PTAB

IPR2023-01023

Meta Platforms Inc v. Eight KHZ LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wearable Electronic Device Displays a 3D Zone From Where Binaural Sound Emanates
  • Brief Description: The ’509 patent relates to systems and methods for virtual and augmented reality environments. The technology uses a handheld portable electronic device (PED) to define a virtual "zone" around a user, who is wearing a wearable electronic device (WED) on their head, and to manage multiple sound localization points (SLPs) that generate 3D binaural sound within that zone.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-14 and 17-20 are obvious over Pedrotti in view of Jang and Begault.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Pedrotti (Patent 9,851,786), Jang (Patent 8,520,872), and Begault (a 2000 NASA technical memorandum).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Pedrotti taught the foundational concepts of the challenged claims, including using a handheld controller (the PED) and a head-mounted display (HMD, the WED) to define a "safe area" or "zone" in a virtual environment. Pedrotti's system provided visual warnings, such as a "virtual fence," when a user approached the zone's boundary. However, Pedrotti lacked specific teachings on advanced audio implementation. Petitioner asserted that Jang supplied the teachings for generating realistic, 3D binaural sound via Head-Related Transfer Functions (HRTFs) within defined "sound areas," which could be divided into "focus" and "un-focus" regions. Begault was cited to further detail the creation and user-controlled arrangement of these spatialized sound sources (SLPs) in a virtual space, including user interaction like pointing to select and highlight sound sources.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), starting with Pedrotti's visual "safe area" system, would combine it with the well-known audio processing techniques of Jang and Begault to create a more immersive and realistic user experience. Since Pedrotti's system already involved sight and sound, improving the audio component with established spatialization techniques was argued to be a predictable design choice to enhance the user's sense of presence.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved implementing known software techniques (Jang's and Begault's audio processing) on known VR hardware (Pedrotti's HMD and controllers). Petitioner contended this would predictably result in an immersive VR environment that included spatialized audio within a defined safety zone, making success highly likely.

Ground 2: Claims 1-14 and 17-20 are obvious over McCulloch in view of Pedrotti and Flaks.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: McCulloch (Patent 9,041,622), Pedrotti (Patent 9,851,786), and Flaks (Patent 8,767,968).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that McCulloch taught a comprehensive augmented reality (AR) system comprising an HMD, controllers, and an integrated 3D audio engine for rendering virtual objects with associated binaural sound. This audio engine explicitly incorporated the teachings of Flaks for generating 3D audio signals. McCulloch also taught the general concept of identifying boundaries for a "playspace." The petition introduced Pedrotti for its more advantageous and detailed method of allowing a user to physically define a "safe area" boundary to prevent collisions with real-world objects, a known hazard in immersive environments.
    • Motivation to Combine: Although McCulloch's system provided an immersive AR experience, it faced the common problem of potential user injury from collisions. A POSITA would be motivated to integrate Pedrotti's superior "chaperone" or "virtual fence" boundary system into McCulloch's platform to enhance user safety. This combination would solve a known problem without disrupting the immersive experience.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in this combination because McCulloch's system already possessed all the necessary hardware (HMD, controllers, processors) and functionality (defining a "playspace") to implement Pedrotti's "safe area" method. Petitioner argued the integration would be a routine combination of known elements with known functions to improve a similar device in a known way.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should reach the merits of the petition and not exercise discretionary denial under §314(a) or §325(d). The core reasons asserted were that the prior art references relied upon in the petition were not cited or relied upon during the original prosecution of the ’509 patent. Additionally, Petitioner noted that the co-pending district court case, Eight kHz v. Meta Platforms, is at an early stage with a motion to transfer pending, and argued that the Fintiv factors therefore weigh against denial.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-14 and 17-20 of Patent 10,798,509 as unpatentable.