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 PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`December 27, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Paper No. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iv
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ......................................................................................... vii
`I.
`MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ............................................... 1
`Real Party in Interest ............................................................................. 1
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4): Service Information ........................................ 3
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3
`II.
`III. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 5
`The ’632 Patent ..................................................................................... 5
`
` Welch 2001 ............................................................................................ 8
` Welch 1997 ............................................................................................ 9
` Welch Thesis ......................................................................................... 9
`Horton .................................................................................................... 9
`
`Kramer ................................................................................................. 11
`Chen ..................................................................................................... 12
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 12
`
`IV. PETITIONER FAILS TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`OF DEMONSTRATING OBVIOUSNESS OF ANY CHALLENGED
`CLAIM........................................................................................................... 13
`The Petition Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood that
`
`Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 Render Any Claim Obvious
`(Ground I). ........................................................................................... 13
`1.
`Petitioner Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood that
`Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 Render Claims 1-9, 11-22,
`and 24-29 Obvious. ................................................................... 14
`Petitioner Fails to Incorporate Its Arguments Regarding
`Independent Claims into Arguments Regarding
`Dependent Claims 2-9, 11-22, and 24-29. ................................ 26
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish that Welch 2001, Welch 1997,
`and Welch Thesis Render Claim 23 Obvious (Ground II).................. 28
`The Petition Fails to Establish that Horton Renders Any Claim
`Obvious (Ground III). ......................................................................... 29
`1.
`The Petition Does Not Adequately Specify the Bases for
`This Ground, and Therefore Fails on Procedural
`Grounds. .................................................................................... 30
`Petitioner Failed to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood
`that Horton Renders the Challenged Claims Obvious. ............. 32
`The Petition Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood that
`Horton in View of Welch 1997 Renders Any Claim Obvious
`(Ground IV). ........................................................................................ 46
`The Petition Fails to Establish That Kramer and Chen Render
`Claims 66-68 Obvious (Grounds V). .................................................. 46
`1.
`Chen is not Analogous Art. ....................................................... 47
`2.
`Failure of Motivation to Combine ............................................ 50
`3.
`Kramer and Chen Fail to Teach Selective Performance. .......... 52
`4.
`Kramer and Chen Fail to Teach “configuring a data
`processing module of the tracking or navigation system
`based on the sensor configuration information.” ...................... 54
`The Petition Fails to Establish That Kramer, Chen, and Welch
`2001 Render Claim 69 Obvious (Grounds VI). .................................. 55
`1.
`Chen is Non-Analogous Art...................................................... 55
`2.
`Failure of Motivation to Combine. .......................................... 55
`3.
`Kramer and Chen Fail to Teach Selective Performance ........... 55
`THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION UNDER 35 U.S.C.
`§ 325(D). ........................................................................................................ 55
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 58
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...........................................................................35
`BlephEx, LLC v. Myco Indus., Inc.,
`24 F.4th 1391 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................24
`Gaus v. Conair Corp.,
`363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................35
`Gentex Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.,
`No. 5:22-cv-03892-YGR (N.D. Cal. 2022) .....................................................1, 56
`Gentex Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.,
`No. 6:21-cv-00755-ADA (W.D. Tex. 2021) ...................................................1, 56
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ...........................................................................47
`In re Clay,
`966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .............................................................................48
`In re Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`496 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...........................................................................48
`In re Klein,
`647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...........................................................................47
`In re Montgomery,
`677 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...........................................................................32
`In re Omeprazole Patent Litig.,
`483 F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................31
`In re Wesslau,
`353 F.2d 238 (1965) .............................................................................................52
`In re Wood & Eversole,
`599 F.2d 1032 (C.C.P.A. 1979) ...........................................................................47
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Paper No. 8
`
`
`Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Ent., Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...........................................................................47
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...........................................................................27
`Monsanto Co. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc.,
`503 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...........................................................................46
`TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ...........................................................................42
`Univ. of Strathclyde v. Clear-Vu Lighting LLC,
`17 F.4th 155 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..............................................................................21
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................47
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ........................................................................................ 27, 30
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ........................................................................................ 4, 13, 55
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ...................................................................................................57
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ...................................................................................................55
`
`OFFICE AUTHORITIES
`Adaptics Ltd. v. Perfect Co.,
`IPR2018-01596, Paper 20 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2019) ............................................31
`Apple Inc. v. OpenTV, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01031, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2015) ...........................................30
`Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ..........................................55
`Biofrontera Inc. v. DUSA Pharms., Inc.,
`IPR2018-01585, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019) ...........................................57
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014) ................................... 19, 21
`
`v
`
`

`

`Paper No. 8
`
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Core Optical Techs., LLC,
`IPR2020-01664, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 16, 2021) ............................................21
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Imperium (IP) Holdings,
`IPR2015-01233, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2015) ............................................30
`
`RULES
`MPEP § 2141.01(a) ..................................................................................................48
`
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 1.75(c) ...................................................................................... 27, 28, 46
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ............................................................................. 27, 30, 32
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) ....................................................................................... 19, 21
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .....................................................................................................1, 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Paper No. 8
`
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`TABLE 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)
`Reitmayr, Gerhard and Schmalstieg. “An Open Software
`Architecture for Virtual Reality Interaction” VRST ’01
`(November 2001)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Paper No. 8
`
`
`Exhibit
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`Title
`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
`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
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Paper No. 8
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1029
`
`1030
`2001
`
`2002
`
`Title
`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
`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.
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Paper No. 8
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
` Real Party in Interest
`
`Patent Owner Thales Visionix, Inc. identifies the following real party-in-
`
`interest: Gentex Corporation (“Gentex”). In 2012, Thales granted Indigo
`
`Technologies, LLC (“Indigo”) an exclusive license to the ’632 patent in a particular
`
`field-of-use. Indigo is an affiliate of Gentex. Indigo assigned its rights under its
`
`exclusive field-of-use license to Gentex effective July 1, 2021. Ex. 2001, 2.
`
` Related Matters
`
`Gentex and Indigo (collectively, “Gentex”) asserted infringement by Meta of
`
`the ’632 patent in a complaint filed in the Western District of Texas, Gentex Corp.
`
`v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00755-ADA. Ex. 2001. Thales was named as
`
`an involuntary plaintiff. The case was subsequently transferred to the Northern
`
`District of California on July 5, 2022, No. 5:22-cv-03892. See Ex. 2002.
`
`1
`
`

`

` Counsel and Service Information
`
`Counsel for Thales Visionix, Inc.
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Meredith Martin Addy
`Reg. No. 37,883
`meredith@addyhart.com
`
`ADDYHART P.C.
`10 Glenlake Parkway
`Suite 130
`Atlanta, Georgia 30328
`312.320.4200 T
`312.254.2547 F
`
`
`
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`Robert Hart
`Reg. No. 35,184
`robert@addyhart.com
`
`Gregory B. Gulliver
`Reg. No. 44,138
`gbgulliver@addyhart.com
`
`Brandon C. Helms
`Reg. No. 61,742
`bhelms@addyhart.com
`
`
`ADDYHART P.C.
`401 N. Michigan Ave.
`Suite 1200-1
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`312.834.7701 T
`312.264.2547 F
`
`Additional Backup Counsel for Gentex Corporation.
`
`D. Shayon Ghosh
`Reg. No. 75,865
`Gentex-IPR@wc.com
`
`Arthur J. Argall III
`Reg. No. 73,005
`Gentex-IPR@wc.com
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Paper No. 8
`
`
`Additional Backup Counsel for Gentex Corporation.
`Adam D. Harber
`(pro hac vice motion forthcoming)
`Gentex-IPR@wc.com
`
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`680 Main Avenue SW
`Washington, DC 20024
`202.434.5000
`
`
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4): Service Information
`
`Thales and Gentex submitted their Mandatory Notices, Paper 4, and Powers
`
`of Attorney, Papers 5 & 6. Thales and Gentex consent to electronic service directed
`
`to the following email addresses:
`
`Thales-Meta-IPRs@addyhart.com
`
`Gentex-IPR@wc.com
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`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, 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).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Paper No. 8
`
`Ex. 1001, 17:29-38, 22:38-50. This, in turn, improves the versatility and scalability
`
`of the tracking system. Ex. 1001, 11:10-43. The system also can perform “automatic
`
`calibration of sensors,” through which the tracking component may estimate sensor
`
`calibration parameters simultaneously with tracking the relevant objects. Ex. 1001,
`
`2:5-19.
`
`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 teach key claim elements of the ’632 patent’s challenged
`
`claims. As the Petition’s arguments underscore, in both systems the sensor-specific
`
`components and the tracking components are intertwined and hard-wired. As a
`
`result, neither system permits interoperability with different types of sensors, and
`
`neither supports automatic calibration—so neither discloses nor renders obvious the
`
`claimed inventions. The arguments set forth in the Petition misread both references,
`
`and Petitioner’s conclusory expert opinions do not fill the gaps. The Petition
`
`therefore has failed to demonstrate “a reasonable likelihood of success that the
`
`petitioner would prevail” as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), and the Petition must be
`
`rejected.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Paper No. 8
`
`Petition’s Grounds V and VI rely on the combination of Kramer (Ex. 1030)
`
`and Chen (Ex. 1024) to challenge claims 66-69, where both references require
`
`selectively performing receiving data from specific types of sensors. Neither cited
`
`reference discloses a system that selectively receives sensor data; instead, these two
`
`cited references simply involve sensors that transmit data. The Petition’s cited art
`
`thus does not teach every claimed limitation. Furthermore, a POSITA would not
`
`have had a motivation to combine the references, and Grounds V and VI should be
`
`rejected because of this deficiency as well.
`
`III. 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.
`
`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.” Ex.
`
`1001, Abstract.
`
`The ’632 patent acknowledges that prior art systems were capable of using
`
`measurements from sensors to estimate the position and orientation of an object. Ex.
`
`1001, 1:16-21. Some prior art systems used Kalman filtering techniques to perform
`
`this estimation (Ex. 1001, 1:36-40), but the implementation of these prior art
`
`5
`
`

`

`Paper No. 8
`
`estimation systems “typically require[d] detailed knowledge of the measurement
`
`characteristics of the specific sensors used in tracking the object.” Ex. 1001, 1:40-
`
`43.
`
`The ’632 patent describes a “navigation or motion tracking system” in which
`
`“components associated with particular sensors are decoupled from a tracking
`
`component” that makes use of the sensor measurements. Ex. 1001, 2:21-24. This
`
`architecture “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.
`
`Four independent claims of the ’632 patent are challenged in this Petition:
`
`claims 1, 66, 68, and 69. Claim 1 is illustrative and recites as follows:
`
`1.
`
`A method for tracking an object comprising:
`
`coupling a sensor subsystem to an estimation subsystem, said
`sensor subsystem enabling measurement related to relative
`locations or orientations of sensing elements;
`
`accepting configuration data from the sensor subsystem;
`
`configuring the estimation system according to the accepted
`configuration data;
`
`repeatedly updating a state estimate, including
`
`6
`
`

`

`Paper No. 8
`
`
`accepting measurement information from the sensor
`subsystem, and
`
`updating the state estimate according to the accepted
`configuration data and the accepted measurement data.
`
`The claim requires tracking an object using an “estimation subsystem” and “sensor
`
`subsystem.” The sensor subsystem provides configuration data to the estimation
`
`subsystem, and a state estimate is repeatedly updated according to the accepted
`
`configuration data and measurement information from the sensor subsystem.
`
`Claims 66-69 recite a step where the data processing module “selectively
`
`perform[s]” receiving data from specified sensors or set of sensing elements. Claim
`
`66 is illustrative and recites:
`
`66. A method comprising:
`
`receiving sensor configuration information indicating a set of
`sensing elements available to a tracking or navigation system;
`
`configuring a data processing module of the tracking or
`navigation system based on the sensor configuration
`information to selectively perform one of
`
`(a) receiving data from at least one inside-out bearing
`sensor, and updating an estimated pose of an object based
`on data received from the inside-out bearing sensor,
`
`7
`
`

`

`Paper No. 8
`
`
`(b) receiving data from at least one outside-in bearing
`sensor, and updating an estimated pose of an object based
`on data received from the outside-in bearing sensor, and
`
`(c) receiving data from at least one inside-out bearing
`sensor and at least one outside-in bearing sensor, and
`updating an estimated pose of an object based on data
`received from the outside-in bearing sensor and the
`inside-out bearing sensor.
`
` Welch 2001
`
`The Welch 2001 publication1 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-
`
`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 central personal
`
`computer (PC) and a “Ceiling-HiBall Interface Board (CIB).” Id., 5-6, 9. 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-
`
`
`1 Welch, G. et al., “High-Performance Wide-Area Optical Tracking” (“Welch
`
`2001”), Ex. 1007.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Paper No. 8
`
`constraint-at-a-time (SCAAT) tracking” to estimate the pose of the HiBall. Id., 6,
`
`10-13.
`
`As the name suggests, the HiBall tracking system operates only with HiBall
`
`sensors. The Welch 2001 reference does not suggest that any other types of sensors
`
`could be used with this system. Moreover, although Welch 2001 discloses the PC
`
`receiving measurement signals from HiBall sensors, it 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.
`
` Welch 1997
`
`Like Welch 2001, the Welch 1997 reference (Ex. 1008) describes a SCAAT
`
`algorithm and calculations that are used with HiBall sensors.
`
` Welch Thesis
`
`The Welch Thesis (Ex. 1009) describes the use of a SCAAT algorithm with
`
`the HiBall sensors. The Petition uses the Welch Thesis to provide background
`
`information and cites the reference only once in Ground II.
`
` Horton
`
`Horton2 describes a “three-dimensional position and orientation tracking
`
`system” that can track the pose of a moving object using accelerometers. Ex. 1010,
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,615,132 (“Horton”), Ex. 1010.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Abstract, 2:15-20.
`
` Horton also discloses
`
`repeatedly
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`reading “tracking
`
`measurements,” i.e., position, orientation, and/or velocity, from the accelerometers
`
`and then “using a feedback or Kalman filter process” to update an estimate of the
`
`pose of the tracked object. Ex. 1010, 2:41-44, 6:34-42. Horton depicts this process
`
`in Figure 3, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`As Figure 3 shows, Horton describes a “main loop” that reads accelerometer data
`
`and then updates position and orientation information. Ex. 1010, 6:25-27. Horton
`
`does not disclose sending any information from the main loop to the accelerometers.
`
`It also does not describe any other components associated with the accelerometers.
`
`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
`
`10
`
`

`

`Paper No. 8
`
`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 automatic reconfiguration when new
`
`sensors are added or existing ones are removed.
`
` Kramer
`
`Kramer (Ex. 1030, U.S. Patent No. 5,592,401), a patent that issued in 1997, is
`
`directed to a head-mounted motion data capture system—but not a head-mounted
`
`display—for use in various applications, including virtual reality environments. Ex.
`
`1030, Abstract, Fig. 2, & 1:13-15. Criticizing optical tracking systems for being
`
`easily obscured “to the degree that no position solution can be determined,” id., 1:23-
`
`25, and electromagnetic systems as having “unacceptable” delay, id., 1:43-44,
`
`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, and describes “affix[ing]” fast sensors to a user’s “forearm,” id., 11:35-
`
`36. Kramer does not describe selectively receiving data from any sensor.
`
`As Kramer explains, sensors like accelerometers are subject to “drift,” a
`
`“continual accumulation of all minor acceleration errors” that leads to “significant”
`
`errors in tracking requiring “re-zeroing.” Id., 6:40-65. Kramer also notes that six-
`
`11
`
`

`

`Paper No. 8
`
`degree-of-freedom systems using multiple accelerometers and electromagnetic
`
`sensors may become prohibitively expensive. Id., 11:52-66.
`
` Chen
`
`Chen3 is a magazine article published in 1998 in Sound and 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 system would need to be
`
`modified, including with “extra circuitry” and/or a “patch panel.” Id., 26.
`
`
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`For purposes of this preliminary response only, Patent Owner accepts the
`
`Petition’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”):
`
`A POSITA at the time of the ’632 Patent would have had
`a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, or an equivalent
`field, and three to five years of experience working with
`computer implemented tracking systems. Additional
`education might compensate for less experience, and vice-
`versa.
`
`
`3 S.C. Chen & K. Lee, A mixed-mode smart transducer interface for sensors and
`
`actuators, Sound & Vibration 32(4), 24-27 (April 1998) (Ex. 1024).
`
`12
`
`

`

`Paper No. 8
`
`Petition, 13. However, for any other purpose, Patent Owner disagrees with
`
`Petitioner that such POSITA should be limited to a maximum of five years’
`
`experience and reserves the right to offer an alternative definition based on expert
`
`evidence in the event IPR is instituted.
`
`IV. PETITIONER FAILS TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF
`DEMONSTRATING OBVIOUSNESS OF ANY CHALLENGED
`CLAIM.
`
`The Board should deny institution because Petitioner’s obviousness
`
`arguments do not meet the required threshold showing of a “reasonable likelihood”
`
`that it will prevail as to any claim. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
` The Petition Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood that Welch
`2001 and Welch 1997 Render Any Claim Obvious (Ground I).
`
`In Ground I, Petitioner contends that Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 render
`
`obvious claims 1-9, 11-22, and 24-29 of the ’632 patent. Claim 1 is independent,
`
`and the remaining claims depend directly or indirectly from claim 1.
`
`Petitioner’s challenge fails both on substance and procedure. Substantively,
`
`Petitioner does not acknowledge, much less grapple with critical distinctions
`
`between the invention claimed in the ’632 patent and the system described in Welch
`
`2001 and Welch 1997. The ’632 patent describes a system where “components
`
`associated with particular sensors” are “decoupled from a tracking component,”
`
`enabling the use of various different types of sensors. Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Paper No. 8
`
`The HiBall system of Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 operates only with a single
`
`type of sensor. Accordingly, it does not need to—and indeed does not—decouple
`
`the sensor-specific components from the tracking component. Instead of addressing
`
`this gap, Petitioner asserts internally inconsistent positions, or simply ignores the
`
`limitations that require it. For this reason, Petitioner has failed to establish a
`
`reasonable likelihood that the identified claims would have been obvious over Welch
`
`2001 and Welch 1997.
`
`Procedurally, the Petition fails to give Patent Owner notice of its theory of
`
`unpatentability because it does not specify what grounds of invalidity are relied on
`
`with respect to specific limitations of each claim. In the sections addressing
`
`dependent claims 2-9, 11-22, and 24-29, the Petition addresses only the new
`
`limitations appearing in each claim, without incorporating or even referring to any
`
`arguments relating to the limitations found in the independent claims which are
`
`incorporated into these dependent claims. Petition, 21-37. The Petition’s failures
`
`are improper and separately warrant denial of the Petition.
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood that
`Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 Render Claims 1-9, 11-22, and
`24-29 Obvious.
`
`Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in
`
`establishing that Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 render obvious each limitation of the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`14
`
`

`

`a.
`
`Paper No. 8
`
`Petitioner Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood
`that Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 Render Claim 1
`Obvious.
`
`Petitioner fails to show that Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 render claim 1
`
`obvious for several independent reasons described below. As an initial matter,
`
`whereas that claim requires “coupling a sensor subsystem to an estimation
`
`subsystem,” under Petitioner’s theory, the alleged “sensor subsystem” in the HiBall
`
`system is connected to another component, which in turn is connected to the alleged
`
`“estimation subsystem.” The Petition fails to explain how this attenuated connection
`
`meets the “coupled to” limitation. The Petition also fails to establish a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the HiBall system renders obvious “accepting configuration data
`
`from the sensor subsystem.” The purported “configuration data” that Petitioner
`
`apparently identifies is actually just “measurement information,” which the claim
`
`recites separately. In any event, Petitioner has not shown that that data is ever
`
`received “from the sensor subsystem,” as the claim requires. And Petitioner glosses
`
`over several other requirements of the claim.
`
`i.
`
`Petitioner Fails to Show that Welch 2001 and
`Welch 1997 Disclose “Coupling a Sensor
`Subsystem to an Estimation