UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THALES VISIONIX, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,922,632
`
`IPR2022-01305
`__________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`December 14, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Paper No. 9
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ............................................................ 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Real Party in Interest ............................................................................. 2
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2
`
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.28(b)(4): Service Information ...................................... 4
`
`III. Background ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`The ’632 Patent ..................................................................................... 4
`
` Welch 2001 ............................................................................................ 8
`
`
`
`
`
`Horton .................................................................................................... 9
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 10
`
`IV. Petitioner Fails to Show a Reasonable Likelihood of Demonstrating
`Obviousness of Any Claim ............................................................................ 11
`
`
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish that Welch 2001 and Welch
`1997 Render Any Claim Obvious (Ground I) ..................................... 11
`
`1.
`
`The Petition does not adequately specify the bases for
`this Ground, and therefore fails on procedural grounds. .......... 12
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`The Petition does not adequately identify which
`reference supposedly discloses each limitation of
`independent claims 30, 33, 44, and 47. .......................... 13
`
`Petitioner fails to identify the differences between
`the prior art and independent claims 30, 33, 44,
`and 47. ............................................................................. 14
`
`Petitioner fails to incorporate its arguments
`regarding independent claims into arguments
`regarding dependent claims 31-32, 34-36, 45, 48-
`49, 51, 53, and 59-61. ..................................................... 18
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner has failed to show that Welch 2001 and Welch
`1997 render claims 30-32 obvious. ........................................... 18
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Paper No. 9
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Petitioner misreads Claim 30 in attempting to map
`it onto the HiBall system of Welch 2001. ...................... 19
`
`Petitioner has not shown that dependent claims 31
`and 32 are obvious. ......................................................... 20
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner has failed to show that Welch 2001 and Welch
`1997 render claims 33-36 obvious. ........................................... 20
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Petitioner fails to address critical limitations of
`claim 33. ......................................................................... 21
`
`Limitation 33[a] ................................................... 21
`i.
`Limitation 33[c] ................................................... 22
`ii.
`Petitioner has not shown that dependent claims 34-
`36 are obvious. ................................................................ 23
`
`Claim 34 ............................................................... 23
`i.
`Claim 36 ............................................................... 24
`ii.
`Petitioner has failed to show that Welch 2001 and Welch
`1997 render claims 44-45 obvious. ........................................... 24
`
`4.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Petitioner has not shown that Welch 2001
`discloses or renders obvious each limitation of
`claim 44. ......................................................................... 25
`
`Petitioner has not shown that dependent claim 45
`would have been obvious. .............................................. 26
`
`5.
`
`Petitioner has failed to show that Welch 2001 and Welch
`1997 render claims 47-49, 51-53, and 59-61 obvious. ............. 26
`
`a.
`
`Petitioner’s arguments regarding Claim 47 Are
`internally inconsistent and incorrect. .............................. 26
`
`b.
`
`i.
`
`Petitioner is inconsistent with respect to the
`claimed “sensor modules.” .................................. 27
`Limitation 47[c][1] .............................................. 29
`ii.
`Limitation 47[d][1] .............................................. 30
`iii.
`Limitation 47[d][2] .............................................. 31
`iv.
`Petitioner has not shown that dependent claims 48-
`49, 51-53, and 59-61 are obvious. .................................. 32
`
`Claim 59 ............................................................... 32
`i.
`Claim 60 ............................................................... 35
`ii.
`iii. Claim 61 ............................................................... 36
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Paper No. 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish that Welch 2001, Welch 1997,
`and Welch Thesis Render Claim 50 Obvious (Ground II).................. 36
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish that Claims 54-55 and 57-58
`Would Have Been Obvious over Welch 2001 and Welch 1997
`in View of Harris (Ground III) ............................................................ 37
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish that Horton Renders any Claim
`Obvious (Ground IV) .......................................................................... 39
`
`1.
`
`The Petition does not adequately specify the bases for
`this Ground, and therefore fails on procedural grounds. .......... 40
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Petitioner fails to articulate the differences
`between Horton and independent claims 30, 33,
`and 47. ............................................................................. 41
`
`Petitioner fails to incorporate its arguments
`regarding independent claims into Arguments
`regarding dependent claims 31-32, 50-51, 53, and
`59-61. .............................................................................. 42
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner has failed to show that Horton renders claims
`30-32 obvious. ........................................................................... 43
`
`a.
`
`Petitioner cannot show that Horton discloses the
`“sensor module” of claim 30. ......................................... 43
`
`Limitation 30[pre] ................................................ 44
`i.
`Limitations 30[a] and 30[b] ................................ 44
`ii.
`Limitation 30[c] ................................................... 45
`iii.
`Limitations 30[d] and 30[e] ................................. 45
`iv.
`Petitioner has not shown that dependent claims 31
`and 32 are obvious. ......................................................... 46
`
`b.
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner has failed to show that Horton renders claim 33
`obvious. ..................................................................................... 47
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Limitation 33[a] .............................................................. 47
`
`Limitation 33[c] .............................................................. 48
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner has failed to show that Horton renders claims
`47, 50-53, and 59-61 obvious. .................................................. 49
`
`a.
`
`Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim 47 are
`internally inconsistent and incorrect. .............................. 49
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Paper No. 9
`
`Limitation 47[b] ................................................... 50
`i.
`Limitation 47[c][1] .............................................. 51
`ii.
`Limitation 47[d][1] .............................................. 53
`iii.
`Limitation 47[d][2] .............................................. 54
`iv.
`Petitioner has not shown that dependent claims 50-
`53 and 59-61 are obvious. ............................................... 55
`
`b.
`
`Claim 50 ............................................................... 56
`i.
`Claim 59 ............................................................... 57
`ii.
`The Petition Fails to Establish that Horton in View of Welch
`1997 Renders Any Claim Obvious (Ground V) .................................. 59
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 34 .................................................................................... 60
`
`Claim 35 .................................................................................... 62
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish that Horton in View of Harris
`Renders Any Claim Obvious (Ground VI) ......................................... 62
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`The Board Should Deny Institution Under § 325(d) ..................................... 63
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 65
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Paper No. 9
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 39
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp.,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 19
`
`CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH,
`224 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 46
`
`Endo Pharms. Sols., Inc. v. Custopharm Inc.,
`894 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 16
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 14
`
`In re IPR Licensing, Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .............................................................. 34, 58, 61
`
`In re Montgomery,
`677 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 42
`
`In re Omeprazole Patent Litig.,
`483 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................... 16, 42
`
`In re Rijckaert,
`9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .............................................................................. 17
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 12, 40
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. FG SRC, LLC,
`860 F. App’x 708 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ......................................................... 18, 42, 56
`
`Monsanto Co. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc.,
`503 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .............................................................. 36, 37, 59
`
`Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 17
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Paper No. 9
`
`Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 0
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 38
`
`Securus Techs., Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp.,
`701 F. App’x 971 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 38
`
`TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 22
`
`OFFICE AUTHORITY
`
`Adaptics Ltd. v. Perfect Co.,
`Case IPR2018-01596, Paper 20 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2019) ..................... 15, 16, 41
`
`Apple Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-00454, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. July 13, 2015) ................................... 15
`
`Apple Inc. v. OpenTV, Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-01031, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2015) .......................... 14, 40
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`Case IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ................................ 63
`
`Apple, Inc. v. SmartFlash LLC,
`Case CBM2015-00028, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. May 28, 2015) .............................. 14
`
`Biofrontera Inc. v. DUSA Pharms., Inc.,
`IPR2018-01585, Paper 10, at 14-15 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019) .................... 64, 65
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`Case IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014) ................................ 50
`
`Ex parte Vembu,
`Appeal 2020-005681, 2021 WL 5756111 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2021) ................... 20
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Imperium (IP) Holdings,
`Case IPR2015-01233, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2015) ............................ 15, 41
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................. 11, 63
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ................................................................................................... 64
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Paper No. 9
`
`FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.75(c) ................................................................................. 18, 36, 37, 59
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) .............................................................................................. 50
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.28(b)(4) .............................................................................................. 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ...................................................................................passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Paper No. 9
`
`Title
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`Declaration of Dr. Ulrich Neumann in Support of Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Ulrich Neumann
`Welch, G. et al., “High-Performance Wide-Area Optical
`Tracking” (2001)
`Welch, G. et al., “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with
`Incomplete Information” (1997)
`Welch G. “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete
`Information” PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina
`(1996)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,615,132
`U.S. Patent No. 5,307,289
`Gentex’s Amended Preliminary Infringement Contentions
`and corresponding Exhibits 4 and 5 (’632 and ’253
`infringement charts)
`Azuma, R. “Predictive Tracking for Augmented Reality”
`PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina (1995)
`You, S. and Neumann, U. “Orientation Tracking for Outdoor
`Augmented Reality Registration.” (1999)
`Carlson, Neal A. and Berarducci, Michael P. “Federated
`Kalman Filter Simulation Results.” Navigation. Vol. 41,
`Issue 3 at 297-322. (Fall 1994)
`Reitmayr, Gerhard and Schmalstieg. “An Open Software
`Architecture for Virtual Reality Interaction” VRST ’01
`(November 2001)
`Barfield, W. “Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and
`Augmented Reality” (2001)
`Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Welch, G. et al.,
`“High- Performance Wide-Area Optical Tracking” (2001)
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Paper No. 9
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`Declaration of Scott Delman regarding Welch, G. et al.,
`“SCAAT:
`Incremental Tracking with
`Incomplete
`Information” (1997)
`Declaration of Dr. James L. Mullins regarding Welch G.
`“SCAAT:
`Incremental Tracking with
`Incomplete
`Information” PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina
`(1996)
`Declaration of Scott Delman regarding Reitmayr, Gerhard
`and Schmalstieg. “An Open Software Architecture for
`Virtual Reality Interaction” VRST ’01 (November 2001)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,807,284
`U.S. Patent No. 5,991,085
`Chen, Steven C. and Lee, Kang. “A mixed-mode smart
`transducer interface for sensors and actuators”, Sound &
`Vibration, 32(4), 24-27 (April 1998)
`Hoff, William and Vincent, Tyrone. “Analysis of Head Pose
`Accuracy in Augmented Reality”, IEEE Transactions on
`Visualization and Computer Graphics, Vol. 6, Issue 4,
`October – December 2000.
`Zetu, Dan et al., “Extended-Range Hybrid Tracker and
`Applications
`to Motion and Camera Tracking
`in
`Manufacturing Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics
`and Automation, Vol. 16, Issue 3, June 2000
`Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Chen, Steven C.
`and Lee, Kang. “A mixed-mode smart transducer interface
`for sensors and actuators.” Sound & Vibration, 32(4), 24-27
`(April 1998)
`Declaration of Gordon MacPherson regarding Hoff, William
`and Vincent, Tyrone. “Analysis of Head Pose Accuracy in
`Augmented Reality”, IEEE Transactions on Visualization
`and Computer Graphics, Vol. 6, Issue 4, October – December
`2000.
`Declaration of Gordon MacPherson regarding Zetu, Dan et
`al., “Extended-Range Hybrid Tracker and Applications to
`Motion and Camera Tracking in Manufacturing Systems,”
`IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 16,
`Issue 3, June 2000
`U.S. Patent No. 5,592,401
`
`x
`
`

`

`Paper No. 9
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`Complaint, Gentex Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 6:21-
`cv-00755-ADA (W.D. Tex. July 22, 2021), ECF No. 1.
`Joint Order Regarding Claim Construction and Discovery,
`Gentex Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 5:22-cv-03892-
`YGR (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2022), ECF No. 118.
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Paper No. 9
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632 (the “’632 patent”) claims an innovative
`
`architecture for a navigation or motion tracking system in which the “sensor-specific
`
`components” are separated from the “tracking component.” Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`
`While working at InterSense, LLC, a pioneering company in the virtual reality and
`
`motion tracking fields, Eric Foxlin invented this approach, which allows the same
`
`tracking component to interoperate with different types of sensors and associated
`
`components without re-programming of the tracking component (and vice versa).
`
`Ex. 1001, 17:29-38, 22:38-50. This, in turn, improves the versatility and scalability
`
`of the tracking system. Ex. 1001, 11:10-43. The system also can perform “automatic
`
`calibration of sensors,” through which the tracking component may estimate sensor
`
`calibration parameters simultaneously with tracking the relevant objects. Ex. 1001,
`
`2:5-19.
`
`Petitioner Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Petitioner”) acknowledges that the claims of
`
`the ’632 patent were novel, but it contends that the claims would have been obvious
`
`over two primary references, Welch 2001, Ex. 1007, and Horton, Ex. 1010.
`
`However, neither of these references incorporates the key requirements of the ’632
`
`patent. As Petitioner’s arguments underscore, in both systems the sensor-specific
`
`components and the tracking components are intertwined and hard-wired. As a
`
`result, neither system permits interoperability with different types of sensors, and
`
`1
`
`

`

`Paper No. 9
`
`neither supports automatic calibration—so neither discloses nor renders obvious the
`
`claimed inventions. Petitioner’s arguments misread both references, and its
`
`conclusory expert opinions do not fill the gaps. Petitioner therefore has failed to
`
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, and the petition should be rejected.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`
` Real Party in Interest
`
`Patent Owner Thales Visionix, Inc. identifies the following real party-in-
`
`interest: Gentex Corporation (“Gentex”). In 2012, Thales granted Indigo
`
`Technologies, LLC (“Indigo”), an affiliate of Gentex, an exclusive license to the
`
`’632 patent in a particular field-of-use. Indigo assigned its rights under its exclusive
`
`field-of-use license to Gentex on July 1, 2021. Ex. 2001, 2.
`
` Related Matters
`
`Gentex and Indigo (collectively, “Gentex”) asserted infringement by Meta of
`
`the ’632 patent in a complaint filed in the Western District of Texas, Gentex Corp.
`
`v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00755-ADA. Ex. 2001. Thales was named as
`
`an involuntary plaintiff. The case was subsequently transferred to the Northern
`
`District of California on July 5, 2022, No. 5:22-cv-03892. See Ex. 2002.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Paper No. 9
`
` Counsel and Service Information
`
`Counsel for Thales Visionix, Inc.
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`
`Meredith Martin Addy
`Reg. No. 37,883
`meredith@addyhart.com
`
`ADDYHART P.C.
`10 Glenlake Parkway
`Suite 130
`Atlanta, Georgia 30328
`312.320.4200 T
`312.254.2547 F
`
`
`Robert Hart
`Reg. No. 35,184
`robert@addyhart.com
`
`Gregory B. Gulliver
`Reg. No. 44,138
`gbgulliver@addyhart.com
`
`Brandon C. Helms
`Reg. No. 61,742
`bhelms@addyhart.com
`
`
`ADDYHART P.C.
`401 N. Michigan Ave.
`Suite 1200-1
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`312.834.7701 T
`312.264.2547 F
`
`
`
`
`
`Additional Backup Counsel for Gentex Corporation
`
`
`D. Shayon Ghosh
`Reg. No. 75,865
`Gentex-IPR@wc.com
`
`Arthur J. Argall III
`Reg. No. 73,005
`Gentex-IPR@wc.com
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Additional Backup Counsel for Gentex Corporation
`
`Paper No. 9
`
`Adam D. Harber
`(pro hac vice motion forthcoming)
`Gentex-IPR@wc.com
`
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`680 Main Avenue SW
`Washington, DC 20024
`202.434.5000
`
`
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.28(b)(4): Service Information
`
`Thales and Gentex submitted their Mandatory Notices, Paper 4, and Powers
`
`of Attorney, Papers 5 & 6. Thales and Gentex consent to electronic service directed
`
`to the following email addresses:
`
`Thales-Meta-IPRs@addyhart.com.
`
`Gentex-IPR@wc.com.
`
`III. BACKGROUND
`
` The ’632 Patent
`
`The ’632 patent, titled “Tracking, Auto-Calibration, and Map-Building
`
`System,” issued on July 26, 2005, and claims priority to August 9, 2002. Ex. 1001.
`
`It relates to a “navigation or motion tracking system” that “includes components
`
`associated with particular sensors, which are decoupled from a tracking component
`
`that takes advantage of information in the sensor measurements.” Ex. 1001,
`
`Abstract.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Paper No. 9
`
`The ’632 patent acknowledges that prior art systems were capable of using
`
`measurements from sensors to estimate the position and orientation of an object.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:16-21. Some prior art systems used Kalman filtering techniques to
`
`perform this estimation. Ex. 1001, 1:36-40. But the implementation of these prior
`
`art estimation systems “typically require[d] detailed knowledge of the measurement
`
`characteristics of the specific sensors used in tracking the object.” Ex. 1001, 1:40-
`
`43.
`
`The ’632 patent therefore describes a “navigation or motion tracking system”
`
`in which “components associated with particular sensors are decoupled from a
`
`tracking component” that makes use of the sensor measurements. Ex. 1001, 2:21-
`
`24. This architecture “enables development of sensor-specific components
`
`independently of the tracking component, and enables sensors and their associated
`
`components to be added or removed without having to re-implement the tracking
`
`component.” Ex. 1001, 2:21-28.
`
`Four independent claims of the ’632 patent are challenged in this Petition:
`
`claims 30, 33, 44, and 47. Claim 30 recites a “sensor module” comprising a “sensor
`
`interface for communicating with a measurement sensor” and a “communication
`
`interface for communicating with an estimation system,” wherein the sensor module
`
`is “configured to receive information related to an expected sensor measurement
`
`over the communication interface,” receive a measurement signal from the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Paper No. 9
`
`measurement sensor, and then “provide measurement information based on that
`
`signal over the communication interface.” In other words, the claimed sensor
`
`module operates as a bidirectional interface between the measurement sensor and
`
`the estimation system. The claim is directed to the “components associated with
`
`particular sensors” discussed above. Ex. 1001, 2:21-24.
`
`Claim 33 recites a method comprising “enumerating a set of sensing elements
`
`available to a tracking system,” providing to the tracking system “parameters
`
`specific to the set of sensing elements,” and then “generating a sequence of”
`
`candidate pairs of sensing elements based on “an expected utility of a measurement
`
`associated with said elements.” The specification describes at length the claimed
`
`enumeration process, see, e.g., Ex. 1001, 18:39-51, and explains that this
`
`enumeration allows the navigation system to “automatically reconfigure itself and
`
`continue to perform accurate map building and navigation when [sensing elements]
`
`are added or removed from the system,” Id., 19:1-6. “This capability is referred to
`
`as ‘plug-and-track.’” Id., 19:6. The specification further explains that “expected
`
`utility” refers to “the utility (or usefulness) of a [sensor] measurement” in estimating
`
`the pose of tracked objects. Id., 19:29-37; Id., 26:20-27:12, 41:20-37.
`
`Claim 44 recites a method comprising “estimating a calibration parameter of
`
`a sensing element that is either a sensor or a target,” “determining whether the
`
`6
`
`

`

`Paper No. 9
`
`sensing element is the sensor or the target,” and using the calibration parameter in a
`
`certain way “when the sensing element is a sensor.”
`
`Claim 47 recites a “method of using multiple sensors in a tracking system” in
`
`which an estimation module is coupled to “one or more sensor modules,” “each
`
`associated with a different set of one or more sensors.” The sensor modules provide
`
`“configuration information” “to the estimation module regarding the characteristics
`
`of the sensors associated with the sensor module.” The estimation module is
`
`configured “using the provided configuration information” and then “maintain[s]
`
`estimates of tracking parameters.” The latter process includes “repeatedly”
`
`(1) “passing data based on the estimates of the tracking parameters from the
`
`estimation module to one or more of the sensor modules;” (2) “receiving” from the
`
`sensor modules “data based on measurements obtained from the associated sensors,
`
`and the data passed to the sensor modules;” and (3) “combining the data received”
`
`and the “estimates of the tracking parameters” to “update the tracking parameters.”
`
`The claim thus requires sensor modules that are associated with particular sensors
`
`and coupled to a separate estimation module. The sensor modules provide certain
`
`information to the estimation module, including configuration and measurement
`
`information, and the estimation module passes estimates of tracking parameters to
`
`the sensor modules.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Paper No. 9
`
` Welch 2001
`
`The Welch 2001 publication1 describes an optical tracking system called the
`
`“HiBall Tracking System.” The name “HiBall” refers to an “outward-looking
`
`sensing unit” that is “fixed to each user to be tracked” and, using a set of six cameras,
`
`“observes a subsystem of fixed-location infrared LEDs” attached to a ceiling.
`
`Ex. 1007, 5-7. The system also comprises a central personal computer (PC) and a
`
`“Ceiling-HiBall Interface Board (CIB).” Id., 5-6, 9. During operation, the PC
`
`repeatedly receives measurements of LED signals from the HiBall and uses a
`
`“Kalman-filter-based prediction-correction approach known as single-constraint-at-
`
`a-time (SCAAT) tracking” to estimate the pose of the HiBall. Id., 6, 10-13.
`
`As the name suggests, the HiBall tracking system operates only with HiBall
`
`sensors; Welch 2001 does not suggest that any other types of sensors could be used
`
`with this system. Moreover, although Welch 2001 discloses the PC receiving
`
`measurement signals from HiBall sensors, it does not disclose the PC sending any
`
`information to the sensors. Nor does it describe the PC or any other component
`
`enumerating the sensors available to the system.
`
`
`1 Welch, G. et al., “High-Performance Wide-Area Optical Tracking” (“Welch
`
`2001”), Ex. 1007.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Paper No. 9
`
` Horton
`
`Horton2 describes a “three-dimensional position and orientation tracking
`
`system” that can track the pose of a moving object using accelerometers. Ex. 1010,
`
`Abstract; 2:15-20.
`
` Horton also discloses
`
`repeatedly
`
`reading “tracking
`
`measurements,” i.e., position, orientation, and/or velocity, from the accelerometers
`
`and then “using a feedback or Kalman filter process” to update the pose of the
`
`tracked object. Ex. 1010, 2:41-44, 6:34-42. Horton depicts this process in Figure 3,
`
`reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 5,615,132 (“Horton”), Ex. 1010.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Paper No. 9
`
`As Figure 3 shows, Horton describes a “main loop” that reads accelerometer data
`
`and then updates position and orientation information. Ex. 1010, 6:25-27. Horton
`
`does not disclose sending any information from the main loop to the accelerometers.
`
`It also does not describe any other components associated with the accelerometers.
`
`The exemplary embodiment in Horton uses “six accelerometers” “to track six
`
`degrees of freedom of an object in three dimensions.” Ex. 1010, 3:41-44. Although
`
`it discloses that more or fewer accelerometers could be used for redundancy or to
`
`track the object in fewer dimensions, Horton does not describe a single system that
`
`can operate with varying numbers of accelerometers, and therefore also does not
`
`describe enumerating a set of sensors, or automatic reconfiguration when new
`
`sensors are added or existing ones are removed.
`
`
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`For purposes of this preliminary response only, Patent Owner accepts the
`
`Petition’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”):
`
`A POSITA at the time of the ’632 Patent would have had
`
`a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, or an equivalent
`
`field, and three to five years of experience working with
`
`computer implemented tracking systems. Additional
`
`education might compensate for less experience, and vice-
`
`versa.
`
`Petition, 13. However, for any other purpose, Patent Owner disagrees with
`
`Petitioner that such POSITA should be limited to a maximum of five years’
`
`10
`
`

`

`Paper No. 9
`
`experience and reserves the right to offer an alternative definition based on expert
`
`evidence in the event IPR is instituted.
`
`IV. PETITIONER FAILS TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF
`DEMONSTRATING OBVIOUSNESS OF ANY CLAIM
`
`The Board should deny institution because Petitioner’s obviousness
`
`arguments do not meet the required threshold showing of a “reasonable likelihood”
`
`that it will prevail as to any claim. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
` The Petition Fails to Establish that Welch 2001 and Welch 1997
`Render Any Claim Obvious (Ground I)
`
`In Ground I, Petitioner contends that Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 render
`
`obvious claims 30-36, 44-45, 47-49, 51-53, and 59-61 of the ’632 patent. Of these,
`
`claims 30, 33, 44, and 47 are independent, and the remaining claims depend from
`
`one of them.
`
`Petitioner’s challenge fails both on procedure and substance. Procedurally,
`
`Petitioner repeatedly does not indicate which reference is cited for which limitation,
`
`does not articulate the differences between the claims and the prior art that
`
`purportedly renders them obvious, and fails to address certain limitations of the
`
`dependent claims. All of the claims in this Ground suffer from one or more of these
`
`defects, and Petitioner therefore cannot show that these references render obvious
`
`the identified claims.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Paper No. 9
`
`And substantively, Petitioner does not grapple with critical distinctions
`
`between the invention claimed in the ’632 patent and the system described in Welch
`
`2001 and Welch 1997. The ’632 patent describes a system where “components
`
`associated with particular sensors” are “decoupled from a tracking component,”
`
`enabling the use of various different types of sensors. Ex. 1001, Abstract. The
`
`HiBall system of Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 operates only with a single type of
`
`sensor. Accordingly, it does not need to—and indeed does not—decouple the
`
`sensor-specific components from the tracking component. Instead of addressing this
`
`gap, Petitioner either tries to elide it by asserting internally inconsistent positions, or
`
`simply ignores the limitations that require it. For this independent reason, Petitioner
`
`has failed to show that the identified claims would have been obvious over Welch
`
`2001 and Welch 1997.
`
`1.
`
`The Petition does not adequately specify the bases for this
`Ground, and therefore fails on procedural grounds.
`
`“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners” in inter partes review
`
`proceedings “adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with
`
`particularity’ t