`
`
`
`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
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,922,632
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“Estimation Subsystem,” “Sensor Subsystem,” And “Coupling” ........ 1
`
`“Configuration [Data/Information]” ..................................................... 6
`
`“Configuring” ........................................................................................ 7
`
`III. ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`A. Ground I................................................................................................. 7
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`
`Claim 1 ........................................................................................ 7
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................11
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................12
`Claims 4-9, 20-21, 23-29 ..........................................................12
`Claims 11-19, 22 .......................................................................12
`
`Ground II .............................................................................................14
`
`Ground III ............................................................................................15
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`8.
`9.
`
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................15
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................23
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................23
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................23
`Claims 5, 7-8, 24, 28-29 ............................................................23
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................24
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................24
`Claims 11-19, 22 .......................................................................24
`Claims 20-21, 23 .......................................................................25
`
`D. Ground IV ............................................................................................25
`
`E.
`
`Ground V .............................................................................................26
`
`Analogous Art ...........................................................................26
`1.
`2. Motivation To Combine ............................................................27
`3.
`“Selective[ly]” ...........................................................................28
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`F.
`
`Ground VI ............................................................................................29
`
`IV. OBJECTIVE INDICIA ..................................................................................29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ex parte Amrita Mathuriya et al.,
`Appeal 2022-003116, 2023 WL 2424996 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2023) .................... 2
`
`Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 4
`
`Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Promptu Sys. Corp.,
`IPR2018-00345, Paper 59 (P.T.A.B. June 28, 2019) ....................................... 4, 5
`
`CUPP Computing AS v. Trend Micro Inc.,
`53 F.4th 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................. 2
`
`General Elec. Co. v. ITC,
`685 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 3
`
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................ 29
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. ITC,
`566 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 2
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005), abrogated in part on other
`grounds ................................................................................................................. 4
`
`Skedco, Inc. v. Strategic Operations, Inc.,
`685 F. App’x 956 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 4
`
`Wi-LAN Inc. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp.,
`992 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................ 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`PETITIONERS’ UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Previously
`Filed
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`1002
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`1004
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`1005 Declaration of Dr. Ulrich Neumann in Support of Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`1006 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Ulrich Neumann
`
`1007 Welch, G. et al., “High-Performance Wide-Area
`Optical Tracking” (2001)
`
`1008 Welch, G. et al., “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with
`Incomplete Information” (1997)
`
`1009 Welch G. “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with
`Incomplete Information” PhD Thesis, University of
`North Carolina (1996)
`
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 5,615,132
`
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 5,307,289
`
`1012 Gentex’s Amended Preliminary Infringement
`Contentions and corresponding Exhibits 4 and 5 (’632
`and ’253 infringement charts)
`
`1013 Azuma, R. “Predictive Tracking for Augmented
`Reality” PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina
`(1995)
`
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Previously
`Filed
`
`1014 You, S. and Neumann, U. “Orientation Tracking for
`Outdoor Augmented Reality Registration.” (1999)
`
`1015 Carlson, Neal A. and Berarducci, Michael P.
`“Federated Kalman Filter Simulation Results.”
`Navigation. Vol. 41, Issue 3 at 297-322. (Fall 1994)
`
`1016 Reitmayr, Gerhard and Schmalstieg. “An Open
`Software Architecture for Virtual Reality Interaction”
`VRST ’01 (November 2001)
`
`1017 Barfield, W. “Fundamentals of Wearable Computers
`and Augmented Reality” (2001)
`
`1018 Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Welch, G.
`et al., “High-Performance Wide-Area Optical
`Tracking” (2001)
`
`1019 Declaration of Scott Delman regarding Welch, G. et al.,
`“SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete
`Information” (1997)
`
`1020 Declaration of Dr. James L. Mullins regarding Welch
`G. “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete
`Information” PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina
`(1996)
`
`1021 Declaration of Scott Delman regarding Reitmayr,
`Gerhard and Schmalstieg. “An Open Software
`Architecture for Virtual Reality Interaction” VRST ’01
`(November 2001)
`
`1022 U.S. Patent No. 5,807,284
`
`1023 U.S. Patent No. 5,991,085
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Previously
`Filed
`
`1026
`
`1024 Chen, Steven C. and Lee, Kang. “A mixed-mode smart
`transducer interface for sensors and actuators”, Sound
`& Vibration, 32(4), 24-27 (April 1998)
`
`1025 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
`
`1027 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)
`
`1028 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.
`
`1029 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
`
`1030 U.S. Patent No. 5,592,401
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Previously
`Filed
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1031 Case Management and Pretrial Order, Dkt. 116, Gentex
`Corporation et al. v Meta Platforms, Inc. et al.
`(October 18, 2022)
`1032 Declaration of Akshay S. Deoras in Support of
`Unopposed Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on Behalf
`of Petitioner
`1033 Deposition Transcript of Yohan Baillot, dated
`September 13, 2023
`Excerpts from Random House Webster’s Unabridged
`Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (2001)
`Excerpts from The Computer Engineering Handbook
`(2001)
`1036 Compare Benefits of CPUs, GPUs, and FPGAs for
`Different oneAPI Compute Workloads
`Plaintiffs’ Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions Pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-1,
`Gentex Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 22-cv-3892-
`YGR (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2022)
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Ulrich Neumann in
`Support of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,922,632 and 7,725,253
`
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner (“PO”) contends that the “central innovation” of the ’632 patent
`
`is a separation between a tracking system’s sensors and the tracking system’s
`
`calculation module, which purportedly “allows for the use of different types of
`
`sensors with the same tracking component.” See Paper 30 (Patent Owner’s
`
`Response, “POR”), 17. But that requirement is nowhere to be found in the
`
`independent claims. Instead, the claims recite the setup of elementary tracking
`
`systems taught in the prior art, little more than the combination of (i) sensors with
`
`(ii) a component configured to track an object according to the sensors connected to
`
`it. See EX1001, cls. 1, 66, 68-69. The prior art is replete with teachings directed to
`
`this basic setup, however. PO is therefore unable to legitimately dispute that the
`
`prior art teaches every claim element, and instead spends most of its POR proffering
`
`new claim constructions that the intrinsic evidence fails to support and alleging
`
`supposed technical foot-faults in how the Petition mapped the prior art teachings to
`
`the claims. But as explained below, PO’s arguments lack merit: The Petition, and
`
`the prior art references themselves, fully demonstrate that the prior art taught, or at
`
`least rendered obvious, every challenged claim.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`“Estimation Subsystem,” “Sensor Subsystem,” And “Coupling”
`
`The dispute regarding these terms is whether the two “subsystems” can
`
`partially overlap as Petitioner contends, or if the two subsystems cannot overlap at
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`all as PO contends.1 See POR, 12-13. This dispute is only relevant if the Board
`
`agrees with PO’s characterization of the Petition’s identification of an “estimation
`
`subsystem” and “sensor subsystem” in Horton in Grounds III-IV, as discussed below
`
`in Section III.C.1.a.
`
`The claim language does not preclude the two “subsystems” from
`
`overlapping. See Ex parte Amrita Mathuriya et al., Appeal 2022-003116, 2023 WL
`
`2424996, at *5 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2023). PO’s construction therefore relies on three
`
`alleged inferences from the claim language, all of which are unfounded.
`
`First, PO argues that the claims recite two different “subsystem”, components
`
`but that is insufficient to require that the two recited “subsystems” are “entirely
`
`separate and distinct.” See Linear Tech. Corp. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 1049, 1054-55 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2009)2; CUPP Computing AS v. Trend Micro Inc., 53 F.4th 1376, 1380-81 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2022).
`
`
`1 The dispute is not merely whether the two subsystems are “separate,” but whether
`
`they are entirely separate as PO contends. As such, PO’s cited deposition
`
`testimony does not support its position, because Petitioner’s expert did not admit
`
`that the claims required complete separation. See EX2009, 43:5-8.
`
`2 All emphasis added unless stated otherwise.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`Second, PO argues that the recited subsystems are “coupl[ed]” to one another
`
`for communication and therefore must be wholly separate, but the law does not
`
`support that inference either. See General Elec. Co. v. ITC, 685 F.3d 1034, 1045
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012). Further, PO and its expert admitted that a “POSITA would have
`
`understood that the word ‘coupling’ … here takes its ordinary English meaning[] of
`
`‘connecting.’ EX2007 (Declaration of Yohan Baillot, PO’s expert) ¶41; see
`
`EX20113 (defining ‘couple’ as ‘to link together, connect’).” See POR, 13.4 PO’s
`
`contention that the “coupling” term further requires that the subsystems are
`
`completely separated (in accordance with PO’s construction) is thus unsupported
`
`and contrary to PO’s admissions and evidence.
`
`
`3 PO’s other dictionaries also support this construction of “coupled” that does not
`
`require total separation. See EX2021, 3; EX2022, 3.
`
`4 The specification does not redefine “coupled” as in Wi-LAN Inc. v. Sharp Elecs.
`
`Corp., 992 F.3d 1366, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2021). See id. (recognizing that “patent’s
`
`consistent use of ‘coupled’ ‘to refer to components that are not sub-components
`
`of each other’ [versus that patent’s consistent use of] ‘in’ ‘to refer to components
`
`that could be sub-components of each other.’”).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`And third, PO argues that the claims require one subsystem to “provid[e]”
`
`information that is “receiv[ed]” or “accept[ed]” by the other subsystem such that the
`
`two subsystems must be wholly separate, but that “provide”/“receive”/“accept”
`
`language does not require total separation because data can be “provided” by a non-
`
`overlapping portion of one subsystem and “received”/“accepted” by the non-
`
`overlapping portion of the other subsystem, as PO’s expert admitted. See EX1033,
`
`198:6-18; Skedco, Inc. v. Strategic Operations, Inc., 685 F. App’x 956, 959 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2017).
`
`This dispute is analogous to NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d
`
`1282, 1309-11 (Fed. Cir. 2005), abrogated in part on other grounds. There, the
`
`defendant argued that a claimed receiver and a destination processor had to be
`
`“separate and distinct” primarily based on the claims’ requirement that the receiver
`
`“transfer” information to the destination processor to which the receiver was
`
`“connected” or “coupled.” Id. The Federal Circuit rejected effectively the same
`
`logic that PO proposes here. Id.
`
`Neither Becton nor Comcast support PO’s narrow construction, because in
`
`both those cases the dispute was whether a single, exact “same structure” could
`
`simultaneously satisfy two recited elements. See Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco
`
`Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Comcast Cable
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`Commc’ns, LLC v. Promptu Sys. Corp., IPR2018-00345, Paper 59 at 25 (P.T.A.B.
`
`June 28, 2019). That is not the situation here, so Becton and Comcast do not apply.
`
`PO’s citations to the specification also do not support its construction, because
`
`none of them require complete separation between the “estimation subsystem” and
`
`“sensor subsystem.” In fact, the specification supports Petitioner’s construction
`
`because it teaches that only portions of the “sensor subsystem” need be separable to
`
`achieve the alleged innovation, not that the entire “sensor subsystem” need be
`
`separable. See EX1001, 2:21-24 (“[T]he invention features a navigation or motion
`
`tracking system in which components associated with particular sensors are
`
`decoupled from a tracking component….”); see also id., Abstract (substantially
`
`identical teaching). The specification is therefore consistent with Petitioner’s
`
`construction that permits separate but overlapping subsystems.
`
`PO’s expert admitted that PO’s constructions are not the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of those terms and instead insisted that the patent “defined what [the patent]
`
`mean[s] in terms of estimation subsystem in that specific patent as it could be
`
`interpreted a different way.” EX1033, 192:12-194:13, 195:11-16. The patent did
`
`not clearly set forth PO’s proposed definitions of these terms, however, and therefore
`
`PO’s unsupported definitions should be rejected.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`B.
`
`“Configuration [Data/Information]”
`
`PO proposes an unduly narrow construction: “data describing characteristics
`
`or attributes of a sensor or set of sensors.” The plain and ordinary meaning is exactly
`
`what it says: data/information used for configuration.
`
`The POR lacks evidence supporting PO’s construction,5 and instead primarily
`
`argues whether the data relied upon in certain invalidity grounds qualify as
`
`“configuration [data/information].” See POR, 18-21. PO’s expert even admitted
`
`that he did not know where the specific wording for PO’s construction was derived
`
`from nor whether the construction was “standard or not.” See EX1033, 203:5-205:8.
`
`The Board should therefore reject PO’s construction because it lacks support and is
`
`flawed for at least the following two reasons.
`
`First, PO’s construction inappropriately requires that all “configuration data”
`
`describe “a sensor or set of sensors,” such that no “configuration data” could relate
`
`to anything other than a sensor, which is inconsistent with the specification. See
`
`EX1001, 36:16-20 (teaching data used to configure the “estimation subsystem,”
`
`without reference to any sensors). And second, PO’s construction captures data that
`
`merely “describ[es]” something even if that data is never used to configure anything.
`
`
`5 None of PO’s three dictionary definitions of “configuration” support its
`
`construction. See EX2012, 3, EX2013, 3, EX2014, 3.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`Logically, data that is not used to configure cannot be “configuration data” no matter
`
`what it “describe[es],” further evidencing that PO’s construction is flawed.
`
`PO’s proposed construction
`
`is unsupported,
`
`inconsistent with
`
`the
`
`specification, and illogical. “Configuration data” is plainly “data that is used for
`
`configuration.”
`
`C.
`
`“Configuring”
`
`In this proceeding only, Petitioner does not dispute PO’s construction.
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Ground I
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`PO does not dispute the motivation to combine Welch-2001 with Welch-1997
`
`and instead argues only that the combination fails to teach two elements of the claim.
`
`The asserted combination teaches, or at least renders obvious, both of those
`
`elements, as discussed in turn below.
`
`a.
`
`Element 1[b]: “accepting configuration data from the
`sensor subsystem”
`
`As a preliminary matter, PO misreads what the Petition relies on in order to
`
`satisfy this element. Contrary to PO’s understanding, the Petition does not contend
`
`that Welch-2001’s “‘ideal’ position coordinates” or its “noise estimates” are
`
`“configuration data.” See POR, 26, 28-30. Rather, the Petition contends that the
`
`measurements taken during Welch-2001’s “online” configuration procedure are
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`“configuration data.” See EX1005 ¶62; Petition, 20. The Petition’s discussion of
`
`“‘ideal’ position coordinates” and “noise estimates” are merely evidence that such
`
`measurement data is “accepted” by the “estimation subsystem” (as required of the
`
`claimed “configuration data”) and used for configuration (also as required of the
`
`claimed “configuration data”), as these “‘ideal’ position coordinates” and “noise
`
`estimates” are generated from that measurement data. See id. Section IV.A.1.a.ii of
`
`the POR is therefore irrelevant because it attacks a theory for this element not
`
`presented in the Petition. See POR, 28-30.
`
`The true dispute is whether the measurement data identified in the Petition is
`
`“configuration data” or not. As discussed below, this data is “configuration data”
`
`under either party’s construction of “configuration data.”
`
`i.
`
`Petitioner’s Construction: “Data That Is Used For
`Configuration”
`
`Welch-2001 uses measurement data collected during its “online” calibration
`
`procedure to generate “ideal” position coordinates and estimate “measurement
`
`noise.” See Petition, 20; EX1007, 10. It uses these data to “maximize the signal-to-
`
`noise ratio” and to configure the Kalman filter, which make them “configuration
`
`data” because they are data used for configuration. See id. PO’s expert admitted
`
`that Welch-2001’s Kalman filter, which is part of the estimation subsystem, is
`
`configured according to this data. See EX1033, 10:12-11:10, 5:11-6:5, 7:6-11. PO’s
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`contention that this data cannot be “configuration data” because they were initially
`
`measurements is irrelevant under the term’s proper construction.
`
`ii.
`
`PO’s construction: “Data Describing
`Characteristics Or Attributes Of A Sensor Or Set
`Of Sensors”
`
`Welch-2001’s data identified by the Petition (i.e., the measurement data
`
`generated during Welch-2001’s “online” configuration procedure) constitutes
`
`“configuration data” under PO’s claim construction for two reasons.
`
`First, PO’s construction does not expressly exclude measurement data. Thus,
`
`the data identified by the Petition satisfies the literal requirements of PO’s
`
`construction, which only requires that the data “describ[es] characteristics or
`
`attributes of a sensor or a set of sensors.” As background, the ’632 patent teaches
`
`that a sensor’s “characteristic or attribute” includes a sensor’s position and
`
`orientation. See EX1001, 30:29-32 (“Each PSE [Pose Sensing Element] object has
`
`the following attributes: (1) Pose (location and orientation)”). Given this broad
`
`understanding of what constitutes a sensor’s “characteristic or attribute,” the amount
`
`of light impinging on different locations of the HiBall unit—which is what Welch-
`
`2001 measures during its “online” calibration procedure and is “configuration data”
`
`identified by the Petition—would “describe[e]” a sensor’s pose (which, again, is a
`
`“characteristic or attribute” of the sensor) and thus satisfy PO’s construction.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`Welch-2001’s data cited by the Petition may be measurement data, but it is also the
`
`claimed “configuration data” under PO’s construction.
`
`Second, Welch-2001’s data satisfies PO’s construction by virtue of the type
`
`of data that is delivered, separate from the value of the measurements themselves—
`
`essentially, the metadata of the measurements. As PO’s expert admitted, a POSITA
`
`would recognize that Welch-2001’s Kalman filter for tracking calculations must be
`
`configured properly to accept the type of data produced by the HiBall unit that feeds
`
`into it. See EX1033, 5:11-6:5, 10:12-11:10. Because Welch-2001’s HiBall unit
`
`comprises LEPD optical sensors, the type of data it generates is “the two-
`
`dimensional coordinates of the centroid of the ray [of light] that the illuminated LED
`
`produces on the HiBall’s detector,” as well as the light intensity at that point. See
`
`EX2007 ¶90; EX1033, 9:4-6. Thus, Welch-2001’s Kalman filter would have been
`
`configured based on its receipt of this type of data (i.e., two values representing X-
`
`Y coordinates and one value representing light intensity), which is metadata that is
`
`not a measurement of anything and is independent of any measurement values taken.
`
`This type of data (i.e., data in the format of two values representing X-Y coordinates
`
`and one value representing light intensity) describes a characteristic of a sensor
`
`(specifically that the sensor in an LEPD optical sensor), as PO’s construction
`
`requires.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`b.
`
`Element 1[c]: “configuring the estimation system
`according to the accepted configuration data”
`
`PO contends that the Petition fails to show that Welch-2001’s estimation
`
`subsystem is “configured” according to the “configuration data” discussed above.
`
`See POR, 31. To the contrary, the Petition points to pages 10-13 (§ 5.3) of Welch-
`
`2001 to demonstrate that Welch-2001 is configured according to this “configuration
`
`data.” See Petition, 20; EX1005 ¶64; EX1007, 10.
`
`For example, the Petition discussed Welch-2001’s use of a Kalman filter for
`
`estimation (Petition, 20), and the cited section from Welch-2001 teaches that its
`
`Kalman filter must be configured based on a model of the process dynamics that
`
`includes “noise”—i.e., the Kalman filter must be configured based on the estimate
`
`of “measurement noise” derived from the “configuration data” identified by the
`
`Petition and discussed above. See EX1007, 11-12. PO’s expert admitted that
`
`Welch-2001’s Kalman filter would be configured according to this data. EX1033,
`
`5:11-6:5, 7:6-11, 10:12-11:10. “Configuration data” is, after all, data used for
`
`configuration, so to the extent the Board agrees with Petitioner regarding element
`
`1[b] above, it would only make sense to agree with Petitioner regarding this element
`
`1[c] as well.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 2
`
`PO misreads the Petition in contending that the Petition relies on the CIB to
`
`perform the required “coupling” for purposes of Claim 1 but then “rel[ies] on
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`different disclosures entirely—Kalman Filters within the PC” for purposes of Claim
`
`2’s “coupling.” See POR, 33. This is incorrect. For both claims, Petitioner is relying
`
`on the CIB to perform the claimed “coupling.” The Petition’s discussion of Kalman
`
`filters within the PC for purposes of Claim 2 identifies those Kalman filters as the
`
`claimed “software modules each associated with one or more of the sensing
`
`elements.” In other words, the Petition contended that the Kalman filters are coupled
`
`to the sensing elements, not that the Kalman filters themselves perform the coupling.
`
`See Petition, 21-22. PO’s sole argument unique to this claim is premised on its
`
`misunderstanding, so PO’s argument fails.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 3
`
`The Kalman filter “software module” provides the claimed “interface”
`
`because the Kalman filter receives the measurement information, which it must have
`
`an interface to receive. See EX1007, 13. The “trigger is the data [not an LED] that
`
`a measurement is expected in a particular sensor’s view field.” See Petition, 22.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 4-9, 20-21, 23-29
`
`PO does not present any argument unique to these claims.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 11-19, 22
`
`PO’s only argument for these claims relates to the element of “providing to
`
`the sensor subsystems information related to an expected sensor measurement”
`
`recited in Claim 11. See POR, 36-38. PO’s argument regarding this claim is
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`premised on a misunderstanding of the requirements of Claim 11 and an associated
`
`misunderstanding of the challenge presented by the Petition.
`
`Claim 11 only requires providing “information related to an expected sensor
`
`measurement”; it does not require providing the “expected sensor measurement”
`
`itself, as PO seems to believe. Accordingly, the Petition need not and did not identify
`
`any “expected sensor measurement” as satisfying this claim, as PO appears to have
`
`misunderstood. Instead, the Petition identified Welch-2001’s trigger data that
`
`specifies which LED to flash as the claimed “information related to an expected
`
`sensor measurement.” See Petition, 26 (“Once the [] LED are selected….”). The
`
`selection of which LED to flash is “information related to an expected sensor
`
`measurement” because it relates to which HiBall optical sensor and LED target pair
`
`are expected to be measured.
`
`PO counters that an “expected sensor measurement” is the predicted value of
`
`the sensor measurement, rather than an anticipated sensor measurement. That
`
`argument is premised on an unproposed construction of “expected sensor
`
`measurement.” See POR, 37. In any event, PO’s expert admitted that the trigger
`
`data identified by the Petition would be based at least in part of the predicted sensor
`
`measurement, as required by PO’s unproposed construction of “expected sensor
`
`measurement.” See EX1033, 69:1-5.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`As an aside, there is no inconsistency between the Petition’s identification of
`
`the claimed “sensor subsystem” in Claims 1 and 11. In both claims, the HiBall unit
`
`and LED targets are indisputably part of the asserted “sensor subsystem,” and the
`
`triggering data (the “information related to an expected sensor measurement”
`
`identified by the Petition) is necessarily transmitted to the LEDs and HiBall to
`
`trigger a flash and a measurement. See Petition, 18, 26. Thus, even if there were an
`
`inconsistency (which there is not), it would be immaterial to the analysis of either
`
`claim.
`
`B. Ground II
`
`Welch-2001+Welch-1997’s optical-only system was known to be susceptible
`
`to breaks in the line of sight (i.e., occlusions) between the HiBall unit and the LED,
`
`as shown in this annotated diagram from Welch-2001:
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`See EX1007, 3, 13 (“‘lose[] lock’ as a result of blocked sensor views”); EX1009, 56;
`
`EX1030, 19:13-18. Welch-Thesis’s SCAAT algorithm was useful for hybrid
`
`systems that could overcome this deficiency with tracking sensors that were not
`
`susceptible to occlusions. EX1033, 72:15-73:7, 74:5-16, 75:9-22.
`
`Welch-Thesis explains how a POSITA would combine the references to form
`
`such a hybrid tracking system. See EX1009, 57-58 (e.g., teaching how to create a
`
`“hybrid tracking system”). It further teaches that such integration would be simple.
`
`See id., 56-57 (“convenient and expeditious”).
`
`C. Ground III
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`a.
`
`“Estimation Subsystem” And “Sensor Subsystem”
`
`PO argues that the Petition fails to identify an “estimation subsystem” that is
`
`completely separate from a “sensor subsystem.” See POR, 40-44. But the claims
`
`have no such requirement as properly construed, so PO’s argument related to this
`
`claim limitation is irrelevant. But even if PO’s construction is adopted, the Petition
`
`does identify an “estimation subsystem” in Horton that is entirely separate from a
`
`“sensor subsystem,” thus satisfying PO’s construction of the terms.
`
`The Petition identifies the “estimation subsystem” as follows: “A POSITA
`
`would have further understood that the main loop 41 and the Kalman Filter (i.e.,
`
`feedback loop 89) executed by the tracking processor 40 constitutes an
`
`‘estimation subsystem’….” See Petition, 40 (color added). And the Petition
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01304
`
`identifies the “sensor subsystem” as follows: “A POSITA would have understood
`
`that initialization routine 48 and related data constitute a ‘sensor subsystem’….”
`
`See Petition, 40 (color added). There is no overlap in the elements comprising the
`
`two subsystems.
`
`PO contends that the