`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 7,725,253
`
`IPR2022-01308
`__________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`June 14, 2023
`
`
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... v
`LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................. vi
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II.
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`The ’253 Patent ..................................................................................... 2
`
` Welch 2001 ............................................................................................ 6
` Welch 1997 and Welch Thesis .............................................................. 8
` Horton .................................................................................................... 8
`Harris ................................................................................................... 10
`
`Reitmayr .............................................................................................. 11
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 11
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11
`“Estimation Subsystem,” “Sensor Subsystem,” and “Coupled
`
`To” ....................................................................................................... 12
`“Sensor Module” ................................................................................. 17
`“Configuration Data” .......................................................................... 18
`“Enumerating sensing elements available to a tracking system” ........ 23
`“Expected Utility of a Measurement” ................................................. 25
`“Set of sensing elements” .................................................................... 26
`
`IV. PETITIONER FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE OBVIOUSNESS OF
`ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM ..................................................................... 27
`The Petition Fails to Establish a Reasonable Likelihood that
`
`Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 Rendered Any Claim Obvious
`(Ground I) ............................................................................................ 27
`1.
`Petitioner fails to show that Welch 2001 and Welch 1997
`rendered claims 1 and 2 obvious ............................................... 28
`Petitioner fails to show that the combination of Welch
`2001 and Welch 1997 rendered claims 6-9 obvious ................. 32
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
`
`
`
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish that Welch 2001, Welch 1997,
`and Harris Rendered Claims 3-5 Obvious (Ground II) ....................... 36
`1.
`The Petition does not establish a motivation to combine
`Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 with Harris or a reasonable
`expectation of success in doing so ............................................ 37
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 40
`2.
`The Petition Fails to Establish that Welch 2001, Welch 1997,
`and Reitmayr Rendered Claims 3-4 Obvious (Ground III)................. 42
`1.
`The Petition does not establish a motivation to combine
`Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 with Reitmayr or a
`reasonable expectation of success in doing so .......................... 42
`The Petition Fails to Establish that Horton Rendered Any Claim
`Obvious (Ground IV) .......................................................................... 45
`1.
`Petitioner fails to show that Horton rendered claims 1-5
`obvious ...................................................................................... 46
`Petitioner fails to show that Horton rendered claims 6-9
`obvious ...................................................................................... 58
`The Petition Fails to Establish that Horton in View of Welch
`1997 Rendered Any Claim Obvious (Ground V) ............................... 64
`1.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 64
`2.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 66
`3.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 66
`V. OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ..................................... 67
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 67
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Arkie Lures, Inc. v. Gene Larew Tackle, Inc.,
`119 F.3d 953 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 67
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp.,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................. 14, 20, 50
`Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Promptu Sys. Corp.,
`838 F. App’x 551 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................... 14
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Pat. Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 36
`In re IPR Licensing, Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 65
`LG Elecs. Inc. v. ImmerVision, Inc.,
`39 F.4th 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ........................................................................... 52
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 11, 12
`Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 38
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 16
`Securus Techs., Inc. v. Glob. Tel*Link Corp.,
`701 F. App’x 971 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 37
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc.,
`18 F.4th 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................... 40, 44
`Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp.,
`811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 16
`Wi-LAN Inc. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp.,
`992 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .......................................................................... 15
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`Paper No. 29
`
`REGULATIONS
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................................................................................... 65
`37 C.P.R. § 42.104 oes esse csseeeseesseesssessseeseesesesesascsaecseseseecsuecsaesssessseesseaeeaeees 65
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`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
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`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 to Horton et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,307,289 (“Harris”)
`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)
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
`Exhibit
`1017
`
`Title
`Barfield, W. “Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and
`Augmented Reality” (2001)
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`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)
`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.
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
`Exhibit
`1029
`
`1030
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`2009
`2010
`
`2011
`2012
`
`2013
`2014
`
`Title
`Declaration of Gordon MacPherson regarding Zetu, Dan et al.,
`“Extended-Range Hybrid Tracker and Applications
`U.S. Patent No. 5,592,401
`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.
`Gentex Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 5:22-cv-03892-YGR
`(N.D. Cal.), Letter from Laura Ashley Harris to Andrew Borrasso
`(Feb. 3, 2023)
`Gentex Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 5:22-cv-03892-YGR
`(N.D. Cal.), Excerpts of Invalidity Contentions of Meta Platforms,
`Inc. (Dec. 5, 2022)
`Declaration of Adam D. Harber in Support of Unopposed Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`Declaration of Melissa B. Collins in Support of Unopposed Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`Declaration of Yohan Baillot in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Responses to Petitions for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,922,632 and 7,725,253 (June 4, 2023)
`Curriculum Vitae of Yohan Baillot
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Ulrich Neumann (June 1, 2023)
`Excerpt of Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Ulrich Neumann
`(May 23, 2023)
`Couple, American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed, 2000)
`Configure, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.
`1999)
`Configure, American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed. 2000)
`Configure, Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (2d
`ed. 2001)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
`Exhibit
`2015
`
`2016
`2017
`2018
`
`Title
`Enumerate, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.
`1999)
`Enumerate, American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed. 2000)
`IEEE 1451.4-2004, IEEE SA (last visited June 8, 2023)
`Inertial Motion-Tracking Technology for Virtual 3-D, NASA
`Spinoff (originally published in 2005)
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253 (the “’253 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.1003, Abstract.
`
`While working at InterSense, LLC, a pioneering company in the virtual reality and
`
`motion tracking fields, Eric Foxlin invented this approach, Declaration of Yohan
`
`Baillot, Ex.2007 (“Baillot”), ¶¶16-17, which allows the same tracking component to
`
`interoperate with different types of sensors and associated components without
`
`reprogramming of the tracking component (and vice versa), Ex.1003, 17:4-15,
`
`22:12-23. This, in turn, improves the versatility and scalability of the tracking
`
`system. Ex.1003, 10:55-11:19.
`
`Petitioner acknowledges that the claims of the ’253 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 incorporates the
`
`key requirements of the ’253 patent. As the Petition’s arguments underscore, in both
`
`systems, the sensor-specific components and the tracking components are
`
`intertwined and hard-wired. As a result, neither system embodies the modularity
`
`and automatic configuration required by the claimed invention, which permits
`
`interoperability with different types of sensors. Accordingly, neither reference
`
`disclosed nor rendered obvious the claimed inventions.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
`Although the Board found that, at the initial stage, many of Petitioner’s
`
`arguments were sufficient for institution, it identified numerous issues that would
`
`benefit from further development of the record. E.g., Paper 10, 17, 23, 31, 35, 37.
`
`The Board’s decision further indicated that Patent Owner’s arguments may benefit
`
`from claim constructions making clear the bounds of certain terms. E.g., id., 17, 20,
`
`30, 33. Now, with a developed record and claim constructions supported by the
`
`evidence, it is clear that Petitioner has not and cannot meet its burden on the
`
`challenged Grounds.
`
`For these reasons and the reasons described herein, the Board should confirm
`
`the patentability of all claims.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
` The ’253 Patent
`
`The ’253 patent, titled “Tracking, Auto-Calibration, and Map-Building
`
`System,” issued on May 25, 2010, and claims priority to August 9, 2002.1 Ex.1003.
`
`The ’253 patent relates to a “navigation or motion tracking system” that “includes
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Real-Party-in-Interest Gentex contends in the related District Court litigation that
`
`the ’253 patent is entitled to a priority date of June 15, 2001, but assumes a priority
`
`date of August 9, 2002 for this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
`components associated with particular sensors, which are decoupled from a tracking
`
`component that takes advantage of information in the sensor measurements.” Id.,
`
`Abstract; Baillot, ¶18.2
`
`This separation of the sensor component from the tracking component is an
`
`important aspect of the invention. As the ’253 patent acknowledges, prior art
`
`systems were capable of using measurements from sensors to estimate the position
`
`and orientation of an object. Ex. 1003, 1:18-23. A variety of different types of
`
`sensors were available in the prior art. Id., 1:23-24. Those “[d]ifferent types of
`
`sensors measure different aspects of the relative pose of a sensor and a target, such
`
`as range, direction, or relative orientation.” Id., 1:29-31. Accordingly, “[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,” such as “uncertainty or noise characteristics of the
`
`
`
` 2
`
` The ’253 patent is a continuation of the application that became U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,922,632 (the “’632 patent”), and the two patents contain substantially the same
`
`disclosure. This response and the accompanying declaration of Yohan Baillot
`
`(Ex.2007) at times cite to the specification of the ’632 patent (Ex.1001) for
`
`consistency with IPR Nos. 2022-01304 and 2022-01305, which are directed to the
`
`’632 patent.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
`measurement values.” Id., 1:31-36. Some methods of tracking in the prior art, such
`
`as Kalman filtering techniques, “typically require[d] detailed knowledge of [such]
`
`measurement characteristics of the specific sensors used in tracking the object” in
`
`order to estimate the tracked object’s pose. Id., 1:41-44; see Baillot, ¶19.
`
`The ’253 patent does not claim simply a method for estimating pose that
`
`makes use of measurement characteristics of and measurements from sensors—
`
`indeed, it expressly recognizes such approaches already existed. Id., 1:17-23.
`
`Instead, the ’253 patent claims a particular modular approach whereby a sensor
`
`component is separate from but connected to an estimation or tracking component.
`
`Baillot, ¶20.
`
`As part of this approach, the estimation component must know sufficient
`
`information about those sensors in order to make use of measurements received from
`
`them. To achieve this, according to the invention, the sensor portion of the overall
`
`system provides information to the tracking portion about the attributes or
`
`characteristics of the sensors so that the tracking portion can be configured to take
`
`advantage of the information available to it. E.g., Ex.1003, 2:40-42 (“Configuration
`
`data is accepted from the sensor subsystem, and the estimation subsystem is
`
`configured according to the accepted configuration data.”); see Baillot, ¶21.
`
`The “architecture of this system enables development of sensor-specific
`
`components independently of the tracking component and enables sensors and their
`
`4
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
`associated components to be added or removed without having to re-implement the
`
`tracking component.” Id., 2:26-30. This “provides a ‘plug and track’ capability in
`
`which sensors and targets and their associated software drivers can be ‘plugged’ into
`
`the navigation system 90, which then makes use of the sensors and targets in tracking
`
`the vehicle.” Id., 13:14-18; Baillot, ¶22.
`
`The specification further discusses this feature and its value when describing
`
`the exemplary embodiment:
`
`A key feature of the navigation system 90 is the separation
`of modules specific to PSEs [pose sensing elements, i.e.,
`sensors and/or targets] and modules specific to updating
`the states and maps. A separation between the PSEs and
`the update filters is desirable because there are different
`kinds of PSEs, each having different measurement
`characteristics. The measurement characteristics affect
`how the measurements are used in the update process.
`Due to the separation, PSEs can be designed without
`knowledge of the updating process. The modules specific
`for updating can be designed without knowledge of the
`PSE characteristics. A new PSE can be “plugged” into the
`navigation system and the navigation system will be able
`to recognize and use the new PSE.
`
`Id., 22:13-24; Baillot, ¶23.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
`The Petition challenges two independent claims of the ’253 patent: claims 1
`
`and 6. Claim 1 recites a “tracking system” including a distinct “estimation
`
`subsystem” and “sensor subsystem,” in which the sensor subsystem provides
`
`“configuration data” and “measurement information” to the estimation subsystem,
`
`and the estimation subsystem accepts and uses that information to update a location
`
`estimate for a tracked object. Claim 6 recites a method involving “enumerating”
`
`sensing elements and then providing parameters about them to the tracking system.
`
` Welch 2001
`
`The Welch 2001 publication3 describes an optical tracking system called the
`
`“HiBall Tracking System.” Ex.1007, 4. 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
`
`lateral-effect photo-diode units, “observes a subsystem of fixed-location infrared
`
`LEDs” attached to a ceiling. Id., 5-7. The system also comprises a host personal
`
`computer (PC) and a “Ceiling-HiBall Interface Board (CIB).” Id., 5-6, 9.
`
`
`
` 3
`
` G. Welch, et al., “High-Performance Wide-Area Optical Tracking” (“Welch
`
`2001”), Ex.1007.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
`
`
`Ex.1007, 6. 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; Ex.2009, 70:16-18. Welch 2001 does not suggest
`
`any component other than the PC performs calibration or tracking calculations.
`
`Baillot, ¶24.
`
`As the name suggests, the HiBall tracking system operates only with HiBall
`
`sensors, which, in Welch 2001, are hard-wired into the overall system (as are the
`
`LEDs). Ex.1001, 6-7; see Ex.2009, 63:10-16, 69:3-15. The Welch 2001 reference
`
`does not suggest that any other types of sensors could be used with this system, or
`
`suggest any reasons why it would be useful to use any other types of sensors with
`
`7
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
`the system. Baillot, ¶25; see also Ex.2009, 70:3-10 (acknowledging that “in the
`
`paper they don’t talk about use of additional sensors”).
`
`Welch 2001 also 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. Baillot, ¶26.
`
` Welch 1997 and Welch Thesis
`
`Like Welch 2001, the Welch 1997 reference4 and the Welch Thesis5 describe
`
`a SCAAT algorithm and calculations, which were implemented in experiments using
`
`the HiBall sensors. Baillot, ¶27.
`
` Horton
`
`Horton6 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 additional “tracking
`
`measurements,” i.e., position, orientation, and/or velocity, from an external tracking
`
`
`
` 4
`
` G. Welch & G. Bishop, “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete
`
`Information” (“Welch 1997), Ex.1008.
`
`5 G. Welch, “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete Information” (Ph.D.
`
`dissertation) (“Welch Thesis”), Ex.1009.
`
`6 U.S. Patent No. 5,615,132 (“Horton”), Ex.1010.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
`system then “using a feedback or Kalman filter process” to provide corrections used
`
`to update an estimate of the pose of the tracked object. Id., 2:41-44, 6:34-42;
`
`Ex.2009, 122:7-14. Horton depicts this process in Figure 3, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`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. This same
`
`main loop is used to calibrate the accelerometers during the initialization phase. It
`
`is “executed multiple times” while the object on which the accelerometers are
`
`mounted is held stationary, and the results used to solve for bias and scaling factors.
`
`Id., 5:67-6:14. Horton does not disclose sending any information from the main loop
`
`to the accelerometers. It also does not describe any other software components
`
`associated with the accelerometers. Baillot, ¶28.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
`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. Baillot, ¶29.
`
` Harris
`
`Harris7 describes “a multi-sensor tracking method which requires local nodes
`
`and fusion centers,” where some local nodes have “processor[s].” Ex.1011, 8:19-
`
`35. Harris’s “local nodes may be distributed in many different fusion system
`
`architectures.” Id., 8:46-47. Some examples of the “local node processes” described
`
`in Harris are what it calls “Own Body Motion Elimination” and “Local Object
`
`Associate/Tracking.” Id., Fig.8; Baillot, ¶32
`
`
`
` 7
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,307,289 (“Harris”), Ex.1011.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
` Reitmayr
`
`Reitmayr8 describes “an open software architecture” that employs “source
`
`nodes” to “directly access[] a particular tracking device,” and provide data to “filter
`
`nodes,” which “compute their own state based on the collected data” using “filters”
`
`such as “[t]ransformation filters,” “[p]rediction filters,” and “[n]oise and smoothing
`
`filters.” Ex.1016, 47, 49; Baillot, ¶33.
`
`
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`For purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner accepts the Petition’s proposed
`
`definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). See Paper 1
`
`(“Petition”), 17.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`At the Institution phase, Patent Owner did not propose claim constructions for
`
`any terms, but the Institution Decision suggested that some terms would benefit from
`
`express construction to make clear their bounds in the context of Petitioner’s
`
`arguments.9 See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868
`
`
`
` 8
`
` G. Reitmayr & D. Schmalsteig, “An Open Software Architecture for Virtual
`
`Reality Interaction” (“Reitmayr”), Ex. 1016.
`
`9 In the District Court litigation, Real-Party-in-Interest Gentex contended that the
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
`F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims construed “to the extent necessary to
`
`resolve the controversy”). Appropriate constructions of key terms, supported by the
`
`record, make clear the gulf between the innovative tracking system architecture
`
`claimed by the ’253 patent and the hard-coded, inextricably-intertwined structures
`
`present in the primary references on which Petitioner relies.
`
`
`
`“Estimation Subsystem,” “Sensor Subsystem,” and “Coupled To”
`
`Many of the challenged claims of the ’253 patent require distinct estimation
`
`and sensor-associated segments. See, e.g., Ex.1003, cl.1 (“estimation system” and
`
`“sensor subsystem”). Relevant here for claim construction purposes, the Petition
`
`raises the question of whether certain claimed processes can be part of both
`
`subsystems, i.e., whether the estimation segment and sensor-associated segment can
`
`overlap, as Petitioner suggests. See, e.g., Petition, 59 (depicting overlapping boxes).
`
`As described further below, the claims and specification make clear that they cannot:
`
`
`
`claim terms of the ’253 patent are entitled to their plain and ordinary meaning in
`
`light of the claims and specification. E.g., Gentex Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No.
`
`6:21-cv-755-ADA, Dkt. 46 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2022). Patent Owner’s current
`
`proposed constructions are consistent with its District Court positions, but are more
`
`specific as to particular issues raised by Petitioner’s arguments and references here.
`
`See Nidec Motor, 868 F.3d at 1017.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
`the estimation portion and the sensor portion are separate segments of an overall
`
`tracking system, which are connected to one another but do not overlap. Baillot,
`
`¶¶36-48.
`
`The Institution Decision noted that Patent Owner had not, at that stage, offered
`
`constructions for “sensor subsystem” and “estimation subsystem” that addressed the
`
`required separation between the segments. Paper 10, 30. To ensure clarity on this
`
`point, Patent Owner proposes the following claim constructions:
`
`“Estimation Subsystem”: “the tracking component of a
`motion tracking system, which is separate from but
`connected to the sensor subsystem”
`
` “a component or group of
`“Sensor Subsystem”:
`components of a motion tracking system associated with
`particular sensors, which is separate from but connected to
`the estimation subsystem”
`
`“Coupled To”: “connected to, but not overlapping or
`intertwined with”
`
`Baillot, ¶48. The claims refer to the “estimation subsystem” as a different portion
`
`of the system than the “sensor subsystem” (or “sensor module” within the
`
`subsystem), and explain how the two parts pass information from one to another.
`
`E.g., Ex.1003, cl.1 (sensor subsystem is configured to provide configuration data
`
`and measurement information to the estimation subsystem); Baillot, ¶37. “Where a
`
`13
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
`claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that
`
`those elements are distinct components of the patented invention.” Becton,
`
`Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`(cleaned up).
`
`Petitioner’s expert agrees that the segments are separate:
`
`Q: Do you understand the sensor subsystem and
`estimation subsystem to be two separate things?
`
`A: In the context of the patent, that’s the way it’s
`described, yes.
`
`Ex.2009, 43:5-8. And the requirement that data is “accepted” by one part of the
`
`system from another would not make sense if they were not two separate parts of the
`
`overall system. Baillot, ¶¶38, 47; Ex.1003, cl.1.
`
`Claim 1 further recites that the sensor subsystem is “coupled to” the estimation
`
`subsystem. Ex.1003, cl.1 (“a sensor subsystem coupled to the estimation
`
`subsystem”). A POSITA would have understood that the phrase “coupled to” here
`
`takes its ordinary English meaning of “connected to.” Baillot, ¶41; see Ex.2011
`
`(defining “couple” as “to link together, connect”); Ex.2009, 86:9-15. See Comcast
`
`Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Promptu Sys. Corp., 838 F. App’x 551, 553 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2021) (nonprecedential) (“By listing the elements separately and by using the word
`
`‘coupled,’ claim 14 strongly indicates the ‘speech recognition system’ is distinct
`
`14
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
`from the ‘wireline node.’”); see also Wi-LAN Inc. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 992 F.3d
`
`1366, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (affirming construction of “a multimedia processor,
`
`coupled to the data rate analyzer” as “a multimedia processor connected to the data
`
`rate analyzer, where the multimedia processor is separate from, and not a sub-
`
`component of, the data rate analyzer”).
`
`The specification repeatedly confirms that these “distinct components” are
`
`separate and connected, not overlapping or intertwined. Baillot, ¶¶43-44. The
`
`claimed sensor segment of the system is described as separated from the estimation
`
`or tracking segment of the system, such that the overall system is “divided” into
`
`“specific portions.” See Ex.1001, Abstract (“components associated with particular
`
`sensors … are decoupled from a tracking component”), 16:38-44 (“[S]ensor-specific
`
`modeling is separated from the generic sensor fusion algorithms used to update
`
`system states. Specifically, sensor specific computations are isolated in PSE drivers
`
`120.”), 17:27-39 (“By dividing data processing unit 190 into portions specific to PSE
`
`devices 105 and a portion specific to updating the states of the navigation system 90,
`
`the navigation system can be easily reconfigured depending on the latest versions of
`
`device drivers and/or update algorithms.”); see also id. 2:21-24, 13:33-35, 19:14-25,
`
`22:38-50. Reading the specification, a POSITA would have understood that the
`
`estimation and sensor portions are distinct segments of a broader system, which are
`
`connected to and pass data to and/or from one another. A POSITA further would
`
`15
`
`

`

`Paper No. 29
`
`have understood that the estimation and sensor portions of the system do not overlap
`
`and are not intertwined in a way that would result in any claimed processes being
`
`part of both