PTAB

IPR2022-00360

Google LLC v. Gesture Technology Partners LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and apparatus for determining a gesture
  • Brief Description: The ’079 patent describes computer input devices that use cameras and lights to optically sense human positions and orientations. The system is designed to detect hand gestures performed within a defined work volume above a device like a laptop computer.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Numazaki - Claims 1-2, 4-14, 17, 19, 21-22, 24-28, and 30 are obvious over Numazaki in view of the knowledge of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Numazaki (Patent 6,144,366).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Numazaki discloses the key limitations of the independent claims. Specifically, Numazaki’s eighth embodiment (Fig. 74) teaches a gesture-based input system for a laptop computer. It discloses a light source (701) and a camera, referred to as a "photo-detection sensor unit" (702), positioned above the keyboard. This arrangement creates an illuminated work volume where the camera, fixed relative to the light source, observes a user's hand gestures (e.g., pointing) to control the computer. Petitioner contended that a PHOSITA would have understood Numazaki's sensor unit to be a camera. For dependent claims, Numazaki’s general disclosure teaches using LEDs for the light source (claim 2) and analyzing sequential images to track finger movement (claim 4), thereby rendering these claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): The motivation was to apply the general teachings of Numazaki (e.g., using LEDs for power efficiency, tracking finger movement via pixel changes) to the specific laptop embodiment shown in its Fig. 74. A PHOSITA would have seen this as a simple and beneficial implementation of known techniques within the reference itself to improve the device's performance and portability.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A PHOSITA would have had a high expectation of success because implementing these features involved applying known, conventional camera and lighting technologies as explicitly suggested by Numazaki for the disclosed purpose.

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 focused on the limitation of a "plurality of light emitting diodes." While the primary Numazaki reference suggests a single LED, Numazaki ’863, from the same inventor and assignee, explicitly teaches a data input device using a two-dimensional LED array for range-finding functionality. This array illuminates an operator's hand to detect its distance and position.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A PHOSITA would combine the LED array from Numazaki ’863 with the laptop system of Numazaki to improve gesture recognition. The range-finding capability taught in Numazaki ’863 would allow the system to more accurately calculate distances and detect small finger movements, enhancing the 3D gesture detection already contemplated by the primary Numazaki reference.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Success was predictable because the combination involved applying a known range-finding technique, developed by the same inventor for a nearly identical system, to improve a known function (gesture detection).

Ground 3: Obviousness over Numazaki and DeLeeuw - Claim 18 is 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 addressed the "pinch gesture" limitation of claim 18. Numazaki teaches pointing and "click and drag" operations but does not explicitly disclose a pinch gesture. DeLeeuw teaches a gesture-detection system where a user interacts with a graphical user interface by making physical movements, including explicitly teaching that a user "pinches his or her index finger and thumb" to input a "mouse down event."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a PHOSITA would have been motivated to incorporate DeLeeuw's pinch gesture into Numazaki’s system as an intuitive and predictable way to manipulate on-screen icons. Since Numazaki’s system already possessed the hardware and programming to detect gestures involving multiple fingers, adding a pinch gesture was a minor and logical modification.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A PHOSITA would have expected success because Numazaki’s hardware was already capable of detecting complex hand shapes, making the integration of a pinch gesture a straightforward programming task.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Numazaki with DeLuca (Patent 6,064,354) for its teaching of a three-dimensional display, and combining Numazaki with Maruno (Patent 6,191,773) for its teaching of a "grip gesture." These grounds relied on similar motivations to combine known interface elements to improve user interaction.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The core arguments were that this petition was filed with a motion for joinder to an already instituted inter partes review (IPR), IPR2021-00922, mitigating efficiency concerns. Petitioner also noted that it (Google LLC) is not a defendant in any parallel district court litigation involving the ’079 patent. Furthermore, Petitioner argued that the trial dates in the parallel litigations were either distant or uncertain, with motions to stay pending, weighing heavily against discretionary denial and in favor of institution.

5. Relief Requested

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