`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND CORRECTED PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,962,244
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Second Corrected Petition for PGR2018-00103
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42. 204(b)) ...................................... 2
`II.
`Identification of challenge and statement of relief requested ....................... 2
`A.
`B. The Board should institute all of Petitioner’s proceedings filed against the
`’244 Patent to not unjustly prevent Petitioner from challenging the ’244 Patent. . 5
`III. The Board should institute trial notwithstanding 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because
`all of the factors considered in the § 325(d) analysis weigh in favor of
`institution. ....................................................................................................... 7
`IV. The ’244 Patent ............................................................................................. 11
`A. Overview of the ’244 Patent ........................................................................11
`B.
`Prosecution History .....................................................................................16
`V.
`POSITA ........................................................................................................ 17
`VI. Claims 19, 25, and 32 lack support in the Provisional Application requiring
`PGR eligibility. ............................................................................................. 17
`A. Claims 19 and 32 .........................................................................................17
`B. Claim 25 ......................................................................................................19
`VII. Grounds 1 and 2: The combinations of 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. ........................................................................... 21
`A. Claim 1 ........................................................................................................21
`1.
`[1.P]: “A focus scanner for recording surface geometry and surface color
`of an object” ......................................................................................................21
`2.
`[1.1]: “a multichromatic light source configured for providing a
`multichromatic probe light for illumination of the object” ...............................22
`3.
`[1.2]: “a color image sensor comprising an array of image sensor pixels
`for capturing one or more 2D images of light received from said object” .......23
`4.
`[1.3.a]: “wherein the focus scanner is configured to operate by translating
`a focus plane along an optical axis of the focus scanner”.................................23
`5.
`[1.3.b]: “wherein the focus scanner is configured to operate
`by…capturing a series of the 2D images, each 2D image of the series is at a
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Second Corrected Petition for PGR2018-00103
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`different focus plane position such that the series of captured 2D images forms
`a stack of 2D images” .......................................................................................24
`6.
`[1.4.a]: “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”................................25
`7.
`[1.4.b]: “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” ....................26
`8.
`[1.5.a]: “wherein the data processing system further is configured to
`combining [sic] a number of sub-scans to generate a digital 3D representation
`of the object, and” .............................................................................................28
`9.
`[1.5.b]: “determining [sic] object color of at 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” .......................29
`10.
`[1.5.c]: “such that the digital 3D representation expresses both geometry
`and color profile of the object” .........................................................................30
`11.
`[1.6]: “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.” ..............................31
`a)
`Fisker .....................................................................................................31
`b)
`Szeliski (Ground 1) ...............................................................................32
`c) Matsumoto (Ground 2) ..........................................................................34
`d) Motivation to Combine: Fisker and Szeliski (Ground 1) and Fisker and
`Matsumoto (Ground 2) ..................................................................................37
`B. Claim 2: “The focus scanner according to claim 1, wherein the data
`processing system is configured for generating a sub-scan of a part of the object
`surface based on surface geometry information and surface color information
`derived from a plurality of blocks of image sensor pixels.” ................................44
`C. Claim 3: “The focus scanner according to claim 1, where the scanner
`system comprises a pattern generating element configured for incorporating a
`spatial pattern in said probe light.” .......................................................................44
`D. Claim 4: “The focus scanner according to claim 1, where deriving the
`surface geometry information and surface color information comprises
`calculating for several 2D images a correlation measure between the portion of
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Second Corrected Petition for PGR2018-00103
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`the 2D image captured by said block of image sensor pixels and a weight
`function, where the weight function is determined based on information of the
`configuration of the spatial pattern.” ....................................................................45
`E. Claim 5: “The focus scanner according to claim 4, wherein deriving the
`surface geometry information and the surface color information for a block of
`image sensor pixels comprises identifying the position along the optical axis at
`which the corresponding correlation measure has a maximum value.” ...............47
`F. Claim 7: “The focus scanner according to claim 6, where the maximum
`correlation measure value is the highest calculated correlation measure value for
`the block of image sensor pixels and/or the highest maximum value of the
`correlation measure function for the block of image sensor pixels.” ...................48
`G. Claim 8: “The focus scanner according to claim 5, wherein the data
`processing system is configured for determining a sub-scan color for a point on a
`generated sub-scan based on the surface color information of the 2D image in the
`series in which the correlation measure has its maximum value for the
`corresponding block of image sensor pixels.” .....................................................48
`H. Claim 9: “The focus scanner according to claim 8, wherein the data
`processing system is configured for deriving the sub-scan color for a point on a
`generated sub-scan based on the surface color information of the 2D images in
`the series in which the correlation measure has its maximum value for the
`corresponding block of image sensor pixels and on at least one additional 2D
`image.” ..................................................................................................................50
`I. Claim 10: “The focus scanner according to claim 9, where the data
`processing system is configured for interpolating surface color information of at
`least two 2D images in a series when determining the sub-scan color.” .............51
`J. Claim 15: “The focus scanner according to claim 1, where the color image
`sensor comprises a color filter array comprising at least three types of colors
`filters, each allowing light in a known wavelength range, W1, W2, and W3
`respectively, to propagate through the color filter.”.............................................51
`K. Claim 16: “The focus scanner according to claim 15, where the surface
`geometry information is derived from light in a selected wavelength range of the
`spectrum provided by the multichromatic light source.” .....................................52
`L. Claim 18: “The focus scanner according to claim 16, wherein the selected
`wavelength range matches the W2 wavelength range.” .......................................53
`M. Claim 21: “The focus scanner according to claim 3, where the information
`of the saturated pixel in the computing of the pattern generating element is
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Second Corrected Petition for PGR2018-00103
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`
`
`
`
`configured to provide that the spatial pattern comprises alternating dark and
`bright regions arranged in a checkerboard pattern.” ............................................54
`N. Claim 22 ......................................................................................................55
`1.
`[22.P]: “A method of recording surface geometry and surface color of an
`object” ...............................................................................................................55
`2.
`[22.1]: “obtaining a focus scanner according to claim 1” ........................55
`3.
`Limitations [22.2]-[22.4] ..........................................................................56
`O. Claim 24: “The focus scanner according to claim 1, wherein the
`multichromatic light source, the color image sensor, and at least a portion of the
`data processing system are included in a hand held unit.” ...................................56
`P. Claim 26: “The focus scanner according to claim 9, wherein said at least one
`additional 2D image comprises a neighboring 2D image from the series of
`captured 2D images.” ...........................................................................................57
`Q. Claim 28: “The focus scanner according to claim 10, where the
`interpolation is of surface color information of neighboring 2D images in a
`series.” ..................................................................................................................58
`VIII. Grounds 3 and 4: The combinations of Fisker and Yamada (Ground 3) and
`Fisker and Suzuki (Ground 4) render claim 29 obvious. ............................. 58
`A. Claim 29 ......................................................................................................58
`1.
`Limitations [29.P]-[29.4.b]: .....................................................................58
`2.
`[29.5]: “where the data processing system further is configured to
`detecting (sic) 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.” ...............................................................59
`a)
`Fisker .....................................................................................................59
`b) Yamada (Ground 3) ..............................................................................60
`c)
`Suzuki (Ground 4) .................................................................................61
`d) Motivation to Combine: Fisker and Yamada (Ground 3) and Fisker and
`Suzuki (Ground 4) .........................................................................................62
`IX. Grounds 5-8: The combinations of Fisker, Szeliski, and Yamada (Ground 5),
`Fisker, Szeliski, Suzuki (Ground 6), Fisker, Matsumoto, and Yamada
`(Ground 7), and Fisker, Matsumoto, and Suzuki (Ground 8) render claim 12
`obvious. ......................................................................................................... 66
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Second Corrected Petition for PGR2018-00103
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`A. Claim 12: “The focus scanner according to claim 1, wherein the data
`processing system is configured for 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.” .....................66
`X. Grounds 9 and 10: The combinations of Thiel425, Thiel576, and Szeliski
`(Ground 9) and Thiel425, Thiel576, and Matsumoto (Ground 10) render
`claims 1, 22, and 24 obvious. ....................................................................... 67
`A. Claim 1 ........................................................................................................67
`1.
`[1.P]: “A focus scanner for recording surface geometry and surface color
`of an object” ......................................................................................................67
`a) Thiel425 ................................................................................................67
`b) Thiel576 ................................................................................................68
`c) Motivation to Combine: Thiel425 and Thiel576 ..................................69
`2.
`[1.1]: “a multichromatic light source configured for providing a
`multichromatic probe light for illumination of the object” ...............................72
`3.
`[1.2]: “a color image sensor comprising an array of image sensor pixels
`for capturing one or more 2D images of light received from said object” .......73
`4.
`[1.3.a]: “wherein the focus scanner is configured to operate by translating
`a focus plane along an optical axis of the focus scanner”.................................74
`5.
`[1.3.b]: “wherein the focus scanner is configured to operate
`by…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” .......................................................................................74
`6.
`[1.4.a]: “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”................................75
`7.
`[1.4.b]: “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” ....................76
`a) Thiel425 ................................................................................................76
`b) Thiel576 ................................................................................................76
`c) Motivation to Combine: Thiel425 and Thiel576 ..................................77
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Second Corrected Petition for PGR2018-00103
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`
`
`
`
`[1.5.a]: “wherein the data processing system further is configured to
`8.
`combining [sic] a number of sub-scans to generate a digital 3D representation
`of the object” .....................................................................................................79
`9.
`[1.5.b]: “wherein the data processing system further is configured to …
`determining [sic] 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”.................................80
`10.
`[1.6]: “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.” ..............................81
`a) Thiel425/Thiel576 .................................................................................81
`b)
`Szeliski (Ground 9) and Matsumoto (Ground 10) ................................81
`c) Motivation to Combine: Thiel425, Thiel576, Szeliski (Ground 9) and
`Thiel425, Thiel576, Matsumoto (Ground 10) ...............................................82
`B. Claim 22 ......................................................................................................86
`1.
`[22.P]: “A method of recording surface geometry and surface color of an
`object” ...............................................................................................................86
`2.
`[22.1]: “obtaining a focus scanner according to claim 1” ........................86
`3.
`Limitations [22.2]-[22.4] ..........................................................................87
`C. Claim 24: “The focus scanner according to claim 1, wherein the
`multichromatic light source, the color image sensor, and at least a portion of the
`data processing system are included in a hand held unit.” ...................................87
`XI. Grounds 11 and 12: The combinations of Thiel425, Thiel576, and Yamada
`(Ground 11) and Thiel425, Thiel576, and Suzuki (Ground 12) render claim
`29 obvious. .................................................................................................... 88
`A. Claim 29 ......................................................................................................88
`1.
`Limitations [29.P]-[29.4.b].......................................................................88
`2.
`[29.5]: “where the data processing system further is configured to
`detecting (sic) 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.” ...............................................................88
`a) Thiel425/Thiel576 .................................................................................88
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Second Corrected Petition for PGR2018-00103
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`b) Yamada (Ground 11) and Suzuki (Ground 12) ....................................89
`c) Motivation to Combine: Thiel425, Thiel576, and Yamada (Ground 11)
`and Thiel425, Thiel576, and Suzuki (Ground 12) .........................................89
`XII. Grounds 13 and 14: The combinations of 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. ................ 92
`A. Claims 2-5, 7-10, 15, 16, 18, 21, 26, and 28 ...............................................92
`a) Thiel425/Thiel576/Szeliski and Thiel425/Thiel576/Matsumoto .........92
`b)
`Fisker .....................................................................................................92
`c) Motivation to Combine: Thiel425, Thiel576, Szeliski and Fisker
`(Ground 13) and Thiel425, Thiel576, Matsumoto and Fisker (Ground 14) .93
`XIII. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1)) ................................................. 96
`XIV. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 97
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Second Corrected Petition for PGR2018-00103
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244 to Esbech et al. (“the ’244 patent”)
`
`1002
`
`Prosecution File History for the ’244 patent (“’244 patent file history”)
`
`1003 Declaration of Dr. Chandra Bajaj, Ph.D. (“Bajaj Decl.”)
`
`1004 Curriculum vitae of Dr. Chandra Bajaj, Ph.D.
`1005 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0092461 to Fisker et al.
`(filed June 17, 2009; published: April 19, 2012)
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 6,097,854 to Szeliski et al. (filed August 1, 1997; issued
`August 1, 2000)
`1007 U.S. Patent No. 7,106,348 B2 to Matsumoto et al. (filed November 28,
`2001; issued: September 12, 2006)
`1008 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0035641 to Yamada et al.
`(filed April 25, 2005; published: February 15, 2007)
`1009 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0070128 to Suzuki et al.
`(filed September 10, 2012; published March 21, 2013)
`1010 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0029367 to Tanaka
`(earliest priority date July 29, 2011; published January 29, 2015)
`1011 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0067789 to Cai (filed
`September 18, 2011; published March 18, 2010)
`1012 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0075425 to Thiel
`(“Thiel425”) (filed August 19, 2011; published: March 29, 2012)
`1013 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0080576 to Thiel et al.
`(“Thiel576”) (filed October 1, 2010; published: April 7, 2011)
`1014 Agini, Andreas, et al. Digital Dental Revolution: The Learning Curve.
`Quintessence Publishing, First edition, 2015.
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Second Corrected Petition for PGR2018-00103
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`1015 U.S. Patent No. 6,750,873 to Bernardini et al. (“Bernardini”) (filed June
`27, 2000; issued June 15, 2004).
`1016 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0101176 to Park et al.
`(“Park”) (filed August 24, 2012; published April 25, 2013).
`
`1017
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0140243 to Colonna de
`Lega (“Colonna de Lega”) (filed December 1, 2011, published June 7,
`2012).
`
`1018
`
`Karatas et al., “Three-dimensional imaging techniques: A literature
`review,” European Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 8, Issue 1, 2014; pp. 132-
`140.
`1019 Broadbent, B.H., “A New X-Ray Technique and Its Application to
`Orthodontia,” The Angle Orthodontist, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1931; pp. 45-66.
`1020 Hajeer et al., Current Products and Practices Applications of 3D
`imaging in orthodontics: Part II, Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 31 (2004).
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`Yamany et al., “Free-Form Surface Registration Using Surface
`Signatures,” The Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International
`Conference on Computer Vision, September 20-27, 1999; 7 pages.
`
`Ireland et al., “3D surface imaging in dentistry – what we are looking
`at,” British Dental Journal, Vol. 205, No. 7, October 11, 2008; pp. 387-
`392.
`
`Remondino et al., “Image-Based 3D Modelling: A Review,” The
`Photogrammetric Record, Vol. 21, No. 115, September 2006; pp. 269-
`291.
`
`Ting-Shu et al., “Intraoral Digital Impression Technique: A Review,” J.
`Prosthodontics, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 313-321.
`
`Zimmerman et al., “Intraoral scanning systems – a current overview,”
`Int. J. Comput. Dent., Vol. 18, No. 2, 2015, pp. 101-129.
`
`
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`Second Corrected Petition for PGR2018-00103
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`Description
`
`Imburgia et al., “Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral
`implantology: a comparative in vitro study,” BMC Oral Health, Vol. 17,
`No. 1, 2017, p. 92.
`
`Park et al., “Changes in views on digital intraoral scanners among dental
`hygienists after training in digital impression taking,” BMC Oral Health,
`Vol. 15, No. 1, 2015, p.151 (“Park Article”).
`
`1028
`
`Logozzo et al., “Recent advances in dental optics – Part I: 3D intraoral
`scanners for restorative dentistry,” Optics and Lasers in Engineering,
`Vol. 54, 2014, pp. 203-221.
`1029 U.S. Patent Prov. App. No. 61/764,178 to Esbech et al. (“the Provisional
`Application”)
`
`
`
`- x -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Second Corrected Petition for PGR2018-00103
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`The ’244 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244; Ex.1001) admits three-
`
`dimensional scanners, such as three-dimensional intraocular dental scanners, were
`
`well-known in the art. The ’244 Patent even identifies foreign and domestic prior
`
`art references pertinent to the alleged invention (e.g., U.S. Patent No. 7,698,068
`
`and J.P. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/029373). Rather, the ’244 Patent alleges its
`
`protecting -- for the first time -- recording geometry and color data of an object as
`
`2D images and creating a three-dimensional image of the object based on the data.
`
`But the prior art and expert declaration shows this allegation was incorrect.
`
`In the end, the Examiner (and 3Shape) agreed color and geometry detection
`
`was an unpatentable concept, thus forcing 3Shape to add allowed dependent claims
`
`to gain issuance of the ’244 patent. Yet, as shown by the prior art and declaration,
`
`even the allowed dependent claim features, directed to weighted averages,
`
`saturated pixels, color filter arrays, and averaged sub-scan colors, were in the prior
`
`art. And the dependent claim features were actually allowed only because there
`
`was not adequate prior art searching and curtailed examination. If the Examiner
`
`had more time, prior art would have been discovered for all the allowed claim
`
`features.
`
`Petitioner requests the Board institute post-grant review (PGR) of claims 1-
`
`5, 7-10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 21-22, 24, 26, 28, and 29 (“the challenged claims”) of the
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`’244 Patent in view of the Grounds herein, and issue a final written decision
`
`Second Corrected Petition for PGR2018-00103
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`finding all challenged claims unpatentable.
`
`II.
`
`Identification of challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42. 204(b))
`A.
`Petitioner respectfully submits two post-grant reviews and requests
`
`Identification of challenge and statement of relief requested
`
`cancellation of the challenged claims based on 20 grounds as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Second Corrected Petition for PGR2018-00103
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`
`
`
`Petition 1 (the current petition):
`Ground
`References
`Fisker1 and Szeliski2
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Claims Challenged
`Basis
`§ 103 1-5, 7-10, 15, 16, 18, 21-
`22, 24, 26, and 28
`§ 103 1-5, 7-10, 15, 16, 18, 21-
`22, 24, 26, and 28
`§ 103 29
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Fisker and Matsumoto3
`
`Fisker and Yamada4
`
`
`1 U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0092461 to Fisker et al. (“Fisker”), §102(a)(1),
`
`(effectively filed June 17, 2009 and published April 19, 2012). The effective filing
`
`date of the ’244 Patent is February 14, 2015. (Section VI.)
`
`2 U.S. Pat. No. 6,097,854 to Szeliski et al. (“Szeliski”), §102(a)(1) (issued
`
`August 1, 2000).
`
`3 U.S. Pat. No. 7,106,348 to Matsumoto et al. (“Matsumoto”),§102(a)(1)
`
`(issued September 12, 2006).
`
`4 U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0035641 to Yamada et al. (“Yamada”), §102(a)(1)
`
`(published February 15, 2007).
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Second Corrected Petition for PGR2018-00103
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`Fisker and Suzuki5
`§ 103 29
`§ 103 12
`Fisker, Szeliski, and Yamada
`§ 103 12
`Fisker, Szeliski, and Suzuki
`Fisker, Matsumoto, and Yamada § 103 12
`Fisker, Matsumoto, and Suzuki
`§ 103 12
`Thiel4256, Thiel5767, and
`Szeliski
`Thiel425, Thiel576, and
`Matsumoto
`Thiel425, Thiel576, Szeliski,
`and Fisker
`Thiel425, Thiel576, Matsumoto,
`and Fisker
`Thiel425, Thiel576, and
`Yamada
`Thiel425, Thiel576, and Suzuki § 103 29
`
`§ 103 1, 22, and 24
`
`§ 103 1, 22, and 24
`
`§ 103 2-5, 7-10, 15, 16, 18, 21,
`26, and 28
`§ 103 2-5, 7-10, 15, 16, 18, 21,
`26, and 28
`
`§ 103 29
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5 U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0070128 to Suzuki et al. (“Suzuki”), §102(a)(2)
`
`(effectively filed September 10, 2012).
`
`6 U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0067789 to Thiel (“Thiel425”), § 102(a)(1) (published
`
`March 29, 2012).
`
`7 U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0080576 to Thiel (“Thiel576”), §102(a)(1) (published
`
`April 7, 2011).
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Second Corrected Petition for PGR2018-00103
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`
`
`
`Petition 2 (the co-pending petition):
`Claims Challenged
`Basis
`Ground
`References
`§ 103 31-32
`1
`Fisker and Tanaka
`§ 103 34
`2
`Fisker and Suzuki
`§ 103 34
`3
`Fisker and Cai
`4
`Thiel425, Thiel576, and Tanaka § 103 31-32
`Thiel425, Thiel576, Fisker, and
`Suzuki
`Thiel425, Thiel576, Fisker, and
`Cai
`
`5
`
`6
`
`§ 103 34
`
`§ 103 34
`
`There are meaningful distinctions between the two petitions. Even though
`
`there is overlapping prior art between the petitions, the petitions challenge the
`
`patentability of different claims. Therefore, both petitions should be instituted.
`
`B.
`
`The Board should institute all of Petitioner’s proceedings filed
`against the ’244 Patent to not unjustly prevent Petitioner from
`challenging the ’244 Patent.
`
`Following the filing of the post-grant reviews, Petitioner will be filling two
`
`inter partes reviews against the ’244 Patent.
`
`Accordingly, if the Board agrees with the prior art Grounds, Petitioner
`
`requests institution and consolidation of the four related post-grant review and
`
`inter partes review petitions filed against the ’244 patent. Granting institution for
`
`all four petitions will allow for the most efficient use of judicial resources without
`
`unjustly depriving petitioner of the ability to challenge the ’244 patent for at least
`
`two reasons. First, if the Board cannot determine until the final written decision
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`whether the ’244 patent claims are PGR eligible, but has already denied institution
`
`Second Corrected Petition for PGR2018-00103
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`for the IPRs, Petitioner will unjustly be forbidden from challenging the ’244 patent
`
`at the PTAB. Second, the two PGR petitions include nearly identical arguments as
`
`compared to the two IPR petitions.
`
`Petitioner believes that the provisional application has no written description
`
`support for at least claims 19, 25, and 32. Thus, the earliest effective priority date
`
`for at least these claims is post-March 2013, requiring Petitioner to file a PGR.
`
`However, Petitioner cannot foresee all evidence 3Shape may be able to provide
`
`during trial that might dissuade the Board from holding the ’244 patent is PGR
`
`eligible. So until the Board can make a final determination regarding PGR
`
`eligibility, both the PGRs and IPRs should remain active.
`
`With regards to judicial efficiency, Petitioner has purposely filed nearly
`
`identical prior art Grounds against the claims in the PGRs and IPRs knowing that
`
`one of the two types of proceedings must fail under the law. In this way, as there
`
`are identical issues except which proceeding type is proper, neither the Board nor
`
`the 3Shape is prejudiced by instituting and consolidating the proceedings. And this
`
`avoids petitioner from being unjustly deprived of challenging the ’244 patent at the
`
`PTAB. Thus, Petitioner respectfully requests that both PGRs and IPRs filed against
`
`the ’244 Patent be instituted.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. The Board should institute trial notwithstanding 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`because all of the factors considered in the § 325(d) analysis weigh in
`favor of institution.
`
`Second Corrected Petition for PGR2018-00103
`
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`Section 325(d) provides the Director discretion to deny a petition for PGR if
`
`“the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were
`
`presented to the Office.” Here, however, all of the factors the Board considers in
`
`applying § 325(d) point in favor of institution. Indeed, the Board has previously
`
`instituted trial notwithstanding § 325(d) on nearly identical facts to those presented
`
`here.
`
`During prosecution, the Examiner rejected independent claims 1, 33, 35, 36,
`
`and 38 as obvious over Fisker, but he allowed dependent claims 12, 14, 15, 20, and
`
`22 based on his finding that neither Fisker nor the other prior art before him taught
`
`the additional limitations of those claims. The patentee then incorporated the
`
`limitations from the dependent claims into the independent claims in order to
`
`obtain allowance. Yet, the Examiner performed only two prior-art searches: one in
`
`July 2017 (before the only issued Office Action) and one in December 2017
`
`(before the Notice of Allowance). (Ex.1002, 882-888, 924-925.) And the Examiner
`
`limited hi