PTAB

IPR2022-00362

Google LLC v. Gesture Technology Partners LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Automated Image Capture Based on Gesture Recognition
  • Brief Description: The ’949 patent discloses a portable device that automates image capture. The device uses a dedicated, forward-facing electro-optical sensor to detect a predetermined user gesture and, in response, commands a separate, forward-facing digital camera to capture and store an image.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-18 are obvious over Numazaki in view of Nonaka.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Numazaki (Patent 6,144,366) and Nonaka (Japanese Application Publication JPH4-73631).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Numazaki teaches the core physical structure of the challenged claims: a portable device, such as a laptop, equipped with multiple forward-facing sensors. Numazaki’s embodiments describe using a two-sensor "reflected light extraction unit" for gesture recognition and a separate "visible light photo-detection array" (a CCD camera) for video capture. Petitioner asserted that Nonaka remedies Numazaki's failure to disclose a specific image-capture gesture by teaching a camera system that uses a predetermined motion, such as moving a hand toward the camera, as a "release instruction" to trigger image capture.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to improve the functionality and user experience of Numazaki’s portable, gesture-enabled device. Adding Nonaka's gesture-based image capture command would provide a well-understood, hands-free method to initiate video or still image capture. This combination would offer greater freedom and convenience than conventional timers or physical buttons, achieving the known benefits described in Nonaka by applying a known technique to a similar device.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in this combination. Numazaki already provided the necessary hardware (gesture sensor, image capture sensor, processor) and software framework for associating various gestures with specific commands. Therefore, implementing a new gesture command for an existing function like image capture would be a predictable and straightforward modification for a skilled artisan.

Ground 2: Claims 6, 12, and 17 are obvious over Numazaki in view of Nonaka and in further view of Aviv.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Numazaki (Patent 6,144,366), Nonaka (Japanese Application Publication JPH4-73631), and Aviv (Patent 5,666,157).
  • Core Argument for this Ground: This ground specifically addresses the limitation in dependent claims 6, 12, and 17, which requires the gesture-detecting sensor to have a lower resolution than the digital camera.
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner incorporated all arguments from Ground 1 and added Aviv to the combination. Aviv was argued to explicitly teach a dual-camera surveillance system that uses a "moderate resolution" camera for continuous motion monitoring. Upon detecting a suspicious gesture, the system activates a separate "high resolution" camera to capture a "detailed video signal" of the event.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Aviv's teachings into the Numazaki/Nonaka combination to enhance efficiency and reduce costs, particularly in a portable device. Using a lower-resolution sensor for continuous gesture monitoring is computationally less demanding and more power-efficient. The more power-intensive, higher-resolution sensor would be used only when needed for high-quality image capture. Petitioner contended this is a well-known design principle, and Numazaki itself suggests using "rough reflected light" images for gesture detection to lower costs, aligning perfectly with Aviv's technical and economic rationale.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was asserted to be predictable. Implementing sensors of different resolutions for distinct tasks (e.g., low-resolution monitoring vs. high-resolution capturing) was a common and well-understood engineering trade-off in imaging systems at the time, ensuring a high likelihood of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the claim term "an image" should be construed broadly to encompass both a single still image and a sequence of images, such as a video.
  • This construction was supported by the ’949 patent’s specification, which repeatedly discusses applications in both still photography and "movie making." Petitioner also noted that during prosecution, the applicant distinguished prior art based on the type of gesture detected, not on whether the captured media was a still image versus a video, further supporting a broad construction.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The primary reason provided was that the petition was filed with a motion for joinder to IPR2021-00921, an already-instituted proceeding involving the same patent and substantially identical grounds, which promotes efficiency.
  • Petitioner further asserted that the Fintiv factors favor institution because co-pending district court litigations involving the ’949 patent were either stayed pending the outcome of the earlier IPR or had distant and uncertain trial dates, minimizing any concern of inefficiency or conflicting outcomes between the forums.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-18 of Patent 8,878,949 as unpatentable.