Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 8
`Entered: October 3, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`EXOCAD GMBH AND EXOCAD AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`3 SHAPE A/S,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2018-00785
`
`Patent 9,336,336 B2
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
`FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 USC. § 314(a)
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00785
`
`Patent 9,336,336 B2
`
`1. INTRODUCTION
`
`exocad GmbH, and exocad America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a
`
`Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an inter partes review of claims 1—30 of
`
`US. Patent No. 9,336,336 B2 (“the ’336 patent”). 3Shape A/S (“Patent
`
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim Resp”). Applying
`
`the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstrating a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`
`one challenged claim, we decline to institute review of claims 1—30 of the
`
`’336 patent.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ’336 Patent
`
`1 . Disclosure
`
`The ’336 patent involves computer-implemented dental restoration
`
`design. BX. 100], 1:5—6 (“a method of visualizing and modeling a set of
`teeth for a patient”). The ’336 patent’explains that dental restoration
`
`modeling combines facial imagery with a 3D model of the patient’s oral
`
`structure, to thereby allow visualization of the patient’s post-restoration
`
`appearance. Id. at 19:43—20:29. The 3D model is then usable for
`
`manufacturing the restoration. Id. at 20:26—29.
`
`The ’336 patent acknowledges that “[v]isualization and modeling or
`
`design of teeth [were] known in the field of dental restorations” but
`
`distinguishes its method because it “may be performed faster than prior art
`
`methods.” Id. at 1:13—14, 3:38—39. Among the reasons given is that the
`
`’336 patient’s 2D facial imagery “is not superimposed or overlaid onto the
`
`3D virtual model for creating one representation with all data included” as is
`
`

`

`IPR2018—00785
`
`Patent 9,336,336 B2
`
`the case in the prior art, which “requires more time and exhaustive data
`
`processing.” Id. at 3:30-37. In particular, the ’336 patent explains that at
`
`least one 2D image of the patient’s facial features is arranged relative to the
`
`3D model in 3D virtual space yet the image and the model “remain as
`
`separate data representations which are not merged or fused together into
`one representation.” Id. at 3:25—28. Figures 3A and 3B, reproduced below,
`
`I
`
`are illustrative.
`
`
`
`II x 0fl
`3
`«a s 352;“?J
`9:
`‘*
`
`
`‘5‘.\;:>+~Nu:
`
`
`
`
`
` male-4m!" e..__'.E'1919:1125!"*6"?WHM‘?)«'9
`
`
`
`
`
`393
`
`a " ”I!”
`
`KW"
`Jgigai‘w-‘F‘
`
`/
`
`301
`
`fig. SA
`
`Fig. 35
`
`Figures 3A and 3B depict visualizing and arranging a 2D image and a
`
`3D model. The 3D model 302 and the 2D image 301 are depicted separately
`
`in Figure 3A and depicted aligned in Figure 3B. Id. at 20:54—21 :3. The
`
`’336 patent explains that the teeth of the 2D image may be cutout or
`
`rendered transparent. Id. at Figs. 8, 11D, 11G, 11H and 23:23—35, 24:31—
`
`37,24160—25z3.
`
`

`

`lPR2018-00785
`
`Patent 9,336,336 B2
`
`2. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 29 are independent. Claim 1 is
`
`illustrative of the claims at issue, and is reproduced below.
`
`1. A computer-implemented method of designing a dental
`restoration for a patient, wherein the method comprises:
`using a hardware processor to:
`provide one or more 2D images, where at least one
`of the one or more 2D images comprises at least one facial
`feature, wherein the at least one facial feature comprises
`
`lips;
`
`either virtually cut at least a part of teeth out of the
`at least one 2D image or render a part of the at least one
`2D image that includes teeth at least partly or wholly
`transparent;
`provide a 3D virtual model of at least part of an oral
`cavity of the patient;
`arrange the at least one 2D image relative to the 3D
`virtual model in a virtual 3D space such that the at least
`one 2D image and the 3D virtual model are aligned when
`viewed
`from a
`viewpoint
`and
`remain
`separate
`representations after being arranged, whereby the 3D
`virtual model and the at least one 2D image are both
`visualized in the 3D space; and
`design a restoration for the 3D virtual model, where
`the restoration is designed to fit the at least one facial
`feature of the at least one 2D image;
`wherein the at least one 2D image and the 3D virtual
`model are aligned by sealing, translating or rotating the at least
`one 2D image or the 3D virtual model relative to each other.
`
`Ex. 1001, 25:66—26:25.
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00785
`
`Patent 9,336,336 B2
`
`‘
`
`B. Evidence anb’ Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1—30 are unpatentable based on the
`
`following grounds (Pet. 2):
`
`Claims)
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Anticipated under § 102 by, or obvious under
`§ 103 over, Malfliet,l or alternatively obvious
`under § 103 over Malfliet and Kopelman2 or
`Malfliet and Wiedmann3
`
`
`
`
`Obvious under § 103 based on Malfliet,
`KOoclman, (or Wiedmann), and Lehmann4
`Obvious under § 103 based on Malfliet,
`Koelman, or Wiedmann , and See er5
`Obvious under § 103 based 0n Malfliet,
`K opelman, (or Wiedmann), and MacDougald6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner further relies on the Declaration of its witness, Joseph
`
`Mundy, Ph.D. Ex. 1002.
`
`1 International Publication Number WO 2008/ 128700 A1 to Malfliet et
`/ al., published October 30, 2008 (Ex. 1006, “Ma1fliet”).
`2 US. Patent No. 6,845,175 B2 to Kopelman et al., issued January 18, 2005
`(Ex. 1008, “Kopelman”).
`p
`. to find the
`.
`3 Wiedmann, Oliver, “According to the Laws of Harmony .
`right tooth shape with the assistance of the computer,” Digital Dental
`News, 2nd Volume, April 2008 (Ex. 1007, “Wiedmann”).
`4 Lehmann, Thomas M., et al., “Survey: Interpolation Methods in Medical
`Image Processing,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, Vol. 18,
`No. 11, November 1999 (Ex. 1010, “Lehmann”).
`5 US. Patent Publication No. 2002/0075389 A1 to Seeger, published June
`
`20, 2002, (Ex. 1011, “Seeger”).
`6 US. Patent No. 6,568,936 B2 to MacDougald, issued May 27, 2003 (Ex.
`- 1009, “MacDougald”).
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00785
`
`Patent 9,336,336 B2
`
`C. Real Parties in Interest
`
`Petitioner identifies the following parties as real parties in interest:
`
`exocad GmbH, exocad America, Inc., Ivory GmbH, Ivory Holding GmbH,
`
`Ivory Global Holdings GmbH, CETP 111 Ivory SARL (“CETP” is Carlyle
`
`Europe Technology Partners”), CETP III Participations SARL, SICAR, and
`
`Carlyle Europe Technology Partners 111, LP. Pet. 1.7
`Patent Owner identifies only itself as a real party in interest. Paper 3,
`
`D. Related Proceedings
`
`The parties state that the ’336 patent is asserted in 3Shape A/S v.
`
`exocad GmbH, and exocad America, Inc, Case No. 1:17-cv-OO239— ER-
`
`MPT (D. Del.) and that Petitioner has filed another IPR against the ’336
`
`patent (IPR2018-00788; filed March 15, 2018). Pet. 1; Paper 3, 1.
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`
`136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144—46 (2016) (upholding the use ofthe broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Under the broadest reasonable
`
`7 Petitioner states “[n]one of the entities other than exocad GmbH and
`exocad America, Inc. meet the definition of a real-party-in-interest, but
`Petitioners nonetheless list those additional entities as real-parties-in-interest
`
`in this matter.” Pet. 1, n. 1.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00785
`
`Patent 9,336,336 B2
`
`construction standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire disclosure. In
`
`re Translogic Tech, Inc, 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Petitioner proposes constructions for “2D image,” “3D virtual model
`39 ‘6
`
`of at least part of an oral cavity of the patient,” “virtual 3D space,
`99 ‘6
`
`remain
`
`separate representations after being arranged,” “designed to fit,
`
`section at
`
`least two or more teeth,” and “prepared tooth.” Pet. 8—12. Patent Owner
`
`proposes constructions for “of at least part of an oral cavity of the patient,”
`
`“arrange the at least one 2D image relative to the 3D virtual model in a
`
`virtual 3D space such that the at least one 2D image and the 3D virtual
`
`model are aligned when Viewed from a viewpoint and remain separate
`
`representations after being arranged,” and “render a part of the at least one
`
`2D image that includes teeth at least partly or wholly transparent.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 9—15.
`
`We do not find it necessary, for purposes of this Decision, to construe
`
`any terms explicitly. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng ’g, Inc., 200
`
`F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that
`
`are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`
`controversy”).
`
`B. 35 USC. §325(a)
`
`1. Overview
`
`Institution of an inter partes review is discretionary. See Harmonic
`
`Inc. v. Avid Tech, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining
`
`that under § 314(a), “the PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00785
`
`Patent 9,336,336 B2
`
`an IPR proceeding”). When determining whether to institute such a review,
`
`“the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or
`
`request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments
`
`previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`2. Challenges over Malfliet
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1—14, 16—20, and 22—30 are anticipated
`
`by, or rendered obvious over, Malfliet. Pet. 2. Petitioner acknowledges that
`
`the Examiner considered Malfliet during prosecution, but argues that “[t]he
`
`Examiner never considered Substantially the same .
`
`.
`
`. arguments under
`
`§ 325(d), because the Examiner did not consider the portion of Malfliet
`
`addressing use of a 2D face image, as discussed above, nor obviousness
`
`based on Malfliet combined with any other references.” Pet. 67 (quotation
`
`marks omitted).
`
`Petitioner also argues that, during prosecution, Patent Owner
`
`overcame the Examiner’s rejection over Malfliet through erroneous
`
`arguments. Id. at 13—14. Specifically, Petitioner argues that “[Patent
`
`Owner] argued that Malfliet only taught ‘to build a 3D face model and
`
`combine this with the 3D dental model’.” Id. at 13 (quoting Ex. 1004, 856).
`
`Patent Owner contends that “because Petitioner fails to adequately
`
`explain why the PTAB should ‘readjudicate substantially the same prior art
`
`and arguments as those presented during prosecution and considered by the
`
`Examiner,’ the PTAB should exercise its discretion under § 325(d) and deny
`
`institution of all grounds.” Prelim. Resp. 53 (citing Unified Patents Inc. v.
`
`Berman, IPR2016-01571, Paper 10, at 12 (PTAB Dec. 14, 2016)
`
`(informative)).
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00785
`
`Patent 9,336,336 B2
`
`After considering the arguments and evidence, we agree with Patent
`
`Owner that each of Petitioner’s asserted grounds of obviousness and
`
`anticipation involving Malfliet alone raise the same or substantially the same
`
`arguments previously considered by the Office. During prosecution, in the
`
`October 23, 2015, Office Action, the Examiner rejected pending claims 110—
`
`124 and 126—138 as obvious over Malfliet “in view of the taking of official
`
`notice regarding standard practices in the art, & the foreign search report
`
`([Information Disclosure Statement, “IDS”] 6/3/2013).” Ex. 1004, 825. The
`
`Examiner’s rej ection cites to the disclosure in Malfliet relied upon for the
`
`teaching of each recited limitation in the rejected claims, and further, takes
`
`official notice that the claimed subject matter was common technical
`
`knowledge for a skilled artisan. See Ex. 1004, 825—834. Further, in addition
`
`to the cited portions expressly provided in the Office Action, the Examiner
`
`indicated that the citations were not exhaustive and that the
`
`Examiner has cited particular columns/line numbers (or 11) in the
`references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the
`applicant. Although the specified citations are representative
`of the teachings of the art & are applied to specific imitations
`within the individual claim, other passages/figures may apply
`as well. It
`is respectfully requested from the Applicant
`in
`preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their
`entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed
`invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the
`prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The entire reference is
`considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed
`invention.
`
`Ex. 1004, 834—835 (emphasis added). The Applicant filed a response to the
`
`Office Action including amendments to pending claims. Ex. 1008, 845—856.
`
`A Notice of Allowance issued on March 29, 2016. These facts support a
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00785
`
`Patent 9,336,336 B2
`
`finding that the Examiner considered Malfliet in its entirety during
`
`prosecution and substantively applied its teachings to reject the ’336 patent’s
`
`claims, which in turn supports our exercise of discretion under § 325(d) to
`
`deny the grounds based on Malfliet alone. See Unified Patents, Inc. v.
`
`Berman, IPR2016-01571, Paper 10 at 11—12 (Dec. 14, 2016) (informative)
`
`(denying institution of grounds under § 325(d) where reference(s) asserted
`
`by Petitioner had previously been considered and discussed by Examiner
`
`during prosecution).
`
`With respect to Petitioner’s contention that the Examiner did not
`
`consider the portion of Malfliet addressing use of 2D face images, Patent
`
`Owner argues: “Malfliet’s disclosure of the ‘use of a 2D face image’ was
`
`considered during prosecution.” Prelim. Resp. 54—55. Patent Owner argues
`
`that the Petition’s claim chart relies on page 5, lines 14—18,8 and page 23,
`
`lines 17—19,9 of Malfliet for “at least one of the one or more 2D images
`
`8Ex. 1006, 6.
`The image data 30 that has been acquired from the imaging
`sources 31-34 is used to generate a virtual, three-dimensional
`model 56 which is a life-like representation of at least the area of
`the human body to be treated. Typically, this area will be the
`patient’s jaw,
`teeth (if any are remaining) and soft
`tissue
`surrounding these parts, such as the gums, lips and skin on the
`outer surface of the face.
`
`9 Ex. 1006, 24.
`19. A method according to any one of the preceding claims
`wherein the data about a face of a patient comprises one or more
`of: a 2D photograph; a 3D photograph; an optical scan of the
`external surface of at least part of the patient's head.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00785
`
`Patent 9,336,336 B2
`
`comprises at least one facial feature” and relies on page 23, lines 17—19, and
`
`page 18, lines 27—30,10 in support of the assertion that “Malfliet ‘explicitly
`
`provides that the face model may be a single 2D image’.” Id. (citing Pet.
`
`13—14, 23). Patent Owner contends the Examiner explicitly considered page
`
`5, lines 14—18 (see Ex. 1004, 825) and that “Petitioner relies on [page 23,
`
`lines 17—19] of Malfliet for substantially the same reasons” as the Examiner
`
`relies on page 5, lines 14—18. Id.
`
`Because the Examiner expressly cited and considered Malfliet during
`
`prosecution, we are persuaded Malfliet amounts to “the same” prior art
`
`previously presented to the Office. This fact is not negated by the
`
`Examiner’s having not cited a specific passage that Petitioner cited. To
`
`whatever extent Petitioner argues the omission of a key passage from the
`
`Examiner’s analysis means the “same” prior art was not previously
`
`presented, we are persuaded by Patent Owner that Petitioner’s challenge
`
`relies on “substantially the same” prior art based on what the Examiner did
`
`cite. Ex. 1004, 825. Indeed, even assuming that the exact citations relied
`
`upon by Petitioner were not expressly relied upon by the Examiner during
`
`prosecution, we are persuaded that the Examiner fully considered Malfliet in
`
`its entirety. See Ex. 1004, 834—835.
`
`Moreover, we are not persuaded reconsideration of Mafiiet is justified
`
`based on the Patent Owner allegedly having submitted erroneous arguments.
`
`‘0 Ex. 1006, 19
`is
`For instance when only a 2D photograph of the patient
`available then the Optimal tooth set-up should be positioned,
`oriented, and scaled relative to the 2D photograph and then
`embedded within the photograph to Visualize the result.
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00785
`
`Patent 9,336,336 B2
`
`See Pet. 13—14. To this end, Petitioner misrepresents what Patent Owner
`
`argued. Petitioner contends Patent Owner “argued that Malfliet only taught
`
`‘to build a 3D face model and combine this with the 3D dental model’.” Pet.
`
`13 (quoting Ex. 1004, 856) (emphasis added here). Patent Owner’s
`
`argument in context reads: “Malfliet teaches a more complicated, and in
`
`many cases a more expensive/time consuming, method since it teaches to
`
`build a 3D face model and combine this with the 3D dental model.” Ex.
`
`1004, 856. In other words, while Patent Owner may have argued only
`
`Malfliet’s disclosure of using 2D images to build 3D face models, Petitioner
`
`characterizes Patent Owner as having represented to the Examiner that
`
`Malfliet only discloses 3D face models, which is not what Patent Owner
`
`argued. Moreover, even assuming that these statements were incorrect, we,
`
`again, note that the Examiner considered the entirety of Malfliet’s disclosure
`
`in depth, as reflected in the Examiner’s rejection and comments in the
`
`October 23, 2015, Office Action. Thus, on this record, Petitioner has not
`
`articulated sufficient reasoning for us to question the Examiner’s previous
`
`consideration of Malfliet.
`
`Accordingly, because the Office already considered Malfliet
`
`extensively during the prosecution of the challenged claims, we exercise our
`
`discretion under § 325(d) and decline to consider grounds based upon
`
`Malfliet again.
`
`3. Challenges based on Malflz'et and Kopelman
`
`Petitioner also challenges claims based upon the combination of
`
`Malfliet with Kopelman. Pet. 2.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00785
`
`Patent 9,336,336 B2
`
`For these grounds, we also are persuaded the Examiner considered
`
`obviousness based on Malfliet combined with substantially the same
`
`disclosure as Kopelman, contrary to Petitioner’s contentions. Pet. 56—58;
`
`Pet. 67 (“the Examiner did not consider .
`
`.
`
`. obviousness based on Malfliet
`
`combined with any other references .
`
`.
`
`. [and] did not consider Kopelman”).
`
`In the Office Action dated October 23, 2015, the Examiner rejected the
`
`
`claims “as obvious over Malfliet .
`
`.
`
`. in View of the taking of official notice
`
`regarding standard practices in the art, & the foreign search report,” which
`
`included the subject matter of Kopelman as Patent Owner explains below.
`
`Ex. 1004, 825; Ex. 1008; Ex. 2001. Prelim. Resp. 57—58.
`
`Specifically, Patent Owner argues as follows:
`
`The foreign search report cites EP 1124487 Bl as an “X”
`reference. Ex.2001; see also Ex.1004 at 0685. EP 1124487 B1
`(Exhibit 2005) corresponds to Kopelman (Exhibit 1008) which
`is now being cited in grounds presented in this Petition. Ex. 1004
`at 0691 (International Search Report
`issued in international
`application corresponding to Application No. 13/807,443
`indicating that EP 1124487 B1 is
`in the same family as
`U82003169913); Ex.1008 at 1 (indicating that US2003/0169913
`is a prior publication of Kopelman); see also Ex.2003 (showing
`that EP 1124487 B1 and Kopelman are in the same family). The
`portions of EP 1124487 B1 cited in the foreign search report are
`substantially identical to corresponding portions of Kopelman.
`Ex.2001 (citing “[0009], [0010], [0020], [0032], [0034], [0036],
`fig 1A, 1B, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B”); Ex.1008 at 1:59-65, 1:66-2:11,
`3:63-4:8, 6:9—16, 6:31—39, 6:53-63, Figs. 1A, 1B, 3A, 3B, 4A,
`4B). Further, the International Search Report, which also cites
`EP 1124487 B1, was also considered by the Examiner during
`prosecution. Ex.1004 at 0689; Ex.1001
`at 2. Petitioner
`completely overlooks the fact
`that
`the Examiner during
`prosecution already considered an obviousness rejection
`applying Malfliet
`in
`combination with
`subject matter
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00785
`
`Patent 9,336,336 B2
`
`corresponding to Kopelman. Moreover, Petitioner provides no
`explanation as to how the obviousness ground based on Malfliet
`and Kopelman now presented in the Petition somehow differs
`from the
`combination of Malfliet
`and
`subject matter
`corresponding to Kopelman (i.e., the foreign search report citing
`EP 1124487) previously considered by the Patent Office.
`
`> Prelim. Resp. 57—58.
`
`Petitioner argues “[t]he Examiner did not consider Kopelman” but
`
`acknowledges “its parent application was cited during prosecution.” Pet. 67.
`
`On this record, we are persuaded Petitioner’s challenges based on
`
`Malfliet and Kopelman amount to challenges based on substantially the
`
`same prior art previously presented to the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The
`
`search report referred to by the Examiner in the Office Action was provided
`
`in an Information Disclosure Statement (“IDS”) on June 3, 2013, and
`
`included EP 1124487 B1 (Ex. 2001; see Ex. 1004, 682—85). Consistent with
`
`Patent Owner’s position, EP1124487 B1 is a European patent that issued to
`
`Kopelman from an international patent application under the PCT (Patent
`
`Cooperation Treaty). Ex. 2005 (86) (PCT/IL1999000577). Kopelman,
`
`shown in Exhibit 1008, is a continuation of the same international
`
`application (PCT/ILl999000577). Ex. 1008, (63). Thus, the disclosure in
`
`EP1124487, considered by the Examiner during prosecution, appears to
`
`correspond to Kopelman (Ex. 1008).
`
`Petitioner does not direct us to differences between the content of the
`
`reference cited in the foreign search report (i.e., Kopelman’s “parent
`
`application”) and Kopelman, even though Petitioner acknowledges the
`
`relationship. Pet. 67. Patent Owner, on the other hand, provides a
`
`comparison demonstrating that the subject matter is substantially the same.
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00785
`
`Patent 9,336,336 B2
`
`Prelim. Resp. 57—5 8. Further, Patent Owner asserts that “Petitioner provides
`
`no explanation as to how the obviousness ground based on Malfliet and
`
`Kopelman now presented in the Petition somehow differs from the
`
`combination of Malfliet and subject matter corresponding to Kopelman (i.e.,
`
`the foreign search report citing EP 1124487) previously considered by the
`
`Patent Office.” Id.
`
`In View of the foregoing, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s challenges
`based on Malfliet and Kopelman amount to a request to review “the same or
`
`substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to
`
`the Office,” and that, in this case, we should exercise our discretion under
`
`§ 325(d) not to institute the requested review.
`
`4. Challenges based on Malfliet and Wiedmann
`
`Petitioner alternatively challenges the claims as obvious over
`
`combinations that include Malfliet and Wiedmann. Pet. 12—40. Patent
`
`Owner contends that Wiedmann is cumulative with respect to Kopelman and
`
`that Petitioner concedes the similarities. Prelim. Resp. 58—60 (citing Pet.
`
`58—59 (“Kopelman and Wiedmann are in the same field and apply the same
`
`Approach .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. It was well-known how to arrange and visualize a 2D image
`
`with a 3D model in a 3D space, as shown in Kopelman, Wiedmann, and
`
`many other references.”)). Patent Owner asserts “[t]he cumulative nature of
`
`Wiedmann weighs in favor of denial under § 325(d).” Id. at 59 (citing
`
`Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586,
`
`Paper 8, at 17 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (informative) (weighing “(b) the
`
`cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during
`
`examination”)).
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00785
`
`Patent 9,336,336 B2
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments are persuasive. We have reviewed
`
`Petitioner’s challenges based on Malfliet and Wiedmann as compared to the
`
`challenges based on Malfliet and Kopelman (Pet. 12—57), Petitioner’s
`
`rationale for combining Malfliet and Wiedmann as compared to Malfliet and
`
`Kopelman (id. at 58—62), and the evidence Petitioner cites in support of the
`
`respective challenges (Ex. 1002, W 70—275). In its claim charts and
`
`arguments, Petitioner essentially relies on Malfliet, Kopelman, and
`
`Wiedmann interchangeably for the arrangement and visualization of a 2D
`
`image with a 3D model in 3D space. Petitioner asserts that Malfliet
`
`discloses this feature:
`
`Malfliet recognizes that sometimes “only a 2D photograph of the
`patient is available” (Ex. 1006 at 18:27-28), which would have
`motivated a POSITA to be able to visualize just a 2D image with
`the 3D dental model. Ex. 1002, 11273.
`
`Pet. 59. Petitioner then argues that Wiedmann’s disclosure does the same:
`
`Wiedmann teaches use of 2D images as well. The increasingly
`easy ways to obtain 2D images of the face, e.g., with a camera
`on every cell phone, would motivate the use of a 2D image
`(cellphone picture for example) with a restoration model. A
`POSITA would have been aware of the design need and would
`have sought to modify Malfliet such that it could accommodate
`aligning the 2D image of a patient’s face with the 3D tooth
`model. 1d.
`
`Pet. 59—60 (emphasis added). Petitioner further asserts that Kopelman also
`
`discloses the same teachings:
`
`Kopelman also teaches combining 2D image data (e.g., an X-
`ray) with a 3D tooth model, teaching that it allows for better
`analysis for orthodontic treatment. Ex. 1008 at 1:52—56 (“For the
`purpose of proper design of orthodontic treatment it would have
`been high[ly] advantageous to have a method and system
`whereby information which can be acquired from one type of
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00785
`
`Patent 9,336,336 B2
`
`image [2D] can be transferred or superpositioned to information
`available from another type of image [3D]”); Ex. 1008 at 5:43-
`60; Ex. 1002, 11273. A POSITA would have been motivated to
`use Kopelman’s 2D to 3D technique in the context of [Malfliet],
`particularly where only a 2D image of the face was available. Ex.
`1002, 11274.
`Pet. 60 (emphasis added). Additionally, Petitioner indicates that “based on
`
`Wiedmann and/0r Kopelman (and common sense), it would be obvious (and
`
`easier) to construct a system such as that in Malfliet but accommodating a
`
`2D image of the face rather than a 3D image.” Pet. 62 (emphasis added).
`
`Nonetheless, as noted above, during prosecution the Examiner already
`
`considered whether these features were disclosed in the prior art now cited
`
`by Petitioner. Particularly, the Examiner considered the disclosure of
`
`Malfliet, Kopelman, and “common technical knowledge” with respect to
`
`these claimed features. See Ex. 1004, 825, 826. In this respect, Petitioner’s
`
`arguments are not substantively different from those already considered
`
`during prosecution. Namely, Petitioner relies essentially on the disclosure in
`
`Wiedmann as being substantially the same or the same as that provided by
`
`Malfliet, Kopelman, and common technical knowledge considered by the
`
`Examiner previously. See Pet. 58—59 (“It was well-known how to arrange
`
`and visualize a 2D image with a 3D model in a 3D space, as shown in
`
`Kopelman, [and] Wiedmann”). We are persuaded that “Wiedmann adds
`
`nothing beyond what was already considered by the Patent Office.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 58.
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00785
`
`Patent 9,336,336 B2
`
`5. Additional challenges
`
`Petitioner presents three additional grounds for dependent claims 6, 7,
`
`8, 15, and 21. Pet. 2. With respect to dependent claim 15, Petitioner
`
`contends that it would have been obvious to combine Malfliet (with or
`
`without Kopelman and Wiedmann) to Lehman to add known techniques of
`
`interpolation and extrapolation. Id. at 62—64. For dependent claim 21,
`
`Petitioner argues de-warping is a known image processing technique to
`
`remove distortion (e.g., from a lens) in a 2D image, and a POSITA would
`
`have recognized that an undistorted image is preferable and thus would have
`
`had reason to add this known de-warping feature, including by combining
`
`Malfliet with Seeger (which shows basic dewarping was well-known). Id. at
`
`64. For dependent claims 6—8, Petitioner contends, citing MacDougald, that
`
`it “would have been obvious to combine Malfliet with MacDougald (to the
`
`extent the elements are not already disclosed in Malfliet) to use a 3D model
`
`of prepared teeth and a 3D model of unprepared teeth in designing the
`
`restoration.” Id. at 64—65.
`
`Patent Owner contends:
`
`In its § 325(d) analysis, Petitioner does not assert that the
`reliance on Lehman, Seeger, and MacDougald in the Petition
`should somehow preclude denial under § 325(d). Pet. at 67.
`Such references are not even mentioned in Petitioner’s § 325(d)
`analysis. As discussed above, Petitioner merely relies on
`Lehman, Seeger, and MacDougald in certain grounds to address
`additional subject matter of certain dependent claims. .
`.
`. Thus,
`Petitioner’s reliance on Lehman, Seeger, and MacDougald does
`not preclude denial under § 325(d). See Kayak Software Corp.
`v. [all Business Machines Corp, CBM2016-00075, Paper 16,
`at 10 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2016) (informative) (“Petitioner’s
`additional citation of [a reference not previously considered by
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00785
`
`Patent 9,336,336 B2
`
`the Patent Office] in certain grounds, for the additional subject
`matter of certain dependent claims, is insufficient to persuade
`us that exercising our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) is
`inappropriate”)
`
`Prelim. Resp. 60—61.
`
`As discussed supra, the only Office Action issued during prosecution
`ofthe ’336 patent evidences that the Examiner considered Malfliet, the subject
`
`matter of Kopelman—by Virtue of the foreign search report—and “the taking
`
`of official notice regarding standard practices in the art.” Ex. 1004, 825.
`
`In
`
`other words, the Examiner considered the same art presented in the Petition
`
`with respect to grounds 2, 3, and 4; namely, that which was “well known.”
`
`Pet. 62—66. Petitioner does not explain why the additional references provide
`
`subject matter that was not considered by the Examiner during prosecution.
`
`The entirety of the Petition’s § 325(d) discussion is below:
`
`The Examiner never considered “substantially the same
`arguments” under § 325(d), because the Examiner did not
`consider the portion of Malfliet addressing use of a 2D face
`image, as discussed above, nor obviousness based on Malfliet
`combined with any other references. See, e. g, Chimei Innolux
`Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Lab. C0., IPR2013-00068, Paper
`7, at 8 (Apr. 24, 2013) (instituting IPR was not improper where
`the Examiner had considered the two prior art references but did
`not consider substantially the same argument presented in the
`IPR). The Examiner did not consider Kopelman, even though its
`parent application was cited during prosecution, and neither
`Wiedmann nor Sachdeva were disclosed or considered during
`
`prosecution.
`
`Pet. 67.
`
`Accordingly, we are persuaded that the additional references that were
`
`not before the Office, which are cited for the additional subject matter of the
`
`dependent claims, amount to substantially the same prior art presented by
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00785
`
`Patent 9,336,336 B2
`
`the Examiner. For example, claim 21, corresponding to claim 131 in the
`
`October 21, 2015, Office Action, was rejected under § 103 as obvious over
`
`Malfiiet and “common technical knowledge for a skilled artisan.” Ex. 1004,
`
`832. Similarly, Petitioner contends “[d]e-warping is a known image
`
`processing technique to remove distortion (e.g., from a lens) in a 2D image,”
`
`“has long been known in the prior art,” and a “POSITA would have
`
`recognized that an undistorted image is preferable and thus would have had
`
`reason to add this known de-warping feature, including by combining
`
`Malfliet with [Seeger] (which shows basic dewa1ping was well-known)”
`
`Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1002, W 281—83 and Ex. 1011, W 7, 10, and 44—47).
`
`Thus, the citation of these additional references for these dependent claims
`
`“is insufficient to persuade us that exercising our discretion under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 325(d) is inappropriate.” See Kayak Software Corp. v. Int ’1 Business
`
`Machines Corp, CBM2016-00075, Paper 16, at 10 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2016)
`
`(informative).
`
`Further, for clarity of the record, we note that we have instituted
`
`review of all challenged claims in IPR2018-00788, based on arguments and
`
`evidence that neither party has asserted was previously presented to the
`
`Office.
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00785
`
`Patent 9,336,336 B2
`
`6. Summary
`
`In View of the foregoing, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`
`shown that the challenged claims should be reviewed in view of the same or
`
`substantially the same prior art or arguments having been previously
`
`presented to the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Rather, we are persuaded by
`
`Patent Owner that we should

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

HTTP Error 500: Internal Server Error

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket