`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`3SHAPE A/S
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00117
`Patent 9,962,244
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,962,244
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00117
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b)) ........................................ 2 
`II. 
`III.  The Board should not unjustly prevent Align from challenging the ’244
`Patent. ............................................................................................................. 5 
`IV.  The Board should institute trial notwithstanding 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). ........... 7 
`V. 
`POSITA ........................................................................................................ 11 
`VI.  Grounds 1 and 2 ............................................................................................ 12 
`A.  Claim 1 ........................................................................................................ 12 
`1. 
`[1.P]: “A focus scanner for recording surface geometry and surface color
`of an object” ...................................................................................................... 12 
`2. 
`[1.1]: “a multichromatic light source configured for providing a
`multichromatic probe light for illumination of the object” ............................... 13 
`3. 
`[1.2]: “a color image sensor comprising an array of image sensor pixels
`for capturing one or more 2D images of light received from said object” ....... 13 
`4. 
`[1.3.a]: “wherein the focus scanner is configured to operate by translating
`a focus plane along an optical axis of the focus scanner”................................. 13 
`5. 
`[1.3.b]: “wherein the focus scanner is configured to operate
`by…capturing a series of the 2D images, each 2D image of the series is at a
`different focus plane position such that the series of captured 2D images forms
`a stack of 2D images” ....................................................................................... 14 
`6. 
`[1.4.a]: “a data processing system configured to derive surface geometry
`information for a block of said image sensor pixels from the 2D images in the
`stack of 2D images captured by said color image sensor”................................ 14 
`7. 
`[1.4.b]: “the data processing system also configured to derive surface
`color information for the block of said image sensor pixels from at least one of
`the 2D images used to derive the surface geometry information” .................... 15 
`8. 
`[1.5.a]: “wherein the data processing system further is configured to
`combining [sic] a number of sub-scans to generate a digital 3D representation
`of the object, and” ............................................................................................. 17 
`9. 
`[1.5.b]: “determining [sic] object color of at least one point of the
`generated digital 3D representation of the object from sub-scan color of the
`sub-scans combined to generate the digital 3D representation such that the
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00117
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`
`
`digital 3D representation expresses both geometry and color profile of the
`object” ............................................................................................................... 17 
`10. 
`[1.6]: “wherein determining the object color comprises computing a
`weighted average of sub-scan color values derived for corresponding points in
`overlapping sub-scans at that point of the object surface.” .............................. 19 
`a) 
`Fisker ..................................................................................................... 19 
`b) 
`Szeliski (Ground 1) ............................................................................... 20 
`c)  Matsumoto (Ground 2) .......................................................................... 22 
`d)  KSR ....................................................................................................... 24 
`B.  Claim 2 ........................................................................................................ 30 
`C.  Claim 3 ........................................................................................................ 30 
`D.  Claim 4 ........................................................................................................ 31 
`E.  Claim 5 ........................................................................................................... 32 
`F.  Claim 8 ........................................................................................................... 33 
`G.  Claim 9 ........................................................................................................ 34 
`H.  Claim 10 ...................................................................................................... 35 
`I.  Claim 15 ......................................................................................................... 35 
`J.  Claim 16 ......................................................................................................... 36 
`K.  Claim 18 ...................................................................................................... 36 
`L.  Claim 21 ......................................................................................................... 37 
`M.  Claim 22 ...................................................................................................... 38 
`1. 
`[22.P]: A method of recording surface geometry and surface color of an
`object ................................................................................................................. 38 
`2. 
`[22.1]: “obtaining a focus scanner according to claim 1” ........................ 38 
`3. 
`Limitations [22.2]-[22.4] .......................................................................... 39 
`N.  Claim 24 ...................................................................................................... 39 
`O.  Claim 26 ...................................................................................................... 40 
`P.  Claim 28 ......................................................................................................... 40 
`VII.  Grounds 3 and 4 ............................................................................................ 41 
`A.  Claim 29 ...................................................................................................... 41 
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00117
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`
`
`Limitations [29.P]-[29.4.b]: ..................................................................... 41 
`1. 
`[29.5]: “where the data processing system further is configured to
`2. 
`detecting (sic) saturated pixels in the captured 2D images and for mitigating or
`removing the error in the derived surface color information or the sub-scan
`color caused by the pixel saturation.” ............................................................... 42 
`a) 
`Fisker ..................................................................................................... 42 
`b)  Yamada (Ground 3) .............................................................................. 43 
`c) 
`Suzuki (Ground 4) ................................................................................. 43 
`d)  KSR ....................................................................................................... 44 
`VIII.  Grounds 5-8 .................................................................................................. 48 
`A.  Claim 12 ...................................................................................................... 48 
`IX.  Grounds 9 and 10: The combinations of Thiel425, Thiel576, and Szeliski
`(Ground 9) and Thiel425, Thiel576, and Matsumoto (Ground 10) render
`claims 1, 22, and 24 obvious. ....................................................................... 49 
`A.  Claim 1 ........................................................................................................ 49 
`1. 
`Limitation [1.P] ........................................................................................ 49 
`a)  Thiel425 ................................................................................................ 49 
`b)  Thiel576 ................................................................................................ 50 
`c)  KSR ....................................................................................................... 51 
`2. 
`Limitation [1.1] ........................................................................................ 54 
`3. 
`Limitation [1.2] ........................................................................................ 54 
`4. 
`Limitation [1.3.a] ...................................................................................... 55 
`5. 
`Limitation [1.3.b] ..................................................................................... 55 
`6. 
`Limitation [1.4.a] ...................................................................................... 56 
`7. 
`Limitation [1.4.b] ..................................................................................... 57 
`a)  Thiel425 ................................................................................................ 57 
`b)  Thiel576 ................................................................................................ 57 
`c)  KSR ....................................................................................................... 58 
`8. 
`Limitation [1.5.a] ...................................................................................... 59 
`9. 
`Limitation [1.5.b] ..................................................................................... 60 
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00117
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`
`
`10.  Limitation [1.6] ........................................................................................ 61 
`a)  Thiel425/Thiel576 ................................................................................. 61 
`b) 
`Szeliski (Ground 9) and Matsumoto (Ground 10) ................................ 61 
`c)  KSR ....................................................................................................... 62 
`B.  Claim 22 ...................................................................................................... 65 
`1. 
`Limitation [22.P] ...................................................................................... 65 
`2. 
`Limitation [22.1] ...................................................................................... 66 
`3. 
`Limitations [22.2]-[22.4] .......................................................................... 66 
`C.  Claim 24 ...................................................................................................... 67 
`X.  Grounds 11 and 12 ........................................................................................ 67 
`A.  Claim 29 ...................................................................................................... 67 
`1. 
`[29.P]-[29.4.b] .......................................................................................... 67 
`2. 
`[29.5]: “where the data processing system further is configured to
`detecting (sic) saturated pixels in the captured 2D images and for mitigating or
`removing the error in the derived surface color information or the sub-scan
`color caused by the pixel saturation.” ............................................................... 67 
`a)  Thiel425/Thiel576 ................................................................................. 67 
`b)  Yamada (Ground 11) and Suzuki (Ground 12) .................................... 68 
`c)  KSR ....................................................................................................... 68 
`XI.  Grounds 13 and 14 ........................................................................................ 71 
`A.  Claims 2-5, 8-10, 15-16, 18, 21, 26, and 28 ................................................ 71 
`a)  Thiel425/Thiel576/Szeliski and Thiel425/Thiel576/Matsumoto ......... 71 
`b) 
`Fisker ..................................................................................................... 71 
`c)  KSR ....................................................................................................... 71 
`XII.  Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1)) ................................................. 75 
`XIII.  Conclusion .................................................................................................... 76 
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00117
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244 to Esbech et al. (“the ’244 patent”)
`
`1002
`
`Prosecution File History for the ’244 patent (“’244 patent file history”)
`
`1003 Declaration of Dr. Chandra Bajaj, Ph.D. (“Bajaj Decl.”)
`
`1004 Curriculum vitae of Dr. Chandra Bajaj, Ph.D.
`1005 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0092461 to Fisker et al.
`(earliest priority date: June 17, 2009; published: April 19, 2012)
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,097,854 to Szeliski et al. (earliest priority date:
`August 1, 1997; issued: August 1, 2000)
`1007 U.S. Patent No. 7,106,348 to Matsumoto et al. (earliest priority date:
`August 28, 1997; issued: September 12, 2006)
`1008 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0035641 to Yamada et al.
`(earliest priority date: April 25, 2005; published: February 15, 2007)
`1009 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0070128 to Suzuki et al.
`(earliest priority date: September 10, 2012; published: March 21, 2013)
`1010 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0029367 to Tanaka
`(earliest priority date: July 29, 2011; published: January 29, 2015)
`1011 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0067789 to Cai
`(earliest priority date: September 18, 2008; published: March 18, 2010)
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0075425 to Thiel
`(“Thiel425”) (earliest priority date: February 23, 2010; published:
`March 29, 2012)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0080576 to Thiel et al.
`(“Thiel576”) (earliest priority date: April 2, 2009; published: April 7,
`2011)
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00117
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`1014 Agini, Andreas, et al. Digital Dental Revolution: The Learning Curve.
`Quintessence Publishing, First edition, 2015.
`1015 U.S. Patent No. 6,750,873 to Bernardini et al. (“Bernardini”) (earliest
`priority date: June 27, 2000; issued: June 15, 2004).
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0101176 to Park et al.
`(“Park”) (earliest priority date: August 24, 2012; published: April 25,
`2013).
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0140243 to Colonna de
`Lega (“Colonna de Lega”) (earliest priority date: December 3, 2010,
`published: June 7, 2012).
`
`1018
`
`Karatas et al., “Three-dimensional imaging techniques: A literature
`review,” European Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 8, Issue 1, 2014; pp. 132-
`140.
`1019 Broadbent, B.H., “A New X-Ray Technique and Its Application to
`Orthodontia,” The Angle Orthodontist, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1931; pp. 45-66.
`1020 Hajeer et al., Current Products and Practices Applications of 3D
`imaging in orthodontics: Part II, Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 31 (2004).
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`Yamany et al., “Free-Form Surface Registration Using Surface
`Signatures,” The Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International
`Conference on Computer Vision, September 20-27, 1999; 7 pages.
`
`Ireland et al., “3D surface imaging in dentistry – what we are looking
`at,” British Dental Journal, Vol. 205, No. 7, October 11, 2008; pp. 387-
`392.
`
`Remondino et al., “Image-Based 3D Modelling: A Review,” The
`Photogrammetric Record, Vol. 21, No. 115, September 2006; pp. 269-
`291.
`
`Ting-Shu et al., “Intraoral Digital Impression Technique: A Review,” J.
`Prosthodontics, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 313-321.
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`Exhibit
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00117
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`Description
`
`Zimmerman et al., “Intraoral scanning systems – a current overview,”
`Int. J. Comput. Dent., Vol. 18, No. 2, 2015, pp. 101-129.
`
`Imburgia et al., “Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral
`implantology: a comparative in vitro study,” BMC Oral Health, Vol. 17,
`No. 1, 2017, p. 92.
`
`Park et al., “Changes in views on digital intraoral scanners among dental
`hygienists after training in digital impression taking,” BMC Oral Health,
`Vol. 15, No. 1, 2015, p.151 (“Park Article”).
`
`1028
`
`Logozzo et al., “Recent advances in dental optics – Part I: 3D intraoral
`scanners for restorative dentistry,” Optics and Lasers in Engineering,
`Vol. 54, 2014, pp. 203-221.
`1029 U.S. Patent Prov. App. No. 61/764,178 to Esbech et al. (“the Provisional
`Application”)
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00117
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The ’244 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244; Ex.1001) admits three-
`
`dimensional scanners, such as three-dimensional intraocular dental scanners, were
`
`well-known in the art. The ’244 Patent even identifies foreign and domestic prior
`
`art references pertinent to the alleged invention (e.g., U.S. Patent No. 7,698,068
`
`and Japanese Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/029373). Nonetheless, the ’244 Patent
`
`alleges its protecting—for the first time—recording geometry and color data of an
`
`object as 2D images and creating a three-dimensional image of the object based on
`
`the data. Yet, in the only issued Office Action, the Examiner relied on prior art
`
`submitted by 3Shape to reject this feature, while indicating a number of dependent
`
`claims contained allowable subject matter. (Ex.1002, 875, 882-888.) 3Shape took
`
`the allowable subject matter by incorporating it into independent claims. (Ex.1002,
`
`890-904.) The ’244 Patent issued with the Examiner’s search and strategy results
`
`containing few, if any, searches indicating a thorough search of the allowable
`
`subject matter. (Ex.1002, 882-888, 924-925.)
`
`As shown by the prior art and declaration in this petition, the allowed claim
`
`features were well known in the prior art. If the Examiner had additional time to
`
`perform adequate prior art searching, prior art would have been discovered.
`
`Petitioner requests the Board institute inter partes review (IPR) and issue a
`
`final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00117
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. §42.104(b))
`Petitioner respectfully submits two inter partes review petitions and requests
`
`cancellation of the challenged claims based on 20 grounds as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition 1 (the current petition):
`Ground
`References
`Fisker1 and Szeliski2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`4
`
`Fisker and Matsumoto3
`
`Fisker and Yamada4
`Fisker and Suzuki5
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00117
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`Claims Challenged
`Basis
`§103 1-5, 8-10, 15-16, 18, 21-
`22, 24, 26, and 28
`§103 1-5, 8-10, 15-16, 18, 21-
`22, 24, 26, and 28
`§103 29
`§103 29
`
`
`1 U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0092461 to Fisker et al. (“Fisker”), §§102(a) and (e)
`
`(earliest priority date June 17, 2009; published April 19, 2012).
`
`2 U.S. Pat. No. 6,097,854 to Szeliski et al. (“Szeliski”), §102(b) (published:
`
`March 21, 2013).
`
`3 U.S. Pat. No. 7,106,348 to Matsumoto et al. (“Matsumoto”), §102(b)
`
`(issued: September 12, 2006).
`
`4 U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0035641 to Yamada et al. (“Yamada”), §102(b)
`
`(published: February 15, 2007).
`
`5 U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0070128 to Suzuki et al. (“Suzuki”), §102(a) and (e)
`
`(earliest priority date: September 10, 2012; published: March 21, 2013).
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00117
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`§103 12
`Fisker, Szeliski, and Yamada
`§103 12
`Fisker, Szeliski, and Suzuki
`Fisker, Matsumoto, and Yamada §103 12
`Fisker, Matsumoto, and Suzuki
`§103 12
`Thiel4256, Thiel5767, and
`Szeliski
`Thiel425, Thiel576, and
`Matsumoto
`Thiel425, Thiel576, and
`Yamada
`Thiel425, Thiel576, and Suzuki §103 29
`Thiel425, Thiel576, Szeliski,
`§103 2-5, 8-10, 15-16, 18, 21,
`and Fisker
`26, and 28
`Thiel425, Thiel576, Matsumoto,
`§103 2-5, 8-10, 15-16, 18, 21,
`and Fisker
`26, and 28
`
`§103 29
`
`§103 1, 22, and 24
`
`§103 1, 22, and 24
`
`
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6 U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0067789 to Thiel (“Thiel425”), §102(a) and (e)
`
`(earliest priority date: February 23, 2010; published: March 29, 2012).
`
`7 U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0080576 to Thiel et al. (“Thiel576”), §102(b)
`
`(published: April 7, 2011).
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00117
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`
`Petition 2 (the co-pending petition):
`Claims Challenged
`Basis
`Ground
`References
`§103 31-32
`1
`Fisker and Tanaka
`§103 34
`2
`Fisker and Suzuki
`§103 34
`3
`Fisker and Cai
`4
`Thiel576, Thiel425, and Tanaka §103 31-32
`Thiel576, Thiel425, Fisker, and
`Suzuki
`Thiel576, Thiel425, Fisker, and
`Cai
`
`5
`
`6
`
`§103 34
`
`§103 34
`
`There are meaningful distinctions between the two petitions. Even though
`
`there is overlapping prior art between the petitions, the petitions challenge the
`
`patentability of different claims. Both petitions should be instituted.
`
`III. The Board should not unjustly prevent Align from challenging the ’244
`Patent.
`
`Petitioner has already filed two petitions for post-grant review against the
`
`’244 Patent. If the Board agrees with the prior art Grounds, Petitioner requests
`
`institution and consolidation of the four related inter partes review and post-grant
`
`review petitions filed against the ’244 Patent. Granting institution for all four
`
`petitions will allow for the most efficient use of judicial resources without unjustly
`
`depriving petitioner of the ability to challenge the ’244 Patent for at least two
`
`reasons. First, if the Board cannot determine until the final written decision
`
`whether the ’244 Patent claims are PGR eligible, but has already denied institution
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`for the IPRs, Petitioner will unjustly be forbidden from challenging the ’244 Patent
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00117
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`at the PTAB. Second, the two IPR petitions include nearly identical arguments as
`
`compared to the two PGR petitions.
`
`Petitioner believes that the provisional application has no written description
`
`support for at least claims 19, 25, and 32. The earliest effective priority date for at
`
`least these claims is post-March 2013, requiring Petitioner to file a PGR. However,
`
`Petitioner cannot foresee all evidence 3Shape may be able to provide during trial
`
`that might dissuade the Board from holding that the ’244 Patent is PGR eligible. So
`
`until the Board can make a final determination regarding PGR eligibility, both the
`
`PGRs and IPRs should remain active.
`
`With regards to judicial efficiency, Petitioner has purposely filed nearly
`
`identical prior art Grounds against the claims in the PGRs and IPRs knowing that
`
`one of the two types of proceedings must fail under the law. In this way, as there
`
`are identical issues except which proceeding type is proper, neither the Board nor
`
`3Shape is prejudiced by instituting and consolidating the proceedings. And this
`
`avoids Petitioner being unjustly deprived of challenging the ’244 Patent at the
`
`PTAB. Thus, Petitioner respectfully requests that both PGRs and IPRs filed against
`
`the ’244 Patent be instituted.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00117
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. The Board should institute trial notwithstanding 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`Section 325(d) provides the Director discretion to deny a petition for IPR if
`
`“the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were
`
`presented to the Office.” Here, however, all of the factors the Board considers in
`
`applying § 325(d) point in favor of institution. Indeed, the Board has previously
`
`instituted trial notwithstanding § 325(d) on nearly identical facts to those presented
`
`here.
`
`During prosecution, the Examiner rejected independent claims 1, 33, 35, 36,
`
`and 38 as obvious over Fisker, but he allowed dependent claims 12, 14, 15, 20, and
`
`22 based on his finding that neither Fisker nor the other prior art before him taught
`
`the additional limitations of those claims. The patentee then incorporated the
`
`limitations from the dependent claims into the independent claims in order to
`
`obtain allowance. Yet, the Examiner performed only two prior-art searches: one in
`
`July 2017 (before the only issued Office Action) and one in December 2017
`
`(before the Notice of Allowance). (Ex.1002, 882-888, 924-925.) And the Examiner
`
`limited his search for the limitations of the dependent claims to a search within
`
`three references identified in IDSs for terms closely resembling some claimed
`
`terms – the terms “weight$3” and “average$3.” (Id.) If the Examiner had time to
`
`expand the initial search and/or the follow-up search, he likely would have
`
`uncovered a litany of references teaching the allowed limitations. Moreover, the
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Examiner did not consider any additional references in combination with Fisker to
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00117
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`teach the limitations of the allowed dependent claims, and he did not provide any
`
`substantive rationale for allowance in the Notice of Allowance.
`
`Here, Petitioner’s obviousness argument relies on Fisker for the features that
`
`the Examiner found obvious over Fisker in the first Office Action, and on new
`
`references not considered by the Examiner for the dependent-claim limitations that
`
`the Examiner allowed.
`
`In determining whether to deny institution under § 325(d), the Board takes
`
`into account the following factors:
`
`1) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and
`
`the prior art involved during examination;
`
`2) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated
`
`during examination;
`
`3) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination;
`
`4) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during
`
`examination and the manner in which a petitioner relies on the prior
`
`art or a patent owner distinguishes the prior art;
`
`5) whether a petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Office erred
`
`in evaluating the asserted prior art; and
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00117
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`6) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the
`
`petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments.
`
`Updated Trial Practice Guide at 12. Here, all factors weigh in favor of institution.
`
`
`
`With regard to the first three factors, Petitioner is relying on new art not
`
`considered by the Examiner to show the obviousness of the limitations allowed by
`
`the Examiner, and the art asserted in this IPR is not cumulative of the art evaluated
`
`by the Examiner (with the exception of Fisker, which, again, is being used to show
`
`the obviousness of the same limitations that the Examiner rejected as obvious over
`
`Fisker). The first three § 325(d) factors thus weigh in favor of institution. Luxshare
`
`Precision Industry Co., Ltd. v. Bing Xu Precision Co., Ltd., Case IPR2017-01657
`
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2018) (Paper 17) at 8-9; Bestway (USA), Inc. v. Intex Marketing
`
`Ltd, Case PGR2017-00003 (P.T.A.B. May 11, 2017) (Paper 9) at 7.
`
`The fourth, fifth, and sixth factors—upon which the Board generally places
`
`significant weight—strongly indicate in favor of institution as well. Petitioner’s
`
`argument is that the Examiner correctly found the rejected claims obvious over
`
`Fisker and that other references that were not considered by the Examiner render
`
`the allowed dependent-claim limitations obvious as well. Thus, Petitioner is not
`
`asking the Board to address arguments that were already considered and rejected
`
`by the Examiner.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00117
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`The Bestway and Luxshare decisions are on all fours with this case and show
`
`
`
`why institution is appropriate here. In both of those cases, just as it is here, the
`
`petitioners relied on a primary reference that was considered during prosecution,
`
`along with secondary references that were not considered by the Examiner. And in
`
`both of these cases, the Board rejected the patent owner’s argument that it should
`
`deny institution under § 325(d), noting that the Examiners had allowed the
`
`application without rejecting certain claim features that were challenged using new
`
`prior art, and that there was insufficient evidence on record that the Examiner
`
`considered the secondary references with respect to the dependent claims’
`
`allowable subject matter. Bestway, Paper 9 at 7; Luxshare, Paper 17 at 8-10.
`
`The Board’s decision in Trans Ova Genetics, LC. v. XY, LLC., Case
`
`IPR2018-00250 (P.T.A.B. June 27, 2018) (Paper 9), is also instructive. There, the
`
`Petitioner relied on two references cited and extensively considered during
`
`prosecution (Factors 1-3). Id. at 18-19. Yet, the Board noted that the Petitioner
`
`provided substantial evidence indicating the Examiner failed to appreciate the full
`
`scope of the prior art’s disclosure; the Examiner’s appreciation of the prior art’s
`
`disclosure was fundamental to allowance, and the Petitioner’s argument was
`
`significantly different than the Examiner’s argument (Factors 4-5). Id. Thus, on the
`
`basis of Factors 4-5 outweighing Factors 1-3, the Board instituted trial and
`
`declined to dismiss on the basis of § 325(d), even when faced with prior art the
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Examiner thoroughly considered during prosecution. Id. The case for institution in
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00117
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`the case at hand is even stronger than in Trans Ova because Factors 1-3 weigh in
`
`favor of institution as well.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`In sum, the Examiner allowed the claims in the application after only
`
`searching within three references identified on Applicant-submitted IDSs for terms
`
`included in allowed/allowable limitations. The Examiner did not perform any
`
`additional searches beyond the Applicant-submitted IDSs or with text outside of
`
`the allowed/allowable limitations’ claimed terminology. Additionally, the newly
`
`cited prior art is only provided to teach the limitations that the Examiner failed to
`
`reject. There is thus no overlap between the examination arguments and the instant
`
`Petition. There is thus no compelling reason why §325(d) would prevent institution
`
`on the ground of unpatentability presented in the Petition here.
`
`V. POSITA
`A person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the
`
`invention would have a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer
`
`science, electrical engineering, physics, computer vision, or an equivalent field as
`
`well as at least one or two years of industry experience, or at least five years of
`
`comparable industry experience. (Ex.1003, ¶22.) In particular, a POSITA would
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`have had experience with and knowledge of three-dimensional imaging systems
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00117
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`and three-dimensional modeling techniques. (Id.)
`
`VI. Grounds 1 and 2
`A. Claim 1
`1.
`[1.P]: “A focus scanner for recording surface geometry and
`surface color of an object”
`
`Fisker discloses a focus scanning apparatus. (Ex.1005, Title; Ex.1003, ¶88-
`
`89) Fisker teaches “a handheld scanner for obtaining and/or measuring the 3D
`
`geometry of at least a part of the surface of an object using confocal pattern
`
`projection.” (Ex.1005, Abstract.) Fisker teaches that its scanner is “adapted to
`
`obtain the color of the surface being scanned.” (Id., [0151].)
`
`Similarity between the ’244 Patent and Fisker scanners:
`
`’244 Patent: “FIG. 1 shows a handheld
`embodiment of a scanner system.”
`(Ex.1001, 15:53-55.)
`
`Fisker: “FIG. 2: A schematic
`presentation of a second example
`embodiment of the device acco