U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`IPR2022-01308
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`
`© 2023 Kirkland & Ellis LLP. All rights reserved.
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION
`
`ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 1
`
`META 1041
`IPR2022-01305
`META V. THALES
`
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`
`© 2023 Kirkland & Ellis LLP. All rights reserved.
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION
`
`ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 1
`
`META 1041
`IPR2022-01305
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`Sole Dispute Regarding Claim Is “Configuration Data”
`
`’253
`
`Ex. 1003 (’253 Patent) at cls. 1 and 2
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`See also -01304 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 1
`See also -01305 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 47[c][1]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 2
`
`
`
`Welch’s Offline And Online HiBall Measurements Are Used For
`“Calibration”
`
`Ex. 1007 (Welch-2001) at 9-10
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`See also -01304 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 1
`See also -01305 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 47[c][1]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 3
`
`
`
`Welch’s “Calibration” Data Are Data Used To Configure
`The Estimation Subsystem “Configuration Data”
`
`Q Do you agree that Kalman filters are configured at least
`according to the calibration parameters that they use?
`A. I think in some case, yes. You might want to be more
`definitive on that. I don't have really an opinion right now
`as I stand.
`
`Q. So in view of what the '632 Patent teaches, do you
`agree that Kalman filters are typically configured
`according to the calibration parameters that they use?
`A. That's what it says here. I would think in most
`instances they are.
`
`Ex. 1033 (Baillot Depo. Tr.) at 5:22-6:5, 7:6-11
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`See also -01304 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 1
`See also -01305 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 47[c][1]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 4
`
`
`
`PO’s Construction Of “Configuration Data” Is Not Supported
`
`PO’s Construction
`
`“data describing characteristics or
`attributes of a sensor or set of
`sensors”
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`I'm not able to find those specific words in the patent. And
`so did you find them in the patent or did you get them from
`somewhere else?
`I do not recall at this time. I could scan the patent again,
`but it could be just also a way for me to define this further
`from reading the specification and seeing the type of
`information or data we are talking about. Basically I'm trying
`to say that it describes -- this information describes
`characteristics and attributes of a sensor.
`
`Q. So you don't have an opinion as to whether this is the standard
`definition of the terms "configuration data" and "configuration
`information"?
`A. No. I think "configuration data" and "configuration information" could
`be thought as many things, but for the purpose of this declaration I'm
`trying to define them further.
`
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`See also -01304 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 1
`See also -01305 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 47[c][1]
`
`Ex. 1033 (Baillot Depo. Tr.) at 203:14-204:2, 205:1-8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 5
`
`
`
`Welch’s Calibration Measurements “Describe” Pose
`And Satisfy PO’s Construction
`
`PO’s Construction
`“data describing characteristics or attributes of a sensor or set of sensors”
`
`’253
`
`Ex. 1003 (’253 Patent) at 30:3-6
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`See also -01304 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 1
`See also -01305 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 47[c][1] and Claim 60
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 6
`
`
`
`PO’s Construction Of Its Own Construction Is Unsupported And
`Improper
`
`PO’s Construction
`“data describing characteristics or attributes of a sensor or set of sensors”
`
`Paper 37 (PO's Sur-Reply) at 10
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`See also -01304 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 1
`See also -01305 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 47[c][1]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 7
`
`
`
`Welch’s Metadata Is Admittedly “Configuration Data”
`
`PO’s Construction
`“data describing characteristics or attributes of a sensor or set of sensors”
`
`Paper 37 (PO's Sur-Reply) at 11
`
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`See also -01304 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 1
`See also -01305 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 47[c][1] and Claim 59
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 8
`
`
`
`PO’s Expert Admitted Welch’s Metadata Is Supplied By The HiBall
`Sensors
`
`PO’s Construction
`“data describing characteristics or attributes of a sensor or set of sensors”
`
`Q. And so I'd just like to confirm that Welch 2001's
`Kalman filters are configured according to the type
`and format of data that it receives from the HiBall
`sensors.
`A. Again, no relationship with what I just read, but as a
`general statement and understanding I would say
`it's correct that it is done one time at the design
`stage of the system, and that system is not designed
`to ensure a configuration of those data of this Kalman
`filter that can be changed. So it has been done once,
`just to be clear.
`
`Ex. 1033 (Baillot Depo. Tr.) at 10:12-22
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`See also -01304 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 1
`See also -01305 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 47[c][1]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 9
`
`
`
`PO’s Complaints Regarding Allegedly New Argument Are Irrelevant In
`View Of PO’s Post-Institution Constructions
`
`“We hold that where a patent owner in an IPR first
`proposes a claim construction in a patent owner
`response, a petitioner must be given the opportunity in
`its reply to argue and present evidence of anticipation or
`obviousness under the new construction, at least where
`it relies on the same embodiments for each invalidity
`ground as were relied on in the petition”
`Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 75 F.4th 1374, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2023)
`
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`See also -01304 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 1
`See also -01305 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 47[c][1]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 10
`
`
`
`Claims 6 And 8
`
`’253
`
`Ex. 1003 (’253 Patent) at cls. 6 and 8
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`See also -01305 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 33[a]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 11
`
`
`
`“Enumerating” = “Determining The Number Of”
`
`PO’s Own Dictionary
`
`Ex. 2015
`
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`See also -01305 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 33[a]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 12
`
`
`
`Welch “Enumerates” Under PO’s Express Construction
`
`Ex. 1038 (Supplemental Neumann Declaration) ¶ 16
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`See also -01305 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 33[a]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 13
`
`
`
`PO Adds Implied Requirements Beyond Its Express “Enumerating”
`Construction
`
`’253
`
`Ex. 1003 (’253 Patent) at cl. 6; Paper 37 (PO's Sur-Reply) at 11
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`See also -01305 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 33[a]
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 14
`
`
`
`Welch “Enumerates” Under PO’s Express AND Implied Constructions
`
`Ex. 1038 (Supplemental Neumann Declaration) ¶¶ 15-16
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`See also -01305 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 33[a]
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 15
`
`
`
`Claim 7: “Highest Expected Utility”
`
`’253
`
`Ex. 1003 (US 7,725,253) at cl. 7
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 16
`See also -01304 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch 1997) and Ground IV (Horton), Claim 33
`
`
`
`Claim 7: “Highest Expected Utility” = “Highest Expected Usefulness”
`
`’253
`
`PO’s Own Dictionary
`
`Ex. Ex 1003 (’253 Patent) at 19:9-12 ; EX1034
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 17
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`See also -01304 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch 1997) and Ground IV (Horton), Claim 33
`
`
`
`PO Has No Evidence That Welch’s “Least Recently Used” Heuristic Is
`Not The Most “Useful” Option
`
`Q. Right. And so I just want to know if you have any
`reason to believe that when Welch chose to use the
`least recently used heuristic, did he expect it would be
`less useful than the alternative heuristics available to
`him?
`A. I don't see any discussion of that in this paper or
`reference. I don't believe I have addressed that in my
`declaration. So without more detail I cannot really
`form a complete opinion on this today.
`
`Ex. 1033 (Baillot Depo. Tr.) at 55:6-16
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`See also -01304 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch 1997), Claims 33-34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 18
`
`
`
`Welch’s “Least Recently Used” Heuristic Would Admittedly Have A
`Highest Expected Information Gain At Least Some Of The Time
`
`Q. Are there scenarios where the least recently used
`LED would provide the greatest information gain?
`A. I think there is some situation where the selected LED
`as per this process would lead to a greater information
`gain than another, yes.
`
`Ex. 1033 (Baillot Depo. Tr.) at 56:8-13
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`See also -01304 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch 1997), Claims 33-34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 19
`
`
`
`Claim 9: Typical Camera Flash Can Replace Welch’s “Dark-Light-
`Dark” Sequence
`
`Q. So could this dark-light-dark process be performed
`instead with passive targets where the flash is emitted
`by the HiBall instead of by the LED target?
`A. I think there is probably some scenario, yes, but it
`depends on how would you build such a system.
`Probably other factors to consider that are changing
`between using these LED's and using some other thing
`that can do what you are suggesting.
`
`Ex. 1033 (Baillot Depo. Tr.) at 61:5-14
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`See also -01304 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 20
`
`
`
`Claims 3-4: Only Unique Dispute Is Motivation To Combine
`
`’253
`
`Ex. 1003 (’253 Patent) at cls. 3 and 4
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground II (Welch-2001/1997 + Harris) and Ground III (Welch-2001/1997 + Reitmayr)
`See also -01305 Ground III (Welch-2001/1997 + Harris)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 21
`
`
`
`Harris’s And Reitmayr’s “Distributed” Systems Increase Processing
`Speed, Which Increases Accuracy
`
`Ex. 1005 (Neumann Declaration) ¶ 79 (Harris) and ¶ 92 (Reitmayr); Ex. 1011 (Harris) at 4:14-17
`
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground II (Welch-2001/1997 + Harris) and Ground III (Welch-2001/1997 + Reitmayr)
`See also -01305 Ground III (Welch-2001/1997 + Harris)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 22
`
`
`
`PO’s Contention That Using Distributed FPGAs Would Reduce
`“Flexibility” Is Factually False
`
`No objection or response by PO
`
`Ex. 1036 at 5; -01308, Paper 33 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 16
`Ground II (Welch-2001/1997 + Harris) and Ground III (Welch-2001/1997 + Reitmayr)
`See also -01305 Ground III (Welch-2001/1997 + Harris)
`
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 23
`
`
`
`PO’s Contention That Using Distributed FPGAs Would Reduce
`“Flexibility” Is Factually False
`
`No objection or response by PO
`
`Ex. 1035 at 5
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground II (Welch-2001/1997 + Harris) and Ground III (Welch-2001/1997 + Reitmayr)
`See also -01305 Ground III (Welch-2001/1997 + Harris)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 24
`
`
`
`Claim 1
`
`’253
`
`Ex. 1003 (’253 Patent) at cl. 1
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Grounds IV (Horton) and V (Horton + Welch 1997)
`See also -01304 Ground III (Horton), Claim 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 25
`
`
`
`The Petition Identified Two Separate “Subsystems”
`
`Paper 29 (Patent Owner's Response) at 48; Paper 01 (Petition) at 59; Ex. 1010 (Horton) Figure 3
`Grounds IV (Horton) and V (Horton + Welch 1997)
`See also -01304 Ground III (Horton), Claim 1
`
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 26
`
`
`
`PO Misconstrues The Petition
`
`Paper 1 (Petition) at 59
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Grounds IV(Horton) and V (Horton + Welch 1997)
`See also -01304 Ground III (Horton), Claim 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 27
`
`
`
`PO’s 100% Non-overlapping Construction Is Inconsistent With The
`Specification
`
`’253
`
`Ex. 1003 (’253 Patent) at 2:22-26
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Grounds IV(Horton) and V (Horton + Welch 1997)
`See also -01304 Ground III (Horton), Claim 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 28
`
`
`
`At A Minimum, Petitioner’s Reply Identified Two Separate “Subsystems”
`(Axonics v. Medtronic)
`
`Paper 33 (Petitioner's Reply) at 19-20; Ex. 1010 (Horton) at Fig. 3
`
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Grounds IV(Horton) and V (Horton + Welch 1997)
`See also -01304 Ground III (Horton), Claim 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 29
`
`
`
`The “Sensor Subsystem” Does Not Include Main Loop 41 (During
`Calibration Or During Tracking)
`
`Ex. 1010 (Horton) at 5:64-6:3 and Fig. 3
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Grounds IV(Horton) and V (Horton + Welch 1997)
`See also -01304 Ground III (Horton), Claim 1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 30
`
`
`
`PO Improperly Attempts To Define Petitioner’s Challenge. Petitioner Does Not
`Identify Horton’s Main Loop 41 As Part Of The Claimed “Estimation Subsystem”
`
`Paper 37 (PO's Sur-Reply) at 19 n.5
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Grounds IV(Horton) and V (Horton + Welch 1997)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 31
`
`
`
`Claim 1: Horton Teaches Three Types Of “Configuration Data”
`
`’253
`
`Configuration Data
`1) Calibration
`1
`Measurements
`2) Pre-specified bias
`3) Mounting Data
`
`2 3
`
`Ex. 1003 (’253 Patent) at cls. 1 and 5
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Grounds IV(Horton) and V (Horton + Welch 1997)
`See also -01304 Ground III (Horton), Claim 1
`See also -01305 Ground IV (Horton), Claim 47[c][1]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 32
`
`
`
`Calibration Measurements From The “Sensor Subsystem” Are
`“Load[ed]” Into The “Estimation Subsystem” During Calibration
`
`1
`
`Ex. 1010 (Horton) at Fig. 3, 5:64-6:3
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Grounds IV(Horton) and V (Horton + Welch 1997)
`See also -01304 Ground III (Horton), Claim 1
`See also -01305 Ground IV (Horton), Claim 47[c][1]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 33
`
`
`
`PO’s Expert Admits “Pre-Specified Bias” Data Is Received By The
`Tracking System
`
`2
`
`Q. Do you agree that the tracking system receives these
`prespecified bias values for purposes of calibration?
`A. That's what it says, yeah, here.
`Q. And do you agree that that's what’s happening?
`A. That's what I'm reading and that seems to be making
`sense.
`
`Ex. Ex. 1033 (Baillot Depo. Tr.) at 131:19-132:4
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Grounds IV(Horton) and V (Horton + Welch 1997)
`See also -01304 Ground III (Horton), Claim 1
`See also -01305 Ground IV (Horton), Claim 47[c][1]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 34
`
`
`
`The Designer Must Use A Sensor To Measure The Mounting Data, And
`That Sensor Is Part Of The “Sensor Subsystem” As Defined
`
`3
`
`Q. Okay. And the sensors don't determine -- like the accelerometer
`doesn't determine that mounting data itself, correct? It's the person
`who set up this system who determines that mounting data?
`A. Yeah, it's a physical thing. They construct some sort of module that will
`hold the accelerometers. You have to mount them somehow so they
`don't move around.
`And you are make them as rigid and accurate as possible. You record
`the data as best as you can. You measure it. And that becomes the
`mounting data.
`
`Ex. 2009 (Neumann Depo. Tr.) at 155:14-24
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Grounds IV(Horton) and V (Horton + Welch 1997)
`See also -01304 Ground III (Horton), Claim 1
`See also -01305 Ground IV (Horton), Claim 47[c][1]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 35
`
`
`
`Claim 3: Dr. Neumann Confirms Horton Performs “Computations”
`(Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 19-25)
`
`Paper 33 (Petitioner's Reply) at 26; Ex. 1038 (Supplemental Neumann Declaration) ¶ 22
`Grounds IV(Horton) and V (Horton + Welch 1997)
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 36
`
`
`
`Claim 6: Horton (At Least Obviously) “Enumerates”
`
`Ex. Ex. 1038 (Supplemental Neumann Declaration) ¶¶ 26-30; Paper 37 (PO's Sur-Reply) at 22
`Grounds IV(Horton) and V (Horton + Welch 1997)
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 37
`
`
`
`Claim 7: Orientation (Roll-Pitch-Yaw) Accelerometers Are Obviously
`Paired With Translation (X-Y-Z) Accelerometers
`
`z
`
`Yaw
`
`Roll
`
`x
`
`y
`
`Pitch
`
`Q. …I'm just trying to understand if the X direction
`accelerometer and the accelerometer that measures rotation
`about the X direction, are those ever used together to correct
`each other?
`A. They might in some instances. I'm not super clear about that
`right now, but there might be some instance where they are.
`Q. And would the same be true for the accelerometer that
`measures Y direction and pitch, that those could be used to
`correct each other? A. I would have the same statement on
`this.
`Q. And the same answer for the Z direction and yaw?
`A. Yeah….
`
`Ex. 1033 (Baillot Depo. Tr.) at 154:2-17
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Grounds IV(Horton) and V (Horton + Welch 1997)
`See also -01304 Ground III (Horton), Claim 20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 38
`
`
`
`Claim 7: Position Accelerometers Would Obviously Have Been Paired
`With Orientation Accelerometers
`
`Q. I'm just asking generally if the translation
`accelerometer and the orientation about that axis
`accelerometer, meaning those two degree of freedom,
`if those are ever paired to correct for each other?
`A. They might be. I'm not so clear about that. I'm not
`dealing with a scanning sensor in my current job.
`
`Ex. Ex. 1033 (Baillot Depo. Tr.) at 155:2-10
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Grounds IV(Horton) and V (Horton + Welch 1997)
`See also -01304 Ground III (Horton), Claim 20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 39
`
`
`
`Claim 8: Two Errors That Require Expert Testimony To Correct
`According To PO NOT Correctible Per Novo Industries
`
`’253
`
`Not referred to in Claim 6 as a “set”
`
`Not referred to in Claim 8 as
`“enumerated” sensing elements
`
`Ex. 1003 (’253 Patent) at cls. 6 and 8
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Grounds IV(Horton) and V (Horton + Welch 1997)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 40
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`IPR2022-01304
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`
`© 2023 Kirkland & Ellis LLP. All rights reserved.
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION
`
`ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 41
`
`
`
`Claim 2: Kalman Filter Software Modules Are Coupled (By The CIB)
`To Each Sensor
`
`’632
`
`Ex. 1001 (’632 Patent) at cl. 2; Ex. 1008 (Welch-1997) at 6
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 42
`
`
`
`Claim 2: PO Misleadingly Quotes Dr. Neumann’s Testimony
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`Q.
`
`Q.
`
`I see where you say, “each Kalman filter is performed in software in the PC
`estimation subsystem and in my opinion constitutes a software module,”
`right? That's in your opinion 68.
`Yes, I see that.
`I'm not seeing any other opinion about any other software module; is that
`correct?
`A. Well, I'm talking about the sensors and the sensor elements, the ceiling
`and the HiBall. So the implication there is at minimum there should be
`some software that interacts with those and makes those work.
`But you don't offer an opinion in this claim 2 about any other software
`module other than the Kalman filter performed in software in the PC?
`THE WITNESS: Yeah, I think I assumed it was understood it was there. I didn't
`explicitly mention it in this paragraph.
`So you don't mention anything else here beyond that software module
`of the Kalman filter?
`I don't see a mention of a software module interacting with the
`sensor system.
`Okay.
`It may be elsewhere. But I don't see it here.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`A.
`
`Paper 39 (PO’s Sur-Reply re 632) at 12; Ex. 2009 (Neumann Depo. Tr.) at 100:7-101:9
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 43
`
`
`
`Claim 11: “Information Related To An Expected Sensor
`Measurement”
`
`’632
`
`Ex. 1001 (’632 Patent) at cl. 11
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`See also -01305 Ground I (Welch-2001 + Welch-1997), Claim 30[c]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 44
`
`
`
`Claim 11: LED Selection Is Based On Predicted Pose
`
`Ex. 1007 (Welch-2001) at 13
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 45
`
`
`
`Claim 11: LED Selection Is Based On Predicted Pose
`
`Ex. 1007 (Welch-2001) at 13
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 46
`
`
`
`Claim 11: LED Selection Is Based On Predicted Pose
`
`Ex. 1007 (Welch-2001) at 13
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 47
`
`
`
`Claim 11: LED Selection Is Based On Predicted Pose
`
`Ex. 1007 (Welch-2001) at 13
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 48
`
`
`
`Claim 11: PO’s Expert Admitted LED Trigger Data Is Related To
`Predicted (=“Expected” According To PO) Sensor Measurement
`
`Q. Would the decision of which LED to flash be
`based at all on the predicted sensor
`measurement?
`A. It can be dependent in part, but it's not the
`only thing that will be involved.
`
`Ex. 1033 (Baillot Depo. Tr.) at 69:1-5
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 49
`
`
`
`Claim 14: Welch Calculates The Difference Between Actual And
`Expected Measurements
`
`Ex. 1007 (Welch-2001) at 13
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 50
`
`
`
`Claims 12-13: LED Selection Related To Relative Geometric
`Configuration And Location Of Sensing Elements In The HiBall
`
`Ex. 1007 (Welch-2001) at 13 (left) and 6-7 (right); -01304, Paper 34 (Petitioner’s
`Reply) at 12 (section heading) and 13-14 (“The selection of which LED to flash”)
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 51
`
`
`
`Claims 12-13: LED Selection Related To Relative Geometric
`Configuration And Location Of Sensing Elements In The HiBall
`
`Ex. 1007 (Welch-2001) at 13; -01304, Paper 34 (Petitioner’s Reply) at
`12 (section heading) and 13-14 (“The selection of which LED to flash”)
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 52
`
`
`
`Claim 23: POSITA Motivated To Develop Hybrid Systems
`
`Ex. 1009 (Welch-Thesis) at 56
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground II: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997 + Welch-Thesis
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 53
`
`
`
`Claim 2: Horton’s Code Is Comprised Of Two Inextricably Linked
`Software Modules That Are Each Coupled To Sensors
`
`Table 4 Module That Reads Accelerometers
`Calls Table 1 Module That Sets Number Of Accelerometers
`
`Ex. 1010 (Horton) at cols. 11 and 12; -01304, Paper 34 (Petitioner’s Reply) at 23 (“Table 1”)
`Ground III: Horton
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 54
`
`
`
`Claim 6: Directed To Iterative Refinement Of Configuration
`Information
`
`’632
`
`Ex. 1001 (’632 Patent) at cls. 1 and 6
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground III: Horton
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 55
`
`
`
`Claim 6: Directed To Iterative Refinement Of Configuration
`Information
`
`’632
`
`Ex. 1001 (’632 Patent) at 24:34-40
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground III: Horton
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 56
`
`
`
`Claim 6: Horton’s Iterative Refinement Of Configuration Information
`Is Exactly What Claim 6 Contemplates
`
`Horton
`
`Ex. 1010 (Horton) at 6:12-14
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground III: Horton
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 57
`
`
`
`Claim 6: Horton’s Iterative Refinement Of Configuration Information
`Is Exactly What Claim 6 Contemplates
`
`Horton
`
`Iterations 1-2
`
`Iterations 3-4
`
`Configuration
`Information
`
`Configuration
`Information
`
`Iterations 5-6
`
`Configuration
`Information
`
`Ex. 1010 (Horton) at 6:12-14
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground III: Horton
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 58
`
`
`
`Claim 6: Horton’s Iterative Refinement Of Configuration Information
`Is Exactly What Claim 6 Contemplates
`
`Iterations 1-2
`
`Iterations 3-4
`
`Configuration
`Information
`
`Configuration
`Information
`
`Iterations 5-6
`
`Configuration
`Information
`
`Ex. 1001 (’632 Patent) at cls. 1 and 6
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground III: Horton
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 59
`
`
`
`Claim 11: PO Adds Non-Existent Requirements
`
`Ex. 1001 (’632 Patent) at cls. 1 and 11
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground III: Horton
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 60
`
`No requirement that this
`information is provided by the
`estimation subsystem
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`IPR2022-01305
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives
`
`© 2023 Kirkland & Ellis LLP. All rights reserved.
`
`ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION
`
`ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
`
`
`
`Claim 30: Trigger For HiBall Sensor Is Tied To The LED Trigger,
`Which Is “Related To An Expected Sensor Measurement”
`
`’632
`
`Ex. 1001 (’632 Patent) at cl. 30; -01305, Paper 2 (Petition) at 19 (“Once the view and LED are
`selected, the CIB flashes the selected LED and the HiBall takes a single measurement.”)
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 62
`
`
`
`Claim 30: LED Selection Is Based On Predicted Pose, and HiBall
`Trigger Is Directly Connected To LED Selection Trigger
`
`Ex. 1007 (Welch-2001) at 13 and Fig. 6; -01305, Paper 2 (Petition) at 19 (“Once the view and
`LED are selected, the CIB flashes the selected LED and the HiBall takes a single measurement.”)
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 63
`
`
`
`Claim 33: Welch’s “Reacquisition” Sequence Satisfies This Claim
`Element
`
`’632
`
`Ex. 1001 (’632 Patent) at cl. 33
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 64
`
`
`
`Claim 33: Welch “Reacquisiton” Process Is One Sequence Of Candidates
`Where The Pairs In The Beginning Of The Sequence Have A Higher Expected
`Utility Than The Pairs At The End
`
`ONE Sequence
`
`Higher
`expected
`utility portion
`of sequence
`Lower
`expected
`utility portion
`of sequence
`
`Ex. 1007 (Welch-2001) at 14
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground I: Welch-2001 + Welch-1997
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 65
`
`
`
`“Expected” = “Anticipated,” Not “Predicted Value” As PO Contends
`
`’632
`
`The patent intentionally distinguishes
`between “expected” and “predicted”
`
`Ex. 1001 (’632 Patent) at 4:50-52
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground IV: Horton
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 66
`
`
`
`Claim 30: “Request Mode” At Least Obviously Applies To “Get” New
`Accelerometer Data When Helpful, Rather Than At Arbitrary Intervals
`
`Horton
`
`Ex. 1010 (Horton) at 12:47-49; 4:60-61
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground IV: Horton
`See also Ground IV (Horton), Claim 47[d][1-2]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 67
`
`
`
`Claim 59: Ignoring PO’s Unclaimed Requirements, Accelerometer
`Mounting Data Satisfies This Claim
`’632 No requirement to uniquely
`characterize a sensor
`
`No requirement that
`characterizing information is
`provided directly by the sensors
`
`Q. I guess would the mounting -- or would the
`typical mounting for a set of accelerometers
`expect it to be the same as a typical mounting
`for a set of ultrasonic sensors?
`A. It's a completely different setup. So there is
`no constraint that will apply from one to the
`other.
`
`. . .
`
`Ex. 1001 (’632 Patent) at cls. 47, 59; Ex.1033 (Baillot Depo. Tr.) at 176:7-13
`K I R K L A N D & E L L I S
`
`Ground IV: Horton
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE 68
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
