`
`
`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
`
`_______________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF US PATENT NO. 11,004,271
`UNDER 35 USC §§ 311-319 AND CFR § 42.100, et. seq.
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`ME1 42389691v.1 
`
`

`

`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 129285-00012
`
`Patent No. 11,004,271
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`The Parties ............................................................................................. 1 
`
`A. 
`B.  Mandatory Notices And Certifications ................................................. 2 
`
`Page
`
`Real Party‐in‐Interest ................................................................. 2 
`1. 
`Related Matters ............................................................................ 2 
`2. 
`Counsel and Service Information ........................................... 3 
`3. 
`Standing .......................................................................................... 4 
`4. 
`THE ‘271 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION ........................................... 4 
`The Challenged ‘271 Patent .................................................................. 4 
`Summary of the Challenged Claims ..................................................... 5 
`Reasons for Allowance of the Challenged Claims ................................ 7 
`
`II. 
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`III.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8 
`A. 
`B. 
`C. 
`
`Legal Standard for Construction ........................................................... 8 
`The Field of the Invention and Person of Ordinary Skill in the
`Art .......................................................................................................... 8 
`Claim Terms ........................................................................................ 11 
`1. 
`“three‐dimensional (3D) data” and “3D data” ................. 11 
`2. 
`“virtual 3D shape” ..................................................................... 13 
`3. 
`“being having” ............................................................................ 14 
`4. 
`Summary Table of Claim Interpretation ........................... 14 
`STANDARDS AND CONTEXT FOR EVALUATION OF
`PATENTABILITY CHALLENGES ............................................................. 15 
`The Legal Standards for Anticipation and Obviousness ..................... 15 
`The Scope and Content of the Prior Art .............................................. 16 
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 29 
`Summary of Grounds for Challenging Claims ................................... 29 
`i
`
`IV. 
`V. 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`A. 
`
`ME1 42389691v.1 
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
`
`
`
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 129285-00012
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1, 5, and 6 by Doo ........................ 31 
`1. 
`Doo’s Disclosure with respect to Independent
`Claim 1 .......................................................................................... 31 
`(a) 
`“A method for augmenting real-time, non-
`image actual views of a patient with three-
`dimensional (3D) data” (Preamble of Claims 1,
`7, and 11) ........................................................................ 31 
`“identifying 3D data for the patient, the 3D data
`including an outer layer of the patient and
`multiple inner layers of the patient”
`(“identifying” step of Claims 1, 7, and 11) .................... 33 
`“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” (“displaying … inner layer[]” step of
`Claims 1, 7, and 11) ........................................................ 34 
`“the projected inner layer of the patient from
`the 3D data being confined within a volume of
`a virtual 3D shape” (“confined” limitation of
`Claim 1) .......................................................................... 36 
`Doo’s Disclosure with respect to Dependent
`Claims 5 and 6 ............................................................................ 39 
`(a)  Claim 5: “The method of claim 1, wherein lines
`of the virtual 3D shape are hidden.” ............................... 39 
`(b)  Claim 6: “One or more non-transitory
`computer-readable media storing one or more
`programs that are configured, when executed,
`to cause one or more processors to perform the
`method as recited in Claim 1.” ....................................... 40 
`
`(b) 
`
`(c) 
`
`(d) 
`
`2. 
`
`ME1 42389691v.1 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
`
`
`
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 129285-00012
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1-6 and 11-20 Over Doo in
`view of Amira ...................................................................................... 41 
`1.  Motive to Combine Doo and Amira ...................................... 41 
`2. 
`Disclosure with Respect to Claims 1‐6 ............................... 42 
`(a)  Claim 1 limitations including “the projected
`inner layer of the patient from the 3D data
`being confined within a volume of a virtual 3D
`shape” ............................................................................. 42 
`(b)  Claim 2: “The method of claim 1, wherein: the
`virtual 3D shape is a virtual box; and the virtual
`box includes a top side, a bottom side, a left
`side, a right side, a front side, and a back side.” ............ 43 
`(c)  Claim 3: “The method of claim 1, [3a]
`wherein: the virtual 3D shape is configured to
`be controlled to toggle between displaying and
`hiding lines of the virtual 3D shape; and [3b]
`the virtual 3D shape is configured to be
`controlled to reposition two-dimensional (2D)
`slices and/or 3D slices of the projected inner
`layer of the patient from the 3D data.” ........................... 44 
`(d)  Claim 4: “The method of claim 1, wherein
`lines of the virtual 3D shape are displayed.” .................. 45 
`(e)  Claim 5: “The method of claim 1, wherein lines
`of the virtual 3D shape are hidden.” ............................... 46 
`Claim 6: “One or more non-transitory
`computer-readable media storing one or more
`programs that are configured, when executed,
`to cause one or more processors to perform the
`method as recited in claim 1” ......................................... 46 
`Disclosure with Respect to Independent Claim 11 ........ 47 
`
`(f) 
`
`3. 
`
`ME1 42389691v.1 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 129285-00012
`
`
`
`D. 
`
`4. 
`
`2. 
`
`ME1 42389691v.1 
`
`iv
`
`Page
`
`(a) 
`
`(b) 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`“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” (“altering” step of Claim 11) ............................ 47 
`“the projected inner layer of the patient from
`the 3D data being having the altered color
`gradient” (“altered color” limitation of Claim
`11) ................................................................................... 51 
`Disclosure with respect to Dependent Claims 12‐
`20 .................................................................................................... 52 
`(a)  Claim [12/13/14/15/16/17/18/19]: “The method
`as recited in claim 11, wherein the altered color
`gradient represents a tissue
`[hardness/relaxivity/echogenicity/enhancement
`amount/enhancement speed/radioactivity/water
`content] tissue property of the multiple inner
`layers of the patient. ........................................................ 52 
`(b)  Claim 20: “One or more non-transitory
`computer-readable media storing one or more
`programs that are configured, when executed,
`to cause one or more processors to perform the
`method as recited in claim 11.” ...................................... 53 
`Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 1-6 and 11-20 Over Chen in
`view of 3D Visualization and 3D Slicer .............................................. 54 
`1.  Motive to Combine Chen with 3D Slicer and 3D
`Visualization ............................................................................... 54 
`Disclosure with Respect to Independent Claim 1 .......... 55 
`(a) 
`preamble of Claim 1 ....................................................... 55 
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 129285-00012
`
`
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`“identifying” step of Claim 1 .......................................... 56 
`(b) 
`“displaying … inner layer[]” step of Claims 1 ............... 57 
`(c) 
`“confined” limitation of Claim 1 .................................... 59 
`(d) 
`Disclosure with respect to Claims 2‐6 ................................ 61 
`(a)  Claim 2: “The method of claim 1, wherein: the
`virtual 3D shape is a virtual box; and the virtual
`box includes a top side, a bottom side, a left
`side, a right side, a front side, and a back side.” ............ 61 
`(b)  Claim 3: “The method of claim 1, [3a]
`wherein: the virtual 3D shape is configured to
`be controlled to toggle between displaying and
`hiding lines of the virtual 3D shape; and [3b]
`the virtual 3D shape is configured to be
`controlled to reposition two-dimensional (2D)
`slices and/or 3D slices of the projected inner
`layer of the patient from the 3D data.” ........................... 61 
`(c)  Claim 4: “The method of claim 1, wherein
`lines of the virtual 3D shape are displayed.” .................. 62 
`(d)  Claim 5: “The method of claim 1, wherein lines
`of the virtual 3D shape are hidden.” ............................... 62 
`(e)  Claim 6: “One or more non-transitory
`computer-readable media storing one or more
`programs that are configured, when executed,
`to cause one or more processors to perform the
`method as recited in claim 1” ......................................... 63 
`Disclosure with Respect to Independent Claim 11 ........ 63 
`(b) 
`“altering” step of Claim 11 ............................................. 64 
`(c) 
`“altered color” limitation of Claim 11 ............................ 67 
`
`ME1 42389691v.1 
`
`v
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
`
`
`
`
`5. 
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 129285-00012
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Disclosure with respect to Dependent Claims 12‐
`20 .................................................................................................... 68 
`(a)  Claim [12/13/14/15/16/17/18/19]: “The method
`as recited in claim 11, wherein the altered color
`gradient represents a tissue
`[hardness/relaxivity/echogenicity/enhancement
`amount/enhancement speed/radioactivity/water
`content] tissue property of the multiple inner
`layers of the patient. ........................................................ 68 
`(b)  Claim 20: “One or more non-transitory
`computer-readable media storing one or more
`programs that are configured, when executed,
`to cause one or more processors to perform the
`method as recited in claim 11.” ...................................... 69 
`
`VI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 70 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ME1 42389691v.1 
`
`vi
`
`

`

`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 42389691v.1 
`
`vii
`
`

`

`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.
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ME1 42389691v.1 
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`U.S. Patent No. 11,004,271 (the ‘271 Patent), entitled “Augmenting Real-
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`Time Views of a Patient with Three-Dimensional Data,” claims methods for
`
`augmenting real-time non image actual views of a patient with three-dimensional
`
`data using an augmented reality (AR) headset. In simplified terms, the claimed
`
`methods take conventional medical image data of a patient’s anatomy of interest
`
`(e.g., from MRIs, CT scans, X-rays, etc.) and, via a conventional AR headset (such
`
`as the Microsoft Hololens®), project that medical image (e.g., in the form of a
`
`hologram) onto the patient. The ‘271 Patent claims priority to March 30, 2017.
`
`But by then, the claimed methods were known in the art. The Office issued the
`
`‘271 Patent because it did not consider the best prior art. Without the best prior
`
`art, the Office could not appreciate that the ‘271 Patent claimed known or obvious
`
`methods. Claims 1-6 and 12-20 should be cancelled as unpatentable over prior art
`
`that the Office had not considered when it issued the ‘271 Patent.
`
`A.
`The Parties
`Petitioner Medivis, Inc., was founded in 2016 by two young doctors in New
`
`York City—a neurosurgeon and a radiologist. Medivis immediately began
`
`developing an augmented reality (“AR”) surgical navigation system that enables
`
`3D medical images to be overlaid onto a view of a patient. This system uses the
`
`Microsoft Hololens® AR headset. As soon as the Hololens AR headset became
`
`ME1 42389691v.1 
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`commercially available to developers in early 2016, Medivis and several other
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`
`
`companies began developing AR surgical applications based on it. Medivis won
`
`FDA 510(k) approval for the SurgicalAR® system in May 2019, and began selling
`
`it to hospitals soon thereafter. As discussed further below, Medivis’s system built
`
`on the medical community’s research into AR-assisted surgery.
`
`Patent Owner Novarad Corp. sued Medivis for infringement of the ‘271
`
`Patent. That suit (described below) is currently pending.
`
`B. Mandatory Notices And Certifications
`1.
`Real Party-in-Interest
`
`The real party in interest for this petition for inter partes review (IPR) is
`
`Medivis, Inc., of 174 5th Avenue, Suite 505, New York, NY, 10010.
`
`2.
`
`Related Matters
`
`On October 13, 2021, Novarad filed a complaint alleging that Medivis
`
`infringes the ‘271 Patent and U.S. Patent No. 10,945,807 (the ‘807 Patent).
`
`Novarad served the complaint on Medivis on October 14, 2021. The case in
`
`pending in the District of Delaware, C.A. No. 21-1447-GBW. Medivis moved to
`
`dismiss the case because the ‘271 Patent (as well as the ‘807 Patent) claims
`
`ineligible subject matter in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 101. That motion has not yet
`
`been heard and remains pending Given the pending motion to dismiss, Medivis
`
`has not answered Novarad’s complaint. Discovery is in its early stages. Claim
`
`ME1 42389691v.1 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`construction has not been briefed, let alone argued or decided. In short, the case
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`
`
`remains in its early stages.
`
`Along with this petition, Medivis also filed a petition for IPR of the ‘807
`
`Patent. The ‘807 patent is also owned by Novarad, lists the same two inventors, is
`
`generally directed to similar AR-assisted surgical navigation methods, but is not
`
`part of the ‘271 Patent family.
`
`The ‘271 Patent results from a continuation of an application that matured
`
`into U.S. Patent 10,010,379. The ‘271 Patent appears to have two continuations:
`
`(1) Application No. 17/201,983 (now U.S. Patent 11,266,480); and (2) Application
`
`No. 17,687,114, filed on March 4, 2022, and is currently pending.
`
`3.
`
`Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`Kia Freeman, Reg. No. 47,577
`
`kfreeman@mccarter.com
`
`T: 617-449-6549
`
`
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Erik Paul Belt (pro hac vice to be filed)
`
`ebelt@mccarter.com
`
`T: 617-449-6506
`
`John Curran, Reg. No. 50,445
`
`jcurran@mccarter.com
`
`T: 617-449-6519
`
`
`
`All of the foregoing counsel are attorneys at McCarter & English, LLP, 265
`
`Franklin Street, Boston, MA 02110. Medivis consents to service by email at all of
`
`the foregoing email addresses.
`
`ME1 42389691v.1 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`
`4.
`
`Standing
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.104(a), Medivis certifies that the ‘271 Patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Medivis is not estopped nor barred from
`
`requesting inter partes review of the ‘271 Patent based on the grounds in this
`
`petition.
`
`II.
`
`THE ‘271 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION
`A.
`The Challenged ‘271 Patent
`The ‘271 Patent claims priority from March 30, 2017, through two parent
`
`applications. The ‘271 Patent includes three independent claims—Claims 1, 7, and
`
`11—and a total of 20 claims. All of the claims of the ‘271 Patent are directed to
`
`methods for augmenting real-time non image actual views of a patient with three-
`
`dimensional data using an AR headset. At a high level, the ‘271 Patent describes
`
`feeding three dimensional (3D) data (e.g., X-rays, MRIs, CT scans, etc.) of the
`
`patient’s anatomy (e.g., organs, bones, viscera) to an AR headset to be overlaid
`
`onto the view of a patient. To the wearer, the AR headset can project an AR image
`
`associated with the patient.
`
`As a starting point, it is important to recognize what the inventors of the
`
`‘271 Patent do not claim to have invented. For example, the inventors do not claim
`
`to have invented any new mode of medical imaging. Instead, the ‘271 Patent relies
`
`on long-known imaging techniques, such as X-rays, MRI, CT scans, PET scans,
`
`ME1 42389691v.1 
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`fluoroscopy, etc. Ex. 1001, ‘271 Patent, 2:49-51 (“conventional medical imaging
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`
`
`systems may create three-dimensional (3D) data for a patient”); 11:45-59 (the 3D
`
`data may include MRI, CT scans, X-ray, and PET images, among others). Nor do
`
`the inventors claim to have invented AR systems. Id., 17:11-16 (referencing
`
`“conventional AR systems”). Nor do the inventors claim to have invented AR
`
`headsets or any particular improvements to the headsets, such as circuitry, lenses,
`
`or sensors. Rather, the claimed inventions can use a commercially-available AR
`
`headset. Id., 4:39-42 (“the AR headset 108 may be any computer system in the
`
`form of an AR headset that is capable of augmenting real-time views of the patient
`
`106 with 3D data) and 4:60-61 (“the AR headset 108 may be a modified version of
`
`the Microsoft HoloLens”).
`
`Other aspects of the claimed inventions were also known in the art at the
`
`relevant time. For example, and as detailed below, the use of AR headsets to
`
`display medical imaging data and the display of medical image data within a
`
`virtual 3D shape such as a bounding box were known. Similarly, altering of color
`
`gradients in image data as also known before the ‘271 Patent’s priority date.
`
`B.
`Summary of the Challenged Claims
`Medivis challenges Claims 1-6 and 11-20. The challenged claims include
`
`two of the three independent claims—Claims 1 and 11—and all of their related
`
`dependent claims. All of the challenged claims of the ‘271 Patent are directed to
`
`ME1 42389691v.1 
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`methods for augmenting real-time, non-image actual views of a patient with three-
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`
`
`dimensional (3D) data. Claim 1, for example, recites the following method:
`
`1. A method for augmenting real-time, non-image actual views
`of a patient with three-dimensional (3D) data, the method
`comprising:
`identifying 3D data for the patient, the 3D data including an
`outer layer of the patient and multiple inner layers of the
`patient; and
`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,
`the projected inner layer of the patient from the 3D data being
`confined within a volume of a virtual 3D shape.
`
`The other challenged independent claim—Claim 11—includes all of the
`
`limitations of Claim 1 except the requirement that “the projected inner layer of the
`
`patient from the 3D data being confined within a volume of a virtual 3D shape.”
`
`Instead, the method of Claim 11 requires the step of “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.” Claim 11 also requires “the
`
`projected inner layer of the patient from the 3D data being having the altered color
`
`ME1 42389691v.1 
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`gradient.” Most of the method claims that depend from Claim 11 limit what the
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`
`
`altered color gradient represents.
`
`C.
`Reasons for Allowance of the Challenged Claims
`According to the Notice of Allowability, “Reasons for allowance remain the
`
`same as discussed in the non-final office action dated 8/06/2020.” Ex. 1002, 9.
`
`That office action only provides reasons for allowance of Claims 1-6 and 11-20.
`
`The office action finds allowable subject matter in Claims 1-6 because none
`
`of three cited references “suggest projection onto real-time actual views of the
`
`patient, layers confined to a 3D shape.” Ex. 1002, 37. But as discussed below, a
`
`virtual bounding box, which inner layers are confined within, was well known in
`
`the art at the relevant time. Ex. 1012, Kazanzides Decl., ¶ 54.
`
`The office action finds allowable subject matter in Claims 11-20 because
`
`none of the cited references “suggest application to projection on to real-time
`
`actual views by lightening the layer to improve visibility.” Ex. 1002, 38. But as
`
`discussed below, adjusting the color of an overlaid virtual image was known in the
`
`art at the relevant time. Ex. 1012, ¶ 56.
`
`As seen below, both of the supposedly missing steps in the challenged
`
`independent claims were disclosed in prior art that the Office did not consider.
`
`ME1 42389691v.1 
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`A.
`Legal Standard for Construction
`The claims “shall … be construed using the same claim construction
`
`standard that is used to construe the claim in a civil action in district court” because
`
`this petition was filed after November 13, 2018. 83 FED. REG. 51340. Thus, claim
`
`terms should be given their ordinary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc). That meaning is always informed by the specification. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1315. Indeed, the specification is “usually dispositive; it is the single best guide to
`
`the meaning of a disputed term.” Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d
`
`1312, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). In addition, the tribunal “should
`
`also consider the patent’s prosecution history, if it is in evidence ….” Phillips, 415
`
`F.3d at 1317.
`
`B.
`The Field of the Invention and Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`The ‘271 Patent states that “[a]ugmented reality (AR) systems generally take
`
`a user’s live view with computer-generated virtual elements such as video, sound,
`
`or graphics,” and thus “enhance a user’s current perception of reality.” Ex. 1001,
`
`‘271 Patent, 1:17-21 (Background section). The ‘271 Patent then asserts that
`
`“[o]ne common problem faced by AR systems is accurately aligning the position
`
`of a virtual elements with a live view of a real-world environment.” Id., 1:22-24.
`
`ME1 42389691v.1 
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`The ‘271 Patent states that “[c]onventional medical imagining systems may
`
`create three-dimensional (3D) data for a patient and then display that 3D data as an
`
`image or images on a computer display.” Ex. 1001, 2:49-51. Further, “viewing
`
`images of a patient on a computer display … may be useful in training, research,
`
`diagnosis, and treatment ….” Id., 2:51-55.
`
`The challenged claims of the ‘271 Patent are directed to “augmenting real-
`
`time, non-image actual views of a patient with three-dimensional (3D) data.” Id.,
`
`Claims 1 and 11. “FIG. 1 illustrates an example augmented reality (AR)
`
`environment in which real-time views of a patient may be augmented with the
`
`three-dimensional (3D) data.” Id., 2:25-27. Figure 1 illustrates “an operating
`
`room with an operative table 103.” Id., 4:8-11. Figure 1 illustrates the patient as
`
`“a living human adult” on the operative table. Id., 4:28-31. The ‘271 Patent states
`
`“the patient 106 may … ha[ve] been rendered unconscious in order to undergo a
`
`medical procedure ….” Id., 4:28-31.
`
`Peter Kazanzides, Ph.D., is a Research Professor of Computer Science at
`
`The Johns Hopkins University and has been teaching, researching, and working in
`
`the field of computer-assisted surgery for nearly 20 years. Professor Kazanzides
`
`has developed and patented various AR-assisted surgical systems and has several
`
`patents to his name, including, for example, US Patent 11,244,508, entitled
`
`“Augmented Reality Display for Surgical Procedures.” Professor Kazanzides has
`
`ME1 42389691v.1 
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`co-authored numerous
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`research papers,
`
`journal articles, and conference
`
`proceedings on computer-assisted surgery, including, for example, a paper entitled
`
`“Augmented Reality Goggles with an Integrated Tracking System for Navigation
`
`in Neurosurgery,” published in 2012. He also advises graduate students on their
`
`Ph.D. theses in the field of AR-assisted surgical systems. See Ex. 1012,
`
`Declaration of Peter Kazanzides, ¶¶ 2-13; Ex. 1013, Kazanzides Curriculum Vitae.
`
`Based on his reading of the ‘271 Patent and the prior art discussed below,
`
`Professor Kazanzides concludes that the relevant art is “systems and methods for
`
`using augmented reality during medical procedures.” Ex. 1012, ¶ 23.
`
`For purposes of this IPR, Medivis does not challenge the priority date
`
`claimed in the ‘271 Patent. Accordingly, the relevant date for considering the
`
`patentability of the challenged claims is on or before March 30, 2017.
`
`Based on his reading of the ‘271 Patent and experience, Professor
`
`Kazanzides concludes that the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the relevant date (POSA) would be “a person with a bachelor’s degree in
`
`computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field with several years of
`
`experience in the design, development, and study of augmented reality devices and
`
`either (a) familiar with conventional medical imaging data and visualization of data
`
`for medical procedures or (b) working with a team including someone with such
`
`familiarity.” Ex. 1012, ¶ 25.
`
`ME1 42389691v.1 
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`C.
`Claim Terms
`On August 3, 2022, during the litigation pending in the District of Delaware,
`
`the patent owner asserted that “all of the claims terms … should be given their
`
`plain and ordinary meaning as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art”
`
`and that “no court claim construction is necessary.” Exhibit 1014, Email.
`
`1.
`
`“three-dimensional (3D) data” and “3D data”
`
`The phrases “three-dimensional (3D) data” and “3D data” appear in each of
`
`the independent claims of the ‘271 Patent. The ‘271 Patent states that
`
`“[c]onventional medical imagining systems may create three-dimensional (3D)
`
`data for a patient and then display that 3D data as an image or images on a
`
`computer display.” Ex. 1001, 2:49-51. Prof. Kazanzides concluded that “the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand ‘three-dimensional (3D) data’
`
`and ‘3D data’ to be synonymous because the ‘271 Patent uses those terms
`
`synonymously.” Ex. 1012, ¶ 29.
`
`The ‘271 Patent states that “3D data of the patient 106 may include, but is
`
`not limited to, MRI images, Computerized Tomography (CT) scan images, X-ray
`
`images, Positron Emission Tomography (PET) images, ultrasound images,
`
`fluorescence images, Infrared Thermography (IRT) images, and Single-Photon
`
`Emission Computer Tomography (SPECT) scan image, or some combination
`
`thereof.” Ex. 1001, 11:45-51. The patent further states that “Any of these images
`
`ME1 42389691v.1 
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`may be in the form of still images or video images.” Id., 11:51-53.
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`Review of the parent application sheds some light on the applicants’
`
`interpretation of claim terms as of the assumed priority date. Like Claim 1 of the
`
`‘271 Patent, Claim 1 of the original parent application (Application No.
`
`15/474,702, filed on March 30, 2017) introduces “three-dimensional (3D) data” in
`
`the preamble. Ex. 1004, Excerpts of Application No. 15/474,702 File History, 136.
`
`Like Claim 1 of the ‘271 Patent, Claim 1 of the original parent application is
`
`directed to “[a] method for augmenting real-time, non-image actual views of a
`
`patient with three-dimensional (3D) data.” Ex. 1004, 136. Also like Claim 1 of
`
`the ‘271 Patent, Claim 1 of the original parent application includes recites the step
`
`of “identifying 3D data for a patient, the 3D data including an outer layer of the
`
`patient and multiple inner layers of the patent.” Ex. 1004, 136.
`
`Claim 6 of the original parent application (Application No. 15/474,702)
`
`depends directly from original parent application Claim 1. Ex. 1004, 37. Original
`
`parent application Claim 6 recites “the 3D data includes one or more of MRI
`
`images, Computerized Tomography (CT) scan images, X-ray images, Positron
`
`Emission Tomography (PET) images, ultrasound images, fluorescence images,
`
`Infrared Thermography (IRT) images, and Single-Photon Emission Computer
`
`Tomography (SPECT) scan image.” Ex. 1004, 37. Based on the foregoing,
`
`Professor Kazazides concluded that “the person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`ME1 42389691v.1 
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent No. 11,004,271
` 
`understand that ‘3D data’ may be one or more of any of the foregoing types of
`
`Attorney Docket No. 127971-00012
`
`
`
`images.” Ex. 1012, ¶ 32.
`
`2.
`
`“virtual 3D shape”
`
`The phrase “virtual 3D shape” appears only in Claim 1 and its dependent
`
`claims. Figure 1 illustrates element 116, which the specification describes as “a
`
`virtual spatial difference box.” Ex. 1001, FIG. 1 and 3:63-4:7. The ‘271 Patent
`
`states that element 116 is “generated by the AR headset 108 and only viewable by
`
`the user 104 through the AR headset 108.” Ex. 1001, 4:1-7. Further, “the virtual
`
`spatial difference box 116 may be gener