Claims for Determining an Orientation of a 3D Pointing Device Using Sensor Data Found to be Patent-Eligible
Plaintiff CyWee Group Ltd. ("CyWee") sued Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, "Samsung"), asserting various claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438 (the '438 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978 (the '978 patent) (a child of the '438 patent). Samsung responded with a motion for summary judgment of invalidity of all asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Last week, Circuit Judge William C. Bryson (sitting by designation in the Eastern District of Texas) denied the motion.
The claims of the asserted patents generally involve using a particular combination of sensors of a "3D pointing device" to gather raw data points representative of a position of the device, and then inputting those data points into a mathematical formula to determine an orientation of the device in a spatial reference frame. As an example, a 3D pointing device can be a mouse or other controller used to play video games such that, when a user moves the device, a pointer on the screen moves along with the orientation of the device.
Claim 1 of the '438 patent is representative of the four asserted apparatus claims of the '438 patent:
1. A three-dimensional (3D) pointing device subject to movements and rotations in dynamic environments, comprising:
a housing associated with said movements and rotations of the 3D pointing device in a spatial pointer reference frame;
a printed circuit board (PCB) enclosed by the housing;
a six-axis motion sensor module attached to the PCB, comprising a rotation sensor for detecting and generating a first signal set comprising angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz associated with said movements and rotations of the 3D pointing device in the spatial pointer reference frame, an accelerometer for detecting and generating a second signal set comprising axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az associated with said movements and rotations of the 3D pointing device in the spatial pointer reference frame; and
a processing and transmitting module, comprising a data transmitting unit electrically connected to the six-axis motion sensor module for transmitting said first and second signal sets thereof and a computing processor for receiving and calculating said first and second signal sets from the data transmitting unit, communicating with the six-axis motion sensor module to calculate a resulting deviation comprising resultant angles in said spatial pointer reference frame by utilizing a comparison to compare the first signal set with the second signal set whereby said resultant angles in the spatial pointer reference frame of the resulting deviation of the six-axis motion sensor module of the 3D pointing device are obtained under said dynamic environments, wherein the comparison utilized by the processing and transmitting module further comprises an update program to obtain an updated state based on a previous state associated with said first signal set and a measured state associated with said second signal set; wherein the measured state includes a measurement of said second signal set and a predicted measurement obtained based on the first signal set without using any derivatives of the first signal set.
Claim 14 of the '438 patent is representative of the five asserted method claims of the '438 patent:
14. A method for obtaining a resulting deviation including resultant angles in a spatial pointer reference frame of a three-dimensional (3D) pointing device utilizing a six-axis motion sensor module therein and subject to movements and rotations in dynamic environments in said spatial pointer reference frame, comprising the steps of:
obtaining a previous state of the six-axis motion sensor module; wherein the previous state includes an initial-value set associated with previous angular velocities gained from the motion sensor signals of the six-axis motion sensor module at a previous time T−1;
obtaining a current state of the six-axis motion sensor module by obtaining measured angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz gained from the motion sensor signals of the six-axis motion sensor module at a current time T;
obtaining a measured state of the six-axis motion sensor module by obtaining measured axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az gained from the motion sensor signals of the six-axis motion sensor module at the current time T and calculating predicted axial accelerations Ax′, Ay′, Az′ based on the measured angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz of the current state of the six-axis motion sensor module without using any derivatives of the measured angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz; said current state of the six-axis motion sensor module is a second quaternion with respect to said current time T; comparing the second quaternion in relation to the measured angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz of the current state at current time T with the measured axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az and the predicted axial accelerations Ax′, Ay′, Az′ also at current time T;
obtaining an updated state of the six-axis motion sensor module by comparing the current state with the measured state of the six-axis motion sensor module; and
calculating and converting the updated state of the six axis motion sensor module to said resulting deviation comprising said resultant angles in said spatial pointer reference frame of the 3D pointing device.
And claim 10 of the '978 patent is representative of the two asserted method claims of the '978 patent:
10. A method for compensating rotations of a 3D pointing device, comprising:
generating an orientation output associated with an orientation of the 3D pointing device associated with three coordinate axes of a global reference frame associated with Earth;
generating a first signal set comprising axial accelerations associated with movements and rotations of the 3D pointing device in the spatial reference frame;
generating a second signal set associated with Earth's magnetism; generating the orientation output based on the first signal set, the second signal set and the rotation output or based on the first signal set and the second signal set;
generating a rotation output associated with a rotation of the 3D pointing device associated with three coordinate axes of a spatial reference frame associated with the 3D pointing device; and
using the orientation output and the rotation output to generate a transformed output associated with a fixed reference frame associated with a display device, wherein the orientation output and the rotation output is generated by a nine-axis motion sensor module; obtaining one or more resultant deviation including a plurality of deviation angles using a plurality of measured magnetisms Mx, My, Mz and a plurality of predicted magnetism Mx′, My′ and Mz′ for the second signal set.
Samsung contended that these claims are directed to a mathematical formula and thus patent-ineligible. In doing so, Samsung attempted to analogize these claims to those in Parker v. Flook and Digitech, and to distinguish these claims to those in Thales Visionix. In Flook, the Supreme Court found that claims for merely providing an equation into which selected temperature values were inserted were patent-ineligible. In Digitech, the Federal Circuit found that claims "recit[ing] a process of taking two data sets and combining them into a single data set" were directed to an abstract idea and thus patent-ineligible. And in Thales, the Federal Circuit found that the claims at issue, despite involving a mathematical equation, were "directed to systems and methods that use inertial sensors in a non-conventional manner to reduce errors in measuring the relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving reference frame" and were thus patent-eligible.
Addressing step one of the Alice test, the Court began its analysis by opining on the importance and patentability of mathematical formulas:
Mathematical formulas, operations, or algorithms are at the heart of countless inventions; the application of mathematical principles has been the key to advancements in any number of fields. Just considering fields akin to the orientation - sensing devices and methods at issue in this case, mathematical algorithms are at the heart of such inventions as driverless vehicles, drone navigation, and the remote orientation of satellites and scientific instrumentation in space. The mathematical processes used in the operation of such devices have consequences in the physical world that make those devices precisely the kinds of inventions that the patent system was designed to protect and encourage. Moreover, improvements in such devices are patentable even when the improvements in the devices are the product of improvements in the sophistication of the algorithms that drive the product's performance. For example, autonomous emergency braking systems in automobiles have evolved through the use of more and more sophisticated algorithms, even when the brakes themselves and the sensors used to detect collisions may not have evolved significantly. An improved system for autonomous emergency braking could hardly be deemed unpatentable if it used an algorithm that was more sophisticated than its predecessors, even though the mechanical components were themselves known in the art.
The Court also stressed that mathematical equations involved in claims should be viewed in conjunction with all other claim elements.
With this in mind, the Court found that the '438 patent and '978 patent claims "entail more than simply performing a calculation or organizing information through mathematical correlations, as in Flook and Digitech." In particular, the Court highlighted the 3D pointing device and the computations performed by the processing/transmitting module based on the signal sets from the six-axis motion sensor module from the apparatus claims of the '438 patent, concluding that those claims are "directed to a particular device that performs a specific, useful function in the physical world" and "recite tangible, physical results from the receipt and assessment of information." As for the method claims recited in both patents, the Court concluded that the claims "do not simply describe a mathematical calculation" and are rather "directed to a means of using the inputs from six-axis and nine-axis sensors to track the orientation status of the 3D pointing device and correct errors associated with conventional motion detectors."
Lastly, the Court specifically addressed Samsung's argument that, unlike the inertial sensors in Thales, the present claims involve sensors being used in a conventional manner and are thus patent-ineligible. The Court refuted this argument, stating that the Thales Court did not view the unconventional use of the inertial sensors to be critical to the patentability of the subject matter. Rather, the Court asserted that the Thales court viewed this unconventional use merely as "additional evidence that the claims were not directed to an abstraction in the form of a pure mathematical formula, but instead to a new and useful technique that simply relied heavily on an algorithm for its effectiveness."
Thus, the Court found the claims of both the '438 patent and the '978 patent to be patent-eligible.
CyWee Group Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (E.D. Tex. 2018)
Memorandum Opinion and Order by Circuit Judge Bryson
