`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`MEDIVIS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NOVARAD CORP.
`Patent Owner
`
`US Patent No. 11,004,271
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2023-00042
`
`_______________
`
`
`REPLY IN
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF US PATENT NO. 11,004,271
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`ME1 46109404v.4 
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 129285-00012
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Page
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 1
`A.
`The Response Does Not Qualify the Cited Opinions ........................... 1
`B.
`The Patent Conflicts with Novarad’s Construction of “3D data” ......... 3
`C.
`The Patent Refutes Novarad’s Construction of “Inner Layer(s)
`of The Patient” ....................................................................................... 6
`The Patent Refutes Novarad’s Proposed Construction of
`“Confined Within a Volume of a Virtual 3D Shape” ......................... 10
`Novarad Fails to Show that its Inclusion of “Being Having” Is a
`Correctable Error ................................................................................. 13
`III. DOO ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 1, 5, AND 6 ............................................ 14
`A. Doo Anticipates Claim 1 ..................................................................... 14
`1.
`Preamble: “[a] method for augmenting real-time,
`non-image actual views of a patient with three-
`dimensional (3D) data” ........................................................... 14
`Claim 1’s first step: “identifying 3D data for the
`patient, the 3D data including an outer layer of the
`patient and multiple inner layers of the patient” ................. 14
`Claim 1’s second step: “displaying, in an augmented
`reality (AR) headset, one of the inner layers of the
`patient from the 3D data projected onto real-time,
`non-image actual views of the outer layer of the
`patient” ..................................................................................... 16
`Claim 1’s final limitation: “the projected inner layer
`of the patient from the 3D data being confined within
`a volume of a virtual 3D shape” ............................................ 17
`Doo Anticipates Claim 5 and 6 ........................................................... 18
`B.
`IV. DOO AND AMIRA RENDER CLAIMS 1-6 AND 11-20 OBVIOUS ...... 19
`A.
`Amira Is Prior Art ................................................................................ 19
`i
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 129285-00012
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Page
`
`
`B. Motive to Combine Doo and Amira .................................................... 19
`C.
`Doo and Amira Render Claim 1 Obvious ........................................... 20
`D. Doo and Amira Render Claims 2-6 Obvious ...................................... 22
`E.
`Doo and Amira Render Claim 11 Obvious ......................................... 23
`1.
`Claim 11’s second step: “altering the original color
`gradient of the multiple inner layers to be lighter than
`the original color gradient in order to be better visible
`when projected onto real-time, non-image actual
`views of the outer layer of the patient” ................................. 23
`Claim 11’s final limitation—“the projected inner
`layer of the patient from the 3D data being having the
`altered color gradient” ........................................................... 24
`Doo and Amira Render Claims 12-20 Obvious .................................. 24
`F.
`CHEN, 3D-VISUALIZATION, AND 3D-SLICER-GUI RENDER
`CLAIMS 1-6 AND 11-20 OBVIOUS ......................................................... 26
`A. Motive to Combine Chen, 3D-Visualization, and 3D-Slicer-
`GUI ...................................................................................................... 26
`Chen, 3D-Visualization, and 3D-Slicer-GUI Are Prior Art ................ 27
`1.
`Chen .......................................................................................... 27
`2.
`3D-Visualization ....................................................................... 27
`3.
`3D-Slicer-GUI .......................................................................... 28
`The Chen Combination Renders Claim 1-6 Obvious ......................... 28
`C.
`The Chen Combination Renders Claims 11-20 Obvious .................... 29
`D.
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 30
`
`
`2.
`
`V.
`
`B.
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Description
`US Patent No. 11,004,271, claiming priority to March 30,
`2017 (the ‘271 Patent)
`Excerpts of File history of Application No. 16/574,524, now
`the ‘271 Patent
`Excerpts of File history of Application No. 15/894,595, now
`U.S. Patent No. 10,475,244, through which the ‘271 Patent
`claims priority
`Excerpts of File history of Application No. 15/474,702, filed
`on March 30, 2017, and now U.S. Patent No. 9,892,564,
`through which the ‘271 Patent claims priority
`Excerpt of Amira 5 User’s Guide title through Chapter 2
`(Visual Imaging 2009) (“Amira”)
`US Patent Application Publication No. US 2016/0191887 A1
`to Casas, published on June 30, 2016 (“Casas”)
`
`S. Pujol, Ph.D. et al., 3D Visualization of DICOM Images
`for Radiological Applications (Surgical Planning Laboratory,
`Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
`2014) (“3D Visualization”)
`
`International Publication No. WO 2015/164402 A1 to Doo et
`al., published on October 29, 2015 (“Doo”)
`
`X. Chen et al., “Development of a Surgical Navigation
`System Based On Augmented Reality Using an Optical See-
`Through Head-Mounted Display,” 55 JOURNAL OF
`BIOMEDICAL INFORMATICS 124-131 (2015) (“Chen”)
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1010 Main Application GUI for 3D Slicer
`<https://www.slicer.org/wiki/Documentation/4.6/Slicer/Appl
`ication/MainApplicationGUI> (last edited 7 November
`2016) (“3D Slicer”)
`E. Azimi et al., “Augmented Reality Goggles with an
`Integrated Tracking System for Navigations in
`Neurosurgery,” IEEE VIRTUAL REALITY 123-124, 123
`(IEEE 2012) (“AR Goggle for Neurosurgery”).
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Declaration of Peter Kazanzides Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Peter Kazanzides Ph.D.
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Email message entitled “Novarad v. Medivis” and dated
`August 3, 2022, from counsel for Novarad, Brett Davis, to
`counsel for Medivis, Brian Lemon and others.
`
`Exhibit
`1015
`
`Exhibit
`1016
`
`Exhibit
`1017
`
`Exhibit
`1018
`
`Exhibit
`1019
`
`Declaration of Christopher Fraiser (May 22, 2023) [served
`May 22, 2023]
`
`Page Vault capture of Slicer.org Main Applications GUI
`[served May 22, 2023]
`Page Vault capture of Slicer.org Acknowledgements [served
`May 22, 2023]
`
`Page Vault capture of Slicer.org Release Details Slicer 4.6.0
`[served May 22, 2023]
`
`Page Vault capture of Google Search Results 3D
`Visualization and Training [served May 22, 2023]
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`A. Federov et al., “3D Slicer as an image Computing
`Platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network,” 30
`MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING 1323-1341 (2012) [served
`May 22, 2023]
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Peter Kazanzides Ph.D. (May
`22, 2023) [served May 22, 2023]
`
`Transcript of the Deposition of Mahesh S. Mulumudi, M.D.
`(September 19, 2023) g
`
`Declaration of Page Vault Representative Todd W. Price
`(May 19, 2023) [served May 22, 2023]
`
`Declaration of Internet Archive Representative Nathaniel E
`Frank-White (May 16, 2023) [served May 22, 2023]
`
`The Britannica Dictionary Definition of “Confine” from
`<https:/www.britannica.com/dictionary/confine>
`(downloaded 9/7/23).
`
`Merriam-Webster Dictionary Definition & Meaning of
`“Confined” from <https:/www.merriam-
`webster.com/dictionary/confined> (downloaded 9/7/23).
`
`Cambridge English Dictionary Definition of “Confine” from
`<https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/confi
`ne> (downloaded 9/7/23).
`
`Declaration of Pamela Keyl (October 10, 2023)
`
`Exhibit
`Exhibit
`1020
`
`Exhibit
`1021
`
`Exhibit
`1022
`
`Exhibit
`1023
`
`Exhibit
`1024
`
`Exhibit
`1025
`
`Exhibit
`1026
`
`Exhibit
`1027
`
`Exhibit
`1028
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`v
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`The Board preliminarily found that Doo anticipates Claims 1, 5, and 6 of the
`
`‘271 Patent. Further, the combinations of Doo and Amira or Chen, 3D-
`
`Visualization, and 3D Slicer-GUI render Claims 1-6 and 11-20 obvious. Petition,
`
`41-69. Nothing in Novarad’s response defeats these challenges.
`
`To distinguish the cited prior art, Novarad relies on claim constructions that
`
`conflict with the ‘271 Patent and are thus improper. But even if the Board were to
`
`adopt Novarad’s improper constructions, the cited references still render the
`
`challenged claims obvious.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Novarad originally contended, and its proffered-expert agreed, that the
`
`claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Ex. 1014; Ex. 1022,
`
`111:7-10. But, now facing an instituted IPR, Novarad proposes unordinary
`
`meanings that contradict the claims and specification.
`
`A.
`The Response Does Not Qualify the Cited Opinions
`Novarad disputes neither Medivis’s definition of the person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art (POSA) (see Petition, Section III.B) nor the general scope and content of
`
`the prior art detailed in the Petition, Section IV.B. Nonetheless, relying on the
`
`Mulumudi and Rosenberg Declarations (Exs. 2002, 2004), Novarad cites opinions
`
`as to the perspective of the POSA. But only a qualified expert may opine. FRE
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`702 (including new clarifying amendment). Novarad bears the burden to qualify
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`
`
`its alleged experts and their opinions. Id. But Novarad failed to meet its burden
`
`because it has not cited in its response any evidence that its declarants are qualified
`
`or that their opinions are reliable. FRE 104(a). The Board should not be forced to
`
`“play arch[a]eologist with the record.” General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint
`
`Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App'x 654, 657 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (unpublished); see also
`
`DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866-67 (7th Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make
`
`all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archeologist
`
`with the record”). Accordingly, none of the statements in the Response attributed
`
`to Novarad’s declarants should be considered admissible evidence.
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`B.
`
`Claim Term
`“three-dimensional
`(3D) data” /
`“3D data”
`
`“three-dimensional
`(3D) data …
`including an outer
`layer of the patient
`and multiple inner
`layers of the patient”
`
`
`The Patent Conflicts with Novarad’s Construction of “3D data”
`Novarad’s
`Medivis’s
`Proposed Construction
`Proposed Construction
`“direct-volume-rendered
`“one or more of
`CT, MRI, PET, and
`MRI images, Computerized
`SPECT imaging (and also
`Tomography (CT) scan
`ultrasound and
`images, X-ray images,
`fluorescence imaging,
`Positron Emission
`depending on the methods
`Tomography (PET) images,
`used)”
`ultrasound images,
`
`fluorescence images,
`Novarad argues “direct-
`Infrared Thermography
`volume-rendering” means a
`(IRT) images, and Single-
`“non-feature-specific,
`Photon Emission Computer
`unsegmented image of the
`Tomography (SPECT) scan
`entire volume of the patient
`image”
`anatomy” 1
`
`No “direct-volume-
`
`rendering” limitation applies
`
`
`
`
`
`Novarad’s addition of “direct-volume-rendered” and “direct volume
`
`rendering” (both “DVR”) to the claims is wrong for two reasons: it (1) adds an
`
`unsupported limitation, (2) contradicts the claims and specification.
`
`First, DVR is found nowhere in the claims or specification. If DVR were an
`
`essential part of the invention, as Novarad argues, the ’271 patent should have
`
`mentioned it. Novarad’s proffered-expert Mulumudi admitted that he could
`
`identify DVR only by the use of the phrase “direct volume rendering.” Ex. 1022,
`                                                            
`1Summary tables in Novarad’s Response do not fairly summarize the constructions
`that Novarad applies when seeking to distinguish the cited art. Medivis, therefore,
`summarizes all of Novarad’s argued constructions in the summary tables
`throughout this reply.
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`129:17-130:1 (“Q. Is there any way that you could tell whether the volume
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`
`
`rendering referenced on page 49 of Amira is direct volume rendering without the
`
`words ‘direct’—the phrase ‘direct volume rendering’ being used?
`
` THE
`
`WITNESS: No”). Thus, it is unclear how Mulumudi could have found DVR in the
`
`‘271 Patent, which does not mention “direct volume rendering.”
`
`Second, a DVR requirement conflicts with the claims and specification.
`
`Claim 1 requires (1) “identifying 3D data,” which data includes, inter alia,
`
`“multiple inner layers of the patient,” and (2) displaying “one of the inner layers of
`
`the patient from the 3D data.” Ex. 1001, 18:60-61. Contrary to Claim 1,
`
`Novarad’s proposed DVR limitation, which requires an image of the entire
`
`anatomical volume that is neither feature-specific nor segmented, would seemingly
`
`require that all inner layers be displayed.
`
`Relying on a conflation of “slices” and “layers,” Novarad argues that “3D
`
`data must have height, width, and depth.” Response, 13. But Claim 3 recites
`
`“slices of the projected inner layer,” thus differentiating slices from layers. Indeed,
`
`Novarad’s proffered expert admitted that “slices” and “layers” are different. Ex.
`
`1022, 32:7-16.2
`
`                                                            
`2 Even if slices were conflated with layers, as Novarad suggests, the specification
`teaches the possible “display [of] a slice of the 3D data instead of a volume of the
`3D data.” Ex. 1001, 5:34-35 (emphasis added).
`4
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`Contrary to Novarad’s argument, Professor Kazanzides explained that,
`
`“depending on context, [3D] has different meanings.” Ex. 2006, 57:20-58:10. He
`
`clarified that “[o]ne meaning [of 3D] is that it has … three coordinates, X, Y, and
`
`Z.” Ex. 2006, 57:20-58:10. Accordingly, Professor Kazanzides explained that
`
`“multiple x-ray images would be considered 3D data.” Id., 59:19-60:13. “[A]s
`
`one example, you can have a biplane x-ray where you take x-ray images from
`
`orthogonal direction, and based on that you … identify 3D points in the anatomy
`
`….” Id., 60:6-13. Alternatively, each slice in a stack of 2D slices may provide
`
`information “common to the slice” but “relative to the other slices.” Id., 62:17-
`
`66:1. Amira confirms that “[a] common way to store 3D image data is to write a
`
`separate 2D image file for each slice.” Ex. 1005, 39. Importantly, Novarad’s
`
`proffered-expert Mulumudi admitted that “3D data can be stored as a plurality of
`
`2D images.” Ex. 1022, 127:12-14.
`
`Finally, the ‘271-specification conflicts with Novarad’s construction that
`
`“3D data” excludes X-ray images. Response, 11-12. The ‘271-specification
`
`explains that “3D data for patient 106 may include a 2D X-ray image that may
`
`be projected onto … the patient 106.” Ex. 1001, 12:7-9 (emphasis added). Indeed,
`
`“3D data may include a 2D image, such as an X-ray image, because when the 2D
`
`image is projected into a 3D space the 2D image has 3D significance.” Id., 12:4-
`
`7 (emphasis added).
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`C.
`
`The Patent Refutes Novarad’s Construction of “Inner Layer(s) of
`The Patient”
`
`Claim Term
`“inner layer(s)
`of the patient”
`
`(proposed by
`Novarad)
`
`
`Medivis’s Proposed
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`The features of a “3D
`direct volume rendering”
`identified by Novarad are
`inconsistent with preferred
`embodiments of the
`projected inner layer
`
`
`Novarad’s
`Proposed Construction
`“A 3D direct volume rendering of
`the anatomy of the patient at a
`certain depth below the outer layer,
`or skin, of the patient”
`
`Novarad argues “3D” requires the
`combination of height, width, and
`depth
`
`Novarad argues “direct volume
`rendering” means a “non-feature-
`specific, unsegmented image of the
`entire volume of the patient
`anatomy”
`
`
`
`
`Novarad’s proposal to add a 3D-DVR limitation through its construction of
`
`“inner layer(s) of the patient” likewise conflicts with the ’271 Patent. Because
`
`Novarad links its proposed construction to “the projection” of one of the inner
`
`layers and “an ‘inner layer’” (Response, 15 (emphasis added)), Medivis
`
`understands that Novarad seeks to limit the following terms in Claims 1 and 11:
`
` The step in both claims of “displaying … one of the inner layers of the
`
`patient from the 3D data projected onto real-time, non-image actual
`
`views of the patient”;
`
` Claim 1’s “the projected inner layer of the patient … being confined
`
`within a volume of a virtual 3D shape”; and
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
` Claim 11’s “the projected inner layer of the patient … being having
`
`the altered color gradient.”
`
`Novarad’s proposed “3D-DVR” limitation conflicts with the preferred
`
`embodiments of the foregoing limitations. For instance, method 600 in FIGS. 6A-
`
`6E is the exemplary method for “augmenting views of a patient with 3D data.” Ex.
`
`1001 11:19-20. According to the specification, “method 600 may employ still
`
`X-ray images of the skeletal system of the patient 106 (as illustrated in FIG. 1).”
`
`Id., 11:53-55. Block 612 of method 600 is “[d]isplay[ing] one of the inner layers
`
`of the patient from the 3D data projected onto real-time views of the outer layer of
`
`the patient.” Id., FIG. 6A, 13:25-27. The preferred embodiments of a projected
`
`inner layer illuminate the scope of the “displaying” step.
`
`The first example of block 612 is displaying “bones 106b of the patient 106
`
`… projected” in FIG. 1 (shown below). Ex. 1001, 13:27-31.
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`
`
`Id. 14:26-34, FIG. 1. Figure 1’s exemplary projected bones 106b refute Novarad’s
`
`proposed 3D-DVR limitation in two ways:
`
`(a) contrary to Novarad’s exclusion of X-ray images from “3D data”
`
`(Response, 11), Figure 1 illustrates the “employ[ment of] still X-ray
`
`images of the skeletal system” (Ex. 1001, 11:53-55);
`
`(b) contrary to Novarad’s “DVR” definition, which is “unsegmented” and
`
`“not feature specific” (Response, 39-40, 5), bones 106b are a specific
`
`feature segmented from the whole volume.
`
`The second example of block 612 displays “a CT scan image of the brain of
`
`the patient … projected onto the top of the head of the patient in FIGS. 2B and 2C,
`
`or onto the side of the head of the patient in FIG. 2E.” Ex. 1001, 13:31-34.
`8
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`Novarad admits that a CT scan image is 2D. Response, 2.
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`FIGS. 2C and 2E each illustrate a 2D CT image projected and confined
`
`within a virtual box.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:36-39, FIGS. 2C, 2E. Contrary to these examples, Novarad argues that
`
`“the projection … must have height, width, and depth.” Response, 15; see also id.
`
`12 (same). Except to the extent that projection of a 2D image imbues it with the
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`requisite volume, as the ‘271 patent explains (Ex. 1001, 12:4-7), each exemplary
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`
`
`CT scan lacks the volume Novarad’s proposed 3D-DVR construction requires.
`
`
`
`D.
`
`The Patent Refutes Novarad’s Proposed Construction of
`“Confined Within a Volume of a Virtual 3D Shape”
`
`Novarad’s
`Proposed Construction
`“confined within … a
`virtual 3D shape”
`means
`“navigated along any
`axis … a virtual control;”
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`“virtual 3D shape”
`
`(proposed by
`Medivis)
`
`
`“confined within
`a volume of a
`virtual 3D shape”
`
`(proposed by
`Novarad)
`
`
`Medivis’s
`Proposed Construction
`“virtual 3D shape”
`encompasses a “virtual 3D shape
`(i.e., form) as simple as a box and
`as complex as the outer layer of a
`patient”
`
`“confined within a volume of”
`has its plain and ordinary
`meaning, which does not involve
`any navigation function, but
`rather requires the virtual 3D
`shape to be a boundary
`
`
`
`
`To distinguish the art, Novarad argues that “confined” means “navigated …
`
`along any axis.” Response 18; see also id. 27, 28. The specification, however,
`
`does not suggest that “confined” has any meaning outside the ordinary. To
`
`Novarad’s proffered-expert, “confine” is not a technical term. Ex. 1022, 19:12-16.
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of “confined” is, simply, “kept.” Exs. 1025, 1026,
`
`1027. In context, “confined within a volume” means “kept within a volume.”
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`Contrary to the specification, Novarad argues that “‘the virtual 3D shape is a
`
`‘virtual control’ that ‘controls’ what portion of the volume of the projected 3D
`
`layers are visible to the user.” Response, 17; see also id. 58 (“the ‘virtual 3D
`
`shape’ is a ‘virtual control’”), 30, 41. But the specification uses the ordinary
`
`meaning of “shape.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:56-61 (“a specific shape to be more
`
`easily sensed (such as by shaping the tip … as a sphere)”), 12:34-45
`
`(“measurements … to determine the size and shape of the outer layer”) (emphasis
`
`added). Moreover, Novarad’s proffered-expert testified that “shape” is not a
`
`technical term and that the only meaning of “shape” he could identify is “form.”
`
`Ex. 1022, 17:5-18:13.
`
`Nothing in the specification’s limited disclosure of “virtual 3D shape”
`
`suggests that it is a control. For instance, the step disclosed in block 626 is
`
`“[d]isplay[ing] a virtual spatial difference box projected onto real-time views of the
`
`outer layer of the patient.” Ex. 1001, FIG. 6C, 14:26-34. The first example of
`
`block 626 is displaying “a virtual spatial difference box 116 [that] confine[s]
`
`within [its] volume … the projected inner layer of the patient 106 …, such as the
`
`projected bones 106b of FIG. 1.” Figure 1 (below) illustrates “virtual user
`
`interface 114” and “virtual cursor 122” as the virtual control elements, both of
`
`which are distinct from “virtual spatial difference box 116.” Id., FIG. 1; see also id.
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`3:63-4:7, 5:18-49, 7:18-31. Accordingly, the specification discloses that controls,
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`
`
`such as user interfaces and cursers, are distinct from the virtual 3D shape.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Contrary to Novarad’s interpretation, the patent at most suggests using a
`
`“virtual 3D shape” as a frame of reference. It does not suggest that the virtual 3D
`
`shape itself be a control. According to the specification, “box 116 may also assist
`
`the user when navigating the projected 3D data by providing a frame of
`
`reference.” Id., 6:11-13 (emphasis added). “[T[his frame of reference may assist
`
`the user when moving axial slices, coronal slices, sagittal slices, or oblique slices
`
`of the 3D data within the virtual spatial difference box 116.” Id., 6:14-17. A user
`12
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`may move the slices and control the view using hand gestures or voice commands,
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`
`
`for example. Id., 6:21-26, 7:57-8:25.
`
`Finally, Novarad cites Claim 3’s requirement that the virtual 3D shape be
`
`“configured to be controlled to reposition … slices of the projected inner layer.”
`
`But Claim 3 at most requires the shape to “be controlled”—not to be a control.
`
`Something that is controlled need not itself be a control. Accordingly, a “virtual 3D
`
`shape” is better understood in the context of the specification as a “virtual 3D
`
`shape (i.e., form) as simple as a box and as complex as the outer layer of the
`
`patient,” not a control.
`
`E.
`
`Novarad Fails to Show that its Inclusion of “Being Having” Is a
`Correctable Error
`
`Claim Term
`
`“being having”
`
`
`
`Novarad’s Proposed
`Construction
`“having;”
`
`(delete “being”)
`
`
`Medivis’s Proposed
`Construction
`“being or having”
`
`Novarad’s inclusion of “being having” was its own error. Ex. 1002, 22, 80;
`
`Response 18. But Novarad fails to prove that its error was merely clerical and
`
`offers no explanation as to why deleting “being” is the obvious correction.
`
`According to Novarad’s proffered-expert, “being” and “having” are not synonyms.
`
`Ex. 1022, 16:10-12. Novarad thus fails to satisfy the statutory requirements (35
`
`USC §255) to allow correction of its allegedly-clerical error.
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`III. DOO ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 1, 5, AND 6
`A. Doo Anticipates Claim 1
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`Novarad argues against anticipation by ignoring Doo’s disclosure and by
`
`applying claim constructions that conflict with the ‘271 Patent’s disclosure.
`
`1.
`
`Preamble: “[a] method for augmenting real-time, non-
`image actual views of a patient with three-dimensional (3D)
`data”
`
`Doo discloses a “method for displaying … three-dimensional visual data in
`
`real-time and in perceived three-dimensional space.” Ex. 1008, [00030]. Doo
`
`further discloses that an “image can be overlaid on the patient's actual anatomical
`
`feature and, … sized to match …, thus creating the visual impression of a ‘true
`
`registration’ and a form of augmented reality.” Id., [00037] (emphasis added).
`
`In its discussion of Figure 2, Doo discloses that “display 30 can be
`
`selectively … transparent and configured to exhibit at least one medical image 32
`
`to the surgeon 26 that is overlaid on the patient 28.” Id., [00038]; see also
`
`Decision, 8. In other words, Doo discloses augmenting the view of the patient with
`
`3D data.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1’s first step: “identifying 3D data for the patient,
`the 3D data including an outer layer of the patient and
`multiple inner layers of the patient”
`
`Novarad’s attempt to distinguish Doo based on its unreasonably narrow
`
`construction of “3D data” fails because, as explained above, Novarad’s
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`construction conflicts with the ‘271 Patent’s disclosure and with the testimony of
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`
`
`Novarad’s own declarant. For example, Novarad’s proffered-expert admitted that
`
`“3D data can be stored as a plurality of 2D images.” Ex. 1022, 127:12-14.
`
`Novarad admits that Doo discloses the same “potential sources of 3D data for the
`
`patient, including [CT] and [MRI],” as the ‘271-specification discloses. Response
`
`26; also compare Ex. 1001, 11:34-55, with Exhibit 1008, [0040]. Doo’s Figure 11
`
`(below), for example, illustrates 3D data, including an outer layer and multiple
`
`inner layers of the patient.
`
`
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`3.
`
`Claim 1’s second step: “displaying, in an augmented reality
`(AR) headset, one of the inner layers of the patient from the
`3D data projected onto real-time, non-image actual views of
`the outer layer of the patient”
`
`Contrary to Novarad’s argument, Medivis’s evidence is not limited to Doo’s
`
`Figures 2 and 3. Doo also discloses that “[d]isplay 30 can be a component of a
`
`head mountable unit 46 … worn by the surgeon.” Decision 8-9, 10 (quoting
`
`Exhibit 1008, [0038], [00044], FIG. 3). Doo discloses “render[ing a medical
`
`image] from a [different] perspective.” Exhibit 1008, [0033]. Doo discloses
`
`“position[ing] and scal[ing] a medical image relative to the patient 28 from the
`
`perspective of the surgeon 26.” Ex. 1008, [0033]. Thus, Doo discloses an “image
`
`… overlaid on the patient’s actual anatomical feature …, thus creating …
`
`augmented reality.” Id., [0037].
`
`Moreover, “Doo’s Figures 2 and 3 … show that ‘the projected display may
`
`be inner layers of the patient from the 3D data.’” Decision 11. The ‘271-
`
`specification’s preferred embodiments of projected inner layer(s) are remarkably
`
`similar to exemplary projected inner layer(s) disclosed in Doo. For example,
`
`whereas the ‘271-specification discloses Figure 1’s projected bones 106b as one
`
`preferred embodiment (Ex. 1001, 13:25-31), Doo illustrates the projection of bones
`
`in Figure 3 and describes them as “overlaid on patient 28” (Ex. 1008, [0040]-
`
`[0041], [0041]). Novarad articulates no real distinction between the two sets of
`
`projected bones.
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`16
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`The other preferred embodiments disclosed in the ‘271-specification
`
`comprise 2D “CT scan image of the brain … projected onto … the head of the
`
`patient.” Ex. 1001, 13:25-34. Doo projects similar images. Contrary to Novarad’s
`
`argument that Doo’s projected “two-dimensional ‘x-ray of the chest of the patient
`
`… [lacksl any
`
`three-dimensional significance” (Response 27),
`
`the ’271-
`
`specification explains that “3D data may include a 2D image, such as an X-ray
`
`image, because when the 2D image is projected into a 3D space the 2D image has
`
`3D significance.” Exhibit 1001, 12:1-7 (emphasis added).
`
`4.
`
`Claim 1’s final limitation: “the projected inner layer of the
`patient from the 3D data being confined within a volume of
`a virtual 3D shape”
`
`While Novarad argues that Doo’s figures “Cannot Confine a 3D Volume”
`
`(Response 29-32), Claim 1 requires an inner layer “confined within a volume,” not
`
`a confined volume. The ‘271-specification’s preferred embodiments of a projected
`
`inner layer (all disclosed with respect to block 612) are not reasonably
`
`distinguishable from Doo’s exemplary projected inner layers.
`
`Despite the ’271 Patent’s reliance on conventional medical imaging (Ex.
`
`1001, 2:49-51), Novarad argues that what was known in the art is conjecture
`
`(Response 28-29). But among other features of conventional medical imaging
`
`systems, the Petition discusses the bounding boxes of Amira and 3D-Visualization.
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`17
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`Petition 16-23. By definition, a bounding box confines 3D data within a volume.
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 40.
`
`Doo’s shape 532 in Figure 9 and shape 432 in Figure 7 are virtual 3D
`
`shapes. A body’s surface is a 3D shape. Doo discloses that Figure 9’s shape 532
`
`“mimic[s] the surface curvature of the patient’s body.” Ex. 1008, [00076]. Doo’s
`
`Figure 7 illustrates projection of inner layers that are confined within the volume of
`
`shape 432.
`
`As to Doo’s Figure 11, Novarad argues that some processing must be done
`
`before 3D slices may be obtained. Response 31. To the contrary, Doo’s “Figure
`
`11 is a series of [3D] tomographic slices of an anatomical feature of a patient.” Ex.
`
`1008, [0026] (emphasis added). Further, Doo’s “Figure 11 illustrates … ‘fly
`
`through 3D’ in which a series of three-dimensional … slices can be sequentially
`
`exhibited.” Id., [0078] (emphasis added). Also, Doo’s “fusion [of 3D slices]
`
`create[s] a 3D image” within a bounding box. Id., [0078]. Doo further discloses
`
`modifying the overlaid image to “adapt[] the image as it is perceived by the
`
`surgeon. Id., [0041].
`
`B. Doo Anticipates Claim 5 and 6
`
`Doo discloses
`
`that “[t]he
`
`image …
`
`is selectively and/or variably
`
`transparent[;] the surgeon 26 controls the image opacity [up to] fully transparent
`
`….” Ex. 1008, [0030]. As such, Doo discloses hiding the lines of the 3D shape.
`
`ME1 46109404v.4 
`
`18
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`IV. DOO AND AMIRA RENDER CLAIMS 1-6 AND 11-20 OBVIOUS
`The discussion above, as to how Doo anticipates Cla