`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THALES VISIONIX, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,922,632
`
`IPR2022-01304
`__________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`June 14, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iv
`LIST OF EXHIBITS .................................................................................................. v
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II.
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3
`The ’632 Patent ..................................................................................... 3
`
` Welch 2001 ............................................................................................ 6
` Welch 1997 and Welch Thesis .............................................................. 8
` Horton .................................................................................................... 8
`Kramer ................................................................................................. 10
`
`Chen ..................................................................................................... 11
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 11
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11
`“Estimation Subsystem,” “Sensor Subsystem,” and “Coupling” ....... 12
`
`“Configuration Data” / “Configuration Information” ......................... 18
`“Configuring” ...................................................................................... 21
`
`IV. PETITIONER FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE OBVIOUSNESS OF
`ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM ..................................................................... 24
`The Petition Fails To Establish that Welch 2001 and Welch
`
`1997 Rendered Any of Claims 1-9, 11-22, or 24-29 Obvious
`(Ground I) ............................................................................................ 24
`1.
`Petitioner Fails to Establish that Welch 2001 and Welch
`1997 Rendered Claim 1 Obvious .............................................. 25
`Petitioner Fails to Establish that Welch 2001 and Welch
`1997 Rendered Dependent Claims 2-9, 11-22, and 24-29
`Obvious ..................................................................................... 32
`The Petition Fails to Establish that Welch 2001, Welch 1997,
`and Welch Thesis Rendered Claim 23 Obvious (Ground II) .............. 38
`The Petition Fails to Establish that Horton Rendered Any of
`Claims 1-9, 11-24, or 28-29 Obvious (Ground III) ............................. 40
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Has Failed to Establish that Horton Rendered
`Claim 1 Obvious ....................................................................... 40
`Petitioner Fails to Establish that Dependent Claims 2-9,
`11-22, and 24-29 Were Obvious ............................................... 48
`The Petition Fails to Establish that Horton in View of Welch
`1997 Rendered Any of Claims 25-27 Obvious (Ground IV) .............. 61
`The Petition Fails to Establish That Kramer and Chen Rendered
`Any of Claims 66-68 Obvious (Ground V)......................................... 62
`The Petition Fails to Establish That Kramer, Chen, and Welch
`2001 Rendered Claim 69 Obvious (Ground VI) ................................. 65
`V. OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ..................................... 65
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 66
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Arkie Lures, Inc. v. Gene Larew Tackle, Inc.,
`119 F.3d 953 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 65
`Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Texas Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp.,
`533 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 22
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp.,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 14, 19
`Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Promptu Sys. Corp.,
`838 F. App’x 551 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................... 15
`Gaus v. Conair Corp.,
`363 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 14
`In re Klein,
`647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 62
`In re Wesslau,
`353 F.2d 238 (C.C.P.A. 1965) ............................................................................ 64
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 12
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 17
`TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 49
`Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp.,
`811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 17
`Wi-LAN Inc. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp.,
`992 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .......................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Title
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`Declaration of Dr. Ulrich Neumann in Support of Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Ulrich Neumann
`Welch, G. et al., “High-Performance Wide-Area Optical
`Tracking” (2001)
`Welch, G. et al., “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with
`Incomplete Information” (1997)
`Welch G. “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete
`Information” PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina
`(1996)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,615,132
`U.S. Patent No. 5,307,289
`Gentex’s Amended Preliminary Infringement Contentions
`and corresponding Exhibits 4 and 5 (’632 and ’253
`infringement charts)
`Azuma, R. “Predictive Tracking for Augmented Reality”
`PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina (1995)
`You, S. and Neumann, U. “Orientation Tracking for Outdoor
`Augmented Reality Registration.” (1999)
`Carlson, Neal A. and Berarducci, Michael P. “Federated
`Kalman Filter Simulation Results.” Navigation. Vol. 41,
`Issue 3 at 297-322. (Fall 1994)
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`Exhibit
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`Title
`Reitmayr, Gerhard and Schmalstieg. “An Open Software
`Architecture for Virtual Reality Interaction” VRST ’01
`(November 2001)
`Barfield, W. “Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and
`Augmented Reality” (2001)
`Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Welch, G. et al.,
`“High- Performance Wide-Area Optical Tracking” (2001)
`Declaration of Scott Delman regarding Welch, G. et al.,
`“SCAAT:
`Incremental Tracking with
`Incomplete
`Information” (1997)
`Declaration of Dr. James L. Mullins regarding Welch G.
`“SCAAT:
`Incremental Tracking with
`Incomplete
`Information” PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina
`(1996)
`Declaration of Scott Delman regarding Reitmayr, Gerhard
`and Schmalstieg. “An Open Software Architecture for
`Virtual Reality Interaction” VRST ’01 (November 2001)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,807,284
`U.S. Patent No. 5,991,085
`Chen, Steven C. and Lee, Kang. “A mixed-mode smart
`transducer interface for sensors and actuators”, Sound &
`Vibration, 32(4), 24-27 (April 1998)
`Hoff, William and Vincent, Tyrone. “Analysis of Head Pose
`Accuracy in Augmented Reality”, IEEE Transactions on
`Visualization and Computer Graphics, Vol. 6, Issue 4,
`October – December 2000.
`Zetu, Dan et al., “Extended-Range Hybrid Tracker and
`Applications
`to Motion and Camera Tracking
`in
`Manufacturing Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics
`and Automation, Vol. 16, Issue 3, June 2000
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`Exhibit
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`1031
`
`1032
`
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`Title
`Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Chen, Steven C.
`and Lee, Kang. “A mixed-mode smart transducer interface
`for sensors and actuators.” Sound & Vibration, 32(4), 24-27
`(April 1998)
`Declaration of Gordon MacPherson regarding Hoff, William
`and Vincent, Tyrone. “Analysis of Head Pose Accuracy in
`Augmented Reality”, IEEE Transactions on Visualization
`and Computer Graphics, Vol. 6, Issue 4, October – December
`2000.
`Declaration of Gordon MacPherson regarding Zetu, Dan et
`al., “Extended-Range Hybrid Tracker and Applications to
`Motion and Camera Tracking in Manufacturing Systems,”
`IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 16,
`Issue 3, June 2000
`U.S. Patent No. 5,592,401
`Case Management and Pretrial Order, Gentex Corp. v. Meta
`Platforms, Inc., No. 5:22-cv-03892-YGR (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18,
`2022), ECF No. 116
`Declaration of Akshay S. Deoras in Support of Unopposed
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.10(c)
`Complaint, Gentex Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 6:21-
`cv-00755-ADA (W.D. Tex. July 22, 2021), ECF No. 1.
`Joint Order Regarding Claim Construction and Discovery,
`Gentex Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 5:22-cv-03892-
`YGR (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2022), ECF No. 118.
`Gentex Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 5:22-cv-03892-
`YGR (N.D. Cal.), Letter from Laura Ashley Harris to Andrew
`Borrasso (Feb. 3, 2023)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`Exhibit
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`2012
`
`2013
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`2017
`
`Title
`Gentex Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 5:22-cv-03892-
`YGR (N.D. Cal.), Excerpts of Invalidity Contentions of Meta
`Platforms, Inc. (Dec. 5, 2022)
`Declaration of Adam D. Harber in Support of Unopposed
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.10(c)
`Declaration of Melissa B. Collins in Support of Unopposed
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.10(c)
`Declaration of Yohan Baillot in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Responses to Petitions for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`Nos. 6,922,632 and 7,725,253 (June 4, 2023)
`Curriculum Vitae of Yohan Baillot
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Ulrich Neumann (June 1,
`2023)
`Excerpt of Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Ulrich
`Neumann (May 23, 2023)
`Couple, American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed, 2000)
`Configure, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th
`ed. 1999)
`Configure, American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed. 2000)
`Configure, Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary
`(2d ed. 2001)
`Enumerate, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th
`ed. 1999)
`Enumerate, American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed. 2000)
`IEEE 1451.4-2004, IEEE SA (last visited June 8, 2023)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`Exhibit
`2018
`
`Title
`Inertial Motion-Tracking Technology for Virtual 3-D, NASA
`Spinoff (originally published in 2005)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`The Board’s Institution Decision determined that Petitioner Meta Platforms,
`
`Inc. failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of demonstrating the obviousness
`
`of at least 12 claims challenged in the 1304 Petition. Even where the Board found
`
`that, at the initial stage, Petitioner’s arguments were sufficient for an institution, it
`
`identified numerous issues that would benefit from further development of the
`
`record. E.g., Paper 11, 23, 43, 47, 53, 55, 62, 63. The Board’s decision further
`
`indicated that Patent Owner’s arguments would benefit from claim constructions
`
`making clear the bounds of certain claim terms. E.g., id., 22, 43. Now, with a fully
`
`developed record and claim constructions supported by the evidence, it is clear that
`
`Petitioner has not met its burden on the challenged Grounds.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632 (the “’632 patent”) claims an innovative
`
`architecture for a navigation or motion tracking system in which the “sensor-specific
`
`components” are separated from the “tracking component.” Ex.1001, Abstract.
`
`While working at InterSense, LLC, a pioneering company in the virtual reality and
`
`motion tracking fields, Eric Foxlin invented this approach, Declaration of Yohan
`
`Baillot, Ex.2007 (“Baillot”), ¶¶16-17, which allows the same tracking component to
`
`interoperate with different types of sensors and associated components without re-
`
`programming of the tracking component (and vice versa), Ex.1001, 17:29-38, 22:38-
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`50. This, in turn, improves the versatility and scalability of the tracking system.
`
`
`
`Ex.1001, 11:10-43.
`
`Petitioner Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Petitioner”) acknowledges that the claims of
`
`the ’632 patent were novel but asserts six Grounds of obviousness. The Petition’s
`
`first four Grounds contend that the claims would have been obvious over two
`
`primary references, Welch 2001 (Ex.1007) and Horton (Ex.1010). However, neither
`
`of these references teaches key claim elements of the ’632 patent’s challenged
`
`claims. As the Petition’s arguments underscore, in both Welch’s and Horton’s
`
`teachings, the sensor-specific components and the tracking components are
`
`intertwined and hard-wired. As a result, neither system embodies the modularity
`
`and automatic configuration required by the claimed invention, which permits
`
`interoperability with different types of sensors. Accordingly, neither reference
`
`disclosed nor rendered obvious the claimed inventions.
`
`Petition’s Grounds V and VI rely on the combination of Kramer (Ex.1030)
`
`and Chen (Ex.1024) to challenge claims 66-69, which require selectively performing
`
`certain actions, like receiving data from specific types of sensors. A POSITA would
`
`not have had a motivation to combine the references, and in any event, neither cited
`
`reference discloses a system that selectively receives sensor data; instead, these two
`
`cited references describe systems involving data-transmitting sensors that are
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`integrated with the tracking component. The Petition’s cited art thus does not teach
`
`
`
`or render obvious every claimed limitation.
`
`For these reasons and the reasons described herein, the Board should confirm
`
`patentability of all claims.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
` The ’632 Patent
`
`The ’632 patent, titled “Tracking, Auto-Calibration, and Map-Building
`
`System,” issued on July 26, 2005, and claims priority to August 9, 2002. Ex.1001.1
`
`The ’632 patent relates to a “navigation or motion tracking system” that “includes
`
`components associated with particular sensors, which are decoupled from a tracking
`
`component that takes advantage of information in the sensor measurements.” Id.,
`
`Abstract; see also id., 2:21-24; Baillot, ¶18.
`
`This separation of the sensor component from the tracking component is an
`
`important aspect of the invention. As the ’632 patent acknowledges, prior art
`
`systems were capable of using measurements from sensors to estimate the position
`
`and orientation of an object. Ex.1001, 1:16-21. A variety of different types of
`
`
`1 Real-Party-in-Interest Gentex contends in the related District Court litigation that
`
`the ’632 patent is entitled to a priority date of June 15, 2001, but assumes a priority
`
`date of August 9, 2002 for this proceeding.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`sensors were available in the prior art. Id., 1:21-22. Those “[d]ifferent types of
`
`
`
`sensors measure different aspects of the relative pose of a sensor and a target, such
`
`as range, direction, or relative orientation.” Id., 1:27-29. Accordingly, “[d]ifferent
`
`sensors may have different measurement characteristics that affect the mapping
`
`between the relative pose of a sensor and a target and the measurement values
`
`provided by the sensor,” such as “uncertainty or noise characteristics of the
`
`measurement values.” Id., 1:30-34. Some methods of tracking in the prior art, such
`
`as Kalman filtering techniques, “typically require[d] detailed knowledge of [such]
`
`measurement characteristics of the specific sensors used in tracking the object” in
`
`order to estimate the tracked object’s pose. Id., 1:40-43; see Baillot, ¶19.
`
`The ’632 patent does not claim simply a method for estimating pose that
`
`makes use of measurements from sensors—indeed, it expressly recognizes such
`
`approaches already existed. Ex.1001, 1:16-21. Instead, the ’632 patent claims a
`
`particular approach whereby a sensor component is separate from but connected to
`
`an estimation or tracking component. Baillot, ¶20.
`
`As part of this approach, the estimation component must know which sensors
`
`it has available to it, as well as sufficient information about those sensors, in order
`
`to make use of measurements received from them. To achieve this, according to the
`
`invention, the sensor portion of the overall system provides information to the
`
`tracking portion about the attributes or characteristics of the sensors so that the
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`tracking portion can be configured to take advantage of the information available to
`
`
`
`it. E.g., Ex.1001, 2:39-41 (“Configuration data is accepted from the sensor
`
`subsystem, and the estimation subsystem is configured according to the accepted
`
`configuration data.”); see Baillot, ¶21.
`
`The “architecture of this system enables development of sensor-specific
`
`components independently of the tracking component, and enables sensors and their
`
`associated components to be added or removed without having to re-implement the
`
`tracking component.” Ex.1001, 2:21-28. This “provides a ‘plug and track’
`
`capability in which sensors and targets and their associated software drivers can be
`
`‘plugged’ into the navigation system 90, which then makes use of the sensors and
`
`targets in tracking the vehicle.” Id., 13:37-41; Baillot, ¶22.
`
`The specification further discusses this feature and its value when describing
`
`the exemplary embodiment:
`
`A key feature of the navigation system 90 is the separation of
`modules specific to PSEs [pose sensing elements, i.e., sensors
`and/or targets] and modules specific to updating the states and
`maps. A separation between the PSEs and the update filters is
`desirable because there are different kinds of PSEs, each having
`different measurement characteristics.
` The measurement
`characteristics affect how the measurements are used in the
`update process. Due to the separation, PSEs can be designed
`without knowledge of the updating process. The modules
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`specific for updating can be designed without knowledge of the
`PSE characteristics. A new PSE can be “plugged” into the
`navigation system and the navigation system will be able to
`recognize and use the new PSE.
`
`Ex.1001, 22:38-50; Baillot, ¶23.
`
`Four independent claims of the ’632 patent are challenged in this Petition:
`
`claims 1, 66, 68, and 69. Claim 1 requires tracking an object using an “estimation
`
`subsystem” and “sensor subsystem.” The sensor subsystem provides configuration
`
`data to the estimation subsystem, which is then configured according to that
`
`configuration data. A state estimate is repeatedly updated according to the
`
`configuration data and measurement information accepted from the sensor
`
`subsystem. Claims 66-69 recite a method wherein the data processing module
`
`“selectively perform[s]” receiving data from specified sensors or set of sensing
`
`elements.
`
` Welch 2001
`
`The Welch 2001 publication2 describes an optical tracking system called the
`
`“HiBall Tracking System.” The name “HiBall” refers to an “outward-looking
`
`sensing unit” that is “fixed to each user to be tracked” and, using a set of six lateral-
`
`
`2 G. Welch et al., “High-Performance Wide-Area Optical Tracking” (“Welch
`
`2001”), Ex.1007.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`effect photo-diode units, “observes a subsystem of fixed-location infrared LEDs”
`
`
`
`attached to a ceiling. Ex.1007, 5-7. The system also comprises a host personal
`
`computer (PC) and a “Ceiling-HiBall Interface Board (CIB).” Id., 5-6, 9.
`
`
`
`Id., 6. During operation, the PC repeatedly receives measurements of LED signals
`
`from the HiBall and uses a “Kalman-filter-based prediction-correction approach
`
`known as single-constraint-at-a-time (SCAAT) tracking” to estimate the pose of the
`
`HiBall. Id., 6, 10-13; Ex.2009, 70:16-18. Welch 2001 does not suggest any
`
`component other than the PC performs calibration or tracking calculations. Baillot,
`
`¶24.
`
`As the name suggests, the HiBall tracking system operates only with HiBall
`
`sensors, which, in Welch 2001, are hard-wired into the overall system (as are the
`
`LEDs). Ex.1001, 6-7; see Ex.2009, 63:10-16, 69:3-15. The Welch 2001 reference
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`does not suggest that any other types of sensors could be used with this system, or
`
`
`
`suggest any reasons why it would be useful to use any other types of sensors with
`
`the system. Baillot, ¶25; see also Ex.2009, 70:3-10 (acknowledging that “in the
`
`paper they don’t talk about use of additional sensors”).
`
`Welch 2001 also does not disclose the PC sending any information to the
`
`sensors, nor does it describe the PC or any other component enumerating the sensors
`
`available to the system. Baillot, ¶26.
`
` Welch 1997 and Welch Thesis
`
`Like Welch 2001, the Welch 1997 reference3 and the Welch Thesis4 describe
`
`a SCAAT algorithm and calculations, which were implemented in experiments using
`
`the HiBall sensors. Baillot, ¶27.
`
` Horton
`
`Horton5 describes a “three-dimensional position and orientation tracking
`
`system” that can track the pose of a moving object using accelerometers. Ex.1010,
`
`
`3 G. Welch & G. Bishop, “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete
`
`Information” (“Welch 1997), Ex.1008.
`
`4 G. Welch, “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete Information” (Ph.D.
`
`dissertation) (“Welch Thesis”), Ex.1009.
`
`5 U.S. Patent No. 5,615,132 (“Horton”), Ex.1010.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`Abstract, 2:15-21. Horton also discloses repeatedly reading additional “tracking
`
`
`
`measurements,” i.e., position, orientation, and/or velocity, from an external tracking
`
`system then “using a feedback or Kalman filter process” to provide corrections used
`
`to update an estimate of the pose of the tracked object. Ex.1010, 2:41-44, 6:34-42;
`
`Ex.2009, 122:7-14. Horton depicts this process in Figure 3, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`As Figure 3 shows, Horton describes a “main loop” that reads tracking
`
`measurements (accelerometer data) and then updates position and orientation
`
`information. Ex.1010, 6:25-27. This same main loop is used to calibrate the
`
`accelerometers during the initialization phase. It is “executed multiple times” while
`
`the object on which the accelerometers are mounted is held stationary, and the results
`
`used to solve for bias and scaling factors. Id., 5:67-6:14. Horton does not disclose
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`sending any information from the main loop to the accelerometers. It also does not
`
`
`
`describe any other software components associated with the accelerometers. Baillot,
`
`¶28.
`
`The exemplary embodiment in Horton uses “six accelerometers” “to track six
`
`degrees of freedom of an object in three dimensions.” Ex.1010, 3:41-44. Although
`
`it discloses that more or fewer accelerometers could be used for redundancy or to
`
`track the object in fewer dimensions, Horton does not describe a single system that
`
`can operate with varying numbers of accelerometers, and therefore also does not
`
`describe enumerating a set of sensors, or automatically reconfiguring when new
`
`sensors are added or existing ones are removed. Baillot, ¶29.
`
` Kramer
`
`Kramer6 describes a head-mounted motion data capture system for use in
`
`various applications, including virtual reality environments. Ex.1030, Abstract,
`
`Fig.2, & 1:13-15. Kramer emphasizes the use of “fast devices” (e.g., accelerometers
`
`and gyroscopes) paired with “slow devices” (e.g., electromagnetic sensors or
`
`acoustic sensors), id., 6:18-7:46. Kramer does not describe selectively receiving
`
`data from any sensor. Baillot, ¶30.
`
`
`6 U.S. Patent No. 5,592,401 (“Kramer”), Ex.1030.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
` Chen
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`Chen7 is a magazine article published in 1998 in Sound & Vibration
`
`magazine’s Instrumentation Reference Issue, Ex.1024, 1, that discusses a standard
`
`to be proposed addressing “mixed-mode transducer communication schemes,” id.,
`
`24. Chen addresses the “test and measurement community” and notes the current
`
`lack of a standard. Id. Although Chen states that the standard to be proposed will
`
`be compatible with “legacy” systems, it teaches that such a system would need to be
`
`modified, including with “[e]xtra circuitry” and/or a “patch panel.” Id., 26. See
`
`Baillot, ¶31.
`
`
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`For purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner accepts the Petition’s proposed
`
`definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). See Paper 1
`
`(“Petition”), 13.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`At the Institution phase, Patent Owner did not propose claim constructions for
`
`any terms, but the Institution Decision suggested that some terms would benefit from
`
`express construction to make clear their bounds in the context of Petitioner’s
`
`
`7 S.C. Chen & K. Lee, “A mixed-mode smart transducer interface for sensors and
`
`actuators” (“Chen”), Ex.1024.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`arguments.8 See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868
`
`
`
`F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims construed “to the extent necessary to
`
`resolve the controversy”). Appropriate constructions of key terms, supported by the
`
`record, make clear the gulf between the innovative tracking system architecture
`
`claimed by the ’632 patent and the hard-coded, inextricably-intertwined structures
`
`present in the primary references on which Petitioner relies.
`
`
`
`“Estimation Subsystem,” “Sensor Subsystem,” and “Coupling”
`
`The majority of the challenged claims of the ’632 patent require both an
`
`“estimation subsystem” and a “sensor subsystem.” See, e.g., Ex.1001, cl.1.
`
`Relevant here for claim construction purposes,9 the Petition raises the
`
`question of whether certain claimed processes can be part of both subsystems, i.e.,
`
`
`8 In the related District Court litigation, Real-Party-in-Interest Gentex similarly
`
`contended that the claim terms of the ’632 patent are entitled to their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning in light of the claims and specification. E.g., Gentex Corp. v. Meta
`
`Platforms, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-755-ADA, Dkt. 46 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2022). Patent
`
`Owner’s current proposed constructions are consistent with the District Court
`
`positions, but are more specific as to particular issues raised by Petitioner’s
`
`arguments and references here. See Nidec Motor, 868 F.3d at 1017.
`
`9 The claims themselves describe steps that take place within each part of the system,
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`whether the estimation segment and sensor-associated segment can overlap, as
`
`
`
`Petitioner suggests. See, e.g., Petition, 40 (depicting overlapping boxes). As
`
`described below, the claims and specification make clear that they cannot: the
`
`estimation portion and the sensor portion are separate segments of an overall
`
`tracking system, which are connected to one another but do not overlap. Baillot,
`
`¶¶36-48.
`
`To ensure clarity on this point, Patent Owner proposes the following claim
`
`constructions:
`
`Estimation Subsystem: “the tracking component of a motion
`tracking system, which is separate from but connected to the
`sensor subsystem”
`
`Sensor Subsystem: “a component or group of components of a
`motion tracking system associated with particular sensors, which
`is separate from but connected to the estimation subsystem”
`
`“Coupling”: “connecting two separate components”
`
`
`Ex. 1001, and the specification provides further details, including through the
`
`description of the exemplary embodiment, e.g., id., 12:1-46:17. Those steps are
`
`either not in dispute, or addressed directly within the arguments as to particular
`
`Grounds and claims below.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`Baillot, ¶48. The claims refer to an “estimation subsystem” and “sensor subsystem”
`
`
`
`as two different portions of the system, and explain how the two parts pass
`
`information from one to another. E.g., Ex.1001, cl.1 (estimation subsystem accepts
`
`configuration data and measurement information from the sensor subsystem), cl.11
`
`(estimation subsystem provides to sensor subsystem information related to an
`
`expected sensor measurement and accepts from the sensor subsystem information
`
`related to an actual sensor measurement), cl.47 (sensor modules provide
`
`configuration information to estimation module; estimation module passes data
`
`based on estimate of tracking parameters to sensor modules and receives from sensor
`
`modules data based on measurements obtained from sensors); Baillot, ¶37. “Where
`
`a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that
`
`those elements are ‘distinct components’ of the patented invention.” Becton,
`
`Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`(quoting Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
`
`Petitioner’s expert agrees that the segments are separate:
`
`Q: Do you understand the sensor subsystem and estimation
`subsystem to be two separate things?
`
`A: In the context of the patent, that’s the way it’s described,
`yes.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`Ex.2009, 43:5-8. And the various claim limitations requiring that data is
`
`
`
`“provid[ed]” by one part of the system to another, or “receiv[ed]” or “accept[ed]”
`
`by one part of the system from another, would not make sense if they were not two
`
`separate parts of the overall system. Baillot, ¶¶38, 47; Ex.1001, cls.1, 11, 47.
`
`Many of the challenged claims also recite the step of “coupling” one segment
`
`to another. E.g., Ex.1001, cl.1 (“coupling a sensor subsystem to an estimation
`
`subsystem”); cl.47 (“coupling one or more sensor modules to the estimation
`
`module”). A POSITA would have understood that the word “coupling” here takes
`
`its ordinary English meaning of “connecting.” Baillot, ¶41; see Ex.2011 (defining
`
`“couple” as “to link together, connect”); Ex.2009, 86:9-15. A POSITA would
`
`further have understood that the step of “connecting” two segments indicates that
`
`they are not already overlapping or inherently intertwined—if they were, they would
`
`not need to be connected together. Baillot, ¶42; see Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC
`
`v. Promptu Sys. Corp., 838 F. App’x 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (nonprecedential)
`
`(“By listing the elements separately and by using the word ‘coupled,’ claim 14
`
`strongly indicates the ‘speech recognition system’ is distinct from the ‘wireline
`
`node.’”); see also Wi-LAN Inc. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 992 F.3d 1366, 1378 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2021) (affirming construction of “a multimedia processor, coupled to the data
`
`rate analyzer” as “a multimedia processor connected to the data rate analyzer, where
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`the multimedia processor is separate from, and not a sub-component of, the data rate
`
`
`
`analyzer”).
`
`The specification repeatedly confirms that these “distinct components” are
`
`separate and connected, not overlapping or intertwined. Baillot, ¶¶43-44. The
`
`claimed sensor segment of the system is consistently and uniformly described as
`
`separated from the estimation or tracking segment of the system, such that the overall
`
`system is “divided” into “specific portions.” See Ex.1001, Ab