`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §312 AND 37 C.F.R. §42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................... 1
`A.
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 1
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1
`C.
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 2
`D.
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4): Service Information .......................................... 3
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.103 ..................................... 3
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING ............................. 3
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .............. 4
`A.
`Prior Art References .............................................................................. 4
`B.
`Relief Requested .................................................................................... 5
`VI. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE HERE .............. 6
`A.
`The ’632 Patent Has Not Been Subject to a Prior Petition ................... 6
`B. Multiple Petitions are Warranted .......................................................... 6
`C.
`The Presented Grounds and Argument Are Dissimilar to the Art
`and Arguments Previously Presented to the Office .............................. 7
`Efficiency, Fairness, and the Merits Support the Exercise of the
`Board’s Authority to Grant the Petition ................................................ 7
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY .................................................... 9
`A. Head-Mounted Display in Virtual and Augmented Reality
`Systems .................................................................................................. 9
`Sensors for Tracking an Object in VR and AR ................................... 10
`
`D.
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`C. Using Kalman Filters to Estimate the Position and Location of a
`Tracked Object .................................................................................... 11
`VIII. THE ’632 PATENT ..................................................................................... 12
`IX. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................... 13
`X. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................ 13
`XI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ......................................................... 14
`A. Overview of Welch Prior Art .............................................................. 14
`B. Overview of Horton............................................................................. 15
`XII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ................................................. 16
`A. Ground I: Claims 30-36, 44-45, 47-49, 51-53, and 59-61 are
`Rendered Obvious by Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 .......................... 16
`B. Ground II: Claim 50 is Rendered Obvious by Welch 2001,
`Welch 1997, and Welch Thesis ........................................................... 41
`C. Ground III: Claims 54-55 and 57-58 are Rendered Obvious by
`Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 in view of Harris .................................. 42
`D. Ground IV: Claims 30-33, 47, 50-53, and 59-61 are Rendered
`Obvious by Horton .............................................................................. 48
`Ground V: Claims 34-36 are Rendered Obvious by Horton in
`View of Welch 1997............................................................................ 66
`Ground VI: Claims 54-55 and 57-58 are Rendered Obvious by
`Horton in view of Harris ..................................................................... 69
`XIII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................ 74
`XIV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 74
`
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte
`GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020) .............................................. 7
`Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ....................................... 7, 9
`Becton, Dickinson, & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017) ............................................. 7
`Bowtech, Inc. v. MCP IP, LLC,
`IPR2019-00383, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2019) ............................................. 7
`Fasteners for Retail, Inc. v. RTC Indus., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00994, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2019) ............................................... 7
`Gentex Corporation et al. v. Facebook, Inc. et al.,
`No. 6:21-cv-00755-ADA (W.D. Tex.) ..................................................... 2, 6, 8, 9
`Microchip Technology Inc. v. Bell Semiconductor, LLC,
`IPR2021-00148, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. May 14, 2021) ........................................... 8
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F. 3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................................................... 13
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 14
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp.-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2020) ....................................... 8, 9
`Slayback Pharma LLC, v. Eye Therapies, LLC,
`IPR2022-00146, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B May 18, 2022) ............................................ 8
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) ............................................. 8
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 74
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Description
`
`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
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007 Welch, G. et al., “High-Performance Wide-Area Optical Tracking”
`(2001)
`
`1008 Welch, G. et al., “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete
`Information” (1997)
`
`1009 Welch G. “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete
`Information” PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina (1996)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,615,132
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`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)
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`Description
`
`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)
`
`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)
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`Description
`
`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
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`Petitioner Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta” or “Petitioner”) requests inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) of claims 30-36, 44-45, 47-55, and 57-61 (the “Challenged Claims”)
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632 (Ex.1001, “the ’632 Patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Before the ’632 Patent’s earliest priority date, it was well-known that any
`
`computer-implemented method for object tracking required a set of sensors and an
`
`algorithm for updating a state of the tracked object in light of the sensor output. For
`
`example, the use of Kalman filters to receive sensor measurement information and
`
`update the state estimate of a tracked object had been known for decades. The ’632
`
`Patent, however, claims that basic functionality in its independent claims, and then
`
`claims obvious variations of that functionality in the dependent claims. Because the
`
`purportedly novel aspects of the ’632 Patent were well-known in the prior art before
`
`the claimed priority date, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Challenged Claims
`
`be canceled as invalid.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`Petitioner identifies the following real parties-in-interest: Meta Platforms, Inc.
`
`and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC.
`
`B. Related Matters
`Gentex Corporation (“Gentex”) and Indigo Technologies, LLC (“Indigo”),
`
`the current and former licensees of the ’632 Patent, have asserted the ’632 Patent in
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`Gentex Corporation et al. v. Facebook, Inc. et al., No. 6:21-cv-00755-ADA (W.D.
`
`Tex.) (the “Texas Litigation”), which was thereafter transferred to the Northern
`
`District of California, No. 5:22-cv-03892 (the “California Litigation”). Thales
`
`Visionix, Inc. (“Thales Visionix” or “Patent Owner”) is named as an involuntary
`
`plaintiff in these litigations.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`W. Todd Baker (No. 45,265)
`todd.baker@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Telephone: (202) 389-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 389-5200
`
`Yimeng Dou (No. 69,770)
`yimeng.dou@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 South Flower Street, Suite 3700
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 680-8400
`Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
`
`Ellisen Shelton Turner (No. 54,503)
`ellisen.turner@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`2049 Century Park East,
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: (310) 552-4200
`Facsimile: (310) 552-5900
`
`Akshay S. Deoras, (to seek pro hac vice
`admission)
`akshay.deoras@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 439-1400
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4): Service Information
`D.
`Meta concurrently submits a Power of Attorney, 37 C.F.R. §42.10(b), and
`
`consents to electronic service directed to the following email address: Meta-Thales-
`
`IPR@kirkland.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.103
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.15(a)(1) for this Petition to Deposit Account No. 506092. Review of 23 claims
`
`is requested. The undersigned further authorizes payment for any additional fees that
`
`may be due in connection with this Petition to be charged to the above-referenced
`
`deposit account.
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the ’632 Patent is available
`
`for IPR and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR of the
`
`Challenged Claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. Petitioner certifies:
`
`(1) Petitioner is not the owner of the ’632 Patent; (2) Petitioner (or any real party-in-
`
`interest) has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the ’632
`
`Patent; (3) Petitioner files this Petition within one year of the date it was served with
`
`a complaint asserting infringement of the ’632 Patent; (4) estoppel provisions of 35
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`U.S.C. §315(e)(1) do not prohibit this IPR; and (5) this Petition is filed after the ’632
`
`Patent was granted.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of the Challenged Claims of the ’632
`
`Patent and requests that they be canceled.
`
`Prior Art References
`A.
`Petitioner’s challenge is based on the following prior art references:
`
`1. Welch, G. et al., “High-Performance Wide-Area Optical Tracking”
`
`(“Welch 2001”) (Ex.1007, Ex.1018), published February 2001 and publicly
`
`available no later than May 28, 2001, is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§102(a)
`
`and 102(b).1
`
`2. Welch, G. et al., “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete
`
`Information” (“Welch 1997”) (Ex.1008, Ex.1019), was made publicly available
`
`on August 3, 1997 and is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§102(a) and 102(b).
`
`3. Welch, G., “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete
`
`Information” PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina (“Welch Thesis”)
`
`
`1
`Based on the claimed priority date of the ’632 Patent, Pre-AIA versions of
`
`§102(a) and §103 apply.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`(Ex.1009, Ex.1020), was made publicly available no later than May 24, 1997 and is
`
`prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§102(a) and 102(b).
`
`4.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,615,132 to Horton et al. (“Horton”) (Ex.1010),
`
`filed January 21, 1994 and issued March 25, 1997, is prior art under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. §§102(a) and 102(b).
`
`5.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,307,289 (“Harris”) (Ex.1011), filed on September
`
`12, 1991 and granted on April 26, 1994, is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§102(a) and 102(b).
`
`The above prior art references predate the ’632 Patent, which claims priority
`
`to a provisional application filed on August 9, 2002.2 The above references and the
`
`combinations presented herein were not presented to or considered by the Examiner
`
`during prosecution. See generally Ex.1002.
`
`B. Relief Requested
`Petitioner requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims as unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103. The specific grounds of the challenge are set forth below, and
`
`are supported by the declaration of Dr. Ulrich Neumann (Ex.1005).
`
`
`2
`Petitioner reserves the right to challenge the August 9, 2002 priority date or
`
`any evidence of prior invention.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`Ground
`
`I
`
`II
`
`III
`
`IV
`
`V
`
`Claims
`30-36, 44-45, 47-
`49, 51-53, and 59-
`61
`
`50
`
`54-55 and 57-58
`
`30-33, 47, 50-53,
`and 59-61
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejection
`
`Obvious under §103 in view of Welch 2001 and
`Welch 1997
`
`Obvious under §103 in view of Welch 2001,
`Welch 1997, and the Welch Thesis
`
`Obvious under §103 in view of Welch 2001,
`Welch 1997, and Harris
`
`Obvious under §103 in view of Horton
`
`34-36
`
`Obvious under §103 in view of Horton and
`Welch 1997
`
`54-55 and 57-58 Obvious under §103 in view of Horton and Harris
`
`VI
`
`VI. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE HERE
`A. The ’632 Patent Has Not Been Subject to a Prior Petition
`The ’632 Patent has not been subject to any prior IPR or PGR petitions.
`
`B. Multiple Petitions are Warranted
`Gentex is asserting 53 claims from the ’632 Patent in the Texas Litigation.
`
`See Ex.1012, 3. The Board has recognized that in such circumstances more than one
`
`petition may be necessary. See Trial Practice Guide Update (November 2019). The
`
`current petition challenges 23 claims. The second petition challenges 32 claims.
`
`Multiple petitions are only needed due to the large number of challenged claims.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`C. The Presented Grounds and Argument Are Dissimilar to the
`Art and Arguments Previously Presented to the Office
`All factors considered by the Board under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) weigh in favor
`
`of institution. Becton, Dickinson, & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586,
`
`Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017); see also Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL
`
`Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13,
`
`2020). “[A] reference that ‘was neither applied against the claims nor discussed by
`
`the Examiner’ does not weigh in favor of exercising [] discretion under §325(d).”
`
`Fasteners for Retail, Inc. v. RTC Indus., Inc., IPR2019-00994, Paper 9 at 7-11
`
`(P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2019). None of the art presented herein was applied against the
`
`Challenged Claims or discussed by the Examiner during prosecution (nor were
`
`combinations thereof). Bowtech, Inc. v. MCP IP, LLC, IPR2019-00383, Paper 14 at
`
`5 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2019).
`
`D. Efficiency, Fairness, and the Merits Support the Exercise of the
`Board’s Authority to Grant the Petition
`A “holistic view” of the six Fintiv factors demonstrates that the Board should
`
`not exercise its discretion under §314(a). Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019,
`
`Paper 11 at 6 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). In light of the transfer, it is a
`
`near certainty that a Final Written Decision (“FWD”) in this proceeding will predate
`
`start of trial in N.D.Cal, and the district court may benefit from a FWD in IPR should
`
`the case proceed to trial. Thus, Fintiv Factor 2 weighs heavily in favor of institution.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`FACTOR 1: Petitioner has not sought a stay, and has no knowledge regarding
`
`whether the N.D.Cal. court would grant a stay if IPR is instituted. Thus, Factor 1 is
`
`neutral. Microchip Technology Inc. v. Bell Semiconductor, LLC, IPR2021-00148,
`
`Paper 19 at 10 (P.T.A.B. May 14, 2021).
`
`FACTORS 2 & 4: The Western District of Texas granted Meta’s motion to
`
`transfer the Texas Litigation to the Northern District of California (“N.D.Cal.”), and
`
`the case was transferred and docketed in N.D. Cal. on July 5, 2022. The resulting
`
`California Litigation was assigned to the Hon. Yvonne Rogers, and a Case
`
`Management Conference is scheduled for October 17, 2022. No trial date has been
`
`set. The median time-to-trial for patent/civil actions in N.D.Cal. is at least 30 months
`
`(January 2025). By contrast, the projected statutory deadline for a FWD is 18 months
`
`from filing (January 2024), and this date will not change. Thus, Factor 2 weighs
`
`heavily against exercising discretion to deny institution. Slayback Pharma LLC, v.
`
`Eye Therapies, LLC, IPR2022-00146, Paper 14 at 6 (P.T.A.B May 18, 2022) (“We,
`
`therefore, find this factor weighs heavily against exercising our discretion to deny
`
`institution. Indeed, we find that proceeding with this inter partes review may
`
`actually help the district court, as it may benefit from our decision should the case
`
`proceed to trial”). Further, because the date of the FWD will predate the district court
`
`trial, a Sotera stipulation should not be needed here. Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo
`
`Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) at 18; see also Sand
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp.-Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper
`
`24 at 11-12 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2020). As detailed herein, Petitioner presents
`
`compelling evidence of unpatentability. Factor 4 is neutral.
`
`FACTOR 3: The California Litigation has only just begun. Thus, the court has
`
`not yet invested time and resources in the parallel proceeding or the parties. Factor 3
`
`weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution.
`
`FACTOR 5: Petitioner was a defendant in the Texas Litigation and remains a
`
`defendant in the California Litigation. But in view of the other Fintiv factors—which
`
`heavily weigh against the Board’s exercise of §314(a) discretion—the similarity of
`
`the parties is of limited weight here.
`
`FACTOR 6: As set forth below, the merits of the grounds of this Petition are
`
`strong. Factor 6 weighs against the Board exercising its §314(a) discretion. Sand
`
`Revolution, Paper 24 at 13.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`A. Head-Mounted Display in Virtual and Augmented Reality
`Systems
`Head-mounted displays (“HMDs”) are widely used in both virtual reality
`
`(“VR”) and augmented reality (“AR”) applications. In VR, a user is enveloped in a
`
`completely computer generated environment. HMDs provide immersive images to
`
`the user, and the user’s head motion should be closely tracked so as to accurately
`
`reflect the user’s perspective within the computer generated environment. In
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`augmented reality (AR) applications, however, computer generated images are
`
`overlaid on real scenes observed by the user through the HMD. See Ex.1013,
`
`Abstract. Thus, in AR, tracking of the user’s head should be more accurate than for
`
`VR to minimize misalignment between the computer-generated image and the real
`
`scene observed by the user. Id.
`
`Sensors for Tracking an Object in VR and AR
`B.
`As acknowledged in the ’632 Background, tracking systems often use
`
`measurements from sensors to aid in determining a pose (position and orientation)
`
`of an object such as a person’s head as it navigates in an environment. See Ex.1001,
`
`1:16-22. Various types of sensors can be used to make these measurements. For
`
`example, the ’632 Background notes “ultrasound receivers, laser range finders,
`
`cameras, or pattern recognition devices” can be used as sensors in a tracking system.
`
`Ex.1001, 1:64-66. In an “outside-in” tracking system, the sensor is mounted in an
`
`environment and detect targets mounted to a tracked object. Ex.1007, 4-5. In an
`
`“inside-out” tracking system, the sensor is mounted to the tracked object and detects
`
`targets mounted in the surrounding environment. Id. Both types of systems are
`
`illustrated below, where the tracked object is the user’s head:
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`
`Id. One known way to improve tracking accuracy is to calibrate the sensors used to
`
`determine the pose of the object. While calibration is often performed off-line under
`
`controlled circumstances, goals such as flexibility, ease of use, and lower cost make
`
`the notion of self-calibration or autocalibration attractive. See Ex.1009 §2.5.3.
`
`C. Using Kalman Filters to Estimate the Position and Location of
`a Tracked Object
`Unlike analog tracking systems, which allow for continuous observations of
`
`a target, digital tracking systems introduce uncertainty because they are limited to
`
`discrete observations of a target. To deal with that uncertainty, it was well-known to
`
`use an optimal estimator to predict the state of a tracked target. Ex.1009 §2.1. An
`
`optimal estimator is “a computational algorithm that processes measurements to
`
`deduce a minimum error estimate of the state of a system by utilizing: knowledge of
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`system and measurement dynamics, assumed statistics of system noises and
`
`measurement errors, and initial condition information.” Id.
`
`One of the best-known optimal estimators is the Kalman filter. A Kalman
`
`filter is an “estimator that combines data from sensors and a motion model in a
`
`computationally-efficient manner. If certain assumptions hold, the Kalman filter
`
`provides estimates that are optimal in the sense of minimizing the expected mean-
`
`square error.” Ex.1013, 80. The Kalman filter “assumes that the signals can be
`
`modeled by a set of variables that capture the state of the system at any time, along
`
`with a process that determines how these state variables change with time in the
`
`absence of any inputs.” Id., 78. The Kalman filter then “will take the measurements
`
`and return the optimal estimate for the state variables at any desired time.” Id.
`
`The Kalman filter is inherently discrete because it is not derived from a
`
`continuous model, and thus is well-suited to computer-based systems. Ex.1009 §2.1;
`
`see also Ex.1013, 78, 83. As noted below, the ’632 Patent acknowledges Kalman
`
`filters were well-known in tracking systems. Ex.1001, 1:36-40, 2:12-14.
`
`VIII. THE ’632 PATENT
`The ’632 Patent issued on July 26, 2005, from U.S. Application No.
`
`10/639,242, filed on August 11, 2003, and claims priority to Provisional Application
`
`Nos. 60/402,178 (filed August 9, 2002). The ’632 Background provides a similar
`
`discussion to that described above in Section VII, acknowledging that a POSITA
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`would have known at the time of the alleged invention most limitations of the
`
`Challenged Claims. Ex.1005 ¶32. For instance, the Background acknowledges
`
`“[d]ifferent sensors may have different measurement characteristics that affect the
`
`mapping between the relative pose of a sensor and a target and the measurement
`
`values provided by the sensor. These characteristics can include uncertainty or noise
`
`characteristics of the measurement values.” Ex.1001, 1:31-35.
`
`The Background further acknowledges that Kalman filtering techniques were
`
`known “to incorporate information in sensor measurements to track the position or
`
`orientation of an object, typically also using information about the dynamic
`
`characteristics of the object,” including to estimate sensor calibration parameters.
`
`Id., 1:35-39, 2:12-14.
`
`IX. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`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. Ex.1005 ¶37.
`
`X. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Claims only need to be construed to the extent necessary to resolve a
`
`controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F. 3d
`
`1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, no terms need construction because the claims
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`read on the prior art under any construction consistent with Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).3
`
`XI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART
`A. Overview of Welch Prior Art
`Welch 2001, Welch 1997, and Welch Thesis (collectively, “Welch Prior Art”)
`
`describe an optical tracking system and algorithm developed over several decades at
`
`the University of North Carolina. Welch 2001 describes the “HiBall tracking
`
`system,” a tracker wherein an optical sensing unit (the HiBall) is attached to a person
`
`and interacts with ceiling-mounted LEDs to track the person’s movement. See
`
`Ex.1007, 5-6. As shown in Fig.6, the HiBall, LEDs, and a computer are connected
`
`to the “Ceiling-HiBall Interface Board (CIB),” which coordinates communication
`
`and synchronization between the computer and the HiBall/LED sensor-tracker
`
`system:
`
`
`3 Petitioner does not waive any arguments concerning indefiniteness, alternative
`
`claim scope, or other constructions that may be raised in the co-pending litigation.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`
`
`Ex.1007, 5-6, Fig.6. In this system, the LEDs are flashed one at a time to be seen
`
`and measured by different views of the HiBall sensor. Id., 6. To estimate the pose of
`
`the tracked object (person) using these measurements, “a Kalman-filter-based
`
`prediction-correction approach known as single-constraint-at-a-time (SCAAT)
`
`tracking” is used. Id. (emphasis in original). The SCAAT model calculates the
`
`tracked object’s expected pose, corrects those estimates using measurement data
`
`from the sensor and a target, and recursively predicts and corrects the pose using one
`
`measurement at a time. Id., 12-13. Welch 1997 and Welch Thesis, which are
`
`incorporated into Welch 2001 by reference (see Ex.1007, 11), describe the SCAAT
`
`tracking method and calculations in greater detail. See generally Ex.1008; Ex.1009.
`
`B. Overview of Horton
`Horton describes a “three-dimensional position and orientation tracking
`
`system” that tracks a moving object’s six degrees of freedom (e.g., x, y, and z
`
`15
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`coordinates and roll, pitch, and yaw) using accelerometers. Ex.1010, Abstract, 2:15-
`
`20. The system includes a tracking processor that gathers pose information from the
`
`accelerometers and/or other sensors and uses this data to correct and update the pose
`
`estimate for the object “using a feedback or Kalman filter process.” Id., 2:41-44. As
`
`explained in Horton, the Kalman filter (also called a “feedback loop”) “comprises
`
`reading tracking measurements [] (e.g., position, orientation, and/or velocity)” from
`
`the tracking system “and generating [] correction factors” that are used in calculating
`
`pose information for the tracked object. Id., 6:34-42. Horton also describes how the
`
`system is calibrated by using a Kalman filter “to solve for bias and scaling factors []
`
`for each accelerometer.” Id., 5:64-6:12. This process is repeated several times. Id.,
`
`6:12-14; Fig.3.
`
`XII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION
`A. Ground I: Claims 30-36, 44-45, 47-49, 51-53, and 59-61 are
`Rendered Obvious by Welch 2001 and Welch 1997
`1. Motivation to Combine
`Welch 2001 explicitly states that the online measurements from the HiBall
`
`sensor system are used by the PC (estimation system) to estimate the pose of the
`
`HiBall during operation using the SCAAT tracking approach described in Welch
`
`1997. See Ex.1007, 10-13. A POSITA would have understood that the SCAAT
`
`calculations performed by the PC use the online configuration measurements as
`
`16
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`inputs to estimate the HiBall’s pose, and that using these measurements as inputs
`
`constitutes “configuring the estimate system.” Ex.1005 ¶56.
`
`Specifically, a POSITA would have understood that the SCAAT tracking
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
