`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2019-00118
` 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. ............................................................................................................. 4 
`IV.  The Board should institute trial notwithstanding 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). ........... 5 
`V.  Overview of the ’244 Patent ......................................................................... 10 
`VI.  POSITA ........................................................................................................ 14 
`VII.  Ground 1: The combination of Fisker and Tanaka renders claims 31 and 32
`obvious. ......................................................................................................... 14 
`A.  Claim 31 ...................................................................................................... 14 
`1. 
`[31.P]: “A focus scanner for recording surface geometry and surface
`color of an object” ............................................................................................. 14 
`2. 
`[31.1]: “a multichromatic light source configured for providing a
`multichromatic probe light for illumination of the object” ............................... 15 
`3. 
`[31.2.a]: “a color image sensor comprising an array of image sensor
`pixels for capturing one or more 2D images of light received from said object”
`
`16 
`4. 
`[31.2.b]: “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” ........................................................................................................ 16 
`5. 
`[31.3.a]: “wherein the focus scanner is configured to operate by
`translating a focus plane along an optical axis of the focus scanner” ............... 17 
`6. 
`[31.3.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” ....................................................................................... 18 
`7. 
`[31.4.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”................................ 18 
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00118
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`[31.4.b]: “the data processing system also configured to derive surface
`8. 
`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” .................... 19 
`9. 
`[31.5.a]: “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” ............................................................................................................... 21 
`10. 
`[31.5.b]: “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%.”............................................................................................... 21 
`a) 
`Fisker ..................................................................................................... 21 
`b)  Tanaka ................................................................................................... 22 
`c)  Motivation to Combine: Fisker and Tanaka ......................................... 23 
`B.  Claim 32 ...................................................................................................... 25 
`1. 
`[32.P]-[32.5.a] .......................................................................................... 25 
`2. 
`[32.5.b]: “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.” ..... 26 
`a) 
`Fisker ..................................................................................................... 26 
`b)  Tanaka ................................................................................................... 26 
`c)  Motivation to Combine: Fisker and Tanaka ......................................... 28 
`VIII.  Grounds 2 and 3: The combinations of Fisker and Suzuki (Ground 2) and
`Fisker and Cai (Ground 3) render claim 34 obvious. ................................... 29 
`A.  Claim 34 ...................................................................................................... 29 
`1. 
`Limitations [34.P]-[34.4.b] ....................................................................... 29 
`2. 
`[34.4.c]: “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 funcion, where the weight function is determined
`based on information of the configuration of the spatial pattern” .................... 29 
`3. 
`[34.4.d]: “identifying the position along the optical axis at which the
`corresponding correlation measure has a maximum value” ............................. 30 
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00118
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`[34.4.e]: “where the data processing system further is configured for
`4. 
`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.” ............................................................................................................... 32 
`5. 
`[34.4.f]: “where the data processing system further is configured
`for…computing an averaged sub-scan color for a number of points of the sub-
`scan, where the computing comprises an averaging of sub-scan colors of
`surrounding points on the sub-scan” ................................................................. 33 
`a) 
`Fisker ..................................................................................................... 33 
`b) 
`Suzuki (Ground 2) ................................................................................. 34 
`c)  Cai (Ground 3) ...................................................................................... 35 
`d)  Motivation to Combine: Fisker and Suzuki (Ground 2) and Fisker and
`Cai (Ground 3) ............................................................................................... 35 
`IX.  Ground 4: The combination of Thiel425, Thiel 576, and Tanaka renders
`claims 31 and 32 obvious. ............................................................................ 39 
`A.  Claim 31 ...................................................................................................... 39 
`1. 
`Limitation [31.P] ...................................................................................... 39 
`a)  Thiel425 ................................................................................................ 39 
`b)  Thiel576 ................................................................................................ 40 
`c)  Motivation to Combine: Thiel425 with Thiel576 ................................. 41 
`2. 
`Limitation [31.1] ...................................................................................... 44 
`3. 
`Limitation [31.2.a] .................................................................................... 45 
`4. 
`Limitation [31.2.b] ................................................................................... 45 
`a)  Thiel425/Thiel576 ................................................................................. 45 
`b)  Tanaka ................................................................................................... 46 
`c)  Motivation to Combine: Thiel425, Thiel576, and Tanaka ................... 46 
`5. 
`Limitation [31.3.a] .................................................................................... 48 
`6. 
`Limitation [31.3.b] ................................................................................... 48 
`7. 
`Limitation [31.4.a] .................................................................................... 49 
`8. 
`Limitation [31.4.b] ................................................................................... 50 
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00118
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`
`a)  Thiel425 ................................................................................................ 50 
`b)  Thiel576 ................................................................................................ 50 
`c)  Motivation to Combine: Thiel425 and Thiel576 .................................. 51 
`9. 
`Limitations [31.5.a]-[31.5.b] .................................................................... 51 
`a)  Thiel425/Thiel576 ................................................................................. 51 
`b)  Tanaka ................................................................................................... 52 
`c)  Motivation to Combine: Thiel425, Thiel576, and Tanaka ................... 53 
`B.  Claim 32 ...................................................................................................... 54 
`1. 
`Limitations [32.P]-[32.4.b] ....................................................................... 54 
`2. 
`Limitation [32.5.a]-[32.5.b] ...................................................................... 54 
`a)  Thiel425/Theil576 ................................................................................. 54 
`b)  Tanaka ................................................................................................... 55 
`c)  Motivation to Combine: Thiel425, Thiel576, and Tanaka ................... 56 
`X.  Grounds 5 and 6: The combinations of Thiel425, Thiel576, Fisker, and
`Suzuki (Ground 5) and Thiel425, Thiel576, Fisker and Cai (Ground 6)
`render claim 34 obvious. .............................................................................. 57 
`A.  Claim 34 ...................................................................................................... 57 
`1. 
`Limitations [34.P]-[34.4.b] ....................................................................... 57 
`2. 
`Limitation [34.4.c] .................................................................................... 57 
`a)  Thiel425/Thiel576 ................................................................................. 57 
`b) 
`Fisker ..................................................................................................... 58 
`c)  Motivation to Combine: Thiel425, Thiel576, and Fisker ..................... 58 
`3. 
`Limitation [34.4.d] ................................................................................... 61 
`a)  Thiel425/Thiel576 ................................................................................. 61 
`b) 
`Fisker ..................................................................................................... 61 
`c)  Motivation to Combine: Thiel425, Thiel576, and Fisker ..................... 62 
`4. 
`Limitation [34.4.e] .................................................................................... 62 
`a)  Thiel425/Thiel576 ................................................................................. 62 
`b) 
`Fisker ..................................................................................................... 63 
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00118
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`
`c)  Motivation to Combine: Thiel425, Thiel576, and Fisker ..................... 64 
`5. 
`Limitation [34.4.f] .................................................................................... 65 
`a)  Thiel425/Thiel576 ................................................................................. 65 
`b) 
`Fisker ..................................................................................................... 65 
`c) 
`Suzuki (Ground 5) and Cai (Ground 6) ................................................ 66 
`d)  Motivation to Combine: Thiel425, Thiel576, Fisker, and Suzuki
`(Ground 5) and Thiel425, Thiel576, Fisker, and Cai (Ground 6) ................. 67 
`XI.  Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1)) ................................................. 72 
`XII.  Conclusion .................................................................................................... 73 
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00118
` 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)
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00118
` 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.
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00118
` 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”)
`
`
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00118
` 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 IPR2019-00118
` 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:
`
`Petition 2 (the current petition):
`Ground
`References
`Fisker1 and Tanaka2
`1
`Fisker and Suzuki3
`2
`Fisker and Cai4
`3
`4
`Thiel5765, Thiel4256, and
`
`Claims Challenged
`Basis
`§103 31-32
`§103 34
`§103 34
`§103 31-32
`
`
`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. Pub. No. 2015/0029367 to Tanaka, §§102(a) and (e) (earliest priority
`
`date July 29, 2011; published January 29, 2015).
`
`3 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).
`
`4 U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0067789 to Cai et al. (“Cai”) §102(b) (earliest priority
`
`date September 18, 2008; published March 18, 2010).
`
`5 U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0075425 to Thiel (“Thiel425”), §§102(a) and (e)
`
`(earliest priority date February 23, 2010; published March 29, 2012).
`
`6 U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0080576 to Thiel (“Thiel576”), §102(b) (earliest
`
`priority date April 2, 2009; published April 7, 2011).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`5
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00118
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`Tanaka
`Thiel576, Thiel425, Fisker, and
`Suzuki
`Thiel576, Thiel425, Fisker, and
`Cai
`
`§103 34
`
`§103 34
`
`
`Petition 1 (the co-pending petition):
`Ground
`References
`
`Claims Challenged
`Basis
`§ 103 1-5, 8-10, 15-16, 21-22,
`24, 26, and 28
`§ 103 1-5, 8-10, 15-16, 21-22,
`24, 26, and 28
`§ 103 29
`Fisker and Yamada
`§ 103 29
`Fisker and Suzuki
`§ 103 12
`Fisker, Szeliski, and Yamada
`§ 103 12
`Fisker, Szeliski, and Suzuki
`Fisker, Matsumoto, and Yamada § 103 12
`Fisker, Matsumoto, and Suzuki
`§ 103 12
`Thiel576, Thiel425, and Szeliski § 103 1, 22, and 24
`Thiel576, Thiel425, and
`Matsumoto
`Thiel425, Thiel576, and
`Yamada
`Thiel425, Thiel576, and Suzuki § 103 29
`Thiel576, Thiel425, Szeliski,
`§ 103 2-5, 8-10, 15-16, 18, 21,
`and Fisker
`26, and 28
`Thiel576, Thiel425, Matsumoto,
`§ 103 2-5, 8-10, 15-16, 18, 21,
`and Fisker
`26, and 28
`
`§ 103 1, 22, and 24
`
`§ 103 29
`
`Fisker and Szeliski
`
`Fisker and Matsumoto
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00118
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`
`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. Therefore, 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
`
`for the IPRs, Petitioner will unjustly be forbidden from challenging the ’244 Patent
`
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`that might dissuade the Board from holding that the ’244 Patent is PGR eligible. So
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00118
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`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.
`
`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.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). 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
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`22 based on his finding that neither Fisker nor the other prior art before him taught
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00118
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`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 – for example, the terms “weight$3” and “averag$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 Examiner did not consider any additional references in combination with Fisker
`
`to 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:
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00118
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`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
`
`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 (2018) 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. See,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Luxshare Precision Industry Co., Ltd. v. Bing Xu Precision Co., Ltd., IPR2017-
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00118
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`01657 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2018) (Paper 17) at 8-10; Bestway (USA), Inc. v. Intex
`
`Marketing Ltd, 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.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00118
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`
`The Board’s decision in Trans Ova Genetics, LC. v. XY, LLC., 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 Examiner
`
`thoroughly considered during prosecution. Id. The case for institution in 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
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`reject. There is thus no overlap between the examination arguments and the instant
`
`
`
`
`Petition for IPR2019-00118
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`Petition. There is thus no compelling reason why § 325(d) would prevent
`
`institution on the ground of unpatentability presented in the Petition here.
`
`V. Overview of the ’244 Patent
`The ’244 Patent relates to “three dimensional (3D) scanning of the surface
`
`geometry and surface color of objects,” particularly within dentistry and for
`
`intraocular scanning (Ex.1001, 1:6-9.) The ’244 Patent provides a scanner system
`
`and a method for recording surface geometry and surface color of an object in
`
`order to generate a digital 3D representation of the object expressing both color
`
`and geometry of the object. (Id., 2:5-13.)
`
`The scanner system 100 comprises a multichromatic light source 101 that
`
`emits light through an optical system 150, which provides 2D images having a
`
`pattern onto an object 200 and comprises an adjustable focusing element 151for
`
`shifting the focal imaging plane of the pattern on the object 200. (Id., 15:63-16:18.)
`
`The scanner system 100 also comprises a data processing system for deriving
`
`geome