`
`IPR2022-01304
`IPR2022-01305
`IPR2022-01308
`
`December 7, 2023
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`
`Grounds and Challenged Claims
`
`Welch 2001 & Welch 1997
`
`Welch 2001, Welch 1997 &
`Welch Thesis
`
`Welch & Horton: Sensor & estimation subsystems, sensor module, configuration data, etc.
`1304 Ground I
`’632 patent, cls. 1-9, 11-22 & 24-29
`1305 Ground I
`’632 patent, cls. 30-32, 44-45, 47-49, 51-53 & 59-61
`1308 Ground I
`’253 patent, cls. 1-2
`1304 Ground II
`’632 patent, cl. 23
`1305 Ground II
`’632 patent, cl. 50
`1304 Ground III
`’632 patent, cls. 1-9, 11-19, 22-24 & 28-29
`1305 Ground IV
`’632 patent, cls. 30-32, 47, 50-53 & 59-61
`1308 Ground IV
`’253 patent, cls. 1-5
`1304 Ground IV
`’632 patent, cls. 25-27
`
`Horton
`
`Horton & Welch 1997
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Grounds and Challenged Claims
`
`Welch 2001 & Welch 1997
`
`Welch & Horton: Enumerating, selecting pairs, and expected utility
`1305 Ground I
`’632 patent, cls. 33-36
`1308 Ground I
`’253 patent, cls. 6-9
`1304 Ground III
`’632 patent, cls. 20-21
`1305 Ground IV
`’632 patent, cl. 33
`1308 Ground IV
`’253 patent, cls. 6-9
`1305 Ground V
`’632 patent, cls. 34-36
`1308 Ground V
`’253 patent, cls. 7-9
`
`Horton
`
`Horton & Welch 1997
`
`Other prior art references
`Kramer & Chen
`1304 Ground V
`Kramer, Chen & Welch 2001 1304 Ground VI
`1305 Ground III
`Welch 2001, Welch 1997 &
`Harris
`1308 Ground II
`Welch 2001, Welch 1997 &
`Reitmayr
`Horton & Harris
`
`1305 Ground VI
`
`1308 Ground III
`
`’632 patent, cls. 66-68
`’632 patent, cl. 69
`’632 patent, cls. 54-55 & 57-58
`’253 patent, cls. 3-5
`
`’253 patent, cls. 3-4
`
`’632 patent, cls. 54-55 & 57-58
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patents and References
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,922,632 and 7,725,253
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1001, Abstract; e.g., 1304 POR 1
`
`
`
`Welch HiBall System
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1007, Fig.6; e.g., 1304 Petition 14; 1304 POR 7
`
`
`
`Horton Accelerometer System
`
`Ex. 1010, Fig.3; e.g., 1304 Petition 40; 1304 POR 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`
`
`“Estimation Subsystem/Module” & “Sensor Subsystem”
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`Estimation Subsystem/Module: the tracking
`component of a motion tracking system, which is
`separate from but connected to the sensor
`subsystem
`
`Sensor Subsystem: a component or group of
`components of a motion tracking system associated
`with particular sensors, which is separate from but
`connected to the estimation subsystem
`
`No Construction
`
`Subsystems need not be “entirely separate” and
`may “partially overlap”
`
`E.g., 1304 POR 12-18
`
`E.g., 1304 Reply 1-5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`
`
`Estimation Subsystem / Sensor Subsystem
`The sensor and estimation subsystems are distinct elements of the claims.
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.1; e.g., 1304 POR 6, 14-15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`
`
`Estimation Subsystem / Sensor Subsystem
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:20-28; e.g., 1304 POR 16-17
`
`Ex. 1001, 22:37-50; e.g., 1304 POR 5-6, 17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`
`
`Estimation Subsystem / Sensor Subsystem
`The meaning of the claim terms cannot be divorced from the patent’s context.
`
`Ex. 1001, 19:14-20; e.g., 1304 POR 16-17
`
`Ex. 1001, 16:38-44; e.g., 1304 POR 16-17
`
`Ex. 1001, 17:27-39; e.g., 1304 POR 16-17
`
`“[A] patent’s express purpose of the invention informs the proper construction of claim terms.”
`
`Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 66 F.4th 1317, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted); e.g., 1304 Sur-Reply 3-4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`
`
`Estimation Subsystem / Sensor Subsystem
`Patent Owner’s construction is supported by expert evidence.
`
`The POSITA would have understood:
`
`Yohan Baillot
`CEO and Founder, ARCortex INC
`
`• “[T]he estimation and sensor portions of the system do not overlap
`and are not intertwined in a way that would result in any claimed
`processes being part of both segments.” ¶ 43
`• “[T]his separation reflects a central innovation of the patents . . .
`allow[ing] for the use of different types of sensors.” ¶ 45
`• “[O]verlapping or intertwined subsystems would defeat a key goal of
`the ’632 patent, because the potential for ‘plug and track’
`functionality, or updating sensor components without updating the
`tracking component (or vice versa), would not be realized.” ¶ 46
`
`Ex. 2007; e.g., 1304 POR 16-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`
`
`Estimation Subsystem / Sensor Subsystem
`Petitioner’s expert agrees the sensor and estimation subsystems are separate.
`
`Dr. Ulrich Neumann
`University of Southern California
`
`Ex. 2009, 43:5-8; e.g., 1304 POR 14-15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`
`
`Estimation Subsystem / Sensor Subsystem
`Petitioner has no support for its position that the two subsystems can overlap.
`
`No examples in the patent referring to overlapping components or
`processes that are part of both subsystems.
`
`No expert evidence supporting overlap.
`
`E.g., 1304 Sur-Reply 3-4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`
`
`Configuration Data / Information
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`Data describing characteristics or
`attributes of a sensor or set of sensors
`
`Data that is used for configuration
`
`E.g., 1304 POR 18-21
`
`E.g., 1304 Reply 6-7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`
`
`Configuration Data / Information
`The estimation subsystem is configured according to characteristics, attributes, or
`parameters of the sensing elements, not according to raw sensor measurement inputs.
`
`Ex. 1001, 6:27-32; e.g., 1304 POR 20-21
`
`Ex. 1001, 18:56-63; e.g., 1304 POR 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`
`
`Configuration Data / Information
`The patent’s examples are not raw sensor measurements.
`
`“uncertainty or noise characteristics of the
`measurement values” Ex. 1001, 1:30-35;
`
`“operational parameters” id., 3:1-3;
`
`“a map of the locations of the sensing elements”
`id., 3:7-9;
`
`“parameters that identify a basic type of sensor,
`such a 2-D bearing, 1-D bearing, range” id., 10:7-9;
`
`“parameters that identify a specific type of sensor,
`such as make and model” id., 10:10-11;
`
`“measurement related parameters” id., 10:14-15;
`
`“white noise and random walk amplitudes, root-
`mean square initial uncertainty estimates for gyro
`and acceleration biases, ramps, misalignments,
`scale factors, nonlinearities” id., 30:1-7;
`
`“Pose [of the sensor]” id., 30:31-32;
`“Pose uncertainty” id., 30:33;
`“Bias parameters vector k” id., 30:34-35;
`“k-vector uncertainty” id., 30:36;
`“Basic type” id., 30:37-49;
`“Specific type” id., 30:50-56;
`“Unique identifier” id., 30:57-58;
`“Color” id., 30:59;
`“Size” id., 30:60-65;
`“Driver number” id., 30:66-67;
`“Device handle” id., 31:1-3;
`“Status (ready, busy, etc.)” id., 31:4;
`“Membership” id., 31:5-6.
`
`Ex. 1001; Ex. 2007 ¶ 60; e.g., 1304 POR 20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`
`
`Configuration Data / Information
`Patent Owner’s position is supported by expert evidence.
`
`Yohan Baillot
`CEO and Founder, ARCortex INC
`
`The POSITA would have understood:
`
`• “ ‘[C]onfiguration data’ or ‘configuration information’ [are] ‘data describing
`characteristics or attributes of a sensor or set of sensors ….” ¶ 56
`
`• “[R]aw measurements do not themselves constitute configuration data or
`information.” ¶ 57
`
`• “[M]easurements may be processed in order to compute or estimate certain
`sensor parameters or characteristics (e.g., noise or uncertainty) that then can be
`used for configuration purposes, but those parameters or characteristics are the
`configuration data, and the raw measurements that are used as inputs are not
`themselves configuration data.” ¶ 58
`
`Ex. 2007; e.g., 1304 POR 18-19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`
`
`Configuration Data / Information
`Petitioner has no support that the raw measurements it relies on are “configuration data.”
`
`No examples in the patent of configuration data that consist solely of
`raw, unprocessed sensor measurements.
`
`No expert evidence that raw measurements are configuration data.
`
`E.g., 1304 Sur-Reply 6-7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`
`
`Configuration Data / Information
`Measurements used to create calibration tables are not “information characterizing a
`calibration parameter.”
`
`Yohan Baillot
`CEO and Founder, ARCortex INC
`
`The POSITA would have understood:
`
`• Information characterizing a calibration parameter is “a calibration parameter
`itself, or some other description of the parameter, such as a range the parameter
`may fall within.”
`
`• It does not include “a measurement input used in the process of creating a
`calibration table.”
`
`• “The use of measurements to subsequently create calibration parameters does
`not mean that those inputs (measurements) either constitute or characterize the
`outputs.”
`
`Ex. 2007 ¶ 61; e.g., 1308 POR 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`
`
`Undisputed Constructions
`
`Sensor Module
`
`“a component or part of a sensor subsystem that
`provides an interface for communicating with an
`associated sensing element and an interface for
`communicating with an estimation subsystem”
`
`E.g., 1305 POR 16-17; 1305 Reply 3
`
`Configuring
`
`“arranging or setting up the system so that it is
`able to operate in a particular way”
`
`E.g., 1304 POR 21-24; 1304 Reply 7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`
`
`Welch
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`
`
`Welch HiBall System
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`Ex. 1007, Fig.6; e.g., 1304 Petition 14; 1304 POR 7
`
`
`
`Welch HiBall System
`
`Ex. 1007, Fig.9; e.g., 1305 Reply 6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`
`
`Welch HiBall System
`
`Ex. 1007, 9-10; e.g., 1305 Petition 23; 1305 Reply 11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`Ex. 1007, 10; e.g., 1305 Petition 23; 1305 Reply 11
`
`
`
`Welch’s Sensor Subsystem Does Not Provide Configuration Data
`’632 cls. 1, 47 & dependent claims; ’253 cl. 1 & dependent claims
`
`Claims require:
`1) Configuration
`data/information
`AND
`2) Provided or
`accepted from the
`sensor subsystem
`or sensor module
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003, cl.1
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.47
`
`27
`
`
`
`The Measurements on Which Petitioner Relies Are Not Configuration Data
`’632 cls. 1, 47 & dependent claims; ’253 cl. 1 & dependent claims
`Petitioner’s Construction: Data used for configuration
`
`Petitioner
`
`Rebuttal
`
`“Measurement data
`collected during [Welch-
`2001’s] ‘online’ calibration
`procedure”
`Petitioner acknowledges the
`sensor measurements are
`processed into different
`data on the PC
`The processed data, not the
`raw HiBall measurements,
`are used to configure the
`Kalman filter
`
`Ex. 2007 ¶ 58; e.g., 1304 POR 19; 1304 Reply 8; 1304 Sur-Reply 9-10
`
`1304 Reply 8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`
`
`The Measurements on Which Petitioner Relies Are Not Configuration Data
`’632 cls. 1, 47 & dependent claims; ’253 cl. 1 & dependent claims
`Patent Owner’s Construction: Data describing the characteristics
`or attributes of a sensor or set of sensors
`
`Petitioner
`
`Rebuttal
`
`“Amount of light impinging on different
`locations of the HiBall unit” describes
`HiBall pose
`Describes where light hits on a HiBall
`sensor, not where in the environment
`that sensor is located or how the sensor
`is oriented
`
`“Measurement type” metadata
`
`Programmed by a system designer, not
`provided by a sensor subsystem or
`module
`
`E.g., 1304 Reply 9-10; 1304 Sur-Reply 10-11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`
`
`Welch’s Estimation Subsystem Does Not Pass Information Back to a
`Sensor Subsystem or Modules
`’632 cls. 11, 30, 47 & dependent claims
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.11
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.47
`
`30
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s New Arguments Are Improper and Unsupported
`’632 cls. 11, 47 & dependent claims
`
`Petition
`
`Reply
`
`1304 Petition 26
`
`1304 Reply 13
`
`1305 Petition 35
`
`1305 Reply 14
`
`“[A]n IPR petitioner may not raise in reply an entirely new rationale for why a claim would have been obvious.”
`
`Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330-31 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted); e.g., 1305 Sur-Reply 17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`
`
`Welch’s Sensor Module Does Not Receive Information Over the Asserted
`Communication Interface
`’632 cl. 30 & dependent claims
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.30
`
`Ex. 1007, Fig.9 (annotated by Petitioner); 1305 Reply 6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`
`
`Welch’s Sensor Module and Subsystem Do Not Receive Information
`Related to an Expected Sensor Measurement
`’632 cls. 3, 11 & dependent claims
`
`Petitioner Relies on anticipation that a
`measurement will occur
`Patent describes “expected
`sensor measurement” as a
`calculated numerical value
`
`Rebuttal
`
`E.g., 1304 Reply 13; 1304 Sur-Reply 14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`Ex. 1001, 15:47-50, 16:51-56, cl.14; e.g., 1304 Sur-Reply 14
`
`
`
`Petitioner Does Not Establish Any Motivation To Add Inertial Trackers to
`Welch’s HiBalls
`’632 cl. 23
`
`Petitioner Points to purported
`“occlusions”
`Welch 2001 teaches that
`occlusions rarely cause
`problems in practice
`
`Rebuttal
`
`1304 Reply 14; 1304 Sur-Reply 16
`
`Ex. 1007, 14; 1304 Sur-Reply 16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`
`
`Welch’s Sensor Module Does Not Provide Information Characterizing
`Sensor Type
`’632 cl. 59
`
`Petitioner
`
`Rebuttal
`
`KF configured to account for
`type of data produced by
`HiBall LEPD sensor
`This configuration of
`Welch’s Kalman filter is
`done by the system
`designer, not provided by a
`sensor module
`
`E.g., 1305 Reply 16; 1305 Sur-Reply 17
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.59; e.g., 1305 Sur-Reply 17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1305 Reply 16
`
`35
`
`
`
`Welch’s Sensor Module Does Not Provide Information Characterizing
`Sensor Position or Orientation
`’632 cl. 60
`
`Petition
`
`Reply
`
`1305 Petition 40
`
`1305 Reply 17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`
`
`Horton
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`
`
`Horton Accelerometer System
`
`Ex. 1010, Fig.3; e.g., 1304 Petition 40; 1304 POR 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`
`
`Horton Accelerometer System
`Initialization and calibration routine 48
`
`Ex. 1010, Fig.3; e.g., 1304 POR 9
`
`Ex. 1010, 5:60-6:14; e.g., 1304 POR 9; 1304 Sur-Reply 19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`
`
`Horton Accelerometer System
`External tracking system 170
`
`Ex. 1010, 6:34-42; e.g., 1304 POR 9
`
`Ex. 1010, Fig.3; e.g., 1304 POR 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`
`
`Horton Accelerometer System
`Main loop 41
`
`Ex. 1010, 6:25-27; e.g., 1304 POR 9, 43, 54
`
`Ex. 1010, 7:1-3; e.g., 1304 POR 9, 43, 54
`
`Ex. 1010, Fig.3; e.g., 1304 POR 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`
`
`Horton Accelerometer System
`Calculation 60 of position and orientation information 130
`
`Ex. 1010, Fig.4; e.g., 1304 POR 43, 54
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Sensor Subsystem and Estimation Subsystem Overlap
`’632 cl. 1 & dependent claims; ’253 cl. 1 & dependent claims
`
`Petitioner
`
`Estimation Subsystem
`“main loop 41 and the Kalman filter
`(i.e., feedback loop 89) executed by
`tracking processor 40”
`
`Sensor Subsystem
`
`“initialization routine 48 and related
`data”
`
`E.g., 1304 Reply 15-16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Sensor Subsystem and Estimation Subsystem Overlap
`’632 cl. 1 & dependent claims; ’253 cl. 1 & dependent claims
`
`• Main loop 41 (part of the asserted
`estimation subsystem) is used within
`initialization and calibration routine 48
`(the asserted sensor subsystem).
`
`Ex. 1010, 6:4-14; e.g., 1304 POR 9, 43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Sensor Subsystem and Estimation Subsystem Overlap
`’632 cl. 1 & ’253 cl. 1
`
`Petitioner and its expert acknowledged this overlap.
`
`E.g., 1304 Petition 43
`
`Ex. 1005 ¶ 129 (cited in 1304 Petition 40); 1304 POR 43; 1304 Sur-Reply 17
`
`E.g., 1304 Petition 40 (annotating Ex. 1010, Fig.3)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Sensor Subsystem and Estimation Subsystem Overlap
`’632 cl. 1 & ’253 cl. 1
`
`• Horton uses the same pose
`calculation process for sensor
`calibrating and for object tracking.
`• There is no way to update or change
`one without the other.
`• A change to pose calculation
`affects calibration.
`• A change to sensors affects the
`object tracking process.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`Ex. 1010, Fig.4; e.g., 1304 POR 43
`
`
`
`Horton’s Sensor Subsystem Does Not Provide Configuration Data
`’632 cls. 1, 47 & dependent claims; ’253 cl. 1 & dependent claims
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.1
`
`Ex. 1003, cl.1
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`
`
`None of the Data on Which Petitioner Relies Is Configuration Data
`Provided by the Sensor Subsystem or Module
`’632 cls. 1, 47 & dependent claims; ’253 cl. 1 & dependent claims
`
`Petitioner identifies:
`
`• Position and orientation measurements taken during calibration
`• Pre-specified accelerometer biases
`• Accelerometer mounting data
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`E.g., 1304 Reply 18-22; 1304 Sur-Reply 18-20
`
`48
`
`
`
`None of the Data on Which Petitioner Relies Is Configuration Data
`Provided by the Sensor Subsystem or Module
`’632 cls. 1, 47 & dependent claims; ’253 cl. 1 & dependent claims
`
`Petitioner Measurements taken during
`calibration
`Not used to configure
`Used only within the sensor
`subsystem (initialization and
`calibration routine 48); not
`provided from the sensor
`subsystem
`No expert support
`
`Rebuttal
`
`E.g., 1304 POR 44-45; 1304 Reply 22-23; 1304 Sur-Reply 18-20
`
`Ex. 1010, 6:3-12; e.g., 1304 Sur-Reply 19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`
`
`None of the Data on Which Petitioner Relies Is Configuration Data
`Provided by the Sensor Subsystem or Module
`’632 cls. 1, 47 & dependent claims; ’253 cl. 1 & dependent claims
`
`Petitioner Pre-specified biases
`Used only within the sensor
`subsystem (initialization and
`calibration routine 48); not
`provided from the sensor
`subsystem or module
`No expert support
`
`Rebuttal
`
`E.g., 1304 Sur-Reply 19-20; 1305 Sur-Reply 24
`
`Ex. 1010, 5:64-6:12, Fig.4 (annotated by Petitioner); e.g., 1305 Reply 26; 1305 Sur-Reply 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`
`
`None of the Data on Which Petitioner Relies Is Configuration Data
`Provided by the Sensor Subsystem or Module
`
`Petitioner Accelerometer mounting
`data
`Constants programmed into
`the main loop by the system
`designer
`Not accepted or provided
`from sensor subsystem or
`module
`
`Rebuttal
`
`E.g., 1304 POR 45 n.11; 1304 Sur-Reply 20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`Ex. 2009, 155:14-156:9; e.g., 1304 Sur-Reply 20
`
`
`
`Horton’s Estimation Subsystem Does Not Pass Information Back to a
`Sensor Subsystem or Modules
`’632 cls. 30, 47 & dependent claims
`
`Petitioner
`
`Rebuttal
`
`Relies on purported
`“request mode” to “trigger a
`sensor measurement”
`Horton’s “request mode” is
`a request to the tracking
`system for the calculated
`pose, not a request to the
`accelerometer to take a
`measurement
`No expert support
`
`E.g., 1305 Reply 20, 27-28; 1305 Sur-Reply 20-21, 25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`Ex. 1010, 4:47-67; e.g., 1305 Sur-Reply 20
`
`
`
`Horton’s Estimation Subsystem Does Not Pass Information Back to a
`Sensor Subsystem or Modules
`’632 cls. 30, 47 & dependent claims
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.30
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.47
`
`Ex. 1010, Fig.1 (annotated by Petitioner); 1305 Reply 19, 24; 1305 Sur-Reply 19, 23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`53
`
`
`
`Horton’s Sensor Module and Subsystem Do Not Receive Information
`Related to an Expected Sensor Measurement
`’632 cl. 30 & dependent claims
`
`Petitioner Relies on anticipation that a
`measurement will occur
`Patent describes “expected
`sensor measurement” as a
`calculated numerical value
`
`Rebuttal
`
`E.g., 1305 Reply 20; 1305 Sur-Reply 20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`54
`
`Ex. 1001, 15:47-50, 16:50-56, cl.14; e.g., 1305 Sur-Reply 20
`
`
`
`Petitioner Does Not Identify Multiple “Sensor Modules” in Horton.
`’632 cl. 2 & dependent claims
`
`• Claim 2 recites “software
`modules,” plural.
`• Petitioner identifies only one
`purported “software module.”
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.2; 1304 Sur-Reply 21-22
`
`In accordance with common English usage, we
`presume a plural term refers to two or more items.
`
`Apple Inc. v. MPH Techs. Oy, 28 F.4th 254, 261 (Fed. Cir. 2022);
`1304 Sur-Reply 22)
`
`1304 Reply 23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`
`
`The Result of Horton’s Calibration Process Cannot Be Both an Input to and
`Output of the State Estimation Update Process Within the Same Claim
`’632 cls. 6, 9, 11 & dependent claims
`
`INPUT: Bias and scaling factors 50
`
`1304 Reply 22; see 1304 Sur-Reply 23-24
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.1
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.6
`
`OUTPUT: Bias and scaling factors 50
`
`1304 Reply 24; see 1304 Sur-Reply 23-24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`
`
`Horton’s External Tracking Sensors Are Not Part of the Sensor Subsystem
`’632 cl. 25
`
`Petitioner Relies on external tracking
`system sensors
`Claim 25’s sensing
`elements must be part of
`the sensor subsystem,
`which Petitioner asserts is
`“initialization routine 48 and
`related data”
`Sensors in the external
`tracking system are not part
`of “initialization routine 48”
`
`Rebuttal
`
`E.g.,1304 POR 61; 1304 Reply 25-26; 1304 Sur-Reply 25
`
`Ex. 1010, Fig.3; e.g.,1304 POR 61; 1304 Sur-Reply 25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`57
`
`
`
`Horton’s Estimation Module Is Not Configurable To Use Different Sensors
`’632 cl. 50
`
`Petitioner
`
`Rebuttal
`
`Horton teaches using
`varying numbers of
`accelerometers and
`different external tracking
`systems
`The possibility of building
`different systems does not
`meet the claim requirement
`that a particular estimation
`module is “configurable” to
`use different sensors
`
`E.g., 1305 Reply 29; 1305 Sur-Reply 26-27
`
`Ex. 2007 ¶ 352; e.g., 1305 POR 63; 1305 Sur-Reply 26-27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`58
`
`
`
`Horton’s Accelerometer Mounting Data Does Not Characterize Sensor Type
`’632 cl. 59
`
`Petitioner
`
`Rebuttal
`
`Relies on mounting data,
`because accelerometers
`are purportedly mounted
`differently
`Mounting data is not and
`does not describe sensor
`type
`Different types of sensors
`may be mounted in the
`same way
`
`E.g., 1305 Reply 30; 1305 Sur-Reply 27
`
`Ex. 1033, 176:14-19; e.g., 1305 Sur-Reply 27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`59
`
`
`
`Horton’s LPF/Multiplexer/A/D Converter Do Not Perform Computations
`’253 cl. 3
`
`Petitioner
`
`Rebuttal
`
`LPFs/Multiplexer/A/D
`Converter perform
`computations
`Signal processing of this
`sort is not “computation”
`The patent describes
`computations as
`mathematical operations
`carried out using data and
`code
`Petitioner’s expert did not
`consider this context
`
`E.g., Ex. 2007 ¶ 441; 1308 POR 55-57; 1308 Reply 27; 1308 Sur-Reply 20-21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003, 16:20-32
`
`Ex. 2025, 9:19-22
`
`60
`
`
`
`Grounds and Challenged Claims
`
`Welch 2001 & Welch 1997
`
`Welch & Horton: Enumerating, selecting pairs, and expected utility
`1305 Ground I
`’632 patent, cls. 33-36
`1308 Ground I
`’253 patent, cls. 6-9
`1304 Ground III
`’632 patent, cls. 20-21
`1305 Ground IV
`’632 patent, cl. 33
`1308 Ground IV
`’253 patent, cls. 6-9
`1305 Ground V
`’632 patent, cls. 34-36
`1308 Ground V
`’253 patent, cls. 7-9
`
`Horton
`
`Horton & Welch 1997
`
`Other prior art references
`Kramer & Chen
`1304 Ground V
`Kramer, Chen & Welch 2001 1304 Ground VI
`1305 Ground III
`Welch 2001, Welch 1997 &
`Harris
`1308 Ground II
`Welch 2001, Welch 1997 &
`Reitmayr
`Horton & Harris
`
`1305 Ground VI
`
`1308 Ground III
`
`’632 patent, cls. 66-68
`’632 patent, cl. 69
`’632 patent, cls. 54-55 & 57-58
`’253 patent, cls. 3-5
`
`’253 patent, cls. 3-4
`
`’632 patent, cls. 54-55 & 57-58
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`61
`
`
`
`Welch & Horton
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`62
`
`
`
`Grounds and Challenged Claims
`
`Welch 2001 & Welch 1997
`
`Welch & Horton: Enumerating, selecting pairs, and expected utility
`1305 Ground I
`’632 patent, cls. 33-36
`1308 Ground I
`’253 patent, cls. 6-9
`1304 Ground III
`’632 patent, cls. 20-21
`1305 Ground IV
`’632 patent, cl. 33
`1308 Ground IV
`’253 patent, cls. 6-9
`1305 Ground V
`’632 patent, cls. 34-36
`1308 Ground V
`’253 patent, cls. 7-9
`
`Horton
`
`Horton & Welch 1997
`
`Other prior art references
`Kramer & Chen
`1304 Ground V
`Kramer, Chen & Welch 2001 1304 Ground VI
`1305 Ground III
`Welch 2001, Welch 1997 &
`Harris
`1308 Ground II
`Welch 2001, Welch 1997 &
`Reitmayr
`Horton & Harris
`
`1305 Ground VI
`
`1308 Ground III
`
`’632 patent, cls. 66-68
`’632 patent, cl. 69
`’632 patent, cls. 54-55 & 57-58
`’253 patent, cls. 3-5
`
`’253 patent, cls. 3-4
`
`’632 patent, cls. 54-55 & 57-58
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`63
`
`
`
`“Enumerating”: Claim Language
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.33; see Ex.1003, cl.6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`64
`
`
`
`“Enumerating”: Claim Construction
`“enumerating a set of sensing elements available to a tracking system”
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`“specifying or listing each of the sensing elements
`available to a tracking system”
`
`Enumeration is a process performed by the system
`prior to the configuration process whereby available
`sensors are identified
`
`“determining the number of” sensing elements
`
`No expert or other evidence that enumeration
`need not be performed by the system
`
`E.g., 1305 POR 20-23; Ex. 2007 ¶¶74-76
`
`E.g., 1305 Reply 5; 1305 Sur-Reply 7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`65
`
`
`
`The Patents Explain that Enumeration Is Performed by the System
`
`Ex.1001, 18:48-51; e.g., 1305 POR 22
`
`Ex.1001, 22:16-18; e.g., 1305 POR 22
`
`Ex.1001, 19:1-6; e.g., 1305 POR 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`66
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert: Enumeration Is Performed by the System
`
`Yohan Baillot
`CEO and Founder, ARCortex Inc.
`
`The POSITA would have understood:
`
`• “The patents further explain that ‘enumeration’ is a particular process performed
`by the system prior to the configuration process whereby the available sensors
`are identified.” ¶74
`
`• “This enumeration process … is how the system learns which sensors are
`available to it at any given time, and therefore is important to the … plug-and-
`track functionality described in the patent, allowing the system to work with
`varying numbers and types of sensors.” ¶75
`
`Ex. 2007; e.g., 1305 POR 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`67
`
`
`
`Petitioner Relies on Designer Specifying the Sensors
`’632 cl. 33 & dependent claims; ’253 cl. 6 & dependent claims
`
`E.g., 1305 Reply 8; see, e.g., 1305 Sur-Reply 10-11
`
`E.g., 1305 Reply 22-23; see, e.g., 1305 Sur-Reply 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`68
`
`
`
`Grounds and Challenged Claims
`
`Welch 2001 & Welch 1997
`
`Welch & Horton: Enumerating, selecting pairs, and expected utility
`1305 Ground I
`’632 patent, cls. 33-36
`1308 Ground I
`’253 patent, cls. 6-9
`1304 Ground III
`’632 patent, cls. 20-21
`1305 Ground IV
`’632 patent, cl. 33
`1308 Ground IV
`’253 patent, cls. 6-9
`1305 Ground V
`’632 patent, cls. 34-36
`1308 Ground V
`’253 patent, cls. 7-9
`
`Horton
`
`Horton & Welch 1997
`
`Other prior art references
`Kramer & Chen
`1304 Ground V
`Kramer, Chen & Welch 2001 1304 Ground VI
`1305 Ground III
`Welch 2001, Welch 1997 &
`Harris
`1308 Ground II
`Welch 2001, Welch 1997 &
`Reitmayr
`Horton & Harris
`
`1305 Ground VI
`
`1308 Ground III
`
`’632 patent, cls. 66-68
`’632 patent, cl. 69
`’632 patent, cls. 54-55 & 57-58
`’253 patent, cls. 3-5
`
`’253 patent, cls. 3-4
`
`’632 patent, cls. 54-55 & 57-58
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`69
`
`
`
`“Selecting Pairs”: Claim Language
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.20
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.34; see Ex.1003, cl.7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`70
`
`
`
`Horton’s External Tracking System Does Not Select a Pair of Sensing Elements
`’632 cls. 20-21, 34-36; ’253 cls. 7-9
`
`Petitioner
`
`Rebuttal
`
`Horton’s external tracking
`system could be an optical
`tracker that uses pairs of
`sensing elements
`Horton’s external tracking
`system does not generate a
`“sequence of candidates of
`pairs” of sensors and targets
`Horton does not describe
`“selecting” sensors or
`targets in conjunction with
`an external tracking system
`
`E.g., 1308 Petition 70; 1308 POR 9, 60-61; 1308 Reply 29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1010, Fig.3; e.g., 1304 POR 9
`71
`
`
`
`Horton Does Not Disclose Selecting a Pair of Accelerometers
`’632 cls. 20-21, 34-36; ’253 cls. 7-9
`
`Petitioner Horton’s six accelerometers
`comprise three pairs
`Horton does not pair
`accelerometers in this way
`Horton does not “select”
`pairs
`No support from Horton or
`Petitioner’s expert
`Argument was raised for the
`first time in reply
`
`Rebuttal
`
`E.g., 1308 Petition 70; 1308 Reply 29-30; 1308 Sur-Reply 23-25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1010, Fig.4
`
`72
`
`
`
`Grounds and Challenged Claims
`
`Welch 2001 & Welch 1997
`
`Welch & Horton: Enumerating, selecting pairs, and expected utility
`1305 Ground I
`’632 patent, cls. 33-36
`1308 Ground I
`’253 patent, cls. 6-9
`1304 Ground III
`’632 patent, cls. 20-21
`1305 Ground IV
`’632 patent, cl. 33
`1308 Ground IV
`’253 patent, cls. 6-9
`1305 Ground V
`’632 patent, cls. 34-36
`1308 Ground V
`’253 patent, cls. 7-9
`
`Horton
`
`Horton & Welch 1997
`
`Other prior art references
`Kramer & Chen
`1304 Ground V
`Kramer, Chen & Welch 2001 1304 Ground VI
`1305 Ground III
`Welch 2001, Welch 1997 &
`Harris
`1308 Ground II
`Welch 2001, Welch 1997 &
`Reitmayr
`Horton & Harris
`
`1305 Ground VI
`
`1308 Ground III
`
`’632 patent, cls. 66-68
`’632 patent, cl. 69
`’632 patent, cls. 54-55 & 57-58
`’253 patent, cls. 3-5
`
`’253 patent, cls. 3-4
`
`’632 patent, cls. 54-55 & 57-58
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`73
`
`
`
`“Expected Utility”: Claim Language
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.21
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`74
`
`
`
`“Highest Expected Utility”: Claim Language
`
`Ex. 1001, cl.34; see Ex. 1003, cl.7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`75
`
`
`
`“Expected Utility”: Claim Construction
`“expected utility of a measurement”
`
`Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Petitioner’s Construction
`
`“expected information gain of a measurement”
`
`“utility” means “usefulness”
`
`E.g., 1305 POR 23-24; Baillot ¶¶ 78-82
`
`E.g., 1305 Reply 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`76
`
`
`
`The Specification Supports Patent Owner’s Construction
`’632 cls. 21, 33-36; ’253 cls. 7-9
`
`Ex. 1001, 19:33-39; e.g., 1305 POR 23-24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`77
`
`
`
`Welch 2001 Does Not Disclose an Expected Utility of a Measurement
`’632 cls. 33-36; ’253 cls. 7-9
`
`Petitioner
`
`Petition: Welch 2001 discloses
`sampling LEDs to estimate yaw
`
`Reply: Welch 2001’s every 13th
`LED sequence has more utility
`than “more-selective”
`measurements
`LEDs being useful to estimate
`yaw is not the same as expected
`utility
`
`Rebuttal
`
`Comparing utility across the
`series of measurements does not
`bear on their sequence
`
`No expert support for new
`argument
`E.g., 1305 Petition 24; 1305 POR 31-32; 1305 Reply 9; 1305 Sur-Reply 11-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1007, 14
`
`78
`
`
`
`Welch 2001’s Least-Recently-Used Heuristic Does Not Achieve the
`Highest Expected Utility
`’632 cls. 34-36; ’253 cls. 7-9
`
`Petitioner Welch 2001 selects the
`least-recently-used LED
`Least-recently-used
`heuristic does not achieve
`the highest expected utility
`Petitioner improperly
`imports a “balancing”
`concept into claims
`
`Rebuttal
`
`E.g., 1305 Petition 24-25; 1305 POR 32-33; 1305 Reply 9; 1305 Sur-Reply 12-13
`
`Ex. 1007, 13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`79
`
`
`
`Horton Does Not Disclose an Expected Utility of a Measurement
`’632 cls. 21, 33-36; ’253 cls. 7-9
`
`Petitioner
`
`Horton discloses using pairs
`of accelerometers, as well as
`adding accelerometers
`No sequence of candidates
`of pairs of accelerometers
`
`Rebuttal
`
`No sequence based on
`expected utility
`
`No selection based on
`highest expected utility
`
`No expert support for these
`arguments introduced in reply
`
`E.g., 1305 POR 53-54; 1305 Reply 23; 1305 Sur-Reply 22-23
`
`Ex. 1010, 3:41-53
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`80
`
`
`
`Kramer & Chen
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT • NOT EVIDENCE
`
`81
`
`
`
`Grounds and Challenged Claims
`
`Welch 2001 & Welch 1997
`
`Welch & Horton: Enumerating, selecting pairs, and expected utility
`1305 Ground I
`’632 patent, cls. 33-36
`1308 Ground I
`’253 patent, cls. 6-9
`1304 Ground III
`’632 patent, cls. 20-21
`1305 Ground IV
`’632 patent, cl. 33
`1308 Ground IV
`’253 patent, cls. 6-9
`1305 Ground V
`’632 patent, cls. 34-36
`1308 Ground V
`’253 patent, cls. 7-9
`
`Horton
`
`Horton & Welch 1997
`
`Other prior art references
`Kramer & Chen
`1304 Ground V
`Kramer, Chen & Welch 2001 1304 Ground VI
`1305 Ground III
`Welch 2001, Welch 1997 &
`Harris
`1308 Ground II
`Welch 2001, Welch 1997 &
`Reitmayr
`Horton & Harris
`
`1305 Ground VI
`
`1308 Ground III
`
`’632 patent, cls. 66-68
`’632 patent, cl. 69
`’632 patent, cls. 54-55 & 57-58
`’253 patent, cls. 3-5
`
`’253 patent, cls. 3-4
`
`’632 patent, cls. 54-55 & 57-58
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHI