PTAB

IPR2025-00743

Meta Platforms Inc v. Mullen Industries LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wireless Devices with Flexible Monitors and Keyboards
  • Brief Description: The ’716 patent relates to portable and head-mounted devices with improved display and input components. The specification describes systems, such as virtual bifocals in a head-mounted device (HMD), that allow a user to interact with a virtual world while also working in the actual world, and contemplates using a head-mounted camera to capture and display images.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 16 and 18 are obvious over Ronzani in view of Horton and Ohshima.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ronzani (Application # 2002/0163486), Horton (Patent 5,615,132), and Ohshima (Patent 6,951,515).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ronzani, the primary reference, discloses the foundational head-mounted device (HMD) comprising a power source, manual input, processor, and mounting structures. Petitioner asserted that Horton teaches adding a head-mounted movement sensor (specifically, an accelerometer) to track a user's head movement in virtual reality applications, fulfilling that limitation in claim 16. Ohshima was argued to teach the remaining key features of claim 16: a mixed-reality HMD system for a video game that displays (1) a "first virtual object" (a virtual bullet) controlled by manual input from a gun-shaped controller, and (2) a "second virtual object" (a virtual spaceman) controlled autonomously by the game's processor. Ohshima also discloses a head-mounted camera that captures the real-world view and displays it simultaneously with these virtual objects. Claim 18, which depends on claim 16, was argued to be obvious for the same reasons.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references to improve upon Ronzani’s general-purpose HMD. A POSITA would incorporate Horton's well-known motion-tracking technology to make Ronzani's device suitable for the virtual reality applications Ronzani suggests. To implement the "entertainment purposes" Ronzani also contemplates, a POSITA would naturally look to a specific gaming system like Ohshima to provide engaging features, such as the combination of user-controlled and autonomously controlled virtual objects, which Ohshima explicitly teaches makes a game "more fun to play."
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success because the combination involved integrating known components for their established purposes. Ronzani's system was described as a flexible, expandable platform, and Horton's accelerometers were designed for easy integration into electronic systems. Implementing Ohshima’s game logic on Ronzani’s disclosed processor was argued to be a straightforward application of known software principles.

Ground 2: Claims 1 and 8 are obvious over Ronzani in view of Horton, Natoli, and Peli.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ronzani (Application # 2002/0163486), Horton (Patent 5,615,132), Natoli (Patent 6,388,657), and Peli (Patent 6,611,618).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground challenged a different set of claims using a different combination of art. Petitioner again used Ronzani as the base reference for a head-wearable device with a housing, speaker, and microphone, and Horton to add a movement sensor with an accelerometer. Petitioner relied on Natoli to teach displaying a "virtual object" in the form of a virtual keyboard on a semi-transparent HMD, allowing the user to simultaneously view the keyboard and the real world. Peli was introduced to teach the use of a head-mounted camera (e.g., an infrared camera) pointed in the user's field-of-vision to capture an image of the real world and display it on the HMD, thereby enhancing the user's view. Petitioner argued this combination teaches displaying the camera's image simultaneously with the virtual object (the keyboard from Natoli). Claim 8, which adds a second display for the other eye, was argued to be obvious as both Ronzani and Peli disclose dual-display embodiments.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to improve the user interface and functionality of the Ronzani/Horton HMD. Ronzani suggests using a "virtual keyboard" but provides no implementation details. A POSITA would look to Natoli for a specific, known method of implementing a virtual keyboard on a see-through display to create a smaller, more portable input system. Furthermore, to enhance the utility of Ronzani's camera, a POSITA would be motivated by Peli’s teachings to use the camera feed for image enhancement, improving user visibility in low-light conditions or for those with impaired vision—an application for which Peli expressly states its technology is well-suited.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was reasonably expected as the proposed modifications involved combining known technologies to enhance a base system. Ronzani's disclosure of a flexible architecture with CPU, sensor modules, and video inputs would provide a straightforward platform for implementing Natoli's virtual keyboard and Peli's camera-based image enhancement techniques.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §314(a) and the Fintiv factors, asserting that the co-pending district court litigation is in a very early stage, with a trial date more than two years away. Petitioner also noted a pending motion to transfer venue could further delay the trial.
  • Petitioner further argued that denial under §325(d) is unwarranted because the asserted grounds rely on new combinations of prior art that were not cited or considered during the original prosecution of the ’716 patent.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 8, 16, and 18 of the ’716 patent as unpatentable.