UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`3SHAPE A/S
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00144
`U.S. Patent RE48,221
`_____________________
`
`
`PETITION (1 of 2) FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE48,221
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`VI.
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,221
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .....................................................................1
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ..................2
`IDENTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY ...3
`THE CHALLENGED PATENT ..................................................4
`A.
`RE’221 ............................................................................. 4
`B.
`Independent Claims............................................................ 5
`C.
`IPR and Reissue History ..................................................... 7
`D.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................... 11
`E.
`Claim Construction .......................................................... 12
`Prior Art................................................................................. 12
`GROUNDS ............................................................................ 13
`A. Ground 1: Claims [1, 19] 20-34 and 37-44 are unpatentable as
`obvious over Serra. .......................................................... 13
`1. Serra ....................................................................................... 13
`2.
`Independent Claim 33 ............................................................... 15
`(a) [33.P]/[1.P]/[19.P]: A scanning system for scanning a 3D
`environment, the scanning system comprising:.......................... 15
`(b) [33.1]/[1.1]/[19.1]:a handheld device including an optical scanner,
`wherein the 3D environment to be scanned is selected by pointing
`the optical scanner at the 3D environment ................................ 15
`(i)
`Serra .............................................................................. 15
`(ii) General Knowledge of a POSITA ...................................... 16
`(iii) Motivation ...................................................................... 16
`(c) [33.2]/[1.2]/[19.2]: at least one display remotely connected to the
`handheld device .................................................................... 17
`(d) [33.3.1]/[1.3.1]: wherein the handheld device is adapted for
`performing at least one scanning action in a physical 3D
`environment, ........................................................................ 17
`(e) [33.3.2]/[1.3.4]/[19.3.2]: and the at least one display is adapted for
`visually representing the physical 3D environment .................... 18
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`(f)
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,221
`
`[33.4]/[1.4]-[1.5]/[19.3.3], [19.5]: wherein the handheld device
`includes at least one motion sensor for remotely controlling the
`display to adjust the view with which the 3D environment is
`represented on the display…................................................... 18
`(g) [33.5]/[1.6]/[19.7]: wherein the at least one motion sensor is an
`accelerometer, gyro, or magnetometer...................................... 19
`(i)
`Serra .............................................................................. 19
`(ii) General Knowledge and Motivation ................................... 20
`3. Claim 34.................................................................................. 21
`4. Claim 37/Elements [19.3.1] and [19.6] ........................................ 22
`5. Claim 38.................................................................................. 22
`6. Claim 39.................................................................................. 23
`7. Claim 44/Element [19.4] ............................................................ 24
`(a) Serra ................................................................................... 24
`(b) General Knowledge and Motivation ........................................ 25
`8. Claim 20.................................................................................. 27
`9. Claim 21.................................................................................. 27
`10. Claim 22 ................................................................................. 27
`(a) Serra ................................................................................... 27
`(b) General Knowledge and Motivation ........................................ 28
`11. Claim 23 ................................................................................. 29
`12. Claim 24 ................................................................................. 29
`13. Claim 25 ................................................................................. 29
`14. Claim 26 ................................................................................. 30
`15. Claim 27 ................................................................................. 30
`16. Claim 28 ................................................................................. 30
`17. Claim 30 ................................................................................. 31
`18. Claim 31 ................................................................................. 32
`19. Claim 40 ................................................................................. 33
`20. Claim 41 ................................................................................. 33
`21. Claim 42 ................................................................................. 33
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,221
`
`22. Claim 29 ................................................................................. 34
`23. Claim 32 ................................................................................. 34
`24. Claim 43 ................................................................................. 34
`B. Ground 2: Claims [1, 19] 20-44 are unpatentable as obvious
`over Serra, Kriveshko, and Marvit. ..................................... 35
`1. Kriveshko ................................................................................ 35
`2. Marvit ..................................................................................... 36
`3.
`Independent Claim 33 ............................................................... 37
`(a) Elements [33.P]/[1.P]/[19.P] ................................................... 37
`(b) Elements [33.1]/[1.1]/[19.1] ................................................... 37
`(i)
`Serra .............................................................................. 37
`(ii) Kriveshko ....................................................................... 37
`(iii) Motivation ...................................................................... 38
`(c) Elements [33.2]-[33.4]/[1.2]-[1.5]/[19.2],[19.3.2]-[19.3.3].......... 38
`(d) Element [33.5]/[1.6]/[19.7]..................................................... 38
`(i)
`Serra-Kriveshko .............................................................. 38
`(ii) Marvit ............................................................................ 38
`(iii) Motivation to Combine ..................................................... 39
`(iv) Reasonable Expectation of Success .................................... 39
`4. Claim 34.................................................................................. 40
`5. Claim 35.................................................................................. 40
`(a) Serra-Kriveshko.................................................................... 40
`(b) Marvit ................................................................................. 41
`(c) Motivation/Expectation.......................................................... 41
`6. Claim 36.................................................................................. 41
`(a) Serra-Kriveshko.................................................................... 41
`(b) Marvit ................................................................................. 42
`(c) Motivation/Expectation.......................................................... 42
`7. Claim 37/Elements [19.3.1] and [19.6] ........................................ 42
`8. Claim 38.................................................................................. 42
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,221
`
`(a) Serra-Kriveshko.................................................................... 42
`(b) Marvit ................................................................................. 43
`(c) Motivation/Expectation.......................................................... 44
`9. Claim 39.................................................................................. 44
`(a) Serra-Kriveshko.................................................................... 44
`(b) Marvit ................................................................................. 44
`(c) Motivation/Expectation.......................................................... 45
`10. Claim 44/Element [19.4] ........................................................... 45
`(a) Serra ................................................................................... 45
`(b) Kriveshko ............................................................................ 46
`(c) Motivation/Expectation.......................................................... 46
`11. Claim 20 ................................................................................. 46
`12. Claim 21 ................................................................................. 46
`(a) Serra-Kriveshko.................................................................... 46
`(b) Marvit ................................................................................. 46
`(c) Motivation/Expectation.......................................................... 47
`13. Claim 22 ................................................................................. 47
`(a) Serra-Kriveshko.................................................................... 47
`(b) Marvit ................................................................................. 47
`(c) Motivation/Expectation.......................................................... 48
`14. Claim 23 ................................................................................. 48
`(c) Motivation/Expectation.......................................................... 49
`15. Claim 24 ................................................................................. 49
`16. Claims 25-28, 30, 31, 42 ........................................................... 49
`17. Claims 40-41 ........................................................................... 49
`18. Claim 29 ................................................................................. 49
`(a) Serra-Kriveshko.................................................................... 49
`(b) Marvit ................................................................................. 50
`(c) Motivation/Expectation.......................................................... 50
`19. Claim 32 ................................................................................. 50
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,221
`
`20. Claim 43 ................................................................................. 50
`C. Ground 3: Claims [1, 19] 20-44 are unpatentable as obvious
`over Knighton and Marvit. ................................................ 51
`1. Knighton ................................................................................. 51
`2.
`Independent Claim 33 ............................................................... 52
`(a) Elements [33.P]/[1.P]/[19.P] ................................................... 52
`(b) Elements [33.1]/[1.1]/[19.1] ................................................... 52
`(c) Elements [33.2]/[1.2]/[19.2] ................................................... 52
`(d) Elements [33.3.1]/[1.3.1]........................................................ 53
`(e) Elements [33.3.2]/[1.3.4]/[19.3.2] ........................................... 53
`(f) Elements [33.4]/[1.4]-[1.5]/[19.3.3], [19.5]............................... 53
`(i) Knighton ........................................................................ 53
`(ii) Marvit ............................................................................ 54
`(iii) Motivation to Combine ..................................................... 54
`(iv) Reasonable Expectation of Success .................................... 56
`(g) Element [33.5] ...................................................................... 58
`3. Claim 34.................................................................................. 58
`4. Claim 35.................................................................................. 58
`5. Claim 36.................................................................................. 59
`(a) Knighton.............................................................................. 59
`(b) Marvit ................................................................................. 60
`(c) Motivation/Expectation.......................................................... 60
`6. Claim 37/Elements [19.3.1] and [19.6] ........................................ 60
`(a) Knighton.............................................................................. 60
`(b) Marvit ................................................................................. 61
`(c) Motivation/Expectation.......................................................... 61
`7. Claim 38.................................................................................. 61
`(a) Knighton.............................................................................. 61
`(b) Marvit ................................................................................. 62
`(c) Motivation/Expectation.......................................................... 62
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,221
`
`8. Claim 39.................................................................................. 63
`(a) Knighton.............................................................................. 63
`(b) Marvit ................................................................................. 63
`(c) Motivation/Expectation.......................................................... 63
`9. Claim 44/Element [19.4] ............................................................ 63
`(a) Knighton.............................................................................. 63
`(b) General Knowledge of a POSITA ........................................... 64
`(c) Motivation ........................................................................... 65
`10. Claim 20 ................................................................................. 66
`11. Claim 21 ................................................................................. 66
`12. Claim 22 ................................................................................. 66
`(a) Knighton.............................................................................. 66
`(b) Marvit ................................................................................. 67
`(c) Motivation/Expectation.......................................................... 67
`13. Claim 23 ................................................................................. 67
`(a) Knighton.............................................................................. 67
`(b) Marvit ................................................................................. 68
`(c) Motivation/Expectation.......................................................... 68
`14. Claim 24 ................................................................................. 68
`15. Claim 25 ................................................................................. 69
`16. Claim 26 ................................................................................. 69
`17. Claim 27 ................................................................................. 69
`18. Claim 28 ................................................................................. 69
`19. Claim 30 ................................................................................. 70
`20. Claim 31 ................................................................................. 70
`21. Claim 40 ................................................................................. 71
`22. Claim 41 ................................................................................. 71
`23. Claim 42 ................................................................................. 71
`24. Claim 29 ................................................................................. 71
`(a) Knighton.............................................................................. 71
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`VII.
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,221
`
`(b) Marvit ................................................................................. 72
`(c) Motivation/Expectation.......................................................... 72
`25. Claim 32 ................................................................................. 72
`26. Claim 43 ................................................................................. 72
`PETITIONER IS UNAWARE OF SECONDARY
`CONSIDERATIONS. .............................................................. 73
`VIII. NONE OF THE DISCRETIONARY DENIAL FACTORS WEIGH
`AGAINST INSTITUTION. ...................................................... 73
`A.
`§ 325(d).......................................................................... 73
`B.
`§ 314(a) .......................................................................... 74
`MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)) .................... 77
`A.
`Real Party In Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ..................... 77
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................. 77
`C.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ............. 77
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ....................... 78
`CONCLUSION....................................................................... 79
`
`IX.
`
`X.
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,221
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,221 to Öjelund et al.
` File History of U.S. Patent No. RE48,221 (“Prosecution History”)
`Declaration of Dr. Chandrajit Bajaj (“Bajaj Decl.”) in support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE48,221
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Chandrajit Bajaj
`Intentionally Left Blank
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0212756 to Marvit et al.
`Intentionally Left Blank
`Intentionally Left Blank
`
`Öjelund Provisional, U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/420,138
`(filed December 6, 2010)
`Giammanco et al., “Using 3D Laser Scanning Technology to
`Create Digital Models of Hailstones,” American Meteorological
`Society, July 2017.
`Ireland et al., “3D surface imaging in dentistry – what we are
`looking at,” British Dental Journal, Vol. 205, No. 7, October 11,
`2008.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,485,413 to Boppart et al.
`Orhan H. Karatas and Ebubekir Toy, “Three-dimensional imaging
`techniques: A literature review,” European Journal of Dentistry,
`Vol. 8, No. 1, March 2014.
`B. H. Broadbent, “A New X-Ray Technique and Its Application to
`Orthodontia,” The Angle Orthodontist, Vol. I, No. 2, February 4,
`1931.
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1015
`
`1016
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`
`1030
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,221
`
`
`
`Description
`Nathan S. Birnbaum and Heidi B. Aaronson, “Dental impressions
`using 3D digital scanners: virtual becomes reality,” Compend.
`Contin. Educ. Dent., Vol. 29, No. 8, October 2008; 494, 496, 498-
`505.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,131,844 to Marinaccio et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,592,371 to Durbin et al.
`
`Hajeer et al., “Current Products and Practices Applications of 3D
`imaging in orthodontics: Part II,” Journal of Orthodontics, Vol. 31,
`No. 2, June 2004.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,722,412 to Pflugrath et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,645,148 to Nguygen-Dinh et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,181,181 to Glynn
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0092133 to Touma et al.
`
`Bornik et al., “A Hybrid User Interface for Manipulation of
`Volumetric Medical Data,” 3DUI ’06: IEEE Symposium on 3D
`User Interfaces, March 2006.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,227,850 to Chishti et al.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0009308 to Wen et al.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0110469 to Kopelman
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0062557 to Dillon et al.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0031774 to Cinader, Jr. et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,329,675 to Öjelund et al.
`Inter Partes Review Certificate, U.S. Patent No. 9,329,675 K1 to
`Öjelund et al.
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1031
`
`1032
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,221
`
`
`
`Description
`Final Written Decision for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`9,329,675 in IPR2018-00197, May 29, 2019.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,342,227 to Petersen et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,343 to Shaw et al.
`
`Steele et al., “Bodies in motion: Monitoring daily activity and
`exercise with motion sensors in people with chronic pulmonary
`disease,” J. Rehabil. Res. Dev., Vol. 40, No. 5, Suppl. 2, October
`2003.
`Hale et al., “Measuring free-living physical activity in adults with
`and without neurologic dysfunction with a triaxial accelerometer,”
`Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., Vol. 89, No. 9, September 2008.
`Greg Welch and Eric Foxlin, “Motion Tracking: No Silver Bullet,
`but a Respectable Arsenal,” IEEE Computer Graphics and
`Applications, Vol. 22, No. 6, December 10, 2002.
`Steven Nasiri, “A Critical Review of MEMS Gyroscopes
`Technology and Commercialization Status,” InvenSense, 2005.
`Hannes Kaufmann, “Applications of Mixed Reality,” Thesis,
`Vienna University of Technology, May 27, 2009.
`Welch et al., “High-Performance Wide-Area Optical Tracking: The
`HiBall Tracking System,” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual
`Environments, Vol. 10, No. 1, February 2001.
`Nintendo, “Introducing Wii MotionPlus, Nintendo’s upcoming
`accessory for the revolutionary Wii Remote,” The Wayback
`Machine, July 14, 2008.
`Daniel Turner, “Hack: The Nintendo Wii,” MIT Technology
`Review, July 1, 2007.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0070684 to Haigh-Hutchinson
`
`- x -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,221
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`Description
`Brad A. Myers, CRC Handbook of Computer Science and
`Engineering, 2d. Ed., Allen B. Tucker, January 27, 2003,
`“Graphical User Interface Programming”
`Foley et al., Introduction to Computer Graphics, Addison-Wesley,
`1994, “Chapter 2.2: Basic Interaction Handling,” “Chapter 6:
`Viewing in 3D,” and “Chapter 8: Input Devices, Interaction
`Techniques, and Interaction Tasks.”
`Donald Hearn and M. Pauline Baker, Computer Graphics, 2d. Ed.,
`Prentice Hall, 1994, “Chapter 2: Overview of Graphics Systems,”
`“Chapter 8: Graphical User Interfaces and Interactive Input
`Methods,” and “Chapter 9: Three-Dimensional Concepts.”
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,329,675 (“’675 Prosecution
`History”)
`3Shape A/S v. Align Technology, Inc., IPR2021-01383, Petition for
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,728,519, August 20,
`2021.
`1048-1104 Intentionally Left Blank
`1105
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0020204 to Serra et al.
`1106
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0171220 to Kriveshko
`1107
`Intentionally Left Blank
`1108
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0237581 to Knighton et al.
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`- xi -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,221
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Align Technology, Inc., (“Petitioner”) requests inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. RE48,221 (“RE’221”) claims 20-44 assigned to 3Shape
`
`A/S (“PO”). The Board is presented with a unique situation here in that it already
`
`invalidated the subject matter recited in the challenged claims when it invalidated
`
`claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,329,675 (“the ’675 patent”) in IPR2018-00197.
`
`PO was required to submit this certificate in an IDS during reissue of the ’675
`
`patent, and a petition showing cause why the ’675 patent reissue should proceed.
`
`M.P.E.P. §1449.01(A)(5). PO should have been precluded from seeking claims
`
`that are not patentably distinct from claims that were canceled during an
`
`administrative trial under the doctrine of res judicata. MPEP §2190.
`
`None of these things happened. Instead, claims 1-44 of RE’221 proceeded to
`
`issuance without substantive examination and with invalid subject matter serving
`
`as the basis for allowance. These errors went unnoticed during reissue prosecution,
`
`requiring Petitioner to bring this Petition to have this subject matter invalidated
`
`again.
`
`To the extent claims 20-44 are not identical to those previously invalidated,
`
`they add no patentable features. PO admits that motion sensors were well-known.
`
`And merely claiming three well-known species of the already invalidated genus of
`
`motion sensors does not render the claims patentably distinct from those previously
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,221
`invalidated based on Serra and Kreveshko. The Petition also presents new Grounds
`
`that include Marvit, which was not applied or even considered by the Office. Serra,
`
`Kriveshko, and Knighton were only nominally presented in an IDS during reissue.
`
`During reissue prosecution, the Examiner did not make a single merits-based
`
`rejection, nor address how the RE’221 claims are distinct from the cancelled ’675
`
`patent claims. Accordingly, 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) does not apply. Nor does 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a), because all of the Fintiv factors weigh in favor of instituting this Petition.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`Petitioner certifies that RE’221 is available for IPR, and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting IPR RE’221. The RE’221 assignee, 3Shape,
`
`filed and served a counterclaim in Case No. 6:20-cv-00979 on December 18, 2020,
`
`alleging infringement of RE’221. This Petition is being filed within one year of
`
`service.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,221
`IDENTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY
`Petitioner requests IPR of the challenged claims based on the following
`
`III.
`
`grounds:
`
`Ground
`1
`2
`
`3
`
`Prior Art
`Serra (EX1105)
`
`Serra, Kriveshko (EX1106),
`and Marvit (EX1006)
`Knighton (EX1108) and Marvit
`
`Claims Challenged
`Basis
`§103 [1, 191] 20-34 and 37-44
`§103 [1, 19] 20-44
`
`§103 [1, 19] 20-44
`
`Without conceding that RE’221 is entitled to priority benefit of December 6,
`
`2010 for its earliest-filed provisional application, the prior art qualify as prior art:
`
`• Serra, U.S. Publication 2006/0020204, published January 26, 2006,
`qualifies under §102(b).
`
`• Kriveshko, U.S. Publication 2007/0171220, published Sep. 29, 2005,
`qualifies under §102(b).
`
`• Marvit, U.S. Publication 2005/0212756, published on September 29,
`2005, qualifies under §102(b).
`
`1 RE’221 claims 20-28, 30, 31, and 40-42 depend from claim 1, which was
`
`cancelled in IPR2018-00197. Section IV.B. RE’221 claims 29, 32, and 43 depend
`
`from claim 19, which was cancelled in IPR2018-00197. Id. Claims 1 and 19 are
`
`not directly challenged since they are cancelled, but features of claims 1 and 19 are
`
`addressed in substance as the challenged claims incorporate all of their features.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,221
`
`
`
`• Knighton, U.S. Publication 2005/0237581, published on October 27,
`2005, qualifies under §102(b).
`
`IV. THE CHALLENGED PATENT
`A. RE’221
`RE’221 shows a handheld device for scanning a 3D environment and
`
`remotely controlling a display using a user interface including a motion sensor.
`
`EX1001, 17:66-18:18; EX1003, ¶59. In a remote control mode, a user adjusts (e.g.,
`
`rotate, pan, and/or zoom) the visual representation of the scanned 3D environment
`
`on a display. EX1001, 4:13-23, 4:34-40; EX1003, ¶60. The user interface
`
`functionality is provided by motion sensors in the scanning device, whose readings
`
`determine orientation of the visual display of the scanned 3D environment.
`
`EX1001, 4:41-50; EX1003, ¶60.
`
`RE’221 alleges conventional systems required an operator to move away
`
`from a patient and put down the scanning device to remotely control a visual
`
`representation of a scanned 3D environment. EX1003, ¶61. Thus, RE’221 alleges
`
`an operator can continuously work without having to release the handheld device
`
`when switching between scanning a subject and adjusting a view of previously
`
`scanned images. EX1001, 5:1-16; 5:23-26; EX1003, ¶61.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Independent Claims
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,221
`
`
`
` Claim 33
`[33.P] A scanning system
`for scanning a 3D
`environment, the
`scanning system
`comprising
`[33.1] a handheld device
`including an optical
`scanner, wherein the 3D
`environment to be
`scanned is selected by
`pointing the optical
`scanner at the 3D
`environment; and
`[33.2] at least one display
`remotely connected to the
`handheld device
`[33.3.1]: wherein the
`handheld device is
`adapted for performing at
`least one scanning action
`in a physical 3D
`environment, and
`
`Claim 12
`[1.P] identical to [33.P]
`
`Claim 193
`[19.1] A system
`comprising:
`
`[1.1] identical to [33.1]
`
`[19.1] a handheld device
`and
`
`[1.2] identical to [33.2]
`
`[19.2] at least one
`display;
`
`[1.3.1] identical to
`[33.3.1]
`
`[19.3.1]/[Claim 37]
`wherein the handheld
`device is adapted for
`switching between
`performing at least one
`action in a physical 3D
`environment,
`
`
`2 Petitioner demonstrates the unpatentability of claims [1] 20-28, 30, 31, and
`
`40-42 by showing that claims 33 and 34 are unpatentable.
`
`3 Petitioner demonstrates the unpatentability of claim [19] 29, 32, and 43 by
`
`showing that claims 33, 37, and 44 are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Claim 33
`[33.3.2] the at least one
`display is adapted for
`visually representing the
`physical 3D
`environment; and
`[33.4]: and wherein the
`handheld device includes
`at least one motion
`sensor for remotely
`controlling the display to
`adjust the view with
`which the 3D
`environment is
`represented on the
`display; and
`[Claim 34] “wherein the
`handheld device further
`comprises at least two
`user interface elements”
`
`
`(See element 33.4 for
`similar language)
`
`
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,221
`
`
`
`Claim 12
`[1.3.2] identical to
`[33.3.2]
`
`[1.4] the handheld device
`includes a 3D user
`interface for remotely
`controlling the display to
`adjust the view with
`which the 3D
`environment is
`represented on the
`display,
`
`Claim 193
`[19.3.2] wherein the at
`least one display is
`adapted for visually
`representing the physical
`3D environment; and
`[19.3.3] remotely
`controlling the display to
`adjust the view with
`which the 3D
`environment is
`represented on the
`display;
`
`
`
`[1.5] wherein the
`handheld device
`comprises at least one
`motion sensor, and
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`[19.4]/[claim 44] wherein
`the handheld device is an
`intra-oral 3D scanner and
`the at least one action
`performed in the physical
`3D environment is
`scanning and
`[19.5] that the view is
`remotely controlled by at
`least one motion sensor
`arranged in the handheld
`device,
`[19.6]/[claim 37] and
`wherein an actuator
`provided on the handheld
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,221
`
`
`
` Claim 33
`
`Claim 12
`
`[33.5] wherein the at
`least one motion sensor is
`an accelerometer, gyro,
`or magnetometer.
`
`[1.6] wherein the at least
`one motion sensor is a
`sensor that directly
`de