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
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §312 AND 37 C.F.R. §42.104
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`A.
`Real Parties-In-Interest .......................................................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 2
`C.
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 2
`D.
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4): Service Information .......................................... 3
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.103 ........................................ 3
`III.
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 3
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 4
`A.
`Prior Art References .............................................................................. 4
`B.
`Relief Requested .................................................................................... 6
`VI. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE HERE .................... 6
`A.
`The ’253 Patent Has Not Been Subject to a Prior Petition ................... 6
`B.
`The Presented Grounds and Argument Are Dissimilar to the Art
`and Arguments Previously Presented to the Office .............................. 7
`Efficiency, Fairness, and the Merits Support the Exercise of the
`Board’s Authority to Grant the Petition ................................................ 8
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY .......................................................10
`A. Head-Mounted Display in Virtual and Augmented Reality
`Systems ................................................................................................10
`Sensors for Tracking an Object in VR and AR ...................................10
`Using Kalman Filters to Estimate a Tracked Object’s Position
`and Location ........................................................................................12
`VIII. THE ’253 PATENT .......................................................................................14
`
`B.
`C.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`5.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History ..................................................16
`A.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .....................................................17
`B.
`IX. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................17
`X. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART .............................................................18
`A. Overview of Welch Prior Art ..............................................................18
`B.
`Overview of Harris ..............................................................................20
`C.
`Overview of Reitmayr .........................................................................22
`D. Overview of Horton.............................................................................22
`XI. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ......................................................24
`A. Ground I: Claims 1-2 and 6-9 Are Rendered Obvious by Welch
`2001 and Welch 1997. .........................................................................24
`1. Motivation to Combine .............................................................24
`2.
`Claim 1[preamble]: “A tracking system comprising:” .............25
`3.
`Claim 1[a]: “an estimation subsystem; and” ............................26
`4.
`Claim 1[b]: “a sensor subsystem coupled to the
`estimation subsystem and configured to provide
`configuration data to the estimation subsystem and to
`provide measurement information to the estimation
`subsystem for localizing an object;” .........................................28
`Claim 1[c]: “wherein the estimation subsystem is
`configured to update a location estimate for the object
`based on configuration data and measurement
`information accepted from the sensor subsystem.” ..................32
`Claim 2: “The system of claim 1 wherein the sensor
`subsystem includes one or more sensor modules, each
`providing an interface for interacting with a
`corresponding set of one or more sensing elements.” ..............34
`Claim 6[preamble]: “A method comprising:” ..........................36
`Claim 6[a]: “enumerating sensing elements available to a
`tracking system that includes an estimation subsystem
`that estimates a position or orientation of an object; and”........36
`
`6.
`
`7.
`8.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`9.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claim 6[b]: “providing parameters specific to the
`enumerated sensing elements to the tracking system to
`enable the estimation subsystem to be configured based
`on the parameters specific to the enumerated sensing
`elements to enable the estimation subsystem to estimate
`the position or orientation of the object.” .................................38
`10. Claim 7: “The method of claim 6, further comprising
`selecting a pair of sensing elements from a sequence of
`candidates of pairs of sensing elements, the selected pair
`of sensing elements being ready to make a measurement
`at the time of selection of the pair or at a predefined time
`after the time of selection of the pair, the selected pair
`having a highest expected utility of a measurement
`among the sequence of candidates.” .........................................38
`11. Claim 8: “The method of claim 6 wherein the set of
`sensing elements comprises at least one sensor and at
`least one target, the sensor making a measurement with
`respect to the target.” ................................................................40
`12. Claim 9: “The method of claim 8 wherein the target
`comprises a natural feature in an environment.” ......................41
`Ground II: Claims 3-5 Are Rendered Obvious by Welch 2001
`and Welch 1997 in Combination with Harris. ....................................42
`1. Motivation to Combine .............................................................42
`2.
`Claim 3: “The system of claim 2 wherein the interface
`enables the sensor module to perform computations
`independently of an implementation of the estimation
`subsystem.” ...............................................................................44
`Claim 4: “The system of claim 2 wherein the interface
`enables the estimation subsystem to perform
`computations independently of an implementation of the
`sensor modules.” .......................................................................51
`Claim 5: “The system of claim 1 further comprising a
`navigation subsystem to navigate the object in an
`environment based on the location estimate for the
`object.” ......................................................................................52
`Ground III: Claims 3 and 4 Are Rendered Obvious by Welch
`2001 and Welch 1997 in Combination with Reitmayr. ......................54
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`1. Motivation to Combine .............................................................54
`2.
`Claim 3: “The system of claim 2 wherein the interface
`enables the sensor module to perform computations
`independently of an implementation of the estimation
`subsystem.” ...............................................................................56
`Claim 4: “The system of claim 2 wherein the interface
`enables the estimation subsystem to perform
`computations independently of an implementation of the
`sensor modules.” .......................................................................57
`D. Ground IV: Claims 1-9 Are Rendered Obvious by Horton. ...............58
`1.
`Claim 1[preamble]: “A tracking system comprising:” .............58
`2.
`Claim 1[a]: “an estimation subsystem; and” ............................58
`3.
`Claim 1[b]: “a sensor subsystem coupled to the
`estimation subsystem and configured to provide
`configuration data to the estimation subsystem and to
`provide measurement information to the estimation
`subsystem for localizing an object;” .........................................60
`Claim 1[c]: “wherein the estimation subsystem is
`configured to update a location estimate for the object
`based on configuration data and measurement
`information accepted from the sensor subsystem.” ..................62
`Claim 2: “The system of claim 1 wherein the sensor
`subsystem includes one or more sensor modules, each
`providing an interface for interacting with a
`corresponding set of one or more sensing elements.” ..............63
`Claim 3: “The system of claim 2 wherein the interface
`enables the sensor module to perform computations
`independently of an implementation of the estimation
`subsystem.” ...............................................................................64
`Claim 4: “The system of claim 2 wherein the interface
`enables the estimation subsystem to perform
`computations independently of an implementation of the
`sensor modules.” .......................................................................65
`Claim 5: “The system of claim 1 further comprising a
`navigation subsystem to navigate the object in an
`environment based on the location estimate for the
`object.” ......................................................................................66
`Claim 6[preamble]: “A method comprising:” ..........................67
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`10. Claim 6[a]: “enumerating sensing elements available to a
`tracking system that includes an estimation subsystem
`that estimates a position or orientation of an object; and”........68
`11. Claim 6[b]: “providing parameters specific to the
`enumerated sensing elements to the tracking system to
`enable the estimation subsystem to be configured based
`on the parameters specific to the enumerated sensing
`elements to enable the estimation subsystem to estimate
`the position or orientation of the object.” .................................68
`12. Claim 7: “The method of claim 6, further comprising
`selecting a pair of sensing elements from a sequence of
`candidates of pairs of sensing elements, the selected pair
`of sensing elements being ready to make a measurement
`at the time of selection of the pair or at a predefined time
`after the time of selection of the pair, the selected pair
`having a highest expected utility of a measurement
`among the sequence of candidates.” .........................................69
`13. Claim 8: “The method of claim 6 wherein the set of
`sensing elements comprises at least one sensor and at
`least one target, the sensor making a measurement with
`respect to the target.” ................................................................70
`14. Claim 9: “The method of claim 8 wherein the target
`comprises a natural feature in an environment.” ......................71
`Ground V: Claims 7-9 Are Rendered Obvious by Horton in
`Combination with Welch 1997 ...........................................................72
`1. Motivation to Combine .............................................................72
`2.
`Claim 7: “The method of claim 6, further comprising
`selecting a pair of sensing elements from a sequence of
`candidates of pairs of sensing elements, the selected pair
`of sensing elements being ready to make a measurement
`at the time of selection of the pair or at a predefined time
`after the time of selection of the pair, the selected pair
`having a highest expected utility of a measurement
`among the sequence of candidates.” .........................................73
`Claim 8: “The method of claim 6 wherein the set of
`sensing elements comprises at least one sensor and at
`least one target, the sensor making a measurement with
`respect to the target.” ................................................................74
`
`3.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`4.
`
`Claim 9: “The method of claim 8 wherein the target
`comprises a natural feature in an environment.” ......................75
`XII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS ...........................................................75
`XIII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................76
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte
`GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020) .............................................. 7
`Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ....................................... 8, 9
`Becton, Dickinson, & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017) ............................................. 7
`Bowtech Inc. v. MCP IP, LLC,
`IPR2019-00383, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2019) ............................................. 7
`Fasteners for Retail, Inc. v. RTC Indus., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00994, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2019) ............................................... 7
`Gentex Corporation et al. v. Facebook, Inc. et al.,
`No. 6:21-cv-00755-ADA (W.D. Tex.) ......................................................... 2, 8, 9
`Microchip Technology Inc. v. Bell Semiconductor, LLC,
`IPR2021-00148, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. May 14, 2021) ........................................... 8
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F. 3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................................................... 17
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 18
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp.-Trucking LLC,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2020) ..................................... 9, 10
`Slayback Pharma LLC, v. Eye Therapies, LLC,
`IPR2022-00146, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B May 18, 2022) ............................................ 9
`Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) ............................................. 9
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
`726 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 5
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 75
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`
`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 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)
`
`
`ix
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`
`
`Description
`
`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), 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.
`Declaration of Gordon MacPherson regarding Zetu, Dan et al.,
`“Extended-Range Hybrid Tracker and Applications
`
`x
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1030
`
`Description
`
`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
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`Petitioner Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta” or “Petitioner”) requests inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) of claims 1-9 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,725,253 (Ex. 1003, “the ’253 Patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Before the ’253 Patent’s earliest priority date, it was well known that any
`
`computer-implemented method for object tracking an object required a set of sensors
`
`and an algorithm for updating the tracked object’s state based on the sensors’ output.
`
`For example, systems that received sensor measurements and used Kalman filter
`
`algorithms to update a state estimate for a tracked object had been known for
`
`decades. The ’253 Patent, however, claims such basic functionality in its main
`
`independent claim, and then claims obvious variations of that functionality in its
`
`dependent claims. The purportedly novel aspects of the ’253 Patent were well known
`
`in the prior art and practiced by persons of skill in the art before the claimed
`
`invention. Petitioner therefore respectfully requests that the Challenged Claims be
`
`canceled as invalid.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Parties-In-Interest
`Petitioner identifies the following real parties-in-interest: Meta Platforms, Inc.
`
`and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC..
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`B. Related Matters
`Gentex Corporation (“Gentex”) and Indigo Technologies, LLC (“Indigo”),
`
`the current and former licensees of the ’253 Patent, have asserted the ’253 Patent in
`
`Gentex Corporation et al. v. Facebook, Inc. et al., No. 6:21-cv-00755-ADA (W.D.
`
`Tex.) (the “Texas Litigation”), which was thereafter transferred to the Northern
`
`District of California, No. 5:22-cv-03892 (the “California Litigation”). Thales
`
`Visionix, Inc. (“Thales Visionix” or “Patent Owner”) is named as an involuntary
`
`plaintiff in the Texas Litigation.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`W. Todd Baker (No. 45,265)
`todd.baker@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Telephone: (202) 389-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 389-5200
`
`Ellisen Shelton Turner (No. 54,503)
`ellisen.turner@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`2049 Century Park East,
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: (310) 552-4200
`Facsimile: (310) 552-5900
`
`Akshay S. Deoras, (to seek pro hac vice
`admission)
`akshay.deoras@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 439-1400
`Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
`
`Yimeng Dou (No. 69,770)
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`yimeng.dou@kirkland.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 South Flower Street, Suite 3700
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 680-8400
`Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(4): Service Information
`D.
`Meta concurrently submits a Power of Attorney, 37 C.F.R. §42.10(b), and
`
`consents
`
`to electronic service directed
`
`to
`
`the following email address:
`
`Meta-Thales-IPR@kirkland.com.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.103
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.15(a)(1) for this Petition to Deposit Account No. 506092. Review of nine claims
`
`is requested. The undersigned further authorizes payment for any additional fees that
`
`may be due in connection with this Petition to be charged to the above-referenced
`
`deposit account.
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the ’253 Patent is available
`
`for IPR and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting an IPR of the
`
`Challenged Claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. Petitioner certifies:
`
`(1) Petitioner is not the owner of the ’253 Patent; (2) Petitioner (or any real party-in-
`
`interest) has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim of the ’253
`
`Patent; (3) Petitioner files this Petition within one year of the date it was served with
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`a complaint asserting infringement of the ’253 Patent; (4) estoppel provisions of 35
`
`U.S.C. §315(e)(1) do not prohibit this IPR; and (5) this Petition is filed after the ’253
`
`Patent was granted.
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of the Challenged Claims of the ’253
`
`Patent and requests that it be canceled.
`
`Prior Art References
`A.
`Petitioner’s challenge is based on the following prior art references:
`
`1. Welch, G. et al., “High-Performance Wide-Area Optical Tracking”
`
`(“Welch 2001”) (Ex. 1007), published February 2001, is prior art under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. §§102(a) and 102(b).1 See Ex. 1018.
`
`2. Welch, G. et al., “SCAAT: Incremental Tracking with Incomplete
`
`Information” (“Welch 1997”) (Ex. 1008), published August1997, is prior art under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§102(a) and 102(b). See Ex. 1019.
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,307,289 (“Harris”) (Ex. 1011), filed on September
`
`12, 1991 and granted on April 26, 1994, is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§102(a) and 102(b).
`
`
`1
`Based on the claimed priority date of the ’253 Patent, Pre-AIA versions of
`
`§102(a) and §103 apply.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`4.
`
`Reitmayr, G. et al., “An Open Software Architecture for Virtual
`
`Reality Interaction” (“Reitmayr”) (Ex. 1016), published November 2001, is prior
`
`art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§102(a) and 102(b). See Ex. 1021.
`
`5.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,615,132 to Horton et al. (“Horton”) (Ex. 1010),
`
`filed January 21, 1994 and issued March 25, 1997, is prior art under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. §§102(b) and 102(e).
`
`The above prior art references predate the ’253 Patent, which was filed on
`
`June 8, 2005, and claims priority to a provisional application, U.S. Application No.
`
`60/402,178, filed on August 9, 2002.2 The above references and the combinations
`
`presented herein were not presented to or considered by the Examiner during
`
`prosecution of the Challenged Claims. See generally Ex. 1004.
`
`
`2
`Petitioner reserves the right to challenge the August 9, 2002 priority date or
`
`any evidence of prior invention. Specifically, to the extent that Patent Owner,
`
`Gentex, or Indigo contends that the ’253 Patent is entitled to an earlier invention
`
`date, Petitioner reserves the right to challenge evidence of conception, diligence, and
`
`reduction to practice with respect to the critical date of the references herein. See
`
`Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 726 F.3d 1306, 1322-23 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`B. Relief Requested
`Petitioner requests cancellation of the Challenged Claims as unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103. The specific grounds of the challenge are set forth below, and
`
`are supported by the declaration of Dr. Ulrich Neumann (Ex. 1005).
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`I
`
`II
`
`III
`
`IV
`
`V
`
`1-2 and 6-9
`
`3-5
`
`3 and 4
`
`1-9
`
`7-9
`
`Proposed Statutory Rejection
`Obvious under §103 in view of Welch 2001 and
`Welch 1997
`
`Obvious under §103 in view of Welch 2001 and
`Welch 1997 in combination with Harris
`
`Obvious under §103 in view of Welch 2001 and
`Welch 1997 in combination with Reitmayr
`
`Obvious under §103 in view of Horton
`
`Obvious under §103 in view of Horton in
`combination with Welch 1997
`
`VI. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE HERE
`A. The ’253 Patent Has Not Been Subject to a Prior Petition
`The ’253 Patent has not been subject to any prior IPR or PGR petitions.
`
`Further, Meta has filed only a single petition challenging the claims of the ’253
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`Patent, avoiding any suggestion that Meta has placed a substantial and unnecessary
`
`burden on the Board. See Trial Practice Guide Update (July 2019).3
`
`B.
`
`The Presented Grounds and Argument Are Dissimilar to the Art
`and Arguments Previously Presented to the Office
`All factors considered by the Board under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) weigh in favor
`
`of institution. Becton, Dickinson, & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586,
`
`Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017); see also Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL
`
`Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13,
`
`2020). The Board has consistently “held that a reference that ‘was neither applied
`
`against the claims nor discussed by the Examiner’ does not weigh in favor of
`
`exercising [] discretion under §325(d).” Fasteners for Retail, Inc. v. RTC Indus.,
`
`Inc., IPR2019-00994, Paper 9 at 7-11 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2019). The grounds
`
`presented herein include obviousness challenges applying Welch 2001, Welch 1997,
`
`and Horton as base references. None of these references was applied against the
`
`Challenged Claims or discussed by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’253
`
`Patent (nor were combinations thereof). Bowtech Inc. v. MCP IP, LLC, IPR2019-
`
`
`3 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/trial-practice-
`
`guide-update3.pdf.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`00383, Paper 14 at 5 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2019) (instituting petition where the
`
`Examiner did not consider grounds asserted by the petition).
`
`C. Efficiency, Fairness, and the Merits Support the Exercise of the
`Board’s Authority to Grant the Petition
`A “holistic view” of the six Fintiv factors demonstrates that the Board should
`
`not exercise its discretion under §314(a). Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019,
`
`Paper 11 at 6 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). In light of the transfer, it is a
`
`near certainty that a Final Written Decision (“FWD”) in this proceeding will predate
`
`start of trial in N.D.Cal, and the district court may benefit from a FWD in IPR should
`
`the case proceed to trial. Thus, Fintiv Factor 2 weighs heavily in favor of institution.
`
`FACTOR 1: Petitioner has not sought a stay, and has no knowledge regarding
`
`whether the N.D.Cal. court would grant a stay if IPR is instituted. Thus, Factor 1 is
`
`neutral. Microchip Technology Inc. v. Bell Semiconductor, LLC, IPR2021-00148,
`
`Paper 19 at 10 (P.T.A.B. May 14, 2021).
`
`FACTORS 2 & 4: The Western District of Texas granted Meta’s motion to
`
`transfer the Texas Litigation to the Northern District of California (“N.D.Cal.”), and
`
`the case was transferred and docketed in N.D. Cal. on July 5, 2022. The resulting
`
`California Litigation was assigned to the Hon. Yvonne Rogers, and a Case
`
`Management Conference is scheduled for October 17, 2022. No trial date has been
`
`set. The median time-to-trial for patent/civil actions in N.D.Cal. is at least 30 months
`
`(January 2025). By contrast, the projected statutory deadline for a FWD is 18
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`months from filing (January 2024), and this date will not change. Thus, Factor 2
`
`weighs heavily against exercising discretion to deny institution. Slayback Pharma
`
`LLC, v. Eye Therapies, LLC, IPR2022-00146, Paper 14 at 6 (P.T.A.B May 18, 2022)
`
`(“We, therefore, find this factor weighs heavily against exercising our discretion to
`
`deny institution. Indeed, we find that proceeding with this inter partes review may
`
`actually help the district court, as it may benefit from our decision should the case
`
`proceed to trial”). Further, because the date of the FWD will predate the district
`
`court trial, a Sotera stipulation should not be needed here. Sotera Wireless, Inc. v.
`
`Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2020) at 18; see also
`
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp.-Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393,
`
`Paper 24 at 11-12 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2020). As detailed herein, Petitioner presents
`
`compelling evidence of unpatentability. Factor 4 is neutral.
`
`FACTOR 3: The California Litigation has only just begun. Thus, the court has
`
`not yet invested time and resources in the parallel proceeding or the parties. Factor 3
`
`weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution.
`
`FACTOR 5: Petitioner was a defendant in the Texas Litigation and remains a
`
`defendant in the California Litigation. But in view of the other Fintiv factors—
`
`which heavily weigh against the Board’s exercise of §314(a) discretion—the
`
`similarity of the parties is of limited weight here.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`FACTOR 6: As set forth below, the merits of the grounds of this Petition are
`
`strong. Factor 6 weighs against the Board exercising its §314(a) discretion. Sand
`
`Revolution, Paper 24 at 13.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`A. Head-Mounted Display in Virtual and Augmented Reality
`Systems
`Head-mounted displays (“HMDs”) are widely used in both virtual reality
`
`(“VR”) and augmented reality (“AR”) applications. In VR, a user is enveloped in a
`
`completely computer-generated environment. HMDs provide immersive images to
`
`the user, and the user’s head motion should be closely tracked to accurately reflect
`
`the user’s perspective within the computer-generated environment. In augmented
`
`reality (AR) applications, however, computer-generated images are overlaid on real
`
`scenes that the user observes through the HMD. See Ex. 1013 at Abstract. Thus, in
`
`AR, tracking the user’s head should be more accurate than for VR to minimize
`
`misalignment between the computer-generated image and the real scene the user
`
`observes. Id.
`
`Sensors for Tracking an Object in VR and AR
`B