PTAB

IPR2023-00711

Google LLC v. DDC Technology LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Virtual Reality Viewer with Mechanical Input Mechanism
  • Brief Description: The ’001 patent discloses a virtual reality (VR) viewer apparatus designed to hold a mobile electronic device, such as a smartphone. The invention is directed to a mechanical input mechanism that allows a user to physically interact with the device’s touchscreen while it is enclosed within the viewer’s housing.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-30 are obvious over Kondo in view of Chu.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kondo (JP3176588) and Chu (Application # 2013/0082963).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Kondo and Chu discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Kondo taught a VR viewer apparatus for holding a smartphone, including a housing, multiple lenses for stereoscopic viewing, and an externally accessible input device to interact with the phone’s screen. However, Kondo’s input mechanism was electrical, designed for capacitive touchscreens. The Petitioner contended that the Examiner allowed the ’001 patent because the cited prior art allegedly lacked a key feature: a mechanical "contact element moveable within the interior of the housing between at least a first position and a second position" to generate a touch event. Petitioner asserted that Chu, which was not before the Examiner, explicitly teaches this missing element. Chu discloses a mechanical actuator for a waterproof phone housing where a probe head (the contact element) is moveable from a first, non-contacting position to a second, screen-contacting position in response to a user pressing an external button. Therefore, a POSITA would arrive at the claimed invention by replacing Kondo’s electrical input with Chu’s well-known mechanical input mechanism.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner presented several motivations for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to combine the teachings of Kondo and Chu. The primary motivation was to increase product usability and market appeal. At the time of the invention, both capacitive and resistive touchscreens were common. Kondo’s electrical input works only with capacitive screens, whereas Chu’s mechanical input, which relies on physical pressure, works with both. A POSITA would combine Chu’s mechanism with Kondo’s viewer to create a single product compatible with a wider range of smartphones. Additional motivations included:
      • Enhanced Functionality: Chu’s mechanical system allows for more nuanced inputs than Kondo’s binary electrical button, such as detecting different levels of pressure or performing swipe gestures, which would provide more functionality to the VR viewer.
      • Improved Durability: Chu’s input mechanism is designed to be waterproof. Incorporating it into Kondo’s viewer would make the resulting device more robust and resistant to damage from environmental factors like water, dirt, and dust.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that a POSITA would have a high expectation of success in making this combination. Both Kondo and Chu disclose simple, predictable mechanical devices. Integrating Chu’s straightforward mechanical button and probe assembly into Kondo’s VR viewer housing would be a routine modification requiring little to no invention or undue experimentation.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Virtual Reality Viewer Apparatus: This term, appearing in claim 30, was not explicitly defined in the ’001 patent. Petitioner proposed its plain and ordinary meaning, construed as "A viewer of an artificial environment," where "viewer" encompasses 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.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) based on Fintiv factors would be improper. The co-pending district court litigation had recently been transferred to a new venue (NDTX to NDCA), and consequently, no trial date was scheduled, and the court and parties had made no substantial investment in the case. Petitioner asserted that these factors weigh heavily in favor of institution. Furthermore, Petitioner argued that the challenge presents a compelling case of unpatentability based on prior art (Kondo and Chu) that was never considered by the USPTO during the original prosecution, which serves the public interest in canceling invalid patent claims.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-30 of Patent 11,093,001 as unpatentable.