`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2022-1304
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §312 AND 37 C.F.R. §42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 1
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1
`C.
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 2
`D.
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4): Service Information .......................................... 3
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.103 ..................................... 3
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING ............................. 3
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .............. 4
`A.
`Prior Art References .............................................................................. 4
`B.
`Relief Requested .................................................................................... 5
`VI. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE HERE .............. 6
`A.
`The ’632 Patent Has Not Been Subject to a Prior Petition ................... 6
`B. Multiple Petitions are Warranted .......................................................... 6
`C.
`The Presented Grounds and Argument Are Dissimilar to the Art
`and Arguments Previously Presented to the Office .............................. 6
`Efficiency, Fairness, and the Merits Support the Exercise of the
`Board’s Authority to Grant the Petition ................................................ 7
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY .................................................... 9
`A. Head-Mounted Display in Virtual and Augmented Reality
`Systems .................................................................................................. 9
`Sensors for Tracking an Object in VR and AR ................................... 10
`
`D.
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`C.
`
`Using Kalman Filters to Estimate the Position and Location of a
`Tracked Object .................................................................................... 11
`VIII. THE ’632 PATENT ..................................................................................... 12
`IX. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................... 13
`X. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 13
`XI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ......................................................... 13
`A. Overview of Welch Prior Art .............................................................. 13
`B.
`Overview of Horton............................................................................. 15
`C.
`Overview of Kramer ............................................................................ 15
`XII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ................................................. 16
`A. Ground I: Claims 1-9, 11-22, and 24-29 are Rendered Obvious
`by Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 ......................................................... 16
`Ground II: Claim 23 is Rendered Obvious by Welch 2001,
`Welch 1997, and Welch Thesis ........................................................... 38
`Ground III: Claims 1-9, 11-24, and 28-29 are Rendered
`Obvious by Horton .............................................................................. 38
`D. Ground IV: Claims 25-27 are Rendered Obvious by Horton in
`View of Welch 1997............................................................................ 58
`Ground V: Claims 66-68 Are Rendered Obvious by Kramer in
`View of Chen ....................................................................................... 60
`Ground VI: Claim 69 Is Rendered Obvious by Kramer, Chen,
`and Welch 2001 ................................................................................... 71
`XIII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................ 73
`XIV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 74
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte
`GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020) .............................................. 6
`Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ....................................... 7, 9
`Becton, Dickinson, & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017) ............................................. 6
`Bowtech, Inc. v. MCP IP, LLC,
`IPR2019-00383, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2019) ............................................. 7
`Fasteners for Retail, Inc. v. RTC Indus., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00994, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2019) ............................................... 7
`Gentex Corporation et al. v. Facebook, Inc. et al.,
`No. 6:21-cv-00755-ADA (W.D. Tex.) ..................................................... 2, 6, 8, 9
`Microchip Technology Inc. v. Bell Semiconductor, LLC,
`IPR2021-00148, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. May 14, 2021) ........................................... 7
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F. 3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................................................... 13
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 13
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp.-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2020) ....................................... 8, 9
`Slayback Pharma LLC, v. Eye Therapies, LLC,
`IPR2022-00146, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B May 18, 2022) ............................................ 8
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) ............................................. 8
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 73
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`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
`
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`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)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,615,132
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`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)
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`
`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)
`
`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.
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`
`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 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
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`Petitioner Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta” or “Petitioner”) requests inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) of claims 1-9, 11-29, and 66-69 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,922,632 (Ex.1001, “the ’632 Patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Before the ’632 Patent’s earliest priority date, it was well known that any
`
`computer-implemented method for object tracking required a set of sensors and an
`
`algorithm for updating a state of the tracked object in light of the sensor output. For
`
`example, the use of Kalman filters to receive sensor measurement information and
`
`update the state estimate of a tracked object had been known for decades. The ’632
`
`Patent, however, claims that basic functionality in its independent claims, and then
`
`claims obvious variations of that functionality in the dependent claims. Because the
`
`purportedly novel aspects of the ’632 Patent were well known in the prior art and
`
`practiced by persons of skill in the art before the claimed priority date, Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests that the Challenged Claims be canceled as invalid.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`Petitioner identifies the following real parties-in-interest: Meta Platforms, Inc.
`
`and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Gentex Corporation (“Gentex”) and Indigo Technologies, LLC (“Indigo”),
`
`the current and former licensees of the ’632 Patent, have asserted the ’632 Patent in
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`Gentex Corporation et al. v. Facebook, Inc. et al., No. 6:21-cv-00755-ADA (W.D.
`
`Tex.) (the “Texas Litigation”), which was thereafter transferred to the Northern
`
`District of California, No. 5:22-cv-03892 (the “California Litigation”). Thales
`
`Visionix, Inc. (“Thales Visionix” or “Patent Owner”) is named as an involuntary
`
`plaintiff in these litigations.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`W. Todd Baker (No. 45,265)
`todd.baker@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Telephone: (202) 389-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 389-5200
`
`Yimeng Dou (No. 69,770)
`yimeng.dou@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 South Flower Street, Suite 3700
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 680-8400
`Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
`
`Ellisen Shelton Turner (No. 54,503)
`ellisen.turner@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`2049 Century Park East,
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: (310) 552-4200
`Facsimile: (310) 552-5900
`
`Akshay S. Deoras (to seek pro hac vice
`admission)
`akshay.deoras@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 439-1400
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4): Service Information
`D.
`Meta concurrently submits a Power of Attorney, 37 C.F.R. §42.10(b), and
`
`consents to electronic service directed to the following email address: Meta-Thales-
`
`IPR@kirkland.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.103
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.15(a)(1) for this Petition to Deposit Account No. 506092. Review of 32 claims
`
`is requested. The undersigned further authorizes payment for any additional fees that
`
`may be due in connection with this Petition to be charged to the above-referenced
`
`deposit account.
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the ’632 Patent is available
`
`for IPR and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR of the
`
`Challenged Claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. Petitioner certifies:
`
`(1) Petitioner is not the owner of the ’632 Patent; (2) Petitioner (or any real party-in-
`
`interest) has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the ’632
`
`Patent; (3) Petitioner files this Petition within one year of the date it was served with
`
`a complaint asserting infringement of the ’632 Patent; (4) estoppel provisions of 35
`
`U.S.C. §315(e)(1) do not prohibit this IPR; and (5) this Petition is filed after the ’632
`
`Patent was granted.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of the Challenged Claims of the ’632
`
`Patent and requests that they be canceled.
`
`Prior Art References
`A.
`Petitioner’s challenge is based on the following prior art references:
`
`1. Welch, G. et al., “High-Performance Wide-Area Optical Tracking”
`
`(“Welch 2001”) (Ex.1007, Ex.1018), published February 2001 and publicly
`
`available no later than May 28, 2001, is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§102(a)
`
`and 102(b).1
`
`2. Welch, G. et al., “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete
`
`Information” (“Welch 1997”) (Ex.1008, Ex.1019), was made publicly available
`
`on August 3, 1997 and is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§102(a) and 102(b).
`
`3. Welch, G., “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete
`
`Information” PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina (“Welch Thesis”)
`
`(Ex.1009, Ex.1020), was made publicly available no later than May 24, 1997 and is
`
`prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§102(a) and 102(b).
`
`
`1
`Based on the claimed priority date of the ’632 Patent, Pre-AIA versions of
`
`§102(a) and §103 apply.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`4.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,615,132 to Horton et al. (“Horton”) (Ex.1010),
`
`filed January 21, 1994 and issued March 25, 1997, is prior art under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. §§102(b) and 102(e).
`
`5.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,592,401 to Kramer (“Kramer”) (Ex.1030), issued
`
`January 7, 1997, is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`6.
`
`Chen, S., et al. “A Mixed-Mode Smart Transducer Interface for
`
`Sensors and Actuators” (“Chen”) (Ex.1024, Ex.1027), published April 1998, is
`
`prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`The above prior art references predate the ’632 Patent, which claims priority
`
`to a provisional application filed on August 9, 2002.2
`
`B. Relief Requested
`Petitioner requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims as unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103. The specific grounds of the challenge are set forth below, and
`
`are supported by the declaration of Dr. Ulrich Neumann (Ex.1005).
`
`Ground
`
`I
`
`II
`
`Claims
`1-9, 11-22, and
`24-29
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejection
`Obvious under §103 in view of Welch 2001 and
`Welch 1997
`
`23
`
`Obvious under §103 in view of Welch 2001,
`Welch 1997, and the Welch Thesis
`
`
`2
`Petitioner reserves the right to challenge the August 9, 2002 priority date or
`
`any evidence of prior invention.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`1-9, 11-24, and
`28-29
`
`Obvious under §103 in view of Horton
`
`25-27
`
`66-68
`
`69
`
`Obvious under §103 in view of Horton and
`Welch 1997
`
`Obvious under §103 in view of Kramer and Chen
`
`Obvious under §103 in view of Kramer, Chen,
`and Welch 2001
`
`III
`
`IV
`
`V
`
`VI
`
`
`
`VI. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE HERE
`A. The ’632 Patent Has Not Been Subject to a Prior Petition
`The ’632 Patent has not been subject to any prior IPR or PGR petitions.
`
`B. Multiple Petitions are Warranted
`Gentex is asserting 53 claims from the ’632 Patent in the Texas Litigation.
`
`See Ex.1012, 3. The Board has recognized that in such circumstances more than one
`
`petition may be necessary. See Trial Practice Guide Update (July 2019) . The current
`
`petition challenges 32 claims. The second petition challenges 23 claims including
`
`four independent claims. Multiple petitions are only needed due to the large number
`
`of challenged claims.
`
`C. The Presented Grounds and Argument Are Dissimilar to the
`Art and Arguments Previously Presented to the Office
`All factors considered by the Board under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) weigh in favor
`
`of institution. Becton, Dickinson, & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586,
`
`Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017); see also Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13,
`
`2020). “[A] reference that ‘was neither applied against the claims nor discussed by
`
`the Examiner’ does not weigh in favor of exercising [] discretion under §325(d).”
`
`Fasteners for Retail, Inc. v. RTC Indus., Inc., IPR2019-00994, Paper 9 at 7-11
`
`(P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2019). None of the art presented herein was applied against the
`
`Challenged Claims or discussed by the Examiner during prosecution (nor were
`
`combinations thereof). Bowtech, Inc. v. MCP IP, LLC, IPR2019-00383, Paper 14 at
`
`5 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2019).
`
`D. Efficiency, Fairness, and the Merits Support the Exercise of the
`Board’s Authority to Grant the Petition
`A “holistic view” of the six Fintiv factors demonstrates that the Board should
`
`not exercise its discretion under §314(a). Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019,
`
`Paper 11 at 6 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). In light of the transfer, it is a
`
`near certainty that a Final Written Decision (“FWD”) in this proceeding will predate
`
`start of trial in N.D.Cal, and the district court may benefit from a FWD in IPR should
`
`the case proceed to trial. Thus, Fintiv Factor 2 weighs heavily in favor of institution.
`
`FACTOR 1: Petitioner has not sought a stay, and has no knowledge regarding
`
`whether the N.D.Cal. court would grant a stay if IPR is instituted. Thus, Factor 1 is
`
`neutral. Microchip Technology Inc. v. Bell Semiconductor, LLC, IPR2021-00148,
`
`Paper 19 at 10 (P.T.A.B. May 14, 2021).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`FACTORS 2 & 4: The Western District of Texas granted Meta’s motion to
`
`transfer the Texas Litigation to the Northern District of California (“N.D.Cal.”), and
`
`the case was transferred and docketed in N.D. Cal. on July 5, 2022. The resulting
`
`California Litigation was assigned to the Hon. Yvonne Rogers, and a Case
`
`Management Conference is scheduled for October 17, 2022. No trial date has been
`
`set. The median time-to-trial for patent/civil actions in N.D.Cal. is at least 30 months
`
`(January 2025). By contrast, the projected statutory deadline for a FWD is 18 months
`
`from filing (January 2024), and this date will not change. Thus, Factor 2 weighs
`
`heavily against exercising discretion to deny institution. Slayback Pharma LLC, v.
`
`Eye Therapies, LLC, IPR2022-00146, Paper 14 at 6 (P.T.A.B May 18, 2022).
`
`Further, because the date of the FWD will predate the district court trial, a Sotera
`
`stipulation should not be needed here. Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) at 18; see also Sand Revolution
`
`II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp.-Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 11-
`
`12 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2020). As detailed herein, Petitioner presents compelling
`
`evidence of unpatentability. Factor 4 is neutral.
`
`FACTOR 3: The California Litigation has only just begun. Thus, the court has
`
`not yet invested time and resources in the parallel proceeding or the parties. Factor 3
`
`weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`FACTOR 5: Petitioner was a defendant in the Texas Litigation and remains a
`
`defendant in the California Litigation. But in view of the other Fintiv factors—which
`
`heavily weigh against the Board’s exercise of §314(a) discretion—the similarity of
`
`the parties is of limited weight here.
`
`FACTOR 6: As set forth below, the merits of the grounds of this Petition are
`
`strong. Factor 6 weighs against the Board exercising its §314(a) discretion. Sand
`
`Revolution, Paper 24 at 13.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`A. Head-Mounted Display in Virtual and Augmented Reality
`Systems
`Head-mounted displays (“HMDs”) are widely used in both virtual reality
`
`(“VR”) and augmented reality (“AR”) applications. In VR, a user is enveloped in a
`
`completely computer generated environment. HMDs provide immersive images to
`
`the user, and the user’s head motion should be closely tracked to accurately reflect
`
`the user’s perspective within the computer-generated environment. In AR
`
`applications, however, computer-generated images are overlaid on real scenes
`
`observed by the user through the HMD. See Ex.1013, Abstract. Thus, in AR,
`
`tracking of the user’s head should be more accurate than for VR in order to minimize
`
`misalignment between the computer-generated image and the real scene observed
`
`by the user. Id.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`Sensors for Tracking an Object in VR and AR
`B.
`As acknowledged in the ’632 Background, tracking systems often use
`
`measurements from sensors to aid in determining a pose (position and orientation)
`
`of an object, such as a person’s head, as it navigates in an environment. See Ex.1001,
`
`1:16-22. Various types of sensors can be used to make these measurements. For
`
`example, the ’632 Background notes that “ultrasound receivers, laser range finders,
`
`cameras, or pattern recognition devices” can be used as sensors in a tracking system.
`
`Ex.1001, 1:64-66. In an “outside-in” tracking system, the sensor is mounted in an
`
`environment and detect targets that are mounted to a tracked object. Ex.1007, 4-5.
`
`In an “inside-out” tracking system, the sensor is mounted to the tracked object and
`
`detects targets that are mounted in the surrounding environment. Id. Both types of
`
`systems are illustrated below, where the tracked object is the user’s head:
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`Id. One known way to improve tracking accuracy is to calibrate the sensors used to
`
`determine the object’s pose. While calibration is often performed off-line under
`
`controlled circumstances, goals such as flexibility, ease of use, and lower cost made
`
`the notion of self-calibration or autocalibration attractive. See Ex.1009 §2.5.3.
`
`C. Using Kalman Filters to Estimate the Position and Location of
`a Tracked Object
`Unlike analog tracking systems, which allow for continuous observations of
`
`a target, digital tracking systems introduce uncertainty because they are limited to
`
`discrete observations of a target. To deal with that uncertainty, it was well known to
`
`use an optimal estimator to predict the state of a tracked target. Ex.1009 §2.1. An
`
`optimal estimator is “a computational algorithm that processes measurements to
`
`deduce a minimum error estimate of the state of a system by utilizing: knowledge of
`
`system and measurement dynamics, assumed statistics of system noises and
`
`measurement errors, and initial condition information.” Id.
`
`One of the best-known optimal estimators is the Kalman filter. A Kalman
`
`filter is an “estimator that combines data from sensors and a motion model in a
`
`computationally-efficient manner. If certain assumptions hold, the Kalman filter
`
`provides estimates that are optimal in the sense of minimizing the expected mean-
`
`square error.” Ex.1013, 80. The Kalman filter “assumes that the signals can be
`
`modeled by a set of variables that capture the state of the system at any time, along
`
`with a process that determines how these state variables change with time in the
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`absence of any inputs.” Id., 78. The Kalman filter then “will take the measurements
`
`and return the optimal estimate for the state variables at any desired time.” Id.
`
`The Kalman filter is inherently discrete because it is not derived from a
`
`continuous model, and thus is well-suited to computer-based systems. Ex.1009 §2.1;
`
`see also Ex.1013, 78, 83.
`
`VIII. THE ’632 PATENT
`The ’632 Patent issued on July 26, 2005, from U.S. Application No.
`
`10/639,242, filed on August 11, 2003, and claims priority to Provisional Application
`
`Nos. 60/402,178 (filed August 9, 2002). The ’632 Background acknowledges that a
`
`POSITA would have known at the time of the alleged invention most limitations in
`
`the Challenged Claims. Ex.1005 ¶32. For instance, the Background states that
`
`“[d]ifferent sensors may have different measurement characteristics that affect the
`
`mapping between the relative pose of a sensor and a target and the measurement
`
`values provided by the sensor. These characteristics can include uncertainty or noise
`
`characteristics of the measurement values.” Ex.1001, 1:31-35.
`
`The Background further acknowledges that Kalman filtering techniques were
`
`known “to incorporate information in sensor measurements to track the position or
`
`orientation of an object, typically also using information about the dynamic
`
`characteristics of the object,” including to estimate sensor calibration parameters.
`
`Id., 1:35-39, 2:12-14.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`IX. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`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. Ex.1005 ¶37.
`
`X. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Claims only need to be construed to the extent necessary to resolve a
`
`controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F. 3d
`
`1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, no terms need construction because the claims
`
`read on the prior art under any construction consistent with Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).3
`
`XI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`A. Overview of Welch Prior Art
`Welch 2001, Welch 1997, and Welch Thesis (collectively, “Welch Prior Art”)
`
`describe an optical tracking system and algorithm developed over several decades at
`
`the University of North Carolina. Welch 2001 describes the “HiBall tracking
`
`system,” a tracker wherein an optical sensing unit (the HiBall) is attached to a person
`
`and interacts with ceiling-mounted LEDs to track the person’s movement. See
`
`
`3 Petitioner does not waive any arguments concerning indefiniteness, alternative
`
`claim scope, or other constructions that may be raised in the co-pending litigation.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`Ex.1007, 5-6. As shown in Figure 6, the HiBall, LEDs, and a computer are connected
`
`to the “Ceiling-HiBall Interface Board (CIB),” which coordinates communication
`
`and synchronization between the computer and the HiBall/LED sensor-tracker
`
`system:
`
`
`
`Ex.1007, 5-6, Fig.6. In this system, the LEDs are flashed one at a time to be seen
`
`and measured by different views of the HiBall sensor. Id., 6. To estimate the position
`
`and orientation of the tracked object (person) using these measurements, “a Kalman-
`
`filter-based prediction-correction approach known as single-constraint-at-a-time
`
`(SCAAT) tracking” is used. Id. (emphasis in original). The SCAAT model calculates
`
`the tracked object’s expected position and orientation, corrects those estimates using
`
`measurement data from the sensor and a target, and recursively predicts and corrects
`
`the position and orientation using one measurement at a time. Id., 12-13. Welch 1997
`
`and Welch Thesis, which are incorporated into Welch 2001 by reference (see
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`Ex.1007, 11), describe the SCAAT tracking method and calculations in greater
`
`detail. See generally Ex.1008; Ex.1009.
`
`B. Overview of Horton
`Horton describes a “three-dimensional position and orientation tracking
`
`system” that tracks a moving object’s six degrees of freedom (e.g., x, y, and z
`
`coordinates and roll, pitch, and yaw) using accelerometers. Ex.1010, Abstract, 2:15-
`
`20. The system includes a tracking processor that gathers position and orientation
`
`information from the accelerometers and/or other sensors and uses this data to
`
`correct and update the position and orientation estimate for the object “using a
`
`feedback or Kalman filter process.” Id., 2:41-44. As explained in Horton, the
`
`Kalman filter (also called a “feedback loop”) “comprises reading tracking
`
`measurements [] (e.g., position, orientation, and/or velocity)” from the tracking
`
`system “and generating [] correction factors” that are used in calculating position
`
`and orientation information for the tracked object. Id., 6:34-42. Horton also
`
`describes how the system is calibrated by using a Kalman filter “to solve for bias
`
`and scaling factors [] for each accelerometer.” Id., 5:64-6:12. This process is
`
`repeated several times. Id., 6:12-14; Fig.3.
`
`C. Overview of Kramer
`Kramer describes position sensing for an object, such as a body part, using
`
`multiple sensing technologies. Ex.1030, Abstract. Kramer notes that “using
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`combinations of sensors, where the deficiency of one may be compensated for by
`
`the proficiency of the other, improved results as to position and/or time of the entity
`
`is obtained.” Id., 3:58-62, 20:23-25. Kramer contemplates combining sensors with
`
`different speeds and accuracies, e.g., “fast” sensors such as accelerometers with
`
`lower reliability combined with “slow” sensors with higher reliability. Id., Abstract,
`
`3:15-20. Such “slow” sensors include position sensors, optical tracking devices,
`
`acoustic sensors, and GPS. Id., 7:36-46.
`
`Kramer’s optical tracking systems use variations of light sources/receivers
`
`mounted on the object to be tracked or at fixed positions. Id., 7:47-59. Id. Kramer
`
`explains that the accelerometer can be used when the optical tracker is suffering from
`
`occlusion such that the position of the object being tracked cannot be uniquely
`
`determined and no position measurement is possible.