PTAB

IPR2025-01512

Luxottica Of America Inc v. E Vision Smart Optics Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Electronic Eyewear with Voice Query Functionality
  • Brief Description: The ’612 patent describes electronic eyewear capable of receiving a verbal query from a wearer, transmitting the query to an external device (e.g., a smartphone), and audibly presenting a response obtained by the external device searching a computer network.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Howell and Gruber - Claims 1-13 and 15-27 are obvious over Howell in view of Gruber.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Howell (Application # 2006/0023158) and Gruber (Application # 2012/0016678).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Howell discloses the physical hardware required by claim 1: eyewear with a frame, a coupled speaker, a microphone, and a processor configured to function as a wireless headset for a cellular phone. Petitioner contended that Howell teaches all limitations of claim 1 except for the specific function where the external device searches a computer network for a response. Gruber allegedly supplied this missing element by disclosing Apple's Siri, an intelligent assistant on a smartphone that receives voice queries from a Bluetooth headset, searches the internet for information (e.g., weather), and provides a response.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine Howell's wireless headset eyewear with Gruber's Siri-enabled smartphone. The motivation stemmed from the commonplace desire to use a headset for hands-free interaction with a phone's advanced features, which was an express purpose of headsets like Howell's and a known functionality for Siri as disclosed in Gruber. Combining the two would have been a simple substitution of Gruber's advanced phone for the basic cellular phone contemplated by Howell, yielding the predictable result of hands-free, voice-driven internet queries.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because combining a standard wireless headset with a smartphone was a well-established and routine practice by the patent's priority date, yielding predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Jannard-740 - Claims 1-27 are obvious over Jannard-740.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Jannard-740 (Application # 2012/0105740).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Jannard-740, by itself, discloses or suggests all limitations of the challenged claims. Jannard-740 described eyewear with a detachable electronics module containing a speaker, microphone, processor, and wireless transceiver for communicating with an external device like a cellular phone or computer. Petitioner argued this system allowed a wearer to use verbal commands to select and receive content (e.g., news, media) from sources including the internet. The eyewear processor transmitted the verbal query to the external device, which in turn communicated with a remote source (the internet) via a "wireless data network" to retrieve the requested content and provide it back to the wearer through the speaker.
    • Motivation to Combine (or Modify): Although this is a single-reference ground, Petitioner argued that even if Jannard-740 did not explicitly disclose the "searching" step, it would have been obvious to implement it. A POSITA would have been motivated to use the disclosed voice-control functionality and internet connectivity to perform internet searches for specific content, as this represented a simple addition of a known technique (internet search) to Jannard-740's system to achieve predictable results and improve its functionality.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success in implementing a search function, as it would involve, at most, limited and well-understood software updates to leverage the existing hardware and network capabilities described in Jannard-740.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Osterhout - Claims 1-18 and 23-26 are obvious over Osterhout.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Osterhout (Application # 2011/0214082).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Osterhout discloses eyewear with a frame, ear buds (speakers), a microphone, and a microprocessor. The system was designed for hands-free control, allowing a wearer to use voice commands to "call upon the augmented reality eyepiece to retrieve information." Petitioner argued that Osterhout discloses transmitting this verbal query to an external device, such as a remote database or application server accessible over the internet, which then searches for the requested information and returns it to the eyepiece for presentation to the user.
    • Motivation to Combine (or Modify): Similar to the Jannard-740 ground, Petitioner argued that Osterhout's disclosure of an internet-connected system for information retrieval inherently suggests or makes obvious the claimed functionality. A POSITA reading Osterhout's disclosure of using voice commands to access a remote, internet-accessible database would understand this process to involve transmitting the query to an external device that then searches a computer network to obtain the response.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because implementing this functionality was a routine application of Osterhout's disclosed network technology and voice command architecture.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Howell/Gruber with Jannard-740 to add electronic lenses (Ground 3), combining Osterhout with Jannard-740 for similar reasons (Ground 5), and adding Gruber's network search functionality to the systems of Jannard-740 and Osterhout (Ground 6).

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-27 of Patent 11,971,612 as unpatentable.