PTAB

IPR2025-01512

Luxottica Of America Inc v. E Vision Smart Optics Inc

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Electronic Eyewear with Voice Query Functionality
  • Brief Description: The `’612 patent` relates to eyewear comprising a frame, microphone, speaker, and processor. The system is designed to capture a user's verbal query, transmit it to an external device which then searches a computer network for a response, and audibly present that response to the user via the speaker.

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 configuration of the claimed eyewear, teaching a frame with an integrated microphone, speaker, and processor that functions as a wireless headset for a cellular phone. This system was asserted to meet all limitations of independent claim 1 except for the final step where the external device searches a computer network. Petitioner contended that Gruber, which describes Apple's Siri intelligent assistant, supplies this missing element. Gruber discloses that a user can interact with a smartphone via a Bluetooth headset to speak verbal queries, which causes the smartphone to search a computer network (the Internet) to find and provide a response.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Howell’s wireless headset eyewear with Gruber’s Siri-enabled smartphone to achieve the well-known and desirable result of hands-free, voice-activated information retrieval. The motivation was argued to be explicit, as Howell teaches using its device as a wireless headset and Gruber teaches using its assistant with wireless headsets.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success, as the combination represented a simple substitution of a known type of external device (Gruber's smartphone) for the one disclosed in Howell, using conventional wireless protocols to achieve a predictable and already-demonstrated function.

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 argued that Jannard-740 alone renders all claims obvious. Jannard-740 was said to disclose eyewear with a detachable wireless electronics module containing a speaker, microphone, power supply, and processor. This system communicates with external devices (e.g., a smartphone) and remote sources (e.g., the Internet) and supports a "multitude of commands" via voice control to select and receive content. Petitioner asserted this disclosure teaches all claimed elements, including transmitting a verbal query to an external device that in turn obtains responsive content from a network source like the Internet.
    • Motivation to Combine: While this ground is based on a single reference, Petitioner argued that to the extent an explicit network "search" is not disclosed, a POSITA would have been motivated to implement it. Given Jannard-740’s disclosure of interacting with internet content sources via voice, causing the connected external device to perform a search for that content was argued to be an obvious and predictable implementation.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in implementing the network search functionality, as it involved applying a known technique (using a phone to search the internet for content) to improve Jannard-740's disclosed system in a straightforward manner.

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 contended that Osterhout discloses augmented reality eyewear with all necessary components, including a microphone, earbuds, microprocessor, and wireless communication capabilities. The system allows a wearer to use voice commands to "retrieve information" from a remote database that is "accessible over the Internet." Petitioner argued that this system inherently or obviously includes transmitting the verbal query to an intermediary external device (such as an application server, as shown in Osterhout) that searches a computer network to access the database, retrieves the information, and returns it to the eyepiece for presentation to the user.
    • Motivation to Combine: The argument did not rely on a combination. Instead, Petitioner asserted that the claimed functionality is an inherent or obvious implementation of the network-connected system described by Osterhout. The use of an external device or server to process the query and search the network was presented as a routine and necessary architecture for such a system at the time.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have understood Osterhout's system to operate in the claimed manner and would have had a high expectation of success in implementing it.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining the Howell/Gruber system with Jannard-740's electronic lens technology, and separately adding Gruber's network-searching intelligent assistant functionality to the eyewear systems disclosed by Jannard-740 and Osterhout.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-27 of the `’612 patent` as unpatentable.