PTAB

IPR2026-00143

Apple Inc v. IngenioSpec LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wearable Devices
  • Brief Description: The ’599 patent discloses wearable devices, such as eyeglasses, that function as wireless headsets. The technology aims to integrate audio communication and listening functionality directly into the wearable device to limit the user's need to interact with a separate portable device.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-7, 10, 11, and 24 are obvious over Jannard in view of Burson.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Jannard (Patent 10,222,617) and Burson (Patent 6,923,688).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Jannard taught the core elements of independent claim 1, including a wireless wearable device in the form of eyeglasses with speakers, a rechargeable battery, and an electrical connector with at least two conductive areas for charging. However, Petitioner contended that Jannard did not explicitly disclose that the conductive areas couple to an external charger via spring-force. Burson allegedly supplied this missing limitation by teaching a charging interface for a portable wireless headset that uses spring-loaded contacts in a docking cradle. This mechanism allows a user to "simply drop the headset into [the] cradle" to establish a reliable electrical connection for recharging, which is the same function required by the claims. The combination of Jannard’s eyeglass system with Burson’s spring-force connector was argued to render the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Jannard and Burson to supply implementation details missing from Jannard. Jannard described a recharging cradle but provided no specifics on how the power contacts engage. Burson, which addressed the analogous problem of conveniently charging a wearable headset, provided a well-understood solution. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Burson’s spring-loaded contacts to improve the reliability and ease of use of Jannard's charging system, making the connection more tolerant of misalignment and protecting the device from damage.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved applying a known connector technology (spring-loaded contacts) from one wearable audio device (Burson's headset) to another (Jannard's eyeglasses) to achieve a predictable improvement in charging convenience.

Ground 2: Claim 8 is obvious over Jannard in view of Burson and Zadesky.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Jannard (Patent 10,222,617), Burson (Patent 6,923,688), and Zadesky (Patent 7,046,230).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the combination of Jannard and Burson from Ground 1 and adds Zadesky to address the limitations of claim 8, which required a touch-sensitive input surface and a storage medium with code for identifying a "sliding user-input action." While Jannard disclosed a generic touchpad for user control, it did not detail its specific functionality. Petitioner argued Zadesky taught a portable media player with a touchpad configured to recognize sliding finger motions for functions like scrolling through lists or changing volume. The combination of Jannard's device with Zadesky's sliding input functionality was asserted to render claim 8 obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Zadesky with the Jannard/Burson device to provide specific, advantageous user input methods that Jannard's disclosure lacked. Zadesky described how sliding input on a touchpad offers "numerous" advantages, including faster, more intuitive, and ergonomic control. These benefits would be particularly valuable for Jannard’s eyeglass form factor, where the user may not be able to see the touchpad while wearing the device.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved integrating a known software feature (sliding input detection) with a known hardware component (a touchpad on a portable device), both of which were common in the art. A POSITA would have reasonably expected to successfully implement Zadesky’s control methods using the processor and user controls already disclosed in Jannard.

Ground 3: Claims 1-7, 14-15, 20, and 24 are obvious over Griffin.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Griffin (Patent 7,313,423).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Griffin, by itself, rendered the claims obvious. Griffin disclosed a wireless wearable communication system comprising a primary device (like a cell phone) and a detachable secondary module (an earbud) that fits in the user's ear. Petitioner mapped the earbud to the claimed "wireless wearable device." Griffin's earbud included a speaker, microphone, rechargeable power source, and charging terminals. Crucially, Griffin taught that "springs or otherwise elastically-biased protrusions" could be used to couple the earbud's charging terminals to the primary device for recharging. Petitioner asserted this disclosure met the key "spring-force" limitation of the claims.
    • Key Aspects: This ground asserted that a single prior art reference taught every element of the independent claims. Petitioner contended the examiner overlooked Griffin during prosecution, which was flawed due to an incorrect priority date analysis and unduly narrow search terms limited to "glasses."

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on other combinations. These included adding Zadesky (touch controls) and/or Abreu (wear/pressure sensors, magnetic attachments) to the primary combinations of Jannard/Burson or Griffin to meet the limitations of the remaining dependent claims (e.g., claims 9, 12-13, 16-19, 21-23, and 25).

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-25 of the ’599 patent as unpatentable.