PTAB

IPR2022-00489

Meta Platforms Inc v. EyesMatch Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Devices, Systems and Methods of Capturing and Displaying Appearances
  • Brief Description: The ’109 patent discloses systems for making a computer-based flat panel display function as a virtual mirror. The system uses a camera to capture a user’s image and a processor to digitally manipulate the image so that its display on a monitor mimics a conventional mirror reflection.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, and 17 are obvious over Rosenberg in view of Francois, Vidunas, Dunton, and Yong.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Rosenberg (Application # US 2007/0040033), Francois (a 2003 conference proceeding), Vidunas (Patent 8,587,653), Dunton (Patent 6,512,541), and Yong (Patent 8,264,587).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Rosenberg taught the foundational system of claim 1: a "digital mirror system" with a monitor, camera, and processor that captures real-time video, flips the image horizontally ("left-right inverted"), and scales it to create a life-size "mirror-mimicking image." To supply the more detailed "transformation mapping" and "resizing" limitations, Petitioner combined Rosenberg with Francois. Francois disclosed specific transformation equations to convert a camera's viewpoint to a user's viewpoint, creating a more convincing mirror simulation. These equations expressly included scaling the image based on the user's distance (d) from the display to reduce size variations, thereby teaching the resizing limitation. Petitioner further added Vidunas, which taught cropping scaled-up images to fit a display and reduce processing load, an allegedly obvious step for implementing Francois's resizing. Finally, for the limitation of "varying rate... according to the distance," Petitioner relied on Dunton and Yong. These references taught increasing video frame rate when the amount of data per frame is reduced. Petitioner contended that as a user moves farther away, the system of Rosenberg and Francois would require more scaling and thus more cropping (per Vidunas), reducing the image data. This data reduction would make it obvious to increase the frame rate, as taught by Dunton and Yong.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Rosenberg with Francois to improve upon Rosenberg’s basic system with Francois’s more sophisticated and mathematically defined transformations for a more realistic mirror effect. Vidunas would be added to address the predictable need to fit a resized image onto a fixed-size display and to improve system efficiency. A POSITA would then incorporate the teachings of Dunton and Yong to further improve video quality and performance by increasing the frame rate when computational resources were freed up by the data reduction from cropping.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that combining these known image processing techniques—flipping, scaling, cropping, and frame rate adjustment—involved no technological incompatibility and would have been achievable with a reasonable expectation of success.

Ground 2: Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, and 17 are obvious over Rosenberg in view of Francois and Vidunas, in further view of Suzuki.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Rosenberg (Application # US 2007/0040033), Francois (a 2003 conference proceeding), Vidunas (Patent 8,587,653), and Suzuki (Patent 8,264,573).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground relied on Rosenberg, Francois, and Vidunas for the same limitations as described in Ground 1. For the limitation of "varying rate... according to the distance," this ground substituted Suzuki for Dunton and Yong. Suzuki taught increasing a video’s frame rate in response to a zoom-in operation, which makes an object appear closer to the camera. Petitioner argued this was analogous to a user physically moving closer to the mirror display.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add Suzuki’s teachings to the base combination to improve video quality for users who are closer to the display. Suzuki provided the express rationale that a higher frame rate is desirable for capturing the finer details of close-up images, such as facial expressions. This presented an alternative, compelling motivation for varying the frame rate based on user distance—increasing it when the user is closer to improve detail, as opposed to the resource-optimization rationale of Ground 1.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that altering a system's frame rate was a well-known technique, and a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing Suzuki’s teachings to increase the frame rate when a user was detected at a closer distance.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under both §314(a) (Fintiv) and §325(d).
  • Fintiv Factors: Petitioner contended that the parallel district court litigation was in its early stages, with a trial not scheduled until October 2023, well after a Final Written Decision (FWD) would be due. Petitioner also stated its intent to stipulate that it would not pursue in the litigation any invalidity ground that is instituted in this IPR.
  • §325(d) Factors: Petitioner asserted that the primary references relied upon in the petition (Francois, Vidunas, Dunton, Yong, and Suzuki) were never before the Examiner during prosecution. While Rosenberg was cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), it was submitted after the Notice of Allowance and was never applied in any rejection. Petitioner argued that because the Examiner never considered these references, particularly in the combinations presented, the petition raised new, non-cumulative arguments that warrant review.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, and 17 of the ’109 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.