Ex. 1005 - Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
`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
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ULRICH NEUMANN UNDER C.F.R. §1.68
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 7,725,253
`
`META 1005
`META V. THALES
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005 - Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ...................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Education Background and Career History ........................................... 1
`
`Publications and Patents ........................................................................ 2
`
`Other Relevant Qualifications ............................................................... 4
`
`Prior Testimony ..................................................................................... 4
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW ................................................... 5
`
`IV. BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY AND PATENTS .......................... 8
`
`A.
`
`Technology Background ....................................................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Head-mounted Display in Virtual and Augmented
`Reality Systems ........................................................................... 8
`
`Sensors for Tracking an Object in VR and AR .......................... 9
`
`Calibrating Sensors to Improve Tracking Accuracy ................11
`
`Using Kalman Filters to Estimate the Position and
`Location of a Tracked Object ...................................................12
`
`B.
`
`The ’253 Patent ...................................................................................14
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................16
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................17
`
`VII. PRIOR ART REFERENCES .....................................................................17
`
`A. Welch Prior Art ...................................................................................17
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`Horton ..................................................................................................20
`
`Harris ...................................................................................................21
`
`ii
`
`META 1005
`META V. THALES
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005 - Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
`
`D.
`
`Reitmayr ..............................................................................................23
`
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS ................................................................................23
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 1-2 and 6-9 Are Rendered Obvious by Welch
`2001 and Welch 1997 ..........................................................................24
`
`1. Motivation to Combine .............................................................24
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 1[preamble]: “A tracking system comprising” ..............25
`
`Claim 1[a]: “an estimation subsystem; and” ............................25
`
`Claim 1[b]: “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;” .........................................27
`
`Claim 1[c]: “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.” ..................31
`
`Claim 2: “The system of claim 1 wherein the sensor
`subsystem includes one or more sensor modules, each
`providing an interface for interacting with a
`corresponding set of one or more sensing elements.” ..............33
`
`Claim 6[preamble]: “A method comprising:” ..........................35
`
`Claim 6[a]: “enumerating sensing elements available to a
`tracking system that includes an estimation subsystem
`that estimates a position or orientation of an object; and”........36
`
`Claim 6[b]: “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 the estimation subsystem to estimate
`the position or orientation of the object.” .................................37
`
`
`
`iii
`
`META 1005
`META V. THALES
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005 - Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
`
`10. Claim 7: “The method of claim 6, further comprising
`selecting a pair of sensing elements from a sequence of
`candidates of pairs of sensing elements, the selected pair
`of sensing elements being ready to make a measurement
`at the time of selection of the pair or at a predefined time
`after the time of selection of the pair, the selected pair
`having a highest expected utility of a measurement
`among the sequence of candidates.” .........................................37
`
`11. Claim 8: “The method of claim 6 wherein the set of
`sensing elements comprises at least one sensor and at
`least one target, the sensor making a measurement with
`respect to the target.” ................................................................39
`
`12. Claim 9: “The method of claim 8 wherein the target
`comprises a natural feature in an environment.” ......................40
`
`B.
`
`Ground II: Claims 3-5 Are Rendered Obvious by Welch 2001
`and Welch 1997 in View of Harris .....................................................41
`
`1. Motivation to Combine .............................................................41
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 3: “The system of claim 2 wherein the interface
`enables the sensor module to perform computations
`independently of an implementation of the estimation
`subsystem.” ...............................................................................43
`
`Claim 4: “The system of claim 2 wherein the interface
`enables the estimation subsystem to perform
`computations independently of an implementation of the
`sensor modules.” .......................................................................50
`
`Claim 5: “The system of claim 1 further comprising a
`navigation subsystem to navigate the object in an
`environment based on the location estimate for the
`object.” ......................................................................................51
`
`C.
`
`Ground III: Claims 3-5 Are Rendered Obvious by Welch 2001
`and Welch 1997 in View of Reitmayr .................................................53
`
`1. Motivation to Combine .............................................................53
`
`
`
`iv
`
`META 1005
`META V. THALES
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005 - Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 3: “The system of claim 2 wherein the interface
`enables the sensor module to perform computations
`independently of an implementation of the estimation
`subsystem.” ...............................................................................55
`
`Claim 4: “The system of claim 2 wherein the interface
`enables the estimation subsystem to perform
`computations independently of an implementation of the
`sensor modules.” .......................................................................56
`
`D. Ground IV: Claims 1-9 Are Rendered Obvious by Horton ................57
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 1[preamble]: “A tracking system comprising:” .............57
`
`Claim 1[a]: “an estimation subsystem; and” ............................57
`
`Claim 1[b]: “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;” .........................................59
`
`Claim 1[c]: “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.” ..................61
`
`Claim 2: “The system of claim 1 wherein the sensor
`subsystem includes one or more sensor modules, each
`providing an interface for interacting with a
`corresponding set of one or more sensing elements.” ..............62
`
`Claim 3: “The system of claim 2 wherein the interface
`enables the sensor module to perform computations
`independently of an implementation of the estimation
`subsystem.” ...............................................................................64
`
`Claim 4: “The system of claim 2 wherein the interface
`enables the estimation subsystem to perform
`computations independently of an implementation of the
`sensor modules.” .......................................................................65
`
`
`
`v
`
`META 1005
`META V. THALES
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005 - Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
`
`8.
`
`Claim 5: “The system of claim 1 further comprising a
`navigation subsystem to navigate the object in an
`environment based on the location estimate for the
`object.” ......................................................................................65
`
`9.
`
`Claim 6[preamble]: “A method comprising:” ..........................67
`
`10. Claim 6[a]: “enumerating sensing elements available to a
`tracking system that includes an estimation subsystem
`that estimates a position or orientation of an object; and”........67
`
`11. Claim 6[b]: “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 the estimation subsystem to estimate
`the position or orientation of the object.” .................................68
`
`12. Claim 7: “The method of claim 6, further comprising
`selecting a pair of sensing elements from a sequence of
`candidates of pairs of sensing elements, the selected pair
`of sensing elements being ready to make a measurement
`at the time of selection of the pair or at a predefined time
`after the time of selection of the pair, the selected pair
`having a highest expected utility of a measurement
`among the sequence of candidates.” .........................................69
`
`13. Claim 8: “The method of claim 6 wherein the set of
`sensing elements comprises at least one sensor and at
`least one target, the sensor making a measurement with
`respect to the target.” ................................................................70
`
`14. Claim 9: “The method of claim 8 wherein the target
`comprises a natural feature in an environment.” ......................71
`
`E.
`
`Ground V: Claims 7-9 Are Rendered Obvious by Horton in
`View of Welch 1997............................................................................71
`
`1. Motivation to Combine .............................................................71
`
`2.
`
`Claim 7: “The method of claim 6, further comprising
`selecting a pair of sensing elements from a sequence of
`
`
`
`vi
`
`META 1005
`META V. THALES
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005 - Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
`
`candidates of pairs of sensing elements, the selected pair
`of sensing elements being ready to make a measurement
`at the time of selection of the pir or at a predefined time
`after the time of selection of the pair, the selected pair
`having a highest expected utility of a measurement
`among the sequence of candidates.” .........................................72
`
`Claim 8: “The method of claim 6 wherein the set of
`sensing elements comprises at least one sensor and at
`least one target, the sensor making a measurement with
`respect to the target.” ................................................................73
`
`Claim 9: “The method of claim 8 wherein the target
`comprises a natural feature in an environment.” ......................74
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`IX. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................75
`
`X. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................75
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`META 1005
`META V. THALES
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005 - Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`1004
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`Declaration of Dr. Ulrich Neumann in Support of Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Ulrich Neumann
`
`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.
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,307,289 (“Harris”)
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`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)
`
`
`
`viii
`
`META 1005
`META V. THALES
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005 - Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`Description
`
`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
`
`1023
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,991,085
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`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
`Applicationsto 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
`
`
`
`ix
`
`META 1005
`META V. THALES
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005 - Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`Description
`
`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 Applicationsto 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 (“Kramer”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`META 1005
`META V. THALES
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005 - Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
`I, Dr. Ulrich Neumann, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D. I am a Professor of Computer
`
`Science at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, California. I have
`
`been retained on behalf of Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) to provide my opinions
`
`regarding whether claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253 (“the ’253 patent”) would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the the art as of August 9, 2002 in the
`
`above-captioned Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of the ’253 patent.
`
`2.
`
`For time spent in connection with this matter, I will be compensated at
`
`my standard billing rate of $775 per hour. I am being separately reimbursed for any
`
`out-of-pocket expenses. My compensation does not depend on the content of my
`
`opinions or the outcome of this case.
`
`3.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I have also relied
`
`on my academic and professional experience. I also considered the viewpoint of a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art as of the time of alleged invention of the ’253
`
`patent. My opinions are based, at least in part, on the exhibits listed above and cited
`
`throughout this Declaration.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`A. Education Background and Career History
`
`4. My curriculum vitae (“CV”) is attached hereto as Exhibit 1006. It
`
`provides an accurate identification of my background and experience.
`
`
`
`1
`
`META 1005
`META V. THALES
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005 - Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
`5.
`
`I earned my Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from
`
`the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1976. In 1979, I earned a Master of
`
`Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the State University of New York at
`
`Buffalo, and in 1990 I earned a second Master of Science degree in Computer
`
`Science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In 1993, I earned a
`
`Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
`
`My doctoral studies focused on parallel algorithms for interactive volume-
`
`visualization.
`
`6.
`
`I have been a professor in the Computer Science department at the
`
`University of Southern California (“USC”) since 1994. I have also had a joint
`
`appointment in the Electrical and Computing Engineering-Systems department at
`
`USC since 2002. My research focuses on neural networks for computer vision and
`
`graphics, 3D modeling, video visualization, tracking for augmented reality, and
`
`human facial modeling, rendering, and animation.
`
`B.
`
`7.
`
`Publications and Patents
`
`I have written or co-written two books, six book chapters, and more
`
`than 200 journal and conference papers, many of which focus on tracking and
`
`visualization for augmented reality systems. These publications include:
`
` U. Neumann, S. You. “Natural Feature Tracking for Augmented Reality,” IEEE
`
`Transactions on Multimedia, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 53-64, March 1999.
`
`
`
`2
`
`META 1005
`META V. THALES
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005 - Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
` Wei Guan, Suya You and Ulrich Neumann, “Efficient Matching and Mobile
`
`Augmented Reality,” ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing,
`
`Communications and Applications (TOMCCAP), Volume 8 Issue 3s, Article No.
`
`47, September 2012.
`
` Qiangeng Xu, Weiyue Wang, Duygu Ceylan, Radomir Mech, Ulrich Neumann,
`
`“DISN: Deep Implicit Surface Network for High-quality Single-view 3D
`
`Reconstruction,” Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), Dec. 8-14,
`
`2019, Vancouver, Canada.
`
`8.
`
`A complete list of my publications is contained in my curriculum vitae,
`
`a copy of which is provided as Ex. 1004 to the Petition.
`
`9.
`
`I am a named inventor on the following patents, all of which are
`
`assigned to USC:
`
` “Three Dimensional Point Processing and Model Generation,” U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,472,022, issued October 18, 2016.
`
` “Image Matching Using Line Signature,” U.S. Patent No. 8,406,532, issued
`
`March 26 2013.
`
` “Phrase-Driven Grammar for Data Visualization,” U.S. Patent No. 8,209,625,
`
`issued June 26, 2012.
`
` “Augmented Virtual Environments (AVE) for Visualization,” U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,583,275, issued September 1, 2009.
`
`
`
`3
`
`META 1005
`META V. THALES
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005 - Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
` “Extendable Tracking by Line Autocalibration,” U.S. Patent No. 7,239,752,
`
`issued July 3, 2007.
`
` “An Augmented-Reality Tool Employing Scene-Feature Autocalibration During
`
`Camera Motion,” U.S. Patent No. 6,765,569, issued July 20, 2004.
`
`C. Other Relevant Qualifications
`
`10.
`
`I am the Founder and Director of the USC Computer Graphics and
`
`Immersive Technologies Laboratory (CGIT). CGIT pursues research and
`
`development efforts related to processing, producing, and interacting with images.
`
`The fields of computer graphics, computer vision, and immersive technologies all
`
`fall within the scope of CGIT’s efforts.
`
`11.
`
`I was a founding member of the Integrated Media Systems Center
`
`(IMSC), a National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center (ERC) at
`
`USC. ERCs are funded with 10-year grants based on a highly-competitive national
`
`competition. IMSC coordinated research in media systems by over 30 USC faculty
`
`in varied disciplines. From 1996 to 2001, I served as the Research Associate
`
`Director for Computer Interfaces for IMSC. From 2001 to 2005, I served as Center
`
`Director, and from 2005 to 2010 I served as Associate Director of Research.
`
`D.
`
`Prior Testimony
`
`12. The cases in which I have testified as an expert at trial or by deposition
`
`within the preceding five years are as follows:
`
`
`
`4
`
`META 1005
`META V. THALES
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005 - Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
` Science Applications International Corp. v. United States (for defendant)
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`
`13.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’253 patent includes patents in the
`
`relevant art that predate the priority date of the ’253 patent.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that claims in an IPR are construed under the case Phillips
`
`v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, decided by the Federal Circuit in 2005. I understand
`
`that under the rule in Phillips, words of claims are given their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of the
`
`specification and prosecution history, unless those sources show an intent to depart
`
`from such meaning. No terms need to be construed for the purposes of this
`
`declaration. I reserve the right to respond to any constructions offered by the Patent
`
`Owner or adopted by the Board.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated or obvious.
`
`Anticipation of a claim requires that every element of a claim be disclosed expressly
`
`or inherently in a single prior art reference, arranged in the prior art reference as
`
`arranged in the claim. An element is inherent if it is necessarily present in the
`
`reference.
`
`16.
`
`It is my understanding that a patent claim is invalid for obviousness if
`
`the claimed invention would have been obvious at the time the invention was made
`
`to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA).
`
`
`
`5
`
`META 1005
`META V. THALES
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005 - Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that the following factors are considered: (1) the scope and
`
`content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the art and the claims at issue;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention of the asserted patent
`
`was made; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. In order to determine
`
`whether claim elements are found in the prior art, it is necessary to compare the
`
`properly construed claim language of the patent with the teachings of the prior art.
`
`18.
`
`I understand
`
`that certain
`
`factors—often called “secondary
`
`considerations”—may support or rebut an assertion of obviousness of a claim. I
`
`understand that such secondary considerations include, among other things,
`
`commercial success of the alleged invention, skepticism of those having ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, unexpected results of the alleged
`
`invention, any long-felt but unsolved need in the art that was satisfied by the alleged
`
`invention, the failure of others to make the alleged invention, praise of the alleged
`
`invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the alleged
`
`invention by others in the field. I further understand that there must be a nexus—a
`
`connection—between any such secondary considerations and the alleged.
`
`19.
`
`I further understand that a claim can be found obvious if it unites old
`
`elements with no change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by mere
`
`substitution of one element for another known in the field, with that combination
`
`yielding predictable results. While it may be helpful to identify a reason for this
`
`
`
`6
`
`META 1005
`META V. THALES
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005 - Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
`combination, common sense should guide, and there is no rigid requirement for a
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine. When a product is available, design
`
`incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same
`
`field or different one. If a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art can
`
`implement a predictable variation, obviousness likely bars patentability. Similarly,
`
`if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art would recognize that the technique would improve similar devices in
`
`the same way, use of the technique is obvious. I further understand that a claim may
`
`be obvious if common sense directs one to combine multiple prior art references or
`
`add missing features to reproduce the alleged invention recited in the claims.
`
`20.
`
`I also understand the following rationale may support a finding of
`
`obviousness:
`
`a.
`
`Combining prior art elements according to known methods to
`
`yield predictable results;
`
`b.
`
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`c.
`
`User of known technique to improve similar devices (methods,
`
`or products) in the same way;
`
`d.
`
`Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or
`
`product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`
`
`7
`
`META 1005
`META V. THALES
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005 - Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
`e.
`
`“Obvious to try” — choosing from a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`f.
`
`Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of
`
`it for use in either the same field or a different on based on design
`
`incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art;
`
`g.
`
`Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that
`
`would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`21.
`
`I also understand that it is impermissible to use the claimed invention
`
`itself as a blueprint for piecing together elements in the art. In other words, it is
`
`impermissible to use hindsight reconstruction to pick and choose among disclosures
`
`in the prior art to reconstruct the claimed invention.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY AND PATENTS
`
`A. Technology Background
`
`1. Head-mounted Display in Virtual and Augmented Reality
`Systems
`
`22. Head-mounted displays (“HMDs”) are widely used in both virtual
`
`reality (“VR”) and augmented reality (“AR”) applications. In VR, a user is
`
`submersed in a completely computer generated environment. Thus, HMDs provide
`
`immersive images to the user, and the user’s head motion should be closely tracked
`
`
`
`8
`
`META 1005
`META V. THALES
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005 - Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
`so as to accurately reflect the user’s perspective within the computer generated
`
`environment. In augmented reality (AR) applications, however, computer generated
`
`images are overlaid on real scenes observed by the user through the HMD. See Ex.
`
`1017, 113-56 (J. Rolland, “Optical versus Video See-Through Head-Mounted
`
`Displays”), e.g., §§ 1 and 2 at 113-26; see also Ex. 1013 at Abstract (“In Augmented
`
`Reality systems, see-through Head-Mounted Displays (HMDs) superimpose virtual
`
`three-dimensional objects on the real world. This technology has the potential to
`
`enhance a user's perception of and interaction with the real world.”). Thus, in AR,
`
`tracking of the user’s head should be more accurate than for VR in order to minimize
`
`misalignment between the computer generated image and the real scene observed by
`
`the user. See Ex. 1007; see also Ex. 1013 at Abstract (“However, many Augmented
`
`Reality applications will not be accepted unless virtual objects are accurately
`
`registered with their real counterparts. Good registration is difficult, because of the
`
`high resolution of the human visual system and its sensitivity to small differences.”).
`
`2.
`
`Sensors for Tracking an Object in VR and AR
`
`23. As acknowledged in the background section of the shared specification
`
`of the ’632 and ’253 Patents, tracking systems often make use of measurements from
`
`sensors to aid in determining a pose (position and orientation) of an object as it
`
`moves around an environment. See Ex. 1001, 1:16-22; Ex. 1003, 1:17-23. Various
`
`types of sensors can be used to make these measurements. See generally Ex. 1017.
`
`
`
`9
`
`META 1005
`META V. THALES
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005 - Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
`For example, the ’632/’253 Background notes that “ultrasound receivers, laser range
`
`finders, cameras, or pattern recognition devices” can be used as sensors in a tracking
`
`system. Ex. 1001, 1:64-67; Ex. 1003, 1:64-67; see also Ex. 1017, 67-112 (J. Rolland,
`
`“A Survey…”), e.g., §§ 2.1 (“Ultrasonic Time-of-Flight Measurements”), 2.2
`
`(“Pulsed Infrared Laser-Diode”), 3.1, 3.2.1. Other types of sensors known at the time
`
`of the ’632 and ’253 Patents include GPS receivers, magnetic sensors, and inertial
`
`sensors. Ex. 1007 § 1.1; see also Ex. 1017, 67-112 (J. Rolland, “A Survey…”), e.g.,
`
`§§ 2.3 (“GPS”), 4 (“Inertial Sensing”), 6.1 (“Magnetic Field Sensing”). In an
`
`“outside-in” tracking system, the sensor or sensors are mounted in an environment
`
`and detect targets that are mounted to a tracked object. See Ex. 1007 § 2; see also
`
`Ex. 1017, 67-112 (J. Rolland, “A Survey…”), e.g., § 3.1. In an “inside-out” tracking
`
`system, the sensor is mounted to the tracked object and detects targets that are
`
`mounted in the environment around the object. See Ex. 1007 § 2; see also Ex. 1017,
`
`67-112 (J. Rolland, “A Survey…”), e.g., § 3.2. The targets can be specially mounted
`
`(i.e., LEDs) or features of the natural environment. See Ex. 1007 § 2; Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:54-59 (“If a complete map of the terrain is not available in advance, the robot may
`
`observe landmarks, build a map based on the landmark observations, and determine
`
`its location on the map that it has constructed so far. The landmarks may be man-
`
`made markers or natural features of the terrain.”) (emphasis added); Ex. 1003 at
`
`
`
`10
`
`META 1005
`META V. THALES
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005 - Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
`1:55-59 (same). Both types of systems are illustrated in Figure 5 of Welch 2001,
`
`where the tracked object is the user’s head:
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Calibrating Sensors to Improve Tracking Accuracy
`
`24. One known way to improve tracking accuracy is to calibrate the sensors
`
`used to determine the pose of the object. See generally Ex. 1017, 183-218 (R.
`
`Holloway, “Registration Error Analysis for Augmented Reality Systems”). While
`
`knowledge about intrinsic or extrinsic parameters of a sensor is most commonly
`
`obtained via off-line calibration 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.
`
`25.
`
`In general, static intrinsic configuration parameters (i.e. those
`
`parameters that are internal to a device or a device unit) can be determined by the
`
`
`
`11
`
`META 1005
`META V. THALES
`
`

`

`Ex. 1005 - Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
`sensor manufacturer. However, not all manufacturers perform the calibrations
`
`necessary for the intrinsic parameters to be controlled with sufficient precision in
`
`order to be used for tracking in virtual environments.