Filed on behalf of Patent Owner
`By: Todd R. Walters, Esq.
`
`Roger H. Lee, Esq.
`
`Andrew R. Cheslock, Esq.
`
`Mythili Markowski, Ph.D., Esq.
`
`Adam R. Banes, Esq.
`
`BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
`
`1737 King Street, Suite 500
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`
`Main Telephone (703) 836-6620
`
`Main Facsimile (703) 836-2021
`
`todd.walters@bipc.com
`
`roger.lee@bipc.com
`
`andrew.cheslock@bipc.com
`
`mythili.markowski@bipc.com
`adam.banes@bipc.com
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`
`ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`3SHAPE A/S
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`Case No. PGR2018-00103
`Patent 9,962,244
`__________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO THE PETITION
`FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,962,244
`
`

`

`Case No. PGR2018-00103
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
` 
`II.
` 
`  TECHNICAL BACKGROUND AND THE ’244 PATENT .......................... 2 III.
`
` 
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .......................... 1 
`
`Thiel425, Thiel576, and Fisker ............................................................. 2 
`A.
`The ’244 Patent ..................................................................................... 3 
`B.
`The Claims of the ’244 Patent ............................................................... 4 
`C.
`IV.
`  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 6 
`  ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 8 
`V.
`Petitioner Fails to Establish that It Is More Likely than Not that
`A.
`Fisker and Szeliski (Ground 1) and Fisker and Matsumoto
`(Ground 2) Render Claims 1-5, 7-10, 15, 16, 18, 21-22, 24, 26,
`and 28 Obvious. ..................................................................................... 8 
`1. 
`Fisker does not disclose or suggest “the data processing
`system also configured to derive surface color
`information for the block of said image sensor pixels
`from at least one of the 2D images used to derive the
`surface geometry information” ................................................... 9 
`a. 
`Fisker’s disclosure of “scanning” of a surface
`shape and color relates to a general process of
`obtaining image data, not to the selection of a
`specific 2D image ........................................................... 10 
`Fisker’s disclosure of “simultaneous scanning” and
`“scanned together” to obtain surface shape and
`color relates to Fisker’s general process of
`scanning, not the selection of a specific 2D image ........ 12 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`b. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case No. PGR2018-00103
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`b. 
`
`“Simultaneous scanning” cannot mean obtaining
`surface geometry and color at the same single
`moment in time because “simultaneous scanning”
`encompasses obtaining multiple images at varying
`times ................................................................................ 14 
`Nothing in the ’244 Specification indicates that
`“simultaneous scanning” would somehow result in
`deriving surface geometry and surface color
`information from the same 2D image ............................. 16 
`Petitioner fails to explain how and why Fisker’s Fig. 9
`embodiment would have been combined with Fisker’s
`white light embodiment to somehow arrive at the claimed
`invention .................................................................................... 19 
`a. 
`The Fig. 9 embodiment of Fisker does not produce
`a “multichromatic probe light” as claimed ..................... 19 
`Petitioner fails to explain how and why Fisker’s
`Fig. 9 embodiment would have been combined
`with Fisker’s white light embodiment ............................ 22 
`Szeliski and Matsumoto each fail to cure the deficiencies
`of Fisker .................................................................................... 25 
`The dependent claims would not have been obvious over
`the combination of Fisker and either Szeliski or
`Matsumoto ................................................................................ 26 
`Petitioner Fails to Satisfy Its Burden with Respect to Grounds 3
`and 4 ................................................................................................... 27 
`1. 
`Petitioner fails to demonstrate that independent claim 29
`would have been obvious .......................................................... 27 
`Yamada and Suzuki each fail to cure the deficiencies of
`Fisker ......................................................................................... 29 
`
`2. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case No. PGR2018-00103
`
`C.
`
` 
`
`D.
`
` 
`
`b. 
`
`Petitioner Fails to Establish that It Is More Likely than Not that
`Fisker, Szeliski, and Yamada (Ground 5), Fisker, Szeliski, and
`Suzuki (Ground 6), Fisker, Matsumoto, and Yamada (Ground
`7), and Fisker, Matsumoto, and Suzuki (Ground 8) render claim
`12 Obvious .......................................................................................... 30 
`Petitioner Fails to Establish that It Is More Likely than Not that
`Thiel425, Thiel576, and Szeliski (Ground 9) and Thiel425,
`Thiel576, and Matsumoto (Ground 10) Render Claims 1, 22,
`and 24 Obvious .................................................................................... 32 
`1. 
`Neither Thiel425 nor Thiel576 discloses or suggests “the
`data processing system also configured to derive surface
`color information for the block of said image sensor
`pixels from at least one of the 2D images used to derive
`the surface geometry information” ........................................... 32 
`a. 
`Petitioner concedes that Thiel425 does not disclose
`deriving surface color information from a 2D
`image ............................................................................... 32 
`Thiel576 does not disclose or suggest deriving
`both surface geometry information and surface
`color information from the same at least one 2D
`image ............................................................................... 33 
`It would not have been obvious to combine Thiel425 and
`Thiel576 to arrive at the claimed subject matter ...................... 35 
`a. 
`Petitioner and its expert cite to no evidence,
`underlying facts, or data which demonstrate that
`the missing claim limitation would have been
`obvious ............................................................................ 35 
`Petitioner fails to explain how and why a POSITA
`would have modified Thiel425 with the teachings
`of Thiel576 to arrive at the claimed invention ............... 37 
`Szeliski and Matsumoto fail to cure the deficiencies of
`Thiel425 and Thiel576 .............................................................. 41 
`
`b. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case No. PGR2018-00103
`
`E.
`
` 
`
`F.
` 
`
` 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`VI.
`
`Dependent claims 22 and 24 would not have been
`obvious over the alleged combination of Thiel425 and
`Thiel576 with either Szeliski or Matsumoto ............................. 42 
`Petitioner Fails to Establish that It Is More Likely than Not that
`Thiel425, Thiel576, and Yamada (Ground 11) and Thiel425,
`Thiel576, and Suzuki (Ground 12) Render Claim 29 Obvious .......... 43 
`1. 
`Claim 29 would not have been obvious for at least the
`same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1 ............. 43 
`Yamada and Suzuki each fail to cure the deficiencies of
`Thiel425 and Thiel576 .............................................................. 45 
`Petitioner Fails to Establish that It Is More Likely than Not that
`Thiel425, Thiel576, Szeliski, and Fisker (Ground 13) and
`Thiel425, Thiel576, Matsumoto, and Fisker (Ground 14)
`Render Claims 2-5, 7-10, 15, 16, 18, 21, 26, and 28 Obvious ............ 46 
`  DISCRETION TO INSTITUTE .................................................................... 48 
`The Petition Should Be Denied in View of the Virtually
`A.
`Identical IPRs Filed by Petitioner ....................................................... 48 
`The Petition Should Be Denied Under § 325(d) ................................. 50 
`1. 
`Petitioner overlooks the examiner’s reasons for
`allowance citing features common to the independent
`claims ........................................................................................ 50 
`The Patent Office previously determined that pre-AIA
`law applies ................................................................................. 53 
`  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 54 VII.
`
`APPENDIX A - LIST OF EXHIBITS
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH 37 C.F.R. § 42.24
`CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE
`
`4. 
`
`2. 
`
`2. 
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case No. PGR2018-00103
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Abiomed, Inc. v. Maquet Cardiovascular, LLC,
`IPR2017-01204, Paper 9 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2017) ................................................ 24
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’n, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 25
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016) ..................................................................................... 7, 48
`Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00739, Paper 16 (PTAB July 27, 2017) .............................................. 54
`Jiawei Tech. (HK) Ltd. v. Simon Nicholas Richmond,
`IPR2014-00937, Paper 24 (PTAB Feb. 6, 2014) .................................................. 7
`Kayak Software Corp. v. Int’l Business Machines Corp.,
`CBM2016-00075, Paper 16 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2016) ........................................... 52
`Kinetic Technologies, Inc. v. Skyworks Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00529, Paper 8 (PTAB Sep. 23, 2014) ................................................ 25
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 23
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Wyeth LLC,
`PGR2017-00016, Paper 9 (PTAB Oct. 20, 2017) .............................................. 54
`In re Oelrich,
`666 F.2d 578 (C.C.P.A. 1981) ............................................................................ 13
`Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 24
`Prism Pharma Co., Ltd. v. Choongwae Pharma Corp.,
`IPR2014-00315, Paper 14 (PTAB Jul. 8, 2014) ................................................. 54
`In re Rijckaert,
`9 F.3d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .............................................................................. 13
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case No. PGR2018-00103
`
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 13
`In re Stepan Co.,
`868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 23
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Berman,
`IPR2016-01571, Paper 10 (PTAB Dec. 14, 2016) ............................................. 52
`
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 100(i) .................................................................................................... 53
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ............................................................................................. 48, 49
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ................................................................................. 48, 50, 51, 52
`35 U.S.C. § 326(b) ................................................................................................... 49
`AIA § 6(f)(2)(A) ...................................................................................................... 53
`
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) ........................................................................................... 25, 36
`37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) ................................................................................................ 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.207(b) ................................................................................................ 1
`
`Other Authorities
`81 Fed. Reg. 18766 (April 1, 2016) ........................................................................... 6
`83 Fed. Reg. 39989 (Aug. 13, 2018) ................................................................. 36, 49
`83 Fed. Reg. 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018) ........................................................................... 7
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case No. PGR2018-00103
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner, 3Shape A/S (“3Shape” or “Patent Owner”), submits this
`
`Preliminary Response to the Second Corrected Petition for Post-Grant Review
`
`(“Petition” or “Pet.”) filed by Align Technology, Inc. (“Align” or “Petitioner”) on
`
`October 29, 2018 and served on October 30, 2018 against U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,962,244 (Ex.1001, “the ’244 Patent”). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.207(b) and the
`
`Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Response, mailed November 19, 2018 (Paper 8), this Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response is timely filed.
`
`The Board should deny institution of the Petition for two reasons. First, the
`
`cited art does not disclose or suggest the claim feature “the data processing system
`
`also configured to derive surface color information for the block of said image
`
`sensor pixels from at least one of the 2D images used to derive the surface
`
`geometry information.” Second, Petitioner fails to provide a reason with rational
`
`underpinnings as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have somehow
`
`modified or combined the cited art to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Patent Owner requests that the Board deny institution of the Petition with
`
`respect to all challenged claims and all asserted grounds. A full statement of the
`
`reasons for the relief requested is set forth in Sections III., IV., V., and VI.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case No. PGR2018-00103
`
` TECHNICAL BACKGROUND AND THE ’244 PATENT
`III.
`The claimed invention of the ’244 Patent provides an improvement over
`
`conventional techniques for scanning surface geometry and color.
`
`A.
`
` Thiel425, Thiel576, and Fisker
`
`Prior art techniques of obtaining surface geometry and color of an object
`
`required the use of separate devices. Ex.1013 at ¶¶ [0003]-[0005]. Thiel425
`
`(Ex.1012) discloses a device for obtaining surface geometry. Ex.1012 at ¶¶ [0013],
`
`[0024]. Advances in the art resulted in devices that obtained both surface geometry
`
`and color. One such device is disclosed in Thiel576 (Ex.1013). Ex.1013 at
`
`¶ [0006]. Thiel576 discloses switching between two different modes of operation–
`
`namely, a first mode to measure surface geometry and a second mode to measure
`
`color. Id. at ¶¶ [0007], [0016]-[0017]. Another such device is disclosed in Fisker
`
`(Ex.1005). Ex.1005 at ¶ [0151]. Fisker discloses a scanning process which obtains
`
`a large volume of two-dimensional (2D) images. Id. at ¶¶ [0028], [0030]. Surface
`
`geometry and color can be obtained from this large volume of 2D images, but no
`
`single image is used to obtain both surface geometry and color. Id. at ¶¶ [0074],
`
`[0151].
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case No. PGR2018-00103
`
`B.
`
`
`
`The ’244 Patent
`
`The ’244 Patent discusses WO 2010/145669 which corresponds to Fisker.
`
`Ex.1001 at 1:24-32, References Cited; Ex.1005; Ex.2001. The ’244 Patent
`
`distinguishes the scanners disclosed therein from Fisker:
`
`[In Fisker] several sequential images, each taken for an illumination
`of a different color – typically blue, green, and red – are combined to
`form a synthetic color image. This approach hence requires means to
`change light source color, such as color filters. Furthermore, in
`handheld use, the scanner will move relative to the scanned object
`during the illumination sequence, reducing the quality of the synthetic
`color images.
`Id. at 1:25-32. See also id. at 3:11-29.
`
`The ’244 Patent discloses that a problem with conventional devices that
`
`measure both surface geometry and color of an object is that there is a slight delay
`
`between obtaining images for measuring surface geometry and obtaining images
`
`for measuring color. Id. at 1:33-38. This delay occurs in devices employing
`
`sequential illumination in different colors to form a synthetic image. Id. at 1:38-40.
`
`Strict timing requirements and/or compensation for relative motion of the object
`
`and scanner system between obtaining surface geometry and surface color, is
`
`needed to address the effects of the delay. Id. at 2:65-3:29.
`
`The ’244 Patent discloses eliminating the delay between obtaining surface
`
`geometry information and surface color information, and eliminates the need for
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case No. PGR2018-00103
`
`strict timing requirements and motion compensation. Id. The ’244 Patent provides
`
`“perfect” alignment of surface geometry and surface color information because the
`
`surface geometry and color information are derived from the same 2D image. Id.
`
`C.
`
` The Claims of the ’244 Patent
`
`The ’244 Patent contains thirty-five (35) claims. Ex.1001 at cols. 19-24.
`
`Claims 1, 29, 31, 32, and 34 are independent claims. The independent claims
`
`challenged in this Petition are claims 1 and 29:
`
`1. A focus scanner for recording surface geometry and surface
`color of an object, the focus scanner comprising:
`a multichromatic light source configured for providing a
`multichromatic probe light for illumination of the object,
`a color image sensor comprising an array of image sensor
`pixels for capturing one or more 2D images of light
`received from said object,
`wherein the focus scanner is configured to operate by
`translating a focus plane along an optical axis of the
`focus scanner and capturing a series of the 2D images,
`each 2D image of the series is at a different focus plane
`position such that the series of captured 2D images forms
`a stack of 2D images; and
`a data processing system configured to derive surface geometry
`information for a block of said image sensor pixels from
`the 2D images in the stack of 2D images captured by said
`color image sensor, the data processing system also
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case No. PGR2018-00103
`
`configured to derive surface color information for the
`block of said image sensor pixels from at least one of the
`2D
`images used
`to derive
`the surface geometry
`information;
`wherein the data processing system further is configured to
`combining a number of sub-scans to generate a digital 3D
`representation of the object, and determining object color
`of a least one point of the generated digital 3D
`representation of the object from sub-scan color of the
`sub-scans combined
`to generate
`the digital 3D
`representation, such that the digital 3D representation
`expresses both geometry and color profile of the object,
`and
`wherein determining the object color comprises computing a
`weighted average of sub-scan color values derived for
`corresponding points in overlapping sub-scans at that
`point of the object surface.
`
`
`29. A focus scanner for recording surface geometry and surface
`color of an object, the focus scanner comprising:
`a multichromatic light source configured for providing a
`multichromatic probe light for illumination of the object,
`a color image sensor comprising an array of image sensor
`pixels for capturing one or more 2D images of light
`received from said object,
`wherein the focus scanner is configured to operate by
`translating a focus plane along an optical axis of the
`5
`
`

`

`Case No. PGR2018-00103
`
`focus scanner and capturing a series of the 2D images,
`each 2D image of the series is at a different focus plane
`position such that the series of captured 2D images forms
`a stack of 2D images; and
`a data processing system configured to derive surface geometry
`information for a block of said image sensor pixels from
`the 2D images in the stack of 2D images captured by said
`color image sensor, the data processing system also
`configured to derive surface color information for the
`block of said image sensor pixels from at least one of the
`2D
`images used
`to derive
`the surface geometry
`information, and
`where the data processing system further is configured to
`detecting saturated pixels in the captured 2D images and
`for mitigating or removing the error in the derived
`surface color information or the sub-scan color caused by
`the pixel saturation.
`
`Ex.1001 at cols. 19, 22. Claims 2-28 directly or indirectly depend directly from
`
`claim 1.
`
`IV.
`
` CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Claims in an unexpired patent subject to post-grant review are given the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the specification of the patent
`
`in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (as amended at 81 Fed. Reg. 18766
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case No. PGR2018-00103
`
`(April 1, 2016); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016).1 Patent
`
`Owner submits the following construction.
`
`“the data processing system also configured to derive surface color
`information…from at least one of the 2D images used to derive the
`surface geometry information”
`
`Independent claims 1 and 29 of the ’244 Patent recite “the data processing
`
`system also configured to derive surface color information…from at least one of
`
`the 2D images used to derive the surface geometry information.” Ex.1001 at
`
`19:48-52, 22:21-25. Petitioner does not explicitly construe this recitation.2
`
`
`1 The Petition was filed prior to November 13, 2018. The challenged claims are to
`
`be construed under BRI. See 83 Fed. Reg. 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018).
`
`2 The Petition does not set forth any explicit claim construction for any term of the
`
`challenged claims. “[F]ailure to offer a construction and analysis of a term critical
`
`to understanding the scope of [the] independent claims” is grounds for denying
`
`institution. Jiawei Tech. (HK) Ltd. v. Simon Nicholas Richmond, IPR2014-00937,
`
`Paper 24 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 6, 2014). Petitioner fails to meet its burden here because
`
`Petitioner provides no such construction of the recitation.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case No. PGR2018-00103
`
`
`
`The phrase “2D images” in the recitation are the same “2D images” used to
`
`derive surface geometry information. This is apparent from the recitation of the
`
`definite article “the” prior to each instance of the term “2D images.” Thus, the
`
`recitation requires the data processing system to be configured to derive both
`
`surface geometry information and surface color information from the same at least
`
`one 2D image captured by said color image sensor.
`
`V.
`
` ARGUMENT
`Petitioner fails to establish that it is more likely than not that any claim of
`
`the ’244 Patent challenged in any of the grounds presented in the Petition is
`
`unpatentable.3 Thus, the Petition should be denied with respect to all challenged
`
`claims and grounds.
`
`A.
`
`
`
`Petitioner Fails to Establish that It Is More Likely than Not that
`Fisker and Szeliski (Ground 1) and Fisker and Matsumoto
`(Ground 2) Render Claims 1-5, 7-10, 15, 16, 18, 21-22, 24, 26, and
`28 Obvious.
`
`Petitioner fails to meet its burden concerning Grounds 1 and 2 of the Petition.
`
`
`3 Petitioner fails to satisfy its burden even assuming, for purposes of determining
`
`whether to institute, that Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“POSITA”) at page 17 of the Petition is correct.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case No. PGR2018-00103
`
`1.
`
`Fisker does not disclose or suggest “the data processing
`system also configured to derive surface color information
`for the block of said image sensor pixels from at least one of
`the 2D
`images used
`to derive
`the surface geometry
`information”
`Fisker does not disclose or suggest a data processing system configured to
`
`derive both surface geometry information and surface color information from the
`
`same at least one 2D image captured by said color image sensor. See Section IV.
`
`This is true for four reasons. First, Fisker’s disclosure of “scanning” of a surface
`
`shape and color relates to a general process of obtaining image data, not to the
`
`selection of a specific 2D image. Second, Fisker’s disclosure of “simultaneous
`
`scanning” and “scanned together” to obtain surface shape and color relates to
`
`Fisker’s general process of scanning, not the selection of a specific 2D image.
`
`Third, “simultaneous scanning” cannot mean obtaining surface geometry and color
`
`at a single moment in time because “simultaneous scanning” encompasses
`
`obtaining multiple images at varying times. Fourth, nothing in the ’244
`
`Specification indicates that “simultaneous scanning” would somehow result in
`
`deriving surface color information and surface geometry information from the
`
`same 2D image.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case No. PGR2018-00103
`
`a.
`
`Fisker’s disclosure of “scanning” of a surface shape
`and color relates to a general process of obtaining
`image data, not to the selection of a specific 2D image
`Petitioner asserts that Fisker’s disclosure of “simultaneously scanning of a
`
`surface shape and color” corresponds to deriving surface color information from at
`
`least one of the 2D images used to derive the surface geometry. Pet. at 25-28
`
`(citing Ex.1005 at ¶ [0228]). Petitioner is mistaken. Petitioner overlooks the fact
`
`that the scanning process in Fisker broadly encompasses collecting a voluminous
`
`number of 2D images. Ex.1005 at ¶¶ [0028], [0030], [0074]. Fisker teaches that
`
`its scanning process results in an “enormous amount of data” (e.g., the numerous
`
`2D images produced from scanning). Id. at ¶ [0074]. Such disclosure of
`
`“simultaneously scanning” is insufficient to demonstrate that the same particular
`
`2D image within the enormous amount of data obtained from Fisker’s scanning is
`
`used to derive both surface geometry information and surface color information
`
`from the same at least one 2D image, as claimed.
`
`Petitioner provides no explanation of the meaning of “scanning” in Fisker’s
`
`disclosure. While Fisker does not expressly define the term “scan,” Fisker uses
`
`this term in a broad sense to generally describe the process by which a focus
`
`scanning apparatus measures a 3D geometry of surfaces. Id. at ¶ [0001]. Fisker
`
`discloses embodiments suitable for “intraoral scanning” such as “scanning dental
`
`impression, gypsum models, wax bites, dental prosthetics and abutments.” Id.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case No. PGR2018-00103
`
`Fisker discloses embodiments for scanning a human ear. Id. Fisker discloses that
`
`the “probe is adapted to scan at least a part of the surface of a cavity, such as an
`
`ear canal.” Id. at ¶ [0162] (emphasis added).
`
`The term “scan” in Fisker encompasses collecting data obtained over a range
`
`of focal plane positions. Fisker discloses that its:
`
`invention provides for a variation of the focus plane of the pattern
`over a range of focus plane positions while maintaining a fixed spatial
`relation of the scanner and the object. It does not means that the scan
`must be provided with a fixed spatial relation of the scanner and the
`object, but merely that the focus plane can be varied (scanned) with a
`fixed spatial relation of the scanner and the object. [Emphases added.]
`
`Id. at ¶ [0023]. Fisker also discloses that a “pivotal point of the invention is the
`
`variation, i.e. scanning, of the focal plane without moving the scanner in relation
`
`to the object being scanned.” Id. at ¶ [0063] (emphasis added). Similarly, Fisker
`
`discloses that the “focus position may be varied in equal steps from one end of the
`
`scanning region to the other.” Id. at ¶ [0092], [0114], [0128], [0253]. Fisker
`
`discloses that “[d]uring scanning the focus position is changed over a range of
`
`values….” Id. at ¶ [0278] (emphasis added). Fisker defines a “sub-scan” as the
`
`process of collecting a number of 2D images at different positions of the focus
`
`plane and at different instances of the pattern. Id. at ¶¶ [0028], [0030].
`
`Necessarily, then, a “scan” results in a volume of images that exceeds the
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case No. PGR2018-00103
`
`collection of 2D images obtained from such “sub-scan.” In fact, as discussed
`
`above, Fisker provides that “real time high resolution 3D scanning creates an
`
`enormous amount of data.” Id. at ¶ [0074] (emphasis added). Thus, Fisker’s
`
`scanning process produces an enormous amount of 2D images, including image
`
`data obtained over a range of focal plane positions.
`
`b.
`
`Fisker’s disclosure of “simultaneous scanning” and
`“scanned together” to obtain surface shape and color
`relates to Fisker’s general process of scanning, not the
`selection of a specific 2D image
`Petitioner relies on Fisker’s disclosure of “registering the color of the
`
`individual surface elements of the object being scanned together with the surface
`
`topology of the object being scanned.” Pet. at 27 (citing Ex.1005 at ¶ [0151]).
`
`Similarly, Petitioner relies on Fisker’s disclosure of “a device for simultaneous
`
`scanning of a surface shape and color.” Id. (citing Ex.1005 at ¶ [0228]). As
`
`discussed above, scanning is a term broadly used in Fisker to describe the process
`
`of obtaining “an enormous amount of data”. Thus, Fisker’s “scanned together”
`
`and “simultaneous scanning” disclosures, in the context of the meaning of “scan”
`
`in Fisker, simply means that both color and surface topology are obtained from a
`
`voluminous collection of 2D images obtained from this general “scanning” process.
`
`Even if Fisker simultaneously obtains surface shape and color information by way
`
`of its scanning process, this does not necessarily mean that the same at least one
`
`particular 2D image within the enormous amount of data obtained from Fisker’s
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case No. PGR2018-00103
`
`scanning must be used to derive both surface geometry information and surface
`
`color information. For example, it is possible in Fisker for some of the 2D images
`
`among the voluminous collection obtained from scanning to be used to obtain
`
`surface shape and other, different 2D images among the voluminous collection
`
`obtained from scanning to be used to obtain color. Petitioner has failed to
`
`demonstrate
`
`that such claimed feature
`
`is an
`
`inherent result of Fisker’s
`
`“simultaneous scanning” and “scanned together” disclosures. See In re Rijckaert,
`
`9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“The mere fact that a certain thing may result
`
`from a given
`
`set of circumstances
`
`is not
`
`sufficient
`
`[to establish
`
`inherency.]” (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581-82 (C.C.P.A. 1981). See
`
`also In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Nor does Petitioner
`
`provide any reason for why it would have been obvious to modify Fisker to arrive
`
`at deriving both surface geometry information and surface color information from
`
`the same at least one 2D image.
`
`
`
`Petitioner does not provide any meaningful explanation as to how or why
`
`Fisker’s disclosures of “simultaneous scanning” and “scanned together” somehow
`
`teach a data processing system “configured to derive surface color information for
`
`the block of said image sensor pixels from at least one of the 2D images used to
`
`derive the surface geometry information” as claimed. In fact, Petitioner fails to
`
`provide any explanation of what is meant by Fisker’s disclosure of “simultaneous
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case No. PGR2018-00103
`
`scanning” and “scanned together.” Petitioner fails to satisfy its burden for this
`
`reason alone.
`
`c.
`
`“Simultaneous scanning” cannot mean obtaining
`surface geometry and color at the same single
`moment in time because “simultaneous scanning”
`encompasses obtaining multiple images at varying
`times
`Fisker discloses that the embodiment shown in Fig. 9, which Petitioner relies
`
`on for “simultaneous scanning of a surface shape and color”, utilizes a “time-
`
`varying pattern” for measuring color:
`
`[t]he color measure is performed as follows: For a given focus
`position and amplitude of the time-varying pattern projected onto the
`probed object is determined for each sensor element in the sensor 181
`by one of the above mentioned methods for each of the light sources
`individually. In the preferred embodiment only one light source is
`switched on at the time, and the light sources are switched on after
`turn. [Emphases added.]
`
`Ex.1005 at ¶ [0279]. Petitioner alleges that Fisker’s disclosure of “simultaneous
`
`scanning” in connection with Fig. 9 teaches deriving both surface geometry and
`
`color from the same 2D image. Pet. at 26-27.