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
`__________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY
`
`
`November 3, 2023
`
`
`
`
`

`

`III.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
`LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................. iv
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 2
`Estimation/Sensor Subsystems .............................................................. 2
`
`Sensor Module ....................................................................................... 4
`
`Configuration Data/Information ............................................................ 4
`
`Enumerating .......................................................................................... 7
`
`Expected Utility ..................................................................................... 7
`
`PETITIONER FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE OBVIOUSNESS .................... 8
` Ground I ................................................................................................ 8
`1.
`Claim 30 ...................................................................................... 8
`2.
`Claim 32 .................................................................................... 10
`3.
`Claim 33 .................................................................................... 10
`4.
`Claim 34 .................................................................................... 12
`5.
`Claim 36 .................................................................................... 13
`6.
`Claim 44 .................................................................................... 13
`7.
`Claim 47 .................................................................................... 14
`8.
`Claim 48 .................................................................................... 17
`9.
`Claim 59 .................................................................................... 17
`10. Claim 60 .................................................................................... 17
`Ground III ............................................................................................ 18
`Ground IV ............................................................................................ 19
`1.
`Claim 30 .................................................................................... 19
`2.
`Claim 32 .................................................................................... 21
`3.
`Claim 33 .................................................................................... 21
`4.
`Claim 47 .................................................................................... 23
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`Claim 50 .................................................................................... 26
`5.
`Claim 59 .................................................................................... 27
`6.
` Ground V ............................................................................................. 28
`1.
`Claim 34 .................................................................................... 28
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 1
`Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC,
`938 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 17
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Tech. LLC,
`IPR2021-01445 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2023) .............................................................. 1
`Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 18
`Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc.,
`66 F.4th 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ............................................................................. 4
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`LIST 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 (Fall 1994)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`
`Exhibit
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`Title
`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.
`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
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`
`Exhibit
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`1031
`
`1032
`
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`Title
`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) (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
`Case Management and Pretrial Order, Gentex Corp. v. Meta
`Platforms, Inc., No. 5:22-cv-03892-YGR (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18,
`2022), ECF No. 116
`Declaration of Akshay S. Deoras in Support of Unopposed
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.10(c)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Yohan Baillot (Sept. 13,
`2023)
`Enumerate, Random House Webster’s Unabridged
`Dictionary (2d ed. 2001)
`Oklobdzija, Vojin G., “The Computer Engineering
`Handbook” (2002)
`Compare Benefits of CPUs, GPUs, and FPGAs for Different
`oneAPI Compute Workloads, Intel
`Plaintiffs’ Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`Contentions Pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-1, Gentex Corp. v.
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1038
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`2009
`
`2010
`
`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`
`Title
`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
`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.
`Gentex Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 5:22-cv-03892-
`YGR (N.D. Cal.), Letter from Laura Ashley Harris to Andrew
`Borrasso (Feb. 3, 2023)
`Gentex Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 5:22-cv-03892-
`YGR (N.D. Cal.), Excerpts of Invalidity Contentions of Meta
`Platforms, Inc. (Dec. 5, 2022)
`Declaration of Adam D. Harber in Support of Unopposed
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.10(c)
`Declaration of Melissa B. Collins in Support of Unopposed
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.10(c)
`Declaration of Yohan Baillot in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Responses to Petitions for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`Nos. 6,922,632 and 7,725,253 (June 4, 2023)
`Curriculum Vitae of Yohan Baillot
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Ulrich Neumann (June 1,
`2023)
`Excerpt of Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Ulrich
`Neumann (May 23, 2023)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`
`Exhibit
`2011
`2012
`
`2013
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`2017
`2018
`
`2019
`(not filed)
`
`2020
`(not filed)
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`(not filed)
`2024
`(not filed)
`2025
`
`Title
`Couple, American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed. 2000)
`Configure, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th
`ed. 1999)
`Configure, American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed. 2000)
`Configure, Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary
`(2d ed. 2001)
`Enumerate, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th
`ed. 1999)
`Enumerate, American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed. 2000)
`IEEE 1451.4-2004, IEEE SA (last visited June 8, 2023)
`Inertial Motion-Tracking Technology for Virtual 3-D, NASA
`Spinoff (originally published in 2005)
`Declaration of Yohan Baillot in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Responses to Petitions for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent Nos. 6,922,632 and 7,725,253 with attachment (July
`7, 2023)
`Declaration of Glen Parker (June 29, 2023)
`
`Couple, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.
`1999)
`Couple, Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary
`(2d ed. 2001)
`Enumerate, Random House Webster’s Unabridged
`Dictionary (2d ed. 2001)
`Enumerate, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th
`ed. 1999)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Ulrich Neumann
`(October 20, 2023)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`
`Much of Petitioner’s Reply bears little resemblance to the arguments put forth
`
`in the Petition. After Patent Owner and the Board pointed out numerous dispositive
`
`flaws, Petitioner effectively concedes it did not carry its burden, pivoting time and
`
`again to arguments not in the Petition. These new arguments point to different data
`
`or parts of a reference system, rely on previously-uncited portions of the references,
`
`lack expert support, or some combination of all three. Even if they had merit, this
`
`dooms Petitioner’s new positions; the Board must disregard new arguments raised
`
`in reply. See, e.g., Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367-
`
`68 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Tech. LLC, IPR2021-01445,
`
`Paper 62 at 28-29 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2023); 37 C.F.R. § 42.23.
`
`If considered, these new arguments fare no better in undermining the
`
`challenged claims. Petitioner would have the Board believe that the ’632 patent
`
`covers simply using sensors with a tracking component. Reply 1. But the patent
`
`acknowledges such systems existed in the prior art, e.g., Ex.1001, 1:16-21, and
`
`builds on them by proposing a new and particular approach to system architecture
`
`that enables tracking using different types and numbers of sensing elements, e.g.,
`
`id., 2:21-34, 11:16-22, 12:60-63, 13:32-46, 19:1-6, 19:14-25.
`
`Welch’s HiBall and Horton’s accelerometer systems did not render obvious
`
`the challenged claims because they were designed as integrated systems working
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`with particular sensors. A sensing subpart of the system has no need to (and thus
`
`
`
`does not) tell a tracking subpart of the system what sensors are available, or provide
`
`configuration data, or receive data back from the tracker, because the overall system
`
`already is configured by the system designer to operate with pre-determined sensors.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
` Estimation/Sensor Subsystems
`
`The dispute over this construction is whether the estimation and sensor
`
`subsystems claimed and described in the ’632 patent can overlap, as Petitioner
`
`contends. As Patent Owner and its expert explained, POR 11-16; Ex.2007 ¶¶36-48,
`
`they cannot.
`
`Petitioner contends that this construction is not relevant to this specific
`
`proceeding. Reply 1. That is because Petitioner has abandoned the arguments it
`
`made in Ground IV of the Petition that relied upon the overlap between two subparts
`
`of Horton’s system to provide the claimed “interfaces” or “coupling,” e.g., Petition
`
`49-50, 52, 61-62, in favor of new arguments. A proper construction underscores
`
`why Petitioner’s original arguments do not succeed.1
`
`
`1 The claims challenged in this IPR involve a “sensor module,” which Petitioner does
`
`not dispute is “a component or part of a sensor subsystem.” POR 16-17, Reply 3.
`
`Accordingly, it also cannot overlap with an estimation subsystem or module.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`The patent describes an inventive system “architecture” that “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, 2:24-
`
`28. This is achieved through a system set-up involving “separation” of sensor and
`
`updating components. Id., 22:38-50; Ex.2007 ¶44. The two subsystems are
`
`connected to each other through a “coupling” step, e.g., id., 2:35-37, which indicates
`
`that they are not already overlapping or intertwined. POR 15-16; Ex.2007 ¶42.2
`
`Petitioner ignores the terms’ context within the patent, mentioning the
`
`specification only once to argue that it “teaches that only portions of the ‘sensor
`
`subsystem’ need to be separable.” Reply 3. But the patent teaches that the
`
`“components associated with particular sensors are decoupled from a tracking
`
`component,” not that only “some components” or “a portion of those components”
`
`are decoupled or separate. Ex.1001, 2:21-24, Abstract. The patent never teaches
`
`partial separation of the claimed functionalities, nor overlapping components.
`
`Petitioner does not point to any evidence suggesting such overlap would be possible
`
`nor explain how it would enable the functionality described by the patent as its
`
`
`2 None of Petitioner’s cited cases involve a method step of “coupling,” and the
`
`majority addressed whether physical separation was required, which is not at issue.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`purpose. Ex.2007 ¶¶45-46; Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc., 66 F.4th 1317,
`
`
`
`1326 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
`
`Petitioner also provides no expert evidence disputing Patent Owner’s expert’s
`
`opinion that the POSITA would have understood that the two subsystems do not
`
`allow for overlap of the claimed functionalities. Ex.2007 ¶¶39-46; see id. ¶39.
`
`Indeed, Petitioner’s expert agreed: in the context of the patents, the subsystems are
`
`“two separate things.” Ex.2009, 43:5-8.3
`
`
`
`Sensor Module
`
`Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Reply 3.
`
` Configuration Data/Information
`
`The relevant question for claim construction is how the POSITA would have
`
`understood the claim term in the context of the patent, not “where the specific
`
`wording” came from or whether it is “standard.” Id., 4. The central dispute for the
`
`term “configuration data” or “configuration information” is whether the POSITA
`
`
`3 Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s expert admitted that its “constructions are
`
`not the plain and ordinary meaning,” Reply 3, but Mr. Baillot’s general
`
`understanding is consistent with Patent Owner’s constructions. Ex.1033, 192:12-
`
`196:11. Mr. Baillot further explained that the patent “refin[es]” that understanding
`
`to explain how the systems function within the patent. Id., 196:3-11.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`would have understood it to include the raw measurements on which Petitioner
`
`
`
`relies. Petitioner’s proposed construction does not shed any light on that issue, and
`
`at best begs the question whether the asserted raw measurements are “used for”
`
`configuration in the context of the patent.
`
`The POSITA reading the term in light of the claims and the specification
`
`would have understood that raw sensor measurements are not “configuration data,”
`
`nor are they “used for configuration” in Petitioner’s references. The specification
`
`discusses at length the types of information used in the configuration process, and
`
`they are not raw sensor measurements. Ex.2007 ¶¶54-61. Rather, data describing
`
`characteristics or attributes of a sensor or set of sensors are used to configure, as
`
`reflected in Patent Owner’s construction. Id.; see POR 17-20.
`
`Petitioner does not provide any examples of raw sensor measurements that are
`
`themselves directly used for configuration. The POSITA would have understood
`
`that sensor measurements of the type on which Petitioner relies may be processed in
`
`order to compute or estimate certain sensor parameters or characteristics that can
`
`then be used for configuration purposes, such as noise or uncertainty. There, the
`
`processed outputs are the configuration data, not the raw measurement inputs.
`
`Ex.2007 ¶58.
`
`This distinction is important to the modular system architecture described in
`
`the patent. The patent explains how the sensing part of the system provides
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`information about its sensors so that the estimation part of the system can be
`
`
`
`arranged to use data the sensors provide. If the sensing part provides only raw
`
`measurements, and the estimation part of the system must process that data into
`
`something different before any configuration can take place (as Petitioner proposes),
`
`then the estimation part must already be designed to process that particular sensor
`
`data. Any change to the sensors would need to be accompanied by a change to the
`
`estimation component’s processing as well, which defeats the ability to update or
`
`change one part of the system without the other. See Ex.1001, 2:25-34, 16:38-44,
`
`17:29-39.
`
`Petitioner fails to offer any expert evidence, and its unsupported criticisms of
`
`Patent Owner’s construction (Reply 4) fall flat. First, in the context of the patents,
`
`configuration data is used to describe sensing elements. Petitioner’s one example
`
`that it contends do not refer to sensors, Reply 4 (citing Ex.1001, 36:16-20) does, in
`
`fact, relate to sensing devices, particularly the HW.cfg file that that lists “information
`
`about each [sensing] device from each driver.”4 Ex.1001, 32:54-56, 32:39-40.
`
`Second, whether the data must be used for a particular purpose is addressed by other
`
`claim language, and there is no need to read usage into this term. Certain claims
`
`
`4 Patent Owner does not object to construing the term as “data describing
`
`characteristics or attributes of a sensing element or set of sensing elements.”
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`require the data to be used for “configuring,” e.g., Ex.1001, cl.47, but others do not,
`
`
`
`e.g., id., cl.6.
`
`The Board should adopt Patent Owner’s construction, which, unlike
`
`Petitioner’s, is supported by the patent and reflects how the POSITA would have
`
`understood the term in the context of the patent. Ex.2007 ¶¶53-63. But, as described
`
`below, even Petitioner’s proposed construction does not aid its arguments that the
`
`challenged claims were rendered obvious over the asserted references.
`
` Enumerating
`
`Enumeration is a process performed by the system to identify each individual
`
`available sensing element. POR 22; Ex.2007 ¶¶74-76; Ex.2015; Ex.2016; Ex.1034.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction does not reflect this understanding, and is not
`
`supported by expert evidence. For example, “determining” that ten total sensing
`
`elements are available, without any more specificity, would meet Petitioner’s
`
`proposed construction. But that information alone would not allow a tracking
`
`system to operate; the system also would need to identify each sensor individually.
`
`See Ex.2007 ¶75.
`
`
`
`Expected Utility
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of “utility” as “usefulness” (Reply 5) is
`
`unhelpful, because it does not explain what “usefulness” means in the context of the
`
`patent. Patent Owner’s construction, on the other hand, explains what the patent
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`means by both “utility” and “usefulness”: information gain. The excerpt Petitioner
`
`
`
`cites explains that the patent approaches utility/usefulness as information gain,
`
`Ex.1003, 19:9-12, and the other portions of the specification Patent Owner cites in
`
`its Response reinforce that understanding, see POR 23-24; Ex.2007 ¶¶79-80.
`
`III. PETITIONER FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE OBVIOUSNESS
`
` Ground I
`
`1.
`
`Claim 30
`
`a.
`
`Preamble and Limitations 30[a]-[b]
`
`All of these limitations recite a “sensor module.” Petitioner does not dispute
`
`Patent Owner’s construction of “sensor module,” Reply 3; POR 16-17, which
`
`explains that a “sensor module” is different from a “sensor,” POR 25-26.
`
`The Petition did not identify such distinct parts, so on reply, Petitioner turns
`
`to previously-unmentioned components of the HiBall unit. It labels the non-LEPD
`
`components the “sensor module,” with the “amplifiers” and a “packet MODEM” as
`
`the asserted sensor and communication interfaces, respectively. See Reply 6.
`
`Petitioner does not provide any expert support for this position, or explain how the
`
`amplifiers or packet MODEM serve as the requisite interfaces.5 But more
`
`
`5 Petitioner’s expert addresses only its previous theory, which involved the CIB and
`
`its tether interface and extended parallel port. Petition 17-19.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`fundamentally, as described below, Petitioner’s arguments on limitation 30[c] do not
`
`
`
`match up with this new concept of a “sensor module.”
`
`b.
`
`Limitation 30[c]
`
`This limitation requires “information related to an expected sensor
`
`measurement be received by a sensor module “over the communication interface.”
`
`The Petition relied on a “measurement prediction” as the “expected sensor
`
`measurement,” and contended that the prediction itself was provided to the CIB.
`
`Petition 20. On reply, Petitioner changes course, and instead points to “[t]he
`
`information sent to trigger a particular LED to flash” as “related to an expected
`
`sensor measurement.” Reply 13. The Petition did not even mention the
`
`“information related to” aspect of the limitation, and Petitioner does not support its
`
`new position with expert evidence.
`
`Petitioner’s belated and unsupported argument fails. First, as the passage
`
`Petitioner cites explains, the LED selection process relies on the current HiBall pose
`
`estimate, Reply 6 (citing Ex.1007, 13)—but that is not a predicted or expected sensor
`
`measurement. Second, even if current HiBall pose were considered an “expected
`
`sensor measurement,” it must be received over the sensor module’s “communication
`
`interface,” which Petitioner contends is the “packet MODEM” of the HiBall unit.
`
`Id., Fig.9. Petitioner does not address this aspect of the limitation, and information
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`triggering an LED to flash is not sent to any part of a HiBall sensor, so it would not
`
`
`
`be received over the packet modem.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 32
`
`Claim 32 requires that the sensor module receive “a predicted pose.”
`
`Petitioner simply refers (Reply 7) to claim 30, but that is nonresponsive, because the
`
`“information sent to trigger an LED to flash” on which Petitioner relies in claim 30
`
`is not a predicted pose. As Patent Owner explained, no predicted pose is sent back
`
`to the sensor module, POR 28; that remains true whether the sensor module includes
`
`the CIB (Petitioner’s original position), or is a subpart of the HiBall (Petitioner’s
`
`new position).
`
`3.
`
`Claim 33
`
`a.
`
` Limitation 33[a]
`
`Petitioner did not address the enumeration aspect of the claims in its Petition.
`
`POR 22-23. It should not be permitted to remedy that on Reply, with a new
`
`argument and new expert testimony. See Ex.1038 ¶¶10-18. And even if the Board
`
`were to consider Petitioner’s argument, it fails.
`
`As Patent Owner’s expert explained when construing the term “enumerating,”
`
`“‘enumeration’ is a particular process performed by the system prior to the
`
`configuration process whereby the available sensors are identified.” Ex.2007 ¶74.
`
`Petitioner disputes (Reply 5) whether “enumerating” must involve specifying or
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`listing, or whether it can be satisfied by simply determining the number of available
`
`
`
`sensors, but does not contest that “enumerating” in the ’632 patent is a “process
`
`performed by the system.” The patent repeatedly describes the system itself doing
`
`the enumerating, Ex.2007 ¶74, and never suggests that a human could satisfy this
`
`step at system design. Petitioner, however, relies on a human programming the
`
`sensors into the PC. Reply 8; Ex.1038 ¶¶16-17. Petitioner does not point to anything
`
`in Welch suggesting that the HiBall system itself specifies, lists, or determines the
`
`number of available sensors. See Ex.2007 ¶¶74, 225-226.
`
`b.
`
`Limitation 33[b]
`
`Petitioner previously relied on the estimated noise as the relevant
`
`“parameters” for this limitation. Petition 23. Noise estimates, however, are
`
`calculated on the asserted estimation subsystem (the PC), POR 30, so Petitioner
`
`belatedly raises a new argument based on different data: fixed location and a “target
`
`signal strength factor.” Petitioner provides no expert support for this position,
`
`which, like its “enumerating” argument above, improperly relies on a human
`
`designer or operator rather than the system itself.
`
`c.
`
`Limitation 33[c]
`
`Petitioner has abandoned its argument in the Petition that this limitation is
`
`satisfied because Welch’s every-thirteenth-LED sequence is useful to measure yaw.
`
`Petition 24. It instead improperly introduces a previously-unmentioned “sequence”
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`of “more-selective” measurements, and contends that the every-thirteenth-LED set
`
`
`
`of measurements provides more utility (either information gain or “usefulness”) than
`
`the more-selective measurements set. Reply 9.
`
`Even if considered, this new argument fails. The claim requires that the
`
`sequence be based on the expected utility. It has nothing to do with whether one full
`
`series of measurements would be considered to have more utility than a different
`
`series. Petitioner provides no expert evidence to support its new position; it cites to
`
`Patent Owner’s expert, id., but he testified only that Welch 2001 does not suggest
`
`which set of measurements would provide more information gain. See Ex.1033,
`
`50:8-51:22.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 34
`
`Petitioner does not dispute that Welch’s least-recently-used heuristic does not
`
`result in the highest information gain, and does not argue obviousness under Patent
`
`Owner’s construction. Instead, Petitioner’s argument depends on (1) the Board
`
`adopting Petitioner’s unsupported construction of “utility” as “usefulness”; and
`
`(2) importing into the term “usefulness” some notion of balancing information
`
`gained against simplicity. But that “balancing” concept is nowhere in the patent, nor
`
`is it supported by any expert or other extrinsic evidence. Petitioner cites Patent
`
`Owner’s expert, but he agreed only that Welch may have employed such tradeoffs,
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`not that they factor into “highest expected utility.” Ex.1033, 52:1-53:9, 55:6-16,
`
`
`
`56:8-57:7.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 36
`
`Petitioner proposes a modification that “would emit light to scatter off the
`
`natural feature[s],” Reply 10, but does not explain how such a modified system
`
`would meet the other limitations of claims 33 and 35. For example, in claim 33,
`
`Petitioner points to calibration using a “target signal strength factor,” id., 8, but such
`
`information would not exist where targets were natural features. Similarly, the
`
`“sequence of candidates” for the same claim involves a sequence of flashing LEDs,
`
`id., 9, which also would not exist in the proposed system.
`
`6.
`
`Claim 44
`
`Petitioner still does not point to anything teaching a “determining” step.
`
`Instead, Petitioner proclaims that this “must necessarily” have been done, or “would
`
`at least have been obvious,” but it provides no expert evidence to support these
`
`conclusory assertions. Reply 10.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Claim 47
`
`a.
`
`Limitation 47[c][1]
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`
`Under either party’s construction, and for all types of data Petitioner now
`
`points to,6 Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the Welch references rendered
`
`obvious “providing configuration information from each of the sensor modules.”7
`
`Petitioner’s construction.
`
` The measurements taken during Welch’s
`
`calibration process are not “data used for configuration.” The measurements are
`
`processed to generate different data, such as calibration tables and estimates of
`
`measurement noise. Reply 11. Welch’s Kalman filter is configured according to
`
`those generated outputs—which are calculated on the PC, not provided from the
`
`asserted sensor module—not the measurements Petitioner identifies. See Ex.2007
`
`¶¶256-257; Ex.1033, 5:11-6:5 (configured according to calibration parameters), 7:6-
`
`
`6 The only purported configuration data that the Petition mentioned for this limitation
`
`is “measured signal strength,” used on the PC to estimate noise. Petition 33-34.
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on reply on other types of data—measurements used to generate
`
`calibration tables, or metadata about measurement type, Reply 11-12—is new and
`
`has no expert support.
`
`7 Petitioner’s position that the sensor module for this claim includes the CIB, all of
`
`the HiBalls, and all of the LEDs is inconsistent with its position on claim 30.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 38
`
`11 (same). Petitioner attempts to gloss over this distinction by with a vague
`
`
`
`reference to “this data,” Reply 11, but Petitioner does not contend (and provides no
`
`evidence to support) that the Kalman filter is configured by the measurements
`
`provided by the asserted sensor module.
`
`Patent Owner’s construction. Petitioner incorrectly argues (Reply 11) that
`
`measurements can be configuration data under Patent Owner’s construction. The
`
`POSITA would not have understood Welch’s raw measurements to “describe
`
`