Filed on behalf of Patent Owner
`By: Todd R. Walters, Esq.
`
`Roger H. Lee, Esq.
`
`Andrew R. Cheslock, Esq.
`
`Mythili Markowski, Ph.D., Esq.
`
`Adam R. Banes, 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
`
`andrew.cheslock@bipc.com
`
`mythili.markowski@bipc.com
`
`adam.banes@bipc.com
`
`
`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. IPR2019-00118
`Patent 9,962,244
`__________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO THE PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,962,244
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00118
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
` 
`II.
` 
`  TECHNICAL BACKGROUND AND THE ’244 PATENT .......................... 2 III.
`
` 
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .......................... 2 
`
`Thiel425, Thiel576, and Fisker ............................................................. 3 
`A.
`The ’244 Patent ..................................................................................... 3 
`B.
`The Claims of the ’244 Patent ............................................................... 5 
`C.
`IV.
`  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9 
`  ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 10 
`V.
`Petitioner Fails to Establish that There Is a Reasonable
`A.
`Likelihood that Fisker and Tanaka Render Claims 31 and 32
`Obvious (Ground 1) ............................................................................ 11 
`1. 
`Fisker does not disclose or suggest “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” recited in claim 31 .................. 11 
`a. 
`Fisker’s disclosure of “scanning” of a surface
`shape and color relates to a general process of
`obtaining image data, not to the selection of a
`specific 2D image ........................................................... 12 
`Fisker’s disclosure of “simultaneous scanning” and
`“scanned together” to obtain surface shape and
`color relates to Fisker’s general process of
`scanning, not the selection of a specific 2D image ........ 14 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`b. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00118
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`b. 
`
`“Simultaneous scanning” cannot mean obtaining
`surface geometry and color at the same single
`moment in time because “simultaneous scanning”
`encompasses obtaining multiple images at varying
`times ................................................................................ 16 
`Nothing in the ’244 Specification indicates that
`“simultaneous scanning” would somehow result in
`deriving surface geometry and surface color
`information from the same 2D image ............................. 18 
`Petitioner fails to explain how and why Fisker’s Fig. 9
`embodiment would have been combined with Fisker’s
`white light embodiment to somehow arrive at the claimed
`invention .................................................................................... 21 
`a. 
`The Fig. 9 embodiment of Fisker does not produce
`a “multichromatic probe light” as claimed ..................... 22 
`Petitioner fails to provide any reason why or
`explanation of how Fisker’s Fig. 9 embodiment
`would have been combined with Fisker’s white
`light embodiment ............................................................ 24 
`Tanaka fails to cure the deficiencies of Fisker ......................... 27 
`Petitioner fails to demonstrate that independent claim 32
`would have been obvious .......................................................... 28 
`Petitioner Fails to Establish that There Is a Reasonable
`Likelihood that Fisker and Suzuki (Ground 2) and Fisker and
`Cai (Ground 3) Render Claim 34 Obvious ......................................... 30 
`1. 
`Claim 34 would not have been obvious for at least the
`same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 31 ........... 30 
`Suzuki and Cai each fail to cure the deficiencies of Fisker ...... 32 
`2. 
`Petitioner Fails to Establish that There Is a Reasonable
`Likelihood that Thiel425, Thiel576, and Tanaka Render Claims
`31 and 32 Obvious (Ground 4) ............................................................ 33 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`4. 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`C.
`
` 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00118
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`b. 
`
`b. 
`
`Neither Thiel425 nor Thiel576 discloses or suggests “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” recited in independent
`claim 31 ..................................................................................... 33 
`a. 
`Petitioner concedes that Thiel425 does not disclose
`deriving surface color information from a 2D
`image ............................................................................... 33 
`Thiel576 does not disclose or suggest deriving
`both surface geometry information and surface
`color information from the same at least one 2D
`image ............................................................................... 34 
`It would not have been obvious to combine Thiel425 and
`Thiel576 to arrive at the claimed subject matter ...................... 36 
`a. 
`Petitioner and its expert cite to no evidence,
`underlying facts, or data which demonstrate that
`the missing claim limitation would have been
`obvious ............................................................................ 36 
`Petitioner fails to explain how and why a POSITA
`would have modified Thiel425 with the teachings
`of Thiel576 to arrive at the claimed invention ............... 38 
`Tanaka fails to cure the deficiencies of Thiel425 and
`Thiel576 .................................................................................... 42 
`Petitioner fails to demonstrate that independent claim 32
`would have been obvious .......................................................... 43 
`Petitioner Fails to Establish that There Is a Reasonable
`Likelihood that Thiel425, Thiel576, Fisker, and Suzuki
`(Ground 5) and Thiel425, Thiel576, Fisker, and Cai (Ground 6)
`Render Claim 34 Obvious ................................................................... 45 
`1. 
`Claim 34 would not have been obvious for at least the
`same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 31 ........... 45 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`D.
`
` 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`2. 
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00118
`
` 
`
` 
`
`VI.
`
`Fisker, Suzuki, and Cai each fail to cure the deficiencies
`of Thiel425 and Thiel576 .......................................................... 47 
`  DISCRETION TO INSTITUTE .................................................................... 48 
`The Petition Should Be Denied in View of the Virtually
`A.
`Identical PGRs Filed by Petitioner ...................................................... 48 
`B.
`The Petition Should Be Denied Under § 325(d) ................................. 50 
`  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 52 VII.
`
`APPENDIX A - LIST OF EXHIBITS
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH 37 C.F.R. § 42.24
`CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00118
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Abiomed, Inc. v. Maquet Cardiovascular, LLC,
`IPR2017-01204, Paper 9 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2017) ................................................ 26
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’n, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 27
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016) ..................................................................................... 9, 48
`Jiawei Tech. (HK) Ltd. v. Simon Nicholas Richmond,
`IPR2014-00937, Paper 24 (PTAB Feb. 6, 2014) ................................................ 10
`Kayak Software Corp. v. Int’l Business Machines Corp.,
`CBM2016-00075, Paper 16 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2016) ........................................... 52
`Kinetic Technologies, Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00529, Paper 8 (PTAB Sep. 23, 2014) ................................................ 27
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 25
`In re Oelrich,
`666 F.2d 578 (C.C.P.A. 1981) ............................................................................ 15
`Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 27
`In re Rijckaert,
`9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .............................................................................. 15
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 15
`In re Stepan Co.,
`868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 25
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Berman,
`IPR2016-01571, Paper 10 (PTAB Dec. 14, 2016) ............................................. 51
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00118
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................. 48, 49
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b) ................................................................................................... 49
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ....................................................................................... 48, 50, 51
`
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ........................................................................................... 27, 37
`37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) ................................................................................................ 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.207(b) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`Other Authorities
`81 Fed. Reg. 18766 (April 1, 2016) ........................................................................... 9
`83 Fed. Reg. 39989 (Aug. 13, 2018) ................................................................. 38, 49
`83 Fed. Reg. 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018) ........................................................................... 9
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00118
`
`
`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 Align Technology, Inc. (“Align” or “Petitioner”) on November 5, 2018
`
`against U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244 (Ex.1001, “the ’244 Patent”). Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.207(b) and the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition and Time
`
`for Filing Patent Owner Preliminary Response, mailed December 4, 2018 (Paper
`
`4), this Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response is timely filed.
`
`The Board should deny institution of the Petition for four reasons. One,
`
`Petitioner has filed an additional IPR petition (IPR2019-00117) and two additional
`
`PGR petitions (PGR2018-00103, -00104) challenging the ’244 Patent. Petitioner
`
`admits that “Petitioner has purposely filed nearly identical prior art Grounds
`
`against the claims in the PGRs and IPRs.” Pet. at 5. The Board should not
`
`institute trial for both the PGRs and the IPRs. It would be judicially inefficient and
`
`unnecessarily burdensome if both the PGRs and the IPRs are instituted,
`
`particularly in light of Petitioner’s admission that “one of the two types of
`
`proceedings must fail under the law.” Id. Two, if the PGRs are denied on
`
`substantive grounds, the IPRs should also be denied in view of the fact that the
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00118
`
`grounds in the PGRs and IPRs are “nearly identical.”1 Three, the cited art does not
`
`disclose or suggest the claim feature “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.”
`
`Four, Petitioner fails to provide a reason with rational underpinnings as to why a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have somehow modified or combined the
`
`cited art to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Patent Owner requests that the Board deny institution of the Petition with
`
`respect to all challenged claims and all asserted grounds.
`
`A full statement of the reasons for the relief requested is set forth in Sections
`
`III., IV., V., and VI.
`
` TECHNICAL BACKGROUND AND THE ’244 PATENT
`III.
`The claimed invention of the ’244 Patent provides an improvement over
`
`conventional techniques for scanning surface geometry and color.
`
`
`1 The grounds in IPR2019-00117 are nearly identical to the grounds in PGR2018-
`
`00103. The grounds in IPR2019-00118 are nearly identical to the grounds in
`
`PGR2018-00104.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00118
`
`A.
`
` Thiel425, Thiel576, and Fisker
`
`Prior art techniques of obtaining surface geometry and color of an object
`
`required the use of separate devices. Ex.1013 at ¶¶ [0003]-[0005]. Thiel425
`
`(Ex.1012) discloses a device for obtaining surface geometry. Ex.1012 at ¶ [0013].
`
`Advances in the art resulted in devices that obtained both surface geometry and
`
`color. One such device is disclosed in Thiel576 (Ex.1013). Ex.1013 at ¶ [0006].
`
`Thiel576 discloses switching between two different modes of operation–namely, a
`
`first mode to measure surface geometry and a second mode to measure color. Id.
`
`at ¶¶ [0007], [0016]-[0017]. Another such device is disclosed in Fisker (Ex.1005).
`
`Ex.1005 at ¶ [0151]. Fisker’s discloses a scanning process which obtains a large
`
`volume of two-dimensional (2D) images. Id. at ¶¶ [0028], [0030]. Surface
`
`geometry and color can be obtained from this large volume of 2D images, but no
`
`single image is used to obtain both surface geometry and color. Id. at ¶¶ [0074],
`
`[0151].
`
`B.
`
`
`
`The ’244 Patent
`
`The ’244 Patent discusses WO 2010/145669 which corresponds to Fisker.
`
`Ex.1001 at 1:24-32; References Cited; Ex.1005; Ex.2001. The ’244 Patent
`
`distinguishes the scanner disclosed therein from Fisker:
`
`[In Fisker,] several sequential images, each taken for an illumination
`of a different color – typically blue, green, and red – are combined to
`form a synthetic color image. This approach hence requires means to
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00118
`
`change light source color, such as color filters. Furthermore, in
`handheld use, the scanner will move relative to the scanned object
`during the illumination sequence, reducing the quality of the synthetic
`color images.
`Id. at 1:25-32. See also id. at 3:11-29.
`
`The ’244 Patent discloses that a problem with conventional devices that
`
`measure both surface geometry and color of an object is that there is a slight delay
`
`between obtaining images for measuring surface geometry and obtaining images
`
`for measuring color. Id. at 1:33-38. This delay occurs in devices employing
`
`sequential illumination in different colors to form a synthetic image. Id. at 1:38-40.
`
`Strict timing requirements and/or compensation for relative motion of the object
`
`and scanner system between obtaining surface geometry and surface color, is
`
`needed to address the effects of the delay. Id. at 2:65-3:29.
`
`The ’244 Patent discloses eliminating the delay between obtaining surface
`
`geometry information and surface color information, and eliminates the need for
`
`strict timing requirements and motion compensation. Id. The ’244 Patent provides
`
`“perfect” alignment of surface geometry and surface color information because the
`
`surface geometry and color information are derived from the same 2D image. Id.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00118
`
`C.
`
` The Claims of the ’244 Patent
`
`The ’244 Patent contains thirty-five (35) claims. Ex.1001 at cols. 19-24.
`
`Claims 1, 29, 31, 32, and 34 are independent claims. Id. The independent claims
`
`challenged in this Petition are claims 31, 32, and 34, which recite:
`
`31. A focus scanner for recording surface geometry and surface
`color of an object, the focus scanner comprising:
`a multichromatic light source configured for providing a
`multichromatic probe light for illumination of the object,
`a color image sensor comprising an array of image sensor
`pixels for capturing one or more 2D images of light
`received from said object, where the color image sensor
`comprises a color filter array comprising at least three
`types of colors filters, each allowing light in a known
`wavelength range, W1, W2, and W3 respectively, to
`propagate through the color filter;
`wherein the focus scanner is configured to operate by
`translating a focus plane along an optical axis of the
`focus scanner and 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; and
`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, the data processing system also
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00118
`
`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,
`where the data processing system further is configured to derive
`the surface geometry information is derived from light in
`a selected wavelength range of the spectrum provided by
`the multichromatic light source, and where the color filter
`array is such that its proportion of pixels with color filters
`that match the selected wavelength range of the spectrum
`is larger than 50%.
`
`
`32. A focus scanner for recording surface geometry and surface
`color of an object, the focus scanner comprising:
`a multichromatic light source configured for providing a
`multichromatic probe light for illumination of the object,
`a color image sensor comprising an array of image sensor
`pixels for capturing one or more 2D images of light
`received from said object,
`wherein the focus scanner is configured to operate by
`translating a focus plane along an optical axis of the
`focus scanner and 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; and
`a data processing system configured to derive surface geometry
`information for a block of said image sensor pixels from
`6
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00118
`
`the 2D images in the stack of 2D images captured by said
`color image sensor, 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;
`where the color image sensor comprises a color filter array
`comprising at least three types of colors filters, each
`allowing light in a known wavelength range, W1, W2,
`and W3 respectively, to propagate through the color filter
`and the filters are arranged in a plurality of cells of 6×6
`color filters, where the color filters in positions (2,2) and
`(5,5) of each cell are of the W1 type, the color filters in
`positions (2,5) and (5,2) are of the W3 type.
`
`
`34. A focus scanner for recording surface geometry and surface
`color of an object, the focus scanner comprising:
`a multichromatic light source configured for providing a
`multichromatic probe light for illumination of the object,
`a color image sensor comprising an array of image sensor
`pixels for capturing one or more 2D images of light
`received from said object,
`wherein the focus scanner is configured to operate by
`translating a focus plane along an optical axis of the
`focus scanner and capturing a series of the 2D images,
`each 2D image of the series is at a different focus plane
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00118
`
`position such that the series of captured 2D images forms
`a stack of 2D images; and
`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, 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, where deriving
`the surface geometry
`information and surface color information comprises
`calculating for several 2D images a correlation measure
`between the portion of the 2D image captured by said
`block of image sensor pixels and a weight function,
`where the weight function is determined based on
`information of the configuration of the spatial pattern,
`and identifying the position along the optical axis at
`which the corresponding correlation measure has a
`maximum value,
`where the data processing system further is configured for
`determining a sub-scan color for a point on a generated
`sub-scan based on the surface color information of the
`2D image in the series in which the correlation measure
`has its maximum value for the corresponding block of
`image sensor pixels and computing an averaged sub-scan
`color for a number of points of the sub-scan, where the
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00118
`
`computing comprises an averaging of sub-scan colors of
`surrounding points on the sub-scan.
`
`Ex.1001 at cols. 22-24.
`
`IV.
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Claims in an unexpired patent subject to inter partes review are given the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the specification of the patent
`
`in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (as amended at 81 Fed. Reg. 18766
`
`(April 1, 2016)); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016).2 Patent
`
`Owner submits the following construction.
`
`“the data processing system also configured to derive surface color
`information…from at least one of the 2D images used to derive the
`surface geometry information”
`
`Independent claims 31, 32, and 34 of the ’244 Patent recite “the data
`
`processing system also configured to derive surface color information…from at
`
`least one of the 2D images used to derive the surface geometry information.”
`
`
`2 The Petition was filed prior to November 13, 2018. The challenged claims are to
`
`be construed under BRI. See 83 Fed. Reg. 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00118
`
`Ex.1001 at 22:58-62, 23:20-24, 24:13-17. Petitioner does not explicitly construe
`
`this recitation.3
`
`
`
`The phrase “2D images” in the recitation are the same “2D images” used to
`
`derive surface geometry information. This is apparent from the recitation of the
`
`definite article “the” prior to each instance of the term “2D images.” Thus, the
`
`recitation requires the data processing system to be configured to derive both
`
`surface geometry information and surface color information from the same at least
`
`one 2D image captured by said color image sensor.
`
`V.
`
` ARGUMENT
`Petitioner fails to establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that any
`
`claim of the ’244 Patent challenged in any of the grounds presented in the Petition
`
`
`3 The Petition does not set forth any explicit claim construction for any term of the
`
`challenged claims. “[F]ailure to offer a construction and analysis of a term critical
`
`to understanding the scope of [the] independent claims” is grounds for denying
`
`institution. Jiawei Tech. (HK) Ltd. v. Simon Nicholas Richmond, IPR2014-00937,
`
`Paper 24 at 1 (PTAB Feb. 6, 2014). Petitioner fails to meet its burden here because
`
`Petitioner provides no construction of the recitation.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00118
`
`is unpatentable.4 Thus, the Petition should be denied with respect to all challenged
`
`claims and grounds.
`
`A.
`
`
`
`Petitioner Fails to Establish that There Is a Reasonable
`Likelihood that Fisker and Tanaka Render Claims 31 and 32
`Obvious (Ground 1)
`
`Petitioner fails to meet its burden concerning Ground 1 of the Petition.
`
`1.
`
`Fisker does not disclose or suggest “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” recited in claim 31
`Fisker does not disclose or suggest a data processing system configured to
`
`derive both surface geometry information and surface color information from the
`
`same at least one 2D image captured by said color image sensor. See Section IV.
`
`This is true for four reasons. First, Fisker’s disclosure of “scanning” of a surface
`
`shape and color relates to a general process of obtaining image data, not to the
`
`selection of a specific 2D image. Second, Fisker’s disclosure of “simultaneous
`
`scanning” and “scanned together” to obtain surface shape and color relates to
`
`Fisker’s general process of scanning, not the selection of a specific 2D image.
`
`
`4 Petitioner fails to satisfy its burden even assuming, for purposes of determining
`
`whether to institute, that Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“POSITA”) at page 16 of the Petition is correct.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00118
`
`Third, “simultaneous scanning” cannot mean obtaining surface geometry and color
`
`at a single moment in time because “simultaneous scanning” encompasses
`
`obtaining multiple images at varying times. Fourth, nothing in the ’244
`
`Specification indicates that “simultaneous scanning” would somehow result in
`
`deriving surface color information and surface geometry information from the
`
`same 2D image.
`
`a.
`
`Fisker’s disclosure of “scanning” of a surface shape
`and color relates to a general process of obtaining
`image data, not to the selection of a specific 2D image
`Petitioner asserts that Fisker’s disclosure of “simultaneously scanning of a
`
`surface shape and color” corresponds to deriving surface color information from at
`
`least one of the 2D images used to derive the surface geometry. Pet. at 19 (citing
`
`Ex.1005 at ¶ [0228]). Petitioner is mistaken. Petitioner overlooks the fact that the
`
`scanning process in Fisker broadly encompasses collecting a voluminous number
`
`of 2D images. Ex.1005 at ¶¶ [0028], [0030], [0074]. Fisker teaches that its
`
`scanning process results in an “enormous amount of data” (e.g., the numerous 2D
`
`images produced from scanning). Id. at ¶ [0074]. Such disclosure of
`
`“simultaneously scanning” is insufficient to demonstrate that the same particular
`
`2D image within the enormous amount of data obtained from Fisker’s scanning is
`
`used to derive both surface geometry information and surface color information
`
`from the same at least one 2D image, as claimed.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00118
`
`Petitioner provides no explanation of the meaning of “scanning” in Fisker’s
`
`disclosure. While Fisker does not expressly define the term “scan,” Fisker uses
`
`this term in a broad sense to generally describe the process by which a focus
`
`scanning apparatus measures a 3D geometry of surfaces. Id. at ¶ [0001]. Fisker
`
`discloses embodiments suitable for “intraoral scanning” such as “scanning dental
`
`impression, gypsum models, wax bites, dental prosthetics and abutments.” Id.
`
`Fisker discloses embodiments for scanning a human ear. Id. Fisker discloses that
`
`the “probe is adapted to scan at least a part of the surface of a cavity, such as an
`
`ear canal.” Id. at ¶ [0162] (emphasis added).
`
`The term “scan” in Fisker encompasses collecting data obtained over a range
`
`of focal plane positions. Fisker discloses that its:
`
`invention provides for a variation of the focus plane of the pattern
`over a range of focus plane positions while maintaining a fixed spatial
`relation of the scanner and the object. It does not means that the scan
`must be provided with a fixed spatial relation of the scanner and the
`object, but merely that the focus plane can be varied (scanned) with a
`fixed spatial relation of the scanner and the object. [Emphases added.]
`
`Id. at ¶ [0023]. Fisker also discloses that a “pivotal point of the invention is the
`
`variation, i.e. scanning, of the focal plane without moving the scanner in relation
`
`to the object being scanned.” Id. at ¶ [0063] (emphasis added). Similarly, Fisker
`
`discloses that the “focus position may be varied in equal steps from one end of the
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00118
`
`scanning region to the other.” Id. at ¶¶ [0092], [0114], [0128], see also ¶ [0253].
`
`Fisker discloses that “[d]uring scanning the focus position is changed over a range
`
`of values….” Id. at ¶ [0278] (emphasis added). Fisker defines a “sub-scan” as the
`
`process of collecting a number of 2D images at different positions of the focus
`
`plane and at different instances of the pattern. Id. at ¶¶ [0028], [0030].
`
`Necessarily, then, a “scan” results in a volume of images that exceeds the
`
`collection of 2D images obtained from such “sub-scan.” In fact, as discussed
`
`above, Fisker provides that “real time high resolution 3D scanning creates an
`
`enormous amount of data.” Id. at ¶ [0074] (emphasis added). Thus, Fisker’s
`
`scanning process produces an enormous amount of 2D images, including image
`
`data obtained over a range of focal plane positions.
`
`b.
`
`Fisker’s disclosure of “simultaneous scanning” and
`“scanned together” to obtain surface shape and color
`relates to Fisker’s general process of scanning, not the
`selection of a specific 2D image
`Petitioner relies on Fisker’s disclosure of “registering the color of the
`
`individual surface elements of the object being scanned together with the surface
`
`topology of the object being scanned.” Pet. at 20 (citing Ex.1005 at ¶ [0151]).
`
`Similarly, Petitioner relies on Fisker’s disclosure of “a device for ‘simultaneous
`
`scanning of a surface shape and color.’” Id. at 19 (citing Ex.1005 at ¶ [0228]). As
`
`discussed above, scanning is a term broadly used in Fisker to describe the process
`
`of obtaining “an enormous amount of data”. Thus, Fisker’s “scanned together”
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00118
`
`and “simultaneous scanning” disclosures, in the context of the meaning of “scan”
`
`in Fisker, simply means that both color and surface topology are obtained from a
`
`voluminous collection of 2D images obtained from this general “scanning” process.
`
`Even if Fisker simultaneously obtains surface shape and color information by way
`
`of its scanning process, this does not necessarily mean that the same at least one
`
`particular 2D image within the enormous amount of data obtained from Fisker’s
`
`scanning must be used to derive both surface geometry information and surface
`
`color information. For example, it is possible in Fisker for some of the 2D images
`
`among the voluminous collection obtained from scanning to be used to obtain
`
`surface shape and other, different 2D images among the voluminous collection
`
`obtained from scanning to be used to obtain color. Petitioner has failed to
`
`demonstrate
`
`that such claimed feature
`
`is an
`
`inherent result of Fisker’s
`
`“simultaneous scanning” and “scanned together” disclosures. See In re Rijckaert,
`
`9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“The mere fact that a certain thing may result
`
`from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient [to establish inherency.]”
`
`(quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581-82 (C.C.P.A. 1981). See also In re
`
`Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Nor does Petitioner provide any
`
`reason for why it would have been obvious to modify Fisker to arrive at deriving
`
`both surface geometry information and surface color information from the same at
`
`least one 2D image.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2019-00118
`
`Petitioner does not provide any meaningful explanation as to how or why
`
`Fisker’s disclosures of “simultaneous scanning” and “scanned together” somehow
`
`teach a data processing system “configured to derive surface color information for
`
`the block of said imag