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. IPR2018-00788
`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. IPR2018-00788
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
` 
`II.
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9 III.
`
` 
`
` 
`
`C.
`
` 
`
` 
`
`IV.
`
`
`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” ................................. 11 
`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” ............................................................................................. 14 
`“render a part of the at least one 2D image that includes teeth at
`least partly or wholly transparent” ...................................................... 15 
`  ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 16 
`Petitioner Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood that
`A.
`Wiedmann Anticipates Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13, 14, 16-18, 22-24,
`and 27-30. (Ground 1) ........................................................................ 21 
`1. 
`Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Wiedmann discloses
`that “the 3D virtual model and the at least one 2D image
`are both visualized in the 3D space.” ....................................... 21 
`a. 
`Petitioner fails to demonstrate that, in the figures
`of Wiedmann, a 3D virtual model and a 2D image
`are both visualized in the 3D space. ............................... 22 
`b.  Wiedmann discloses determining measurements in
`a 2D space, not the ability to “move one or more
`objects in three dimensions” as required under
`Petitioner’s own construction. ........................................ 23 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00788
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Petitioner impermissibly relies on the same “optimum
`tooth shape” disclosure of Wiedmann to allegedly satisfy
`two distinct elements recited in the claims. .............................. 25 
`a. 
`The claimed “3D virtual model” is a distinct
`element from the claimed “restoration.” ........................ 25 
`It is impermissible for Petitioner to rely on the
`same “optimum tooth shape” disclosed by
`Wiedmann to somehow satisfy both the claimed
`“3D virtual model” and “restoration” elements
`which are distinct from each other. ................................ 28 
`Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Wiedmann
`discloses a 3D virtual model “of at least part of an
`oral cavity of the patient” when properly
`construed. ........................................................................ 29 
`Petitioner fails to demonstrate that Wiedmann discloses
`the claimed feature “remain separate representations after
`being arranged.” ........................................................................ 30 
`Petitioner Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood that
`Wiedmann in view of Sachdeva Renders Obvious Claims 1-14,
`16-20, and 22-30. (Ground 1) ............................................................. 32 
`1. 
`There is no reason with rational underpinnings for
`modifying Wiedmann such that the 3D virtual model and
`the 2D image are both visualized in the 3D space. ................... 33 
`a.  Wiedmann’s system already allows the user to
`preview the treatment before the treatment is
`actually done, without any need to modify the
`system to visualize in the 3D space. ............................... 33 
`Petitioner’s conclusory assertions are unsupported
`by any credible evidence and should be given no
`weight. ............................................................................ 34 
`
`b. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`ii
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`

`

`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
` 
`
`Petitioner provides no reason with rational underpinnings
`for why a POSITA would have replaced the optimum
`tooth shape of Wiedmann with a 3D virtual model which
`is of at least part of an original oral cavity of the patient
`that is provided prior to designing the recited restoration. ....... 37 
`Like Wiedmann, Sachdeva fails to disclose or suggest the
`claimed feature “remain separate representations after
`being arranged.” ........................................................................ 38 
`  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. ............................................................................................ 39 
`  Wiedmann Should Be Given No Weight Because Petitioner
`Fails to Provide the Required Affidavit Attesting to the
`Accuracy of the Alleged Translation. ................................................. 41 
`Petitioner Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood that
`Sachdeva Anticipates Claims 1-14, 16-20, and 22-30. (Ground
`5) .......................................................................................................... 44 
`1. 
`Sachdeva does not disclose that “the at least one 2D
`image and the 3D virtual model are aligned ... and remain
`separate representations after being arranged.” ........................ 44 
`a. 
`The morphable face model of Sachdeva, and in
`particular “morphable face model 102” in FIG. 6
`of Sachdeva, is a 3D model, not a 2D model as
`alleged by Petitioner. ...................................................... 44 
`FIG. 6 of Sachdeva depicts the 3D face model 102
`and the 3D tooth model 104 in a non-aligned state. ....... 46 
`Once the 3D face model 102 and the 3D tooth
`model 104 are aligned, Sachdeva teaches that they
`are constructed into a single composite model, and
`thus do not remain as separate representations. ............. 48 
`The ’937 Patent fails to cure the above-described
`deficiencies of Sachdeva. ............................................... 52 
`
`d. 
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00788
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00788
`
`2. 
`
`2. 
`
`F.
` 
`
`Petitioner provides no explanation of how Sachdeva
`discloses “either virtually cut[ting] at least a part of teeth
`out of the at least one 2D image or render[ing] a part of
`the at least one 2D image that includes teeth at least
`partly or wholly transparent,” as required by the claims. ......... 54 
`Petitioner Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood that
`Sachdeva in view of Kopelman Renders Obvious Claims 1-14,
`16-20, and 22-30. (Ground 5) ............................................................. 56 
`1. 
`Like Sachdeva, Kopelman does not disclose or suggest
`that “the at least one 2D image and the 3D virtual model
`are aligned...and remain separate representations after
`being arranged.” ........................................................................ 56 
`Petitioner makes no assertion that it would have been
`obvious to modify Sachdeva to arrive at “either virtually
`cut[ting] at least a part of teeth out of the at least one 2D
`image or render[ing] a part of the at least one 2D image
`that includes teeth at least partly or wholly transparent.” ......... 58 
`Lehman, Seeger, and MacDougald fail to cure the above-
`described deficiencies of Wiedmann and Sachdeva. (Grounds
`2-4, 6-8) ............................................................................................... 59 
`V.
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 61 
`APPENDIX A - LIST OF EXHIBITS
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH 37 C.F.R. § 42.24
`
`G.
`
` 
`
` 
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00788
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’n, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................... 36
`Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Gr., LP,
`616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................... 28
`Brian Synergy Institute, LLC v. Ultrathera Tech., Inc.,
`IPR2015-00515, Paper 12 (PTAB Jun. 16, 2015) ......................................... 43
`Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc.,
`445 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..................................................................... 39
`Bumble Bee Foods, LLC v. William R. Kowalski,
`IPR2014-00224, Paper 18 (PTAB Jun. 5, 2014) ........................................... 43
`CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co.,
`224 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ..................................................................... 29
`Coalition for Affordable Drugs IV LLC v. Pharmacyclics, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01076, Paper 33 (PTAB Oct. 19, 2015) ................................... 39, 40
`Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991). .................................................................... 32
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016). ................................................................................... 10
`Dell, Inc. v. Selene Comm’n Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-01411, Paper 23 (PTAB Feb. 26, 2015). ....................................... 40
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... 39
`Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co.,
`96 F.3d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ....................................................................... 28
`In re Fine,
`837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ..................................................................... 59
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00788
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Gaus v. Conair Corp.,
`363 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................................... 28
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ........................................................................................... 19
`Hopkins Mfg. Corp. v. Cequent Performance Products, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00613, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 7, 2015) ............................................ 28
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 19
`Jiawei Tech. (HK) Ltd. v. Simon Nicholas Richmond,
`IPR2014-00937, Paper 24 (PTAB Feb. 6, 2014) .................................... 14, 16
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007)................................................................................. 19, 20
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................................... 20
`Kinetic Technologies, Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00529, Paper 8 (PTAB Sep. 23, 2014) .......................................... 36
`In re Klopfenstein,
`380 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................................... 39
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`545 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................... 39
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 31
`In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
`800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ..................................................................... 19
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................... 18
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00788
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co.,
`868 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ..................................................................... 18
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................ 19, 52
`Shenzhen Kean Silicone Product Co., Ltd. v. Pkoh NYC, LLC,
`IPR2017-01327, Paper 14 (PTAB Dec. 6, 2017) .......................................... 43
`Symantec Corp. v. Trs. of Columbia Univ.,
`IPR2015-00371, Paper 9 (PTAB June 17, 2015) .......................................... 40
`Temporal Power, Ltd. v. Beacon Power, LLC,
`IPR2015-00146, Paper 10 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2015) ........................................ 40
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ....................................................................... 18
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor LLC v. Nidec Motor Corp.,
`IPR2014-01121, Paper 20 (PTAB Jan. 21, 2015) ......................................... 43
`
`
`Statutes
`18 U.S.C. § 1001 ...................................................................................................... 42
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................. 17, 18
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................................... 40
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................. 17, 18
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... 19
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ................................................................................................... 39
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 17
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00788
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. § 1.68 ....................................................................................................... 42
`37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c) ................................................................................................. 43
`37 C.F.R. § 42.2 ....................................................................................................... 42
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63 ..................................................................................................... 43
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b) .......................................................................................... 41, 43
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ..................................................................................... 32, 35, 36
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b) ................................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ............................................................................................... 17
`
`Other
`83 Fed. Reg. 21221 (May 9, 2018) .......................................................................... 10
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00788
`
`
`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 it would 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 Wiedmann anticipates
`
`claims 1-5, 7-11, 13, 14, 16-18, 22-24, and 27-30 (“Ground 1”). This ground is
`
`deficient for at least three reasons. First, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that
`
`Wiedmann discloses that “the 3D virtual model and the at least one 2D image are
`
`both visualized in the 3D space.” Wiedmann discloses determining measurements
`
`in a 2D space, not the ability to “move one or more objects in three dimensions” as
`
`required under Petitioner’s own construction. Second, Petitioner impermissibly
`
`relies on the same “optimum tooth shape” disclosure of Wiedmann to allegedly
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00788
`
`satisfy two distinct elements recited in the claims. In addition, Petitioner fails to
`
`demonstrate that Wiedmann discloses a 3D virtual model “of at least part of an oral
`
`cavity of the patient” when properly construed. Third, Petitioner fails to
`
`demonstrate that Wiedmann discloses the claimed feature “remain separate
`
`representations after being arranged” when properly construed.
`
`Petitioner also alleges that Wiedmann in view of Sachdeva renders obvious
`
`claims 1-14, 16-20, and 22-30 (“Ground 1”). This ground is deficient for at least
`
`three reasons. First, there is no reason with rational underpinnings for modifying
`
`Wiedmann such that the 3D virtual model and the 2D image are both visualized in
`
`the 3D space. Wiedmann’s system already allows the user to preview the
`
`treatment before the treatment is actually done, without any need to modify the
`
`system to visualize in the 3D space. Second, Petitioner provides no reason with
`
`rational underpinnings for why a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”)
`
`would have replaced the optimum tooth shape of Wiedmann with a 3D virtual
`
`model which is of at least part of an original oral cavity of the patient that is
`
`provided prior to designing the recited restoration. Third, like Wiedmann,
`
`Sachdeva fails to disclose or suggest the claimed feature “remain separate
`
`representations after being arranged” when properly construed. As such, the Board
`
`should deny institution of Ground 1.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00788
`
`Wiedmann should be given no weight because (1) Petitioner provides no
`
`explanation as to why Wiedmann was somehow publicly accessible as of the April
`
`2008 date alleged by Petitioner, and (2) Petitioner fails to provide the required
`
`affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the alleged translation.
`
`The second purported ground for unpatentability is that Wiedmann in view
`
`of Sachdeva and Lehman renders obvious claim 15 (“Ground 2”). The third
`
`purported ground for unpatentability is that Wiedmann in view of Sachdeva and
`
`Seeger render obvious claim 21 (“Ground 3”). The fourth purported ground for
`
`unpatentability is that Wiedmann in view of Sachdeva and MacDougald renders
`
`obvious claims 6-8 (“Ground 4”). However, these grounds are deficient for the
`
`same reasons provided above. This is because Petitioner does not allege that
`
`Lehman, Seeger, and MacDougald cure the above-described deficiencies of
`
`Wiedmann and Sachdeva. Rather, Petitioner relies on Lehman, Seeger, and
`
`MacDougald for disclosing features recited in dependent claims. As such, the
`
`Board should deny institution of Grounds 2-4.
`
`The fifth purported ground for unpatentability is that Sachdeva anticipates
`
`claims 1-14, 16-20, and 22-30 (“Ground 5”). This ground is deficient for at least
`
`the following reasons. First, Sachdeva does not disclose that “the at least one 2D
`
`image and the 3D virtual model are aligned ... and remain separate representations
`
`after being arranged.” The face model 102 in FIG. 6 of Sachdeva is a 3D model,
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00788
`
`not a 2D model as alleged by Petitioner. FIG. 6 of Sachdeva depicts the 3D face
`
`model 102 and the 3D tooth model 104 in a non-aligned state. Once the 3D face
`
`model 102 and the 3D tooth model 104 are aligned, Sachdeva teaches that they are
`
`combined to construct a single composite model with a common coordinate
`
`system, and thus do not remain as separate representations. In contrast, the ’336
`
`Patent disclaims such a single, combined 3D representation. The ’937 Patent fails
`
`to cure the above-described deficiencies of Sachdeva. Second, Petitioner provides
`
`no explanation of how Sachdeva discloses “either virtually cut[ting] at least a part
`
`of teeth out of the at least one 2D image or render[ing] a part of the at least one 2D
`
`image that includes teeth at least partly or wholly transparent” as required by the
`
`claims.
`
`Petitioner also asserts that Sachdeva in view of Kopelman renders obvious
`
`claims 1-14, 16-20, and 22-30 (“Ground 5”). This ground is deficient for at least
`
`two reasons. First, like Sachdeva, Kopelman does not disclose or suggest that “the
`
`at least one 2D image and the 3D virtual model are aligned ... and remain separate
`
`representations after being arranged.” Second, Petitioner makes no assertion that it
`
`would have been obvious to modify Sachdeva to arrive at “either virtually cut[ting]
`
`at least a part of teeth out of the at least one 2D image or render[ing] a part of the
`
`at least one 2D image that includes teeth at least partly or wholly transparent.” As
`
`such, the Board should deny institution of Ground 5.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00788
`
`The sixth purported ground for unpatentability is that Sachdeva in view of
`
`Kopelman and Lehman renders obvious claim 15 (“Ground 6”). The seventh
`
`purported ground for unpatentability is that Sachdeva in view of Kopelman and
`
`Seeger renders obvious claim 21 (“Ground 7”). The eighth purported ground for
`
`unpatentability is that Sachdeva in view of Kopelman and MacDougald renders
`
`obvious claim 6-8 (“Ground 8”). However, these grounds are deficient for the
`
`same reasons provided above. This is because Petitioner does not allege that
`
`Lehman, Seeger, and MacDougald cure the above-described deficiencies of
`
`Sachdeva and Kopelman. Rather, Petitioner relies on Lehman, Seeger, and
`
`MacDougald for disclosing features recited in dependent claims. As such, the
`
`Board should deny institution of Grounds 6-8.
`
` 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. IPR2018-00788
`
`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 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 keeping the 2D image and the 3D
`
`model as separate data representations:
`
`Furthermore, it 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 data representations after being arranged from
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00788
`
`prior art techniques which add the data from the 2D image to the 3D model
`
`resulting in 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. IPR2018-00788
`
`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
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00788
`
`the 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 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.
`
` 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
`
`9
`
`

`

`which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136
`
`S.Ct. 2131 (2016).1
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00788
`
`
`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. IPR2018-00788
`
`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
`
`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:
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00788
`
`
`
`Fig. 1 of the ’336 Patent
`
`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
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2018-00788
`
`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
`
`patient” means “of at least pa