`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. PGR2018-00104
`Patent 9,962,244
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for PGR2018-00104
` 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. ....................................................................................................... 6 
`IV.  The ’244 Patent ............................................................................................. 11 
`A.  Overview of the ’244 Patent ........................................................................ 11 
`B. 
`Prosecution History ..................................................................................... 15 
`V. 
`POSITA ........................................................................................................ 16 
`VI.  Claims 19, 25, and 32 lack support in the Provisional Application requiring
`PGR eligibility. ............................................................................................. 16 
`A.  Claims 19 and 32 ......................................................................................... 16 
`B.  Claim 25 ...................................................................................................... 18 
`VII.  Ground 1: The combination of Fisker and Tanaka renders claims 31 and 32
`obvious. ......................................................................................................... 20 
`A.  Claim 31 ...................................................................................................... 20 
`1. 
`[31.P]: “A focus scanner for recording surface geometry and surface
`color of an object” ............................................................................................. 20 
`2. 
`[31.1]: “a multichromatic light source configured for providing a
`multichromatic probe light for illumination of the object” ............................... 21 
`3. 
`[31.2.a]: “a color image sensor comprising an array of image sensor
`pixels for capturing one or more 2D images of light received from said object”
`
`22 
`4. 
`[31.2.b]: “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” ........................................................................................................ 22 
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for PGR2018-00104
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`
`
`
`
`[31.3.a]: “wherein the focus scanner is configured to operate by
`5. 
`translating a focus plane along an optical axis of the focus scanner” ............... 23 
`6. 
`[31.3.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” ....................................................................................... 24 
`7. 
`[31.4.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 
`8. 
`[31.4.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 
`9. 
`[31.5.a]: “where the data processing system further is configured to
`derive the surface geometry information is derived from light in a selected
`wavelength range of the spectrum provided by the multichromatic light
`source” ............................................................................................................... 28 
`10. 
`[31.5.b]: “where the color filter array is such that its proportion of pixels
`with color filters that match the selected wavelength range of the spectrum is
`larger than 50%.”............................................................................................... 29 
`a) 
`Fisker ..................................................................................................... 29 
`b)  Tanaka ................................................................................................... 30 
`c)  Motivation to Combine: Fisker and Tanaka ......................................... 31 
`B.  Claim 32 ...................................................................................................... 33 
`1. 
`Limitations [32.P]-[32.5.a] ....................................................................... 33 
`2. 
`[32.5.b]: “the filters are arranged in a plurality of cells of 6×6 color
`filters, where the color filters in positions (2,2) and (5,5) of each cell are of the
`W1 type, the color filters in positions (2,5) and (5,2) are of the W3 type.” ..... 34 
`a) 
`Fisker ..................................................................................................... 34 
`b)  Tanaka ................................................................................................... 34 
`c)  Motivation to Combine: Fisker and Tanaka ......................................... 36 
`VIII.  Grounds 2 and 3: The combinations of Fisker and Suzuki (Ground 2) and
`Fisker and Cai (Ground 3) render claim 34 obvious. ................................... 37 
`A.  Claim 34 ...................................................................................................... 37 
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for PGR2018-00104
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`
`
`
`
`Limitations [34.P]-[34.4.b] ....................................................................... 37 
`1. 
`[34.4.c]: “where deriving the surface geometry information and surface
`2. 
`color information comprises calculating for several 2D images a correlation
`measure between the portion of 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” .................... 37 
`3. 
`[34.4.d]: “identifying the position along the optical axis at which the
`corresponding correlation measure has a maximum value” ............................. 39 
`4. 
`[34.4.e]: “where the data processing system further 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” ................................................................................................................ 40 
`5. 
`[34.4.f]: “where the data processing system further is configured
`for…computing an averaged sub-scan color for a number of points of the sub-
`scan, where the computing comprises an averaging of sub-scan colors of
`surrounding points on the sub-scan.” ................................................................ 41 
`a) 
`Fisker ..................................................................................................... 41 
`b) 
`Suzuki (Ground 2) ................................................................................. 42 
`c)  Cai (Ground 3) ...................................................................................... 43 
`d)  Motivation to Combine: Fisker and Suzuki (Ground 2) and Fisker and
`Cai (Ground 3) ............................................................................................... 44 
`IX.  Ground 4: The combination of Thiel425, Thiel 576and Tanaka renders
`claims 31 and 32 obvious. ............................................................................ 48 
`A.  Claim 31 ...................................................................................................... 48 
`1. 
`[31.P]: “A focus scanner for recording surface geometry and surface
`color of an object” ............................................................................................. 48 
`a)  Thiel425 ................................................................................................ 48 
`b)  Thiel576 ................................................................................................ 49 
`c)  Motivation to Combine: Thiel425 with Thiel575 ................................. 50 
`2. 
`[31.1]: “a multichromatic light source configured for providing a
`multichromatic probe light for illumination of the object” ............................... 53 
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for PGR2018-00104
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`[31.2.a]: “a color image sensor comprising an array of image sensor
`3. 
`pixels for capturing one or more 2D images of light received from said object”
`
`54 
`4. 
`[31.2.b]: “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” ........................................................................................................ 55 
`a)  Thiel425/Thiel576 ................................................................................. 55 
`b)  Tanaka ................................................................................................... 55 
`c)  Motivation to Combine ......................................................................... 56 
`5. 
`[31.3.a]: “wherein the focus scanner is configured to operate by
`translating a focus plane along an optical axis of the focus scanner” ............... 58 
`6. 
`[31.3.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” ....................................................................................... 58 
`7. 
`[31.4.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”................................ 59 
`8. 
`[31.4.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” .................... 60 
`a)  Thiel425 ................................................................................................ 60 
`b)  Thiel576 ................................................................................................ 61 
`c)  Motivation to Combine: Thiel425 and Thiel576 .................................. 61 
`9. 
`[31.5]: “where the data processing system further is configured to derive
`the surface geometry information is derived from light in a selected
`wavelength range of the spectrum provided by the multichromatic light source,
`and where the color filter array is such that its proportion of pixels with color
`filters that match the selected wavelength range of the spectrum is larger than
`50%.” ................................................................................................................. 62 
`a)  Thiel425/Thiel576 ................................................................................. 62 
`b)  Tanaka ................................................................................................... 63 
`c)  Motivation to Combine: Thiel425, Thiel576, and Tanaka ................... 64 
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for PGR2018-00104
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`
`
`
`
`B.  Claim 32 ...................................................................................................... 65 
`1. 
`Limitations [32.P]-[32.5.a] ....................................................................... 65 
`2. 
`[32.5.b]: “the filters are arranged in a plurality of cells of 6×6 color
`filters, where the color filters in positions (2,2) and (5,5) of each cell are of the
`W1 type, the color filters in positions (2,5) and (5,2) are of the W3 type.” ..... 65 
`a)  Thiel425/Theil576 ................................................................................. 65 
`b)  Tanaka ................................................................................................... 66 
`c)  Motivation to Combine: Thiel425, Thiel576, and Tanaka ................... 67 
`X.  Grounds 5 and 6: The combinations of Thiel425, Thiel576, Fisker, and
`Suzuki (Ground 5) and Thiel425, Thiel576, Fisker and Cai (Ground 6)
`render claim 34 obvious. .............................................................................. 68 
`A.  Claim 34 ...................................................................................................... 68 
`1. 
`Limitations [34.P]-[34.4.b] ....................................................................... 68 
`2. 
`[34.4.c]: “where deriving the surface geometry information and surface
`color information comprises calculating for several 2D images a correlation
`measure between the portion of 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” .................... 68 
`a)  Thiel425/Thiel576 ................................................................................. 68 
`b) 
`Fisker ..................................................................................................... 69 
`c)  Motivation to Combine: Thiel425, Thiel576, and Fisker ..................... 69 
`3. 
`[34.4.d]: “identifying the position along the optical axis at which the
`corresponding correlation measure has a maximum value” ............................. 72 
`a)  Thiel425/Thiel576 ................................................................................. 72 
`b) 
`Fisker ..................................................................................................... 72 
`c)  Motivation to Combine: Thiel425, Thiel576, and Fisker ..................... 73 
`4. 
`[34.4.e]: “where the data processing system further 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” ................................................................................................................ 74 
`a)  Thiel425/Thiel576 ................................................................................. 74 
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for PGR2018-00104
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`
`
`
`
`Fisker ..................................................................................................... 74 
`b) 
`c)  Motivation to Combine: Thiel425, Thiel576, and Fisker ..................... 76 
`5. 
`[34.4.f]: “where the data processing system further is configured
`for…computing an averaged sub-scan color for a number of points of the sub-
`scan, where the computing comprises an averaging of sub-scan colors of
`surrounding points on the sub-scan.” ................................................................ 77 
`a)  Thiel425/Thiel576 ................................................................................. 77 
`b) 
`Fisker ..................................................................................................... 77 
`c) 
`Suzuki (Ground 5) ................................................................................. 78 
`d)  Cai (Ground 6) ...................................................................................... 79 
`e)  Motivation to Combine: Thiel425, Thiel576, Fisker, and Suzuki
`(Ground 5) and Thiel425, Thiel576, Fisker, and Cai (Ground 6) ................. 80 
`VI.  Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1)) ................................................. 85 
`VII.  Conclusion .................................................................................................... 86 
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`
`
`
`Petition for PGR2018-00104
` 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.
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for PGR2018-00104
` 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.
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`
`
`
`Petition for PGR2018-00104
` 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”)
`
`
`
`
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`
`Petition for PGR2018-00104
` 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 31,
`
`32, and 34 (“the challenged claims”) of the ’244 Patent in view of the Grounds
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`herein, and issue a final written decision finding all challenged claims
`
`
`
`
`Petition for PGR2018-00104
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`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
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition 2 (the current petition):
`Ground
`References
`Fisker1 and Tanaka2
`1
`Fisker and Suzuki3
`2
`Fisker and Cai4
`3
`Thiel5765, Thiel4256, and
`Tanaka
`Thiel576, Thiel425, Fisker, and
`Suzuki
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Petition for PGR2018-00104
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`Claims Challenged
`Basis
`§ 103 31-32
`§ 103 34
`§ 103 34
`
`§ 103 31-32
`
`§ 103 34
`
`
`1 U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0092461 to Fisker et al. (“Fisker”), §102(a)(1)
`
`(published April 19, 2012). The effective filing date of the ’244 Patent is February
`
`14, 2015. (Section VI.)
`
`2 U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0029367 to Tanaka, §§102(a)(2) (effectively filed July
`
`29, 2011).
`
`3 U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0070128 to Suzuki et al. (“Suzuki”), §102(a)(2)
`
`(effectively filed September 10, 2012).
`
`4 U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0067789 to Cai et al. (“Cai”) §§102(a)(1) (published
`
`March 18, 2010).
`
`5 U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0067789 to Thiel (“Thiel425”), §102(a)(1) (published
`
`March 29, 2012).
`
`6 U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0080576 to Thiel (“Thiel576”), §102(a)(1) (published
`
`April 7, 2011).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for PGR2018-00104
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`6
`
`Thiel576, Thiel425, Fisker, and
`Cai
`
`§ 103 34
`
`
`Petition 1 (the co-pending petition):
`Ground
`References
`
`Claims Challenged
`Basis
`§ 103 1-10, 15-18, 21, 22, 24,
`26, and 28
`§ 103 1-10, 15-18, 21, 22, 24,
`26, and 28
`§ 103 29
`Fisker and Yamada
`§ 103 29
`Fisker and Suzuki
`§ 103 12
`Fisker, Szeliski, and Yamada
`§ 103 12
`Fisker, Szeliski, and Suzuki
`Fisker, Matsumoto, and Yamada § 103 12
`Fisker, Matsumoto, and Suzuki
`§ 103 12
`Thiel576, Thiel425, and Szeliski § 103 1, 2, and 22
`Thiel576, Thiel425, and
`Matsumoto
`Thiel576, Thiel425, Szeliski,
`and Fisker
`Thiel576, Thiel425, Matsumoto,
`and Fisker
`Thiel425, Thiel576, and
`Yamada
`Thiel425, Thiel576, and Suzuki § 103 29
`
`§ 103 1, 2, and 22
`
`§ 103 3-10, 15-18, 21, 26, and
`28
`§ 103 3-10, 15-18, 21, 26, and
`28
`
`§ 103 29
`
`Fisker and Szeliski
`
`Fisker and Matsumoto
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for PGR2018-00104
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`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
`
`whether the ’244 patent claims are PGR eligible, but has already denied institution
`
`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.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`However, Petitioner cannot foresee all evidence 3Shape may be able to provide
`
`
`
`
`Petition for PGR2018-00104
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for PGR2018-00104
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`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 his search for the limitations of the dependent claims to a search within
`
`three references identified in IDSs for terms closely resembling some claimed
`
`terms – for example, the terms “weight$3” and “average$3.” (Id.). Had the
`
`Examiner had time to expand the initial search and/or the follow-up search, he
`
`likely would have uncovered a litany of references teaching the allowed
`
`limitations. Moreover, the Examiner did not consider any additional references in
`
`combination with Fisker to teach the limitations of the allowed dependent claims,
`
`and he did not provide any substantive rationale for allowance in the Notice of
`
`Allowance.
`
`Here, Petitioner’s obviousness argument relies on Fisker for the features that
`
`the Examiner found obvious over Fisker in the first Office Action, and on new
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`references not considered by the Examiner for the dependent-claim limitations that
`
`
`
`
`Petition for PGR2018-00104
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`the Examiner allowed.
`
`In determining whether to deny institution under § 325(d), the Board takes
`
`into account the following factors:
`
`1) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and
`
`the prior art involved during examination;
`
`2) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated
`
`during examination;
`
`3) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination,
`
`4) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during
`
`examination and the manner in which a petitioner relies on the prior
`
`art or a patent owner distinguishes the prior art;
`
`5) whether a petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Office erred
`
`in evaluating the asserted prior art; and
`
`6) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the
`
`petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments.
`
`Updated Trial Practice Guide at 12. Here, all factors weigh in favor of institution.
`
`
`
`With regard to the first three factors, Petitioner is relying on new art not
`
`considered by the Examiner to show the obviousness of the limitations allowed by
`
`the Examiner, and the art asserted in this PGR is not cumulative of the art
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`evaluated by the Examiner (with the exception of Fisker, which, again, is being
`
`
`
`
`Petition for PGR2018-00104
` U.S. Patent No. 9,962,244
`
`used to show the obviousness of the same limitations that the Examiner rejected as
`
`obvious over Fisker). The first three § 325(d) factors thus weigh in favor of
`
`institution. See, Luxshare Precision Industry Co., Ltd. v. Bing Xu Precision Co.,
`
`Ltd., Case IPR2017-01657 (PTAB Jan. 12, 2018) (Paper 17) at 8-9; Bestway
`
`(USA), Inc. v. Intex Marketing Ltd, Case PGR2017-00003 (PTAB May 11, 2017)
`
`(Paper 9) at 7.
`
`The fourth, fifth, and sixth factors—upon which the Board generally places
`
`significant weight— strongly indicate in favor of institution as well. Petitioner’s
`
`argument is that the Examiner correctly found the rejected claims obvious over
`
`Fisker and that other references that were not considered by the Examiner render
`
`the allowed dependent-claim limitations obvious as well. Thus, Petitioner is not
`
`asking the Board to address arguments that were already considered and rejected
`
`by the Examiner.
`
`The Bestway and Lu