`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,922,632
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`“Estimation Subsystem/Module,” “Sensor Subsystem,” And
`“Coupling” ............................................................................................. 1
`
`“Sensor Module” ................................................................................... 3
`
`“Configuration Information” ................................................................. 4
`
`“Enumerating A Set Of Sensing Elements Available To A
`Tracking System” .................................................................................. 5
`
`E.
`
`“Expected Utility Of A Measurement” ................................................. 5
`
`III. ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`A. Ground I................................................................................................. 5
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`8.
`
`Claims 30-32 .............................................................................. 5
`Claim 33 ..................................................................................... 7
`Claims 34-35 .............................................................................. 9
`Claim 36 ..................................................................................... 9
`Claims 44-45 ............................................................................10
`Claims 47-49, 51-53 .................................................................10
`Claim 59 ...................................................................................15
`Claims 60-61 ............................................................................17
`
`Ground II .............................................................................................17
`
`Ground III ............................................................................................17
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D. Ground IV ............................................................................................18
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`
`Claims 30-31 ............................................................................18
`Claim 32 ...................................................................................21
`Claim 33 ...................................................................................22
`Claim 47 ...................................................................................24
`Claims 50-53 ............................................................................29
`Claims 59-61 ............................................................................30
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Ground V .............................................................................................30
`
`Ground VI ............................................................................................30
`
`IV. OBJECTIVE INDICIA ..................................................................................30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ex parte Amrita Mathuriya et al.,
`Appeal 2022-003116, 2023 WL 2424996 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2023) .................... 1
`
`Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 3
`
`Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Promptu Sys. Corp.,
`IPR2018-00345, Paper 59 (P.T.A.B. June 28, 2019) ........................................... 3
`
`CUPP Computing AS v. Trend Micro Inc.,
`53 F.4th 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................. 2
`
`General Elec. Co. v. ITC,
`685 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 2
`
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................ 30
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. ITC,
`566 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 2
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005), abrogated in part on other
`grounds ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`Skedco, Inc. v. Strategic Operations, Inc.,
`685 F. App’x 956 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 3
`
`Ex parte Vembu,
`No. 2020-005681, 2021 WL 5756111 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2021) .......................... 3
`
`Wi-LAN Inc. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp.,
`992 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................ 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`PETITIONERS’ UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Previously
`Filed
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`1002
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`1004
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`1005 Declaration of Dr. Ulrich Neumann in Support of Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`1006 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Ulrich Neumann
`
`1007 Welch, G. et al., “High-Performance Wide-Area
`Optical Tracking” (2001)
`
`1008 Welch, G. et al., “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with
`Incomplete Information” (1997)
`
`1009 Welch G. “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with
`Incomplete Information” PhD Thesis, University of
`North Carolina (1996)
`
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 5,615,132
`
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 5,307,289
`
`1012 Gentex’s Amended Preliminary Infringement
`Contentions and corresponding Exhibits 4 and 5 (’632
`and ’253 infringement charts)
`
`1013 Azuma, R. “Predictive Tracking for Augmented
`Reality” PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina
`(1995)
`
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Previously
`Filed
`
`1014 You, S. and Neumann, U. “Orientation Tracking for
`Outdoor Augmented Reality Registration.” (1999)
`
`1015 Carlson, Neal A. and Berarducci, Michael P.
`“Federated Kalman Filter Simulation Results.”
`Navigation. Vol. 41, Issue 3 at 297-322. (Fall 1994)
`
`1016 Reitmayr, Gerhard and Schmalstieg. “An Open
`Software Architecture for Virtual Reality Interaction”
`VRST ’01 (November 2001)
`
`1017 Barfield, W. “Fundamentals of Wearable Computers
`and Augmented Reality” (2001)
`
`1018 Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Welch, G.
`et al., “High-Performance Wide-Area Optical
`Tracking” (2001)
`
`1019 Declaration of Scott Delman regarding Welch, G. et al.,
`“SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete
`Information” (1997)
`
`1020 Declaration of Dr. James L. Mullins regarding Welch
`G. “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete
`Information” PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina
`(1996)
`
`1021 Declaration of Scott Delman regarding Reitmayr,
`Gerhard and Schmalstieg. “An Open Software
`Architecture for Virtual Reality Interaction” VRST ’01
`(November 2001)
`
`1022 U.S. Patent No. 5,807,284
`
`1023 U.S. Patent No. 5,991,085
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Previously
`Filed
`
`1026
`
`1024 Chen, Steven C. and Lee, Kang. “A mixed-mode smart
`transducer interface for sensors and actuators”, Sound
`& Vibration, 32(4), 24-27 (April 1998)
`
`1025 Hoff, William and Vincent, Tyrone. “Analysis of Head
`Pose Accuracy in Augmented Reality”, IEEE
`Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics,
`Vol. 6, Issue 4, October – December 2000.
`
`Zetu, Dan et al., “Extended-Range Hybrid Tracker and
`Applications
`to Motion and Camera Tracking in Manufacturing
`Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and
`Automation, Vol. 16, Issue 3, June 2000
`
`1027 Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Chen,
`Steven C. and Lee, Kang. “A mixed-mode smart
`transducer interface for sensors and actuators.” Sound
`& Vibration, 32(4), 24-27 (April 1998)
`
`1028 Declaration of Gordon MacPherson regarding Hoff,
`William and Vincent, Tyrone. “Analysis of Head Pose
`Accuracy in Augmented Reality”, IEEE Transactions
`on Visualization and Computer Graphics, Vol. 6, Issue
`4, October – December 2000.
`
`1029 Declaration of Gordon MacPherson regarding Zetu,
`Dan et al., “Extended-Range Hybrid Tracker and
`Applications
`to Motion and Camera Tracking in Manufacturing
`Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and
`Automation, Vol. 16, Issue 3, June 2000
`
`1030 U.S. Patent No. 5,592,401
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Previously
`Filed
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1031 Case Management and Pretrial Order, Dkt. 116, Gentex
`Corporation et al. v Meta Platforms, Inc. et al.
`(October 18, 2022)
`1032 Declaration of Akshay S. Deoras in Support of
`Unopposed Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on Behalf
`of Petitioner
`1033 Deposition Transcript of Yohan Baillot, dated
`September 13, 2023
`Excerpts from Random House Webster’s Unabridged
`Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (2001)
`Excerpts from The Computer Engineering Handbook
`(2001)
`1036 Compare Benefits of CPUs, GPUs, and FPGAs for
`Different oneAPI Compute Workloads
`Plaintiffs’ Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions Pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-1,
`Gentex Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 22-cv-3892-
`YGR (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2022)
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Ulrich Neumann in
`Support of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,922,632 and 7,725,253
`
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner (“PO”) contends that the “central innovation” of the ’632 patent
`
`is a separation between a tracking system’s sensors and the tracking system’s
`
`calculation module. See Paper 30 (Patent Owner’s Response, “POR”), 15. But that
`
`requirement is nowhere to be found in the independent claims. Instead, the claims
`
`recite the setup of elementary tracking systems taught in the prior art. PO is therefore
`
`unable to legitimately dispute that the prior art teaches every claim element, and
`
`instead spends most of its POR alleging supposed technical foot-faults in how the
`
`Petition mapped the prior art teachings to the claims. But as explained below, PO’s
`
`arguments lack merit.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`“Estimation Subsystem/Module,” “Sensor Subsystem,” And
`“Coupling”
`
`The dispute regarding these terms is whether the two “subsystems” can be
`
`partially overlapping as Petitioner contends, or if the two subsystems cannot overlap
`
`at all as PO contends. See POR, 11-12. This disputed construction is not relevant
`
`to this IPR (although it is relevant to IPR2022-01304 also regarding the ’632 patent).
`
`The claim language does not preclude “subsystem” overlap. See Ex parte
`
`Amrita Mathuriya et al., Appeal 2022-003116, 2023 WL 2424996, at *5 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Mar. 7, 2023); NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1309-11 (Fed.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`Cir. 2005), abrogated in part on other grounds. PO therefore relies on three alleged
`
`inferences from the claim language, but all three inferences are unfounded.
`
`First, PO argues that the claims recite the two “subsystems” separately, but
`
`that is insufficient to impose a requirement that they are “entirely separate and
`
`distinct.” See Linear Tech. Corp. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 1049, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 2009)1;
`
`CUPP Computing AS v. Trend Micro Inc., 53 F.4th 1376, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
`
`Second, PO argues that the claimed subsystems are “coupl[ed]” to one another
`
`for communication and therefore must be wholly separate, but the law does not
`
`support that inference either. See General Elec. Co. v. ITC, 685 F.3d 1034, 1045
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012). Further, PO and its expert admitted that a “POSITA would have
`
`understood that the word ‘coupling’ here takes its ordinary English meaning of
`
`‘connecting.’” See POR, 13.2
`
`And third, PO argues that the claims require one subsystem to “provid[e]”
`
`information that is “receiv[ed]” or “accept[ed]” by the other subsystem and therefore
`
`must be wholly separate, but that language does not require total separation because
`
`data can be provided by a non-overlapping portion of one subsystem and
`
`
`1 All emphasis added unless stated otherwise.
`
`2 The specification does not redefine “coupled” as in Wi-LAN Inc. v. Sharp Elecs.
`
`Corp., 992 F.3d 1366, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`received/accepted by the non-overlapping portion of the other subsystem, as PO’s
`
`expert admitted. See EX1033, 198:6-18; Skedco, Inc. v. Strategic Operations, Inc.,
`
`685 F. App’x 956, 959 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Neither Becton, Comcast, nor Vembu support PO’s narrow construction,
`
`because in those cases the dispute was whether a single, exact “same structure” could
`
`simultaneously satisfy two recited elements. See Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco
`
`Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Comcast Cable
`
`Commc’ns, LLC v. Promptu Sys. Corp., IPR2018-00345, Paper 59 at 25 (P.T.A.B.
`
`June 28, 2019); Ex parte Vembu, No. 2020-005681, 2021 WL 5756111, at *4
`
`(P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2021). That is not the situation here.
`
`The specification supports Petitioner’s construction because it teaches that
`
`only portions of the “sensor subsystem” need be separable to achieve the alleged
`
`innovation, not that the entire “sensor subsystem” need be separable. See EX1001,
`
`2:21-24, Abstract.
`
`PO’s expert also admitted that PO’s constructions are not the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning. EX1033, 192:12-194:13, 195:11-16.
`
`B.
`
`“Sensor Module”
`
`In this proceeding, Petitioner does not dispute PO’s construction.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`C.
`
`“Configuration Information”
`
`PO proposes an unduly narrow construction: “data describing characteristics
`
`or attributes of a sensor or set of sensors.” The plain and ordinary meaning is exactly
`
`what it says: data/information used for configuration.
`
`The POR lacks evidence supporting PO’s construction.3 See POR, 17-30.
`
`PO’s expert admitted that he did not know where the specific wording for PO’s
`
`construction was derived from nor whether the construction was “standard or not.”
`
`See EX1033, 203:5-205:8.
`
`PO’s construction is also flawed for at least the following two reasons. First,
`
`PO’s construction inappropriately requires that all “configuration data” describe “a
`
`sensor or set of sensors,” such that no “configuration data” could relate to anything
`
`other than a sensor, which is inconsistent with the specification. See EX1001, 36:16-
`
`20. And second, PO’s construction captures data that merely “describ[es]”
`
`something even if that data is never used to configure anything. Logically, data that
`
`is not used to configure cannot be “configuration data” no matter what it
`
`“describe[es].”
`
`
`3 PO submitted three dictionary definitions of “configuration,” none of which
`
`support its construction. See EX2012, 3, EX2013, 3, EX2014, 3.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`D.
`
`“Enumerating A Set Of Sensing Elements Available To A
`Tracking System”
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of “enumerating” requires “determining the
`
`number of” sensing elements, which can be performed by, but is not so narrow as to
`
`require, “specifying or listing each” sensing element, as PO’s construction demands.
`
`PO’s dictionaries support Petitioner’s construction. See EX2015, 3; EX2016, 3;
`
`EX10344, 3. PO’s citations to the specification are equally consistent with
`
`Petitioner’s construction, because in the process of “specifying or listing” the sensors
`
`as allegedly discussed in PO’s citations, the system necessarily also “determines the
`
`number of” such sensors. See POR, 23-24.
`
`E.
`
`“Expected Utility Of A Measurement”
`
`The proper construction of “utility” is “usefulness,” not “information gain.”
`
`See EX1003, 19:9-12 (“utility (or usefulness)”); EX1034, 3.
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Ground I
`
`1.
`
`Claims 30-32
`
`Contrary to PO’s contention, there is no overlap in the “measurement sensor”
`
`and the “sensor module,” although they are both part of the HiBall unit, as shown in
`
`this annotated version of Welch-2001’s Figure 9:
`
`
`4 This is PO’s dictionary submitted as Exhibit 2014.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`
`
`See Petition, 19; EX1007, Figure 9.
`
`PO also argues that the identified “sensor module” does not “receive
`
`information related to an expected sensor measurement” as required by the claim,
`
`but PO’s argument is premised on a misunderstanding of the Petition. See POR, 26-
`
`27. As background, Welch 2001 teaches:
`
`At each estimation cycle, the next of the 26 possible view
`is chosen randomly. Four points … associated with that
`[1-in-26] view are projected into the world using the 3 X
`4 viewing matrix for that [1-in-26] view, along with the
`current estimates of the HiBall pose. This projection …
`results in four rays extending from the sensor into the
`world. The intersection of these rays and the approximate
`plane of the ceiling determines a 2-D bounding box on the
`ceiling, within which are the candidate LEDs for the
`current [1-in-26] view.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`EX1007, 13. In other words, Welch 2001 selects LEDs by choosing 1 of 26 possible
`
`view windows, the boundaries of which are determined based on the estimated
`
`position and orientation of the HiBall sensor. The information sent to trigger a
`
`particular LED to flash is therefore “related to an expected sensor measurement”
`
`because the selection of a particular LED is based on the predicted pose of the HiBall
`
`sensor, as PO’s expert admitted. See EX1007, 6 (“[T]he selection of LEDs to flash
`
`is tailored to the views of the active HiBall units.”); EX1033, 69:1-5, 14:5-16, 15:14-
`
`16:1; Petition, 19-20; EX2009, 81:7-82:6.
`
` PO does not present any argument unique to Claim 31. PO’s argument
`
`related to Claim 32 effectively reiterates its flawed argument related to Claim 30.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 33
`
`a.
`
`“Enumerating A Set Of Sensing Elements”
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`Welch-2001’s Figure 6 embodiment shown above as well as the associated
`
`description of the two HiBall units therein determines the number of sensing
`
`elements available to the tracking system in that embodiment. See EX1007, 6-7 and
`
`Fig. 6.
`
`Welch-2001 also teaches that the system can accommodate up to four HiBall
`
`units. See EX1007, 9. As PO’s expert admitted, “something would have to specify”
`
`to the PC that there are four HiBall units in that alternative embodiment. See
`
`EX1033, 24:22-25:20. The only way for “each source or sensor to be calibrated” as
`
`taught by Welch-1997 would be to “specify” to the system “each” sensor available
`
`to the tracking system that must be calibrated. See EX1038 ¶¶11-16; EX1008 §§
`
`3.2, 3.2.1. At a minimum, it would have been obvious to specify or list the sensing
`
`elements available to the combination. See EX1033, 29:7-30:2, 70:8-11, 71:13-20,
`
`72:4-14; EX1007, 9; EX1008 § 3.2; EX1038 ¶¶11-18.
`
`b.
`
`“Providing Parameters … To The Tracking System”
`
`Welch-2001’s “offline” calibration procedure is based on mounting the setup
`
`at a “fixed location” and using that known information to create calibration tables,
`
`and Welch-2001’s “online” calibration is based on a “target signal strength factor”
`
`that the designers “store” in the tracking system. See Petition, 23; EX1007, 10.
`
`These starting calibration techniques are based on “parameters” provided by Welch-
`
`2001 to the tracking system, and are not wholly internally calculated.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`c.
`
`“Sequence Of Candidates … Based On An Expected
`Utility Of A Measurement”
`
`The set of “every thirteenth LED in a sequence” and the associated “central
`
`LEPD [later-effect photo-diode optical sensor units]” is a sequence of candidates of
`
`pairs of sensing elements. See EX1007, 13-14; EX1033, 49:6-8. The every-
`
`thirteenth-LED sequence is selected first because it provides a higher information
`
`gain and is more useful (thus satisfying either party’s construction of “utility”) than
`
`the subsequent “more-selective measurements” candidates of pairs of sensing
`
`elements (which is a subsequent “sequence of candidates”) that are only “used to
`
`refine” (i.e., make smaller improvements to) the tracking acquisition estimate. See
`
`EX1007, 13-14; EX1033, 50:8-51:22.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 34-35
`
`Welch-2001’s approach to selecting the LED/HiBall pair based on a least-
`
`recently-used heuristic achieves a highest expected usefulness because it best
`
`balances both the highest expected information gain with simplicity, which accounts
`
`for real-world constraints on processing power and associated latency. See EX1033,
`
`52:1-53:9, 55:6-16, 56:8-13.
`
`PO presents no argument unique to Claim 35.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 36
`
`Welch-2001’s “system can evolve [to using] natural features,” and such
`
`evolution was well within the ordinary skill in the art. See EX1003, 1:58-59;
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`EX1005 ¶76. The modified system would emit light to scatter off the natural feature
`
`target, just like a camera flash at night, which was within the level of ordinary skill.
`
`See EX1003, 1:58-59; EX1005 ¶76; EX1033, 61:5-66:2.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 44-45
`
`Welch-2001’s system admittedly “knows which sensing element is [a] sensor
`
`or [a] target” (POR, 35), so something must necessarily have “determine[ed]”
`
`whether the sensing element is the sensor or the target. PO’s argument to the
`
`contrary is premised on an unproposed and unsupported construction of
`
`“determination” as requiring an active decision between two options. See EX1033,
`
`42:7-43:5, 48:5-15. At a minimum, it would at least have been obvious to make
`
`such a determination in order to ensure that calibration parameters for sensors are
`
`assigned to sensors, not to targets.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 47-49, 51-53
`
`PO presents no argument unique to dependent Claims 48-49 or 51-53, and
`
`challenges only three elements in independent Claim 47, discussed in turn below.
`
`a.
`
`Elements 47[c][1]: “Providing Configuration
`Information From Each Of The Sensor Modules To The
`Estimation Module”
`
`The prior art teaches providing “configuration information” under either
`
`party’s construction of “configuration information.”
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`i.
`
`Petitioner’s Construction: “Information That Is
`Used For Configuration”
`
`One type of “configuration information” identified by the Petition is the
`
`measurement data generated during Welch-2001’s “offline calibration procedure”
`
`that is used to create calibration tables. See Petition, 33-34; EX1007, 9-10. Another
`
`type of “configuration data” identified by the Petition is the measurement data
`
`generated during Welch-2001’s “online” calibration procedure that is used to
`
`estimate measurement noise and also to configure the Kalman filter. See Petition,
`
`33-34; EX1007, 10. PO’s expert admitted that Welch-2001’s Kalman filter, which
`
`is part of the estimation subsystem, is configured according to this data. See
`
`EX1033, 10:12-11:10, 5:11-6:5, 7:6-11. PO’s contention that these data sets cannot
`
`be “configuration
`
`information” because
`
`they are measurements used for
`
`configuration purposes is irrelevant under the proper construction of the term.
`
`ii.
`
`PO’s Construction: “Data Describing
`Characteristics Or Attributes Of A Sensor Or Set
`Of Sensors”
`
`Welch-2001’s “offline” and “online” calibration procedures identified by the
`
`Petition constitute “configuration data” under PO’s claim construction for two
`
`reasons.
`
`First, PO’s construction does not expressly exclude measurement data, and
`
`the data identified by the Petition satisfies the literal requirements of PO’s
`
`construction, which only requires that the data “describ[es] characteristics or
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`attributes of a sensor or a set of sensors.” As background, the ’632 patent teaches
`
`that a sensor’s “characteristic or attribute” includes a sensor’s position and
`
`orientation. See EX1001, 30:29-31. Given this broad understanding of what
`
`constitutes a sensor’s “characteristic or attribute,” the amount of light impinging on
`
`different locations of the HiBall unit—which is what Welch-2001 measures during
`
`its “offline” and “online” calibration procedures and is the data identified by the
`
`Petition—would “describe[e]” a sensor’s pose (which, again, is a “characteristic or
`
`attribute” of the sensor) and thus satisfy PO’s construction. Welch-2001’s data cited
`
`by the Petition may be measurement data, but it is also the claimed “configuration
`
`data” under PO’s construction which does not expressly exclude measurement data.
`
`Second, Welch-2001’s data satisfies PO’s construction by virtue of the type
`
`of data that is delivered, separate from the value of the measurements themselves—
`
`essentially, the metadata of the measurements. As PO’s expert admitted, a POSITA
`
`would recognize that Welch-2001’s Kalman filter for tracking calculations must be
`
`configured properly to accept the type of data produced by the HiBall unit that feeds
`
`into it. See EX1033, 5:11-6:5, 7:6-11, 10:12-11:10. Because Welch-2001’s HiBall
`
`unit includes an LEPD optical sensor, the type of data it generates is “the two-
`
`dimensional coordinates of the centroid of the ray [of light] that the illuminated LED
`
`produces on the HiBall’s detector,” as well as the light intensity at that point. See
`
`EX2007 ¶90; EX1033, 9:4-6. Thus, Welch-2001’s Kalman filter would have been
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`configured based on its receipt of this type of data (i.e., two values representing X-
`
`Y coordinates and one value representing light intensity), which is metadata that is
`
`not a measurement of anything and is independent of any measurement values taken.
`
`This type of data (i.e., data in the format of two values representing X-Y coordinates
`
`and one value representing light intensity) describes a characteristic of a sensor,
`
`specifically that the sensor in an LEPD optical sensor, as required by PO’s
`
`construction.
`
`b.
`
`Element 47[d][1]: “Repeatedly Passing Data Based On
`The Estimates Of The Tracking Parameters From The
`Estimation Module To One Or More Of The Sensor
`Modules”
`
`As a preliminary matter, PO is incorrect that the Petition’s identification of
`
`the CIB as part of the claimed “sensor modules” in this element 47[d][1] is
`
`inconsistent with the Petition’s identification of the claimed “sensor modules” in
`
`element 47[b] that allegedly did not include the CIB. See POR, 38. In discussing
`
`element 47[b], the Petition stated: “the CIB couples LED targets and HiBall
`
`sensors (sensor modules) with a PC (the claimed ‘estimation module’).” Petition,
`
`32. Therefore, in the context of all elements of Claim 47, the CIB is consistently
`
`part of the claimed “sensor modules.” Moreover, PO does not argue that the alleged
`
`inconsistency affects the Petition’s analysis of any of the elements.
`
`PO devotes nearly two pages to arguing about whether an estimate of the
`
`tracking parameters would be passed to the CIB and on to the LED (which are part
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`of the claimed sensor modules), but all of PO’s argument is beside the point. Claim
`
`47[d][1] only requires passing data “based on the estimates of the tracking
`
`parameters”—it does not require passing the actual estimates of the tracking
`
`parameters. Accordingly, the Petition’s identification of data that “determine[s]
`
`which LED to select” (Petition, 35) being passed from the estimation module to the
`
`LED portion of the sensor modules is sufficient to satisfy this element, because that
`
`passed data is “based on” the estimate of the tracking parameters. As discussed in
`
`the context of Claim 30 above, the LED triggering data is “based on” the estimate
`
`of the tracking parameters, because Welch 2001-teaches that the selected LED must
`
`be within the set of LEDs that are expected to be viewable by the HiBall in its
`
`currently estimated position and orientation (i.e., the selected LED must be based on
`
`the estimates of the tracking of the HiBall). See Claim 30 (supra); EX1007, 6, 13;
`
`EX1033, 69:1-5, 14:5-16, 15:14-16:1.
`
`c.
`
`Element 47[d][2]: “Receiving From Said One Or More
`Sensor Modules At The Estimation Module Data Based
`On Measurements Obtained From The Associated
`Sensors, And The Data Passed To The Sensor Modules”
`
`PO argues that the Petition failed to identify receipt by the estimation module
`
`of data that is based on both (i) the measurement data from the sensors and (ii) the
`
`data passed to the sensor modules. See POR, 40. PO does not dispute that the data
`
`identified by the Petition as received by the estimation module is based on (i) the
`
`measurement data from the sensors, but PO contends that the Petition “simply
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`ignores the second requirement” (i.e., contends that Petition ignores that the data
`
`must also be based on the data passed to the sensor modules). See id. This is
`
`incorrect. The “data passed to the sensor modules” identified by the Petition
`
`includes the LED triggering data discussed in the immediately preceding section,
`
`and no sensor measurement is taken without such triggering data. Thus, the
`
`Petition’s theory for why the data received at the estimation module is based on
`
`requirement (i) (i.e., the theory for why the data received at the estimation module
`
`is based on measurements obtained from sensors) necessarily implies that the data
`
`received at the estimation module is also based on requirement (ii), because there is
`
`no measurement data (i) without LED triggering data (ii).
`
`7.
`
`Claim 59
`
`PO first argues that the Petition’s treatment of Claims 47 and 59 are
`
`inconsistent because, according to PO, the Petition identifies two different types of
`
`“configuration information” for the two different claims. Even if that were true (and
`
`it is not), Claim 59’s dependency on Claim 47 does not require the uniformity that
`
`PO demands. Claim 59 only requires that the step of “providing configuration
`
`information … include” an additional sub-step of “providing information
`
`characterizing a type of a sensor.” PO’s allegation of an inconsistency is therefore
`
`irrelevant.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01305
`
`The Petition identifies the “measurement vector and measurement function []
`
`defined for each sensor type” as the claimed “information characterizing a type of a
`
`sensor associated with a sensor module.” See Petition, 39. As discussed above in
`
`the context of Claim 47, Welch-2001’s Kalman filter is configured in accordance
`
`with such a measurement vector in order to account specifically for the type of data
`
`produced by the HiBall’s LEPD sensor. See Claim 47 (supra). This information
`
`characterizes a type of a sensor associated with a sensor module because it describes
`
`characteristics of the HiBall sensor module, namely that the HiBall uses LEPD
`
`optical sensors that measure two-dimensional coordinates of the centroid of a ray
`
`and light intensity.5 T