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 SUR-REPLY
`
`
`November 3, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
`LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................. iv
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 1
`A.
`Estimation/Sensor Subsystem ............................................................... 1
`B.
`Sensor Module ....................................................................................... 5
`C.
`Configuration Data ................................................................................ 5
`D.
`Enumerating .......................................................................................... 7
`E.
`Expected Utility ..................................................................................... 8
`F.
`Set of Sensing Elements ........................................................................ 8
`III. PETITIONER FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE OBVIOUSNESS .................... 9
`A. Ground I ................................................................................................ 9
`1.
`Claim 1 ........................................................................................ 9
`2.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 11
`3.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 12
`4.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 12
`B. Ground II ............................................................................................. 13
`1. Motivation to Combine ............................................................. 13
`2.
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 14
`C. Ground III ............................................................................................ 15
`D. Ground IV ............................................................................................ 16
`1.
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 16
`2.
`Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 20
`3.
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 20
`4.
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 21
`5.
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 22
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 23
`6.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 25
`7.
`Ground V ............................................................................................. 25
`1.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 25
`2.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 25
`
`E.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`CASES
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 23
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Tech. LLC,
`IPR2021-01445 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2023) ............................................................ 24
`NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................ 2, 3
`Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 13
`Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc.,
`66 F.4th 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ......................................................................... 2, 3
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23 ..................................................................................................... 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Title
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`
`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
`Welch, G. et al., “High-Performance Wide-Area Optical
`Tracking” (2001)
`Welch, G. et al., “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with
`Incomplete Information” (1997)
`Welch G., “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete
`Information,” PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina
`(1996)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,615,132
`U.S. Patent No. 5,307,289
`Gentex’s Amended Preliminary Infringement Contentions
`and corresponding Exhibits 4 and 5 (’632 and ’253
`infringement charts)
`Azuma, R., “Predictive Tracking for Augmented Reality,”
`PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina (1995)
`You, S. and Neumann, U., “Orientation Tracking for Outdoor
`Augmented Reality Registration,” (1999)
`Carlson, Neal A. and Berarducci, Michael P. “Federated
`Kalman Filter Simulation Results,” Navigation. Vol. 41,
`Issue 3 (Fall 1994)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`
`Exhibit
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`Title
`Reitmayr, Gerhard and Schmalstieg, “An Open Software
`Architecture for Virtual Reality Interaction,” VRST ’01
`(November 2001)
`Barfield, W., “Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and
`Augmented Reality” (2001)
`Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Welch, G. et al.,
`“High- Performance Wide-Area Optical Tracking” (2001)
`Declaration of Scott Delman regarding Welch, G. et al.,
`“SCAAT:
`Incremental Tracking with
`Incomplete
`Information” (1997)
`Declaration of Dr. James L. Mullins regarding Welch G.,
`“SCAAT:
`Incremental Tracking with
`Incomplete
`Information,” PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina
`(1996)
`Declaration of Scott Delman regarding Reitmayr, Gerhard
`and Schmalstieg, “An Open Software Architecture for
`Virtual Reality Interaction,” VRST ’01 (November 2001)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,807,284
`U.S. Patent No. 5,991,085
`Chen, Steven C. and Lee, Kang, “A mixed-mode smart
`transducer interface for sensors and actuators,” Sound &
`Vibration, 32(4) (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
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`
`Exhibit
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`1031
`
`1032
`
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`Title
`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) (April
`1998)
`Declaration of Gordon MacPherson regarding Hoff, William
`and Vincent, Tyrone. “Analysis of Head Pose Accuracy in
`Augmented Reality”, IEEE Transactions on Visualization
`and Computer Graphics, Vol. 6, Issue 4, October – December
`2000.
`Declaration of Gordon MacPherson regarding Zetu, Dan et
`al., “Extended-Range Hybrid Tracker and Applications to
`Motion and Camera Tracking in Manufacturing Systems,”
`IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 16,
`Issue 3, June 2000
`U.S. Patent No. 5,592,401
`Case Management and Pretrial Order, Gentex Corp. v. Meta
`Platforms, Inc., No. 5:22-cv-03892-YGR (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18,
`2022), ECF No. 116
`Declaration of Akshay S. Deoras in Support of Unopposed
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.10(c)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Yohan Baillot (Sept. 13,
`2023)
`Enumerate, Random House Webster’s Unabridged
`Dictionary (2d ed. 2001)
`Oklobdzija, Vojin G., “The Computer Engineering
`Handbook” (2002)
`Compare Benefits of CPUs, GPUs, and FPGAs for Different
`oneAPI Compute Workloads, Intel
`Plaintiffs’ Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`Contentions Pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-1, Gentex Corp. v.
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1038
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`2009
`
`2010
`
`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`
`Title
`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
`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)
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`
`Exhibit
`2011
`2012
`
`2013
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`2017
`2018
`
`2019
`(not filed)
`
`2020
`(not filed)
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`(not filed)
`2024
`(not filed)
`2025
`
`Title
`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)
`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)
`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 with attachment (July 7, 2023)
`Declaration of Glen Parker (June 29, 2023)
`
`Couple, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.
`1999)
`Couple, Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary
`(2d ed. 2001)
`Enumerate, Random House Webster’s Unabridged
`Dictionary (2d ed. 2001)
`Enumerate, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th
`ed. 1999)
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Ulrich Neumann (October
`20, 2023)
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner would have the Board believe that the ’253 patent covers simply
`
`using sensors with a tracking component. Reply 1. But the patent acknowledges
`
`such systems existed in the prior art, e.g., Ex.1003, 1:18-23, and builds on them by
`
`proposing a new and particular approach to system architecture that enables tracking
`
`using different types and numbers of sensing elements, e.g., id., 2:22-35, 10:55-68,
`
`12:36-39, 13:9-22, 13:52-56, 18:43-48, 18:56-67.
`
`Welch’s HiBall and Horton’s accelerometer systems did not render obvious
`
`the challenged claims because they were designed as integrated systems working
`
`with particular sensors. A sensing subpart of the system has no need to (and thus
`
`does not) tell a tracking subpart of the system what sensors are available or provide
`
`configuration data, because the overall system already is configured by the system
`
`designers to operate with pre-determined sensors.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A. Estimation/Sensor Subsystem
`
`The dispute over this construction is whether the estimation and sensor
`
`subsystems claimed and described in the ’253 patent can overlap, as Petitioner
`
`contends. As Patent Owner and its expert explained, POR 12-17; Ex.2007 ¶¶36-48,
`
`they cannot. Petitioner’s argument (Reply 2) that the claim language does not
`
`preclude overlap is based on its incorrect construction of the claim terms, which is
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`impermissibly divorced from the specification. And Petitioner’s focus (Reply 2-4)
`
`
`
`on whether any distinctly-named or “coupled” components in other patents can ever
`
`overlap misses the point, again because it ignores the context in which the terms
`
`appear here.
`
`The patent describes an inventive system “architecture” that “enables
`
`development of sensor-specific components independently of the tracking
`
`component, and enables sensors and their associated components to be added or
`
`removed without having to re-implement the tracking component.” Ex.1003, 2:26-
`
`30. This is achieved through a system set-up involving “separation” of sensor and
`
`updating components. E.g., Ex.1003, 22:13-24 (“separation” a “key feature”);
`
`Ex.2007 ¶44. This “express purpose of the invention informs the proper construction
`
`of claim terms.” Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc., 66 F.4th 1317, 1326 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`Moreover, the patent describes the two segments being connected to each
`
`other through a “coupling” action, e.g., Ex.1003, 2:36-38, 2:50-51, which indicates
`
`that they are not already overlapping or intertwined, Ex.2007 ¶42. Petitioner’s cited
`
`cases do not address this point. None discuss the action of “coupling,” and the
`
`majority involved a different question of whether physical separation was required.
`
`For example, NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd. considered whether “coupled”
`
`components must “be physically disposed in separate housings,” which is not at
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`issue here. 418 F.3d 1282, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2005), abrogated in part on other
`
`
`
`grounds.
`
`Ultimately, the relevant question is how the POSITA would have understood
`
`these claim terms in the context of this patent, but Petitioner does little to engage
`
`with that context. Petitioner argues (Reply 5) that the specification “teaches that
`
`only portions of the ‘sensor subsystem’ need to be separable to achieve the alleged
`
`invention,” but its citations do not support that conclusion. The patent teaches that
`
`the “components associated with particular sensors are decoupled from a tracking
`
`component,” not that only “some components” or “a portion of those components”
`
`are decoupled or separate. Ex.1003, 2:22-26; see id., Abstract. The patent never
`
`mentions partial separation of the claimed functionalities, nor overlapping
`
`components. Petitioner does not point to any evidence suggesting such overlap
`
`would be possible nor explain how it would enable the functionality described by
`
`the patent as its purpose. Ex.2007 ¶¶45-46; see Sequoia Tech., 66 F.4th at 1326.
`
`Despite the opportunity to offer additional expert evidence—which Petitioner
`
`did on other points, Ex.1038—Petitioner does not provide any expert evidence that
`
`the two claimed subsystems can overlap. Indeed, Petitioner’s expert testified to just
`
`the opposite: in the context of the patents, the two subsystems are “two separate
`
`things.” Ex.2009, 43:5-8. Petitioner now quibbles, ginning up a supposed—but
`
`unexplained and unsupported—distinction between “separate” and “entirely
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`separate.” Reply 2 n.1. Petitioner’s lack of expert support stands in stark contrast
`
`
`
`to Patent Owner’s expert evidence that the POSITA would have understood that the
`
`two subsystems do not allow overlap of the claimed functionalities, and indeed that
`
`such overlapping or intertwined subsystems “would defeat a key goal of the …
`
`patent.” Ex.2007 ¶¶39-46.1
`
`Finally, even if the Board were to conclude that the patent does not preclude
`
`some portions of the subsystems from overlapping, that does not mean that all
`
`possible overlaps are permissible. As Petitioner acknowledges, for example, the
`
`portion of a subsystem that “provides” data cannot overlap with the portion of the
`
`other subsystem that “receives” or “accepts” that data. Reply 4.
`
`
`1 Petitioner’s argument (Reply 5) that Patent Owner’s expert admitted that its
`
`“constructions are not the plain and ordinary meaning” and claimed that the patent
`
`“defined” the terms mischaracterizes the testimony. Petitioner asked questions
`
`regarding Mr. Baillot’s understanding of the terms “prior to this case” or “before
`
`reading the patents,” and he explained his general understanding, which is consistent
`
`with Patent Owner’s constructions. Ex.1033, 192:12-196:11. Mr. Baillot further
`
`explained that the patent “refin[es] that definition” to explain how the systems
`
`function within the patent, id., which is what bears on the disputed issue here.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Sensor Module
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`
`Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Id., 5.
`
`C. Configuration Data
`
`The relevant question for claim construction is how the POSITA would have
`
`understood the claim term in the context of the patent, not “where the specific
`
`wording” came from or whether it is “standard.” Id., 6. The central dispute for the
`
`term “configuration data” is whether the POSITA would have understood it to
`
`include the raw measurements on which Petitioner relies. Petitioner’s proposed
`
`construction does not shed any light on that issue, and at best begs the question
`
`whether the asserted raw measurements are “used for” configuration in the context
`
`of the patent.
`
`The POSITA reading the term in light of the claims and the specification
`
`would have understood that raw sensor measurements are not “configuration data,”
`
`nor are they “used for configuration” in Petitioner’s references. The specification
`
`discusses at length the types of information used in the configuration process, and
`
`they are not raw sensor measurements. Ex.2007 ¶¶54-61. Rather, data describing
`
`characteristics or attributes of a sensor or set of sensors is used to configure, as
`
`reflected in Patent Owner’s construction. Id.; see POR 18-22.
`
`Petitioner does not provide any examples of raw sensor measurements that are
`
`themselves directly used for configuration. The POSITA would have understood
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`that sensor measurements of the type on which Petitioner relies may be processed in
`
`
`
`order to compute or estimate certain sensor parameters or characteristics that can
`
`then be used for configuration purposes, such as noise or uncertainty. There, the
`
`processed outputs are the configuration data, not the raw measurement inputs.
`
`Ex.2007 ¶58.
`
`This distinction is important to the modular system architecture described in
`
`the patent. The patent explains how the sensing part of the system provides
`
`information about its sensors so that the estimation part of the system can be
`
`arranged to use data the sensors provide. If the sensing part provides only raw
`
`measurements, and the estimation part of the system must process that data into
`
`something different before any configuration can take place (as Petitioner proposes),
`
`then the estimation part must already be designed to process that particular sensor
`
`data. Any change to the sensors would need to be accompanied by a change to the
`
`estimation component’s processing as well, which defeats the ability to update or
`
`change one part of the system without changing the other. See Ex.1003, 2:26-35,
`
`16:13-19, 17:4-14, 18:56-67.
`
`Petitioner fails to offer any expert evidence to support its position, or to
`
`disagree with Patent Owner’s construction. And its unsupported criticisms of Patent
`
`Owner’s construction (Reply 6-7) fall flat. First, in the context of the patents,
`
`configuration data is used to describe sensing elements. Petitioner’s one example
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`that it contends does not refer to sensors (id., citing Ex.1003, 35:58-61) does, in fact,
`
`
`
`relate to sensing devices, particularly the HW.cfg file that lists “information about
`
`each [sensing] device from each driver.”2 Ex.1003, 32:24-26; see also id., 32:10-
`
`11. Second, how the data is used is addressed by other claim language. Id., cl.1.
`
`There is no need to read usage into this particular term, particularly in the circular
`
`fashion Petitioner proposes.
`
`The Board should adopt Patent Owner’s construction, which, unlike
`
`Petitioner’s, is supported by the patent and reflects how the POSITA would have
`
`understood the term in context. Ex.2007 ¶¶53-63. But, as described below, even
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction does not aid its arguments that the challenged
`
`claims were rendered obvious over the asserted references.
`
`D. Enumerating
`
`Enumeration is a process performed by the system to identify each individual
`
`available sensing element. POR 23-25; Ex.2007 ¶¶72-77; Ex.2015; Ex.2016;
`
`Ex.1034. Petitioner’s proposed construction does not reflect this understanding, and
`
`it is not supported by expert evidence. For example, “determining” that a tracking
`
`system has ten total sensing elements available to it, without any more specificity,
`
`
`2 Patent Owner does not object to construing the term as “data describing
`
`characteristics or attributes of a sensing element or set of sensing elements.”
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`would meet Petitioner’s proposed construction. But that information alone would
`
`
`
`not allow a tracking system to operate. See Ex.2007 ¶75.
`
`E.
`
`Expected Utility
`
`Petitioner’s proposed construction of “utility” as “usefulness” (Reply 8) is
`
`unhelpful because it does not explain what “usefulness” means in the context of the
`
`patent. Patent Owner’s construction, on the other hand, explains what the patent
`
`means by both “utility” and “usefulness”: information gain. The excerpt Petitioner
`
`cites explains that the patent approaches utility/usefulness as information gain,
`
`Ex.1003, 19:9-12, and the other portions of the specification Patent Owner cites in
`
`its Response reinforce that understanding, see POR 25-26; Ex. 2007 ¶¶79-80.
`
`F.
`
`Set of Sensing Elements
`
`Claim 8’s use of the phrase “the set of sensing elements” as opposed to “a set
`
`of sensing elements” indicates that it is referring to sensing elements that had been
`
`mentioned previously in the dependency chain. The only such sensing elements are
`
`the “enumerated sensing elements” of claim 6. It makes no sense for claim 8 to refer
`
`to other sensing elements that may exist in the world but that have not been
`
`enumerated to the tracking system, so there is no “reasonable debate” here.
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`
`III. PETITIONER FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE OBVIOUSNESS
`
`
`A. Ground I
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`a.
`
`Limitation 1[b]
`
`Limitation 1[b] requires, among other things, that the sensor subsystem
`
`provide configuration data to the estimation subsystem. Petitioner points to
`
`(1) measurements that are later processed and used to create calibration tables;3
`
`(2) measurements that are later processed and used to estimate noise; and
`
`(3) metadata about the type of measurement. Reply 10-11. All fail, either because
`
`they are not “configuration data,” or are not provided from the sensor subsystem.
`
`Petitioner’s construction.
`
` The measurements taken during Welch’s
`
`calibration processes are not “data used for configuration.” Even Petitioner
`
`acknowledges that the measurement data is “used to create” different data:
`
`calibration tables and estimates of measurement noise. Id., 10. Welch’s Kalman
`
`filter is configured according to those generated outputs—which are calculated on
`
`the asserted estimation subsystem, the PC—not the measurements Petitioner
`
`identifies. See Ex.2007 ¶¶374-375; Ex.1033, 5:11-6:5 (Kalman filter configured
`
`
`3 Petitioner had called the calibration tables themselves the “configuration data,”
`
`Petition 32, but abandons that argument here.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`according to calibration parameters), 7:6-11 (same). Petitioner attempts to gloss
`
`
`
`over this distinction with a vague reference to “this data,” Reply 10, but Petitioner
`
`does not contend (and provides no evidence to support) that the Kalman filter is
`
`configured by the measurements provided by the asserted sensor subsystem.
`
`Patent Owner’s construction. Petitioner incorrectly argues (Reply 11) that
`
`measurements can be configuration data under Patent Owner’s construction. The
`
`POSITA would not have understood Welch’s raw measurements to “describe[e]
`
`characteristics or attributes of a sensor or set of sensors.” Patent Owner’s Response
`
`and expert were clear: “Raw measurements of the sort Petitioner relies upon do not
`
`themselves constitute configuration data or information.” Ex.2007 ¶57; POR 17-18;
`
`see Ex.2007 ¶¶58-63.
`
`Petitioner’s strained efforts to contort the measurements into something
`
`falling within Patent Owner’s construction only reinforce this point. First, Petitioner
`
`attempts to equate the raw HiBall measurements with a description of the HiBall’s
`
`calculated pose. But the “amount of light impinging on different locations of the
`
`HiBall unit,” Reply 11, is not the HiBall’s pose—it reflects what part of the sensor
`
`observes the light, not where the sensor is in the environment. Although that sensor
`
`data can be an input to the HiBall pose calculation process, it does not “describe”
`
`the pose output, and Petitioner offers no explanation (expert or otherwise) for how
`
`it could.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`Second, Petitioner points to “the metadata of the measurements.” Id., 11-12.
`
`
`
`This metadata argument is new—Petitioner did not mention it in the Petition, and
`
`does not provide any expert evidence that it is “configuration data.” During system
`
`design, the Kalman filter would have been configured to work with the particular
`
`data type and format produced by the HiBalls. But that information is provided by
`
`the system designer; it is not “provid[ed]” by the “sensor subsystem.” Ex.1033,
`
`10:12-11:7, 12:4-13. Nor is the Kalman filter “configured” by receiving a
`
`measurement in that form at runtime; the relevant configuration already happened
`
`during system design.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 6
`
`As Patent Owner described when construing the term “enumerating,” the
`
`patent “explains that ‘enumeration’ is a particular process performed by the system
`
`prior to the configuration process whereby the available sensors are identified.”
`
`POR 23-24; Ex.2007 ¶74. Petitioner disputes (Reply 7) whether “enumerating”
`
`must involve specifying or listing each available sensor, or whether it can be satisfied
`
`by simply determining the number of sensors available, but does not contest that
`
`“enumerating,” as claimed in the ’253 patent, is a “process performed by the system.”
`
`The patent repeatedly describes the system itself doing the enumerating, Ex.2007
`
`¶74, and never suggests that a human could satisfy this step at system design.
`
`Petitioner, however, relies on a human programming the sensors into the PC. Reply
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`13-14; Ex.1038 ¶¶16-17. Petitioner does not point to anything in Welch suggesting
`
`
`
`that the HiBall system itself specifies, lists, or even determines the number of
`
`available sensors. See Ex.2007 ¶380.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 7
`
`Claim 7 requires selecting of a pair of sensing elements with the highest
`
`expected utility of a measurement. Petitioner does not argue that Welch’s least-
`
`recently-used heuristic equates to the highest information gain, and does not argue
`
`that this claim would have been rendered obvious under Patent Owner’s
`
`construction. Instead, Petitioner’s argument depends on (1) the Board adopting
`
`Petitioner’s unsupported construction of “utility” as “usefulness”; and (2) importing
`
`into the term “usefulness” some notion of balancing information gained against
`
`simplicity. But that balancing concept is nowhere in the patent, nor is it supported
`
`by any expert or other evidence. Petitioner cites Patent Owner’s expert, but he
`
`agreed only that Welch may have employed such tradeoffs, not that they factor into
`
`“highest expected utility.” Ex.1033, 52:1-53:9, 55:6-16, 56:8-57:7.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 9
`
`Petitioner proposes a modification that “would emit light to scatter off the
`
`natural features,” Reply 15, but does not explain how such a modified system would
`
`meet the other limitations of claim 6, from which claim 9 indirectly depends. For
`
`example, in claim 6, Petitioner relied on “measured signal strength” from the LEDs
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`as the parameters provided to the tracking system, Petition 38, which would not exist
`
`
`
`in the system without LEDs, and Petitioner does not explain what would replace it.
`
`B. Ground II
`
`1. Motivation to Combine
`
`Petitioner fails to carry its burden to establish that the POSITA would have
`
`been motivated to combine Welch 2001, Welch 1997, and Harris as Petitioner
`
`proposes. Petitioner argues that, under its proposed modification, certain
`
`unspecified processing done by the Welch references on the PC’s general-purpose
`
`processor would instead be performed by the HiBall’s FPGA. Petition, 42.
`
`Petitioner engages (Reply 16-17) in word gymnastics about whether a
`
`general-purpose processor would “replace” an FPGA or vice versa to distract from
`
`the fundamental issue—that Patent Owner’s expert opined that the “POSITA would
`
`not have been motivated to program the HiBall FPGA to carry out any ‘computation’
`
`as taught by Welch 2001, Welch 1997, Harris, or the ’253 patent.” Ex.2007 ¶396.
`
`Petitioner offers no substantive response. It may be “possible” to configure Welch’s
`
`FPGAs to perform tracking functions rather than continue to perform those on a
`
`general-purpose processor, Reply 16, but that does not mean the POSITA would
`
`have been motivated to do so. See Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848
`
`F.3d 987, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Using an FPGA rather than a general-purpose
`
`processor in this way “would have drastically reduced the flexibility of the system,”
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Paper No. 37
`
`and the POSITA would not have been motivated to make such a change. Ex.2007
`
`
`
`¶396.4
`
`Petitioner’s arguments (Reply 17) about a supposed accuracy-responsiveness
`
`tradeoff fail, because it has no evidence that such a tradeoff was presented by the
`
`proposed combination. Harris proclaimed that it “can obtain much greater
`
`accuracies than the prior art,” Ex.1011, 4:14-17 (emphasis added), but that is
`
`irrelevant, because Harris issued in 1994—years before the Welch references.
`
`Petitioner offers no evidence on the relevant question of whether Harris’s approach
`
`would be more accurate than Welch 2001’s, which already employed the SCAAT
`
`method.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 5
`
`Petitioner’s single conclusory sentence does not advance its position that
`
`Harris would have rendered obvious a navigation system, which still fails for the
`
`
`4 Because Petitioner’s theory was not clear in the Petition, Patent Owner’s expert
`
`also opined that the POSITA would not have been motivated to program an FPGA
`
`to function as a general-purpose processor, or add other general-purpose processing
`
`capabilities to the HiBall. Ex.2007 ¶¶396-397. Those opinions are independent of
`
`the opinion that the POSITA would not have been motivated to