Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 03/21/22 Page 1 of 110
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 03/21/22 Page 1 of 110
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 03/21/22 Page 2 of 110
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 6:21-cv-00755-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`GENTEX CORPORATION and INDIGO
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`THALES VISIONIX, INC.,
`
`
`
`Involuntary Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC. and FACEBOOK
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JOSEPH J. LAVIOLA JR.
`REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`
`I, Joseph J. LaViola Jr., Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an expert in this case by Plaintiffs Gentex Corporation and
`
`Indigo Technologies, LLC (“Gentex”) to provide opinions related to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,757,068
`
`(the “’068 patent”), 7,301,648 (“’648 patent”), 6,922,632 (“’632 patent”), and 7,725,253 (“’253
`
`patent”), which I understand Gentex has asserted against Defendants. I will refer to the patents
`
`as the “Patents-in-Suit.”
`
`2.
`
`I was asked to consider the meaning of several terms in the Patents-in-Suit and to
`
`respond to the declaration of Dr. Aaron Bobick (“Bobick Decl.”) offering his opinion on those
`
`terms. The terms are:
`
` “track a position of a first localized feature associated with a limb”
`
` “redisplaying the first object at a second position on the display device determined based
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 03/21/22 Page 3 of 110
`
`on the change in the position of the first localized feature”
`
` “expected” / “highest expected”
`
` “characterizes” / “characterizing”
`
` “generating a sequence of candidates of pairs of sensing elements selected from the set of
`
`sensing elements, the sequence based on an expected utility of a measurement associated
`
`with said elements to the estimation subsystem”
`
` “estimation module”
`
` “estimation subsystem”
`
` “sensor module(s)”
`
` “sensor subsystem”
`
` “data processing module”
`
`3.
`
`I have considered these terms as well as the context in which the terms are used in
`
`the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`II.
`
`PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`I have over 20 years of experience working in the virtual reality (“VR”) and
`
`augmented reality (“AR”) fields, as well as advancing three-dimensional (“3D”) interaction
`
`techniques for use in both VR and AR environments. More specifically, I have worked
`
`extensively on and with user and object motion tracking sensors, inertial sensors, algorithms and
`
`systems.
`
`5.
`
`I am the Charles N. Millican Professor of Computer Science in the Department of
`
`Computer Science at the University of Central Florida, located in Orlando, Florida. I also serve
`
`as the Director of the Interactive Computing Experiences Research Cluster of Excellence at the
`
`University of Central Florida. Through these functions, I supervise over fifteen graduate and
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 03/21/22 Page 4 of 110
`
`undergraduate students working on various research projects in the area of human-computer
`
`interaction. In addition, since 2013, I have served as an Adjunct Associate Professor of
`
`Computer Science at Brown University, located in Providence, Rhode Island.
`
`6.
`
`I received my Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science from Florida
`
`Atlantic University in 1996. I also hold two Master’s degrees – an Sc.M. in Computer Science
`
`and an Sc.M. in Applied Mathematics from Brown University – which were awarded in 2000
`
`and 2001 respectively. I received my Ph.D. in Computer Science from Brown University in
`
`2005.
`
`7.
`
`I serve as Associate Editor for various publications in the area of human-computer
`
`interaction, including the International Journal of Human-Computer Studies and the Association
`
`for Computing Machinery’s Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems. I have also served
`
`as Program Chair for the IEEE Virtual Reality conference.
`
`8.
`
`I have contributed to more than 40 peer-reviewed journal publications and more
`
`than 100 refereed conferences and workshops, the majority of which deal with virtual and
`
`augmented reality and user and object motion tracking. For instance, I am the lead author of the
`
`second edition of the most comprehensive textbook on 3D user interaction, entitled “3D User
`
`Interfaces: Theory and Practice.” As part of that work, I analyzed many different types of input
`
`and output hardware, 3D user interfaces and general topics related to virtual and augmented
`
`reality. I have also worked specifically with sensors and algorithms related to the patents at issue
`
`in this case.
`
`9.
`
`I have been working with recursive-style estimators, including Kalman filters and
`
`Extended Kalman Filters (“EKFs”), for over 15 years. I have implemented Kalman filters and
`
`EKFs in practice and written several papers on them as part of my work in motion tracking and
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 03/21/22 Page 5 of 110
`
`3D interfaces, including the following:
`
` Julier, S., and LaViola, J. “On Kalman Filtering with Nonlinear Equality Constraints,”
`
`IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 55(6):2774-2784, June 2007;
`
` LaViola, J. “A Comparison of Unscented and Extended Kalman Filtering for Estimating
`
`Quaternion Motion,” In the Proceedings of the 2003 American Control Conference, IEEE
`
`Press, 2435-2440, June 2003;
`
` LaViola, J. “Double Exponential Smoothing: An Alternative to Kalman Filter-Based
`
`Predictive Tracking,” In the Proceedings of Immersive Projection Technology and
`
`Virtual Environments 2003, ACM Press, 199-206, May 2003.
`
`10.
`
`I have also been teaching Kalman filters and EKFs to my students over the last 15
`
`years. An example of work using EKFs that I published with one of my students follows:
`
`Williamson, B., and Wingrave, C., and LaViola, J. “RealNav: Exploring Natural User Interfaces
`
`for Locomotion in Video Games”, Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces
`
`2010, 3-10, March 2010.
`
`11.
`
`These papers demonstrate my expertise and foundational understanding of
`
`Kalman filters and EKFs in terms of the mathematical equations and formulae, as well as related
`
`implementation strategies and challenges.
`
`12.
`
`A more complete list of my qualifications is set forth in my curriculum vitae, a
`
`copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment 1. My C.V. includes a list of my publications as
`
`well as a list of all the cases in which I have provided testimony at a hearing or deposition as an
`
`expert witness in the past five years.
`
`III. ASSIGNMENT, COMPENSATION, AND MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`13.
`
`I am being compensated for work in this matter at the rate of $450 per hour. My
`
`compensation is in no way dependent upon the outcome of this litigation nor do I have a personal
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 03/21/22 Page 6 of 110
`
`interest in the outcome of this litigation.
`
`14.
`
`The opinions and conclusions I express herein are based on my review of the
`
`materials cited herein and attached hereto, including the Asserted Patents and the prosecution
`
`histories, the parties’ proposed claim constructions for the terms discussed below, as well as on
`
`(1) my general knowledge of virtual reality technology and motion tracking, and (2) my
`
`experience and training as an academic in these fields.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`15.
`
`Although I am not an attorney and do not expect to offer any opinions regarding
`
`the law, I have been informed of certain legal principles that I relied upon in forming the
`
`opinions set forth in this declaration.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that, in interpreting a claim term, the words of the patent’s claims
`
`and the context in which the term is used in the claims can be highly instructive as to the
`
`meaning of that term. I further understand that the terms of a claim are to be interpreted in the
`
`context of the entire patent, including the patent’s specification. Indeed, I understand that in
`
`many cases the best source for discerning the proper context of claim terms is the patent
`
`specification wherein the patent applicant describes the alleged invention, and that the claims
`
`must be construed so as to be consistent with the specification. I understand that a patentee may
`
`provide a definition for a claim term in the specification that differs from the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning it would otherwise have, in which case, the inventor’s definition governs. I
`
`understand that to redefine a term, the patentee’s definition must be clear and unambiguous.
`
`Further, I understand that a patent’s prosecution history may often provide helpful evidence
`
`about how the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and the inventor understood the patent and
`
`its claim terms. Consequently, I understand that claim terms should, in addition to the claims
`
`themselves and the patent specification, also be construed in light of the patent’s prosecution
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 03/21/22 Page 7 of 110
`
`history.
`
`17.
`
`In addition to the above sources that are key to interpreting claim terms, which
`
`collectively constitute “intrinsic evidence,” I understand that certain “extrinsic evidence,” such
`
`as expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises, may also shed useful light
`
`on the relevant art and the way in which a person of ordinary skill in the art might use the claim
`
`term. I further understand that such extrinsic evidence must always be considered in the context
`
`of intrinsic evidence in understanding the meaning of a claim term.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that the claims of a patent are required to particularly point out and
`
`distinctly claim the subject matter which the patent applicant regards as the invention, i.e., the
`
`claims must be definite. I understand that a patent claim is only invalid as indefinite if the claim,
`
`when read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, fails to inform a person
`
`skilled in the art about the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed that, although the definiteness requirement mandates clarity,
`
`it does not require absolute precision. Accordingly, I have been informed that a claim is not
`
`indefinite if the claim may be given a reasonable meaning with enough particularity for a
`
`POSITA to evaluate infringement, even if the task is formidable and the ultimate conclusion is
`
`one over which reasonable persons will disagree.
`
`20.
`
`In addition to claim terms construed according to the principles discussed above, I
`
`understand that patent claims may include “means-plus-function” terms. That is, I understand
`
`that the patent laws allow elements of a claim for a combination to be expressed as a means for
`
`performing a specified function without reciting structure for performing that function. When
`
`this technique is used, I further understand that the claim term expressing such a means-plus-
`
`function does not cover every means for performing the specified function, but rather is
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 03/21/22 Page 8 of 110
`
`construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the patent specification and
`
`equivalents thereof.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that a means-plus-function claim term typically includes the word
`
`“means” or “step,” and there is a presumption against means-plus-function claiming in the
`
`absence of such a term. However, I understand that a claim limitation lacking the word “means”
`
`or “step” may also constitute a mean-plus-function term if the claim fails to recite sufficiently
`
`definite structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that
`
`function. Thus, if a person of ordinary skill in the art understands the words of the claim to have
`
`a sufficiently definite meaning as a name for structure, the term is not a means-plus-function
`
`claim term.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that when a claim or a portion of a claim is implemented through
`
`software, structure does not have to be physical structure. Rather, structure may be provided by
`
`describing how the function is achieved in the context of the invention. I understand this can
`
`include descriptions of the inputs, outputs, and operations of the claimed component, as well as
`
`how it interacts with other components.
`
`23.
`
`Thus, in construing claim terms, I understand that a threshold question is whether
`
`the term is a means-plus-function term. Using the traditional tools of claim construction I
`
`discussed above—including considering the use of the term, if any, in the specification and
`
`prosecution history—I understand that one must inquire as to whether a claim term denotes a
`
`definite structure in the particular context of the claim. If it does so, then the term is not a
`
`means-plus-function term.
`
`24.
`
`If, on the other hand, a claim term is determined to be a means-plus-function
`
`term, I understand that it must be construed through a further two-step process. First, the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 03/21/22 Page 9 of 110
`
`claimed function must be identified. Next, it must be determined what structure, if any, is
`
`disclosed in the specification to perform the claimed function. I understand that structure
`
`disclosed in the specification qualifies as “corresponding structure” to a means-plus-function
`
`claim term if the intrinsic evidence clearly links or associates that structure to the function
`
`recited in the claim. I understand that when a function recited in a means-plus-function claim is
`
`implemented by a special purpose computer, the “corresponding structure” described in the
`
`specification must comprise an algorithm for performing the function. The algorithm may be
`
`expressed as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that
`
`provides sufficient structure. I understand the algorithm does not need to be highly detailed or in
`
`the form of source code. An algorithm can be sufficient if the steps described can be carried out
`
`by known computer-implemented operations and can be readily implemented by a POSITA.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to
`
`recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the
`
`claim, a means-plus-function claim term is indefinite.
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART AND PRIORITY DATES
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) is a
`
`hypothetical person who is presumed to have known all of the relevant art at the time of the
`
`invention. I have been informed that a person of ordinary skill in the art may possess the
`
`education, skills, and experience of multiple actual people who would work together as a team to
`
`solve a problem in the field. I have been informed that factors that may be considered in
`
`determining the level of ordinary skill in the art may include: (1) the educational level of the
`
`inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems;
`
`(4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6)
`
`educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 03/21/22 Page 10 of 110
`
`27.
`
`The ’068 and ’648 patents claim a priority date of January 28, 2000. I understand
`
`that the ’632 and ’253 patents have a priority date of June 13, 2001, based on the date of
`
`invention, which is earlier than the priority date of August 9, 2002, listed on the face of those
`
`patents. Based on the information available to me, my opinions would be the same regardless of
`
`which of these priority dates applied.
`
`28.
`
`On the basis of my consideration of these factors as well as my experience with,
`
`and research related to, the fields of user and object motion tracking, I have been asked to opine
`
`as to the person of ordinary skill in the art to which the claims of the Patents-in-Suit are directed.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art of the Patents-in-Suit at the time of the alleged
`
`inventions would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer
`
`Science, or related field, as well as at least two years of work experience relating to motion
`
`tracking or the equivalent. Additional education might compensate for less experience, and vice-
`
`versa. I have considered the level of ordinary skill in the art used by Dr. Bobick (Bobick Decl.
`
`¶¶ 15-16), and my opinions would not change under the level of ordinary skill applied by Dr.
`
`Bobick. Under either my definition or Dr. Bobick’s definition, I am qualified as a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the times of the inventions.
`
`VI. U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,757,068 AND 7,301,648 (THE “FAMILY 1 PATENTS”)
`
`29.
`
`The ’068 and ’648 patents relate to improved virtual reality tracking systems.
`
`’068 patent at 1:10-45. The patents claim priority to January 28, 2000, and share the same
`
`specification.1 Both patents are directed to improved virtual reality tracking methods and
`
`systems which can track a “localized feature associated with a limb of the user relative to the
`
`user’s head.” ’068 patent at 1:53-56. The specification describes several examples of localized
`
`
`1 For simplicity, I cite only to the specification of the ’068 patent.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 03/21/22 Page 11 of 110
`
`features, such as a pen held by a user or a ring on a user’s hand. Id. at 1:58-61. When the
`
`localized feature changes position, that change in position may be depicted on a head-mounted
`
`display. Id. at 2:50-55. The head-mounted display may also depict objects based on the
`
`orientation of the head-mounted display. Id. at 2:9-23.
`
`A.
`
`Patent
`and
`Claims
`’068
`patent
`claims 1,
`54-55
`
`’648
`patent,
`claim 1
`
`“track a position of a first localized feature”
`Term
`
`Defendants’
`Construction
`
`Plaintiffs’
`Construction
`
`Indefinite
`
`Plaintiffs: “track a position of a
`first localized feature associated
`with a limb of the user”
`
`Defendants: “track a position of a
`first localized feature”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning,
`in light of the claim and
`specification—i.e., track a
`position of a first part of a
`limb of a user, or an object
`or part of an object
`associated with a limb of the
`user
`
`30.
`
`I understand that Defendants and Dr. Bobick have alleged that claims 1, 54, and
`
`55 of the ’068 patent, and claim 1 of the ’648 patent, are indefinite because a POSITA could not
`
`interpret the claim term “track a position of a first localized feature” with reasonable certainty.
`
`For the reasons explained below, I disagree.
`
`31.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim
`
`term “localized feature associated with a limb of the user,” read in the context of the claim
`
`language and the specification, with reasonable certainty. The specification and the dependent
`
`claims describe several examples of localized features associated with a limb of the user,
`
`including: (1) “a hand-held object,” (2) “a point on a hand-held object,” (3) “a hand-mounted
`
`object,” (4) “a point on a hand-mounted object,” and (5) “a point on a hand.” ’068 patent at
`
`1:46-51, 15:10-13. More specifically, the ’068 patent teaches that such “hand-held” or “hand-
`
`mounted” objects include (6) a “ring” on a user’s hand or (7) a “stylus-shaped device” held by a
`
`user, ’068 patent at 15:14-17, 1:58-61. In view of these examples, a POSITA would have
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 03/21/22 Page 12 of 110
`
`understood that localized feature is the specific object or part being tracked, and it is “associated
`
`with a limb of the user” when it is part of, held by, or mounted on a user’s limb.
`
`32.
`
`Dr. Bobick’s confusion appears to stem from his mistaken focus on the word
`
`“localized” out of context of the patent and the claims. For example, Dr. Bobick asserts that “it
`
`is not clear” whether a “localized feature associated with a limb of the user” must be “physically
`
`a part of the user’s arm (or leg), held in the user’s hand, affixed to the user’s arm or hand or leg
`
`or foot, [or] near to the user’s arm or hand or leg or foot.” Bobick Decl. ¶ 29. However, the
`
`examples in the specification make clear that a “localized feature associated with a limb of the
`
`user” may be any of “physically a part” of a limb (e.g., a point on a hand, ’068 patent at 1:46-
`
`51), “affixed to” a limb (e.g., “a hand-mounted object,” ’068 patent at 1:49-51, 1:59-60), or “held
`
`in” the user’s limb (e.g., “a hand-held object,” ’068 patent at 1:50, 1:59). None of the examples
`
`in the specification indicate that something simply “near” a limb, at any distance, would qualify
`
`as a “localized feature associated with a limb of the user,” and a POSITA would have no reason
`
`to think it would, in the context of the patent. As explained in more detail below, Dr. Bobick
`
`does not offer any examples of objects “near,” but not on or held by a user’s limb, about which a
`
`POSITA would reasonably be confused regarding whether they practice the claimed invention.
`
`33.
`
`Dr. Bobick mistakenly assumes that the word “localized” implies a physical
`
`distance threshold. Dr. Bobick cites no support in the patents for that view, which results in Dr.
`
`Bobick misinterpreting the claim. For example, claim 2 of the ’068 patent recites that “the first
`
`localized feature associated with the limb comprises a point on a hand-held object or a point on a
`
`hand-mounted object or a point on a hand,” and claim 3 more specifically recites that “the first
`
`localized feature is on a stylus-shaped device.” In other words, a point on a hand-held stylus
`
`could be a “localized feature associated with a limb of the user.” Suppose, however, that a user
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 03/21/22 Page 13 of 110
`
`put the stylus down on the table and walked away. The point on the stylus would still be a
`
`“localized feature”—and a tracking system could still track it—but it would no longer be
`
`“associated with a limb of the user” because it is not held or mounted on the user’s limb, and
`
`thus would no longer be within the claims. Dr. Bobick does not appear to disagree. Bobick Dep.
`
`(Ex. 1) 106:21-23 (“I believe the example . . . in the spec of a tennis racquet would likely
`
`qualify” as a localized feature); 76:14-17 (“[I]f the system were tracking a tennis racquet, and it’s
`
`just tracking the tennis racquet, it doesn’t need to know that my hand i[s] on the tennis
`
`racquet.”).
`
`34.
`
`Dr. Bobick also professes confusion with several examples much further afield
`
`from the Patents-in-Suit. For example, Dr. Bobick wonders whether the head of a dog held on a
`
`leash would be a “localized feature associated with a limb of the user” holding the dog leash.
`
`Bobick Decl. ¶¶ 29-30. To the extent these hypotheticals would even be considered by a
`
`POSITA in practicing the claimed invention (they would not, as I explain below), Dr. Bobick
`
`focuses on whether the dog’s head would be considered “localized,” Bobick Decl. ¶ 29, but that
`
`question is irrelevant because a POSITA would not consider something that does not move in
`
`conjunction with a user’s limb (such as a dog, or a basketball, see Bobick Decl. ¶ 30) to be
`
`“associated with” the limb. The specification teaches in each example that the “localized feature
`
`associated with a limb of the user” is directly on or held by the user, and does not roam around
`
`freely (like a dog on a leash) or contact the user’s limb only occasionally (like a basketball). As
`
`Dr. Bobick recognizes, Bobick Decl. ¶ 18, the invention is directed to tracking a user’s limb
`
`position relative to the head, and a POSITA would never track limb position using such an
`
`unreliable marker of a user’s limb position. Accordingly, I believe a POSITA would not
`
`consider these hypothetical situations as reasonable attempts to practice the claimed invention.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 03/21/22 Page 14 of 110
`
`35.
`
`The extrinsic evidence also supports the definiteness of the claims and
`
`demonstrates that the term “localized feature” was known and used in the art. That is contrary to
`
`Dr. Bobick’s unsupported assertion that “localized” does not have a meaning in the art. Bobick
`
`Decl. ¶ 26. Duell & Freeman (Meta Ex. 9)2 was published in 1991 and is entitled “Localized
`
`feature selection to maximize discrimination.” The authors used the term “local feature” or
`
`“localized feature” to broadly refer to a “small part[] of a reference object,” which the skilled
`
`artisan may use to identify that feature, e.g., to use “local features that will maximize . . . ability
`
`to discriminate between similar objects.” Meta Ex. 9 at 22. As an example, the authors
`
`described “a typical airplane” as “a specific superposition of local features such as engines,
`
`wings, windows, etc.” Meta Ex. 9 at 31. Dr. Bobick ignores these teachings and calls Duell &
`
`Freeman’s use of localized features “suboptimal,” Bobick Decl. ¶ 32, but the performance of the
`
`particular algorithms at issue in Duell & Freeman is irrelevant to whether a POSITA would
`
`understand what a localized feature is with reasonable certainty. Duell & Freeman’s use of
`
`“local feature” or “localized feature” is consistent with the Patents-in-Suit, where the “localized
`
`feature” is a point or part of an object used to track a limb position.3 Dr. Bobick cites no
`
`evidence that something moving separately from the object being tracked—such as a dog’s
`
`head—would be considered a “localized feature associated with” the object. A POSITA would
`
`not consider such a scenario to be within the claims.
`
`36.
`
`Brady & Wang (Meta Ex. 8), published in 1992, also describes “Localized feature
`
`
`2 I cite to the same exhibits as Dr. Bobick, which I understand were filed with Defendants’ claim
`construction brief.
`3 Dr. Bobick criticizes Duell & Freeman for not describing algorithms that “are invariant to such
`things as rotation and scale changes,” Bobick Decl. ¶ 32 (quoting Meta Ex. 9 at 32), but that has
`no bearing on whether a POSITA would understand what a “localized feature” is with reasonable
`certainty, as the patents do not claim or relate to those concepts.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 03/21/22 Page 15 of 110
`
`points, particularly corners,” that may be used to determine scene structure for mobile robots.
`
`Meta Ex. 8 at 341. These “feature points” were called by the authors “rather loosely” as
`
`“corners,” which can be used to segment images. Meta Ex. 8 at 341. Dr. Bobick attempts to
`
`limit the paper to the problem of image recognition, Bobick Decl. ¶ 31, but the authors do not
`
`suggest that the general meaning of a “localized feature” is limited to that context or that such a
`
`feature could not be associated with a limb of the user. Dr. Bobick also again focuses on the
`
`word “localized” in isolation and out of context, Bobick Decl. ¶ 31, but that is inconsistent with
`
`how Duell & Freeman, Brady & Wang, and the ’068 and ’648 patents use the word consistently
`
`in the context of a “local feature” or “localized feature.” Similar to Duell & Freeman, Brady &
`
`Wang further reinforces that a “localized feature” was understood in the art as a general term to
`
`describe a distinct part of an object or an image that can be used to distinguish or identify it, such
`
`as a corner or a point, edge, or small image patch. Dr. Bobick appears to understand the term
`
`similarly, at least in the image context. Bobick Dep. 85:11-12 (describing a localized feature as
`
`“this little patch of image that we’re looking for”).
`
`37.
`
`Dr. Bobick also asserts that a POSITA would be confused about whether the
`
`claims refer to two-dimensional or three-dimensional position. Bobick Decl. ¶¶ 28, 31. The
`
`claims at issue, however, are not limited to a particular type of position tracker that determines
`
`the position in a particular way or only in 2D or 3D. All of my opinions above about the clarity
`
`of this term in the claims apply equally regardless of whether the position of the user’s limb (and
`
`thus the localized feature associated with the limb) is being tracked in 2 or 3 dimensions. I
`
`understand that claim breadth is not the same thing as indefiniteness, and in my view, Dr. Bobick
`
`fails to point to any difficulty a POSITA would have in comprehending the meaning of
`
`“position.”
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 03/21/22 Page 16 of 110
`
`B.
`
`Patent
`and
`Claims
`’068
`patent
`claim 26
`
`
`“redisplaying the first object at a second position on the display device
`determined based on the change in the position of the first localized feature”
`Term
`
`Defendants’
`Construction
`
`Plaintiffs’
`Construction
`
`“redisplaying the first object
`at a second position on the
`display device determined
`based on the change in the
`position of the first localized
`feature”
`
`Indefinite
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning,
`in light of the claim and
`specification.
`
`38.
`
`Dr. Bobick also contends that claim 26 of the ’068 is indefinite. I disagree, for
`
`the reasons below.
`
`39.
`
`I understand that a dependent claim includes all of the elements in the claims from
`
`which the dependent claim depends.
`
`40.
`
`I also understand that a claim term can have a different meaning in different
`
`claims, depending on the context of how the claim term is used.
`
`41.
`
`Claim 26 depends from claims 16, 15, 14, and 1, but Dr. Bobick’s indefiniteness
`
`opinion focuses on a supposed conflict between claims 26 and 15. However, a POSITA would
`
`understand claim 26 with reasonable certainty. Claim 15 recites “changing the orientation of the
`
`display device” (on a user’s head, per claim 14) and then “redisplaying the first object at a
`
`second position . . . based on the change in orientation.” Claim 26 recites “changing the position
`
`of the first localized feature relative to the position tracker” and then “redisplaying the first
`
`object at a second position . . . based on the change in the position of the first localized feature.”
`
`Dr. Bobick asserts that the use of “a second position” in two different claims creates “insoluble
`
`inconsistencies,” Bobick Decl. ¶39, but read in context, the claims would teach a POSITA that “a
`
`second position . . . based on the change in orientation” (claim 15) may be different from “a
`
`second position . . . based on the change in the position of the first localized feature,” (claim 26)
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-2 Filed 03/21/22 Page 17 of 110
`
`because they depend on different actions of the user. A POSITA would understand that claim
`
`26’s “second position” would be based on both the change in orientation of the display and the
`
`change in position of the localized feature. Dr. Bobick even acknowledges that “a second
`
`position” in claim 15 may be different from “a second position” in claim 26, based on the use of
`
`the indefinite article “a.” Bobick Decl. ¶ 40. Contrary to Dr. Bobick’s opinion (id.), there would
`
`be no confusion with respect to infringement since the claims each expressly require distinct
`
`redisplaying steps based on different actions of the user.
`
`VII. U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,922,632 AND 7,725,253 (THE “FAMILY 2 PATENTS”)
`
`42.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,922,632 (the “’632 patent”) and 7,725,253 (the “’253 patent”)
`
`relate to the architecture of “[a] navigation or motion tracking system.” ’632 patent, Abstract.
`
`The patents claim priority to August 9, 2002, and share the same specification. For simplicity, I
`
`cite only to the specification of the ’632 patent. I understand that the ’632 and ’253 patents have
`
`a priority date of June 13, 2001, based on the date of invention, which is earlier than the priority
`
`date of August 9, 2002, listed on the face of those patents. Based on the information available to
`
`me, my opinions would be the same regardless of which of these priority dates applied.
`
`43.
`
`The specification generally refers to a “navigation system” that “tracks or
`
`na