PTAB

IPR2023-00708

Google LLC v. DDC Technology LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Virtual Reality Viewer and Methods
  • Brief Description: The ’184 patent describes a virtual reality (VR) viewer that holds a mobile electronic device, such as a smartphone, and includes an input mechanism for interacting with the device’s touchscreen while it is enclosed. The patent discloses two primary embodiments for the input mechanism: a "passive" electrical version using conductive materials and an "active" mechanical version using a lever and linkage.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1-5 and 7-10 over Kondo

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kondo (JP 3176588).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the ’184 patent’s “passive” electrical embodiment is virtually identical to the VR viewer disclosed in Kondo. Independent claim 1 recites a VR viewer with an enclosure having a first side for lenses and an opposite second side to receive a mobile device, plus a conductive touchscreen input that makes physical contact with the screen upon receipt. Petitioner contended Kondo discloses all of these elements: its "attachment" (enclosure) holds a smartphone (mobile device) on one side and has eyepieces (lenses) on the opposite side. Kondo’s input mechanism uses external buttons conductively coupled via wires to conductive pads that physically contact the smartphone's touchscreen, satisfying the claim limitations.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner asserted that the structure and function of Kondo’s device, which provides remote input to an enclosed touchscreen via a conductive path from an external button, directly anticipates the claimed invention for this set of claims.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 12 and 16-18 over Kondo in view of Chu

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kondo (JP 3176588) and Chu (Application # 2013/0082963).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued this combination renders obvious the ’184 patent’s “active” mechanical embodiment. Kondo provides the foundational VR viewer with an enclosure, lenses, and a slot for a mobile device, as detailed in Ground 1. However, Kondo’s electrical input only works with capacitive touchscreens. Chu addresses the same general problem—actuating a touchscreen on a device inside a housing—but discloses a mechanical actuator with a user input (button) that moves between a first (rest) and second (actuated) position to physically press a probe head against the touchscreen. Petitioner asserted that replacing Kondo’s electrical input with Chu’s mechanical actuator meets the limitations of independent claim 12, including the two-position user input and the touchscreen input making contact in the second position. Dependent claims 17 and 18, which recite a conductive material like foam or polymer, were allegedly met by Chu’s disclosure that its probe pad can be made of rubber (a polymer) with a conductive additive.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Kondo and Chu to improve Kondo’s functionality. The primary motivation was to increase consumer appeal by making the VR viewer compatible with both capacitive and resistive touchscreens, as Chu’s mechanical input works with both, whereas Kondo’s electrical input only works with capacitive screens. Additional motivations included providing a wider range of inputs (e.g., variable pressure, swipes) and creating a more robust, waterproof device, as taught by Chu.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended a POSITA would have a high expectation of success because combining the simple mechanical actuator of Chu with the basic VR viewer structure of Kondo would be a routine modification.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claims 1-5 and 7-10 are also obvious over Kondo alone, arguing that even if Kondo does not anticipate every element, any differences would have been obvious modifications.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Virtual Reality Viewer": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as “A viewer of an artificial environment,” where “viewer” includes both handheld devices and headsets. This construction was based on the patent’s specification, which explicitly states that viewers can be hand-held or worn on a user’s head. Petitioner argued this construction is consistent with the ordinary meaning and a POSITA’s understanding, distinguishing it from augmented reality.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors. The core argument was that the parallel district court litigation was in a very early stage, having been recently transferred to a new venue with no trial date set and minimal investment by the parties or the court. Petitioner contended that because the litigation timeline was uncertain and key milestones like claim construction had not occurred, the factors weighed heavily in favor of institution, serving the public interest by reviewing a compelling unpatentability challenge based on art never before considered by the USPTO.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, and 16-18 of the ’184 patent as unpatentable.