Google LLC v. Gesture Technology Partners LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-00361
• Patent #: 8,194,924
• Filed: January 6, 2022
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Gesture Technology Partners LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-14

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method and Apparatus for Light-Based Ranging and 3D Interaction
• Brief Description: The ’924 patent describes computer devices that optically sense human input using one or more cameras. The claimed invention is a handheld device with two cameras having non-overlapping fields of view, one oriented toward the user and one toward an object, which performs a control function based on camera output.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: 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 (PDA or wristwatch) with a housing, an internal computer, a first user-facing camera, and a second world-facing camera with a non-overlapping field of view. Mann’s device used touch-based input on its screen to control functions like recording. Numazaki taught using a camera on a similar handheld device (PDA or wristwatch) to recognize non-touch gestures performed by a user’s finger in front of the device to control a cursor. Petitioner contended that implementing Numazaki’s non-touch gesture control system in Mann’s dual-camera device would render the claimed invention obvious.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Mann and Numazaki for several reasons. First, modifying Mann’s device to use Numazaki’s non-touch gesture recognition would improve its primary function of covert recording, as non-touch gestures are less conspicuous than physically touching a device’s screen. Second, Numazaki expressly taught that its method prevents the user’s finger from obstructing the display during input, a known problem that a POSITA would have sought to solve in Mann’s touch-based system. Finally, using non-touch gestures would avoid smudging the user-facing camera lens on Mann's wristwatch, which is located on the touch-sensitive watch face.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because both Mann and Numazaki described similar hardware platforms (PDAs and wristwatches) with user-facing cameras. The combination would require a straightforward hardware substitution and software update to add Numazaki's gesture detection routines to Mann's device.

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

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Mann, Numazaki, and Amir (Patent 6,539,100).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Mann and Numazaki from Ground 1. Petitioner argued that Amir taught a camera-based system that improves image quality by conditioning image capture on detecting a subject's facial features, specifically pupil detection to ensure the subject’s eyes are open. The dependent claims challenged in this ground require determining a facial expression, position/orientation of an object, object recognition, and determining a reference frame. Petitioner asserted that Amir’s system, which detects pupil pairs to determine face position, blinking, and head expressions, directly taught these limitations.
  • Motivation to Combine: Given the investigative journalism purpose of Mann's device, a POSITA would be motivated to ensure any captured images were of high quality and clearly showed the subject's facial features. Amir taught a known technique to improve image quality by ensuring the subject was facing the camera with eyes open. A POSITA would combine Amir's pupil-detection functionality with the Mann/Numazaki device to improve its core function.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was predictable because Amir taught its technology could be implemented as compact logic circuitry, making it well-suited for integration into Mann's handheld PDA and wristwatch embodiments.

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

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Mann, Numazaki, and Aviv (Patent 5,666,157).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground also built upon the combination of Mann and Numazaki. It further added Aviv, which taught a surveillance system that automatically triggers recording upon detecting certain pre-defined gestures indicative of criminal intent performed by a subject (a person other than the user). Petitioner argued that this combination taught the limitations of claims 6 and 9, which require determining a gesture performed by a person other than the user to control the device.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have recognized that the utility of Mann's surreptitious monitoring device would be improved by automatically starting the recording process when suspicious conduct is detected, rather than requiring the user to manually trigger it. This would make the device more user-friendly and effective at capturing important events. Aviv provided a known method for such automatic, gesture-based activation.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in implementing Aviv's functionality, as Mann's world-facing camera was already well-suited for monitoring a subject for gestures. The combination involved applying a known technique (automatic gesture-triggered recording) to improve a similar device (a covert camera system), which would have been a predictable modification.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate primarily because this petition was filed with a motion for joinder to an already-instituted IPR (IPR2021-00923). Petitioner asserted that the Fintiv analysis was already conducted and resolved in favor of institution for the identical grounds in the earlier IPR. Additionally, Petitioner noted that the parallel district court case against Apple Inc. had been stayed, other related litigations had pending motions to stay, and Google was not a party to any parallel proceeding, all of which weigh strongly against discretionary denial.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-14 of the ’924 patent as unpatentable.