Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 6
`Entered: July 26, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`APPLEINC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`CHIAN CHIU LI,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`Before THU A. DANG, GARTH D. BAER,and JASON W. MELVIN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MELVIN,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35S U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 6
`Entered: July 26, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`APPLEINC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`CHIAN CHIU LI,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`Before THU A. DANG, GARTH D. BAER,and JASON W. MELVIN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MELVIN,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35S U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple Inc. (‘Petitioner’) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting inter
`
`partes review of claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-16, and 18—20 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 11,016,564 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the *564 patent”). Chian Chiu Li (“Patent Owner’’)
`
`filed a Preliminary Response. (Paper 5, “Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have authority to determine whetherto institute
`
`review.
`
`An inter partes review maynotbeinstituted unless “the information
`
`presented in the petition .. . and any response .
`
`.
`
`. showsthat there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`
`challengedin the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we
`
`concludethat Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in
`
`establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim, and weinstitute
`
`inter partes review.
`
`A.—REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
`
`Each party identifies itself as the real party in interest. Pet. 65; Paper 3, 1
`
`(Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices).
`
`B.|RELATED MATTERS
`
`The parties identify the following related district-court litigation involving
`
`the °564 patent: Apple Inc. v. Chian Chiu Li, No. 3:22-cv-02956-TLT (N.D. Cal.).
`
`Pet. 65; Paper 3, 1.
`
`C.
`
`THE °564 PATENT
`
`The °564 patentis titled “System and Method for Providing Information”
`
`and relates to presenting information using an electronic device that starts showing
`
`content whenit detects a user gazing at the idle device. Ex. 1001, codes (54), (57).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`The patent discloses transitioning to show information “whena user shakes,taps,
`
`or speaks to a standbyor idling device, and then looksat it.” /d. at 2:36—41.
`
`Asthe specification describes, the device may include multiple sensors,
`
`including “sensor 10 which tracks the eye of a user using mature eye-tracking
`
`technologies”(id. at 3:65—66), and “sensor 20 which functions as a motion
`
`detector, [and]which is well knownin the art and employed at some devices
`
`already”(id. at 4:12-14). The device may include “sensor 24 to detect its own
`
`movement by sensing acceleration, deceleration, and rotation,” thus “detecting
`
`device shaking, device vibration, user running, user walking, and so on.”/d.
`
`at 4:22-28.
`
`Thus, “[w]hen a user approaches a device, sensor 20 may detect it and then
`
`the system mayactivate sensor 10 to detect the user’s gaze direction.” /d.
`
`at 6:33-35. Detecting gaze only after detecting movementprovides a benefit
`
`according to the *564 patent: “Since a motion detector may consumeless power
`
`than an eye-tracking sensor, it saves energy and extendsthe battery life of a
`
`device.” /d. at 6:40—42. In another embodiment, the device uses sensor 24 to detect
`
`the user’s desire to “make use of standby or idle device in a simple and convenient
`
`manner.” /d. at 6:50—52. To that end, “a circuitry may be configured such that
`
`shaking may activate a gaze sensing system.” /d. at 6:64—66. The patent explains
`
`that using sensors to detect movementbefore activating gaze detection “avoids
`
`content shows caused by unintended gaze” and “saves energy as a gaze sensing
`
`system may be off most of the time unless getting activated upon receiving shaking
`
`signals.” /d. at 7:7—12.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`D.|CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-16, and 18—20. Pet. 4-5. Claim 1
`
`is independentand is reproduced, below:
`
`1. A method for presenting information at an electronic device,
`comprising:
`
`1) detecting an act made by a user involving physical contact with
`the electronic device or physical movementof the electronic
`device whena display of the electronic device has an idle
`screen or a screen in standby mode, inactive mode,or
`screen-saver mode;
`
`2) performing gaze detection only after detecting the act;
`
`3) ascertaining whether the user looksat a direction toward the
`electronic device;
`
`4) determining whetherthe user is recognized via a recognition
`mechanism; and
`
`5) presenting a plurality of content items when the useris
`recognized via the recognition mechanism andit is ascertained
`that the user looks at a direction toward the electronic device.
`
`Ex. 1001, 12:56—13:4. Claims 8 and 14 are independent, and recite limitations
`
`similar to claim 1’s, with claim 8 reciting a method and claim 14 reciting an
`
`electronic device. /d. at 13:24—39 (claim 8), 14:6—25 (claim 14). The other
`
`challenged claims depend directly from one of the independent claims.
`
`E.
`
`PRIOR ART AND ASSERTED GROUNDS
`
`Petitioner asserts the following unpatentability grounds:
`
`
`
` 1-5, 8,9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, 20
`
`Ryu,! Hodge?
`Ryu, Hodge,Stallings?
`
`1, 6, 8, 10, 14, 19
`103
`
`
`
`‘US 10,540,013, issued Jan. 21, 2020 (Ex. 1004).
`2 US 2010/0079508, published April 1, 2010 (Ex. 1005).
`7 US 8,331,992, issued Dec. 11, 2012 (Ex. 1006).
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`Pet. 3. Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Benjamin B. Bederson. Ex. 1003.
`
`Il.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had“at least a
`
`bachelor’s degree in computer science, software engineering, or an equivalent
`
`degree with at least one year of experiencein the fields of human computer
`
`interaction, software engineering or computer engineering in either a research or
`
`work capacity.” Pet. 3—4 (citing Ex. 1003 § 30-32). Petitioner addsthat, “this
`
`hypothetical person would have experience with user interface design, user
`
`interface/mobile device software, and user interaction techniques, or their
`
`equivalent.” /d. at 4. Patent Owner does not address the level of skill in theart.
`
`For purposes of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. To the extent
`
`either party believes the level of skill affects this proceeding, that party should
`
`explain how in the institutedtrial.
`
`B.|CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Neither party argues for an express claim construction at this stage. See
`
`Pet. 5; see generally Prelim. Resp. We do not construe the claimsfor this decision.
`
`Realtime Data, LLC v. lancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board 1s
`
`required to construe ‘only those termsthat .
`
`.
`
`. are in controversy, and only to the
`
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy.
`
`) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. vy. Am.
`
`Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`
`To the extent the scope of a particular claim term impacts a party’s argument
`
`duringtrial, the party should propose an express construction and show how the
`
`record supportsit.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`C.
`
`OBVIOUSNESS OVER RYU AND HODGE
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1—5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20 would have
`
`been obvious over Ryu and Hodge. Pet. 5—51. Petitioner relies on Ryu for
`
`performing gaze detection based on device motion whenin standby mode.
`
`Pet. 5-8. Petitioner relies on Hodge for gaze detection that recognizes an
`
`authorized user (id. at 8—9), and submits that skilled artisans would have used
`
`Hodge’s teachings to “improve the security and privacy of Ryu’s device.” /d. at 13;
`
`accordid. at 10-15 (explaining the combinability, benefits, and reasonable
`
`expectation of success). Because Petitioner showsa reasonablelikelihoodthatit
`
`will prevail as to at least one challenged claim, weinstitute review.
`
`Ryu discloses a method of performing a device function “based on motion
`
`information of the device in a standby mode.” Ex. 1004, code (57). Ryu’s Figure 8
`
`is reproduced below:
`
`u
`
`Say
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`Ryu’s Figure 8 shows“screensactivating a preset function performed by the
`
`device 100.” /d. at 19:49—50. In the depicted process, device 100 displaying a
`
`blank screen 810 detects that it has been rotated and “activates a function of a front
`
`camera 821” in which camera 821 obtains image 822 and the device “determines
`
`whetherthe user looks at the device 100 before performing the present function.”
`
`Id. at 19:51-67, 19:4-6. Ryu discloses using sensor 101 to detect movementofits
`
`device, and explains that sensor 101 may include a numberofdifferent sensors to
`
`perform that function. /d. at 6:61-7:10.
`
`Hodge discloses an electronic device with “gaze detection capabilities that
`
`allow the device to detect when a user is looking at the device.” Ex. 1005,
`
`code (57). Hodge disclosesthat, in its visual user identification, the device “may
`
`distinguish between authorized users and unauthorized users based on image
`
`sensor data.” /d. § 116. And Hodgestates that “user-specific gaze detection
`
`functionality may be used for all gaze detection operations.” /d.
`
`Patent Owner disputes whether Ryu discloses the claimed “gaze detection
`
`only after” device contact or movement. Prelim. Resp. 13-18. In Patent Owner’s
`
`view, Ryu’s device detects gaze detection in other circumstances,i.¢., not only
`
`after detecting contact or movement. /d. Patent Ownerpoints out that the
`
`challenged claims preclude gaze detection that is either continuousor triggered by
`
`a user’s presence (as opposed to touching or physically moving the device). /d.
`
`at 4—5.
`
`For detecting the claimed contact/movement, Petitioner relies on Ryu’s
`
`sensor 101, which detects device motion. Pet. 17—20. Patent Owner points out that
`
`Ryu also discloses a proximity sensor (Prelim. Resp. 6—7) and argues that Ryu’s
`
`device uses the proximity sensor to perform gaze detection when a user approaches
`
`(not only after physical contact, as claimed) (id. at 13-14). Patent Ownerasserts
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`the Petition “ignores the proximity sensor and excludes scenarios using the
`
`proximity sensor.” /d. at 13—14. Patent Owner submits that “a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood that [Ryu’s] sensor 101, like sensor 1102,
`
`also has a proximity sensor.” Prelim. Resp. 8. That assertion is not supported by
`
`the record.
`
`Ryu’s Figure 1 embodiment includes sensor 101, which “mayinclude a
`
`plurality of sensors of various types to sense movement of the device 100.”
`
`Ex. 1004, 4:63, 5:15—16; accord id. at 6:61—7:10 (describing a variety of sensors
`
`that sensor 101 may include, none of which detect a user’s proximity). Ryu’s
`
`description of sensor 101 does not encompass a proximity sensor.
`
`When Ryudiscloses sensor 1102 that may include both a proximity sensor
`
`and a motion sensor, it does so as part of “another exemplary embodiment,” thus
`
`distinguishing that approach from Ryu’s primary embodiment, which does not
`
`include a proximity sensor. /d. at 21:37—38, 22:30-31. And only within that
`
`separate embodiment does Ryu disclose that its sensor detects users approaching
`
`but not touching the device. See id. at 22:31-47. Based on Ryu’s disclosures, we
`
`do not agree with Patent Owner that Ryu includes a proximity sensorin all
`
`embodiments. Similarly, Patent Owner’s arguments that rely on Ryu’s asserted
`
`behavior in response to a proximity sensor are inapposite. See Prelim. Resp. 8-10,
`
`13-15.
`
`Patent Ownerarguesalso that Ryu doesnot disclose that its camera obtains
`
`an image of the user and determines whetherthe user is looking at the device, as
`
`claimed. Prelim. Resp. 14-15. According to Patent Owner, Ryu’s “processor
`
`merely activates an undisclosed function of the front camera, executes an
`
`undisclosed application, and outputs a black screen.” /d. at 15; accordid. at 16
`
`(asserting Ryu falls short of the claim language by disclosing “execute an
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`application related to the front camera 821 as shownby a screen 820”). We agree
`
`with Petitioner that Ryu discloses the claimed gaze detection, because Ryu
`
`discloses that the “application related to the front camera” includes gaze-detection.
`
`Ex. 1004, 19:64—67 (“The processor 103 may determine whethera user looksat
`
`the device 100 according to the above-described face recognition or eyes
`
`estimation regarding an image 822 obtained by using the front camera 821.”),
`
`19:4—6 (“[T]he processor 103 determines whether the user looks at the device 100
`
`before performing the preset function’’); Figs. 7, 8.
`
`Atthis stage, Patent Owner does not otherwise contest Petitioner’s
`
`assertions. We have reviewed the record and conclude that Petitioner has shown a
`
`reasonable likelihood it will prevail with respect to unpatentability of claim 1,
`
`claims 8 and 14 reciting similar limitations to claim 1, and claims 2—5, 9, 11, 12,
`
`15, 16, 18, and 20 depending respectively from claims 1, 8, and 14, over Ryu and
`
`Hodge.
`
`D.
`
`|OBVIOUSNESS OVER RYU, HODGE, AND STALLINGS
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 14, and 19 would have been obvious
`
`over Ryu, Hodge, and Stallings. Pet. 52-61. Petitioner relies on Stallings
`
`disclosing Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feeds as a service providing multiple
`
`content items to be displayed on a mobile device once wokenby a user. /d. at 52—
`
`55. Petitioner reasons that incorporating Stallings’s RSS feeds for content would
`
`have improved the functionality of the Ryu—Hodge combined device. /d. at 55—57.
`
`In particular, Petitioner asserts that using Stallings’s feeds would “allow for a user
`
`to be presented with various pieces of information (content) on the gateway screen
`
`that the user would find relevant prior to performing a function.” /d. at 55; accord
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`id. at 56 (“a quick and concise overview ofpertinent information that would allow
`
`a user to be informed ornotified of any changes”).
`
`Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s assertions regarding Stallings
`
`other than to note that Petitioner does not rely on Stallings as “performing gaze
`
`detection only after detecting the Given Act.” Prelim. Resp. 18-19. We have
`
`reviewed the record and conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood
`
`it will prevail with respect to unpatentability of claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 14, and 19 over
`
`Ryu, Hodge, andStallings.
`
`I. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons discussed above, we conclude Petitioner has shown a
`
`reasonablelikelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim. We have
`
`evaluated all of the parties’ submissions and determine that the record supports
`
`institution.
`
`Our determination at this stage of the proceeding is based on the evidentiary
`
`record currently before us. This decision to institute trial 1s not a final decision as
`
`to patentability of any claim for which inter partes review has beeninstituted. Our
`
`final decision will be based on the full record developed duringtrial.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDEREDthat, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review of
`
`claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-16, and 18-20 of the ’564 patentis instituted on the grounds
`
`set forth in the Petition; and
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial commencing on the entry
`
`date of this decision.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00560
`Patent 11,016,564 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Adam P. Seitz
`Clifford T. Brazen
`ERISEIP, P.A.
`adam.seitz@eriseip.com
`clifford.brazen@eriseip.com
`PTAB@eriseip.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Chian Chiu Li
`xccli2002@yahoo.com
`
`11
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
