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 PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`December 27, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... v
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................................ viii
`I.
`MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ............................................... 1
`Real Party in Interest ............................................................................. 1
`Related Matter ....................................................................................... 1
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4): Service Information ........................................ 3
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3
`II.
`III. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 5
`The ’253 Patent ..................................................................................... 5
`Welch 2001 ............................................................................................ 7
`Welch 1997 ............................................................................................ 8
`Horton .................................................................................................... 8
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 10
`PETITIONER FAILS TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD
`OF DEMONSTRATING OBVIOUSNESS OF ANY CHALLENGED
`CLAIM........................................................................................................... 10
`GROUND I: The Petition Fails to Establish a Reasonable
`Likelihood that Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 Would Render
`Any Claim Obvious. ............................................................................ 11
`1.
`The Petition does not adequately specify the bases for
`this Ground, and therefore fails on procedural grounds. .......... 12
`Petitioner fails to incorporate its arguments regarding
`independent claims into arguments regarding dependent
`claims 2 and 7-9. ....................................................................... 16
`Petitioner has failed to show that the combination of
`Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 renders claims 1 or 2
`obvious. ..................................................................................... 17
`Petitioner has failed to show that the combination of
`Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 render claims 6-9 obvious. ........ 23
`
`IV.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
`2.
`
`GROUND II: The Petition Fails to Establish a Reasonable
`Likelihood that Welch 2001, Welch 1997, and Harris Would
`Render Claims 3-5 Obvious. ............................................................... 28
`1.
`The Petition does not establish a motivation to combine
`Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 with Harris. ................................ 29
`The Petition fails to establish a reasonable expectation of
`success in combining Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 with
`Harris. ........................................................................................ 32
`GROUND III: The Petition Fails to Establish a Reasonable
`Likelihood that Welch 2001, Welch 1997, and Reitmayr
`Renders Claims 3-4 Obvious............................................................... 33
`1.
`The Petition fails to establish a motivation to combine
`Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 with Reitmayr. ........................... 35
`The Petition fails to establish a reasonable expectation of
`success in combining Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 with
`Reitmayr. ................................................................................... 37
` GROUND IV: The Petition Fails to Establish that Horton
`Renders Any Claim Obvious............................................................... 39
`1.
`Ground IV should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). ........ 39
`2.
`The Petition does not adequately specify the bases for
`this Ground, and therefore fails on procedural grounds. .......... 41
`Petitioner has failed to show that Horton renders claims
`1-5 obvious. ............................................................................... 43
`Petitioner has failed to show that Horton renders claims
`6-9 obvious. ............................................................................... 52
`GROUND V: The Petition Fails to Establish that Horton and
`Welch 1997 Render Claims 7-9 Obvious. ........................................... 57
`1.
`Claim 7 ...................................................................................... 58
`2.
`Claim 8 ...................................................................................... 59
`3.
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 60
`4.
`The Petition does not establish a motivation to combine
`Horton with Welch 1997. .......................................................... 60
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ................................................. 61
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
`V.
`
`THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION UNDER 35 U.S.C.
`§ 325(D). ........................................................................................................ 61
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 64
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...........................................................................30
`Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Gr.,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ...........................................................................44
`Endo Pharm Sols., Inc. v. Custopharm Inc.,
`894 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...........................................................................15
`Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co.,
`96 F.3d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .............................................................................44
`Gaus v. Conair Corp.,
`363 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 44, 47
`Gentex Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.,
`No. 5:22-cv-03892 (N.D. Cal. 2022) ...............................................................1, 62
`Gentex Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.,
`No. 6:21-cv-00755-ADA (W.D. Tex. 2021) ...................................................1, 62
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed Cir. 2012) ............................................................................28
`In re IPR Licensing, Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ...........................................................................59
`In re Montgomery,
`677 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...........................................................................43
`In re Omeprazole Patent Litig.,
`483 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................... 15, 42
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 12, 41
`Microsoft Corp. v. FG SRC, LLC,
`860 F. App’x 708 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ......................................................................16
`
`v
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
`Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................30
`Securus Techs., Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp.,
`701 F. App’x 971 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................................................30
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc.,
`18 F.4th 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................... 33, 38
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) .................................................................................. 12, 17, 41
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................ 10, 61
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ...................................................................................................63
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................................................ 39, 40, 41, 57
`
`OFFICE AUTHORITIES
`Adaptics Ltd. v. Perfect Co.,
`IPR 2018-01596, Paper 20 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2019) .............................. 14, 15, 42
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020) .............................................40
`Apple Inc. v. OpenTV, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01031, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2015) ...........................................14
`Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ..........................................61
`Apple, Inc. v. SmartFlash LLC,
`CBM2015-00028 (P.T.A.B. May 28, 2015) ........................................................13
`Biofrontera Inc. v. DUSA Pharms., Inc.,
`IPR2018-01585, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019) ...........................................63
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Imperium (IP) Holdings,
`IPR2015-01233, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2015) ..................................... 14, 41
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 1.75(c) ...................................................................................................16
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .................................................................................. passim
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .....................................................................................................1, 3
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Title
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`Declaration of Dr. Ulrich Neumann in Support of Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Ulrich Neumann
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1010
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1007 Welch, G. et al., “High-Performance Wide-Area Optical Tracking”
`(2001)
`1008 Welch, G. et al., “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete
`Information” (1997)
`1009 Welch G. “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete
`Information” PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina (1996)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,615,132 to Horton et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,307,289 (“Harris”)
`Gentex’s Amended Preliminary Infringement Contentions and
`corresponding Exhibits 4 and 5 (’632 and ’253 infringement charts)
`Azuma, R. “Predictive Tracking for Augmented Reality” PhD
`Thesis, University of North Carolina (1995).
`You, S. and Neumann, U. “Orientation Tracking for Outdoor
`Augmented Reality Registration.” (1999)
`Carlson, Neal A. and Berarducci, Michael P. “Federated Kalman
`Filter Simulation Results.” Navigation. Vol. 41, Issue 3 at 297-322.
`(Fall 1994).
`Reitmayr, Gerhard and Schmalstieg. “An Open Software
`Architecture for Virtual Reality Interaction” VRST ’01 (November
`2001)
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
`Exhibit
`1017
`
`Title
`Barfield, W. “Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and
`Augmented Reality” (2001)
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`1023
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Welch, G. et al., “High-
`Performance Wide-Area Optical Tracking” (2001)
`Declaration of Scott Delman regarding Welch, G. et al., “SCAAT:
`Incremental Tracking with Incomplete Information” (1997)
`Declaration of Dr. James L. Mullins regarding Welch G. “SCAAT:
`Incremental Tracking with Incomplete Information” PhD Thesis,
`University of North Carolina (1996)
`Declaration of Scott Delman regarding Reitmayr, Gerhard and
`Schmalstieg. “An Open Software Architecture for Virtual Reality
`Interaction” VRST ’01 (November 2001)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,807,284
`U.S. Patent No. 5,991,085
`Chen, Steven C. and Lee, Kang. “A mixed-mode smart transducer
`interface for sensors and actuators”, Sound & Vibration, 32(4), 24-
`27 (April 1998)
`Hoff, William and Vincent, Tyrone. “Analysis of Head Pose
`Accuracy in Augmented Reality”, IEEE Transactions on
`Visualization and Computer Graphics, Vol. 6, Issue 4, October –
`December 2000.
`Zetu, Dan et al., “Extended-Range Hybrid Tracker and
`Applications to Motion and Camera Tracking in Manufacturing
`Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Vol.
`16, Issue 3, June 2000
`Declaration of Rachel J. Watters regarding Chen, Steven C. and
`Lee, Kang. “A mixed-mode smart transducer interface for sensors
`and actuators.” Sound & Vibration, 32(4), 24-27 (April 1998)
`Declaration of Gordon MacPherson regarding Hoff, William and
`Vincent, Tyrone. “Analysis of Head Pose Accuracy in Augmented
`Reality”, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer
`Graphics, Vol. 6, Issue 4, October – December 2000.
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
`Exhibit
`1029
`
`1030
`2001
`
`2002
`
`Title
`Declaration of Gordon MacPherson regarding Zetu, Dan et al.,
`“Extended-Range Hybrid Tracker and Applications
`U.S. Patent No. 5,592,401
`Complaint, Gentex Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-
`00755-ADA (W.D. Tex. July 22, 2021), ECF No. 1.
`Joint Order Regarding Claim Construction and Discovery, Gentex
`Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 5:22-cv-03892-YGR (N.D. Cal.
`Nov. 9, 2022), ECF No. 118.
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
` Real Party in Interest
`
`Patent Owner Thales Visionix, Inc. identifies the following real party-in-
`
`interest: Gentex Corporation (“Gentex”). In 2012, Thales granted Indigo
`
`Technologies, LLC (“Indigo”), an affiliate of Gentex, an exclusive license to the
`
`’253 patent in a particular field-of-use. Indigo assigned its rights under its exclusive
`
`field-of-use license to Gentex on July 1, 2021. Ex. 2001, 2.
`
` Related Matter
`
`Gentex and Indigo (collectively, “Gentex”) asserted infringement by Meta of
`
`the ’253 patent in a complaint filed in the Western District of Texas, Gentex Corp.
`
`v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00755-ADA. Ex. 2001. Thales was named as
`
`an involuntary plaintiff. The case was subsequently transferred to the Northern
`
`District of California on July 5, 2022, No. 5:22-cv-03892-YGR. See Ex. 2002.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

` Counsel and Service Information
`
`Counsel for Thales Visionix, Inc.
`
`Paper No. 7
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Meredith Martin Addy
`Reg. No. 37,883
`meredith@addyhart.com
`
`ADDYHART P.C.
`10 Glenlake Parkway
`Suite 130
`Atlanta, Georgia 30328
`312.320.4200 T
`312.254.2547 F
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`Robert Hart
`Reg. No. 35,184
`robert@addyhart.com
`
`Gregory B. Gulliver
`Reg. No. 44,138
`gbgulliver@addyhart.com
`
`Brandon C. Helms
`Reg. No. 61,742
`bhelms@addyhart.com
`
`
`ADDYHART P.C.
`401 N. Michigan Ave.
`Suite 1200-1
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`312.834.7701 T
`312.264.2547 F
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Additional Backup Counsel for Gentex Corporation.
`
`D. Shayon Ghosh
`Reg. No. 75,865
`Gentex-IPR@wc.com
`
`Arthur J. Argall III
`Reg. No. 73,005
`Gentex-IPR@wc.com
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
`Additional Backup Counsel for Gentex Corporation.
`Adam D. Harber
`(pro hac vice motion forthcoming)
`Gentex-IPR@wc.com
`
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`680 Main Avenue SW
`Washington, DC 20024
`202.434.5000
`
`
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4): Service Information
`
`Thales and Gentex submitted their Mandatory Notices, Paper 3, and Powers
`
`of Attorney, Papers 4 & 5. Thales and Gentex consent to electronic service directed
`
`to the following email addresses:
`
`Thales-Meta-IPRs@addyhart.com
`
`Gentex-IPR@wc.com
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253 (the “’253 patent”) claims an innovative
`
`architecture for a navigation or motion tracking system in which the “sensor-specific
`
`components” are separated from the “tracking component.” Ex. 1003, Abstract.
`
`While working at InterSense, LLC, a pioneering company in the virtual reality and
`
`motion tracking fields, Eric Foxlin invented this approach, which allows the same
`
`tracking component to interoperate with different types of sensors and associated
`
`components without re-programming of the tracking component (and vice versa).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
`Id., 17:4-15, 22:11-24. This, in turn improves the versatility and scalability of the
`
`tracking system. Id., 10:55-11:19. The system also can perform “automatic
`
`calibration of sensors,” through which the tracking component may estimate sensor
`
`calibration parameters simultaneously with tracking the relevant objects. Id., 2:5-
`
`19.
`
`Petitioner Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Petitioner”) acknowledges that the claims of
`
`the ’253 patent were novel, but it contends that the claims would have been obvious
`
`over two primary references, Welch 2001 (Ex. 1007) and Horton (Ex. 1010).
`
`However, neither of these references teach or suggest key claim elements of the ’253
`
`patent. As Petitioner’s arguments underscore, in both systems the sensor-specific
`
`components and the tracking components are intertwined and hard-wired. And,
`
`neither system permits interoperability with different types of sensors or neither
`
`supports automatic calibration—so neither discloses nor renders obvious the claimed
`
`inventions. Arguments set forth in the Petition misread both references, and the
`
`Petition’s conclusory expert opinions do not fill the gaps. Thus, the Petition should
`
`be rejected because it fails to demonstrate “a reasonable likelihood of success that
`
`the petitioner would prevail” with respect to at least one challenged claim as set forth
`
`in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
`III. BACKGROUND
` The ’253 Patent
`
`The ’253 patent, titled “Tracking, Auto-Calibration, and Map-Building
`
`System,” issued on May 25, 2010, and claims priority to August 9, 2002. Ex. 1003.
`
`The ’253 patent relates to a “navigation or motion tracking system” that “includes
`
`components associated with particular sensors, which are decoupled from a tracking
`
`component that takes advantage of information in the sensor measurements.” Id.,
`
`Abstract.
`
`The ’253 patent acknowledges that prior art systems were capable of using
`
`measurements from sensors to estimate the position and orientation of an object. Id.,
`
`1:18-23. Some prior art systems used Kalman filtering techniques to perform this
`
`estimation. Id., 1:37-41. But the implementation of these prior art estimation
`
`systems “typically require[d] detailed knowledge of the measurement characteristics
`
`of the specific sensors used in tracking the object.” Id., 1:41-44.
`
`The ’253 patent describes a “navigation or motion tracking system” in which
`
`“components associated with particular sensors are decoupled from a tracking
`
`component” that makes use of the sensor measurements. Id., 2:22-26. This
`
`architecture “enables development of sensor-specific components independently of
`
`the tracking component and enables sensors and their associated components to be
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
`added or removed without having to re-implement the tracking component.” Id.,
`
`2:26-33.
`
`Two independent claims of the ’253 patent are challenged in this Petition:
`
`claims 1 and 6. Claim 1 recites a “tracking system” comprising “an estimation
`
`subsystem” and “a sensor subsystem coupled to the estimation subsystem and
`
`configured to provide configuration data to the estimation subsystem and to provide
`
`measurement information to the estimation subsystem for localizing an object,”
`
`wherein “the estimation subsystem is configured to update a location estimate for
`
`the object based on configuration data and measurement information accepted from
`
`the sensor subsystem.” In short, the claimed tracking system includes a distinct
`
`“estimation subsystem” and “sensor subsystem,” in which the sensor subsystem
`
`provides “configuration data” and “measurement information” to the estimation
`
`subsystem, and the estimation subsystem accepts and uses that information to update
`
`a location estimate for a tracked object. Claim 6 recites a method comprising
`
`“enumerating sensing elements available to a tracking system” and then “providing
`
`parameters specific to the enumerated sensing elements to the tracking system” to
`
`enable estimating the position or orientation of a tracked object.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
` Welch 2001
`
`The Welch 2001 publication1 describes an optical tracking system called the
`
`“HiBall Tracking System.” Ex. 1007, 4. The name “HiBall” refers to an “outward-
`
`looking sensing unit” that is “fixed to each user to be tracked” and, using a set of six
`
`lateral-effect photo-diode units, “observes a subsystem of fixed-location infrared
`
`LEDs” attached to a ceiling. Id., 5-7. The system also comprises a central personal
`
`computer (PC) and a “Ceiling-HiBall Interface Board (CIB).” Id., 5-6, 9. During
`
`operation, the PC repeatedly receives measurements of LED signals from the HiBall
`
`and uses a “Kalman-filter-based prediction-correction approach known as single-
`
`constraint-at-a-time (SCAAT) tracking” to estimate the pose of the HiBall. Id., 6,
`
`10-13.
`
`As the name suggests, the HiBall tracking system operates only with HiBall
`
`sensors; Welch 2001 does not suggest that any other types of sensors could be used
`
`with this system. Although Welch 2001 discloses the PC receiving measurement
`
`signals from HiBall sensors, it does not disclose the PC sending any information to
`
`the sensors. Nor does it describe the PC or any other component enumerating the
`
`sensors available to the system.
`
`
`
` Welch, G. et al., “High-Performance Wide-Area Optical Tracking” (“Welch
`
` 1
`
`2001”), Ex. 1007.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

` Welch 1997
`
`The Welch 1997 describes a SCAAT algorithm and calculations that are used
`
`Paper No. 7
`
`with HiBall sensors. See Ex. 1008.
`
` Horton
`
`Horton2 describes a “three-dimensional position and orientation tracking
`
`system” that can track the pose of a moving object using accelerometers. Ex. 1010,
`
`Abstract, 2:15-20.
`
` Horton also discloses
`
`repeatedly
`
`reading “tracking
`
`measurements,” i.e., position, orientation, and/or velocity, from the accelerometers
`
`and then “using a feedback or Kalman filter process” to update the pose of the
`
`tracked object. Id., 2:41-44, 6:34-42. Horton depicts this process in Figure 3,
`
`reproduced below:
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,615,132 (“Horton”), Ex. 1010.
`
`8
`
` 2
`
`
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
`
`
`As Figure 3 shows, Horton describes a “main loop” that reads accelerometer data
`
`and then updates position and orientation information. Id., 6:25-27. Horton does
`
`not disclose sending any information from the main loop to the accelerometers. It
`
`also does not describe any other components associated with the accelerometers.
`
`The exemplary embodiment in Horton uses “six accelerometers” “to track six
`
`degrees of freedom of an object in three dimensions.” Id, 3:41-44. Although it
`
`discloses that more or fewer accelerometers could be used for redundancy or to track
`
`the object in fewer dimensions, Horton does not describe a single system that can
`
`operate with varying numbers of accelerometers, and therefore also does not
`
`describe enumerating a set of sensors, or automatic reconfiguration when new
`
`sensors are added or existing ones are removed.
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
`
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`For purposes of this preliminary response only, Patent Owner accepts the
`
`Petition’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”):
`
`A POSITA at the time of the ’253 Patent would have had
`a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, or an equivalent
`field, and three to five years of experience working with
`computer implemented tracking systems. Additional
`education might compensate for less experience, and vice-
`versa.
`Petition, 17. However, for any other purpose, Patent Owner disagrees with
`
`Petitioner that such POSITA should be limited to a maximum of five years’
`
`experience and reserves the right to offer an alternative definition based on expert
`
`evidence in the event IPR is instituted.
`
`IV. PETITIONER FAILS TO SHOW A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF
`DEMONSTRATING OBVIOUSNESS OF ANY CHALLENGED
`CLAIM.
`
`The Board should deny institution because Petitioner’s obviousness
`
`arguments do not meet the required threshold showing of “a reasonable likelihood
`
`of success that the petitioner would prevail” with respect to at least one challenged
`
`claim. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
` GROUND I: The Petition Fails to Establish a Reasonable
`Likelihood that Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 Would Render Any
`Claim Obvious.
`
`In Ground I, Petitioner contends that Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 would
`
`render obvious claims 1-2 and 6-9 of the ’253 patent. Petition, 24 Claims 1 and 6
`
`are independent, and the remaining claims depend from one of them.
`
`This Petition fails both on procedure and substance. Procedurally, the Petition
`
`does not adequately specify the bases for why it argues the independent claims are
`
`obvious, and fails to address certain limitations of the dependent claims.
`
`Substantively, Petitioner does not acknowledge, much less grapple with
`
`critical distinctions between the invention claimed in the ’253 patent and the system
`
`described in Welch 2001 and Welch 1997. The ’253 patent describes a system where
`
`“components associated with particular sensors” are “decoupled from a tracking
`
`component,” enabling the use of various different types of sensors. Ex. 1003,
`
`Abstract. However,
`
`the HiBall system of Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 operates only with a single
`
`type of sensor. Accordingly, it does not need to—and indeed does not—decouple
`
`the sensor-specific components from the tracking component. Instead of addressing
`
`this gap, Petitioner either tries to elide it by asserting internally inconsistent
`
`positions, or simply ignores the limitations that require it.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
`For all of these reasons, the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood
`
`that the challenged claims would have been obvious over Welch 2001 and Welch
`
`1997.
`
`1.
`
`The Petition does not adequately specify the bases for this
`Ground, and therefore fails on procedural grounds.
`
`“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners” in inter partes review
`
`proceedings “adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with
`
`particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each
`
`claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359,
`
`1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see also 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(4) (stating that a “petition must “specify where each element of the
`
`claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon”). Petitioner
`
`fails to do so.
`
`This ground purports to require a combination of Welch 2001 and Welch
`
`1997, but Petitioner does not identify any limitations in the challenged claims that
`
`Welch 1997 supposedly teaches to fill in shortcomings of Welch 2001. Petition, 25-
`
`34, 36-38. With respect to claim 1, Petitioner relies on Welch 2001 alone for
`
`limitations 1[a] and 1[b]. Petition, 26 (“Welch 2001 discloses ‘an estimation
`
`subsystem’” for 1[a]), 28-32 (failing to cite Welch 1997 for 1[b]). For limitation
`
`1[c], Petitioner argues that the combination of the “Welch 2001 and Welch 1997
`
`render this limitation obvious,” but Petitioner’s only citations to Welch 1997 are as
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
`further support for propositions it contends are already disclosed in Welch 2001. Id.,
`
`32-34.
`
`Similarly for claim 6, Petitioner asserts that “Welch 2001 and Welch 1997”
`
`render obvious each of limitations 6[a] and 6[b], Petition, 36-38—but the expert
`
`opinion on which it relies for those statements instead opines that Welch 2001 alone
`
`discloses each of these limitations, without mentioning Welch 1997. The Petition
`
`itself tacks on additional arguments that Welch 1997 also discloses these limitations,
`
`but without any explanation of what, if anything, is lacking from Welch 2001.
`
`Petition, 37-38.3
`
`Accordingly, the Petition fails to explain why Welch 1997 is necessary in this
`
`Ground, or what role it plays in purportedly rendering these limitations obvious. Id.,
`
`25-34, 36-38. As such, the Petition does not sufficiently explain how the
`
`combination of Welch 2001 and Welch 1997 renders these claims obvious, as the
`
`ground states. In this regard, the Petition suffers the same deficiency as in Apple,
`
`Inc. v. SmartFlash LLC, CBM2015-00028 (P.T.A.B. May 28, 2015), where the
`
`Board found that “Petitioner ha[d] not identified sufficiently the differences between
`
`the claimed invention and each reference” where Petitioner cited a single reference
`
`
`
` Petitioner and its expert also invoke Welch 1997 for the non-limiting preamble to
`
` 3
`
`claim 6, which simply states, “A method comprising.” Petition, 36; Ex. 1005 ¶ 69.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
`“for each claim element” and thus “prevent[ed] [the Board] from determining what
`
`specific teaching is lacking in” that reference. See Paper 11, at 15-16.
`
`And even if this ground relied on Welch 2001 alone, it would be deficient,
`
`because it fails to identify the differences between that reference and independent
`
`claims 1 and 6. In order to demonstrate obviousness in a petition for inter partes
`
`review, the Board requires the Petitioner to “identify any differences between the
`
`claimed subject matter and the prior art.” Apple Inc. v. OpenTV, Inc., IPR2015-
`
`01031, Paper 10, at 13, 16 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2015); Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. V.
`
`Imperium (IP) Holdings, IPR2015-01233, Paper 14, at 17-18 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1,
`
`2015); see also Adaptics Ltd. v. Perfect Co., IPR 2018-01596, Paper 20, at 20
`
`(P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2019) (informative) (finding ground insufficient because “the
`
`Petition fails to specify what Petitioner regards as the difference(s) between [the
`
`identified references] and the challenged claims”).
`
`Petitioner has failed to do so here for either of claims 1 and 6, the only
`
`independent claims at issue. With respect to claim 1, Petitioner never explains what
`
`from the claim it contends that Welch 2001 does not actually disclose or would be
`
`understood to disclose. Petition, 25-34. Similarly, Petitioner says that Welch 2001
`
`renders obvious limitations 6[a] and 6[b], but simultaneously asserts that “Welch
`
`2001 explains that” (i.e., discloses) the claimed features are present. Id., 36-38; see
`
`also Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 70-71 (stating that Welch 2001 “discloses” these limitations).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
`In each instance, Petitioner has failed to articulate the differences between
`
`Welch 2001 and the challenged claims, and therefore has failed to show that the
`
`combination of Welch 2001 with Welch 1997 renders the challenged claims obvious.
`
`Adaptics, IPR2018-01596, Paper 20, at 20. Instead, Petitioner appears to be
`
`conflating anticipation and obviousness. And if Petitioner is arguing that Welch
`
`2001 “must necessarily include [each] unstated limitation”—i.e., that Welch 2001
`
`inherently anticipates these limitations—it fails to explain why Welch 2001 includes
`
`unstated limitations, which is required for inherency. See In re Omeprazole Patent
`
`Litig., 483 F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Endo Pharm Sols., Inc. v. Custopharm
`
`Inc., 894 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (noting that it was the patent challenger’s
`
`burden to establish the prior art necessarily disclosed the claim limitations). These
`
`failings of the Petition cannot be corrected in a Reply as they would be impermissible
`
`new arguments.
`
`In short, Petitioner has framed Ground I as an obviousness ground relying on
`
`a combination of references, but repeatedly fails to identify what differences it
`
`contends exist between the challenged claims and one of those references, as
`
`required. Petitioner therefore has failed to show that the combination of Welch 2001
`
`and Welch 1997 renders either of claims 1 and 6 obvious. Because each of the claims
`
`challenged in this Ground depend from claim 1 or claim 6, Petitioner has failed to
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Paper No. 7
`
`show obviousness of any of the dependent challenged claims as well. Thus, the