IPR2022-01304, No. 45 Notice Other - Patent Owners Hearing Demonstratives (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2023)

Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Thales Visionix, Inc.
`
`IPR2022-01304
`IPR2022-01305
`IPR2022-01308
`
`December 7, 2023
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`

`Grounds and Challenged Claims
`
`Welch 2001 & Welch 1997
`
`Welch 2001, Welch 1997 &
`Welch Thesis
`
`Welch & Horton: Sensor & estimation subsystems, sensor module, configuration data, etc.
`1304 Ground I
`’632 patent, cls. 1-9, 11-22 & 24-29
`1305 Ground I
`’632 patent, cls. 30-32, 44-45, 47-49, 51-53 & 59-61
`1308 Ground I
`’253 patent, cls. 1-2
`1304 Ground II
`’632 patent, cl. 23
`1305 Ground II
`’632 patent, cl. 50
`1304 Ground III
`’632 patent, cls. 1-9, 11-19, 22-24 & 28-29
`1305 Ground IV
`’632 patent, cls. 30-32, 47, 50-53 & 59-61
`1308 Ground IV
`’253 patent, cls. 1-5
`1304 Ground IV
`’632 patent, cls. 25-27
`
`Horton
`
`Horton & Welch 1997
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`

`Grounds and Challenged Claims
`
`Welch 2001 & Welch 1997
`
`Welch & Horton: Enumerating, selecting pairs, and expected utility
`1305 Ground I
`’632 patent, cls. 33-36
`1308 Ground I
`’253 patent, cls. 6-9
`1304 Ground III
`’632 patent, cls. 20-21
`1305 Ground IV
`’632 patent, cl. 33
`1308 Ground IV
`’253 patent, cls. 6-9
`1305 Ground V
`’632 patent, cls. 34-36
`1308 Ground V
`’253 patent, cls. 7-9
`
`Horton
`
`Horton & Welch 1997
`
`Other prior art references
`Kramer & Chen
`1304 Ground V
`Kramer, Chen & Welch 2001 1304 Ground VI
`1305 Ground III
`Welch 2001, Welch 1997 &
`Harris
`1308 Ground II
`Welch 2001, Welch 1997 &
`Reitmayr
`Horton & Harris
`
`1305 Ground VI
`
`1308 Ground III
`
`’632 patent, cls. 66-68
`’632 patent, cl. 69
`’632 patent, cls. 54-55 & 57-58
`’253 patent, cls. 3-5
`
`’253 patent, cls. 3-4
`
`’632 patent, cls. 54-55 & 57-58
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`

`Patents and References
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`

`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,922,632 and 7,725,253
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1001, Abstract; e.g., 1304 POR 1
`
`

`Welch HiBall System
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1007, Fig.6; e.g., 1304 Petition 14; 1304 POR 7
`
`

`Horton Accelerometer System
`
`Ex. 1010, Fig.3; e.g., 1304 Petition 40; 1304 POR 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`

`Claim Construction
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`

`“Estimation Subsystem/Module” & “Sensor Subsystem”
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`Estimation Subsystem/Module: 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
`
`No Construction
`
`Subsystems need not be “entirely separate” and
`may “partially overlap”
`
`E.g., 1304 POR 12-18
`
`E.g., 1304 Reply 1-5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`

`Estimation Subsystem / Sensor Subsystem
`The sensor and estimation subsystems are distinct elements of the claims.
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.1; e.g., 1304 POR 6, 14-15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`

`Estimation Subsystem / Sensor Subsystem
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:20-28; e.g., 1304 POR 16-17
`
`Ex. 1001, 22:37-50; e.g., 1304 POR 5-6, 17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`

`Estimation Subsystem / Sensor Subsystem
`The meaning of the claim terms cannot be divorced from the patent’s context.
`
`Ex. 1001, 19:14-20; e.g., 1304 POR 16-17
`
`Ex. 1001, 16:38-44; e.g., 1304 POR 16-17
`
`Ex. 1001, 17:27-39; e.g., 1304 POR 16-17
`
`“[A] patent’s express purpose of the invention informs the proper construction of claim terms.”
`
`Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 66 F.4th 1317, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted); e.g., 1304 Sur-Reply 3-4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`

`Estimation Subsystem / Sensor Subsystem
`Patent Owner’s construction is supported by expert evidence.
`
`The POSITA would have understood:
`
`Yohan Baillot
`CEO and Founder, ARCortex INC
`
`• “[T]he estimation and sensor portions of the system do not overlap
`and are not intertwined in a way that would result in any claimed
`processes being part of both segments.” ¶ 43
`• “[T]his separation reflects a central innovation of the patents . . .
`allow[ing] for the use of different types of sensors.” ¶ 45
`• “[O]verlapping or intertwined subsystems would defeat a key goal of
`the ’632 patent, because the potential for ‘plug and track’
`functionality, or updating sensor components without updating the
`tracking component (or vice versa), would not be realized.” ¶ 46
`
`Ex. 2007; e.g., 1304 POR 16-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`

`Estimation Subsystem / Sensor Subsystem
`Petitioner’s expert agrees the sensor and estimation subsystems are separate.
`
`Dr. Ulrich Neumann
`University of Southern California
`
`Ex. 2009, 43:5-8; e.g., 1304 POR 14-15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`

`Estimation Subsystem / Sensor Subsystem
`Petitioner has no support for its position that the two subsystems can overlap.
`
`No examples in the patent referring to overlapping components or
`processes that are part of both subsystems.
`
`No expert evidence supporting overlap.
`
`E.g., 1304 Sur-Reply 3-4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`

`Configuration Data / Information
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`Data describing characteristics or
`attributes of a sensor or set of sensors
`
`Data that is used for configuration
`
`E.g., 1304 POR 18-21
`
`E.g., 1304 Reply 6-7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`

`Configuration Data / Information
`The estimation subsystem is configured according to characteristics, attributes, or
`parameters of the sensing elements, not according to raw sensor measurement inputs.
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:27-32; e.g., 1304 POR 20-21
`
`Ex. 1001, 18:56-63; e.g., 1304 POR 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`

`Configuration Data / Information
`The patent’s examples are not raw sensor measurements.
`
`“uncertainty or noise characteristics of the
`measurement values” Ex. 1001, 1:30-35;
`
`“operational parameters” id., 3:1-3;
`
`“a map of the locations of the sensing elements”
`id., 3:7-9;
`
`“parameters that identify a basic type of sensor,
`such a 2-D bearing, 1-D bearing, range” id., 10:7-9;
`
`“parameters that identify a specific type of sensor,
`such as make and model” id., 10:10-11;
`
`“measurement related parameters” id., 10:14-15;
`
`“white noise and random walk amplitudes, root-
`mean square initial uncertainty estimates for gyro
`and acceleration biases, ramps, misalignments,
`scale factors, nonlinearities” id., 30:1-7;
`
`“Pose [of the sensor]” id., 30:31-32;
`“Pose uncertainty” id., 30:33;
`“Bias parameters vector k” id., 30:34-35;
`“k-vector uncertainty” id., 30:36;
`“Basic type” id., 30:37-49;
`“Specific type” id., 30:50-56;
`“Unique identifier” id., 30:57-58;
`“Color” id., 30:59;
`“Size” id., 30:60-65;
`“Driver number” id., 30:66-67;
`“Device handle” id., 31:1-3;
`“Status (ready, busy, etc.)” id., 31:4;
`“Membership” id., 31:5-6.
`
`Ex. 1001; Ex. 2007 ¶ 60; e.g., 1304 POR 20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`

`Configuration Data / Information
`Patent Owner’s position is supported by expert evidence.
`
`Yohan Baillot
`CEO and Founder, ARCortex INC
`
`The POSITA would have understood:
`
`• “ ‘[C]onfiguration data’ or ‘configuration information’ [are] ‘data describing
`characteristics or attributes of a sensor or set of sensors ….” ¶ 56
`
`• “[R]aw measurements do not themselves constitute configuration data or
`information.” ¶ 57
`
`• “[M]easurements may be processed in order to compute or estimate certain
`sensor parameters or characteristics (e.g., noise or uncertainty) that then can be
`used for configuration purposes, but those parameters or characteristics are the
`configuration data, and the raw measurements that are used as inputs are not
`themselves configuration data.” ¶ 58
`
`Ex. 2007; e.g., 1304 POR 18-19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`

`Configuration Data / Information
`Petitioner has no support that the raw measurements it relies on are “configuration data.”
`
`No examples in the patent of configuration data that consist solely of
`raw, unprocessed sensor measurements.
`
`No expert evidence that raw measurements are configuration data.
`
`E.g., 1304 Sur-Reply 6-7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`

`Configuration Data / Information
`Measurements used to create calibration tables are not “information characterizing a
`calibration parameter.”
`
`Yohan Baillot
`CEO and Founder, ARCortex INC
`
`The POSITA would have understood:
`
`• Information characterizing a calibration parameter is “a calibration parameter
`itself, or some other description of the parameter, such as a range the parameter
`may fall within.”
`
`• It does not include “a measurement input used in the process of creating a
`calibration table.”
`
`• “The use of measurements to subsequently create calibration parameters does
`not mean that those inputs (measurements) either constitute or characterize the
`outputs.”
`
`Ex. 2007 ¶ 61; e.g., 1308 POR 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`

`Undisputed Constructions
`
`Sensor Module
`
`“a component or part of a sensor subsystem that
`provides an interface for communicating with an
`associated sensing element and an interface for
`communicating with an estimation subsystem”
`
`E.g., 1305 POR 16-17; 1305 Reply 3
`
`Configuring
`
`“arranging or setting up the system so that it is
`able to operate in a particular way”
`
`E.g., 1304 POR 21-24; 1304 Reply 7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`

`Welch
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`

`Welch HiBall System
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`Ex. 1007, Fig.6; e.g., 1304 Petition 14; 1304 POR 7
`
`

`Welch HiBall System
`
`Ex. 1007, Fig.9; e.g., 1305 Reply 6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`

`Welch HiBall System
`
`Ex. 1007, 9-10; e.g., 1305 Petition 23; 1305 Reply 11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`Ex. 1007, 10; e.g., 1305 Petition 23; 1305 Reply 11
`
`

`Welch’s Sensor Subsystem Does Not Provide Configuration Data
`’632 cls. 1, 47 & dependent claims; ’253 cl. 1 & dependent claims
`
`Claims require:
`1) Configuration
`data/information
`AND
`2) Provided or
`accepted from the
`sensor subsystem
`or sensor module
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003, cl.1
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.47
`
`27
`
`

`The Measurements on Which Petitioner Relies Are Not Configuration Data
`’632 cls. 1, 47 & dependent claims; ’253 cl. 1 & dependent claims
`Petitioner’s Construction: Data used for configuration
`
`Petitioner
`
`Rebuttal
`
`“Measurement data
`collected during [Welch-
`2001’s] ‘online’ calibration
`procedure”
`Petitioner acknowledges the
`sensor measurements are
`processed into different
`data on the PC
`The processed data, not the
`raw HiBall measurements,
`are used to configure the
`Kalman filter
`
`Ex. 2007 ¶ 58; e.g., 1304 POR 19; 1304 Reply 8; 1304 Sur-Reply 9-10
`
`1304 Reply 8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`

`The Measurements on Which Petitioner Relies Are Not Configuration Data
`’632 cls. 1, 47 & dependent claims; ’253 cl. 1 & dependent claims
`Patent Owner’s Construction: Data describing the characteristics
`or attributes of a sensor or set of sensors
`
`Petitioner
`
`Rebuttal
`
`“Amount of light impinging on different
`locations of the HiBall unit” describes
`HiBall pose
`Describes where light hits on a HiBall
`sensor, not where in the environment
`that sensor is located or how the sensor
`is oriented
`
`“Measurement type” metadata
`
`Programmed by a system designer, not
`provided by a sensor subsystem or
`module
`
`E.g., 1304 Reply 9-10; 1304 Sur-Reply 10-11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`

`Welch’s Estimation Subsystem Does Not Pass Information Back to a
`Sensor Subsystem or Modules
`’632 cls. 11, 30, 47 & dependent claims
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.11
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.47
`
`30
`
`

`Petitioner’s New Arguments Are Improper and Unsupported
`’632 cls. 11, 47 & dependent claims
`
`Petition
`
`Reply
`
`1304 Petition 26
`
`1304 Reply 13
`
`1305 Petition 35
`
`1305 Reply 14
`
`“[A]n IPR petitioner may not raise in reply an entirely new rationale for why a claim would have been obvious.”
`
`Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330-31 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted); e.g., 1305 Sur-Reply 17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`

`Welch’s Sensor Module Does Not Receive Information Over the Asserted
`Communication Interface
`’632 cl. 30 & dependent claims
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.30
`
`Ex. 1007, Fig.9 (annotated by Petitioner); 1305 Reply 6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`

`Welch’s Sensor Module and Subsystem Do Not Receive Information
`Related to an Expected Sensor Measurement
`’632 cls. 3, 11 & dependent claims
`
`Petitioner Relies on anticipation that a
`measurement will occur
`Patent describes “expected
`sensor measurement” as a
`calculated numerical value
`
`Rebuttal
`
`E.g., 1304 Reply 13; 1304 Sur-Reply 14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`Ex. 1001, 15:47-50, 16:51-56, cl.14; e.g., 1304 Sur-Reply 14
`
`

`Petitioner Does Not Establish Any Motivation To Add Inertial Trackers to
`Welch’s HiBalls
`’632 cl. 23
`
`Petitioner Points to purported
`“occlusions”
`Welch 2001 teaches that
`occlusions rarely cause
`problems in practice
`
`Rebuttal
`
`1304 Reply 14; 1304 Sur-Reply 16
`
`Ex. 1007, 14; 1304 Sur-Reply 16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`

`Welch’s Sensor Module Does Not Provide Information Characterizing
`Sensor Type
`’632 cl. 59
`
`Petitioner
`
`Rebuttal
`
`KF configured to account for
`type of data produced by
`HiBall LEPD sensor
`This configuration of
`Welch’s Kalman filter is
`done by the system
`designer, not provided by a
`sensor module
`
`E.g., 1305 Reply 16; 1305 Sur-Reply 17
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.59; e.g., 1305 Sur-Reply 17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1305 Reply 16
`
`35
`
`

`Welch’s Sensor Module Does Not Provide Information Characterizing
`Sensor Position or Orientation
`’632 cl. 60
`
`Petition
`
`Reply
`
`1305 Petition 40
`
`1305 Reply 17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`

`Horton
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`

`Horton Accelerometer System
`
`Ex. 1010, Fig.3; e.g., 1304 Petition 40; 1304 POR 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`

`Horton Accelerometer System
`Initialization and calibration routine 48
`
`Ex. 1010, Fig.3; e.g., 1304 POR 9
`
`Ex. 1010, 5:60-6:14; e.g., 1304 POR 9; 1304 Sur-Reply 19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`

`Horton Accelerometer System
`External tracking system 170
`
`Ex. 1010, 6:34-42; e.g., 1304 POR 9
`
`Ex. 1010, Fig.3; e.g., 1304 POR 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`

`Horton Accelerometer System
`Main loop 41
`
`Ex. 1010, 6:25-27; e.g., 1304 POR 9, 43, 54
`
`Ex. 1010, 7:1-3; e.g., 1304 POR 9, 43, 54
`
`Ex. 1010, Fig.3; e.g., 1304 POR 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`

`Horton Accelerometer System
`Calculation 60 of position and orientation information 130
`
`Ex. 1010, Fig.4; e.g., 1304 POR 43, 54
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`

`Petitioner’s Sensor Subsystem and Estimation Subsystem Overlap
`’632 cl. 1 & dependent claims; ’253 cl. 1 & dependent claims
`
`Petitioner
`
`Estimation Subsystem
`“main loop 41 and the Kalman filter
`(i.e., feedback loop 89) executed by
`tracking processor 40”
`
`Sensor Subsystem
`
`“initialization routine 48 and related
`data”
`
`E.g., 1304 Reply 15-16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`

`Petitioner’s Sensor Subsystem and Estimation Subsystem Overlap
`’632 cl. 1 & dependent claims; ’253 cl. 1 & dependent claims
`
`• Main loop 41 (part of the asserted
`estimation subsystem) is used within
`initialization and calibration routine 48
`(the asserted sensor subsystem).
`
`Ex. 1010, 6:4-14; e.g., 1304 POR 9, 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`

`Petitioner’s Sensor Subsystem and Estimation Subsystem Overlap
`’632 cl. 1 & ’253 cl. 1
`
`Petitioner and its expert acknowledged this overlap.
`
`E.g., 1304 Petition 43
`
`Ex. 1005 ¶ 129 (cited in 1304 Petition 40); 1304 POR 43; 1304 Sur-Reply 17
`
`E.g., 1304 Petition 40 (annotating Ex. 1010, Fig.3)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`

`Petitioner’s Sensor Subsystem and Estimation Subsystem Overlap
`’632 cl. 1 & ’253 cl. 1
`
`• Horton uses the same pose
`calculation process for sensor
`calibrating and for object tracking.
`• There is no way to update or change
`one without the other.
`• A change to pose calculation
`affects calibration.
`• A change to sensors affects the
`object tracking process.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`Ex. 1010, Fig.4; e.g., 1304 POR 43
`
`

`Horton’s Sensor Subsystem Does Not Provide Configuration Data
`’632 cls. 1, 47 & dependent claims; ’253 cl. 1 & dependent claims
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.1
`
`Ex. 1003, cl.1
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`

`None of the Data on Which Petitioner Relies Is Configuration Data
`Provided by the Sensor Subsystem or Module
`’632 cls. 1, 47 & dependent claims; ’253 cl. 1 & dependent claims
`
`Petitioner identifies:
`
`• Position and orientation measurements taken during calibration
`• Pre-specified accelerometer biases
`• Accelerometer mounting data
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`E.g., 1304 Reply 18-22; 1304 Sur-Reply 18-20
`
`48
`
`

`None of the Data on Which Petitioner Relies Is Configuration Data
`Provided by the Sensor Subsystem or Module
`’632 cls. 1, 47 & dependent claims; ’253 cl. 1 & dependent claims
`
`Petitioner Measurements taken during
`calibration
`Not used to configure
`Used only within the sensor
`subsystem (initialization and
`calibration routine 48); not
`provided from the sensor
`subsystem
`No expert support
`
`Rebuttal
`
`E.g., 1304 POR 44-45; 1304 Reply 22-23; 1304 Sur-Reply 18-20
`
`Ex. 1010, 6:3-12; e.g., 1304 Sur-Reply 19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`

`None of the Data on Which Petitioner Relies Is Configuration Data
`Provided by the Sensor Subsystem or Module
`’632 cls. 1, 47 & dependent claims; ’253 cl. 1 & dependent claims
`
`Petitioner Pre-specified biases
`Used only within the sensor
`subsystem (initialization and
`calibration routine 48); not
`provided from the sensor
`subsystem or module
`No expert support
`
`Rebuttal
`
`E.g., 1304 Sur-Reply 19-20; 1305 Sur-Reply 24
`
`Ex. 1010, 5:64-6:12, Fig.4 (annotated by Petitioner); e.g., 1305 Reply 26; 1305 Sur-Reply 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`

`None of the Data on Which Petitioner Relies Is Configuration Data
`Provided by the Sensor Subsystem or Module
`
`Petitioner Accelerometer mounting
`data
`Constants programmed into
`the main loop by the system
`designer
`Not accepted or provided
`from sensor subsystem or
`module
`
`Rebuttal
`
`E.g., 1304 POR 45 n.11; 1304 Sur-Reply 20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`Ex. 2009, 155:14-156:9; e.g., 1304 Sur-Reply 20
`
`

`Horton’s Estimation Subsystem Does Not Pass Information Back to a
`Sensor Subsystem or Modules
`’632 cls. 30, 47 & dependent claims
`
`Petitioner
`
`Rebuttal
`
`Relies on purported
`“request mode” to “trigger a
`sensor measurement”
`Horton’s “request mode” is
`a request to the tracking
`system for the calculated
`pose, not a request to the
`accelerometer to take a
`measurement
`No expert support
`
`E.g., 1305 Reply 20, 27-28; 1305 Sur-Reply 20-21, 25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`Ex. 1010, 4:47-67; e.g., 1305 Sur-Reply 20
`
`

`Horton’s Estimation Subsystem Does Not Pass Information Back to a
`Sensor Subsystem or Modules
`’632 cls. 30, 47 & dependent claims
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.30
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.47
`
`Ex. 1010, Fig.1 (annotated by Petitioner); 1305 Reply 19, 24; 1305 Sur-Reply 19, 23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`53
`
`

`Horton’s Sensor Module and Subsystem Do Not Receive Information
`Related to an Expected Sensor Measurement
`’632 cl. 30 & dependent claims
`
`Petitioner Relies on anticipation that a
`measurement will occur
`Patent describes “expected
`sensor measurement” as a
`calculated numerical value
`
`Rebuttal
`
`E.g., 1305 Reply 20; 1305 Sur-Reply 20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`54
`
`Ex. 1001, 15:47-50, 16:50-56, cl.14; e.g., 1305 Sur-Reply 20
`
`

`Petitioner Does Not Identify Multiple “Sensor Modules” in Horton.
`’632 cl. 2 & dependent claims
`
`• Claim 2 recites “software
`modules,” plural.
`• Petitioner identifies only one
`purported “software module.”
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.2; 1304 Sur-Reply 21-22
`
`In accordance with common English usage, we
`presume a plural term refers to two or more items.
`
`Apple Inc. v. MPH Techs. Oy, 28 F.4th 254, 261 (Fed. Cir. 2022);
`1304 Sur-Reply 22)
`
`1304 Reply 23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`

`The Result of Horton’s Calibration Process Cannot Be Both an Input to and
`Output of the State Estimation Update Process Within the Same Claim
`’632 cls. 6, 9, 11 & dependent claims
`
`INPUT: Bias and scaling factors 50
`
`1304 Reply 22; see 1304 Sur-Reply 23-24
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.1
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.6
`
`OUTPUT: Bias and scaling factors 50
`
`1304 Reply 24; see 1304 Sur-Reply 23-24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`

`Horton’s External Tracking Sensors Are Not Part of the Sensor Subsystem
`’632 cl. 25
`
`Petitioner Relies on external tracking
`system sensors
`Claim 25’s sensing
`elements must be part of
`the sensor subsystem,
`which Petitioner asserts is
`“initialization routine 48 and
`related data”
`Sensors in the external
`tracking system are not part
`of “initialization routine 48”
`
`Rebuttal
`
`E.g.,1304 POR 61; 1304 Reply 25-26; 1304 Sur-Reply 25
`
`Ex. 1010, Fig.3; e.g.,1304 POR 61; 1304 Sur-Reply 25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`57
`
`

`Horton’s Estimation Module Is Not Configurable To Use Different Sensors
`’632 cl. 50
`
`Petitioner
`
`Rebuttal
`
`Horton teaches using
`varying numbers of
`accelerometers and
`different external tracking
`systems
`The possibility of building
`different systems does not
`meet the claim requirement
`that a particular estimation
`module is “configurable” to
`use different sensors
`
`E.g., 1305 Reply 29; 1305 Sur-Reply 26-27
`
`Ex. 2007 ¶ 352; e.g., 1305 POR 63; 1305 Sur-Reply 26-27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`58
`
`

`Horton’s Accelerometer Mounting Data Does Not Characterize Sensor Type
`’632 cl. 59
`
`Petitioner
`
`Rebuttal
`
`Relies on mounting data,
`because accelerometers
`are purportedly mounted
`differently
`Mounting data is not and
`does not describe sensor
`type
`Different types of sensors
`may be mounted in the
`same way
`
`E.g., 1305 Reply 30; 1305 Sur-Reply 27
`
`Ex. 1033, 176:14-19; e.g., 1305 Sur-Reply 27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`59
`
`

`Horton’s LPF/Multiplexer/A/D Converter Do Not Perform Computations
`’253 cl. 3
`
`Petitioner
`
`Rebuttal
`
`LPFs/Multiplexer/A/D
`Converter perform
`computations
`Signal processing of this
`sort is not “computation”
`The patent describes
`computations as
`mathematical operations
`carried out using data and
`code
`Petitioner’s expert did not
`consider this context
`
`E.g., Ex. 2007 ¶ 441; 1308 POR 55-57; 1308 Reply 27; 1308 Sur-Reply 20-21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003, 16:20-32
`
`Ex. 2025, 9:19-22
`
`60
`
`

`Welch & Horton
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`62
`
`

`“Enumerating”: Claim Language
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.33; see Ex.1003, cl.6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`64
`
`

`“Enumerating”: Claim Construction
`“enumerating a set of sensing elements available to a tracking system”
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`“specifying or listing each of the sensing elements
`available to a tracking system”
`
`Enumeration is a process performed by the system
`prior to the configuration process whereby available
`sensors are identified
`
`“determining the number of” sensing elements
`
`No expert or other evidence that enumeration
`need not be performed by the system
`
`E.g., 1305 POR 20-23; Ex. 2007 ¶¶74-76
`
`E.g., 1305 Reply 5; 1305 Sur-Reply 7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`65
`
`

`The Patents Explain that Enumeration Is Performed by the System
`
`Ex.1001, 18:48-51; e.g., 1305 POR 22
`
`Ex.1001, 22:16-18; e.g., 1305 POR 22
`
`Ex.1001, 19:1-6; e.g., 1305 POR 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`66
`
`

`Patent Owner’s Expert: Enumeration Is Performed by the System
`
`Yohan Baillot
`CEO and Founder, ARCortex Inc.
`
`The POSITA would have understood:
`
`• “The patents further explain that ‘enumeration’ is a particular process performed
`by the system prior to the configuration process whereby the available sensors
`are identified.” ¶74
`
`• “This enumeration process … is how the system learns which sensors are
`available to it at any given time, and therefore is important to the … plug-and-
`track functionality described in the patent, allowing the system to work with
`varying numbers and types of sensors.” ¶75
`
`Ex. 2007; e.g., 1305 POR 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`67
`
`

`Petitioner Relies on Designer Specifying the Sensors
`’632 cl. 33 & dependent claims; ’253 cl. 6 & dependent claims
`
`E.g., 1305 Reply 8; see, e.g., 1305 Sur-Reply 10-11
`
`E.g., 1305 Reply 22-23; see, e.g., 1305 Sur-Reply 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`68
`
`

`“Selecting Pairs”: Claim Language
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.20
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.34; see Ex.1003, cl.7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`70
`
`

`Horton’s External Tracking System Does Not Select a Pair of Sensing Elements
`’632 cls. 20-21, 34-36; ’253 cls. 7-9
`
`Petitioner
`
`Rebuttal
`
`Horton’s external tracking
`system could be an optical
`tracker that uses pairs of
`sensing elements
`Horton’s external tracking
`system does not generate a
`“sequence of candidates of
`pairs” of sensors and targets
`Horton does not describe
`“selecting” sensors or
`targets in conjunction with
`an external tracking system
`
`E.g., 1308 Petition 70; 1308 POR 9, 60-61; 1308 Reply 29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1010, Fig.3; e.g., 1304 POR 9
`71
`
`

`Horton Does Not Disclose Selecting a Pair of Accelerometers
`’632 cls. 20-21, 34-36; ’253 cls. 7-9
`
`Petitioner Horton’s six accelerometers
`comprise three pairs
`Horton does not pair
`accelerometers in this way
`Horton does not “select”
`pairs
`No support from Horton or
`Petitioner’s expert
`Argument was raised for the
`first time in reply
`
`Rebuttal
`
`E.g., 1308 Petition 70; 1308 Reply 29-30; 1308 Sur-Reply 23-25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1010, Fig.4
`
`72
`
`

`“Expected Utility”: Claim Language
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.21
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`74
`
`

`“Highest Expected Utility”: Claim Language
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.34; see Ex. 1003, cl.7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`75
`
`

`“Expected Utility”: Claim Construction
`“expected utility of a measurement”
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`“expected information gain of a measurement”
`
`“utility” means “usefulness”
`
`E.g., 1305 POR 23-24; Baillot ¶¶ 78-82
`
`E.g., 1305 Reply 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`76
`
`

`The Specification Supports Patent Owner’s Construction
`’632 cls. 21, 33-36; ’253 cls. 7-9
`
`Ex. 1001, 19:33-39; e.g., 1305 POR 23-24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`77
`
`

`Welch 2001 Does Not Disclose an Expected Utility of a Measurement
`’632 cls. 33-36; ’253 cls. 7-9
`
`Petitioner
`
`Petition: Welch 2001 discloses
`sampling LEDs to estimate yaw
`
`Reply: Welch 2001’s every 13th
`LED sequence has more utility
`than “more-selective”
`measurements
`LEDs being useful to estimate
`yaw is not the same as expected
`utility
`
`Rebuttal
`
`Comparing utility across the
`series of measurements does not
`bear on their sequence
`
`No expert support for new
`argument
`E.g., 1305 Petition 24; 1305 POR 31-32; 1305 Reply 9; 1305 Sur-Reply 11-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1007, 14
`
`78
`
`

`Welch 2001’s Least-Recently-Used Heuristic Does Not Achieve the
`Highest Expected Utility
`’632 cls. 34-36; ’253 cls. 7-9
`
`Petitioner Welch 2001 selects the
`least-recently-used LED
`Least-recently-used
`heuristic does not achieve
`the highest expected utility
`Petitioner improperly
`imports a “balancing”
`concept into claims
`
`Rebuttal
`
`E.g., 1305 Petition 24-25; 1305 POR 32-33; 1305 Reply 9; 1305 Sur-Reply 12-13
`
`Ex. 1007, 13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`79
`
`

`Horton Does Not Disclose an Expected Utility of a Measurement
`’632 cls. 21, 33-36; ’253 cls. 7-9
`
`Petitioner
`
`Horton discloses using pairs
`of accelerometers, as well as
`adding accelerometers
`No sequence of candidates
`of pairs of accelerometers
`
`Rebuttal
`
`No sequence based on
`expected utility
`
`No selection based on
`highest expected utility
`
`No expert support for these
`arguments introduced in reply
`
`E.g., 1305 POR 53-54; 1305 Reply 23; 1305 Sur-Reply 22-23
`
`Ex. 1010, 3:41-53
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`80
`
`

`Kramer & Chen
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`81
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.

Or .

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

Supplemental Search

Search for PTAB Motions

PTAB Analytics

TTAB Analytics

Basic Search

Filters

Party Search

Advanced

Selected Courts

Recently Selected Courts

Find PTAB Decisions

PTAB Analytics

Special PTAB Alerts

Orange Book

Directly Search Federal Courts

Search Trademark ...

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

Still Working On It

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

This document could not be displayed.

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.

One Moment Please

Your document is on its way!

Sealed Document

We are redirecting youto a mobile optimized page.

Document Unreadable or Corrupt

We are unable to display this document.

STEP 2 of 2

Choose your membership type

Flat-Fee

Pay-As-You-Go

Add your payment information

Login or Join

Enter your corporate Email

Thousands of your peers are saving time and gaining a competitive advantage with Docket Alarm.

Join Docket Alarm to perform smarter legal research.

Download this document and millions of others instantly with a Docket Alarm membership.

Join Docket Alarm and start performing smarter legal research.

Start tracking this docket instantly with a Docket Alarm membership.

Join thousands of your peers and start performing smarter legal research.

STEP 1 of 2

Millions of Documents | 15 Seconds to Signup

Hi !

Welcome to Docket Alarm

Welcome to Docket Alarm!

Explore Litigation Insights andManage Your Cases

Reset Password

What is PACER?

Why do I need it?

What will I be charged?

Do other courts have fees?

Basic Free Access

Welcome

Thank you

Check Firm Account

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

Explore Litigation Insights and
Manage Your Cases