`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,725,253
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 1
`A.
`“Estimation Subsystem,” “Sensor Subsystem,” And “Coupled
`To” ......................................................................................................... 1
`“Sensor Module” ................................................................................... 5
`“Configuration Data” ............................................................................ 6
`“Enumerating Sensing Elements Available To A Tracking
`System” ................................................................................................. 7
`“Expected Utility Of A Measurement” ................................................. 8
`E.
`“Set Of Sensing Elements” ................................................................... 8
`F.
`III. ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 9
`A. Ground I ................................................................................................ 9
`1.
`Claims 1-2 ................................................................................... 9
`2.
`Claims 6 And 8 ......................................................................... 13
`3.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 15
`4.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 15
`Ground II ............................................................................................. 16
`1.
`Claims 3-4 ................................................................................. 16
`2.
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 18
`Ground III ............................................................................................ 18
`C.
`D. Ground IV ............................................................................................ 19
`1.
`Claims 1 And 5 ......................................................................... 19
`2.
`Claims 2-3 ................................................................................. 26
`3.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 27
`4.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 27
`5.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 29
`6.
`Claims 8-9 ................................................................................. 30
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`E.
`
`Ground V ............................................................................................. 30
`1.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 30
`2.
`Claim 8-9 ................................................................................... 31
`IV. OBJECTIVE INDICIA .................................................................................. 31
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Ex parte Amrita Mathuriya et al.,
`Appeal 2022-003116, 2023 WL 2424996 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2023) .................... 2
`Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 4
`Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Promptu Sys. Corp.,
`IPR2018-00345, Paper 59 (P.T.A.B. June 28, 2019) ....................................... 4, 5
`CUPP Computing AS v. Trend Micro Inc.,
`53 F.4th 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................. 2
`General Elec. Co. v. ITC,
`685 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 3
`In re GPAC Inc.,
`57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................ 31
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. ITC,
`566 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 2
`Novo Industries, L.P. v. Micro Molds Corporation,
`350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 9
`NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005), abrogated in part on other
`grounds ................................................................................................................. 4
`Skedco, Inc. v. Strategic Operations, Inc.,
`685 F. App’x 956 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 4
`Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. v. Michigan Motor Techs. LLC,
`IPR2020-00446, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2020) ............................................. 9
`Wi-LAN Inc. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp.,
`992 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................ 3
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`Other Authorities
`MPEP §1481 .............................................................................................................. 9
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`PETITIONERS’ UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`Previously
`Filed
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`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 Declaration of Dr. Ulrich Neumann in Support of Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`1006 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)
`
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 5,615,132
`
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 5,307,289
`
`1012 Gentex’s Amended Preliminary Infringement
`Contentions and corresponding Exhibits 4 and 5 (’632
`and ’253 infringement charts)
`
`1013 Azuma, R. “Predictive Tracking for Augmented
`Reality” PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina
`(1995)
`
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Previously
`Filed
`
`1014 You, S. and Neumann, U. “Orientation Tracking for
`Outdoor Augmented Reality Registration.” (1999)
`
`1015 Carlson, Neal A. and Berarducci, Michael P.
`“Federated Kalman Filter Simulation Results.”
`Navigation. Vol. 41, Issue 3 at 297-322. (Fall 1994)
`
`1016 Reitmayr, Gerhard and Schmalstieg. “An Open
`Software Architecture for Virtual Reality Interaction”
`VRST ’01 (November 2001)
`
`1017 Barfield, W. “Fundamentals of Wearable Computers
`and Augmented Reality” (2001)
`
`1018 Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Welch, G.
`et al., “High-Performance Wide-Area Optical
`Tracking” (2001)
`
`1019 Declaration of Scott Delman regarding Welch, G. et al.,
`“SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete
`Information” (1997)
`
`1020 Declaration of Dr. James L. Mullins regarding Welch
`G. “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete
`Information” PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina
`(1996)
`
`1021 Declaration of Scott Delman regarding Reitmayr,
`Gerhard and Schmalstieg. “An Open Software
`Architecture for Virtual Reality Interaction” VRST ’01
`(November 2001)
`
`1022 U.S. Patent No. 5,807,284
`
`1023 U.S. Patent No. 5,991,085
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Previously
`Filed
`
`1026
`
`1024 Chen, Steven C. and Lee, Kang. “A mixed-mode smart
`transducer interface for sensors and actuators”, Sound
`& Vibration, 32(4), 24-27 (April 1998)
`
`1025 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
`
`1027 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)
`
`1028 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.
`
`1029 Declaration of Gordon MacPherson regarding Zetu,
`Dan et al., “Extended-Range Hybrid Tracker and
`Applications
`to Motion and Camera Tracking in Manufacturing
`Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and
`Automation, Vol. 16, Issue 3, June 2000
`
`1030 U.S. Patent No. 5,592,401
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`Description
`
`Previously
`Filed
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1031 Case Management and Pretrial Order, Dkt. 116, Gentex
`Corporation et al. v Meta Platforms, Inc. et al.
`(October 18, 2022)
`1032 Declaration of Akshay S. Deoras in Support of
`Unopposed Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on Behalf
`of Petitioner
`1033 Deposition Transcript of Yohan Baillot, dated
`September 13, 2023
`Excerpts from Random House Webster’s Unabridged
`Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (2001)
`Excerpts from The Computer Engineering Handbook
`(2001)
`1036 Compare Benefits of CPUs, GPUs, and FPGAs for
`Different oneAPI Compute Workloads
`Plaintiffs’ Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions Pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-1,
`Gentex Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 22-cv-3892-
`YGR (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2022)
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Ulrich Neumann in
`Support of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,922,632 and 7,725,253
`
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner (“PO”) contends that the “central innovation” of the ’253 patent
`
`is a separation between a tracking system’s sensors and the tracking system’s
`
`calculation module, which purportedly “allows for the use of different types of
`
`sensors with the same tracking component.” See Paper 29 (Patent Owner’s
`
`Response, “POR”), 16. But that requirement is nowhere to be found in the
`
`independent claims. Instead, the claims recite the setup of elementary tracking
`
`systems taught in the prior art, little more than the combination of (i) sensors with
`
`(ii) a component configured to track an object according to the sensors connected to
`
`it. See EX1003, cls. 1, 6. The prior art is replete with teachings directed to this basic
`
`setup, however. PO is therefore unable to legitimately dispute that the prior art
`
`teaches every claim element, and instead spends most of its POR proffering new
`
`claim constructions that the intrinsic evidence fails to support and alleging supposed
`
`technical foot-faults in how the Petition mapped the prior art teachings to the claims.
`
`But as explained below, PO’s arguments lack merit: The Petition, and the prior art
`
`references themselves, fully demonstrate that the prior art taught, or at least rendered
`
`obvious, every challenged claim.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`“Estimation Subsystem,” “Sensor Subsystem,” And “Coupled To”
`The dispute regarding these terms is whether the two “subsystems” can
`
`partially overlap as Petitioner contends, or if the two subsystems cannot overlap at
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`all as PO contends.1 See POR, 13. This dispute is only relevant if the Board agrees
`
`with PO’s characterization of the Petition’s identification of an “estimation
`
`subsystem” and “sensor subsystem” in Horton in Grounds IV-V, as discussed below
`
`in Section III.D.1.a.
`
`The claim language does not preclude the two “subsystems” from
`
`overlapping. See Ex parte Amrita Mathuriya et al., Appeal 2022-003116, 2023 WL
`
`2424996, at *5 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2023). PO’s construction therefore relies on three
`
`alleged inferences from the claim language, all of which are unfounded.
`
`First, PO argues that the claims recite two different “subsystem” components,
`
`but that is insufficient to require that the two recited “subsystems” are “entirely
`
`separate and distinct.” See Linear Tech. Corp. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 1049, 1054-55 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2009)2; CUPP Computing AS v. Trend Micro Inc., 53 F.4th 1376, 1380-81 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2022).
`
`
`1 The dispute is not merely whether the two subsystems are “separate,” but whether
`
`they are entirely separate as PO contends. As such, PO’s cited deposition
`
`testimony does not support its position, because Petitioner’s expert did not admit
`
`that the claims required complete separation. See EX2009, 43:5-8.
`
`2 All emphasis added unless stated otherwise.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`Second, PO argues that the recited subsystems are “coupled to” one another
`
`for communication and therefore must be wholly separate, but the law does not
`
`support that inference either. See General Elec. Co. v. ITC, 685 F.3d 1034, 1045
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012). Further, PO and its expert admitted that a “POSITA would have
`
`understood that the phrase ‘coupled to’ here takes its ordinary English meaning of
`
`‘connected to.’ [EX2007, Declaration of Yohan Baillot, PO’s expert], ¶41; see
`
`EX20113 (defining ‘couple’ as ‘to link together, connect’).” See POR, 14. PO’s
`
`contention that the “coupled to” term further requires that the subsystems are “not
`
`overlapping or intertwined with” each other (as found in PO’s construction) is thus
`
`unsupported and contrary to PO’s admissions and evidence.4
`
`
`3 PO’s other dictionaries also support this construction of “coupled” that does not
`
`require complete separation. See EX2021, 3; EX2022, 3.
`
`4 The specification does not redefine “coupled” as in Wi-LAN Inc. v. Sharp Elecs.
`
`Corp., 992 F.3d 1366, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2021). See id. (recognizing that “patent’s
`
`consistent use of ‘coupled’ ‘to refer to components that are not sub-components
`
`of each other’ [versus that patent’s consistent use of] ‘in’ ‘to refer to components
`
`that could be sub-components of each other.’”).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`And third, PO argues that the claims require one subsystem to “accept” data
`
`from the other such that the two subsystems must be wholly separate, but that
`
`“accept” language does not require complete separation because the “accepted” data
`
`can flow from one non-overlapping portion of a subsystem to the other subsystem,
`
`as PO’s expert admitted. See EX1033, 198:6-18; Skedco, Inc. v. Strategic
`
`Operations, Inc., 685 F. App’x 956, 959 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`This dispute is analogous to NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d
`
`1282, 1309-11 (Fed. Cir. 2005), abrogated in part on other grounds. There, the
`
`defendant argued that a claimed receiver and a destination processor had to be
`
`“separate and distinct” primarily based on the claims’ requirement that the receiver
`
`“transfer” information to the destination processor to which the receiver was
`
`“connected” or “coupled.” Id. The Federal Circuit rejected effectively the same
`
`logic that PO proposes here. Id.
`
`Neither Becton nor Comcast imply a per se rule that elements listed separately
`
`and “coupled” together are necessarily distinct. In both those cases, the dispute was
`
`whether a single, exact “same structure” could simultaneously satisfy two recited
`
`elements. See Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d
`
`1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Promptu Sys. Corp.,
`
`IPR2018-00345, Paper 59 at 25 (P.T.A.B. June 28, 2019). That is not the situation
`
`here, so Becton and Comcast do not apply.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`PO’s citations to the specification also do not support its construction because
`
`none of them require complete separation between the “estimation subsystem” and
`
`“sensor subsystem.” In fact, the specification supports Petitioner’s construction
`
`because it teaches that only portions of the “sensor subsystem” need be separable to
`
`achieve the alleged innovation, not that the entire “sensor subsystem” need be
`
`separable. See EX1003, 2:23-24 (“[T]he invention features a navigation or motion
`
`tracking system in which components associated with particular sensors are
`
`decoupled from a tracking component….”); see also id., Abstract (substantially
`
`identical teaching). The specification is therefore consistent with Petitioner’s
`
`construction that permits separate but overlapping subsystems.
`
`PO’s expert admitted that PO’s constructions are not the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of those terms and instead insisted that the patent “defined what [the patent]
`
`mean[s] in terms of estimation subsystem in that specific patent as it could be
`
`interpreted a different way.” EX1033, 192:12-194:13, 195:11-16. The patent did
`
`not clearly set forth PO’s proposed definitions of these terms, however, and therefore
`
`PO’s unsupported definitions should be rejected.
`
`B.
`“Sensor Module”
`In this proceeding, Petitioner does not dispute PO’s construction.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`C.
`“Configuration Data”
`PO proposes an unduly narrow construction, specifically: “data describing
`
`characteristics or attributes of a sensor or set of sensors.” The plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of “configuration data” is exactly what is says: data used for configuration.
`
`The POR lacks evidence supporting PO’s construction,5 and instead primarily
`
`argues whether the specific data relied upon in certain grounds of the Petition qualify
`
`as “configuration data.” See POR, 18. PO’s expert even admitted that he did not
`
`know where the specific wording for PO’s construction was derived from nor
`
`whether the construction was “standard or not.” See EX1033, 203:5-205:8. The
`
`Board should therefore reject PO’s construction because it lacks support and because
`
`it is flawed for at least the following two reasons.
`
`First, PO’s construction inappropriately requires that all “configuration data”
`
`describe “a sensor or set of sensors,” such that no “configuration data” could relate
`
`to anything other than a sensor, which is inconsistent with the specification. See
`
`EX1003, 35:58-61 (teaching data used to configure the “estimation subsystem,”
`
`without reference to any sensors). And second, PO’s construction captures data that
`
`merely “describ[es]” something even if that data is never actually used to configure
`
`
`5 None of PO’s dictionary definitions of the word “configuration” support its
`
`construction. See EX2012, 3; EX2013, 3; EX2014, 3.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`anything. Logically, data that is not used to configure cannot be “configuration data”
`
`no matter what it “describe[es],” further evidencing that PO’s construction is flawed.
`
`
`
`PO’s proposed construction
`
`is unsupported,
`
`inconsistent with
`
`the
`
`specification, and illogical. “Configuration data” is plainly “data that is used for
`
`configuration.”
`
`D.
`
`“Enumerating Sensing Elements Available To A Tracking
`System”
`The plain and ordinary meaning of “enumerating” is “determining the number
`
`of” sensing elements, which can be performed by, but is not so narrow as to require,
`
`“specifying or listing each” sensing element, as PO’s construction demands. PO’s
`
`dictionaries support Petitioner’s construction. See EX2015, 3 (“to ascertain the
`
`number of : COUNT”); EX2016, 3 (“To determine the number of; count”);
`
`EX10346, 3 (“to ascertain the number of; count.”).
`
`PO’s citations to the specification are equally consistent with Petitioner’s
`
`construction, because in the process of “specifying or listing” the sensors as
`
`allegedly discussed in PO’s citations, the system necessarily also “determines the
`
`number of” such sensors. See POR, 23-24. The intrinsic evidence cited by PO
`
`
`6 PO relies on this same dictionary as Exhibit 2014 in IPR2022-01303 related to
`
`the parent of the ’253 patent.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`therefore does not support narrowing the term beyond its plain and ordinary meaning
`
`found in PO’s cited dictionaries.
`
`E.
`“Expected Utility Of A Measurement”
`PO construes this term as “expected information gain of a measurement,”
`
`which just replaces the word “utility” with “information gain.” But the proper
`
`construction of “utility” is “usefulness,” not “information gain.” As the ’253 patent
`
`states:
`
`MMU [measurement management unit] 304 makes the
`selection based on an ‘information gain’ that represents
`the utility (or usefulness) of a measurement by the pair of
`PSEs to navigation system 90.
`See EX1003, 19:9-12. PO’s own cited evidence further supports this understanding.
`
`See EX10347, 3.
`
`F.
`“Set Of Sensing Elements”
`Claim 8’s “the set of sensing elements” does not have antecedent basis in
`
`Claim 6, and is not equivalent to “the enumerated sensing elements” recited in Claim
`
`6. Instead, Claim 8’s “the set of sensing elements” is the broader group of sensing
`
`elements from which Claim 6’s “enumerated sensing elements” are enumerated.
`
`The patent teaches that different types of sensors may be used (see EX1003, e.g.,
`
`2:28-30), so there is a broader pool of “sensing elements” from which to choose for
`
`
`7 This is PO’s dictionary submitted as Exhibit 2014.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`implementation. Claim 8 requires that at least one sensing element available for
`
`selection from that broader pool of options is a sensor that uses a sensor/target
`
`configuration.
`
`PO’s construction effectively contends that the lack of antecedent basis is a
`
`clerical error because PO’s construction ties the terms in the different claims
`
`together. But PO’s implied clerical error is at least subject to reasonable debate in
`
`view of the explanation proposed above, and therefore the supposed clerical error
`
`cannot be fixed as PO proposes through claim construction during IPR. See Novo
`
`Industries, L.P. v. Micro Molds Corporation, 350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003);
`
`Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. v. Michigan Motor Techs. LLC, IPR2020-00446,
`
`Paper 9 at 11 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2020). This is especially true here because PO
`
`relies on extrinsic expert evidence to support its proposal. See POR, 27; MPEP
`
`§1481.
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`A. Ground I
`Claims 1-28
`1.
`PO does not dispute the motivation to combine Welch-2001 with Welch-1997,
`
`nor that in combination they teach all elements of Claim 1 except the requirement in
`
`
`8 PO presents no argument unique to Claim 2.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`element 1[b] that the sensor subsystem provides “configuration data.” See POR, 28-
`
`31. As discussed below, the combination does teach that the sensor subsystem
`
`provides “configuration data” under either party’s construction of “configuration
`
`data.”
`
`a.
`
`Petitioner’s Construction: “Data That Is Used For
`Configuration”
`One type of “configuration data” identified by the Petition is the measurement
`
`data generated during Welch-2001’s “offline calibration procedure” that is used to
`
`create calibration tables, which the Board recognized is data used for configuration.
`
`See Petition, 31-32; EX1007, 9-10; Paper 10 at 17. Another type of “configuration
`
`data” identified by the Petition is the measurement data generated during Welch-
`
`2001’s “online” calibration procedure that is used to estimate measurement noise
`
`and also to configure the Kalman filter. See Petition, 32; EX1007, 10. PO’s expert
`
`admitted that Welch-2001’s Kalman filter, which is part of the estimation subsystem,
`
`is configured according to this data. See EX1033, 10:12-11:10, 5:11-6:5, 7:6-11.
`
`PO’s contention that these data sets cannot be “configuration data” because they are
`
`initially measurements is irrelevant under the term’s proper construction. See POR,
`
`19.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`b.
`
`PO’s Construction: “Data Describing Characteristics Or
`Attributes Of A Sensor Or Set Of Sensors”
`Welch-2001’s data identified by the Petition (i.e., the measurement data
`
`generated during Welch-2001’s “offline” and “online” calibration procedures)
`
`constitutes “configuration data” under PO’s construction for two reasons.
`
`First, PO’s construction does not expressly exclude measurement data. Thus,
`
`the data identified by the Petition satisfies the literal requirements of PO’s
`
`construction, which only requires that the data “describ[es] characteristics or
`
`attributes of a sensor or a set of sensors.” As background, the ’253 patent teaches
`
`that a sensor’s “characteristic or attribute” includes a sensor’s position and
`
`orientation. See EX1003, 30:3-5 (“Each PSE [Pose Sensing Element] object has the
`
`following attributes: (1) Pose (location and orientation)”). Given this broad
`
`understanding of what constitutes a sensor’s “characteristic or attribute,” the amount
`
`of light impinging on different locations of the HiBall unit—which is what Welch-
`
`2001 measures during its “offline” and “online” calibration procedures and is the
`
`“configuration data” identified by the Petition—would “describe[e]” a sensor’s pose
`
`(which, again, is a “characteristic or attribute” of the sensor) and thus satisfy PO’s
`
`construction. Welch-2001’s data cited by the Petition may be measurement data,
`
`but it is also the claimed “configuration data” under PO’s construction.
`
`Second, Welch-2001’s data satisfies PO’s construction by virtue of the type
`
`of data that is delivered, separate from the value of the measurements themselves—
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`essentially, the metadata of the measurements. As PO’s expert admitted, a POSITA
`
`would recognize that Welch-2001’s Kalman filter for tracking calculations must be
`
`configured properly to accept the type of data produced by the HiBall unit that feeds
`
`into it. See EX1033, 5:11-6:5, 10:12-11:10. Because Welch-2001’s HiBall unit
`
`comprises LEPD optical sensors, the type of data it generates is “the two-
`
`dimensional coordinates of the centroid of the ray [of light] that the illuminated LED
`
`produces on the HiBall’s detector,” as well as the light intensity at that point. See
`
`EX2007 ¶90; EX1033, 9:4-6. Thus, Welch-2001’s Kalman filter would have been
`
`configured based on its receipt of this type of data (i.e., two values representing X-
`
`Y coordinates and one value representing light intensity), which is metadata that is
`
`not a measurement of anything and is independent of any measurement values taken.
`
`This type of data (i.e., data in the format of two values representing X-Y coordinates
`
`and one value representing light intensity) describes a characteristic or attribute of a
`
`sensor (specifically that the sensor in an LEPD optical sensor), as PO’s construction
`
`requires.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`Claims 6 And 89
`2.
`PO only disputes whether the prior art teaches one limitation in Claim 6—
`
`“enumerating” the sensing elements in the system. That limitation is taught under
`
`either Party’s construction of “enumerating.”
`
`a.
`
`Petitioner’s Construction: “Determining The Number
`Of”
`Welch-2001’s Figure 6 shows two HiBall units:
`
`The Figure 6 embodiment and associated description of the HiBall unit thus
`
`determines the number of sensing elements available to the tracking system in that
`
`
`
`
`9 PO presents no argument unique to Claim 8.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`embodiment. See also EX1007, 6-7 and Fig. 9 (specifying the composition of a
`
`HiBall unit).
`
`b.
`PO’s Construction: “Specifying Or Listing”
`While Welch-2001’s Figure 6 embodiment shown above only has two HiBall
`
`units, Welch-2001 teaches that the system can accommodate up to four HiBall units.
`
`See EX1007, 9. As PO’s expert admitted, “something would have to specify” to the
`
`PC that there are four HiBall units in that alternative embodiment, as opposed to
`
`only two HiBall units. See EX1033, 24:22-25:20. Indeed, as a POSITA would
`
`recognize, the only way for “each [] sensor to be calibrated” as taught by Welch-
`
`1997 would be to “specify” to the system “each” sensor available to the tracking
`
`system that must be calibrated. See EX1038 ¶¶11-16; EX1008 §§ 3.2, 3.2.1.
`
`
`
`At a minimum, it would have been obvious to specify or list the sensing
`
`elements available to the combination of Welch-2001+Welch-1997. PO’s expert
`
`admitted that Welch-2001 does not teach that its system is “hard-wired” or “hard-
`
`coded,” and as discussed above, Welch-2001 expressly contemplates a varying
`
`number of sensors in its system. See EX1033, 70:8-11, 71:13-20, 72:4-14; EX1007,
`
`9. Welch-1997 teaches that “each” sensor should be calibrated (EX1008 § 3.2), so
`
`it would have been obvious to specify or list the HiBall units (and associated LEPD
`
`sensors) that are available to the tracking system so that “each” sensor can be
`
`calibrated, since the number of HiBall units can change. See EX1038 ¶¶11-18. PO’s
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`expert admitted that this “specifying” process “could be one way to do it” when
`
`accommodating different numbers of HiBall units. See EX1033, 29:7-30:2.
`
`Claim 7
`3.
`Welch’s chosen view window (among the 26 possible candidate windows)
`
`“determines a 2-D bounding box on the ceiling, within which are the candidate
`
`LEDs for the current view.” See EX1007, 13. These narrowed “candidate LEDs”
`
`and associated HiBall units are the “sequence of candidates.” Welch-2001’s
`
`approach to selecting the LED/HiBall pair based on a least-recently-used heuristic
`
`achieves a highest expected usefulness because it best balances both the highest
`
`expected information gain with simplicity, which accounts for real-world constraints
`
`on processing power and associated latency. See EX1033, 52:1-53:9, 55:6-16, 56:8-
`
`13.
`
`Claim 9
`4.
`Welch-2001’s “system can evolve [to using] natural features,” and such
`
`evolution was well within the ordinary skill in the art. See EX1007, 5; EX1005 ¶76
`
`(citing EX1014); EX1003, 1:58-59. The modified system would emit light to scatter
`
`off the natural feature target, just like a camera flash at night, which was within the
`
`level of ordinary skill. See id.; EX1033, 61:5-66:2.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`IPR2022-01308
`
`B. Ground II
`Claims 3-4
`1.
`PO does not dispute that the prior art teaches the additional elements found in
`
`dependent Claims 3 and 4. The only dispute is whether there was sufficient
`
`motivation to combine.
`
`PO first argues that the combination would require replacing the FPGA
`
`processors in Welch-2001’s HiBall units10 with “general-purpose processors.” See
`
`POR, 38-39. PO’s expert admitted, however, that “[i]t’s not required” to do so, and
`
`that it “[i]t is possible” to configure Welch-2001’s existing FPGAs to perform the
`
`prior art’s tracking calculations. See EX1033, 83:14-18, 84:11-16, 92:17-20. PO’s
`
`contention that the proposed combination would require replacing Welch-2001’s
`
`FPGAs with “general-purpose processors” is thus contrary to PO’s exper