PTAB

IPR2024-00980

Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co Ltd v. CLO Virtual Fashion Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for Measuring Measurements of Two-Dimensional Pattern Corresponding to Three-Dimensional Virtual Clothing
  • Brief Description: The ’448 relates to a computer-aided design (CAD) system for creating virtual clothing. The invention describes a method and apparatus for measuring the distance between separate two-dimensional (2D) clothing pattern pieces within a design interface, where the displayed measurement value changes dynamically to account for the separation between the pieces.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-4 and 14-18 are obvious over Grinspun in view of Graphicxtras.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Grinspun (Application # 2014/0114620) and Graphicxtras (a July 10, 2014 YouTube video demonstrating Adobe Photoshop CC features).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Grinspun disclosed a CAD system for interactive garment design that simultaneously displayed 2D flat patterns and a corresponding 3D draped representation. Grinspun’s system allowed a user to create, edit, and reposition multiple 2D pattern pieces in a design window. However, Petitioner contended Grinspun lacked a mechanism to display real-time distance measurements between these pieces. Petitioner asserted that Graphicxtras taught this missing element by demonstrating the "Smart Guide" feature in Adobe Photoshop CC. This feature provided users with onscreen, real-time measurement information showing the spacing between different 2D objects as they were moved within a design interface.

    • Petitioner mapped the combination to independent claim 1 by arguing that Grinspun’s system provided the foundational 2D clothing pattern environment. Integrating Graphicxtras’s Smart Guide feature would allow the system to receive a plurality of points (e.g., on the edges of two distinct pattern pieces) and determine attributes indicating the points are located on different pattern pieces. As a user repositions one pattern piece relative to another, the system would determine a length of a line segment that is "changed to account for separation between the pattern pieces" and output that changing length on the display, as taught by Graphicxtras. Petitioner asserted this combination rendered the independent claims (1, 15, 16) and the dependent claims obvious.

    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references to solve a known problem. Grinspun’s interface, which allowed users to organize multiple pattern pieces, would be predictably improved by incorporating the real-time measurement guides from Graphicxtras. This modification would enhance the user interface by allowing for more precise and efficient positioning of garment patterns. Petitioner argued this combination represented the application of a known technique (dynamic measurement guides) to improve a similar system (a 2D design canvas), which is a recognized motivation for combination. The feature would facilitate common design tasks like creating symmetric patterns or ensuring uniform spacing.

    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. The integration involved adding a well-known software function (the Smart Guide feature) into a standard CAD interface. Both Grinspun and Graphicxtras operated in similar 2D design environments and utilized conventional user inputs like mouse movements. Therefore, implementing the real-time measurement functionality would have required only routine skill and would have been expected to function as intended without significant modification or undue experimentation.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on Fintiv factors is not warranted. To mitigate concerns about parallel proceedings in district court, Petitioner stated it has provided the Patent Owner with a Sotera stipulation, agreeing not to pursue the same invalidity grounds in the parallel litigation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4 and 14-18 of the ’448 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.