Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`No. 23-1501, -1554
`
`
`
`IN THE
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Appellant,
`LG ELECTRONICS INC., LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., GOOGLE LLC,
`Appellees,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS LLC,
`Cross-Appellant.
`
`On Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`Nos. IPR2021-00921, IPR2022-00092, and IPR2022-00362
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANT APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`Adam P. Seitz
`Clifford T. Brazen
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`7015 College Blvd., Suite 700
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`
`Paul R. Hart
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`5299 DTC Blvd., Suite 1340
`Greenwood Village, CO 80111
`
`
`Robbie Manhas
`Melanie L. Bostwick
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
` SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1152 15th Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 339-8400
`
`Counsel for Appellant
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`CLAIM LANGUAGE AT ISSUE
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949, Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 13, 18
`1. A portable device comprising:
`a device housing including a forward-facing portion, the forward
`facing portion of the device housing encompassing an electro-
`optical sensor … and including a digital camera separate from the
`electro-optical sensor …
`4. The portable device of claim 1 wherein the electro-optical sensor is
`fixed in relation to the digital camera.
`
`8. A computer implemented method comprising:
`providing a portable device including a forward facing portion
`encompassing a digital camera and an electro-optical sensor …
`11. The method according to claim 8 wherein the electro-optical sensor
`includes first and second sensors in fixed relation relative to the digital
`camera.
`
`13. An image capture device comprising:
`
`
`a device housing including a forward facing portion, the
`forwarding facing portion encompassing a digital camera … and
`encompassing a sensor …
`
`
`18. The image capture device of claim 13 wherein the sensor is fixed in
`relation to the digital camera.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`Form 9 (p. 1)
`March 2023
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Case Number
`Short Case Caption
`Filing Party/Entity
`
`23-1501, -1554
`Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC
`Apple Inc.
`
`Instructions:
`
`1. Complete each section of the form and select none or N/A if appropriate.
`
`2. Please enter only one item per box; attach additional pages as needed, and
`check the box to indicate such pages are attached.
`
`3. In answering Sections 2 and 3, be specific as to which represented entities
`the answers apply; lack of specificity may result in non-compliance.
`
`4. Please do not duplicate entries within Section 5.
`
`5. Counsel must file an amended Certificate of Interest within seven days after
`any information on this form changes. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(c).
`
`I certify the following information and any attached sheets are accurate and
`complete to the best of my knowledge.
`
`08/07/2023
`Date: _________________
`
`Signature:
`
`/s/ Robbie Manhas
`
`Name:
`
`Robbie Manhas
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 4 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`Form 9 (p. 2)
`March 2023
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`1. Represented
`Entities.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(1).
`Provide the full names of
`all entities represented by
`undersigned counsel
`in
`this case.
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`2. Real Party in
`Interest.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(2).
`Provide the full names of
`all real parties in interest
`for the entities. Do not list
`the real parties if they are
`the same as the entities.
`
`3. Parent Corporations
`and Stockholders.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(3).
`Provide the full names of
`all parent corporations for
`the
`entities and all
`publicly held companies
`that own 10% or more
`stock in the entities.
`(cid:1798) None/Not Applicable (cid:1798) None/Not Applicable
`
`✔
`
`✔
`
`(cid:1798) Additional pages attached
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 5 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`Form 9 (p. 3)
`March 2023
`
`4. Legal Representatives. List all law firms, partners, and associates that (a)
`appeared for the entities in the originating court or agency or (b) are expected to
`appear in this court for the entities. Do not include those who have already entered
`an appearance in this court. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(4).
`(cid:1798) None/Not Applicable
`(cid:1798) Additional pages attached
`
`✔
`
`✔
`
`5. Related Cases. Other than the originating case(s) for this case, are there
`related or prior cases that meet the criteria under Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(a)?
`(cid:1798) Yes (file separate notice; see below) (cid:1798) No (cid:1798) N/A (amicus/movant)
`If yes, concurrently file a separate Notice of Related Case Information that complies
`with Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(b). Please do not duplicate information. This separate
`Notice must only be filed with the first Certificate of Interest or, subsequently, if
`information changes during the pendency of the appeal. Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(b).
`
`6. Organizational Victims and Bankruptcy Cases. Provide any information
`required under Fed. R. App. P. 26.1(b) (organizational victims in criminal cases)
`and 26.1(c) (bankruptcy case debtors and trustees). Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(6).
`(cid:1798) None/Not Applicable
`(cid:1798) Additional pages attached
`
`✔
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 6 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`CLAIM LANGUAGE AT ISSUE ................................................................ i
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST ................................................................ ii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................... vii
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES .................................................... xii
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ........................................................... 3
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ............................................................... 3
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................. 4
`The ’949 Patent, Treading Ground Covered By The Prior Art,
`Claims Using A Sensor And A Camera To
`Automatically Take A Picture When A Gesture Is
`Detected. .................................................................................. 4
`Apple Pursues Inter Partes Review And Generally
`Demonstrates The Claims To Be Unpatentable For
`Obviousness. .......................................................................... 10
`A Key Dispute Arises On The Obviousness Of Dependent
`Claims 4, 11, And 18, Which Are Distinguished Merely
`By Requiring The Sensor And The Camera To Be Fixed
`Relative To Each Other. ........................................................ 13
`The Board Holds All Claims Unpatentable For
`Obviousness—Except Dependent Claims 4, 11, And 18. ..... 20
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................. 22
`STANDARD OF REVIEW....................................................................... 26
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................... 28
`I.
`The Board Erroneously Determined That Apple Had
`Not Shown Claims 4, 11, And 18 Unpatentable By
`Miscasting Apple’s Obviousness Challenge In Terms Of
`Inherency. .............................................................................. 28
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 7 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`A.
`
`The Board wrongly conflated Apple’s run-of-the-
`mill obviousness argument with an inherency
`argument. ..................................................................... 29
`B. Even to the extent that inherency was a relevant
`consideration, the Board improperly skipped over
`the doctrine’s natural-result prong. ............................. 42
`II. The Board Erroneously Determined That Apple Had
`Not Shown Claims 4, 11, And 18 Unpatentable By
`Improperly Failing To Consider Material Evidence. ........... 45
`A.
`The Board wrongly ignored material evidence. .......... 46
`B.
`The Board’s characterization of the petition cannot
`salvage the agency’s disregard of material
`evidence. ....................................................................... 49
`III. Reversal Or At Least Vacatur Is Warranted........................ 54
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 58
`ADDENDUM
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 8 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re Ackenbach,
`45 F.2d 437 (C.C.P.A. 1930).......................................................... 44, 45
`Altaire Pharms., Inc. v. Paragon Bioteck, Inc.,
`889 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................... 45, 47, 51, 52, 53
`AMC Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Fall Line Pats., LLC,
`No. 21-1051, 2021 WL 4470062 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2021) ................ 50
`Anacor Pharms., Inc. v. Iancu,
`889 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................... 51
`Apple Inc. v. Andrea Elecs. Corp.,
`949 F.3d 697 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................... 27, 41, 50, 51
`Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal,
`872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................... 47, 52
`Arbutus Biopharma Corp. v. ModernaTX, Inc.,
`65 F.4th 656 (Fed. Cir. 2023) .............................................................. 45
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................... 26, 41, 42, 51, 55
`In re Black,
`778 F. App’x 911 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ....................................................... 34
`Bradium Techs. LLC v. Iancu,
`923 F.3d 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..................................................... 33, 55
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medline Indus., Inc.,
`No. 20-1900, 2021 WL 3574043 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2022) ................. 34
`Corning v. Fast Felt Corp.,
`873 F.3d 896 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................. 54
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 9 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`Cutino v. Nightlife Media, Inc.,
`575 F. App’x 888 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................... 53
`Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC,
`818 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................... 36
`Dome Patent L.P. v. Lee,
`799 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................... 57
`Ericsson Inc. v. Intell. Ventures I LLC,
`901 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................... 27, 28, 40
`Everstar Merch. Co. v. Willis Elec. Co.,
`No. 21-1882, 2022 WL 1089909 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2022) ................. 41
`EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc.,
`755 F.2d 898 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............................................................. 33
`Google LLC v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.,
`795 F. App’x 840 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................. 56, 57
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Sys., Inc.,
`340 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................... 44
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Matal,
`716 F. App’x 996 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................... 43
`Intel Corp. v. Alacritech, Inc.,
`817 F. App’x 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................... 33, 55
`Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG,
`No. 22-1139, 2023 WL 2198653 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2023) ................. 55
`Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`No. 20-2092, 2022 WL 880681 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2022) ................... 55
`In re IPR Licensing, Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................... 26
`In re Kotzab,
`217 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ........................................................... 27
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 10 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................. 34
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Wyeth LLC,
`792 F. App’x 813 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ....................................................... 48
`Motor Vehicle Mfgs. Assoc. of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm
`Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`463 U.S. 29 (1983) ............................................................................... 53
`Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC,
`No. 22-1083, 2023 WL 2298768 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2023) ................... 37
`Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co.,
`864 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................. 54
`In re NuVasive, Inc.,
`841 F.3d 966 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................. 27
`In re NuVasive, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................... 48
`PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................... 30, 43
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ..................................................... 38, 42
`Persion Pharms. LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd.,
`945 F.3d 1184 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................... 44
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee,
`797 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................... 29, 36, 37
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Iancu,
`739 F. App’x 615 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................. 27, 47
`Princeton Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc.,
`786 F.3d 960 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................. 26
`Provisur Techs., Inc. v. Weber, Inc.,
`50 F.4th 117 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ........................................................ 30, 37
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 11 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`Rexnord Indus., LLC v. Kappos,
`705 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................... 31
`Rovalma, S.A. v. Bohler-Edelstahl GmbH & Co. KG,
`856 F.3d 1019 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................... 26, 54
`Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc.,
`339 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ........................................................... 30
`SEC v. Chenery Corp.,
`318 U.S. 80 (1943) ............................................................................... 53
`In re Shetty,
`566 F.2d 81 (C.C.P.A. 1977)................................................................ 31
`Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Rea,
`721 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................... 55
`Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`659 F. App’x 627 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................... 44
`In re Spormann,
`363 F.2d 444 (C.C.P.A. 1966) .............................................................. 31
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Reactive Surfaces Ltd.,
`816 F. App’x 480 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ....................................................... 30
`TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................... 56
`TRUSTID, Inc. v. Next Caller, Inc.,
`No. 20-1950, 2021 WL 4427918 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 27, 2021) ................ 48
`Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC,
`872 F.3d 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................... 45
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 2019-2162, 2021 WL 5370480 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 18, 2021) ............. 40
`Valmont Indus., Inc. v. Lindsay Corp.,
`730 F. App’x 918 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ....................................................... 51
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 12 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`Vicor Corp. v. SynQor, Inc.,
`869 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................... 26, 27
`Vivint, Inc. v. Alarm.com Inc.,
`741 F. App’x 786 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................. 30, 31
`W. Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Sys., Inc.,
`626 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................... 58
`W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
`721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ........................................................... 31
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................... 42
`Statutes and Regulations
`5 U.S.C. § 556(d) ................................................................................ 51, 53
`5 U.S.C. § 706 .................................................................................... 26, 47
`5 U.S.C. § 706(2) ...................................................................................... 26
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) ........................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(4) ..................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 141(c) ...................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 142 .......................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 311(a) ...................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 316(c) ...................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) ...................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 319 .......................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) ........................................................................... 41, 51
`37 C.F.R. § 90.3(a)(1) ................................................................................. 3
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 13 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`No appeal in or from the same proceeding has previously been
`
`before this or any other appellate court.
`
`This Court’s decision may directly affect or be directly affected by
`
`the following cases that involve the same patent that is at issue in this
`
`appeal: Gesture Tech. Partners, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-04806
`
`(N.D. Cal.); Gesture Tech. Partners, LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc. et al., No.
`
`2:21-cv-19234 (D.N.J.); Gesture Tech. Partners LLC v. Motorola Mobility
`
`LLC, No. 1:22-cv-03535 (N.D. Ill.); and Gesture Tech. Partners, LLC v.
`
`Lenovo Grp. Ltd. et al., No. 6:21-cv-00122 (W.D. Tex.).
`
`The Court’s decision may also directly affect or be directly affected
`
`by the following co-pending appeal, which this Court has designated as
`
`a companion case to this appeal, involving a different patent owned by
`
`Gesture Technology: Gesture Tech. Partners, LLC v. Apple Inc. et al.,
`
`No. 23-1463 (Fed. Cir.).
`
`
`
`xii
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 14 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In nearly every respect, the Board in this inter partes review
`
`proceeding charted the correct course. It held unpatentable for
`
`obviousness 15 of the 18 claims of the patent at issue, including every
`
`single independent claim and, indeed, every single limitation but one.
`
`Both the law and the evidence amply supported the obviousness of
`
`those claims. The Board went astray, however, in holding that Apple
`
`had not shown the remaining dependent claims—claims 4, 11, and 18—
`
`unpatentable for obviousness. That determination rested on the
`
`Board’s improper failure to consider the arguments and evidence before
`
`it.
`
`At issue are claims related to automatically taking pictures of
`
`scenes of interest. The dependent claims on appeal are not
`
`distinguished from the ones that the Board held unpatentable by any
`
`technological marvel. Quite the opposite: They differ only in their
`
`recitation of an insubstantial structural limitation that requires two
`
`components—themselves taught by the prior art according to the
`
`Board’s well-supported findings—to be fixed relative to each other. This
`
`fixedness would have been obvious to a skilled artisan. The Board
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 15 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`avoided that conclusion only by incorrectly hamstringing Apple’s
`
`obviousness presentation in two ways.
`
`First, the Board limited its inquiry to whether Apple had shown
`
`inherent disclosure of the limitation at issue. That ignored not only
`
`what Apple had argued, but also what the patent owner, Gesture
`
`Technology, had argued. Both parties had framed their arguments in
`
`terms of conventional obviousness principles, not the inherency
`
`doctrine. The Board offered no valid justification for departing from the
`
`parties’ arguments, nor was there one. And even if the Board could
`
`have considered the question of inherency, the Board failed to conduct a
`
`proper legal inquiry into it.
`
`Second, the Board failed to consider material evidence that Apple
`
`had adduced. Apple presented the Board with expert testimony from
`
`both sides that was highly relevant, whether the question at hand was
`
`ordinary obviousness or the doctrine of inherency. The Board
`
`understood that Apple relied on this evidence, yet the Board
`
`inappropriately constrained its assessment to the consideration of one
`
`“mere fact”—“[w]ithout more”—about the disclosure of the prior-art
`
`reference at issue. Appx34. Had the Board considered that fact in
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 16 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`tandem with the expert testimony that the agency neglected, the
`
`outcome of the decision at least could have been different.
`
`These errors, alone or together, warrant reversal or at least
`
`vacatur of the Board’s decision with respect to dependent claims 4, 11,
`
`and 18.
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`The Board had jurisdiction in the inter partes review below under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b)(4), 311(a), 316(c), and 318(a). The Board issued its
`
`final written decision on December 5, 2022. Apple timely filed a notice
`
`of appeal from certain aspects of that decision on February 6, 2023. See
`
`35 U.S.C. § 142; 37 C.F.R. § 90.3(a)(1). This Court has jurisdiction
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c) and 319.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`I. Whether the Board erroneously determined that Apple had
`
`not shown claims 4, 11, and 18 unpatentable by miscasting Apple’s
`
`obviousness challenge in terms of inherency, and whether the Board’s
`
`inherency analysis, even if relevant, was impermissibly narrow.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 17 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`II. Whether the Board erroneously determined that Apple had
`
`not shown claims 4, 11, and 18 unpatentable by improperly failing to
`
`consider material evidence—namely, expert testimony from both sides.
`
`III. Whether, given either or both of the aforementioned issues,
`
`the Board’s determination that Apple had not shown claims 4, 11, and
`
`18 unpatentable should be reversed or at least vacated.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`The ’949 Patent, Treading Ground Covered By The Prior Art,
`Claims Using A Sensor And A Camera To Automatically Take A
`Picture When A Gesture Is Detected.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949, owned by Gesture Technology, relates
`
`to automatically taking pictures and, specifically, doing so by detecting
`
`gestures, such as human poses or movement. Appx41-57. Each
`
`independent claim recites a device that includes two components:
`
`(1) “an electro-optical sensor” that helps detect whether “a gesture has
`
`been performed” and (2) “a digital camera” that captures an image upon
`
`the detection of such a gesture. Appx57 15:20-38, 16:1-13, 23-40 (claims
`
`1, 8, and 13); cf. Appx52 5:46-49 (picture-triggering gestures could
`
`include “raising [a] right hand”).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 18 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`By May 1999, the ’949 patent’s earliest possible priority date, see
`
`Appx41,1 the idea of automating picture taking via gesture detection
`
`was far from new. A prior-art patent application, the Nonaka reference,
`
`Appx985-1020, described it nearly a decade earlier. Nonaka discusses a
`
`camera that allows a user to remotely instruct a picture to be taken by
`
`“mak[ing] a predetermined motion.” Appx999 15:11-14; accord Appx14.
`
`Nonaka outlines multiple predetermined gestures that can serve this
`
`function, such as holding one’s hand out toward the camera (depicted
`
`below on the left), Appx987-988 3:34-4:4, or moving one’s hand toward
`
`the camera (depicted below on the right), Appx990 6:11-22.
`
`
`
`Appx1003 (Fig. 3); Appx1005 (Fig. 7).
`
`Likewise—and central to Apple’s appeal—a prior-art patent called
`
`Numazaki, Appx838-984, in a similar context already taught an electro-
`
`optical sensor and a digital camera.
`
`
`1 To be clear, Apple does not accede to this priority date and reserves
`the right to challenge it in other proceedings.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 19 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`Numazaki is directed to, among other things, detecting a person’s
`
`gestures. Appx838 (Abstract); Appx941 4:9-40; accord Appx9-10. It
`
`describes fourteen high-level, numerically titled embodiments,
`
`contemplating that these overarching embodiments each have sub-
`
`embodiments. See, e.g., Appx942-944 5:5-10:5 (referring to different
`
`“exemplary configurations” according to the various numerically titled
`
`embodiments, such as “one exemplary configuration … according to the
`
`fifth embodiment”). Particularly relevant here is Numazaki’s fifth
`
`embodiment, which builds off the first. See Appx944-948 10:21-17:11
`
`(first embodiment); Appx959-960 39:4-41:46 (fifth embodiment).
`
`Numazaki’s first embodiment revolves around an information
`
`input generation apparatus, incorporating an electro-optical sensor,
`
`that detects a user’s gestures to issue computer-executed commands.
`
`See Appx9-11. Figure 2 below illustrates the apparatus. Appx945 11:9-
`
`19. Lighting unit 101 emits light that is reflected off target object 106,
`
`such as a hand. Appx944 10:29-32; Appx945 11:11-12, 26-33. Reflected
`
`light extraction unit 102 is an electro-optical sensor—just like the ’949
`
`patent’s claimed sensor, Appx18—that detects the amount of light the
`
`target receives both when the lighting unit emits light and when it does
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 20 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`not, then uses this information to help identify whether a gesture has
`
`been performed. Appx944 10:40-66; Appx945 11:12-56. In this way,
`
`gestures can relay commands to a computer. Appx944 10:61-66; see
`
`Appx953 27:51-56 (describing detection of a finger making a pushing
`
`movement to execute a mouse click).
`
`
`
`Appx840.
`
`Numazaki’s fifth embodiment deals with video capture and
`
`transmission for applications such as video conferencing. See Appx12-
`
`13; Appx959 39:6-20. Specifically, it relates to a technique that extracts
`
`and transmits only useful image information—such as “only the faces of
`
`both sides” on a video call—to lower communication costs and reduce
`
`power consumption. Appx959 39:6-20. To remove extraneous
`
`background information from images, Numazaki’s fifth embodiment
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 21 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`deploys the electro-optical sensor from the first embodiment, reflected
`
`light extraction unit 102, in conjunction with a digital camera, “visible
`
`light photo-detection array 351[,] which is generally used as a CCD
`
`camera for taking video images.” Appx959 39:21-49.
`
`Figure 46 below illustrates “an exemplary configuration of the
`
`information input generation apparatus according to this fifth
`
`embodiment.” Appx959 39:21-23.
`
`
`
`Appx883. It is undisputed that, in this configuration, the fifth
`
`embodiment discloses reflected light extraction unit 102 and visible
`
`light photo-detection array 351 as arranged in parallel and positioned
`
`with overlapping fields of view. See Appx959 39:21-49.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 22 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`Using this configuration, the fifth embodiment superimposes the
`
`outputs of visible light photo-detection array 351 and reflected light
`
`extraction unit 102 to eliminate unwanted information. Appx959 39:24-
`
`60. To do so, the output of visible light photo-detection array 351
`
`creates an original image while the output of reflected light extraction
`
`unit 102 creates a mask that is stored as a reflection matrix. Appx959
`
`39:51-56. Figure 48 below shows the original image and the mask,
`
`depicting a complete overlap as between the outputs:
`
`
`Appx885. As Figure 48 illustrates, the apparatus extracts the desired
`
`image by “super[im]pos[ing] the original image and the mask, and
`
`leav[ing] only the overlapping portion.” Appx959 39:57-59. The
`
`apparatus then stores the extracted image. Appx959 39:59-60.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 23 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`
`
`In short, the fifth embodiment uses an electro-optical sensor
`
`(reflected light extraction unit 102) and a digital camera (visible light
`
`photo-detection array 351) in a precise configuration to extract as much
`
`extraneous information as possible from the components’ overlapping
`
`outputs—the express goal being to guarantee isolation of “only a specific
`
`target” to save power and cut costs. Appx959 39:6-20.
`
`Apple Pursues Inter Partes Review And Generally Demonstrates
`The Claims To Be Unpatentable For Obviousness.
`
`In February 2021, Gesture Technology sued Apple (and others),
`
`alleging infringement of the ’949 patent and additional patents. Apple
`
`then petitioned for inter partes review, challenging all 18 claims of the
`
`’949 patent for obviousness, primarily relying on the combination of
`
`Numazaki and Nonaka. Appx117-187 (Apple’s petition); Appx738-837
`
`(Apple’s petition-stage expert declaration).
`
`Apple’s petition showed how each limitation of each claim would
`
`have been obvious. With one exception regarding a subset of dependent
`
`claims requiring the claimed sensor to be fixed relative to the claimed
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 24 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`camera, detailed below (at 13-20), the Board agreed and therefore
`
`instituted review. Appx240-267 (institution decision).2
`
`For example, Apple showed that Numazaki’s reflected light
`
`extraction unit 102 discloses the claimed sensor because, consistent
`
`with the ordinary meaning of “electro-optical sensor,” Numazaki’s unit
`
`senses light and converts it into electronic signals. Appx146-147 (citing
`
`Appx945 12:56-57; Appx947 15:23-27, 50-52); accord Appx18. And as
`
`Apple explained, Appx146-147; Appx161, Numazaki discloses that the
`
`unit can include “‘CMOS sensors’ or ‘CCD image sensors,’” Appx760
`
`¶ 35 (quoting Appx947 15:24-16:19), satisfying dependent claim 7’s
`
`additional requirement that the sensor “includes at least one of a CCD
`
`detector and a CMOS detector,” Appx57 15:50-52.
`
`Likewise, Apple showed that Numazaki’s visible light photo-
`
`detection array 351 discloses the claimed camera because Numazaki
`
`states that the array can be a digital camera—namely, “a ‘CCD camera
`
`for taking video images.’” Appx147 (quoting Appx959 39:34).
`
`
`2 After institution, LG and Google—appellees here—also filed petitions,
`and the Board joined their proceedings with Apple’s. Appx1 n.1; Appx2.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 23-1501 Document: 24 Page: 25 Filed: 08/07/2023
`
`Apple further showed that a skilled artisan would have combined
`
`these components from Numazaki’s fifth embodiment into a portable
`
`laptop disclosed in Numazaki’s eighth embodiment, Appx138-144,
`
`Appx771-777 ¶¶ 48-51, Appx964 50:25-39; see Appx13-14, satisfying
`
`limitations requiring a “device housing” or “portable device”
`
`incorporating the components, see, e.g., Appx57 15:22-26 (claim 1
`
`reciting such a device housing); Appx57 16:2-5 (claim 8 reciting such a
`
`portable device). As Apple explained, a skilled artisan would have
`
`made the combination to gain the benefit of “the fifth embodiment’s
`
`videoconference functionality in the eighth embodiment’s laptop device.”
`
`Appx144.
`
`Apple also showed that a skilled artisan would have made a
`
`similar combination to meet limitations regarding “a processing unit”
`
`used to identify whether “a gesture has been performed.” See, e.g.,
`
`Appx57 15:26-31 (claim 1). In particular, Apple demonstrated that a
`
`skilled artisan w