`
`Filed on behalf of Patent Owner 3Shape A/S
`By: Todd R. Walters, Esq.
`
`Roger H. Lee, Esq.
`
`Mythili Markowski, Ph.D., Esq.
`
`BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
`
`1737 King Street, Suite 500
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`
`Main Telephone (703) 836-6620
`
`Main Facsimile (703) 836-2021
`
`todd.walters@bipc.com
`
`roger.lee@bipc.com
`
`mythili.markowski@bipc.com
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`EXOCAD GMBH and EXOCAD AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`3SHAPE A/S
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00785
`Patent 9,336,336
`__________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO THE PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 9,336,336
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 313 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00785
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
` 
`II.
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9 III.
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`BACKGROUND OF THE ’336 PATENT ..................................................... 5 
`The ’336 Patent and the state of the art ................................................. 5 
`A.
`The claims of the ’336 Patent ................................................................ 7 
`B.
`
`“of at least part of an oral cavity of the patient” ................................. 10 
`A.
`“arrange the at least one 2D image relative to the 3D virtual
`B.
`model in a virtual 3D space such that the at least one 2D image
`and the 3D virtual model are aligned when viewed from a
`viewpoint and remain separate representations after being
`arranged” ............................................................................................. 13 
`“render a part of the at least one 2D image that includes teeth at
`least partly or wholly transparent” ...................................................... 14 
`  ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 15 
`  Malfliet, taken individually or in combination with Kopelman
`A.
`and Wiedmann, fails to disclose or suggest that the 2D image
`and 3D virtual model “remain separate representations after
`being arranged.” (Ground 1) ............................................................... 19 
`1.  Malfliet discloses embedding the data in order to
`visualize the result. .................................................................... 19 
`Petitioner fails to provide any credible evidence in
`support of its assertion that “embedded” is synonymous
`with “visualizing simultaneously on a display.” ....................... 20 
`Petitioner fails to articulate a reason with rational
`underpinnings for modifying Malfliet to arrive at the
`claimed recitation “remain separate representations after
`being arranged.” ........................................................................ 25 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`C.
`
` 
`
`IV.
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00785
`
`4. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`5. 
`
`A POSITA would have understood that “embedded”
`means that the data does not remain as separate
`representations after being arranged. ........................................ 27 
`Kopelman and Wiedmann fail to cure the above-
`described deficiencies of Malfliet. ............................................ 29 
`a. 
`Petitioner does not provide a reason with rational
`underpinnings for combining Kopelman and
`Wiedmann with Malfliet to arrive at the 2D image
`and 3D virtual model remaining as separate
`representations after being arranged. .............................. 30 
`Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Kopelman
`discloses the claimed feature “remain separate
`representations after being arranged.” ............................ 34 
`Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Wiedmann
`discloses the claimed feature “remain separate
`representations after being arranged.” ............................ 36 
`  Malfliet discloses visualizing a 2D space after embedding, not
`that the 3D virtual model and the 2D image are both visualized
`“in the 3D space.” (Ground 1) ............................................................ 38 
`  Malfliet, taken individually or in combination with Kopelman
`and Wiedmann, fails to disclose or suggest either virtually
`cutting at least a part of teeth out of the at least one 2D image or
`rendering a part of the at least one 2D image that include teeth
`at least partly or wholly transparent. (Ground 1) ................................ 42 
`1. 
`Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Malfliet discloses or
`suggests either virtually cutting at least a part of teeth out
`of the 2D image or rendering a part of the 2D image that
`includes teeth at least partly or wholly transparent. ................. 42 
`Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Kopelman and
`Wiedmann cure the above-described deficiencies of
`Malfliet. ..................................................................................... 45 
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`2. 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00785
`
`a. 
`
`F.
` 
`
`Kopelman fails to disclose or suggest either
`virtually cutting at least a part of teeth out of the
`2D image or rendering a part of the 2D image that
`includes teeth at least partly or wholly transparent. ....... 45 
`b.  Wiedmann fails to disclose or suggest either
`virtually cutting at least a part of teeth out of the
`2D image or rendering a part of the 2D image that
`includes teeth at least partly or wholly transparent. ....... 47 
`  Wiedmann should be given no weight because Petitioner
`provides no explanation as to why Wiedmann was somehow
`publicly accessible as of the April 2008 date alleged by
`Petitioner. ............................................................................................ 48 
`  Wiedmann should be given no weight because Petitioner fails
`to provide the required affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the
`alleged translation. ............................................................................... 50 
`Lehman, Seeger, and MacDougald fail to cure the above-
`described deficiencies of Malfliet. (Grounds 2 to 4) ......................... 52 
`  All grounds presented in the Petition should be denied under §
`325(d). ................................................................................................. 53 
`1. 
`Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the Examiner during
`prosecution considered Malfliet’s disclosure of the “use
`of a 2D face image.” ................................................................. 54 
`During prosecution, the Examiner combined Malfliet
`with a foreign search report citing a document
`corresponding to Kopelman. ..................................................... 56 
`3.  Wiedmann is cumulative because Petitioner concedes
`that “Kopelman and Wiedmann…apply the same
`approach.” ................................................................................. 58 
`Petitioner does not assert that its reliance on Lehman,
`Seeger, and MacDougald somehow precludes denial
`under § 325(d). .......................................................................... 60 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 61 
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`G.
`
`2. 
`
`4. 
`
`V.
`
` 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`APPENDIX A - LIST OF EXHIBITS
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH 37 C.F.R. § 42.24
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00785
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00785
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’n, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................... 33, 41
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 33
`Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) .......................................... 59
`Brian Synergy Institute, LLC v. Ultrathera Tech., Inc.,
`IPR2015-00515, Paper 12 (PTAB Jun. 16, 2015) ......................................... 51
`Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc.,
`445 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..................................................................... 48
`Bumble Bee Foods, LLC v. William R. Kowalski,
`IPR2014-00224, Paper 18 (PTAB Jun. 5, 2014) ........................................... 51
`Coalition for Affordable Drugs IV LLC v. Pharmacyclics, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01076, Paper 33 (PTAB Oct. 19, 2015) ................................... 48, 49
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016). ..................................................................................... 9
`Dell, Inc. v. Selene Comm’n Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-01411, Paper 23 (PTAB Feb. 26, 2015). ....................................... 49
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... 48
`In re Fine,
`837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ..................................................................... 52
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ........................................................................................... 17
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 17
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00785
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Jiawei Tech. (HK) Ltd. v. Simon Nicholas Richmond,
`IPR2014-00937, Paper 24 (PTAB Feb. 6, 2014) .......................................... 47
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007)................................................................................. 17, 18
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................................... 18
`Kayak Software Corp. v. Int’l Business Machines Corp.,
`CBM2016-00075, Paper 16 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2016) ..................................... 60
`Kinetic Technologies, Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00529, Paper 8 (PTAB Sep. 23, 2014) .................................... 32, 41
`In re Klopfenstein,
`380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................................... 48
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................... 48
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................... 26, 37
`In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
`800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ..................................................................... 18
`Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co.,
`868 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ..................................................................... 17
`In re Rijckaert,
`9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ......................................................................... 24
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................ 17, 24
`Shenzhen Kean Silicone Product Co., Ltd. v. Pkoh NYC, LLC,
`IPR2017-01327, Paper 14 (PTAB Dec. 6, 2017) .......................................... 51
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00785
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Symantec Corp. v. Trs. of Columbia Univ.,
`IPR2015-00371, Paper 9 (PTAB June 17, 2015) .......................................... 48
`Temporal Power, Ltd. v. Beacon Power, LLC,
`IPR2015-00146, Paper 10 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2015) ........................................ 49
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Berman,
`IPR2016-01571, Paper 10 (PTAB Dec. 14, 2016) ............................ 53, 55, 58
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ....................................................................... 16
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor LLC v. Nidec Motor Corp.,
`IPR2014-01121, Paper 20 (PTAB Jan. 21, 2015) ......................................... 51
`
`
`Statutes
`18 U.S.C. § 1001 ...................................................................................................... 51
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................. 16, 18
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................... 49
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................. 16, 18
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... 17
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ................................................................................................... 48
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 15
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................................................................passim
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00785
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. § 1.68 ................................................................................................. 50, 51
`37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c) ................................................................................................. 52
`37 C.F.R. § 42.2 ................................................................................................. 50, 51
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) .......................................................................................... 50, 52
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ..........................................................................................passim
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ............................................................................................... 15
`
`Other
`83 Fed. Reg. 21221 (May 9, 2018) .......................................................................... 10
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00785
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner, 3Shape A/S (“3Shape” or “Patent Owner”), submits this
`
`Preliminary Response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition” or “Pet.”)
`
`filed by exocad GmbH and exocad America, Inc. (“Exocad” or “Petitioner”) on
`
`March 15, 2018, against U.S. Patent No. 9,336,336 (Ex.1001, “the ’336 Patent”).
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b) and the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to
`
`Petition and Time for Filing Patent Owner Preliminary Response, mailed April 9,
`
`2018, this Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response is timely filed.
`
`As discussed in detail below, Petitioner fails to establish a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to any challenged claim of the
`
`’336 Patent or any ground presented in the Petition. Thus, the Board should deny
`
`institution with respect to all challenged claims and all asserted grounds.
`
`The first purported ground for unpatentability is that claims 1-14, 16-20, and
`
`22-30 are anticipated by or obvious over Malfliet, or alternatively that claims 1-14,
`
`16-20, and 22-30 are obvious based on Malfliet and Kopelman or Malfliet and
`
`Wiedmann (“Ground 1”). This ground is deficient for at least the following
`
`reasons.
`
`First, Malfliet, taken individually or in combination with Kopelman and
`
`Wiedmann, fails to disclose or suggest that the 2D image and 3D virtual model
`
`“remain separate representations after being arranged.” Malfliet discloses
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00785
`
`embedding the data in order to visualize the result. Petitioner fails to provide any
`
`credible evidence in support of its assertion that “embedded” is synonymous with
`
`“visualizing simultaneously on a display.” Petitioner fails to articulate a reason
`
`with rational underpinnings for modifying Malfliet to arrive at the claimed
`
`recitation “remain separate representations after being arranged.” When
`
`considering Malfliet as a whole and the evidence of record, a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have understood that “embedded” means that
`
`the 2D image and 3D virtual model are merged into a single representation and do
`
`not remain as separate representations after being arranged.
`
`
`
`Second, Kopelman and Wiedmann fail to cure the above-described
`
`deficiencies of Malfliet. Petitioner does not provide a reason with rational
`
`underpinnings for combining Kopelman and Wiedmann with Malfliet to arrive at
`
`the 2D image and 3D virtual model remaining as separate representations after
`
`being arranged. Malfliet discloses that in order for visualization to occur, the 3D
`
`model “should be” embedded within the 2D photograph. In addition, Petitioner
`
`fails to demonstrate that Kopelman or Wiedmann discloses the claimed feature
`
`“remain separate representations after being arranged.”
`
`Third, Malfliet discloses visualizing a 2D space after embedding, not that the
`
`3D virtual model and the 2D image are both visualized “in the 3D space.” What is
`
`visualized in Malfliet (at page 18, line 27-30) is a 2D space, because Malfliet
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00785
`
`discloses that the optimal tooth set-up should be embedded “within the [2D]
`
`photograph to visualize the result.” Petitioner and its expert, Dr. Mundy, fail to
`
`provide any articulated reasoning or specific details concerning how and why
`
`Malfliet would have been modified in order to visualize the result “in the 3D
`
`space.”
`
`Fourth, Malfliet, taken individually or in combination with Kopelman and
`
`Wiedmann, fails to disclose or suggest either virtually cutting at least a part of
`
`teeth out of the at least one 2D image or rendering a part of the at least one 2D
`
`image that include teeth at least partly or wholly transparent.
`
`
`
`Fifth, Wiedmann should be given no weight because Petitioner provides no
`
`explanation as to why Wiedmann was somehow publicly accessible as of the April
`
`2008 date alleged by Petitioner. In addition, Petitioner fails to provide the required
`
`affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the alleged translation of Wiedmann.
`
`The second purported ground for unpatentability is that claim 15 is obvious
`
`based on Malfliet, Kopelman (or Wiedmann) and Lehman (“Ground 2”). The third
`
`purported ground for unpatentability is that claim 21 is obvious based on Malfliet,
`
`Kopelman (or Wiedmann) and Seeger (“Ground 3”). The fourth purported ground
`
`for unpatentability is that claims 6-8 is obvious based on Malfliet, Kopelman, and
`
`MacDougald (“Ground 4”). For at least the reasons discussed above, Petitioner
`
`has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to Grounds
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00785
`
`2-4. Petitioner relies on Lehman, Seeger, and MacDougald to purportedly address
`
`additional subject matter of dependent claims 6-8, 15, and 21. Assuming arguendo
`
`that Lehman, Seeger, and MacDougald would have been combined with the other
`
`applied documents in the manner alleged by Petitioner, Lehman, Seeger, and
`
`MacDougald nevertheless fail to cure the above-described deficiencies of the other
`
`applied documents.
`
`Further, the Board should exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`
`and deny institution of all grounds presented in the Petition. Petitioner fails to
`
`provide any sufficient reason why the PTAB should readjudicate substantially the
`
`same prior art (Malfliet, Kopelman, and Wiedmann which is cumulative to
`
`Kopelman) and substantially the same argumentation (Malfliet alone, and Malfliet
`
`in combination with Kopelman or Wiedmann), yet arrive at the opposite
`
`conclusion to that of the Patent Office during prosecution. The Patent Office
`
`already considered substantially the same art and arguments and determined that
`
`the art does not disclose or suggest the features of the claimed invention.
`
`Denial under § 325(d) is appropriate for five reasons. First, contrary to
`
`Petitioner’s assertion, the Examiner during prosecution considered Malfliet’s
`
`disclosure of the “use of a 2D face image.” Second, Petitioner overlooks the fact
`
`that, during prosecution, the Examiner combined Malfliet with a foreign search
`
`report citing a document corresponding to Kopelman. Petitioner does not explain
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00785
`
`how its reliance on Kopelman in the Petition somehow differs from that which was
`
`considered during prosecution. Third, Sachdeva does not preclude denial under
`
`§ 325(d) because Sachdeva is not relied on in any ground presented in the Petition.
`
`Fourth, Wiedmann is cumulative because Petitioner concedes that “Kopelman and
`
`Wiedmann…apply the same approach.” Petitioner makes no argument that
`
`Wiedmann substantively differs from Kopelman in its alleged combinations with
`
`Malfliet. Fifth, Petitioner does not assert that its reliance on Lehman, Seeger, and
`
`MacDougald, which are cited by Petitioner to purportedly address additional
`
`subject matter of certain dependent claims, somehow precludes denial under
`
`§ 325(d).
`
` BACKGROUND OF THE ’336 PATENT
`II.
` The ’336 Patent and the state of the art
`A.
`
`The ’336 Patent generally relates to visualizing and modeling a set of teeth
`
`for a patient. Ex.1001 at 1:5-6. Embodiments of the ’336 Patent are directed to
`
`methods of designing a dental restoration for a patient. Id. at 2:15-29. Dental
`
`restorations include, for example, crowns, bridges, abutments, or implants. Id. at
`
`1:15-16. The ’336 Patent states that “[a]ccuracy requirements for the dental
`
`restorations are very high[,] otherwise the dental restoration will not be visual[ly]
`
`appealing, fit onto the teeth, could cause pain or cause infections.” Id. at 1:46-49.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00785
`
`The ’336 Patent discloses providing one or more 2D images where at least
`
`one 2D image comprises at least one facial feature, providing a 3D virtual model of
`
`at least part of the patient’s oral cavity, and arranging at least one of the one or
`
`more 2D images relative to the 3D virtual model such that the at least one 2D
`
`image and the 3D virtual model are aligned when viewed from a viewpoint, and
`
`are both visualized in the 3D space. Id. at 2:15-25. The 2D image and 3D virtual
`
`model remain separate representations after being arranged. Id. at 26:15-16.
`
`The ’336 Patent recognizes advantages associated with the 2D image and the 3D
`
`model remaining as separate representations after being arranged:
`
`[I]t is an advantage that the 2D image and the 3D model are arranged
`and remain as separate data representations which are not merged or
`fused together into one representation. By keeping the data
`representations as separate representations, time is saved and data
`processing time and capacity is reduced. Thus the 2D image is not
`superimposed or overlaid onto the 3D virtual model for creating one
`representation with all data included. Prior art documents describe
`that the data from e.g. a color image is added to the 3D model, such
`that the color content from the image is transferred to the 3D model,
`whereby the result is one representation, i.e. the 3D model including
`color. Creating such models requires more time and exhaustive data
`processing.
`
`Id. at 3:25-37. Thus, the ’336 Patent distinguishes its technique of maintaining the
`
`2D image and 3D model as separate representations after being arranged from
`
`6
`
`

`

`prior art techniques which merge or fuse together the 2D image and the 3D model
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00785
`
`into a single representation.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`The claims of the ’336 Patent
`
`The ’336 Patent contains thirty (30) claims. Id. at cols. 25-28. Claims 1 and
`
`29 are the sole independent claims. Id. Claims 2-6, 9-18, and 22-28 depend
`
`directly from claim 1. Id. Claim 7 depends from claim 6. Id. Claim 8 depends
`
`from claim 7. Id. Claims 19-21 depend from claim 18. Id. Claim 30 depends
`
`directly from claim 29. Id. Independent claims 1 and 29 recite:
`
`A computer-implemented method of designing a dental
`1.
`restoration for a patient, wherein the method comprises:
`using a hardware processor to:
`provide one or more 2D images, where at least one of the
`one or more 2D images comprises at least one facial feature, wherein
`the at least one facial feature comprises lips,
`either virtually cut at least a part of teeth out of the at
`least one 2D image or render a part of the at least one 2D image that
`includes teeth at least partly or wholly transparent;
`provide a 3D virtual model of at least part of an oral
`cavity of the patient;
`arrange the at least one 2D image relative to the 3D
`virtual model in a virtual 3D space such that the at least one 2D image
`and the 3D virtual model are aligned when viewed from a viewpoint
`and remain separate representations after being arranged, whereby the
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00785
`
`3D virtual model and the at least one 2D image are both visualized in
`the 3D space; and
`design a restoration for the 3D virtual model, where the
`restoration is designed to fit the at least one facial feature of the at
`least one 2D image;
`wherein the at least one 2D image and the 3D virtual model are
`aligned by scaling, translating or rotating the at least one 2D image or
`the 3D virtual model relative to each other
`
`
`29. A system for designing a dental restoration for a patient,
`wherein the system comprises:
`a hardware processor configured to:
`provide one or more 2D images, where at least one of the
`one or more 2D images comprises at least one facial feature, wherein
`the at least one facial feature comprises lips;
`either virtually cut at least a part of teeth out of the at
`least one 2D image or render a part of the at least one 2D image that
`includes teeth at least partly or wholly transparent;
`provide a 3D virtual model of at least part of an oral
`cavity of the patient;
`arrange the at least one 2D image relative to the 3D
`virtual model in a virtual 3D space wherein the at least one 2D image
`and the 3D virtual model are aligned when viewed from a viewpoint
`and remain separate representations after being arranged, and wherein
`the 3D virtual model and the at least one 2D image are both visualized
`in the 3D space; and
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00785
`
`design a restoration for the 3D virtual model, where the
`restoration fits the facial feature of the at least one 2D image;
`wherein the at least one 2D image and the 3D virtual model are
`aligned by scaling, translating or rotating the at least one 2D image or
`the 3D virtual model relative to each other.
`
`Id. at 25:66-26:25, 28:15-41.
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`III.
`Claims in an unexpired patent subject to inter partes review are given the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136
`
`S.Ct. 2131 (2016).
`
`For the reasons discussed in Section IV. below, Petitioner fails to satisfy its
`
`burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any
`
`challenged claim of the ’336 Patent even when the challenged claims are construed
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00785
`
`under Petitioner’s proposed constructions set forth at pages 8-12 of the Petition.1
`
`Patent Owner submits the following constructions.
`
`A.
`
`
`
` “of at least part of an oral cavity of the patient”
`
`Petitioner asserts that the term “3D virtual model of at least part of an oral
`
`cavity of the patient” means “a digital representation of at least part of an oral
`
`1 For the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner fails to satisfy its burden of
`
`demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of success with respect to any challenged
`
`claim when construed under the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”)
`
`standard. The Patent Office has proposed to replace the BRI standard for
`
`construing unexpired patent claims in inter partes review proceedings with a
`
`standard that is the same as the standard applied in federal district courts and
`
`International Trade Commission proceedings. 83 Fed. Reg. 21221 (May 9, 2018).
`
`For at least the same reasons discussed herein, Petitioner fails to satisfy its burden
`
`of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of success with respect to any challenged
`
`claim when construed under the standard applied in federal district courts and
`
`International Trade Commission proceedings. Patent Owner reserves the right to
`
`challenge Petitioner’s proposed claim constructions, either under BRI or under the
`
`standard applied in federal district courts and International Trade Commission
`
`proceedings.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00785
`
`cavity of the patient with or without a restoration, stored in three-dimensional
`
`format (such as texture and other values for [x, y, z] coordinates).” Pet. at 8.
`
`However, in its proposed construction, Petitioner merely repeats the claim
`
`language “of at least part of an oral cavity of the patient.” Id. Petitioner’s
`
`proposed construction does not provide any meaningful interpretation of the phrase
`
`“of at least part of an oral cavity of the patient.”
`
`Such claim language is significant to a proper understanding of the scope of
`
`the claims, particularly when such language is read in light of the ’336
`
`specification. In the specification, Fig. 1 depicts a flowchart of a method of
`
`designing a dental restoration for a patient:
`
`
`
`Fig. 1 of the ’336 Patent
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00785
`
`As is clear from Fig. 1 and the accompanying description at 19:46-20:29 of
`
`the ’336 Patent, Steps 101, 102, 103, and 104, are conducted in sequential order.
`
`Ex.1001 at Fig. 1 (depicting that Step 101 is followed by Step 102, which is
`
`followed by Step 103, which is followed by Step 104). Step 102, which includes
`
`providing “a 3D virtual model of the patient’s oral cavity comprising the patient’s
`
`set of teeth, if there are any teeth,” occurs prior to Step 104, which includes
`
`modeling “a restoration of the 3D virtual model, where the restoration is designed
`
`to fit the facial feature of the at least one 2D image.” Ex.1001 at 19:55-64,
`
`20:17-19. Given the sequence of Steps 101 to 104, the 3D virtual model of the
`
`patient’s oral cavity provided in Step 102 is a 3D virtual model of the original oral
`
`cavity of the patient that is provided prior to designing the recited restoration (in
`
`Step 104). See also id. at 2:48-52 and 10:48-53 (discussing original oral cavity of
`
`patient or parts thereof that are provided prior to designing the recited restoration).
`
`In fact, Petitioner concedes that “the virtual model is provided and, after this (due
`
`to antecedent basis), ‘design[ing] a restoration for the 3D virtual model” occurs.
`
`Pet. at 9:1-3 (emphasis added). Thus, like the specification, the plain language of
`
`the claims demonstrates that “provid[ing] a 3D virtual model of at least part of an
`
`oral cavity of the patient” occurs prior to designing the recited restoration, and the
`
`3D virtual model is of the original oral cavity of the patient. Thus, when read in
`
`light of the specification, the phrase “of at least part of an oral cavity of the
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00785
`
`patient” means “of at least part of an original oral cavity of the patient that is
`
`provided prior to designing the recited restoration.”
`
`Petitioner asserts that the term “3D virtual model” encompasses a digital
`
`representation of at least part of an oral cavity of the patient “with or without a
`
`restoration.” Pet. at 8. Any interpretation of “of at least part of an oral cavity of
`
`the patient” as somehow being open to encompassing the restoration recited in the
`
`step of designing the recited restoration, however, is not a reasonable construction.
`
`This is because, as explained above, providing a 3D virtual model of at least part of
`
`an oral cavity of the patient occurs prior to designing the recited restoration.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`“arrange the at least one 2D image relative to the 3D virtual
`model in a virtual 3D space such that the at least one 2D image
`and the 3D virtual model are aligned when viewed from a
`viewpoint and remain separate representations after being
`arranged”
`
`Petitioner asserts that the term “remain separate representations after being
`
`arranged” recited in claims 1 and 29 means “the 2D image and the 3D virtual
`
`model remain in their respective formats and are not merged into a single
`
`representation.” Pet. at 9. However, Peti