Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`3SHAPE A/S and 3SHAPE INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00153
`Patent 6,334,853 B2
`___________
`
`Held: March 11, 2020
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. MCNAMARA, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`3SHAPE A/S and 3SHAPE INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00153
`Patent 6,334,853 B2
`___________
`
`Held: March 11, 2020
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. MCNAMARA, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00153
`Patent 6,334,853 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`TODD R. WALTERS, ESQ.
`Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C.
`1737 King Street
`Suite 500
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`KRISTINA CAGGIANO KELLY, ESQ.
`Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, March
`11, 2020, commencing at 10:34 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00153
`Patent 6,334,853 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE ROESEL: Petitioner, you may begin when you're ready.
`
`We're here for IPR 2019-00153.
`
`MR. WALTER: May it please the council. I am Todd Walters, lead
`counsel in this IPR. We're going to be talking about U.S. patent 6,334,853.
`
`JUDGE ROESEL: And before you begin, would you like to reserve
`rebuttal time?
`
`MR. WALTER: I would like to reserve 15 minutes, Your Honor.
`Also I'd like to inform you that I have with me counsel of record Andrew
`Cheslock, I have Roger Lee and James Wilcox here with me.
`
`JUDGE ROESEL: You may begin
`
`MR. WALTER: Thank you, Your Honor. So if we could go to slide
`3. We're going to be talking about the 853 patent today and the patent is
`directed to a method for obtaining a dental occlusion map. The dental
`occlusion map by definition in the 853 patent is a graphical representation of
`the distance between opposite points for regions, again opposite points or
`regions on the surface of opposite teeth. That's what will be the term in
`occlusion map.
`
`If we could go to slide 4. The 853 patent has numerous claims in it.
`Most of the focus today is going to be on claim 1 and specifically on the
`determining step that you see on slide 4, that's roman numeral I. Within the
`claim the determining said distances between opposite regions on opposite
`teeth of the upper and lower jaws of the map.
`
`Can we go to slide 2 now. In this case there are a number of grounds
`that have been raised. There were five grounds. Each of the grounds
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00153
`Patent 6,334,853 B2
`
`address a different collection of claims but there are two primary references
`that are being used in this proceeding. One is the Kunii reference and the
`other is the Myszkowski reference.
`
`If we could go to slide 5. For the presentation today we're going to
`focus on really two things. One is claim construction and two is one of the
`grounds. I'm happy to answer questions on any other issue in the case but
`we're going to focus on claim construction issues in one of the grounds, that
`would the Kunii grounds.
`
`If we can go to slide 6. Here, like in other cases that you've seen
`between 3Shape and Align, Align has again improperly imported numerous
`additional limitations into the claims to avoid the prior art.
`
`If we can go to slide 7, please. In this particular case there is a
`construction by Align on opposite regions and for that particular phrase of
`the claim, Align would like you to put into the claim that that means points
`and/or the circular elliptic or irregular shape surrounding points and that
`those points intersect the same Z-axis line. That is a construction that they
`are proposing for claim 1 in this proceeding.
`
`JUDGE ROESEL: So is claim construction for opposite regions a
`dispositive issue in this case?
`
`MR. WALTER: It is not, Your Honor. The Kunii reference in
`particular discloses all of the features of the claimed invention, claim 1,
`under either Petitioner's construction or under Patent Owner's construction
`and we can talk about that more as we go along looking at the references.
`
`But when you look at claim construction, and now we're on slide 8, if
`you're going to add limitations to a claim through a claim construction you
`really need to do a rigorous analysis. You need to look at the claim
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00153
`Patent 6,334,853 B2
`
`language. You need to look at what the specification says. Is there any
`lexicography? Is there any disavowal? Is there any disclaimer? You need
`to look at the file history and then after all of that you can look at extrinsic
`evidence but the extrinsic evidence should not outweigh the intrinsic
`evidence.
`Here, if you go to the claim language, and now we're on slide 9, and
`look at claim 1 where the term opposite regions is found, there is nothing in
`claim 1 that limits the claim to points and there is nothing in claim 1 that
`says that there have to be shapes which are circular, elliptic or irregular
`surrounding the points. In fact the definition I read to you earlier says that
`an occlusion map can be distances between points or distances between
`regions. It doesn't even have to be distances between points.
`If we can go to slide 10. The other thing that Align is trying to import
`into the reading of the claim is that all distances have to be points on the
`same Z-axis. Again, the claims do not say anything about points being read
`along the same Z-axis line.
`If we can go to slide 11 and see the claim also doesn't provide any
`mention of a specific ordinance system that defines a virtual space. These
`are all limitations that they are importing into the claim and the claims
`themselves do not support that.
`Slide 12. The X there is just showing the claim language doesn't
`support it. But let's go on to the specification, and in slide 13 you'll see
`under a Phillips analysis if Patent Owner wanted the claims to mean
`something specific they could have been their own lexicographer. But they
`decided not to do that here. They did not provide specific definitions of
`terms that would allow them to import these limitations into their claims.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00153
`Patent 6,334,853 B2
`
`
`If we can go to slide 14. If Patent Owner wanted to disavow
`meanings or exclude embodiments from their claims, they could have done
`that in their specification but they have not done that here.
`If we go to slide 15 and specifically focus on the Z-axis issue and
`whether points have to be along the same Z-axis, the 853 patent says
`specifically at column 5, lines 26 through 35 that the grid lines are all
`parallel to each other and are preferably perpendicular to the occlusion
`plane. Again, preferably is not an indication that the measurements have to
`be in a Z-direction in each instance.
`JUDGE ROESEL: But what about the first part of that sentence? The
`gridlines are all parallel to each other. Would that support measuring
`distance in the same direction for each point?
`MR. WALTERS: Again, if you go back to the claim there is no
`language in the claim and there is no language in the specification that says
`that all measurements have to be in the same direction.
`JUDGE ROESEL: But is there any support in the patent, what is the
`patent here --
`JUDGE ROESEL: -- the 853 patent for measuring distance in a
`different direction for different points?
`MR. WALTER: So if you look at the 853 patent where it talks about
`shapes, for example if we can pull up column 6, line 62. It says these
`regions can be circular, elliptic, irregular in shape there. It doesn't say that
`the regions on the top tooth and the bottom tooth have to be of the same
`shape. Then it goes on and says furthermore, the points 32 prime and 32
`double prime do not have to be located at the geometric center of the regions
`32 prime R and 32 double prime R in a manner similar to that described for
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00153
`Patent 6,334,853 B2
`
`pairs of points on opposite teeth. What they're saying is you can take
`different positions within the regions and measure those distances. It doesn't
`even have to be the same geometric center of each of the shapes. So the
`shapes can be different on the top and the bottom and the portion where
`you're measuring to can be different in the shapes on the top and the bottom.
`Nowhere --
`JUDGE ROESEL: Those points 32 prime and 32 double prime, they
`do lie on the same Z-axis grid line; isn't that right?
`MR. WALTER: I agree with you. All of the figures do show that the
`points are measured along the same grid line but if you look at, for example,
`slide 16 the introduction to all of the figures says,
`"For a better understanding the invention will now be described by
`way of example only with reference to the accompanying drawings."
`Certainly the drafters of the specification did not contemplate the
`invention to be limited to the examples of the figures. That's very clear from
`the explicit language that introduces the figures.
`If we could go to slide 17. In addition, the claim language does not
`require shapes which are circular or elliptic or irregular. In fact the
`specification at column 6, lines 62 to 63 specifically says the regions can be
`circular, elliptic or irregular in shape. Of course the regions could be of any
`shape. They don't have to be the same shape for the top and the bottom of
`the tooth and you don't have to have the points be in alignment on the Z-
`axis.
`
`If we could go to slide 18. Again, this is just an indicator that the
`specification does not support the importation of the limitations of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00153
`Patent 6,334,853 B2
`
`measuring along a Z-axis or the shapes of the regions being put into the
`claims themselves.
`If we can go to slide 19. In addition, there is nothing in the file
`history where Patent Owner has demonstrated that they distinguished the
`claims over the prior art based on these limitations they want to import into
`the claims.
`So there's nothing really in the file history and if we go to slide 21,
`Patent Owner's own declarants, both Dr. Valley and Dr. Bajaj, never did a
`rigorous claim construction. Neither one of them did an analysis of the
`terms of the claims, did an analysis of the specification, did an analysis of
`the file history or provided extrinsic evidence that would support the
`importation of these terms into the claims. So again, if you do a rigorous
`claim analysis you have nothing in the claims, nothing in the specification,
`nothing in the file history and no extrinsic evidence that really supports the
`narrowing of the claims as Align suggests.
`If we can go to slide 23. There was another issue that had come up
`earlier --
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Excuse me, just a second counsel.
`MR. WALTERS: Yes.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: I'm looking at the description in column 5 at
`lines 26 through 35, it talks about figure 4 and the matrix of pixels and the
`grid lines can be drawn through the virtual image. Essentially what we've
`got, it says the grid lines are parallel to each other and are preferably
`perpendicular to the occlusion plane and I notice that it's preferably
`perpendicular to the occlusion plane. As you said, it doesn't appear that the
`claims, at least on their face, require that the grid lines be parallel to each
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00153
`Patent 6,334,853 B2
`
`other. It also doesn't require that they be, I'm not sure, I think it doesn't
`require that they be perpendicular to the occlusion plane. But in any case, if
`they're not parallel to each other it seems that the calculations would get
`crazy complicated; is that not right?
`MR. WALTERS: It may be more complicated in terms of the
`calculations but of course you've seen in the prior art with the multi-
`projection methods that that's certainly capable. If you go back to column 3
`of the patent they certainly contemplate, if you look at column 3 let's start at
`line 35, in this area they talk about sometimes it should be noted that since
`teeth in 22 are at the rear of the jaws the buccal and lingual sides of the teeth
`are substantially perpendicular to the Y-axis and therefore it is convenient to
`consider a cross-section parallel to the ZY-plane. See that, then it goes on
`and says --
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: But not necessarily because as long as I
`know what the angle is, I can work it.
`MR. WALTERS: Exactly.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay.
`MR. WALTERS: But then it goes on and suggests that but for other
`teeth you might try another plane. So the directions don't always have to be
`in the same direction. They're saying that it depends on how the teeth
`alignment is. So going back to slide 23, there was an issue over occlusion
`map. I think that issue is over now because Patent Owner does not advocate
`for a different meaning -- from the meaning that is provided within the
`specification. Also I don't see any issues that come up with regard to the
`prior art with the exception of one and that is the construction of occlusion
`map specifically contemplates distances between points or distances
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00153
`Patent 6,334,853 B2
`
`between regions and if the claims require distances between points on the
`same Z-axis they're reading out of that definition that you can also read
`distances between regions because a point is just a subset of the region itself.
`If we go on to slide 43, I'm taking our demonstrative slides a little out
`of order, Your Honor, but I want to cover all the claim construction issues
`here. Patent Owner has newly presented a precision requirement in their
`claim construction analysis and if we go to slide 44, this comes up in the
`surreply and they indicate that because claims 12 and 13 impart precision
`that therefore claim 1 also has to have some specific kind of precision and
`honestly we don't understand this argument at all because there's no legal
`authority that they cite to that suggests that because a dependent claim
`requires some particular kind of precision that the independent claim also
`requires that precision and in fact, if we look at slide 45 the specification is
`extremely clear that the kind of precision that they say the claims require is
`not required.
`In column 7, lines 21 to 29, the 853 patent specification says that an
`illustrative example of a convenient color key code as shown in figure 9.
`Each color can either represent a given distance or ranges of distances. For
`example, in the former case color 91 may indicate 0.3 millimeters and color
`93 may indicate a distance of 2 millimeters, whereas in the latter case color
`91 may indicate a range of 0.3 to 2 millimeters and color 92 may indicate the
`range of 2.1 to 4 millimeters. In this area they certainly don't contemplate
`that the invention is limited to a precision of 0.1 millimeters and certainly
`not to a precision of zero millimeters. Claim 1 has no precision requirement
`in it.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00153
`Patent 6,334,853 B2
`
`
`If we go to slide 35 now. There is also a new argument with respect
`to the Kunii reference and here the argument is that Kunii's projection
`disclosure is not a grid line and it's not a measurement of distance. That
`doesn't make any sense. If you look at 36, if we stay on 36 they say Kunii's
`fixed projection direction discussion does not disclose the claim method
`because the claim method does not use a fixed projection direction. In other
`words, Z-axis grid lines are not projections.
`If we go to 38, again there's nothing in the claims that require grid
`lines and there's nothing in the claims that require a Z-axis. What the 853
`patent describes is measuring distances between regions. It sets up an area
`in the top tooth. It sets up an area in the bottom tooth. It measures the
`distance between those teeth. That's exactly what Kunii describes. Don't be
`fooled by the languages of grid lines and projections, ask yourself what does
`the claim require and ask yourself what does Kunii disclose.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: In fact counsel, it doesn't even requirement
`measuring, it just says determining.
`MR. WALTERS: Determining.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: I can do it any way I want.
`MR. WALTERS: Correct.
`JUDGE MCNAMARA: Okay.
`MR. WALTERS: If we go to slide 25. The challenged claims are
`anticipated and rendered obvious by Kunii under either parties'
`constructions. As I mentioned before, we're on slide 26, the real focus in
`this case is on the determining step. The determining step says determining
`said distances between opposite regions on opposite teeth of the upper and
`lower jaws of the mouth.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00153
`Patent 6,334,853 B2
`
`
`If we go to 27. You'll recall in Patent Owner's preliminary response,
`Patent Owner said that Kunii is limited to a multi-projection technique.
`They said Kunii discloses a distance map with multiple projections that
`allow detection of more active regions to determine or approximate load
`characteristics on teeth interacting with food particles. But Kunii is not
`limited to a multi-projection method and you have already recognized this.
`You'll recall, and now I'm on slide 28, you recognized that Kunii
`discloses measuring along a fixed projection direction. In fact, you indicated
`in the Institution decision Kunii discloses two ways to measure this distance,
`either along a fixed projection direction. Kunii refers to this method as a
`single projection technique.
`We can go to slide 29. Patent Owner has now again re-raised the
`same argument in their Patent Owner response and they haven't addressed
`the point that you've made in the Institution decision. But let's talk about
`this. If we can go to slide 30. Slide 30 shows a side by side comparison of
`figure 1A of Kunii and figure 2 of the 853 patent and you can see in figure
`1A of Kunii what they measured is the distance between B minimum and A
`max. By the way, B minimum on that surface is not the shortest distance
`between object B and object A. In the 853 patent, likewise what is going on
`in the patent is they describe measuring the distances between the opposite
`facing points, for example, 30 prime and 30 double prime. There's no
`difference in the disclosures of these documents or between what Kunii
`describes and what claim 1 of the 853 patent describes. It's measuring
`distances. Do not be confused by projections, grid lines, any of that, it's all
`just about measuring distances.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00153
`Patent 6,334,853 B2
`
`
`JUDGE ROESEL: But with slide 30 Petitioner is contending that
`Kunii discloses this determining distances between opposite regions, even
`under Patent Owner's construction for opposite regions; is that right?
`MR. WALTERS: Correct, yes, and you can see in figure 1 that it has
`an arrow in the Z-direction normal to the XY-plane and it measures the
`distance between B min and A max, just as it's shown in figure 2 of the 853
`patent.
`JUDGE ROESEL: So figure 1A of Kunii is the reason why Petitioner
`said earlier that claim construction for opposite regions isn't dispositive; is
`that right?
`MR. WALTERS: Correct. Yes, Your Honor. If we go to slide 37,
`please. Slide 37, again it's a comparison between figure 1A of Kunii and
`figure 2 of the 853 patent and it points out to you that the calculation of
`distance in Kunii is just taking A min minus A max and in the 853 patent the
`distance is just the distance between where 30 prime and the remaining
`points are with their respective facing surface distances.
`JUDGE ROESEL: So is there any difference between Kunii's fixed
`projection direction and the Z-axis grid line as you understand it from the
`853 patent?
`MR. WALTERS: No. If we can go to slide 31, again the Board
`picked up on this -- you picked up on this, my apologies, where you
`indicated that according to Kunii this calculation can be used to determine
`distances between points on the surfaces of the upper and lower jaw.
`If we go to slide 32. Kunii explicitly discloses this. It says,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00153
`Patent 6,334,853 B2
`
`
`"The characteristics of contact between the surfaces of the upper and
`lower jaws may be found from distances between points on surfaces of these
`objects."
`And just be clear claim 1 requires distances between regions but that
`also includes distances between points and we know that because there are
`dependent claims that say the regions are points. So regions have to be
`something broader than points but may include points. Here what we're
`saying is Kunii discloses measuring distances between points. So either
`way, Kunii anticipates the claims under a broad reading of the claim or
`under a more narrow reading of the claim as Align has suggested.
`If we can go to slide 39. Align has also indicated that claims 12 and
`13 require some kind of precision that would not be obvious to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art and if we can go to slide 40, Petitioner has shown
`that the Hayashi reference actually discloses providing occlusion maps
`which have limits on the distance of the regions and in slide 40 you can see
`in figure 4 of Hayashi there are regions which are less than 0.3 and there are
`regions that are less than 0.5. What the claims in the 853 patent, that's
`claims 12 and 13 say is less than 0.1 and zero. But that's just an overlapping
`range with what's already in the prior art. That does not impart patentability
`to the claims.
`If we go to 41. This panel has already picked up on this issue and you
`have indicated that if there is to be patentability imparted upon these claims,
`that the Patent Owner needs to demonstrate that there's some kind of
`teaching away, unexpected results, criticality or other pertinent objective
`indicia and here the record is silent on any of that which, by the way, if we
`go to slide 42 Kunii itself contemplates showing zero distance. That's where
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00153
`Patent 6,334,853 B2
`
`the teeth actually touch and occlusion maps that would show where the teeth
`actually touch. So getting down to zero is not something that imparts
`patentability and Patent Owner has not demonstrated why its particular
`selected ranges are critical and in fact, Kunii discloses specifically a zero
`distance.
`I'm going to reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal but I am happy to
`answer any questions.
`JUDGE ROESEL: None here.
`MR. WALTERS: Thank you, Your Honors.
`MS. KELLY: Good morning, Your Honors. Kristina Caggiano Kelly
`on behalf of Align. So briefly to introduce we have a couple of main points
`--
`
`JUDGE ROESEL: Would Patent Owner like to reserve rebuttal time?
`MS. KELLY: Oh, yes, 15 minutes please. Thank you. The main
`points that Patent Owner wants to go over today are that the petition relies
`on prior art that teaches the use of shortest distances as opposed to the 853
`patent which teaches distances along the axis and how that is an
`advantageous method of measuring that specifically serves the goals and
`objectives of this patent.
`As this Board has already noted, the Myszkowski reference does not
`describe a fixed direction and the Myszkowski and Hayashi grounds did not
`actually have a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. For the Kunii and
`Hayashi references they do acknowledge fixed projection directions but as
`Dr. Bajaj explained at length in his deposition, that is not actually the same
`thing that the patent is teaching and they only describe them in order to teach
`the fallbacks and to teach away from using these methods.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00153
`Patent 6,334,853 B2
`
`
`The 853 patent claims, the dependent claims 12 and 13, cover levels
`of precision not found in the prior art and as Petitioner was discussing, these
`are not just overlapping numerical ranges but there is something very
`different about the way in which claims 12 and 13 describe an occlusion
`map which I'll get to. So the 853 patent claims an occlusion map indicative
`of distances between opposite regions on facing surfaces of opposite teeth of
`the upper and lower jaws of the mouth.
`Now each of these words in this claim needs to be given meaning.
`Opposite distances, opposite regions, opposite teeth, each one of these
`concepts is narrowing what exactly is the distance, how is the distance being
`defined, how is it being determined and then setting up that correspondence
`on the mapping surface. Now Petitioner's slide 3, if you recall, said that an
`occlusion map was defined as a graphical representation of the distance
`between opposite points or regions on teeth but that's not actually what this
`sentence says. It says the resulting graphical representation will be termed
`an occlusion map and if you read that sentence in context, the patent
`describes a very specific way of defining regions and determining the
`distances between them and the distance map that results from that method
`is what the patentee is talking about as an occlusion map in this patent. So
`just because other prior art references might use the term occlusion map
`doesn't mean they're referring to the same thing that this patent does. This
`patent is talking about the occlusion map that results from the specific
`method that is taught.
`The main claim construction term that is the point of dispute between
`the parties is this term opposite regions which is actually two disputes in
`one. One of the meaning of the word opposite and one over the meaning of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00153
`Patent 6,334,853 B2
`
`the word regions. So when you put them together Patent Owner's claim is
`proposed construction is points or circular, or elliptic, or irregular shaped
`surrounding points. That's the term regions and then that intersects the same
`Z-axis line that you get from the word opposite, and the word opposite and
`the word regions themselves are very context dependent words. By
`themselves they don't necessarily have a clear defined meaning but that's
`okay because the patent goes to great lengths to describe exactly what it
`means when it says opposite and what it means when it says regions and
`why those definitions are so important to achieving the objective of the
`patent.
`JUDGE ROSEL: Now when Patent Owner says “the same Z-axis
`line,” is the intent of that to mean it has to be perpendicular to the plane of
`occlusion or could it just be the same Z-axis line for all points?
`MS. KELLY: When we say the same Z-axis line we're talking about a
`single Z-axis line running through the two points that are defined as opposite
`points and then because it's a grid, there would be many, many of those Z-
`axis lines, each of those Z-axis lines running through one point on the lower
`tooth and one point on the upper tooth, each of those Z-axis lines defining a
`pair of opposite points.
`JUDGE ROESEL: Is there anything in Patent Owner's construction
`that requires that the Z-axis lines be parallel?
`MS. KELLY: The construction doesn't specifically say that. They are
`parallel but Z-axis lines by definition will be parallel because they're all in
`the Z-axis and when you have a cartesian coordinate plane, you have the
`XY-plane which as the patent says is preferably but not necessarily the
`occlusion plane and then Z-axis grid lines which will all be by definition
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00153
`Patent 6,334,853 B2
`
`perpendicular to the XY-plane and the specification actually says that the Z-
`axis lines are all parallel to each other, even though we didn't incorporate
`that specific statement into the proposed construction. We think it is
`inherent in the fact that they are Z-axis lines. In a cartesian coordinate plane
`all Z-axis lines will be parallel to one another.
`Now the occlusion plane is actually a term of art in dentistry and it is
`defined, and the patent acknowledges what that definition is and it's defined
`by the buccal cusp of the premolars which is typically or, as the patent says,
`preferably what you would use as your default XY-plane but perhaps if there
`is something wrong with the patient's buccal cusp that it doesn't give a good
`occlusion plane for purposes of measuring these distances, you might use a
`different XY-plane. That is what the patent is talking about when it says
`preferably the occlusion plane but not necessarily.
`But the patent also talks at length about setting the occlusion plane or
`setting the XY-plane as the occlusion plane and then measuring distances
`along the Z-axis and it talks about the flexibility of the cross-section. That
`doesn't mean you are cutting different axes as instead of the Z-axis. What it
`means you're cutting a different ZY-plane depending on how you want to
`view the cross-section and where you want to space those Z-axis lines
`because, again, even though all Z-axis lines are parallel to one another the
`patent doesn't say they have to be equidistant from one another. You could
`have some Z-axis lines a little further apart than others, depending on
`whether or not you're in a particularly highly contoured region of the tooth.
`So Patent Owner's construction does account for those kinds of flexibilities
`talked about in the patent, but the patent is very clear about certain things
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00153
`Patent 6,334,853 B2
`
`that define what the patentee means by opposite regions and what they
`define as the Z-axis and that is the XY-plane.
`JUDGE ROESEL: So what's the difference between the Z-axis line
`and Patent Owner's construction and the fixed projection direction of Kunii
`figure 1A?
`MS. KELLY: So a projection direction doesn't necessarily identify
`opposite regions on opposite teeth. So a projection means you start with one
`given point on the lower or upper, it doesn't matter, but for purposes of
`examples say a given point on the lower tooth. From there you can project
`in any direction you want to any point you want on the upper tooth
`depending on what it is you're trying to achieve, and Kunii talks about how
`you want to have up to 13 different projection directions from a single point
`on the lower tooth to 13 different points on the upper tooth in different
`directions and then you take the average of that and then you can do the
`same thing going in the other direction. You can do the same thing from
`many different points on both of the different teeth and it becomes very
`complicated very quickly which is why those equations are basically
`insurmountable for normal computing powers and, as Dr. Bajaj explained in
`his deposition, that is why Kunii applies what he describes as a "fixed raster
`buffer", something that helps with those incredibly complicated equations.
`You don't need that in the 853 patent because the method simply doesn't get
`that complicated. That's one of the advantages that the 853 method is
`seeking to do. By defining all of the distances as Z-axis lines, the equations
`are very simple. So a projection direction, again starts at a single point and
`can go in any direction. You may happen to choose vertical as one of your
`directions but Kunii doesn’t even suggest do
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
