Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Date: March 22, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`THALES VISIONIX, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01304
`Patent 6,922,632 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, HYUN J. JUNG, and
`JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Date: March 22, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`THALES VISIONIX, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01304
`Patent 6,922,632 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, HYUN J. JUNG, and
`JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01304
`Patent 6,922,632 B2
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Background and Summary
`Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`requesting institution of an inter partes review of claims 1–9, 11–29, and
`66–69 of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’632 patent”).
`Thales Visionix, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). With our authorization, the parties filed
`additional briefs directed solely to the issue of our discretion under
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Papers 9, 10.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted
`“unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon
`consideration of the Petition and for the reasons explained below, we
`determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.
`Thus, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–9, 11–29, and
`66–69 of the ’632 patent on all presented challenges. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018).
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner identifies Meta Platforms, Inc. and Meta Platforms
`Technologies, LLC as real parties in interest. Pet. 1. Patent Owner
`identifies Thales Visionix, Inc. and Gentex Corporation as real parties in
`interest. Paper 4, 1.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01304
`Patent 6,922,632 B2
`C. Related Matters
`The parties identify Gentex Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 4:22-cv-
`03892 (N.D. Cal.) as a related matter.1 Pet. 1–2; Paper 4, 1. Patent Owner
`additionally identifies as related matters IPR2022-01305 that also challenges
`the same patent and IPR2022-01308 that challenges a related patent.
`Paper 4, 1–2.
`We instituted an inter partes review of claims 30–36, 44, 45, 47–55,
`and 57–61 of the ’632 patent in IPR2022-01305. Meta Platforms, Inc. v.
`Thales Visionix, Inc., IPR2022-01305, Paper 12 (PTAB Mar. 13, 2023)
`(Decision Granting Institution).
`D. The ’632 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’632 patent issued on July 26, 2005 from an application filed on
`August 11, 2003 and claims priority to a provisional application filed on
`August 9, 2002. Ex. 1001, codes (22), (45), (60). The ’632 patent “relates
`to tracking, navigation, pose estimation, localization, auto-calibration, scene
`modeling, structure-from-motion and/or map-building based on sensor
`inputs.” Id. at 1:12–15. Reproduced below is Figure 1 of the ’632 patent.
`
`
`1 The case was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
`District of Texas (No. 6:21-cv-00755-ADA) and was subsequently
`transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
`Pet. 2. The parties incorrectly identify the case number in the Northern
`District of California as “5:22-cv-03892.” Compare Pet. 2; Paper 4 (Patent
`Owner’s Mandatory Notices), 1, with Ex. 2002 (Joint Order Regarding
`Claim Construction and Discovery).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01304
`Patent 6,922,632 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 “shows a vehicle navigating an environment.” Ex. 1001,
`11:48. Navigation system 90 (shown in Figure 2 reproduced below) tracks
`vehicle 100 in environment 106, in particular “the position and the
`orientation (together referred to as the 6-dimensional ‘pose’) of vehicle 100
`based on both inertial measurements as well as sensor measurements
`between sensing devices or targets in the vehicle 100 and sensing devices or
`targets that are fixed in the environment 106.” Id. at 12:3–4, 12:11–16.
`Sensors and targets fixed to vehicle 100 or environment 106 are
`collectively referred to as pose sensing elements (“PSE”). Ex. 1001, 13:6–8.
`The ’632 patent states that “[f]or an ‘inside-out’ measurement, the sensor is
`attached to the vehicle and the target is fixed in the environment,” and “[f]or
`an ‘outside-in’ measurement, a sensor fixed in the environment observes a
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01304
`Patent 6,922,632 B2
`target fixed to the moving vehicle.” Id. at 14:47–51. Reproduced below is
`Figure 2 of the ’632 patent.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is a block diagram of a navigation system. Ex. 1001, 11:49.
`Navigation system 90 includes sensors 103 and data processing unit 190. Id.
`at 12:5–7. Sensors 103 include PSE devices 105 and inertial measurement
`unit (“IMU”) 104. Id. at 12:45–48.
`According to the ’632 patent, “a wide variety of sensors and targets
`may be used” because “[n]avigation system 90 is modularized and
`configurable such that different sensors and targets can be selected for a
`particular vehicle without necessarily having to re-implement and re-test the
`implementation of the navigation system.” Ex. 1001, 13:32–37. The ’632
`patent “provides a ‘plug and track’ capability in which sensors and targets
`and their associated software drivers can be ‘plugged’ into the navigation
`system 90.” Id. at 13:37–40.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01304
`Patent 6,922,632 B2
`“[S]ensor specific computations are isolated in PSE drivers 120” that
`“are software modules,” and “meta-driver 122 provides an interface between
`the PSE drivers 120 and a sensor fusion core 200, which does not need to
`include sensor-specific aspects.” Ex. 1001, 16:40–44, 16:46. “By dividing
`data processing unit 190 into portions specific to PSE devices 105 and a
`portion specific to updating the states of the navigation system 90, the
`navigation system can be easily reconfigured.” Id. at 17:29–32. Sensor
`fusion core 200 “processes information from sensors 103” that updates
`estimates of vehicle location and orientation. Id. at 16:57–58. Sensor fusion
`core 200 includes state update module 214 that has measurement
`management unit (“MMU”) 304. Id. at 16:59, 17:40–44, 18:24–25, Figs. 2,
`3.
`
`“When system 90 powers up, it starts in initialization mode, which
`includes the enumeration and self-configuration procedures.” Ex. 1001,
`22:54–56. MMU 304 requests meta driver 122 to “enumerate the sensing
`hardware,” and meta driver 122 then loads available PSE drivers and
`requests each PSE driver 120 enumerate PSE devices 105 available to
`navigation system 90. Id. at 18:39–43, 18:48–49; see also id. at 22:15–36
`(describing the enumeration process). Meta driver 122 also “receives the
`configuration information from PSE drivers 120.” Id. at 18:59–60. “By
`using meta-driver 122 to enumerate the PSEs available upon power-up of
`navigation system 90, the navigation system is able to automatically
`reconfigure itself.” Id. at 19:1–3.
`“Once a valid system configuration has been achieved and stored in
`the requisite configuration files,” “the system moves into acquisition mode
`. . . to find out the approximate location or pose of the vehicle.” Ex. 1001,
`22:57–61. “This initial pose estimate allows the system 90 to enter the
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01304
`Patent 6,922,632 B2
`tracking update loop, which involves a recursive estimation filter that uses
`an approximate initial guess of states.” Id. at 22:62–64. A “difference
`between expected measurement based on the estimated pose . . . and the
`actual sensor measurement . . . is referred to as the ‘innovation’ in the
`measurement.” Id. at 15:48–51.
`“In tracking mode, MMU 304 communicates with meta-driver 12[2]
`to determine which PSE pairs (including target and sensor) are available to
`make measurements during the next measurement cycle,” and “selects a pair
`of PSEs from among the pairs of PSEs that are available to make
`measurements.” Ex. 1001, 19:29–34. The selection is “based on an
`‘information gain’ that represents the utility (or usefulness) of a
`measurement by the pair of PSEs to navigation system 90.” Id. at 19:34–37.
`E. Illustrative Claim
`The ’632 patent includes 69 claims, of which Petitioner challenges
`claims 1–9, 11–29, and 66–69 in this proceeding. Claims 1, 66, 68, and 69
`are independent, and reproduced below is claim 1.
`1.
`A method for tracking an object comprising:
`
`coupling a sensor subsystem to an estimation subsystem,
`said sensor subsystem enabling measurement related to relative
`locations or orientations of sensing elements;
`
`accepting configuration data from the sensor subsystem;
`
`configuring the estimation system according to the
`accepted configuration data;
`
`repeatedly updating a state estimate, including
`
`
`accepting measurement information from the sensor
`subsystem, and,
`
`updating the state estimate according to the
`accepted configuration data and the accepted measurement data.
`Ex. 1001, 46:19–31.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01304
`Patent 6,922,632 B2
`F. Asserted Prior Art and Proffered Testimonial Evidence
`Petitioner identifies the following references as prior art in the
`asserted grounds of unpatentability:
`Name
`Reference
`Kramer
`US 5,592,401, issued Jan. 7, 1997
`Horton
`US 5,615,132, issued Mar. 25, 1997
`Welch Thesis Gregory F. Welch, SCAAT: Incremental
`Tracking with Incomplete Information (Oct.
`1996).
`Welch 1997 Greg Welch & Gary Bishop, SCAAT:
`Incremental Tracking with Incomplete
`Information (1997).
`Steven C. Chen & Kang Lee, A Mixed-Mode
`Smart Transducer Interface for Sensors and
`Actuators, SOUND & VIBRATION, Apr. 1998 at
`24.
`Welch 2001 Greg Welch et al., High-Performance Wide-Area
`Optical Tracking, PRESENCE TELEOPERATORS
`AND VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS, Feb. 2001 at 1.
`
`Chen
`
`Exhibit
`1030
`1010
`1009
`
`1008
`
`1024
`
`1007
`
`Petitioner contends that Welch 2001, Welch 1997, Welch Thesis, and
`Horton are prior art under §§ 102(a) and (b) and Kramer and Chen are prior
`art under only § 102(b).2 Pet. 4–5. Petitioner also provides a Declaration of
`Dr. Ulrich Neumann. Ex. 1005.3
`
`
`2 The relevant sections of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), took effect on March 16,
`2013. Because the ’632 patent issued from an application filed before that
`date, our citations to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 in this Decision are to their
`pre-AIA versions. See also Pet. 4 n.1 (“Based on the claimed priority date
`of the ’632 Patent, Pre-AIA versions of § 102(a) and § 103 apply.”).
`3 Petitioner also includes several declarations directed toward the public
`availability of several references. See, e.g., Exs. 1018–1021, 1027–1029.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01304
`Patent 6,922,632 B2
`G. Asserted Grounds
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–9, 11–29, and 66–69 are unpatentable
`on the following grounds:
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`1–9, 11–22, 24–29
`23
`1–9, 11–24, 28, 29
`25–27
`66–68
`69
`
`Pet. 4–5.
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`
`35
`U.S.C.
`§
`103(a) Welch 2001, Welch 1997
`103(a) Welch 2001, Welch 1997, Welch Thesis
`103(a) Horton
`103(a) Horton, Welch 1997
`103(a) Kramer, Chen
`103(a) Kramer, Chen, Welch 2001
`
`II. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`A. Parallel Litigation
`As noted above in Section I.C., the parties identify a related matter in
`the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California. Pet. 1–2;
`Paper 4, 1.
`Petitioner argues that most of the factors of Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”)
`weigh against exercising our discretion under § 314(a) to deny the Petition.
`Pet. 7–9. According to Petitioner, only factors 1 and 4 are neutral. Id. at 7,
`8. Patent Owner responds that trial in the related litigation will take place in
`late January 2024, before a Final Written Decision is expected in this
`proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 56. Patent Owner also argues that factors 4–6
`weigh in favor of discretionary denial. Id. at 57. With our authorization, the
`parties filed reply arguments that elaborate on the arguments summarized
`above. Papers 9, 10.
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01304
`Patent 6,922,632 B2
`Fintiv instructs us to consider whether to deny institution in certain
`circumstances when there is parallel district court litigation, upon
`consideration of six factors:
`1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that
`one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted;
`2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s
`projected statutory deadline for a final written decision;
`3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and
`the parties;
`4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the
`parallel proceeding;
`5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel
`proceeding are the same party; and
`6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of
`discretion, including the merits.
`Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6.
`Our analysis of Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s
`Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for
`Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District
`Court Litigation” (“Director’s Memo”).4 We turn to the Fintiv factors.
`1. Factor 1: Stay
`Neither party has moved for a stay of the district court
`proceeding. Pet. 7; Paper 9, 2; Paper 10, 5. This factor is, thus, neutral.
`2. Factor 2: Proximity to Trial Date
`The parallel litigation began in the U.S. District Court for the Western
`District of Texas, but was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
`
`
`4 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
`interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_
`memo_20220621_.pdf.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01304
`Patent 6,922,632 B2
`Northern District of California. Pet. 8; Prelim. Resp. 55–56. No trial date
`has been set. Pet. 8. Patent Owner argues that we should deny institution
`based on the expected trial date using the median time to trial from when the
`case was filed in the Western District of Texas. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 56;
`Paper 10, 2.
`Fintiv factor 2 discusses consideration of a trial date. The Director’s
`Memo states that it may be useful to compare a trial date with evidence of a
`median time to trial. Director’s Memo 8. The purpose of doing so is in
`order to ascertain the likelihood of the scheduled trial date actually occurring
`on or around that date. Id. at 8 (“Stakeholders correctly noted that scheduled
`trial dates are unreliable and often change[,]” and a “scheduled trial date . . .
`is not by itself a good indicator of [when] the district court trial will
`occur.”). The Director’s Memo does not state that median time-to-trial
`statistics are themselves a trial date, or otherwise replace consideration of a
`trial date under Fintiv factor 2. And, in the circumstances here, where the
`case was transferred from the Western District of Texas, the usefulness of
`the median time to trial statistics is less clear. Ultimately, though, we will
`not speculate on when a trial may be scheduled. Accordingly, factor 2
`favors not exercising our discretion to deny institution.
`3. Factor 3: Investment in Parallel Proceeding
`Patent Owner argues that “[t]he parties have fully briefed claim
`construction and exchanged infringement and invalidity contentions, and are
`almost eight months into general fact discovery.” Prelim. Resp. 56.
`Petitioner argues that “the most burdensome parts of the case still remain,”
`for example fact discovery does not close for several months, and expert
`discovery has yet to begin. Paper 9, 3. Petitioner also notes that there have
`not been any claim construction rulings. Id. Patent Owner responds that
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01304
`Patent 6,922,632 B2
`“Petitioner has proposed that all document production be substantially
`complete by March 16, 2023.” Paper 10, 4 (citing Ex. 2003, 1).
`We determine that factor 3 does not favor discretionary
`denial. Although there has been work completed, as Petitioner points out,
`“the most burdensome parts of the case still remain.” Paper 9, 3; see also
`Ex. 1031 (Case Management and Pretrial Order).
`4. Factor 4: Overlap with Parallel Proceeding
`Petitioner offers to file a Sand Revolution type of stipulation,
`indicating that it will not pursue the grounds raised in this proceeding in the
`parallel litigation if we institute trial. Paper 9, 3–4; Sand Revolution II, LLC
`v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp. Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 11–12
`(PTAB June 16, 2020) (informative) (finding that a stipulation not to pursue
`the same grounds in the parallel litigation “mitigates to some degree the
`concerns of duplicative efforts”). Patent Owner argues that such a narrow
`stipulation does not mitigate the concerns of overlap. Paper 10, 4–5.
`We are not aware of any precedent that Sand Revolution type
`stipulations are no longer valid or not entitled to weight in the Fintiv
`analysis. We recognize that Sand Revolution stipulations are narrower in
`scope than Sotera type stipulations, and perhaps may require a different
`result in a case with different facts. See Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo
`Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18–19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020)
`(precedential as to § II.A) (finding that a broad stipulation not to pursue any
`ground raised or that could have been reasonably raised in the parallel
`litigation weighs strongly toward institution). Here, Petitioner’s stipulation
`still eliminates specific overlap with the parallel proceeding. As in Sand
`Revolution, we weigh this factor as marginally favoring not exercising our
`discretion to deny institution. Sand Revolution, Paper 24 at 12.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01304
`Patent 6,922,632 B2
`5. Factor 5: Whether Petitioner and Defendant are the Same Party
`“If a petitioner is unrelated to a defendant in an earlier court
`proceeding, the Board has weighed this fact against exercising discretion to
`deny institution . . . .” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 13. Petitioner is also a defendant
`in the related district court litigation. See Pet. 1–2; Prelim. Resp. 55. Thus,
`this factor weighs marginally in favor of exercising our discretion to deny
`institution. Sotera, Paper 12 at 19.
`6. Factor 6: Merits and Other Considerations
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner does not make out a compelling
`case on the merits. Prelim. Resp. 57. As specified in the Director’s Memo,
`“compelling, meritorious challenges will be allowed to proceed at the PTAB
`even where district court litigation is proceeding in parallel.” Director’s
`Memo 4. Accordingly, the Director’s Memo states that the Fintiv analysis
`will not lead to discretionary denial if it can be established that a case
`presents compelling merits. Id. at 4–5. But, the Director’s Memo does not
`require a Petitioner to establish compelling merits to avoid discretionary
`denial.
`Additionally, the Director recently clarified the Interim Procedure,
`stating that “[t]he Board should first assess Fintiv factors 1–5; if that
`analysis supports discretionary denial, the Board should engage the
`compelling merits question.” CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless,
`Inc., IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 6 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (precedential).
`Here, we determine that, on balance, Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor
`exercising our discretion to deny institution and, therefore, there is no need
`to determine whether the Petition establishes compelling merits.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01304
`Patent 6,922,632 B2
`7. Conclusion on Fintiv Factors
`Based on a holistic analysis of the Fintiv factors taking into
`consideration “whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served
`by denying or instituting review” (Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6), we decline to
`exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter
`partes review.
`B. Multiple Petitions
`As noted above in Section I.C., Petitioner filed two petitions
`challenging the same patent. Petitioner contends that “[m]ore than one
`petition is . . . necessary to sufficiently address all the challenged claims” of
`the ’632 patent. Paper 3, 1. According to Petitioner, a large number of
`claims have been asserted in the parallel litigation “that are distinct from one
`another, that collectively comprise several thousand words of claim
`language.” Id. Petitioner ranks this Petition as “A” and the Petition in
`IPR2022-01305 as “B.” Id. at 1–2. Petitioner also explains its reasoning for
`the grouping of the claims challenged in each petition and contends that
`there is no overlap between the two petitions. Id. at 2–3.
`Patent Owner did not file a response to the Notice. Nor did Patent
`Owner otherwise dispute Petitioner’s contentions that two petitions are
`necessary. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`On the present record, we see no reason to exercise our discretion to
`deny institution on the basis of Petitioner filing two petitions to address the
`large number of claims asserted in the related litigation. See PTAB
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 59 (Nov. 2019)5 (recognizing that one
`
`
`5 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01304
`Patent 6,922,632 B2
`circumstance in which more than one petition may be necessary is when a
`patent owner asserts a large number of claims in related litigation).
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Legal Standards
`“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
`onset to show with particularity why the patent [claim] it challenges is
`unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner.
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378
`(Fed. Cir. 2015). The Board may authorize an inter partes review if we
`determine that the information presented in the Petition shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one
`of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims of the ’632 patent are
`unpatentable under § 103. Pet. 4–5. A claim is unpatentable under § 103 if
`the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such
`that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called
`secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
`(1966). When evaluating a combination of teachings, we must also
`“determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01304
`Patent 6,922,632 B2
`elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at
`418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Whether a
`combination of elements produces a predictable result weighs in the ultimate
`determination of obviousness. Id. at 416–417.
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had
`a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, or an equivalent field, and three to
`five years of experience working with computer implemented tracking
`systems.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 37). Petitioner also argues that
`“[a]dditional education might compensate for less experience, and vice-
`versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 37).
`“For purposes of this preliminary response only, Patent Owner accepts
`the Petition’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.”
`Prelim. Resp. 12–13 (quoting Pet. 13). “However, for any other purpose,
`Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner that such [a person of ordinary skill
`in the art] should be limited to a maximum of five years’ experience and
`reserves the right to offer an alternative definition based on expert
`evidence.” Id. at 13.
`Based on the preliminary record, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level
`of ordinary skill only to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
`challenged in the Petition.6
`
`
`6 We also adopted the same proposed level of ordinary skill in IPR2022-
`01305 to determine whether there was a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims in that
`proceeding.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01304
`Patent 6,922,632 B2
`C. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, the claims are construed
`using the same claim construction standard that would be used to
`construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b),
`including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary
`and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of
`ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to
`the patent.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021); see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`Petitioner argues that “no terms need construction because the claims
`read on the prior art under any construction consistent with Phillips.”
`Pet. 13. Patent Owner also does not propose expressly any interpretation for
`any claim term. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`At this preliminary stage, because determining whether Petitioner
`shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing does not depend on a particular
`interpretation for any claim term, we determine that no claim term requires
`express interpretation.7 Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that
`. . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200
`F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
`D. Asserted Obviousness Based on Welch 2001 and Welch 1997
`1. Welch 2001 (Ex. 1007)
`Welch 2001 is an article titled “High-Performance Wide-Area Optical
`Tracking” and presents “a complete description of our recent electro-optical
`
`
`7 We also determined that no claim term in IPR2022-01305 required express
`interpretation.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01304
`Patent 6,922,632 B2
`system, the HiBall Tracking System.” Ex. 1007, 1. Reproduced below is
`Figure 6 of Welch 2001.
`
`
`
`Figure 6 shows that the “HiBall Tracking System consists of three
`main components.” Ex. 1007, 5. “An outward-looking sensing unit” called
`the HiBall “is fixed to each user to be tracked” and “observes a subsystem of
`fixed-location infrared LEDs” called the Ceiling. Id.; see also id. at 4
`(explaining that the system uses “an inside-looking-out configuration, in
`which the optical sensors are on the (moving) user and the landmarks (for
`instance, the LEDs) are fixed in the laboratory,” and a “corresponding
`outside-looking-in alternative would be to place the landmarks on the user
`and to fix the optical sensors in the laboratory”), Fig. 4 (showing the HiBall
`unit and the unit on a person), Fig. 5 (depicting the outside-looking-in and
`inside-looking-out configurations).
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01304
`Patent 6,922,632 B2
`“Communication and synchronization between the host computer and
`these subsystems is coordinated by the Ceiling-HiBall Interface Board
`(CIB).” Ex. 1007, 5–6. “Each HiBall observes LEDs through multiple
`sensor-lens views that are distributed over a large solid angle.” Id. at 6.
`“LEDs are sequentially flashed (one at a time) such that they are seen via a
`diverse set of views for each HiBall,” and “[i]nitial acquisition is performed
`using a brute-force search through LED space, but, once initial lock is made,
`the selection of LEDs to flash is tailored to the views of the active HiBall
`units.” Id. “Pose estimates are maintained using a Kalman-filter-based
`prediction-correction approach known as single-constraint-at-a-time
`(SCAAT) tracking” that “has been extended to provide self-calibration of the
`ceiling, concurrent with HiBall tracking.” Id.
`2. Welch 1997 (Ex. 1008)
`Welch 1997 is a paper titled “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with
`Incomplete Information.” Ex. 1008, 1. It “present[s] a promising new
`mathematical method for tracking a user's pose (position and orientation)”
`that is referred to as “single-constraint-at-a-time or SCAAT tracking.” Id. at
`Abstr.
`3. Claim 1
`For “[a] method for tracking an object,” Petitioner argues that Welch
`2001 and Welch 1997 disclose the preamble. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 58;
`Ex. 1008, Abstr., § 3).
`For “coupling a sensor subsystem to an estimation subsystem, said
`sensor subsystem enabling measurement related to relative locations or
`orientations of sensing elements,” Petitioner argues that Welch 2001 and
`Welch 1997 disclose the limitation because “the ‘Ceiling-HiBall Interface
`Board (CIB)’ couples LED targets and HiBall sensors (the claimed ‘sensor
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01304
`Patent 6,922,632 B2
`subsystem’) with a PC (the claimed ‘estimation subsystem’).” Pet. 18–19
`(citing Ex. 1007, Fig. 6). Petitioner also argues that the PC performs
`calculations to estimate a tracked object’s position and location, as described
`in the ’632 patent for the “estimation subsystem.” Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1001,
`2:35–46, 4:11–20; Ex. 1007, 6; Ex. 1008 § 3.1.2). Petitioner further argues
`that the HiBall sensors enable measurements related to sensing elements’
`relative locations or orientations, and the sensing elements include the
`HiBall sensors and source LEDs. Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 10–11, Fig. 6).
`For “accepting configuration data from the sensor subsystem,”
`Petitioner argues that Welch 2001 would have rendered obvious the
`limitation because it describes “generating and using calibration
`measurements from the sensor subsystem” by performing three
`measurements to determine an LED’s ideal position coordinates, similar to
`the ’632 patent’s description of sensor configuration data. Pet. 20 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 7:15–26; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 62–63; Ex. 1007, 10). Petitioner also argues
`that the HiBall sensor system determines a noise estimate for each LED. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1007, 10).
`For “configuring the estimation system according to the accepted
`configuration data,” Petitioner argues that Welch 2001 would have rendered
`obvious the limitation because it describes the HiBall sensor system
`estimating pose of a HiBall using the SCAAT tracking approach of Welch
`1997. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 64–65; Ex. 1007, 10–13).
`For “repeatedly updating a state estimate, including accepting
`measurement information from the sensor subsystem, and, updating the state
`estimate according to the accepted configuration data and the accepted
`measurement data,” Petitioner argues that Welch 2001 and Welch 1997
`would have rendered obvious the limitation because the SCAAT approach
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01304
`Patent 6,922,632 B2
`“repeatedly updates both the location and orientation (i.e., pose) estimate of
`a HiBall according to the accepted measurement and configuration data from
`the sensor subsystem.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:60–61; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–
`67; Ex. 1007, 10–13; Ex. 1008 § 3.1).
`Regarding a motivation to combine, Petitioner argues that one of
`ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that the SCAAT
`calculations performed by the PC use the online configuration measurements
`as inputs to estimate the HiBall’s pose, and that using these measurements as
`inputs constitutes ‘configuring the estimate system’” and “would have
`understood that the SCAAT tracking approach described in Welch 2001 and
`Welch 1997 updates the sensor state estimate according to the accepted
`measurement and configuration data from the sensor subsystem.” Pet. 16–
`17 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 56, 57; Ex. 1007, 10–13; Ex. 1008 § 3.1).
`a) Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`Patent Owner responds that Petitioner fails to explain how Welch
`2001’s CIB “constitutes ‘coupling a sensor subsystem to an estimation
`subsystem’” because Welch 2001 teaches that the CIB is a separate
`component connected to HiBall sensors and ce
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
