PTAB

IPR2022-00370

Meta Platforms Inc v. EyesMatch Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Devices, Systems and Methods of Capturing and Displaying Appearances
  • Brief Description: The ’481 patent describes an interactive imaging and display station, typically for retail environments, that allows a user to capture an image of their appearance and compare it with their live reflection. The system uses a special "mirror-display device" capable of switching between a reflective "mirror mode" and a "display mode" for showing captured images.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Illsley, Horsten, and New Scientist - Claims 1-3, 8-9, 12-13, 16-18

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Illsley (European Patent App. Pub. EP 1,372,092), Horsten (WO 2003/079318), and New Scientist (a February 2004 article).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Illsley is the primary reference, disclosing an "Interactive Trying-On Cubicle" with all the core components of the challenged system: a mirror, a camera, a display screen, and a controller. This system allows a user to capture an image and later display it for comparison against their live reflection, thus enabling "appearance comparison." While Illsley depicts the mirror and screen as separate, it explicitly suggests they can be combined. Horsten and New Scientist were cited to teach the specifics of a commercially available, integrated mirror-display device (like the Philips MiraVision TV) that is capable of selectably switching between operating as a mirror (when off) and a display (when on). Petitioner contended that combining these teachings renders the limitations of independent claims 1, 12, and 16 obvious. For claim 16's "partitioned mode," Petitioner argued Horsten and New Scientist teach a "picture-in-mirror" capability, and Illsley teaches combining mirrors and screens of different sizes, which would obviously result in a partitioned display.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Illsley’s interactive cubicle with the integrated mirror-display technology from Horsten and New Scientist for several reasons. Integrating the mirror and display into a single unit would simplify the cubicle's design, conserve limited physical space, and provide a better user experience by allowing the user to look at a single location for both reflection and image playback. This integration would also enable a larger effective display area than a separate, smaller screen.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the references are from the analogous art of interactive displays, and the combination involves applying a known type of display (an integrated mirror-TV) to a known system (an interactive try-on cubicle) to achieve predictable benefits.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Illsley, Horsten, New Scientist, and Hoke - Claim 6

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Illsley, Horsten, New Scientist, and Hoke (Patent 7,154,529).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground adds Hoke to the combination from Ground 1 to teach the limitation of dependent claim 6, which requires that the station "comprises a portable device." Hoke discloses a similar appearance-comparison system that expressly teaches using portable components. Specifically, Hoke describes using "removable memory, such as a recordable CD, DVD, floppy, or USB card" and a monitor that can be "wall mounted, portable, or placed on a table or desk."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Hoke's teachings of portability into the Illsley system. Hoke provides the express motivation for a portable memory device, stating that it gives customers the "added advantage of allowing the customers to transfer the files to their personal computers." Incorporating a portable display would make the overall system more modular and easier to maintain.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected as the combination merely incorporates existing, widely available portable memory and display technologies into the base system for their conventional purposes.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Illsley, Horsten, New Scientist, and Fischer - Claim 11

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Illsley, Horsten, New Scientist, and Fischer (WO 2000/022955).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground adds Fischer to the combination from Ground 1 to teach the limitation of dependent claim 11, which requires the displayed image to be a "mirrored image of the appearance." While Petitioner argued Illsley’s figures inherently show a mirrored image, Fischer was introduced for its explicit teaching. Fischer discloses a sales system with a camera and mirror and expressly describes giving the user the option to reproduce recorded images as either a "true image (corresponding to a photograph)" or a "(laterally inverted) mirror image."
    • Motivation to Combine: Fischer provides an express motivation for this feature. It explains that providing a mirrored image is "particularly important for those customers who do not like to see themselves in film or photo, but prefer to look at themselves in the manner of the mirror image they are familiar with." A POSITA would therefore be motivated to implement this feature into the Illsley system to provide a more familiar, enjoyable, and compelling user experience.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because Fischer acknowledges that the technique for lateral inversion (flipping pixels along a vertical axis) is "known per se" and involves only straightforward, basic computerized image manipulation.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §314(a) by asserting that the parallel district court litigation is in its early stages. At the time of filing, the court had not issued any claim construction rulings, and the trial was scheduled nearly two years in the future. Petitioner also stipulated it would not pursue any instituted ground in the litigation.
  • Petitioner further argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) was inappropriate because none of the prior art references relied upon in the petition were cited or considered during the original prosecution of the ’481 patent.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11-13, and 16-18 of the ’481 patent as unpatentable.