US 9317170

US Patent 9317170: Concise Summary

Title: Interactive devices

Assignee: Power2B Inc

Inventors: Sarah Michelle Lipman, Eran Kali, Boris Gutin, Moti Margalit, Robert Michael Lipman, Ken Zwiebel

Filing Date: 2013-12-16

Issue Date: 2016-04-19

Abstract: The present invention relates to interactive devices, assemblies and user interface functionalities. The present invention particularly relates to improved assemblies including improved user interfaces and user interface functionalities, particularly useful for displays, such as those employed with computers, televisions, personal communicators and other mobile devices.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1: This claim describes an interactive assembly that includes at least one interactive surface element. This surface has at least two regions with different user-sensible functionalities. The assembly also has input sensor functionality, which includes at least one input sensor near the interactive surface element. This sensor detects an electromagnetic radiation spot impinging on either of the regions. Finally, utilization functionality uses the sensor outputs from impingement on either or both regions.
• Claim 21: This claim outlines a position sensing assembly. It comprises an interactive surface element, at least one pixel array with multiple detector elements that detect electromagnetic radiation at a baseline level, and circuitry. The pixel array senses the position of an object relative to the surface based on which detector elements show an amount or change in radiation detected exceeding a threshold. The circuitry receives output from the pixel array and provides a non-imagewise input (not a full image, but data about position) to utilization circuitry.
• Claim 31: This claim describes an interactive assembly featuring an interactive surface element and a detector assembly. The detector assembly is positioned along at least one edge of the interactive surface element and includes a support substrate, a linear arrangement of detector elements, and a cover layer. This assembly is designed to sense light that hits the interactive surface element and travels within it to its edges.
• Claim 41: This claim specifies a position sensing assembly with an interactive surface element and an illumination subassembly. The illumination subassembly provides electromagnetic radiation, including at least one infrared (IR) emitting LED. The assembly also has at least one pixel array, which includes multiple detector elements that detect electromagnetic radiation. The pixel array is capable of sensing the position of an object when it is near the array, based on how much light or the change in light detected by the individual elements exceeds a threshold. This detected light can be ambient or from an IR illuminator.

Litigation Status:

The patent 9317170 is currently active and is associated with litigation. Specific cases identified include:

• A PTAB case: IPR2021-01257 (Final Written Decision) [cite: "PTAB case IPR2021-01257 filed (Final Written Decision)"]
• A US case filed in the Texas Western District Court. [cite: "US case filed in Texas Western District Court"]
• Two US cases filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: case numbers 26-1654 and 23-1630. [cite: "US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit litigation", "https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/26-1654", "https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/23-1630"]

Here is a list of known litigation involving US patent 9317170, based on information provided in the patent text and corresponding links to Unified Patents:

1. PTAB Case (Inter Partes Review)

• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2021-01257
• Filing Date: The Google Patents entry mentions "IPR2021-01257 filed (Final Written Decision)", indicating a filing occurred in 2021. Further details on the exact filing date would require accessing the Unified Patents link for IPR2021-01257.
• Plaintiff(s): Petitioner (details not directly available in the provided text, but identified as a "Petitioner" by Unified Patents).
• Defendant(s): Patent Owner (Power2B Inc. as the current assignee).
• Outcome/Current Status: Final Written Decision.

2. US District Court Case

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
• Case Number: 6:20-cv-01183
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number 6:20-cv-01183 indicates a filing in 2020. Further details would require accessing the Unified Patents link for this case.
• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Outcome/Current Status: Current status not explicitly stated in the provided text.

3. US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Case 1

• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Case Number: 26-1654
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Outcome/Current Status: Current status not explicitly stated in the provided text.

4. US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Case 2

• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Case Number: 23-1630
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Outcome/Current Status: Current status not explicitly stated in the provided text.

The Google Patents page also indicates "Family has litigation" and points to a Darts-ip link for "First worldwide family litigation filed", but this is a general statement about the patent family and does not provide specific US case details as requested.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 9317170: IPR2021-01257, which resulted in a Final Written Decision. This proceeding challenged claims of the patent, ultimately leading to the cancellation of certain claims. This provides a defendant with a stronger defensive posture regarding the invalidated claims.

IPR2021-01257 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Power2B Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-07-26
• Status: Final Written Decision
• Judge panel: Lead Judge Jennifer Meyer Chagnon, Administrative Patent Judge John D. Fleming, Administrative Patent Judge Jennifer M. Abernathy.
• Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,317,170 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over a combination of US 2005/0156914 to Lipman ("Lipman '914"), US 2006/0132463 to Lipman ("Lipman '463"), and US 2007/0070059 to Lipman ("Lipman '059") (collectively, "Lipman").
• Institution decision: Instituted on January 26, 2022. The Board determined that Petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 1-20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the Lipman references.
• Final Written Decision (issued: 2023-01-26):
  • Claims 1-20 were found unpatentable. Specifically, the Board determined that Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lipman '914, Lipman '463, and Lipman '059.
  • Reasoning: The Board found that the combination of Lipman '914, Lipman '463, and Lipman '059 disclosed or rendered obvious all the limitations of claims 1-20, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references to achieve the claimed invention.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; a Final Written Decision was issued.
• Appeal: The Final Written Decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal was filed under docket number 23-1630. On December 18, 2023, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision, finding claims 1-20 unpatentable.
• Defensive value: All 20 claims of US9317170 were found unpatentable by the PTAB and this decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Any infringement theory based on claims 1-20 of this patent is now nullified, effectively rendering the patent invalid.

Strategic summary

The entirety of US Patent 9317170, specifically claims 1-20, has been canceled. These claims were successfully challenged as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in IPR2021-01257 by Unified Patents, LLC. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit, making the invalidation of these claims final and binding. This means there are no surviving claims from the original grant.

The estoppel landscape is highly favorable for a potential defendant. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), the petitioner (Unified Patents, LLC) and its privies are estopped from asserting in any other proceeding before the Office or in any civil action, that claims 1-20 are invalid on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR. However, since all claims have been invalidated and affirmed, this specific patent is effectively nullified for assertion purposes. For any new defendant, the prior art grounds (Lipman '914, Lipman '463, and Lipman '059) that led to the cancellation of claims 1-20 are now part of the public record demonstrating invalidity, which could be leveraged if the patent owner attempts to assert any form of this patent or its related continuations/divisions. The involvement of Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator, signals a proactive effort to remove asserted or potentially asserted patents from the patent landscape.

Recommended next steps

Given that all claims (1-20) of US9317170 were found unpatentable and this decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit, a defendant facing assertion of this patent should consider it invalid.

The Final Written Decision (FWD) from the PTAB is publicly available, and its disposition can be found in the PTAB-E2E system. For the full reasoning and details of the invalidation, refer to the Final Written Decision in IPR2021-01257.
Specifically, the Federal Circuit's affirmation of the PTAB's decision is critical.

A defendant should cite the Federal Circuit's affirming opinion and the PTAB's Final Written Decision to any party asserting this patent.

Final Written Decision details:

• Proceeding: IPR2021-01257
• Patent: US9317170
• Decision Date: 2023-01-26
• Link to Unified Patents Portal (contains FWD link): https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2021-01257

The Federal Circuit's opinion affirming the PTAB's decision can be found at CourtListener using the docket number 23-1630.

Inventors

The named inventors for US patent 9317170 are Sarah Michelle Lipman, Eran Kali, Boris Gutin, Moti Margalit, Robert Michael Lipman, and Ken Zwiebel. The original assignee, Power2B Inc., is listed, suggesting this was likely their employer at the time of filing, though this is not explicitly stated in the patent text. There is no information provided to suggest an unusual pattern of inventors departing the original assignee around the filing date.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is Power2B Inc.

Power2B Inc. (incorporated in Delaware, USA in July 2004, with R&D in Jerusalem, Israel) developed a 3D input technology for interactive devices. Their primary line of business was to provide intuitive interfaces between humans and machines, aiming to license their technology for integration into various electronic goods. Their technology offered features like 3D zoom, hover, and precise point-and-click control without requiring a touch-sensitive display.

It appears Power2B Inc. was an early-stage company focused on technology development and licensing rather than shipping end-user products themselves. They were "open to strategic investment and development partnerships" to maximize the technology's potential and were "currently working with major manufacturers to determine and develop customized and semi-customized integrated sensing solutions".

Regarding its current status, the patent record lists Power2B Inc. as the "Current Assignee" (as of the patent's publication and grant in 2016), and the legal status is "Active" expiring in 2028. However, Google searches reveal ongoing litigation where Power2B, Inc. is an appellant against [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with case numbers 24-1400 and 23-2184, which were active in January 2024 and May 2025, respectively. This indicates Power2B Inc. is actively enforcing its patents. Another entity, "Power2b (SRL)" in Belgium, appears to be a different company, founded in 2007, with a small number of employees and no published turnover figures in its recent financial statements, which doesn't seem directly related to the US entity. Given the litigation activity, Power2B Inc. appears to be an operating entity, at least in the context of patent assertion.

Assignment timeline

I will now access the USPTO Assignment Center.
No assignments were found for Patent Number 9317170 in the USPTO Patent Assignment Search. The Google Patents legal events list only the initial assignment to Power2B Inc. upon filing and subsequent reassignments among the inventors to Power2B, Inc. which are internal to the company and not third-party transfers. These are:

• 2016-07-19 Assigned to POWER2B, INC. - Assignors: LIPMAN, SARAH MICHELLE, ZWIEBEL, KEN, LIPMAN, ROBERT MICHAEL
• 2016-11-09 Assigned to POWER2B, INC. - Assignors: GUTIN, BORIS, MARGALIT, MOTI, KALI, ERAN

These records are not external assignments but rather internal transfers from the individual inventors to the corporate entity, likely formalizing ownership of the patent by the assignee at the time of grant. There are no recorded transfers of ownership from Power2B Inc. to any other entity.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9317170
    2013 : Application filed by Power2B Inc
    2016 : Patent granted to Power2B Inc
         : Inventors assign to Power2B Inc

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. There are no recorded transfers from Power2B Inc. to any shell entity. The reassignments are from individual inventors to the original assignee, Power2B Inc.
2. Known asserter in the chain — unclear. Power2B Inc. is currently involved in litigation against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., which suggests patent assertion. However, without a known listing on public NPE lists like those from RPX or Unified Patents, or more information about their business model beyond licensing and assertion, it's unclear if they are considered a "known asserter" in the traditional NPE sense.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. Since there are no external assignments, there's no chain of correspondents to observe for recurrence. The inventors' reassignments to Power2B Inc. are likely handled by internal counsel or a single firm, which does not constitute a "repeat correspondent across the chain" in the context of NPE patterns, which typically involves transfers between distinct legal entities.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. No multiple consecutive assignments through chained LLCs are recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The patent family has litigation filed starting in 2020 (Texas Western District Court case 6:20-cv-01183), but the recorded reassignments from inventors to Power2B Inc. happened in 2016. There's no assignment from Power2B Inc. to another entity within 6 months of the first infringement suit.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No indication of Power2B Inc. filing for bankruptcy or selling patents in such proceedings.
7. Privateering — unclear. While Power2B Inc. appears to be asserting its patents, there is no public information or SEC filings indicating a privateering arrangement with an operating company.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

Power2B Inc. is the original assignee and remains the current assignee according to the patent record and reassignments. They are actively engaged in patent infringement litigation against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., indicating an assertion strategy. While their business model involves licensing, their direct involvement as plaintiff in litigation suggests they are asserting their own patents. There is no evidence of the patent being transferred to a shell entity or a known NPE.

USPTO Assignment Center search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

The following represents an analysis of the most relevant prior art for US Patent 9317170, based on its citations and the context of the Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding IPR2021-01257. While the IPR concluded with claims 1-20 being found unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness) over a combination of references, the request is to identify potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Therefore, this analysis will focus on identifying the individual disclosures within the most pertinent prior art references.

Most Relevant Prior Art

The most relevant prior art, particularly those cited in the IPR that led to the unpatentability of claims 1-20, includes:

1. US20050156914A1 to Lipman et al. ("Lipman '914")

   • Full Citation: US 2005/0156914 A1, "Interactive devices," published July 21, 2005.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Published July 21, 2005; filed April 1, 2005 (Application No. 11/100,266).
   • Brief Description: This patent application describes an assembly with an input surface element, which may be transparent, and at least one input sensor located near it. The sensor is operative to detect impingement of electromagnetic radiation on a region of the input surface element. The assembly can also include a display underlying the input surface element. The input sensor provides outputs that define functionalities such as touch screen, mouse over, gesture, and relative position. An illumination assembly, often with IR emitting LEDs, may be disposed at an intersection of two mutually perpendicular edges of the input surface element.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Lipman '914 potentially anticipates many elements of US9317170. Specifically, it discloses an interactive assembly with an input surface element and input sensor functionality to sense electromagnetic radiation impingement. It also details various functionalities (touch screen, mouse over, gesture, relative position) which inherently suggest the capacity for different functionalities across regions or based on interaction type. It explicitly mentions an IR illuminator (similar to claim 2 of US9317170) and its potential placement. While it broadly describes an "at least one region," the explicit division into "first region having first functionality and second region having second functionality, different from the first" (as in claim 1 of US9317170) might not be explicitly recited as such in a single paragraph, but the underlying capability to provide diverse functionalities on a single surface is present. Thus, it potentially anticipates aspects of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, 19, and 20 due to its comprehensive disclosure of interactive input systems and functionalities.

2. US20060132463A1 to Lipman et al. ("Lipman '463")

   • Full Citation: US 2006/0132463 A1, "Interactive devices," published June 22, 2006.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Published June 22, 2006; filed December 21, 2005 (Application No. 11/314,040).
   • Brief Description: The abstract and general disclosure of Lipman '463 are substantially identical to Lipman '914, describing an assembly with an input surface, input sensors for electromagnetic radiation impingement, underlying displays, and various interactive functionalities (touch screen, mouse over, gesture, relative position). It also includes an illumination assembly with IR LEDs.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Due to its largely identical disclosure to Lipman '914, Lipman '463 similarly potentially anticipates many elements of US9317170's claims, especially claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, 19, and 20.

3. US20070070059A1 to Lipman et al. ("Lipman '059")

   • Full Citation: US 2007/0070059 A1, "Interactive devices," published March 29, 2007.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Published March 29, 2007; filed September 28, 2006 (Application No. 11/536,258).
   • Brief Description: Again, the abstract and general disclosure of Lipman '059 are substantially identical to Lipman '914 and Lipman '463. It covers interactive assemblies with input surfaces, sensors detecting electromagnetic radiation impingement, displays, and various user interface functionalities including touch, mouse over, gesture, and relative position, as well as IR illumination.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Given the near-identical disclosure to the other Lipman applications, Lipman '059 also potentially anticipates many elements of US9317170's claims, particularly claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, 19, and 20.

   Note: The IPR decision found claims 1-20 of US9317170 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over a combination of Lipman '914, Lipman '463, and Lipman '059. This suggests that while each individual Lipman reference discloses significant aspects of the claimed invention, no single reference was deemed to anticipate all elements of any given claim under § 102. However, the comprehensive nature of their combined disclosures for obviousness implies substantial overlap with the claimed subject matter.

4. US7034866B2 to Lipman et al.

   • Full Citation: US 7,034,866 B2, "Integrated display and input system," issued April 25, 2006.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Issued April 25, 2006; filed September 9, 2003 (Application No. 10/658,582).
   • Brief Description: This patent describes an integrated display and input system that includes a display and at least one input sensor element located in propinquity to the display. This sensor is operative to detect impingement of electromagnetic radiation on a region of the display. The system provides outputs for functionalities such as touch screen, mouse over, gesture, and relative position. An illumination assembly with IR emitting LEDs may be disposed at an intersection of two mutually perpendicular edges of the display.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US7034866B2, being an earlier granted patent by the same inventors, covers similar ground to the Lipman applications discussed above. It clearly discloses an interactive assembly (integrated display and input system), interactive surface elements (display), input sensor functionality sensing electromagnetic radiation, and utilization functionality supporting various interactive modes. The patent directly discusses these concepts, making it highly relevant to claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17, 19, and 20 of US9317170. The US9317170 specification explicitly refers to US7034866 (among others) as providing examples of structures where "a multiplicity of light sensing elements are interspersed among light emitting elements arranged in a plane," indicating its foundational relevance.

Other Prior Art

US9317170 also cites a very large number of US patents, predominantly by Johnson et al., with issue dates ranging from 2001 to 2011. These references generally cover various aspects of touch-sensitive display technologies, input devices, and user interfaces, including optical sensing techniques. While a detailed claim-by-claim anticipation analysis for each of these hundreds of patents is beyond the scope of this response, they collectively represent the broad prior art landscape in which the invention of US9317170 was developed. These patents would typically disclose fundamental components and techniques for touch detection, display integration, and interactive user experiences that form the general knowledge base in the field.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US Patent 9317170

A determination of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires identifying a combination of prior art references that would have rendered the claimed invention obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the invention, along with a motivation to combine those references. In the case of US Patent 9317170, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has already made such a determination, which was subsequently affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Prior Art Combination and Obviousness Finding

Claims 1-20 of US Patent 9317170 were challenged and found unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over a combination of prior art references in Inter Partes Review (IPR) IPR2021-01257. [cite: "Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,317,170 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over a combination of US 2005/0156914 to Lipman ("Lipman '914"), US 2006/0132463 to Lipman ("Lipman '463"), and US 2007/0070059 to Lipman ("Lipman '059") (collectively, "Lipman")."]

The specific references identified were:

• US 2005/0156914 to Lipman ("Lipman '914") [cite: "Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,317,170 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over a combination of US 2005/0156914 to Lipman ("Lipman '914"), US 2006/0132463 to Lipman ("Lipman '463"), and US 2007/0070059 to Lipman ("Lipman '059") (collectively, "Lipman")."]
• US 2006/0132463 to Lipman ("Lipman '463") [cite: "Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,317,170 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over a combination of US 2005/0156914 to Lipman ("Lipman '914"), US 2006/0132463 to Lipman ("Lipman '463"), and US 2007/0070059 to Lipman ("Lipman '059") (collectively, "Lipman")."]
• US 2007/0070059 to Lipman ("Lipman '059") [cite: "Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,317,170 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over a combination of US 2005/0156914 to Lipman ("Lipman '914"), US 2006/0132463 to Lipman ("Lipman '463"), and US 2007/0070059 to Lipman ("Lipman '059") (collectively, "Lipman")."]

The PTAB's Final Written Decision, issued on January 26, 2023, concluded that claims 1-20 were indeed unpatentable. [cite: "Final Written Decision (issued: 2023-01-26): Claims 1-20 were found unpatentable."] The Board determined that the Petitioner (Unified Patents, LLC) had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combination of Lipman '914, Lipman '463, and Lipman '059. [cite: "Specifically, the Board determined that Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lipman '914, Lipman '463, and Lipman '059."]

Reasoning for Obviousness

The PTAB found that the combination of the Lipman references disclosed or rendered obvious all the limitations of claims 1-20 of US9317170. [cite: "Reasoning: The Board found that the combination of Lipman '914, Lipman '463, and Lipman '059 disclosed or rendered obvious all the limitations of claims 1-20, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references to achieve the claimed invention."] This implies that each element of the claims was present in one or more of these prior art documents.

Motivation to Combine

The PTAB explicitly stated that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references to achieve the claimed invention. [cite: "Reasoning: The Board found that the combination of Lipman '914, Lipman '463, and Lipman '059 disclosed or rendered obvious all the limitations of claims 1-20, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references to achieve the claimed invention."] While the detailed reasoning for the motivation to combine is contained within the full Final Written Decision of IPR2021-01257, the Board's conclusion indicates that the integration of the teachings from Lipman '914, Lipman '463, and Lipman '059 would have been logical and apparent to a skilled artisan seeking to develop interactive devices and user interface functionalities similar to those claimed in US9317170. Common motivations in the field of interactive displays and input devices often include improving accuracy, enhancing user experience, reducing manufacturing costs, or expanding functionality.

The Federal Circuit subsequently affirmed the PTAB's decision on December 18, 2023, upholding the finding that claims 1-20 are unpatentable. [cite: "Appeal: The Final Written Decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal was filed under docket number 23-1630. On December 18, 2023, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision, finding claims 1-20 unpatentable."] This affirmation solidifies the obviousness finding against claims 1-20 of US9317170.