UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`DENTAL IMAGING TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`3SHAPE A/S,
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,221 to Öjelund et al.
`Issue Date: September 22, 2020
`Title: SYSTEM WITH 3D USER INTERFACE INTEGRATION
`
`_______________
`
`DECLARATION OF MR. KURTIS KELLER
`IN SUPPORT OF INTER PARTES REVIEW OF RE48,221
`
`Exhibit 1003 page 1 of 172
`DENTAL IMAGING
`
`

`

`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERTISE ........................................................ 5
`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING ......................................................................... 7
`A.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 10
`IV. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY DISCLOSED IN THE
`’221 PATENT ................................................................................................ 11
`Three Dimensional Intraoral Scanning with Human-Computer
`A.
`Interfaces and Motion Sensing Was Well Known .............................. 11
`THE ’221 PATENT ....................................................................................... 27
`A. Overview ............................................................................................. 27
`B.
`Summary of Prosecution History ........................................................ 30
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 34
`VII. OVERVIEW OF GROUNDS ASSERTED IN THE PETITION AND
`PRIOR ART ................................................................................................... 35
`A. Overview of Gattani ............................................................................ 36
`B. Overview of Kriveshko ....................................................................... 39
`C. Overview of Serra ............................................................................... 41
`D. Overview of Hopkins .......................................................................... 44
`E.
`Overview of Marvit ............................................................................. 46
`F.
`Overview of Wilson ............................................................................ 49
`G. Overview of Quaid .............................................................................. 50
`VIII. GROUND 1: CLAIMS 1, 5, 9, 18, 22-26, 28, 31, AND 33 ARE
`ANTICIPATED BY GATTANI ................................................................... 51
`A.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 51
`
`Exhibit 1003 page 2 of 172
`DENTAL IMAGING
`
`

`

`Claim 5 ................................................................................................ 64
`B.
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................ 65
`C.
`Claim 18 .............................................................................................. 66
`D.
`Claim 22 .............................................................................................. 66
`E.
`Claim 23 .............................................................................................. 70
`F.
`Claim 24 .............................................................................................. 70
`G.
`Claim 25 .............................................................................................. 71
`H.
`Claim 26 .............................................................................................. 72
`I.
`Claim 28 .............................................................................................. 72
`J.
`Claim 31 .............................................................................................. 75
`K.
`Claim 33 .............................................................................................. 77
`L.
`IX. GROUND 2: CLAIMS 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 15, 18-21, 23-28, 31-34, 40-44
`ARE OBVIOUS OVER KRIVESHKO, SERRA, AND HOPKINS ............ 79
`A.
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 79
`B.
`Claim 2 ................................................................................................ 94
`C.
`Claim 3 ................................................................................................ 95
`D.
`Claim 5 ................................................................................................ 97
`E.
`Claim 6 ................................................................................................ 98
`F.
`Claim 7 ..............................................................................................101
`G.
`Claim 9 ..............................................................................................102
`H.
`Claim 10 ............................................................................................103
`I.
`Claim 11 ............................................................................................107
`J.
`Claim 15 ............................................................................................108
`
`Exhibit 1003 page 3 of 172
`DENTAL IMAGING
`
`

`

`Claim 18 ............................................................................................111
`K.
`Claim 19 ............................................................................................112
`L.
`M. Claim 20 ............................................................................................114
`N.
`Claim 21 ............................................................................................114
`O.
`Claim 23 ............................................................................................115
`P.
`Claim 24 ............................................................................................117
`Q.
`Claim 25 ............................................................................................117
`R.
`Claim 26 ............................................................................................118
`S.
`Claim 27 ............................................................................................119
`T.
`Claim 28 ............................................................................................119
`U.
`Claim 31 ............................................................................................120
`V.
`Claim 32 ............................................................................................122
`W. Claim 33 ............................................................................................124
`X.
`Claim 34 ............................................................................................127
`Y.
`Claim 40 ............................................................................................128
`Z.
`Claim 41 ............................................................................................131
`AA. Claim 42 ............................................................................................131
`BB. Claim 43 ............................................................................................132
`CC. Claim 44 ............................................................................................133
`X. GROUND 3: CLAIM 22 IS OBVIOUS OVER KRIVESHKO,
`SERRA, HOPKINS, AND WILSON ..........................................................134
`A.
`Claim 22 ............................................................................................134
`
`Exhibit 1003 page 4 of 172
`DENTAL IMAGING
`
`

`

`XI. GROUND 4: CLAIM 30 IS OBVIOUS OVER KRIVESHKO,
`SERRA, HOPKINS, AND QUAID ............................................................137
`A.
`Claim 30 ............................................................................................137
`XII. GROUND 5: CLAIMS 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 15, 19-21, 21-28, 31-34, AND
`40-44 ARE OBVIOUS OVER KRIVESHKO, SERRA, AND
`MARVIT ......................................................................................................139
`A.
`Claim 1 ..............................................................................................139
`B.
`Claim 2 ..............................................................................................143
`C.
`Claim 3 ..............................................................................................144
`D.
`Claim 5 ..............................................................................................144
`E.
`Claim 6 ..............................................................................................145
`F.
`Claim 7 ..............................................................................................146
`G.
`Claim 9 ..............................................................................................147
`H.
`Claim 10 ............................................................................................147
`I.
`Claim 11 ............................................................................................148
`J.
`Claim 15 ............................................................................................148
`K.
`Claim 19 ............................................................................................149
`L.
`Claim 20 ............................................................................................151
`M. Claim 21 ............................................................................................151
`N.
`Claim 22 ............................................................................................152
`O.
`Claim 23 ............................................................................................153
`P.
`Claim 24 ............................................................................................154
`Q.
`Claim 25 ............................................................................................154
`R.
`Claim 26 ............................................................................................154
`
`Exhibit 1003 page 5 of 172
`DENTAL IMAGING
`
`

`

`Claim 27 ............................................................................................155
`S.
`Claim 28 ............................................................................................155
`T.
`Claim 31 ............................................................................................156
`U.
`Claim 32 ............................................................................................156
`V.
`W. Claim 33 ............................................................................................158
`X.
`Claim 34 ............................................................................................160
`Y.
`Claim 40 ............................................................................................160
`Z.
`Claim 41 ............................................................................................161
`AA. Claim 42 ............................................................................................162
`BB. Claim 43 ............................................................................................162
`CC. Claim 44 ............................................................................................163
`XIII. GROUND 6: CLAIM 30 IS OBVIOUS OVER KRIVESHKO,
`SERRA, MARVIT, AND QUAID ..............................................................164
`Claim 30 ............................................................................................164
`A.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1003 page 6 of 172
`DENTAL IMAGING
`
`

`

`I.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I, Mr. Kurtis Keller, declare as follows:
`
`I am over 18 years of age. I have been retained as an expert witness by
`
`Foley & Lardner, LLP to provide testimony on behalf of Dental Imaging
`
`Technologies Corporation, (“DITC” or “Petitioner”) for the above-captioned inter
`
`partes review proceeding. This Declaration concerns prior art and technical subject
`
`matter related to the inter partes review petition (“Petition”) concerning U.S. Patent
`
`No. RE48,221 (“the ’221 patent”) titled “System With 3D User Interface
`
`Integration” to Henrik Öjelund, et al. It is my understanding that the ’221 patent is
`
`currently assigned to 3Shape A/S (“3Shape” or “Patent Owner”).
`
`3.
`
`I am familiar with the following materials:
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. RE48,221 to Öjelund et al.
`File History of U.S. Patent No. RE48,221 (“Prosecution
`History”)
`Declaration of Dr. Kurtis Keller (“Keller Decl.”) in
`support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. RE48,221
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Kurtis Keller
`Öjelund Provisional, U.S. Provisional Application No.
`61/420,138 (filed December 6, 2010)
`A Comparative Analysis of Intraoral 3D Digital
`Scanners For Restorative Dentistry, by Logozzo et al.
`(“Logozzo”), published January, 2011.
`Ireland et al., “3D surface imaging in dentistry – what we
`are looking at,” British Dental Journal, Vol. 205, No. 7,
`October 11, 2008.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,485,413 to Boppart et al.
`
`Exhibit 1003 page 7 of 172
`DENTAL IMAGING
`
`

`

`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`Johnny Chung Lee, “Hacking the Nintendo Wii
`Remote,” IEEE CS, 2008.
`Hajeer et al., “Current Products and Practices
`Applications of 3D imaging in orthodontics: Part II,”
`Journal of Orthodontics, Vol. 31, No. 2, June 2004.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,592,371 to Durbin et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,722,412 to Pflugrath et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,645,148 to Nguyen-Dinh et al.
`Brad A. Myers, CRC Handbook of Computer Science
`and Engineering, 2d. Ed., Allen B. Tucker, January 27,
`2003, “Graphical User Interface Programming”
`Foley et al., Introduction to Computer Graphics,
`Addison-Wesley, 1994, “Chapter 2.2: Basic Interaction
`Handling”, “Chapter 6: Viewing in 3D”, and “Chapter 8:
`Input Devices, Interaction Techniques, and Interaction
`Tasks”
`Donald Hearn and M. Pauline Baker, Computer
`Graphics, 2d. Ed., Prentice Hall, 1994, “Chapter 2:
`Overview of Graphics Systems”, “Chapter 8: Graphical
`User Interfaces and Interactive Input Methods”, and
`“Chapter 9: Three-Dimensional Concepts”
`U.S. Patent No. 5,181,181 to Glynn
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0092133 to Touma et
`al.
`Bornik et al., “A Hybrid User Interface for Manipulation
`of Volumetric Medical Data,” 3DUI ’06: IEEE
`Symposium on 3D User Interfaces, March 2006.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0009308 to Wen et al.
`Greg Welch and Eric Foxlin, “Motion Tracking: No
`Silver Bullet, but a Respectable Arsenal,” IEEE
`Computer Graphics and Applications, Vol. 22, No. 6,
`December 10, 2002.
`Hannes Kaufmann, “Applications of Mixed Reality,”
`Thesis, Vienna University of Technology, May 27, 2009.
`Ferreira, Joao Filipe, Jorge Lobo, and Jorge Dias. "Tele-
`3D-Developing a Handheld Scanner Using Structured
`Light Projection." 3DPVT. 2002.
`Ueda, Tatsuro, et al. "Visual information assist system
`using 3D SOKUIKI sensor for blind people, system
`
`Exhibit 1003 page 8 of 172
`DENTAL IMAGING
`
`

`

`1025
`1026
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`1039
`
`1040
`1041
`
`concept and object detecting experiments." IECON
`2006-32nd Annual Conference on IEEE Industrial
`Electronics. IEEE, 2006.
`U.S. Patent No. 4,342,227 to Petersen et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,563,343 to Shaw et al.
`Steven Nasiri, “A Critical Review of MEMS Gyroscopes
`Technology and Commercialization Status,” InvenSense,
`2005.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0070684 to Haigh-
`Hutchinson
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0110469 to Kopelman
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0062557 to Dillon et
`al.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0031774 to Cinader,
`Jr. et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,329,675 to Öjelund et al.
`Inter Partes Review Certificate, U.S. Patent No.
`9,329,675 K1 to Öjelund et al.
`Final Written Decision for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,329,675 in IPR2018-00197, May 29, 2019.
`Giammanco et al., “Using 3D Laser Scanning
`Technology to Create Digital Models of Hailstones,”
`American Meteorological Society, July 2017.
`Orhan H. Karatas and Ebubekir Toy, “Three-dimensional
`imaging techniques: A literature review,” European
`Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 8, No. 1, March 2014.
`B. H. Broadbent, “A New X-Ray Technique and Its
`Application to Orthodontia,” The Angle Orthodontist,
`Vol. I, No. 2, February 4, 1931.
`’221 Patent Notice of Allowance
`Nathan S. Birnbaum and Heidi B. Aaronson, “Dental
`impressions using 3D digital scanners: virtual becomes
`reality,” Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent., Vol. 29, No. 8,
`October 2008.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,227,850 to Chishti et al.
`Steele et al., “Bodies in motion: Monitoring daily
`activity and exercise with motion sensors in people with
`chronic pulmonary disease,” J. Rehabil. Res. Dev., Vol.
`40, No. 5, Suppl. 2, October 2003.
`
`Exhibit 1003 page 9 of 172
`DENTAL IMAGING
`
`

`

`1042
`
`1043
`
`1105
`1106
`
`1107
`1108
`1109
`1110
`
`1111
`1112
`
`Hale et al., “Measuring free-living physical activity in
`adults with and without neurologic dysfunction with a
`triaxial accelerometer,” Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil., Vol.
`89, No. 9, September 2008.
`Daniel Turner, “Hack: The Nintendo Wii,” MIT
`Technology Review, July 1, 2007.
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0071143 (“Gattani”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0171220
`(“Kriveshko”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0020204 (“Serra”)
`U.S Patent No. 8,914,245 (“Hopkins”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0212756 (“Marvit”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0110751A1
`(“Wilson”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0142657 (“Quaid”)
`Hopkins Provisional Application No. 61/161,910
`
`4.
`
`Each of the Exhibits listed above are, to the best of my knowledge, true
`
`and accurate copies of what they purport to be. The materials listed above are the
`
`kinds of materials that an individual with expertise in this field would reasonably
`
`rely on in formulating opinions, such as those set forth in this declaration.
`
`5.
`
`I have been asked to provide my expertise and opinions regarding the
`
`’221 patent and the references that form the basis for the Grounds set forth below
`
`regarding claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 15, 18-28, 30-34, and 40-44 of the ’221 patent (the
`
`“Challenged Claims”). The ’221 patent is directed to “a system comprising a
`
`handheld device and at least one display . . . [t]he handheld device is adapted for
`
`performing at least one action in a physical 3D environment.” EX1001, ’221 patent,
`
`Abstract. I was at least a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) with regard to
`
`Exhibit 1003 page 10 of 172
`DENTAL IMAGING
`
`

`

`the technology described in the ’221 patent, and likely much more, as of its PCT
`
`filing date of December 5, 2011, and its asserted December 6, 2010, priority date.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERTISE
`I am qualified by education and expertise to testify as an expert in the
`6.
`
`field of 3D medical imaging and more specifically in its application to dental
`
`imaging. My background is outlined in my curriculum vitae. EX1004.
`
`7.
`
`In 1988, I earned a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Mechanical
`
`Engineering from North Carolina State University, and, in 1994, a Master’s Degree
`
`in Integrated Manufacturing Systems Engineering, also from North Carolina State
`
`University. Since obtaining my Master’s Degree, I have taken post graduate
`
`coursework in Optics from the University of North Carolina and the University of
`
`Arizona.
`
`8.
`
`In 2003 I co-founded InnerOptic Technology Inc., and have served as
`
`the company’s Optical/Mechanical Engineering Director & Chief Operating Officer
`
`for the over 15 years. InnerOptic Technology develops image navigation solutions
`
`for medical applications. These solutions include, for example: AimTM, an FDA-
`
`cleared ultrasound needle navigation solution that reduces spatial coordination
`
`problems inherent in ultrasound-guided medical interventions; Magic LoupeTM, a
`
`suite of three-dimensional (“3D”) image visualization and navigation tools in a mix-
`
`Exhibit 1003 page 11 of 172
`DENTAL IMAGING
`
`

`

`reality application interface; and SpotlightTM, a solution that performs sensor fusion
`
`of CT and ultrasound images, and allows for 3D navigation of the fused image set.
`
`9.
`
`Over my career, I have published over twenty-six academic papers,
`
`most of which relate to 3D image reconstruction, visualization, and navigation with
`
`most relating to assisting or improving medical procedures. Likewise, I have been
`
`granted twelve U.S. patents, and have an additional six patents pending; most of
`
`which relate to 3D image reconstruction, visualization, and navigation.
`
`10. My experience includes real-world attempts to build 3D imaging
`
`solutions involving 3D image reconstruction, visualization, and navigation. For
`
`example, I have been engaged on over thirty such projects by universities, national
`
`and international governmental agencies, and private industry. These projects
`
`include: a miniature laser projector for 3D depth extraction and imaging for
`
`endoscopic surgery, and a 6DOF magnetic tracker system with mounts and graphic
`
`feedback for registration of dental implants across a jaw. I was the principal
`
`investigator on two National Science Foundation grants related to 3D laparoscope
`
`technology.
`
`11. Over my career I have been actively involved as a reviewer or engaged
`
`in panel activities for the World Society for Computer Graphics, the International
`
`Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, the National Institute of Health, and
`
`the National Science Foundation.
`
`Exhibit 1003 page 12 of 172
`DENTAL IMAGING
`
`

`

`12.
`
`I have served as an expert witness on matters related to optics, imaging,
`
`image visualization, and human machine interface technologies.
`
`III. LEGAL UNDERSTANDING
`I have been advised by counsel for Petitioner that certain legal standards
`13.
`
`must be applied by technical experts in my opinions regarding the proper meaning
`
`of patent claims and the validity of claims in view of the prior art. I am not an
`
`attorney, I am not providing any legal opinion, and I have relied on Petitioner’s
`
`counsel for my understanding of the applicable legal standards.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that the first step to determining the validity of a patent
`
`claim is comparing an asserted claim to the prior art is for the claim to be properly
`
`construed.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that for a reference to anticipate a patent claim it must be
`
`prior art and it must disclose, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
`
`claim. I understand, that whether a reference discloses a particular claim limitation
`
`is to be judged from the perspective of a POSA.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that claimed subject matter may be obvious in view of
`
`more than one or items of prior art. I understand, however, that it is not enough to
`
`show simply that all the limitations of the claimed subject matter are spread
`
`throughout the prior art. Instead, for claimed subject matter to be obvious over one
`
`Exhibit 1003 page 13 of 172
`DENTAL IMAGING
`
`

`

`or more references, there must be some reason or motivation for a POSA to combine
`
`the prior art references to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed that, in seeking to determine whether an invention
`
`that is a combination of known elements would have been obvious to a POSA at the
`
`time of the invention, one must consider the references in their entirety to ascertain
`
`whether the disclosures in those references render the combination obvious to such
`
`a person.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed and understand that, while not required, the prior
`
`art references themselves may provide a teaching, suggestion, motivation, or reason
`
`to combine, but other times the motivation linking two or more prior art references
`
`is common sense to a POSA at the time of the invention.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that a particular combination may be proven obvious
`
`merely by showing that it was obvious to try the combination. I have been informed
`
`that, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a POSA would
`
`recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique
`
`is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
`
`20.
`
`I further understand that an obviousness analysis recognizes that market
`
`demand, rather than scientific literature, often drives innovation, and that a
`
`motivation to combine references also may be supplied by the direction of the
`
`marketplace. For example, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve
`
`Exhibit 1003 page 14 of 172
`DENTAL IMAGING
`
`

`

`a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a POSA
`
`has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp
`
`because the result is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense.
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed that the combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
`
`predictable results. Thus, where all of the elements of a claim are used in
`
`substantially the same manner, in devices in the same field of endeavor, the claim is
`
`likely obvious.
`
`22. Additionally, I understand that a patent is likely to be invalid for
`
`obviousness if a POSA can implement a predictable variation or if there existed at
`
`the time of the invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution
`
`encompassed by the patent’s claims. Therefore, when a work is available in one field
`
`of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
`
`either in the same field or a different one.
`
`23.
`
`I further understand that combining embodiments related to each other
`
`in a single prior art reference would not ordinarily require a leap of inventiveness.
`
`24.
`
`I also understand that a POSA must have had a reasonable expectation
`
`of success when combining references for claimed subject matter to be obvious.
`
`Exhibit 1003 page 15 of 172
`DENTAL IMAGING
`
`

`

`25.
`
`I have been informed and I understand that factors referred to as
`
`“objective indicia of non-obviousness” or “secondary considerations” are also to be
`
`considered when assessing obviousness when such evidence is available. I
`
`understand that these factors can include: (1) commercial success; (2) long-felt but
`
`unresolved needs; (3) copying of the invention by others in the field; (4) initial
`
`expressions of disbelief by experts in the field; (5) failure of others to solve the
`
`problem the claimed subject matter solved; and (6) unexpected results.
`
`26. Finally, I have been informed that one cannot use hindsight to
`
`determine that an invention was obvious.
`
`27.
`
`I provide my opinions in this Declaration based on the guidelines set
`
`forth above.
`
`A. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I have been informed and understand that the level of ordinary skill in
`28.
`
`the relevant art at the time of the invention is relevant to inquiries such as the
`
`meaning of claim terms, the meaning of disclosures found in the prior art, and the
`
`reasons a POSA may have for combining references.
`
`29.
`
`I have been informed and understand that factors that may be
`
`considered in determining the level of ordinary skill include: (1) the education of the
`
`inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to
`
`those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of
`
`Exhibit 1003 page 16 of 172
`DENTAL IMAGING
`
`

`

`the technology; and (6) education level of active workers in the relevant field. I have
`
`been further informed and understand that a POSA is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity. I have been asked to consider the level of ordinary skill in art possessed
`
`by a POSA at the time the claimed invention was made. In deciding the level of
`
`ordinary skill, I considered: level of education and experience of people working in
`
`the field; the types of problems they encountered; and the sophistication of the
`
`technology.
`
`30. Based on the disclosure of the ’221 patent, a POSA would have a
`
`bachelor’s degree in Computer Engineering, Computer Science, Computer Vision,
`
`or an equivalent field, as well as at least one or two years of industry experience, or
`
`at least five years of comparable industry experience. In particular, a POSA would
`
`have had experience with and knowledge of 3D imaging systems and 3D modeling
`
`techniques.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY DISCLOSED IN THE
`’221 PATENT
`A. Three Dimensional Intraoral Scanning with Human-Computer
`Interfaces and Motion Sensing Was Well Known
`1. Handheld Three Dimensional (3D) Digital Scanning Was
`Well Known.
`3D scanning refers to methods for acquiring 3D surface or volumetric
`
`31.
`
`data of an object based on moving a 3D measurement system across a two-
`
`dimensional field, such as a body part or a tooth. Research into accurate
`
`Exhibit 1003 page 17 of 172
`DENTAL IMAGING
`
`

`

`measurements such objects began in the 1960s. EX1035, Giammanco, at 1341-42.
`
`Dr. Francios Duret introduced the 3D measurement and modelling of dental objects
`
`to field of dentistry in the 1970s. EX1006, Logozzo, at 1.
`
`32.
`
` Generally, handheld 3D scanning involves measuring the surface
`
`geometry of a 3D object by acquiring multiple data points on the surface of the target
`
`as the handheld scanner passes over it and generating a 3D computer model based
`
`on those data points. Various methods of 3D dental scanning has been performed for
`
`years with multiple commercially available devices. EX1006, Logozzo (surveying
`
`3D dental scanning methods available in 2011).
`
`33. Once a 3D model is generated, a display of the 3D model may be
`
`generated on a computer screen and interactively used for, e.g., measurement,
`
`modeling, and simulation within the 3D environment. Common applications of this
`
`technique include archeology, 3D computer animation, topography, internal
`
`medicine, dentistry, rapid prototyping, and reconstructive and plastic surgery.
`
`34. One characteristic of a handheld 3D scanner is its non-contact
`
`operation. “Non-contact” handheld 3D scanners do not make physical contact with
`
`the surface of the target being scanned. EX1007, Ireland, at 388-89. Instead, non-
`
`contact handheld 3D scanners detect the reflection or absorption of radiation off of
`
`the surface of the target. Id. In typical applications, the handheld 3D scanner actively
`
`projects radiation to determine the deflection location at the surface of the target.
`
`Exhibit 1003 page 18 of 172
`DENTAL IMAGING
`
`

`

`This radiation may be light, ultrasound, or x-ray. EX1008, Boppart, at 1:55-59.
`
`Alternatively, handheld 3D scanners may not emit radiation, and instead detect
`
`reflected ambient radiation.
`
`35. Dental imaging technology was first developed in the late 1800s after
`
`the discovery of x-rays by W.C. Roentgen. EX1036, Karatas, at 133. Decades later,
`
`developers produced standard methods of producing cephalometric radiographs and
`
`these were introduced to dental specialists by Broadbent and Hofrath in 1931.
`
`EX1037, Broadbent, at 45-66. Still later, in the 1970s, and as mentioned above,
`
`Duret presented a thesis introducing computer aided design/computer aided
`
`manufacturing (CAD/CAM) concepts for dental applications, culminating in the
`
`1980s with a CAD/CAM system capable of fabricating a dental crown in 4 hours.
`
`EX1006, Logozzo, at 1.
`
`36. Digital impressions have thus been introduced and successfully used
`
`for decades in orthodontics, but the first intraoral scanner for restorative dentistry
`
`was by Mormann and Brandestini in the 1980s. Mormann and Brandestini
`
`introduced a CAD/CAM system that included one of the earliest, if not the earliest,
`
`intraoral scanner. EX1039, Birnbaum, at 0003-06; EX1006, Logozzo, at 1.
`
`37. Handheld 3D introral scanning technology has only improved since
`
`Mormann and Brandestini’s early application. These systems are capable of
`
`capturing 3D virtual images of tooth preparations and using those images for
`
`Exhibit 1003 page 19 of 172
`DENTAL IMAGING
`
`

`

`accurate master models for directly fabricating restorations in a dental laboratory.
`
`EX1006, Logozzo, at 1.
`
`38. By 2008, at least 10 such handheld 3D intraoral scanning devices were
`
`available all over the world. EX1006, Logozzo, at 1. These devices were designed
`
`to a