Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 10
`Entered: March 22, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`THALES VISIONIX, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Patent 7,725,253 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, HYUN J. JUNG, and
`JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 10
`Entered: March 22, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`THALES VISIONIX, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Patent 7,725,253 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, HYUN J. JUNG, and
`JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Patent 7,725,253 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Meta Platforms, Inc., (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`requesting institution of inter partes review of all claims (1–9) of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253 B2 (Ex. 1003, “the ’253 patent”). Thales
`Visionix, Inc., (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). As authorized, Petitioner filed a Preliminary Reply
`(Paper 8) and Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-Reply (Paper 9).
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have authority to
`determine whether to institute review.
`An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information
`presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the
`reasons set forth below, we conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable
`likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one
`challenged claim, and we institute inter partes review.
`
`A. REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
`Petitioner identifies itself and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC, as
`the real parties in interest. Pet. 1. Patent Owner identifies itself and licensee
`Gentex Corporation as the real parties in interest. Paper 3, 1 (Patent Owner’s
`Mandatory Notices).
`
`B. RELATED MATTERS
`The parties identify the following related litigation: Gentex Corp.
`et al. v. Facebook, Inc., Meta Platforms, Inc. et al., No. 5:22-cv-03892 (N.D.
`Cal.). Pet. 2; Paper 3, 1.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Patent 7,725,253 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner also identifies Office proceedings IPR2022-01304 and
`IPR2022-01305 as involving a patent related to the ’253 patent. Paper 3, 1.
`
`C. THE ’253 PATENT
`The ’253 patent is titled “Tracking, Auto-Calibration, and Map-
`Building System.” Ex. 1003, Code (54). It issued from an application filed
`June 8, 2005, as a continuation of an application filed August 11, 2003 (now
`Pat. No. 6,922,632), which claims the benefit of a provisional application
`filed August 9, 2002. Id., codes (63), (60), 1:7–10. The ’253 patent relates to
`a navigation or motion-tracking system. Id., code (57).
`The ’253 patent describes that “Navigation system 90 . . . includes
`sensors 103 that provide measurement data and a data processing unit 190
`that processes data provided by the sensors.” Id. at 11:49–52. It states that
`“navigation system 90 tracks the position and the orientation (together
`referred to as the 6-dimensional ‘pose’) of vehicle 100 based on both inertial
`measurements as well as sensor measurements between sensing devices or
`targets in the vehicle 100 and sensing devices or targets that are fixed in the
`environment 106.” Id. at 11:55–60. The ’253 patent refers to “sensors and
`targets fixed to the vehicle or fixed in the environment,” collectively, as
`“pose sensing elements” (PSE). Id. at 12:50–52. Figure 2 is reproduced
`below:
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Patent 7,725,253 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 is a block diagram of a navigation system. Id. at 11:26. It depicts
`sensors 103 including PSE devices 105 and inertial measurement unit
`(IMU)1 104 providing data to data processing unit 190, which includes PSE
`drivers 120 and meta-driver 122, which provide an interface to sensor fusion
`core 200. Id. at 15:51–16:22.
`The specification explains that “PSE drivers 120 are software
`modules, which may be written by manufacturers of PSE devices 105
`independently of the specific implementation of the sensor fusion core” and
`“include information and interfaces that are specific to the PSE devices 105,
`and data and code needed for computation of the linearized observation
`matrices, observation noise covariance matrices, and expected sensor
`measurements.” Id. at 16:22–31. It also explains that, when navigation
`
`
`1 Ex. 1003, 12:22–23.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Patent 7,725,253 B2
`
`system 90 is powered up, measurement management unit (MMU) 304 “calls
`the meta-driver 122 and requests that the meta-driver enumerate the sensing
`hardware,” and then “[m]eta-driver 122 loads available PSE drivers, such as
`308 and 309, from a driver database 310.” Id. at 18:13–17. The ’253 patent
`states that, “[b]y using meta-driver 122 to enumerate the PSEs available
`upon power-up of navigation system 90, the navigation system is able to
`automatically reconfigure itself.” Id. at 18:42–44.
`
`D. CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`Challenged claim 1 is independent and is reproduced below:
`1. A tracking system comprising:
`an estimation subsystem; and
`a sensor subsystem coupled to the estimation subsystem
`and configured to provide configuration data to the
`estimation subsystem and to provide measurement
`information to the estimation subsystem for localizing
`an object;
`wherein the estimation subsystem is configured to update a
`location estimate for the object based on configuration
`data and measurement information accepted from the
`sensor subsystem.
`Id. at 46:4–13. Claims 2–5 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Id. at
`46:14–26. Claim 6 is independent and is reproduced below:
`6. A method comprising:
`enumerating sensing elements available to a tracking
`system that includes an estimation subsystem that
`estimates a position or orientation of an object; and
`providing parameters specific to the enumerated sensing
`elements to the tracking system to enable the estimation
`subsystem to be configured based on the parameters
`specific to the enumerated sensing elements to enable
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Patent 7,725,253 B2
`
`
`the estimation subsystem to estimate the position or
`orientation of the object.
`Id. at 46:27–36. Claims 7–9 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 6. Id.
`at 46:37–49.
`
`E. PRIOR ART AND ASSERTED GROUNDS
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
`1, 2, 6–9
`103
`Welch 20012, Welch 19973
`
`3–5
`
`3, 4
`
`1–9
`
`7–9
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`Welch 2001, Welch 1997, Harris4
`
`Welch 2001, Welch 1997, Reitmayr5
`
`Horton6
`
`Horton, Welch 1997
`
`Pet. 6. Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Dr. Ulrich Neumann.
`Ex. 1005.
`
`
`2 Greg Welch & Gary Bishop, SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with
`Incomplete Information (1997) (Ex. 1008).
`3 Greg Welch et al., High-Performance Wide-Area Optical Tracking,
`PRESENCE TELEOPERATORS AND VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS, Feb. 2001
`(Ex. 1007).
`4 US Pat. No. 5,307,289, iss. Apr. 26, 1994 (Ex. 1011).
`5 Gerhard Reitmayr & Dieter Schmaistieg, An Open Software Architecture
`for Virtual Reality Interaction (Nov. 2001) (Ex. 1016).
`6 US Pat. No. 5,615,132, iss. Mar. 25, 1997 (Ex. 1010).
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Patent 7,725,253 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`Patent Owner argues that we should deny institution under § 314(a) in
`light of district-court litigation between the parties. Prelim. Resp. 61–64.
`Petitioner argues that most of the factors of Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential), 2020 WL
`2126495, *2–3 (“Fintiv”) weigh against exercising our discretion under
`§ 314(a) to deny the Petition. Pet. 8–10. According to Petitioner, only factors
`1 and 4 are neutral. Id. at 8, 9. Patent Owner responds that trial in the related
`litigation will take place in late January 2024, before a Final Written
`Decision is expected in this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 62–63. Patent Owner
`also argues that factors 4–6 weigh in favor of discretionary denial. Id. at 63.
`With our authorization, the parties filed a Preliminary Reply and Preliminary
`Sur-Reply that elaborate on the arguments summarized above. Papers 8, 9.
`Fintiv instructs us to consider whether to deny institution in certain
`circumstances when there is parallel district court litigation, upon
`consideration of six factors:
`1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that
`one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted;
`2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s
`projected statutory deadline for a final written decision;
`3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and
`the parties;
`4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the
`parallel proceeding;
`5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel
`proceeding are the same party; and
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Patent 7,725,253 B2
`
`
`6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of
`discretion, including the merits.
`Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6.
`Our analysis of Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s
`Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for
`Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District
`Court Litigation” (“Director’s Memo”).7 We turn to the Fintiv factors.
`1. Factor 1: Stay
`Neither party has moved for a stay of the district court proceeding.
`Pet. 8; Paper 8, 2; Paper 9, 5. This factor is, thus, neutral. See Fintiv,
`Paper 15 at 12 (“We decline to infer . . . how the District Court would rule
`should a stay be requested by the parties in the parallel case here.”).
`2. Factor 2: Proximity to Trial Date
`The parallel litigation began in the U.S. District Court for the Western
`District of Texas, but was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
`Northern District of California. Pet. 8; Prelim. Resp. 62. No trial date has
`been set. Pet. 8. Patent Owner argues that we should deny institution based
`on the expected trial date using the median time to trial from when the case
`was filed in the Western District of Texas. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 63; Fintiv,
`Paper 11, 2.
`Fintiv factor 2 discusses consideration of a trial date. The Director’s
`Memo states that it may be useful to compare a trial date with evidence of a
`median time to trial. Director’s Memo 8. The purpose of doing so is in order
`to ascertain the likelihood of the scheduled trial date actually occurring on or
`
`7 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
`interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_
`memo_20220621_.pdf
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Patent 7,725,253 B2
`
`around that date. Id. at 8 (“Stakeholders correctly noted that scheduled trial
`dates are unreliable and often change[,]” and a “scheduled trial date . . . is
`not by itself a good indicator of [when] the district court trial will occur.”).
`The Director’s Memo does not state that median time-to-trial statistics are
`themselves a trial date, or otherwise replace consideration of a trial date
`under Fintiv factor 2. And, in the circumstances here, where the case was
`transferred from the Western District of Texas, the usefulness of the median
`time to trial statistics is less clear. Ultimately, though, we will not speculate
`on when a trial may be scheduled. Accordingly, factor 2 favors not
`exercising our discretion to deny institution.
`3. Factor 3: Investment in Parallel Proceeding
`Patent Owner argues that “[t]he parties have fully briefed claim
`construction and exchanged infringement and invalidity contentions, and are
`almost eight months into general fact discovery.” Prelim. Resp. 62.
`Petitioner argues that “the most burdensome parts of the case still remain,”
`for example fact discovery does not close for several months, and expert
`discovery has yet to begin. Paper 8, 3. Petitioner also notes that there have
`not been any claim construction rulings. Id. Patent Owner responds that
`“Petitioner has proposed that all document production be substantially
`complete by March 16, 2023.” Paper 9, 4 (citing Ex. 2003, 1).
`We determine that factor 3 does not favor discretionary denial.
`Although there has been work completed, as Petitioner points out, “the most
`burdensome parts of the case still remain.” Paper 8, 3; see also Ex. 1031
`(Case Management and Pretrial Order).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Patent 7,725,253 B2
`
`
`4. Factors 4: Overlap with Parallel Proceeding
`Petitioner offers to file a Sand Revolution type of stipulation,
`indicating that it will not pursue the grounds raised in this proceeding in the
`parallel litigation if we institute trial. Paper 8, 3–4; Sand Revolution II, LLC
`v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp. Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 11–12
`(PTAB June 16, 2020) (informative) (finding that a stipulation not to pursue
`the same grounds in the parallel litigation “mitigates to some degree the
`concerns of duplicative efforts”). Patent Owner argues that such a narrow
`stipulation does not mitigate the concerns of overlap. Paper 9, 4–5.
`We are not aware of any precedent that Sand Revolution-type
`stipulations are no longer valid or not entitled to weight in the Fintiv
`analysis. We recognize that Sand Revolution stipulations are narrower in
`scope than Sotera-type stipulations, and perhaps may require a different
`result in a case with different facts. See Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo
`Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18–19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020)
`(precedential as to § II.A) (finding that a broad stipulation not to pursue any
`ground raised or that could have been reasonably raised in the parallel
`litigation weighs strongly toward institution). Here, Petitioner’s stipulation
`still eliminates specific overlap with the parallel proceeding. As in Sand
`Revolution, we weigh this factor as marginally favoring not exercising our
`discretion to deny institution. Sand Revolution, Paper 24 at 12.
`5. Factor 5: Whether Petitioner and Defendant are the Same Party
`“If a petitioner is unrelated to a defendant in an earlier court
`proceeding, the Board has weighed this fact against exercising discretion to
`deny institution . . . .” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 13. Petitioner is also a defendant in
`the related district court litigation. See Pet. 2; Prelim. Resp. 61. Thus, this
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Patent 7,725,253 B2
`
`factor weighs marginally in favor of exercising our discretion to deny
`institution. Sotera, Paper 12 at 19.
`6. Factor 6: Merits and Other Considerations
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner does not make out a compelling
`case on the merits. Prelim. Resp. 63. As specified in the Director’s Memo,
`“compelling, meritorious challenges will be allowed to proceed at the PTAB
`even where district court litigation is proceeding in parallel.” Director’s
`Memo 4. Accordingly, the Director’s Memo states that the Fintiv analysis
`will not lead to discretionary denial if it can be established that a case
`presents compelling merits. Id. at 4–5. But, the Director’s Memo does not
`require a Petitioner to establish compelling merits to avoid discretionary
`denial.
`Additionally, the Director recently clarified the Interim Procedure,
`stating that “[t]he Board should first assess Fintiv factors 1–5; if that
`analysis supports discretionary denial, the Board should engage the
`compelling merits question.” CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc.,
`IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 6 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (precedential). Here,
`we determine that, on balance, Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor exercising our
`discretion to deny institution and, therefore, there is no need to determine
`whether the Petition establishes compelling merits.
`7. Conclusion on Fintiv Factors
`Based on a holistic analysis of the Fintiv factors taking into
`consideration “whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served
`by denying or instituting review” (Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6), we decline to
`exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter
`partes review.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Patent 7,725,253 B2
`
`
`B. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “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.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 36–37). Patent Owner accepts
`that definition for purposes of institution. Prelim. Resp. 10.
`We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill as it appears to
`be consistent with the level of skill reflected by the specification and in the
`asserted prior-art references.
`
`C. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`For an inter partes review petition filed after November 13, 2018, we
`construe claim terms “using the same claim construction standard that would
`be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).”
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021).
`Petitioner submits that no claims require express construction for
`institution. Pet. 17–18. Patent Owner does not request any express
`constructions. See generally Prelim. Resp. Based on our analysis of the
`issues in dispute at this stage of the proceeding, we conclude that no claim
`term requires express construction at this time. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`D. OBVIOUSNESS OVER WELCH 2001 AND WELCH 1997
`Welch 2001 is an article titled “High-Performance Wide-Area Optical
`Tracking” and presents “a complete description of our most recent electro-
`optical system, the HiBall Tracking System.” Ex. 1007, 1. Welch 2001’s
`Figure 6 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Patent 7,725,253 B2
`
`
`
`Id. at 6. Figure 6 shows that the “HiBall Tracking System consists of three
`main components.” Ex. 1007, 5. “An outward-looking sensing unit” called
`the HiBall “is fixed to each user to be tracked” and “observes a subsystem of
`fixed-location infrared LEDs” called the Ceiling. Id.; see also id. at 4
`(explaining that the system uses “an inside-looking-out configuration, in
`which the optical sensors are on the (moving) user and the landmarks (for
`instance, the LEDs) are fixed in the laboratory,” and a “corresponding
`outside-looking-in alternative would be to place the landmarks on the user
`and to fix the optical sensors in the laboratory”), Fig. 4 (showing the HiBall
`unit and the unit on a person), Fig. 5 (depicting the outside-looking-in and
`inside-looking-out configurations).
`“Communication and synchronization between the host computer and
`these subsystems is coordinated by the Ceiling-HiBall Interface Board
`(CIB).” Ex. 1007, 5–6. “Each HiBall observes LEDs through multiple
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Patent 7,725,253 B2
`
`sensor-lens views that are distributed over a large solid angle.” Id. at 6.
`“LEDs are sequentially flashed (one at a time) such that they are seen via a
`diverse set of views for each HiBall,” and “[i]nitial acquisition is performed
`using a brute-force search through LED space, but, once initial lock is made,
`the selection of LEDs to flash is tailored to the views of the active HiBall
`units.” Id. “Pose estimates are maintained using a Kalman-filter-based
`prediction-correction approach known as single-constraint-at-a-time
`(SCAAT) tracking” that “has been extended to provide self-calibration of the
`ceiling, concurrent with HiBall tracking.” Id.
`Welch 1997 is a paper titled “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with
`Incomplete Information.” Ex. 1008, 1. It “present[s] a promising new
`mathematical method for tracking a user’s pose (position and orientation)”
`that is referred to as “single-constraint-at-a-time or SCAAT tracking.” Id.
`(Abstract).
`Petitioner provides contentions for how Welch 2001 and Welch 1997
`disclose claim 1, 2, and 6–9’s limitations. Pet. 24–42. Those contentions rely
`largely on Welch 2001, with Welch 1997 used for certain limitations. See
`Pet. 25–34. Petitioner asserts that Welch 2001 incorporates by reference
`Welch 1997. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1007, 11).
`
`1. The Petition’s specificity
`Patent Owner contends that the Petition is deficient because it
`“purports to require a combination of Welch 2001 and Welch 1997,” but
`does not identify limitations where Welch 1997’s teachings are required.
`Prelim. Resp. 12–13. We do not agree that the Petition presents unclear
`challenges. It cites Welch 1997’s disclosures as relevant to claim 1’s
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Patent 7,725,253 B2
`
`preamble and final limitation, and to claim 6. Pet. 25, 32, 36–38. Patent
`Owner’s argument does not show a flaw with the Petition.
`
`2. Failure to incorporate arguments for dependent claims
`Patent Owner contends that the Petition is deficient because it
`“addresses only the new limitations appearing in each [dependent] claim,
`without incorporating or even referring to any arguments as to the
`independent claims from which these claims depend.” Prelim. Resp. 16. We
`do not agree that the Petition presents unclear challenges. Other than as
`addressed below, Patent Owner has not identified any substantive
`inconsistency with Petitioner’s challenges, and we decline to impose a
`requirement that the Petition formally incorporate independent-claim
`contentions to the dependent-claim challenges. Patent Owner’s argument
`does not show a flaw with the Petition.
`
`3. Claims 1 and 2
`
`“sensor subsystem coupled to the estimation subsystem”
`a.
`Claim 1 recites “an estimation subsystem; and a sensor subsystem
`coupled to the estimation subsystem.” Ex. 1003, 46:5–6. Petitioner points to
`Welch 2001’s “Ceiling-HiBall Interface Board (CIB),” asserting it “couples
`LED targets and HiBall sensors (the claimed ‘sensor subsystem’) with the
`host computer (the claimed ‘estimation subsystem’).” Pet. 29. Patent Owner
`contends that Petitioner fails to identify a “sensor subsystem coupled to the
`estimation subsystem.” Prelim. Resp. 18–19. Welch 2001 discloses sensor
`subsystems including the “outward-looking sensing unit” called the “HiBall”
`and “fixed-location infrared LEDs” called the “Ceiling.” Ex. 1007, 5. It
`discloses that “Communication and synchronization between the host
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Patent 7,725,253 B2
`
`computer and these subsystems is coordinated by the Ceiling-HiBall
`Interface Board (CIB).” Id. at 5–6; accord id. at 9 (“The Ceiling-HiBall
`Interface Board (CIB) (figure 11) provides communication and
`synchronization between a host personal computer, the HiBall (section 4.1),
`and the ceiling (section 4.2).”). Patent Owner implies that “this attenuated
`connection” fails to meet the “coupled to” limitation but does not offer a
`construction that would support such an argument. Prelim. Resp. 18. The
`plain language of “coupled to” includes indirect connections, such as one
`that includes an interface device like Welch 2001’s CIB. Accordingly, the
`present record supports that Welch 2001 discloses that its sensor subsystem
`is “coupled to” its estimation subsystem.
`
`“configuration data” provided “to the estimation subsystem”
`b.
`Claim 1 requires the sensor subsystem by “configured to provide
`configuration data to the estimation subsystem.” Ex. 1003, 46:6–8.
`Petitioner relies on Welch 2001’s “offline calibration procedure” as
`disclosing configuration information provided from the sensor modules to
`the estimation subsystem. Pet. 31–32. In that procedure, Welch 2001
`discloses taking measurements to form “a table mapping real image-plane
`coordinates to ideal image-plane coordinates.” Ex. 1007, 9–10.
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner fails to show that Welch 2001’s
`system is “configured to provide configuration data to the estimation
`subsystem.” Prelim. Resp. 20–23. Patent Owner first contests whether
`“calibration measurements from the sensor subsystem would constitute
`‘configuration data’.” Id. at 20 (quoting Pet. 32). As Petitioner points out,
`however, the ’253 patent’s specification describes that “Providing
`configuration information from the sensor modules includes providing
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Patent 7,725,253 B2
`
`information characterizing one or more calibration parameters of a sensor
`associated with a sensor module.” Ex. 1003, 7:14–17; see Pet. 31.
`The plain language of “configuration data,” in light of the
`specification, includes measurements taken to form a calibration table.
`Indeed, such measurements appear to fall within “information characterizing
`one or more calibration parameters” as the specification describes. Ex. 1003,
`7:14–17. And Patent Owner has not proposed a construction for
`“configuration data” that would exclude such measurements. Accordingly,
`the present record supports Petitioner’s contention that the offline calibration
`measurements are “configuration data.”
`Petitioner asserts further that the calibration tables developed from the
`calibration measurements are also provided to the estimation subsystem
`(Welch 2001’s host computer) so that it can “convert the measured sensor
`coordinates to ‘ideal coordinates’ using the calibration tables.” Pet. 32
`(quoting Ex. 1007, 10). In Patent Owner’s view, Welch 2001 supports, at
`most, that its host computer generates the calibration tables and therefore
`cannot support that the sensor subsystem “provides” the tables to the
`estimation subsystem. Prelim. Resp. 21–22. Because we agree with
`Petitioner that Welch 2001’s offline calibration measurements are
`“configuration data,” the sensor subsystem providing those measurements to
`the host computer would satisfy the claim’s requirement that configuration
`data be provided to the estimation subsystem. To the extent Petitioner relies
`on the calibration tables themselves, however, it is not clear from the present
`record that Welch 2001’s sensor subsystem provides the tables to the host
`computer. This issue presents a factual dispute best resolved through trial. At
`this stage, Petitioner’s contentions are sufficient for institution.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Patent 7,725,253 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner does not otherwise contest Petitioner’s contentions for
`claim 1. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and conclude they
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood Petitioner will prevail with respect to
`obviousness of claim 1 over Welch 2001 and Welch 1997.
`Patent Owner challenges the contentions for claim 2 only as suffering
`from the deficiencies asserted for claim 1’s contentions. Prelim. Resp. 23.
`Having reviewed the record and as discussed above, we determine
`Petitioner’s contentions show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will
`prevail with respect to obviousness of claim 2 over Welch 2001 and
`Welch 1997.
`
`4. Claims 6 and 8
`Claim 6 recites “enumerating sensing elements available to a tracking
`system.” Ex. 1003, 46:28–30. Petitioner contends that Welch 2001’s system
`includes six LEPD8 sensing elements in each HiBall sensor unit and allows
`for multiple HiBalls connected to the CIB. Pet. 36–37 (citing Ex. 1007, 6, 9,
`Fig. 6). In light of those multiple sensors and multiple sensor units,
`Petitioner contends that Welch 1997 describes enumerating the sensing
`elements because its SCAAT method implements a device filter “for each
`source or sensor to be calibrated” during autocalibration. Pet. 37 (quoting
`Ex. 1008, 6 (§ 3.2)). According to Petitioner, “[t]hese device filters
`enumerate each source and sensor available by initializing and calibrating
`the parameters used for each device” and “[d]evices that are not used are not
`calibrated.” Id.; accord Ex. 1007, 6 (§ 3.2.1) (“For each device (source,
`
`
`8 Lateral-Effect Photo Diode. Ex. 1007, 6.
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Patent 7,725,253 B2
`
`sensor, landmark, etc.) we create a distinct device filter . . . .”), 7 (§ 3.2.2)
`(“If a device is never used, it is never calibrated.”).
`Patent Owner contends that because Welch 2001 does not disclose
`“that the number of HiBall sensors or LEPDs can vary in any given
`embodiment, . . . there is no reason for the system to perform any
`enumeration of those sensors.” Prelim. Resp. 24–25. Considering
`Welch 1997, Patent Owner asserts that it “discloses initializing parameters
`for sensors that are already known” and “does not [determine] which sensors
`can be used—i.e., enumerating the sensing elements available.” Id. at 25.
`Thus, Patent Owner appears to argue that “enumerating” requires
`determining which sensors can be used. But Patent Owner does not support
`that construction with record evidence. We decline to limit the claims at this
`stage, and Petitioner’s contentions regarding Welch 1997’s calibration
`sufficiently justify institution.
`Patent Owner does not otherwise contest Petitioner’s contentions for
`claim 6. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and conclude they
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood Petitioner will prevail with respect to
`obviousness of claim 6 over Welch 2001 and Welch 1997.
`Patent Owner challenges the contentions for claim 8 only as suffering
`from the deficiencies asserted for claim 6’s contentions. Prelim. Resp. 27.
`Having reviewed the record and as discussed above, we determine
`Petitioner’s contentions show a reasonable likelihood Petitioner will prevail
`with respect to obviousness of claim 8 over Welch 2001 and Welch 1997.
`
`5. Claim 7
`Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and recites “selecting a pair of sensing
`elements . . . having a highest expected utility of a measurement among the
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Patent 7,725,253 B2
`
`sequence of candidates.” Ex. 1003, 46:37–44. Petitioner relies on
`Welch 2001’s description of “recursive pose estimation,” in which the
`HiBall system chooses a single view of the 26 available in a HiBall unit,
`then selects an LED to test the sensor corresponding to the chosen view.
`Pet. 39–40 (citing Ex. 1007, 13–14, 17). Welch 2001 discloses that “[o]ne of
`the candidate LEDs is then chosen in a least-recently-used fashion to ensure
`a diversity of constraints.” Ex. 1007, 13 (§ 5.3).
`Patent Owner contends that even selecting an LED based on “least-
`recently-used fashion” does not satisfy the requirement for “a highest
`expected utility of a measurement” because that term “refers to ‘the utility
`(or usefulness) of a [sensor] measurement’ in estimating the pose of tracked
`objects.” Prelim. Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 1003, 19:4–12, 25:64–26:50, 40:56–
`41:5). To the extent Patent Owner proposes a construction limiting the
`“highest expected utility,” it is unclear whether “the utility in estimating the
`pose of tracked objects” would exclude Welch 2001’s selection performed
`“to ensure a diversity of constraints.” Patent Owner contends also that
`“diversity of constraints” would not support selecting an LED with the
`“highest” expected utility (Prelim. Resp. 26–27), but Welch 2001’s
`disclosure of selecting the “least-recently-used” LED appears to contradict
`that argument.
`Based on the present record, the claim language sufficiently reads on
`Welch 2001’s disclosures to support institution. During trial, Patent Owner
`may propose a limiting construction and explain why it does not read on
`Welch 2001’s disclosures.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01308
`Patent 7,725,253 B2
`
`
`6. Claim 9
`Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and requires that “the set of sensing
`elements” includes a target that “comprises a natural feature in an
`environment.” Ex. 1003, 46:48–49. Petitioner relies on Welch 2001’s
`statement that its system could “evolve” to use “natural features” Pet. 41–42
`(quoting Ex. 1007, 4–5 (“The system can evolve from using dense active
`landmarks to fewer, lower signal-to-noise ratio, passive, and some day
`natural features for a Self-Tracker that operates entirely without explicit
`landmark infrastructure.”)).
`Patent Owner argues that because Welch 2001 “did not use natural
`features as targets” and merely suggested they could be used in the future, it
`falls short of satisfying the claim language. Prelim. Resp. 27–28 (emphasis
`omitted). Patent Owner cites In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride, 676 F.3d
`1063, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 2012), for the proposition that “knowledge of the
`goal” does not prove obviousness. But in that case, the court noted that,
`“while there might have been a desire for an extended-release formulation,
`there is no evidence that skilled artisans would have known how to achieve
`it.” Cyclobenzaprine, 676 F.3d at 1074. Here, Petitioner offers testimony
`that “[i]t was well-known at the time of the ’253 Patent that natural features
`could be us
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
