" to illuminate an operator's hand. This system detected the reflected light to determine distance and was expressly contemplated for use in a "notebook computer or a PDA."
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a POSITA would combine the teachings to improve the primary Numazaki reference. Incorporating the LED array from Numazaki ’863 would enhance the gesture recognition system by enabling more precise distance calculations, a feature Numazaki itself contemplates when discussing extracting 3D shape information. The combination would allow the system to better detect the small hand and finger movements involved in gesture input.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the combination was a straightforward application of a known range-finding technique, described by the same inventor, into a nearly identical system to achieve a predictable improvement in performance.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Numazaki and DeLuca - 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." While Numazaki's laptop embodiment used a conventional 2D display, DeLuca taught a system that "stereoscopically projects a three dimensional object" into a space observable by a user. DeLuca's system used cameras to determine when the user's fingertip intersected with the 3D projected interface.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to modify Numazaki's system by incorporating the 3D display technology from DeLuca to improve the user experience. Since Numazaki's system already detected user gestures in a 3D work volume, making the visual interface itself three-dimensional would create a more intuitive method of interaction, a known goal in the field of human-computer interaction.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be predictable, as Numazaki already contemplated detecting a user's hand in three dimensions. Integrating this 3D detection capability with DeLuca's known method for 3D display projection would have been within the skill set of a PHOSITA.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claim 18 (pinch gesture) is obvious over Numazaki in view of DeLeeuw (Patent 6,088,018), and claim 20 (grip gesture) is obvious over Numazaki in view of Maruno (Patent 6,191,773), relying on motivations to incorporate known, intuitive gesture types for icon manipulation into Numazaki's system.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued strongly that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The primary argument was that this petition is substantively identical to a previously instituted IPR (IPR2021-00922) and was filed with a motion for joinder. Petitioner contended that denying institution would be inefficient, as the Board has already determined the underlying grounds are strong enough for trial.
• Petitioner further analyzed the Fintiv factors, arguing they favor institution. Key points included: (1) no parallel litigation exists between Google and the Patent Owner; (2) for other litigations involving the '079 patent, trial dates are distant or uncertain, and multiple defendants have filed motions to stay pending IPR outcomes; and (3) there is minimal investment in the parallel proceedings on the specific invalidity issues raised in the petition. Petitioner asserted that these circumstances show the IPR is the most efficient forum for resolving the validity dispute.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-30 of the '079 patent as unpatentable.