`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
`
`