PTAB

IPR2024-00667

Nintendo Co Ltd v. American GNC Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Microelectromechanical System for Measuring Angular Rate
  • Brief Description: The ’122 patent describes a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) for measuring the angular rate of a carrier. The system includes an angular rate sensor unit, central processing circuitry, and a digital signal processing system that work together to process signals related to dither motion and Coriolis force to determine angular rotation.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Fujiyoshi, Kumar, Cox, and Townsend - Claims 1 and 3 are obvious over Fujiyoshi in view of Kumar, Cox, and Townsend.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fujiyoshi (Patent 5,945,599), Kumar (Patent 5,604,311), Cox (Patent 3,838,346), and Townsend (International Publication No. WO 99/14,557).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Fujiyoshi discloses the core elements of a MEMS angular rate sensor as claimed, including an angular rate sensor unit that outputs dither motion and angle rate signals, and central circuitry that processes these signals within a feedback loop. However, Fujiyoshi does not explicitly teach using certain capacitive pickoff excitation signals or a digital signal processing system. Petitioner contended that Kumar, which describes a vibrating gyro with similar control loop circuitry, teaches using AC or DC carrier signals for capacitive sensing, remedying this gap in Fujiyoshi. Furthermore, Townsend was cited for its teaching of replacing analog control circuitry in gyroscopes with a digital processing unit to improve performance and reduce cost. Petitioner asserted that combining Townsend's digital system with Fujiyoshi's sensor would render the digital signal processing limitation of claim 1 obvious. Cox was introduced to teach the inclusion of a low-pass filter within a sample-and-hold circuit to reduce noise, a known issue that a POSITA would seek to resolve.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Fujiyoshi with Kumar to implement a more detailed and effective capacitive sensing scheme than the high-level one described in Fujiyoshi. The motivation to combine the resulting system with Townsend stemmed from Townsend’s explicit disclosure of the known drawbacks of analog control systems (e.g., difficulty in calibration, cost) and the advantages of a digital implementation. A POSITA would have been motivated to apply Townsend's superior digital control solution to Fujiyoshi's sensor architecture to achieve predictable improvements. The addition of Cox’s teachings would be motivated by the desire to further enhance sensor performance by reducing noise and aliasing, a common goal in the field.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved applying a known digital control technique (Townsend) and a specific capacitive sensing method (Kumar) to a conventional MEMS gyroscope (Fujiyoshi) to solve known problems with predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Mitamura and Townsend - Claims 1 and 3 are obvious over Mitamura and Townsend.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Mitamura (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 9[1997]-42973) and Townsend (International Publication No. WO 99/14,557).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Mitamura, as a primary reference, discloses a complete MEMS angular velocity sensor that meets all limitations of the challenged claims. Mitamura’s system includes an angular rate sensor unit receiving and outputting the required signals, central circuitry for processing those signals, and an arithmetic unit that functions as a signal processing system. Petitioner argued that Mitamura’s arithmetic unit, while described in the context of analog circuitry, would have been obviously implemented as a digital system by a POSITA. To the extent Mitamura alone is insufficient, Petitioner argued that Townsend explicitly teaches replacing analog control loops in gyroscopes with a digital signal processing system. The combination of Mitamura's sensor with Townsend's digital control system would render the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA reviewing Mitamura's analog control circuitry would have been motivated to combine it with Townsend's digital system. Townsend directly addresses the well-known limitations of analog circuits in gyroscopes, such as difficulties with calibration, integration, and noise, and presents a digital implementation as the solution. Therefore, a POSITA would have been motivated to apply Townsend's digital processing unit and associated components (e.g., A/D converters) to Mitamura’s system to improve its performance, lower its cost, and simplify its integration, all of which were known design goals at the time.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination of Mitamura and Townsend would have been a predictable integration of a known sensor design with a state-of-the-art digital control system to achieve expected benefits.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) based on Fintiv is not warranted. The parallel district court litigation is in its early stages, with no claim construction rulings issued and a trial date set far in the future (May 19, 2025). Petitioner also provided a Sotera stipulation, agreeing not to pursue in district court any invalidity grounds that were or reasonably could have been raised in the inter partes review (IPR).
  • Petitioner also contended that denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate because none of the prior art references asserted in the petition were previously presented to or considered by the USPTO during the original prosecution of the ’122 patent.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1 and 3 of Patent 6,508,122 as unpatentable.